My bête noire, Gnanasara

Thursday, 28 June 2018


When it comes to the likes of pseudo religious figures viz, Gnanasara, I refuse to dignify such with revered titles; ‘Thera’, ‘Reverend’ or ‘Venerable’ as others do. To do so, would be a downright insult to all those who are genuinely worthy of it.

As a Sri Lankan, a Buddhist and a Sinhalese, I find this man utterly and completely reprehensible, offensive, an acute source of embarrassment and an irritation; in short, disgusting!

This ‘monk’ has, singlehandedly denigrated the image of the few authentic and revered Buddhist monks of Sri Lanka, both past and present, and turned the mantra “Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country” into a joke.

Shaving one’s head and donning a saffron robe does not make one a Buddhist monk. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can do that and call himself Ven. Bla Bla Bla Thero. This man is nothing but a charlatan in robes and desecrating it in every way possible.

His foster political parents; demagogues of a bygone era appeared to be enchanted by this ageing puppet’s performances back then, and seemingly gave succour to it with impunity by simply looking the other way.

The failure on the part of the authorities back then to call a final halt to the appalling behaviour of this flagrant menace and shut him up for good, gave rise to a new breed of Gnanasara ‹s ilk. Intoxicated by his performances, they developed Dutch courage, took the law into their own hands and ran amok. I predicted this over five years ago in one of my ‹Opinion› pieces, ‹Courting Satan in Saffron Robes› when Gnanasara of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) first raised his ugly head!

Then, with the political regime change in 2015 the man appeared to have been subdued but, the relief for us was short-lived. The Homagama High Court drama made him erupt like a volcano and got him landed behind bars. This is where the likes of him rightfully belong, for the rest of their lives. Alas, the relief for us was short-lived, again.

Upon being bailed out back then, he had to open his gab yet again and thrash all hope of him having reformed, despite being incarcerated like a common criminal. This man has no shame!

Reportedly, his public announcement upon being released was, on the need to educate Buddhist monks on the laws governing this country!!!

By this, was this man implying that pseudo monks like him behave the way they do, as they have no understanding of the laws of this land???

Before his volte-farce on the laws of the land and his seemingly newfound respect for it, Gnanasara is on record for stating that they of the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS) would not subject themselves to the Roman Dutch law, which he deemed as ‘suddhage neethiya’ (white man’s law), and would only abide by the law of the Dhamma.

Laws of the Dhamma!!! Does he even know what they are???

Was his performance within the Homagama High Court premises, running riot and hurling invective at the wife of journalist Prageeth Ekneligoda, and insulting the court and court officials which ultimately landed him behind bars, his idea of the “law of the Dhamma”?

Has he even heard of the Tripitaka let alone the Vinaya Pitaka; the monastic rules Buddhist monks are required to abide by?

Then he went on to publicly request the Mahanayake Theras (who themselves violate the Vinaya Pitaka with impunity by upholding the repugnant caste system denounced by the Buddha) and the ‹white elephant› Buddha Sasana Ministry, to include a course on the prevailing law enforcement system in the country, at the end of the Pirivena education or, in the Bachelor of Arts (BA) or Master of Arts (MA) courses, at the end of any Buddhist education in the country.

To call this man a clown, is a compliment to him and, he›s well advised that it’s better to keep his trap shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt!

According to Chapter II, Article 9 of Sri Lanka›s Constitution, “The Republic of Sri Lanka shall give to Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly, it shall be the duty of the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana…”

Is this how the State is giving Buddhism the foremost place, protecting and fostering the Buddha Sasana by seemingly granting carte blanch to the likes of Gnanasara, to make a mockery of it? Is he not openly violating the Constitution of this country? Isn’t this tantamount to an act of treason?

Never mind ignorance of the laws of the land or even the Dhamma, the latter which most label bearing Buddhists don’t have a clue of anyway, isn’t it basic human common sense, decency and etiquette to know how to conduct one’s self, at least within the hallowed precincts of a court house?

The air of defiance and the obvious lack of remorse or shame displayed by this man as he was last bailed out a few days ago only prove, that his theatrics are far from over!!!

In the absence of the Mahanayakes and the State’s seeming inability to have this man disrobed, I ask the ‘legal eagles’ out there, does a citizen of Sri Lanka like myself, have the right in the eyes of the law, to demand him to be disrobed?

Pining for Hitler!

June 26, 2018, 8:59 pm

Ven. Endaruwe Upali, Deputy Chief Priest of the Asgiriya Chapter in the Buddhist ecclesiastical order, is in the news. But it is not for his knowledge of the Dhamma or for the erudite delivery of a sermon worthy of Buddhism’s timeless appeal or for his strict adherence to vinaya, the set of disciplinary rules, which is expected to embellish the moral and ethical character of the Buddhist clergy. In fact, he is in the news for all the wrong reasons.

At an offering of alms to mark the 69th birthday of Gotabhaya Rajapaksa a few days ago at his residence in Mirihana and in the presence of many luminaries supportive of Rajapaksa’s presidential ambitions, the monk had observed in a sermon, "as the clergy, we feel the country needs a religious leader … Some people have described you as a Hitler. Be a Hitler. Go with the military and take the leadership of this country." The news has been reported slightly differently in different news portals. Even so, the basic thrust of the Reverend’s argument is what I have quoted above. Today, I will not deal with Rajapaksa’s presidential campaign or his suitability for the country’s top job. My interest is merely with the Hitlerite analogy or metaphor the monk had drawn in blessing Rajapaksa and his politics. And this has been done by no ordinary man off the street. He is one of the most high-ranking members of the country’s Buddhist clergy. And the primary example he used in his sermon is not merely any man lost to the mists of history, but the architect of the Jewish holocaust, which killed six million Jews as part of his depraved ‘final solution.’

