18 September, 2021

Blog

Buddha Tattoo Case: AG Says Men Of Standing Don’t Wear Tattoos

Counsel appearing for the Attorney General on behalf of the Respondent state officials submitted to the Supreme Court that men of standing do not adorn tattoos when the Fundamental Rights application filed by the British tourist who was deported for wearing a Buddha Tattoo was taken up today.

Naomi Coleman

Naomi Coleman

Speaking after the Counsel for the Petitioner made submissions, Jayantha Jayasooriya PC who appeared on behalf of the Respondent government officers made a lengthy submission with regard to the social strata and perception of the people who wear Tattoos.

“You and I, nor any other public servant would not wear a Tattoo. Normal men of standing usually don’t wear Tattoos, and it is in this context that this issue must be understood” he said.

He further pointed out that the Buddha Tattoo worn by Coleman should not be seen in isolation, but together with another Tattoo that the tourist was wearing below the Buddha Tattoo.

“It could have caused tension which is why the officer arrested the lady”.

When the bench pointed out that the prudent course of action would have been to ask the lady to cover the Tattoo, the Counsel for the State submitted that in the event she violates the said instructions there would have been room for tension.

He further drew the attention of the Bench to a previous instance when a tourist was deported for having a Tattoo on his ankle.

The Bench comprising Justice Eva Wanasundera, Saleem Marsoof and Chandra Ekanayake observed that the Tourism authorities should have issued relevant instructions to tourist visiting the country.

However, Jayasooriya said that such was not possible as it was hard to identify Tattoos which could cause hurt or tension to religious feelings or sentiment.

The State Counsel however, informed court that the Negombo Magistrate did not have the authority to issue and order of deportation. Despite this, it was agreed by both parties that the Supreme Court could not contest the validity of the Judgment by the Magistrate in the current action.

Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, J.C Weliamuna outlined the circumstances under which Coleman was arrested. He also said that the Counsel for the state was making moral judgments.

He said that the arrest and detention violated the Fundamental Rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under S11, 12. and 13.

Leave to proceed was granted in Fundamental Rights Application, with objections to be filed in six weeks from today.

The case is to be taken up for argument on December 24th.

Jayantha Jayasuriya PC with Parinda Ranasinghe DSG appeared for the state, while J.C Weliamuna with Pulasthi Hewamanna, Tishya Weragoda, Hafeel Farisz instructed by Vishwa De Livera Tennakoon appeared for the Petitioner.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 3
    1

    “Counsel appearing for the Attorney General on behalf of the Respondent state officials submitted to the Supreme Court that men of standing do not adorn tattoos when the Fundamental Rights application filed by the British tourist who was deported for wearing a Buddha Tattoo was taken up today.”

    “The State Counsel however, informed court that the Negombo Magistrate did not have the authority to issue and order of deportation. Despite this, it was agreed by both parties that the Supreme Court could not contest the validity of the Judgment by the Magistrate in the current action.”

    Keep it in the Limelight. The Confused Paras.

    To begin with, the Paras are paras from South India.

    Buddhism and Buddha statues are also para from India.

    So, the Lady cannot show here admiration for Buddha with a statue on her so that she is close to Buddha teachings.

    The para Sinhalese “Buddhists” are all confused Paras.

    Ask them to test their DNA to get to the truth.

    • 0
      0

      This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn’t abide by our Comment policy.For more detail see our Comment policy https://www.colombotelegraph.com/index.php/comments-policy-2/

    • 10
      3

      Yes,

      You don’t have to wear a tattoo to lose standing or respect.

      Men of standing will not be AG for the mass murdering Mara regime like the elected Nazi regime.

    • 0
      1

      He does not see all the peoples as equal peoples. He is identifying two different peoples and expecting the judges to follow two different judgements.

      1). You and I, – Lord Judges and Lord Lawyers serves at His Majesty’s

      2). nor any other public servant – The 2000 of the extended royal family

      would not wear a Tattoo.

