Sanjana said,

March 7, 2007 @ 8:50 pm

Che,

Didn’t have a copy of the final PDF of the report at the time of filing this story. It will be soon online on FMM’s website.

Sanjana said,

March 8, 2007 @ 8:15 am

To argue that the Sri Lankan State is beyond reproach in a bloody history of conflict where successive governments have been as brutal as that which they have been trying to eradicate - terrorism - is simply folly. Lest we forget, the State, through the Police and the Military, are responsible for a significant number of human rights violations throughout our bloody ethnic conflict, and not just under the Mahinda government.

What even more ironic that Sittingnut’s assertion (a person who is clearly a repressed fan of Groundviews, given by the number of times this site is mentioned on his own blog) is that those who cannot countenance the assertions made by the likes of CPA, Sunanda and the FMM, are nevertheless completely partial to the drivel promoted by those in the Government based on their deliberately partial readings of statements, and a clear agenda against NGOs engaged in peacebulding and human rights. Hence, everything from the draconian anti-terrorism regulations and PTA to the hate speech by Champika Ranawaka, inciting violence against civil society activists, are acceptable - even welcomed - as statements of patriotism and national duty.

Clearly, the accusations in the past by the MOD against ZOA and Care, the accusations against the FMM on the MOD’s website which are clearly fabricated, the partial reading of the FMM statements by various groups who then go on to state that they are clearly biased to the LTTE, or perhaps the plain inability, as I have noted elsewhere, of English comprehension of those who cannot genuinely understand statements put out by these organisations in English, result in the tragi-comic scenario where those in the government are free to go on their own personal tirades with little respect for the public office they hold.

Facts indeed should back up statements - hence Sunanda’s clear appeal to investigate any journalist or organisation for alleged complicity with terrorism, or plainly, shut up. Facts also should be this government’s best defense against the allegations made by Alan Rock, HRW and several other local human rights organisations against what Karuna is up to in the East. But clearly, the facts speak otherwise and all the likes of the Defense Spokesperson and his ilk are left with are a loose tongue lashings of no particular worth other than to instill fear in those who seek to strengthen human rights, and curtail further humanitarian access and relief to those who are caught in between the equal hypocrisy of the Government, the LTTE and Karuna.

The clarion call for the freedom of expression, diversity and pluralism in the media as noted in the comment above is clearly the very foundation of that which we seek to preserve in Sri Lanka, but is being chipped away by this government. The report for instance clearly brings out the great divide made by Rambukwella to the visiting mission, and the inaction since to investigate the murder, abduction, threats to and disappearances of journalists, mainly Tamil journalists, in Sri Lanka. Clearly, the GOSL seems eminently capable of thorough investigations when it suits them, as in the case of the three journalists arrested for alleged collusion with the LTTE, but turns a blind eye to all else when the facts are obviously not in their favour.

Speaking of facts, it is a fact that the Government, to date, has not publicly distanced itself from the comments made by Champika Ranawaka in public in support of extra-judicial killings. It is also fact that the MOD still has an article on its website that what can only assume is a deliberate attempt to misguide the public through a partial and gross incorrect reading and representation of the FMM statements. A request to change this webpage has received, unsurprisingly, no response.

Clearly then those who mindlessly engage in tirades on partiality and bias, and the need for facts, play a tired song which they themselves don’t heed, fearful of what they will hear. The facts abound - political will and sagacity to confront them, sadly, are those that continue to elude this country.

Sanjana said,

March 8, 2007 @ 10:40 am

Dear Des,

The person you refer to rarely has a single post that does isn’t accusatory of CPA, this website or myself on his own blog. You know - you’ve commented on his site and encouraged him to be more engaging and less accusatory in his interactions here. It is however to be wholly welcomed that the said person does seem to be increasingly bringing in a voice that challenges us to think harder and deeper about what we ourselves espouse - and that’s a good thing. You will note for instance the excellent repartee between Sittingnut and Che here - http://www.groundviews.org/2007/02/24/the-cri-de-coeur-of-a-wounded-tiger-or-%e2%80%98tiger-in-the-night%e2%80%99/

As Che avers, and I agree, “What anti-LTTE Tamils have had to face in the last twenty years is going to be the fate of anyone opposing this government. And that surely cannot be good.”

Dissent to that which is ostensibly enacted on behalf of the people is part and parcel of a vibrant democracy, lest we wish to clamp down on all those who disagree with what a government thinks and feels to be in the best interests of the State. This essential dialogue, which may of course make no difference to what the government does or does not do, is nevertheless vital and needs to be secured and strengthened, as it is precisely that which for instance, we do not find with the LTTE, which trucks no dissent to what it believes or does.

The question is, in our war against terror, to what degree are we going to clamp down on those who say that human rights, justice and human dignity are ineluctable facets of any process to address the root causes of terrorism? As a recent book on states (”Can Might Make Rights?: Building the Rule of Law after Military Interventions”, Jane Stromseth, David Wippman, and Rosa Brooks):

“Because promoting the rule of law after military intervention is, in part, an effort to convince local actors that law matters, the interveners’ own conduct…inescapably will influence the outcome of the intervention.”

Des said,

March 8, 2007 @ 8:04 pm

Dear Sanjana,

Yes I agree with you, I was more trying to guage what Sittingnut was saying and whether its the apparent dissension that he doesn’t like.

With regard to the issue of Media Tigers Vs Human Rights Violators, my hope is that anything expressed by public speakers whether in government, or other public bodies can be less violent and done in a way that doesn’t trigger people.
Communication techniques and knowledge about that are improving.

I suppose I can be a dreamer.

groundviews said,

March 8, 2007 @ 9:35 pm

Dear Sittingnut,

We will, as with Che & you earlier, have to agree to disagree.

Your comment above clearly indicates that you haven’t read & understood the original post, or the content referred to in it including the report, or the comments in response to your first missive by myself and Des. This is a clear regression to your earlier behaviour on Moju, demonstrating that your repartee with Che earlier on Groundviews, in which you were also trounced for your erroneous assertions, was mere happenstance.

You are of course free to write and say whatever you wish in your own blog - no one was denying you that - but on Groundviews, it behoves you to actually engage with the content without resorting to your usual litany of nonsense. Your hollow call for substantiation, ad nauseum, ad inifinitum, when the facts (should you care to read and understand them) overwhelmingly favour a reality that is the anti-thesis of that which you believe with regards to media freedom, the disconnect between the government’s & LTTE position on human rights, the behaviour of the armed forces and the general timbre of democracy in Sri Lanka - as brought out in repeated posts by multiple authors - is another clear sign that you don’t really engage with the content presented to you in any meaningful manner.

What distinguishes this blog is that the voices herein present issues and viewpoints that counter the propaganda of this government, of the LTTE and of Karuna (though not all equally) as paragons of democracy. If we are partial, then we are partial to the continuation of such conversations, which bring to light perspectives that one would otherwise not hear of in the mainstream media, State as well as Private.

Deal with that.

sittingnut said,

March 11, 2007 @ 8:11 pm

how ppl spin and pat their own back well whatever comforts you.

Suren Raghavan said,

May 23, 2007 @ 11:56 pm

Dear Sanjana,
Pl. let me place my appreciation for your stand and the reflective writings of recent times. Your article “Enemy of the State” should be read by every Sinhala voter, because it is starling the way even the moderates Sinhalese have mortgaged their fee thinking to the Mahinda Chinthana. To me it looks such an interwoven fate of our time that only a few of SLs are willing and able to read articles such as yours and KP s one on Tamil net today.
Pl. continue the good work

Suren R