CTA

Sri Lanka’s latest attempt to legalize state terror

First published at https://www.ucanews.com/news/sri-lankas-latest-attempt-to-legalize-state-terror/84751 on 25th March 2019

Replacing one act that tramples on human rights with another that makes potential suspects of us all is no solution

Five years ago on the night of March 16, a Catholic priest called Father Praveen and I were arrested in Kilinochchi, the former capital of the Tamil Tigers (LTTE) in Sri Lanka’s Northern Province. We were detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) and subjected to intense interrogation. The reasons given for my arrest included causing discomfort to the government and sending information overseas to earn money. Unlike many other PTA detainees, we were released after 51 hours — probably due to intense national and international campaigns. But the agony continued after our release. I was almost abducted by armed men in civilian clothes who raided the office of a human rights organization where I was doing some work. Later, the chief of the unit that arrested us told me they were his men, and they had been searching for a different terror suspect.

The overseas travel restriction on me has been lifted, but my electronic equipment that was confiscated has not been returned, and the restrictions on my freedom of expression remain in place. In 2009, Shantha Fernando, an activist working for the Commission for Justice and Peace of the National Christian Council, was also arrested and detained under the PTA. His crime? Carrying photos through the airport depicting the humanitarian crisis that unfolded during the last phase of the 26-year civil war, during which time the military stands accused of conducting war crimes. The PTA has led to the prolonged detention of innocents. In 2015, a court reportedly acquitted a Tamil mother after finding her not guilty of the charges leveled against her — after she had already spent 15 years in detention. The PTA has served as a license for reprisals against dissent, enforced disappearances, torture, sexual violence and prolonged detention. The cabinet formally approved and presented the bill to parliament last year. It is known as the Counter Terrorism Act (CTA).

Problems with the CTA

The CTA uses broad definitions that could make almost anyone a terrorist, and any act of dissent a terrorist act, with intention a key factor. Acts associated with terrorism can include gathering information, and distributing or making information available to a person or the public. Journalists could be penalized for not revealing sources. Participating in or organizing a protest, or a trade union strike, could also make one a terrorist suspect. There is no compulsion to protect an arrested person from physical harm, or to convey the information about their arrest in their own language at the time they are apprehended. What needs to be done is for the government to withdraw the CTA. Failing that, parliament must defeat it. The PTA must be repealed separately. There is no need to link the two laws together. Meanwhile, opposition to the two acts is increasing. But barring some disapproving comments by the bishop of Batticaloa and a few priests, the church leadership, including Caritas, have stayed quiet on the CTA. It is time to stand up and say no to both the PTA and the CTA. Any delay could have dire consequences for people’s human rights, dignity and democracy.

 

புதிய பயங்கரவாத எதிர்ப்புச் சட்டமூலம்: அநீதியை நடைமுறைப்படுத்தும் நவீன அனுமதிப் பத்திரமா?

First published at https://maatram.org/?p=7569 on 19th February 2019

சுமார் 40 வருடங்களுக்கு மேற்பட்ட காலம் சித்திரவதைக்கு உட்படுத்துவதற்கும், பாலியல் துன்புறுத்தல்களுக்கும், வலுக்கட்டாயமாக ஆட்களைக் காணாமல் ஆக்குவதற்கும், நீண்டகாலம் ஆட்களைத்  தடுப்புக் காவலில் வைப்பதற்கும் வழங்கப்படும் ஓர் அனுமதிப்பத்திரமாகப் பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டம் (Prevention of Terrorism Act – PTA) பயன்படுத்தப்படுகிறது. பயங்கரவாதம் தொடர்பாக, ஒரு சாதாரண சந்தேக நபர் மாத்திரமல்லாமல் ஊடகவியலாளர்கள், சமூகச் செயற்பாட்டாளர்கள் என்போர் இச்சட்டத்தின் கீழ் கைதுசெய்யப்பட்டதோடு, அரசாங்கத்திற்கு எதிராக முன்வைக்கப்படும், விமர்சன ரீதியான கருத்துக்களை ஒடுக்குவதற்கும், இச்சட்டம் மிக மோசமாக பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது. குறிப்பாக தமிழ் மக்களுக்கு எதிராக, இது அநேகமான சந்தர்ப்பங்களில் தவறான முறையில் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டுள்ளது.

தற்போதைய அரசு பதவிக்கு வந்த பின்னர், இவ்வொடுக்குமுறை ரீதியான பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டத்தை நீக்குவதாகவும், சர்வதேச ரீதியாக சிறந்த நடைமுறைக்கு ஏற்பவும் பயங்கரவாதத்திற்கு எதிராக ஒரு சட்டத்தை சமர்ப்பிப்பதாகவே பல்வேறு சந்தர்ப்பங்களில் உறுதிமொழிகள் வழங்கப்பட்டன. இதன் விளைவாகவே, கடந்த ஆண்டு செப்டெம்பர் மாதத்தில் புதிய பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டம் ஒன்று வரையப்பட்டது. இவ்வரைவு ஆங்கிலத்தில் பயங்கரவாதத்திற்கு எதிரான சட்டம் (Counter Terrorism Act – CTA) எனப் பெயரிடப்பட்டது. சிங்கள மொழியில் பழைய பெயரில் பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டம் என அறிமுகப்படுத்தப்பட்டு, வர்த்தமானப் பத்திரிகையில் வெளியிடப்பிடப்பட்டுள்ளமை ஒரு வகையில் கேளிக்கூத்தாகும்.

“பயங்கரவாதம் என அறிமுகப்படுத்தப்படும் தவறுகள் சம்பந்தமாக நடவடிக்கை எடுப்பதற்கு சுமார் 14 சட்டங்கள் – தண்டனைச் சட்டக் கோவையின் 6 வாசகங்கள் உட்பட சுமார் 20 சட்டங்கள் இலங்கைச் சட்டத்தில் உள்ளடக்கப்பட்டுள்ளன. அதேசமயம், அவசரகால நிலைமையின் கீழ் செயற்படுவதற்கு ஜனாதிபதிக்கு அவசரகாலச் சட்டத்தை பிரகடனப்படுத்தும் அதிகாரமும் உண்டு. நிலைமை இவ்வாறு இருக்கையில், பயங்கரவாதம் தொடர்பாக தனியான விசேட சட்டத்தின் அவசியம், வெறுமனே சிறுபான்மை சமூகங்கள் அரசுக்கு எதிராக முன்வைக்கும் விமர்சன ரீதியான கருத்துக்களை ஒடுக்குவதாகவே அமையும். ஆகவே, பயங்கரவாதத்தை ஒடுக்குவதற்கு ஏற்கனவே உள்ள சட்டங்கள் போதுமானவை என்பது எமது கருத்தாகும்.”

முன்னைய பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டம் பயன்படுத்தப்பட்டது போலவே, இப்புதிய சட்ட மூலமும் சாதாரண மக்களுக்கும், ஊடகவியலாளர்களுக்கும் சமூகச் செயற்பாட்டாளர்களுக்கும் எதிராக தொந்தரவுகளை மேற்கொள்ளக்கூடிய வகையில் பயன்படுத்துவதற்கு அவசியமான வாய்ப்புக்களை முறையே வழங்கியுள்ளன.

இச்சட்டத்தில் பரந்துபட்ட தெளிவின்மை காணப்படுகிறது. பயங்கரவாதம் என்பதற்கு வரைவிலக்கணமாக கருதக்கூடிய தவறுகள் பற்றி சரியான விளக்கம் வழங்கப்படவில்லை. இதன் காரணமாக இச்சட்டத்தைப் பயன்படுத்தி, அரசியலமைப்பின் மூலம் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ள கருத்துச் சுதந்திரம், ஒன்றுகூடும் சுதந்திரம் மற்றும் ஒரு சங்கத்தை உருவாக்கும் சுதந்திரம் என்பன மட்டுப்படுத்தப்படுவதற்கான வாய்ப்பு உண்டு. அடிப்படை மனித உரிமைகள் கூட நல்லெண்ணத்தோடு அமுல்படுத்தியிருந்தால் மாத்திரமே பயங்கரவாத செயலாகக் கருதப்படமாட்டாது.

இச்சட்டத்தின் கீழ் கைதுசெய்யப்பட்ட நபர் உடல் ரீதியாக பாதிப்புக்கு உள்ளாக்கப்படாத வகையில் பேணப்படுவது கட்டாயப்படுத்தப்படவில்லை. கைது செய்யப்படும் நபர், கைது செய்யப்படுவதற்கான காரணமும் அதற்கு ஏற்புடைய ஏனைய தகவல்களையும் அறிவித்தல் கட்டாயமாக்கப்படவில்லை. பின்னர் இவ்வாறு செய்வதற்கான காலச் சட்டகம் வழங்கப்படவும் இல்லை. குடும்ப உறுப்பினர்கள் கைதுசெய்யப்படும்போது அந்த இடத்தில் பிரசன்னமாக இருந்தாலும் கைது செய்யப்பட்டமைக்கான விவரங்களை அவர்களுக்கு அறிவிப்பதற்குக் கூட 24 மணித்தியாலங்கள் வழங்கப்படவில்லை. குடும்பத்திலுள்ளோர் கைதுசெய்யப்படக்கூடிய வேறு சந்தர்ப்பங்களில் அவ்விடத்தில் இருந்தவர் அல்லது அவர்கள் கைது செய்யப்பட்டமையை அறிவிப்பது கட்டாயப்படுத்தப்படவில்லை. அதே சமயம் பெண் சந்தேக நபர்கள் பெண் பாதுகாப்பு உத்தியோகத்தர்களால் கைது செய்யப்பட வேண்டுமெனவும் அவர்கள் விசாரணைக்கு உட்படுத்தப்படும் போது கட்டாயமாக ஒரு பெண் உத்தியோகத்தர் அவ்விடத்தில்  பிரசன்னமாக இருத்தல் வேண்டுமென்பதும் அத்தியாவசியப்படுத்தப்படவில்லை.

