Morgan Freeman accused of sexual harassment by eight women

A new report alleges that the actor subjected women to sexual and verbal harassment on film sets and at his production company
Morgan Freeman has been accused of sexual harassment. Photograph: Yui Mok/PA

Jake Nevins-Thu 24 May 2018

Morgan Freeman has been accused of sexual and verbal harassment by eight different women.

According to CNN, the women, who say Freeman subjected them to inappropriate remarks about their bodies, allege that he harassed them on the set of his films, at his production company Revelations Entertainment and at press junkets.

One woman, who in the summer of 2015 worked as a production assistant on the set of the comedy Going in Style, said she experienced months of harassment, claiming the actor touched her inappropriately and frequently commented on her figure and clothing.

On one occasion, she says, Freeman “kept trying to lift up my skirt and asking if I was wearing underwear”. Alan Arkin, a co-star on the film, reportedly told Freeman to stop. “Morgan got freaked out and didn’t know what to say,” the accuser, who chose to remain anonymous, added.

Another woman, who was part of the production staff on the 2012 heist thriller Now You See Me, alleges that Freeman harassed her and an assistant by make crude comments about their bodies.

“We knew that if he was coming by … not to wear any top that would show our breasts, not to wear anything that would show our bottoms, meaning not wearing clothes that [were] fitted,” she said.
In a statement, Freeman said: “Anyone who knows me or has worked with me knows I am not someone who would intentionally offend or knowingly make anyone feel uneasy. I apologize to anyone who felt uncomfortable or disrespected – that was never my intent.”

CNN reportedly spoke to 16 people for the investigation, eight of whom accused Freeman, 80, of what they labeled harassment or inappropriate behavior while the rest remarked that they didn’t witness anything problematic. The co-author of the report, Chloe Melas, was one of three entertainment reporters to accuse Freeman of behaving inappropriately during encounters with press. Melas, who interviewed Freeman at a press junket for Going in Style when she was six months pregnant, says that, while shaking her hand and not letting go, Freeman told her: “Boy, do I wish I was there,” adding: “You are ripe.”

Another reporter, Tyra Martin of Chicago’s WGN-TV, says that on several occasions where she interviewed Freeman he remarked on her appearance. “When I stood up, I pulled my skirt, part of my dress down, and he did say, ‘Oh, don’t pull it down now.’” Martin told CNN. “That gave me pause but I never felt uncomfortable.”

Other women said that they were victims of Freeman’s misconduct at the actors production company Revelations Entertainment, which he founded in 1996 with business partner Lori McCreary. They described a “toxic” workplace atmosphere, with six former staffers claiming they witnessed Freeman’s behavior firsthand.

A former manager at the company said Freeman would “come over to my desk to say hi and he’d just stand there and stare at me. He would stare at my breasts.” After another incident, the woman said she “stopped wearing a skirt around the office when he was there”.

Another Revelations staffer said that the actor, while surrounded by a group of men, once “looked me up and down” and asked: “How do you feel about sexual harassment?”

A male staffer characterized Freeman as a “creepy uncle”, recalling an instance in which Freeman massaged an intern’s shoulder. “One time I witnessed Morgan walk up to an intern and start massaging her,” he said. “The intern got visibly red and wiggled out of his grasp, it was awkward.”

 According to five sources who spoke to CNN, there was no human resources department at Revelations. Additionally, the women whom Freeman allegedly harassed on film sets said they didn’t report his behavior at the time in fear of losing their jobs.

The allegations against Freeman, an Academy award-winning actor known for his performances in Driving Miss Daisy, The Shawshank Redemption and Million Dollar Baby, come in the wake of Hollywood’s #MeToo movement.

Since the allegations, greater Vancouver’s transportation system, TransLink, has removed Freeman’s voice from a Visa ad campaign that was running as part of their announcements.

Actors union SAG-AFTRA is also investigating the allegations. Freeman was awarded a life achievement award last year.

