Sri Lanka and the death of Muammar Gaddafi

Muammar Gaddafi was captured alive and killed thereafter. This is a fact that no one contests today. Even the killer himself accepted the responsibility in front of a mobile camera.  Once any individual is captured, in spite of the crimes allegedly committed by the person, whether victim or perpetrator,  due process and the rule of law has to be followed.  That is what makes us civilised people.  An open and transparent inquiry and judicial process based on natural justice is needed in order to establish the crimes committed by the individual, and it is only then that any punishment can be carried out. None of these procedures were followed in the case of former Libyan leader Gaddafi.

Gaddafi was a close friend of the government of Sri Lanka and of President Rajapaksha. One of the last politicians to have a photo opportunity with Colonel Gaddafi was President Rajapaksha’s heir apparent, his son and M.P. Namal Rajapaksha.

 

Only a few countries condemned the killing of Gaddafi in such a cold blooded manner. The government of Sri Lanka, although it did not condemn the killing, called for an explanation of his death. A number of government ministers have condemned the killing. Issuing a statement consisting of 21 words in one sentence, the government of Sri Lanka said: ” “The Government of Sri Lanka is of the opinion that the circumstances surrounding the death of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi require an explanation.”

This statement is commendable especially in the context when even a country like China, which has been a stronger supporter of Gaddafi and his government, issued a more muted statement. The statement by China’s foreign ministry said: ‘Gaddafi’s death marks the turning of a page in Libya’s history.’ China also called for a rapid launch of an inclusive political process to find unity in the country, and the launch of economic restructure, to make its people live peacefully and happily.

The statement of the GOSL is indirectly calling for an inquiry into the incidents which led to the death of Gaddafi. A proper explanation can only be possible after an impartial inquiry. Here we can see that the GoSL is of the same opinion as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. Both organisations issued strong condemnations of the killing and called for a proper investigation and justice.

Both these organisations have called for such investigations regarding the alleged killings that had taken place in the last phase of the war with the LTTE in Sri Lanka. They have provided evidence of individuals killed while in detention. One such case is that of the Eastern province LTTE leader Colonel Ramesh. The video footage of Ramesh being questioned by Sri Lankan military personnel, and of his dead body, is available even on the internet. A number of wives of former LTTE leaders came before the Lessons Learned and Reconciliation Commission of the government and said that their husbands surrendered themselves to the military; their whereabouts are unknown after that.  The Sinhala language newspaper Divaina reported that a number of LTTE leaders were in military custody and printed their names. (The newspaper later retracted the story.)

As a response to the allegation of killing of Ramesh, the Defence Secretary told the media that Ramesh was a mass killer and was responsible for hundreds of deaths. The film Lies Agreed Upon, which is the response of the GOSL  to the film Sri Lanka Killing Fields of Channel 4 TV uses the same logic to justify  the death of LTTE TV Nidarshanam journalist Shoba alias Isaippriya.

We may well hear the same argument form Libyan rebels. They may say that Gaddafi was a brutal dictator, a mass killer and responsible for thousands of deaths. The 22-year old rebel, Sanad al-Sadek al-Ureibi, who claimed that he shot and killed Gaddafi, came from the town Misrata where hundreds of innocent civilians died at the hands of Gaddafi forces. The people in Misrata are openly opposing any legal action against Sanad al Sadek.

But the fact remains that Gaddafi was captured alive and was killed while in captivity. That is a crime. It is a crime against humanity. As it happened during a war, it could even be defined as a war crime. Such a crime must be punished.

Gaddafi’s death and the statement of the GoSL regarding his death bring us to another important aspect of war. That is regarding media access to the theatre of war. The world came to know of the arrest and subsequent killing of Gaddafi and his followers just because there were diverse group of media personnel covering the war in Libya.  Even the GoSL and its ministers who condemned the killing of Gaddafi came to know of the incident through the international media covering the war from the battlefield.

We have seen Aljazeera and CNN correspondents commenting on the human rights violations committed by both sides of at he conflict in Libya, from the battlefields. Reporting from the vicinity of the rebels CNN senior correspondent Dan Rivers showed and commented on the bodies of the Gaddafi supports killed by the rebels after their capture.  Peter Bouckaert of Human Rights Watch spoke to the media on the deaths of Gaddafi and his followers as a violation of human rights from Libya itself.  The human rights violations committed by the rebels came to light mainly because of the presence of the international media, which were covering the war. Without media access these atrocities would not have come to light.

The war in Sri Lanka presents a complete contrast to this situation. Instead of media access to war, nearly 40 media workers including journalists have been killed since 2005. The local and international media were not allowed access to the theatre of war by both sides of the conflict. Reporting war came under strict censorship, direct and indirect. The war in Sri Lanka became a war without witness. Even two and half years after the so-called end of the  war,  media persons have not been able to investigate  the last phase of war and expose the truth of what took place on the battlefields. There is still no open and safe access to the war affected areas and to the civilian population there.

The GoSL is right in saying that ‘the circumstances surrounding the death of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi require an explanation”

What about the dozens of media workers killed in Sri Lanka? And the thousands – most probably tens of thousands – of civilian lives lost in the war in Sri Lanka? Do the people of Sri Lanka, and especially those of the Vanni, need no such explanation?

  • http://srilankalandoftheblind.blogspot.com/ PresiDunce Bean

    So how did Prabahakaran die? The SL government are hypocrites. What happened to Prabahakaran and Gaddafi might someday happen to “U NO HOO” and his family.Pride goes before a fall. Dictators have now become an endangered species. It’s only a matter of time. To all the freedom loving people out there, all I can say is have patience. Our time will come.

    • Darth Vader

      Well Precidunce

      At this rate our time might come BEFORE them.

    • joker

      “came to know of the incident through the international media covering the war from the battlefield”. No my friend the video was captured on a cell phone and was leaked onto the internet before any mainstream media carried it.

      It is one thing to argue for “free media access” but its another thing to invent fact.

      “We have seen Aljazeera and CNN correspondents commenting on the human rights violations committed by both sides of at he conflict in Libya” hmm…. when and where?

  • http://www.tamilresearchandnews.net A. S. Uthayakumar

    Dear Sunanda Deshapriya,
    In Iraq, America and the allied countries waged war directly and ultimately killed Sadam Hussein.
    In Sri Lanka, America, India and West European nations gave military, intelligence and diplomatic assistance to the GOSL and Veluppilai Pirabaharan was killed.
    Bin Laden was killed in Pakistan by the American forces.
    In Libya, America, and the European nations gave all sorts of assistances to the ‘People’ of Libya and Qaddafi was killed.
    Though different methods were used, Sadam Hussein, Pirabaharan, Bin Laden and Qaddafi were captured and killed.
    However, some human rights bodies and countries have asked explanation on the killings of Bin Laden and Qaddafi. You have mentioned that the GOSL has issued a statement saying: “The Government of Sri Lanka is of the opinion that the circumstances surrounding the death of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi require an explanation.”
    But no organisation or a country demanded explanation on the killing of Veluppillai Prabaharan!
    You have mentioned various things about war against LTTE and killing of others in Sri Lanka. But you have not spoken about how Pirabaharan was killed.Even the Tamil political parties or the Tamils demanded explanation on this matter.
    Nobody knows whether Prabaharan died during fighting or committed suicide or captured and killed later.Some say he was captured alve, taken to Anuradhapura where some leading politicians saw him, kicked him and later he was killed.
    If this is true, he could have been captured alive, only by locating him precisely by Spy Satellite, and then by firing shells precisely that make people in a small area faint for few hours.
    Then two question arise. 1) What country or countries provided assistance in locating him? 2) What country provided with special artillery shells to Sri Lanka?
    India put into orbit a sophisticated ‘Spy Satellite’ on 20th April, 2009. But countries like America and other west European nations also have such satellites in orbit.
    Whatever it may, all the countries wanted to kill Prabaharan and other leaders of LTTE to safe guard their interest. The Sri Lankan government also got benefit.
    But, will all these countries see that the Tamils get all their rights in their country?

