LIVE AMMUNITION AND CITIZEN ENEMIES
Repost This Article
Photo courtesy www.dbsjeyaraj.com
If the time ever does come for a comprehensive evaluation of security policies and legislation adopted during the privation and emergencies of war and the peacetime ‘stability’ of a post-war context, it would only be fair to conclude that the unpleasantness of the former far exceeds the unpleasantness of the latter, but it is still just that – unpleasant.
It has not been that long since we read about the callous disregard for human life in a number shootings, which occurred in August 2011, where the police and military used live ammunition to ‘control’ protests that occurred outside police stations and military camps. That particular period passed us by with one protester shot dead in Pottuvil by the military, two protesters injured when the military shot at a demonstration in Kinniya and a few protesters injured when they were shot at by the police in Puttalam. If these incidents seem somewhat remote and indistinct, there is always the equally tragic incident in the Katunayake Free Trade Zone (FTZ) in July 2011, when a protester was killed as a result of live ammunition used by the police along with the grievous assault of other protesters. The incident itself resulted in an inordinate amount of coverage by the press due to the swingeing but short-lived demands for counteraction against the enormities of policing in the country. However, if there were any expectations of a turn around over the policy of using live ammunition against civilians, the brutal killing of a protester in Chilaw by the Special Task Force two days ago demonstrates that once bitten, this Government is never twice shy.
While there was absolutely no demand for introspection and inquiry following the shootings in Puttalam, Kinniya and Pottuvil, the FTZ killing in Katunayaka resulted in a presidential inquiry with the submission of an investigative report by Mahanama Tillakaratne to President Rajapaksa on the 6th of August 2011. Quite predictably, that particular report did not lead to any sort of critical action by the President. And why not? As one of the most corrupt institutions in the country and one that is responsible – even in a post-war context – for the violation of fundamental rights, custodial killings, encounter killings and outright murder, there is very little else that could result in the lowering of public confidence in a critical organ of the state responsible for civilian security and public order. In this context, it is inconceivable and utterly reprehensible that President Rajapaksa and the Defence Secretary, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa, were unable to consider wider punitive measures and not mere transfers for what was a clear act of police brutality, as well as the urgent reformulation of policies on policing, which at present appear to favour manslaughter and the disproportionate use of force over the proper and legal containment of unrest and responsible management of public protest.
There is, of course, another aspect to the inaction of the government. The unwillingness to follow through with reform could be due to the fact that it is politically expedient to maintain a force for repression in order to militate against an attempt at subversion by citizen enemies. The government is, after all, quite fond of the “you’re either with us or against us” line of thinking, which has – over the last few years – translated into action on the streets and the old practice of vituperative verbal attacks against civil society activists. So, is public security really a concern for this government? If public security is a concern, why are protesters killed on the streets by the military and police? Or is it about repression in order to impede the upstart of larger dissenting movements? If public order is a goal, is it not inevitable that the insidious killing of protesters by the police and military will increase the likelihood of violent confrontations in the future? If there are no gross human rights violations and if there is justice in a post-war context, how are we supposed to interpret the killing of protesters, the brutality of police and military action, and the lack of investigations, convictions and reform? There is a point at which frequent incidental deaths at demonstrations become disconcerting, particularly when it occurs as a result of sadistic and disproportionate policing methods, and when the expectation of justice is an exercise in futility. Is justice a concern for this government? If it is, many are still waiting for its swift hand. However, it would be unfair to portray the incidents highlighted above as clear cases of state brutality since the protesters themselves could have instigated the violence, but this still does not legitimise the use of live ammunition. Surely, if there were enough reasons – in terms of a vital threat to public order – the use of rubber bullets, water cannons, tear gas and effective policing would suffice. The only justification for the use of live ammunition would be if the protesters possessed weapons and demonstrated intent to kill.
In usual form, the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) has launched an investigation into the incident in Chilaw, and while the façade of accountability progresses, the family of the protester who was killed was offered money in return for their silence on the matter – an offer that they rejected. Why is the CID conducting an investigation if other officials – allegedly attached to the police – are trying to pay-off family members in order to impede the investigation? Why is there no investigation into this particular development? Perhaps the disbursement of funds is considered usual procedure when dealing with grievances of this nature, and a substitute for an actual investigation, but is this really the puerile conduct that the police force is willing to embrace in order to save face? It is also quite disappointing that many officials have failed to question the use of live ammunition, and in the case of Chilaw and others like it, the Inspector General of Police, N.K Ilangakoon, seems to be unwilling to put forward a directive disallowing the use of live ammunition on protesters, which – as a result – implies that the IGP actively supports the disproportionate use of force and the violation of fundamental rights.
Too often the defence establishment has faltered and only few have taken Gotabhaya Rajapksa to task for his failures, negligence and fervent statements on policy, which have considerable implications for the way in which the government responds to critical issues in this country given the extent of centralisation. It is precisely because of the precedent set with the failure to ensure proper conduct in the response of the security forces and police to civilian protests – in Navanthurai, Pottuvil, Kinniya, Puttalam, Katunayake and elsewhere – and to institute proper reforms following violations that we have to contend with brutal incidents such as the one in Chilaw. The government seems to have no qualms about the continued use of the military in enforcing public order despite the fact that its interventions have been an unmitigated disaster, and it – wittingly or unwittingly – simply disregards the demands for necessary action that should extend beyond a flippant investigation and, god forbid, the appointment of another commission of inquiry.
And to whom should we rightfully assign overall responsibility and blame for these successive failures in security policy? Gotabhaya Rajapaksa must resign, and so too must the Inspector General of Police. Will you see to it, Mr. President?
Killing unarmed protestor while he was exercising his democratic right for peaceful marchers is abhorrent. How low does the Rajapaksa Regime can sink before people will realise that we live in dictatorship, in a police state !! Why use a live ammunition on peaceful protesters. Why shoot kill actions were taken by the Sri Lanka Police and Army on poor fishfolks who are struggling to survive on their meagre incomes. Meanwhile the Rajapaksa are enjoying luxurious opulence obtained through corruption !!
Fishing is a important section of the Sri Lanka – that produces a vital need for the nation’s health and economy – should have received better consideration from the Government. Why many billions that have been wasted in Mihin Air, the ego boosing projects in Hambantota, unnecessary 800 million Tamasha global tour, inflated Contracts etc could have gone out to give the fisher-folk their due long ago.
