Shanuka Ilangasekera Chairperson Mothers’ Movement (On behalf of concerned parents, educators, clergy, and faith-based communities across Sri Lanka)

Home – Mothers Movement

To: Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

Subject:
Urgent Objection to HRCSL’s Recommendation to Repeal Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code – A Violation of Article 9 of the Constitution and Article 10-All Religious and Moral Norms of Sri Lanka

This representation is submitted under our collective right to petition and participate in public
affairs as guaranteed by Article 14(1)(a) and (c) of the Constitution of Sri Lanka, and in
accordance with the State’s duty under Article 27(1)(e), (f), and (g) to ensure the preservation
of moral order, cultural identity, and family as the fundamental unit of society.”
We, the Mothers Movement, comprising concerned parents, educators, and religious
communities across Sri Lanka, write to register our strongest opposition to the HRCSL’s recent
recommendation to repeal Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code. This recommendation
violates the Sri Lankan Constitution, defies Buddhist principles enshrined in Article 9,
disregards the teachings of all major religions, and poses a grave threat to children, family
values, and societal morality. This proposal is not only unconstitutional, but it also exposes
children and families to grave ideological and psychological harm.
The proposed repeal of Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A constitutes a grave assault on the
constitutional and moral bedrock of our nation, a betrayal of explicit mandates and deeply
held societal values, directly violating the spirit and letter of fundamental Articles of our
Constitution, including Articles 3, 4(d), 9, 10, 12, 14(1)(e), 14(1)(f), 16(1), 16 (2), and 27(1)(g).

1. Constitutional Duty to Protect Buddhism: Article 9 and its upholding of
   Moral Truths
   Article 9 of our Constitution unequivocally vests in Buddhism the “foremost place,” obliging
   the State to “protect and foster the Buddha Sasana.” This is not a mere declaration; as
   affirmed by the Supreme Court in SC SD 54/2024 & 55/2024, this duty extends to upholding
   the very moral fabric and societal structure foundational to Sri Lanka’s civilization. The Court
   decisively held that equality and personal identity cannot override the religious, biological,
   or moral truths foundational to Sri Lanka’s civilization”. This underscores that the State’s duty
   extends to preserving the moral order that has historically underpinned Sri Lankan society,
   derived significantly from Buddhist precepts.
   The “existence of Buddhism” itself is paramount. The Supreme Court has clarified that
   freedom of religion cannot extend to propagation if it fundamentally “impair[s] the very
   existence of Buddhism.” Legalizing acts that directly contradict fundamental Buddhist moral
   principles, such as those governing sexual conduct, would profoundly erode this moral
   environment, directly “impairing the very existence of Buddhism” as a guiding force in society.

This restrictive constitutional stance, also seen in the ‘Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of
Religion’ bill, underscores a deliberate national policy to preserve our established religious
and moral order – our Constitutions more restrictive” stance does not grant unfettered
rights. Moral liberalization through the repeal of Sections 365 and 365A, therefore, runs
counter to the Constitution’s spirit, as these sections embody traditional norms universally
upheld by all major faiths in Sri Lanka, not just Buddhism. Therefore, moral liberalization
through the repeal of Sections 365 and 365A, falls squarely outside the protective ambit and
against the very spirit of the Constitution.
The judiciary’s commitment to preserving the Buddha Sasana’s moral integrity is further
demonstrated by the Court of Appeal ruling that issuing driving licenses to Buddhist monks
violates Vinaya Rules and Article 9. This confirms constitutional protection extends to
enforcing religious moral codes, directly mirroring how Sections 365 and 365A embody
fundamental moral principles concerning sexual conduct.
Buddha’s explicit prohibition of “pandakas” (Vinaya Pitaka, Mahavagga I.61.1), traditionally
understood to include those with same-sex inclinations, underscores the essential purity and
celibacy for monastic life.
Similarly, the Third Precept of the Five Precepts, “Kāmesu Micchācāra” (abstention from
sexual misconduct), has been consistently interpreted to include acts “against the order of
nature.”
The traditional family unit, rooted in the heterosexual union of man and woman (as implicitly
depicted in texts like the Sigalovada Sutta, DN 31), is foundational to societal stability.
Legalizing conduct deemed “lustful” (unregulated sexual conduct) and contrary to these
precepts directly contradicts Buddhist principles, undermines the Sangha’s integrity, distorts
traditional marriage, and creates an environment creates an environment where unregulated
sexual conduct, a profound barrier to Nibbana, is normalized. This would be a clear dereliction
of the State’s duty under Article 9 to foster the Buddha Sasana’s ultimate spiritual goal.
Sections 365 and 365A are not archaic; their strengthening through amendments in 1995 and
2006 reflects a continuous societal commitment to morality, family values, and virtuous
conduct. Their repeal would dismantle these shared moral safeguards, constituting a direct
assault on our collective moral foundations by paving the way for the legalization of
homosexuality.
Therefore, any attempt to legalize homosexuality (or broader LGBTQIA+ identities) must be
measured not by international trends, but by its compatibility with Sri Lanka’s Constitution,
its religious obligations, and its national ethos.
In the Buddhist worldview, duty precedes rights. Rights are not to be claimed through
demands or protests, but are the natural result of a society where individuals fulfill their
obligations—to self, family, community, nation, and the Dhamma.

