Friday, June 08, 2007

supreme court interim order proves the falseness of exaggerated claims of peaceniks

police as a security measure evicted 376 people from colombo on thursday (7th). today supreme court issued an interim order preventing evictions from colombo because they do not have identification or a reason for their stay after a fundamental right petition was filed. a hearing on petition will be held on a later date. all this happened as they should, when everyone has the best intentions.

meanwhile all sorts of exaggerated claims were made by peaceniks (as usual parroting ltte propaganda) and even some racist journalists. this extended to completely unwarranted claims of ethnic cleansing.

in the end sri lanka proved itself a country ruled by law proving the falseness of all those claims. in such a country if anyone has a grievance correct way to go is to seek redress through law, or if law is unsatisfactory lobby to change the law democratically , as i have repeatedly said. similar instances happened in u.s. with regard to some security measures of bush administration. only difference was that there people are knowledgeable enough not to make exaggerated claims as peaceniks and others did here.

we should extend to rule of law to all sri lanka.
in any case this illustrates why we should extend that rule of law to all areas of the country, through legitimate violence if needs be. a peace that gives up that ability to seek justice is not a sustainable peace, that is why i have repeatedly made the case that 'peace at any cost' is morally wrong. a 'peace' without justice, democracy, human rights, and freedom, is not a peace.
all the more reason to regret that paikiasothy saravanamuttu, who filed the fundamental rights petition, advocates a peace obtained through appeasement of terrorists. he does not want justice to the people who were ethnically cleansed for real(no exaggerations there) by ltte terrorists from northern province. he wants a peace that will cut off similar access to justice completely from millions of sri lankans of in north and east provinces. shame!


31 comments:

Sanga said...

I agree that it's not ethnic cleansing. Only a small percentage of Tamils were evicted, that's for sure. Only if they clear the whole of Wellawatte will it be ethnic cleansing.

But to argue about the wording of the news is to miss the terrible implications of the events that happened yesterday. I admire your blog, sittingnut, a lot. But I feel disappointed that you are not fighting against this particular issue.

I have always agreed with you that Tamils are not represented by the LTTE, and that many of them are indeed against the LTTE. I agree that it is the most important thing that the LTTE must be defeated, before we can solve this issue. I agree that 'peace at any cost' is not viable and unrealistic.

But what happened yesterday equated the Tamils with the LTTE. Some of the people who were evicted had fled to Colombo because of their fear for the LTTE. Because they were against the LTTE. These are the people that you argue for so vehemently. To call them all LTTE terrorists and send the back to the North-East was not constructive in the fight against the LTTE. If you and I both believe that the LTTE must be defeated because they are hated by many Tamils, then we must make an effort to fight for those Tamils that have fled from them, or that disagree with them.

"in the end sri lanka proved itself a country ruled by law proving the falseness of all those claims. in such a country if anyone has a grievance correct way to go is to seek redress through law, or if law is unsatisfactory lobby to change the law democratically"

Why then weren't the people who were evicted subject to due process in the first place? Under the PTA, the GoSL could have detained anybody who was suspicious for questioning. Instead they just packed them all onto buses and sent them away. Charged them as guilty without any kind of investigation via the judicial system.

The fact that someone had to take this matter to the Supreme Court to stop it shows that the whole thing was wrong. It is wrong to brand any Tamil as a terrorist without evidence. You always ask for hard evidence of white vans etc, but you seem silent on the lack of evidence produced against the people evicted yesterday!

I am totally against this terrible action of the government yesterday. The government needs to bring moderate Tamils who are against the LTTE into the fold, to make them feel Sri Lankan, and maybe even to elicit their help in the fight against terrorism and the fascist and cowardly LTTE pussies in the Wanni.

Tagging any random Tamil as a terrorist just because they have 'no legitimate reason' to be in the nation's capital - which is their capital too - and forcibly sending them home, does not defeat the LTTE. It simply serves to worsen the whole bloody problem. Those people are probably in a queue at the LTTE recruitment office right now!

Rance said...

Sanjana Hattotuwa must be rubbing his prostate extra hard, "jucing up" for his next putrid sermon. Looks like groundviews is exploding with hysterical screams and cries from madman who accuse others of "nudity" but wear no clothes of their own. Funny!

Anonymous said...

This whole eviction thing was requested by the LTTE (they need their regular propaganda boast). As usual they got their wish beyond their wildest dreams.

Anonymous said...

This is the Justification for Tamil Eelam. For the sake of peace lets go for a split.

Anonymous said...

The supreme court has to step in. That shows the pathethic state Sri Lanka is in.

ravana said...

The problem is that the government does not abide by law. The problem is not the non-existence of law and a judicial system.