As I grew up, my parents and teachers in school did not ever bring up the character of Hitler as something that we should emulate, but as the ultimate example of pure evil no one should contemplate even in one’s worst nightmare. In the 1980s, in the midst of graduate studies, I remember buying Hitler’s Mein Kampf for US$ 1.00 and bringing it to Colombo in the mid 1980s on a rare vacation. Both my parents reprimanded me for reading such ‘dangerous’ stuff, and admonished me not to leave the book lying around. That was because a somewhat politically unhinged neighbour had been accosting me regularly those days to try and borrow the book to translate it into Sinhala. He thought Hitler’s ‘final solution’ had much to contribute to Sri Lankan politics with regard to what he called the ‘Tamil problem.’

My parents were very clearly wary of even Hiltler’s book. And they were Buddhist too, and it is that Buddhism I have also inherited along with my sister and many others in my generation. In that Buddhism, Hitler’s only place even as a mere cursory example of evil would be right next to Deva Datta, the Buddhist version of Judas. But none of these anxieties seem to have mattered to Ven. Upali as he delivered his sermon and so freely used the example of Hitler to make one of his most important arguments. Though there is much debate on this matter in the social media and mainstream media, too, there is pronounced silence on the part of most luminaries including former President Mahinda Rajapaksa and former Minster GL Peiris and many others who attended the function. Perhaps, Hitler and what he represents are good for their politics, as Ven Upali has advised. But today, my focus is not on their politics, but on Ven. Upali’s statement itself and its location within a Buddhist sensibility. How is it possible for a man of the Dhamma to prop up the example of Adolf Hilter in a public utterance, as the ideal an aspiring local presidential hopeful should emulate?

At one level, Ven. Upali is a mere follower of a dangerous, simplistic and reductionist streak of global politics that admires strong men. It is this trend which marked the electoral successes of India’s Narendra Modi, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and US Donald Trump. Large swaths of people in these countries and elsewhere have been willing to overlook blatant failures (to put it mildly) of such leaders for the alleged purpose of ‘getting things done.’ In this scheme of thinking, dictatorship is preferred to democracy irrespective of its long-term social and political consequences. The issue for me is not about ordinary people’s preference of politics even if these preferences might be dubious. But when a highly placed priest makes public statements of political choice and direction, they acquire special attention, meaning and power. They have the ability to sway people, and that too in a dangerous direction.

However, given the fallout of his words, a number of public defenses have already been mounted, which themselves shed considerable light on the nature of this country’s public politics than anything else. Ven. Upali himself has issued a formal statement in which he has defended himself on two grounds:

1) He suggested that one or two words like ‘Hitler’ and ‘military’ out of a sermon of 30 minutes couldn’t be taken out of context and used to twist what he said. But as I have said earlier, words such as Hitler in particular cannot have any positive meaning within the discourse of world history of the modern period in which it is located.

2) He further noted that "what he meant was that direct policies are necessary to govern a country and that he did not mean a brutal regime by killing people like that of Hitler’s" But if Hitler was his reference and exemplar of ‘direct policies,’ such policies only led to very specific outcomes all of which are well-documented: the Third Reich’s attempted hegemony of the world order and the beginning of World War 2 under Hitler; dismantling of democratic practices and institutions in Germany and its latter subjugation by the allied powers; and the attempted extermination of Jews with terrible consequences.

A similar defense of these words have been issued by Parliamentarian Wimal Weerawansa as well, and the thrust of his argument is to blame Minister Mangala Smaraweera for his criticism of Rev Upali’s sermon, and blindly argues (or rather, shouts) that the Reverend’s statement has been misconstrued. Rev. Iththakande Saddhatissa, in a similar defense has argued what Rev Upali meant was not for Rajapaksa to kill like Hitler, but build the country from the chaos it is presently in. But if Hitler is the example of nation-building, then, we are truly in trouble as that was a drive to eliminate all he considered inferior races and political obstacles in his relentless march towards unlimited power for himself and the Third Reich. Ven Medagoda Abhayatissa outlined a more insidious argument that goes much beyond the defense of Rev Upali’s words. According to him, when someone like a Deputy Chief Priest, issues a statement, it is simply wrong for people to criticize him looking at minor ‘linguistic’ issues. Hitler, it seems is one of those minor linguistic issues. He further notes, what Rev Upali meant through the metaphor of Hitler was for Mr Rajapaksa in his future hoped-for presidential role to build a law-abiding, disciplined society.

Even a cursory glance at world history would clearly indicate the kind of havoc Hitler’s sense of ‘discipline’ ushered in, not only in Germany, but also in the entire world. Gas chambers in Auschwitz and elsewhere in Europe, which killed millions of Jews are the direct results of this ‘discipline.’ There is also a strong undercurrent in his words, which suggests that when statements like this are made by eminent monks, they should not be criticized by lesser mortals. This reprimand against questioning Rev Upali’s statement goes against the strong ethical principles entertaining doubt, dissent and the right to question that are enshrined in Buddha’s own words in the Kalama Sutra.

In it, the Buddha noted at one point, "when you know for yourselves that, ‘these qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering’ — then you should abandon them." But clearly, it appears that these words of wisdom are lost on these recent public peronalities who claim to speak on behalf of Buddhism. But that is surely not my Buddhism!