    • http://www.blacklightarrow.wordpress.com David Blacker

      There are shells that make people faint???

      • http://srilankalandoftheblind.blogspot.com/ PresiDunce Bean

        @ David Blacker

        Yes. There are also shells that cause zero casualties. :D

      • http://www.tamilresearchandnews.net, A. S. U. Kumar

        Dear David Blacker,
        If you are very serious about gathering some knowledge on different types of artillery, mortar shell& others and special shells used for different military purposes, you have plenty of books. Jane’s series, I think is good for you.I do not know whether these are available for the public in Sri Lanka. Try the internet also. I think when we talk about military operation, we must know a little bit of military science.

      • yapa

        Dear A. S. U. Kumar;

        [Edited out] Our Kumar does not know the David Blacker was an Ex- SL army officer and an well known expert in warfare.

        Thanks!

    • PitastharaPuthraya

      Dear Uthayakumar,

      You are correct when you say all these people were killed in the same way. Although GOSL and west are trying to show that they are in two diametrically opposite poles with regards to the SL war, in truth they are in the same boat. The War was won with the tacit approval of the all these countries including India, China, UK, US and all the others. Without their support the war would not have been won. The west had enough time and capabilities to interfere in the SL War at any time before it was over. They did not do that as they also wanted this war to end.

      Now the west is shedding crocadile tears because the way the war was won is embarassing to them especially to their civil society. In my reading of the situation I draw a line between the civil society and the governments in the west. All these cries of human rights violations, war crimes, crimes against humanity by the western governmetns are a result of trying to pacify their more enlightened general public. The commonwealth reaction to SL situation should be seen in this light. Whatever happens in the channel 4 nothing would happen ot GoSL as there is no political will amongst the west to do anything to harm MR, who is opening the country to western capital as no body else had done in the past. What the western governments want is a nice and peaceful capital loving government in SL. MR’s Government fulfills all the criteria for that.

      This whole issue would die a natural death in the not so distant future.

      Prabakaran was assumed to have been killed during the war in the absence of evidene to contrary. If somebody takes up your logic every killing during the war has to be investigated. That is not practical. Moreover, who wants to investiage Prabakaran’s killing. No body. Not even the tamil politicians. That was the fate of the man. You reap what you sow.

    • Off the Cuff

      A. S. Uthayakumar

      You wrote that “Nobody knows whether Prabaharan died during fighting or committed suicide or captured and killed later”

      In that case how did you know that the mass murderer Prabakaran was captured and killed? Were you watching via your personal Spy Satellite?

      Else how did you make the assertive claim “Though different methods were used, Sadam Hussein, Pirabaharan, Bin Laden and Qaddafi were captured and killed” ?

      • http://www.tamilresearchandnews.net, A. S. Uthayakumar

        Dear Off the Cuff,
        You have asked:”In that case how did you know that the mass murderer Prabakaran was captured and killed? Were you watching via your personal Spy Satellite?”
        I think you have skipped some portion of my comment. In my comment I have written:”Some say he was captured alive, taken to Anuradhapura where some leading politicians saw him, kicked him and later he was killed.”
        You verify this by some means and put your argument. You need not have a ‘Spy Satellite’ on your own to find out whether it is correct or not. Because, the end point (Anuradhapura) verification is enough.So start your investigation.
        In military operations, Armed forces act according to the orders of the Supreme Head in the final handling of the enemy. In the cases of Saddam Hussein,Prabhaharan and Bin Laden, armed forces of certain countries were involved in. But in the case of Qaddafi, ‘liberators’ of Libya were the only decision makers. That was the reason why there were arguments among them on what to do with captured Qaddafi.
        Nobody knows what was the order given to the Sri Lankan Armed Forces by the Supreme Head about Prabhakaran. Can you find out?

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear A. S. Uthayakumar ,

        You wrote “Though different methods were used, Sadam Hussein, Pirabaharan, Bin Laden and Qaddafi were captured and killed.”

        That is an assertive statement.
        It means you know for certain that the sadist murderer, Prabahkaran, was captured alive and then killed.

        You are trying to hide behind what some say.
        What some say is irrelevant as your statement is a positive statement.
        What you say is relevant.

        Hence the question arises as to how you know for certain that Prabahkaran the Sadist, was killed AFTER capture and not killed while trying to run away like a coward.

        He was a coward as he ordered his subordinates to take Cyanide to prevent capture. Yet his cowardice did not allow him to do that himself.

        How could the Brave Sun God allow himself to be CAPTURED?

        If as you say he was captured then you are calling him a Coward.

        You say he was captured and killed. Did you observe it via your personal satellite? Or did you use your extensive knowledge of Military Science to ascertain it scientifically?

        If you used Military Science, please share your superior logical thought process with the GV readership.

        Thank you in advance.

  • appuhamy

    just do not waste time ,we are sick of the matters like this only need to learn lesson from Libya.stop the cheating by political leaders and their families.

  • justitia

    Gaddafi from all accounts ruled Libya as an absolute dicatater and people who opposed his rule paid the ultimate penalty.
    True he was courted by many governments for their own advantage, but when the majority of libyan people rebelled, even these governments finally had to bring up the problem in the UN and a coalition led by NATO was allowed to give aerial support to the uprising.He has been killed in the heat of battle by members of the rebels.His death does not seem to be a problem for the new interim government.
    But before sri lanka asks for an accounting it should put its own house in order.
    The sri lanka report to the UN Commission on Torture last year is a very bad inictment against sri lanka.
    http://www.srilankabrief.org/2011/10/joint-alternative-report-from-sri.html
    This is coming up for review in 2012

  • marcus fernando

    SL’s request is like, kettle calling the pot black.ah! ah! aah!

  • Dr Dayan Jayatilleka

    Looks like this line of argumentation/denunciation couldn’t convince the Commonwealth, eh? Maybe they were all scared of white vans, starting with the world’s most populous secular federal democracy, India? :))

    • Burning_Issue

      Dear Dr DJ,

      You know very well that its not a question of convincing the Commonwealth; its about what strategy the Commonwealth is adopting to handle Sri Lanka. It seems like a victory for the Chauvinists and GOSL machinery but in reality, the IC is drawing Sri Lanka towards the IC code, by which, SL will need to manifest that the Concept of Accountability is achieved. So, if I were you I would not claim triumph just yet.

      We all want to see Sri Lanka move on and build a just nation, but certainly not on the basis of Sinhala Buddhist supremacy with hierarchy of Sri lankaness!

