A lion carries a dead wild boar in his mouth. He is walking through the grasslands, victorious after the hunt. On the dead boar is a crudely imprinted crescent moon and star.  This is an image found in a Sinhala Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/මාගේ-හෘද-සාක්ෂිය/351343628228268) that among other things compares Sri Lankan Muslims to wild boar, puppies (the Sinhala wording is cruder) and crows. The Facebook page has more than 5,000 likes and increases daily. It is only one of many that stalks cyberspace. This is Sri Lanka in 2012!

We are recovering from 26 years of war but it seems like some of the citizens of this country want to be at perpetual war. The latest fracas is the ‘Dambulla incident’  where a mob led by Buddhist monks of the area are agitating for what they call an illegal structure masquerading as a mosque to be torn down as it contaminates the sacred Buddhist area of the Dambulla temple. It is news to me that other places of religious worship can be considered as less sacred or contamination to a sacred area. But such is their complaint. Soon after this incident was made public, I had a conversation on the topic with a good and close friend of mine who is Buddhist. She is a decent woman, a devout woman. She is charitable and generous and kind but, and here is the surprise: she sees nothing wrong with the incidents of violence involving Buddhist monks. Regrettably she is not alone. Much as we would like to think that those who perpetrate Buddhist chauvinism are in the minority, it is not so. Increasingly, I see Buddhists who believe and engage in violence and un-Buddhistic behavior, trumpeting their achievement as champions of Buddhism.

Let us start with our constitution. I have often wondered how a country can claim to be Buddhist. In my mind it is technically impossible to apply Buddhist values  and survive as a nation in the world as it is. It would be an ideal world indeed to look forward to the time when all countries will be able to say they implement the values of Buddhism and the world will be a much better place for it. But for now, in todays time and place a country may need an army, may  need to engage in battle if  required to do so – both instances that we have experienced. But isn’t that against true Buddhist principles? Then I have wondered how Buddhist monks  who have been charged with drug possession, sexual misconduct, rape, treasure hunting, temple pillaging, murder, violence… the list of offences goes on and on which in itself is astounding,  continue to wear the robes, manage temples and call themselves Buddhist monks. Is there no authority that can expel disgraceful Buddhist monks? In addition, I am astonished that citizens who call themselves Buddhist, who are devout, pray, meditate and do pooja, attend sil, listen to bana and pirith, continue to condone  violence in the name of Buddhism by agreement or staying silent. I just don’t understand.

In my mind, Buddhism is one of the supreme non-violent movements of the world. The Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path (right vision, right emotion, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right awareness, and right meditation) the Five Precepts (do not kill, do not steal, do not engage in false speech, do not engage in sexual misconduct, do not take intoxicants) and the Threefold Way (ethics, meditation, wisdom) are meant to be applied in daily life. How is this in any way possible or compatible with the violence and injustice committed in the name of Buddhism? Bernard Faure, Professor of Religious Studies of the University of Stanford, has this to say:

Murder, on the other hand, is clearly condemned. As the Buddha states in the Brahma Net Sutra: “If a child of Buddha himself kills, or goads someone else to kill, or provides with or suggests means for killing, or praises the act of killing or, on seeing someone commit the act, expresses approval for what that person has done, or kills by way of incantations, or is the cause, occasion, means, or instrument of the act of inducing a death, he will be shut out of the community.”

Which brings me to the question: What are the Chief Prelates of all the Nikayas doing? What is the state doing? If silence is acquiescence, then it appears that the powers that be – both religious and state, endorse the violence, the persecuting of minority communities and sending them the clear message of being second class citizens.

But let us go back to Dambulla. In  disputed cases there are legal avenues to pursue  to rectify the situation. If the mosque is illegal and needs to be demolished, there is a legal mechanism in place that will achieve it. Why the need for violence? For the destruction? For the barbaric and shocking behavior of both monks and men?

War is not unknown in the Buddhist world. In history, there has been what is termed  ‘Buddhist wars’ especially in China, Tibet and Japan. Most of them were begun as a cleansing process to rid threats to its very existence and fought in the name of liberation. Yet, of all the great religions and ideologies Buddhism remains the most pacific – a trait that is increasingly rare in the violent world of today. There are a number of verses from the Buddha’s sermons that support this:

In times of war
give rise in yourself to the mind of compassion,
Helping living beings,
abandon the will to fight. Kutadanta Sutta, (Digha Nikaya V)

Another is:

Even if thieves carve you limb from limb with a double-handed saw, if you make your mind hostile you are not following my teaching. Kamcupamasutta, Majjhima-Nikkaya 1 – 28-29

I am not a Buddhist, but I appreciate the Buddhist ethos. And I wonder: if the behavior of violent Buddhism is puzzling to me, why isn’t it to you? One of the advantages Sri Lanka has is its multi-religious, multi-ethnic population. It is proof that for thousands of years the people of this country, whatever their religion and beliefs, have been open and welcoming , even embracing different cultures and people. It has made our country vibrant, rich in traditions and a truly wonderful place to live in. So we should be concerned when some elements in our modern history want to change that feature. In fact I have noticed intolerance apparent in all our communities not only the Sinhala Buddhist community. Perhaps it is a reflection of the times we live in but this is something we need to avoid. And if it happens we have to speak out.

I leave you with a favourite modern story that to me  embodies the quintessence of Buddhism:

A Vietnam veteran was baffled by Vietnamese Buddhist monk, Thich Nhat Hanh’s unswerving dedication to non-violence. The veteran in an attempt to question the monk, asked him if someone wiped out all the Buddhists in the world and if the monk was the last one left would he not try to kill the person who was trying to kill him and in doing so save Buddhism. Thicht Nhat Hanh answered: It would be better to let him kill me. If there is any truth to Buddhism and the Dharma it will not disappear from the face of the earth, but will reappear when seekers of truth are ready to rediscover it. In killing I would be betraying and abandoning the very teachings I would be seeking to preserve. So it would be better to let him kill me and remain true to the spirit of the Dharma.

  • Shammi

    Which brings me to the question: What are the Chief Prelates of all the Nikayas doing? What is the state doing? If silence is acquiescence, then it appears that the powers that be – both religious and state, endorse the violence, the persecuting of minority communities and sending them the clear message of being second class citizens.

    All good questions. WHY are these so called leaders of the country silent? Where is the outrage, the pleas for calm and compassion? If a leader of a country does not condemn such acts, and does not protect the minorities in that country, it is no democracy. These thuggish and ugly acts seen around the world, reflects badly on a religion whose philosophies are the opposite of what we have seen. This is the arrogant act of a few who, for reasons unknown, have attacked a minority group, because they can. This is racism and hatred at it’s worst. The powers that be are either sending the message that they agree with these thugs, are totally incompetent to control such crimes, or both.
    This is going to make this country lose the little support it has around the world, especially the Muslim nations that have backed us.

    • yapa

      “Which brings me to the question: What are the Chief Prelates of all the Nikayas doing? What is the state doing? If silence is acquiescence, then it appears that the powers that be – both religious and state, endorse the violence, the persecuting of minority communities and sending them the clear message of being second class citizens.”

      Why not give priority to let the legal system of the country take up the matter rather than the executive or the religious or political organizations.

      Isn’t that the most appropriate measure?

      Thanks!

      • kadphises

        Incitement to violence and public disorder is a criminal offence. Why has the police not arrested and charged the priest with these crimes? So where IS the law? Why is it ABSENT when the country needs it?

      • luxmy

        Yapa,

        Any legal action possible for this:

        ‘’Since the end of the conflict in 2009, a new phenomena has emerged. That of Buddha statues being erected along the A9 route that leads to Jaffna. Over 28 Buddha statues have been counted along this route since the war concluded in May 2009. The comedy of this charade (what else can one call it?) is that these statues are placed in areas where little or no Buddhists reside. ….’’ – 28 Buddha statues erected along A-9 Highway since war ended in May 2009, Imaad Majeed, 19 February 2012, http://transcurrents.com/news-views/archives/8355#more-8355

      • yapa

        Dear luxmy;

        I have no objection for anybody taking legal action against any illegal thing. If you feel it is illegal you are not barred from initiating legal action against what you cite. My moral support is with you.

        Thanks!

    • yapa

      Why the aggrieved parties do not go to courts, rather than protesting every nook and corner? I think no one is barred from going to courts in this country.

      Thanks!

  • yapa

    Dear Ameena Hussein;

    What is the assurance do you have to attribute the particular website to run by Sinhalese, to cite an example in an article in a public forum?

    I do not say it could not be a work of a Sinhalese or a group of Sinhalese, same way neither can say it is not a work of some body else as well. Any cad can run a blog today.

    How do you say it could not be a work of LTTE remnants? How do you eliminate that possibility? Or any other extremist groups involvement? Involvement of CIA, KGB, RAW?

    I think you must cite credible/justifiable/provable evidence when you level an allegation against others. Difference between professional writing and irresponsible writing for gallery is that, I suppose.

    Just because a cad behaves irresponsibly, a journalist should not become so.

    Thanks!

    • Dinuka

      This is directed to YAPA

      How amazing is SL that all and sundry in this world are planning it’s downfall? Every time a dictatorship faces challenges they like to point to “hidden” hands just like a bully in a playground will never admit to doing any wrong but say “I never did it, they’re lying! They don’t like me so they want me to get into trouble!”

      In the 1980’s when Sri Lankans went mad and killed many innocent Tamils the govt remained silent and this led to the birthing of the LTTE. I am the only one who sees that something similar is happening with these acts of violence/aggression while this govt remains silent?

      And if you want to check the veracity of that site please log onto Facebook and check the page,the people who liked it and the comments posted rather than call into question the author of this article.

      And if the truth hurts…well it’s the truth…

      By the way, I’m sinhalese and I feel like a second class citizen in this country right now

      • yapa

        I have no faith on whims and fancies of anybody, mine are always based on concrete facts.

        No one should try to force me to believe, unsubstantiated information or theories based on them. Responsibility to prove authenticity lies with the people who assert. I think one should not challenge my right for verifiability of news.

        I never go by hearsay. There is no space for blind faith in my thinking. I don’t take think for granted. For me, something to be true, either it should be backed with evidence or reasoning.

        (I don’t know whether you have heard of “theories of truth” in Epistemology? Those theories teach you how to differentiate truth from others. However, if you have no knowledge about them, it is easy for you to choose your truths. I think my method of choosing truths are different from yours. That may be the reason your truth in this case is different from my truth.

        For an infant moon is a source of milk, I am an adult and I know that Neil Armstrong set his foot on it. What can I do about it.)

        Thanks!

  • Pandukabaya de Silva

    Yapa, as a lawyer, I can only laugh when you question as to why anyone does not think of going to court? In the first instance, the Dambulla monks should not have gone on the rampagne as they did. If they had a problem, tbey should have invoked the authority of court.

    What a disgrace this is.

    • yapa

      Is that a fair reason you think the second aggrieved party to refrain from seeking the protection of law?

      Thanks!

      • The law has already failed to protect the aggrieved party. Why should they reinforce this failure? Your suggestion that the CIA, RAW, etc is behind those racist blogs is pretty funny. Almost as funny as that bugger in the orange robe claiming the films of him showing his genitals to the mosque and shouting “Ado, thambiyo, api thunkale un nevei,” had been doctored.

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        What I was trying to say was journalists should cite established examples to reiterate their points, not just loose and arbitrary attributions. If the certainty is not established, there is a possibility to attribute a phenomenon to anything else, just as to which it had been attributed to. I didn’t suggest that the CIA, RAW, etc is behind those racist blogs, but what I said was if the blog can be attributed to Sinhalese without any evidence, in the same line of argument it could be attributed to anything else, even to martians, if one does not like to refer to CIA or RAW.

        Do you say the blog can be attributed to Sinhalese with certainty?

        I do not believe loose examples can back a sound hypothesis.

        Thanks!

      • kadphises

        Yapa,

        The blog has over 5000 facebook fans. All Sinhalese. Their racist posts in Sudda Sinhala are also visible as are pictures of their faces and sometimes their addresses. In fact you may recognise many of your friends and followers among them.

      • So even if the group was set up by Martians, the 5,000 Sinhalese members aren’t Martians (unless Yapa believes that they are all Martians impersonating Sinhalese).

      • yapa

        (Please post here, not below.)

        Does it prove the blog is run by a Sinhalese? Isn’t it possible to be a some evil work of some other, who want to tarnish image of Sinhalese. If the blogger is a Sinhalese, he must be a bloody fool not to see the negative consequence it create for Sinhalese community.

        Isn’t it possible that all those Sinhalese comment there fallen into a trap of a culprit?

        What I want is clear evidence, not conjecture. It is unfair to find faults based on such unreliable information, especially in a public forum.

        People like me won’t fall int such traps, as you presume. I question something questionable, that doesn’t make me one among those mental victims.

        You think questing something questionable is incorrect? Can you establish the blog is run by a Sinhalese other than by means of conjecture?

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Keep in mind, Babu has been one of the best reliable friends of Premadasa until his end.

        Thanks!

      • “If the blogger is a Sinhalese, he must be a bloody fool”

        They say even a broken watch is right twice a day.

      • yapa

        That much is the probability of your conjectures being true, DB.

        Ha! Ha!!

        Thanks!

      • Gamarala

        Dear Yapa is so understanding of Sinhalese failures, yet, so condemning of Tamil ones!

        Presidence Bean’s mirror image eh what?

      • JMN

        Dear Yapa,

        In concurrence with your flawless logic, you are either not who you seem and your posts are “some evil work of some other, who want to tarnish image of Sinhalese” or else you “must be a bloody fool not to see the negative consequences it (your posts) creates for Sinhalese community”.

        Have a nice day!

      • “That much is the probability of your conjectures being true, DB.”

        Your skill at witty comebacks and repartee truly has no equal. Or as R said to JB, “Ah the famous Bond wit. Or at least half of it.”

    • yapa

      I think a lawyer should not solicit an aggrieved party not to seek legal protection for their grievances. Instead, I think he has a moral responsibility to encourage them to seek justice through due process.

      Thanks!

  • veedhur

    I am not buddhist, neither is the [edited out] monk who leads violent mobs to demolish mosques, kovils and houses.

  • Thakshan Fernando

    As an 80 yr old who has been striving to be a Buddhist I agree with what you have said Ameena and I am deeply saddened by what happened in Dambulla.Not everyone has access to this forum and hence the responses may not be a reflection of valid responses to the event.I sincerely hope that there are Sri Lankans who seek to follow the Buddha’s teachings who will agree with you and follow the Eightfold Path in responding to such events.
    Thakshan

  • sabbe laban

    Ameena

    I even for a moment don’t think that it is correct to compare Sri Lankan Muslims to a boar in a lion’s mouth. They have all the freedom not only pray but also to amplify their prayers from the mosques to the whole neighbourhood! Maybe the Christians is Pakistan(who get killed by the true believers of the “One God theory”) make a better comparison!

  • Dayan John

    Dear Ameena,

    A cannot agree with you more. What your article has done is started a very mature and argument. I read with interest all the comments and reply. Well done.

    • kadphises

      Sorry for being pedantic but the only thing about which I do not agree with Ameena is that the animal in the Lion’s mouth is a pig. It is in fact a Warthog.

  • yapa

    Aggrieved parties’ reluctance to sought the legal protection creates some doubt about the legality of the mosque.

    They go after all other alternatives, but not the most appropriate one. I do not dare to believe in such a peculiar behaviour.

    Could anybody disagree with me?

    Thanks!

    • You have already been disagreed with. Are you reposting your comments in the hope one will go unnoticed and you can pretend you’re unchallenged?

      • yapa

        I mean disagree with reasons, not without.

        Thanks!

      • The reasons are racism and bigotry. What other reasons do you need?

      • yapa

        “The reasons are racism and bigotry”

        Those are your reasons, I cannot accept them.

        Thanks!

      • Of course you cannot. Isn’t that the point? 😀

      • If you disagree with the reasoning, say so. Don’t pretend there is no reason.

    • Hari Narendran

      Yapa,

      By your logic, surely too then the monks reluctance to seek legal remedy vs a mob attack casts doubt as to their position that the mosque is illegal.

      • yapa

        It is not necessary go round and round the mulberry bush.

        Why doesn’t anybody bring forth evidence to prove that mosque is legal?