What these lay and priestly apologists miss is a very simple but crucial matter. That is, even in commonsensical conversations, and certainly in sermons of monks and public statements issued by ‘responsible’ people, when a word such as Hitler is used pertaining to any context, it cannot be devoid of all of its obvious and necessary meanings. It is a matter of history. It is a matter of established systematically culled knowledge. When such references are made, they cannot be defended on the basis of latter over-interpretations based on convenience or tenuous hindsight. Of crucial importance is also the fact that in this country, people tend to take the advice and words of the clergy very seriously, and if the examples they offer are problematic, the message itself becomes a problem, as is the case in this matter. What becomes obvious in this situation is a fundamental and dangerous ‘lack’ that is so evident among our pubic personalities -- both priestly and lay. That is, a woeful lack of commonsense, a nuanced political sensibility and an abysmal knowledge of the world and its histories and complexities. With this fundamental intellectual lapse, it is simply too dangerous to take snippets from that history out of context and to superficially make local political arguments of dubious value. It is simply irresponsible. With defenders and friends like these, one really does not need external enemies to disrupt institutional Buddhism as is often claimed. That dismantling will come from within, with this kind of thinking, which goes against the core principles of Buddhist teachings.

More than lay politicians with a questionable track record such as Weerawansa, my concern is with priests who enter mainstream political discourse seemingly oblivious of the destructive path they might be in the process of establishing which negatively impact society in general, and their own religions order in particular. It is also extremely disheartening to see their inability to accept a mistake for what it is, when pointed out. For them, with a great degree of sadness and anxiety, I can do no better than to offer the Buddha’s powerful words of wisdom and general reprimand to errant monks, which was expected to be a deterrent against violations of vinaya:

"It is not fit, foolish man, it is not becoming, it is not proper, it is unworthy of a recluse, it is not lawful, it ought not to be done. How could you, foolish man, having gone forth under this Dhamma and Discipline which are well-taught, [commit such and such offense]?... It is not, foolish man, for the benefit of un-believers, nor for the increase in the number of believers, but, foolish man, it is to the detriment of both unbelievers and believers, and it causes wavering in some" (The Book of the Discipline, Part I, I.B. Horner; London: Pali Text Society, 1982, pp. 36-37).

Bellana Seeks To Bleed NBTS Through Tender To Sell Excess Plasma

JUNE 28, 2018

Dr Rukshan Bellana, quasi administrator of the National Blood Transfusion Services (NBTS), known as a frontman for the brother of Health Minister Rajitha Senaratne has been accused of a tender fraud in the form of influencing, manipulating and delaying a tender for the benefit of a drug company from which he is allegedly receiving monies as bribes.

Dr Rukshan Bellana

It is revealed that although the Technical Evaluation Committee (TEC) had recommended that a tender for the sale of excess plasma be offered to the highest bidder (ABC Pharma) from among eligible bidders to ensure that the highest income is brought to the country, Bellana has tried to prevail on the members of the TEC to award it to DGH Medical Group, effectively causing a loss of Rs 47 million to the government.

ABC Pharma had offered Rs 5600.00 per litre of plasma whereas DGH Medical Group has offered only Rs 4535.00.

Price comparison

After the TEC declined to accede to Bellana’s request, he had received a letter purporting to have been written by a blood donor protesting the TEC decision. The letter is dated June 22, 2018 and has been received on the same day as per the date-stamp and this despite the strike that has crippled the postal service of the entire country. Bellana has since referred the letter to the Sri Lanka College of Transfusion Specialists, possibly to stir up a controversy and push the Tender Board to recall the tender.

Donor complaint

Colombo Telegraph reliably learns that ABC pharma which has learned about the violation of the Procurement Guidelines by Bellana has made their representations to Rajitha Senaratne, Minister of Health.

Colombo Telegraph earlier exposed the voice recordings where Bellana clearly states that the minister’s brother has discussed the purchase with his and that Dr Anil Jasinghe (Director General Health Services), Dr. Hemantha Beneragama (Deputy Director General , Laboratory Services) and Janaka Chandragupta (Additional Secretary Development) have all briefed him about the ministerial sibling’s interest in the purchase.

Speaking to Colombo Telegraph on Tuesday, Dr Bellana acknowledged the authenticity of the voice recordings published by Colombo Telegraph. He further said he was victimised because his speech against President Maithripala Sirisena where he said that the former Health Minister (Maithripala Sirisena) was corrupt. When asked whether he had evidence to say the President as the then Health Minster was corrupt, he said “yes”. He agreed to provide the evidence to Colombo Telegraph. He also said he would give his side of the story, but so far he’s failed to do so.

Read More

Mahinda’s media sec. arrested at Singapore Airport

une 26, 2018 by

According to sources Mr Rohan Weliwita, former Chairman of controversial CSN channel of Rajapaksas and the Media Secretary of former President Mahinda Rajapaksa, was arrested at Singapore International Airport yesterday (25th), detained and had been released after three hours.

Mr Rohan Weliwitta has gone to Singapore for a private visit when he was arrested by Singapore Airport authorities and questioned regarding money laundering and his passport.

Mr Rohan Welivita’s passport had been suspended in connection with an investigation being carried out by the FCID over money laundering but has been temporarily released say sources.
Source: ‘Lankadweepa’

ROAD ACCIDENTS KILLED 1,459 UPTO NOW

Nadira Gunatilleke-Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Road indiscipline of Sri Lankans is the main cause for road traffic accidents, Traffic Police Division Deputy Director ASP W.D.A. Dhananjaya said.

By June 25 this year (2018) 1,459 persons had been killed due to road traffic accidents.Annually 900 pedestrians die while trying to cross the road, he said.

The ASP said that annually around 3,000 get killed due to road accidents and one third of the total number of accidents related deaths occur due to road accidents.

Twenty three people are killed daily due to accidents and nearly 9,000 deaths are reported annually due to accidents, Health Ministry’s Non Communicable Diseases Unit Director Dr. Thilak Siriwardana said.