As held in court today, the government action is against the law and contravenes basic human rights.

According to a source, AFTER the supreme court ruling, the government continued to load some of the civilians that were bussed to Trinco on to a boat, and they were shipped off to Jaffna.

Your refusal to condemn or even acknowledge this clearly illegal government violation of human rights, Sittingnut, has made the me lose all respect for your viewpoint.

Simon said...

You are wrong Ravana. The government has every right to shut down lodges which may be a security threat. It is not their fault that all the inhabitants in these lodges are Tamil. It was not based on ethnicity as you claim. It is really sad to see you trying pretend to be some sort of martyr for the Tamil people. You are hollow inside. It shows man and I lost my respect for you a long time ago when you decided to lick ass to appear "in" and "cool" at kottu.

sittingnut said...

sanga
i don't think what happened equated ppl who were evicted ( let alone tamils in general ) with ltte. nobody said they were guilty of terrorism. i don't think anything i said is inconsistent with my previous positions.

police aid that that ppl from north without identifications and valid reason for staying can be used as cover for ltte to infiltrate the city . i don't know to what extent that is correct, but obviously police think that is valid. i tend to agree with th ppl who say this was stupid overreaction but i am not security expert. poilce are. it is the police that have to answer for bombs that do go off.

Why then weren't the people who were evicted subject to due process in the first place?
what is the due process? unlike what you say they were not considered guilty. merely they can be used as cover. as such this is a new situation and as such it is courts that have to decide.

Under the PTA, the GoSL could have detained anybody who was suspicious for questioning.
i don't think they are considered suspicious in themselves rather as a cover for few ltte so detaining all will not help.. anyway i don't think that is practical option given the numbers

The fact that someone had to take this matter to the Supreme Court to stop it shows that the whole thing was wrong.
in fact imo that is the correct way to do this. it shows that police is doing their job to protect to the public ( perhaps doing so stupidly overreacting way but with best intentions and in the end they are the experts) .and that institutions of lawin sri lanka are working fine, so that if police is overreaching it can be brought back in line.
this happens in all democracies when security measures carried out by governments are tested in court ( detention or wire tapping in usa for instance)

this is in fact one of the reasons why courts( esp supreme courts) are there everywhere. that in sri lankan ppl have direct access to supreme court is one of the best features about sl constitution.

Tagging any random Tamil as a terrorist just because they have 'no legitimate reason' to be in the nation's capital
that is the main weakness of your whole commnet . they were not tagged as terrorists

rance
well ppl do get into hysterics

anon 6/08/2007 3:26 pm
well you are free to believe conspiracy theories if you want

anon 6/08/2007 6:16 pm
so you want to let ppl who end up under ltte not to have access to justice that was available to those evicted ? is that what you want in for peace?

anon 6/08/2007 6:17 pm
in fact that sri lankan have direct access to supreme court (which is working as it should be) is one of the best features of sri lankan polity

sittingnut said...

ravana:
The problem is that the government does not abide by law. The problem is not the non-existence of law and a judicial system
your sloppy logic is apparent here
in fact this proved that law and a judicial system is in fact very much in existence.

As held in court today, the government action is against the law and contravenes basic human rights.
in fact this was an interim order so your claim is false.
but even if they do come to that conclusion ( i personally hope they do) that does not mean government was wrong to act as they did according to information available to them at that time. it was responding to a security threat and was taking novel form of prevention in order to prevent loss of life ( and law was not clear at that point of time regarding the legality of that ). the whole fundamental right process is there to determine what the law says. all countries have similar processes. and they are constantly employed by similar situations . ( whether it be wiretapping in usa etc)

According to a source, AFTER the supreme court ruling, the government continued to load some of the civilians that were bussed to Trinco on to a boat, and they were shipped off to Jaffna.
if they did please present evidence to court and court will hold those who engaged in that in contempt. as i always say mere allegations wont do

Your refusal to condemn or even acknowledge this clearly illegal government violation of human rights, Sittingnut, has made the me lose all respect for your viewpoint.
:-)
i am not in any need any respect from ppl who hold racist positions . and as i have clearly pointed out several times you do hold racist opinions without admitting them as such.

i will express my opinions and their basis. i am confident of their moral correctness. i have done so before
for instance i was accused of all sort of things 2006 last april by ppl like you when i pointed out the exaggerations in cpa's trinco report and other places regarding riot there. same sort of exaggerations are being made now by same ppl. they were proved false. they will be proved false now. i was right then and am right now.

i will be true to myself and think for myself, may be you should do so too. then you will not follow others down wrong tracks, as often as you do now :-)

simon:
we can only hope that ppl will think for themselves and express their ideas clearly and logically

Rishi.K said...