“These are compelling and devastating allegations which are absolutely contrary to all the steps that we are taking to insure a safe work environment for the professionals in this industry,” a spokesperson said. “Any accused person has the right to due process, but it is our starting point to believe the courageous voices who come forward to report incidents of harassment. Given Mr. Freeman recently received one of our union’s most prestigious honors recognizing his body of work, we are therefore reviewing what corrective actions may be warranted at this time.”

Thai monks arrested in bid to ‘clean up Buddhism’ from graft

Phra Phrom Dilok, 72, a member of the Sangha Supreme Council is escorted by police officers at the Thai Police Crime Suppression Division headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand, May 24, 2018. Source: Reuters

 24th May 2018

SEVERAL prominent Buddhist monks and worshippers were arrested in Thailand on Thursday after police raided four temples in this year’s biggest operation to crackdown on illicit financial activities.

The raids are the military government’s latest bid to reform Buddhism, which is followed by more than 90 percent of Thailand’s population of 69 million, but whose image has been tarnished by money and sex scandals involving monks.

“This is the investigation stage… it will all come down to facts and evidence,” police official Thitiraj Nhongharnpitak, of the Central Investigation Bureau, which is investigating the monks, told reporters.

According to The Nation, more than 100 officers from the Crime Suppression Division and the Technology Crime Suppression Division, armed with court warrants, the searched raided four temples in Bangkok, the capital, central province of Nakhon Pathom, early Thursday.

SEE ALSO: Why violent Buddhist extremists are targeting Muslims in Sri Lanka  

Among those arrested was Phra Buddha Issara, 62, an activist monk who led street protests in 2014 and launched a campaign to clean up Buddhism, but gained enemies by publicly naming other religious leaders he accused of wrongdoing.

He was held over a robbery said to have been committed during the anti-government protest in 2014, police said.

Phra Phrom Dilok, 72, a member of the Sangha Supreme Council, which governs Buddhist monks in Thailand, was arrested over alleged embezzlement of temple funds, they added.

An unidentified assistant abbot of Golden Mount Temple is escorted by police officers at the Thai Police Crime Suppression Division headquarters in Bangkok, Thailand, May 24, 2018.

Two other senior monks, Phra Sri Khunaporn and Phra Wichit Thammaporn, both assistant abbots of Bangkok’s Golden Mount temple, were also arrested over alleged embezzlement, police said.

A representative for Buddha Issara, who declined to be identified, expressed concern. “We are concerned because we do not know what Phra Buddha Issara is being charged with,” he told Reuters.

Deputy Prime Minister Prawit Wongsuwan said the arrests were about getting to the bottom of the allegations. “This is part of the investigation,” Prawit said.

SEE ALSO: Thailand: Armed forces besiege largest Buddhist temple to nab powerful monk

Thailand’s temples, which earn billions of dollars every year from donations, have been embroiled in scandals ranging from murder, sex and drugs to shady financial dealings.

Under pressure from the junta, Thailand’s body of Buddhist monks has been trying to clean up its own act since last year, by enforcing tougher discipline for more than 300,000 monks.

The military took power in a 2014 coup it said was needed to restore order after months of anti-government protests, and has promised to hold elections next year, despite postponing the date several times.

Buddhist monks are highly respected in Thailand and taking action against them was historically considered taboo. But recent scandals have forced authorities to rethink how they handle allegations against Buddhist religious leaders.

Additional reporting by Reuters.

Ebola outbreak in DR Congo: Patients 'taken to church'

Ebola can cause fatal bleeding from internal organs

23 May 2018

Three Ebola patients left a treatment centre in the Democratic Republic of Congo after their families demanded to take them to church, according to the World Health Organization (WHO).

Two of the patients later died, while the third returned to the centre in the city of Mbandaka.

This presents a new challenge for health workers battling to stop the spread of the contagious disease, says the BBC's Anne Soy in DR Congo.

Ebola has no known cure.

Health officials fear it could spread rapidly in Mbandaka, a densely populated city of one million.

Isolation is the main way to keep the disease under control.

• Why Ebola keeps coming back
• Why Ebola is so dangerous
• How not to catch Ebola

The WHO says 58 cases of Ebola have been recorded since the outbreak was declared on 8 May. There have been 27 deaths so far, with three deaths confirmed as Ebola.