      • http://n/a HolmungP

        Well said! I can see that common-sense aint that common, doctorates aside! ;)

      • joker

        Burning_Issue,

        what seemed funny about this years CHGoC was that the so called need to make “the commonwealth relevant” in the 21st century came from an organisation headed by a monarch. It’s ironic since England will never have a black king or anyone that doesn’t belong to the same family becoming its head of state. They passed a law to allow a 1st born women to ascend to the throne and called it modernization. A bit ridiculous don’t you think.

        And Her majesty’s prime minister threatened 41 countries that criminalizes homosexuality with aid cuts. England doesn’t allow gay marriage, it took decades of debate and activism to allow even gay civil unions to be recognized which happened only a few years ago. Now look at the old empire wagging the finger at her former colonies, “we did it, now you have to do it”

      • Off the Cuff

        Has the Sun finally set on near 200 years of Tamil Hindu Vellala High Cast supremacy?

      • Burning_Issue

        So it has been proved that the Sinhala Buddhist Govigama super high cast is even superior than Tamil Hindu Vellala High Cast!

        Since I am a Tamil am expected to defend the Hindu Vellala what logic!

      • Burning_Issue

        Joker,

        Hope you have not played a joker here!

        Britain has a Constitutional Monarchy that has no executive powers. Britain maintains this as it has huge economic benefits. Monarchy means family members succeed! Unfortunately, there was no Black connection to produce a black heir to throne may be in the future.

        What you say here is that, you British have been bad in past and still somewhat bad in certain areas and who are you to point your finger at us being very, very, bad! We want to be very, very, very bad; you allow gay marriages first before telling us what to do. We will kill our own citizens; we will discriminate with impunity; we are the new Masters of the Tamils. Who are you to tell us what to do? This is how I read your message!

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Burning Issue,

        Addressing Joker you say “Hope you have not played a joker here!”

        Apparently you seem to be playing the Joker BI.

        You said “Britain has a Constitutional Monarchy that has no executive powers.”

        Sorry to burst your bubble about the British Monarchy.

        You are ignorant of the British Monarchy’s powers.
        The British Monarchy has the power to override even the British Justice system and the British Parliament and both institutions become helpless onlookers when those powers are used.

        It is called the Crown Prerogative and is used to bypass Parliament.
        It has been used even to subvert British High Court decisions and Parliament and the British Courts just looks on helplessly.

        By law, even the reigning Monarch has to abdicate should she decide to change her Religion. The Monarch and any heir must be in Communion with the Church of England or else they are sent packing. They do not even have Religious Freedom.

        That is the nature of the British Monarchy.

        Regarding Supremacy of the High Cast Hindu Vellala’s here is an example. It is not fantasy but fact.

        PRIVY COUNCIL APPEAL NO. 10 of 1971.

        The appellant, a Hindu by religion, on 1st July 1968 prevented one M. S., also a Hindu by religion but socially of a lower caste, from entering the inner courtyard of the Maviddapuram Temple for the purpose of worshipping. He acted with the authority of the High Priest of the Temple, and his reason for doing so was that M. S. belonged to the Palla caste, people of which caste, according to the religious usage and custom, did not enter the inner courtyard and worshipped only from outside. He was convicted of an offence under section 2 (read with section 3 (b)) of the Prevention of Social Disabilities Act No. 21 of 1957.

        Their Lordships, advised Her Majesty that this appeal be dismissed.

        The Tamil Hindu Vellala High casts even do not allow low cast Tamil persons to draw drinking water from wells owned and situated within their compounds as that would defile the compound. Drinking Water is a scarce commodity in Jaffna due to brackishness of ground water.

        That is the Nature of the Tamil Vellala Supremacy.
        Tamil, Sinhala and Muslim peasantry lived under that Jack boot for Centuries.

        The Velala’s dominated Lanka for nearly 200 years and if you contend that there is Sinhala Buddhist Supremacy, then the Older Tamil Vellala Supremacy should have waned.

        I would not care whether you defend it or not but I will put the record straight.

      • Burning_Issue

        In Britain, the parliament is supreme and as it should be in any democratic country. The role of the Monarchy is ceremonial only. It is astonishing that the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists go at any length to justify their narrow stand!

      • Off the Cuff

        You wrote “In Britain, the parliament is supreme and as it should be in any democratic country. “

        Unfortunately in Britain, the Monarch is Supreme.
        Your ignorance of that Fact does not change it.

        You wrote “The role of the Monarchy is ceremonial only. “

        Again your empty statements does not change Facts.
        Tell your Fairy Tale to the Chagosians who were deprived of Justice by the operation of the “Crown Prerogative”

        You wrote “It is astonishing that the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists go at any length to justify their narrow stand! “

        What is astonishing is the continued defence of your own stand when confronted with factual evidence to the contrary about which you have Naught to say.

        Hindu Vellala Tamil Chauvinism?

      • wijayapala

        OTC

        The Velala’s dominated Lanka for nearly 200 years and if you contend that there is Sinhala Buddhist Supremacy, then the Older Tamil Vellala Supremacy should have waned.

        From what date did the Vellalas “dominate” Sri Lanka, and on what date did that “domination” end?

      • Burning_Issue

        I will write for the last time on this subject; Britain has constitutional Monarchy, where the British Parliament is supreme. The Monarch is constitutionally bound to give Royal Assent to any bills passing through the House of Commons and House of Lords. The members of the House of Commons are directly elected by the people and their decisions stand. Passing through the House of Lords is also procedural and they cannot stop the will of the people. In many cases, bills are thoroughly debated by both Houses; in some cases, the House of Commons may take into account the concerns of the House of Lords; ultimately, whatever House of Commons decides will prevail; the Royal Assent is received automatically.

        Britain has no written constitution; it retains the Royal Patronage because of its history and the Monarch has no constitutional powers full stop. If the queen were to overrule the parliament, it would end in disastrous consequences, which means defying the people!

        For example, when the House of Commons passed the bill to ban fox hunting, the Queen could have decided not to give her assent; fox hunting all round country have been very closely associated with Royalty and aristocracy; yet, she cannot overrule the will of the people!

        What aspects of the above OTC finds difficult to comprehend? One is either a Chauvinist or not; one is either a racist or not; one cannot be in halfway house on these issues.

      • Off the Cuff

        Burning Issue,

        You wrote “I will write for the last time on this subject; Britain has constitutional Monarchy, where the British Parliament is supreme. The Monarch is constitutionally bound to give Royal Assent to any bills passing through the House of Commons and House of Lords. The members of the House of Commons are directly elected by the people and their decisions stand.”

        Whether you write for the last time or the Umpteenth time, the “Constitutional Monarchy” that you write about has powers that can be used and has been used to By Pass Parliament and to subvert Justice. Your IGNORANCE about it does not change the Facts.

        This power is called the Crown Prerogative.

        The Crown Prerogative cannot be Challenged either in Court or in Parliament. It’s SUPREME, period.

        The British Crown has used the Crown Prerogative to subvert Justice and to By Pass Parliament. Learn about it if you want to be informed else you can be in your dream world thinking that the British Crown is without such power.

        What aspects of the above “Burning Issue” finds difficult to comprehend? One is either a Chauvinist or not; one is either a racist or not; one cannot be in halfway house on these issues (your own words Burning Issue, they describe you to a T).

        I have pointed out this Supreme power that the British Monarch possesses in my post of November 4, 2011 • 6:51 pm but as usual, you have been ignoring it just because it does not support your views. Exactly like the attempt you made to prove that in the Trinco Statue case, the use of Section 9 was resorted to instead of Section 12 of the Lankan Constitution when the case records showed that it was indeed Section 12.