I have a question for you sittingnut- do you know who instigated the injunction issued by the supreme court today?

Sanga said...

"i don't think what happened equated ppl who were evicted ( let alone tamils in general ) with ltte. nobody said they were guilty of terrorism."

I don't understand on what premise you are saying this. Sending any citizen out of their nation's capital without reason means that they are deemed to be guilty of something. The people were evicted because they were potentially terrorists, yes? Otherwise why were they evicted? If they were not a security risk, then surely there's no reason for the police to worry?

But there was no evidence of them being terrorists. Under the law, they are innocent until proven guilty. The law that protects you and me should protect them too - after all, we are all Sri Lankans, under one flag and one nation.

The only thing that the police said was that they were Tamils who had no reason to be in Colombo. I don't think that is a basis for any kind of suspicion of terrorism or criminal activity.

Put yourself in their position for just a moment. How would you feel if you were running from the brutal fascist LTTE dogs, and looking for asylum in your country's capital, away from the ridiculous dictatorship in the North?

To me, these are the kind of people that the Government needs to look after. It is these people for who we are fighting. The LTTE must be defeated to protect these people, who have been disenfranchised of their human rights and voting rights and everything else by the Wanni pussies.

I cannot understand how you can deny that yesterday's events equated Tamils with terrorists. The people were Tamil, and Tamil alone. They were evicted on suspicion of being possible terrorists. Therefore they were Tamils who were terrorist suspects. Yes or no?

"i don't think anything i said is inconsistent with my previous positions."

Well, I beg to differ. You have long championed the (imo correct) view that Tamils are not all terrorists, and that the LTTE should be defeated to restore the basic human rights to Tamil Sri Lankans that the LTTE has denied to them for so long. Even your previous post says "racist reuters reporter simon gardner equates tamils with terrorists yet again" in this regard.

I apologise for seeming stupid, but please can you elaborate on how yesterday's events were not equating Tamils with terrorists?

(I agree that on security matters we should defer to the experts in the police and armed forces, by the way. But indiscriminate action without any legal basis seems a trifle scary to me. We are all citizens of this country and should stick together - otherwise it may be us who are next!)

:)

sittingnut said...

rishi.k
I have a question for you sittingnut- do you know who instigated the injunction issued by the supreme court today?
i take it you did not read main post ?
as i said
all the more reason to regret that paikiasothy saravanamuttu, who filed the fundamental rights petition, advocates a peace obtained through appeasement of terrorists. he does not want justice to the people who were ethnically cleansed for real(no exaggerations there) by ltte terrorists from northern province. he wants a peace that will cut off similar access to justice completely from millions of sri lankans of in north and east provinces. shame!

sanga:
your main and often repeated argument is that they were tagged as terrorists, they weren't.. where did you get that idea?

Sending any citizen out of their nation's capital without reason means that they are deemed to be guilty of something.
not necessarily. ppl are prevented from exercising their rights for various reasons not just because they are guilty of some crime.

for instance in this case accumulation of unidentified ppl without anything to do in colombo may offer a chance to ltte to infiltrate the city under the cover of numbers. they can be a security risk without being terrorists. similarly we cannot travel along certain roads in colombo. is that bc we are terrorists?. no bc terrorists can infiltrate under the cover of our presence if those roads are open. same way not all ppl subjected to search at air ports are criminals.

even prince harry was prevented from going to iraq bc he was a security risk to himself and to those around him. according to your logic he must be a terrorist

I cannot understand how you can deny that yesterday's events equated Tamils with terrorists. The people were Tamil, and Tamil alone. They were evicted on suspicion of being possible terrorists. Therefore they were Tamils who were terrorist suspects. Yes or no?

no
your logic is very weak. not all tamils in colombo were evicted. not all tamils in lodges were evicted ( according to igp there 15000 tamils in lodges) there was selection, only 376 were evicted bc they did not have identification and were unable to explain why they were in colombo. and as i said before they were not tagged terrorists. they were security risk ( this is not the same as they were terrorists themselves but bc presence large number of such ppl will make it easier for ltte to infiltrate few of its cadres) bc they did not have identification or were not able explain why they were here.
it is not correct to say tamils were equated to terrorists when criteria for selection was clearly spelled out from the first

The only thing that the police said was that they were Tamils who had no reason to be in Colombo. I don't think that is a basis for any kind of suspicion of terrorism or criminal activity.
you are repeating the same false claim, they were not accused of criminal activity or terrorism . may be you should get the facts straight .