Addressing a press conference held at the Health Promotion Bureau (HPB) in Colombo yesterday he said the majority of the persons who get killed due to accidents belong to the productive age.

Motor Traffic Department’s Assistant Commissioner (Technical) J.A.S. Jayaweera said that at the moment there are 7.1 million registered vehicles in Sri Lanka and 5.2 million of them ply on the roads.

“The number of drivers can be similar. But the issue is 80 percent of them are not safe.Three wheelers and motor bicycles are considered unsafe and people should be discouraged from buying them,” he said.

Celebrating pride: Women’s rights activism and LGBT advocacy

While involvement in LGBT advocacy varies vastly amongst women’s rights organisations and individual activists, such advocacy has become more and more visible in recent years. Here members and supporters of Sri Lanka’s LGBT community participate in an event organised to mark World AIDS Day in Colombo – AP

  Thursday, 28 June 2018

Is sexuality a feminist issue? This question was posed memorably by women’s and human rights activist, Sunila Abeysekera, in 1999, and answered by her in the affirmative.

We  want to pose this question, once again, as we mark ‘Pride’, the shorthand for efforts made in many parts of the world this month to push for the recognition of lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) existence and rights. We are interested in how Sunila approached this question--making it a debate that was internal to women’s movements and asking feminists to reflect on their ownership of these issues.

There has been solidarity for LGBT issues from women’s rights activists, and some support from a few women’s organisations over the past two decades, in Sri Lanka, but it is fair to say that these issues have not been at the forefront of the collective mainstream women’s rights agendas. However, what may not be apparent are the strategic efforts of individual women’s rights activists and an increased number of organisations. In the past few years, some have been trying from their location as women’s rights activists, to support advocacy for Sri Lanka’s lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT) communities, and their efforts have paid off.

While involvement in LGBT advocacy varies vastly amongst women’s rights organisations and individual activists, such advocacy has become more and more visible in recent years. It dates as far back as the mid-to-late 1990s, coinciding with the emergence of LGBT advocacy groups in Sri Lanka. The awareness that women’s rights activists can create on matters of sexuality was increasingly evident in the lead up to the change of government (in 2015) and the period thereafter, when women’s rights activists were placed in a position to politically leverage change.

Following the 2015 elections, the National Unity Government’s election to power was a time when the State made a commitment to portray an agenda of re-establishing respect for human rights, the rule of law, and good governance. They initiated a number of consultative processes to obtain the views of the public on these matters. Civil society activists, therefore, had some chance to shape this agenda. Many helped envisage this desired social and political reform and participated in the mechanisms driving it.

Women’s rights activists also made their voice heard in many of these consultative processes, and, in doing so, some created opportunities within the scope of women’s rights and wider social justice issues with which they were concerned, for taking LGBT issues into account.

If this tactic was not entirely new, the circumstances made it an important one. In a post-war context, when transitional justice mechanisms were being crafted towards achieving some degree of truth, justice, reparations and guarantees of non-recurrence, there was no automatic recognition that same-sex sexuality and gender non-conformity were areas that had been impacted by over thirty years of war and had to be included in the range of issues around which public consultations were being conducted.

This awareness had to be created by civil society actors, and women’s rights activists, including LGBT rights activists took up the challenge of doing so. LGBT concerns did not feature in any previous discussions on transitional justice, such as within the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and other Commissions dealing with conflict related violations. 

A good example of such efforts were the attempts to engage with the Consultation Task Force for Reconciliation Mechanisms in August 2016. Women’s rights activists were successful in convening a focus group discussion with LGBT individuals and organisational representatives with the Western Province Zonal Task Force on Reconciliation Mechanisms.

This discussion and a written submission on the issues facing LGBT persons, in relation to Transitional Justice, helped shape the final report and recommendations of the Consultation Task Force. Some of the concerns raised in this discussion and submission focused on the prevailing laws, the creation of an enabling environment, addressing the needs of LGBT people, the surveillance of work done by human rights defenders, and sexual violence. 

Though women’s rights activists had a hand in creating this opportunity, they were by no means the only actors. Sri Lankan LGBT groups such as Equal Ground, Women’s Support Group, and individuals, had and have been working for decades at national and international levels, for state recognition for these issues. Groups and individuals were quick to grasp openings for change, especially on reconciliation mechanisms and constitutional reform, when they presented under the new regime.   

Thus, it is not a question of assigning special value to what women’s rights activists were able to do over what other actors could, but a case of opportunities that they, as women’s rights activists, were positioned to access at that moment in time. This was the result of a complex set of circumstances, not least of which was the changed state-civil society relationship in which the state took the approach of ‘consulting’ civil society on key matters. Women’s rights activists were prominent amongst those who were ‘consulted’, not only for gender-specific issues but across a range of human rights and social justice issues, which gave them some measure of leveraging power.

Critical in this process were the sittings of the Public Representations Committee (PRC) that called for oral and written submissions on Constitutional reform. Women rights activists from women’s organisations chose to include sexual orientation and gender identity concerns in submissions on bodily integrity, calling for the securing of LGBT rights as fundamental rights in the new Constitution the State was seeking to draft.

Their voice served to strengthen the advocacy of LGBT activists, and the PRC report recommended that the Bill of Rights include a clause that ‘No person or group shall be discriminated against on the grounds of …. sexual orientation and sexual or gender identities’. The Committee acknowledged submissions from all over the island and from many sources to protect the rights of LGBT persons, as they explicitly provided input to initiate a dialogue on the rights of the community as well as Constitutional protections. 