How did the patients leave?

The patients' relatives came to the centre, which is run by medical aid agency Medecins Sans Frontieres (MSF), and demanded to take them for prayers, WHO officer Eugéne Kabambi told the BBC.

They were reportedly taken away on motorbikes and a search was ordered by the police.

One patient was found dead at home and his body was returned to the hospital for a safe burial. The other was sent back to hospital on 22 May and died that evening, according to MSF.

Efforts were made by staff to convince the patients not to leave and continue treatment, MSF says.

"However, forced hospitalisation is not the solution to this epidemic. Patient adherence is paramount," it said in a statement.

The families of the three patients are now being monitored and some of them have been vaccinated against the disease.

Is the situation under control?

The disease's spread from rural areas to Mbandaka, located on the Congo River, has sparked fears of it spreading downstream to the capital, Kinshasa, and to neighbouring countries.

The WHO says the outbreak has the potential to expand.

"We are on the epidemiological knife-edge," Peter Salama, head of emergency responses at the WHO, said at a special meeting to discuss the crisis in Geneva.

"The next few weeks will really tell if this outbreak is going to expand to urban areas or if we are going to be able to keep it under control," he added.

Health workers began an immunisation campaign to halt the spread of the Ebola virus on 21 May.

Limited trials of the experimental vaccine was rolled out during the epidemic in West Africa in 2014-16, which killed more than 11,300 people.

This is the ninth outbreak of Ebola in DR Congo.

Why do Authorities Fear Right to

2018-05-24 

Come June this year it will mark the completion of two years after the Right to Information Act was passed in Parliament. The act came into force on 3rd of February last year.   
Sri Lanka Cricket (SLC) is also a highly discussed topic at present.

Why do Authorities Fear Right to.docx by Thavam on Scribd

Files on Tamil Tigers and MI5 in Sri Lanka erased at Foreign Office

Destruction of 1978-1980 files means there is no record of UK government’s work at the time

 Soldiers of the LTTE, Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, in Kilinochchi, Sri Lanka, celebrating Tamil Women’s Day in October 2002. Photograph: Anuruddha Lokuhapuarachchi/Reuters

Phil Miller-Wed 23 May 2018

Britain’s Foreign Office destroyed almost 200 files on Sri Lanka dating from the start of a Tamil Tiger uprising during which MI5 and the SAS secretly advised the country’s security forces, it has emerged.

The loss of the files means that there is almost no record of the British government’s work with the Sri Lankan authorities at the start of a famously brutal civil war.

The destruction of the files raises fresh concerns about the Foreign Office’s attitude towards handling historic files on sensitive subjects. An official review in 2012 found that the department had destroyed thousands of documents detailing British counter-insurgency operations in Kenya and other colonies as the empire came to an end.

Under the Public Records Act 1958 government departments are obliged to preserve historic records. But, in response to a Freedom of Information request from the Guardian asking for information about the destruction of the files, the Foreign Office stated that it was not required to preserve the documents. It said the files’ content “may be of a policy nature but might also be administrative or ephemeral”.

The Foreign Office has now confirmed that it destroyed 195 files on Sri Lanka, dating from 1978 to 1980, three decades after the country became independent from Britain. The department would not say exactly when, where, or how the destruction occurred.

“Files not selected for permanent preservation would have been destroyed offsite by the company contracted by the FCO for this purpose,” it said. “We understand the files would have been destroyed in line with the FCO’s paper and file destruction contract in force at the time.”

Rachel Seoighe, a criminologist and Sri Lanka expert, at Middlesex University, said: “This discovery is very concerning given the lack of public information available about British involvement in Sri Lankan security practices at the beginning of the civil war.” She has filed a complaint with Unesco, the international body that protects world heritage.

She added: “We know from other contexts, such as Kenya, that official files have been deliberately destroyed to conceal and deny abuse. The public has a right to know the extent to which Britain assisted Sri Lankan preparations for a war that was defined by disappearances, torture and mass atrocity.”

The Foreign Office kept a list of file titles, showing that the destroyed papers would have covered a range of important subjects, from security co-operation and arms sales, to foreign aid and “requests for political asylum in the UK”.

