26 September, 2017

Sri Lankan Rear Admiral, Theresa May & Misunderstanding Human Rights Law

By Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein

“Earlier this month, Britain’s Prime Minister called for human rights laws to be overturned if they were to “get in the way” in the fight against terrorism. Specifically, Theresa May said there was a need “to restrict the freedom and movement of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they are a threat, but not evidence to prosecute them in full in court.” For an increasingly anxious public, shaken by the recent and dreadful terrorist attacks, her remarks no doubt reflected real anger and frustration, but they also seemed intended to strike a chord with a certain sector of the electorate, and it is this expectation that truly worries me.

British Government officials would probably claim the comments should be understood in the context of a tough electoral campaign, and would presumably try and reassure us quietly that the government’s support for human rights remains steadfast and unchallengeable.

Whatever the intention behind her remarks, they were highly regrettable, a gift from a major Western leader to every authoritarian figure around the world who shamelessly violates human rights under the pretext of fighting terrorism. And it is not just the leaders.

A few days ago, citing Prime Minister May, a former Sri Lankan rear admiral delivered a petition to the President of the Human Rights Council. He demanded action be taken against my Office for “forcing” Sri Lanka to undertake constitutional reforms, and for exerting pressure on them to create a hybrid court to try perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity – when in reality, he claimed, all they had engaged in was fighting terrorism.

My first question: Why is international human rights law such an easy target? Why is it so misunderstood, so reviled by some, feared by others, spurned, attacked?

My second: If the Prime Minister meant what she said, which universal rights would the UK be willing to give away in order to punish people against whom there is insufficient evidence to justify prosecution? What, exactly, are the rights she considers frivolous or obstructive? The right to privacy? The right to liberty and security of person? Freedom of expression? Freedom of religion and belief? The principle of non-refoulement? The prohibition of torture? Due process?

And why are we fighting the terrorists in the first place, if not to defend both the physical well-being of people and the very human rights and values the Prime Minister now says she is willing, in part, to sacrifice – in order to fight the terrorists? And where would it stop? Foregoing some rights now may have devastating effects on other rights later on. If we follow this reasoning to its logical conclusion, the eventual complete unwinding of human rights would transform us – both states and international organizations. To quote Nietzsche: “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster”. We would be in danger of becoming virtually indistinguishable from the terrorists we are fighting.

So why did Prime Minister May say this? At least part of the answer may lie in market conditions. Human Rights law has long been ridiculed by an influential tabloid press here in the UK, feeding with relish on what it paints as the absurd findings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This viewpoint has some resonance with a slice of the public unaware of the importance of international human rights law – often seen by far too many people as too removed from everyday life, very continental, too lawyerly, too activist, ultimately too weird. How can the Court consider prisoners’ voting rights, and other supposedly frivolous claims, when set against the suffering of victims? The bastards deserve punishment, full stop! This may be understandable, at some emotional level. However, one should also acknowledge that British ink, reflecting an enormously rich legal tradition, is found throughout the European Convention on Human Rights.

And for good reason. To recognise that even a criminal has rights is the basis of enlightened thought, a principle enshrined in common law. It lies at the very core of human civilization, and distinguishes us from a primeval horde wrapped only in retribution and cruelties. I believe, like so many others, that criminals, too, have fundamental rights, because whatever evil they have wrought, they remain human beings. Frequently their pathological behaviour has been influenced by trauma inflicted on them by others.

Let me take one, perhaps extreme, example. In Iraq, there are people who argue for the killing of as many child soldiers of Da’esh as possible, and would perhaps even support torturing them, given how monstrous their actions have been. But in Sierra Leone, many child followers of Foday Sankoh, who were once hacking off the limbs of other small children, have now largely been rehabilitated, in no small measure due to the efforts of the UN. They were children even while they were terrorists – and they have to be seen as children first.

I seek in the course of this short lecture to examine some of these attacks on international human rights law, on international law generally. You have honoured me with the request that I speak to the legacy of Hugo Grotius. What would Grotius say today, were he to be brought back to life for a few moments? Would he be surprised, almost 400 years after publication of his treatise On the Law of War and Peace, by the overall achievement? The extent of the current backlash? The struggle? Or perhaps he would not be at all surprised by any of it.

While promoting an international “society” governed by law, not by force, he well may have been surprised it took a further 300 years of treaty-making and immense bloodletting, capped by two world wars, before humanity embraced a system of international law. Or, put another way, reason alone had proven itself to be insufficient.

Only the death of some 100 million people in two world wars and the Holocaust could generate the will necessary for a profound change. Humanity had fallen off a cliff, survived, and, having frightened itself rigid, became all the wiser for it. The prospect of nuclear annihilation also sharpened post-war thinking. And soon after, States drew up the UN Charter, reinforced international law – codified international refugee law, further elaborated international humanitarian law, and created international human rights law and international criminal law.

It is precisely these bodies of international law that are now endangered.

While I ought to, in this lecture, examine all the threats to public international law, from Russia’s seizure and annexation of Crimea to the almost enthusiastic derogation by European powers of their obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, or the seemingly deliberate bombing by major state actors of facilities protected under IHL – such as clinics and hospitals in Syria, Yemen and Afghanistan – I shall confine myself for the sake of brevity to those principal threats directed against international human rights law, and pay special attention to the absolute prohibition on the use of torture. In doing so, I hope to illustrate how they are symptomatic of a broader cynicism emerging in defiance of international law more generally.

Let me first return to the struggle against terrorism, and how it is being exploited by governments the world over to roll back the advances made in human rights. The curtailing of the freedoms of expression and association – which threatens to wipe out dissent completely in countries like Egypt, Bahrain, and Turkey – is closing what is left of a democratic space, and all under the banner of fighting terrorism. And this contagion is spreading, fast.

When I emphasise this point, and highlight the excesses of government action, I am sometimes accused of showing sympathy with the terrorists, which is outrageous. I wish to be clear. I condemn terrorism unreservedly. It can never be justified, on the basis of any grievance, real or perceived.

The Da’esh, Al Qa’eda, Al Nusra, Al Shabab, Boko Haram manifestation does have a distinct ideology, and it must be dismantled at the source. If it is to be fought from a security perspective, through intelligence networks and military force, the actions must also be extremely precise. In other words, the arbitrariness and imprecision that are the hallmarks of target selection on the part of terrorists require a diametrically opposite reaction from states. The laser-like application of the law, consistent with universal human rights standards and guarantees, is the only workable antidote if this struggle is ever to be successful.

The detention, and in some cases torture, of individuals whose association with a terrorist group is non-existent but who are nevertheless charged under a vaguely-worded counter-terrorism law – simply because they have criticized the government – is not just wrong, it is dangerous and entirely self-defeating.

It transforms not only one individual, falsely charged, into a person who hates the state, but also their families, friends, possibly even their communities. Some may even go further than simple hatred. Arbitrary detention serves the terrorists, not the state; it fuels recruitment. And yet arbitrary detentions are commonplace in those states grappling with terrorism. In fact, if you believe the rhetoric of many governments, every lawyer or journalist is almost by definition a terrorist, particularly if they are human rights-focused. Present company included!

Moreover, given that prisons often become factories for converting petty criminals into violent extremists, the lawful deprivation of liberty ordered by Courts should be reserved for the most serious offenses, and non-custodial remedies sought for lesser offenses. This is not what is happening.

Instead, we see in the United States a renewed resort to very long prison sentences for those convicted of drug offenses. And rather than focus on potentially violent individuals driven by Takfiri ideology, or any other extreme ideology, the Trump Administration is pursuing its executive orders on the travel bans all the way to the Supreme Court, despite their being struck down as unconstitutional in the lower courts.

Likewise, in the weeks following the vicious terrorist attacks in Paris, in November 2015, the French authorities took broad aim and closed down 20 mosques and Muslim associations, while also undertaking some 2,700 warrantless house searches. In the United Kingdom, the Investigatory Powers Act of 2016 constituted one of the most sweeping mass surveillance regimes in the world, permitting the interception, access, retention and hacking of communications without a requirement of reasonable suspicion. Refugees and migrants were increasingly viewed as Trojan horses for terrorists. Hysteria raged in political circles across Europe, and the terrorists must have been grinning. When it came to the management of the public’s reaction, instead of adopting a common-sense approach, fever set in.