Women rights activists were also instrumental in including a number of provisions for the protection of LGBT rights into the National Action Plan for the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights 2017 - 2021, NHRAP.  Not only did some civil society actors including women’s rights activists constructively participate in committees in relevant areas of expertise in the formulation of the NHRAP, but they additionally lobbied for improvement at the Universal Periodic Review, where the NHRAP was finally presented and discussed.

A shift in thinking was evident in the inclusion, initially, of a clause on equality and non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. This was originally included and flagged as a voluntary pledge in the national report but scaled back by the end of the review process, with Sri Lanka not committing to support recommendations on decriminalisation as a result of Presidential intervention. Thus, equality provisions in the NHRAP, though actionable, remain confined to gender identity, and in no way guarantee that sexual orientation is a basis for equality and non- discrimination.

Even prior to 2015, some women’s rights activists engaged with a number of international and national mechanisms for progressing women’s rights, to advance LGBT human rights issues in Sri Lanka. The Opposition Leader’s Commission on the Prevention of Violence Against Women and Girls, comprising a number of women’s rights activists and scholars, offers a recent example at the national level.

Initially set up under the Leader of the Opposition, Ranil Wickremasinghe and continuing under his purview as Prime Minister, as a Task Force on Violence Against Women, it challenged the limits of who could be included under the category of ‘woman’ and the type of violence that could be recognised under the well-known women’s rights rubric of ‘violence against women’.

LGBT organisations and individuals were able to make submissions before the Task Force, on violence visited on lesbians, bisexual women and trans persons (LBT) persons. It was a notable opportunity for LBT people to ensure that a state mechanism recognised and documented this abuse (the Commission’s report was finalised in 2014), and integrated it into its action plans.

Women’s rights groups have been engaging with international treaty body mechanisms, with specific reference to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Submissions were made on LBT rights, supporting similar reports submitted by LBT groups, in a unique form of collective strategising.

Women’s rights groups have sought to go beyond the limits of the law and decriminalisation, calling for the state to put in place policies to address prejudice, negative stereotyping and discrimination, which are deeply embedded in value systems and practices against the LGBT community. Such framings have included the right to non-discrimination, to be free from all forms of violence and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and the right to privacy, freedom of expression and association.

Women’s rights groups have also highlighted the right to work, social security, physical and mental health, and education – all areas in which persons of diverse sexual orientation and identity suffer discrimination.

Many women’s rights activists have come to the table, willing to be part of a real change, and their efforts have been a precedent. But what has been the outcome of all their collective and individual strategising, consultations and submissions? Only a negligible part of these efforts have been recognised, leave alone implemented, by successive governments through the years. Unfortunately, heteropatriarchal roadblocks seem to be still in place. The positive stand against discrimination and violence against LGBT people is a lifelong collective and individual effort – these efforts are our pride!

(The Cat’s Eye column is written by an independent collective of feminists, offering an alternative feminist gaze on current affairs in Sri Lanka and beyond.)

Full freedom eludes Gaza’s exiles

For young people like author Mousa Tawfiq, currently living in Paris, pursuing opportunities outside Gaza comes with great sacrifice.

 Charles Constantine

Mousa Tawfiq- 27 June 2018

I have experienced more freedom over the past 10 months than at any other time in my life.

Being a student in Paris means I do not have to contend with obstacles that Palestinians living under occupation face every day.

My freedom has nonetheless come with a major condition attached. While I can move around in much of Europe, I am prevented from visiting my family and friends in Gaza.

In September 2017, I crossed through Erez, the military checkpoint separating Gaza from Israel. The Israeli troops at that checkpoint made me sign a document stipulating that I would stay away from Gaza for a full 12 months.

In practice, I am prevented from entering Gaza for even longer.

If I traveled to Gaza for a vacation this coming September, there is a high probability I wouldn’t be allowed to leave again or that I would be obstructed from doing so.

The crossings at both Erez and Rafah – on Gaza’s border with Egypt – are frequently closed to Palestinians. As a result, there would be no guarantee that I could make it back to France before term resumes in the autumn.

I could, therefore, lose the scholarship I have been granted to study communications at Paris 8 University.

The masters program I am following lasts for two years. I don’t know yet what I will do when it is completed.

But I do know one thing: I won’t rush back to Gaza. I fully intend to pursue the opportunities that were denied me in Palestine.

Homesick

My experience is shared by many other young people from Gaza now studying abroad.

Gaza is often – and accurately – described as an open-air prison. It is only natural that people locked inside that prison want to escape from it.

Yet once we manage to escape, we are homesick. We long to see our loved ones, who remain inside the prison.

The freedom we taste on the outside is fraught with uncertainty.

In most cases, we have been allowed to study in the West for limited periods of time. Once our courses are over, we need to apply for permission from the authorities if we are to stay in our countries of residence. Permits to remain are usually issued only if we have managed to find employment or get admitted to a different academic course.

If we are lucky, the work we do will be rewarding both financially and emotionally. But there is always the risk that we will have to accept an unsatisfying job just so that we can have legal status.

Telling Europeans about the limits on our freedom can be exhausting.

“Basically, I can now travel to wherever I want, though I cannot travel back to Gaza,” Said Alyacoubi, who is studying immunology at Oxford University, said.

“In fact, I do not know how or when I will be able to see my family or friends back home. Explaining this to people who ask is a headache. There is no way to explain that my home is currently unreachable.”

Aged 26, Alyacoubi also left Gaza in 2017. Not being able to use his medical skills to assist people in Gaza saddens him.

“I still have that feeling of being imprisoned and deprived of my freedom of movement,” he said. “We are divided from our home and our people.”

“I want to watch the sunset”

Rola Mattar has been studying business administration in Paris since 2016. Being away from her family in Gaza is proving very tough.