      3). Normal men of standing – Those are Knighted or made Caliph-ed.

      “it is in this context that this issue must be understood”.

      The Para Woman is not entitled to seek a judgement at His Majesty’s courts.

      • 1
        1

        Mallaiyuran

        “The Para Woman is not entitled to seek a judgement at His Majesty’s courts.”

        The Para Woman is not entitled to seek a judgement at His Majesty’s courts Para-Sinhala Courts.

        PS. Those Paras came from south India. Check their DNA. It is different from Native Veddah Aethho.

        The Vedda Tribe

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f89NuukY32U

    • 0
      0

      Tattoos are Asian thing, mainly in Japan and India and moved to the West recently. I also believe all sort piercing and rings are more Indian than West. Even in SL, I remember lot of people (Ayyas) with tattoos but in SL hierarchical system those people had less status in the society so people used to look at Tattoos as bad… I believe Japan Yakusas’ traditionally have Tattoos and as their ranks go up in Yakusa groups, they get more tattoos (and less fingers ;-) )

    • 0
      1

      RE: Buddha Tattoo Case: AG Says Men Of Standing Don’t Wear Tattoos

      AG and all other Para-Sinhala “Buddhists” Nuts.

      Did anybody ask the Enlightened Buddha for his opinion?

      He would have said: Nuts, Para-Sinhala Nuts. Para-Sinhala Modayo, Fools.

      “NUTS!” Revisited bu para-Sinhala “Buddhists”

      http://www.thedropzone.org/europe/bulge/kinnard.html

      The German Commander.

      But then McAuliffe realized that some sort of reply was in order. He pondered for a few minutes and then told the staff, “Well I don’t know what to tell them.” He then asked the staff what they thought, and I spoke up, saying, “That first remark of yours would be hard to beat.” McAuliffe said, “What do you mean?” I answered, “Sir, you said ‘Nuts’.” All members of the staff enthusiastically agreed, and McAuliffe decided to send that one word, “Nuts!” back to the Germans. McAuliffe then wrote down: “To the German Commander, “Nuts!” The American Commander.”

      McAuliffe then asked Col. Harper to deliver the message to the Germans. Harper took the typed message back to the company command post where the two German officers were detained. Harper then told the Germans that he had the American commanders reply. The German captain then asked, “Is it written or verbal?” Harper responded that it was written and added, “I will place it in your hand.”

      The German major then asked, “Is the reply negative or affirmative? If it is the latter I will negotiate further.”

      At this time the Germans were acting in an arrogant and patronizing manner and Harper, who was starting to lose his temper, responded, “The reply is decidedly not affirmative.” He then added that, “If you continue your foolish attack your losses will be tremendous.”

      Harper then put the German officers in a jeep and took them back to where the German enlisted men were detained. He then said to the German captain, “If you don’t know what ‘Nuts’ means, in plain English it is the same as ‘Go to Hell’. And I’ll tell you something else, if you continue to attack we will kill every goddam German that tries to break into this city.”

      The German major and captain saluted very stiffly. The captain said, “We will kill many Americans. This is war.” Harper then responded, “On your way Bud,” he then said, “and good luck to you.” Harper later told me he always regretted wishing them good luck.

  • 4
    2

    hmmmm we are very sensitive people such….. well in my life time i didnt see a intelligent judgement passed from our courts,,,, i dont expect one,,,:D

  • 11
    0

    It is not ok to wear a Buddha Tattoo in the 2500 years old Sinhala Buddhism, but it is ok to do the following
    1 . kill and maim the journalists who criticise MARA.
    2. Incarcerate the General who rescued the Nation on false and trumped up charges.
    3 .impeach the CJ without natural course of justice and celebrate with Kiribath.
    4.Kill an elected parliamentarian in broad daylight and still be free.
    5.shoot to death innocent demonstrators demanding basic livelihoods.
    6.Kill and maim helpless minorities with impunity with the backing of armed forces ably assisted by the government and shout shamelessly jihadist, when we have a secret service and armed forces who defeated a so called number 1 terrorist organization in the world.
    7.It is also ok to believe all the stories created by the MARA government and act foolishly like bloody fools.
    BUT IT IS NOT OK TO WEAR A BUDDHA TATTOO IN THE LAND OF FOOLS.
    WHEN WILL WE AS A NATION COME TO OUR SENSES.

