Features
THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND GENOCIDE
by Vijaya Chandrasoma
The first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791. The First Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.
The Presidents of Harvard (Claudine Gay), MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sally Kornbluth) and the University of Pennsylvania (Liz Magill) were summoned, on December 5, before a Congressional hearing relating to anti-Semitism protests on college campuses. Mass protests and counter protests held since the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israelis and the Israelis’ subsequent airstrikes, bombings and ground invasions on Gaza in response.
First, anti-Muslim protests after the atrocities against an estimated 1,200Israeli civilians, men, women and children, tortured, beheaded and burnt by Hamas terrorists on October 7. The terrorists also kidnapped over 240 hostages, Israeli, American and civilians of other nationalities during the attack.
Second, anti-Israel protests, when the Hamas’ acts of terrorism were immediately followed by indiscriminate airstrikes and bombings in Northern Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). In addition, IDF ground forces have begun flooding the tunnels of Gaza in an attempt to flush out the terrorists. These attacks have been continuing relentlessly for over two months, so far claiming the lives of nearly 20,000 Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children, and seriously wounding a further 35,000, while ravaging the infrastructure of Gaza City and its environs, including hospitals, schools and refugee camps.
The savage attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians on October 7 was a war crime which ended that day, though the terrorists are still holding about 135 of the originally kidnapped 240 hostages in inhumane conditions in the tunnels of Northern Gaza. But the inexorable airstrikes and bombings on Gaza by the IDF against Palestinian civilians, most of whom were not complicit in the October 7 atrocity by Hamas, constitute a never-ending series of war crimes, fast approaching levels of genocide.
Although members of the Security Council of the United Nations, bar the USA (and a non-committal UK) have been repeatedly calling for a ceasefire, Israel has not complied; but for a seven-day “humanitarian pause” to conduct an exchange of hostages. The truce fell through when the Israelis accused Hamas of not honoring their side of the bargain. The attacks resumed immediately thereafter.
Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, has since resisted all such calls for a ceasefire. He is determined to continue the war against Gaza until all Hamas terrorists are killed and all hostages returned, unharmed. How many more murders of Palestinian civilians will satisfy the blood thirst of Netanyahu and the members of his hardline Likud Party, as revenge for the atrocities of that one day in October?
Actually, Netanyahu has already answered this question, when he stated last month: “The war will continue until we have achieved complete victory”, by which he means the elimination, by displacement, genocide or any other means, of the entire race of Palestinians, and the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel.
The Congressional hearing on December 5 featured fourth ranking Republican in the House, Elise Stefanik. Her question to the Presidents of these prestigious universities demanded a Yes or No answer, with neither qualification nor prevarication. A question of the “Gotcha” variety, which ensured that the response of the interviewee will be detrimental and humiliating to herself, however she responds.
The loaded question to the lady Presidents of three of the most famous universities in the world was: “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate – Upenn’s, Harvard’s, MIT’s – rules of bullying and harassment in its Code of Conduct? Yes or No?”
Loaded because the question would be impossible to answer with a simple Yes or No. The answer would have to be qualified on two counts.
First, the omission the words “of Jews”, if genocide of all stripes would have so violated the universities’ Codes of Conduct, may have tempered the political flavor of the original question. However, even the answer to that question would prove impossible to answer with a simple Yes or No, as it would have to be qualified as to whether “calling for genocide”, which in itself constitutes free speech within First Amendment rights, had led to violence or criminal activity.
Protests and the freedom of assembly are protected by the First Amendment. However, there is a grey area, subject to interpretation, when such protests, combined with hate speech, result in violence or the commission of criminal activity.
Hate speech, though, is not a First Amendment term, and there is no defined line at which free speech crosses onto hate speech. Indeed, there is doubt whether such a line exists at all. The general consensus of constitutional scholars is that the line would be crossed only if speech leads to, or is designed to incite, criminal activity.
All three Presidents of these universities refused to give the easy answer, to take the easy way out, as could be expected of ladies of high intelligence, education and integrity. They are above the need, unlike Ms. Stefanik, to seek sensational publicity, or to score cheap political points.