She has spoken with her mother about trying to meet in Jordan. But she is not sure that her mother will be able to travel because of the restrictions imposed under Israel’s siege on Gaza.

Rola Mattar has been living away from her family in Gaza for two years.

 Charles Constantine

“During vacations, everybody goes home to see their loved ones,” the 25-year-old said. “I feel so bad. I can’t even describe how bad I feel. I want to see my cousins, to eat my mother’s cooking, just to watch the sunset from the rooftop of my family’s house.”

The absence is especially noticeable during occasions that are supposed to be joyful. “I’m thinking about my graduation day,” said Mattar. “Everyone will have their family beside them but I won’t. It’s really unfair that we Gazans get through all kinds of difficulties and yet we still suffer in every aspect of our lives.”

Excluded from joy

Tamam Abusalama left Gaza when she was 19. Today, she is 25.

Since leaving, she has made what she called one “humiliating trip” back to Gaza. Five years ago, she traveled there from Turkey, where she was then studying. At the end of her stay, she spent many days shuttling between her family’s home and the Rafah crossing before she was finally allowed to travel back to Turkey.

Now studying communication science in Brussels, Tamam is one of four siblings living outside Gaza. Her brother Majed lives in Germany, while her sisters Majd and Shahd live in Spain and Britain.

The three recently met each other for the first time in six years. They had a holiday together in Spain.

“We decided to meet every two months in a new city just to benefit from our current freedom of movement,” said Tamam. “Our happiness couldn’t be complete without my parents and my young brother who are in Gaza. But still it was a dream that came true.”

The pain of being separated from loved ones was particularly acute for Tamam during the major Israeli offensives against Gaza in November 2012 and the summer of 2014.

“I spent my days waiting for any call or message from my family,” she said. “That was the moment when you wished to be back, giving them a hug before it is too late.”

Tragically, it was too late for a member of her extended family. One of Tamam’s uncles was killed during the 2014 Israeli attack. She was unable to mourn his death alongside her family.

She has also had to miss out on happier events such as when her younger brother Mohammed was married in Gaza last year.

After his wedding, Tamam wrote an article highlighting the injustice of her being excluded from the celebration, of how she had to settle for watching videos rather than being there in person.

That story encapsulates what Palestinians in exile have to endure. Modern technology may allow us to communicate in ways that previous generations could not imagine. Yet it does not remove the heartbreak of being prevented from going home – even for a holiday.

Mousa Tawfiq is a journalist, formerly based in Gaza, currently living in Paris.

Decency wins — and Trump gets smacked down

Trump's policy of family separation was part of a broader pattern of attacks against immigrants and should never have existed, argues Elias Lopez. (Kate Woodsome , Gillian Brockell/The Washington Post)

by Jennifer Rubin June 27 at 9:45 AM

On the same day that the Supreme Court upheld President Trump’s travel ban in a tortured ruling, a district court judge hearing a suit on behalf of a class of migrants separated from their children struck a blow for common decency and family reunification. The Post reports:

Judge Dana M. Sabraw of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California granted a preliminary injunction sought by the American Civil Liberties Union. He said all children must be reunited with their families within 30 days, allowing just 14 days for the return of children under 5 to their parents. He ordered that parents must be entitled to speak by phone with their children within 10 days.

The court slammed the administration for “a chaotic circumstance of the Government’s own making.” Sabraw, appointed by President George W. Bush, found: “This situation has reached a crisis level. The news media is saturated with stories of immigrant families being separated at the border. People are protesting. Elected officials are weighing in. Congress is threatening action. Seventeen states have now filed a complaint against the Federal Government challenging the family separation practice.”

In issuing an injunction, the court found there was a likelihood that the plaintiffs would succeed on a due process claim. (“We are a country of laws, and of compassion. We have plainly stated our intent to treat refugees with an ordered process, and benevolence, by codifying principles of asylum.  The Government’s treatment . . . [of] class members does not meet this standard, and it is unlikely to pass constitutional muster.”) The court continued:

The practice of separating these families was implemented without any effective system or procedure for (1) tracking the children after they were separated from their parents, (2) enabling communication between the parents and their children after separation, and (3) reuniting the parents and children after the parents are returned to immigration custody following completion of their criminal sentence. This is a startling reality. The government readily keeps track of personal property of detainees in criminal and immigration proceedings. Money, important documents, and automobiles, to name a few, at all levels — state and federal, citizen and alien. Yet, the government has no system in place to keep track of , provide effective communication with, and promptly produce alien children. The unfortunate reality is that under the present system migrant children are not accounted for with the same efficiency and accuracy as property.  Certainly, that cannot satisfy the requirements of due process.

The court cited at length the findings of the Children’s Defense Fund regarding the extensive harm done to children forcibly separated from their parents. The court expressed the shock and dismay many ordinary Americans are feeling:

The facts set forth before the Court portray reactive governance — responses to address a chaotic circumstance of the Government’s own making. They belie measured and ordered governance, which is central to the concept of due process enshrined in our Constitution. This is particularly so in the treatment of migrants, many of whom are asylum seekers and small children. The extraordinary remedy of classwide preliminary injunction is warranted based on the evidence before the Court.

In contrast to the Supreme Court’s travel ban ruling, constructed to avoid identifying the president as an abject racist whose intent should have invalidated his executive order, this court did not avert its eyes. In ordering the reunification of children younger than 5 within 14 days, older children within 30 days and a halt to child separation, the judge followed a long tradition recognizing that anyone here — illegally or not — enjoys the benefits of ordered, fair government. (The entire country has been deprived of that under this president.) In this instance, the American people can be proud of their judiciary.