The LTTE must be defeated to protect these people, who have been disenfranchised of their human rights and voting rights and everything else by the Wanni pussies.
ltte must be defeated to to ensure democracy, human rights, justice, and freedom to all sri lankans.
however prevailing war means that certain rights are restricted according to needs. this was so in every country with a war. that is the reality

I apologise for seeming stupid, but please can you elaborate on how yesterday's events were not equating Tamils with terrorists?
no see above .

since there wasn't any equating of tamils with terrorists your argument ( same one you repeated several times) fails.

But indiscriminate action without any legal basis seems a trifle scary to me.
that is exactly why as i said in the post it is good that out courts are working fine. and are capable of determining the legality of measures taken by security forces.

:-)

ravana said...

Simon said, "The government has every right to shut down lodges which may be a security threat."

No, it most certainly does NOT.

The law of the country says they do not have the right.

International human rights regulations say that they do not have the right.

Civil society says they do not have the right.

Religious leaders say that they do not have the right.

The international community says that they do not have the right.

The government will admit that they do not have the right by not contesting the interim order. (Do you want a bet on this?)

Thus, the supreme court interim order will hold, so the supreme court will also confirm that they do not have the right.

The president is already passing the balme to the IGP, so he's already saying they don't have the right.

In the light of all this, Simon, on what basis are you saying they have the right to do this?

Sanga said...

for instance in this case accumulation of unidentified ppl without anything to do in colombo may offer a chance to ltte to infiltrate the city under the cover of numbers. they can be a security risk without being terrorists. similarly we cannot travel along certain roads in colombo. is that bc we are terrorists?. no bc terrorists can infiltrate under the cover of our presence if those roads are open. same way not all ppl subjected to search at air ports are criminals."

Okay, thanks for clarifying, sittingnut. I see your argument now. Was a bit confused by the previous wording, sorry for that.

Your contention is that they were not evicted because they were guilty of being terrorist suspects, but because they were a security risk, who could be used as cover by the LTTE.

But don't you think there is an issue with the scale of the precautions taken against this 'security risk'? Don't you think that to send them out of the capital, back to the North, was too much? Searching them and questioning them was not enough?

You mention how we all give up our rights when we are searched at airports, or denied access to blocked roads in Colombo. Fair enough, good point. But those are relatively small prices to pay to clear our names of being a 'security risk'. It's not like the security forces are telling us to leave the city or something. We only have to make a minor change to our daily lives to deal with the change, in the interests of national security.

In the same way, there are thousands of Tamils living in Colombo, who are checked at checkpoints etc on a daily basis. Their vehicles are sometimes searched as they are potentially a 'security risk'. Fair enough. That's not ideal, but this is a war, and it is an understandable precaution by the security forces to prevent terrorism. But nobody is forcing those Tamils to leave the city, because they are a 'security risk'. That would be an overreaction, would it not?

My point is, searching and questioning (with the possibility of detention) should be enough. Anything more should require a more transparent process, as the greater the action taken, surely the higher the implication of them being a 'security risk'?

The scary part of your logic, to me, seems to be that the premise can be extended to say that any Tamil in Colombo is potentially a 'security risk', who can be used by the LTTE as a cover to infiltrate a suicide bomber into Colombo. Am I incorrect?

Therefore, under your logic, would it be acceptable if in the future the whole of Colombo was cleared of Tamils, simply because they are all 'security risks'?

(Thanks for answering, I'm enjoying trying to understand your points. Sorry if I seem confused. I find it sad that most people resort to name-calling when they disagree with you. Hope this discussion can show that two people can have a civil debate about something, even if it turns out we disagree - freedom of speech is a right not everyone in the world has, I'm glad that some of us can use it constructively.)

;)

Simon said...

Sorry Ravana the government does have the right to shut down lodges that it says are security threats. You may want bombs going off and killing people in Colombo but I sure as hell do not. If you are against the closing of these lodges then I urge you to get on the street and write blog after blog urging the government to take down all the HSZs both in Colombo and in Jaffna and the East.After all, you're the most patriotic Sri Lankan ever. You can only scream and whine like a tinpot bigot yet provide no solutions. Next time a bomb goes off in Colombo, don't bitch and whine like you usually do about the security situation and indignantly ask "what are the police doing?"

Rishi.K said...

some cases from the eviction.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sinhala/news/story/2007/06/070608_evicted_tamils.shtml

sittingnut said...

ravana
you are getting confused and denying reality

government can and have taken over buildings, shut roads etc as long as they follow the law .laws does allow those things to be done under certain circumstances.
that is why courts are there, to interpret the law in case of disputes about how law should be applied

by definition all governments and laws curtail rights. courts define the limits of applicability

those are facts whatever happens in this case, so do not get so excited

sanga:
But don't you think there is an issue with the scale of the precautions taken against this 'security risk'? Don't you think that to send them out of the capital, back to the North, was too much? Searching them and questioning them was not enough?
...
as the greater the action taken, surely the higher the implication of them being a 'security risk'?


