Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

30  September   2016

NATIONAL LIBRARY OF AUSTRALIA - A GLOBAL Home for Naan Australian

A GLOBAL  HOME FOR NAAN AUSTRALIAN

Our coordinator from Thunaivi in Vaddukoddai District (Northern Sri Lanka) asked me whether to use the following in the  title ‘Presented by Thunaivi Mother Kali Drama Association’?  I said given that there was no such group – officially registered – it would be wrong and provided the following title:

Folk Dance-Drama

of

Kaathavarayan who fought and won the hand of Princess Ariyamala in Marriage

Presented on 20 September 2016

With the Blessings of

Thunaivi Sangarathai 

Mother Kali - Lord Vairavar

The revelation by our Coordinator whose home-village is Thunaivi is significant in working out ways to prevent the folks of Thunaivi becoming active part of another war. Both – President Sirisena and Chief Minister Wigneswaran demonstrated the parallel attitude of our coordinator in Thunaivi. They were all showing Separatism. Members of our family -  as the founders and managers of the above mentioned  Temple call it Vairavar Temple of Sangarathai. The local folks call it Kali Temple. They are from Tunaivi as well as Sangarathai. The former are of Toddy Tapper ancestry and the latter are of Farmer ancestry. The Commonness is in their attitude of Separation from each other.  My origin is also Farmer caste but due to my current mind-structure through common Institution that the temple is – I am able to use that diversity for the purposes of Affirmative action. This prevents reverse discrimination against the Farmer caste in areas where by physical proximity/possession – the Thunaivi folks try to ‘tell me’ rather than ‘ask me’, once they think there is no more immediate benefits to come from me.

In the Daily Mirror Article ‘FAILURE OF THE NPC WOULD SPELL MEDIUM AND LONG-TERM DISASTER’, author Vishwamithra states:

[At the helm of the North and the Centre are two enlightened gentlemen. Two serious politicians, one, Chief Minister Wigneswaran, who sees everything in relation to his defeated people, their crushed dreams and ruined aspirations and hopes, and the other, President Sirisena, whose leg is being pulled by the fringes of the Sinhalese community bent on never conceding what is rightfully due to the Tamils of the land. What policies and programmes could be implemented to uplift the lives of the Tamil generation that is still living in the North and the East?]

To my mind the question that needs to be asked would go as follows:

‘What policies and programs need to be formulated  to uplift the minds of these two leaders who have become the media for declarations of ethnic powers?’

Senior Leaders often become the media of Truth which may be politically wrong and Administratively negative. The Hon John Howard thus became the Natural Medium through which my Truth showed Its ‘other side’. The current Australian Prime Minister on the other hand has become the medium for the Right side of Equal Opportunity policies and values. As quoted by Dr. Laksiri Fernando recently, our Prime Minister stated at the UN :

[Australians are not defined by religion or race, we are defined by political values; a common commitment to democracy, freedom and the rule of law, underpinned and secured by mutual respect.]

I read it for the first time, through Dr. Laksiri Fernando’s article ‘President’s UN Speech: Some Reflections On The Narrative & Emphasis On Buddhism’

But I identified with our current Prime Minister through his direct emails to me from time to time. As per that experience – the above are true of Mr. Malcolm Turnbull as a person. Hence he would become the medium for manifestation of Truth confirming Australian Democracy. After responding to Dr. Laksiri Fernando’s article,  I was looking through the internet and was pleasantly surprised to note the following at National Library of Australia:

The source is American. The destination is Australia through India. That to me is the pathway of Truth. I played no visible or intellectual part in this manifestation. But it happened and I feel deep appreciation towards all those who made their own contributions to this manifestation of true democracy. Given that it happened during Mr. Malcolm Turnbull’s time makes me feel that my contribution to improving Australian leadership has been recognized.

We Australians did not get here during one regime. Each group made its contribution. So long as we are facilitated to express our Truth that helps others find their Truth, that place and time of manifestation get purified. This must take precedence over getting the right tick – including at the UN. Truth that promote quick benefits – need to be kept confidential – so the pathway is clean of ‘blocks’ that spoil the higher experience. Sri Lanka being Buddhist country is such a True thought of the Sri Lankan President,  that ought to have been kept confidential at UN level. The UN did not take action to discipline the Sri Lankan President. Hence Truth took-over the responsibility to protect the true investment by all of us in Sri Lankan Democracy. Mr. Wigneswaran gave form to it at victims’ level. Unlike the President of Sri Lanka, the Tamil Chief Minister was well within his local borders. Belief shared with fellow believers – finds its way to spread Itself and empower all believers from their respective souls. 

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

29  September   2016

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

Sri Lankan President’s UN Speech

I was writing about how I interpreted the call by Tamil Chief Minister – the Hon C.V.Wigneswaran – on the basis of my own experience in relation to Prescriptive Title claims, when the email from our Lawyer Mr. Visvalingam Manivannan arrived, confirming that our Application for Leave to Appeal was approved. The hearing of the Appeal as per that email has been fixed for  23 November 2016. Through the above article I was saying ‘Thank You’ – yet again to Swami Sathya Sai Baba. The arrival of the information that the next hearing has been fixed to be heard on the birth Anniversary of Swami Sathya Sai Baba, at that particular time – was interpreted by me as blessing from Above for both matters before the Sri Lankan Judiciary. Soon I realized that this would mean that I would not be able to attend the special function organized by my husband’s nephew in Brisbane around that time. My husband said he would not attend either. I had to accept that because my husband set aside his feelings against attendance, to oblige me when I asked him to go with me. My husband did not want to after this particular nephew failed to include my husband in the wedding of my husband’s other nephew. They are both nephews through my husband’s elder brothers. I realized yet again that the system of Truth works independent of us to support the Truth we carry. I said to my husband that it felt as if his brother Yoganathan whose Estate the above case was about – was giving his ruling that we should not attend the function of someone who had failed in his duty to pay his respects as per Common Family Values. My husband’s duty was first to his brother. Hence it was also my duty. The nephews – both of Vaddukoddai origin, did not take their places in the Thesawalamai (Jaffna Customary Law) hierarchy despite us trying to educate them about their duties. I thought more and more about how the true law of the land protects and supports everyone who is true to the land. One who believes does not need logic.