        Many were hasty to throw evidence to show the land was legal citing the deed and all, why anybody does not provide evidence to prove the legality of the mosque?

        Why let conjecture decide things rather than evidence? Isn’t it a good reason to cast doubt?

        I don’t understand this dualistic nature.

        Thanks!

      • There is no need to prove innocence. The monks who claim illegality must prove it, just as SL doesn’t need to prove the legality of the war against the Tigers; the accusers must show cause.

      • yapa

        You are confused, logic and judicial procedure are not same. Aggrieved parties should be encouraged to seek legal protection.

        They can punish so called criminals (monks) by legal means as well. I think there is no scarcity of lawyers for them.

        On the other hand if you feel they are not the aggrieved party, then your advice sounds perfectly correct, no need for them to go to courts.

        Thanks!

      • @yapa
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FomUQDNUNaM

        Watch this video. Here is the proof you needed.

      • yapa

        The space for going to courts seems to be widened with this evidence. Now it seems more favourable for the aggrieved party. You too may encourage them in that noble endeavour, you can do it now with a rejuvenated confidence. Please go ahead.

        Thanks!

      • Yapa, I note that, predictably, you have no response to the point on guilt having to be proven, not innocence.

      • Yapa, regardless of what you think logic is, you are suggesting that the aggrieved party take legal action. Therefore judicial process is relevant, not what you consider to be logic. In this case, the original aggrieved party is the Buddhist temple; therefore its monks should have taken legal action, and not taken the law into their own hands. Possibly they share the same grasp of logic as you do, and therefore feel that it would not be in alignment with judicial procedure. Hence the need to resort to extra-judicial violence.

      • yapa

        (Please post here not below)

        Dear DB;

        My position about the monks in this case is not different from you. I think monk shouldn’t have acted in that manner. They should have gone for legal action. I say the action is wrong.

        My astonishment why an supposedly illegal action of the other party should not be questioned and condemned.

        When there were indications to the effect the mosque was legal it was highlighted and the other party was vehemently condemned on the legal basis. However, when it is revealed that the opposite seemed true, everybody vehemently insisted on Rule of Law, dried their saliva, on purpose, I think. Why double standard? That is my question.

        Do you think law is a horse to be ridden whenever you want only? Law is a Blindfolded lady, DB.

        Thanks!

      • Yapa, if you don’t wish me to respond to your scattered comments, you should stick to one thread. So let me repost what I have posted below (since your scroll button seems to be stuck):

        “I don’t think there is no validity in such a question as no one including me approved the particular incident, I condemned it as an unacceptable behaviour. Almost everybody has a similar view on this.”

        In spite of your double negative, I assume you’re attempting to invalidate my question rather than recognize its validity? Your condemnation of the “incident” (I guess you mean the priests who act like hooligans and thugs) is immaterial, since you simultaneously claim that no one has the right to take any action except through the court system until and if the latter actions have been exhausted. This is fundamentally incorrect. The correct comment would be to suggest that no one has the right to take the law into their own hands until all appeals to the law have been exhausted. Everyone has the right to lobby, protest, complain to the media, or take any other legal action they see fit if they believe it will be effective.

        Unfortunately, the thugs and hooligans in question have committed a crime in full view of the police and the media, and with no attempt to first use the legal system (which seems to be the be-all and end-all of your logic). So rather than question the perfectly legal (and peaceful) actions the Muslims have taken in response to the violence and thuggery of the Buddhist priests and their supporters, you, as a moral Buddhist (and self-proclaimed believer in logic) should be questioning the inaction of the police and legal system you seem to think is the only resort.

        “However, the views of the reaction against the incident is not consensus as in the case of above. Majority of the posters seem to approve even an “illegal” thing as correct. “Ethical and moral responsibilities” of the grieved party has been waved off, just because it is the aggrieved party.”

        Regardless of what you think the majority of the posters believe, there has been no illegal action by the Muslims in this context. The ethical and moral responsibilities of the grieved party is to work for recourse within the law. They are not, however, obliged to only seek recourse from the law. On the other hand, the ethical and moral responsibility of the state is to protect its citizens from illegal persecution, and we — as ethical and morally responsible citizens — must demand it.

        “My question has been whether the legal and moral misconducts of the aggrieved parties should not be taken as the misconduct as the offending party?”

        How can it be misconduct of it is both legal and moral as you claim above?

        “Before law can one misconduct weighed less than a another similar conduct?”

        It depends on the misconduct. If you murder my son, and in retaliation I kill your cat, I think the law will deal with you far more severely than it will me.

        “If something is illegal, is it not illegal for all? If something is immoral for one group, is it not immoral for other group.”

        Certainly, but so far, only the Buddhist thugs and hooligans have acted illegally.

        “These are the question arisen from not accepting some queries. I have accepted blunders of the monks as blunders.”

        An intentional act of violent vandalism cannot be dismissed as a “blunder”. A blunder would be if I accidentally reversed my car into your parapet wall and damaged it. Are you suggesting that the Buddhist priests and their followers accidentally threw petrol bombs, accidentally tore up copies of the Koran, accidentally told people to take their gods and leave, and accidentally raised their orange robes and exposed their genitalia to the onlookers, all the while accidentally shouting abuse?

        “So, I think there cannot have special any questions for me regarding the monks, as you and I hold the same view about the conduct of the monks. If there is a question, that question should be common to both you and me, and hence I don’t think there is sense asking it from me.”

        First of all, we do not have the same view about the conduct of the monks. I believe they are violent criminals who have committed violent crimes, and who should be arrested and charged. You seem to think they have simply committed a blunder. Secondly, my question to you was a response to your view of how the Muslims should conduct themselves in the face of this criminal attack and the state support for that crime. In this too we disagree, do we not? Therefore, since your view is completely different from mine, it is quite sensible for me to put a question to you that is specific to your view.

        “But regarding the matters we have different view points, one naturally has questions to ask from the other. In such cases you can ask questions from me, and I can ask questions from you. I have been using that natural right for questioning.”

        As have I. However, only I have answered your questions. You have so far attempted to simply invalidate my questions rather than answer them.

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        I have been pondering over and over again how to arrive at a definite answer for this paradoxical issue of “legality aspect” of the Dambulla incident, which ultimately became a long exchange of competing between you and me.

        The legality aspect of the incident came into the discussion with the article of the groundviews: “deed-of-mosque-in-dambulla-and-photos-of-damage-how-is-this-structure-illegal”

        http://groundviews.org/2012/04/24/deed-of-mosque-in-dambulla-and-photos-of-damage-how-is-this-structure-illegal/

        Here the Groundviews brought forward distinct facts to prove the legality of the incident, including the the hardest fact, the deed of the land where the mosque is situated. The Groundviews hit the nail on the head in that respect and it was an unchallengeable fact. It is a very justifiable act to highlight it and shed light into one of the most important aspects of the issue. The problem of legal ownership of the land was solved without any remains, I think with the evidence put forward by Groundviews.

        However, it seems an off shoot of that legal issue remained unaddressed and unsolved. The legality of the mosque remains unsolved though the legality of the land was decisively solved. I think this issue is equally important just as the the legal issue solved by the Groundviews article. Those are two different issues, no one would deny. That was the question I raised.

        You have been maintaining the stance that there is no such issue while almost all the others who were vocal on the formal legal issue maintain their silence. Many seems to comfortably settle to the idea you have been trying to reiterate that there is no such issue in existence, and the legality issue had been solved without remains by the evidence put forward by the article of the Groundviews.

        I took various attempts to highlight the importance of the issue, remains unaddressed, using various different routs, but you also did not give up your eneavour to counter my points. I think eventually I found a the right argument, just as Kekule found the structure for Benzene nucleus in his dream, though mine is a bit Crude, but I could not find a better way to express it from any philosophy’

        Dear DB; there is a saying in Sinhala, referring to a yarn, meaning of which says, “noise is matching for the noise, but what do we do about the smell?”. The original of the version is “Saddeta sadde num hari, eth gandata mokada karanne?”.

        Ha! Ha!!

        Thanks!

      • “The legality of the mosque remains unsolved though the legality of the land was decisively solved.”

        You’re once more mistaken, Yapa. If the land is legally owned by the Muslims, then there is no dispute that they have the right to build upon it, unless local zoning laws dictate that a mosque cannot be built there (the way certain zoning laws forbid the building of bars or taverns in certain places). Since this is an exceptional law, it is up to the monks (and you, since you maintain the mosque is illegal) to quote the zoning law in question. The Muslims cannot prove that they haven’t broken the law until the law is quoted.

        Therefore, to suggest that I am ignoring an illegality is inaccurate since no such illegality is apparent.

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        If you say the mosque is legal, attack on it is illegal and action can be taken under Penal code. Why not do it?

        You are forming a circular logic, dear DB. The issue either stays at one or two.

        The mosque is

        1. Either illegal OR
        2. Legal

        (A). If illegal, tell me the action you propose
        (B). If legal, again tell me the action you propose, and reason not to go for what I propose.

        Thanks!

      • “If you say the mosque is legal,”

        It is not I who says the mosque is legal. Unless an act is clearly illegal (and building mosques is not illegal), it must be considered legal until proven illegal. So if you believe it is the latter, you must prove it. If you cannot, it continues to be legal. Up to now, the presence of a legal deed, and the lack of a zoning law prohibiting construction of non-Buddhist places of worship in the area, are evidence of the mosque’s legality.

        “attack on it is illegal”

        Regardless of the legality of the mosque, an attack on it is not just illegal but criminal.

        “and action can be taken under Penal code. Why not do it?”

        That is precisely what we are asking the authorities. Why have they not done it. And before you say that that proves the illegality of the structure, remember that the criminality of the monks is not dependent on the legal standing of the mosque. The monks are criminal anyway.

        “The mosque is 1. Either illegal OR 2. Legal”

        Correct.

        “(A). If illegal, tell me the action you propose”

        If illegal, and no action can change that status, then it must be demolished. The monks must be investigated for criminal actions, charged if necessary, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

        “(B). If legal, again tell me the action you propose, and reason not to go for what I propose.”

        If legal, no action must be taken against the mosque; but the monks must be investigated for criminal actions, charged if necessary, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

        As you can see, your proposal is quite unnecessary, unless of course your goal is to protect the criminal monks.

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        It seems that you haven’t understood my simple logic for what ever a reason.

        Will start from the beginning.

        With regard to legal aspect of the Dambulla mosque there can be only two options.

        option 1). It is legal

        OR

        option 2). It is illegal

        (I think you would agree up to this point)

        Now we will see the legal consequence of an attack on the mosque in each case separately.

        option 1). It is legal + attack

        It is a criminal offense, should take legal action. A formal complain is needed. One from mosque should make a complain with the police.

        option 2). It is illegal +attack

        It is a criminal offense, should take legal action. A formal complain is needed. One from mosque should make a complain with the police.
        AND mosque could be removed.

        Both options demand a formal complain from the aggrieved party.

        If they make a complain,

        in option 1)., aggrieved party has nothing to loose, but they will get the justice they are asking for.

        in option 2)., aggrieved party will get the justice they are asking for. AND they have a risk of loosing their mosque as well.

        So, tell me which option from the above two explain the reluctance of the aggrieved party’s party to just go to a police station and make a complain to initiate legal action? Is it option 1). above or option 2). above?

        What is your choice from above two?

        (I think you have answered multiple questions of four options and this two optioned one would not be difficult for you. Ha! Ha!!)

        Thanks!

      • “It seems that you haven’t understood my simple logic for what ever a reason.”

        Obviously, I must either be stupid, or your argument is not logical.

        “Will start from the beginning.”

        Always a good idea when you find yourself to be lost.

        “With regard to legal aspect of the Dambulla mosque there can be only two options. option 1). It is legal OR option 2). It is illegal”

        We have already established the most obvious part of this. There’s no need to repeat yourself.

        “Now we will see the legal consequence of an attack on the mosque in each case separately. option 1). It is legal + attack It is a criminal offense, should take legal action. A formal complain is needed. One from mosque should make a complain with the police.”

        Firstly, you misunderstand (or are ignorant of) the terminology, which is perhaps why what you consider to be logic, is actually silliness. The reporting of a crime to the police is not “legal action”; the latter is in the context of civil suits. Also, there is a difference between committing an illegal act, and a criminal one. I hope you don’t need that explained too (since you claim to have experience with the law and its enforcement). We have already established that the mosque has complained of the arson attack and the vandalism.

        “option 2). It is illegal +attack It is a criminal offense, should take legal action. A formal complain is needed. One from mosque should make a complain with the police. AND mosque could be removed.”

        Correct; whether the mosque is legal or illegal, the attack by the monks is criminal.

        “Both options demand a formal complain from the aggrieved party.”

        It doesn’t require a formal complaint. That is why I asked you if you understand what is meant by a criminal act. If such an act has been committed and it has come to the notice of law enforcement, it is their duty to take action in the form of a criminal investigation. Nevertheless, we can establish that the police were aware of the arson attack and the vandalism.

        “If they make a complain,”

        There is no “if” in this matter; as has been explained to you, the police must act if their is suspicion of a crime.

        “in option 1)., aggrieved party has nothing to loose, but they will get the justice they are asking for. in option 2)., aggrieved party will get the justice they are asking for. AND they have a risk of loosing their mosque as well.”

        Correct.

        “So, tell me which option from the above two explain the reluctance of the aggrieved party’s party to just go to a police station and make a complain to initiate legal action? Is it option 1). above or option 2). above?”

        As has now been explained multiple times to you, a formal complaint is not required for the police to take action against criminal activity. However, the complaint you seem to think is required has already been made. So there is no need to explain any reluctance because there IS NO reluctance. All this wriggling and squirming and giving options wouldn’t be necessary if you just more conversant on the subject.

        “What is your choice from above two?”

        Since a complaint has been made, what do you think is the choice? Obviously option 1.

        “(I think you have answered multiple questions of four options and this two optioned one would not be difficult for you. Ha! Ha!!)”

        Oh, I have never had any difficulty answering your questions, Yapa. Whether you can accept the logic of my answers is a different matter (Ha! Ha!).

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        ““(I think you have answered multiple questions of four options and this two optioned one would not be difficult for you. Ha! Ha!!)”

        Oh, I have never had any difficulty answering your questions, Yapa. Whether you can accept the logic of my answers is a different matter (Ha! Ha!).”

        Looking at the answer given to the two optioned question, I can think of how you answered multiple choice questions.

        Was it, tuk took tick, ma me yanne koy parendo…..?

        According to the theory of probability you must have got around 25%.

        Am I right, dear DB?, Ha! Ha!!

        Thanks!

      • 😀 So you have nor response to my points. Yes, I think tuk tik took is probably the best game for you.

      • yapa

        I have a response.

        You seem to be delighted with the carrier best marks you achieved and celebrating it.

        Congratulations!

        Thanks!

      • I didn’t say you have no response; just that you have no response to my points 😀

  • niranjan

    Shammi,

    “The powers that be are either sending the message that they agree with these thugs, are totally incompetent to control such crimes, or both.”- I think it is a mixture of both.

  • Dev

    “In addition, I am astonished that citizens who call themselves Buddhist, who are devout, pray, meditate and do pooja, attend sil, listen to bana and pirith, continue to condone violence in the name of Buddhism by agreement or staying silent. I just don’t understand.”

    Ameena, coming from a Muslim background you should know that is a very unfair sentiment to have. People who have the same mentality have been asking the same thing about Muslims with regards to all the violence that is being committed by extremists from that community around the world. I haven’t heard you condemning, say, the destruction of a mosque in Kattankudy by rival Muslim sects which happened not to long ago or the burning of a mosque in Beruwala and the murder of 2 Muslims by another rival Muslim sect – does that mean you support these actions? I would say no you don’t, but is it fair of me to cast judgement on you? I’m sorry but you do come across as being somewhat prejudiced here.

  • georgethebushpig

    Yapa,

    I think you are one fry short of a happy meal!

    • yapa

      Nobody should be assertive too much.

      Thanks!

  • @yapa
    What have you got to say about this video? Another international conspiracy? 😉

    • yapa

      The actors face resembles you. Furnish the details of the script writer, music director, editor, director and the producer.

      Thanks!

  • Rayan

    I find it very disturbing to notice as to how, many people try to justify an act of violence or try to direct the attention towards some other issue instead of simply accepting the fact here.

