{"id":150315,"date":"2025-06-21T03:49:37","date_gmt":"2025-06-21T10:49:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/?p=150315"},"modified":"2025-06-24T15:41:51","modified_gmt":"2025-06-24T22:41:51","slug":"urgent-objection-to-hrcsls-recommendation-to-repeal-sections-365-and365a-of-the-penal-code-a-violation-of-article-9-of-the-constitution-and-article-10-all-religious-and-moral-norms","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/2025\/06\/21\/urgent-objection-to-hrcsls-recommendation-to-repeal-sections-365-and365a-of-the-penal-code-a-violation-of-article-9-of-the-constitution-and-article-10-all-religious-and-moral-norms\/","title":{"rendered":"Urgent Objection to HRCSL\u2019s Recommendation to Repeal Sections 365 and365A of the Penal Code \u2013 A Violation of Article 9 of the Constitution and Article 10-All Religious and Moral Norms of Sri Lanka"},"content":{"rendered":"

Shanuka Ilangasekera<\/span> Chairperson Mothers\u2019 Movement (On behalf of concerned parents, educators, clergy, and faith-based communities across Sri Lanka)<\/em><\/p>\n<\/h2>\n\n\n

Home – Mothers Movement<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To: Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka
<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Subject:
Urgent Objection to HRCSL\u2019s Recommendation to Repeal Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code \u2013 A Violation of Article 9 of the Constitution and Article 10-All Religious and Moral Norms of Sri Lanka<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

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\u2019s 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.\u201d
We, the Mothers Movement, comprising concerned parents, educators, and religious
communities across Sri Lanka, write to register our strongest opposition to the HRCSL\u2019s 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).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  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\u2019s civilization\u201d. 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.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    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 \u2013 our Constitutions more restrictive\u201d 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, “K\u0101mesu Micch\u0101c\u0101ra” (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\u2019s 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\u2014to self, family, community, nation, and the Dhamma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Buddha never preached about rights\u201d; he emphasized pa\u00f1ca s\u012bla (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\u2014not driven by k\u0101ma (unrestrained lust).
    Thus, legalizing acts driven by lust and contrary to natural order cannot be framed as a right\u201d
    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\u201d to engage in LGBTQIA+ behaviours.
    In short, Sections 365 and 365A of Sri Lanka\u2019s Penal Code align with core Buddhist teachings,
    and their repeal would contradict:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    • Monastic codes (Vinaya Pi\u1e6daka) strictly prohibit unnatural sexual acts. The first of the
      P\u0101r\u0101jika rules states that any monk engaging in sexual intercourse\u2014particularly
      unnatural or same-sex acts\u2014is automatically expelled from the Sangha.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • The Buddha further excluded pa\u1e47\u1e0daka (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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Lay ethics in the Sigalov\u0101da Sutta promote sexual discipline and responsibilities
      strictly within a heterosexual marriage. Sexual indulgence outside this framework\u2014
      particularly same-sex acts\u2014was viewed as destabilizing to family life and societal
      harmony.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • The Five Precepts, which form the moral foundation for lay Buddhists,
      prohibit micch\u0101c\u0101ra (sexual misconduct). Traditional commentaries and the cultural
      practice in Buddhist-majority nations consistently classify same-sex and unnatural
      sexual acts under micch\u0101c\u0101ra, as they violate natural restraint and ethical order.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • Rulers are instructed in the Mah\u0101parinibb\u0101na 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\u2019s Constitution, which obligates the State to foster and protect Buddhism.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    • The Brahmaj\u0101la Sutta warns against ideologies rooted in sensual craving (k\u0101mata\u1e47h\u0101)
      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.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n
        \n
      1. Unanimous Religious Condemnation of Homosexual acts: A Shared
        Moral Foundation bolstering Article 9
        Sri Lanka is uniquely enriched by deeply rooted religious traditions\u2014Buddhism, Hinduism,
        Islam, and Christianity\u2014all 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.\u201d
        Rig Veda 10.85.36 \u2013 Vivaha Sukta
        Let this couple be blessed with good children and live in harmony.\u201d
        Atharva Veda 14.2.64
        The wife should be the protector of the family, the one who brings happiness, and who
        bears sons.\u201d
        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 \u2014 and anything that violates Dharma and disrupts social order
        is adharmic and to be discouraged or punished.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. 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 \u2018penance of purification.\u2019\u201d
        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.\u201d
        Sodomy (anal intercourse) is treated as adharma and worthy of punishment or penance<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. (pr\u0101ya\u015bcitta).<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      4. The repeal of Sections 365 and 365A would thus directly contravene these deeply held Hindu<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      5. principles of natural order and family life, thereby eroding a significant component of Sri<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      6. Lanka’s shared moral heritage that supports the broader societal fabric protected by Article<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      7. 9.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      8. B. Islam: Upholding Divine Law and the Preservation of Family<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      9. Islam strictly condemns same-sex acts as grievous transgressions against divine law and a<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      10. clear deviation from Allah’s creation, posing a direct threat to the family unit. The Holy Quran<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      11. explicitly denounces such behavior,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      12. Surah Al-A\u2018raf 7:80\u201381<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      13. And [mention] Lot, when he said to his people, \u2018Do you commit such immorality as no one<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      14. has preceded you with from among the worlds? Indeed, you approach men with desire<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      15. instead of women. Rather, you are a transgressing people.\u2019\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      16. Surah Hud 11:77\u201383<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      17. Allah sends angels to warn Lut. His people attempt to assault the male guests. They are<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      18. punished with a destructive storm and stones from heaven.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      19. Surah Ash-Shu\u2018ara 26:165\u2013166<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      20. Do you approach males among the worlds and leave what your Lord has created for you as<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      21. mates? But you are a transgressing people.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      22. Surah An-Naml 27:54\u201358<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      23. Indeed, you approach men with desire instead of women. Rather, you are a people<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      24. behaving ignorantly.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      25. Surah Al-Ankabut 29:28\u201329<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      26. Indeed, you approach men and obstruct the road and commit evil in your gatherings.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      27. The Prophet Muhammad, explicitly forbade same-sex acts and assigned harsh penalties for<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      28. those who commit them.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      29. Abu Dawood 4462 \u2013 authenticated by Al-Albani<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      30. Whoever you find doing the action of the people of Lut, kill the one who does it and the one<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      31. to whom it is done.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      32. Tirmidhi 1456 \u2013 Hasan<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      33. Indeed, the thing I fear most for my nation is the act of the people of Lut.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      34. The repeal of Sections 365 and 365A would, therefore, directly contradict explicit divine<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      35. prohibitions central to Islamic faith, dismantling a vital part of the nation’s shared moral<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      36. consensus that aligns with the protection of a righteous society under Article 9<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      37. C. Christianity (Catholic & Protestant): Upholding God’s Design and Sacred Covenant<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      38. Christianity, encompassing both Catholic and Protestant traditions in Sri Lanka is against<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      39. homosexuality, views it as a violation of God\u2019s law, as dismantling the natural family,<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      40. corrupting public morality & risking divine disfavor.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      41. Relevant texts include<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      42. God\u2019s Design is Male and Female as affirmed in the Bible \u2013 union of male & female,
        based on family, morality & life itself\u201d
        Male and female He created them\u2026 Be fruitful and multiply.\u201d (Genesis 1:27\u201328)
        A man shall be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.\u201d (Mark 10:6\u20138)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      43. Scripture clearly forbids homosexuality (Old & New Testaments): homosexuality is
        seen as unnatural & sinful
        Leviticus 18:22 \u2014 You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination.\u201d
        Romans 1:26\u201327 \u2014 Men with men committing what is shameful.\u201d
        1 Corinthians 6:9\u201310 \u2014 Neither homosexuals\u2026 nor sodomites\u2026 will inherit the kingdom of
        God.\u201d<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      44. 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\u2026 out of the heavens.\u201d (Genesis 19:24)<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      45. Redemption is offered, But Sin is still Sin \u2013 Sins cannot be legally validated.
        And such were some of you. But you were washed\u2026 sanctified\u2026\u201d (1 Corinthians 6:11)
        What God has joined together, let not man separate.\u201d (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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      46. Supreme Court Determination \u2013 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\u2019s 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:<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      47. 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      48. 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      49. 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      50. 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      51. 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      52. 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      53. 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      54. 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      55. 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:<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      56. Preventing the normalization of homosexual behavior in our schools and through
        media, shielding the formative minds of our youth.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      57. Protecting children from ideological grooming, exploitation, and profound sexual
        confusion, ensuring their natural development is not distorted by external agendas.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      58. 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\u2019s duty to protect its citizenry and foster
        a sound moral environment, as mandated by Article 9 and reinforced by the Supreme Court\u2019s
        warnings against ideological overreach.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      59. Overstepping Mandate \u2013 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\u2019s laws and Constitution\u2014not 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\u2019s proposal not only violates this but also
        directly contradicts the Supreme Court\u2019s 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.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n
          \n
        • 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • 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.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • 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\u2019s original scope,
          undermining national family laws and moral frameworks.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • 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\u2019s original mandate to respect parental rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        • 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<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