To overcome terrorism, governments must be precise in the pursuit of the terrorists. Pretending to seal off borders — with or without walls decorated with solar panels — is an illusion, and a nasty one. Migrant children should not be detained. There should be no refoulement. Nor should there be collective push back, or decisions taken at borders by police officers, instead of judges. Or indeed, returns to countries that are manifestly not safe.

The EU deal with Turkey, in our view, has failed on several of these key points; most especially when it comes to the right of every asylum seeker to individual assessment. Taken together with the emergency measures being rushed through a number of European parliaments, which also derogate from the 1951 Refugee Convention, Europe – as a sentinel for the observation of refugee and human rights laws worldwide – finds itself enmeshed in gross hypocrisy.

The demagogues and populists across Europe and in many other parts of the world, as well as the tabloids in this country, have for years remorselessly stoked xenophobia and bigotry – the fuel that gave rise to these unwise policies. And this seemed to be paying off, with a windfall of popular support gathering in their favour. After the referendum here in the UK, dominated as it was by the whipped-up fear of foreigners and foreign institutions, came the outcome of the US election, and the populist bandwagon seemed to be on an unstoppable roll.

The default condition of the human mind is, after all, fear. Primordial fear. That innermost instinctive mechanism protecting us from harm, from death. An emotion every extremist, skilled populists included, seeks to tap or stimulate. By manipulating it, and obliterating deductive reasoning drawn from knowledge, they more easily mould the movements they lead, and their political ambitions are well-served – at least for a while.

The emotional mechanism in the mind of a human rights defender works rather differently. To do good in our lives, and not just to some, but to all; to defend the human rights of all – this requires a continuous investment of thought, where the natural prejudices lying deep within each of us must be watched out for and rejected every day of our lives. The default flow in the minds of humanity may be reptilian; but the internal battle to overcome it is profoundly human. To think of all, to work for all: these are the two fundamental lessons learned by those who survived the two world wars – whether we speak in relation to the behaviour of individuals or states. And they are etched into the UN Charter.

The two words “human rights” were not placed in the preamble of the UN Charter by its final author, Virginia Gildersleeve, as a literary flourish. They were written into the text – almost at the beginning, in the third line – because human rights was viewed as the only choice possible for that first beat of a new pulse. Because on 26 June 1945, the day of the Charter’s signing, killing on a scale hitherto unknown to humans had only just come to an end, with cities across the world pulverized and still smoking, monuments to immense human malevolence and stupidity.

Only by accepting human rights as the cornerstone could the rest of the edifice – success in economic development, durable peace – become possible. It is a point that even today – perhaps especially today – needs to be absorbed by the numerous political actors who only see human rights as a tiresome constraint. Indeed, many people who have enjoyed their rights since birth simply do not realise what these principles really mean. Like oxygen, they lie beyond our daily sensory perception, and only when suddenly deprived of it do we fathom their enormous significance.

To advocate for the universal rights of every human being, every rights holder, is another way of saying that only by working together, do we – as humans and as states – have a hope of ridding ourselves of the scourges of violence and war.

Tragically, the nativistic reflexes once again being peddled by populists and demagogues still seem to work. They sell supremacy and not equality, sow suspicion rather than calm, and hurl enmity against defined categories of people who are vulnerable – easy scapegoats, and undeserving of their hatred. This brand of politician seems more intent on profiting from the genuine fear of specific constituencies than promoting care for the welfare of the whole.

Thankfully, change is afoot. The populist or nationalist-chauvinistic wave in the western world, which crested in the US, has broken for now, dashed against the ballot boxes of Austria, the Netherlands and France. There may yet be other waves. Nevertheless, in Europe, the anti-populist movement, as some have called it, is now up and running.

In other parts of the world, threats to international law and the institutions upholding them are thus far unaffected by these recent, more positive developments.

The US is weighing up the degree to which it will scale back its financial support to the UN and other multilateral institutions. It is still deciding whether it should withdraw from the Human Rights Council and there was even talk at one stage of it withdrawing from the core human rights instruments to which it is party.

Last year, it was also reported that nine Arab states – the coalition led by Saudi Arabia fighting the Houthi/Saleh rebels in Yemen – made the unprecedented threat of a withdrawal from the UN if they were listed as perpetrators in the annex of the Secretary General’s report on children and armed conflict.

The Inter-American Commission for Human Rights, the Inter-American Court, the Southern African Development Court, and the International Criminal Court have also not been spared such threats. Fortunately, in almost all these cases, either the threat of withdrawal has fizzled out, or, even if one or two countries did withdraw, no chain reaction ensued. But the regularity of these threats means it is increasingly probable the haemorrhaging will occur someday – a walk-out which closes the book on some part of the system of international law.

In this context, most worrisome to me is the persistent flirtation by the President of the United States, throughout his campaign and soon thereafter, with a return to torture. We are now told the US Army field manual will not be redrafted, and the US Secretary of Defence is guiding the White House on this. For now there is little danger of a return to the practice of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques”, a euphemism that dupes no-one. The mood in the US could of course change dramatically, if the country were at some stage to experience a gruesome terrorist attack. And, mindful of how the American public has, over the last ten years, become far more accepting of torture, the balance could be tipped in favour of its practice – and destroy the delicate position the Convention Against Torture is in.

It is worth recalling that the Convention against Torture, ratified by 162 countries, is the most unyielding of any existing instrument in international law. Its prohibition on torture is so absolute, it can never be lifted – not even during an emergency that “threatens the life of the nation.” And yet, notwithstanding its broader recognition as jus cogens, and the crystal clarity of Article 2 of the Convention, the existence of so many surviving victims of torture, who remain unacknowledged, unsupported, denied justice or redress, forms a living testimony to the dreadful persistence of torture worldwide.

While only a small number of states appear to practise torture systematically, as part of state policy, 20 countries (and they are listed on our website) do not recognize the competence of the Committee Against Torture under Article 20. Accordingly, they refuse a priori any scrutiny of the alleged widespread violations.

A much larger number of states are host to isolated – or not so isolated – acts of torture and ill-treatment. Disturbingly, states in this group are simply not taking their obligations seriously enough. The levels of impunity are very high, given that most of those individuals who are found culpable face only administrative sanctions; and so-called evidence obtained under torture remains, in many states, admissible in court.

There are also a number of states – and this group may possibly be increasing – which, while having no record of practising torture, are nevertheless acquiescing to it by, for example, disregarding the principle of non-refoulement as contained in Article 3 of the Convention.

Another large majority of states parties also fully or partially disregard their obligations under Article 14 of the Convention for the redress and rehabilitation of victims, no matter where the torture occurred or by whom it was perpetrated.

Eleven years ago, noticeable progress was made with the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, which enables preventive visits to be made by the Sub-Committee for the Prevention of Torture to any place of deprivation of liberty, at any time. Some fifty national preventive mechanisms have been created, and the Sub-Committee has conducted 54 visits. However, many national preventive mechanisms are under-resourced and not empowered to deliver real results.

The fragility of the Convention is underscored by the fact that no country abides by all of its terms. No country would admit publicly that it engages in torture, but abundant evidence shows that torture is systematically practised by at least some states – that first category I referred to earlier.

It would seem all governments have been participating in a theatrical pretence of conforming with the Convention. And this may be more crucial than we initially realise, because it implies a sense of shame. Consider the alternative.

The president of the Philippines has spoken openly about extra-judicial killings. And the president of the United States of America has said that torture could be necessary in certain circumstances. There is no longer any pretence. They are breaking long-held taboos. If other leaders start to follow the same rhetorical course, undermining the Convention with their words, the practice of torture is likely to broaden, and that would be fatal. The Convention would be scuttled, and a central load-bearing pillar of international law removed.

The dangers to the entire system of international law are therefore very real.

Today, the 26th of June, is the international day in support of victims of torture, and earlier I participated in a panel at King’s College organised by the International Bar Association to raise awareness about the absolute prohibition of torture, and the need for the legal profession to take a far more active role in preventing its use.

Human progress never glides; it will always stagger and sometimes even temporarily collapse. The common effort, for a common cause, within a common frame of understanding and regulation, will always be attacked by those more committed to the pursuit of narrower personal or national interests. These extreme practitioners of the assertive, thin agenda are apt to dismiss many of today’s international laws and post-war institutions as anachronisms. And because, to the non-lawyer, the system of international law is so complicated, the human rights system so indecipherable to many lay-persons, it is hard to rally the general public, who may not see any immediate threat to themselves.

