Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

http://austms.blogspot.com.au/

13 September  2019

Is Australia by Aid to Sri Lanka -  a  Buddhist Country ?

All Equal Opportunity Laws, to my mind, are based on the power of Belief being above the power of relativity. To the extent a law is applied towards a monetary and/or status outcome – than for belief -  it is a tool of relativity. The current Australian Government is proposing the Religious Discrimination Bill which allegedly confirms Australia’s commitment to Religious Equality. My submission to our Government includes the following:

[It is submitted that  Separation of Powers between groups of various forms of Belief is essential to maintain the balance of Equal Opportunity Principles and therefore the pathway to realising Self-Governance through the system of Democracy. The following are considered important reasons for such separation:

·       Self Governance as a group

·       Sharing such self-governance values through intellectual discrimination – in a common form – for example in scientific form through Research publications.

Communities bound by belief do not need proof to mark their respective members right or wrong as per their internal structures. It is submitted that protecting belief  of an individual and / or group bound by  Common Belief  promotes sovereignty - the value of which is then shared with one’s extended home-environment. ]

The base of a law is Belief. Without common belief – one does not have authority over another. One with deep belief would ‘include’ the one with lesser belief  and hence the authority to reward or to punish. To rule on the basis of the above law – one so ruling needs to believe in Equal Opportunity principles more than the one being rewarded or being punished. In other words – the Secular law common to all, ranks above the religious law outside the boundaries of that religion.

I confirm this as follows:

[Section 41 (1) (a) (Part 4)  of the proposed Act states as follows:

“Statements of belief do not constitute discrimination etc.

             (1)  A statement of belief does not:

                     (a)  constitute discrimination for the purposes of any anti‑discrimination law (within the meaning of the Fair Work Act 2009);”

It is submitted that the above confirms the absolute value of true belief.  Hence the promotion of belief  through various pathways is recognized as an important value of this proposed law.]

In other words, one may express one’s belief but it would not be taken into account. One that cannot be Discriminated – i.e. – made relative, cannot be part of an Anti-Discrimination law. It is sidelined / disenfranchised.

The hasty steps to ‘show’ elimination of  caste system in Northern Sri Lanka strongly contributed to the armed war which used the disenfranchised on both sides to ‘show’ victory. One who seeks to ‘show’ more than one is capable of  - confirms lack of belief.

My yesterday’s article was based also on the article ‘Gotabaya – A breath of fresh air at Viyathmaga anniversary celebration’ by Raj Gonsolkorale. Raj demonstrated respect for  my work by responding as follows with copies to other members of the Sri Lanka Reconciliation forum – thus making it transparent and ‘Face to Face’:

[Dear Gaja

Many thanks for your critique. I apologise if my English writing skills have not conveyed adequately what I was trying to point out in the article. If it gives the impression I am supporting  Gotabaya for the Presidency, I am not. In fact I am not supporting anyone. All I tried to say was that so far, no one has articulated a vision statement as GR has done, and other contenders should portray a vision that is futuristic and embracing the challenges and opportunities that are there now and will be there based on so many technological developments that are before us.  I agree his statement was more economic and technocratic rather than social issue oriented. I suppose it fitted the occasion where he delivered it. I wasn’t considering the person here, but rather what was put before the public. Each of us of course are free to make our conclusions of what I have said and what others have said and will continue to say. That’s what evolves our thinking.

Best regards

Raj]

Often we use high level expressions – including ‘I love you’ to demonstrate the importance of our priorities. When we are true – the one who receives it is the one who originated the phrase and her/his heirs. I accepted Raj’s response  above as his seeking for Sri Lanka to be as economically successful as himself as an individual. That is what we all do through our true love – be it for a person, family, community, nation or humanity. I took Raj’s as love for the community.

My response to Raj was:

[Thank you Raj. Taken as stated. I interpreted as per the current environment

              Love

              Gaja

Raj said ‘best regards’ which is a relative statement. I said ‘Love’ which confirms absolute value. One to whom it was said was Sri Lanka Reconciliation Forum’s core purpose of Ethnic Equality.

The above is an example of the pitfalls in applying anti-discrimination laws in isolation of secular law and v.v. Raj isolated ‘economics’ from other social issues – including racial discrimination (good and bad) – as if we were a common community – measurable through the common commodity of money. In Sri Lanka – even at policy level – we are NOT common – because of ‘Buddhism foremost’ article in the Constitution – which is the big elephant in Kotte Parliament.  That elephant was ‘forgotten’ by the law makers but the Elephant did not forget the law-makers. It showed its powers against Buddhist-glamour through attacks on those to whom the elephant was less than sacred. The other side of a Hindu who does believe – through Lord Ganesh – manifested  in a place where the elephant was treated as being less than ordinary Buddhist – Jayawardenepura – Kotte where the Parliament is housed. I prayed at Nallur for commonness – and the way was indicated by the Kotte elephant.