பொலிஸார் தாக்கல் செய்த தடுத்து வைக்கும் கட்டளைக்கு நீதவானின் அங்கீகாரம் பெறல் வேண்டும். அதே சமயம், ஒரு நபர் இரண்டு வாரங்கள் வரை தடுத்து வைப்பதைத் தீர்மானிப்பவர் பொலிஸ் உத்தியோகத்தர் ஆவார். மேலும், இத்தகைய தடுத்துவைக்கும் கட்டளையை, 8 வாரங்கள் வரை நீடிப்பதை  நீதவான் அங்கீகரிக்க முடியும். பொலிஸார் கைதுசெய்தமை தொடர்பாக மனித உரிமைகள் ஆணைக்குழுவிற்கு அறிவிப்பதற்கு 22 மணித்தியாலங்கள் கால அவகாசம் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது. அவருடைய வழக்கு ஒரு வருடத்தை விட அதிக காலகட்டத்திற்கு இழுபட்டுக்கொண்டு போனால் மாத்திரமே சந்தேக நபருக்கு பிணை வழங்கப்படும். தடுத்து வைக்கப்பட்டிருப்பவரின் சட்டத்தரணி மற்றும் குடும்ப அங்கத்தவர்கள் தடுத்து வைக்கப்பட்டிருக்கும் அமைவிடத்திற்கு பிரவேசிப்பதாயின் அந்த நிலையத்திற்குப் பொறுப்பான அரச அதிகாரியின் முன்னங்கீகாரத்தைப் பெறுதல் வேண்டும். அமைச்சர் ஒருவர் தீர்மானிக்கும் அமைவிடத்தில் மற்றும் நிலைமைகளின் கீழேயே முடிவு எடுக்கப்படுகிறது. இத்தகைய தடுத்து வைத்தலுக்கு எதிராக ‘மீளாய்வுக் குழுவிடம்’ மேன்முறையீடு செய்ய முடியும். எனினும் இம்மீளாய்வுக்குழு அமைச்சர், அமைச்சுச் செயலாளர், அமைச்சரினால் நியமிக்கப்படும் மேலும் இருவரை உள்ளடக்கியதாக அமையும். சமூகச் செயற்பாட்டாளர்களுக்கும் ஊடகவியலாளர்களுக்கும் எதிரணி அரசியல்வாதிகளுக்கும் எதிராக ஆட்சி அதிகாரத்தில் உள்ள அரசியல்வாதிகளும் பொலிஸாரும் பயங்கவாதத் தடைச் சட்டத்தைப் பயன்படுத்தும் எமது வரலாற்றைக் பின்னோக்கிப் பார்க்கையில், இச்சட்டத்தின் மூலம் அமைச்சருக்கும் பொலிஸாருக்கும் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ள அதிகாரம் ஒரு நரியிடம் கோழிக் குஞ்சுகளை ஒப்படைப்பதற்கு ஈடாகும் என்ற கருத்து எமக்கு  மேலும் சந்தேகத்தை ஏற்படுத்துகிறது.

இச்சட்டத்தின் மூலம் தடுத்து வைக்கப்பட்டிருப்போரின் உடலில் ஏதாவது காயங்கள் உண்டா என பரிசீலனை செய்வதற்கு பொலிஸ் நிலையப் பொறுப்பதிகாரியிடம் அதிகாரம் ஒப்படைக்கப்பட்டுள்ளதோடு, அவர் அத்தகைய காயங்களை அவதானித்தாரேயாயின், ஒரு சட்ட வைத்திய அதிகாரியிடம் தடுப்புக் காவலில் வைத்திருப்பவரை ஒப்படைத்து, சட்ட வைத்திய அறிக்கையைப் பெற வேண்டும். நீதவான் அல்லது மனித உரிமைகள் ஆணைக்குழு உத்தியோகத்தர் ஒருவர் தடுத்து வைக்கப்பட்டிருக்கும் இடத்திற்கு வருகை தரும் சந்தர்ப்பத்தில் தடுத்து வைக்கப்பட்டவர் மனிதாபிமானம் அற்ற கவனிப்பின் கீழ் தடுத்து வைக்கப்பட்டிருப்பின், அவர்கள் சிறைச்சாலை கண்காணிப்பு உத்தியோகத்தருக்கு அல்லது பொலிஸ் மா அதிபருக்கு அறிவித்தல் வேண்டும். இது தொடர்பாக உரிய நடவடிக்கைகளை எடுத்து ஏற்புடைய மனிதாபிமான நிலைமைகளை வழங்குமாறு நிர்ப்பந்திக்க முடியாது. சந்தேக நபர்கள் தடுப்புக் காவலில் இருக்கும்போது, துன்புறுத்தல்கள் இடம்பெறுமாயின் அல்லது  பாலியல் வன்முறைகளுக்கு உட்படுத்தப்படுவார்களேயாயின், முன்னைய  பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச்சட்டத்தின் கீழ் அதற்கான ஏற்பாடுகள் இருந்தன. ஆனால்,உத்தேச புதிய சட்டம்  நிலைமைகளை மேலும் மோசமாக்கலாம்.

அமுலில்  உள்ள பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டத்தின் கீழ் கைது செய்யப்படுதல், குறிப்பிட்ட அமைவிடங்களுக்குப் பிரவேசித்தல் மற்றும் பொருட்களை கைப்பற்றுதல் ஆகிய  நடவடிக்கைகளை பொலிஸ் உத்தியோகத்தர்கள் மாத்திரமே  மேற்கொள்ள முடியும். ஆனால், புதிய சட்டத்தின் கீழ் முப்படையினருக்கும், கரையோரப் பாதுகாப்பு பிரிவினருக்கும் இவ் அதிகாரங்கள் கிடைக்கின்றன. அதேசமயம் பொலிஸார், பாதிக்கப்பட்ட தரப்பினருக்கு அவர்களது மனக்குறைகளை எடுத்துக்கூற சந்தர்ப்பம் வழங்காமல், ஒரு கூட்டத்தை, ஒரு பேரணியை அல்லது ஒரு செயற்பாட்டை நிறுத்துவதற்கு நீதவானிடம் கோரிக்கை விடுக்கலாம். மறுபுறம் ஏதாவது ஓர் அமைப்பை, பொது அமைவிடத்தை அல்லது வேறு ஓர் இடத்தைத் தடை செய்யப்பட்ட அமைவிடமாக கால வரையறையின்றி பிரகடனப்படுத்தும், கட்டளையை விடுப்பதற்கு முன்னர், அவ்விடயத்தைச் சவாலுக்கு உட்படுத்துவதற்கு பாதிக்கப்பட்ட தரப்பினருக்கு வாய்ப்பு கிடைக்கமாட்டாது. அதேசமயம் அமைப்புக்களின் கூட்டங்கள், நடவடிக்கைகள் மற்றும் நிகழ்ச்சித்திட்டங்களை நடத்துவதைத் தடுத்தல், வங்கிக் கணக்குகள், வேறு நிதி வைப்புக்களை பயன்படுத்துதல் அல்லது அவற்றை ஈடுபடுத்துவதைத் தடை செய்தல், உடன்படிக்கைகளுக்கு வருவதை தடை செய்தல், நிதி சேகரித்தல், நிதி அளித்தல், சொத்துக்களை ஒப்படைப்பதை தடை செய்தல், நிதி அல்லது சொத்துக்களை ஒப்படைப்பதை தடை செய்தல்,  ஓர் அமைப்பின் சார்பில் அழுத்தங்களைப் பிரயோகித்தல், கோரிக்கைகளை முன்வைத்தல் என்பவற்றை தடுப்பதற்கு அமைச்சருக்கு அதிகாரம் உண்டு.

