The Aragalaya and the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Posted on September 3rd, 2022

Chandre Dharmawardana

The Aragala Naayakayas (leaders) were going to attack the parliament.  Parliament is where the power of the people is entrenched. Try attacking the parliament in any country. That is regarded at an uprising against the state and equal to terrorism in every country without exception.

Rosenberg is a German-Polsih Marxist acttivist who is often quoted with veneration by leftist political “scientists”. She too led such an attack on the German Parliament, and was arrested and shot by the then leftist government of Germany. That leftist government had in fact been led by one of Rosenberg’s own disciples!. Rosenberg had also advocated that while attacking the parliament, the protestors must also attack all publishing houses that had criticized them.  So, it is the likes of Rosenberg who are regarded as idols by some of the leaders of the Aragalaya. In my view, such people are a danger to democracy.

Those who claim that the Aragalaya leaders have been unjustly arrested have not given any examples of any countries where such behaviour (attacking the parliament itself) is accepted. 

In Sri Lanka this attack happened after severe civil unrest that led to an assault on the President’s house.  If the President did not flee, he would have been lynched by the mob, just as they had killed a new MP only weeks ago.

The PTA may be extreme in that it enables arrest and holding for 90 days. That should be modified to include Habeas Corpus every 14 days during those times when the prisoner is held. But the right to hold people who threaten the state exists in every country. 

So, there should be no ARBITRARY detention. In the case of the Aragalaya leaders it has not been a case of arbitrary detention as a preliminary case has been made.

Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. 

The following international instruments include similar provisions: article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; article 37(b) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child; and article XXV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man (art. XXV).

See also the following international, regional and comparative law instruments  (not legally binding in many countries, for example Canada) but countries include similar provisions: article 9 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; articles 7(2) and 7(3) of the American Convention on Human Rights; article 5 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and the 5th and 14th Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America.

In Canada the Cabinet can take decisions to hold people without giving much reasons, or simply because a foreign power (e.g., USA) claimed extradition without proving that the person has committed any crime. This happened with Wikileaks journalist Assange in the UK where they merely practice journalism, and with the Chinese Cell-phone company executive in Canada who was finally let go after Biden came to power.

In such cases the individual has the burden of proving that he or she was arbitrarily detained or imprisoned. 

In Canada the analytical framework for determining whether a provision limits section 9 involves two steps: 1) was the individual detained or imprisoned? and 2) was that detention or imprisonment arbitrary? See R. v. Hufsky[1988] 1 S.C.R. 621 at paragraphs 12-13., in Canada.

The PTA has to be modified a bit, but such powers are needed to safeguard the state of extremely vulnerable small countries, given the draconian powers that even powerful stable countries like Canada uses.

I hope some legal expert explains all this. The problem is, the youth in Sri Lanka have been brain-washed by 80 years of Marxist activity starting from 1930s to treat law an order as “Colonial” and attack the law. Being militant was/is considered as mandatory for spawning a revolution. These brain-washed citizens hope to capture power and create a “dictatorship of the proletariat”.  So calling for “democratic rights” is a political and agit-prop tactic applicable ONLY PRIOR TO THE ARAGALAYA. After the success of the Aragalaya, the text-book formula is to establish a dictatorship. 

Chandre Dharmawardana

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.



Copyright © 2024 All Rights Reserved. Powered by Wordpress