If a law enforcement officer arrests a person without objectively measurable evidence – independently observed by the Law enforcement officer – it needs to be as per her/his belief in the law. Say for example – I state to Raj – ‘You are a Buddhist’ it would not be unlawful – but a statement of fact – based on Raj’s own declarations that he is a Buddhist – taken by me through our common life.  But if I do so in a Hindu group that has demonstrated ‘foremost’ status –by law and/or by conduct – including by showing Hindu culture – at forefront – then I need to show in action ‘equal status’ by affirmatively giving priority to Raj before myself. Such ‘Face to Face’ positioning  has to precede any other expression of relativity.  My yesterday’s experience led me to add the following in my submission to Australian Government:

[The Challenge

Subsections (2) (1) (a) & (b) of Section 41 provide as follows:

“(2)            Subsection (1) does not apply to a statement:

                     (a)  that is malicious; or

(b) that would, or is likely to, harass, vilify or incite hatred or violence against another person or group of persons;”

To be validly applicable – a Statement of Belief needs to show no relativity at all. When a Police Officer lists me as ‘Sri Lankan’ despite my expression of belief that I was Australian by law – it becomes ‘relative’ due to the officer’s belief that s/he is ‘Australian’ by birth and I was Sri Lankan by birth. The question then arises as to  whether  the Officer is guilty of racial discrimination.  The Australian judicial system dismissed my claim that it was by effect racial discrimination. Religion being part of the basis of one’s culture – this needs to be clearly addressed by the government to prevent such injustice.

If the Police did not list me as Sri Lankan there would have been no Objective evidence to confirm it. But if the purpose of the legislation was to gain status at global level – the value does not permeate to the citizen.

Since Sri Lanka receives Aid from Australia – it is a junior. Hence it is understandable that my seniors would demote me through my place of birth – when we are in a natural / unsupervised environment. 

Had I confirmed any intention of unlawful reason for ‘waiting to see the Vice Chancellor of the University of NSW’  - or acted violently in any way – there would have been just reason for Trespass charges under the Enclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW). But the Police did not have any such reason and blindly used the above law to find fault with me for peaceful assembly.  The other side of belief happens naturally and therefore such actions would invoke their parallels in the group that the person is allocated to/pushed into. In my case, the parallels are  boat arrivals from Sri  for the Federal Government and false allegations of  Terrorism against UNSW student  Mohamed Kamer Nizamdeen also from Sri Lanka. They happened because my belief that I was Australian was overridden by those who did not believe in law as deeply as I did.  ]

This morning I learnt through SBS News ‘New research has found that children exposed to a multitude of different races and faces are better able to tell people of different ethnicities apart as adults.’

This confirms that a racial discrimination law needs to recognize – good discrimination from bad discrimination. Good discrimination comes from appreciating what the other has that which we do not have. This is read through outcomes produced by them without our own intervention. I for example followed the religion of the University of NSW in approaching the Vice Chancellor through Due Process and beyond, without breaching any law known to me. The religion of the University is based on Research and Teaching. Even if I were Sri Lankan – I could not have been found fault with through the religion of the University. Unless I was violent – the University Administrators  did not have the authority of common law to call the Police. The position of the Vice Chancellor was abused to eliminate a believer.

They happened because my belief that I was Australian was overridden by those who did not believe in law as deeply as I did and pushed me into the group that they believed to be appropriate for me. The laws of the University ought to have been exhausted before calling the Police. Since they were not – the Police were guilty of Trespass.

But the Australian judiciary did not uphold this. The Divine power of my belief did – through the dismissal of the Vice Chancellor. My own work in publishing my true experience - is now with Australian National Library and New York Public Library - without any effort on my part. That is the Ultimate Reality of Belief. 

I studied the law and realized that there were no grounds. I successfully dismissed the charges but despite this the same punishment continued. After a certain point – the belief leads me – and the Vice Chancellor from America was effectively dismissed by the University Council.

If  secular law and religious/cultural   law is mixed – there is need for objectively measurable evidence that confirms the loss to one side or the other. Had I waited to see the Vice Chancellor to discuss for example my curry recipe – that would have been unlawful. In fact it was the Vice Chancellor who eventually saw me – who spoke about his eye problem with the Director of Human Resources – before speaking hearing me! In turn he was sent to Singapore to clean up the mess in relation to UNSW Asia!

Raj who is also Australian needed to think about Australia’s Aid to Sri Lanka which by its Constitution is a Buddhist country. A senior is entitled to give a junior until they become One/Common. To be senior and junior – we need to be of the same core belief. Since Australia by law is a secular nation – it needs to cease Aid until Sri Lanka becomes secular or Australia becomes a Buddhist nation. All foreign monies need to be loans until then.