A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
A Brief Colonial History Of Ceylon(SriLanka)
Sri Lanka: One Island Two Nations
(Full Story)
Search This Blog
Back to 500BC.
==========================
Thiranjala Weerasinghe sj.- One Island Two Nations
?????????????????????????????????????????????????Sunday, July 16, 2017
Counter terror law ridiculous in a country which has eradicated terrorism!
Emmerson
By M. M. Zuhair-July 14, 2017, 9:43 pm
For
decades nations guided by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and
similar international human rights and humanitarian laws have been
urging Sri Lanka to repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary
Provisions) Act No. 48 of 1979 (PTA). Today, at the insistence of some
powerful countries Sri Lanka has chosen to replace the PTA, described
then as an obnoxious piece of legislation impinging on international
human rights standards but now, with a more draconian Counter Terrorism
Law.
The move for the new law has already come up for wide criticism
particularly from respected columnists in the media. The point is when
Sri Lanka was struggling through the thirty- year war on terrorism, when
the then governments felt the need for harsher laws, though considered
by international experts as violating human rights and humanitarian
legal standards, we were told to tear up the PTA. But when the country
had successfully eradicated terrorism and the government is focused on
peace, development, national integration and reconciliation, Sri Lanka
is being compelled by the powerful members of the Security Council to
enact more oppressive laws that will certainly restrict fundamental
rights and freedoms of the people. Such laws have the potential of
greater abuse at the hands of a reckless future government and its law
and order agencies.
In a country which has no traces of terrorism any more, the enactment of
a Counter Terrorism Law would seem ridiculous. It may also mean the
raising of a false flag that Sri Lanka is no longer a safe country and
will very likely affect the development strategies of the nation. One
might argue that there is nothing wrong with being armed for future
eventualities. But that argument is not tenable because laws currently
in existence are more than adequate to deal with such eventualities. At
its worst, laws restrictive of fundamental human rights can always be
enacted if and when such laws become absolutely essential, without
raising false flags or unduly empowering governments at the cost of the
freedom of the people.
If there is some legitimacy for enacting presently tougher laws one is
reminded of that powerful cover page picture in the TIME magazine, ‘The
Face of Buddhist Terror’, which reflects the criminal abuse, typical of
most main-stream Western media, of shaming the conduct of a few
criminals by blackening the image of a compassionate religion. This
happens to Islam every-day since 9/11 through disseminating globally
fake news and false intelligence reports dragging Islam for the
misdemeanours of criminals.
What then is the justification for a counter terrorism law in today’s
context in Sri Lanka? The known instances of violent extremism here are
attributable to the Bodu Bala Sena(BBS) and its associates since 2014.
No doubt there is frustration at the failure of the authorities to
prosecute the offenders. This may probably be looked into and reported
upon by Ben Emmerson the British lawyer in his capacity as the UN
Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Counter-Terrorism, an injudicious
mixture of title, legitimizsed by the fourth pillar or Section IV of
the UN Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy. Emmerson must be told that he
must report back to his handlers that circumstances for enacting a
Counter Terrorism Law do not exist in Sri Lanka and the Security Council
must exempt countries such as Sri Lanka on a case by case basis from
being forced to enact laws that we do not require as Sri Lanka is more
concerned about avoiding the erosion of the freedom of the people. He
must also be told that the current laws in Sri Lanka are more than
adequate to deal with the BBS and the need for a Counter Terrorism law
to deal with violent extremism would be counterproductive. He must also
be told that repressive laws will only multiply extremism and incite
counter-violence. He must also be advised that the government policy on
the matter is to prosecute offenders under the normal laws and encourage
dialogue between the several groups on conflicting issues in the
country.
The Special Rapporteur’s report issued on 22 February 2016 has pointed
out the vagueness in the definition of "extremism" but fails to explain
how for instance being ‘extremely good’ or ‘extremely bad’ constitutes
an offence. The report has failed to identify or refer to the root
causes of ‘violent extremism’. For instance Britain’s Labour Party
leader Jeremy Corbyn said in the run-up to the recently concluded
general elections that "the UK’s involvement in military action abroad
has fuelled the risk of terrorism at home". What recommendation will the
Special Rapporteur make to the Security Council through his handlers
that the unceasing wars sponsored by the US-EU countries in third world
countries must cease forthwith going by the well- articulated
expressions of British leaders like Corbyn. The Special Rapporteur might
also fall back on Theresa May, the British Premier for further
upliftment who said on 29th May 2017 that "terrorism is evolving not
disappearing". Obviously sobecause, post 9/11 the illegal invasion of
Iraq in 2003, without Security Council approval was the beginning of a
huge series of ‘investments’ on fuelling extremism, violent extremism
and terrorism. Western arms industry and the neo-cons probably believe
that these ‘investments’ are essential to sustain the war on terror for
decades to come.
Emmerson must also explore the role of leaders of major weapon
manufacturing countries and sections of the Western media who have since
9/11 contributed immensely to enhancing radicalization and extremism by
naming and shaming the Islamic faith and broader groups of Muslims for
the criminal activities of a few with Muslim names. See for instance how
the British Prime Minister May in the same speech recklessly violates
the human rights of the billions of Muslims world-wide. Referring to the
three pre-election terror attacks in the UK, condemned by all, May said
this: "First, while the recent attacks are not connected by common
networks, they are connected in one important sense. They are bound
together by the single evil ideology of Islamist extremism that preaches
hatred, sows division and promotes sectarianism. It is an ideology that
claims our Western values of freedom, democracy and human rights are
incompatible with the religion of Islam…. We cannot allow this ideology
the safe space to breed."
So the war on terror is not versus the criminals and the terrorists but
against a religion which has co-existed peacefully in the same world of
May and her predecessors for nearly 1, 500 years! Emmerson being a
reputed lawyer will know his obligation to reject outright these
unlawful broad-brush bashing of billions of innocent believers in Islam,
for the criminal acts of a few. That alone is the most effective
mechanism to arrest the ‘evolving’ process of extremism and make it
‘disappear’. But that will not happen. The Security Council is
shameless. It is tightening the noose around the billions of victims
without uttering a word against the powerful arms manufacturing
countries which are escalating violent extremism to sustain the war on
terror and thereby the trillion dollar arms industry. That is what
counter-terrorism is all about.
In Sri Lanka any attempt to pressurize the government to introduce harsh
laws that curtail people’s freedom must be firmly resisted. Otherwise,
these well paid do-gooders will end up enthroning in the world psyche
their version of the ‘The Face of Buddhist Terror’. Whilst welcoming the
assistance of Western countries in many sectors of need in the country,
the recent game-changing roles of and within the UN Security Council
need to be carefully watched.
(The writer is a President’s Counsel and a former Member of Parliament.
The views expressed here do not necessarily reflect on the positions
presently or previously held by the writer, who can be reached at
mm_zuhair@yahoo.com)