The Buddha never preached about rights”; he emphasized pañca sīla (five moral precepts),
vinaya (discipline), and the path of renunciation from lust and indulgence. For laypersons, the
gihi vinaya (lay code of conduct) requires sexual conduct to be restrained, moral, and aligned
with nature—not driven by kāma (unrestrained lust).
Thus, legalizing acts driven by lust and contrary to natural order cannot be framed as a right”
in a country where the Constitution mandates protection of the Buddha Sasana. It
would undermine the moral fabric of society and the very foundation of the Constitution
itself.
This is why public morality, religious values, and national interest are constitutionally
protected limitations on any supposed right” to engage in LGBTQIA+ behaviours.
In short, Sections 365 and 365A of Sri Lanka’s Penal Code align with core Buddhist teachings,
and their repeal would contradict:

• Monastic codes (Vinaya Piṭaka) strictly prohibit unnatural sexual acts. The first of the
  Pārājika rules states that any monk engaging in sexual intercourse—particularly
  unnatural or same-sex acts—is automatically expelled from the Sangha.
• The Buddha further excluded paṇḍaka (individuals exhibiting non-heterosexual
  tendencies or confused sexual identities) from joining the Sangha, citing their inability
  to uphold the celibate discipline (brahmacariya). This was not an act of discrimination,
  but a practical safeguard to protect the Vinaya and ensure the purity of the monastic
  order.
• Lay ethics in the Sigalovāda Sutta promote sexual discipline and responsibilities
  strictly within a heterosexual marriage. Sexual indulgence outside this framework—
  particularly same-sex acts—was viewed as destabilizing to family life and societal
  harmony.
• The Five Precepts, which form the moral foundation for lay Buddhists,
  prohibit micchācāra (sexual misconduct). Traditional commentaries and the cultural
  practice in Buddhist-majority nations consistently classify same-sex and unnatural
  sexual acts under micchācāra, as they violate natural restraint and ethical order.
• Rulers are instructed in the Mahāparinibbāna Sutta to protect the Dhamma-Vinaya,
  not surrender to ideologies that oppose it. Legalizing unnatural sexual conduct under
  foreign pressure would be a direct violation of this duty and breach Article 9 of Sri
  Lanka’s Constitution, which obligates the State to foster and protect Buddhism.
• The Brahmajāla Sutta warns against ideologies rooted in sensual craving (kāmataṇhā)
  that confuse identity and encourage moral decline. Movements that celebrate
  or normalize sensual identity (like LGBTQIA+ activism) are antithetical to the Buddhist
  path, which seeks liberation from such attachments.
  Thus, the repeal is constitutionally unsound under Article 9, socially destabilizing, and
  religiously destructive to the Buddha Sasana.

