Saturday 7 January 2017

Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
07 January 2017

Kangaroo Genes

Many courts in the world have foreign judges. Many developing countries have in the past deliberately brought them in so as to raise their quality. Some of our judges, people from our system, are in other courts, such as in Fiji. There are so many of our judges there, including sitting judges. We have also sent prosecutors and judges to the International Court of Justice.’  Mr. Basil Fernando – through Colombo Telegraph article ‘The Job Of A Judge Is To Do Justice, Regardless Of Nationality’

As per my assessment of Fiji – they are importers of Management intelligence. Many of my Sri Lankan colleagues went over to Fiji to make more money. Many of them migrated to Australia, where we do have ‘kangaroo courts’. Mr. Basil Fernando, the winner of ‘Right Livelihood Award’ declares as follows in this regard:

What we don’t want to have are kangaroo courts. That is what we have to avoid. In order to do that, we need to advertise the required qualities and get people from wherever. This is not about genes. This is not about colour or about what country you come from. A judge, acting in their professional capacity, has no nationality.’

The case that comes to mind is that of an Australian mother – Lindy Chamberlain who was unjustly charged with the murder of her baby daughter Azaria. In that matter Wikipedia report includes the following:

‘One anonymous tip was received from a man, falsely claiming to be Azaria's doctor in Mount Isa, that the name "Azaria" meant "sacrifice in the wilderness" (it actually means "God helped"). Others claimed that Lindy Chamberlain was a witch.’

 I myself was declared a mentally ill person by the Australian Judiciary. Dr. David Garlick one of the few Democratic Academics known to me, said to the Deputy Vice Chancellor of the University of NSW, that their actions against me amounted to  witch hunt. I may be mad / a witch or may not be.  To me it is Catch 22 – in that if I know I am  mentally ill I am no longer mentally ill for my own purposes, as per MY SOVEREIGNTY. Likewise,  if I recognize myself to be a witch, I am no longer a witch to myself and to those who believe in me. Others may describe me as per their own needs and desires. I am not bound by them – unless we are bound by Common Belief, Common Law or specific agreement. If the authorities punish me outside any of these bases – then they act unjustly. Likewise in the case of Sri Lankan war.

Given that the Sri Lankan war was between Tamils and Sinhalese – genes do matter. Genes are part of our makeup as Sovereign persons/nations. If it is in our genes (as known through our horoscopes)  to fight for physical possession in defence of our own land and/or to invade, – current laws using current interpretations by those who are not familiar with the Sri Lankan psyche would have the effect of being unjust to those who acted out of their own intuition based on their belief – given form through their knowledge of history.  The combatants on both sides are likely to have held religious  beliefs and/or their own natural karmic beliefs. For example – the Sri Lankan National flag that carries the Lion would develop the royal ‘attitude’ in those who believe in the flag and what it symbolizes. Likewise the LTTE flag with the Tiger. They are both through possession and are physical outcome based. The rules are interpreted to suit those anticipated physical outcomes. Hence the battlefield itself was ‘Kangaroo battlefield’. 

Given that the effects were produced according to those Kangaroo rules – any inquiry through Common Laws and Beliefs of those who are foreigners to Sri Lanka – would be for the purposes of outsiders and not for inner harmony in Sri Lanka. The exercise therefore becomes largely academic.

The Earth carries the true experience and responds to those to whom that earth is ‘home’. Unless therefore the judges have had the global experience – they would be limited to ‘academic’ inquiry for academic purposes. This would not lead to Total  Justice – either through Sri Lankan laws or through Global laws that Sri Lankans do not practice – due to the missing Common Belief aspect . To deliver justice both sides need to be bound by Common Belief. The Common Laws do not always lead to Common Belief due to lack of practice by one side or the other. In this instance, it is highly likely that neither side to the war had the required level of  knowledge of the common rules of global war.  Hence the ‘way’ it was fought is not within the area of lawful authority. It was very much a jungle war. Judgment by outsiders needs to be limited to discovery through inquiry on the basis of visible outcomes – except in the case of leaders within the Government circle, including those who represent Sri Lanka at the UN and over whom the UN has subjective authority.

Like in Fiji – foreign  judges may strengthen the judicial system but they do not have direct authority over the citizens of another country to ‘judge’ – effectively to reward or to punish. Sri Lankan judges in Fiji are therefore acting in breach of the fundamentals of the Doctrine of Separation of Powers – to uphold Sovereignty. Primarily – within the same country – the Executive is required to be Independent of the Judiciary and v.v. Both use the  same set of laws but the interpretations are likely to vary due to the Experience based belief of Politicians who are part of the Executive Government, being different to that of the Judiciary – as in two religions. Unless therefore there is separation between the two bodies – the Judiciary becomes an extension of the Executive and hence loses its independence.

Cultural Diversity between victims and perpetrators  adds complexity to the problem, unless zero advantage start is practiced and use of subjectivity is limited to commonness of belief. When Foreign judges with little investment in Sri Lankan culture are authorized to judge Sri Lankans – the common area available for subjective judgments is narrow. The judges are therefore limited to the objectively measurable evidence, to find out wrongs and recommend punishments – something that is the responsibility of the UN.

The ‘criteria’ required would therefore need to include demonstrated experience in the practice of Judicial Democracy in multicultural environments. The outcomes / judgments expected, need to be the quality that produced unlawful, undemocratic outcomes and NOT point the finger at particular individuals. The applicants are likely to be Legal Academics and not Judicial Practitioners. 

No comments:

Post a Comment