They all went by a strict interpretation of the First Amendment, that the Universities’ Code of Conduct would be violated only depending on the context, whether such student protests had led to or incited violence or criminal behavior. As the President of Harvard, Ms. Claudine Gay said, the answer would be context-dependent on the interpretation of the aforementioned grey area of the First Amendment.
Congresswoman Stefanik expressed indignation at what she opined was an equivocal response, which sidestepped the question and did not condemn strongly enough the anti-Semitic furore at these universities. Though she did succeed in achieving the backlash she sought, protests from the general public, including the powerful Jewish lobby and threats of withdrawal of donations. And probably more importantly, earned herself brownie points with Trump, who had probably initiated the question with the political motive of earning the approval of the Jewish community.
After the initial reaction of horror by the Jewish community and the radical right subsided, many constitutional scholars have now recognized that Stefanik’s question was a political hit job, designed to elicit pro-Israel sentiments from the presidents of these prestigious universities. These learned lawyers agreed that the university presidents’ qualified response was perfectly in keeping with the US constitution and the Codes of Conduct of Harvard, MIT, UPenn and other universities.
However, under intense pressure as a result of the turmoil caused after the hearings, Liz Magill, President of UPenn, resigned her post; and the Presidents of Harvard and MIT tendered their apologies after condemnation of their response by the Jewish community, members of Congress and even the White House.
The statement by the White House spokesman, Andrew Bates, signifies the hitherto blind support of Israel by the USA. He said, “Any statements that advocate the systematic murder of Jews are dangerous and revolting – and we should all stand firmly against them, on the side of human dignity and the most basic values that unite us as Americans”. Completely ignoring the fact that the systematic, dangerous and revolting murder under current reference is being executed by the Jews against Palestinian civilians, and the human dignity under attack is that of defenseless Palestinian men, women and children.
The First Amendment is one of the main lines of defense exploited by the twice impeached, four times indicted former President of the United States, in many of the 91 felonies with which he has been charged, arrested and is on bail.
Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, inciting a mob of white supremacist terrorists he had assembled to attack the Capitol, was considered to be protected under the free speech clause of the First Amendment, by Ms. Stefanik and the Republican Party. In spite of the fact that Trump’s speech incited those insurrectionists to attack the Seat of Democracy of the nation, to kill and maim hundreds of police officers defending the Capitol, and to threaten the lives of lawmakers who had convened to perform their constitutional duty of certifying Joe Biden’s presidency. An insurrection that nearly brought America’s democracy to its knees.
So, according to the legal expertise of Elise Stefanik and the Republican Party, the First Amendment protects the free speech of a criminal president, although it directly resulted in the worst political violence in the nation since the Civil War.
This while protests by university students, expressing condemnation against the ongoing genocide of Palestinian civilians, violate the same free speech clause of the First Amendment, on grounds that they may result in the unlawful harassment of Jewish students.
No such congressional hearings were deemed necessary to question the constitutional validity of anti-Hamas protests after October 7, when innocent Muslim students were violently harassed. A double standard of hypocrisy, the classic hallmark of the Party of Trump.
We have been inured over the years against all kinds of lying and treachery of Trump and the radical, white supremacist cult that is the Republican Party. But to see President Biden recently approving a supply of $106 million worth of ammunition for tanks to enable Netanyahu continue the massacre at Gaza was deeply distressing. As was the lame response of Secretary of State Blinken when asked about the administration’s motive for the supply of this ammunition:
“Washington remains committed to supporting Israel’s right to self-defense, but has stepped up calls for Israel to comply with international law and protect civilians”. No explanation as to how this call for Israel’s compliance with international law is being monitored. Also, how Israel’s relentless onslaught on Gaza for over two months could possibly be construed as “Israel’s right to self-defense” is beyond comprehension.
However, at long last, American complicity in the current Israeli war crimes in Gaza seems to be cooling, in the face of global outrage. The Biden administration is openly criticizing Israel’s continuing genocide against Palestinians in North Gaza. In fact, just last Tuesday, Biden said that “Israel is losing international support over the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza”, expressing concern that the “most conservative government in Israeli’s history” is making progress in the resolution of the conflict “difficult”. Netanyahu responded that there was “disagreement with Biden over how a post-conflict Gaza would be governed”.