Cosmetic treatment, that will surely follow in knee-jerk fashion, is not going to solve the issue. The malaise is more widespread – it is the entire economy that has been mis-managed by clueless Rajapaksa hanger ons in the past 6 years.
While one hopes the issues of the vast mass of people will find relief the reality is a faltering regime is not up to it and the socio-economic confusion that was speculated to follow is here. We are fated to see more of these incidents is not a mischievous wish but an earthy reality.
“Quite predictably, that particular report did not lead to any sort of critical action by the President”
fact, the policeman and STF persons responsible for the katunayake shooting and Chilaw shooting have been arrested and charged. Katunayeke police man trial to begin soon
fact, as a result of the inquiry the police has been disarmed.
fact, police brutality occurs, mistakes occur, accidents happen, sometimes people act illegally, including police, not just in Sri Lanka but in USA, UK, and canada, the right thing is to hold the culprit to account under the law
fact, why is it that only the fisherman in Chilaw are protesting? there are fisherman in the south, in Trinco, in Batti, why are they not protesting?
don’t be naive
Is it
a. A Western conspiracy?
b. The NGOs?
c. Remnant LTTE elements?
d. The diaspora?
e. The Christians undermining Buddhists?
f. The opposition?
g. A brand new Indian attempt to break up Sri Lanka?
Have I missed any of the usual suspects? It surely cannot be a given reason, that’d just be too easy!
Joker,
If you were competent about opposing me, you would’ve done well to highlight another quote – rather than the one above – in your attempt to prove that critical action was taken by the authorities. I will admit to missing out on the rather important arrest of ‘two’ policemen in the Katunayake incident, but I fail to recognise a cogent counter-argument in your other points. I also refuse to acknowledge the arrest of police officers as the extent of necessary ‘critical action’ that can be taken by the President, Defence Secretary and IGP.
I haven’t limited my criticism to the police force. You assert quite proudly that ‘as a result of the inquiry the police has been disarmed.’ I read about that proposal. Let me deal with the obvious first. What’s the point in disarming the police when you have the STF and armed forces filling in for the police, and shooting protesters? Following a magisterial inquiry, one would expect broader recommendations to be considered and for the president to issue orders prohibiting the use of live ammunition on civilians by the entire security apparatus. As I stated in my piece, “Surely, if there were enough reasons – in terms of a vital threat to public order – the use of rubber bullets, water cannons, tear gas and effective policing would suffice. The only justification for the use of live ammunition would be if the protesters possessed weapons and demonstrated intent to kill.”
Since you know everything about this matter, particularly the ‘disarming of the police,’ I assume you’re also aware of the ‘re-arming of the police’ – “Police to be re-armed following killings,” Sunday Leader, http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/12/08/police-ordered-to-carry-firearms/, 8th December 2011.
“fact, police brutality occurs, mistakes occur, accidents happen, sometimes people act illegally, including police, not just in Sri Lanka but in USA, UK, and canada, the right thing is to hold the culprit to account under the law”
I’ve commented on the issue of ‘intent to kill’ and responding to violence perpetrated by protestors in my piece. While convictions are critical, it seems utterly short-sighted and ineffective to rely on convictions alone when reform of the national police force is required to strengthen capacity and develop effective methods of response to disorder. It is, after all, about dealing with the problem of police brutality and considering the issue of policing according to the consent of the public, as well as doing away with the role of the military in the enforcement of public order. I assume we’re capable of upholding higher standards in policing.
“fact, why is it that only the fisherman in Chilaw are protesting? there are fisherman in the south, in Trinco, in Batti, why are they not protesting?”
I’m not going to bother dignifying the questions posed above with a response.
“don’t be naive”
Indeed! I’d engage with you further, but it’s clearly a waste of my time.
Gamarala,
come on, don’t only think about a conspiracy but try to respond on subject!
You know what? The truth is hidden int he alst palce where one would ever look for it: in his/her own heart! Please, stop looking at the “outside conspirators” and seek the truth in your heart!
Dear OpenEyes,
Can I be blamed for trying to fathom who Mr. Joker was referring to when he/she said: “why is it that only the fisherman in Chilaw are protesting? there are fisherman in the south, in Trinco, in Batti, why are they not protesting?
Don’t be naive.”
Naturally, my imagination ran riot! (as it often does). It must be an international conspiracy. There are so many forces arrayed against poor Sri Lanka, it’s almost as if the rest of the world has no other day job.
p.s.
I forgot to add Martians to our list of foes – I hope you will excuse the oversight. I am confident that many Sri Lankans are being anally probed as we speak, doubtless to fathom who has the more glorious ancestors. (this fact I have determined thanks to the deft arguments by Off the cuff)
Silence-for-too-long of the Buddhist clergy is deafening.
The facts are that the State used undue force to quell a relatively small riot and killed an innocent man. The use of tear gas or water cannon would have been sufficient.
I would question how much live bullets were used into the air before they aimed at the people. There is NO excuse for shooting live ammunition on unarmed Civilians. [Edited out - we do not not know who gave the order to shoot] again at the helm of the order to use live ammunition as he is determined to prevent any protest by instilling FEAR into the people. It is fear and Fear alone that seem to deter Sri Lankans. If one is without fear we can topple the Regime in an instant. we are not Thailand where an event such as this would have toppled the Govt. in power.
Given the reality, those opposing the Regime must engage in an active campaign of spreading the reality of what the Govt. is doing. For all those who say this price rise was inevitable, all one can say it due to the bad policies of the Govt. over these years it became inevitable. There was no sudden rise in fuel internationally to result in this.
So it is time first to explain how ruthless Rajapaksa Regime has fooled the people all these years into a false sense of security that could just not be continued, and finally when sh*t hits the fan they are trying to protect their backsides by doing their utmost to prevent ANY dissent.
Until recently, the UNP was criticizing the government for defending the rupee. Now that the government has stopped defending the rupee, they are criticizing the government for the high cost of living. The eminant economist in the UNP blames the current economic woes on the ballooning trade deficit. Yet, for a country that’s in the process of developing its industries and infrastructure with no natural resources that can be exported, how that may be accomplished without hitting a trade deficit is a subject that he doesn’t elaborate upon!
Koheda yanne>? Malle pol.
This is an excellent piece by Mr Nugawela but incomplete on two counts.
