Gajalakshmi Paramasivam
25 October 2017
Fears of Terrorism
The closure of some accounts by Westpac
Bank has been in the news this week. Sky News reports as follows:
[Westpac Bank has shut down
the bank accounts of a Sydney group after discovering it was raising funds for
terrorism.
The Daily Telegraph reports the accounts were linked to
extremist group Brothers Behind Bars, which claims to raise more than $2500 a
week for Australian terrorists and their families.
Its beneficiaries include Sulayman Khalid and Omar Succarieh,
who were jailed for foreign incursion offences.]
The Sydney Morning Herald report on Mr.
Khalid includes the following:
[Khalid has
passed his family two hand-written notes from custody, one saying "I am
INNOCENT!!!" and another with a hand pointing to God, covered in writings
relating to "tawheed" – the Islamic concept of oneness of
God.
The family have also been selling T-shirts with
the slogan "suspicion is not good enough" for $25 to help
fund his "expenses in prison".
On the Facebook page,
his sister has asked for friends and supporters to write to him and visit
him in prison.
Police will allege Khalid
and four others charged on Thursday were part of a close-knit
cell planning to attack government buildings, specifically the AFP.
Khalid's legal team have
previously argued he didn't author the notes, which his
sister claims were verses from the Koran and
"tawheed papers".
On Thursday, police told a
court that fingerprints were lifted from the documents, connecting a
15-year-old Georges Hall boy, who was 14 at the time, to their creation.
He was denied bail in Parramatta
Children's Court on Friday, with a
magistrate saying there was evidence he was inspired by Islamic State ideology.
The boy's phone
allegedly contained pictures of a beheading, IS propaganda, photos of
himself holding a rifle and a text message saying he wanted to get to
"paradise" through "banana" – believed to be a code
word for guns.]
The parallel of this in terms of Tamils of Sri Lanka goes as follows:
[The maximum sentence for the charges they pleaded guilty to is five
years. Those charges, laid under the Charter of the United Nations Act, makes
it an offence to provide assets to a UN-proscribed entity, which the LTTE is,
and didn't require the prosecution to prove the LTTE was a terrorist
organisation.
All three were originally charged in 2007 with
much more serious terrorism offences carrying sentences of 25 years, including
that they were members of a terrorist organisation, provided support to a
terrorist organisation and made funds available to a terrorist organisation.
Those charges were dropped last year, largely
due the difficulty of proving the LTTE was a terrorist organisation when it
wasn't officially declared as such by the Australian Government.] Herald Sun – 31 March 2010
The original charge of
Terrorism Offence carrying sentences of 25 years was reduced to 5 years by the
Courts. The gap of 20 years is the level of cultural difference between the Executive
Government and the Judiciary in Australia. The level of ‘fear’ in the minds of law
enforcement officers at social levels parallel to the accused is confirmed by
that 20 year gap. A Tamil Police force would have had a much narrower gap due
to Common Belief. The Excess is in the minds of those who are foreigners to the
issue.
Common Belief is the
fundamental authority that entitles one to punish or reward another trough a
structure that represents that Belief.
Sri Lankans are
currently going through the pros and cons of changes to the constitution – especially
in relation to whether Sri Lanka is a Buddhist state. The following is an
excerpt from a ‘free’ communication between two members of the Canadian Tamil Diaspora
– the first one as per my mind being the parallel of Australian Police and the second
one the parallel of Australian Judiciary. The discussion is based on the
article ‘Battling for a new Constitution and dashing the
hopes of Tamils’ published by Tuck Magazine :
[Canadian Tamil 1 (Police) : What is the percentage of Buddhist among the population of
about 22 million? My guess is about 45 % since among
Sinhalese there is a good number of Catholics and Christians. Hence
how can they say that Buddhism is the state religion? Religion
should not include in the constitution as in India. What provision is
there for HR violations and powers of security forces in the
constitution. The singhala government knows very well that Tamils and
Muslims are not united. They are adopting the British Policy of Divide and
rule. There is no provision for Deputy PM and Deputy
President from the minority population. In India, a Muslim
can be the President (Abdul Kalam}
Canadian Tamil 2 (Judiciary) Response: The percentage of Buddhists in
Ceylon is not 45%! I do not know where you got this figure from. The actual
figure is double 70.10% (population wise 74.90%). I agree that declaring Ceylon
as a secular state is ideal. That way religious homogenization and
institutional domination will be absent. Unfortunately, during the last 5
decades, secular states, virtually everywhere, have come under strain. In
Israel, the Basic Laws that
serve in place of a constitution (Israel has no written constitution) define
the country as a "Jewish state." More
than 46 countries call themselves Muslim and where Islam is the state religion.
Mercifully, in Sri Lanka Buddhism is not a state religion. The
constitution affords only foremost place.
This is a serious subject; I hope you will do some homework before you
put your pen to paper!]
The genuine work done
to uphold the intellectual balance by the respondent is of value to Canada and to
all those who read and understand the logic intellectually. The only value
superior to this is that of Belief. Belief needs no explanation; no proof.
Migrants who have ‘completed’ the relationships – however ‘local’ they may be,
add value to their new nations. On that same footing, those who use ‘hearsay’ weaken
the Sovereign value of their home-nations and the nations where they manifest
their powers developed through such hearsay.
Each one of is born
Sovereign. That is our Soul value. To the extent we preserve and uphold this –
including by sacrifices of returns from our own investments in relationships –
biological, law-based or culture-based, we strengthen the life of Sovereignty
enjoyed by our home group/s.
Migrants often fail to
complete their relationships in their first families/ communities/
Nations. When we get married for example – we expand
families through mergers and/or takeovers. To the extent the two cultures are
compatible, we would successfully become One family. Without such compatibility,
we need at least One member of the group to be Sovereign or majority in that
group need to believe in and show respect for a person who has realised her/his
Sovereignty. The latter is often the base for religious leadership including in
Government.