This exchange seems to indicate a rift in Biden/Netanyahu relations, providing stark contrast to Biden’s literal and political embrace of the Israeli Prime Minister in Tel Aviv days after the October 7 attacks.
The Americans may have finally realized that Netanyahu and the majority of the Israelis have never had any interest in a two-state solution. They will not stop the war in Gaza until all Palestinians are eliminated, one way or another, so successfully completing the genocide that has been in progress over the past 75 years. The Final One State Solution. The Promised Land.
by Dr Gotabhya Ranasinghe
Senior Consultant Cardiologist
National Hospital Sri Lanka
When we sought a meeting with Hon Dr. Ramesh Pathirana, Minister of Health, he graciously cleared his busy schedule to accommodate us. Renowned for his attentive listening and deep understanding, Minister Pathirana is dedicated to advancing the health sector. His openness and transparency exemplify the qualities of an exemplary politician and minister.
Dr. Palitha Mahipala, the current Health Secretary, demonstrates both commendable enthusiasm and unwavering support. This combination of attributes makes him a highly compatible colleague for the esteemed Minister of Health.
Our discussion centered on a project that has been in the works for the past 30 years, one that no other minister had managed to advance.
Minister Pathirana, however, recognized the project’s significance and its potential to revolutionize care for heart patients.
The project involves the construction of a state-of-the-art facility at the premises of the National Hospital Colombo. The project’s location within the premises of the National Hospital underscores its importance and relevance to the healthcare infrastructure of the nation.
This facility will include a cardiology building and a tertiary care center, equipped with the latest technology to handle and treat all types of heart-related conditions and surgeries.
Securing funding was a major milestone for this initiative. Minister Pathirana successfully obtained approval for a $40 billion loan from the Asian Development Bank. With the funding in place, the foundation stone is scheduled to be laid in September this year, and construction will begin in January 2025.
This project guarantees a consistent and uninterrupted supply of stents and related medications for heart patients. As a result, patients will have timely access to essential medical supplies during their treatment and recovery. By securing these critical resources, the project aims to enhance patient outcomes, minimize treatment delays, and maintain the highest standards of cardiac care.
Upon its fruition, this monumental building will serve as a beacon of hope and healing, symbolizing the unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes and fostering a healthier society.We anticipate a future marked by significant progress and positive outcomes in Sri Lanka’s cardiovascular treatment landscape within the foreseeable timeframe.
by Fr. Emmanuel Fernando, OMI
Jesuit Fr. Aloysius Pieris (affectionately called Fr. Aloy) celebrated his 90th birthday on April 9, 2024 and I, as the editor of our Oblate Journal, THE MISSIONARY OBLATE had gone to press by that time. Immediately I decided to publish an article, appreciating the untiring selfless services he continues to offer for inter-Faith dialogue, the renewal of the Catholic Church, his concern for the poor and the suffering Sri Lankan masses and to me, the present writer.
It was in 1988, when I was appointed Director of the Oblate Scholastics at Ampitiya by the then Oblate Provincial Fr. Anselm Silva, that I came to know Fr. Aloy more closely. Knowing well his expertise in matters spiritual, theological, Indological and pastoral, and with the collaborative spirit of my companion-formators, our Oblate Scholastics were sent to Tulana, the Research and Encounter Centre, Kelaniya, of which he is the Founder-Director, for ‘exposure-programmes’ on matters spiritual, biblical, theological and pastoral. Some of these dimensions according to my view and that of my companion-formators, were not available at the National Seminary, Ampitiya.
Ever since that time, our Oblate formators/ accompaniers at the Oblate Scholasticate, Ampitiya , have continued to send our Oblate Scholastics to Tulana Centre for deepening their insights and convictions regarding matters needed to serve the people in today’s context. Fr. Aloy also had tried very enthusiastically with the Oblate team headed by Frs. Oswald Firth and Clement Waidyasekara to begin a Theologate, directed by the Religious Congregations in Sri Lanka, for the contextual formation/ accompaniment of their members. It should very well be a desired goal of the Leaders / Provincials of the Religious Congregations.