தற்போதைய பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டத்தில் வழங்கப்படாத, புதிய சட்டமூலத்தின் மூலம் ஒப்படைக்கப்படும் மேலதிக அதிகாரங்கள் ஜனாதிபதிக்கு உண்டு. உதாரணமாக, ஊரடங்குச் சட்டத்தை பிரகடனப்படுத்துவதற்கும், பொது மக்களின் ஒழுங்கைப் பேணுவதற்கு முப்படையினரை அழைப்பதற்கும் அதிகாரம் ஜனாதிபதிக்கு  வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

அதே சமயம், புதிய சட்டத்தின் கீழ் பகிரங்கமாக மன்னிப்புக் கோருவதற்கும், புனர்வாழ்வு அளிக்கப்படுவதற்கும், சமூக சேவையில் ஈடுபடுத்துவதற்கும் அதிகாரம் உண்டு. இவற்றின் மூலம் இழைத்த குற்றத்திற்கு நஷ்ட ஈடு செலுத்துவது ஏற்றுக்கொள்ளப்படமாட்டாது. இந்நிலைமையின் கீழ் வழக்கு விசாரணைகளுக்கு நீண்டகாலம் எடுக்கப்படுவதனால், சட்டத்தரணிகளின் கட்டணம் என்பன பாதிக்கப்பட்டோர் தாங்க முடியாத அளவு உயர்ந்து செல்கின்றது. எனவே, பலர் நீதிமன்ற நடவடிக்கைகளின் மூலம் தமது குற்றமற்ற தன்மையை நிரூபிப்பதற்கு கஷ்டப்படுவதற்குப் பதிலாக, குற்ற ஒப்புதலை ஏற்றுக்கொள்வதற்கு இடமுண்டு. இத்தகைய சந்தர்ப்பங்களில் குற்றப்பகர்வு பத்திரத்தின்படி சட்டமா அதிபர் குற்றச் சாட்டுக்களை வாபஸ் பெறும் போது, தண்டனைக்காக நீதிமன்ற அங்கீகாரத்தை கோரும் மேலதிக அதிகாரமும் வழங்கப்பட்டுள்ளது.

புதிய சட்டத்தை வரைந்து வர்த்தமானி அறிவித்தலில் வெளியிட்ட பின்னர், சிவில் சமூகச் செயற்பாட்டாளர்கள் இச்சட்டத்தின் மூலம் அரசியலமைப்பின் அடிப்படை உரிமைகள் மீறப்படுவதாக பிரகடனப்படுத்தி, உயர் நீதிமன்றத்தில் மனுக்களை சமர்ப்பித்ததோடு, உயர் நீதிமன்றம் மனுக்களைப் பொருட்படுத்தாமல் மரண தண்டனையை கொண்டுவருவதன் மூலம் அனைத்தும் ஏற்கனவே இருந்ததை விட மோசமான நிலைக்கு தள்ளப்பட்டுள்ளது.

புதிய பயங்கரவாத எதிர்ப்புச் சட்டமூலம் தொடர்பாக இலங்கையின் பல்வேறு மாகாணங்களிலும் இடம்பெற்ற கலந்துரையாடல்களின்போது மதத் தலைவர்கள், ஊடகவியலாளர்கள் மற்றும் சமூகச் செயற்பாட்டாளர்கள் பலர் வருகை தந்திருந்தனர். பல பெண்களின் குழுக்களினால் இக்கலந்துரையாடல்கள் ஏற்பாடு செய்யப்பட்டன. இவற்றில் உருவாகிய முக்கியமான கருத்துக்களும் கோரிக்கைகளும் பின்வருமாறு: ஏற்கனவே அமுலில் உள்ள பயங்கரவாததத் தடைச் சட்டத்தை நீக்கவேண்டிய அதேவேளை புதியதோர் சட்டம் அவசியம் இல்லை என்பதாகும். மட்டக்களப்பில் இடம்பெற்ற ஒரு கலந்துரையாடலில் பங்குபற்றிய 3 தமிழ் நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர்கள் கூறியதாவது: இந்த வரைபை அவர்கள் எதிர்ப்பதாகக் குறிப்பிட்டனர். ஆனால், தமிழ் தேசியக் கூட்டமைப்பு இது பற்றி தெளிவான ஒரு நிலைப்பாட்டை வெளியிடவில்லை. பழைய மற்றும் புதிய பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டத்திற்கும் தெளிவான எதிர்ப்பை சுட்டிக்காட்டிய ஒரே அரசியற் கட்சி மக்கள் விடுதலை முன்னணி மாத்திரமே என்பதை இங்கு குறிப்பிட்டேயாக வேண்டும்.

கடந்த 6ஆம் திகதி, இச்சட்டம் தொடர்பாக 20 நாடாளுமன்ற உறுப்பினர்களை உள்ளடக்கிய துறைசார் மேற்பார்வைக் குழுவின் கூட்டம் இடம்பெற்றது. இதன்போது சிவில் சமூகச் செயற்பாட்டாளர்கள் மற்றும் சுயாதீன சட்டத்தரணிகளுடன் இது பற்றிய கலந்துரையாடல் இடம்பெற்றது. அடுத்த கூட்டம் பெப்ரவரி மாதம் 20ஆம் திகதி (நாளை) இடம்பெறவுள்ளது. அன்றைய திகதிக்கு முன்னர் இது பற்றிய எழுத்து மூலமான சமர்ப்பணங்களை வழங்குமாறு வருகை தந்தோரிடம் கேட்டுக்கொள்ளப்பட்டது. பெப்ரவரி 11ஆம் திகதி இது தொடர்பாக இடம்பெற்ற கலந்துரையாடலின் போது வெளிவிவகாரஅமைச்சர் பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டத்தை அமுல்படுத்தும்போது மனித உரிமை மீறல்கள் இடம்பெற்றதை ஏற்றுக்கொண்டாலும், அத்தகைய ஒரு புதிய சட்டத்தின் தேவையை உறுதியான நிலைப்பாடாக முன்னெடுத்தார். அரச தரப்பினரினதும் சட்டத்தரணிகளினதும் சட்டமா அதிபர் திணைக்களத்தினதும் கருத்து பின்வருமாறு அமைந்துள்ளது, “புதிய சட்டம் அத்தியாவசியமானது – தற்போது சிறு சிறு மாற்றங்களை மாத்திரமே செய்ய முடியும்.”

ஏற்கனவே, அமுலில் உள்ள பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டம் மற்றும் புதிய வரைவு ஆகிய இரண்டின் மூலம் தடுத்து வைக்கப்படுவோரின் உயிர்வாழ்வுக்கான பாதுகாப்பு, சுதந்திரம், உடல் உள நலத்திற்கான அச்சுறுத்தல் ஏற்படும் அதேவேளை, அடிப்படை மனித உரிமைகள் மட்டுப்படுத்தப்படுகின்றன. அதேசமயம் பரந்துபட்டதும் தெளிவற்றதுமான வரைவிலக்கணங்களின் மூலம், சட்ட ரீதியாக வேறு கருத்துக்கள் முன்வைக்கப்படுகின்றன. அடிப்படை உரிமைகளை அனுபவிப்பதற்கும் ஜனநாயகப் பிரஜைகள் என்ற வகையில் செயற்படுவதும், பயங்கரவாத நடவடிக்கைகளாக மாறுகின்றன. அதேசமயம், இதன் மூலம் நீதிமன்ற மேற்பார்வையையும் தற்றுணிபையும் குறைக்கும், அமைச்சரினதும் பொலிஸாரினதும் ஆயுதப் படைகளினதும் கரையோரப் பாதுகாவலர்களினதும் தற்றுணிபுக்கு ஏற்ப நடவடிக்கைகளை மேற்கொள்வதற்கு அத்துமீறிய அதிகாரங்கள் அல்லது பாரிய அதிகாரங்கள் வழங்கப்படுகின்றன. அடிப்படையில் பொலிஸாரும் அமைச்சரும் விசாரணையாளர்களும் நீதிபதிகளும உரிய வகிபாகத்தை மேற்கொள்கின்றனர்.

தேசிய பாதுகாப்பு, பயங்கரவாதம் ஆகிய சொற்களைப் பயன்படுத்தி, நீதிமன்றம் மேற்பார்வை செய்யாமல் இருப்பதற்கும் இச்சட்டத்தில் ஏற்பாடுகள் உண்டு. இதனூடாக சிவில் சமூக வாழ்க்கை இராணுவ மயமாக்கப்பட முடியும். அதேவேளை சட்டத்தின் ஆட்சியினூடாக நிர்வகிக்கப்படும் ஜனநாயக சமூகம் அமுலில் உள்ள ஒரு நாட்டிற்குப் பதிலாக தேசிய பாதுகாப்பை முன்னுரிமைப்படுத்தி அதிகாரபூர்வமான ஓர் ஆட்சியாக சமூகம் மாறக்கூடும். இது நல்லிணக்கத்திற்கு பாதகமாகவே அமையும். இதன் மூலம் அதிகாரத்திலுள்ளோருக்கு இனத்துவம், மொழி, மதம் மற்றும் அரசியல் கருத்திற்கு ஏற்ப தம்முடன் உடன்படாத குழுக்களை ஒடுக்குவதற்கு சந்தர்ப்பம் கிடைக்கின்றது. அது எதிர்கால நெருக்கடிக்கு (பயங்கரவாத்தை தடை செய்யும் சட்டத்தின் வரலாற்றை நோக்குகையில் இடம்பெற்றது போலவே) காரணமாக அமையலாம்.