This morning I read the article ‘President’s UN Speech: Some Reflections On The Narrative & Emphasis On Buddhism’ by Dr. Laksiri Fernando who is a fellow member of the Sri Lanka Reconciliation forum Sydney. My emails are sent to this Forum also. Hence I took it as including a response to my stand on the above subject matter. Again – as in the above matter, it may not be conscious. But where both are genuine – the connections happen. Sri Lanka is not one person’s alone. To the extent Sri Lanka is home to me – I would recognize Sri Lanka’s support in one form or the other when I have a need. When Sri Lanka is my home – my need is Sri Lanka’s and v.v.

Dr. Laksiri presents his argument as follows:

[Self-Centred Nature

To put it bluntly, the narrative of the speech appears quite self-centred, or rather authoritarian, using the first person singular expression of ‘I’ 21 times in a text of around 950 words, as published by the President’s media unit (now available in the UN website). A statement such as the following on ‘poverty alleviation’ is quite odd from a democratic country and a democratic president.

“I am determined to alleviate poverty in my country. I declared 2017 as the Year of ‘Alleviation of Poverty’ in Sri Lanka. I have given lead to creating the basic platform for the people to free themselves [from] poverty in a county that prioritizes economic progress.”]

The current President is more likely to have said ‘we’ at the UN had he been part of the group that defeated the Tamil Tigers – the reason why Sri Lanka gets prominence at UN level.

Dr. Laksiri Fernando explains his interpretation of the Sri Lankan President’s speech in relation to Buddhism as follows:

[Reference to Buddhism

Most controversial might be the President’s reference to ‘Sri Lanka as a Buddhist country’ at the UN speech. When the transcript was first issued by the President’s media unit (reproduced in the Colombo Telegraph), the wording appeared more controversial than what appeared later or now. Therefore, there was understandable disappointment or criticism. One reason was that the reference to Buddhism was given out of context, in two paragraphs, referring first to ‘war and terrorism’ in the country. It was not the reference to war or terrorism that was wrong, but the reference to Buddhism in that context, devaluing its universal value philosophically at a fora like the UN.

Then in the second paragraph, it was bluntly transcribed that “Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country, where Theravada Buddhism is practiced.” This appeared like a sectarian proclamation instead of emphasizing Buddhism’s philosophical or scientific value. This is still the case in the English version posted in the UN website. However, the original speech in Sinhala now posted in the same website gives a more balanced view which probably was the intention of the President. Now the statement is in one paragraph in the original Sinhala version. What is the fuss, one may ask? Let me give the official English posting first and then my translation from the original Sinhala next.

“In many parts of the world, we see the unfortunate proliferation of anger, hatred, and brutality. I would call that the contemporary society is experiencing a crisis of morality. I believe that all states should pay heed to the cry for moral values. I believe that every society must dedicate itself to raise its share of positive moral values.

Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country, where Theravada Buddhism is practiced. The teachings of the Buddha help us find solutions to many of the burning issues of the contemporary world. Similarly, I am sure the wisdom offered by the great world religions such as Christianity, Hinduism, Islam and others can help us today. As such, I am of the view that we, as states, can strengthen and foster those religions and philosophies that help us look inward.”

More accurate translation of the original might be the following.

‘Honourable President, in many countries in the world today, in the prevailing international contexts, we see wars, war like situations, and sometimes more barbaric conditions along with disunity, hatred and societies gripped with hatred. Here, the absence of a moral fibre necessary for our human society is a major problem. In today’s conflict ridden societies, the need to build a citizenry based on morality is important, and I believe all countries should give priority to this need. Sri Lanka as a Buddhist country, I believe that the wisdom revealed by the Theravada Buddhist philosophy would be extremely important for resolving many problems in the world today. Similarly, I believe it is necessary for all countries to strengthen and expand religious and spiritual philosophies based on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions, in resolving civilizational problems that we are faced with.’

Here it is clear that it is not a proclamation that the President made Sri Lanka as a Buddhist country where Theravada Buddhism is practiced. He took the example “Sri Lanka as a Buddhist country” (Sri Lankawa baudhha ratak vidihata) and emphasized Buddhism’s importance. There is a difference between the two. His emphasis was on the role of religion and spiritual philosophies in ‘resolving civilizational problems that we are faced with.’]

I am one who interpreted the President’s statement as an ‘outsider’. My interpretation is as per my Truth. This I believe would also connect me to the Truth of the Sri Lankan President as a Sri Lankan. To my mind, the President’s claim of Sri Lanka being a Buddhist Country IS connected to the Tamil Tigers and it was NOT out of context.

Dr. Laksiri Fernando is confirming this as follows:

[It was not the reference to war or terrorism that was wrong, but the reference to Buddhism in that context, devaluing its universal value philosophically at a fora like the UN.]

Had Buddhism been used as a causal force consciously or otherwise – it is the DUTY of the system of Truth to show this connection between Buddhism and the Sri Lankan war at a time when at least one person needs the confirmation to be shown. The Sri Lankan President even though he was politically incorrect,  spoke the Truth. Likewise, his parallel within the Tamil Community – the Hon C.V.Wigneswaran – when he made the call for Tamils to awaken themselves.  They were both being Natural in their religious environments in their respective minds and hence were confirming that their religions came before the whole. Even though they seemed to be speaking to wider world – they were both speaking to their local voters who have become their wider world. Officially speaking Mr. Wigneswaran was within his local boundaries but not so President Sirisena.

We the People to whom Sri Lanka is truly home – have the power to invoke the Truth of leaders through our own Truth. I believe I have thus invoked the Truth of many Australian leaders which resulted in them losing their titles. That is how karma works. If I reject the demotion enforced on me – and I am a true owner – I reverse the karma to sender. Obviously there was not enough UN investment by Sri Lankan Buddhists to prevent the President from revealing his Truth which is anti-democratic. At least one Tamil investing at UN level as if s/he was part of the UN was needed to invoke this Truth residing in the Sri Lankan President as an opposition, within the UN.

Dr. Laksiri Fernando quotes the President as having stated:

‘Sri Lanka as a Buddhist country, I believe that the wisdom revealed by the Theravada Buddhist philosophy would be extremely important for resolving many problems in the world today. Similarly, I believe it is necessary for all countries to strengthen and expand religious and spiritual philosophies based on Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and other religions, in resolving civilizational problems that we are faced with.’

The call for religious following comes with the assurance of religious freedom/Independence. In Hinduism – the leading example of Political leadership is in Mahabharatham. As per that Legend, one must use the path of war with an opposition/enemy that refuses to come to the negotiating table. It does not preach Reconciliation. Neither is it possible to reconcile and be independent at the same time.