The authoritarian Rajapakse government was able to get away with this because of the acquiescence of the public. There was a patron-client relationship of sharing spoils in corruption and power abuse.
This was partly because public enthusiasm for a race war facilitated acquiescence. I told the Sinhalese people over and over again in my writings and at seminars that once the state finished off the Tamils it will turn its guns on them; at that time they did not care, but now see what’s happening! Wijeya Warnakulasuriya, brother-in-law of Anthony Fernando who was shot dead in Chilaw wailed: “They (STF and Police) treated us like LTTE cadres; they attacked us with the same mindset”. Do I need to say more?
Now this unholy patron-client alliance is fracturing. Good!
really? this is a very poorly researched piece of writing that is misinforming everyone.
As a result of the Katunayeke Incident, police do not carry fire arms any more.
Those responsible for both shootings have been arrested and charged. on is awaiting trial.
the author obviously doesn’t know about many things that are happening but writes like he knows everything. He needs to update himself of the developments and not assume that nothing was done since he stopped reading the papers
“the author obviously doesn’t know about many things that are happening but writes like he knows everything. He needs to update himself of the developments and not assume that nothing was done since he stopped reading the papers.”
Such a predicament for the author.
I assume you’re also aware of the ‘re-arming of the police’ – “Police to be re-armed following killings,” Sunday Leader, http://www.thesundayleader.lk/2011/12/08/police-ordered-to-carry-firearms/, 8th December 2011.
I’ve responded to your other comment.
Isn’t this haste from various parties to make out that the shooting is the harbinger of various predictions (Arab Spring, a Southern Uprising, etc) a bit desperate? There is no such sign that the GoSL is in any way turning on the Sinhalese as is so ridiculously stated here. Nor does this look like some precursor to a general uprising. Last year the police killed an FTZ worker protesting the pensions bill. There were similar shouts of jubilance from both the pro-Tiger Tamil diaspora and the anti-government domestic bloc. The result was simply that the bill was withdrawn.
Let’s not fool ourselves the way the Fonseka supporters did in the run up to the last presidential elections by delusions of some magical change that is more hope than reality.
@Kumar David,
I am quite outraged by your comment. Are you glad that innocent Sinhalese are dying? Are you presuming that ALL (poor) Sinhalese suppported the Rajapakses’ actions during the war?
Let me tell you. I am from the South. Many of the Southern people – while understanding the brutality of the LTTE and its Sun God – did not approve of the way that the war was finished off with innocent Tamils being killed. We knew this same brutality many years back. My aunt and uncle were killed by gvt paramiliaries in the 80′s purely because their children had joined the ‘movement’! Please do not assume that grief and devastation are the sole prerogative of the Tamils in Sri Lanka.
We all knew this hoary truth that you pronounce with great solemnity – that it would not not be long before the govt tuns its guns on the Sinhalese dissenters. When in Trincomalee as part of a fact finding team to ascertain how habeas corpus applications of Tamil petitioners were being dismissed by the eastern courts, I was one of a team led by senior advocates who have long championed for HR in Sri Lanka, including a well known and highly respected lawyer cum media columnist (all of them Sinhalese) and this same thing was told to us by a wise old priest who lived there and was working with the disappeared people. We all knew this and were prepared for this.
The correct approach is to empathise and to build linkages between the poor and the non-politically powerful (Sinhala, Tamil and Muslim), not to gloat!
I should be astonished at such sentiments coming from the presumably ‘educated’ but then again, I should not be! The ‘educated’ people are whats’ wrong with Sri Lanka not the poor who understand what deprivation and injustice means as it speaks in a common language irrespective of ethnicity.
@Pandukabaya de Silva
It was mostly only a few educated Sinhalese (called LTTE supporters then by the government) who protested when Tamils were being ‘white vanned’ and other Tamil civilians were being bombed into the stone-age and later when the remaining 3,00,000 were incarcerated behind barbed wire welfare holiday camps.
All most all of the other lotus eating/kiribath eating Sinhalese stayed silent or lit crackers and applauded the government and armed forces screaming “Jaya way waa” at the top of their voices.
Now they are getting the same medicine that the Tamils in the North and East got. This is poetic justice after all.
@PresiDunce Bean
From where do you come to this inference that only the educated protested while the others were ‘lotus eating/kiribath eating’ and dancing in joy when inncoent Tamils were being killed? Are you going by what you saw on television that day (viewing it with distaste from your armchair perchance)or have you travelled the length and breadth of the South to speak of them with such authority? When Rohana Wijeweera was killed and when Ranasinghe Premadasa was killed, then too crowds lit crackers and danced for joy. These were the ruffians but they do not represent all the Sinhala people.
This glee that you and Kumar David display at innocent Sinhalese being at the recieving end of the government’s brutality is symptomatic of your own racism, even though you may not acknowledge it as such.
As long as people continue to think like this, there will be no future for this coutry.
@PresiDunceBean – And by the way, Niemoller’s caution is most inappropriate for you to use.
Speaking out’ is not masquerading under a pseudonym and writing blogs to a website. Use your name like I do. There are plenty of others who are also not afraid STILL to use their names.
Dear Pandukabaya de Silva,
Feigning ignorance when convenient as you do is worse than the sin, if any, of using pseudonyms, particularly in view of the recent political history of Sri Lanka. It will help to recall the fate of many outspoken journalists for “speaking out” openly, including the case of Lasantha and his own writing prior to his death.
Can you explain why your response to the subject discussed would be different if you knew the author’s real name?
By faking disdain on pseudonym users, you may score a cheap point or two among the naïve ones – but, be assured that won’t sell for long as the now clammed-up Dayan has come to realize, after tracking the same path multiple times .
If you genuinely cannot understand that speaking out necessitates non-use of pseudonyms, I challenge you, as I have done with Dayan – why don’t to ask Ground Views publicly to either explain to you the rationale behind their policy to allow use of pseudonyms or to abandon that policy – I am certain you will not ask, since that would expose you for either your temerity or for your fraud.
In a more general, fundamental logic, why do you think Democracies allow for people to “speak out” their will via a process of “secret ballot” rather than an open one?
Oops!
In the penultimate para, I meant to say “If you genuinely believe that speaking out necessitates non-use of pseudonyms, I challenge you, as I have done with Dayan – why don’t to ask Ground Views publicly to either explain to you the rationale behind their policy to allow use of pseudonyms or to abandon that policy – I am certain you will not ask, since that would expose you for either your temerity or for your fraud.”
