Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

11 April 2021

 

 

 

NO JURISDICTION FOR CANADIANS OR AMERICANS

 

There was discussion with a Hindu group about the system of Karma in relation to the arrest of  Mayor of Jaffna V Manivannan. Yesterday, I highlighted that As per the news report Mr Gary Anandasangaree was reported to have stated:

[I strongly condemn the arrest of Mayor of Jaffna V Manivannan by the Sri Lankan govt, and call for his immediate release. The continued harassment & arbitrary arrests of members of the Tamil community including elected officials, journalists & human rights defenders must end.] and

US Ambassador Ms Teplitz is reported to have stated as follows:

[Arrest of Jaffna Mayor is worrisome. Having strong rule of law (with judicial safeguards) is a better way to fight terrorism while protecting everyone’s basic freedom.]

The LTTE’s proscription is reported as follows by Wikipedia:

[32 countries currently list the LTTE as a terrorist organization. As of October 2019, these include:

India (since 1992)

United States (designated as Foreign Terrorist Organizations by the Department of State since 8 October 1997. Named as a Specially Designated Global Terrorist (SDGT) since 2 November 2001)

United Kingdom (designated a Proscribed Terrorist Group under the Terrorism Act 2000 since 29 March 2001)

European Union (since 2006; 27 countries)

Canada (since 2006) Canada does not grant residency to LTTE members on the grounds that they have participated in crimes against humanity.

Sri Lanka (from January 1998 to 4 September 2002, and again from 7 January 2009)

Malaysia (since 2014)

 

The question therefore is whether the Mr Gary Anandasangaree who is a Canadian politician and Ms Teplitz who represents America had the jurisdiction to express as they did? The reasoning given by the arresting officers is stated to be ‘promotion of’ LTTE which is listed as a Terrorist organisation in Sri Lanka. This was used by Canadian and US governments to proscribe them. Was that not confirmation of trust by those  governments in the government of Sri Lanka? Parliamentarians have the authority of belief to enact laws. Given that these governments have believed in the Sri Lankan government  - do they have the jurisdiction now to question the credibility of the very same Sri Lankan government in relation to application of their (Sri Lankan Government’s) belief in that very same issue? If they did not believe in the Sri Lankan government’s judgment in this issue – they have the duty to first remove the proscription. They can’t have it both ways.

In its statement headed ‘PEARL condemns the arrest of the Mayor of Jaffna, Viswalingam Manivannan, and demands the dropping of all charges’, PEARL - PEOPLE FOR EQUALITY AND RELIEF IN LANKA includes the following:

[PEARL strongly condemns the arrest of the Mayor of Jaffna, Viswalingam Manivannan, by Sri Lanka's Terrorism Investigation Division. We note that the magistrate has ordered his release on bail, despite the police seeking to remand the Mayor. PEARL calls on the international community to stand in support of democratic processes and demand that these absurd charges against the Mayor be dropped. Mayor Manivannan stands accused under Section 120 of the Sri Lankan Penal Code, a broad provision that includes “exciting or attempting to excite disaffection to the President or the Government of the Republic”. This charge stems from the color of the uniforms used by Jaffna municipal workers, which allegedly resemble the uniforms of the Tamil Eelam police force. The Sri Lankan government has claimed that this is an attempt by Manivannan to resurrect the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). However, any such resemblance is very obviously coincidental, and the Mayor himself explained that the uniforms were based on the design of the Colombo Municipal Council's uniforms. The attempts to draw a link to the LTTE are preposterous and a clear attempt to further the use of Sri Lanka’s authoritarian laws to stifle Tamil political expression.]

It is important for the law as well as the to be balanced for the decision at any level to be just .  I used my experience with Manivannan as a lawyer who failed to uphold Thesawalamai law at least with me – his client. He needed to, to connect my mind to that of the judge. Our issue of inheritance was/is very important if Jaffna Tamil diversity is to be recognised. If dowry is irrelevant to current folks in  Northern province – it ought to be made unlawful. Given that it continues to be not unlawful – and was an important factor in our case – Manivannan was expected to contribute actively at least after judgment. But he failed in this regard. Folks of Vaddukoddai and of Vaddukoddai origin  - continue to seek our advice in the issue. If my book on this which is with the Jaffna Public Library also confirms that I was wrong – the legal professionals concerned ought to have sued me. One committed to Civil Order would have done so.

When our Opposition claimed that they were NOT given dowry but were given only Donation – the courts did not insist on proof. The judges went through the arguments that dowry did matter but the judgment failed to reflect this. Like Manivannan copying Colombo uniform – the judges ruled according to the Colombo lawyers and not as per the law.

Given that belief matters in this issue of Terrorism I posed the following question to a group of Tamil professionals – one of whom stated – ‘It is all speculation now ,LTTE delayed the implementation of the  Govt's  master plan to make the country a Sinhala Buddhist country that is my thinking , having destroyed the LTTE now they are targeting the Muslims ( which will not be that easy in my opinion as they will have support from the Muslim countries ) , will be followed by the Christians & Catholics’

Gaja:  Are you confirming that you would have voted for LTTE if they had participated in democratic elections?

Another professional who is driven by his conscience responded as follows:

[I would have voted for them had they followed a democratic path. Almost 99% of Tamils supported them at the beginning. But when they resorted to killing of innocent civilians among Tamils, Muslims and Sinhalese then they became a terrorist organisation. They lost lot of supporters and sympathisers. By qualifying as a terrorist organisation they dug their own grave. As Xxx says their appearance is due to the cause and effect mechanism. Tamil civilians were not given any democratic space at all except regular beatings. It is a tragedy that some Tamils do not understand this simple reality and still continue as armchair critiques.]

That I believe is the essence of the feelings of Jaffna Tamils. Manivannan failed to respect this.