  • vas

    Buddhism and violence are not synonimus. How ever Buddhist tolerance unfortunately seam to have limits. It was seen in Vietnam, Burma and now in Sri Lanka. Sensitivities of all communities must be considered before one embarks on christian evangelism or erection of mosques subsidised by rich foreign countries. It is in the nature of Buddhists to be tolerant but it has its limits. This is human nature not the fault of the religion , its what they call herd response.

    • Burning_Issue

      I suppose it is ok to erect 28 Buddha Statues along the A9 road since the end of the end of the war sponsored by GOSL. Who cares about the beaten and battered Tamils; who cares about what they think!

    • kadphises

      I think thats what people are trying to say. This “limit” or threshold for tolerance is pretty low for Buddhists. They complain about other religions stealing their flock, of foreign countries funding mosques. How does this interfere with buddhists whose job is to strive to relinquish worldly things and spread compassion? As a matter of fact there is little in the land that has been built without foreign funds. From Hydro electric projects to the highways we use everyday.

      • yapa

        Dear kadphises;

        You better contemplate on how the Buddhism was vanished from India where the Buddha was born and the King Dharmashoka reigned.

        Buddha never taught everything. You will never find answers for questions of Chemistry in Buddhism.

        One of the great myths many of the Buddhists think is that Buddhism contains answers to anything and everything.Trying to find solution to everything through Buddhism is a great mistake.

        One day I visited one of my cousins who was preparing for his O/L examination. Then I had completed my Science degree. In our casual talk referring to Science and Buddhism, he said, all what we are learning in Science today had been preached by the Buddha 2500 years ago. His mother shook her head proudly looking at her son’s knowledge. I wanted to tell there that “then it is not necessary for you to work hard for Science, you study Buddhism and answer the Science paper, with that knowledge”, but I didn’t tell that to him but came back home.

        One of the another wrong vision is that Buddhists’ job is to strive to relinquish worldly things and spread compassions, as kadphises mentioned above.

        That was prescribed for just monks and not for lay people. Buddha has many discourses meant for lay people who are engaged in worldly matters. There the Buddha gave guidelines how to lead a good worldly life, not to relinquish worldly things. There the Buddha did not teach them irrigation management or post harvest management systems. The knowledge required for them have to be gained from somewhere else.

        So, no one should try to tell activities of Buddhists should be confined to “Tripitaka” (three Baskets). Do not look in the Tripitaka to learn English Language, hardware Engineering or International Law. The Buddha has never prohibited other knowledge systems. Do not get discouraged on the thing the Buddha has not preached, what the Buddha said was to use your wisdom to enlighten your path, not to become a blind follower to repeat what he said or act just according to them alone.

        Thanks!

  • vas

    Dear Ameena,
    Let us not asses this whole episode as a now a very prevalent phenomenon called Sinhala Buddhist bashing by elitist western educated young men and women. I have not read any Muslim protesting about the distruction of the centuries old Buddhists statues in Afghanistan and religious intolerance in Saudi Arabia where it is a sin to even wear a cross. I do not think the fault of such violent response to destabilisation of societies in the name of religious freedom can be put on the buddhists but it certainly falls on the ruling elite who allow rich countries like Saudi Arabia to sponsor and propagate extremism. I long to the times when there was religious harmony It was the Sinhala buddhists kings who gave refuge to the Muslims in Eastern province when they were discriminated by the portugese or for that matter the catholics who were given refuge in wahakotte when the Dutch discriminated them. Religeous fundamentalism and intolerance propagated by foreign governments and NGOs must be stopped before it causes further mayhem.

  • yapa

    Can somebody tell me whether my suspicion that there is something fishy in the whole process for pressing “executive” and “legislature” to intervene into the particular issue while maintaining silence seeking aid of the “judiciary” in this connection is unreasonable?

    Constitutionalists/Legal experts say the rights of those three arms of the government are “Inalienable”.

    Can “executive” or “legislature” take over the duties of “judiciary”?

    How much does it agree with constitutionalism?

    Does anybody think this issue should be kept not only above the law but also above the whole political philosophy?

    Many people are seated on their tails conveniently and comfortably.
    You will see the repercussions of riding the law to please crying babies soon.

    Thanks!

    • sabbe laban

      Yapa

      After reading your interesting exchange with David Blacker(above), eventhough I too vehemently oppose this act by the “yellow robed gangsters”, I think you have a sound argument regarding the aggrieved party here, and (its)failure to go for legal redress, which remains unchallenged!

      • yapa

        Dear Saban;

        I never approved/supported that high-handed action of the monks and the mob at Dambulla. That is on the fundamental principle that no such actions should be tolerated, and not to oppose one such action to support another similar action. One violent action cannot be a good reason to justify another violent action, if accepted so, the whole series of consequent violence have to be accepted justified, except the first one. Many people here wanted to follow that path, but you must have seen I consistently opposed it while opposing the first violent act as well.

        As I have pointed out at the very outset we all have a tendency to be saints at others faults.

        What I tried to do was to expose those who were casting stones one after another at the wretched women. All were fighting among them selves to cast the first stone and to continue. Their back sides were exposed showing their big nudity to the world. They were unable to establish the even the basic legal requirement even after they pioneered to throw the legal trump card first, exhibiting deeds and all that. When they saw the bigger trump card, they are now back paddling with their legal trump. Why the sauce for gander is not the sauce for goose?

        I think this is there willingness to solve disputes through violence and force. One of the ministers has declared at the beginning that they would not accept a an alternative mosque, even if it is build up of gold. So is their stance. Do you think the other party should be humble and accept any unjustifiable arrogance, due to the sin of being the majority of this country? Because, the Buddhist are supposed to be bond by a severe code of conduct, should others be exempted from that conduct or were they bound by a looser code of conduct?

        In my view foremost conflict resolution tool of the country is its legal system, especially when a fair laws are available at least in a particular field. I don’t think land law of applicable to Dambulla, has created any inconsistency among any. Tradition such as protests and violence come only when all the such measures are failed. cultural norms or any other means. Violence cannot be the first or the second or the sole means of resolving conflict. This should be common to both the gander and the goose.

        That was the meaning of my endeavour. Many though I was throwing stone randomly bring down a fruit of cashew. That is not the case. I was not acting out of my mind.

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Correction……

        “Tradition such as protests and violence come only when all the such measures are failed. cultural norms or any other means.”

        should be corrected as,

        Tradition, cultural norms or any other means such as protests and violence come only when all the such measures are failed.

        Thanks!

      • Yapa, could you explain the processes exhausted by the monks before they made the attack on the mosque? Could you also detail the processes exhausted by the monk who displayed his genitalia to the gathered public?

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        I don’t think there is no validity in such a question as no one including me approved the particular incident, I condemned it as an unacceptable behaviour. Almost everybody has a similar view on this.

        However, the views of the reaction against the incident is not consensus as in the case of above. Majority of the posters seem to approve even an “illegal” thing as correct. “Ethical and moral responsibilities” of the grieved party has been waved off, just because it is the aggrieved party.

        My question has been whether the legal and moral misconducts of the aggrieved parties should not be taken as the misconduct as the offending party? Before law can one misconduct weighed less than a another similar conduct? If something is illegal, is it not illegal for all? If something is immoral for one group, is it not immoral for other group. These are the question arisen from not accepting some queries. I have accepted blunders of the monks as blunders.

        So, I think there cannot have special any questions for me regarding the monks, as you and I hold the same view about the conduct of the monks. If there is a question, that question should be common to both you and me, and hence I don’t think there is sense asking it from me.

        But regarding the matters we have different view points, one naturally has questions to ask from the other. In such cases you can ask questions from me, and I can ask questions from you. I have been using that natural right for questioning.

        Thanks!

      • “I don’t think there is no validity in such a question as no one including me approved the particular incident, I condemned it as an unacceptable behaviour. Almost everybody has a similar view on this.”

        In spite of your double negative, I assume you’re attempting to invalidate my question rather than recognize its validity? Your condemnation of the “incident” (I guess you mean the priests who act like hooligans and thugs) is immaterial, since you simultaneously claim that no one has the right to take any action except through the court system until and if the latter actions have been exhausted. This is fundamentally incorrect. The correct comment would be to suggest that no one has the right to take the law into their own hands until all appeals to the law have been exhausted. Everyone has the right to lobby, protest, complain to the media, or take any other legal action they see fit if they believe it will be effective.

        Unfortunately, the thugs and hooligans in question have committed a crime in full view of the police and the media, and with no attempt to first use the legal system (which seems to be the be-all and end-all of your logic). So rather than question the perfectly legal (and peaceful) actions the Muslims have taken in response to the violence and thuggery of the Buddhist priests and their supporters, you, as a moral Buddhist (and self-proclaimed believer in logic) should be questioning the inaction of the police and legal system you seem to think is the only resort.

        “However, the views of the reaction against the incident is not consensus as in the case of above. Majority of the posters seem to approve even an “illegal” thing as correct. “Ethical and moral responsibilities” of the grieved party has been waved off, just because it is the aggrieved party.”

        Regardless of what you think the majority of the posters believe, there has been no illegal action by the Muslims in this context. The ethical and moral responsibilities of the grieved party is to work for recourse within the law. They are not, however, obliged to only seek recourse from the law. On the other hand, the ethical and moral responsibility of the state is to protect its citizens from illegal persecution, and we — as ethical and morally responsible citizens — must demand it.

        “My question has been whether the legal and moral misconducts of the aggrieved parties should not be taken as the misconduct as the offending party?”

        How can it be misconduct of it is both legal and moral as you claim above?

        “Before law can one misconduct weighed less than a another similar conduct?”

        It depends on the misconduct. If you murder my son, and in retaliation I kill your cat, I think the law will deal with you far more severely than it will me.

        “If something is illegal, is it not illegal for all? If something is immoral for one group, is it not immoral for other group.”

        Certainly, but so far, only the Buddhist thugs and hooligans have acted illegally.

        “These are the question arisen from not accepting some queries. I have accepted blunders of the monks as blunders.”

        An intentional act of violent vandalism cannot be dismissed as a “blunder”. A blunder would be if I accidentally reversed my car into your parapet wall and damaged it. Are you suggesting that the Buddhist priests and their followers accidentally threw petrol bombs, accidentally tore up copies of the Koran, accidentally told people to take their gods and leave, and accidentally raised their orange robes and exposed their genitalia to the onlookers, all the while accidentally shouting abuse?

        “So, I think there cannot have special any questions for me regarding the monks, as you and I hold the same view about the conduct of the monks. If there is a question, that question should be common to both you and me, and hence I don’t think there is sense asking it from me.”

        First of all, we do not have the same view about the conduct of the monks. I believe they are violent criminals who have committed violent crimes, and who should be arrested and charged. You seem to think they have simply committed a blunder. Secondly, my question to you was a response to your view of how the Muslims should conduct themselves in the face of this criminal attack and the state support for that crime. In this too we disagree, do we not? Therefore, since your view is completely different from mine, it is quite sensible for me to put a question to you that is specific to your view.

        “But regarding the matters we have different view points, one naturally has questions to ask from the other. In such cases you can ask questions from me, and I can ask questions from you. I have been using that natural right for questioning.”

        As have I. However, only I have answered your questions. You have so far attempted to simply invalidate my questions rather than answer them.

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        I think your explanations reiterate more, the necessity of aggrieved party to seek legal remedy. Your post gives more evidence to the severity of the offense committed by the monks. As you said it is not a crime of the degree of you killing my cat, but an offense of a very serious nature.

        In that case legal action is essential and law will deal with it considering its severity as you have correctly pointed out.

        You also can help them to retain a good lawyer.

        Thanks!

      • The seeking of legal remedy is not the responsibility of the victim in a criminal act. That is why we have law enforcement and not just a legal system. Legal remedies are sought for civil cases on which no law has been broken, or after criminal charges have failed to obtain justice for the victim. Neither of these situations are present in Dambulla.

      • This has already been explained to you by Lankan Thinker several days ago. Of course, you had no answer, and abandoned that thread.

    • Lankan Thinker

      Yapa,

      I am not a lawyer, but as a lay person my understanding of law is that moving the courts with respect to criminal activity is the responsibility of the police and the attorney general’s department. So it is up to the police (and not the Muslim community in Dambulla) to charge the perpetrators of the violence and damage to public property. When the police seem to inactive in this regard, the only thing the victims of violence can do is appeal to the executive to intervene.

      With respect to legal protection prior to the mob turning up – the mosque authorities maintain that they have a legal deed with respect to the property and that the mosque was registered with the Waqf Council (as the relevant law requires). What other legal protection did you expect them to have? Are you saying that every citizen who owns property near a Rajamahaviharaya needs to go to the courts and seek a court order to prevent the local monk from leading a mob onto their property? You *are* out of your mind!

      • yapa

        Dear Lankan Thinker;

        But I presume, you want to fabricate a good excuse for not pursuing legal actions.

        Such a force was generated through almost all the Muslim political leaders, you say they cannot persuade police to initiate a criminal case?

        If the Police do not initiate, it can be initiated as a private plaint I think.

        I am asking about their comparatively less enthusiasm in that particular direction. Another thing I cannot understand is why a “goda perakadoruva” came forward when so many “perkadoruvas” are keeping quiet.

        My guess is a lame has no enthusiasm to go for a hundred meter race and also ignorance is bliss.

        Thanks!

      • Lankan Thinker

        Dear Yapa,

        I have no wish to fabricate excuses for anyone. I just pointed out that bringing charges and pursuing justice for criminal activity is the responsibility of the police, not the victims of crime.

        I think we are both ‘goda perakadorus’, so maybe we are both wrong!

    • yapa

      Now you seems to follow the King Kekille’s example, very easy way to decide the offender?

      Why DB, trying to mount on others? You are unable to do it?

      Thanks!

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        You repeatedly asserted that the aggrieved party should not go for legal remedies. For instance assuming the case is taken before the law, what will be the result, tell me.

        If we go by the law, as per the facts indicate now I think the legal position would be to remove the mosque from the particular place. I think this indicates the reason for the reluctance of the so called “aggrieved party” to go before the law.

        I think the Divisional Secretory of the area clearly indicated it, you can see it from the video in the first GV article. Why her voice was not heard again? Why her opinion was not sought again in the name of investigative journalism?

        My main curiosity is why they are afraid of the law? My experience (of investigations and law enforcement)tells me that law breakers are the ones scared of law. If you have eaten mustard, there is a chance you get some itchiness in your nose, you may sneeze, as per a Sinhala saying says. I think they are burning inside their noses now.

        Cacophonies usually do not have a base and cannot hold water for a long time.

        Thanks!

      • “Now you seems to follow the King Kekille’s example, very easy way to decide the offender?”

        And you seem to be following the example of the crow that craps all over the pavement. Why is it that you cannot focus your comments into a single thread? Can you rephrase your above question in English, if indeed it is a question.

        “Why DB, trying to mount on others? You are unable to do it?”

        I am certainly not trying to mount anyone 😀 least of all you. If you are embarrassed by my pointing out your lack of understanding and ability to engage in a discussion, I quite understand. In your position, I would feel the same.

        “You repeatedly asserted that the aggrieved party should not go for legal remedies. For instance assuming the case is taken before the law, what will be the result, tell me.”

        I have done no such thing. If you believe I have, do quote me verbatim, please. What I have asserted is that the Muslim victims should not be held responsible for initiating action of any sort, judicial or other; and that the first responsibility is for law enforcement to uphold the law that seems to have been broken by the thugs and hooligans calling themselves monks. It is next the responsibility of the state to protect its citizens; in this case by allowing law enforcement and the judicial process to take its course. If you were to break into my house and burgle it, it is not my responsibility to take you to courts. It is the responsibility of the police to bring the criminals to book. If the authorities then fail to uphold their responsibilities (as they have in Dambulla), the victim may take whatever legal course (and I don’t mean via the courts necessarily) he feels will be effective.

        “If we go by the law, as per the facts indicate now I think the legal position would be to remove the mosque from the particular place.”

        I’m not sure which law you’re going by, but if the mosque sits on land for which the victims have a deed (you have acknowledged that they do), and if the mosque’s construction did not violate any zoning laws of the day (and you seem unable to quote any zoning law that has been violated), the removal of the mosque would be illegal. Regardless of the above, the vandalism of the mosque would be anyway a criminal offense. You seem to have great difficulty grasping this simple precept, which is quite amusing.