I don’t think there is any unique rationale that Groundviews uses in regard to anonymity. It is a generally accepted internet etiquette that one may remain anonymous if one wishes. So to imagine that the inane commentary and atrocious “poetry” of someone like the Dunce would bring him anything more dangerous than withering scorn if we knew his real identity is rather melodramatic and frankly self-flattering in that we credit ourselves with far more impact than our comments actually have in reality.
@ Dayan Sangamaya
If you want to know who gave the orders to fire, please click the links given below and read.
http://2.hidemyass.com/ip-3/encoded/Oi8vbGFua2FlbmV3cy5jb20vRW5nbGlzaC9uZXdzLnBocD9pZD0xMjY5NA%3D%3D
http://2.hidemyass.com/ip-3/encoded/Oi8vbGFua2FlbmV3cy5jb20vRW5nbGlzaC9uZXdzLnBocD9pZD0xMjY4OQ%3D%3D
@PresiDunce Bean
Do you seriously take ARTICLES published by lankaenews as serious source of reference ?
Alone the style of their writing is far from any other articles on other news units you get to read today. I am not a sympathiser to curent regime. But I would not ask anyone to read Lankaenews articles as source of only references.
Among the many of who put comments here, my view about the problem that we are forced to face in the country is more or less close to what @Pandukabaya de silva adds.
@Andre
Are you suggesting that I believe what is said in the “Daily NOISE”…”The Shun Day Absaver” or what Mrs.Roopa Vahini says about the shooting and killing of Anthony Fernando and seriously injuring 3 others?
I suggest you watch this video…
The Fisherman who was brutally killed (Antony Fernando) .
http://www.youtube.com
@Andre
It’s your prerogative to believe what you want to. But tell me, are you suggesting that believe the news in government newspapers, TV and radio?
I suggest that you watch this video.
PresiDunce Bean
Thanks for the for your informative post.
I like your posts on this and other websites. Your witty humour and very serious, highly intelligent responses help to understand the Sri Lanka politics.
The Sri Lankans are waking up to the realisation that Rajapaksa is dictator. Who would dear contradict his corrupt policies ?
I hope that the authoritarian Rajapakse government will not able to get away with this !!
Rajapapaksa Government goons go on having a thmasha with every thing subsidized or state sponsored, while ordinary hard-working Shrilankans have to bear the burden of Rajapaksa’s economic blunders.
http://www.chron.com/news/nation-world/world/gallery/Protests-in-Sri-Lanka-39486/photo-2513762.php
First they came for the Tamils in the “No Fire Zone” and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Tamil.
Next they came for Lasantha Wickramatunga, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a Journalist.
Then they came for Roshen Chanaka, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a factory worker in the Free Trade Zone.
Then they came for Lalith Kumar Weeraraj and Kugan Murugasan and I did not speak out
Because I was not a JVP activist.
Then they came for Anthony Fonseka, and I did not speak out
Because I was not a fisherman.
When they finally came for me there was no one left to speak for me.
With apologies to Martin Niemoeller, a prominent Protestant pastor who opposed the Nazi regime in Germany.
Since independence,shootings at civilian demonstraters have always been as a last resort.
First warnings to disperse are given, then in some instances,a baton charge dispersed them, if this fails, tear gas is fired.
Now water cannons are used at this stage.
If this does not result in dispersal of demonstraters, shooting usually by one or two policemen OVER THE HEADS works.
If not, shooting at them BELOW the KNEE, to avoid fatalities is resorted to.
But,now THEY SHOOT TO KILL.
The Chilaw protester was shot in the head – a deliberate killing.
How can anyone condone this – this is MURDER by the STATE.
@Andre
Sorry this is the link.
The [edited out] consider themselves above the law. Killing people and get away with it.
Live ammunition and shoot to kill in Chilaw ??
Shoot to kill, beat to kill, kidnap to kill, arrest to kill have been the order of the day for Rajapaksa government. That is how Tamils were treated always which finally boiled over to an armed struggle.
The Tamils are very familiar with the kind of treatment when they went on peaceful demonstrations. Sinhalese loved it and were unaware how hurtful and sadistic it was to grin and bear the same over decades, not mention the discrimination on all fronts the Tamils had to endure.
Ananthi, so you should now be delighted that Sinhalese are getting the same treatment!
@Sarath Fernando,
Itsn typical of people who cannot bolster thir argument to go shootting off at randem about using pseudonyms and then use Lasantha to try and prove their puerile point. Lasantha would turn in his grave if he knew what he has been reduced to as, if not anything else, he was one person who spoke out despite the risk.
Frankly, I am not interested in reading about policies about pseudonyms etc, etc. Neither do I challenge the right to use one This is a long practiced method of journalism after all. My argument is that if you have the strength of your convictions, you must come out and show it openly which was what the Martin Niemuller historic warning was all about not hiding under the shield of anonymity.
If you prefer to be anonymous, thats fine. But don’t pontificate about speaking out please!!
Dear, dear Pandukabaya de Silva,
Yup – weasel out now that you have no defense for your own position, not unlike the established Dayanisque style.
Do you not remember that it is you who pontificated “Speaking out is not masquerading under a pseudonym and writing blogs to a website. Use your name like I do.”
And now, for enlightening you on why Ground Views considers that provision fair, you call me “pontificating on pseudonyms?” That is your defense?
To reiterate (in case you forgot already) here was your pontification –if you want to speak out “Use your name like I do.”
And, you, sir, lived up to my expectation – scared to have your temerity or fraud exposed, just as I thought you would, lame excuses not withstanding!
Now see if you can answer without weaseling out, two simple questions that I repeat, both based solely on your pontification:
Can you explain why your response to the subject discussed would be different if you knew the author’s real name?
Why do you think Democracies allow for people to “speak out” their will via a process of “secret ballot” rather than an open one?
Of course you have an alternative – follow Dayan to the same crevice.
@Sarath Fernando,
Try to sustain a simple argument, man. What is all this gibberish?
My simple point was that – and I say this again since you appear not be able to comprehend the plain English language – use a pseudonym if you want to to but the powerful impact of Martin Niemuller’s quote was to speak out openly NOT hide behind pseudonyms!
The logic is very simple for those who can understand it – speaking out means taking a risk. if you do not identify yourself, (for whatever reason – fear, social impact etc), you don’t take the risk. Therefore, you should not have the moral right to quote Niemuller. Comprehende??