Law Proposes & Truth Disposes

They say  ‘Man Proposes and God Disposes’.  Where a law has Truth as its base it would lead its practitioners to Truth. Where laws are made towards quick and easy outcomes/benefits to elevate the status of lawmakers they die on the one hand or live to confirm the negative karma of their supporters, on the other.  The contribution of one who uses the law genuinely reaches the system of Truth and empowers the person from within. Thus that Truth becomes the guru of the person. Such a person is independent to that extent.

The Sri Lankan ethnic issue has contributed to the Lankan Tamil becoming more global than the Indian Tamil.  The latest medium through which the Truth discovered by Tamils is manifesting Itself is the Hon Wigneswaran who is being criticized by many leaders – including from within the Tamil Community. They did not criticize when Mr. Wigneswaran acted in breach of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers  between the Judiciary and the Executive – in becoming  Politician and continued to carry his old portfolio – as Justice Wigneswaran. I did and  from then on I looked for connections with the pathway of Truth because I felt that Mr. Wigneswaran needed it for his own inner confidence in an environment that was filled with the status of ‘defeat’.  That was his reality and consciously or otherwise – he has become the passage through which Truth has manifested Itself.

The author of the Ceylon Today  article ‘Wiggy’s homeland dream to remain a dream!’ reveals the author’s own assessment as follows:

[It was only as recent as last Monday (September 19, 2016) that this columnist proved Wigneswaran's schizophrenic personality, or split personality, in apparently what a Consultant Psychiatrist would dub him as a victim of the Bi-Polar Syndrome!]

If the Sri Lankan Government considers Australia to be its senior in Democracy -  then it has accepted that being Bi-Polar does not prevent one from holding the position of Judge. Magistrate Pat O’Shane who confessed to being Bi-Polar sent me for a mental health check through which I was certified as being mentally ill and the only reason I could find in the documents was that I was a follower of Gandhi and devotee of Sathya Sai Baba. No Australian law could have helped me work out why the Magistrate found me to be mentally ill. But Truth helped me work out the reason why – AFTER I completed my duty through the Judicial path and complained against Magistrate Pat O’Shane through Racial Discrimination Act 1975. The main reason for Australia to have this law is the protection of Aborigines. Magistrate Pat O’Shane is part of the group that was victimized by White Australian rules that majority Aborigines did not relate to. When a member of the victims’ group is disrespectful of a law that came into being for their own protection and support – the damage is far greater for the victims’ group than when the perpetrators disregard and/or disrespect that law. But such persons often become the media for the manifestation of karma. Magistrate Pat O’Shane – punished me without a legal basis and the Police did not protest against such ruling. If not for my family, I would have been in prison for Peaceful Assembly at the University of NSW, for at least a year. It is because of Magistrate Pat O’Shane’s irresponsible assessment  that I had to give an undertaking that I would not step into the University. I have not ever since I gave that undertaking. Neither the Police nor the University has acted to correct the wrongful assessment by a magistrate. But the system of Truth has been acting to demote the Judge – about whom the Wikipedia states as follows:

[A study in 2012 by Michael Eburn and Ruth Townsend of the Australian National University College of Law examined 56 Supreme Court appeals of cases heard before O'Shane between 1999 and 2012. Of the 56 appeals, 35 (62.5%) were upheld. Of the 16 criminal cases included, 14 appeals were upheld. Eburn and Townsend wrote: "The Supreme Court has found that O'Shane had got the law wrong in 14 out of the 16 criminal cases ... In one case she dismissed a charge even though the accused had entered a plea of guilty."  Supreme Court judges criticised O'Shane for "denying the prosecution procedural fairness," and "failure to comprehend the basis of the prosecution case or the evidence before her, use of intemperate language and making numerous errors of law." Eburn and Townsend compared the records of two other magistrates with similar experience and found only eight and nine appeals against them respectively.  They called for O'Shane's resignation.]

As per official records,  Magistrate Pat O’Shane resigned in 2013. But I, through my Truth, dismissed Magistrate Pat O’Shane – in 2005. The gap between the two times is the level of corruption within the Judicial system. In Democracy bottom-up Truth has to be facilitated to override top-down law. To the extent the Australian Judiciary failed – they confirmed their own weaknesses. Likewise, the above reporter who wrote as follows, demonstrating his own mental disorders through Mr. Wigneswaran’s personality:

[Now, within a week, he has come out with another bombshell! He is under the impression (read hallucination!) that he has hit the jackpot on his homeland theory.
Now, hot on the heels of President Maithripala Sirsena telling both the 65th SLFP Convention and the 70th UNP Convention...."Awake all you Sri Lankans," by which he implied those who belong to all ethnic groups, the Sinhalese, the Tamils and the Muslims, now comes the letter from Chief Minister Wigneswaran dated 21 September of the notification of the parallel to President Sirisena's clarion call to the nation. Wiggy has now called for a Eluga Thamil" which means Awake Tamils!]

I reported about the President of Sri Lanka as follows around the same time the above author wrote his assessment about the Tamil Chief Minister :

“This morning I read the Sri Lankan President’s speech at the UN General Assembly delivered yesterday. It is reported to have included the following passage:

[Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country, where Theravada Buddhism is practiced. There are solutions in Buddhist teachings to most of the problems faced by the people in this world. Similarly, those who follow other religions like Hinduism, Islam and Christianity too can find answers to these problems by these great religious philosophies…….Effectively the President of Sri Lanka has declared that there is not one Sri Lanka but four countries – One Buddhist Lanka, One Hindu Lanka, One Muslim Lanka and One Christian Lanka.  That is how UN values of Equal Opportunity can be maintained. Those driven by the physical need that physical separation. Thank you Mr. President for sharing your True basis. No more claim of Unity Government under the current leadership – says King Sri Vikrama Rajasinha, a Sinhalese who practiced Hinduism with DIGNITY of his Sovereignty]”

When Mr. Wigneswaran called on Tamils to awaken themselves – I wrote as follows:

[The timing of Chief Minister Wigneswaran’s call – confirms Hindu power over Sri Lankans. The Hon Douglas Devananda who is well known in Jaffna for his services as Minister for Hindu Affairs – is a Natural leader of such a group. They may use the politically correct title of Tamil uprising. Language is merely the outer form of  common beliefs that a group has. The deepest belief even without the numbers has the natural leadership position. If this is Buddhism in Colombo – it is Hinduism in Jaffna. Even Lord Muruga of Kathirgamam has to respond to that true call. The group has this Hindu’s complete support for a peaceful manifestation of their rights – using the Political language of Land but not protest against Buddha in Jaffna.]