        “I think the Divisional Secretory of the area clearly indicated it, you can see it from the video in the first GV article. Why her voice was not heard again? Why her opinion was not sought again in the name of investigative journalism?”

        What has she indicated? And why has no zoning law been produced?

        “My main curiosity is why they are afraid of the law?”

        You could very well be just as curious about the thuggish monks who didn’t take legal action, but criminal action. What were they afraid of? You seem adamant that the reason why the Muslims haven’t taken legal action is because they are “afraid”. There is no indication of such a fear. For now, legal action is unnecessary, since all action taken by the criminals and their state supporters has been extra-judicial. I’m sure their lawyers would have advised them to await an attempt t actual demolition, at which point an injunction will be obtained, similar to the one that prevented Gotabhaya from chasing out the non-resident Colombo Tamils.

        “My experience (of investigations and law enforcement)tells me that law breakers are the ones scared of law.”

        Given your staunch defense of the thugs and lack of sympathy for the victims, I have no doubt what your experience (if any) of law enforcement is.

        “If you have eaten mustard, there is a chance you get some itchiness in your nose, you may sneeze, as per a Sinhala saying says. I think they are burning inside their noses now.Cacophonies usually do not have a base and cannot hold water for a long time.”

        I think if you focus on the law rather than condiments, bodily orifices, and containers of water, your arguments might possibly have some sense of comprehensibility.

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        “If you were to break into my house and burgle it, it is not my responsibility to take you to courts. It is the responsibility of the police to bring the criminals to book.”

        Exactly. However, it is your responsibility to assist the police making a formal complain to the police, so that they can pursue with the legal procedures.

        My question consistently has been why it is not happening, but rallying round the politicians and media institutions? (and also hire shrewd writers to write in blogs, Ha! Ha!!)

        Thanks!

      • “Exactly. However, it is your responsibility to assist the police making a formal complain to the police, so that they can pursue with the legal procedures.”

        Complaints to the police were made, which was why the latter (and the military) were subsequently deployed to prevent further violence. Were you under the impression that the police, Army, and media attained enlightenment and discovered through meditation that they should deploy around the mosque?

        “My question consistently has been why it is not happening, but rallying round the politicians and media institutions?”

        They are doing so because the police has failed in its duties because of political intervention. Why is it that you are not questioning the fact that the politicians are decreeing that the mosque be demolished instead of the courts?

        “(and also hire shrewd writers to write in blogs, Ha! Ha!!)”

        Looks like you are copying (or “mounting” 😀 as you call it) your Eelamist friends who accuse me of being hired by the GoSL to write here!

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        Tell me whether a complain was made after the attack to the mosque, specifically mentioning this criminal activity(attacking and damaging the property)?

        I think your argument police/army presence before that incident is irrelevant to our debate. We are taking about that particular incident. Not police and army parading with the monks and the mob.

        If you have specific information please be kind enough to provide it.

        I feel like you are giving “yanne koheda, malle pol type amswers”. Ha! Ha!!

        Thanks!

      • “Tell me whether a complain was made after the attack to the mosque, specifically mentioning this criminal activity(attacking and damaging the property)?”

        It was, yes.

        “I think your argument police/army presence before that incident is irrelevant to our debate. We are taking about that particular incident. Not police and army parading with the monks and the mob.”,/em>

        There was no police/Army presence before the “incident”. If there had been, the arson attack may not have taken place. The police/Army were deployed after the attack and the complaint about it.

        “If you have specific information please be kind enough to provide it.”

        Specific information on what? All the information required to understand that the authorities have failed in their dury to protect a minority has been provided. Yet, you cannot understand.

        “I feel like you are giving “yanne koheda, malle pol type amswers”.”

        Of course you feel that way. When you lack the intelligence to understand, even knowledge seems like nonsense.

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        Just like the other vocal critics who are now pretending to be fast asleep you also seem to have slimy things you don’t like to touch. In questions about about obligations of the “aggrieved party”, your answers become short and small and then gain even those short answers tend to contradict most of the time immediately after they are expressed. Total aim of your exercise seems to persuade take legal action against one illegal thing and prevent taking legal action against another illegal thing. That astoundingly profound theory may be justifiable in your way of thinking or in terms of your own ideology, but not in a common ideology acceptable to others.

        You can realize your own different treatment and their contradicting nature if you look at your last post alone, not necessary going further.

        See how short it is and see its indicative reluctance. Why your reluctance to justify your answer by explaining it or diving a bit more details in it?

        “””Tell me whether a complain was made after the attack to the mosque, specifically mentioning this criminal activity(attacking and damaging the property)?”

        It was, yes.”””

        In Sinhala such behaviour is known as “bade biththara thyagena katha karanava”. Dear DB how many eggs do you have inside your stomach or near it?

        Now again look at my question and your answer.

        “”””“I think your argument police/army presence before that incident is irrelevant to our debate. We are taking about that particular incident. Not police and army parading with the monks and the mob.”,/em>

        There was no police/Army presence before the “incident”. If there had been, the arson attack may not have taken place. The police/Army were deployed after the attack and the complaint about it.””””

        Do you say police/army came to the seen after the the attack on the so called mosque was executed?

        It seems you are trying to indicate that the complain was made before the police and army presence as shown in the videos is a later incident taken place much later than the attack? Do you say the attack was not taken place during the incidents shown in the videos, which shows army and police presence. Do you attribute the “particular attack” to an isolated separate incident took place before the incident shown in the videos? Do you say police and army were not at close or around the place when the “attack” took place. If it is so are you going to say no any criminal or sort of activity taken place when the police and army was present? Do you say all the criminal activities you say were taken place before they came to the seen? Are you trying to indicate so to justify not making a complaint after the incidents shown in the videos? Tell me directly was a complaint made after the incidents shown in the video? After the whole episode was completed?

        “””“If you have specific information please be kind enough to provide it.”

        Specific information on what? All the information required to understand that the authorities have failed in their dury to protect a minority has been provided. Yet, you cannot understand.”””

        This is again saying yanne koheda malle pol for sake of your argument for your advantage.

        “”“I feel like you are giving “yanne koheda, malle pol type amswers”.”

        Of course you feel that way. When you lack the intelligence to understand, even knowledge seems like nonsense.””

        You have provided nothing against my understanding.

        Thanks!

      • “your answers become short and small and then gain even those short answers tend to contradict most of the time immediately after they are expressed.”

        I do not think it is necessary to be verbose if no explanation is necessary. If you want clarification on any of my short and simple answers, just ask. If you think I have contradicted myself, do quote me, instead of making generalisations that sound like whining.

        “Total aim of your exercise seems to persuade take legal action against one illegal thing and prevent taking legal action against another illegal thing.”

        No, that isn’t my intention. I cannot help it if your grasp of language and/or law is so abysmal. I have urged investigation into the only criminal and illegal acts that have taken place around this incident; namely the arson attack by the monks and the GoSL order to demolish the mosque.

        “That astoundingly profound theory may be justifiable in your way of thinking or in terms of your own ideology, but not in a common ideology acceptable to others.”

        Since it isn’t a theory that I have put forward in our discussion, I can only assume that you’re attempting to call your ignorance and outright stupidity an acceptable common ideology. It certainly seems acceptable amongst the thuggish monks of Dambulla whom you wish to protect and defend.

        “You can realize your own different treatment and their contradicting nature if you look at your last post alone, not necessary going further.”

        If you believe so, it is best you quote a portion of my comment that has given you this impression. If you cannot do so, it will look like you’re just making things up to shield your paucity of argument.

        See how short it is and see its indicative reluctance. Why your reluctance to justify your answer by explaining it or diving a bit more details in it?

        “””Tell me whether a complain was made after the attack to the mosque, specifically mentioning this criminal activity(attacking and damaging the property)?”

        It was, yes.”””

        “In Sinhala such behaviour is known as “bade biththara thyagena katha karanava”. Dear DB how many eggs do you have inside your stomach or near it?”

        Since I am not a Sinhalese, nor a woman, I’m afraid I have no knowledge of such eggs. It will be more useful if you address the issue instead of quoting silly wives’ tales.

        Now again look at my question and your answer.

        “It seems you are trying to indicate that the complain was made before the police and army presence as shown in the videos is a later incident taken place much later than the attack?”

        I don’t know what you mean by “much later”, but the arson attack and vandalism preceded the incident that was videotaped.

        “Do you say the attack was not taken place during the incidents shown in the videos, which shows army and police presence.”

        Yes, the arson and vandalism took place the night before. Looks like you’re (as usual) quite clueless about what’s going on. Please educate yourself before you try to discuss the subject. This would be a good place to start: “Last Friday a mob of about 2,000 Sinhalese, led by a group of Buddhist monks, stormed into a mosque in the historical city of Dambulla. They caused disturbances so severe that Friday prayers had to be cancelled. Reports suggest that the mosque had been hurled at with petrol bombs the night before, causing minor damage, and security forces were deployed to control the situation.”http://groundviews.org/2012/04/23/bigoted-monks-and-militant-mobs-is-this-buddhism-in-sri-lanka-today/

        “Do you attribute the “particular attack” to an isolated separate incident took place before the incident shown in the videos?”

        Given the frequency of attacks by Buddhist mobs against the places of worship of other religions, it is certainly not isolated; and since both the arson attack and the verbal abuse were directed against the same victims, and within a few hours of each other, it can neither be said to be separate incidents. One simply preceded the other.

        “Do you say police and army were not at close or around the place when the “attack” took place.”

        According to the report I have quoted, that is correct. Do you have any report that contradicts the one I have quoted?

        “If it is so are you going to say no any criminal or sort of activity taken place when the police and army was present?”

        Your English is so poor that it is hard to decipher your question, but to clarify: the arson attack took place before the police/Army were deployed.

        “Do you say all the criminal activities you say were taken place before they came to the seen?”

        Yes, the arson and vandalism was perpetrated before the police/Army were “seen”.

        “Are you trying to indicate so to justify not making a complaint after the incidents shown in the videos?”

        I am not indicating anything. I am simply telling you what happened, and I have quoted a news report that substantiates what I have said; ie that there was arson and vandalism that night, and that the police/Army were then deployed after the caretakers of the mosque complained. After the deployment, the disgraceful behaviour (that you are defending) took place and was videotaped.

        “Tell me directly was a complaint made after the incidents shown in the video? After the whole episode was completed?”

        The complaint was made after the arson and vandalism took place, which resulted in the police/Army being deployed. I have no idea if a second complaint was made after the abusive speeches and public indecency that was videotaped. The latter happened in the presence of the police/Army, so a formal complaint is anyway irrelevant. Either way, if a criminal act has been perpetrated, and the police are aware of it, a formal complaint by a victim is not necessary. The latter is simply a method to inform the police of the matter.

        “””“If you have specific information please be kind enough to provide it.”

        Specific information on what? All the information required to understand that the authorities have failed in their dury to protect a minority has been provided. Yet, you cannot understand.”””

        “This is again saying yanne koheda malle pol for sake of your argument for your advantage.”

        I am simply asking you to clarify your question. Why are you afraid of doing so?

        “You have provided nothing against my understanding.”

        To the contrary, I have consistently proven that you have an utter lack of understanding of the incident. Case in point, you were unaware of when the arson and vandalism was perpetrated. This shocking ignorance is proof that you don’t even know what you are talking about 😀

      • “See how short it is and see its indicative reluctance. Why your reluctance to justify your answer by explaining it or diving a bit more details in it?”

        What is the detail you require? You asked me if a complaint was made, and I answered. Do you wish a small picture drawn for you so that you can understand it better?

      • Still you have not found anything to match that smell, it is still there, though the sound was matching, that reluctance.

        Say for a moment, all what you have said was correct, still they have a chance to peruse the case with a private case, they didn’t have that enthusiasm. They should have tried all possible means to take the culprits to book.

        Isn’t that silence deafening?

        Thanks!

      • On the other hand you have not provided the details of the complaint made to the police, rather than just saying “yes”. Can you tell me who made the complain, name of the person and other details of it?

        Thanks!

      • “The latter happened in the presence of the police/Army, so a formal complaint is anyway irrelevant.”

        Will there be any harm if a complain was made, even if they were there? It seems it was like taking a dog for a bath. All the way you will have to drag it forward, dog has no willingness.

        Thanks!

      • “Still you have not found anything to match that smell, it is still there, though the sound was matching, that reluctance.”

        Yes, it is very hard to match the stink emanating from those Dambulla monks. You comments here, however, have come very close in the level of disgust created.

        “Say for a moment, all what you have said was correct, still they have a chance to peruse the case with a private case, they didn’t have that enthusiasm. They should have tried all possible means to take the culprits to book.”

        That is up to them. Options are there to be exercised, not for them to be forced on the victims. When the police, the authorities, and the institute of the law refuses to enforce justice, people lose faith in that system, and seek other more effective methods. As I have pointed out to Pitasthara Puthraya, the actual monetary damage is probably negligible, and not worth the civil action, especially since the latter cannot bring about convictions in a criminal case. If there is an actual attempt by the authorities to demolish the mosque, legal action can prevent it.

        “Isn’t that silence deafening?”

        What is in fact deafening is the silence of the Sangha on this disgraceful matter.

        “On the other hand you have not provided the details of the complaint made to the police, rather than just saying “yes”. Can you tell me who made the complain, name of the person and other details of it?”

        How will I have details of that? I am not the Dambulla OIC 😀 If you want those details, you must ask the authorities for it. If you are suggesting that the news report of the complaint is a lie, then say so, instead of asking silly questions. Given that you are unable to quote the zoning law that you claim was violated by the building of a mosque, it seems rather lame that you are now asking me for details of a police report.

        “Will there be any harm if a complain was made, even if they were there?”

        There is no harm, but there is no obligation either. A second complaint may have been made as well. I do not know, and it does not matter. Your point was that without a complaint, no responsibility for enforcing the law by the police exists. This is untrue. I hope you have the maturity to accept your error.

        “It seems it was like taking a dog for a bath. All the way you will have to drag it forward, dog has no willingness.”

        At the moment the dog seems to represent the police and the authorities who refuse to give justice to the victims in spite of official and unofficial complaints.

      • “How will I have details of that? I am not the Dambulla OIC 😀 If you want those details, you must ask the authorities for it. If you are suggesting that the news report of the complaint is a lie, then say so, instead of asking silly questions.”

        It was you who said there was a formal complain. Are you asking me to prove the negative. I think proof or backing up your claim is your responsibility.

        On the other hand since when you started to believe news reports, that has never been a trait of yours? Very recently you very rightly opposed the report about cluster bombs, I don’t think you have forgotten it.

        It seems you are turning monitors into iguanas, when your stomach is burning. In Sinhala, it is “kanna onae unama kabaragoya thalagoya karanava”.

        Dambulla and thalagoyas have a natural relationship, I think you know. Is that the reason for your particular behaviour here?

        Thanks!

      • “It was you who said there was a formal complain. Are you asking me to prove the negative. I think proof or backing up your claim is your responsibility.”

        I have proven it by quoting the news report that states a complaint was made. If you say that the report is untrue, you must provide contradictory reports. This is not proving a negative; it is disproving the introduced evidence. If you wish to obtain the details of the complaint, you must contact the authorities with whom it rests, since such statements are not in the public domain. The fact that the complaint was made, however, is.

        “On the other hand since when you started to believe news reports, that has never been a trait of yours? Very recently you very rightly opposed the report about cluster bombs, I don’t think you have forgotten it.”

        If there is no reason to disbelieve a report, I will believe it. Can you provide reasonable grounds as to why the news report is a lie; particularly since an official complaint by the victim is not a legal requisite? in the case of the cluster munitions, their existence is absolutely vital to the accusation. Without their existence, there was nothing to accuse the GoSL of; therefore, lying about their existence has a motive. In addition, the pix displayed by Tamilnet and GV were false. I could prove it. Can you prove the falsehood of the report I have quoted?

        “It seems you are turning monitors into iguanas, when your stomach is burning. In Sinhala, it is “kanna onae unama kabaragoya thalagoya karanava”.”

        I advised you earlier to stick to the fact s of the matter, and quote the law instead of your grandmother. It’s not too late to stop looking like a fool 😀

        “Dambulla and thalagoyas have a natural relationship, I think you know. Is that the reason for your particular behaviour here?”

