Suren R

I’m glad that you are alert to my comfort and I wish you the same. Our determinants however are markedly different – while you obviously choose to envelop yourself in a litany of issues that support that which you want to so desperately hold and believe to be true, I on the other hand articulate through my own writing and through Groundviews a point of view that is diametrically opposed to such narrow, parochial interpretations of our zeitgeist. Accordingly, while I wouldn’t call you deluded, as noted earlier, your inability to engage with the content here speaks for itself.

Sanjana

The Tamil version of the report is also online at http://www2.peacelibrary.org/2570

The English version, linked in the story above, is available at http://www2.peacelibrary.org/2568

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

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

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

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

Deal with that.

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

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

I suppose I can be a dreamer.

Just added a link to the final report to the story above. FMM has also updated their website with the full text of the report. No news on the availability of the Sinhala & Tamil versions – please contact FMM directly if you need them.

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

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

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

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

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