'scale', 'too much ', 'enough ', 'small prices', 'minor change' 'overreaction' , 'greater ' , 'higher 'etc are all subjective judgments. what is 'minor' to you may be 'major' to others. our personal subjective judgments should not be factors in this kind of case.

you concede the point that rights are curtailed by laws depending on the situation. applicability and exact limits of curtailment is determined by the courts when a dispute occurs between the interpretation of those who apply the law and those who are subject to it .

as this case there was such a dispute as it was new situation, so courts should rule

what do you know! that is exactly what is happening. :-) sri lanka 's institutions of the law works as i said in the post.

--
The scary part of your logic, to me, seems to be that the premise can be extended to say that any Tamil in Colombo is potentially a 'security risk', who can be used by the LTTE as a cover to infiltrate a suicide bomber into Colombo. Am I incorrect?
you are getting confused due to your personal prejudices. as i said every body can be a security risk (you , me, all sinhalese, tamils , president , prince harry etc) depending on the situation.
everyone is subjected to some laws in various situations in all countries and thus have their rights curtailed.

as i said above the applicability and limits of laws are determined by the courts.

Therefore, under your logic, would it be acceptable if in the future the whole of Colombo was cleared of Tamils, simply because they are all 'security risks'?
again your prejudices ( which are quite clear in spite of your disclaimers) are evident. as i said applicability of law is determined according to law by the courts.
sri lanka is a democracy. so if you prejudge that sri lanka will have a law that will allow what you envision, your opinion of sri lankans is not a good one. in fact your prejudice against them ( contained in that question) smack of racism.
so do tell whether you believe sri lankan public will enact such a law ? imo only an extreme racist ( sort of person who think tamils support terrorism or sinhalese are everready launch a pogroms against tamils ) will think such a thing possible.
so if you do, explain your grounds for that belief so that we know whether you are a racist or not

:-)

simon
ravana seems have lost it

rishi.k
are you sure? if i were you i would take anything that come out of bbc's sri lankan section with a lot of skepticism.
it is known fact it has several ltte sympathizers in it. this is the same bbc that said in a headline that typically equated ltte with tamils - " Sri Lanka advances against Tamils", when mavilaru operation was launched. same bbc that said ltte air planes bombed 'air port'. also that army shelled vakarai hospital when nothing of the kind happened . ( it also said medicine ran out and posted photos and 'eye witness accuonts' when in fact the hospital was well stocked and the accounts proved false). just to take three examples.

so when you next post spam for what has become a trashy news website, think twice .

btw do you work there bc you are from uk

ivap said...

s/nut - I think you are mistaken in your support for this, and your logic and facts are warped. I'll return later to further comment on that.

However something about this doesn't smell right. No right minded person would give such an order. Particularly not an ex-human-rights lawyer cum politician with a very good eye for PR.


1. The eviction was first announced a long time before the actual even.

2. Someone in the president's office denied that an order had been given.

3. A judiciary that that has thus far been partial to the GOSL as reacted very swiftly.

4. Likewise the president and IGP have reacted almost as if they were expecting this reaction.

I've been thinking about this and I reckon that this is a machivallian plot to distance buffalo from the JHU. With the aim of accepting any future APRC proposal which will definitely be unpalatable to the JHU. If I'm not mistaken there is a jhu linked police adviser ( i think named "kotikendiya", also allegedly responsible for the 5 kids in trinco ). I wouldn't be surprised if he these inquiries come out with the finger pointing to him and head on a platter will be served to the prez.

Last year, when you predicted (imho, a very reasonable set of actions for someone on buffalo's position) the future actions of buffalo you anticipated such a scenario. The JVP is already sidelined so who but the JHU is next?

Anyway, apologies for taking this discussion on a tangent but I think you need to take a chill pill, return to reason and write a new post predicting the next set of actions we can expect from the MR and gosl.

ivap said...

One more important fact that I missed.

5) The JHU came with strong support for the move.

This is what got me thinking about this.

Rishi said...

So the only source you will trust I guess is yourself. Would you do the honour of interviewing some of the people who were evicted cos my understanding is that that would be the ONLY thing that would convince you. who are the world renowned BBC? they are utter crap. I am waiting for your interviews.

Sanga said...

Well, still confused, sittingnut. You didn't answer my questions, and I'm not sure I understand how I am a racist for asking for your answers to my questions.