  • Civilised Citizen

    Dear Sunanda,
    Thanks very much for the article. It puts all the issues into perspective with regards to the GOSL mindset.

    The GOSL and the other morons who are going around shouting nonsense such as no war crimes were committed, No civilian was killed, was a humanitarian operation etc. display the genetic mutation in the brains of their lot.
    It apperas that not only THE FAMILY memebers who have this mutation, but “Sinhala Patriots like Professors of Law, PHD’s, and even the Sinhala Chandiyas.

    I am very encouraged to see there are still some Civilised Sri Lankans like yourself (I assume you are Sri Lankan).

    Keep it up. I am 100% with you.

  • Diffpersepective

    Does any one believe that Sri Lanka is asking for this explanation really expecting an explanation and or an international independent investigation or they really believe that there should be one?? Surely they are not that naive and any one who believes it to be so is even more naive.

    I am certain the reason for Sri Lanka to call for this is to further expose the Double Standards and the hypocrisy of those that pontificate to Sri Lanka on these matters and thereby make them less and less credible and show that those who pontificate, preach and criticize Sri Lanka are no better than Sri Lanka and have no moral right to do so.

    Mee Theeenk smart move!!!! :)Lol

  • baduge

    I doubt GoSL care to see any explanation of Gaddafi killing; they just want to scream “You, hypocrites!!” to those who demand such from GoSL.

  • Sarath Kumara

    You are dead right. Very well said. I cannot agree more. Sinhala version of your comment in ‘Vikalpa’ had something to the effect that “The ‘Blagathu rataval’ had ‘nivardi stavarayan’ in Libya”.

    Dear Comrade Sunanda, we have a very complex task at hand here. Yes we need to tread very carefully. I have the full confidence you and youe colleagues have the capacity and committment to do it.

    We need to get the real guns firing on the ground in Sri Lanka. Sri Lankans have to be made understood the important progerssive role of the western nations intervening militarily in backward, despotic, corrupt dictatorships to save those populations.

  • stupid tiger

    Dear All,
    Why are you all comparing a terrorist group with a leader of country. Gaddafi was the leader of Libya. Before talking about the human rights of terrorists and the people with them (as per the claims of the terrorist sympathizers these people went along with the terrorist on their own will. Hence they also expected and were happy to be killed along with them – so they were part of the terrorists). Talk about the human rights of the innocent people killed inside mosques and temples in cold blood. Also we need justice for people killed by bombs in shopping malls, bus, train, bust stand etc., in cold blood. First we need justice for them. Bring the terrorists and their supporters both inside Sri Lanka and outside especially the funders and flag raisers in diaspora must be punished. Then we can talk about the Sri Lankan government and the forces. Why no diaspora group is shouting against Karuna? Ask them to start from there!!!

    First punish the terrorist perpetrators and funders. Yes, I mean diaspora (and Karuna too). Not only the perpetrators be punished, even the others helping them must be punished too as aiding and abetting to commit crimes is also punishable!!!

    • http://www.tamilresearchandnews.net, Idiot

      Hi Stupid tiger,
      Please define ‘Terrorism’ and ‘Terrorist Group.’

  • Pingo

    Excellent piece, neatly points out the contradictions in the GoSL positions.

  • http://www.tamilresearchandnews.net, A. s. U. kumar

    Dear yapa,
    Thanks for your information. I was not in the Sri Lankan army. Your information and the comment David Blacker made: “There are shells that make people faint???” disappoint me now!

  • Burning_Issue

    “Whether you write for the last time or the Umpteenth time, the “Constitutional Monarchy” that you write about has powers that can be used and has been used to By Pass Parliament and to subvert Justice.”

    Evidence please…. What aspects the Crown bypassed the parliament and judiciary system?

    • Off the Cuff

      Burning Issue,

      I indicated to you where you could find the proof in my post of November 29, 2011 • 12:16 am

      Since you ask for evidence here it is. You will see how Justice was subverted and How Parliament was bypassed by using the Royal Prerogative. You can find copious evidence by doing an Internet search if you are really interested.

      Extract
      Monday, 27 October 2008

      Law Lords rule against Chagos Islanders

      I’ve been following the progress of the campaign by the Chagos Islanders to be allowed to return home to their islands having been thrown off them by the British Government 40 years ago.

      They had won a legal ruling from the High Court in 2000 that they could return to the islands, although not to Diego Garcia the site of the US military base. The Government then in 2004 used royal prerogative to overturn that decision.

      In 2007 the High Court again, on a unanimous decision, overturned that order. http://processguy.blogspot.com/2008/10/law-lords-rule-against-chagos-islanders.html
      End extract

      This is that Order from the High court referred to in the above blog.

      Extract
      Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett took the case to the Court of Appeal after two High Court judges found for the Chagossians.

      Today three judges, headed by the Master of the Rolls, Sir Anthony Clarke, dismissed the action.

      Lord Justice Sedley, giving the lead ruling, said the method used by the Government to stop the islanders returning – making an Order in Council under the Royal Prerogative – was unlawful and an abuse of power by the Government executive.

      Lord Justice Waller said the decision had been taken by a Government minister “acting without any constraint”.

      Yet the Labour Government were still not finished and asked the Lords to rule on the issue. Last week they gave their ruling. On a split decision, 3 to 2, the law lords ruled against the Chagos Islanders.

      The High Court judges condemned as “repugnant” the British Government’s decision to “exile a whole population” from the Indian Ocean islands in the 1960s and 1970s.

      The Government said the decision was made on the basis that it was necessary for peace, order and good government.

      But Lord Justice Hooper and Mr Justice Cresswell ruled that the interests of the islanders from the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) had been ignored and that orders made under the the royal prerogative to prevent their return were irrational and unlawful.

      Because of the importance of the decision, which included a declaration that orders made under the royal prerogative are not immune from judicial review, the judges gave the Government permission to appeal.

      The High Court had in 2000 dealt a blow to the Government when it overturned measures introduced in 1971, in the form of an Immigration Ordinance, to keep the Chagossians in exile.

      The court held the islanders had a right of return to the group of 65 islands in the Chagos Archipelago, although not to Diego Garcia itself.

      The then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said there would be no appeal and a “feasibility study” would be conducted into the possibility of their return.

      The US military authorities expressed fears that any attempt to resettle any of the islands would severely compromise the security of Diego Garcia – the island used to launch bombing missions in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

      It was then that the British Government decided that they could not go back after all.

      The Government made an Order in Council under the Royal Prerogative declaring that no person had a “right of abode” in the British Indian Ocean Territory.

      The High Court’s ruling last May, which extended the powers of the judiciary to review the royal prerogative, overturned the Order.

      The judges said at the time: “The suggestion that a minister can, through the means of an Order in Council, exile a whole population from a British Overseas Territory and claim that he is doing so for the ‘peace, order and good government’ of the territory is, to us, repugnant.”

      They rejected Government argument that the royal prerogative – which consists of discretionary powers, not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, that belong to the Queen but are exercised by Government ministers in her name – were immune from judicial scrutiny.

      They ruled that to suggest the making of the Order in Council was the act of the sovereign “savours of the archaism of past centuries”.