Besides being a formator/accompanier at the Oblate Scholasticate, I was entrusted also with the task of editing and publishing our Oblate journal, ‘The Missionary Oblate’. To maintain the quality of the journal I continue to depend on Fr. Aloy for his thought-provoking and stimulating articles on Biblical Spirituality, Biblical Theology and Ecclesiology. I am very grateful to him for his generous assistance. Of late, his writings on renewal of the Church, initiated by Pope St. John XX111 and continued by Pope Francis through the Synodal path, published in our Oblate journal, enable our readers to focus their attention also on the needed renewal in the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka. Fr. Aloy appreciated very much the Synodal path adopted by the Jesuit Pope Francis for the renewal of the Church, rooted very much on prayerful discernment. In my Religious and presbyteral life, Fr.Aloy continues to be my spiritual animator / guide and ongoing formator / acccompanier.
Fr. Aloysius Pieris, BA Hons (Lond), LPh (SHC, India), STL (PFT, Naples), PhD (SLU/VC), ThD (Tilburg), D.Ltt (KU), has been one of the eminent Asian theologians well recognized internationally and one who has lectured and held visiting chairs in many universities both in the West and in the East. Many members of Religious Congregations from Asian countries have benefited from his lectures and guidance in the East Asian Pastoral Institute (EAPI) in Manila, Philippines. He had been a Theologian consulted by the Federation of Asian Bishops’ Conferences for many years. During his professorship at the Gregorian University in Rome, he was called to be a member of a special group of advisers on other religions consulted by Pope Paul VI.
Fr. Aloy is the author of more than 30 books and well over 500 Research Papers. Some of his books and articles have been translated and published in several countries. Among those books, one can find the following: 1) The Genesis of an Asian Theology of Liberation (An Autobiographical Excursus on the Art of Theologising in Asia, 2) An Asian Theology of Liberation, 3) Providential Timeliness of Vatican 11 (a long-overdue halt to a scandalous millennium, 4) Give Vatican 11 a chance, 5) Leadership in the Church, 6) Relishing our faith in working for justice (Themes for study and discussion), 7) A Message meant mainly, not exclusively for Jesuits (Background information necessary for helping Francis renew the Church), 8) Lent in Lanka (Reflections and Resolutions, 9) Love meets wisdom (A Christian Experience of Buddhism, 10) Fire and Water 11) God’s Reign for God’s poor, 12) Our Unhiddden Agenda (How we Jesuits work, pray and form our men). He is also the Editor of two journals, Vagdevi, Journal of Religious Reflection and Dialogue, New Series.
Fr. Aloy has a BA in Pali and Sanskrit from the University of London and a Ph.D in Buddhist Philosophy from the University of Sri Lankan, Vidyodaya Campus. On Nov. 23, 2019, he was awarded the prestigious honorary Doctorate of Literature (D.Litt) by the Chancellor of the University of Kelaniya, the Most Venerable Welamitiyawe Dharmakirthi Sri Kusala Dhamma Thera.
Fr. Aloy continues to be a promoter of Gospel values and virtues. Justice as a constitutive dimension of love and social concern for the downtrodden masses are very much noted in his life and work. He had very much appreciated the commitment of the late Fr. Joseph (Joe) Fernando, the National Director of the Social and Economic Centre (SEDEC) for the poor.
In Sri Lanka, a few religious Congregations – the Good Shepherd Sisters, the Christian Brothers, the Marist Brothers and the Oblates – have invited him to animate their members especially during their Provincial Congresses, Chapters and International Conferences. The mainline Christian Churches also have sought his advice and followed his seminars. I, for one, regret very much, that the Sri Lankan authorities of the Catholic Church –today’s Hierarchy—- have not sought Fr.