For your information, though I leave the right to hide under pseudonyms to anyone who wishes to do so, Martin Niemuller could also have hidden under a safe anonymous cloak of writing pamphlets at the time that he lived but he chose not to do so. In our context, there are many who speak out and write far more courageously than those who hide under pseudonyms in blogs. Until greater guts is shown by others in this similar way, we can have our little ‘blog-kingdom’ agreeing or disagreeing with one another but this will have little impact on Sri Lankan society in general.
And please stop citing Lasantha and Dayan in support of your silly little arguments whichever way. In my mind, Dayan is an outright poseur. Lasantha did not deserve to die in the way he did at all but he certainly was not the epitome of a good journalist, rather he was a good politico-journalist.
I joined this conversation to point out that grief and devastation has been experienced by both Sinhalese and tamil in Sri Lanka at various points and that if healing comes, this should be recognised both by the Sinhalese as well as the Tamils.
The purpose was not to engage in wrangling with closed minds on pseudonyms. So for me – this correspondece is now closed.
I do not think they are treating the people like LTTE cadre. From early independence (1950′s) when Chelvanygam and his party peacefully demonstrated against the discrimination of tamils by the State, the colombo sinhala public, police and the state officials beat them up, burnt members of the tamil community alive in the streets. This seems to be the normal policy in the sinhala civilisation ruled by the elites for millenia. It is not because of the LTTE that the police/military act this way it is the fact that the Sinhala people have never understood the meaning of democracy and gone through the process of overthrowing the ruling elites. Britain went through a civil war, which resulted in the limiting the power of the monarch. France, Germany, Italy and other European countries overthrew their monarchy, giving rise to all people having equal responsibility to have a good society. One can tell form Ghotabaya’s interviews with international media (namely BBC Hard Talk)that he believes that what ever he says is law and is the will of the land. The will of land is not the will of the people.
If the sinhala people didn’t want this situation to happen then they shouldn’t have voted for the Rajapaske in the last presidential election. They shouldn’t elect members of the Rajapaske alliance as government officials.
Learn the meaning of true democracy, true equality and give up your fear of non-sinhala-buddhists.
Maybe you are not aware of the fact that every time communal riots sprung, there were several instances of the Sinhalese giving safe refuge to Tamil brethren at the risk of their own lives. The overall majority of votes which were cast for General Sarath Fonseka were Sinhalese votes, over 40 Lakhs if I remember right.
Oh dear Pandukabaya de Silva,
I have no doubt you would like this conversation to end – only because it exposes the fraud behind your faked rage. However, believe me, exposing that fraud is indeed my sole intent.
Your raving and ranting merely confirms your discomfort with this revelation about you. Your relentless attempts are nothing but a cover because you are ashamed of your intentions behind your dogmatic stand that “if you want to speak out then ‘Use your name like I do’.”
Let me start by asking you once again why do you want the commenter’s name revealed? How will that add any value?
Your interpretation of Martin Niemuller’s advice (powerful impact of Martin Niemuller’s quote was to speak out openly NOT hide behind pseudonyms!) is asinine.
Niemuller advocates the need to “speak-out” as opposed to “keeping quiet just because it does not directly affect you”.
Niemuller’s advice has absolutely nothing to do with whether one chooses to express the opinion anonymously or not — just that, one should not refrain from expressing one’s opinion because it does not affect you directly, when you are aware that it adversely and unfairly affects someone else.
Niemuller is not advocating that you identify yourself and broadcast your name!
If that is not the case, let us know why revealing the name is relevant. Why not assess the comments on their own merit and respond – that is all what is necessary for the ‘blog-kingdom’ agreeing or disagreeing: Revealing names adds zilch.
Can you tell us how revealing the name will help in “agreeing and disagreeing?” Would you like the home-addresses revealed too?!
I see you keep repeating a fallacious argument that using the name rather than pseudonym somehow reflects your courage, gutty-ness, whatever. Are you suggesting that using the real name somehow makes you the “sooraya”; gives you bragging rights for courage; or perhaps even earns the right to pin “bravery” badge on yourself? Go ahead – pin it on. However, that is utterly delusional. All it reflects is that you are not exposed to the same risks as those who choose to use pseudonyms because often their positions on Government’s actions attract white-vans, Lasantha-gunners on mo-bike’s and Mervyn Silva’s.
Here is what I think you (and a few more, particularly Dayan) have been trying to do.
You want to intimidate, scare, discount or shame commenter’s who have chosen to remain anonymous – because their comments are in opposition to Government’s views or actions. In this ruse to discourage such opposing views, at least, your intent is no different from Dayan’s.
If you are not ashamed of your intent, and have good reason for asking to reveal the names, please “speak-out” — we are all eager to know.
Dayan shied away from answering why he wanted the name revealed – let’s see if you are any different. This is your third opportunity to explain your reasoning and to show you are different from Dayan.
On the other hand, if you are now aware you were mistaken, and you are indeed a brave one, then apologize to PresiDunce Bean for your dim-witted, if not outright idiotic command “Use your name like I do.”
A few other specific observations based on the pathetic arguments you “spoke-out”.
First you command “Use your name as I do” – meaning don’t use Pseudonyms. Then you say “If you prefer to be anonymous, that’s fine.” If you are fine with anonymity, then why that first, strident command?!
You concede that the use of pseudonym “is a long practiced method of journalism after all.” You then follow that with the contradictions “Until greater guts is shown by others in this similar way (not hiding behind pseudonyms)….” and “my argument is that if you have the strength of your convictions, you must come out and show it openly”
The obvious implication of the statements is that you consider journalists who use pseudonyms as cowards (weak in the in guts) and as having no strength of conviction – right? You truly believe that?! Would you care to check (“speak-out”) your conviction with the journalists at GroundViews? Why is that practice, the “the long used practice of journalism” – is it to encourage and breed coward-journalists?
Yes – this conversation needs to come to an end. That can happen in three different ways.
1. Explain your reasoning as to what value is added by revealing names beyond the comments being assessed on their own merits.
2. If you now feel your command “Use your name like I do” was unreasonable (even if not fraudulent), apologize to the commenter who you addressed.
3. Find solace besides Dayan in an apt ill-lit crevice
Weaseling-out attempts at distraction with unsubstantiated allegations (“sustain a simple argument, man”, What is all this gibberish) will not work.