  • 2
    3

    May be tattoo adorned people do not have any standing. I for one do not have any. But then, no where in our tourist brochures mention about the expected standing of a tourist visiting Sri Lanka. do they? I think our immigration officers should have had the decency to tell the lady concerned to hide the Buddha Tattoo while she is in Sri Lanka. After all that tattoo is not fixed in a lawley position. Being a qualified nurse, I believed she would have obliged.

    • 4
      1

      mechanic

      No one this island has said why Buddha tattoo on this white women’s skin was wrong.

      However the faceless little man behind the desk who was motivated by his Sinhala/Buddhists nationalism and enraged by 450 years of colonial rule found a way to enhance his country’s pride.

      In his own small way he had stood up to the white imperial colonial powers. His act of bravery should send a clear message to interfering Cameron and the white gang.

      He has a bright future in BBS, Ravana, JHU, ………….. all other religio ethnic Sinhala/Buddhist party.

      mechanic, Banda, Ravi Perera, ……….. give him a round of applause.

  • 7
    1

    “Men of standing” what about women? Why should this Attorney General display his ignorance for the whole world to see? My Grand Mother had tattoos, my daughter has tattoos, I know of so many people both men and women who are highly educated and doing well in life holding high positions wearing tattoos. Where does this “moron” come from? Tattoos have nothing to do with the standing of a person. For that matter who is a person of standing? Is a person who supports illegal activities and protects rapists, drug mudalalis, murderers, bribe takers, human rights violaters etc is a Man of Standing? Doesn’t this Attorney General support all these guys and protects them

  • 2
    0

    “You and I, nor any other public servant would not wear a Tattoo. Normal men of standing usually don’t wear Tattoos”

    So, what if so called “normal men of standing” (and pray, tell me who “normal men of standing” are) don’t wear tattoos. That’s their choosing. Why is it an offence to be different?

    I hope the learned judges have a little more sense that what, judging from this report, State Counsel appears to have displayed

  • 2
    0

    “Men Of Standing Don’t Wear Tattoos”
    Imagine, this coming from an AG. Speaks volumes about the quality of our legal system and those who administer it. Who are these men of standing? Are they those who have one-night stands while still in their black suits and expose themselves on the banks of the Diyawanne? Bah!Donkey of an AG.

  • 0
    0

    If I get my arm tattooed with a Buddha image what is the punishment that they can give me? Imprison me? Send me to gallows? Banish me?Where to ? Hell? Bloody hell! These legal – or rather illegal – lunatics are creating unnecessary problems.

  • 1
    0

    “Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, J.C Weliamuna ….. also said that the Counsel for the state was making moral judgments.”

    “You and I, nor any other public servant would not wear a Tattoo. Normal men of standing usually don’t wear Tattoos”

    He has clearly said that the woman was abnormal because she was wearing a tattoo. This is beyond moral judgement, from the AG’s counsel part. Normal, abnormal is not about morals. This is going to affect her ability to seek employments if she lose her job. You, this idiots, will you hire a person after a court statements claims that she is abnormal and it was not contested. This is libel. The woman should file another case.

  • 0
    0

    “Counsel appearing for the Attorney General on behalf of the Respondent state officials submitted to the Supreme Court that men of standing do not adorn tattoos when the Fundamental Rights application filed “

    What a load of hog-wash. Not only was this lady’s fundamental rights denied now this idiot is insulting her.

    There are only a few questions here:
    Is there a law in the books that does not allow religious tattoos?
    Did she break any laws?
    Did the judge have a right under the law to deport her?