This brings me to the central threat to human rights today: indifference. The indifference of a large part of the business community worldwide, who would still pursue profit even at the cost of great suffering done to others. The indifference of a large segment of the intelligence and security community, for whom the pursuit of information eclipses all the rights held by others, and who describe challenges to terrible, discriminatory practices as treachery.

Some politicians, for whom economic, social and cultural rights mean little, are indifferent to the consequences of economic austerity. They view human rights only as an irritating check on expediency – the currency of the political world. For others, indifference is not enough. Their rejection of the rights agenda is expressed in terms replete with utter contempt for others, a parade of meanness.

Our world is dangerously close to unmooring itself from a sense of compassion, slowly becoming not only a post-truth but also a post-empathetic world. It is so hard for us now in the UN to generate the sums needed for humanitarian action worldwide. Our appeals for funds for the most destitute are rarely met at levels over 50%; the final figure is often far less.

What is happening to us?

My hope lies not primarily with governments, but with those people who reject all forms of terrorism, reject extreme, discriminatory counter-terrorism, and reject the populisms of the ideological outer limits. My hope lies with those who choose to elect more enlightened political leaders. My hope also lies with the most courageous of us: the human rights defenders, often victims of violations themselves who, armed with nothing beyond their minds and voices, are willing to sacrifice everything, including seeing their children and families, losing their work, even their lives, to safeguard rights – not just their own, but the rights of others.

How stunningly beautiful is that? I am moved by them. We should all be. It is they who ensure we retain our equanimity, and it is they, not us, who bear the greater burden of defending this crucial part of our system of international law. It is they who will save us, and we in turn must invest every effort in protecting them.

I don’t think Grotius would be surprised by any of this.

The reptilian urge of the human brain is not easily overcome, and humanity will for centuries remain untrustworthy and unreliable. Our behaviour, and the behaviour of states, will long require legal scaffolding to keep what we recognize as human civilization in place. Grotius would be grateful we are still fighting, standing up, for his international society and perhaps even crack a wry smile when thinking just how prescient he was, those four centuries ago.

I thank you for your attention.”

*UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein delivered the speech above at the Law Society in London, 26 June 2017

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Latest comments

  • 22
    21

    Our Rear Admiral never fought the final stages of the war but instead staying in his plush office and giving instructions to our poor sailors and sent them to their death whilst filling up his pockets with commissions. Now he has got him self into politics and trying hard to stay away from Jail for all the crimes he had committed.

    Karma the bitch is looking for him now

    • 17
      16

      Outdated International Human Right Laws should be re-formulated to address today’s increasing need to combat terrorism.

      Mr. Al Hussein, is terrorism a war crime or not?

      Interestingly, UN has not recognized terrorism as a war crime although they regard action taken by governments against terrorists is a war crime!!! Hilarious!

      Terrorists, who are NOT ratified or signed any UN treaty or NOT party to any UN convention have not only been given freedom to kill but their human rights are also protected by International Human Right Laws. Is that right? I am a peasant not a lawyer, therefore please enlighten me Mr. Al Hussein.

      UN should introduce a Convention on Terrorism recognizing the rights of states taking measures “to protect human rights of civilians from being violated by terrorists”.

      By killing people, terrorists violate the right to life for any human being and OHCHR seeking a human rights coverage for terrorists has no logic whatsoever.

      International HR Laws are the biggest hindrance to combat terrorism.

      “….discriminatory counter-terrorism…”? Discriminating who? Terrorists? Are you trying to imply that terrorists should not be discriminated by taking counter measures to stop their killing spree and that equanimity should be maintained allowing them to unleash carnage?

      Who are you actually? United Nations High Commissioner for Terrorist Rights?

      “..My hope lies……… are willing to sacrifice everything,…….. even their lives, to safeguard rights – not just their own, but the rights of others….”

      Are you trying to imply that people should sacrifice their lives in order to safeguard rights and that human rights are more valuable than a human life???

      Well, well, well, it is time to replace you with an “enlightened High Commissioner” who acknowledges the value of human lives and gives priority to “Prevention of Carnage” by terrorists, who don’t keep captives but kill all.

       

      • 8
        7

        In another way ,what you are saying is one of the most wanted c**t Gnanasara should be punished severely, and thrown behind bars.

        • 5
          3

          roy

          Oh, I decided to take the high road and ignore the LTTE rump paid oaf’s comment.

          • 5
            5

            Champa:

            The road you have decided to take is not the high road but a dark alley fraught with stupidity and idiosyncrasis.

            • 4
              3

              jansee

              Taking the high road means, I decided to not to stoop to LTTE rump paid goon’s low level by getting into an argument on the subject.

              • 2
                2

                Champa:

                Can a donkey be taught to use a little bit of the grey matter? I will try my luck.

                If you are as itchy as you sound to be, knock your head against the wall and ask why should your govt signed the conventions related to covenants on human rights? And why the hell it is still a member of the UNHRC if donkeys like you don’t want to? And there is more, why did your govt co-sponsor the resolution for the censures and investigations?

                And herein lies the stupidity of your “high-road” – wasn’t the LTTE too implicated for crimes against humanity? Now you know why I call you a donkey.

        • 3
          3

          roy,

          Gnanasara thero hasn’t done anythig wrong. Most corrupt Badudeen and Sali must be thrown behind bars.

      • 9
        9

        Champa,
        Here we go again!!! Bandying about words you don’t understand.
        “Mr. Al Hussein, is terrorism a war crime or not?” Well then, give us an exact, universally accepted description of terrorism. Also an exact description of a war crime?

        • 5
          0

          Old Codger

          Oh, I am honoured. Thank you. For nearly 47 years, UN failed come to a concerted conclusion on how to define terrorism. I am glad you think my opinion matters.

          A universal definition for terrorism is necessary. If UN and its states parties are trying to come to a comprehensive definition for terrorism, it will never work. It should be defined in a narrow setting.

          The reason is, I don’t know whether the world has realized this or not, terrorists have narrowed their targets making it impossible for any country pre-determine the level of risk or the probability. This is a very dangerous phenomenon.

          Secondly, there is a growing tendency of terrorist groups targeting younger generation.

          In the light of the above and the rapid development in terrorist groups, it is imperative for UN to bringing in a Convention on Terrorism.

          Terrorism should be defined based on its intention, targets and the type of the terror group.

          The words “guerilla warfare” should be included in the definition of terrorism for the reason that over the years, through new techniques, skills, usage of ultra modern sophisticated weapons, crowdfunding, social media technology and unknown contributors as sources of financing, professional terrorists have developed guerilla warfare to such an extent, they can even outsmart and outmatch conventional armies making their existence outlast.

          In my opinion, causing a fear psychosis among people by targeting innocent civilians and destroying towns and cities using guerilla warfare is “terrorism”. Simple.

          Their political, religious or social ideology no longer matter. Terrorists are terrorists. There is no justification for their massacres.

          Any atrocities committed by terrorist groups that come under the above definition and during a war between two conventional armies, should consider as “war crimes”.

          Contd’……

          • 2
            2

            Champa:

            Your blabbering shows your utter ignorance. Be it nationally or internationally, terrorism and acts of terrorism have been defined and acted against it in an established and synchronised manner. It is for that reason that the international players, including India, supported the Sri Lankan govt in both material and moral ways.

            But that concurrence and support comes with a caveat. Such support to eradicate terrorism has been used by rascals marauding as leaders to commit genocide and war crimes. When a regime that doesn’t even want to implement its own LLRC recommendations, donkeys like you have no moral stance to lecture others. If you as much believe that your govt is blameless as a virgin, why not face the scrutiny and proof the bluff instead hiding behind the skirts like yours. Shame on you donkeys. Just tell the truth and shame the devil. Then we can put this behind us and move forward.

            One more thing. It is for the the “LTTE supporters” votes donkeys like you come a begging with shameless bowls. If you people have any shame at all left in you, tell the Sinhala leaders not to come for even one vote from the Tamils. You shameless donkeys.

        • 4
          3

          Old Codger

          Continued …….

          Any deaths caused by conventional armies during a war with guerilla terrorist outfits is not wilful killing and some are due to justifiable preemptive self defense which is even accepted by a UN Charter, therefore they cannot be considered as intentional breach of UN conventions where war crimes issue doesn’t even arise.

          A clear distinction between conventional armies and guerilla terrorist groups will place national security as the first and foremost responsibility of any sovereign state without any question.

          Protecting human rights of the entire population is the primary duty, responsibility and obligation of any state while human rights of terrorists come secondary and insignificant.