The choice is yours.
How does one speak out if one remains anonymous?
I am surprised that it eludes you!
How does one voice his or her vote if one casts a secret ballot?
“Speaking out” is as opposed to “keeping quite”. Speaking-out does not imply necessitating broadcasting ones identity. Voicing one’s opinion may or may not be done anonymously.
Can I assume you support Pandukabaya de Silva’s contention about Niemuller’s quote? – if yes, I have a question for you.
Voting in a ballot isn’t “speaking out” because millions of others are also voting. Perhaps you have misunderstood the phrase. There are several meanings to it. The first definition the Free Dictionary gives it is, “To utter words or articulate sounds with ordinary speech modulation; talk,” so perhaps this is what you believe we are discussing. It is not. The usual accepted definition is, “To talk freely and fearlessly, as about a public issue” (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/speak+out ). This is the context we are discussing when we look at Niemoller and his famously abused poem. Clearly one cannot be “free and fearless” if one is hiding behind the mask of anonymity. Niemoller’s call is to speak out and stand up on issues on which many are silent and uninterested. When you vote anonymously, are you doing the above? Certainly not. You are merely doing your duty, joining the anonymous millions in making an anonymous choice to bring about a result on which your stand and/or your voice will forever be unknown.
So I repeat, in that context, how is it possible to speak out anonymously?
Dear David Becker,
I am happy to elaborate, just so that valuable opinions do not get stifled and stymied by either ignorant or guile protests against anonymity.
You are right on the mark in your comment “Niemoller’s call is to speak out and stand up on issues on which many are silent and uninterested.” – Note that — one should “speak-out” as opposed to “remaining silent or uninterested.”
Niemoller poem is profound, not because Niemoller said it. Rather, Niemoller said it because he realized how profound that concept was, and he expressed that in such simple and explicit terms to make that profoundness amply clear, going as far as to relating in no uncertain terms, the consequences of not expressing such opinion.
The poem is so revered not just for the profundity, but also for the simplicity and clarity with which he expressed it. A very momentary reflecting alone is sufficient to appreciate that profundity.
In contrast, do you see where Niemoller explains why “declaring the identity” is necessary or is of value? Can you decipher from the poem as to what value is added by “revealing identity”, if in fact that is what he meant by “speak-out”?
If “identity revelation” is critical, if it is indispensable, if it is important, and without that the opinion has lesser value or no value at all, don’t you think Niemoller would have provided some indication of why it is important and explain the consequences of not revealing identity?
No amount of reflecting on Niemoller’s poem helps understand how or why “revealing identity” is of any consequence.
In support of that, I will draw you attention to the fact that despite their strident stands, neither Dayan nor P. De Silva (apparently the self appointed guardian of moral right to quote Niemoller) had any explanation on the value of revealing identity.
Even then, if you can convince me that “revealing identity” will add value, has a legitimate role, and has some consequence, then certainly I will be happy to accept your interpretation.
Wouldn’t you agree that would be an apt objective way to evaluate what profoundness Niemoller was hoping to convey rather than trying to parse words and grope in the dark?
Or, do you think one should follow what one thinks Niemoller said, just because one thinks that is what Niemoller meant, even if one has no clue why he may have said that?
It is indeed interesting that you added “You are merely doing your duty to….bring about a result on which your stand and/or your voice will forever be unknown” – Niemoller’s objective was indeed to express opinion that would hopefully help bring out a favorable result.
But, why would you interpret that Niemoller also intended it to be used as an opportunity to claim personal credit? Are you suggesting that the “value” of declaring identity is so that one could claim credit and fame for that? I am not sure if that is either very persuasive or noble: Many a noble deed has gone unnamed – and we are all so much the better for it.
P de Silva’s comments seem to read that “value” of identity declaration is the bragging right one gets for bravery – but, as I mentioned, that is pathetically delusional: It reflects nothing more than the disparity in the degree of risks faced by the different bloggers.
To reiterate, if you can convince me there is value to revealing identity, then certainly I will be happy to accept your interpretation.
Having said that as my primary (and unfortunately lengthy) response, excuse my indulgence on a few more mopping-up items, if I may.
Frankly, since you pointed out the need to “express one’s opinion freely and fearlessly,” couldn’t one then argue that to express “fearlessly” one should indeed be encouraged to choose the option of anonymity if one fears potential risks! One who may be fearful to express openly (revealing identity) could express “fearlessly” if allowed to do so anonymously!
Similarly, if ones is going to be just obsessive on the wordings and continue to insist that “out” in “speak-out” implies not hiding under pseudonym, then one can also then argue that Niemoller said “Speak” and that should then invalidate “writing” or other communications other than “speak”. Clearly, given all the blog-communications, we all are in agreement that “speak” is not to be taken literally – right? Why then “speak-out” is to be rigidly interpreted without context?
On the secret ballot issue, you asked “When you vote anonymously, are you doing the above?” – Yes, of course, because I (you) have made my (your) opinion known, instead of remaining silent or uninterested.
One can either choose to vote donning blue, green, red or other hats and going in with chest-thumping bravado announcing allegiance with full revelation for the rewards such allegiance could bring, or, alternatively one can cast one’s opinion in secrecy with no fanfare. Either way, one gets just one vote – no less, no more. You fail in your civic duty only if you refrain from voting (remain silent or uninterested).
My question was what is behind the logic of allowing “secret ballot” if anonymity is to be abhorred. Isn’t it to allow one to cast one’s opinion “freely and fearlessly”?
Lastly, David, would you be willing to guess the likely intent behind P de Silva’s and Dayan’s insistence on the need to reveal names?
I suspect sinister motive – to stifle or discourage opposing views by either intimidating or ridiculing the authors and thus attempting to minimize the value of their opinions the bloggers want to share. Let me know if you can think of other, good-faith reasons.
If not, don’t you think it is indeed this opposition to anonymity that is truly undermining Niemoller’s revered advocacy that de Silva and Dayan pretend to cherish and uphold?
Wouldn’t that be the “mother of all” hypocrisy!
“In contrast, do you see where Niemoller explains why “declaring the identity” is necessary or is of value? Can you decipher from the poem as to what value is added by “revealing identity”, if in fact that is what he meant by “speak-out”?”