The scale of destruction is such that only three files have survived from 1978, compared to 38 files from the previous year.

The loss of these records is a blow for Tamil historians, who struggled to safeguard records throughout the Sri Lankan civil war. The famous Jaffna library was burnt down in 1981 by anti-Tamil groups, incinerating almost 100,000 documents including irreplaceable ancient texts.

 Sri Lankan military image taken near Mullaittivu, 2009. Victory over the separatist Tamil Tigers was declared by the Sri Lankan president that year. Photograph: HO/Reuters

“The Tamil community is taking strenuous efforts to collect and preserve records on history and the human rights situation in post-independence Sri Lanka,” said Vairamuttu Varadakumar, executive secretary of the Tamil Information Centre, in Kingston, London. “We are horrified to learn that the UK’s Foreign Office has destroyed vital information on the British government’s training and arming of Sri Lankan security forces, which were involved in widespread human rights violations against the Tamils.”

The Foreign Office claim that the information contained in the files was insignificant has caused dismay among Tamil experts. Varadakumar said: “It is improper for the UK government to deceive the public, who have the right to know. It appears that the Foreign Office’s action is designed to cover up the involvement of the SAS and MI5 in the training of Sri Lankan security forces that might be potentially embarrassing to her majesty’s government.”

The Special Air Service visit to Sri Lanka is only mentioned in a handful of surviving files at the National Archives, which were preserved by the Ministry of Defence. Their contents have never been reported on before.

One MoD file reveals that late in 1978 Sri Lanka’s right-wing president, Junius Richard Jayewardene, asked the Foreign Office for a British security expert to visit his country to help counter Tamil militants who were demanding an independent state of their own. However, a Foreign Office file called Sri Lanka: Security Assessment 1978, which could have shed light on the president’s request, was destroyed.

From the surviving defence files, it emerges that an MI5 director, who held racist views, made two advisory visits to Sri Lanka in 1979, under both Jim Callaghan’s Labour government and Margaret Thatcher’s Conservative administration. The full facts of these visits are hard to establish because the Foreign Office destroyed a 1979 file named Sri Lanka: Defence Visits from UK.

The MI5 officer was John Percival Morton CMG OBE, better known as Jack Morton, a former colonial police chief in India who had spied on the independence movement there and once wrote that Indians were “a sort of immature, backward and needy people whom it was the natural British function to govern and administer”. He later became a director at MI5 and held various security positions inside Whitehall.

According to a defence file it was on Morton’s recommendation that an SAS team visited Sri Lanka in 1980 to train a new army commando unit. Among the files destroyed by the Foreign Office was one entitled UK military assistance to Sri Lanka, 1980. The SAS visit occurred weeks after Britain’s premier special forces regiment staged the Iranian embassy siege. For the next four months the SAS team secretly trained Sri Lankan army commandos, selecting 60 members to form an elite anti-terrorist force.

A Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesperson said: “The FCO, as with all government departments, reviews all its files in line with the requirements of the Public Records Act before making a decision on permanent preservation.

“The FCO’s recommendations for the preservation or destruction of records take place under the guidance and supervision of the National Archives. FCO decisions are informed by the National Archive’s records collection policy and existing FCO policy.”

Oh! Justice! What Crimes Are Committed In Thy Name!

By Tirantha Walaliyadde –MAY 23, 2018

Tirantha Walaliyadde PC

There have been numerous attacks on the Sri Lankan Judiciary in the recent past with allegations of corruption, partiality, and political intrigue, and listeners and readers of the public appear to gobble them up with much relish. There is a saying that no great civilization can be overthrown from without until it destroys itself from within. We are now midway in the process of proving the truth of that statement. The judiciary is the backbone of every civilized society- tarnish that with random, spiteful attacks on it, and that society will fold up and wither away. 

