Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
27 March 2018
Lawyer
v Common Citizen
[Speaking to Ceylon Today,
Chairperson of HRCSL, Dr. Deepika Udagama, said that Sri Lanka is mulling the
possibility of introducing new laws to control ‘hate speech’ (especially
online) and could learn ..from ‘excellent’ freedom of speech and
expression related jurisprudence from the United States (US) and India, where
the limitations imposed on the exercise of freedoms were extremely restrictive,
so much so that in the case of the US, speech that would in Sri Lanka be
considered as ‘hate speech’ would be permissible.] Ceylon Today article -
Freedom of expression vs right to dissent
I met Dr. Deepika Udagama when the lady came to Sydney a
few years back and the Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum, Sydney invited Dr.
Deepika Udagama to speak to the forum. During question time, I raised the
question about the possibility of Sri Lanka considering the parallel of
Australia’s Racial Discrimination Act
1975. As per my memory, the lady responded that they already had in place
legislation needed to address race related discrimination.
To me, the highlight of that meeting was the two former Attorneys General
of Sri Lanka – Mr Shiva Pasupati of Tamil origin and his successor Mr Sunil De
Silva of Sinhalese origin, sitting next to each other. Mr Sunil De Silva was/is
a regular participant. I felt that Mr
Shiva Pasupati came due to commonness with Dr. Deepika Udagama through their
legal profession. In other words, they are legal relatives.
As per the above article ‘Recently,
Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe, speaking at the 44th Convention of the
BASL on 24 March, said that the Government is considering the introduction of a
Freedom of Speech Act and/or alternative options akin to Singapore’s
Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act, the United Kingdom’s Racial and Religious
Hatred Act of 2006, which amended the Public Order Act of 1986, Australia’s the Racial Discrimination
Act of 1975 and the Criminal Code of
Canada, with the view of controlling social media and thereby ‘hate speech,’
for the purpose of preventing racial and religious unrest such as the recent
incidents in Ampara and Kandy, and avoiding situations where data could be used
to influence the outcome of an election.’
To my mind, the
application I made back then to a legal expert has become successful
now through the highest public administrator of Sri Lanka – the Prime Minister.
It was my understanding back then that Dr. Deepika Udagama who was then the Head of Department of Law, University of Peradeniya, was in Sydney at
the invitation of the University of NSW. The contents my book ‘Naan Australian’
which records many of my experiences presented through the Racial Discrimination Act of 1975 – are summarised by the National Library of
Australia as follows:
‘History of a race discrimination
case towards an Australian Tamil citizen of Sri Lankan origin by University of
New South Wales.’
The book found its way to the National Library of Australia without any
intervention on my part, directly or indirectly. I concluded that that passage was empowered by
true Belief. When one believes the other side of the transaction happens
immediately but we may not ‘see’ it until later or never at all. Whenever there
is an appropriate medium – s/he/they manifest the other side of the
transaction.
Back then, Dr. Deepika Udagama did not feel the need on behalf of Sri
Lanka but now Prime Minister the Hon Ranil Wickremesinghe identifies with that need through his own experiences.
As per the above article Dr Udagama ‘lamented
that in the aftermath of the recent incidents in Kandy, national conversation
had solely focused on the banning of social media instead of addressing the
content on social media, regarding what should be permitted and not.’
The ban was for a short
period. The parallel of that over long terms is for citizens to have the right
to complain on the basis of law.
When
I read the recent decision of the Civil Appellate High Court of Northern
Province, Jaffna in relation to my brother in law’s intestate estate I kept
lamenting that the Courts failed to show respect and valuation for the fact that
we were demonstrating high respect for the process of law at all times whereas
the Petitioners who denied us documents of title in their custody and rushed to
the bank to present themselves as the leading heirs – despite demonstrating
very little knowledge of the law – were getting what they asked for. These experiences confirm the huge ‘gap’
between the interpretation of the law by the common law abiding citizen and the
legal professionals who are insiders within the judiciary and include those
driven by benefits from the matter rather than the principles of justice.
The
above observations by Dr Udagama about monitoring the content on social media,
confirm this gap. Even Australia which,
relative to Sri Lanka, has far greater
resources to ‘monitor’ has limited success in this regard.
In
countries driven by faith – one relies on Natural Justice / Karma. With
Buddhism foremost as part of its constitution, the government has the DUTY to uphold
the system of karma where there is no
specific law that states otherwise. Laws such as the Australian Racial Discrimination Act of 1975, empower the citizen
committed to law and order to share her/his experience with others – especially
other victims. I was ‘failed’ by the Judiciary but that book which is also
structured social medium confirmed the true value of such laws. If I had been
truly believed to be socially wrong – someone would have sued me for
defamation. The lawyers were interested
in legal wins and the judges accommodated them. We the People need social
media.
The wider world heard the minorities – not through
International Criminal Courts – but through UN which has stipulated the criterion
that officers and men assigned for
overseas deployment under UN command should be cleared by the HRCSL – Human Rights
Commission, Sri Lanka - says Island article ‘100-man contingent delayed
pending HRCSL clearance SLA deployment in Lebanon under UN command’. Karma
delivered yet again where legal profession failed the law abiding citizen who
has been made an ‘outsider’ by hired lawyers.
No comments:
Post a Comment