        Since I am not from Dambulla (unlike your beloved criminal monks), who do you think is the thalagoya here? 😀

  • ordinary lankan

    If we can contextualize Buddhism in Sri Lanka and understand its constitutional limitations such as the primacy of authority over compassion – not merely as a recent phenomena but as a historical choice this gap between idealized Buddhism and our collective reality could be narrowed.

    With the arrival of the Portugese and Christianity local religion underwent a major cultural shift – from the transcendental axial age ethos (that was basically broad, humane and shades of grey) to a black and white church that mirrored the black and white depiction of christianity. Even as late as 19th century our monks welcomed the missionaries and were then flabbergasted to find their hospitality abused and a hidden agenda pursued.

    This past and sense of betrayal cannot be under-estimated. While present violence cannot be condoned it must nevertheless be understood for us to work our way back to the axial ethos – where we can all appreciate the good in all of us.

  • sach

    I have been following this group in FB for sometime and was appalled after seeing it. They posted many hate filled material and the dangerous thing is they have many followers. Before the dambulla incidet they posted about this protest that was to be held on 20 April bt i never thought we will experience a mob attack like that.

    I ask all liberal SLns, especially sinhala ones to act against this group. These people must be stopped before any other thing happen.
    can we take any legal action against this group?

    I urge everyone to go their page and ban or report it.

    Some times I cant read the comment section in GV. Can GV tell me the reason for that

    • Sach,

      Don’t know what you mean – you mean the comments on this site? Never had anyone complain they were inaccessible.

      GV Eds.

  • sach

    @yapa,

    I saw u commenting that, what these Sinhala buddhists are doing is incredibly stupid. Then why cant u take action against them rather than trying to demonize the victim in this case.
    I myself is a buddhist bt day by day i lose my respect for sanga in this country. Dont u think the actions of these racist bigots in robes is a danger to this country and all its people? The monks didnt only attack the mosque there they attacked Buddha and buddhism as a whole. They put theravada buddhism to disrespect. Dont u think these monks should be punished according to the law. Dont u think they should be banished from the sanga? I myself is a buddhist and i want that. If u are a sinhalese and wish for the well being of the sinhala people and well being of all SLns dont u think we must punish the ones behind the mob attack.

    • yapa

      Dear sach;

      “If u are a sinhalese and wish for the well being of the sinhala people and well being of all SLns dont u think we must punish the ones behind the mob attack.”

      If you go through my posts you will see I have been consistently maintained that stance. I have been urging aggrieved parties to seek legal measures against us. Please see my comment in this thread for example. What makes me surprised also is that is not happening for some reason and there seems to be a negative enthusiasm in that direction. It seems many like to invest their two cents with extra-judicial actions rather than the legal procedure.

      However, wrt the punishment that should be given I vary from your stance and think it should be decided by the judiciary after a judicial inquiry.

      I agree with you that particular incident is a disgrace as you said. But I think a deep analysis is needed as to why such a trend arisen among Sinhala Buddhists, as the phenomenon cannot be without reasons. The effect itself cannot be the cause. Without neglecting root causes, I don’t think a solution is possible. Sinhalese Buddhists or their priesthood cannot be born with inherited evil different from others. This cannot be an intrinsic evil of Sinhalese Buddhist if there is some evil among them than others. There must be some cause for the ailment and the patient himself cannot be the ailment. We must diagnose the ailment and treat it. We must take care of the patients rather than insulting, abusing and continuously attacking them.

      On the other hand I cannot believe the popular notion that we find patients only among Sinhala Buddhists.

      Thanks!

      • yapa

        Correction……

        I have been urging aggrieved parties to seek legal measures against [us]

        should be,

        I have been urging aggrieved parties to seek legal measures against them (the monks and the mob).

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        Another correction please…

        “[Without] neglecting root causes, I don’t think a solution is possible.”

        should be,

        Neglecting root causes, I don’t think a solution is possible.

        Thanks!

  • sach

    @yapa
    the problem is why hasnt the authorities done anything. Lets assume the mosque is illegal, but the priests should be punished for the mob attack. Some of their actions are a danger to this society. Even if they are a victim (as they say) they cant take the rules into their hands.

    The scenario here is there are two parties, A and B and A says B is illegally occupying A’s land. Then the correct procedure would be to go to courts and solve the matter. But instead A demolish B’s property. The second incident is clearly a mob attack that should be punished. why is the authorities silent on this? What right does PM has to ask the muslims to relocate the mosque?

    You are telling sinhala buddhists act like this because of other reasons. BUt does that justify the actions? And what are those reasons? There are lot of propaganda in SL websites against muslims now. Are these monks act based on these propaganda sites? Are they little babies that they cant use their brain? Is this the way to behave? Dont u think buddhists as a whole must condemn what this monk did. This monk is not fit to hold the position as the chief of the temple.

    • yapa

      Dear sach;

      “You are telling sinhala buddhists act like this because of other reasons.”

      As a person still believe the cause and effect relationship, I cannot think of occurring something without a reason. Do you think it is due to the inborn vulgarity of Sinhala Buddhists or a genetic problem of them? To what causes do you attribute this “abnormal behaviour” of the Sinhala Buddhists, if you have some respect to cause and effect relationship.

      For those who do not believe in “Cause and Effect” but attribute everything to will of an unknown miraculous power, I think they should attribute that evils in Sinhala Buddhist also to that omnipotent, rather than attributing it to Sinhala Buddhists, as per their supreme belief. Really if they do not like evil to attribute to that supreme source, they cannot attribute it to any cause as they have no faith in Cause and Effect, they rather attribute effect to effect itself. For them reason for evilness is evilness itself. That is the what their philosophy allow them to believe.

      But for us cause and effect doesn’t allow us to believe simple formulas. For us effects arise from multiple causes and conditions, identifying causes is one of the most difficult things in the world. That is why questions are still prevailing in this world. Otherwise Socrates would have solved all the problems and Plato and Aristotle would have been unknown names in today’s world. But many people think finding reason of any effect as child play and arbitrarily attributes them according to their biases. These interpretations set fire to the world.

      Do you think our ultimate objective should be to demand ear for ear or eye for eye or to turn your left cheek to the attacker as well?

      I think we should look at punishment as a remedy, not as a revenge. All our endeavours should be aimed at construction not at destruction.

      Hasty conclusions and action on them do not bring any good. We should not always try to hit the soft iron, the way the blacksmith said to be doing. We should not get panicked with emotions. Emotions do not tell you the truth. As I said in another thread, “Liar’s paradox” doesn’t ensure the claimant is not a liar as well. Most of the people claim “I am a liar”, to show that they are honest, but that claim does not ensure they are not liars as well. I think most of them are deliberate lairs. Most of us try to be saints at others’ faults.

      Thanks!

  • Doesn’t Yapa take time off to have lunch or something? The dedication and patriotism. Wow! I’m impressed! :O

  • Lasantha Pethiyagoda

    Ameena Hussein has written a thought-provoking essay on the debacle at Dambulla. What amazes me is the extent to which some apologists on this forum would go, in defending the actions of the bigoted bloggers who advocate enmity, prejudice and discrimination against ‘minorities’, suggesting that they may be “invisible hands” bent on spoiling the good name of Sri Lankans (ie Sinhala).

    This to me is a moot point, as the members of the violent mob that attacked the mosque in the first place, or the yellow-robed who hurled insults, invective and acted in a totally “un-Buddhist” manner clearly demonstrated that Sri Lankans as a nation have not learnt to be tolerant, are gullible, and easily led by vested interests.

    While that remains the reality on the ground, members debate legalities such as whose prerogative it was, to first seek legal remedy etc. To me, there did not seem to be any confidence in the application of law, and hence the taking of matters unto their own hands.

    This signals a dangerous precedent, as the events of the last three decades in Sri Lanka originated precisely due to the inability of the “law” to adequately address injustice. The mayhem that ensued is variously blamed on ‘extremists’ on either side of elected peoples’ representatives and self-appointed arbiters of raw justice.

    The poor citizens of Sri Lanka suffered most, with many paying with their lives, or the lives of their loved ones. I say that we must learn to acknowledge our weaknesses and not live in denial, while striving to become a more mature society valuing equality and fairness.

  • PitastharaPuthraya

    I salute Yapa for his perseverance in defending his argument. However, arguing for the sake of arguing is not going to do any good. The danger is it would mask the real issues and you would loose the objectivity. First of all it should be emphasized that this is not simple legal issue. However, if one is to forget the big picture and concentrate only on the legal aspect the answer is pretty obvious.

    1. If the mosque has been constructed illegally on somebody’s land the monks should have gone to the ‘civil’ court because it is what the normal people do. As they say, if the illegality of mosque is so obvious, the prospectus of sucess in a court case is very good. Therefore, they should not have worried about the outcome.

    2. After the mosque was attacked the legal gurdian of the mosque could have filed a case a ‘civil’ case against the monks and other others if he suffered some material damage and asked for financial compensation.

    3. For organizing a mob in order to attack a mosque, inciting racial hatred, threatening to carry out physical violance, obstructing law enforcement authrities and government servants from doing their job etc the monks and others should be prosecuted in a criminal court by the state, which is represented by the police and the Attorne General’s Department. The legal guradians of the mosque can not do that.

    4. The legal guradians of the mosque do not have to go to court to prove that they are legal as , so far, no body has challeged the legality of the mosque in a court of law.

    This is simple as that.

    • yapa

      Dear PitastharaPuthraya;

      Those are the points I have been struggling to convince to our friend David Blacker, to which he wasted enormous amount of his valuable energies to devise (pseudo) arguments. Really it is simple as that.

      I also agree with your that it is incorrect to focus only on the legal issue alone, as it would forget the big picture. Really, that is also one of the reasons for me to take the issue too long. The parties who bashed Sinhala Buddhists on this particular issue didn’t take the big issue into consideration. You must have seen I said that they are attributing effect to the effect rather than finding the real cause for their convenience and advantage. They easily put all the “sins” on Sinhala Buddhists without looking at the big picture. There is a big and complex social “paradox” running underneath this incident. The incident is an indication of a social ailment but not the cause of it. People try to kill the “Sinhala Buddhist patient” to celebrate one of their religious events I suppose. People of our country should look at this incident with compassion with the aim of curing the ailment. They should look at the problem in a constructive perspective, and not to take the “valuable opportunity” to hunt the “biggest one”. People may injure and hurt the “biggest one”, but I don’t they will be able to kill it in the near future. Invariably it will fight against the hunters hunters will have one day to run for their lives throwing their bows ans arrows and also their attires. It is a pleasurable action and we feel a victorious feeling when you insult and attack a bigger one. We also feel we are big as the bigger one or so. But it is a big mistake, invariably the bigger one will have to counter attack and it will do so.

      Can you remember the LTTE carders, showed their back sides, shouted filthy words and insulted the bigger one (the government forces)during the peace accord. You know what happened, without much noise the bigger one counter attacked. Where is the mighty LTTE now. That is the reality. Don’t try to insult the dumb big one, because you are vocal. Its dumbness does not mean its other body organs are also dumb. No they are very strong. The mouth is not the only strong thing in a competition or a fight. Most people are confused with an air bubble blown in a clumsy situation. They are mistaken, they cannot hunt the big one. They should understand this reality and should try to understand to live with it peacefully without opting to foul tactics to deceive the big one. I think this is the big picture and reality of this country. I hope every one will understand the truth.

      Thanks!

      • wijayapala

        Dear yapa

        Can you remember the LTTE carders, showed their back sides, shouted filthy words and insulted the bigger one (the government forces)during the peace accord. You know what happened, without much noise the bigger one counter attacked. Where is the mighty LTTE now. That is the reality.

        So are you saying that when we (Sinhala Buddhists) shout filthy words and expose private parts to the Muslims, the Muslim world will counter attack and wipe us out the same way that LTTE was wiped out?

      • wijayapala

        To what causes do you attribute this “abnormal behaviour” of the Sinhala Buddhists, if you have some respect to cause and effect relationship.

        The Sangha is the central institution of Buddhism and the only thing linking the present to the time of the Buddha. If the Sangha collapses or becomes corrupt then there is no more Buddhism. We will then have to wait for Maitreya.

        Sangha in Sri Lanka today is in a woeful state for a number of reasons. I don’t think the monks ever faced a secular world as ours today, with all its sensory temptations and distractions. It would be impossible for a monk to reject that world without first understanding it. However, many people become monks as children, and therefore they do not understand the hollow and futile nature of secular life. Additionally, the educational facilities for child monks is inferior. Therefore it is very easy for such monks to become corrupt.

        The solution is to abolish the practice of child monks and improve educational facilities for monks. The Sangha will become much smaller and there may not be enough to do pujas for everyone, but maybe this will help shed the superstitious thinking. We can return to the roots of Buddhism when monks were recluses and world-renouncers, not the mandarins they are today.

      • yapa

        Dear wijayapala;

        Are you blind and dumb as ever? (I am kidding). Didn’t you see I have totally condemned the wrong action.

        Thanks!

      • Gamarala

        Dear Wijayapala,

        “However, many people become monks as children, and therefore they do not understand the hollow and futile nature of secular life.”

        Can you explain to us readers how the Buddhist way of life is less hollow and futile, and how you have come to this hopeful conclusion?

      • sabbe laban

        Yapa

        “Can you remember the LTTE carders, showed their back sides, shouted filthy words and insulted the bigger one (the government forces)during the peace accord. You know what happened, without much noise the bigger one counter attacked. Where is the mighty LTTE now. That is the reality.”

        When the USA stands up to counter-attack where will we be?

      • Dear Saban;

        I think there were many justifiable reasons to attack the LTTE, rather than USA’s attack on SL. USA’s attacks on many cases have been identified as unfair. On the basis of fairness and justifiability, I think those two are not comparable, SL action has more weight in that respect.

        On the other hand I cited the reality against some unhealthy trend that was cropping up based on popular notions against the interests of the whole country’s peace and harmony. It has become customary any single event to be taken as a point to bash the whole majority in prejudice, minorities seems to be exempted from any foul act just because they are minorities. You can see racism of minorities has never been identified as racism. My opposition is mainly against the “majority bashing”. Majorities too have grievances, many ideologies have neglected this fact in application of their “universal political principles”. This is a voice against the declining “divine words” of the west and its followers.

        Might is not right often, but it does not necessarily imply might can never be right.

        Thanks!

    • PP, you are wrong that the caretakers of the mosque must file a civil case to seek justice when a crime has been committed. If someone is murdered, must the dead person file a civil case to seek compensation? Please don’t talk nonsense.

      • *PP, you are wrong that the caretakers of the mosque must file a civil case to seek justice when a crime has been committed. If someone is murdered, must the dead person file a civil case to seek compensation? Please don’t talk nonsense.

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Dear DB,

        I did not say that they must take legal action. I said that they could have. If they felt that a material damage had been done to the mosque they could have filed a case against the perpetrators in a civil court demanding monetary compensation. This would have been in addition to the ‘state sponsored’ criminal case, if there were one. It is entirely up to them to decide whether to proceed in that line. I haven’t questioned them for not doing so.

        I also agree and said that it is the responsibility of the state (Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka) to prosecute the perpetrators for the criminal acts, in which they boastfully engaged in without any secrecy, in a ‘criminal’ court.

        I am sorry to say that it seems that you are not familiar with how the law works. In addition to the state initiated criminal case the aggrieved party in a murder case can go to a civil court and ask the court to order the party responsible for the murder to pay a monetary compensation for their loss. I has been done before and can be done in the furtue.

        I hope you can remember the OJ Simpson case in 90s. After a much controversial murder trial, OJS was acquitted by all black jury. After that the relatives of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman filed a case in a civil court for monetary compensation, which they won. They were paid quite a substantial amount of money by OJS. The difference of standard of poof, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in the former and ‘on balance of probability’ in the latter made the difference.

        Hereafter, I would advice you to be informed before criticising others in they way you did.

      • “I did not say that they must take legal action. I said that they could have. If they felt that a material damage had been done to the mosque they could have filed a case against the perpetrators in a civil court demanding monetary compensation. This would have been in addition to the ‘state sponsored’ criminal case, if there were one. It is entirely up to them to decide whether to proceed in that line. I haven’t questioned them for not doing so.”