Those who rely on the officials in a disorderly system often develop mental disorders. The author of Ceylon Today article has demonstrated such disorder – by finding fault with Mr. Wigneswaran for responding in action – to the message delivered by the President of Sri Lanka at the UN Assembly, while praising the President who hailed within Sri Lanka ‘...."Awake all you Sri Lankans". Such a call – if genuine has to be belief based. A President who confirms at UN that Sri Lanka is a Buddhist country – means ‘Buddhists’ when he says ‘Sri Lankans’. Mr. Wigneswaran responded as the true Opposition of such a President. Mr. Wigneswaran may not be Democratic but he demonstrated order of Truth when he responded to the Buddhist President. Neither Mr. Sampanthan nor Mr. Sumanthiran opposed the President’s UN message and this opened the pathway to establish the claim of Prescriptive rights over  Hindu areas – in accord with Section 3 of Prescription Ordinance 1871 which includes the following provision:

[Proof of the undisturbed and uninterrupted possession by a defendant in any action or by those under whom he claims, of lands or immovable property, by a title adverse to or independent of that of the claimant or plaintiff in such action (that is to say, a possession unaccompanied by payment  of rent or produce, or performance of service or duty, or by any other act by the possessor from which an acknowledgment of a right existing in another person would fairly and naturally be inferred) for ten years previous to the bringing of such action, shall entitle the defendant to a decree in his favour with costs’]

Had the TNA as leading Opposition in Parliament made the call – that would have qualified as being ‘a title adverse to’.  Given that the Chief Minister of Northern Province did – it is a title Independent of – making the Chief Minister the Equal Parallel of the President of Buddhist Sri Lanka. The law says Sri Lanka is for all who qualify as per the law. Mr. Sirisena claimed ‘Buddhist Sri Lanka’ was for Buddhists by Independent Possession of Buddhist areas. Mr. Wigneswaran matched it by claiming its parallel for Tamils – majority of whom are Hindus.

More arguments in this regard as presented in my Land matter is in Appendix.

But to me the Judgment was from within – as per the evidence produced by the person (1^st Defendant) who claimed prescriptive title:

(i)                 The 1^st Defendant Claimed  he occupied the said property from 1962 to 1992

(ii)               The 1^st Defendant claimed he did not witness any legal titleholders or their representatives physically entering the property during this period

(iii)             The 1^st Defendant Claimed that he achieved this despite efforts by two others – one of whom was a Police Officer, to oust him in 1987-88

(iv)             The 1^st Defendant instituted legal action against those who tried to oust him in 1987-1988 – their names being Mr. S.Periyasamy and Mr. Fabian Mitchell, the latter being the OIC – Narahenpita Police at that time.

(v)               The 1^st Defendant  publicly declared ownership by Prescriptive Title on 04 May 1988 and filed action against the above mentioned persons at Colombo District Court through matter 5812/ZL. The map included in this Deed of Declaration  was the Partition Plan 2332 – – included in D.C.Colombo Case No. 12462/P  of  1971 drawn up by Mr. S.R. Yapa Licensed Surveyor & Leveller (– P1(a) at folio 337 of the Appeal Brief)

(vi)             As per the Court  documents in the above matter 5812/ZL – . (folios 294-297 of the Appeal Brief ),  one Mr. S. Periyasamy was residing at 163/7, Nawala Road, Narehenpita, which specific property the Plaintiffs claim is theirs and the one mentioned in the Deed of Declaration dated 04 May 1988. (folios 290-293 of the Appeal Brief ). As per these records, the 1^stDefendant, was living at 28 Nawala Rd Colombo 5 – at that time.

(vii)            Folio 298 of the Appeal Brief confirms  that Mr. Piyadasa was living at 28 Nawala Rd Colombo 5 at the time of registering the Title with the Municipality and that this registration was done by his lawyer.

The Place where Truth Manifested Itself

The above discovery that the 1^st Defendant was living at a different address while he claimed prescriptive title by physical possession of our property – was made not by the lawyers nor was it picked up by the translator who did most of the translation of the transcript. I had done the work to represent myself and I sat in my Coogee home – in the area of my regular meditation – in front of my Spiritual Guru Swami Sai Baba. Then I asked my husband who can read Sinhalese but does not understand Sinhalese, to read the details of the document that was in Sinhalese. He did and I learnt that the 1^st Defendant defeated himself by stating the true address – which was different to the address of the Property to which he claimed Prescriptive Title. The Sinhalese judge did not pick up. To my mind, I picked up due to my deep search and Truth showed Itself.

Every Sinhalese/Buddhist  who is unjustly awarded title to Tamil/Hindu – contributes to Separation of the Country. The Tamil claim is mere confirmation of this consolidated picture.

Appendix

FERNANDO v , WIJESOORIYA (1947) 48 N.L.R. 320
The Learned Judges in that Appeal stated as follows:

“There must be a corporeal occupation of land attended with a manifest intention to hold and continue it and when the intent plainly is to hold the land against the claim of all other persons, the possession is hostile or adverse to the rights of the true owner. It is the intention to claim the title which makes the possession of the holder of the land adverse ; if it be clear that there is no such intention there can be no pretence of an adverse possession. It is necessary to inquire in what manner the person who had been in possession during the time held it, if he held in a character incompatible with the idea that the title remained in the claimant to the property it would follow that the possession in such character was adverse.”

