The Rupavahini workers are being assaulted by goons. The workers allege that it is all the work of a Minister who stormed into their office a few weeks ago and intimidated their bosses for not publicizing his political speech. It is the fifth such attack and the politicized Police Force or Farce, seem to be in slumber. Hitherto it has been the Tamil and Muslim community that was at the receiving end of a murderous bunch cloaked with authority. Now it would seem it doesn’t’ matter if the victim is Sinhala Muslim or Tamil. All are fair game.
What has happened to the Rule of Law? Abductions, disappearances, extra-judicial killings are rampant. Journalists are being killed or assaulted. But the President blandly states on TV that the government is not responsible. Whether it is responsible or not for the incidents it is responsible for failing to curb them. The Rule of Law is based on the premise that the state alone has the monopoly of force in the country. Anybody else who uses violence should be stopped and brought to justice. If a government, any government is unable or unwilling to stop underworld elements exercising force with impunity then such government loses its moral authority to govern.
Foreign organizations who criticize the government for its failure to uphold human rights and media freedom are told that all this is necessary to carry on the ‘war on terror’. Apologists for the government point to USA and its violations of the Human Rights in Iraq or Afghanistan. True indeed. But human rights are not based on American or British example. The commitment to human dignity for all is enunciated in all religions including Buddhism. Even during the Rama-Ravana war Lakshmanan forbade he use of poisoned arrows. That is International Humanitarian Law today- to minimize civilian casualties, to protect the injured even if they were combatants, not descrate the corpses of enemy dead and so on. These are the norms of International Humanitarian Law and those commit offences against such law are guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
Ever since its inception, the rule of law movement’s greatest strength has been its commitment to human dignity for all and not the example of Western nations. Its fundamental premise–that all humans, by virtue of their humanity, merit the full and equal protection of the law–draws upon ethical as well as strictly legal underpinnings. Issues which used to be considered “local” are increasingly intertwined with “international” law, institutions, and interests. Given the speed of contemporary communications, the publication in a Danish newspaper of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed rapidly escalates into a global crisis. Around the world, courts created to try perpetrators of mass crimes–genocide and crimes against humanity–blend national and international norms, practices, and personnel. Even in the United States, where ignorance of, and/or resistance to, international law persists in some quarters (and where domestic “civil” rights have long been differentiated from international “human” rights), reports about the mistreatment of detainees in American custody at Guantanamo and in secret facilities worldwide have made the Geneva Conventions and their “Common Article 3” more familiar terms.
Terrorism indeed is a genuine threat to human rights and an open society, and it clearly must be addressed. The LTTE as well as the Para-military groups have to be condemned. Nonetheless, a host of problems not directly linked to terrorism still require attention, even if they do not grab the headlines.
A somewhat random sample of “everyday” justice issues might include: improving prevention of ordinary crimes (e.g., theft, robbery) through better police performance, improved mechanisms of internal and civilian oversight, and enhanced community law enforcement collaboration; addressing and reducing massively high rates of over-incarceration of Tamils taken in as suspects and detained in police custody. Their families are not often informed despite the provision in the law. They are deprived of access to lawyers. These persons can be detained for a year without proffering any charges. Hardly anybody is allowed access to them. These matters have to be addressed by the President.