        Agreed, but since Yapa’s argument is that the filing of a civil case to secure compensation is the responsibility of the victim in a crime, your comment seems to support this. The damage to the mosque was negligible in monetary terms (since the arson wasn’t successful), and the effect was mostly psychological (tearing up of the Koran), and so suing for damages is actually an academic point. From his subsequent response to you it is clear that he too believes you to be supporting his argument.

        “I also agree and said that it is the responsibility of the state (Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka) to prosecute the perpetrators for the criminal acts, in which they boastfully engaged in without any secrecy, in a ‘criminal’ court.”

        This is the crucial point; and it doesn’t depend on the victims filing a complaint or taking civil action, as Yapa seems to think.

        “I am sorry to say that it seems that you are not familiar with how the law works. In addition to the state initiated criminal case the aggrieved party in a murder case can go to a civil court and ask the court to order the party responsible for the murder to pay a monetary compensation for their loss. I has been done before and can be done in the furtue.”

        I am quite familiar with the law, thank you. The debate with Yapa isn’t about what options are open to the victims (perhaps you should have actually read through the discussion thread), but where the responsibility for action lies. Yapa, sadly, seems to think that it is the responsibility of the victims to make a formal complaint (regardless of whether the police were aware of the crime) or initiate a civil case before the authorities can take action. It is the responsibility of the authorities to investigate and, if appropriate, initiate a prosecution of the alleged perpetrators, regardless of action by the victims. THIS is the crux of the debate between Yapa and myself.

        “I hope you can remember the OJ Simpson case in 90s. After a much controversial murder trial, OJS was acquitted by all black jury. After that the relatives of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman filed a case in a civil court for monetary compensation, which they won. They were paid quite a substantial amount of money by OJS. The difference of standard of poof, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in the former and ‘on balance of probability’ in the latter made the difference.”

        Yes, I do remember the case, and you will agree that the civil action was initiated only AFTER the state’s prosecution of OJS had failed. It is unlikely that such civil action would have been initiated if OJS had been found guilty. In the Dambulla case, it is still hoped that a criminal investigation will be carried out as the Muslims are calling for. If no such action is taken by the authorities, the victims MAY initiate civil action IF THEY SO WISH. They may also use lobbying, political pressure, public protests, or any other non-criminal measures think will spark action by the authorities. Yapa disagrees with the last sentence.

        “Hereafter, I would advice you to be informed before criticising others in they way you did.”

        And I would advice you to inform yourself of the subject of debate before adding your 2 cents and muddying water that Yapa is already doing his utmost to make as murky as possible.

      • I am retyping a response to PP because the original didn’t appear in the thread.

        “I did not say that they must take legal action. I said that they could have. If they felt that a material damage had been done to the mosque they could have filed a case against the perpetrators in a civil court demanding monetary compensation. This would have been in addition to the ‘state sponsored’ criminal case, if there were one. It is entirely up to them to decide whether to proceed in that line. I haven’t questioned them for not doing so.”

        Agreed. However, the decision to take civil action against the monks has nothing to do with the criminal investigation the police is obliged to carry out. The debate with Yapa is that he seems to think that responsibility lies with the victims to seek justice via a civil court, and that this is the only course open to them. Your response seems to support this argument, and his subsequent response to you makes it clear that he thinks you agree with him 😀

        “I also agree and said that it is the responsibility of the state (Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka) to prosecute the perpetrators for the criminal acts, in which they boastfully engaged in without any secrecy, in a ‘criminal’ court.”

        Again, Yapa’s opinion is that the responsibility for this lies with the victims, who must make an official complaint in order for the police to take action. This too is nonsense. The police need only be informed of the crime (by the victims, witnesses, or any other method). Official complaints (or statements) are simply to record the victim’s story for later reference.

        “I am sorry to say that it seems that you are not familiar with how the law works. In addition to the state initiated criminal case the aggrieved party in a murder case can go to a civil court and ask the court to order the party responsible for the murder to pay a monetary compensation for their loss. I has been done before and can be done in the furtue.”

        I am quite familiar with the law, thank you. Unfortunately, you don’t seem familiar with what Yapa and I are discussing. He is suggesting that because no civil action has been initiated by the victims, their claim on justice is therefore suspect. Monetary damage to the mosque is probably negligible (since the arson attack was unsuccessful, and copies of the Koran can be replaced). It is the psychological impact of injustice that must be addressed. The possibility of a civil action to secure compensation does not in any way free the authorities from their responsibility to enforce the law and punish those who break it. Any civil action is over and above the criminal action, and the former doesn’t affect the latter, though the latter can very well affect the former.

        “I hope you can remember the OJ Simpson case in 90s. After a much controversial murder trial, OJS was acquitted by all black jury. After that the relatives of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman filed a case in a civil court for monetary compensation, which they won. They were paid quite a substantial amount of money by OJS. The difference of standard of poof, ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ in the former and ‘on balance of probability’ in the latter made the difference.”

        I certainly remember the OJS case, and I am sure you will agree that the civil case in no way replaced the criminal case. Yapa is suggesting that it must (perhaps you should have actually read through the discussion thread). The civil action was initiated only after the victim’s family had allowed the law to take its course, and after they had been failed by it in a clear case of injustice. I doubt you are suggesting that the compensation they secured was equal to the justice they should have received if OJS had been convicted of murder, or that a monetary sum could have compensated for the loss of a loved one. The civil case was simply an attempt to punish the murderer by whatever legal means left to them, since the authorities had failed to punish him. The same may happen in Dambulla if the authorities do not carry out their duties to investigate, and/or attempt to demolish the mosque as they have threatened to do. For now, the victims will seek to address these two points and pressure the authorities to act. Civil action to secure compensation is unlikely to have any effect on that.

        “Hereafter, I would advice you to be informed before criticising others in they way you did.”

        And I would advise you to inform yourself of the ongoing debate before adding your 2 cents.

      • “Agreed, but since Yapa’s argument is that the filing of a civil case to secure compensation is the responsibility of the victim in a crime, your comment seems to support this.”

        No, my main point was criminal action could have been taken with a private plaint, if the police was not willing to take up the case.

        If not the main reason, one of the main reasons for not taking legal action is the reluctance of the aggrieved party. I cannot think if they have the capacity to muster a such a force, including Muslim politicians from the grass root level to cabinet, I don’t see any reason they cannot find a lawyer to pursue a criminal and civil case.

        Thanks!

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Dear DB,

        This is to explain my position. I did not put my 2 cents to muddy the water. You guys have already turned the pond with clear water into a muddy water hole in a African savannah like desperate two warthogs.

        I just wanted to clarify the matters. I did not support Yapa or you. I was unable to ignore when you both have complicated such a simple matter.

        And I also do not think that I was the one who needs to understand the subject of the debate.

      • “No, my main point was criminal action could have been taken with a private plaint, if the police was not willing to take up the case.”

        No, a criminal case cannot be undertaken by individuals 😀 Are you that ignorant of the law? Are you under the impression that I can hire a lawyer and prosecute you for murder if I wish? At the beginning of this discussion, I asked you if you understood the difference between criminal and civil action. You didn’t answer because you didn’t want to admit your ignorance. Now you have displayed it. If you knew this simple distinction, we wouldn’t be having this discussion. A criminal case can be prosecuted only by the state with whom the upholding of the law is entrusted. Even a primary school student would know this.

        “If not the main reason, one of the main reasons for not taking legal action is the reluctance of the aggrieved party.”

        No, it is because the aggrieved can only bring civil action for compensation; they cannot undertake a criminal case.

        “I cannot think if they have the capacity to muster a such a force, including Muslim politicians from the grass root level to cabinet, I don’t see any reason they cannot find a lawyer to pursue a criminal and civil case.”

        It is quite clear that you cannot see a great number of things, Yapa, mostly because you’re ignorant. They may be able to muster the gods themselves, but it is no use, since a criminal case cannot be pursued by a private citizen. PP has explained how compensation was claimed in the OJS case, but no conviction could be secured, nor was it attempted.

      • “This is to explain my position. I did not put my 2 cents to muddy the water. You guys have already turned the pond with clear water into a muddy water hole in a African savannah like desperate two warthogs.”

        Resorting to name-calling to cover your embarrassment is rather futile, PP.

        “I just wanted to clarify the matters. I did not support Yapa or you. I was unable to ignore when you both have complicated such a simple matter.”

        Well what have you clarified? Your points haven’t been understood by Yapa, and you haven’t told me anything I don’t already know. The matter is indeed quite simple: a crime has been committed; the victims are calling for it to be investigated in the cause of justice. Yapa believes that they have no right to such a claim, and that the responsibility lies with the victims to secure that justice. If you have something to contribute to that debate, let’s hear it.

        “And I also do not think that I was the one who needs to understand the subject of the debate.”

        Given that your comment was irrelevant to the debate, who do you think lacks that understanding?

      • Lankan Thinker

        I simply don’t understand why Yapa is persisting with this notion that the victims of a crime need to file a private complaint when the crime takes place in plain sight of officers of the law. Continuing to make excuses for the short comings of law enforcement agencies by blaming the victims of crimes seems to be the ‘Subha Anagathaya’ that Sri Lankans can look forward to!

        ps. hat tip to David for continuing to try and get this simple idea into Yapa’s head!

      • “No, a criminal case cannot be undertaken by individuals 😀 Are you that ignorant of the law? Are you under the impression that I can hire a lawyer and prosecute you for murder if I wish? At the beginning of this discussion, I asked you if you understood the difference between criminal and civil action.”

        This shows your understanding. You are not only ignorant dear DB, on the basis of your ignorance you insult others as well. If you have a lawyer friend please ask him whether a criminal case can be undertaken if the state does not take up the matter. A legal action cab be taken on the basis of “private plaint”. Ignorance is bliss.

        On the other hand you were unable to prove your claim that a formal complaint was made regarding the criminal activities, not only after the whole episode was finished, but also even before that. There is no indication to the effect that a formal complaint was made by the so called aggrieved party you are supporting with no evidence.

        Further, you were not able to give any evidence to show that mosque was not illegal.

        You are advocating for impunity. Against the rule of law. You are advocating extra judicial action. You want to solve the problem out of the legal procedure. You want to win the game under the jungle law. Why you reject legal procedure? You seem to prefer lobbying and the political pressure instead.

        You could not justify the reluctance of the aggrieved party to pursue the legal procedure. That is because you very well know that mosque is a illegal building. The incident was taken place regarding an illegal structure, do you deny that? If the mosque was legal there couldn’t have happened this. Tell me do you say the mosque is legal? If it is not legal but it is illegal, what do you have to say any objection about it. Can you support an illegal action in principle? If the mosque is illegal it cannot object action against its removal. Do you have any evidence to say that the mosque is legal? You seem to support an incident which has no legal grounds.

        The whole episode took place because of this illegal structure, If a illegal mosque was not there nothing would have happened. The base of the whole problem was the illegal mosque.

        Any illegal action is a cause for problem. You must be able to see the root cause. Your ignorance or the prejudice is also added to the fuel the fire. Do you say not?

        While I do not approve the high handed activity of monks, unlike you I don’t approve the illegal activity of any other, just because they aggrieved party. They are not provided wit a license to do illegal activities or deviate from the legal framework. Their illegal and unethical behaviour you are approving and advocating, for an unknown reason, if it is not ignorance or intentional prejudice.

        I think you will answer my questions rather than trying to slip away from them.

        Thanks!

      • “This shows your understanding. You are not only ignorant dear DB, on the basis of your ignorance you insult others as well. If you have a lawyer friend please ask him whether a criminal case can be undertaken if the state does not take up the matter. A legal action cab be taken on the basis of “private plaint”. Ignorance is bliss.”

        Hahaha. A private plaint cannot prosecute someone for a criminal act, you fool. Any such plaints exist within the realm of civil action, and can only secure compensation for an act deemed prejudicial to the plaintiff, or prevent a party from carrying out an act that can be deemed prejudicial to the plaintiff. Such private plaints cannot address a criminal case. Rather than suggesting I ask “lawyer friends” (this seems to be your “experience with the law” that you boast of), why don’t you cite a case where such a private plaint resulted in the conviction of someone for a crime.

        “On the other hand you were unable to prove your claim that a formal complaint was made regarding the criminal activities,”

        I have proven it by linking to the news item that reported that a complaint was made.

        “not only after the whole episode was finished, but also even before that.”

        See my above comment.

        “There is no indication to the effect that a formal complaint was made by the so called aggrieved party you are supporting with no evidence.”

        The news report says that a complaint was made. I asked you to quote any report that contradicted the one I linked to, but you could not 😀 I have also pointed out to you (as both PP and Lankan Thinker have also pointed out) that no such complaint is necessary to initiate a criminal investigation. You persist in this foolish insistence because it is the only scrap in your childish argument left to you 😀

        “Further, you were not able to give any evidence to show that mosque was not illegal.”

        The basic premise of the law is that illegality must be proven by the accuser (in this case you), and not legality by the defender. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. That is why the GoSL doesn’t need to prove its actions in the NE were “not illegal”, as you insist.

        “You are advocating for impunity.”

        To the contrary, I am advocating punishment of the only criminals in this incident; the thuggish monks, who you do not want investigated.

        “Against the rule of law.”

        To the contrary, I am advocating that the law be upheld and the criminals investigated.

        “You are advocating extra judicial action.”

        Please don’t use words you don’t understand, Yapa 😀 Can you quote me advocating for extra-judicial action? In contrast, you are defending the extra-judicial acts of the thuggish monks, and looking for reasons not to prosecute them.

        “You want to solve the problem out of the legal procedure.”

        I think all problems should be solved out of the legal arena if it can be done so peacefully and amicably.

        “You want to win the game under the jungle law.”

        Where have I advocated such a thing? Please quote me as having said such a thing 😀 It is the thuggish monks who have resorted to jungle law with their arson and vandalism, and debased themselves in an animalistic fashion by displaying their genitalia to the public. Is this the law you want defended?

        “Why you reject legal procedure?”

        Where have I done so? It is you that rejects legal procedure by inventing the notion that the responsibility lies with the victim to make a complaint if justice is to be secured.

        “You seem to prefer lobbying and the political pressure instead.”

        If it is more effective as well as within the law, the preference must be left to the victims, not you or I.

        “You could not justify the reluctance of the aggrieved party to pursue the legal procedure.”

        You must first justify the necessity for that pursuance. You could not. An investigation by the authorities into a criminal act such as arson or vandalism doesn’t require any legal procedure by the victim.

        “That is because you very well know that mosque is a illegal building.”

        How can I know such a thing? Do you think I am the all-knowing Buddha? GV has published the deed to the land, establishing the legality of the ownership. You have been unable to quote any law that forbids the building of a mosque on that premises at the time of construction. Therefore, you have no proof that the mosque is illegal.

        “The incident was taken place regarding an illegal structure, do you deny that?”

        I deny that there is any evidence that the structure is illegal. Can you prove it is illegal?

        “If the mosque was legal there couldn’t have happened this.”

        Of course it could. If a man breaks into your house and robs you, but the police take no action, does that prove that your house is illegal? The actual logic is that if the mosque is illegal, the monks could have gone to court and had it removed by court order. Why did they instead commit vandalism and attempt arson; why did they engage in public indecency and thuggery? What were they scared of? So according to your own logic, Yapa, the acts of the monks proves the mosque to be legal 😀 Thanks.

        “Tell me do you say the mosque is legal?”

        There is no evidence to say it is not, is there? Therefore, it must be legal 😀

        “If it is not legal but it is illegal, what do you have to say any objection about it. Can you support an illegal action in principle?”

        No, I cannot support an illegal action; but neither can I support a criminal action against an illegal action. If the mosque is illegal as you claim, why didn’t the monks go to court and order it removed instead of committing a crime?

        “If the mosque is illegal it cannot object action against its removal.”

        It cannot object to its legal removal. It certainly can object to violence and criminal acts against it. It can also demand that its illegality be proven. So far, you have been unable to do so.

        “Do you have any evidence to say that the mosque is legal?”

        Yes, the deed, published on this site by GV. Can you prove that the mosque is illegal?

        “You seem to support an incident which has no legal grounds.”

        Which incident am I supporting? The only incident here is the thuggish and criminal behaviour of the monks, for which you wish no punishment, or even an investigation.

        “The whole episode took place because of this illegal structure, If a illegal mosque was not there nothing would have happened. The base of the whole problem was the illegal mosque.”

        But you cannot prove it illegal 😀 and neither can the monks. If they could, they would have gone to courts instead of attempting to terrorize the Muslims.