Aloy’s expertise for the renewal of the Catholic Church in Sri Lanka and thus have not benefited from the immense store of wisdom and insight that he can offer to our local Church while the Sri Lankan bishops who governed the Catholic church in the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council (Edmund Fernando OMI, Anthony de Saram, Leo Nanayakkara OSB, Frank Marcus Fernando, Paul Perera,) visited him and consulted him on many matters. Among the Tamil Bishops, Bishop Rayappu Joseph was keeping close contact with him and Bishop J. Deogupillai hosted him and his team visiting him after the horrible Black July massacre of Tamils.
Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement
By Gomi Senadhira
senadhiragomi@gmail.com
“You might tell fairy tales, but the progress of a country cannot be achieved through such narratives. A country cannot be developed by making false promises. The country moved backward because of the electoral promises made by political parties throughout time. We have witnessed that the ultimate result of this is the country becoming bankrupt. Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet.” – President Ranil Wickremesinghe, 2024 Budget speech
Any Sri Lankan would agree with the above words of President Wickremesinghe on the false promises our politicians and officials make and the fairy tales they narrate which bankrupted this country. So, to understand this, let’s look at one such fairy tale with lots of false promises; Ranil Wickremesinghe’s greatest achievement in the area of international trade and investment promotion during the Yahapalana period, Sri Lanka-Singapore Free Trade Agreement (SLSFTA).
It is appropriate and timely to do it now as Finance Minister Wickremesinghe has just presented to parliament a bill on the National Policy on Economic Transformation which includes the establishment of an Office for International Trade and the Sri Lanka Institute of Economics and International Trade.
Was SLSFTA a “Cleverly negotiated Free Trade Agreement” as stated by the (former) Minister of Development Strategies and International Trade Malik Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate on the SLSFTA in July 2018, or a colossal blunder covered up with lies, false promises, and fairy tales? After SLSFTA was signed there were a number of fairy tales published on this agreement by the Ministry of Development Strategies and International, Institute of Policy Studies, and others.
However, for this article, I would like to limit my comments to the speech by Minister Samarawickrama during the Parliamentary Debate, and the two most important areas in the agreement which were covered up with lies, fairy tales, and false promises, namely: revenue loss for Sri Lanka and Investment from Singapore. On the other important area, “Waste products dumping” I do not want to comment here as I have written extensively on the issue.
1. The revenue loss
During the Parliamentary Debate in July 2018, Minister Samarawickrama stated “…. let me reiterate that this FTA with Singapore has been very cleverly negotiated by us…. The liberalisation programme under this FTA has been carefully designed to have the least impact on domestic industry and revenue collection. We have included all revenue sensitive items in the negative list of items which will not be subject to removal of tariff. Therefore, 97.8% revenue from Customs duty is protected. Our tariff liberalisation will take place over a period of 12-15 years! In fact, the revenue earned through tariffs on goods imported from Singapore last year was Rs. 35 billion.
The revenue loss for over the next 15 years due to the FTA is only Rs. 733 million– which when annualised, on average, is just Rs. 51 million. That is just 0.14% per year! So anyone who claims the Singapore FTA causes revenue loss to the Government cannot do basic arithmetic! Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I call on my fellow members of this House – don’t mislead the public with baseless criticism that is not grounded in facts. Don’t look at petty politics and use these issues for your own political survival.”
I was surprised to read the minister’s speech because an article published in January 2018 in “The Straits Times“, based on information released by the Singaporean Negotiators stated, “…. With the FTA, tariff savings for Singapore exports are estimated to hit $10 million annually“.
As the annual tariff savings (that is the revenue loss for Sri Lanka) calculated by the Singaporean Negotiators, Singaporean $ 10 million (Sri Lankan rupees 1,200 million in 2018) was way above the rupees’ 733 million revenue loss for 15 years estimated by the Sri Lankan negotiators, it was clear to any observer that one of the parties to the agreement had not done the basic arithmetic!
Six years later, according to a report published by “The Morning” newspaper, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) on 7th May 2024, Mr Samarawickrama’s chief trade negotiator K.J. Weerasinghehad had admitted “…. that forecasted revenue loss for the Government of Sri Lanka through the Singapore FTA is Rs. 450 million in 2023 and Rs. 1.3 billion in 2024.”