2. Unanimous Religious Condemnation of Homosexual acts: A Shared
   Moral Foundation bolstering Article 9
   Sri Lanka is uniquely enriched by deeply rooted religious traditions—Buddhism, Hinduism,
   Islam, and Christianity—all of which uphold a moral order that unequivocally rejects
   homosexual conduct. The repeal of Sections 365 and 365A would thus violate the profound
   shared moral foundations of all faiths, constituting an assault on this indispensable interfaith
   consensus that directly complements the State’s duty under Article 9 to protect a virtuous
   societal environment.
   A. Hinduism: Upholding Dharma through Natural Order and Procreative Union
   Hinduism, with its emphasis on dharma (righteous conduct) and the grihastha ashrama
   (householder stage), establishes the heterosexual union of man and woman as the
   fundamental unit of society, essential for societal order and lineage continuity. Acts contrary
   to this natural and procreative purpose are unequivocally deemed adharma (unrighteous).
   Manusmriti 5.151
   Through a son a man conquers the worlds, through a son’s son he obtains immortality, but
   through his son’s grandson he gains the world of the sun.”
   Rig Veda 10.85.36 – Vivaha Sukta
   Let this couple be blessed with good children and live in harmony.”
   Atharva Veda 14.2.64
   The wife should be the protector of the family, the one who brings happiness, and who
   bears sons.”
   The very essence of Hindu societal structure is built upon this traditional, complementary
   male-female relationship.
   Classical Hindu texts do not use modern labels like “homosexual,” they condemn non-Vedic,
   unnatural sexual behaviors including same-sex acts, particularly sodomy. The concept of
   Dharma is central — and anything that violates Dharma and disrupts social order
   is adharmic and to be discouraged or punished.
3. Manusmriti (Law Code of Manu):
   Manusmriti 11.174
   A twice-born man who has sex with a male, or with a female in a cart drawn by a bull, or
   with a female in water, must perform a ‘penance of purification.’”
   Manusmriti 8.369
   If a man has intercourse with another man, he shall be punished by the king with a fine, or
   corporal punishment depending on the circumstances.”
   Sodomy (anal intercourse) is treated as adharma and worthy of punishment or penance
4. (prāyaścitta).
5. The repeal of Sections 365 and 365A would thus directly contravene these deeply held Hindu
6. principles of natural order and family life, thereby eroding a significant component of Sri
7. Lanka’s shared moral heritage that supports the broader societal fabric protected by Article
8. 9.
9. B. Islam: Upholding Divine Law and the Preservation of Family
10. Islam strictly condemns same-sex acts as grievous transgressions against divine law and a
11. clear deviation from Allah’s creation, posing a direct threat to the family unit. The Holy Quran
12. explicitly denounces such behavior,
13. Surah Al-A‘raf 7:80–81
14. And [mention] Lot, when he said to his people, ‘Do you commit such immorality as no one
15. has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire
16. instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.’”
17. Surah Hud 11:77–83
18. Allah sends angels to warn Lut. His people attempt to assault the male guests. They are
19. punished with a destructive storm and stones from heaven.
20. Surah Ash-Shu‘ara 26:165–166
21. Do you approach males among the worlds and leave what your Lord has created for you as
22. mates? But you are a transgressing people.”
23. Surah An-Naml 27:54–58
24. Indeed, you approach men with desire instead of women. Rather, you are a people
25. behaving ignorantly.”
26. Surah Al-Ankabut 29:28–29
27. Indeed, you approach men and obstruct the road and commit evil in your gatherings.”
28. The Prophet Muhammad, explicitly forbade same-sex acts and assigned harsh penalties for
29. those who commit them.
30. Abu Dawood 4462 – authenticated by Al-Albani
31. Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lut, kill the one who does it and the one
32. to whom it is done.”
33. Tirmidhi 1456 – Hasan
34. Indeed, the thing I fear most for my nation is the act of the people of Lut.”
35. The repeal of Sections 365 and 365A would, therefore, directly contradict explicit divine
36. prohibitions central to Islamic faith, dismantling a vital part of the nation’s shared moral
37. consensus that aligns with the protection of a righteous society under Article 9
38. C. Christianity (Catholic & Protestant): Upholding God’s Design and Sacred Covenant
39. Christianity, encompassing both Catholic and Protestant traditions in Sri Lanka is against
40. homosexuality, views it as a violation of God’s law, as dismantling the natural family,
41. corrupting public morality & risking divine disfavor.
42. Relevant texts include
43. God’s Design is Male and Female as affirmed in the Bible – union of male & female,
    based on family, morality & life itself”
    Male and female He created them… Be fruitful and multiply.” (Genesis 1:27–28)
    A man shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” (Mark 10:6–8)
44. Scripture clearly forbids homosexuality (Old & New Testaments): homosexuality is
    seen as unnatural & sinful
    Leviticus 18:22 — You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.”
    Romans 1:26–27 — Men with men committing what is shameful.”
    1 Corinthians 6:9–10 — Neither homosexuals… nor sodomites… will inherit the kingdom of
    God.”
45. Cities of Sodom & Gomorrah: Permanent warning to Nations: Legalizing sin invites
    Judgement
    The cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed by God for their widespread homosexual
    immorality: Then the Lord rained brimstone and fire… out of the heavens.” (Genesis 19:24)
46. Redemption is offered, But Sin is still Sin – Sins cannot be legally validated.
    And such were some of you. But you were washed… sanctified…” (1 Corinthians 6:11)
    What God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:9)
    These sacred covenants, exclusively between a man and a woman and views homosexual acts
    as unnatural and sinful and contrary to God’s natural design for humanity.
    Furthermore, the creation narrative in Genesis 1:27-28 and Jesus’s teachings in Matthew
    19:4-6 (affirming the union of male and female) establish the heterosexual foundation of
    marriage as a divine institution. The repeal of Sections 365 and 365A would thus directly
    contradict these explicit Biblical teachings and core Christian doctrines, thereby undermining
    fundamental moral principles that form a significant pillar of Sri Lanka’s shared ethical
    framework, complementing the moral order safeguarded by Article 9.
    Thus, the proposed repeal would not merely be a legal amendment; it would be a profound
    betrayal of the shared moral conscience of Sri Lanka’s diverse religious communities. By
    dismantling the legal safeguards against acts universally deemed unethical or sinful across all
    major faiths, the State would undermine a robust interfaith moral consensus that strengthens
    the broader societal fabric and directly supports the State’s constitutional duty under Article
    9 to protect and foster a morally upright environment.
47. Supreme Court Determination – Rejection of Ideological Overreach
    The Supreme Court, in its June 2024 Determination (SC SD 54/2024 and SC SD 55/2024) on
    the Gender Equality Bill, delivered a profound warning against “ideological
    overreach” presented under the guise of equality. This landmark ruling explicitly upheld
    biological reality and firmly reaffirmed that laws must conform to Sri Lanka’s constitutional
    and cultural identity. The Court’s stance is a clear rejection that gender ideology or activist
    definitions of “human rights” can override national values and existing legal safeguards.
    The proposed repeal of Sections 365 and 365A directly contradicts this unequivocal judicial
    pronouncement. It represents precisely the kind of “ideological overreach” that the Supreme
    Court cautioned against, seeking to impose foreign social models and redefine fundamental