          Al Hussein’s fervor in protecting human rights of bloodlust terrorists has no rationale, when there is no formal definition whatsoever for terrorism or war crimes.

          On the other hand, I don’t see any logic in applying Human Rights Law to a state party to UN fighting with non-state party terrorist groups who are a law unto themselves.

          Therefore, Al Hussein has no right to apply International Human Right Laws at his whims and fancies to any nation-state which takes measures to combat/eradicate terrorism.

          • 2
            2

            Champa,
            I see you have stepped in where angels fear to tread.
            So, by your own definitions (“Any deaths caused by conventional armies during a war with guerilla terrorist outfits is not wilful killing and some are due to justifiable preemptive self defense “) all killing done by the British army against Sinhala forces in 1848 and before is justifiable.

            “If UN and its states parties are trying to come to a comprehensive definition for terrorism, it will never work. It should be defined in a narrow setting.” What you mean by this is that if your own relatives are killed , it is a terrorist act, but if your relatives kill someone else, that is patriotism. Can’t get narrower than that, I guess.
            “The words “guerilla warfare” should be included in the definition of terrorism ” Well then, did the JVP conduct guerilla warfare or not, against the State?
            “A clear distinction between conventional armies and guerilla terrorist groups will place national security as the first and foremost responsibility of any sovereign state without any question. ” So the state was justified in liquidating Wijeweera and many of his followers without trial? I don’t think your godly hero Wimal will like this.
            “In my opinion, causing a fear psychosis among people by targeting innocent civilians and destroying towns and cities using guerilla warfare is “terrorism”. ” I have not heard of guerillas destroying entire cities, but there are places like Hamburg, Dresden, Hiroshima, and Hagasaki, that were destoyed by conventional forces. So Churchill and Truman were terrorists (I agree with you there).

            • 2
              2

              Old Codger

              Your 1st para :- Wrong. British and Sinhalese were “conventional armies”.

              Before British invaded us, Sinhalese had their own advanced administrative system, a legal system (later we absorbed Roman Dutch Law into ours), an irrigation and water management system, scientific engineering and construction system (Sinhalese were the first in the world to use prefabrication concept, in buildings-stupas, we even used metal at the time), a transport system, a tax system, trade system, foreign envoy service, healthcare system (world’s first hospital was found in Sri Lanka with world’s first set of surgery equipment), advanced drainage/sanitary system, etc.. We were a fully self-sufficient country. British invaded our country, robbed our wealth, looted our resources and massacred our Sinhalese ancestors. Those are war crimes.

              Your 2nd para :- There is no logic. I have clearly explained as to why the definition should be constructed on a narrow setting.

              Your 3rd para :- JVP was a guerilla outfit and their effort to overthrow the government was defeated. All JVPers did not engage in fights. Some were attached to administration and procurement sectors.

              Your 4th para :- JVP was not a guerrilla terrorist group like LTTE, but a ‘guerilla rebel group’ and I explained the difference previously. Every government has a right to protect its population, resources and the country as a whole from guerrilla warfare whether they are rebels or terrorists. Wimal didn’t engage in fights. (Love you, Wimal.)

              Your 5th para :- Terrorists don’t have to destroy entire cities and that doesn’t make them saints. I said they have narrowed their targets now. They are professionals in terrorism.

              About the next part, they are conventional armies engaged in war, therefore, war crimes apply to those destructions in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, etc.

              Mr. Al Hussein, I have long list of actual war crimes you should look into.

              • 4
                4

                Champa

                “Before British invaded us, Sinhalese had their own advanced administrative system, a legal system”

                The European colonials who ruled Sri Lanka were the first to build tar roads, railway, tea plantations, Rubber plantations, coconut plantations, Schools, Universities, Libraries, Hospitals, medicine, Electricity, water, brought in cars, trolley busses, lorries, planes, Police, Army, Navy, Airforce, Courts, parliament, Cricket, football, netball, rugby, athletics, swimming, golf, cadetting, scouts, dams, furniture, cement, Radio, record players, movies, cinemas, shoes, shirts and slacks, bathrooms, toilets, hotels, bungalows, guest houses, glass, plates, pots and pans, fork and knives, flour, bread, cheese, cakes, butter, whisky, wine, cigarettes, elephant house soft drinks, banks, Pens, pencils, western music, weddings, telephone, telegram, post office, harbors, airports, etc. etc. etc.…..I could write a book on what they brought to Sri Lanka.

                If not for the European colonials your people will be still travelling in Gon Karatta (Bullock Carts), eating Mangokka, bathala, Kavum & Aggala, chewing bulath and spitting all over the country side, your men will be topless wearing only an Amude, your women will be topless wearing only a redda and going to Pirivena where the akuru gura beating you with a pol pittha, the sick will be carried to the village Vedaa in the night holding a Pandama (Koppara Lamp), and sit under a tree/bush drinking kasippu to relieve yourself.

                In 1948, the British handed over the entire country to the Sinhalese with the second highest GNP per capita in Asia and where are we today? As soon as the British left the country giving it to the Sinhala Modayas the down fall of the country started and ever since that day, the country went down the drain.

                • 2
                  2

                  Somapala Appuhamy @

                  focuing on the very same statement of Champa “Before British invaded us, Sinhalese had their own advanced administrative system, a legal system”,
                  I think had so called system been allowed to continue, srilanka would have been named after ” an another slaughtering house”.
                  Even today, 7 decades after the independence, they the rulers/authorities dont tend to apply the laws that have been introduced by colonials. If UK citizen can feel like ” justice is served to them” by the very same law being applied in that part of the world, but , we the people, – majority of them to feel, that the law is not YET fully applied even in high criminal acts, for example high crimes such as of victimzed Thadjudeen case, prima facie evidence being surfaced former President family to have directly involved in, but to be ignored sofar, not even president wife and son have nt yet INTERROGATGED on the allegations……. ? can you i,magine the levels.
                  All these prove – laws direct it well – but those who are upto apply the due laws to be blamed. Or not ?
                  Even south africans apply it to some advanced levels than it is the case in CORRUPTION dominated srilanka.

                • 1
                  2

                  Continued…

                  Even after doing all the good things for Sri Lanka without begging or borrowing even a single penny from anybody, still our uncultured, ungrateful, unappreciative Sinhala Buddhists while still using all the above that was given to them free still blame them without any gratitude. THIS IS THE CURSE THAT SRI LANKA IS PAYING TODAY….due to these bad, selfish, ungrateful, swollen headed, insanely proud, utter stupid Sinhala Buddhist Modayas.

                • 0
                  2

                  Somapalam,

                  You are a first class idiot. Learn the TRUE history of Sri Lanka before type or keep visiting secondary websites.
                  You’ve forgotten to mention “The Marakkala MUSLIMS”, the worst ever happened to Sri Lanka MUSLIMS.

                  Under British, SL might have been the second highest GNP per capita in Asia, but it meant nothing to native Sinhalese, British shipped all the wealth to Briton, practically they were draining the wealth of the country. Even after 1948 independence Brition owned several companies, millions of acres of estates, and still kept shipping wealth to Briton, that was why Briton got rid of SWRD-B for his nationalism, nationalizations and agreements that were about to be sighed with OTHER foreign countries . British colonialists ignored the then Malaria out break as well.

                  • 2
                    1

                    John the Buddhist, a Sinhala village godaya has become John (the baptised) after going to the white man’s land to serve the white man as a slave.
                    The joke of the day is, he is talking about the ‘TRUE history’ of Sri Lanka, Ha, ha, haaa…

                    Damn fool, it is the Sinhala-Buddhist monks (Buddhrakitha Thero & Somarama thero) who got rid of SWRD-B. ‘TRUE history’ – my foot!

                  • 0
                    1

                    Johnny Baby————“but it meant nothing to native Sinhalese”—————-Who are the foreign Sinhalese? All of them are descendant of Kallathonies from South India.

              • 2
                3

                There is a common saying in sinahala vernacular – අබ කාපු මිනිහාගේ මොලය දනී. கடுகு மனிதனின் மூளை சாப்பிட்டேன் தெரியும். person who
                consumed mustard only faces the burning sensation. Champa seems to know what he has been adding in favour of the wrong ones is not fair, nevertheless him to continue that way; Each time, reading the comments coming from Champa – the most abusive and current day Rajakakshe apologist. Why should we at all talk about the crimes made during the last phase of the war, while we have all the levels of crimes MR administration deliberately carried out in the post war period (from 2009 to 2015) ?

