09 April 2021
TWO WRONGS DO MAKE A FIGHT
Q: How about the attempted murder of Hon. Rajiv Ghandhi at the guard of honour given by the Government of Srilanka ?
Gaja: When I take the position of Tamil – I have no jurisdiction over Sinhalese. As a Sri Lankan I do find fault with that soldier who acted as LTTE did all the time. If Sinhalese thought it was acceptable then today they are being challenged at global level. My mother said to me that two wrongs don’t make a right. Now I realise that two wrongs do make a fight.
Our Australian Government has declared that Politicians and Judges would now be no longer immune to legal action in the case of wrongs as per Sex Discrimination Act. :
Sri Lanka is caught between Race Discrimination and Terrorism charges. The person who raised the question regarding the killing of the Hon Rajiv Gandhi said to me in relation to my article about Universal Balance:
[Your balance sheet doesn’t reflect these “ Poosanikaihal”/Pumpkins]
[It’s invisible - as Goodwill for one and Hallucination for the other]
The above is based on the Tamil saying ‘Trying to hide the full pumpkin under rice.’
My question to the Australian government is:
How sure are you that the law is Balanced to reflect the true need of Australians? Is Sexual harassment more damaging to Australian structure than Racial harassment in a multicultural society ? Is this likely to contribute to more Racism in our Politicians & Judges ? My experience is indicated by the following:
[The Judgment on Friday 23 November 2007 as expected, gave me ‘failure’ grade – which meant - Justice pain from the outside. This meant that as usual, the Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales was declared the winner in his bid to have me ‘dismissed’ as a frivolous and vexatious litigant. That is the reality on the outside – an outside which is more the forum of the Vice Chancellor than mine. Democracy in Australia was yet to extend to the Vice Chancellor’s level. It is indeed a tough call for academics to be Democratic. Once they lose the height and are seen as equal to their students – the sharing of minds is weakened – especially in the case of academics driven by money and / or status which becomes popularity in the system of Democracy.] Chapter 14 headed - Justice Tamberline’s Handout- of my book Naan Australian.
I wrote also as follows:
[Mr. James Matson (of Bartier Perry) – the lawyer who came to Court to represent the University is relatively young. During the preliminary processes – he demonstrated lack of commitment to Judicial Administration. At the preliminary hearing under Justice Tamberlin (the Judge who ruled in favor of David Hicks who was charged with Terrorism by the USA), Matson demonstrated many weaknesses in Administration. In their Notice of Motion dated 22 March 2007, these lawyers asked as follows:
2. Pursuant to order 20(2)(1)(a), (b) and/or (c ) of the Federal Court Rules or pursuant to the Court’s implied incidental power, the proceedings be dismissed
I highlighted in my submission that Order 20 applied only to proceedings commenced before 01 December 2005 and that my application to the Federal Court had been made on 07 December 2006. Mr. Matson subsequently withdrew that part of his Motion but without attributing that credit to me in that Court.
I learnt that these lawyers gave Affidavit evidence on behalf of their clients. There was no Affidavit evidence or other objectively verifiable evidence from the University Administration. Hence it was a case of me – Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam vs Bartier Perry – the lawyers. It was NOT Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam vs the University of New South Wales – which is the documented case as per Court papers. ]
My cross examination of the lawyer representing the University is in the Appendix. In conclusion I wrote:
[From then on Mr. Tamberline the individual became my opposition – taking the vacant place of the Vice Chancellor of the University of New South Wales. Unless each one of us occupies our lawful position – we cannot be addressed by our position titles but merely our names as individuals.