    societal concepts upon a sovereign nation with its own distinct traditions, legal system, and
    deeply ingrained moral compass. The Court’s determination provides clear judicial backing for
    maintaining laws that reflect Sri Lanka’s unique identity and traditional moral framework,
    reinforcing the necessity of retaining these Penal Code sections as a bulwark against external
    ideological imposition.
    Specifically, the Supreme Court found the Gender Equality Bill, in its attempt to introduce
    certain concepts, inconsistent with multiple fundamental provisions of the Constitution. The
    repeal of Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A, by seeking to normalize and legalize homosexual
    acts, would similarly violate the very principles enshrined in these Articles:
48. Article 3 (Sovereignty of the People): The repeal, driven by elite lobbying and foreign
    agendas rather than genuine public demand or broad consensus, directly bypasses the
    sovereign will of the Sri Lankan people, who overwhelmingly uphold traditional moral
    and family values. It represents an imposition against the nation’s democratic
    foundations.
49. Article 4(d) (Exercise of Judicial Power): This repeal would undermine the judiciary’s
    power in safeguarding constitutional morality. The Supreme Court has clearly warned
    against ideological overreach; for Parliament to now repeal laws safeguarding
    traditional morality would be a move that subverts the constitutional checks and
    balances and the judiciary’s role in upholding the fundamental law of the land.
50. Article 9 (Foremost place for Buddhism): As extensively detailed, legalizing
    homosexual acts directly contradicts fundamental Buddhist tenets of sexual
    misconduct and erodes the moral environment mandated for the Buddha Sasana’s
    protection, thus directly violating the State’s duty to foster it.
51. Article 10 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience and Religion): While guaranteeing
    religious freedom, this article does not license actions that would force religious
    institutions, organizations, or individuals to compromise their conscience by
    normalizing practices fundamentally opposed to their deeply held faith and moral
    convictions. The repeal of these sections would enable such an infringement.
52. Article 12 (Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination): The Supreme Court has
    clarified that equality cannot override biological reality or moral truths. Repealing
    365/365A under a distorted interpretation of “equality” for sexual orientation would
    impose an ideologically driven definition of rights that clashes with the Constitution’s
    foundational principles and societal norms, compelling a redefinition of fundamental
    human categories.
53. Article 14(1)(e) and 14(1)(f) (Freedom of Association and Freedom to Engage in any
    Profession, Occupation, Trade, Business or Enterprise): Legalizing homosexual acts
    could lead to coercion, compelling individuals, organizations (including religious
    bodies and schools), or businesses to associate with, accommodate, or endorse
    practices and ideologies that directly contradict their moral or religious convictions,
    thereby infringing upon their fundamental freedoms of association and enterprise.
54. Article 16 (Validation of Existing Law): The repeal would directly defy Article 16,
    which explicitly validates existing written and unwritten laws, including 2600 years of
    Buddhist jurisprudence and traditional moral tenets that underpinned Sri Lanka’s
    societal and legal order prior to Western occupation, further reinforced by Clause 5 of
    the 1815 Kandyan Convention As well as the 1883 Penal Code in which Sections
    365/365A are reflected). This attempt to repeal on grounds of fundamental rights
    inconsistency would therefore be a direct constitutional affront to this protective
    provision, undermining the nation’s historical legal continuity.
55. Article 27(1)(g) (Directive Principles of State Policy regarding the preservation of the
    family): By dismantling legal protections for traditional sexual morality, the repeal
    directly undermines the preservation of the natural, biological family unit, universally
    recognized as a union between a man and a woman. This contradicts the State’s
    explicit directive to foster and preserve the family as the fundamental building block
    of society.
    The proposed repeal of Sections 365 and 365A, therefore, represents precisely the kind
    of “ideological overreach” that the Supreme Court cautioned against, seeking to
    impose foreign social models and redefine fundamental societal concepts upon a sovereign
    nation with its own distinct traditions, legal system, and deeply ingrained moral compass. The
    Court’s determination provides clear judicial backing for maintaining laws that reflect Sri
    Lanka’s unique identity and traditional moral framework, reinforcing the necessity of
    retaining these Penal Code sections as a bulwark against external ideological imposition.
56. Protection of Children and Family Structures – Repealing 365/365A
    Undermines Child Protection and Social Order
    Sections 365 and 365A are essential legal safeguards, strategically strengthened in 1995 and
    2006, showcasing their continued necessity to uphold public decency and morality which
    forms the indispensable cultural foundation all communities adhere to.
    Their purpose extends to:
57. Preventing the normalization of homosexual behavior in our schools and through
    media, shielding the formative minds of our youth.
58. Protecting children from ideological grooming, exploitation, and profound sexual
    confusion, ensuring their natural development is not distorted by external agendas.
59. Preserving natural family structures and roles rooted in the sacred marriage
    between a man and a woman, which are foundational to the emotional, spiritual,
    and social development of children. This natural order ensures stability, clarity, and
    the perpetuation of our cherished values.
    Repealing these sections would inevitably open the floodgates to foreign-funded activism,
    curriculum distortions, and the insidious media normalization of morally injurious behavior.
    This would unleash a torrent of detrimental influences, directly eroding the very foundation
    of Sri Lankan family life and causing irreparable, long-term harm to our cultural and religious
    identity. This outcome directly contravenes the State’s duty to protect its citizenry and foster
    a sound moral environment, as mandated by Article 9 and reinforced by the Supreme Court’s
    warnings against ideological overreach.
60. Overstepping Mandate – HRCSL Must Respect Constitutional
    Boundaries
    The Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka (HRCSL) is constitutionally bound to uphold
    human rights within the framework of Sri Lanka’s laws and Constitution—not to act as an
    ideological body pushing Western liberal agendas. The Paris Principles, under which the
    HRCSL is accredited, do not grant it the authority to override the cultural and religious identity
    of Sri Lanka or its constitutional morality. The HRCSL’s proposal not only violates this but also
    directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s clear stand in SC SD 54/2024 and 55/2024 against
    attempts to override moral and constitutional boundaries using undefined “gender identity”
    or sexual orientation claims.
    The UN too is violating its mandate:
    UN is departing from its foundational principles & Member State consensus. Article 2(7) of
    the UN Charter prohibits intervention in domestic matters. Yet, despite fewer than 30 nations
    legalizing LGBTQIA+ practices, the UN is imposing these agendas violating the existing
    religious, cultural, and traditional beliefs regarding marriage, family, gender identity, and
    sexual morality of member states. Member states never agreed to this broad, unmandated
    expansion of international law & re-interpretation of laws without member consensus.

• Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR, 1948) & International Covenant on
  Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, 1966): Dclares the family as “natural and
  fundamental” and grants the right to marry to “men and women.” UN is currently
  advocating same-sex marriage or alternative family structures directly overriding
  original texts without new universally agreed-upon instruments. This violates the
  original mandate and state consent.
• When Sri Lanka ratified the ICCPR in 1980, its Penal Code Sections 365 and 365A were
  in force. This means neither Sri Lanka nor the UN at that time considered them a
  violation. The current UN Human Rights Committee’s re-interpretation, asserting
  these laws violate privacy and non-discrimination rights, is thus, legally incorrect. This
  constitutes an unacceptable retrospective application of treaty law, directly
  undermining Sri Lanka’s sovereign consent to the original terms of the ICCPR, in
  contravention of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1969), Article 28
  which does not accept retrospective law.
• International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, 1966): Gives
  prominence to the family’s “natural and fundamental” nature and its role in “care and
  education of dependent children.”
  Currently, UN bodies, are promoting diverse family models (e.g., advocating for samesex
  adoption culturally prohibited), pusingh beyond the covenant’s original scope,
  undermining national family laws and moral frameworks.
• Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC, 1989): Gives prominence to the “family”
  as the “natural environment” for children and the “primary responsibility” of
  “parents” (implicitly, traditional mother and father).
  Currently, UN entities like UNICEF are promoting gender identity concepts in schools
  or endorsing non-traditional family structures conflicting with parental authority,
  promoting “gender ideology” that undermines biological sex distinctions and violates
  the CRC’s original mandate to respect parental rights.
• Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action (BPFA, 1995) & International Conference
  on Population and Development (ICPD, Cairo, 1994): LGBTQIA+ advocates cites this
  but, the original texts do not speak about “gender” allowing fluidity or non-binary
  identities, nor did they endorse same-sex marriage.
  Currently, UN Women or UNFPA’s are pushing for “gender-equality” to include SOGI
  rights or challenge biological sex violating original member state consensus and
  negotiated mandates.
  What we see happening is UN human rights mechanisms are unilaterally re-interpreting
  foundational texts to include SOGI. This is a “judicial overreach” creating new human rights
  law without formal intergovernmental process, bypassing member state sovereignty and
  violating the “accountability” and “transparency” these agencies promote. Usage of “gender
  identity” by UN agencies actively promotes a concept of “gender” detached from biological
  sex. This unmandated misuse of office for “legal gender recognition” and affirming non-binary
  identities undermines biological reality and imposes a specific ideology, contradicting
  traditional human anthropology and morality using unfair methods of legislative pressure &
  even resource/loan conditions as a leverage over member states