I started this discussion to understand your position on this issue, and to reconcile this with your previously stated beliefs on this blog, much of which I agree with. I apologise if I am being stupid, but I can't understand your answers, so far.

To summarise, in your comments above, you said that the eviction was due to the fact that these people could be used as cover by the LTTE to infiltrate suicide bombers into Colombo. You termed this as being a 'security risk'.

I therefore simply asked you that if these (evicted) Tamils could be used as cover for the LTTE to infiltrate suicide bombers into Colombo, could not the same be said for any Tamil in Colombo? I don't think that this is a racist comment. I'm not saying that all Tamils are terrorists, I'm asking if they are not, by your logic, all 'security risks'?

(Indeed you are the one who earlier made the distinction between a terrorist and a 'security risk', and made it clear that they are not the same thing. Confusingly, when I asked you whether all Tamils can be 'security risks', you said that I am saying that all Tamils are terrorists, and that I am a racist... That's why I'm confused!)

Regarding that other question being subjective, yes, it is subjective. I apologise for asking a subjective question. I only asked because I'd like to know your answer to the question. I will await the court's answer, but I'd like to know yours as well. Sorry anyway.

"so do tell whether you believe sri lankan public will enact such a law ? imo only an extreme racist ( sort of person who think tamils support terrorism or sinhalese are everready launch a pogroms against tamils ) will think such a thing possible.
so if you do, explain your grounds for that belief so that we know whether you are a racist or not"


I'm sorry if I haven't been clear before, but I am not questioning the Sri Lankan people, or government, or police, for that matter. I am questioning you, and your views. I am a long-time reader of your blog, and I would like to know your thoughts on this issue.

(I personally found your failure to condemn this particular event as a glaring omission from your otherwise sharp reporting.)

For the record, I don't know if Sri Lanka will pass a law like my question above. I asked the question to see what your answer would be, to see your opinion. Asking for an answer from you to a hypothetical question does not imply that I think it should be the case.

For the record, I don't think I'm a racist? I feel there are people of all sorts of opinions in Sri Lanka, from racists to peaceniks to uninterested bystanders! We all have freedom of thought and opinion, and I therefore respect anyone's and everyone's right to have a different opinion to me.

To reiterate, my question to you is: if, as you say, the evicted Tamils were deemed to be 'security risks', by merit of the fact that they could be used as cover by the LTTE to infiltrate a suicide bomber into Colombo; does it not follow from this that any Tamil could be a 'security risk', as defined above? Surely an LTTE suicide bomber could use any innocent unsuspecting Tamil as cover to infiltrate Colombo?

I look forward to your reply!

I remain yours, with best wishes
Sanga

:)

sittingnut said...

ivap:
thanks for the comment and suggestions

your theory about this being buffalo's plan to distance himself from jhu is interesting but imo rather far fetched. anyway will write about what buffalo's plans could be soon
-
i don't think i am mistaken about this.

the security measure ( which may be a stupid overreaction - which however is a subjective judgment ) is not some sort of ethnic cleansing. that is an exaggeration. at the same time institutions of law in sri lanka are working, they are determining the legality of security measures as they do in other countries.

that is what i think. i am confident i am right.

rishi:
i gave you three examples of false, biased, and factually incorrect reporting by bbc.( out of large number )

i will repeat them
their regular equating of tamils with ltte - as when they said "Sri Lanka advances against Tamils" when mavil aru operation was launched, their saying airport was bombed whan only air force camp was bombed, their false reporting about vakarai ( when they said falsely that hospital is shelled, it has no medicine etc, even citing 'eye witnesses', which all turned out to be lies ).

do you have anything to to prove that those 'errors' on the part of bbc did not happen? if so share them

if you continue to believe bbc after clear evidenced regular examples of biased inaccurate reporting by bbc , that is your choice. i suppose that being resident of britain you feel you have to support british broadcasting corporation no matter haw trashy its content. that sort of thinking is common with ppl who cannot independently think and judge.

sittingnut said...

sanga:
Well, still confused, sittingnut. You didn't answer my questions, and I'm not sure I understand how I am a racist for asking for your answers to my questions.
which questions did i not answer. do quote them so that i can quote the answer.both the questions you allude to without quoting were answered, as anyone can see in my previous comment and will point out below. so if you think i missed a question do quote it. do

i did not say you are "a racist for asking for your answers to my questions" do quote me saying that. are you sure you did not imagine that.