I went to Melbourne soon after the judgment was delivered. It was Easter weekend and I asked our son Pradeep to take me to church on Good Friday. I usually try and go to church on Good Friday. We went to the church of the school that our granddaughter was then studying at – Our Lady Help of Christians School. The nun there who was replacing the regular person – asked our son Pradeep to carry the Cross when the congregation followed The Way of the Cross. To me that was message from Jesus – saying He understood my pain. I completed that experience to a large degree due to my faith in Jesus. To me it was not coincidental that Pradeep was asked to carry the Cross. It was confirmation of blessing that I was also carrying the cross and that Tamberline was part of the reasons why I was carrying my cross. Jesus has shown us that we do not carry the Crosses in vain – that there is Bliss when we do so on behalf of all of us.]
My interpretation of the law was different to that of the lawyer’s due to Separation of Powers between the Executive Government and the Judiciary. I was more conversant with the former and the lawyer would have been with the latter. That interpretation diversity mattered due to me being self-represented litigant. When it came to ‘facts’ the lay litigant and/or witness had priority right to be taken as valid until proven otherwise through objective evidence.
The fact that I found ‘technical fault’ with the lawyer’s Notice of Motion was ignored had a reason. Given that the lawyer failed to acknowledge this and the Judge did not know its significance confirmed that I was placed at lower level than I had earned . This gave me a disadvantage at the beginning itself.
Why that judge so placed me may not be known even to him. Unless I was proven to be unreliable, I had the right to Equal status as the other side lawyer and in terms of facts – to be first amongst equals.
I cross examined Matson as follows :
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Mr. Matson, you just stated in Court that you were crossing out some of the sections of the order that you wanted in the notice of motion
MR. MATSON: Sorry, I didn’t hear the beginning.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. Please could you speak slowly, I think, and fairly loudly. There is a microphone there. If you can direct that to your -----
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Yes. You said this morning that you wanted some parts of item number 2 in the notice of motion crossed out?
MR. MATSON: Yes, correct
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Was it after you received my affidavit dated 29 March, specifically paragraph 5, in which I have stated that order 20 did not apply
MR. MATSON: Yes, it was. Yes, it was.
MRS PARAMASIVAM: O.K.. Thank you . First of all I think I would like to get some agreement on some of the terms that we might be using. So I would like to know whether you disagree with any of my definitions of common terminology not spelt out in the legislations used. I would provide my definition as per my discovery and I would like you to confirm or deny, to provide your own definition. Is that o.k. with you?
HIS HONOUR: Sorry. You had better just ask short questions. I think that’s too broad. Just ask questions.
MRS PARAMASIVAM: O.K. Do you agree with my definition of “fact” – that fact is Truth bound by the environmental limits in which it is born?
HIS HONOUR: I’m sorry, I don’t understand. Sorry would you ask your question please?
MRS PARAMASIVAM: I’m just trying to define the terminology that I will be using later on.
HIS HONOUR: Well, just ask one, just ask a question. I reject that question
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Alright. I refer to paragraph 3.1 of your affidavit dated 22 March 2007. Would you confirm to this Court that this fact was already provided by me in my annexure A, attached to my affidavit dated 7 December 2006?
HIS HONOUR: (To Matson) Do you have a copy of the affidavit?
MR. MATSON: I can grab it, your Honour, if I may.
HIS HONOUR: Yes alright. Let the witness pick up a copy of the affidavit.
MR. MATSON: I have mine - with 3.1 in front of me.
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Statement in 3.1 – is it already covered in my affidavit dated 7 December 2006?
HIS HONOUR: I reject that question. You’re asking him about paragraph 3.1 of his affidavit. Is that right?
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: Of 22 March?
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: That you were employed as a senior accountant in the faculty on 5 January.
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: What is your question?
MRS PARAMASIVAM: My question is that I have already provided ------
HIS HONOUR: That is not a question. That’s a statement. What is your question?
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Sorry. The question is whether it is already covered by my own affidavit.
HIS HONOUR: Well, what does it matter? Were you employed on 5 January or not?
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Yes, I was.
HIS HONOUR: Well, why do you want to ask him questions about it?
MRS PARAMASIVAM: Because I feel that the Respondent was selecting only some of the facts relevant to the matter.
HIS HONOUR: Well, I reject the question if there is no dispute.