The HRCSL’s current recommendation appears to also be driven by foreign-funded activism,
seeking to impose external values on a sovereign Buddhist nation. This recommendation
constitutes a gross overreach and a profound betrayal of public trust. We urge the HRCSL to
look no further than its own logo and ask honestly: What does it represent?
The natural, biological family — father, mother, child — or the forced adoption of imported
liberal ideologies with no genetic, moral, or cultural foundation? The very symbol of your
institution reflects the natural human family unit, which stands as the bedrock of Sri Lankan
civilization, not temporary trends promoted by Western-funded advocacy.
Legal Consequences of Overreach:
While we appreciate the role of the HRCSL in promoting human rights within its lawful
mandate, we caution that any future attempts to promote or pressure legislative repeal of
constitutionally protected moral statutes—especially under external ideological influence—
may give rise to public interest litigation or judicial review. Where a constitutional institution
acts beyond its statutory authority or ignores Supreme Court determinations, it not only
undermines the rule of law but also risks being held accountable under Sri Lanka’s legal
system for breach of constitutional duty, particularly where public trust and child protection
are jeopardized.
Let us be clear: There is no demonstrable systemic discrimination against homosexuals in Sri
Lanka according to police or judicial statistics. Crucially, there is no public demand for this
repeal — only elite lobbying disconnected from grassroots realities. This is further evidenced
by the global corporate shift where companies like Target, Walmart, Amazon, Meta, Google,
and Rolls-Royce have scaled back DEI programs, ditched Pride sponsorships, and disbanded
DEI teams—opting instead for merit-based hiring and performance-based policies.
Organizations are increasingly scrapping gender-inclusive event standards, returning to strict
male/female categories, explicitly excluding transgender classifications. Multinational
corporations spilling significant resources into DEI and gender ideology have suffered revenue
losses, customer boycotts, and retracted sponsorships—as a result, many are reversing
course.
Sri Lanka is not legally or morally obligated to follow the trajectory of these failed global
experiments that have already begun reversing themselves. We must reaffirm meritocracy,
natural gender definitions, and family-first values, not cave into transient trends labeled
rights” for fringe groups.
HRCSL must uphold Constitutional Sovereignty and National Integrity
Repealing Sections 365 and 365A would not strengthen human rights—it would critically
weaken the moral foundations of our country, violate the spirit of the Constitution, and
gravely threaten the spiritual well-being of future generations, laying the foundation for the
erasure of our progeny.
This would constitute a direct violation of Article 9, the bedrock of our nation, which
mandates the State to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana and uphold the moral and
cultural fabric of Sri Lankan society