-
I therefore simply asked you that if these (evicted) Tamils could be used as cover for the LTTE to infiltrate suicide bombers into Colombo, could not the same be said for any Tamil in Colombo? I don't think that this is a racist comment. I'm not saying that all Tamils are terrorists, I'm asking if they are not, by your logic, all 'security risks'?

as i explained to you in my previous comment " every body can be a security risk (you , me, all sinhalese, tamils , president , prince harry etc) depending on the situation." so the answer is everyone can be a security rick depending on the situation. i also said "everyone is subjected to some laws in various situations in all countries and thus have their rights curtailed....the applicability and limits of laws are determined by the courts."
in other words limits on who will or will not be considered a security risk according to law will be be determined by the courts.

i also said " so if you prejudge that sri lanka will have a law that will allow what you envision, your opinion of sri lankans is not a good one....imo only an extreme racist ( sort of person who think tamils support terrorism or sinhalese are everready launch a pogroms against tamils ) will think such a thing possible."

to explain my logic again so that you do not confuse yourself again.

depending on the situation everyone ( i mean everyone)can be considered security risks . the situation or who, where, when, and why, is a security risk is ultimately determined according to law by the courts.

imo a law that will be interpreted to mean that all tamils (on race alone, without further qualification) are security risks and needs to be deprived of their right to stay in colombo can only be passed by ppl who have taken leave of all moral standards.

sri lanka is a democracy. i don't think such a law will be passed. if you think ( you have to answer my question whether you think so or not) such a law can be passed here you have a low opinion of sri lankan public. in fact imo, anyone who thinks like that about sri lankans is an extreme racist .


-
Indeed you are the one who earlier made the distinction between a terrorist and a 'security risk', and made it clear that they are not the same thing. Confusingly, when I asked you whether all Tamils can be 'security risks', you said that I am saying that all Tamils are terrorists, and that I am a racist... That's why I'm confused!

no i did not say that you are saying "all Tamils are terrorists". ( see above for my answer to your question) where did i say that ? do qoute ( as i always do). i am always skeptical when ppl attribute sayings to others without quoting .

what i did was to ask you a question (quoted below) which you avoided answering ( as i will point out below), to determine whether you are capable of thinking that sri lankan will enact a law to evict all tamils from colombo. as i said imo only an extreme racist will think that possible.

-
then you say
I'm sorry if I haven't been clear before, but I am not questioning the Sri Lankan people, or government, or police, for that matter. I am questioning you, and your views. I am a long-time reader of your blog, and I would like to know your thoughts on this issue.

well i have answered you when i said "imo only an extreme racist ( sort of person who think tamils support terrorism or sinhalese are everready launch a pogroms against tamils ) will think such a thing possible." for your information 'imo' means 'in my opinion' . unless you consider me an extreme racist my answer is very clear. but if you want me to explain it further, i will say it again - i do not think such a law will be enacted by sri lankan public. may be you ( if you are an extreme racist )think they will ?

-
For the record, I don't know if Sri Lanka will pass a law like my question above. I asked the question to see what your answer would be, to see your opinion. Asking for an answer from you to a hypothetical question does not imply that I think it should be the case.For the record, I don't think I'm a racist? I feel there are people of all sorts of opinions in Sri Lanka, from racists to peaceniks to uninterested bystanders! We all have freedom of thought and opinion, and I therefore respect anyone's and everyone's right to have a different opinion to me.

i gave the answer see above. now its your turn to give a clear answer. but you avoid it.

"I don't know if Sri Lanka will pass a law ..."is not good enough. what is demanded is your opinion of sri lankan ppl. do you think sri lankan public as whole is capable of passing such a racist law? do answer.

saying that there "are people of all sorts of opinions in Sri Lanka" is not good enough either. what is demanded is your opinion of the public as a whole, not whether you think that few may be racists or not.

the very fact that you do not give an opinion says that you are open to the possibility of their passing such a law. such a judgment on the whole of sl public is racist.

-
I personally found your failure to condemn this particular event as a glaring omission from your otherwise sharp reporting
i have restated my position in my reply to ivap.
"the security measure ( which may be a stupid overreaction - which however is a subjective judgment, ) is not some sort of ethnic cleansing. that is an exaggeration. at the same time, institutions of law in sri lanka are working, they are determining the legality of security measures as they do in other countries."
i think it is the correct one. so far none has said anything to change that opinion.

-
To reiterate, my question to you is: if, as you say, the evicted Tamils were deemed to be 'security risks', by merit of the fact that they could be used as cover by the LTTE to infiltrate a suicide bomber into Colombo; does it not follow from this that any Tamil could be a 'security risk', as defined above? Surely an LTTE suicide bomber could use any innocent unsuspecting Tamil as cover to infiltrate Colombo?
(since you ask again i will repeat the answer again)
you mean in the same way as ltte suicide bomber could use any innocent unsuspecting human as cover to infiltrate Colombo? that the problem in your logic. laws are more specific about their applicability as to who, where, when, and why. and that applicability is determined by court.

a law that applies to all tamils ( and only to tamils) and deprives their right to live in colombo can only be passed by a racist public.only a racist can think that sl public is capable of that.

i don't think sl public as racists. do you think sl public is so racist that it will enact such a law ? if you do you are passing what amount to a racist judgment on sl public.