          The HRCSL\u2019s 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 \u2014 father, mother, child \u2014 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\u2014especially under external ideological influence\u2014
          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\u2019s 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 \u2014 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\u2014opting 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\u2014as 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\u201d for fringe groups.
          HRCSL must uphold Constitutional Sovereignty and National Integrity
          Repealing Sections 365 and 365A would not strengthen human rights\u2014it 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<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          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\u2014that 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\u2014children.
          Any attempt to prioritize foreign narratives over national duty would be a betrayal of the
          people and the Constitution, while we\u2019ll legalize LGBTQIA but still protect children\u201d 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:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

            \n
          • Withdrawal of the HRCSL\u2019s unconstitutional recommendation to rewrite Penal Code
            365 & entire repeal 365A;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • A public reaffirmation of commitment to Article 9 and traditional moral frameworks;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Incorporation of institutional safeguards against future ideological overreach by
            foreign entities;<\/li>\n\n\n\n
          • Full compliance with Supreme Court judgments on gender, religion, and sovereignty.
            Sincerely,
            Mothers\u2019 Movement
            (On behalf of concerned parents, educators, clergy, and faith-based communities
            across Sri Lanka)
            Shanuka Ilangasekera
            Chairperson<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n

            <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

            Shanuka Ilangasekera Chairperson Mothers\u2019 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\u2019s Recommendation to Repeal Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code \u2013 A Violation of Article 9 of the Constitution and Article […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-150315","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150315","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=150315"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/150315\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=150315"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=150315"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lankaweb.com\/news\/items\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=150315"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}