      They declared: “The decision was in reality that of the Foreign Secretary, not of Her Majesty, and is subject to challenge by way of judicial review in the ordinary way.”

      Today the appeal judges backed that decision.
      http://www.metro.co.uk/news/50205-chagos-islanders-win-appeal

      End Extract

      The Privy Council overturned the High Court decision in October 2008 and this four decade long fight with the British Crown has now gone to the European Court of Human Rights.

      Extract
      There is so much about this story that makes me angry. But I can do no better than repeat the words of Liberal Democrat European justice & human rights spokeswoman Sarah Ludford MEP;

      “There is a disgraceful symmetry to the fact that it was a Labour government which evicted the Chagossians and a Labour government which has strained every sinew to deny them the justice of return.”

      “it is a source of great shame to the British people that the government has refused in our name to do the decent thing and allow the return of Chagossians to their rightful home.”

      “The Law Lords’ judgement is deeply disappointing in endorsing Labour pandering to US demands and betrayal of vulnerable people who are supposed to enjoy the ‘protection’ of this country. It is a truly shocking legacy of colonialism that the court said the government using ‘Crown prerogative’ could legislate for a colony ‘in the interests of the United Kingdom’ and that the Chagossians had no right to the land.”

      The Chagossians will now take their fight to the European Court of Human Rights. http://processguy.blogspot.com/2008/10/law-lords-rule-against-chagos-islanders.html
      End Extract

      I do hope that you and others who keep the British Govt on a Pedestal and vainly believe that the West will uphold Justice and Fair play at all costs, will realise the Duplicity practised by them.

      When the Chips are down Justice becomes the first casualty and to hell with Human Rights and all that the West Preaches to the rest of the world.

      • Burning_Issue

        I do not even want to rise to this level of ignorance! I do really feel sorry for this individual.

        What was the purpose of the Law Lords and what were their duties? Until Britain signed up to almost all of the European Directives, the highest point of Court of Appeal within the British judiciary has been the Law Lords until 2009. Up until then the Law Lords examined as to whether a point of law is correctly applied by the lower courts. Since the European Union, an individual can refer certain aspects to the European Appeal Courts through the Brutish Courts. Where was the so called involvement of the Monarch on all of these? The Prime Minister Appointed the Law Lords and the Monarch formally gave assent; this was how the British politics and judiciary worked till 2009; the Monarch cannot dictate or influence any of the process.

        http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/law-lords.htm

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courts_of_England_and_Wales#Appeals

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_functions_of_the_House_of_Lords

        “In 2009 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom assumed the functions as the new court of final resort in the UK.”

        Provide evidence as to where exactly the Crown interfered with the law of the land.

      • Off the Cuff

        Burning Issue,

        You wrote “Where was the so called involvement of the Monarch on all of these?“

        Ha ha haa up to your old trick of ignoring facts?
        The Crown Prerogative IS the involvement.
        Did you think the PM can exercise that power on his own?
        Apparently, reason is not your Forte.

        Anything done in the Monarch’s name is done with the acquiescence of the Crown. The Crown Prerogative is an EXCLUSIVE power of the Monarch.
        No one in the UK or the Commonwealth can exercise that power, ONLY the British Monarch can.

        An Order in Council made using the Crown Prerogative cannot be made without exercising the Power of the Monarch. In the Chagosean Case, the Crown Prerogative was Used. Period.

        You wrote “I do not even want to rise to this level of ignorance! I do really feel sorry for this individual.”

        Ha ha haa … are you writing Gobledegook?

        I have been writing about the Crown Prerogative and you are writing about who appoints who and about RISING to ignorance!!! I believe you have FALLEN from intelligence towards ignorance.
        Quote “The Prime Minister Appointed the Law Lords and the Monarch formally gave assent” unquote
        …… evasive tactics? ….. running around the Mulberry bush?

        The Chagosian Law Suits are over 40 years OLD.They won ALL their cases right up to the High couts. The High Court’s UNANIMOUS decision in favour of the Chagosians was subverted with the use of the Crown Prerogative. The evidence is there in Black and White. You cannot disprove it and you have not done so.

        You can continue to feign Blindness to satisfy your Ego but this is a Public Forum and the public can do their own research to verify the truth.

        You see Burning Issue, when you are burning with hate you loose even your bearings.

        The Crown IS responsible even if the Crown’s power is delegated to the Chimney sweep and he exercises it on behalf of the Crown.

        I do hope you understand the meaning of “delegate”

      • Burning_Issue

        What are the crown Prerogative examples that have been exercised in the last 100 years; please outline…..

        I think that OTC needs to educate the gullible British public about the Royal Prerogative and its implications to the integrity of British Parliamentary Democracy. It looks as if the British public is being hoodwinked by the Royals such that through the Royal Prerogative, the Monarch can overrule the parliament and the judiciary according to OTC! I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I would leave this to the Groundview audiences to form opinions.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Prerogative_in_the_United_Kingdom

        “Today the Royal Prerogative is concerned with several areas critical to the government of the United Kingdom, including the conduct of foreign affairs, defence, and national security. The monarchy has a significant constitutional presence in these and other areas, but very limited power, because the prerogative is nowadays in the hands of the prime minister and other ministers or other government officials.”

      • Off the Cuff

        Burning Issue,

        You wrote “What are the crown Prerogative examples that have been exercised in the last 100 years; please outline….. “

        Good God have you been Blind Burning Issue?
        Why do you practice Superficial and Segmented Reading?
        /H*a*t*e/ does Blind and Steal all sense of Rationality from people, I suppose.
        I have never seen a guy like you, who is willing to throw principles overboard and sink to the lowest depths in order to white wash the West. If I am not mistaken, you claimed to be a Socialist to boot!!!!!

        Study the case of the Chagos Islanders who were expelled from the Chagos Islands by the British, in order to establish the Diego Garcia Military base. In this case Human Rights was thrown in the Rubbish Bin and it is still there. The case is still on going. This time in the EU! Then you won’t have to strain your intellect too much, in trying to peep in to 100 years of History!!!! There is also a claim that the British did it to acquire Polaris Missiles from the USA at discounted pricing.

        Study how the Royal Prerogative was used, not only to Subvert Justice but also to prevent the need to seek Parliamentary approval.

        The Chagos Islanders had won a legal ruling from the British High Court in 2000 to return to the islands, although not to Diego Garcia, the site of the US military base.

        The British Government, in 2004, used the “Royal Prerogative” to overturn that decision.
        That Burning Issue, is just 7 years ago, not 100 years back!!!

        These are a few links that I gave you in my earlier posts.
        Google for more if you are capable of doing that without getting confused.

        http://www.metro.co.uk/news/50205-chagos-islanders-win-appeal
        http://processguy.blogspot.com/2008/10/law-lords-rule-against-chagos-islanders.html

        Also please do not misinterpret what you read.
        Remember the time you thought Michael Zimmerman, former Chief Justice of the Utah Supreme Court in the USA who became a Buddhist monk was former Lankan Chief Justice Sarath N Silva because you limited your reading to Headlines? You were adamant in that claim, even after I proved to you that you were factually wrong….remember?

        Learn to read properly without forming and expressing profound opinions in Public forums by limiting your reading to Headlines. Most Newspaper Headlines are meant to attract attention only.

        You wrote “I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I would leave this to the Groundview audiences to form opinions.”