பயங்கரவாத தடைச் சட்டத்தை நீக்கி அதற்கு ஒப்பான மற்றுமோர் சட்டத்துடன் தொடர்புபடுத்துவது எந்த வகையிலும் அவசியமில்லை. நாடாளுமன்றத்தின் மூலம் கட்டாயமாக பயங்கரவாதத் தடைச் சட்டம் நீக்கப்பட வேண்டும். அதனைச் செய்ய முடியும். அமைச்சரவை புதிய சட்ட வரைவை வாபஸ் பெற வேண்டும் அல்லது நாடாளுமன்றத்தினாலேயே அது கட்டாயமாக தோல்விக்குட்படுத்தப்பட வேண்டும். தற்போது அமுலில் உள்ள சட்டங்களின் ஊடாக பயங்கரவாதம் என அடையாளப்படுத்தப்படும் தவறுகள் தொடர்பாக நடவடிக்கை எடுக்க முடியும்.

 தமித் சந்திமால் மற்றும் ருக்கி பெர்னாண்டோ

 


(17.02.2019 அனித்தா’ வாராந்திர சிங்களப் பத்திரிகையில் வெளிவந்த கட்டுரையின் தமிழாக்கம்)

නව ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත අවනීතියට අලුත් අවසරපතක්ද?

First published on Anidda newspaper of 17th February and also published at https://www.vikalpa.org/?p=34293

රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත(Prevention of Terrorism Act -PTA) වසර 40කට වැඩි කාලයක් තිස්සේ වද හිංසා පැමිණවීම, ලිංගික හිංසනය, බලහත්කාරයෙන් අතුරුදහන් කිරීම සහ දීර්ඝ කාලීන ලෙස රැඳවුම් භාරයේ තබා ගැනීම සඳහා අවසර පත්‍රයක් ලෙස භාවිතා වී ඇත. ත්‍රස්තවාදී සැකකරුවන් පමණක් නොව ජනමාධ්‍යවේදීන්, සමාජ ක්‍රියාකාරීන් මේ යටතේ අත්අඩංගුවට ගත් අතර, රජයට එරෙහි විවේචනාත්මක අදහස් මර්දනය කිරීම උදෙසා මේ පනත දැඩි සේ භාවිතා වී ඇත. විශේෂයෙන්ම දෙමළ ජනතාවට එරෙහිව මෙය බොහෝ අවස්ථාවලදී වැරදි ලෙස භාවිතා විය.

වත්මන් රජය බලයට පැමිණිමෙන් පසු, මේ මර්දනකාරී ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත ඉවත් කරන බවට සහ අන්තර්ජාතික යහපත් ව්‍යවහාරයනට අනුකූල වන ත්‍රස්ත විරෝධී පනතක් ගෙන එන බවට විවිධ අවස්ථාවල පොරොන්දු ලබා දෙන ලදී. පසුගිය වසරේ සැප්තැම්බර් මාසයේ දී නව ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනතේ කෙටුම්පතක් ඉදිරිපත් කරන ලද්දේ මෙහි ප්‍රතිඵලයක් ලෙසය. මෙම කෙටුම්පත ඉංග්‍රීසි භාෂාවෙන් ත්‍රස්ත විරෝධී පනත (Counter Terrorism Act – CTA) ලෙස නම් කර තිබුනත්, සිංහල බසින් පැරණි පනත හැඳින්වූ ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත ලෙසම ගැසට් කර තිබීම එක්තරා ආකාරයක සරදමකි.

ත්‍රස්තවාදය යැයි හැඳින්විය හැකි වැරදි සම්බන්ධයෙන් අදාළ වන පනත් 14ක් ද, දණ්ඩ නීති සංග්‍රහයේ වගන්ති 6 ක් ද ඇතුළුව නීති 20ක් පමණ ශ්‍රී ලංකා නීතිය තුළ පවතී. එසේම හදිසි තත්ත්ව තුළ දී කටයුතු කිරීමට ජනපතිවරයාට හදිසි නීතිය පැනවීමේ හැකියාව ඇත. මෙවැනි තත්වයක් තුළ ත්‍රස්තවාදය සම්බන්ධයෙන් වෙනම විශේෂ නීතියක අවශ්‍යතාවය හුදෙක් සුළුතරයන් සහ රජයට එරෙහි විවේචනාත්මක අදහස් මර්දනය කිරීමක් වන අතර, ත්‍රස්තවාදය මැඩලීමට පවතින නීති ප්‍රමාණවත් වන බව අපගේ මතයයි. පෙර ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත භාවිතා වූ පරිද්දෙන්ම, මෙම නව පනත විසින් ද සාමාන්‍ය ජනතාවට, ජනමාධ්‍යවේදීන්ට, සහ සමාජ ක්‍රියාකාරීන්ට හිරිහැර කිරීමට අවශ්‍ය ඉඩකඩ විධිමත්ව සපයා ඇත.

මේ පනත තුළ පුළුල්, අපැහැදිලි නිර්වචනයක් ත්‍රස්තවාදය ලෙස නම් කළ හැකි වැරැදි සම්බන්ධයෙන් ලබා දී ඇත. මේ හේතුව නිසා මේ නීතිය යොදා ගනිමින් ව්‍යවස්ථාව විසින් ලබා දී ඇති ප්‍රකාශනයේ නිදහස, එක්රැස්වීමේ සහ සමාගමයේ නිදහස සීමාවනට ලක් කිරීමට ඉඩ ඇත. මූලික මිනිස් අයිතිවාසිකමක් පවා “සද්භාවයෙන් ඉටු කළේ නම්” පමණක් ත්‍රස්තවාදී ක්‍රියාවක් ලෙස නොසැලකේ.

මෙම නීතිය යටතේ අත්අඩංගුවට ගත් පුද්ගලයා ශාරීරික හානියකට ලක් වීමෙන් ආරක්ෂා කර ගැනීම අනිවාර්ය නොවේ. අත්අඩංගුවට පත් වෙන පුද්ගලයාට අත්අඩංගුවට ගැනීමට හේතුව සහ ඊට අදාළ අනෙකුත් තොරතුරු දැනුම් දීම අනිවාර්ය නොවන අතර, පසුව එසේ කළ යුතු කාලරාමුවක් සපයාද නැත. පවුලේ අය අත්අඩංගුවට පත් වෙන අවස්ථාවේ එතැන සිටියද අත්අඩංගුවට පත් වීම ගැන විස්තර ඔවුන්ට දැනුම් දීමට පවා පැය 24ක කාලයක් ලබා දී ඇත. පවුලේ අය අත්අඩංගුවට පත් වෙන අවස්ථාවේ එතැන සිටියේ නැත්නම් ඔවුනට අත්අඩංගුවට පත්වීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් දැනුම් දීම අනිවාර්ය නොවේ. එසේම කාන්තා සැකකරුවන් කාන්තා නිලධාරීන් විසින් අත්අඩංගුවට ගැනීමට ප්‍රශ්න කරනු ලැබීමට හෝ කාන්තා නිලධාරිනියක් එතැන සිටීම අත්‍යවශ්‍ය නොවේ.

පොලිසිය විසින් නිකුත් කළ වලංගු රඳවා ගැනීම් නියෝගයකට අනුමැතිය මහේස්ත්‍රාත් විසින් ලබා දිය යුතු අතර, පුද්ගලයා සති දෙකක් දක්වා රඳවා තබා ගැනීම තීරණය කරන්නේ පොලිස් නිලධාරියාය. මේ රඳවා තබා ගැනීම් නියෝගයක්, සති 8ක් දක්වා මහේස්ත්‍රාත් අනුමැතිය ඇතිව කාලය දිගු කළ හැකිය. පොලිසිය විසින් අත්අඩංගුවට ගැනීම සම්බන්ධයෙන් මානව හිමිකම් කොමිසමට දැනුම් දීමට පැය 72ක කාලයක් ලබා දී ඇත. සැකකරුවාට ඇප ලැබෙන්නේ ඔහුගේ නඩුව වසරකට වඩා වැඩි කාලයක් ඇදි ඇදී ගිය හොත් පමණි. රැඳවියාගේ නීතිඥයාට සහ පවුලේ අයට රැඳවුම් ස්ථානයට පිවිසිය හැකි වන්නේ ස්ථානභාර නිලධාරියාගේ පූර්ව අවසරය සහිතවය. පුද්ගලයා රඳවා තබා ගන්නේ අමාත්‍යවරයකු විසින් තීරණය කරන ස්ථාන සහ තත්වයන් යටතේ ය. රඳවා තබා ගැනීම්වලට විරුද්ධව “සමාලෝචන මණ්ඩලය” වෙත අභියාචනය කළ හැකි නමුත් එම මණ්ඩලය සමන්විත වන්නේ ද අමාත්‍යවරයා, අමාත්‍යාංශ ලේකම්, සහ අමාත්‍යවරයා විසින් පත් කළ තවත් දෙදෙනෙකු ය. දේශපාලනඥයන් සහ පොලිසිය විසින් සමාජ ක්‍රියාකාරීන්ට, ජනමාධ්‍යවේදීන්ට සහ විරුද්ධ දේශපාලනඥයන්ට එරෙහිව ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත භාවිතා කිරීමේ ඉතිහාසය දෙස බලන විට, මේ පනත විසින් ඇමැතිවරයාට සහ පොලිසියට ලබා දී ඇති මේ බලතල නරියාට කුකුළු කොටුව භාර දීමක් ද යන සැකය අප වෙත නැගෙන්නේය.