        “Any illegal action is a cause for problem. You must be able to see the root cause. Your ignorance or the prejudice is also added to the fuel the fire. Do you say not?”

        I have continuously pointed out the illegality and criminality (not to mention immorality) of the monks. This is the root of the problem. Nor have I ignored the prejudice of these bigoted thugs that you defend.

        “While I do not approve the high handed activity of monks,”

        Why is it that you cannot call their actions criminal? 😉 And if you do not approve of these actions, why do you not want them prosecuted for it?

        “unlike you I don’t approve the illegal activity of any other, just because they aggrieved party.”

        But you are unable to prove any such illegal activity 😀

        “They are not provided wit a license to do illegal activities or deviate from the legal framework.”

        One doesn’t need a license to build a mosque. One only needs a deed of ownership of the property. And the legal framework didn’t forbid the building of the mosque. So therefore you cannot call that activity illegal.

        “Their illegal and unethical behaviour you are approving and advocating, for an unknown reason, if it is not ignorance or intentional prejudice.”

        THere is nothing illegal in a mosque, nor is there anything unethical in it. On the other hand, the behaviour of the monk that you advocate is illegal, immoral, criminal, and unethical. Why don’t you speak up against it if you are neither ignorant nor prejudiced?

        “I think you will answer my questions rather than trying to slip away from them.”

        I have answered your questions repeatedly, and in many forms. On the other hand, you haven’t been able to answer mine, so I will repeat them in the vain hope that you will:

        1. Can you quote the law that forbade the building of that mosque?
        2. Can you prove in any way whatsoever that the mosque is illegal?
        3. Can you quote the legal precedent that allowed a civil court to rule in a criminal matter?
        4. Can you quote the law that states the victim must make a formal complaint in order that the authorities act in a criminal matter?

      • Lankan Thinker, Yapa persists in that silly notion because when one is naked, even a kahambiliya leaf is something to hide behind 😀

      • Ha! Ha!!, You have opted for a very fine tactic to defend your arguments. Denial and passing the responsibility of proof to the opposite. Further your futile effort to brand me as supporting the action of monks. I have condemned their action from the very beginning and advocated for punishing them through legal means, rather than through the law of the jungle. I was reiterating the need of the aggrieved parties help to facilitate it. But you want to pamper the aggrieved party to cover up their inconsistencies. You want to support their lack of interest to pursue legal action.

        It is very difficult to wake up a culprit who is pretending to be asleep. Not only that you keep your eyes closed and pretending to be talking in sleep, repeating denials and nonsense.

        Are you sleeping are you sleeping brother David? Ha! Ha!!

        When are you going to wake up?

        Thanks!

      • Predictably, when faced with direct questions, Yapa, your arguments collapse into general inanity and incoherence.

        “You have opted for a very fine tactic to defend your arguments. Denial and passing the responsibility of proof to the opposite.”

        The responsibility(or burden, as it is usually referred to) of proof is most certainly with you, the accuser, and not with the accused. That is a basic precept of justice and the judicial system. Given your displayed foolishness, I am not surprised you have no concept of this 😀

        “Further your futile effort to brand me as supporting the action of monks. I have condemned their action from the very beginning”

        You sound very much like Jon Snow of Ch4 when he insists that he has condemned the LTTE and called for their punishment 😀

        “and advocated for punishing them through legal means, rather than through the law of the jungle.”

        So have I. I have advocated an investigation by the police into their criminal activities. Do you agree that this is the just course?

        “I was reiterating the need of the aggrieved parties help to facilitate it.”

        As has been explained to you, patiently, and using simple language that even you can grasp, such help by the aggrieved party is available, but not necessary to initiate such an investigation.

        “But you want to pamper the aggrieved party to cover up their inconsistencies.”

        Inconsistencies that you are unable to prove exist 😀

        “You want to support their lack of interest to pursue legal action.”

        I have neither supported nor opposed their lack of interest. That is their own choice. What I have opposed is your fantasy that the responsibility lies with the aggrieved party, and not the authorities; and that to allow the former a choice in the matter is to “pamper” them. You, on the other hand prefer to “pamper” your beloved criminal monks, and invent excuses for why they haven’t been put in jail with people of similar traits.

        “It is very difficult to wake up a culprit who is pretending to be asleep. Not only that you keep your eyes closed and pretending to be talking in sleep, repeating denials and nonsense.”

        You shouldn’t blame me for what you have done 😀 especially when you cannot answer the simple questions put to you.

        “Are you sleeping are you sleeping brother David? Ha! Ha!! When are you going to wake up?”

        Aren’t the thugs of Dambulla your brothers, and not I? Or is it the thalagoyas? Hard to tell the difference 😀 As for me, I assure you I am quite awake. Your fantasies make it clear who is actually doing the sleeping and dreaming.

        Should I take it that you cannot answer the questions, or that you’re too afraid to; just like your beloved criminal monks?

      • Gamarala

        Yapa,

        You still have a chance to grow up, man up, accept your error, and convince everyone that you didn’t really sneak into the gene pool while the lifeguard wasn’t watching, which, I suspect, is what most people believe.

        Or you could continue to entertain us, works either way…

      • sabbe laban

        Yapa

        It seems you are unable to answer the four questions posed by David!

      • Dear Gamarala;

        If you (and DB too) were sane I would have taken your advice seriously.

        Thanks!

      • Please post here, not below.

        “Predictably, when faced with direct questions, Yapa, your arguments collapse into general inanity and incoherence.”

        That is only your aspiration. That strategy won’t work.

        Thanks!

      • No Saban, I don’t want to set my foot on to that trap, the issue does not limit to that four questions alone. On the other hand he has not answered many more than four questions posed by me, but slipped away giving cunning word puzzles. He is appealing to popularity, and it is easy strategy, but it is not the truth. I posted a story from the Arabian Nights to expose the fallacious nature of his arguments, but Groundviews did not give space to it for some reason. You will see how those for questions were irrelevant, and nothing more than a crafty plot planned in order to trick the truth in a dishonest intention. But I have no problem in exposing such treachery. Slipping away from questions is his strategy, it has never been my trait. He might in the wrong notion that David is David. No it is a misconception. Please wait and see. I will strip off his crookedness.

        Thanks!

      • Dear David/Saban;

        You seem to believe the fairy tale that history repeats. David cannot deceive for ever with his catapult. Your cunning tactics never deceive Goliaths for ever.

        Your strategy seems to be to rest arguments on the fallacious notion that Enemy’s enemy is a friend to show that I am an enemy to the readership. But the truth is the opposite. People engage in dishonest endeavours by distorting fact is the common enemy.

        Now we will be a bit specific and look back at the discussion we had.

        1.There is no dispute about the wrong illegal action of the monks and thugs. I and you also condemned that action, and at the very beginning I said they should be brought into book. So the action of the monks cannot be a point of debate between “the David” and me. It is something irrelevant to the debate.

        2. At the very beginning of the debate, I condemned the inaction of the government including the president and the Defence Secretory. I think one cannot attribute their faults on me as well.

        3. I reiterated legal action should be taken against the culprits who behaved in the illegal manner in the incident, and my position was despite the reluctance of the police to pursue the legal proceedings.

        4. I showed that they (aggrieved party)had enough strength and resource to go in that line, but they had opted for other alternatives other than the legal procedure. There were simple additional efforts needed to pursue in that line, like making a formal and descriptive complain to the Police but they didn’t do. If they did make a complain it is nothing more than to follow the procedure and to use it as an eye wash. If the police did not proceed with they could have complained to the IGP. That didn’t happen. They could have brought that into the attention of the executive and push the case towards taking legal action against the culprits. That didn’t happen. They could have report to the judiciary that their grievances were not heard by the police and complain against the police to judiciary. Any injustice done to even an individual in principle can be reported to the judiciary expecting justice and relief. They lacked no money or able people to help them go in this line. Even though David just deny without any basis, the case could have taken as a private plaint. Either he is ignorant or dishonest in this case as well.

        David has no proof even to the fact that even a single complaint was made by the “aggrieved party” to Police, he just slipped away from the question saying that he is not the OIC of Dambulla. Good and honest strategy. He has been persistently denied the necessity of the arrived party’s enthusiasm to pursue the case. He cannot not to have any knowledge how the things happen in Sri Lanka. You will never be able to get even a birth certificate, without harbouring it going after this fellow and that fellow. It is impossible he cannot have such knowledge how the matters happen in Sri Lanka. Contrary to this normal behaviour in Sri Lanka, evOn the other hand everything happened in a totally different mode and David suddenly wants things to happen just according to the book. That is good strategy.

        5. There were many champions including Groundviews, vocal members of the aggrieved party, sympathizers and advocates who were very enthusiastic to highlight the legality of the deed. When the case of illegality of the mosque came up with the evidence many champions forget they have a mouth and only the David wants to use foul strategy to cover up its illegality with crooked nonsense. Why others are silent on this matter. Why the don’t answer the Divisional Secretory who said the mosque was illegal or why not take action against her.

        I don’t think David and other advocates are blind to reports like this.

        http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/6092#comment-67227

        http://dbsjeyaraj.com/dbsj/archives/6092#comment-67307

        There were many reports to the effect that the mosque was illegal, but no one is vocal but want to keep silent or a culprit wants to slip away from it using the muscular power of the mouth, they are colour blind to opposite facts.

        6. How can you explain this abnormal behaviour of the aggrieved party in Sri Lankan context. The behaviour can be justified in Davisd’s Utopian Land, not in ground realities in the Sri Laknan context.

        What David’s strategy was to shoot the messenger not the message. He bashes me as a supporter of the monks, it is untrue and irrelevant to the argument, there is no dispute regarding monks wrong activity.

        He wants to show me as a friend of the government and a racist to gain undue advantage of popularity, rather than sticking to the argument.

        He just wanted to show the government mechanism as a escape goat to cover up the reluctance of the aggrieved party to pursue the legal action.

        He approves lobbying and other means of action and active participation of the aggrieved party but vehemently refuse their any participation or help to proceed it in the legal direction saying it is nothing but a responsibility of the police. I think David would behave in the same manner if some thing happened to even to his toe nail even by a mistake of an outside party. He would sleep tucking his hands and the head between his hind legs until the police pursue the case and prosecute the culprits.

        7. Illegal structure is not something to be concerned according to this gentlemen, but only illegal attacks. Illegal acts of civil nature are not illegal for him, but only criminal things. He seems to be interested in criminal activities alone.

        8. He just want to rely us on news reports chosen by him, and the strategy against fact forwarded by is just denials and demanding further evidence from my mouth alone, he does want to keep his eyes straight not to see them.

        9. He wants to brand the effect the conflict as wrong indemnifying the root causes. He does not want to see at the illegality of the mosque, without which nothing of the sort would have happened. He protect the root cause as sacred.

        There are many more to expose. Crookedness is not an alternative for genuine arguments. Honesty is one of the best policies if it is not the one. David is well known for using unethical strategies from the beginning of the history. You can talk irrelevant vagaries instead of the points relevant to the argument to confuse others. However, it does not work with me. You have put too much money on your dishonesty, but it is no problem for me.

        Thanks!

      • Yapa, one of the symptoms of insanity is that one thinks everyone else is in insane 😀

        I advised you not to use words you don’t understand the meaning of: do you know what aspiration means? Why would I aspire to your inanity and lack of articulation?

        Meanwhile, when are you going to answer the questions?

      • Gamarala

        So Yapa presents two random forum posts from unknown commentators as evidence of the Mosque’s illegality?

        I must say, that your evidence is two clowns short of a circus.

      • “the issue does not limit to that four questions alone.”

        If there are other questions, do voice them. But in the meantime, it is important that you answer these questions since they address your argument; namely, that the mosque is illegal, and that action against criminals necessitates a formal complaint.

        “On the other hand he has not answered many more than four questions posed by me, but slipped away giving cunning word puzzles.”

        They are puzzles only to the stupid and ignorant. If I haven’t answered a question put, you need simply reiterate the question, as I have done with you.

        “He is appealing to popularity, and it is easy strategy, but it is not the truth. I posted a story from the Arabian Nights to expose the fallacious nature of his arguments, but Groundviews did not give space to it for some reason.”

        Perhaps GV is under the impression that fairy tales have nothing to do with a discussion on the law. Strange people, these GV editors.

        “You will see how those for questions were irrelevant, and nothing more than a crafty plot planned in order to trick the truth in a dishonest intention.”

        If they are irrelevant, do show us how they are irrelevant; as I have done with your arguments.

        “But I have no problem in exposing such treachery.”

        Will you do a similar exposure as your beloved monk did in Dambulla? 😀

        “Slipping away from questions is his strategy, it has never been my trait.”

        Then you should have no problem answering those questions put to you.

        “He might in the wrong notion that David is David. No it is a misconception.”

        I am indeed David 😀

        “Please wait and see. I will strip off his crookedness.”

        How long must we wait? You promised to do similar strippings over a year ago. Unfortunately, your thalagoya friend in Dambulla has already beaten you to it and stripped in public.

        “You seem to believe the fairy tale that history repeats. David cannot deceive for ever with his catapult. Your cunning tactics never deceive Goliaths for ever.”

        David did not deceive Goliath, he killed him. Which fairy tale have you been reading?

        “Your strategy seems to be to rest arguments on the fallacious notion that Enemy’s enemy is a friend to show that I am an enemy to the readership. But the truth is the opposite. People engage in dishonest endeavours by distorting fact is the common enemy.”

        Instead of whining about being victimized, why don’t you just answer the questions and convince us of your superior strategy and intellect.

        “1.There is no dispute about the wrong illegal action of the monks and thugs. I and you also condemned that action, and at the very beginning I said they should be brought into book. So the action of the monks cannot be a point of debate between “the David” and me. It is something irrelevant to the debate.”

        There is indeed a dispute; and that is that while you term arson and vandalism to be merely “illegal” (and below in point 6 as simply “mistakes”), I have termed it as criminal. Your failure to understand the difference is at the core of your belief that civil action can address a crime. It cannot. If you will admit that you do not understand this, I can explain it to you. If you instead pretend to understand, you will continue to be ignorant.

        “2. At the very beginning of the debate, I condemned the inaction of the government including the president and the Defence Secretory. I think one cannot attribute their faults on me as well.”

        Can you link to any such condemnation that you have made? I cannot see it. On the other hand, you have justified the authorities’ inaction by inventing the notion that the victim must make a formal complaint to initiate such action.

        “3. I reiterated legal action should be taken against the culprits who behaved in the illegal manner in the incident, and my position was despite the reluctance of the police to pursue the legal proceedings.”

        Once again, your ignorance of the difference between criminal and civil leads you to believe that the latter can replace the former. This is an ignorance of even the basics of law.

        “4. I showed that they (aggrieved party)had enough strength and resource to go in that line, but they had opted for other alternatives other than the legal procedure.

        You did not, since as I pointed out, neither strength nor resources can change the judicial system which does not allow a private citizen to conduct either a criminal investigation nor a prosecution. Only the authorities can do that.

        “There were simple additional efforts needed to pursue in that line, like making a formal and descriptive complain to the Police but they didn’t do.”

        Firstly, the have made such a complaint (and I have linked you to the news item confirming it), though you refuse to accept that fact; and secondly, such a complaint is not necessary for an investigation to be conducted. You insist that the latter is necessary, and I have asked you to quote the law or precedent that dictates this. You have failed to do so.

        “If they did make a complain it is nothing more than to follow the procedure and to use it as an eye wash.”

        So after insisting that a complaint is necessary (even though it is not), you attempt to invalidate that very complaint by falsely attributing an ulterior motive to it. I say falsely, because an attempt to follow procedure can be suspect only if the motive itself is suspect. There is no evidence of any such suspicious activity, and you are unable to provide any, in spite of repeated questioning. You are simply trying to tarnish the victims by unsubstantiated insinuations. This reveals the low morality of your character.

        “If the police did not proceed with they could have complained to the IGP. That didn’t happen. They could have brought that into the attention of the executive and push the case towards taking legal action against the culprits. That didn’t happen.”

        It has happened. Complaints have been made to the president (the executive). In spite of now recommending such a course, you had previously termed such actions “illegal”.

        “They could have report to the judiciary that their grievances were not heard by the police and complain against the police to judiciary. Any injustice done to even an individual in principle can be reported to the judiciary expecting justice and relief. They lacked no money or able people to help them go in this line.”

