Wednesday 25 October 2017

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

25 October  2017

Fears of Terrorism

The closure of some accounts by Westpac Bank has been in the news this week. Sky News reports as follows:

[Westpac Bank has shut down the bank accounts of a Sydney group after discovering it was raising funds for terrorism.
The Daily Telegraph reports the accounts were linked to extremist group Brothers Behind Bars, which claims to raise more than $2500 a week for Australian terrorists and their families.
Its beneficiaries include Sulayman Khalid and Omar Succarieh, who were jailed for foreign incursion offences.]

The Sydney Morning Herald report on Mr. Khalid includes the following:

[Khalid has passed his family two hand-written notes from custody, one saying "I am INNOCENT!!!" and another with a hand pointing to God, covered in writings relating to "tawheed" – the Islamic concept of oneness of God. 
The family have also been selling T-shirts with the slogan "suspicion is not good enough" for $25 to help fund his "expenses in prison".
On the Facebook page, his sister has asked for friends and supporters to write to him and visit him in prison.
Police will allege Khalid and four others charged on Thursday were part of a close-knit cell planning to attack government buildings, specifically the AFP.
Khalid's legal team have previously argued he didn't author the notes, which his sister claims were verses from the Koran and "tawheed papers".
On Thursday, police told a court that fingerprints were lifted from the documents, connecting a 15-year-old Georges Hall boy, who was 14 at the time, to their creation.
He was denied bail in Parramatta Children's Court on Friday, with a magistrate saying there was evidence he was inspired by Islamic State ideology.
The boy's phone allegedly contained pictures of a beheading, IS propaganda, photos of himself holding a rifle and a text message saying he wanted to get to "paradise" through "banana" – believed to be a code word for guns.]

The parallel of this in terms of  Tamils of Sri Lanka goes as follows:

[The maximum sentence for the charges they pleaded guilty to is five years. Those charges, laid under the Charter of the United Nations Act, makes it an offence to provide assets to a UN-proscribed entity, which the LTTE is, and didn't require the prosecution to prove the LTTE was a terrorist organisation.
All three were originally charged in 2007 with much more serious terrorism offences carrying sentences of 25 years, including that they were members of a terrorist organisation, provided support to a terrorist organisation and made funds available to a terrorist organisation.
Those charges were dropped last year, largely due the difficulty of proving the LTTE was a terrorist organisation when it wasn't officially declared as such by the Australian Government.] Herald Sun – 31 March 2010

The original charge of Terrorism Offence carrying sentences of 25 years was reduced to 5 years by the Courts. The gap of 20 years is the level of cultural difference between the Executive Government and the Judiciary in Australia. The level of ‘fear’ in the minds of law enforcement officers at social levels parallel to the accused is confirmed by that 20 year gap. A Tamil Police force would have had a much narrower gap due to Common Belief. The Excess is in the minds of those who are foreigners to the issue.
Common Belief is the fundamental authority that entitles one to punish or reward another trough a structure that represents that Belief.
Sri Lankans are currently going through the pros and cons of changes to the constitution – especially in relation to whether Sri Lanka is a Buddhist state. The following is an excerpt from a ‘free’ communication between two members of the Canadian Tamil Diaspora – the first one as per my mind being the parallel of Australian Police and the second one the parallel of Australian Judiciary. The discussion is based on the article ‘Battling for a new Constitution and dashing the hopes of Tamils’ published by Tuck Magazine :
[Canadian Tamil 1 (Police) : What is the percentage of Buddhist among the population of about 22 million? My guess is about 45 % since among Sinhalese there is a good number of Catholics and Christians. Hence how can they say that Buddhism is the state religion? Religion should not include in the constitution as in India. What provision is there for HR violations and powers of security forces in the constitution. The singhala government knows very well that Tamils and Muslims are not united. They are adopting the British Policy of Divide and rule. There is no provision for Deputy PM and Deputy President from the minority population.  In India, a Muslim can be the President (Abdul Kalam}
Canadian Tamil 2 (Judiciary) Response: The percentage of Buddhists in Ceylon is not 45%! I do not know where you got this figure from. The actual figure is double 70.10% (population wise 74.90%). I agree that declaring Ceylon as a secular state is ideal. That way religious homogenization and institutional domination will be absent. Unfortunately, during the last 5 decades, secular states, virtually everywhere, have come under strain. In Israel, the Basic Laws  that serve in place of a constitution (Israel has no written constitution) define the country as a "Jewish state." More than 46 countries call themselves Muslim and where Islam is the state religion. Mercifully, in Sri Lanka Buddhism is not a state religion.  The constitution affords only foremost place.
This is a serious subject; I hope you will do some homework before you put your pen to paper!]

The genuine work done to uphold the intellectual balance by the respondent is of value to Canada and to all those who read and understand the logic intellectually. The only value superior to this is that of Belief. Belief needs no explanation; no proof. Migrants who have ‘completed’ the relationships – however ‘local’ they may be, add value to their new nations. On that same footing, those who use ‘hearsay’ weaken the Sovereign value of their home-nations and the nations where they manifest their powers developed through such hearsay.

Each one of is born Sovereign. That is our Soul value. To the extent we preserve and uphold this – including by sacrifices of returns from our own investments in relationships – biological, law-based or culture-based, we strengthen the life of Sovereignty enjoyed by our home group/s.