“Let he who hath no sin cast the first stone”. (Jesus, when the mob tried to murder Mary Magdalene by stoning.) Likewise, one wonders whether those who cast these stones at the judiciary or for that matter at any institution charged with the business of administering justice, are without sin in these same areas and are paragons of virtue…

Of Buffalos And Men

When the noble Brutus slew Caesar he said he did so because Caesar was ambitious. I have always wondered as to who the ambitious one was- Brutus or Caesar. People do nasty things to other people with different motives- leading the list is the craving by some people for public recognition which has mercurially avoided them throughout their murky lives; some others craving for command and leadership which was never theirs to have, nor within their capacities to wield- there is an interesting story about leadership: there was once a leaderless herd of wild buffalos in stampede. A shrewd old buffalo who was quite past his prime with nothing to show for it but was still craving for leadership of anything took a short cut and started galloping in front of the herd. All the buffalos hailed him as the leader. 

You become a hero when it is too late to become anything else.  

“Not Us, Old Boy..”

Another matter comes to mind here on the subject of the judiciary and corruption. There have been numerous instances where in the not too distant past and now, where, when the popular verdict of the people is not delivered by the court that in fact hears the case, black flags start popping up, howls of protests and foul allegations of intellectual, moral, or material corruption spew out like sewage running through the gutters of the city. In reality, the fault here is not with the members of the general public who participate in these unruly demonstrations but with the people who instigate these acts of mayhem whilst taking cover behind bland smiles and bare statements with the universal shrug- ”Not us, old boy”. Most of the active participants probably don’t know what they are howling about. They howl. Period. But the consternation caused within the nation, the damage caused to their own selves by bringing the judiciary into disrepute are immeasurable and irreversible. 

Cry! My Beloved Country! (3)

Oh! Cry! My beloved country! Do you not see your own destruction by the machinations of a few disgruntled individuals who have already lost their race in life and are struggling for their last gasp by attacking that last fortress that holds the nation together? Oh! Justice! What crimes are committed in thy name! 

Sri Lanka is now at the center of international focus in relation to its judicial affairs. One sees the international community exerting its might against this little nation of ours, coercing, cajoling and wheedling to keep the Diaspora at bay. It is heartening to note that on occasion Sri Lanka makes a spurt out of its corner, snarling, spitting and scratching before retreating back into its corner to gather its puny forces for the next confrontation. It is heart rending to see that in this quagmire of serious international political intrigue where the Sri Lankan judiciary is being subjected to severe partisan scrutiny by the international community, unruly elements in Sri Lanka itself, pouring oil upon the troubled waters by their venomous attacks on our judiciary at this crucial juncture and so paving the way for international interference in our domestic affairs, threatening the very sovereignty of the nation.  Judas couldn’t hold a candle to these malicious interlopers. Little do they realize that by doing so they spit into the wind and will end up getting their faces plastered with their own spit.  

The Supreme Court is mainly a court of review with original jurisdiction only in matters of contempt and a few others where it acts on its own. The time has come now for the Supreme Court to face its adversaries and say – “enough!” If not, the mischievous elements will overrun it and goad this nation towards anarchy, bloodshed and the resurgence of the vigilantes. The Supreme Court is the one most powerful institution in any country and is the bulwark that holds the nation together in the face of invasive and destructive forces that threaten its existence. It is the last rampart beyond which is oblivion. Let that power be now unleashed and the people will breathe a quiet sigh of relief.  If not, this Nation will fall while bloody treason flourishes over it.

Read More

Docs declare war on foreign funded civil society groups

By Shamindra Ferdinando-May 23, 2018, 10:58 pm 

Alleging that civil society groups were a threat to the country, the Government Medical Officers’ Association (GMOA) has declared war on Purawesi Balaya and National Movement for a Just Society (NMJS).

They played a pivotal role in January 2015 campaign to oust the Rajapaksa administration.

GMOA Secretary Dr. Haritha Aluthge yesterday alleged that those groups interfered and obstructed legitimate trade unions such as the GMOA and were engaged in a project inimical to the country.

Addressing the media at Professional Center at Stanley Wijesundera Mawatha, the GMOA vowed to do whatever it took to thwart anti-Sri Lanka projects undertaken by Purawesi Balaya and NMSJ..

Dr. Aluthge accused the those civil society groups of pursuing what he called arbitrary and covert motives targeting legitimate civil society representatives. The GMOA accused Purawesi Balaya and NMSJ of clandestine operations.