                • 2
                  1

                  “கடுகு மனிதனின் மூளை சாப்பிட்டேன் தெரியும்.”
                  There is a saying in Sinhala about ‘nodanna demala”.
                  This translation beats many translations that I have come across in public places.

              • 1
                2

                Champa,
                You are such an educationist! I have learnt a lot today.
                “Before British invaded us, Sinhalese had their own advanced administrative system, a legal system (later we absorbed Roman Dutch Law into ours), an irrigation and water management system, scientific engineering and construction system (Sinhalese were the first in the world to use prefabrication concept, in buildings-stupas, we even used metal at the time), a transport system, a tax system, “

                I always wondered why the Portuguese and Dutch were using Sinhala words for window/door/ shoes/ table/ soap/toilet/estimate/ paint/ kitchen, and many many more. So they must have not had kitchens, toilets, shoes, soap, etc before they came here. I will go to my lawyer today and sue these evil plagiarists for stealing our Sinhala inventions.
                You have done a national service, dear Champa!
                Oh, BTW, you forgot Ravana’s air transport system, which the Buddha used to get here.

          • 2
            1

            This man Champa has always been supporting sinhala extremists and even terrorists.

            For me Wimal Buruwanse, was ALMOST a terrorist, by date, turned out to be a rich man thanking to Mafia king’s secret deals carried out during the 2 terms of MR tyranny. If anyone started his politics on Maxism would never end up being part of rich life styles. As one who came out of a very poor background, believed to have NOT owned even a push-cycle at the time, Wimal started his Parliament carrier few years ago, but to date, to own a palace (as recent TV telecasts proved to the world) by date is unthinkable to me. So would the masses see it.
            But this man, I guess should be a CLOSE confidiate of the bugger to continue his bandying about him is beyond all bearing.

            • 2
              1

              Simon de Silva – I can also call you a terrorist, right?

              You again. What do you mean very poor? His parents looked after him and other children and his father was a teacher. They might not had resources some others had, but they had a decent life. Is there any law that the poor should stay poor or Marxists should stay poor? You have a personal grudge against him, that is why you reduced his 29 years of political career into few years. He drew a salary like all other politicians. What is your problem?

              A government politician is building a house in Colombo worth Rs. 300 million (without the land value) and he was a Minister for only 2 years. How about that?

              Masses never check the birthplaces of politicians or anybody’s like low grade people like you. Nobody can pre-determine one’s birth place and it is a fact. You only display your inferior qualities.

              Every year Wimal distributes school stationery to underprivileged children. It was the same when he was in the government or the opposition. Can you name one more politician who does that? Wimal is much loved by masses and that is what he earned being a principled politician.

              I have been pestering Wimal to do the external degree since last year. He doesn’t. I don’t know why. He is stubborn. Or may be he wants to place a record in the Sri Lankan history.

              You are allowed to be jealous of him, man. I don’t mind. He doesn’t either.

              • 2
                0

                Champa

                Wimal Weerahora was riding a ram shackle push bicycle when he was in the JVP. As soon as he joined the Mahinda Rajapakshe government, within a very short period he became a multi-millionaire and has built a palace and also owns the most luxury vehicles. He should be given a life-time jail sentence for robbing the Sri Lankan nation. For a few Modayass like you, he has become a cardboard weeraya, a fake patriot. He is a day time patriot and night time patta pal Hora, fooling a few fools to get the votes.

              • 0
                0

                [Edited out] Comments should not exceed 300 words.

            • 0
              0

              Lots of decent people who did not have pushbicycles. are lucky enough to own cars in todays culture. THIS is attributed by some to stealing. The fact is some people work hard save money over many years and rightfully deserve to have them. Do some maths and think how people if they earn a monthly income of. X Rs over a period of say 10 years with a saving of 1/4 of X. could add to their savings to buy the luxuries they dream of. I personally know lots of people from humble begginnigs are quite comfortable. Today. Yet people in SL will. Be very quick to brand them as thieves due to their small brains.

        • 2
          1

          Champa:

          Yo should be asking your uncles Gotabaya and Mahinda who would be more than willing to jump on it.

      • 3
        4

        He He He

        Veera Puran Appu was a terrorist for then British government of Ceylon…modayas calling this thug as national hero.an

        White South Africa government once labelled Nelson Mandela terrorist.

        National hero Keyanta of Kenya whose soldiers massacred white adults and children was labelled as terrorist .by British rulers later British queen gave an audience to him .

        Cheers

        • 1
          2

          Still Veera puran appu is an indigenous hero, a son of the soil…imagine what an unfortunate living being you must be to call yourself Cholan, a FOREIGN dynasty ….because you have NOTHING and NONE among yourselves to be proud of.

          LTTE emblem – Tiger (chola emblem)
          LTTE supporters – Cholan

          LOL but these supporters claim they had 3000 years old distinct tamil nation in SL…why did not that ‘nation’ produce a single emblem for 3000 years for you to give any identity? why steal a foreign one? Because you do not have an identity, or a nation or a 3000 year old tamil kingdom..right?

          • 2
            3

            He He He

            There was no India 3000 years ago ok?
            Tamils were living in todays South Indian territory and todays so called Sri Lanka territory .
            Cholas ruled not only these two areas but also today Maldives,Malaysia,Indonesia..there are historical evidences..not a crap like comic book Mahavamsa.
            BTW Jananathapuram ( today Polnanaruwa) was created by Cholas ..still their ruins are there full stop.

            Finally Cholas were the first in the world had powerful navy in those days ..and many S E Asian countries were afraid to take political decisions without consulting Cholas.(read Politics in SE Asia from 2nd-11th century by ex-diplomat Vernon Mendis)

            Sinhalese came from todays Kerala area then Tamils Sera Kingdom..not from North India cooked by fanatic racists Buddhist Ayotullahs in Mahavamsa comic book ok ?

            If a thief is a hero for Sinhalese ..Tamils also can call a leader as a hero .he he he it took Sinhala card board forces to challenge them only with the help of poverty India plus 34 other countries.

            By forcing Hindi Indian government is pressing Tamil Nadu to think about a separate country ..now only sparks …he he he

            Cheers

            • 0
              2

              Cholas ruled parts of SL as conquered territory like British ruled SL that too for 90 years. I am asking whether your INDIGENOUS tamil nation has NOTHING to even to use as an emblem or even to use as a name…..

              Who is questioning what Cholas did? Cholas are TN’s heritage? I am asking what do you have to show as yours? NOTHING ryt?

              You people are living a life of lies. Every time this lie laughs at you …;)

              • 1
                1

                In the 9th century AD, under Rajaraja Chola and his son Rajendra Chola, Sri Lanka became one of the nine provinces of the Chola Empire and was called Eelam Mandalam. This Chola rule was the longest and the most far-reaching in terms of surface area by the Tamil power. Sri Lanka remained a South Indian (Chola) colony under the rule of Rajaraja Chola and his son Rajendra Chola.

                After the Chola rule of Anuradhapura and then Polonawara (a kingdom created by Rajendra Chola) kingdoms ended, the people who spoke Sinhala and/or practiced Buddhism moved to the South and created their Kingdoms in Kandy, Kotte, and many other places in the South. On the other hand, the people who spoke Tamil and/or practiced Hinduism moved to the North & East and created their Kingdom in Jaffna. A separate Jaffna kingdom (1215-1624 CE) was established for the Tamils. This is the very first time in the history of Sri Lanka, separate Sinhala and Tamil Kingdoms in the South and North began only after the Anuradapura/Polonurawa kingdoms were abandoned.

                • 1
                  1

                  I know about Chola rule very well. In fact Cholas wrote scripts in TN about conquering Sinhala lands as a big achievement. But they mentioned NOTHING about any ‘indegenous Tamil kingdom’ in SL as Tamils liked to fantasize in SL.

                  The cholas or chola invasions are the heritage of people living in South India. I am asking why so called heirs of a 3000 year old indigenous Tamil kingdom in north has to borrow emblems and even names from a foreign country? Was Chelva wrong in saying Tamils in SL form a historical distant nation?

            • 1
              1

              chola

              no language called tamil around five thousand years ago. no race called tamil existed south india as well. all part was inhabited by australoid. but they spoken various languages. here in lanka inhabitant used language called ELU. five thousand years ago dravidians were migrating to godavari from south west region of iran called Elam.