We remind all public officials that they are bound by the Penal Code, the State Liability in
Delict Act, and the Constitution of Sri Lanka. It is their solemn duty to uphold these laws and
protect the national interest, and they must not place foreign ideologies or external pressures
above their constitutional, legal & moral obligations. Any action contravening these legal
frameworks constitutes a serious breach of duty and accountability.
Furthermore, any such repeal of Sections 365 and 365A would not only violate constitutional
morality, but also expose the State to future litigation for its failure to protect children from
foreseeable harm. This risk is heightened when laws are amended under pressure from
foreign-funded ideologues, not due to local public need or evidence of injustice.
In such an eventuality, liability may attach to the officials and policymakers who acted ultra
vires—that is, beyond the scope of their constitutional authority, violating their oath under
Article 61 of the Constitution and breaching the public trust doctrine.
It must be noted that no citizen has a right to demand the repeal of protective laws, especially
when such laws are designed to safeguard the most vulnerable segment of society—children.
Any attempt to prioritize foreign narratives over national duty would be a betrayal of the
people and the Constitution, while we’ll legalize LGBTQIA but still protect children” is an
unacceptable legal fiction as well.
We urge the HRCSL to reflect deeply on its constitutional role and the values that bind our
nation.
In summary, we respectfully demand:

• Withdrawal of the HRCSL’s unconstitutional recommendation to rewrite Penal Code
  365 & entire repeal 365A;
• A public reaffirmation of commitment to Article 9 and traditional moral frameworks;
• Incorporation of institutional safeguards against future ideological overreach by
  foreign entities;
• Full compliance with Supreme Court judgments on gender, religion, and sovereignty.
  Sincerely,
  Mothers’ Movement
  (On behalf of concerned parents, educators, clergy, and faith-based communities
  across Sri Lanka)
  Shanuka Ilangasekera
  Chairperson