        Ha ha ha ….. Please dry up your Tears Burning Issue and snuff out that flame, lest you burn up at both ends.

        Every time I observe you trying to misrepresent facts, to throw mud and plant seeds of *H/a/t/r/e/d*, when we in Lanka are looking for reconciliation after a 30 year old war, I will call you to account.

      • Off the Cuff

        Burning Issue,

        This post is in several parts due to difficulties experienced in posting the complete reply.

        Part 1

        You wrote “What are the crown Prerogative examples that have been exercised in the last 100 years; please outline….. “

        Good God are you suffering from selective Blindness, Burning Issue?
        Why do you practice Superficial and Segmented Reading?

        They say aroused base emotions does Blind and Steal all sense of Rationality from people.

      • Off the Cuff

        Burning issue,

        Part 2

        Please re read my previous post.. December 4, 2011 • 2:43 am

        Extract
        The Crown IS responsible even if the Crown’s power is delegated to the Chimney sweep and he exercises it on behalf of the Crown.
        End extract

        You wrote “…….. because the prerogative is nowadays in the hands of the prime minister and other ministers or other government officials”

        Did you understand what you extracted from wiki?

        You have yourself proved that the “Crown Prerogative” exists.
        You have proved that it is now DELEGATED to the PM, other Ministers and other Govt. officials.

        As I stated before, even if it is delegated to the Chimney Sweep the CROWN is responsible.

        What your intellect does not allow you, is to UNDERSTAND the POWER of the Crown Prerogative.

        Continued in Part 3

      • Off the Cuff
      • Burning_Issue

        You can write several parts to ostensibly prove your points; it will not wash with me. Stop trying to be a smart fool. You have proved nothing. Let me reiterate the real issue that is, you need to show in deeds that the British Monarch has executive authority over and above the British Parliament through the Royal Prerogative. Where is the evidence?
        It looks as if you are very much confused with the term the Royal Prerogative! Since Britain is a constitutional Monarchy, all aspects of state affairs are referred to as HRS or Royal, which does correlate with real power!
        You said:
        “The British Government, in 2004, used the “Royal Prerogative” to overturn that decision.”

        You have answered your own confusion; it was the British Government that used the Royal Prerogative and not the Monarch. There is no evidence that the Monarch overruled the parliament.
        I have shown this in my previous post where I said that the Royal Prerogative was last exercised by a Monarch was in the 18th century. The Royal Prerogative now rests with the Prime Minster and relevant Ministers where the national security is at risk.
        Please pull yourself together for Buddha sake; your abhorrence of anyone who points finger at the destructive Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism is manifestly obvious. Your ostensive stand on justifying the Sinhala Buddhist Hegemony is beyond belief.

        The Sri Lankan President has similar powers but they are not called Royal Prerogative. Please get rid of the bigotry and try and be a good human.

        I must also add that it rather boring to read your posts; you must be one sad individual I am very sorry to say.

      • Burning_Issue

        I meant to say:

        “which does not correlate with real power!”

      • Off the Cuff

        Burning issue,

        You wrote “You have answered your own confusion; it was the British Government that used the Royal Prerogative and not the Monarch.”

        And the Executioner Acts alone when he pulls the lever of the gallows.
        Is he acting alone under his own authority?
        Only a fool will say yes.

        Even if the Chimney Sweep is delegated to use the Royal Prerogative, the fount of authority is the Monarch. The PM can use it ONLY because the Monarch delegates the power or allows it to be used not otherwise. When the Royal Prerogative is used, the responsibility rests with the Monarch. Parliament cannot challenge it. British Courts cannot Challenge it. It is Supreme. Period

        If Parliament cannot challenge the Royal Prerogative which is the higher authority, Parliament?
        If the British Courts cannot challenge the Royal Prerogative which is the higher authority, the British Courts?

        “smart fool” you said? … … Apparently you don’t even have to try, to become one.

        So where is your Democracy?
        Where is your Justice?
        Where are your Human Rights?
        In the Rubbish Heap?

        I note that you have accepted that the Royal Prerogative was used in 2004 to over ride the British High Court decision of 2000 in favour of the Chagosians. That Burning Issue is subversion of Justice.

        According to your logic, the mindless British Crown, is the most expensive Rubber Stamp in the World …and you are crowing about it. … ha ha haa.

        You wrote “There is no evidence that the Monarch overruled the parliament.”

        Having trouble reading again?
        Just like when you misread that Newspaper Headline about a Chief Justice and claimed that Lanka’s former CJ is a Buddhist Monk (he is still a layman) when the actual CJ who became a Monk was the CJ from Utah, USA.

        Learn to read Burning Issue.
        The Chagosian case never went before Parliament.
        The use of the Royal Prerogative Bypassed Parliament.

        The power that the Royal Prerogative possesses, to BYPASS Parliament was one reason for it’s use.

        In 2000, High Court judges ruled that Chagossians could return to 65 of the islands, but not to Diego Garcia. In 2004, the government used the royal prerogative – exercised by ministers in the Queen’s name – to effectively nullify the decision.
        Last year, the court overturned that order and rejected the government argument that the royal prerogative was immune from scrutiny.
        The government had asked the Lords to rule on the issue.
        The government won its appeal against a previous court decision that had ruled in favour of 2,000 former residents of the British Indian Ocean territory.
        The campaigning journalist John Pilger said the judgement was political and upheld an “immoral and illegal” act.
        He added: “How could it be otherwise when the highest court in this country has found in favour of the most flagrant injustice, certainly in my lifetime?”
        The Law Lords decision is the final judgement in the long-running case.

        He (Mr Gifford) added that the islanders were “really shocked” at the Law Lords’ decision, following as it did the unanimous opinion of seven other judges that their right of abode was “so fundamental” the government could not take it away.
        Wednesday, 22 October 2008 14:40 UK
        http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7683726.stm

        Apparently the seven judges of the British High Court who gave a UNANIMOUS decision were imbeciles to do so, as the Privy Council overturned that decision.

        Here is another opinion.

        When the Chagos Islanders won their initial court battle in 2000, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office under the then-foreign secretary Robin Cook, accepted the verdict. But after 9/11, the FCO reversed its position, using little-used sovereign powers to over-turn the court’s verdict.
        http://www.minorityrights.org/1675/press-releases/first-test-on-human-rights-for-gordon-brown-fco-appeals-to-lords-over-chagossians.html

        David Snoxell was the British high commissioner in Mauritius between 2000 and 2004. He joined the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) in 1969 and was later deputy commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory, 1995 – 1997. He is currently Coordinator of the UK Chagos Islands All Party Parliamentary Group and Chairman of the Marine Education Trust. An interview with Sean Carey about Chagos he states

        “My time in Mauritius spanned both the High Court judgement in November 2000 and the orders in council which overturned that judgement in June 2004. Before the orders were enacted I expressed my strong reservations about setting aside a High Court judgement and bypassing Parliament using the Royal Prerogative, as I felt that the issue should be addressed as a political rather than a legal matter. After my retirement in November 2004 I did not take up the cause so as not to embarrass my successor. It was in February 2007, having sat through the second High Court proceedings in which I felt that the case set out by the FCO lawyers was misleading and economical with the truth, that I decided to go public in a letter to the Times. I commented that it was time that the British government brought together, the US, Mauritius and Chagossian leaders to sort out this relic of the Cold War and one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated by the UK in the 20th century. No one has since disagreed with that statement.”
        http://www.newstatesman.com/human-rights/2010/04/160-mauritius-british-chagos

        He also states elsewhere that

        I hope that I was not the only official during the preceding weeks to argue that overturning a High Court judgment in this way, without informing Parliament, would be seen as behaving with colonial arrogance and would compound the human rights violations and deceptions of the past. Governing Overseas Territories by Order is everyday FCO business ……. And Parliament was deliberately bypassed. Jack Straw admitted this in a letter of 15 June 2004 to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. He conceded that the Orders fell within the ambit of a 2002 arrangement by which the FAC should ordinarily be given advance sight of Orders relating to the Constitutions of Overseas Territories.
        http://www.cpl.law.cam.ac.uk/Snoxell_D_Paper.pdf

        These statements hardly matter as the Constitutional Expert, Burning Issue, will repeat his manthra…. Where is the proof that the Parliament was Bypassed? Where is the proof that Justice was subverted?….ha ha haa.