Referring to President Maithripala Sirisena’s speech at the recently concluded armed forces commemoration at Battaramulla, Dr. Aluthge pointed out that those so called civil society groups sponsored by foreign powers and groups were a threat to the entire country not only to the legitimate civil society. The GMOA alleged that those civil society groups couldn’t see the difference between terrorists and armed forces and were hell-bent on destroying existing systems.

The GMOA attacked those pursuing legal action against GMOA President Dr. Anuruddha Padeniya as elements pursuing high profile operation against the establishment and legitimate trade unions.

The GMOA said that it had sought information pertaining to registration of Purawesi Balaya and NMSJ, their objectives and Constitution, funding sources, decision making process, office bearers and members and whether they could move court against others and vise versa from the Commissioner General of Labour and Director, Social Service Department.

The GMOA said the information was sought under the Right to Information Act enacted after the change of government.

One of the convenors of Purawesi Balaya Gamini Viyangoda told The Island that the group hadn’t received registration nor would it obtain recognition from any government authority under any circumstances. Viyangoda claimed that the GMOA lacked understanding of how civil society operated and was acting foolishly.

Declaring that Purawesi Balaya hadn’t been structured as a political party or group seeking political power, Viyangoda said that theirs was a voluntary organization built on consensus on issues.

The writer strongly disputed the GMOA’s assertion that only selected professionals and other interested parties could represent the civil society.

The Island sought Purawesi Balaya reaction in the wake of the GMOA issuing statement challenging its right to operate. Viyangoda issued the following statement in response to The Island request: " The GMOA’s statement shows how narrow-minded these politicized  doctors are. They  think that The Civil Society should consist of formal, registered civil/professional organisations alone. Informal groupings are not eligible for civic activities of social transformation, according to them. Now they have taken into their heads that they should be the ones who call the shot. In fact, they should be sent back to their secondary school education to learn the role civil groupings have played throughout history to change the status quo. They can start from the French Revolution. 

"They can go asking for information about Purawesi Balaya, but won’t get anything in return because we are not a registered civil society organisation for a good reason about which I can give them a lecture, if they want to learn some historical lessons of very concept "organisation" when applied to religion, politics, trades, etc. supported by past experiences in the world. Their organisation itself is a good example. It has become a political organisation than trade union organisation. 

"I recommend them to read a world famous novel "Messiah" by Gore Vidal which I have translated into Sinhala some 18 years back titled "Galawumkara Isiwaraya" to have a glimpse of what could have happened to a so-called religious movement even, after being formed into an organisation. 

"Simply these doctors are stupid. Otherwise they wouldn’t have mentioned about the court case that I and Sarath Wijesuriya have brought against Dr. Padeniya. That shows where there ‘social mindedness’ spring from. 

"I am the one who emphasised from the very beginning that we should not have a Leader, President, Secretary etc like in other similar movements, instead we have three co-conveners, namely K. W. Janaranjana, Saman Ratnapriya and myself for organisational purposes. These conveners also can be changed in the future. Apart from that we have a manifesto of basic principles which has been published and in the public domain. In other words, no membership but co-partners as long as they agree on the basic principles."

Merger of UNP and JVP with NGOs

 

2018-05-24 

Colloquial Sinhala is an exotic dialect when phrases are enunciated in the vernacular with the input of a smattering Anglo-Saxon linguistics that, leads to-‘Broken English’. Sounds more the railcar ‘burgher-ism’ than an outpouring of intones from the Dutch Burgher Union. 

• Parts of the 19th Amendment are on the verge of being dumped (by none other than Ranil–19A champ)
• JVP is juxtaposed between constitution making and their inadequate proficiency of the English language
• Who appointed Sripavan to the Board Room at the Commercial Bank (is it the Government nominees?)
• Every constitution needs a smart dick with a command of English to act as draftsmen

Parts of the 19th Amendment are on the verge of being dumped (by none other than Ranil–19A champ) stealthily with an eye on the Northern vote. Adversaries gave a rousing farewell in multiple languages to the chants of “19A is down the pallam” [slippery slopes]. That’s pigeon’s droppings and/or a long drive from Suddha Sinhala. 