පනත විසින් රැඳවියාගේ දැකිය හැකි තුවාල තිබේදැයි පරීක්ෂා කිරීමට ස්ථාන භාර නිලධාරීයා(OIC) වෙත බලය පවරන අතර, ඔහු විසින් එසේ දුටුවේ නම්, ඔහුට ඇත්තේ අධිකරණ වෛද්‍ය නිලධාරියකු වෙත රැඳවියා ඉදිරිපත් කර වාර්තාවක් ලබා ගැනීම පමණි. මහේස්ත්‍රාත්වරයකු හෝ මානව හිමිකම් කොමිසමේ නිලධාරියකු විසින් රැඳවුම් ස්ථානයට පැමිණි අවස්ථාවක රැඳවියා රඳවා ඇත්තේ මානුෂීය සැලකීමට ගැලපෙන පරිදි නොවන බව නිරීක්ෂණය කළේ නම්, ඔවුන්ට කළ හැක්කේ බන්ධනාගාර අධිකාරී වෙත හෝ පොලිස්පති වෙත හෝ දැනුම් දීම පමණකි. ඒ සම්බන්ධයෙන් ක්‍රියාමාර්ග ගෙන අදාළ ‘මානුෂික තත්වයන්’ සැපයීමට කටයුතු කිරීමට බල කිරීමට ඔවුනට හැකියාවක් නැත.

සැකකරුවන් රැඳවුම් භාරයේ සිටිය දී වද හිංසා පැමිණවීමට, සහ ලිංගික අතවර ආදියට ලක් වීම් ගැන සිදු වීම් ගණනාවක් පෙර ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත යටතේ වාර්තා වී ඇති අතර, මේ පනතේ ඉහත වගන්ති තුළින් එම තත්වය තවදුරටත් වැඩි විය හැකිය.

දැනට පවතින ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත යටතේ පොලිස් නිලධාරීන් විසින් පමණක් අත්අඩංගුවට ගැනීම, ස්ථානවලට ඇතුළු වීම, සහ භාණ්ඩ භාරයට ගැනීම ආදිය කළ යුතු වුවත්, නව පනත යටතේ ත්‍රිවිධ හමුදාවලට සහ වෙරළාරක්ෂකයන්ට ද මෙකී බලතල ලැබේ. එසේම පොලීසියට, වින්දිත පාර්ශ්වයට කරුණු දැක්වීමට අවස්ථාවක් නොදී, රැස්වීමක්, රැළියක්, හෝ ක්‍රියාකාරකමක් නැවැත්වීමට මහේස්ත්‍රාත්වරයාගෙන් ඉල්ලීමක් කළ හැකිය. එසේම ඇමැතිවරයකුට කිසියම් සංවිධානයක්, පොදු ස්ථානයක්, හෝ වෙනත් ස්ථානයක් තහනම් ස්ථානයක් බවට කාල නියමයක් රහිතව නියම කළ හැකි අතර, එසේ නියෝගයක් නිකුත් කිරීමට පෙර මෙය අභියෝගයට ලක් කිරීමට අනෙක් පාර්ශවයට අවස්ථාවක් ලැබෙන්නේ නැත. එසේම සංවිධානවල රැස්වීම්, ක්‍රියාකාරකම් සහ වැඩසටහන් පැවැත්වීම තහනම් කිරීම, බැංකු ගිණුම් සහ වෙනත් මූල්‍ය තැන්පතු භාවිතය හෝ යෙදවීම තහනම් කිරීම, ගිවිසුම්වලට එළඹීම තහනම් කිරීම, අරමුදල් රැස්කිරීම සහ ප්‍රදාන සහ දේපල පැවරීම් ලබා ගැනීම තහනම් කිරීම, අරමුදල් සහ වත්කම් පැවරීම තහනම් කිරීම, සහ සංවිධානයක් වෙනුවෙන් බලපෑම් කිරීම, ඉල්ලීම් සිදු කිරීම ආදිය සිදු කිරීම තහනම් කිරීමට ද ඇමැතිවරයාට බලය ලැබේ.

පවතින ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනතින් ලබා නොදෙන මේ පනත හරහා පැවරෙන අනෙකුත් අමතර බලතල වන්නේ ජනපතිට ඇඳිරි නීතිය පැනවීමටත්, මහජන සාමය පවත්වා ගැනීමට ත්‍රිවිධ හමුදා කැඳවීමටත් ලබා දෙන බලයයි.

එසේම නව නීතිය ඔස්සේ ප්‍රසිද්ධියේ සමාව ගැනීමත්, පුනරුත්ථාපනයට ලක් වීම, සහ ප්‍රජා සේවයේ යෙදීම වැනි දෑ හරහා වරදට වන්දි ගෙවීමත් පිළි ගැනේ. මේ තත්වය තුළ නඩුවලට දීර්ඝ කාලයක් ගත වෙන නිසාත්, නීතිඥ ගාස්තු ආදිය දරා ගැනීමට නොහැකි වීම නිසාත් බොහෝ දෙනෙක් අධිකරණ ක්‍රියාවලියක් තුළ තමන්ගේ නිරවද්‍යතාවය ඔප්පු කිරීමට මහන්සි වීම වෙනුවට වරද පිළි ගැනීමට බොහෝ දුරට ඉඩ ඇත. මෙවැනි අවස්ථාවල අභිචෝදකයා වන නීතිපතිවරයාට චෝදනා අස්කර ගැනීමේ දී දඩුවම් සඳහා අධිකරණ අනුමැතිය ඉල්ලීමේ අමතර බලයක් ද ලබා දී ඇත.

මේ නීතිය කෙටුම්පත් කර ගැසට් කිරීමෙන් අනතුරුව සිවිල් ක්‍රියාකාරීහු මෙම නීතිය විසින් ව්‍යවස්ථාවේ මූලික අයිතිවාසිකම් කඩ කරන බවට ප්‍රකාශ කරමින් ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණයේ පෙත්සම් ගොනු කරන ලද අතර, ශ්‍රේෂ්ඨාධිකරණය විසින් ඒ කිසිවක් සැලකිල්ලකට නොගෙන මරණ දඬුවම ද ගෙන ඒමෙන් සියල්ල තිබුණාට ද වඩා නරක තත්වයකට පත් කරන ලදී.

නව ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත සම්බන්ධයෙන් දිවයිනේ විවිධ පළාත්වල පැවැත්වුනු සාකච්ඡාවලට ආගමික නායකයෝ, ජනමාධ්‍යවේදීහු සහ සමාජ ක්‍රියාකාරීහු ගණනාවක් පැමිණියහ. මේවා බොහොමයක් සංවිධානය කළේ කාන්තා කණ්ඩායම් ය. මෙම සාකච්ඡාවල මතු වූ ප්‍රධාන මතය සහ ඉල්ලීම වූයේ, පවතින ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත අහෝසි කළ යුතු අතර නව පනතක් අවශ්‍ය නැති බවයි. මඩකලපුවේ පැවැති එක් සාකච්ඡාවකට සහභාගි වූ දමිළ පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීන් තිදෙනෙකුම ප්‍රකාශ කළේ මෙම කෙටුම්පතට ඔවුන් විරෝධය දක්වන බවයි.

එහෙත් දමිළ ජාතික සන්ධානය (TNA) මේ පිළිබඳ පැහැදිලි ස්ථාවරයක් ප්‍රකාශ කර නොමැත. පැරැණි සහ නව ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත් දෙකටම පැහැදිලි විරෝධයක් පළ කර ඇති එකම දේශපාලන පක්ෂය වන්නේ ජනතා විමුක්ති පෙරමුණයි.

පසුගිය 6 වැනිදා මෙම නීතිය සම්බන්ධයෙන් පාර්ලිමේන්තු මන්ත්‍රීවරු 20 දෙනෙකුගෙන් යුක්ත ආංශික අධීක්ෂණ කාරක සභාවේ රැස්වීම පැවැත්වුනි. එහිදී සිවිල් ක්‍රියාධරයන්, සහ ස්වාධීන නීතිඥයන් සමග මේ පිළිබඳව සාකච්ඡා වුනි. මීලඟ රැස්වීම පෙබරවාරි 20 වැනි දින පැවැත්වීමට එකඟ වී ඇති අතර, එදිනට පෙර මෙය පිළිබඳව ලිඛිත ඉදිරිපත් කිරීම් ලබා දෙන ලෙස පැමිණි සිටි අයගෙන් ඉල්ලා සිටින ලදී. පෙබරවාරි 11 වැනි දින මේ පිළිබඳව පැවැති සාකච්ඡාවක දී විදේශ කටයුතු ඇමැතිවරයා ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත ක්‍රියාත්මක කිරීම තුළ මානව හිමිකම් උල්ලංඝණය වීම් සිදු වූ බව පිළිගත්තත්, එවැනිම නව පනතක් අවශ්‍යය යන දැඩි ස්ථාවරයේ සිටියේය. රජයේ පාර්ශ්වයේ සිටි නීතිඥවරුන්ගේ සහ නීතිපති දෙපාර්තමේන්තුවේ මතය වී ඇත්තේ ද නව පනතක් අත්‍යවශ්‍ය බව සහ දැනට කළ හැක්කේ අවම වෙනස්කම් පමණක් බවත්ය.