Consider, if you will, the Justice Department lawyer arguing in effect, “No, really, we can treat these kids worse than property.” Justice Department attorneys need to seriously consider their professional and own moral code of conduct in continuing to defend the administration’s inhumane practices. One hopes that every Justice Department lawyer will read the opinion, reflect on the judge’s admonitions and in the future refuse to sign on to briefs or undertake oral arguments in defense of barbarism. In the meantime, a significant victory for real family values and constitutional government has been won.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: who is the new progressive star of the Democrats?

From cocktail waitress to insurgent Democrat victor. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beat one of the party’s most senior congressman in a stunning New York election victory

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the winner of a Democratic congressional primary in New York. Photograph: Mark Lennihan/AP

Lauren Gambino-Wed 27 Jun 2018 

Just one year before Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unseated a powerful 10-term New York congressman to have a chance at becoming the youngest person in Congress, she was mixing cocktails at Flats Fix tacos and tequila bar in Manhattan.

“Women like me aren’t supposed to run for office,” Ocasio-Cortez, a 28-year-old progressive and member of the Democratic socialist party, says in a campaign ad.

But, at the urging of progressive activists, Ocasio-Cortez not only ran – she won.

Her victory is part of a larger story of a Democratic party in revolt. A wave of first-time female and progressive candidate are storming the ramparts of an establishment that has not only seen its power recede at every level of government – but also failed to keep Donald Trump out of office.

In an interview on cable channel MSNBC this morning she said. “Our campaign was focused on just a laser-focused message of economic, social and racial dignity for working-class Americans, especially those in Queens and the Bronx.”

Her win was all the more remarkable for having been outspent by Crowley during the campaign by 10 to 1. “I started this race out of a paper bag. I had flyers and clipboards and it really was just nonstop knocking on doors and talking to the community,” she said.

Ocasio-Cortez is an almost made-for-TV foil to the Queens-born billionaire in the Oval Office.

 The moment 28-year-old socialist beats top-ranking Democrat in congressional primary - video

The daughter of a Puerto Rican mother and a Bronx-born father, Ocasio-Cortez grew up in a working-class community where she commuted between the borough and Yorktown, 30 miles north, for school. She later earned a degree in economics and international relations from Boston University, during which time she worked for the late Senator Ted Kennedy, according to her campaign website.

After college she returned home to the Bronx and found work as an educational director. But she was forced to take on another job when the recession hit. Ocasio-Cortez worked “18 hour shifts” as a waitress and bartender to help her mother, a house cleaner, fight foreclosure after her father, a small business owner, died of cancer.

As she explained on MSNBC this morning, this life story has informed her politics. “My mother cleaned homes and drove school buses, and when my family was on the brink of foreclosure … I started bartending and waitressing. I understand the pain of working-class Americans because I have experienced the pain.”

In 2016, she organized for Senator Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent, in New York during the Democratic presidential primary, which he lost. She linked arms with progressive activists at Standing Rock to protest the construction of a natural gas pipeline that crossed Native American land. Trump has revived the project that Barack Obama had blocked.

In May of 2017, she launched what was by all accounts a long shot bid to challenge congressman Joe Crowley of New York. Crowley, who is twice her age, was widely rumored to be next in line to lead House Democrats.

For 20 years Crowley, head of the Queens county Democratic party and the fourth-ranking Democrat in the House of Representatives, ran the deep-blue borough where more than 130 languages are spoken. He was synonymous with the party machine young progressive Democrats like Ocasio-Cortez were ready to expel.

“We’ve got people – they’ve got money,” she said in a campaign ad, adding: “It’s time we acknowledge that not all Democrats are the same.”

Ocasio-Cortez ran a grassroots campaign, blanketing the borough with canvassers who pounded the pavement and courted young, black and Latino voters who make up the constituency.

She argued that Crowley was out of touch with the working-class people of his district and was beholden to Wall Street and corporate interests.

Last week, Crowley sent a Latina surrogate to debate Ocasio-Cortez, citing a scheduling conflict. Ocasio-Cortez ridiculed the decision, accusing him in a sharply-worded tweet of sending someone with a “slight resemblance to me”.

“The way the Queens Democratic party machine has worked, they operate on a politics of exclusion,” Ocasio-Cortez told WNYC after she launched her campaign.

The Democratic socialist ran on issues that remain largely outside of the Democratic mainstream.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez at the Tornillo-Guadalupe port of entry gate on 24 June in Tornillo, Texas. Photograph: Joe Raedle/Getty Images

Ocasio-Cortez called for the abolition of the Immigration Customs Enforcement (Ice), an agency that has increasingly become a target of left leaning activists over its treatment of immigrants in its care.

She also called for a single-payer healthcare plan that would guarantee healthcare for all Americans, a proposal known as Medicare for All and championed by Sanders. She also called for tuition-free college and a universal-jobs guarantee, under which the federal government would provide a job for every American.

Last weekend before Tuesday’s election, Ocasio-Cortez left her New York district for west Texas to participate in a protest against family separations.

At her victory party on Tuesday night, a visibly shocked Ocasio-Cortez clasped her hands over her mouth, her eyes wide as she stared at the television as the results flashed across the screen to show that the 28-year-old progressive had slayed one of the Democratic party’s most powerful giants.
“How are you feeling?” the TV reporter asked. “Can you put this into words?

“Nope,” she said. “I cannot put this into words.”

Earlier today on MSNBC she had found the words to articulate a very clear vision and offer the Democratic establishment a clear challenge. “What is the vision that will earn the support of working-class Americans – what we need to do is lay out a plan and a vision and getting into twitter fights with the president is not where we’re going to find progress.”