In a nutshell the JVP is juxtaposed between constitution making and their inadequate proficiency of the English language and is killing itself softly by overcoming language deficiencies by turning to the NGO/good governance disciples. They are taking the Sobhitha route without visiting the nearest temple – like eating food with their feet. 

‘Don’t blame Ranil too harshly –point the finger at the Supreme Court under Justice Sripavan? gloomier than in the era of smart and silly Sarath Silva. Pronounced it constitutional without holding a referendum- by the ultimate dispassionate arbiter? The mother of all faults lies in depriving the people of their franchise for 4 1/2 years and having to watch a game of musical chairs enacted in Parliament, as Ministers shift chairs in the cabinet room. Who appointed Sripavan to the Board Room at the Commercial Bank (is it the Government nominees?) after the crisis that caused a nation disaster/whereas it required a 2/3 majority and a referendum the judgment allowed the Government to steam roll with a majority? Is it worth a Presidential Commission for the harm caused? 

Come 2020, does Tilvin or Vijitha know the finer or raw points in constitution making. They are not shy to deny much knowledge in English but here comes the howler

Clandestine operations are at hand - to re-work virtually the same script - by the same writers [good governance folk] in a fresh dressing led by the gang that contributed to the downfall of Mahinda Rajapakse in 2015; bringing forth the strategically splendid workmanship of Good Governance [GG]. It was a doctrine that was never to be functional! These kids seeking a place in the sun were treated flippantly by the present government after rendering yeoman service in setting the foundation for the electoral triumph. Shaken by inelegant hospitality they severed connections with the present government; now are on the mend by public recognition in becoming the constitution makers in ushering the 20 Amendment [20A]. It’s a reward for the good governance kids entrusted to produce such a premier legislation for the UNP via the JVP – an empty paper that creates no impact - will never see light a the end of the tunnel - as no government will dare to bring forth a bagful of muck with an election too close. Bottom line is that the JVP cannot write good English. Fortunately they know it and the upper echelons of government is not their route to achieve their aspirations. Limitations – JVP are aware, makes them good fodder for lesser office in our lifetime. The draft of 2015 is a historical record for Ranil’s posterity – legacy that smells defeat at the polls whoever propels it. None will, as it remains a JVP born in a union with Ranil. 

In a well-coordinated move, the UNP handed the constitutional assignment to the JVP, whose knowledge of English is miniscule? Beggars cannot be choosers; limitations are such, encountered in not knowing English - is an inherent defect in the JVP. Let them find wordsmiths to do better than the work that one man did for the19A. Surely not to be alienated to NGOs? Were they always part of the circus, one wonders? 


Such material is not easy to find. Every constitution needs a smart dick with a command of English to act as draftsmen. In 1972 Mrs. Bandaranaike had Colvin R. de Silva and H.L. de Silva; In 1978 J.R. Jayawardane carried brilliant Mark Fernando and able L.C. Seneviratne. Whom did Ranil & Sirisena turn to in seeking advice on the Constitution 2015 - one Jayampathy Wickremaratne emerged a holder of a good certificate issued under the hand of Sarath Silva (If his certificate is of a credible value in the jolly days of Chandrika– if so, JW is indeed a good choice). Come 2020, does Tilvin or Vijitha know the finer or raw points in constitution making. They are not shy to deny much knowledge in English but here comes the howler. They entrusted the assignment to the good governance kids that know a smattering of English but nothing more. Blind leads the blind. 
Where have all the good and great UNP lawyers gone? Not gone to seed, surely. Lesser are making the bucks over time, overnight. Others to Commissions and Committees, few to Ministries. Really good and genuine, and indeed the great are at home not hogging the limelight. It is just that ‘Ranil and his Merry Men’ cannot distinguish the good from the bad.  