පවතින ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත(PTA) සහ අලුත් කෙටුම්පත(CTA) යන දෙකින්ම රැඳවියන්ගේ ජීවිත ආරක්ෂාව, නිදහස, ශාරීරික හා මානසික යහපැවැත්මට තර්ජනයක් වන අතර, මූලික මිනිස් අයිතිවාසිකම් සීමා කරයි. එසේම පුළුල්, සහ අපැහැදිලි නිර්වචන තුළින්, නීත්‍යනුකූල ලෙස වෙනස් අදහස් ප්‍රකාශ කිරීමට, මූලික මිනිස් අයිතිවාසිකම් අත්විඳීම සහ ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී පුරවැසියන් ලෙස කටයුතු කිරීම ත්‍රස්තවාදී ක්‍රියා බවට පත් කරයි. එසේම එයින් අධිකරණමය අධීක්ෂණය සහ අභිමතිය අඩු කරන අතර, අමාත්‍යවරයාගේ, පොලිසියේ, හමුදාවේ, සහ වෙරළාරක්ෂකයන්ගේ අභිමතයට කටයුතු කිරීමට සුවිසල් බලතල සපයයි. මූලික වශයෙන් පොලිසිය සහ අමාත්‍යවරයා විසින් විමර්ශකයාගේ සහ විනිසුරුගේ යන දෙදෙනාගේම භූමිකාවන් ඉටු කරයි.

ජාතික ආරක්ෂාව’ සහ ‘ත්‍රස්තවාදී” යන වචන භාවිතා කරමින්, අධිකරණය අධීක්ෂණයන් නොකර සිටීමට මේ පනත තුළ ප්‍රතිපාදන ඇත. මේ හරහා සිවිල් ජීවිතය හමුදාකරණය විය හැකි අතර, නීතියේ ආධිපත්‍යය හරහා පාලනය වන ප්‍රජාතන්ත්‍රවාදී සමාජයක පවතින රටක් වෙනුවට ජාතික ආරක්ෂාව ප්‍රමුඛත්වය ගත් බලාධිකාරී රෙජීමයක් බවට පරිවර්තනය විය හැකිය.

මෙය සංහිඳියාවට හානි කර වනු ඇත්තේ, එය විසින් බලයේ සිටින අයට ජනවාර්ගිකත්වය, භාෂාව, ආගම, සහ දේශපාලනික අදහස් අනුව තමන් සමග එකඟ නොවන කණ්ඩායම් මර්දනය කිරීමට ඉඩ ලැබෙනු ඇති නිසාය. එය අනාගත අර්බුදයකට (ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනතේ ඉතිහාසය දෙස බලන කල සිදුවූවාක් මෙන්) හේතු සාධක විය හැකිය. ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත ඉවත් කිරීම එහා සමාන තවත් නීතියක් සමග සම්බන්ධ කිරීමේ කිසිදු අවශ්‍යතාවයක් ඇත්තේ නැත. පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් අනිවාර්යෙන්ම ත්‍රස්තවාදය වැළැක්වීමේ පනත ඉවත් කළ යුතු අතර, එය කළ හැක්කකි. කැබිනට් මණ්ඩලය විසින් නව පනත් කෙටුම්පත අකුලා ගැනීම හෝ පාර්ලිමේන්තුව විසින් එය පරාජය කිරීම අනිවාර්යයෙන්ම සිදු විය යුත්තකි. දැනට පවතින නීතින් හරහා ත්‍රස්තවාදය යැයි හඳුන්වන වැරදි සම්බන්ධයෙන් කටයුතු කළ හැකිය.

(දමිත් චන්දිමාල් සහ රුකී ප්‍රනාන්දු)

The terror of counter-terror laws

First published at http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2018/10/21/opinion/terror-counter-terror-laws on 21st October 2018

With the second reading of the Counter Terrorism Bill scheduled for Tuesday (23), rights activists are still raising grave concerns about the proposed legislation.

For about 40 years, the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) served as a license for torture, sexual violence, enforced disappearances, and prolonged detention. Three years have passed since the governmental commitment to repeal it, and it must be done now.

There are also many problematic clauses in the draft of the proposed new counter terror law,which has been tabled in parliament, with the original Sinhalese name, and a new English name – “Counter Terrorism”. Crimes must be prevented and responded to, including serious ones termed as “terrorism” and we already have a plethora of laws to do this. It is also possible to amend existing laws to include any new types of crimes that are not included. Therefore there is no need for a new counter terror law.

We have been living in a state of almost continuous emergency for about 40 years from1971 to 2011. Emergency regulations were reintroduced in March 2018 for a short period when there was violence against Muslims around Kandy. Under the Public Security Ordinance (PSO), the President has absolute discretion, without judicial scrutiny, to declare a state of emergency and ‘emergency regulations’ that can override all laws except the Constitution. Parliament can extend such emergency laws beyond 14 days. Emergency regulations can take away procedural protections on arrests, detention, and trials, which are guaranteed under criminal law, and they can be used for entry, search, seizure of assets and properties, providing powers of arrest to the armed forces, and accepting confessions made to the police. 1

Emergency regulations have also introduced definitions of terrorism. Our Constitution also provides for restrictions of rights2 in the name of national security, without them even being required to be ‘proportionate’. In addition to the PSO and emergency regulations, Sri Lanka has about 15 other laws,3 which can deal with offences that are listed under the proposed counter-terrorism law.

The Bill contains vague and broadly worded definitions of the intention required for the offence of terrorism:4 The defined actions include ones that can infringe on dissent and fundamental rights guaranteed under the constitution.5 Even the exception clause to the above – the exercising of a fundamental right – is subject to that of being done in “good faith”.

There is no compulsion to protect an arrested person from physical harm. Conveying information about the arrest to the arrestee in her or his own language is not compulsory and where it cannot be given immediately, there is no specified time frame to do so. Even if family members are present at the time of arrest, there is a 24 hour period provided, to notify the family of the arrest details. If family members are not present at the time of arrest, serving acknowledgement of arrest is not compulsory. It is not compulsory for female suspects to be questioned by female officers or have a female officer present.

The time frame for a detainee to be produced before a Magistrate is doubled to 48 hours from the 24 hours limit allowed under ordinary laws, increasing the possibility of abuse. A person could be remanded for upto one year without charges and without bail.

Through Detention Orders (DOs) a police officer can tell the judiciary (a Magistrate) what to do, and the Magistrate must obey, in terms of detaining a person, granting bail or discharging an arrestee. These DOs can last up to two weeks at a time and with approval of a Magistrate, can be then extended for eight weeks. Detention is in places and conditions decided by a Minister. Appeals against DOs are to be made to a“Board of Review”, comprising the Minister the Ministry’s Secretary, and two others appointed by the Minister. A detained suspect’s lawyer and family can only access her or him with the prior permission of the Officer in Charge (OIC) of the detention facility or prison.

Lawyers cannot be present during interview and taking of statements. Police are given 72 hours to notify the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) of a detention under a DO, but no time frame is given for the HRCSL to be given a copy of the DO. The Bill gives power to an OIC to do a medical examination of a detainee to check for visible injuries, and if there are visible injuries, the OIC only has to produce a suspect before a Judicial Medical Officer(JMO)and obtain a report.

If a Magistrate or the HRCSL thinks a place of detention/remand does not conform to the requirements of humane treatment (after a visit), they are to notify the Inspector General of Police/Superintendent of Prisons. However, neither of them are obliged to provide ‘whatever is necessary for humane treatment’.

Under the PTA, only police officers can make arrests, enter premises, conduct searches, and seize material, but the new Bill also grants sweeping powers to the armed forces and the coast guard. Police can seek an order from a magistrate to stop a gathering, a meeting, rally or activity, without a chance for an affected party to be heard. A Minister can proscribe an organization and declare any public place or any other location as a prohibited place indefinitely- without prior possibility for the affected to challenge this- powers that even the PTA doesn’t provide for. Additional powers that the Bill provides but the PTA does not have, are for the President to declare a curfew and call out armed forces so as to maintain public order.

The PTA only allowed seizure and forfeiture of properties of a convicted person, but the new draft law expands this to include those acquitted by courts or anyone else.

The Bill also legitimizes acceptance of a penalty such as a public apology, or reparation to victims of the offence- such as undergoing rehabilitation or engaging in community service. In the context of decades long court cases and high legal costs, the threat of fresh charges with high penalties may compel individuals to admit guilt rather than establish their innocence in a Court of law. The Bill also allows the Attorney General, the prosecutor, to play a judicial role by imposing penalties when withdrawing charges.

The new draft Bill improves on some of the draconian provisions of the PTA, but also goes on to provide the Minister, President, armed forces more powers than the PTA. We must not lower our standards to use a much abused draconian law like the PTA as a benchmark for any new law.

Extraordinary powers should always be an exception for limited purposes, limited periods and a limited geographical area, but the new law is a permanent all island law. It introduces offences that are vague and could criminalize exercise of human rights and dissent. It reduces checks and balances to safeguard life, liberty and wellbeing, reduces judicial discretion and grants extraordinary powers to a Minister, police, army and coastguard on top of the wide powers they could exercise even now through proclamation of emergency by the President. These are powers that have been heavily abused in the past and the new bill can facilitate continuation of such abuses. It can permanently militarize civil life, based more on security obsessed authoritarianism than democracy and rule of law. This must be opposed.