You seem to assume, Sarath, that Niemoller’s poem is explaining the advantages of declaring one’s identity over remaining anonymous. That is not what he is talking about. He is talking about standing up and speaking out. Niemoller doesn’t suggest any methods of doing so; so to therefore ask why he hasn’t brought up the anonymity issue is pretty absurd. Has Niemoller called for public protests, or poster campaigns, or letter writing to officials, or any of the other forms of protest? Of course not. He doesn’t tell us how to stand up and be heard; he only tells us that it is essential. So to expect Niemoller to clarify his stand on anonymity is not possible. All we know is that Niemoller most certainly did not stay anonymous.
“Or, do you think one should follow what one thinks Niemoller said, just because one thinks that is what Niemoller meant, even if one has no clue why he may have said that?”
Given the way Niemoller’s poem is quoted so widely, it is clear that many people are in fact following what they believe he is saying, regardless of why he said it. What we do know that Niemoller said is that people should stand up and voice their dissent. If you believe it is possible to stand up and be heard anonymously, that is a different matter; but it is a matter you need to explain, because I don’t see how that can be possible; hence my question to you.
“Niemoller’s objective was indeed to express opinion that would hopefully help bring out a favorable result.”
Correct; which is why you need to explain how that can be done individually in a world where no one is opposing the status quo (assuming that that was the world Niemoller lived in). This and other forums are not ballots where one simply enters one’s choice; these forums are places where people voice an opinion, and opinion requires identity for it to be credible. One suffers when one stands up, and I quite understand the urge to avoid suffering, and that’s quite an acceptable urge. However, we shouldn’t then fool ourselves into thinking we are in fact standing up when indeed we are not.
“But, why would you interpret that Niemoller also intended it to be used as an opportunity to claim personal credit”
Where have I made any such interpretation? Why must identity be coupled exclusively with credit? It can just as easily be coupled with punishment. The fact is identified voices are far more credible (and therefore weighty) than anonymous ones.
“P de Silva’s comments seem to read that “value” of identity declaration is the bragging right one gets for bravery”
I see no such intention in that worthy’s comments, regardless of your reading of it. Could you quote the exact comment that gave you that impression? Nevertheless, it was I that posed the question to you, and not the aforementioned.
“To reiterate, if you can convince me there is value to revealing identity, then certainly I will be happy to accept your interpretation.”
Shouldn’t you convince me of the value to opinion in remaining anonymous since I asked you the question? In a ballot, there is a fixed number of voters, a number everyone is aware of, and that each person is given one vote. Outside of such a strictly controlled environment, identity is needed to substantiate the fact that such an opinion is indeed being voiced by a particular segment of society. If I were to anonymously declare that as a migrant worker I believe X, or that as a lawyer I believe Y, or that as a Sri Lankan I believe Z, what value is in that? Can my stated opinion be used as a unit of measure in a debate on a particular subject; be that subject the executive presidency, devolution, taxation, or anything else? Clearly not. For my stated opinion to be of value, I must be identifiable as a relevant commentator. If Niemoller had anonymously criticized the Nazi policy on the Jews, who could have said that he wasn’t a Jew himself, or that his words were not merely Allied propaganda? Instead, because he and many other Germans were identified opponents of the regime, we know today that there was indeed German opposition to such policies. It was a value the Nazis themselves recognized, and it was why Niemoller and others were punished.
“couldn’t one then argue that to express “fearlessly” one should indeed be encouraged to choose the option of anonymity if one fears potential risks!”
Certainly, if one assumed that “fearlessness” is simply the absence of fear, and not in fact the ability to overcome one’s fear; an ability synonymous with courage. Under your logic, one could be absolutely fearless and not express an opinion whatsoever, thereby be absolutely free from risk!
“Similarly, if ones is going to be just obsessive on the wordings and continue to insist that “out” in “speak-out” implies not hiding under pseudonym, then one can also then argue that Niemoller said “Speak” and that should then invalidate “writing” or other communications other than “speak”. Why then “speak-out” is to be rigidly interpreted without context?”
Could you explain Niemoller’s context that would interpret “speak out” as having the same meaning as “speak”?
“On the secret ballot issue, you asked “When you vote anonymously, are you doing the above?” – Yes, of course, because I (you) have made my (your) opinion known, instead of remaining silent or uninterested.”
What if there is no convenient ballot on whether to gas the Jews, or activate the 13th Amendment, or withdraw the military from the NE? Would you wait for someone more courageous to create enough of an opposition to the status quo so that a ballot could then be called for in which you could “fearlessly” voice your anonymous opinion? Unfortunately, on most of the great issues facing humanity, there is no ballot available.
“My question was what is behind the logic of allowing “secret ballot” if anonymity is to be abhorred. Isn’t it to allow one to cast one’s opinion “freely and fearlessly”?”
In the context of Niemoller’s poem, he clearly wasn’t calling for Germans to be fearless at the ballot box, since one would have to wait for a ballot to be both fearless and anonymous. But Niemoller says nothing of anonymity (as you yourself point out); he simply asks us to speak out, regardless of fear. So how can one speak out if one requires anonymity to be “fearless”, except by ballot? Is your opinion then that one must only opine via ballot?
“Lastly, David, would you be willing to guess the likely intent behind P de Silva’s and Dayan’s insistence on the need to reveal names?”
I realized long ago that attempting to guess the motives of online commentators in order to decipher their comments blinkers oneself to what they are saying.
“I suspect sinister motive – to stifle or discourage opposing views by either intimidating or ridiculing the authors and thus attempting to minimize the value of their opinions the bloggers want to share. Let me know if you can think of other, good-faith reasons.”
Can you point to any such examples of identified commentators being thus intimidated or ridiculed into silence here in the SL forums? Isn’t it a fact that identified bloggers such as Dayan Jayatillake, DBS Jeyaraj, Prof Michael Roberts, etc continue to say what they wish to say in spite of such attempts? If one is sincere in what one believes, and courageous in standing by that belief, how can one be ridiculed or intimidated into silence?
“If not, don’t you think it is indeed this opposition to anonymity that is truly undermining Niemoller’s revered advocacy that de Silva and Dayan pretend to cherish and uphold?”
Since neither of the above gentlemen quoted Niemoller (he was quoted by someone preferring to remain anonymous), how do you deduce that they “cherish and uphold” Niemoller’s beliefs? The question should be, as I asked before, how is it possible to follow Niemoller’s call to speak out if one prefers to remain anonymous. I still await your answer on that.