        You wrote “Please pull yourself together for Buddha sake; your abhorrence of anyone who points finger at the destructive Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism is manifestly obvious. Your ostensive stand on justifying the Sinhala Buddhist Hegemony is beyond belief.”

        Pointing fingers is welcome as long as you stay within the boundaries of TRUTH. I will call you to account as soon as I observe you crossing that boundary. You are guilty of transgressing those boundaries not once but several times.

        The use of your favourite Buzz words such as Sinhala Buddhists, Hegemony, Chauvinism etc is a very poor cover for transgressing the truth and planting seeds of dissension.

        You wrote “The Sri Lankan President has similar powers but they are not called Royal Prerogative. Please get rid of the bigotry and try and be a good human.”

        Lost track of what is being debated or trying to draw a Red Herring?

        This was your contention “Britain has a Constitutional Monarchy that has no executive powers.” Vide your post of November 2, 2011 • 4:56 pm

        What has that got to do with the SL President?
        In any case what is the Constitutional power that the SL President wields that gives him the right to overrule the Supreme Court of Lanka? The Royal Prerogative has that power.
        What Power does he Constitutionally posses that allows him to enact Laws and Bypass Parliament?
        The Royal Prerogative can do so via an Order in Council.

        Are you not again trying to cross the Boundary of TRUTH?
        Are you Pontificating from ignorance?

        You wrote “I must also add that it rather boring to read your posts; ”

        Sure sure sure …..when you cannot dance it is the fault of the Floor …..When you are bereft of facts you find it boring. Ha ha haa.

        You wrote “you must be one sad individual I am very sorry to say.”

        Oh no I am happy to have been able to expose you and your half truths.
        I believe you said you did not know whether to laugh or cry.

        If I make a mistake I readily admit an apologise for it.
        Except when we discussed the Thesavalami Law the need to do so has never occurred during any other discussion with you.

      • Burning_Issue

        I am afraid; you are barking mad!

        “So where is your Democracy?”

        If you do not agree that, in Britain, the Prime Minister and his Ministers are accountable to the parliament and not to the Monarch, you need to examine your head. You assumed that I am a royalist; I never expressed that I support the Constitutional Monarchy; it does not matter to me whether they are there or not as it does not impinge on my democratic rights. The British Parliamentary system works very well and being admired by many aspiring nations around the world. There is a clear distinction between the pageantry duties that the Monarch performs to the democratic duties of the elected parliament. You on the other hand pedantically scramble finding insignificant aspects of Royal references to executive powers of the elected body to score cheap points.

        “Where is your Justice?”

        If there is miscarriage of justice in Britain, there are enough mechanisms to deal with it. There is free press to start with; there are many pressure groups function with total freedom. The British Judicial System has withstood many testing times and continually advancing to be even better institution and one cannot ask any more than that. If I were you, I would look to learn from that than helping to denigrate it!

        “Where are your Human Rights?”

        What qualifications do you have to ask this question? You are an ardent supporter of the government that has been overseeing deplorable human rights abuses.

        “In the Rubbish Heap?”

        I rather be in that “Rubbish Heap” than being under the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists!

        “What Power does he Constitutionally posses that allows him to enact Laws and Bypass Parliament?”

        First you need to accept that the Royal Prerogative rest with the Prime Minister where the National Security is at stake. Second you need to accept that Prime Minster is elected by the people and he/she is accountable to the parliament.

        I should have stuck to my original idea of not communicating with you as your fixated with one agenda that is to protect Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism; you do not see beyond that; sad, sad individual. You need to grow up fast; perhaps, once you have grown up, we may engage in substantive discussions.

      • Gamarala

        If I may intervene, it appears that Off the Cuff’s misapprehension stems from his confusion over a symbolic monarchy vs an actual feudal system. Britain’s insistence on continuing with its childish and primitive fancy dress party may be a suitable subject of our derision, but I think most would agree that, as far as the overall judicial system and government goes, Britain cannot be lumped together with third world countries. I agree with Burning Issue, we have more to learn from Britain than to deride.

      • Burning_Issue

        Dear Gamarala,

        Thanks for your contribution. OTC is an excellent debater with many good qualities but operates with a closed mind on the Sinhala Buddhist agenda. I, as a Tamil, understand the past insecurities of the Sinhala Buddhists; I also agree that they needed to assert themselves to a degree. But, things have gone too far and there should be a sense of balance; only good governance can bring about that balance under which the minorities can gain confidence.

      • Off the Cuff

        Burning Issue,

        You wrote “If you do not agree that, in Britain, the Prime Minister and his Ministers are accountable to the parliament and not to the Monarch,… “

        Yes they are accountable to Parliament except when the Royal Prerogative is used. Selective blindness will not change that.
        I have proven this beyond any doubt.
        No less a person than Jack Straw has admitted it.

        John Whitaker Straw (born 3 August 1946) is a British Labour Party politician who has been the Member of Parliament (MP) for Blackburn since 1979. He served as Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001, Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006 and Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons from 2006 to 2007 under Tony Blair. From 2007 to 2010 he was the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and the Secretary of State for Justice, appointed as part of Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s first Cabinet. Straw is one of only three people to have served in Cabinet continuously from 1997 to 2010

        Quote From my post of December 8, 2011 • 2:45 am
        And Parliament was deliberately bypassed. Jack Straw admitted this in a letter of 15 June 2004 to the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
        Unquote

        If you have better evidence that the Royal Prerogative used in the name of the Monarch by whomsoever cannot bypass Parliament and can be held accountable to Parliament or the Justice system, produce such evidence without trying to hide behind Juvenile arguments.

        The Royal Prerogative is a very powerful instrument with which both Parliament and the Justice system of Britain can be overridden or bypassed.

        The Royal Prerogative has been used to Bypass Parliament within the current decade.

        The Royal Prerogative has been used to SUBVERT JUSTICE as recently as June 2004.

        Would you classify the overturning of an UNANIMOUS Decision of the British High Court, by a panel of no less than 7 eminent Judges, with the use of the Royal Prerogative, as Justice?

        You call it insignificant, would you excuse similar action if it happened in the third world?
        If not why not?

        I have provided irrefutable proof that the Royal Prerogative is neither Justiciable nor Accountable to Parliament, where is your proof to the contrary?

        You wrote “If there is miscarriage of justice in Britain, there are enough mechanisms to deal with it.