At his election night party in Jackson Heights, Crowley thrummed a guitar.

“This is for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez,” he said as the band struck up Bruce Springsteen’s Born to Run.

Ahead of NATO Summit, U.S. President Exhorts Allies to Pay Up

European officials worry that Trump could roil yet another international summit.

U.S. President Donald Trump delivers a speech next to NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg at NATO headquarters in Brussels on May 25, 2017. (Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)

BY ROBBIE GRAMER-

 JUNE 27, 2018

Organizers of this year’s NATO summit in Brussels are worried that U.S. President Donald Trump might spoil the event with a single boorish tweet — much as his internet missives marred the summit meeting of G-7 nations earlier this month in Canada.

But while the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s pivotal meeting is still two weeks off, Trump has already surprised the participants: Instead of tweets, he is sending out letters.

In a sharply worded message to at least some countries in the 29-member alliance that didn’t meet defense spending thresholds — one that followed a general template but included additional language tailored to specific countries — Trump wrote that Americans were tired of funding Europe’s defense and wanted to see other NATO members carrying more of the load.

“[It is] increasingly difficult to justify to American citizens why some countries do not share NATO’s collective security,” said the letter, which was described to Foreign Policy by U.S. officials and foreign diplomats.

“I, therefore, expect to see a strong recommitment by [country] to meet the goals to which we all agreed,” it said.

The version being sent to Germany contained some of the harshest language, according to the officials.

Though it’s not uncommon for U.S. administrations to push allies on burden-sharing, the letter — its tone and its timing — underscored the precariousness of international parleys in the Trump era. NATO summits are usually choreographed affairs, with shoulder-to-shoulder photo-ops and boilerplate communiques.

The coming meeting, starting July 11 and featuring the leaders of all NATO countries, could be a fiasco thanks to Trump’s unpredictable and brash behavior.

“A no-news summit would be a good summit,” said one European diplomat who preferred not to be named discussing the upcoming event. “But at this point, we’re all scared shitless.”

The meeting will feature announcements on some policy breakthroughs: a new NATO program in Iraq to train Iraqi security forces, a joint initiative with the European Union to increase “military mobility” for allied forces moving around within Europe, the opening of two new command structures — one focused on maritime issues in Norfolk, Virginia, and one on logistics in Germany, and the possible launching of talks with Macedonia to join the alliance.

It will likely be followed by a meeting between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
But the optics of a warm interaction between the two men would be especially jarring if it came on the heels of a troubled NATO summit.

“Allies are concerned that praise will be heaped on Putin … while simultaneously Trump is sharply criticizing allies for not doing enough on defense spending,” said Julie Smith, an expert on trans-Atlantic security at the Center for a New American Security, a Washington-based think tank.

Norwegian Foreign Minister Ine Eriksen Soreide, speaking at an event at the think tank on Tuesday, said maintaining alliance cohesion is critical in the run-up to a Trump-Putin meeting. She said it was important for Putin to “understand that the president of the United States also speaks on behalf of an alliance.”

When asked for comment, the State Department referred all questions to the White House, but a spokesman there did not immediately respond to queries.

Relations between the United States and its European allies and Canada are already tense over a spiraling trade war, Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, his administration’s continued singling out of Germany, and the U.S. exit from the Paris climate agreement.

At the G-7 meeting in Canada, Trump made the attacks personal, chiding Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Twitter as “weak and dishonest” and refusing to sign the meeting’s joint communique with the other six top global economic powers.

“What I think most troubles the alliance is that some of these angry words might get translated into angry action,” said Adam Thomson, a former British ambassador to NATO who now heads the London-based European Leadership Network. “That could be quite a bit more serious.”

Trump roiled the NATO summit last year with his refusal to endorse the alliance’s collective defense clause and the shove he gave Montenegro’s leader at a photo-op. The issue of defense spending could be this year’s main source of contention.

In 2014, following the Russian invasion of Ukraine and spiraling crises in the Middle East, NATO members set a goal for each country to spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense by 2024 — a long-standing NATO benchmark that few members honored.

At the beginning of this year, eight of the 29 members either met or were nearing the 2 percent target: the United States, United Kingdom, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania, and Greece.
Six others — Bulgaria, France, Hungary, Montenegro, Slovakia, and Turkey — have unveiled plans to reach the target by 2024. Two, Norway and Denmark, may not meet the 2 percent threshold by 2024 but have plans to significantly boost defense spending. Norway, for example, plans to purchase 52 new F-35 fighter jets.

That leaves the majority of NATO allies without plans to meet the spending target, including Germany, Europe’s strongest economy.

“There’s a lot of good news about the alliance, but there’s dangers that will all get eclipsed by Trump’s recriminations on 2 percent,” Alexander Vershbow, a scholar at the Atlantic Council and former deputy secretary-general of NATO, said.

Officials said the State Department had been quietly trying to press Trump to avoid negative messaging at the summit and focus on the overall increase in defense spending, even if countries aren’t meeting the benchmark. That’s something NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has touted in recent interviews, including with Foreign Policy.

One more concern for the Europeans is the possibility that U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis’s influence in the administration is declining. Mattis has overseen a significant buildup of U.S. military presence and funding in Europe despite Trump’s sharp dismissal of NATO allies. He “looms as the most important safeguard for allies to cling to,” Vershbow said.

“I think quite a few people here view Mattis as the last voice of reason,” said one European defense official.

For European leaders, it’s one more reason to brace for trouble at the summit.

“I don’t think anybody would be dumb enough to predict what would happen,” said one NATO official based in Brussels. “I’m hopeful [the summit] will go smoothly in that he’ll only make a few obnoxious remarks.”