If these numbers are correct, as tariff liberalisation under the SLSFTA has just started, we will pass Rs 2 billion very soon. Then, the question is how Sri Lanka’s trade negotiators made such a colossal blunder. Didn’t they do their basic arithmetic? If they didn’t know how to do basic arithmetic they should have at least done their basic readings. For example, the headline of the article published in The Straits Times in January 2018 was “Singapore, Sri Lanka sign FTA, annual savings of $10m expected”.
Anyway, as Sri Lanka’s chief negotiator reiterated at the COPF meeting that “…. since 99% of the tariffs in Singapore have zero rates of duty, Sri Lanka has agreed on 80% tariff liberalisation over a period of 15 years while expecting Singapore investments to address the imbalance in trade,” let’s turn towards investment.
Investment from Singapore
In July 2018, speaking during the Parliamentary Debate on the FTA this is what Minister Malik Samarawickrama stated on investment from Singapore, “Already, thanks to this FTA, in just the past two-and-a-half months since the agreement came into effect we have received a proposal from Singapore for investment amounting to $ 14.8 billion in an oil refinery for export of petroleum products. In addition, we have proposals for a steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million), sugar refinery ($ 200 million). This adds up to more than $ 16.05 billion in the pipeline on these projects alone.
And all of these projects will create thousands of more jobs for our people. In principle approval has already been granted by the BOI and the investors are awaiting the release of land the environmental approvals to commence the project.
I request the Opposition and those with vested interests to change their narrow-minded thinking and join us to develop our country. We must always look at what is best for the whole community, not just the few who may oppose. We owe it to our people to courageously take decisions that will change their lives for the better.”
According to the media report I quoted earlier, speaking at the Committee on Public Finance (COPF) Chief Negotiator Weerasinghe has admitted that Sri Lanka was not happy with overall Singapore investments that have come in the past few years in return for the trade liberalisation under the Singapore-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. He has added that between 2021 and 2023 the total investment from Singapore had been around $162 million!
What happened to those projects worth $16 billion negotiated, thanks to the SLSFTA, in just the two-and-a-half months after the agreement came into effect and approved by the BOI? I do not know about the steel manufacturing plant for exports ($ 1 billion investment), flour milling plant ($ 50 million) and sugar refinery ($ 200 million).
However, story of the multibillion-dollar investment in the Petroleum Refinery unfolded in a manner that would qualify it as the best fairy tale with false promises presented by our politicians and the officials, prior to 2019 elections.
Though many Sri Lankans got to know, through the media which repeatedly highlighted a plethora of issues surrounding the project and the questionable credentials of the Singaporean investor, the construction work on the Mirrijiwela Oil Refinery along with the cement factory began on the24th of March 2019 with a bang and Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe and his ministers along with the foreign and local dignitaries laid the foundation stones.
That was few months before the 2019 Presidential elections. Inaugurating the construction work Prime Minister Ranil Wickremesinghe said the projects will create thousands of job opportunities in the area and surrounding districts.
The oil refinery, which was to be built over 200 acres of land, with the capacity to refine 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day, was to generate US$7 billion of exports and create 1,500 direct and 3,000 indirect jobs. The construction of the refinery was to be completed in 44 months. Four years later, in August 2023 the Cabinet of Ministers approved the proposal presented by President Ranil Wickremesinghe to cancel the agreement with the investors of the refinery as the project has not been implemented! Can they explain to the country how much money was wasted to produce that fairy tale?
It is obvious that the President, ministers, and officials had made huge blunders and had deliberately misled the public and the parliament on the revenue loss and potential investment from SLSFTA with fairy tales and false promises.
As the president himself said, a country cannot be developed by making false promises or with fairy tales and these false promises and fairy tales had bankrupted the country. “Unfortunately, many segments of the population have not come to realize this yet”.
(The writer, a specialist and an activist on trade and development issues . )
US sports envoys to Lanka to champion youth development
Rahuman questions sudden cancellation of leave of CEB employees