              Anybody can called their leaders as hero. no issue. but people who undergone hardship under same heroes can called them murderous as well. rights can be interpreted the way you want it. no issue. you call prabakaran as hero we sinhalese call him as murder. no issue.

      • 2
        1

        Champa:

        Idiots like you should be taught how to read. Did you actually read and understand what Zeid is talking about? To highlight, terrorism has no place and should be weeded out but those rascals who use terrorism as a ploy in abusing human rights should be answerable for their actions.

        What is wrong with that and what exactly is your problem?

        • 1
          2

          jansee

          It is you who should read and understand, not me.

          Who are the rascals who use terrorism as a ploy? Ploy? Elaborate.

          • 2
            1

            Champa,
            You are such an educationist! I have learnt a lot from you today.
            “Before British invaded us, Sinhalese had their own advanced administrative system, a legal system (later we absorbed Roman Dutch Law into ours), an irrigation and water management system, scientific engineering and construction system (Sinhalese were the first in the world to use prefabrication concept, in buildings-stupas, we even used metal at the time), a transport system, a tax system, “

            I always wondered why the Portuguese and Dutch were using Sinhala words for window/door/ shoes/ table/ soap/toilet/estimate/ paint/ kitchen, and many many more. So they must have not had kitchens, toilets, shoes, soap, etc before they came here. I will go to my lawyer today and sue these evil plagiarists for stealing our Sinhala inventions.
            You have done a national service, dear Champa!
            Oh, BTW, you forgot Ravana’s air transport system, which the Buddha used to get here.

            • 0
              0

              Champa should be very right saying we had advance legal system.

              Not few days ago, a villager (44 years) had killed his own 3 children strangulating and in the end he had killed himself too.
              The kind of acts have been continuing in the country even today, recalling the past we had even before colonials came into the country.

              Champa you are dead right…. also when stuying how your GODs RULED the nation until 8th Jan 2015. That should be the way to treat CHAMPAS dominated srilanken population. Today, all termours and unexpected dangers are the case the way Umaoya project has been made to that area. All is believed to have kept for the family only, since there had been no right public to even read about the project, but Rajaakshes.

              Thanks Champs… We wish you LIVE LONG.You the kind of Educationalists, are the real representatives of the GRASS EATING majority of srilanka.

      • 1
        1

        What is terrorism? Killing innocent people or their possessions or torturing or raping ethnic or religious minorities on the basis of language or colour or gender?

        First one should define terrorism.

        Killing by aerial bombing or suicide bombing of innocent civilians is also terrorism depending on which side one is aligned. For example, UNHRC elected from UN body determine what is terrorism and how to determine who committed what. Any country can leave UN and be outside the global monitoring.

        UK is not prepared for leaving UN or UNHRC. In UK the prime minister cannot act like a dictator, there are institutions like parliament and judiciary to safeguard the rights of individuals and rejection of international laws. As the High Commissioner of UNHRC says one has to look at the context of making a statement. During the electioneering rhetoric flies in all directions but once it’s over reality sets in and wiser counsel prevails.

    • 8
      5

      jenn—————“Our Rear Admiral never fought the final stages of the war but instead staying in his plush office and giving instructions to our poor sailors and sent them to their death whilst filling up his pockets with commissions. “—————How dare you accuse the patriots who could/would have pocketed commissions? Don’t you think that is part of their unwritten normal job descriptio? ———————–As you probably not know that without these smart ass patriots the west and India could have swallowed up this island. ———————————————————————————————————————————-Learn never to question The Sangha, The Saffronistas, The Tri Forces, The Police, The Politicians, The Bureaucracy, The Political Analyst, The Public Racists, The Drug Dealers, The Sinhala/Buddhist Fascists, The Parochial Historians, The War Criminals, The War Mongers and Crime Deniers, …………………………………The Political Brats, The Crooks, The Rapists with Connections, Nepotism, …………………… I think you should learn to live frugally. You should not entertain the desire for luxuries, questioning the above patriots including the one Rear Admiral who wanted to sue the state for letting citizens sing Tamil National anthem during public events and his b***s carrier the CountryFarce….. ———-Wait our own old Jim Softy is going to have few serious words with you.

      —————–Jimmy where are you noth new one?

    • 3
      4

      Idiot, the rear admiral is a very patriotic naval commander. He has shed his blood in defence of his country at his youth. At the time of the final war, he was retired and still took the responsibility of the civil defence force formed for protecting the civilians in border villages who were under constant attack from LTTE.
      He can retire to his home and spend the rest of his life enjoying but being a patriot who has unlimited allegiance to motherland and to his people he does not stay at home. He like a true warrior fights the enemies of the country whether it is in Geneva or at sea like he did when he was young.
      None can blame the honored rear admiral for taking commissions. This is the standard unpatriotic UNP method of tainting war heroes. The UNPers cant even find a proper leader for the party and destroying the country with that useless fellow Ranil.

    • 0
      0

      Who are you? did you actually see this or are you fantasising that this is what actually happened. Are you still sitting in a kindergarten. ?

  • 14
    13

    There is no challenge to a single word expressed. In fact it is a beautiful essay. But Sri Lanka was not viewed by UN from this exalted moral mountain tip. It was ‘hounded’. Totally ignoring discussing the support mechanism for LTTE based in countris of ‘Western democracies ‘ . True, some lip service is paid with LTTE ‘also’ violated human rights in a lukewarm manner. Partial justice is as bad as injutice. In this arena there is no such thing as somethings is better than nothing. In short any investigation into human rights violation by Sri Lankan govt forces should necessarily include the support mechanism I mentioned whose actors are still live and kiking. We will subject ourselves to justice if and only if aĺl actors are treatedd equitably. ……………
    Soma

    • 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/

    • 6
      5

      somass ji———– “exalted moral mountain tip” ———–I am dumbfounded, I am petrified. Man you are a literary giant, a word smith, a Phraseologist ……………… I don’t have enough knowledge to describe your ability come up with new phrases? Brilliant. ———–Did you use ” Dynamic Keyword Phrase Generator Tool” from rustybrick.com? ———–I input certain random words into the phrase generator tool and look what I received ————————————–Aspiring Fascist Somass Ji is a Sinhala/Buddhist Ghetto Dweller. ——————I am happy with the tool as it aptly describe you. —————

      • 2
        5

        NV You fell into a hysterical frenzy as I mentioned the ‘ support mechanism’ of which you were an active member and all the, money, effort and risk wasted in the muddy waters of Nandikadal. Sorry mate. ……..
        Soma

        • 5
          3

          somass ji————-“NV You fell into a hysterical frenzy as I mentioned the ‘ support mechanism’ of which you were an active member and all the,”——————————————————-Did you expect a measured comment from me for your paranoia ridden typing? —————–You must be the most stupidest Sinhala/Buddhist in this forum after Dayan the fascist war monger.—————–Do you think anyone who was part of the support mechanism would have considered me as one of them? ———I thought its worth carving out a Sinhala/Buddhist fascist ghetto exclusively for you from the mainland island. Not anymore. Now I have changed my mind. You better stay in a secular democratic country which I am sure will suffocate you as every bit of island breeze would blow you the message of democracy and secularism and a rainbow nation. I know its will be too difficult for you to live in democratic country. Either you will chose to commit suicide or return back to your ancestral land where the saffronistas are active under RSS, VHP and BJP. You will get to meet Modi with whom you could comfortably converse in Hindi. Jai Hind.

          • 0
            2

            The whole island is the legitimate sinhala ghetto

  • 13
    15

    Mr Hussein
    UN and UNHRC are all a joke. Did you investigate any western power players for their human right violations? They do violate rights of minorities in their own countries and in foreign countries in the name of bringing democracy. Why only your rules for the third world?? Why not your Arab countries who violate every human right??
    You are going an extra mile to explain to us that the British Prime minister did not say anything wrong. Why?? Why??

    • 5
      0

      “”Why?? Why??”” The cosmos was set to order and pigs do fly.- when the time is right everyone has to pay the price- robber baron of the begging bowl follow the que!!

  • 8
    10

    An excellent essay which shows the quality of the people who hold office at UNHCR . The famous Navi Pillay would have done the same, notwithstanding proposals of marriage from Vermin Silva and threats of suicide by Lemon Puff from Sangiliwansa. What a gap there is between them and our own “intellectuals”.
    I wish Zaid had written a bit more about the Rear Admiral. That jackass is a type that just might have made it into a fishing boat 50 years ago. Now the country is saddled with thousands of them in the forces , politics, and now the GMOA.
    “Tragically, the nativistic reflexes once again being peddled by populists and demagogues still seem to work. They sell supremacy and not equality, sow suspicion rather than calm, “
    The above passage describes all three.