1.      The particular legislation through which the matter was heard is Prescription Ordinance 1871.

2.      Experience v Theory

(i)                 The Base used for these Arguments is that the judgment is in breach of  the fundamental values underpinning Sections 3 & 13 of Prescription Ordinance 1871. It is submitted that the essence of the Law governing Prescriptive Rights is that Experience based Title is of higher value than Legal Title sans Experience. It is submitted that in a Court of Law,  legal Title ranks higher than Title by possession – except when the possessor satisfies the requirements of  Absolute Ownership Value with no recognition whatsoever of another’s title in any form through any pathway.  This kind of Absolute value is demonstrated by full physical possession and complete independence OR adversity/opposition of Equal value to any other form of Title. The Appellants argue that the  judgment appealed against FAILS to demonstrate that:

(a)   the Court had this expectation of the Defendants

(b)   the Defendants satisfied this requirement of complete OR Equally Opposite Experience through physical possession

(ii)                           The validity of this exception is highlighted as follows by Hon Justice Saleem Marsoof, P.C., J.  through  Storer Duraisamy Yogendra  &  Balasubramaniam Thavabalan  Vs. Velupillai Tharmaratnam:

[The decision of five judges of this Court in the Rajendran Chettiar case is not only binding on this Bench as it is presently constituted, but also reflects the practice of Court both in England as well as in Sri Lanka. As Lord Denning, M. R. observed in Salter Rex and Co. v. Ghosh [1971] 2 All ER 865 at page 866 – “Lord Alverstone CJ was right in logic but Lord Esher MR was right in experience. Lord Esher MR’s test has always been applied in practice.”]

(iii)                         It is argued and submitted that the above principle applies also in the case of Prescriptive Rights – where the Absolute value of Experience based Belief developed through an independent or adverse pathway, is respected and recognized as being of higher value than the legal title which often includes theory which may not be applicable to local environments. It is submitted that Logic is relative whereas Belief is Absolute in value. Where theory is practiced – the two would meet at the destination of ownership.

(iv)                         It is submitted that the Prescription Ordinance requires the claimant of Prescriptive title to have had this Experience through wholesome possession.

(v)                           To be accepted at that level – pure of legal logic – Experience based Belief needs to stand on its own rights and not be relative to the logic of any alternate system – in this instance legal title. It is submitted that to be entitled to ownership through the logic based legal pathway – one does not need Belief. Knowledge that one has satisfied the requirements of the legal pathway alone is enough.

(vi)                         To claim Prescriptive rights on the other hand, one needs Belief which is confirmed by wholesome possession – as in blind faith. One who Experiences has Belief. It is submitted that the  facts before the Court were not constructed by the Defendants to satisfy the above requirements of the law that that Ownership Experience was had by the 1^st Defendant and inherited by the 2^nd Defendant.

(vii)                       It is submitted that the Conflict between the Legal Title and the Prescriptive Title is addressed by the Prescriptive Ordinance by  requiring the claimant of Prescriptive Title to have completed the pathway of possession and have reached the Destination of  Realised  Ownership

(viii)                     It is submitted that one such requirement is to travel independent of the Legal Titleholder. Hence the Requirement of Independence or Adversity. Where the Claimant claims no knowledge whatsoever of the Legal Titleholder/s, the requirement of Independence needs to be satisfied. Where the Claimant does confirm knowledge of Legal Titleholder/s and their activities in relation to ownership of the property – the requirement of Adversity needs to be satisfied. It is submitted that the latter needs confirmation of Separation of Powers and Consciousness of Equal & Opposite status.

3.      Fundamental Values on which the Law is structured – as per the minds of the Plaintiff-Appeallants

(i)                 It is submitted that Time and Place define the boundaries  of such knowledge and therefore the criteria through which Diversity is confirmed.  It is submitted that such Diversity is essential to confirm Adverse Possession. It is submitted that to identify with the element of Adverse Possession either Time or Place needs to be fixed. Given that the legal place is fixed as 163/7 Nawala Road;  Narahenpita; Colombo5, the element through which Adversity needs to be proven is Time.

(ii)               It is submitted that in this instance, the Appellants will argue that the Time chosen by the Defendants - to define  ownership to themselves by themselves, was the same as the Time of physical possession by legal titleholders’ representatives - confirmed and validated   by the Courts. In other words, two owners adverse to each other could not have occupied the same place at the one point in time.

(iii)             It is submitted that by accepting  the deed of declaration as the confirmation of Prescriptive Title, the Court took upon itself the Responsibility to establish that such declaration was pure of any such falsity – the falsity  that both opposite parties were present at the same Place at the same Time. Co-owners could validly occupy at the same time different parts of the property. Independent  owners would have physically possessed / occupied at different times. Adverse owners would mentally dismiss  even observed occupation by Legal Titleholders  and hence the test of Adverse Title.

4.      The Arguments in support of the Plaintiff-Appellants are centred around the following conclusions by the Plaintiff-Appeallants:

FACTS

1)      That the Documentary evidence before the Court – coupled with the  Defendants’ verbal evidence in Court confirm that the 1^st Defendant consciously or otherwise, made false Claim of Ownership and gave false evidence in Court hearing this particular matter

2)      The facts that were manifested through the work of legal owners were used by the Defendants and/or their legal representatives whereas the facts required by law ought to have been produced independent of the legal titleholders or through a method adverse to that used by the legal titleholders

LAW

3)      The Rule of Balance of Probabilities was inappropriately applied in forming the Decision

4)      By using this Rule – the test of Adverse Possession was automatically set aside by the honourable Judge

5)      The test of True Belief on the part of  the claimant of Prescriptive Title was not applied but instead, the test of relative possession by majority rule was applied.

6)      Facts manifested by the legal titleholders were admitted in support of the prescriptive titleholders

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

26  September   2016

Buddhism in Sri Lanka and Sharia Law in Australia

I was waiting for my bags at Sydney Airport’s carousel 15. A lady customs officer inspected my card and moved on to the next one. There was a series of questions about something that that passenger had brought. The lady officer moved on after delivering some harsh words to the guy. A few minutes later, I heard a male voice behind me – asking someone whether they had ‘spices’. I heard a young voice say ‘I am from England!’  I wanted to ask the lady whether they did not use spices in England? But when I looked at her – I changed my mind – thinking that she needed to ‘get even’ with the guy. As per her physical looks – she looked Indian – like our kids.  But her clothing was not Indian. Her message was that she was being questioned in that specific manner because she looked Indian. To my mind, she was saying that ‘now that you know I am from England – treat me as per my nationality and not as per my looks. The NSW Police needed much more than that to change their records to read that I was Australian. Until my actions – they kept writing that I was Indian and later when they knew I was born in Sri Lanka they listed me as Sri Lankan.