Legislative Excess v. Judicial In-Activism: An Analysis Of Weerawansa v. Attorney General & Others

By Ruwan Laknath Jayakody –MAY 23, 2018

Ruwan Jayakody

Who judges the judges? Between the harsh spotlight of the fourth estate, the apathy or vitriol of the court of public opinion, the hindsight of posterity, and the cat and mouse game pertaining to the checks and balances involving the Executive, the legislature and the judicial branches, the safest bet is with the brethren of judicial peers. Yet, is the Supreme Court, which is tasked with making special determinations on the constitutionality of bills, in erring on the side of caution when it comes to preserving the interests of national security which are inevitably pitted against the need to protect the civil liberties enshrined in the Constitution, hamstrung by Constitutional impediments or by judicial in-activism? If it is a case of the latter, what if it serves to perpetuate injustice on a systematic and gross scale, beyond any reasonable interpretation of proportionality? This is the challenge that Weerawansa v. Attorney General and Others (SC Application No. 730/96) continues to pose. 

The facts of the case

On the surface of it, the facts of this case which involved an arrest of a person by a Police officer for alleged unlawful activity (in this case the illegal importation of explosives) and detention by way of a Ministerial order, both under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act, No. 48 of 1979 {PTA}, and an order for the remand of a suspect by a Magistrate under the Customs Ordinance, are typical of cases involving the draconian PTA. In this instance, the apex Court, in a judgment penned by Justice (J) Mark Fernando with Dr. A.R.B. Amerasinghe J. and Ranjith Dheeraratne J. concurring, held that the requisite preconditions for an arrest and detention to be valid had not been met, and that therefore the petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles 13(1) {which holds that no one should be arrested except in accordance with the procedure set out in law and that the person arrested should be informed of the reason for the said arrest} and 13(2) {which states that anyone in custody, detention or one who has been deprived of personal liberty should be brought before a judge of the nearest competent court according to the procedure laid down in the law and that the said person may not be held thus any longer sans a judge’s order made in conformity with the lawfully established procedure} of the Constitution, had been infringed and violated. Case closed. 

Not quite. 

Fernando J. further states thus. “When the PTA Bill was referred to this Court, the Court did not have to decide whether or not any of those provisions constituted reasonable restrictions on Articles 12(1) {the right to equality before the law and the equal protection of the law}, 13(1) and 13(2), permitted by Article 15(7) (in the interests of national security and/or public security), because the Court was informed that it had been decided to pass the Bill with a two-thirds majority (from all 225 Parliamentarians including those not present – a special majority). The PTA was enacted with a two-thirds majority, and accordingly, in terms of Article 84, the PTA became law despite any inconsistency with the Constitutional provisions.” 

The applicable legal regime and a critical analysis of the reasoning of the Supreme Court in its judgment

A question arises at this juncture. Does the continued enforcement of a law which patently flies in the face of the Constitution, in this case the PTA, not constitute a violation or denial of Article 12(1), specifically the clause about the right to the equal protection of the law? Moreover, if one construes thus, that indeed Article 12(1) does get breached, does this not then at the very least undermine (if not abridge or curtail or limit by way of altering or destroying by way of revoking) the basic structure of the Constitution? 

What is the basic structure of the Constitution? The concept originated from German jurist Prof. Dietrich Conrad’s ‘implied limitations of the amending power’ theory, which he explained as “Any amending body organized within the statutory scheme, howsoever verbally unlimited its power, cannot by its very structure change the fundamental pillars supporting its constitutional authority.” The basic structure doctrine (concerning the basic, essential, fundamental features of the Constitution) subsequently evolved out of Indian jurisprudence in Supreme Court cases such a dissent in Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, then I.C. Golaknath v. State of Punjab (which reversed Shankari Prasad v. Union of India), before reaching its ultimate form in Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, and Minerva Mills v. Union of India. The Pakistani Supreme Court has since taken to terming the principle as the salient features doctrine. In the Golaknath case, Hans Raj Khanna J. held that “The power of amendment under (a particular Article) does not include the power to abrogate the Constitution nor does it include the power to alter the basic structure or framework of the Constitution.”, adding however that subject to the retention of the basic structure, the power of amendment is absolute and includes within itself the power to amend Articles of the Constitution, including those relating to fundamental rights as well as those which may be said to relate to essential features. 

Read More