  • 10
    3

    One reason for why people despise the human rights lobby (especially from rich western nations) is their hypocrisy. They influence the rich countries to hijack poor nations’ economy using human rights issues, but do not as fervently oppose rights abuses in their own countries.

    That is why I, for one, am always suspicious of human rights activists, most of whom have never visited or lived in the countries they pretend to be experts on, when giving talks and making policies about poor countries.

    BTW how is the state of human rights in Jordan?

  • 5
    3

    “National Security takes precedence over Human Rights”. These are words of former British Prime Minister David Cameron during a visit to Washington. Why do the likes of Cameron and May make such statements? When people are dying on the streets from terrorist attacks, people demand strong counter measures and not platitudes from international civil servants from their safe havens in Geneva.

    • 2
      0

      “”“National Security takes precedence over Human Rights”””
      That statement was to highlight the old adage `we stand for the underdog`while sipping the first and second from the same leaf. The third cup of tea from the same leaf gives a bitter taste like a married woman and most can’t live without her.

  • 7
    9

    The so called Darusman report was initiated as an advisory panel for the UHNRC chief. It is against the UN charter to publish a panel report that was created as a UN’s advisory panel ( violation no.1)

    UNHRC has NO right to initiate an international investigation. It has to come through Security Council ( violation 2)

    UN report is based on the advisory report of Darusman and Sooka which is NOT a comprehensive report and full of many errors. It is not professionally done. Therefore a lot of questions can be raised about the UN report.

    The UN resolution is based on the UN report which is against the charter and hence UN resolution itself is illegal.

    The UNHRC chief has in fact violated the UN charter and therefore SLG should have taken action against the UN instead of co sponsoring it.

    • 7
      3

      What is the source of your pronouncements that the Darusman Report and the Petrie Report should not have been published. Maybe they should have relied on the impatial Parainaygama and the LLRC Report.

      • 3
        2

        It is the UN charter idiot. These lackys of the west have violated the UN charter while holding high positions in UN. Future Sri Lankan governments will bring that out and blacklist all these officials and destroy their career paths :)

        • 1
          0

          Where DimWit in the UN Charter is this stated?

          • 2
            2

            It is inside you dimwit’s rear end

  • 5
    1

    “”Sri Lankan Rear Admiral, Theresa May & Misunderstanding Human Rights Law””
    Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, The first principal for human rights should be we are all different and the smallest minority of the world is the individual. Then baby you carry is thrown off the bathtub and a new leaf dawns- It was postman’s son Abdul Nasser who thought that we are all equal and killed the Pan_Isalm royalty to user in bloody world of terror under the banner Pan_Arab. Our own alla Sri Mao loved the colour of his skin and his low life ways (she was the woman of the kitchen who could never cook)- She wanted it all and the era of the bamboo flowers commenced bringing in the plague- wriggle wriggle like a big fat snake!! You folk are paid more than American civil servants and it’s high time you jumped off that bath tub and followed the principle that the individual is the smallest minority then the smoke screens and mirrors fade away- Theresa May is right but we can’t live without others until innovators and pets of the system takes over the world in 50-100 years.

  • 5
    0

    Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, ,
    “”These extreme practitioners of the assertive, thin agenda are apt to dismiss many of today’s international laws and post-war institutions as anachronisms. “”

    Aren’t you duping your cleverness by antagonising the truth that prevails in today’s world?
    The Donald won’t pay for the excesses by liberal democrats after world war 2- the flawed human right of dumping people anywhere and everywhere like in the days of slavery and hiding their weakness by framing laws for race, religion, sex.
    The Donald prefers to shut the door and let America do its homework after 70 years of blood and gore. Theresa May needs more pirates to swing in her way of elizabethan thought as always there are enough and more who would be glorified at the end of it all . house of lords! sigh.

    You know what is right without a flaw and that is all you have then don’t go to law because law controls the mean and base whilst justice guides the wise in every case.

    Anyone who makes friends with a prince beware your wealth will go.

  • 7
    2

    Hussein didn’t answer the core question and the challenge posed by the Sri Lankan former Rear Admiral.

    How can the so called human rights be selective and apply only to smaller states? Isn’t impartiality be a corner stone of his “human rights” job?

    Why didn’t he and his colleagues and predecessors give any weight to the human rights of those who suffered from Tamil separatist terrorism in the case of Sri Lanka? Where are the strictures & sanctions against those terrorists, their supporters and financiers?

    Pious pronouncements from higher pedestals don’t mean anything. Hussein and his institution are a failure and a bully.

    I can’t remember seeing the names of Iraq, Palestine or even Libya anywhere in his speech. How can he forget?

    • 5
      3

      ala batalla, wayward monkey of the south you have no imagination of what it is to be human so please seek help from Hsüan-tsang before Gautama.

      • 1
        1

        ikarat,—-
        So you believe that Muslims are not humans. Anyway, if not for ” Gautama”, you donkeys wouldn’t have been tolerated this long.

        • 1
          1

          Image of Gautama?? you are fake!!!
          after five hundred years when even in the centenary xxi we do not understand our what our grandparents are saying. It was a story told for people who did not understand sanskrit the administrative language of brahmin scholars. so that they could be herded by sociopaths for the ruler to rule.
          “”So you believe that Muslims are not humans.”” you are fake with katte pittu.

    • 3
      2

      Hela————“Hussein didn’t answer the core question and the challenge posed by the Sri Lankan former Rear Admiral.”———————————–By the way what were the charges again? He went to Geneva on free tickets and all expenses paid. It was another free foreign trip. Could you you confirm the trip was solely for the purpose of defending dignity of the arm forces . ———————-Didn’t he attend birthday party, weddings, old boys get together…………. visiting old flame, …………………. express his smart ass patriotism? ………………He promised to sue the government for allowing Tamil National Anthem was being sung at public events. Almost two and a half years have passed we do not know the outcome. He is a bloody windbag ———————————————————————————————————————————“I can’t remember seeing the names of Iraq, Palestine or even Libya anywhere in his speech. How can he forget?”——————————-Read the following article you will see at least 10 times Libya is being mentioned: UN report documents litany of violations and abuses amid chaos in Libya ————-http://www.ohchr.org/

      What exactly is your problem? Let us know, we can sort it out for you.

      • 2
        3

        Dont worry fake vaddha, everything is done according to a plan and a strategy..you will not know that just like Prabha got a surprise in the mullavaikkal lagoon.

      • 1
        1

        What can a confused veddek can sort out for me?

        That rear admiral DID represent a substantial section of the Sri Lankan society in Geneva a responsibility your darling yamapalana junta has abdicated. He did not go their on public funds like your embassy buddies in Geneva who do everything else other than representing the interests of Sri Lanka and it’s citizens. Therefore it is most apt for you to direct those exact questions to them.

        You don’t need to quote any documents. Hussein didn’t mention the most horrendous human rights violations took place and are taking place in Iraq, Libya & Palestine in his speech though he remembered about Crimea. What violations did occur in Crimea compared to Iraq, Libya and Palestine? Don’t try to play your tricks on us which you played on the poor 6.2m SL people who got fooled.

        The point remains……Hussein could not answer the core question and the challenge posed by the rear admiral whatever you scream with or without your amude………

        • 1
          1

          Hela ——“That rear admiral DID represent a substantial section of the Sri Lankan society in Geneva a responsibility your darling yamapalana junta has abdicated.” ———————————-Please tell us how did this public racist represent a substantial section of the Sri Lankan society in Geneva? Did he contest in a island wide election that specifically elected him to represent substantial section of Sri Lankan society? ———————————————–This windbag tells that he donated blood to Tamil people when this war criminal was sent to collectively take blood from them. —————–This smart ass patriot questions where were the Tamils when LTTE was doing that this and other. Where was this smart ass patriot when Hindians invaded this island and started killing so many Tamils, and raping their women folks? ————–He must have been hiding behind his Grandma or grand daughter. ————————-What has got into the the smart ass patriots? ————– If you really want to dig out truth and serve justice to people please pull your head out of his rear and stop admiring war criminals.

          Where is he planning to hide if and when Hindian IPKF mark II arrives on this island? Perhaps inside C V Wigneshwaran’s amude. In your case you should reserve a place under Sambandan’s white veasty as VP is no longer there to fight the Sri Lankan against an invading foreign army.

