WAR CRIMINAL & FRIVOLOUS LITIGANT

 

As I read the Guardian report headed ‘Federal police blame ‘oversight’ for delay in Australian review of Sri Lankan war crime allegations’  my mind recalled  the verdict by the Hon Justice Lucy McCallum of the NSW Supreme Court of NSW. That was a complaint based on Defamation against my husband’s siblings who for Court purposes in a testamentary matter in Northern Sri Lanka claimed in Court to the effect that  their brother’s marriage to me – a divorcee was not acceptable to them. That was their escalation of their dislike to Court level. Their lawyer in Sri Lanka asked me in a Northern Sri Lankan Court as to why I needed the money? This led me to filing a defamation case against not only the family leaders but also those in the family who directly benefitted from our marriage but failed to support us. In turn they applied for me to be banned as a frivolous litigant and asked for dismissal of my application. I made my submission in writing and it was supported by my Affidavit as to how I felt. In Court – where I am a junior power due to my ‘lay representation’ I waited for the lawyer hired by the opposition to speak. When it was my turn – I stood up and said words to the effect  ‘if I am banned on the basis of the application by this group whom I sponsored to come to Australia, then I would go back to Sri Lanka’

In effect – that said that I would then prefer the Sri Lankan system to the Australian system which kept demoting me. Relatively speaking I did not directly experience racial discrimination in Sri Lankan workplaces. The judge ruled to dismiss their counter claim as well as my complaint on the basis that it was ‘out of Australian Jurisdiction’. This was claimed because the words that I could ‘prove’ happened in Sri Lanka. Even though the perpetrator Mrs Saraswathy Sabanathan  was Australian – the court ruling was that it lacked Jurisdiction.

As per the above report :

[Federal police blamed an “administrative oversight” for huge delays in reviewing war crime allegations against a Sri Lankan man as he travelled to and from Australia, documents show.

In 2019, human rights groups wrote to the Australian federal police warning that Jagath Jayasuriya, a retired Sri Lankan general, “has entered Australia and may still be in the jurisdiction”.]

On the basis of the NSW Supreme Court  ruling – in my matter – the actions happened in Sri Lanka. The parties directly affected by the military were also Sri Lankans. The only avenue available to Australians is through higher common bodies such as the UN and through Subjective Powers exercised at governance level through votes.

In 2009, a relative of my husband said words to the effect ‘Tamils who emigrant as war  refugees, have to thank Prabakaran (LTTE leader).

Yesterday I confirmed this as follows:

[It is also interesting to note that as per this Affidavit – those who stayed at ‘home’ considered those who left after the 1971 Southern rebellion, as Che Guevara group. This is true also of Tamils who stayed at home considering Tamils who emigrated after 1983 from when India got involved due to the 1983 pogrom against Tamils in multicultural areas. They are recognized as LTTE by those who stayed at ‘home’]

 

A good proportion of Tamil war refugees fall within this category of LTTE heirs. The complaints against Sri Lankan military officers needs an Equal Opposition here in Australia. That could be the Australian Military working through its government. The case against Australian Ben Roberts-Smith is a clear example of our commitment to respecting Sovereignty.

Members of the Australian Tamil Diaspora who are committed to the process of law – would use the avenue I used. If the matter is taken up on the basis of LTTE supporters then the Community would be limited to the LTTE’s commitment to Law. The LTTE law is ‘summary execution of those who express dissent – on the claim that they were ‘traitors’. If that is what they got then that happened as per their Karma.

Civilians who suffered have to work at their level to find closure. Any sharing of success in a Court of Law has to reach civilians in their own language. The Northern Sri Lankan Judiciary failed to uphold the customary law particular to Northern Tamils. They would be ‘lost’ in the sea of global judgements.