I believe that if second marriages are inferior
to a mind, then second country systems also would be inferior. To those who ‘complete’
the first relationship – that would be first amongst Equals in Democracy or
motivating Energy in Autocracy. The latter is often recognized as Heritage.
Australian Judiciary failed to use the opportunities facilitated by me to
weaken the development of Separation to continue with the first system. Below
is an example:
[Since I was a wholesome Hindu – it was easy for me
to pray to God through Buddha also. Similarly
since I had completed my marriage relationships through the cultural structure
– at the highest level known to me – I was a wholesome Hindu wife and hence was
able to become a wholesome legal wife with ease. But to my mind, not so my
sisters in law who needed our help to have their children married. Hence they picked my marriage at its primary
form (that it was second marriage to me) – anytime they needed to find fault
with me. This extended to the Testamentary case in Sri Lanka where their lawyer
said I was going after other people’s monies and also mentioned that this was
my second marriage. To me it was my duty to uphold the dignity of lawful
marriages in a court of law. But Her Honour says in this regard starting from paragraph 13 of Her Honour’s judgment:
‘The pleading
identifies three potential defamatory publications about the plaintiff, which I
would characterise as follows (not quite in the terms submitted on behalf of
the defendants):
(a) A statement made by a lawyer, Mr.
Yogendra, acting on behalf of the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth
defendants in proceedings before the District Court of Mallakam in Sri Lanka
(to which the first, second, sixth, seventh and eighth defendants and the
plaintiff are parties) to the effect that the plaintiff was shamelessly after
other people’s monies and was not accepted by the family as the wife of
Subramaniam Paramasivam (statement of claim at [2]). The sixth and seventh
defendants are alleged to have been present in court when their lawyer made
those statements (statement of claim at [6]) but the legal significance of that
assertion is not explained;
(b) A statement made by the first
defendant to the plaintiff’s husband to the effect that the plaintiff and her
husband were a disgrace to the first defendant’s family (statement of claim at
[3]);
(c)
The
republication of the statement made by the lawyer (set out in (a) above by Mrs.
Poomathevi Nadarajah to Mr. Mylvaganam (statement of claim at [8]). Neither the
lawyer nor Mrs. Poomathevi Nadarajah is a party to these proceedings.
14.
A statement of the kind described in (b), whilst undoubtedly hurtful, would be
regarded as merely abusive and is not such as to sustain the prosecution of an
action in defamation in this Court.
15.
The primary focus on the argument was on the statement referred to in paragraph
(a) above, pleaded in paragraph 2 of the statement of claim as follows:
On
16 February 2012, it was stated on behalf of the 1st, 2nd,
6th, 7th and 8th defendants in court that the
plaintiff was shamelessly after ‘other people’s monies’ and words to the
effect that the plaintiff was not accepted by the
family as the wife of Mr. Subramaniam Paramasivam – the brother of 1st,
6th and 8th defendants who are all siblings of the
deceased person Late Subramaniam Yoganathan, mentioned above. The 3rd,
4th and 5th defendants spoke and/or acted in support of
the 1st, 2nd,6th, 7th and 8th
defendants in this issue.
16.
The plaintiff confirmed that the words are alleged to have been said in the
legal proceedings in Sri Lanka relating to the estate of the plaintiff’s brother-in-law, who evidently
died intestate. She stated, however, that it was the “Australians” whose lawyer
had made the statement that “they obviously would have given instructions from
here to Sri Lanka”.
17.
Leaving aside any issue as to whether the words said by the lawyer were
published under absolute privilege (under the law of the place of the tort),
the principal difficulty is that the statement of claim does not plead any
cause of action in defamation against any defendant. The un-stated premise of
the claim appears to be that the defendants are liable as publishers for
statements made in court (in Sri Lanka) by their lawyer. However, no facts are
pleaded to support that contention. As currently pleaded, no reasonable cause
of action in defamation is disclosed against any defendant.
18.
Upon close consideration ………………………………
19.
I am satisfied that the statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of
action against any of the defendants, Further, I do not think there is any
point in granting leave to replead, particularly in light of the plaintiff’s concession
that the claim relates to words said in Sri Lanka. If the matter complained of
is the words said in court by the lawyer in Sri Lanka (on the basis, not
presently pleaded, that the defendants are liable as publishers of those
words), the place of the tort is Sri Lanka. If it was intended to rely upon the
instructions given to the lawyer in Sri Lanka by means of a telephone call
initiated in Australia but received in Sri Lanka, that would also be a
publication in Sri Lanka in accordance with the principles stated by the High
Court in Dow Jones & Company Inc. v Gutnick [2002] HCA 56; 210 CLR 575
especially at [26]. The plaintiff does not appear to seek to vindicate her
reputation in New South Wales.
20.
The defendants submitted that any publication in Sri Lanka “does not give rise
to a cause of action in New South Wales”………………………………………………………………..
21.
For those reasons, I am satisfied that the plaintiff’s claim in defamation
enjoys no reasonable prospect of success and must be dismissed.]
The above logic upholds the structure that leads to decision that ‘monies raised in Australia when spent in
Sri Lanka do not give rise to a cause of action in Australia.’
Today is the day Lord Muruga (who is celebrated at
the Sydney suburb of Westmead also) defeated
the Demon Soorapadman. To my mind, this is the anniversary of the day our consolidated
Energy of completed experiences defeats the ever changing frivolous outer forms
of our separate selfish desires – including the desire for intellectual glory
depicted by Soorpadman with elephant face. Knowledge without belief is demonic
in nature.
No comments:
Post a Comment