    [“You and I, nor any other public servant would not wear a Tattoo. Normal men of standing usually don’t wear Tattoos, and it is in this context that this issue must be understood” he said.]
    First this idiot should understand that she is not of SL origin. Two he has to take his head out of the sand and look around. I don’t have a tattoo myself but I know doctors and lawyers that have tattoos.

  • 0
    0

    ALL TOURIST ,PLEASE TAKE NOTICE . THIS AG SAYS PEOPLE WITH STANDING SHOULD VISIT SRI LANKA, BECAUSE WE ARE A DEVELOPED NATION ON THE WHOLE

    • 0
      0

      Correction:
      We are a UNDERDEVELOPED nation in a HOLE.

  • 1
    0

    Are lawyers men of standing?

    Well, it is part and parcel of their jobs to keep telling lies all the time.

    But telling lies is a more despicable act than wearing tattoos.

    Therefore, lawyers who keep telling lies to make a living are men of lower standing than those who wear tattoos.

  • 0
    0

    There is a Deshapreme Man in Italy who has a huge tattoo of our Hon. President in his back and that was shown to him by removing his T shirt when President Visited in Italy. If this foreign Lady is wrong by having a Lord Buddha’s Tattoo in her upper Arm, that Deshapreme Man in Italy also should be wrong as our Hon. President has a blood relationship with Lord Buddha according to our great Historian Jackson Anthony.

  • 1
    0

    Men of standing do not pass exams by “having special privileges”, They don’t lower the marks in order for their sons to get into the university!! They don’t kill, rape, abduct, rob, and shelter the criminals!!

    If we go by the “men of standing” criteria, except for a few (perhaps you can count on one hand) are not fit enough to be in parliament or are qualified to be judges, lawyers, MPs etc.

  • 0
    0

    The tattoo may cause tensions, so we’ll arrest her and cause tensions!

    Genius.

  • 0
    0

    This problem can be easily sorted out by each and every foreigner having to sign and state at the airport that they are men and women of standing.

  • 0
    0

    It is interesting to reflect that many lawyers who are part of the so called men of standing, owe their livelihood and their fortunes thanks, largely, to men who are not of standing! Ah, but then, money is socially neutral!

  • 0
    0

    “men of standing do not adorn tattoos” and he justifies deporting a woman with tatoos.

    Following people would not have been allowed to visit our country on the above basis.

    King George V of England, Princess Stephanie of Monaco,Winston Curchill , Franklin D. Roosevelt, King Fredrick IX of Denmark.

    George Shultz, Former US Secretary of State had a tiger tatoo. may be in support of LTTE.

    David Beckem and charlize Theron have also revealing tatoos.

  • 1
    0

    “men of standing do not adorn tattoos”

    “men of standing do not grow mustache”, hence why not arrest MARA for growing a mustache?

    “women of standing do not wear bikinis”, why not arrest and deport all the tourists who wear ’em?

    Is wearing a kurakkan satakaya and then lying, robbing, murdering, stealing etc. a sign of standing? If not why not arrest MARA?

    Is lying a sign of standing? If not why not arrest all the lawyers who lie for living? Likewise why not arrest CJ for lying and illegally occupying a usurped position?

    Is expression of standing only superficial and skin-deep like tattoos? What about the Rajapaksha regimized pakkali tattoos, BBS tattoos, Sinhala Buddhist extremist fanatic tattoos and criminal connivance tattoos that have been engraved in the minds of standing-less people who have bartered their conscience to Rajapaksha cirminals?

  • 0
    0

    Men of standing may not wear tattoo but they are not deprived the right to wear a non-offensive tattoo, in a democracy. The Counsel’s personal opinions on tattoos has now bearing in this case. Otherwise, any person wearing any tattoo should be deported from Sri Lanka or sporting of tattoos should be banned. The issue is whether the Buddha tattoo was intended to offend religious sensibilities and in this instance the lady in question was sporting the tattoo because of her admiration of the Buddha and she meant no offense.

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 200 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically disabled after 7 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.