        In the Chagos case there was a Miscarriage of Justice and there is no IF about it.

        Now please prove how the sufficient Mechanisms that you claim to exist in Britain, dealt with that Injustice that took place 4 decades ago and Rectified it. Did that mechanism succeed in reversing that INJUSTICE?

        Are you claiming that the Forced Depopulation of the Chagos Island was Justified?

        You wrote ““Where are your Human Rights?”
        What qualifications do you have to ask this question?”

        Don’t worry about my Qualifications answer the question.
        We are discussing Britain and the Royal Prerogative.
        Are you avoiding the question because you have no answer?

        David Snoxell the British High Commissioner in Mauritius between 2000 and 2004 describes the Chagos drama thus “….. one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated by the UK in the 20th century. No one has since disagreed with that statement.” vide my post of December 8, 2011 • 2:45 am

        Do you disagree?
        If so why?

        You wrote “You are an ardent supporter of the government that has been overseeing deplorable human rights abuses”

        I am an ardent supporter of my Country of Birth and I will defend her to the best of my ability from UNJSTIFIED criticism by anyone. You are welcome to criticise Her as long as you stay within the Boundaries of Truth and Justice.

        When you are bankrupt with facts you may classify my defence of my country in anyway you deem fit. However don’t try to use that as an excuse to run away from difficult questions. Probably you may not have a Birthright to defend but I have.

        You wrote “I rather be in that “Rubbish Heap” than being under the Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinists!”

        As you please but beware of the maggots.

        Dishonestly quoting out of context will not extricate you from the Quagmire you stepped in to. My counter to your claim that the Sri Lankan Presidency has equivalent powers to the Royal Prerogative was as follows.

        …. In any case what is the Constitutional power that the SL President wields that gives him the right to overrule the Supreme Court of Lanka? The Royal Prerogative has that power.
        What Power does he Constitutionally posses that allows him to enact Laws and Bypass Parliament? The Royal Prerogative can do so via an Order in Council. (Vide my post of December 8, 2011 • 2:45 am )

        You have completely avoided your own reference to the Lankan Presidency.
        Why?
        Unable to maintain your Lies?

        You wrote “First you need to accept that the Royal Prerogative rest with the Prime Minister where the National Security is at stake.”

        Please don’t write any rubbish that comes to your head. The Royal Prerogative is exercised by the PM, the Cabinet and other Govt Officials in the NAME of the Sovereign. It is not the PM alone that can use it.

        Was the Forcible Depopulation of the Chagos Atolls, half a world distant from Britain, a National Security issue for Britain?

        You wrote “Second you need to accept that Prime Minster is elected by the people …”

        Where have I stated anything contrary to the above?
        Don’t day dream Burning Issue.

        You wrote “….. and he/she is accountable to the parliament”

        Are there no exceptions?
        In the Chagos case Parliament was Bypassed.
        The Tool used was the Royal Prerogative.
        I have proved it.
        Can you disprove it?

        You wrote “I should have stuck to my original idea of not communicating with you ….

        Don’t flatter yourself.
        I am not writing for your benefit. I told you this before.
        I write for the benefit the GV, who you are trying to mislead. You are welcome to challenge what I write or allow it to stand unchallenged if you have no FACTUAL counter.

        You wrote “…. as your fixated with one agenda that is to protect Sinhala Buddhist Chauvinism; you do not see beyond that; sad, sad individual”

        Barking mad?
        Is that why you are back to your Buzz words?
        I can return the favour by asking whether you are a Tamil Hindu Vellala High cast Supremacist, the type that trampled on the Religious Freedom of the Low Cast Batu Tamils by preventing their entry to Hindu Temples, but that won’t contribute to the debate.
        Are you intellectually bankrupt??

        You wrote “You need to grow up fast; perhaps, once you have grown up, we may engage in substantive discussions”

        Who avoids difficult questions and who provides childish unsubstantiated arguments is very plain to see.

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Gamarala,

        You wrote “If I may intervene, it appears that Off the Cuff’s misapprehension stems from his confusion over a symbolic monarchy vs an actual feudal system.”

        Of course you are welcome but I have no misapprehension.
        The cases that I quote are factual. The Royal Prerogative has more power embedded within it than is commonly known. It is a remnant of the old Feudal System. It’s use is rare but it has been used nevertheless. Read all my posts on the subject or do some research on your own. It is retained due to the Absolute Power it provides the user.

        You wrote “Britain’s insistence on continuing with its childish and primitive fancy dress party may be a suitable subject of our derision,”

        This is of no concern to me or to the subject being discussed. I would not deride it on it’s own. We have our own pomp and pageantry. Any country has. So who are we to deride the Brits on that account? The Brits can do what they want with their pomp and pageantry as long as that won’t impinge on the freedom of others.

        You wrote “but I think most would agree that, as far as the overall judicial system and government goes, Britain cannot be lumped together with third world countries.”

        We are discussing a SPECIFIC aspect of British Governance. The aspect that allowed them to carry out one of the worst violations of human rights perpetrated by the UK in the 20th century. in the words of David Snoxell the British High Commissioner in Mauritius between 2000 and 2004. The Chagos Atolls came under his purview.

        We are not discussing the overall judicial system.

        You wrote “I agree with Burning Issue, we have more to learn from Britain than to deride.”

        That is your choice but is it an informed choice?

        If the desire is to learn, then one should posses the ability to analyse not only the strengths but the weaknesses as well.

        Burning Issue has a history going back a few years of twisting the truth, writing half truths and even downright lies in order to project his view point.

      • Gamarala

        Dear Off the Cuff,

        The problem with your style of argumentation is that you miss the wood for the trees. You are writing at considerable length on an issue of the least importance, when the overall point cannot be assailed – Britain is almost incomparably ahead of Sri Lanka.

        Furthermore, contrary to your assessment, I find Burning Issue to be a sincere individual who is focused on the overall picture. Even if some minor details are wrong, his overall conclusion is correct – “only good governance can bring about that balance under which the minorities can gain confidence”. Secondly, it’s also true that the Sinhalese people have grave insecurities resulting in ethnic chauvinism. Consider this video for example (it’s an extract from a Sinhalese film):
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVgwARzBI70&feature=share

        This shows how ethnic chauvinism is being ingrained into people through film and media. Most people would walk away from this video claiming “how logical”, because it is ostensibly so, whereas on closer analysis, the deeper message is extremely chauvinistic.

        So what Burning Issue is saying is correct – solving this problem requires good governance, an element that is missing in the present political climate. Dayan Jayatillake and others seem to think that the problem lies with a lack of opposition. Do you agree with this and what remedies do you suggest? Or do you see the biggest problem as being the crown prerogative in England that is somehow altogether invalidating the British Justice system?

      • Off the Cuff

        Dear Gamarala,

        The subject under discussion is not the subject you want to discuss.
        The subject is the following statement from Burning Issue

        “Britain has a Constitutional Monarchy that has no executive powers.”

        Since you are a Sinhalese you would understand the following idiom.
        Koheda yanne? Malle pol.

        Now I hope you would reread all the relevant posts and take your stand.

        My stand is that Burning Issue is wrong.
        The so called Constitutional Monarchy does have executive powers.

        The non Justiciable Royal Prerogative is also unquestionable by Parliament.

        It can create Laws via an Order in Council and it can overturn any Court decision.
        It has done both within the current decade.

        Good Luck