This is what DBS Jeyaraj had to say to Dr Rajasingham Narendran when the latter declared that he hardly commented on the former’s blog due to the personal attacks he received:
“You are one of the few people who comment under your own name. Most of your detractors are people who write under bogus names. They do not deserve your response. You do not need to enter into discussions with them. Please treat them with supreme disdain and keep writing whatever you want to say whenever you feel like it” (http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/4439 )
Clearly, comments by people who write under their own names are regarded more highly.
Dear Sarath Fernando and Pandukabaya de Silva,
I agree that insisting on disclosing a name from a blogger is silly.
What matters is what one writes, not the name under which one writes.
Hence the following statement by Pandukabaya expressing indignation, is in reality, an admission of defeat. “if you want to speak out then ‘Use your name like I do’.”
I usually write under my pseudonym Off the Cuff.
In this instance I am writing under a REAL name, M.N.I.N. Perera.
Can anyone say that it is not my REAL name?
Here is my Full Name
My Name Is Not Perera.
I hope I have made my point clear.
A Real looking name can be a Pseudonym as I have shown above.
There are many who use such names on the web.
In fact we would not know if Pandukabaya is such a pseudonym.
Only the desire to be honest prompts a person to use a pseudonym that conveys it is a Pseudonym, while maintaining anonymity. Else, one could use a REAL sounding name as a Pseudonym and no one but the writer would ever be wiser.
Hence the Indignation expressed by Pandukabaya is foolish, as no one knows for certain, who the writer is.
Just focus on the contents of a post, if one wants to defend what one writes, without hiding behind the foolish notion that the use of a real name, makes one, superior to another.
Thank you
M.N.I.N. Perera
Dear Off the Cuff.
You are absolutely correct on this.
However, my denouncement goes a step further than merely finding them at fault for silliness. Their ruse is substantially more sinister. They think they have found an easy way to help out in the badly needed censorship of opposition views.
It is not that Dayan in particular does not know about the legitimacy of using pseudonym – but he merely fakes outrage for theatrics. He plays these theatrics all the time. Frankly, I am pretty certain that some of the Dayan-complimentary blogs that appear are indeed his own creations that he himself blogs under pseudonyms!
That is not merely silly, but outright contemptible.
I thought it would be best to play along, and thereby expose them for their vile, and have them creep back in to their crevices where they rightly belong. I guess that has happened.
Dear Sarath Fernando,
I have a very high regard for Dr. Dayan Jayatilake after I listened to his speech at UNHRC in defence of Sri Lanka.
I intended to show Pandukabaya de Silva the error that he made.
M.N.I.N. Perera,
“Only the desire to be honest prompts a person to use a pseudonym that conveys it is a Pseudonym, while maintaining anonymity.”
So, you finally paid me a complement.
Lol, OTC, I don’t think the debate is whether one can find a realistic-sounding pseudonym. Nor was there, as far as I can see, any demand by DJ or anyone else for people to identify themselves (despite the irony of anonymous commentators making personal attacks on people like DJ and myself). The debate ensued when an anonymous commentator (the Dunce in this case) quoted Niemoller’s poem; a poem clearly calling for public protest. If the supreme irony of an anonymous entity calling for public protest cannot be seen by you and Sarath, I fear there is no point in continuing this debate
Keynes!
You may believe what you want to believe …. Ha ha haa
David,
My reply is here
http://groundviews.org/2012/02/17/live-ammunition-and-citizen-enemies/#comment-41994
The behaviour of Sri Lankan police since its inception reflects the attitude of of society in general towards the less priviledged, powerless people in our country. It pervades down in our society from the level of the president. Unless there is a huge attitudal change this trend would continue for many more decades to come. However, much the police is educated about human rights it has not gone in to their brains through their thick skulls.
One day I went to a police station for a personal matter. While I was talking to a SI I saw a man was sitting on a floor at the feet of a constable, who was sitting at a table. The man was handcuffed to the table leg. The room was full of police officers and public. No body cared about this man, who was pleading with the police constable to release him. Although this was just a one incident it represnts the attiude of the police towards the general public.
Punishing a few police officers, who are charged with police brutality is not going to change anything. We have seen it in the past.
Pandukabaya de Silva,
People use psedonyms for different reasons. Some are scared that the government would track them down and kill them. Some do not like to reveal their names as they are public servants. Some are working in positions, which demands impartiality. They may not like to be seen as anti-government as it would affect the public attitudes towards them. Therefore, you can not put all the psedonym users to a single category and ridicule them.
The only solution available to you is to ignore them.
However, using pseudonym is advantageous in certain occasions. Readers can forget about the writer and concentrate about what they write. For instance, take the case of a certain well known personality, who often writes to GV. It does not matter whether what he says is correct or wrong. His writing is always tainted with the perks and privileges he enjoys for being a government supporter at any cost.
Dear David,
I have not seen DJ demanding the identity from a poster either and my respect for DJ was declared when Sarath used my post to criticise DJ.
But I noticed this comment by Pandukabaya and my post was addressed to him and Sarath.
Speaking out’ is not masquerading under a pseudonym and writing blogs to a website. Use your name like I do. There are plenty of others who are also not afraid STILL to use their names.
The point I made and proved is, that the Reader has no way of knowing that a post appearing under the name of Benedict Perera was actually written by Benedict Perera or by someone else.
If I did not declare that M.N.I.M Perera was a pseudonym, no one would have known it. Hence any name is virtually anonymous on the web.
, the admonition, “Use your name like I do” by Pandukabaya, is meaningless. No one knows whether Pandukabaya is the real name of that writer.
So you are right, we don’t have anything to debate.
OTC, I think the point is to use your real name, regardless of whether it sounds real or not. If you do, and if you continue to make your opinions known, people will certainly figure out not just if it’s your real name or not, but also who you are. I think the larger point is the continued hypocrisy of people like the Dunce who quote Niemoller without really understanding him, and when challenged pretend that there’s some great threat against them for the idiocy they publish. Often such people mistake embarrassment for fear.
Dear David,
I agree with you about Dunce and I have criticised his writing several times.
My post was intended to drive home a point to a few posters and writers of articles (amongst them even people like Suren Raghavan) who have tried to take refuge when cornered, by trying to attack a pseudonymous poster’s pseudonym, instead of defending what they themselves wrote.