Then this evening as if there was a strong influence of the Sharia Law discussion  – currently underway in Australia – a female rang our intercom. When I answered she said words to the effect ‘Remove your car from the visitor’s parking area to the street.’ I asked her who she was? She said she was Carla from the Body Corporate. I did not recognize the name. In any case I said she needed to come up and speak to us – and do so with proper authority of the Body Corporate – which needed to quote the LAW under which she was acting. In order to explain our ‘facts’ I said that our son from Melbourne was visiting us and we were therefore using the visitor’s parking lot. The female said – remove your car or I will have it towed away! Then I said firmly – that she was speaking without authority – and if she had our car  our car towed away – we would take legal action against her and against whoever she was representing.

To my mind, we had not acted in breach of any rules. Had we parked in someone else’s slot – that would have been in breach of the law. We are particular not to use even the loading bay  beyond the allocated time. In any case – having lived here for so long as owners – I would have expected that female to be more respectful of us. The last time I checked – our car had not been towed away! But I would not put it past them and as per my experiences – it is merely because we look Indian. We have so far not acted against the law and if anything I have protested when some others did. I did so when the older owners were upset that they were being ‘told’ by younger owners/employees who got into management positions through majority vote. The ones overtly helped by me were White Australians.

 They say that mentally ill persons get active during full-moon. Those who are looking for someone to jump on – likewise get activated when there is active discussion on a subject and they do not have an avenue through which to express themselves. So they turn to the closest look-alike of their opposition/enemy. They may not know it – but they are likely to be influenced if they themselves are not practitioners of law in their own home-areas. They end up invading our privacy. There are many such invaders here in Australia. In fact – our fear of Terrorism is due to such ‘invasions’ on daily basis – including by juniors in practice of law ‘telling’ those to whom a place is ‘Home’. To me – there is no ‘senior’ to me at this place which has been my ‘home’ ever since it was built. I believe that the cumulative karma at my workplaces resulted in me owning this unit. That karma to own this particular place was accumulated largely in Sri Lanka – while I was working for Prima – a Singaporean company which had legal ownership of this property here in Coogee. When the new units were auctioned I noticed the Chairman – and went over to pay my respects to him. Now I realize that I was paying respects to my own heritage carried by Prima also. Every place where we get benefits relatively lower than that of the CEO and those who have control through management positions, becomes our ‘home’ to the extent we do not ‘take’ benefits by force or by cheating those to whom there is no other home. As a female of minority race working as a professional – I did accumulate such ‘Home Karma’ – including at Prima – and in this instance relative to Chinese workers closer in mind structure – to the Singapore legal owners.  Hence that karma manifested itself to support me – especially when I paid my respects to my past through the Chairman common to both Prima and Coogee View. These are deeper influences that motivate ‘ownership’ and hence need to be facilitated by those seeking Peace based Harmony rather than mere law based harmony which often is regulated through the surface mind of majority present.

In  1998 – when Ms Pauline Hanson asked migrants who could not assimilate to ‘go home’ – I got upset and I myself was looking for an outlet to show my dissatisfaction with Australian employers – back then it was University of NSW in particular. Unlike many others known to me – I did not relate directly between my Sri Lankan positions and Australian positions. This is because I completed my experiences  in Sri Lanka and satisfied the requirements of those organizations. I did not act in breach of the laws of those organizations. Hence the ‘structure’ that carries my heritage is still strong and I am able to continue with it. During my latest visit to Sri Lanka – when I went to meet my heir in the last position I held at Air Lanka/Sri Lankan Airlines, many juniors who did not work with me during my time at that place – expressed respect and admiration – stating to their supervisor and my heir that I looked much younger than the age I ought to be as per their calculations! Then my heir had stated that that was because my mind was pure. I felt good. I was made to feel good by my own heritage/karma.

 Now I realize that my experience at the University of NSW  happened so I would get educated by the system of Truth and its wonderful pathway – so I would share my Truth to help others release themselves from their attachment to high or popular status which even though they may seem lawful as per the  laws – applied actively at that place at that time - may not be as per the Law of Truth for that person relative to the core purpose of that place – as developed since its origin. This to my mind, in the case of a University, is Research until one finds the Truth and shares that Truth with the whole world in the discoverer’s mind. In the case of my home suburb of Coogee – it is ‘Home-ownership’ shared with all to whom Coogee has been home. This starts with the Aborigines and those who believe in Aboriginal ownership of Coogee – are as powerful as the holder of highest position in Coogee at the current time of action.

I believe that I learnt about the workings of true land ownership through the system of Natural Laws by taking on my Colombo Land matter – the outcome of which is determined through Prescription Ordinance. As per Prescription Ordinance 1871 of Sri Lanka, one who physically occupies land for over 10 years previous to making a legal claim -  is entitled to a decree in her/his favor. In exceptional cases the period needed is 30 years. To my mind, it is about belief above mere external knowledge presented as follows in the Colombo Court – on 20 September 2016:

[The Judgment: The honourable judge states as follows on pages 18 & 19 of the judgment:

‘When the evidence for the plaintiff in this case is taken into consideration it appears that the plaintiff  has paper title to the property in suit.

The 1^st and 2^nd defendants do not contest the plaintiff’s rights to this land by a deed. But the defendants plead that the first defendant has undisturbed and uninterrupted possession adverse to all others for well over 10 years and thereby acquired prescriptive title. It is on the defendants to prove that on a balance of probability that 1^st and 2^nd defendants have been in undisturbed and uninterrupted possession adverse to all others of this land to acquire prescriptive title. When the evidence of the plaintiff is weighed it appears that the 1^st plaintiff or the 2^nd plaintiff has not possessed the land in suit’

The Base used for these Arguments is that the judgment is in breach of  the fundamental values underpinning Sections 3 & 13 of Prescription Ordinance 1871. It is submitted that the essence of the Law governing Prescriptive Rights is that Experience based Title is of higher value than Legal Title sans Experience. It is submitted that in a Court of Law,  legal Title ranks higher than Title by possession – except when the possessor satisfies the requirements of  Absolute Ownership Value with no recognition whatsoever of another’s title in any form through any pathway.  This kind of Absolute value is demonstrated by full physical possession and complete independence OR adversity/opposition of Equal value to any other form of Title. ]

Aborigines of Coogee were ousted from Coogee by White Australian occupiers :

[The Coogee Pier (1928-1934)

In 1924 construction started to build an 'English seaside style' amusement pier at Coogee Beach, on 24 July 1928, the pier was officially opened, reaching 180 metres out into the sea complete with a 1400-seat theatre, a 600 capacity ballroom, a 400-seat restaurant upstairs, small shops and a penny (machine) arcade. Unfortunately Coogee's rough surf damaged the pier and it was demolished in 1934. Life guards have recently discovered remains of the pier on the ocean floor about 50 metres out from shore]

To my mind, the overwhelming deaths of Australians of Coogee during Bali Bombing – the stated purpose of which was to preserve the belief based cultural values of Bali – was no coincidence. The Common belief through Hinduism meant that Australians were punishing themselves in Hindu Bali – as I was punished here in Coogee by lesser owners. Those who are true to Truth invoke such powers. Deaths of their bodies – would not stop such manifestations in the path of Truth. It is for these reasons that we need Equal Opportunity Laws in Multicultural nations where those who take up authority over others who carry strong ‘ownership’ forces would protect their homeland – including through deaths of the physical.