Migrants often fail to complete their relationships in their first families/ communities/
 Nations. When we get married for example – we expand families through mergers and/or takeovers. To the extent the two cultures are compatible, we would successfully become One family. Without such compatibility, we need at least One member of the group to be Sovereign or majority in that group need to believe in and show respect for a person who has realised her/his Sovereignty. The latter is often the base for religious leadership including in Government.

I  believe that if second marriages are inferior to a mind, then second country systems also would be inferior. To those who ‘complete’ the first relationship – that would be first amongst Equals in Democracy or motivating Energy in Autocracy. The latter is often recognized as Heritage. Australian Judiciary failed to use the opportunities facilitated by me to weaken the development of Separation to continue with the first system. Below is an example:

[Since I was a wholesome Hindu – it was easy for me to pray to God through Buddha also.  Similarly since I had completed my marriage relationships through the cultural structure – at the highest level known to me – I was a wholesome Hindu wife and hence was able to become a wholesome legal wife with ease. But to my mind, not so my sisters in law who needed our help to have their children married.  Hence they picked my marriage at its primary form (that it was second marriage to me) – anytime they needed to find fault with me. This extended to the Testamentary case in Sri Lanka where their lawyer said I was going after other people’s monies and also mentioned that this was my second marriage. To me it was my duty to uphold the dignity of lawful marriages in a court of law. But Her Honour says in this regard starting from  paragraph 13 of Her Honour’s judgment:

The pleading identifies three potential defamatory publications about the plaintiff, which I would characterise as follows (not quite in the terms submitted on behalf of the defendants):
(a)  A statement made by a lawyer, Mr. Yogendra, acting on behalf of the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants in proceedings before the District Court of Mallakam in Sri Lanka (to which the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants and the plaintiff are parties) to the effect that the plaintiff was shamelessly after other people’s monies and was not accepted by the family as the wife of Subramaniam Paramasivam (statement of claim at [2]). The sixth and seventh defendants are alleged to have been present in court when their lawyer made those statements (statement of claim at [6]) but the legal significance of that assertion is not explained;
(b)  A statement made by the first defendant to the plaintiff’s husband to the effect that the plaintiff and her husband were a disgrace to the first defendant’s family (statement of claim at [3]);
(c)   The republication of the statement made by the lawyer (set out in (a) above by Mrs. Poomathevi Nadarajah to Mr. Mylvaganam (statement of claim at [8]). Neither the lawyer nor Mrs. Poomathevi Nadarajah is a party to these proceedings.
14. A statement of the kind described in (b), whilst undoubtedly hurtful, would be regarded as merely abusive and is not such as to sustain the prosecution of an action in defamation in this Court.
15. The primary focus on the argument was on the statement referred to in paragraph (a) above, pleaded in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim as follows:
On 16 February 2012, it was stated on behalf of the 1st, 2nd, 6th, 7th and 8th defendants in court that the plaintiff was shamelessly after ‘other people’s monies’ and words to the effect   that the plaintiff was not accepted by the family as the wife of Mr. Subramaniam Paramasivam – the brother of 1st, 6th and 8th defendants who are all siblings of the deceased person Late Subramaniam Yoganathan, mentioned above. The 3rd, 4th and 5th defendants spoke and/or acted in support of the 1st, 2nd,6th, 7th and 8th defendants in this issue.
16. The plaintiff confirmed that the words are alleged to have been said in the legal proceedings in Sri Lanka relating to the estate of  the plaintiff’s brother-in-law, who evidently died intestate. She stated, however, that it was the “Australians” whose lawyer had made the statement that “they obviously would have given instructions from here to Sri Lanka”.
17. Leaving aside any issue as to whether the words said by the lawyer were published under absolute privilege (under the law of the place of the tort), the principal difficulty is that the statement of claim does not plead any cause of action in defamation against any defendant. The un-stated premise of the claim appears to be that the defendants are liable as publishers for statements made in court (in Sri Lanka) by their lawyer. However, no facts are pleaded to support that contention. As currently pleaded, no reasonable cause of action in defamation is disclosed against any defendant.
18. Upon close consideration ………………………………
19. I am satisfied that the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action against any of the defendants, Further, I do not think there is any point in granting leave to replead, particularly in light of the plaintiff’s concession that the claim relates to words said in Sri Lanka. If the matter complained of is the words said in court by the lawyer in Sri Lanka (on the basis, not presently pleaded, that the defendants are liable as publishers of those words), the place of the tort is Sri Lanka. If it was intended to rely upon the instructions given to the lawyer in Sri Lanka by means of a telephone call initiated in Australia but received in Sri Lanka, that would also be a publication in Sri Lanka in accordance with the principles stated by the High Court in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; 210 CLR 575 especially at [26]. The plaintiff does not appear to seek to vindicate her reputation in New South Wales.
20. The defendants submitted that any publication in Sri Lanka “does not give rise to a cause of action in New South Wales”………………………………………………………………..
21. For those reasons, I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s claim in defamation enjoys no reasonable prospect of success and must be dismissed.] Naan Australian – Chapter 28

The above logic  upholds  the structure that leads to decision that ‘monies raised in Australia when spent in Sri Lanka do not give rise to a cause of action in Australia.
Today is the day Lord Muruga (who is celebrated at the Sydney suburb of Westmead also)  defeated the Demon Soorapadman. To my mind, this is the anniversary of the day our consolidated Energy of completed experiences defeats the ever changing frivolous outer forms of our separate selfish desires – including the desire for intellectual glory depicted by Soorpadman with elephant face. Knowledge without belief is demonic in nature.

No comments:

Post a Comment