(The writer is a rights activist. A significant part of his work in the last few years has been about those detained under the PTA and those released. He has also been detained under the PTA, has a pending investigation for four and half years, and a court order restricting his freedom of expression)

[1]In the past, this has even included bypassing inquests required under ordinary laws for death of persons caused by the police or the army, or the death of persons while in their custody, and made it mandatory for all media organizations to submit their reports to the ‘Competent Authority’ prior to publication or broadcast.

[2]Such as right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty, freedoms of expression, assembly, association, and movement, equality before the law and non-discrimination.

[3] For example, Penal Code, Code of Criminal Procedure, Offences Against Aircraft Act No. 24 Of 1982, Suppression Of Unlawful Acts Of Violence At Airports Serving International Civil Aviation No. 31 Of 1996, Suppression Of Unlawful Acts Against The Safety Of Maritime Navigation No. 42 Of 2000, Prevention Of Hostage Taking No. 41 Of 2000, Prevention And Punishment Of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons No. 15 Of 1991, Suppression Of Terrorist Bombings Act, No. 11 Of 1999, Chemical Weapons Convention No.58 Of 2007,, Convention On The Suppression Of Terrorist Financing Act No. 25 Of 2005, Financial Transactions Reporting Act No. 6 Of 2006, Prevention of Money Laundering Act No. 05 of 2006 (as amended), Proscribing of Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam and Other Similar Organizations Law No. 16 of 1978, SAARC Regional Convention On Suppression Of Terrorism Act No. 70 Of 1988, United Nations Act No 45 of 1968 and regulations made under that to deal with terrorist financing and money laundering and which has led to listing of persons and organizations.

[4] Such as “intimidate a population”, “wrongfully or unlawfully compelling the government of Sri Lanka, or any other government, or an international organization, to do or to abstain from doing any act”, “prevent any such government from functioning” or “causing harm to the territorial integrity or sovereignty of Sri Lanka or any other sovereign country”.

[5]obstruction to essential services, obstruction, interference to any electronic or automated system and causing serious risk to safety of a section of a public.

The Struggle for Justice

First published at http://groundviews.org/2018/10/20/the-struggle-for-justice/ on 20th October 2018

Editor’s Note: The following are excerpts from a speech made at the Human Rights Education Award ceremony at the Law & Human Rights Centre in Jaffna, on 19th Oct. 2018

Dear friends,

I want to congratulate the Law and Human Rights Centre for organising this course. It is difficult but very important to do this in Jaffna, a place that sees continuing rights violations, impunity for serious violations in the past and courageous dissent and resistance, be it through protests, the arts, writing, or filing court cases.

Rights violations and struggles for justice

Today, after this event, I will be going to the Jaffna Press Club – for a commemorative event to remember life and work of Nimalarajan, a Tamil journalist killed on 19th October 2000. He is among many Tamil journalists killed, disappeared, assaulted, threatened, and intimidated during and after the war. No one has been held accountable. For many, justice for Tamil journalists appear to be less important than justice for Sinhalese journalists. Even now, Tamil journalists continue to face threats, intimidation, surveillance, interrogation. Not just them, but also families and friends.

This year and last year has been a year of protests in Sri Lanka – especially in the North and East. This includes continuous protests for more than one and half years by families of disappeared and by communities whose lands are occupied by the military. In addition to long drawn out roadside protests, families of the disappeared in Mannar and Vavuniya have published books documenting their stories. Some have met the President, others have made representations to international community representatives in Sri Lanka and Geneva. Some have filed court cases. Some of the leaders have been assaulted, threatened, intimidated and subjected to interrogation and surveillance. Even those inside prisons have been protesting – such as female detainees and political prisoners engaging in hunger strikes.

There have been a few significant victories emerging from these struggles. For example, last year, month long overnight roadside protests by communities in Pilakudiyiruppu and Puthukudiyiruppu led to the release of Army and Air Force-occupied lands. This year, the people of Iranaitheevu made a daring landing on their Navy-occupied island and reclaimed their traditional lands. Hunger strikes by political prisoners have led to reversal of unjust transfer of cases from Tamil areas to Sinhalese areas, and release on bail of some. Sandya Ekneligoda, whose husband disappeared, was threatened by a rough Buddhist Monk Gnanasara while inside court in 2016 – she refused mediation, insisted and courageously pursed justice in courts and finally, Gnanasara was convicted and put behind bars. These are exceptions to the rule, but it’s good to recall these struggles, and see what we can learn from those that were leading and involved in these.

We also need to be conscious of rights abuses, injustice and repression from non-state parties. Last month, a film looking at Tamil militancy, including the LTTE, in a critical way, was removed from the Jaffna film festival due to pressure from some people in Jaffna. Earlier this week, a photo exhibition, a substantial part of which included photos about rights violations in the North and East including disappearances and land, was not allowed to be held in the Peradeniya University by a student group. Last year, several months long protest was held against caste based oppression in Jaffna.

Protests have been held across the North and East against unjust schemes by microfinancecompanies that pushes people into debt and even suicide. The Catholic Archbishop of Colombo preached that human rights are not so important, that it’s a Western concept, that it’s only for people without religions, despite strong views supporting international human rights framework by successive Popes including Pope Francis. Most Muslim men and clergy resist reform of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Act (MMDA) which legalises blatant discrimination of women and child marriage of girls. Some Buddhist clergy and their followers have been at forefront of violence against Christians and Muslims. Even as we try hold the state accountable, we must also expose and challenge armed groups, business enterprises, religious groups and in general oppressive social – cultural practices that facilitates, justifies and promotes rights abuses and undermines struggles for justice.

It is also a challenge to critically engage with new laws and institutions that we are faced with. These often fall short of legitimate expectations of survivors, victim families and affected communities. They are often compromised, or seek to whitewash old and existing violations and paint a rosy picture of the present situation. The Office on Missing Persons (OMP) established earlier this year and the Act on Reparations approved in Parliament last month are examples. But they also offer tiny rays of hope for a minimal degree of redress to at least a few survivors, victim families and affected communities and thus, we should be careful about rejecting them totally or boycotting them. The Right to Information Act and the Commission is an example of a recent development that have provided answers to some citizens who proactively sought answers about what’s hidden – such as military occupied land and military run businesses, entitlements in terms of flood relief etc.

I want to spend some time to talk about another draft law that’s before parliament now. The Counter Terrorism Bill. We must all stand for immediate and long overdue repeal of the PTA – the Prevention of Terrorism Act. But we must resist the temptation to compare the Counter Terrorism Act with the draconian PTA, and instead, focus on looking at extremely problematic clauses of the CTA which have the potential to restrict our rights and takes away essential lifesaving checks and balances in face of arrest and detention. It is not even compulsory to have a female officer question a female. It is not compulsory to serve acknowledgement of arrest and detention to family of the detainee. The draft restricts roles of the judiciary and confers extraordinary powers to the police, military, the Minister and the President. But we must also ask the more fundamental question of why we need a CTA, especially when we have a Public Security Ordinance, which gives enormous discretionary powers to the President to declare emergency regulations? Why do we need a CTA when our constitution allows restrictions on fundamental rights in special circumstances including for national security? When we have around 15 other laws, including those dealing with terrorism, hate speech that may cause communal disharmony, and money laundering? Laws such as the PTA, have served as license for enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrest and prolonged periods of detention, torture and sexual violence, and crackdowns on freedom of expression, assembly, association and movement. This is true for Sri Lanka and across the world. In Sri Lanka, it is Tamils who have been disproportionately affected by PTA and it is crucial that the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) which is the major political alliance representing Tamils in parliament, and also the opposition party, stands for the full repeal of the PTA, highlights the problematic clauses of the new counter terror law and oppose it’s enactment. And I believe all of us, especially Tamils in the North and East, must demand this from the TNA.

Human Rights Education and certificates

We cannot talk about human rights education, human rights courses and diplomas isolated from the above context. I would like to mention three elements I consider to be important in human rights education. One is the need to study philosophy, history, laws, institutions, gaining skills to research, theorise, analyse. Secondly, to learn about rights violations and abuses. Thirdly, to learn about struggles for justice. I have not followed any course or diploma in human rights, and learned the first in the process of the being involved in the second and the third. Unlike the first, the last two cannot be studied from the comfort of meeting rooms, or in hotels, classrooms, libraries or research online. We have to learn about violations and struggles against them from survivors of violations, families of victims and affected communities. By meeting them where they are – such as in their homes, in hospitals, prisons, IDP camps, or by joining them in their struggles – at a roadside protest, a hunger strike, an overnight vigil, in court battles, or negotiating with authorities.

I’m aware that some of you in the class, your friends, and your family members may also be survivors of violations. Some of you maybe already be involved in struggles for justice. I was impressed when most of you following the course agreed to visit the families of disappeared at the overnight roadside protest. And I’m happy to hear that some who participated are involved in LHRC work as volunteers.