This month, just few days before I left Sri Lanka – I responded to the message of the Sri Lankan President   at UN General Assembly – that Sri Lanka was a Buddhist country. As per the system of Truth – this makes the natural coalition of all other minority religions – the opposition of the Sri Lankan Government. That is essential in Democracy – which requires an Equal Opposition to be functionally Democratic. It is therefore the duty of minority religions to take the position of Equal Opposition to the Government wherever the decision maker deviates from the law. A Buddhist officer in Sri Lanka, is taken to have used Buddha Sasana before making a decision. Hence the parallel of the secular laws of Democracy apply – and the officer needs to state which law authorized her/him to so act – especially where there is conflict between the Buddha Sasana and the Secular Law in regards to that particular subject matter.

There is merit and there is belief. As merit  becomes secondary to  belief based assessment – it becomes more and more challenging to use the logical pathway. To continue to use merit while the believer is hurting would invoke the Truth of that place beyond the current period.  Customary laws – including religious laws are strongly based on Common Belief. When they are used in preference to Common laws applicable to all – the ‘opportunity’ for conflict is automatically brought into existence. The reason is the difference in the mind-order of those using their own practices as if they were based on ‘law’. The deeper our belief – the greater the opportunity to merge with the root.

In the case of Sri Lanka for example, majority are Buddhists and therefore would connect to each other as per the Buddhist pathway. Given that they have the power to elect Government through majority by including Buddhism AFTER getting into power through Secular laws – amounts to disloyalty to the Secular laws. Every person who is brought under the authority of the Government through such secular laws is supported by Natural forces particular to that place from the very beginning, to the extent such a person surrenders her/his investment to the system of Truth. When I for example, sat in my Coogee home and cried when I felt cheated by Management of University of NSW strongly under the influence of American returns, I was connecting to the University through Coogee also. When a true owner hurts – it’s a natural curse and when a true owner is happy – it is a natural blessing. Yesterday when I put my foot down with Carla mentioned above whose behavior was uncivilized – I was protecting Coogee from getting cursed through those lesser believers in my Community – the Tamil Community which carries the label that it produced the worst Terrorists of our times – the Tamil Tigers. The fact that I did not take my emotions to them and thereby compensate myself for loss of status as per the practices of White Australians and those  by whom they exercised majority power -  but instead help/ed  them develop their investments in order to Common level – confirms to my mind that I carry the Australian investment in Commonness – beyond Australian shores – to strengthen Australia’s global values. Communities need privacy to cure themselves internally through Belief. But often – those in power start their own alternate governments and claim them to be belief based bottom up self-governance. Towards this they shrink the world to the size manageable by them.

This morning I received a good example of this pattern of  function by narrow minded leaders:

[Hi

Have you thought about your body? The body is just a place/house where the soul resides. Once the soul departs it has no function and is either buried or cremated. So why not donate the organs in your body, to save one or more people.  

Regards 

You are invited to join TWDG for afternoon tea as we engage with the Donate Life Campaign. 

• Showcasing the stories of donor families, living donors and transplant recipients 

• Hear the experts demystify the myths and get an understanding about Organ and Tissue Donation]

I responded as follows to the group:

On that basis should not the death of bodies of war victims in Sri Lanka,  be taken to be of zero value to them and of protective value to wider community in whose name they claimed to fight? Would this have had greater meaning  if they had dedicated their cause to wider community? Is the Group promoting such dedication at least now – so wider community would be saved by the body parts that are no longer useful to those souls? There are a few within the Group who do personally serve those Tamil victims living with less able bodies than they were used to prior to the war. I worked closely with a few of them. I have NOT dedicated my body to them. But I have merged my mind with theirs to cure them of their weaknesses.

Have the  of members of  Group   donated their organs first to those victims of war who are still living with lesser limbs? Has Mrs VD who is preaching to Tamils donated her body parts to Tamil victims of war who are in need of body parts?

Those using Tamil as the nuclear force – need to limit their worlds to Tamil Community when relating in the name of Tamil. Can’t have it both ways – can we?  If the Body is useless to the soul – of the individual – it would be useless to the body of another. Only an heir of the individual who dies – would naturally carry the remains as heritage. Not those who related through body similarities – including Tamil language similarities.

The message confirms that the Group is being led by those lacking in commonness within themselves also. The organs shared are often the inner ones – closer to the mind than the outer ones which vary in shape and form and are therefore not easily combined with other bodies. The less visible organs are the more functionally compatible ones. The body of a person must be honored through funeral ceremonies particular to the community that that person belonged to. The body thus is raised to the level of the mind and hence is burnt/cremated. Burial and cremation are such ceremonies through which the body is raised to the mind level. It is NOT discarded as an orphan.  Only those who believe in the  Common Medical Profession more deeply than their respective cultural ceremonies – would empower those who receive their organs. Others donate for name and popularity.  The mind must be one through Common Belief before we could add real value through such donations. As per the name the entitlement needs to be limited to Tamils to whom NSW is home. Their donations needs to be limited to this community group only. It’s not open to the Public  

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

The other example that surprised me was from a Tamil name listed on the side against Muslims. The involvement of Mr. Daniel Nalliah is reported as follows:

[According to his biography published by the Catch the Fire Ministries, Daniel Nalliah was born in Sri Lanka to minority Sri Lankan Tamil parents who spoke English as their first language. However, he was schooled at the Nugegoda Tamil Mahavidyalaya in Colombo, where all teaching was in done in Tamil. He was introduced to the "ways of God" by an Australian missionary. In his youth, he played at a number of night clubs in Colombo as a drummer before turning to religion. He also worked as an underground missionary in Saudi Arabia before migrating to Australia in 1997.[4]