        They may yet do this, if other forms of pressure do not work. It is their choice which course to take and when, and aspersions on their honesty cannot be made by you simply because you disagree with them.

        “Even though David just deny without any basis, the case could have taken as a private plaint. Either he is ignorant or dishonest in this case as well.”

        In order for you to prove my ignorance and/or dishonesty, I have asked you to quote the law or precedent that shows a private plaint in a civil court can be used to convict a person in a criminal matter. You have been unable to do so, obviously, instead proving your own dishonesty and ignorance.

        “David has no proof even to the fact that even a single complaint was made by the “aggrieved party” to Police, he just slipped away from the question saying that he is not the OIC of Dambulla.”

        I did no such thing. Why are you resorting to outright lies? I furnished you the evidence in the form of the news report on the complaint. I said I wasn’t the OIC when you asked me for the details of the complaint (name of complainant, receiving officer, etc) which only the police and the complainant have the details of.

        “He has been persistently denied the necessity of the arrived party’s enthusiasm to pursue the case.”

        I’m not sure what the above means, since your grammar and syntax is so appalling. Why don’t you use simple language instead of confusing yourself by trying to sound educated? What is this arrived party? It is you that has adjudged their level of enthusiasm, not I.

        “He cannot not to have any knowledge how the things happen in Sri Lanka. You will never be able to get even a birth certificate, without harbouring it going after this fellow and that fellow. It is impossible he cannot have such knowledge how the matters happen in Sri Lanka. Contrary to this normal behaviour in Sri Lanka, evOn the other hand everything happened in a totally different mode and David suddenly wants things to happen just according to the book. That is good strategy.”

        Again, what does the above mean??? 😀 What has a birth certificate got to do with my having no knowledge of the details of a complaint? On the other hand, how is it that you cannot quote the law you claim the building of the mosque violates?

        “When the case of illegality of the mosque came up with the evidence many champions forget they have a mouth and only the David wants to use foul strategy to cover up its illegality with crooked nonsense.”

        So where is this evidence? That is one of my four questions to you.

        “Why others are silent on this matter. Why the don’t answer the Divisional Secretory who said the mosque was illegal or why not take action against her.”

        Why should action be taken against her, when no action has been taken against the mosque? If her claim is used to justify the demolition of the mosque, then action can be taken. You seem to be eager for action to be taken against anyone but your beloved criminal monks 😀

        “I don’t think David and other advocates are blind to reports like this.”

        Not blind; just skeptical. Who is Jagath Jayawardene and “NAK” (whatever that is), and under what laws have they proclaimed the mosque illegal?

        “There were many reports to the effect that the mosque was illegal, but no one is vocal but want to keep silent or a culprit wants to slip away from it using the muscular power of the mouth, they are colour blind to opposite facts.”

        However many reports (or rumours) that the mosque is illegal, these are irrelevant if the law that prohibits the mosque cannot be found.

        6. How can you explain this abnormal behaviour of the aggrieved party in Sri Lankan context.”

        On what grounds do you say the behaviour is abnormal? It is for this reason that I asked you to quote the laws or precedents that dictate what you suggest is “normal”> You have failed to do so 😀

        “The behaviour can be justified in Davisd’s Utopian Land, not in ground realities in the Sri Laknan context.”

        Actually, they can be justified by law (and I have done so). What are the ground realities you believe justify breaking the law?

        “What David’s strategy was to shoot the messenger not the message. He bashes me as a supporter of the monks, it is untrue and irrelevant to the argument, there is no dispute regarding monks wrong activity.”

        To the contrary, it is your message (ie that the victims are responsible for prosecution of criminals, and that the victims in this case are guilty of illegalities) that I have shot down convincingly. Your defense of the monks criminality is also quite worthy of a bashing.

        “He wants to show me as a friend of the government and a racist to gain undue advantage of popularity, rather than sticking to the argument.”

        Lol, where have I suggested you are a friend of the government? With friends like you, the government wouldn’t need enemies!

        “He just wanted to show the government mechanism as a escape goat to cover up the reluctance of the aggrieved party to pursue the legal action.”

        There is no such government mechanism that can be made an “escape” goat 😀 It is the failure by the authorities to follow the legal mechanism that is enabling a cover up of the monks’ crimes.

        “He approves lobbying and other means of action and active participation of the aggrieved party”

        I have neither approved nor disapproved their choice of action; I have only approved them being the choice.

        “but vehemently refuse their any participation or help to proceed it in the legal direction saying it is nothing but a responsibility of the police.”

        It certainly is the responsibility and the duty of the authorities to investigate criminals. Private citizens cannot do so, and to attempt it would be illegal. Are you advocating such illegal actions?

        “I think David would behave in the same manner if some thing happened to even to his toe nail even by a mistake of an outside party.”

        Are you suggesting that the arson attack, vandalism, and public indecency (not to mention racism and bigotry) of the monks were “mistakes”? If they were mistakes, how can you claim to advocate legal action against them as you have said in point 1?

        “He would sleep tucking his hands and the head between his hind legs until the police pursue the case and prosecute the culprits.”

        Are you suggesting that I must take the law into my own hands and pursue the criminals myself?

        “7. Illegal structure is not something to be concerned according to this gentlemen, but only illegal attacks.”

        I am very concerned with illegal structures, but I want them first proved illegal. This is one of my four questions to you — can you prove the mosque illegal? Up to now, you have failed to do so 😀

        “Illegal acts of civil nature are not illegal for him, but only criminal things.”

        Acts tried in civil court are not necessarily illegal. Again, if you knew the difference between the civil and the criminal, you wouldn’t be making such a fool of yourself 😀 Civil courts concern themselves with damages (or the prevention thereof), not illegalities. Eg: a man may not be doing anything illegal in divorcing his wife for another woman, but she can still sue him for damages in a civil court, and may be awarded compensation.

        “He seems to be interested in criminal activities alone.”

        I think violent crime should take precedence over property disputes, yes.

        “8. He just want to rely us on news reports chosen by him,”

        You are free to choose your own news reports if you can find any that contradict the one I have produced.

        “and the strategy against fact forwarded by is just denials and demanding further evidence from my mouth alone, he does want to keep his eyes straight not to see them.”

        Not sure what that sentence is supposed to mean 😀 but I haven’t asked for evidence from your mouth (we’ve all seen the nonsense that comes out of that hole), but for evidence. At the beginning you said you don’t want to place faith in whims and fancies; neither do I. I prefer evidence. I have the same stance when it comes to accusations of war crimes — the Darusman Report suggests that the allegations are credible enough. It seems you agree, Yapa.

        “9. He wants to brand the effect the conflict as wrong indemnifying the root causes. He does not want to see at the illegality of the mosque, without which nothing of the sort would have happened. He protect the root cause as sacred.”

        It is the criminal acts of the monks that has caused the conflict. If the mosque was illegal, the monks could simply have gone to court and had it demolished. You are very keen to have the victims go to court, but not the criminals 😀 You have a strange view of the law.

        “There are many more to expose.”

        I can’t wait to see these exposures. Will they be as shameful as your beloved monk’s public exposure of his genitals?

        Crookedness is not an alternative for genuine arguments. Honesty is one of the best policies if it is not the one.”

        Then why do you persist with crookedness and dishonesty?

        “David is well known for using unethical strategies from the beginning of the history.”

        You mean asking for evidence is an unethical strategy? Then you must be of the opinion that the GoSL is being unethical in asking for evidence of war crimes. I see.

        “You can talk irrelevant vagaries instead of the points relevant to the argument to confuse others. However, it does not work with me.”

        Evidence and the law is very relevant in a discussion on a legal dispute. It is irrelevant only to the criminals.

        “You have put too much money on your dishonesty, but it is no problem for me.”

        Glad to hear it. Could you then (with no problem) answer these questions that you have been unable to thus far:

        1. Can you quote the law that forbade the building of that mosque?
        2. Can you prove in any way whatsoever that the mosque is illegal?
        3. Can you quote the legal precedent that allowed a civil court to rule in a criminal matter?
        4. Can you quote the law that states the victim must make a formal complaint in order that the authorities act in a criminal matter?

        Thanks! 😀

      • PitastharaPuthraya

        Yapa,

        1. Police does not need a complaint from somebody to take action on criminal offences. If some one is murdered, even if the body is unidentified police should initiate criminal investigations in to the murder. That day, police was present during the whole episode. Therefore, there is no need of anybody to put a formal complaint to the police.

        2. Do you know for sure whether they had complained to the police or not? DB says that they did to the President. If that is corrrect, why should they complain to Dambulla police as they have alredy complained to the all powerful president, supreme commander of armed forces. Moreover, when looking at the behaviour of the police and government officals that day do you expect the muslims to have any faith in the police? Can you blame them for not complaining to police?

        3. Any body can say that the mosque is illegal. So far no body has proved it. The legal guardians of the mosque do not have to prove it. Your neigbour can say that your house has been constructed on a land belong to him. To prove that he has to file a case in a civil court and ultimately it is the court decision that matters. That is the simple truth. If you are free please go to any civil court you will find hundreds of people who have been trying to prove somebody’s land/house is illegal for years, while the defendents are happily living in the disputed properties.

        4. Although you and DB are up in arms debating this issue the matter seems to have been settled at the highest level. After all, all the powerful muslim politicians are with the governement, MR is not going to gain anything by supporting Dambulla Monks, the muslim countries expressed their concerns, the Sinhala buddhists nationalist, who are with government haven’t taken this issue further probably Dambulla monks are not with them. After all Dambulla monks seem to be not so powerful.

        3. You should question the Dambulla monks, not the mosque, for failing to file a case in the court to prove that it is illegal. As you know, these land disputes are not simple. I suspect, Dambulla monks know that they can not prove that the land belong to them. That’s why they do not take legal action.

      • yapa

        DB should not waste that much of words out of the argument.

        My argument was simple.

        While agreeing that the attack on the mosque (whether it is legal or illegal)was wrong and punishable under the penal code, what I said was reaction to the incident too was not reasonable and gone to the extremes that it would bring negative effect to the country than benefits.

        I think, any sensible man would not refuse this notion if he is honest.

        [Edited out]

        Thanks!

      • yapa

        “It is the criminal acts of the monks that has caused the conflict. If the mosque was illegal, the monks could simply have gone to court and had it demolished. You are very keen to have the victims go to court, but not the criminals 😀 You have a strange view of the law.”

        Criminals and law breakers never want to go to court. I think that explains the whole episode.

        Thanks!

      • “DB should not waste that much of words out of the argument.”

        Unfortunately, this was necessary since my words within the argument were beyond your intelligence.

        “My argument was simple.”

        It is not just your argument that is simple. However, my argument is that you are wrong.

        “While agreeing that the attack on the mosque (whether it is legal or illegal)was wrong and punishable under the penal code,”

        How can it be punishable under the penal code if you’re unsure that the act is illegal? 😀 Also, how is it that you’re unsure if arson and vandalism are illegal acts? I thought you said you had extensive experience of the law?

        “what I said was reaction to the incident too was not reasonable and gone to the extremes that it would bring negative effect to the country than benefits.”

        No, that is not what you said. What you did say was that the reaction to the incident was wrong, and a reason to avoid an investigation of the incident. I can quote your exact words if your memory is failing 😉 You also haven’t shown us how peaceful protests and political pressure could be taken to anti-SL extremes. Rather, your argument has shown us how the state support of religious extremism, coupled with an unwillingness to follow the law of the land can bring both the country and Buddhism into disrepute.

        “I think, any sensible man would not refuse this notion if he is honest.”

        Regardless of your faulty grasp of the concept of honesty (not to mention justice and sensibility), I have easily refuted your notions, and you have no further argument beyond questioning my motives.

        “Criminals and law breakers never want to go to court. I think that explains the whole episode.”

        This statement evidences my earlier point that it isn’t just your argument that is simple. But I am glad to see that you now accept that the monks who avoided court and instead chose to commit arson and vandalism are indeed the criminals in this incident; a point that has taken you several weeks to understand 😀

      • yapa

        Dear DB;

        ..I am glad to see that you now accept that the monks who avoided court and instead chose to commit arson and vandalism are indeed the criminals in this incident; a point that has taken you several weeks to understand :D”

        Eventually you have understood a bit of what I have been trying to teach you.

        It has been a hectic task. All my students grasped subtle theories in Physics much easier than this. If you were a Physics student I don’t know how much I would have to teach a single concept. I was very fortunate.

        Thanks!

      • Lol, Yapa, you remind me of Saddam Hussein who, after he was driven out of Kuwait in 1991 with heavy losses, declared that it was in fact his original strategy and that he had therefore won the war 😀 So are you now declaring that you spent the last couple of weeks trying to convince all of us that the monks were criminals worthy of investigation, and nothing more? I once told you that I pity your students for the karma of being saddled with a rogue for a teacher. Your intellectual dishonesty has once more confirmed it. Perhaps you missed out on this when I first wrote it, so do enjoy it even now; I doubt you’ll be able to take anything out of it though: http://blacklightarrow.wordpress.com/2011/03/09/blacklight-manual-bm-9876-counter-guerrilla-intellectual-operations/

      • Dear DB;

        I think your intellectual capacity doesn’t permit you to distinguish dishonesty from honesty. Otherwise you wouldn’t have painted one party in black and the other party in snow white in Dambulla incident.

        It was my fault to have engaged with intellectually disabled in discussions.

        Thanks!

      • Yapa, intellectualism isn’t required to recognize honesty; only intelligence and morality is required. You possess neither. Therefore, I think it is clear where the with whom the disability lies.

      • “Yapa, intellectualism isn’t required to recognize honesty;”

        That must be the reason for your display of lack of respect for honesty.

        Thanks!

  • Dear Saban;

    Following is in support of my argument put forward above.

    American Justice

    “America professes to be the leading champion of international humanitarian law. But no other nation has, in the post-World War II period — a period dominated by America, violated international conventions and international humanitarian law as America. And they do it brazenly without any compunction. Consider how Madeline Albright, US Secretary of State (1989 – 2001) justified the unnecessary deaths in Iraq in an interview on “60 Minutes” programme of CBS (May 12, 1996). The interviewer questioned about the 500,000 children (UNICEF figures) that died in Iraq as a result of the US-led and UN -sanctioned embargo on the supply of essential items, including food and medicine, to Saddam Hussain’s Iraq.
    Interviewer: The half-a-million children that died were more than in Hiroshima. Was it worth it?”
    Albright: “It was a hard choice, but the price was worth it.””

    http://www.lakbimanews.lk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5427:kumar-david-writes&catid=46:columns&Itemid=50

    Thanks!

      • sabbe laban

        Yapa

        The whole point is not whether America was fair or the Sri Lankan Government was fair towards the monorities. As you say, when the little creatures continue to annoy the “big one”, a stage would come when the “big one” stands up and fights back. According to you this is what happened to the LTTE. I asked you, wouldn’t the same thing happen when Sri Lanka continues to annoy a “giant” like America? Whether America has been fair or not in the past is irrelevent here!

      • Dear Saban;

        It is true we cannot rule out the possibility. However, I think that possibility is very low, according to my opinion.

        The significance of attacking the LTTE was very crucial for the existence of the “big one”, but in the case of the “giant” the significance to attack us is very infinitesimal to the “giant”. So, I think we can safely conclude that the giant will not attack us at least the way the “big one” attacked the LTTE.

        I think the intensity of the “attack” is a factor depending on the degree of threat leveled at its existence. However, it also could depend on the advantage the attack give to the attacker, and the opinion against and for the attack.

        I don’t think the “giant” would throw its fishing line to catch a sprat.

        Thanks!

      • sabbe laban

        Yapa

        Even that fish called “clown fish” is never attacked by the sea animony, because it has the some of the sea animony stuff on its body!

        But, if that immmunity is gone and if the fish is coated with different stuff, the anomony will swallow it!

        If the sprat too continues to team up with other “sharks” whom the giant considers as “rogues”, it would take action.

        The giant might not do what it did in Libya right away, but it could destroy the sprat economically, because the sprat still depends on the giant and his friends, in apite of its boasting to the contrary!

        Still we may continue to exist like Burma or N.Korea!

      • Dear Saban;

        I do not approve the action of the Clown Fish of the government. I think you will understand my position, I am for the nation, not for the government.

        Thanks!