Today, you will get a certificate. Receiving a certificate can be a nice feeling, give a sense of achievement, and practically, they can help you advance in your education and career. The certificate is a small indicator of you completing the course on human rights. But the real indicator of learning about human rights will be from what you do to prevent violations, fight against them, and support the struggles of survivors, victim families and affected communities. You may not get certificates when you do this, but instead, face persecution and reprisals from state, from your own community, colleagues, friends and families. I have faced and still face such challenges and often ask myself whether it was worth it. I hope you will rise to this challenge. I hope the course will support the emergence of a new generation of activists and strengthen ongoing struggles for justice.

Political prisoners and counter terror laws

First published at http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2018/09/23/news-features/political-prisoners-and-counter-terror-laws on 23rd September 2018

On 14th September, eight Tamil detainees in the Anuradhapura prison, detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA) since around 2009 commenced a fast. Their cases are yet to be concluded, with a major reason for delays being the non-attendance of officials from the Attorney General’s department who are prosecuting the cases. One of the cases has not had a hearing for about 5 years. They are demanding to be released or be subjected to short term “rehabilitation” – a form of detention that doesn’t entail a judicial trial and sentence.

The term ‘Political Prisoners’ is used in relation to those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The Government rejects the term ‘political prisoner’, insisting that cases need to be resolved through legal than political perspective, though the crimes these detainees are suspected to have committed have a political context involving an armed struggle with political objectives. The Opposition leader, who is also the leader of the Tamil National Alliance (TNA) has stated in Parliament that “these cases have a certain political dimension and cannot be addressed as purely as a legal issue” and that “circumstances of not addressing the national question reasonably makes it obligatory to address this issue politically”.[1]

Examples of prolonged detention

Prolonged detention has been a hallmark of detention. In the last few years, men and women have been acquitted as not guilty after being detained under the PTA for as long as 15, 10 and 6 years.[2]A 2015 report indicated that as of early 2015, there were persons in detention for 18-19 years under the PTA without having their cases concluded and that it has taken up to 15 years to even file charges in some cases[3]. The National Movement to Release Political Prisoners has indicated there are 107 political prisoners as of now. A July 2018 document provides more details, such as;

* Up to 7 year’s detention without charge being filed

* Up to 13 years detention without completion of trials

* 46 against whom charges have been framed without their cases being concluded – with 16 of them being in detention for 10-13 years

* Another 13 have not even been charged – with 6 being in detention for 5-7 years

They are being held in 10 prisons in Colombo, Negombo, Mahara, Anuradhapura, Kandy, Batticaloa, Polonnaruwa and Moneragala. There are also 37 who have been convicted and 17 who have appeal cases pending. Some have been detained for 15-17 years before being sentenced. The severest sentences range from death sentence, life sentence, 600 years, 200 years and lesser sentences ranging from 1.5 years to 6 years.

Even some who had been released after going through the Government’s rehabilitation for those connected with the LTTE, have been re-arrested. In the case of two such detainees, they were re-arrested in 2010 and charges filed in 2013. After a few months, the Attorney General (AG) had withdrawn the indictment to change the charges. On Feb. 21, 2016, the three suspects had started a hunger strike. They had been brought before courts 36 times by this time. They stopped the hunger strike based on a commitment by the AG to present the amended indictment before courts within 2 weeks. But the amended indictment was only presented to courts in June 2017.

Re-arrests and transfers

Subsequently, the AG had informed them that the case will be transferred to the Anuradhapura High Court, which led to two of them, along with another accused, starting an another hunger strike, demanding the case to be brought back to Vavuniya High Court, insisting they will not be able to get a fair trial in Anuradhapura. The language of the courts in Anuradhpura is Sinhalese, while the language of the Courts in Vavuniya is Tamil. The three Tamil suspects does not understand Sinhalese. It is also very difficult to obtain legal representation for Tamil political prisoners in a Sinhalese majority area like Anuradhapura, and in this particular case, the senior counsel for the three suspects had refused to appear in Anuradhapura.

There is an ethnic bias in transfer of cases of Tamil suspects and accused from Tamil majority North and Eastern provinces to Sinhalese majority areas. When the complainants / victims were Tamils and the accused have been Sinhalese military personnel, cases were transferred on basis of security of accused. In the past, courts in Sinhalese majority areas had accepted confessions made by suspects in detention, whereas Courts in Tamil majority North have rejected such confessions.

Past protests and promises by politicians

In April this year, the “speedy release of all Tamil political prisoners” was one of the ten guarantees the TNA had reportedly sought when they had supported the Prime Minister during No Confidence Motion.[4] In July, TNA leader had promised activists to speedily resolve the problem of political prisoners. According to an activist, a Tamil Minister has not responded for a week to requests for a discussion after the latest fast had commenced. TNA MP and spokesperson Parliamentarian M A Sumanthiran had visited the detainees presently engaged in the fast and taken up the matter with the Prime Minister, but there has been no response yet.

Fasts and protests by political prisoners in Sri Lanka have been common, including in 2015, 2016, 2017 and now 2018. After the 2015 protests, bail was granted to about 40 detainees. Last year, it took a fast of more than a month by three detainees to correct an unjust transfer of cases from Vavuniya to Anuradhapura. When detainees resort to drastic steps such as fasts and protests, there is temporary interest among politicians, media, activists and international community, but momentum and interest had often been lost afterwards, until another fast or protest is initiated by desperate prisoners. The negative impacts on mental and physical health of detainees and their families due to regular fasting is likely to be high, coming on top of the inhumane and degrading treatment and torture they are usually subjected to.

Negative impacts of the PTA

The PTA had resulted in arbitrary arrest, prolonged detention without charges, long drawn out court cases and multiple cases against one suspect. Mental and physical well-being of detainees have been severely affected due to long term detention and as a result of rigorous interrogation, cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment and torture. Many detainees have spent most of their youth behind bars. The stigma attached to having been a “terrorist suspect” lingers even after they are acquitted or released by Courts, with society still considering them guilty.

There have been many cases of forced/coerced confessions where the detainee had not even known she/he was signing a confession as she/he could not understand the language it was written in. The detainees currently on a fast have claimed that the only evidence against them are forced confessions.

A 2018 UN report indicated that 80% of those arrested under the PTA in late 2016 had complained of torture and physical ill-treatment following their arrest, in cases which were later dealt with under ordinary criminal law.[5] The same report quoted the most senior judge responsible for PTA cases as saying that in over 90% of the cases he had dealt with in the first half of 2017, he had been forced to exclude the essential confession evidence because it had been obtained through the use or threat of force. The judge in special High Court in Colombo had been quoted as saying he had only been able to accept one out of eleven confessions as evidence, while in Anuradhapura, out of fourteen cases, twelve were said to have been based solely on unreliable confessions.

The PTA has been used against opposition politicians, journalists and rights activists to suppress dissent. I have also been arrested and detained under the PTA and along with others such as Balendran Jeyakumary, and we are considered terror suspects more than four and half years after our arrests.

Do we need a PTA or any counter-terror laws?

The present Government promised to repeal this law more than three years ago. But it is still being used and there is no date announced for it’s repeal. Instead, the Government had engaged in secret processes to draft laws that would replace the PTA. Media reports earlier this month about a draft counter – terror law approved by Cabinet indicates that problematic clauses such as admission of confessions made to Police and enabling the Defense Ministry to be the authority to implement the provisions of this bill as a piece of legislation dealing with national security will be introduced at the Parliamentary Committee stage, eliminating possibilities of judicial review of such amendments.[6]

However, a more fundamental question is whether we need any counter–terror laws. There is wide-ranging powers available under the Public Security Ordinance, the possibility of including new offences under ordinary law, powers of Magistrates to deny bail in a variety of situations etc. Counter-terror laws provides the executive and security establishment extraordinary powers with minimal checks and balances as well as discretion usually vested with the judiciary, negatively affecting life and liberty, rights and dignity of persons, often serving as a license for enforced disappearances and torture.

Comparisons have also been made to the way detainees were treated in relation to the JVP insurrections, highlighting that Sinhalese political prisoners connected to JVP insurrections were released faster or pardoned than political prisoners connected to the LTTE, the vast majority of whom are Tamil. Protests, including fasts unto death, have been held regularly across the country, including by detainees themselves and their families, and discussions have been held with politicians, but with very little results. Until solutions are found for all political prisoners, both through legal and political processes, and unless we stop resorting to counter-terror laws, reconciliation and democracy will remain distant in Sri Lanka. Most urgent, and immediate, is to respond constructively to the ongoing fast in Anuradhapura. Blurb

The term ‘Political Prisoners’ is used in relation to those detained under the Prevention of Terrorism Act (PTA). The Government rejects the term ‘political prisoner’, insisting that cases need to be resolved through legal than political perspective, though the crimes these detainees are suspected to have committed have a political context involving an armed struggle with political objectives.

[1] http://srilankabrief.org/2017/10/tamil-political-prisoners-in-sri-lanka-…

[2] https://twitter.com/rkguruparan/status/923671056300339200 and http://groundviews.org/2015/10/05/court-acquits-tamil-mother-after-15-ye…

[3] http://groundviews.org/2015/09/05/pta-detainees-ignored-under-yahapalanaya/

[4] http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/TNA-s-key-role-in-defeating-no-confide…

[5] https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Countries/LK/Sri_LankaReportJuly2018.PDF

[6] http://www.dailymirror.lk/article/Cabinet-nod-for-Counter-Terrorism-Bill… Attachments area