-
I look forward to your reply!
fact is my reply was in previous comment as well. so you would have done better to read that carefully before repeating the question. anyway given your deficiency in understanding i have repeated my answer with further explanations here.

now it is your turn to answer the question i asked which as i showed above you avoided answering by saying "I don't know..." and " I feel there are people of all sorts of opinions.." etc. what is required is your opinion about sl public's capability to pass such a law.

btw you can use 'imo' instead of 'in my opinion' when answering, i understand its meaning

:-)

Anonymous said...

"in the end sri lanka proved itself a country ruled by law "

you're funny.

Anonymous said...

So if the govt made an official apology, are you still of the opinion that their action was correct and justifiable? or has ur beloved govt delivered you a slap in the face?

sittingnut said...

anon at 6/11/2007 11:28 pm
"in the end sri lanka proved itself a country ruled by law "
you're funny.

are you saying it is not? in what way ? give an example.
of course you can not, that is why you chose to find humor in that statement. now that is funny :-)

anon 6/11/2007 11:34 pm
So if the govt made an official apology, are you still of the opinion that their action was correct and justifiable? or has ur beloved govt delivered you a slap in the face?
"ur beloved govt"? since when? if you read this blog you will see that i did not vote for it and that i criticize mahinda buffalo.
problem with you is that you think anyone who does not agree with your exaggerated parroting is a government supporter.
dont prejudge like that. always check the facts before judging.

unfortunately that is exactly what ppl who made exaggerated claims did.

i said this action is understandable and nothing extraordinary, and that similar security measures curtailing rights happen in all countries. i also said that this proves that institutions of law work here ( and i will stand by those statements bc i know they are correct).
in addition i said that some ppl engaged in exaggerations when writing about this . and they definitely did. those are facts

rishi.k said...

goodbye.

sittingnut said...

do stay and explain before you go, why you still believe the bbc, given its demonstrated bias and inaccuracies in reporting about sl ? please do. after your spamming you almost owe me that :-)

rishi said...

Sittingnut- I would explain myself to a rational human being. not to someone who calls me a spammer when I've left 3 relevant comments to this blog entry, that also with my name attached to it unlike yourself! If you wish to insult those that don’t agree with you- so be it.

About the witnesses – you’d never be able to find out the truth about them because you’ve never made an effort to. You are the ideal example of an armchair analyst. Get in there. Talk to the people. Get to know what’s happening from first hand experiences before sitting down to write your posts. That way you wouldn’t have to choose who to believe and who not to. Get to know the real thing, sittingnut. Your posts only display how oblivious you are to the ground situation in Sri Lanka. Oh and don’t give me the shit about me being in the UK. Being a resident here, I’ve spent 65% of my time in SL especially in the north and the east. I’ve met a lot of people in my time there. Lots of them. Tamils, Sinhalese and Muslims. ltte cadres, ex cadres, sympathisers and non-sympathisers. It’s a different world out there, sittingnut. Far from what you paint it out to be. Condemning witness reports by commendable journalists on the ground situation is what really annoys me about your posts. These are people who risk their lives to get down to the truth and here we have you sitting down in Colombo and condemning their work- of course your insignificant view is not going to change their dedication and passion for the work they do but I just couldn’t help myself here. I can be 100% certain that you haven’t been to any of the affected areas at any point in your life from the posts you’ve written . every time someone reports the truth, to you it appears to be a farce. Anyway, I won’t waist any more of my time on your blog but will only humbly ask you to get to know the real north and east of sri lanka. There’s a lot out there you need to know. Goodbye- this time for good.

rishi said...

also just to clarify my point. I am not accusing you for having opinions on the relevant situations. Everyone has a right to their own. I am only pointing out the fact that you don't have access to the ground situation in such circumstances and so it is WRONG to dismiss reports that come from those that have been there and done it especially when you haven’t made an effort to get in touch with the witnesses. Next time you trash someone’s report, think about it.

Rishi said...

I promised to not come back but couldn't help but post the following article by Peter.
but before I'd like to quote you

"institutions of law in sri lanka are working fine"

http://www.alertnet.org/db/blogs/36072/2007/05/12-145511-1.htm


He is a fine example for the point I am trying to make.Peter is now paralysed. Respect. Appreciate the work they do and don't criticize reports that come from people of this calibre without making an effort to understand the real ground situation! Goodbye.