After moving to Australia and founding Catch the Fire Ministries, Nalliah travelled extensively, preaching to congregations in a number of countries. He asserts that he witnessed the healing of blind, deaf and crippled people at his prayer sessions and also claims that a dead girl was resurrected after he prayed for her.[1]

Vilification of Muslims lawsuit[edit]

On 9 March 2002, Daniel Scot spoke at a seminar regarding Islam, sponsored by Catch the Fire Ministries. The seminar was attended by three Australian Muslims; two of them were asked to attend by May Helou, an executive member of the Islamic Council of Victoria (ICV) and an employee of the Equal Opportunity Commission, Victoria.[citation needed] The third person was asked to attend by ICV members while he was at the ICV office. The three Muslims, along with the Islamic Council of Victoria, later launched action under the Racial and Religious Tolerance Act, claiming that the intent of the speech had been to vilify Muslims rather than to discuss Islam itself. After being considered by the Equal Opportunity Commission, the case was heard by the Victorian and Civil Administrative Tribunal', becoming the first real test case under the act.

In a landmark ruling on 17 December 2004, the tribunal ruled that Nalliah, Scot and Catch the Fire Ministries had breached the law. Judge Higgins heard further submissions regarding "remedies" early in 2005. Nalliah publicly condemned the verdict and declared his intention to continue fighting the case, potentially as far as the High Court of Australia. The Age newspaper quoted him as stating "We may have lost the battle, but the war is not over. The law has to be removed, there is no question."[5]

On 22 June 2005, Judge Michael Higgins of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal delivered his final verdict on the religious vilification issue regarding remedies. He found that financial compensation would be inappropriate, but ordered Nalliah and Scot to take out newspaper advertisements to the value of $68,690 which summarised the findings in the case. Nalliah criticised the ruling, comparing the legislation to "sharia law by stealth".[citation needed] He also said that he would rather go to jail than comply with the ruling. Lawyers for the defendants had previously appealed to the Supreme Court of Victoria, in an originating motion alleging that Higgins showed signs of bias, that there were errors in the decision and that the act itself was unconstitutional. Following the decision, an appeal was lodged with the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court and the originating motion was dropped. The appeal was heard in August 2006.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, an interfaith public interest law firm based in Washington DC, had intervened on Scot's behalf, engaging in discussion with the Attorney General of Australia, providing legal representation with local counsel and providing legal arguments employed for the legal appeal.[citation needed] On 14 December 2006, the Supreme Court of Victoria upheld the appeal and ordered that the matter be redecided without hearing new evidence by a judge (other than Judge Higgins) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal.[6] The Islamic Council of Victoria was ordered to pay half of Scot's and Nalliah's legal costs of the appeal.]

To my mind, Mr. Nalliah became part of the Majority force in Australia. The parallel of this Tamil in Sri Lanka is the LTTE chief – Velupillai Prabhakaran who also converted from Hinduism to Christianity and who was seeking his own alternate of majority rule by shrinking his world. He was groomed by Australians driven by their majority force. At the deeper level – the Common reason is whether one is seeking belief based rule which when given vertical form would be time based and when given lateral form – would be place based majority at a particular time. In Sri Lanka, Tamils who are the second largest race – became leading opposition when Sinhalese disconnected with their ancestors by leaving out Colonial Rulers which places were taken by Tamil leaders who continued to practice the Colonial culture. I find that relative to a Sinhalese I am better able to interpret the Colonial laws due to this ‘undisturbed and uninterrupted possession’ required for bottom-up  belief based ownership. Those elected by majority force are cheating the system of Democracy when they make laws that give them authority on alleged claim of ‘time based belief’.   Mr. Rajapaksa the immediate past President of Sri Lanka indiscriminately mixed the two systems and is now facing the threat of war-crimes inquiry. Buddhism first/foremost is another version of that. They are due to ‘attachment’ to the physical. True belief empowers from within. By joining majority here in Australia – Mr. Nalliah and the above Tamil who recommends the fashionable organ donation through a group claiming to be closely related to the war victims of Sri Lanka – also confirm that they have given into the temptations of majority power through assimilation. The mind that lacks independence would be ‘taken-over’ by those who ‘seem’ to be in power. But the ultimate winner is the one who submits the fruits of her/his work to Truth Itself and thus loses her/his particular identity. Such a person invokes Natural powers and hence needs to be not challenged by those relying on majority endorsement. They are the untouchables – living close to Nature.

They empower the land which is ‘home’ to them not because someone says so but because they feel so. The land where such owners get disturbed gets punished by Truth Itself. Such punishment is healthy for the whole – so the mind racing towards unearned pleasures gets steadied  and is raised to the intellectually driven system with dual carriage. Such a mind knows the other side of pleasure if one did not pay one’s costs – physically at equal level or through respect through relativity.

Many Buddhists are now turning to Ramayanam and it is understandable due to the big war happening on Lankan soil. Buddha’s experiences were realized on Indian soil.

Sharia Law is like Thesawalamai in Northern Sri Lanka. It is applicable only to those who are more Muslims than they are Australians. The highest level at which any religious law could be legitimately expressed is National level. Under time based system – Buddhism in Sri Lanka which is practiced to qualify as being ‘undisturbed and uninterrupted’ would qualify as a leading religion. But in Democracy – the Land connection determines the majority power. Given that Buddha was born in Northern part of the Indian Subcontinent and Sri Lanka is in Southern part – and is closer to Tamil Nadu – the birthplace of Lord Muruga philosophy – Tamil leadership in Sri Lanka through Democracy – would continue to be supported by the system of Truth – provided at least one Tamil includes her/himself as part of Sri Lanka as a whole. Such a person would identify with her/his contribution through Equal status as opposition to majority side. Thesawalamai is based on Truth of locals. Likewise Sharia law within local community in Australia – needs to be endorsed through secular law where such ruling is needed due to Common Australian Beliefs and Values. Without such express endorsement – it remains just a customary value and cannot be extended beyond the local community. The original ruling in Mr. Nalliah’s matter was healthy for Australia. Mr. Nalliah – a practicing Christian did not have the authority to speak about Islam. Doing so was the parallel of  the Executive interfering with the Judiciary – to takeover power. In Sri Lanka that was due to Buddhism and in Australia it is due to Christianity being given first place in the minds of leaders who use democracy for mere living. Bottom up Democracy needs to be Truth based to invoke the power of Universal Truth.