  • 0
    1

    [Edited out] Comments should not exceed 300 words.Please read our Comments Policy for further details.

    • 3
      1

      Rtd. Lt. women sniffing Reginald Shameless Perera————Brilliant. Thanks. Keep up your good work. By the way “Psychopaths’ have an impaired sense of smell, study suggests” -These findings by Mehmet Mahmut and Richard Stevenson, from Macquarie University in Australia, are published online in Springer’s journal Chemosensory Perception. —-www.sciencedaily.com.

  • 3
    2

    Way back in 1980 I recall a clear statement made by the late JRJ (I am not a fan of his, but what he said that day is noteworthy). He said that all nations of the civilized world should very strongly condemn the LTTE militarism and must call the LTTE to desist from attacks against the Sri Lankan police out-posts and small rural banks etc. He specifically appealed to the Indira Ghandi government to discourage the LTTE, instead of openly training and supporting them. He also asked the then Indian government and the Western nations like Norway, Germany, Britain, Canada etc not to offer surreptitious support for the LTTE. JRJ went on to state, that if we the civilized society do nothing now, then the whole international community will have to face this same problem that Sri Lanka is confronted with.

    It is unfortunate but there is a saying “sow the wind and reap the whirlwind” and also “as you sow, so shall you reap” Actually, this prince has nothing to really worry. If not for terror, he and many of the United Nations will be unemployed!!

  • 5
    1

    Not that I am versed in any articles or there ofs of any Charters or anything like that, however, doesn’t Saudi Arabia stone women to death for adultery? Doesn’t Saudi Arabia also has a seat on the UNHRC? Isn’t female adulteres human? Just asking, Mr Zaed, sir?

    • 2
      0

      In fact Saudi Arabia is the chairman in UNHRC. Saudi Arabia was voted in by USA and of course our neighbour India with some Scandinavians

  • 3
    0

    UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein seems to be having a short memory or a selective memory>>>>>his former boss>>> Banki Moon General Secretary of UN >>>was “parachuted”>>not literally but by Helicopter>>>>to the “no fire zone”>> to be garlanded by mentally tormented Tamil children>>> who just washed away the blood from the wounds caused by carpet bombing by Sri Lankan government.>>> Human Rights law did not apply to the Govt of Sri Lanka.>>> UN is now drafting a motion to water down the war crimes against the Sri Lankan govt.>>>>so double standards by the UN yet again.

  • 4
    2

    When one organized group called terrorists working outside the legal parameters dish out inhuman treatment to law abiding citizens and legally established governments, then they the terrorists have given up their right for claiming human rights. If they do not respect the human rights of their victims they do not deserve to be treated with kid gloves. Those governments that support their pet terrorists and treats their victims with contempt deserve similar treatment. UN is molly coddling terrorists and show their ass to the victims.

  • 4
    4

    Let’s all thank the war-hero Sarath Weerasekara for his GREAT speech in Geneva. First, he kicked the butt of the retard Nandikadal-Prabakaran, and now he’s kicking the but of the idiot Geneva- Al Hussein.

    Now, it’s a common sight money-laundering Eelamist diaspora are holidaying and enjoying in Geneva.

    • 2
      3

      Johnny Baby————–Here is an excerpt from a great speech—————————————————————————————————————————————————————-
      {I have a dream that one day down in Alabama, with its vicious racists, with its governor having his lips dripping with the words of interposition and nullification – one day right there in Alabama little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers.

      I have a dream today.

      I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted and every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together.}

      Have you heard/read this speech before in your life time? It was by Martin Luther King jnr.——————————————————————————————————————————–
      Zeros cannot be heroes. —————————————————————————————–
      Here is another excerpt from a great speech:————————————————————–
      {We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.} —————————————————————————————-
      Have you heard/read this speech before in your life time? It was by John F. Kennedy.———Please send these excerpts to all your favourite public racists, including the one who promised to sue the government several times but haven’t done it yet. What are these smart ass pathetic patriots trying to hide, murder, war crimes, adultery, illegal commissions, perhaps selling contraband to LTTE, supplying surplus arms to local criminals, …………… treasure hunting, stealing and selling archaeological artifacts to private collectors?

      • 1
        0

        Native,

        What’s your point????? Is JFK your hero?????? your problem is that you don’t live in the real world. You must understand the life and times of then America.

        Those speeches were great but. MLK and JFK were both said be adulterers.

        • 1
          1

          Johnny Baby————————-Since you are a thumb sucking baby you haven’t heard great speeches in your entire life time. I just want you to get a feel of great speeches. ———————-If women wanted to sleep with them then what is your problem? How many of your so called patriotic leaders are known for fidelity.—————————————————- I have understood racist speeches of not just this coward, head in the Rear Admiral but also other public racists such as Mahanama, Panadura Vadaya fame Migettuwatte Gunananda, Anagarika Dharmapala the homeless one, A E Goonasinha, L H Methananda, Dr F R Jayasuriya, K M P Rajaratna, Dadegama Wimalawansa, devamottawe Amarawansa, Philip Gunawardana, SWRD Banda, JR Jayawardana, Mallwatte chapter, Asgiria chapter, ……………………………. were some however the list is not exhaustive. So bigotry does not make them great. You are a proven bigot does it mean you are popular among Sinhalese or Buddhists?

  • 1
    3

    …………. [ the French authorities took broad aim and closed down 20 mosques and Muslim associations, while also undertaking some 2,700 warrantless house searches. ]….. Sri Lanka must do the same.

    • 3
      3

      Johnny——I rather invite the state to close down all the temples, viharas, mosques, churches, ………………. and ban all imported religion irrespective of time of its arrival. Do you have any problem with that?

  • 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/

    • 2
      1

      ranjith(sprrw) the scatterbrain magician ———-Brilliant. Thanks. Keep up your good work.

  • 3
    1

    The guy says Theresa May’s words, to formulate tough laws against terrorists are ‘regrettable’ and possibly encouraging to dictators to violate human rights under the pretext of fighting terrorism. The word/s ‘regrettable’ or ‘regret’ is often used by the likes of presidents and senior officials of Western countries when they bomb and kill hundreds in the developing world, often carried in pursuit of agendas under the pretext of fighting terrorism or promoting democracy. Pity, the man from UN who claims to defend human rights cannot condemn excesses of Western leaders in no uncertain and firm language. Isn’t that encouraging for leaders of Western nations continue to bomb and kill millions under the pretext of fighting terrorism, promoting democracy? UN officials do nothing when Western leaders choose to bomb and kill brown and black men, women and children. They are hand-picked puppets. The best they can say is ‘regret’. The UN is dying, almost dead and the camel jockey from the desert will ensure the inevitable. Hopefully, fast!

    • 2
      2

      lal loo ————Keep an eye on your long lost cousins from the North. Modi is bringing the Northern brand of fascistic Hinduttwa, go hide behind your grandma or grand daughters. The Northern Fascists will kill you if they see you eating beef. However they don’t need evidence nor law, they simply kill and the state turns a blind eye, just like here in this island. Perhaps they too share Sinha Le.

  • 2
    0

    Theresa May and Angela Merkal are paying for their “open heart” policy by admitting millions of Muslims without checking their background .

    Terrorists are playing carnival ..while Police are sleeping in Europe.

    Cheers

  • 1
    3

    He He He

    Sinhala leaders thought that they can easily buy Prince Zeid Ra`ad Al Hussein like they buy local thoppies for few rupees .

    Alas when they realized that Prince Zeid is tougher than Ms.Navaneetham Pillai Sinhalease are scratching their heads.. pity.

    Cheers

    • 5
      2

      Who is buying Zeid here? Zied is an official working in an organization which we are a part of us. He is an employee of us….we can remind him the rules of his conduct and how we has violated the rules.

  • 2
    1

    Zied Hussein on the run having got entangled in a Sri Lanka cross-fire.
    Cover your head Hussein………… dear.

  • 2
    0

    UN is a out dated and biased organisation. Nobody listens to listens to them. If any country wants to clear the name be friendly with USA. It does not what is the crime.

  • 0
    0

    Champa,

    Do you also love animals? Is anyone in your family addicted to English fiction?

  • 0
    1

    The “Constitution” of SL is technically only a unilateral Sinhalese political mandate to rule the island from 1972, Further, the “Constitution” does not permit equality, dignity and justice to all the citizens of SL including the Tamils; a reason for Tamil Genocide.

    Therefore, SL is not a democracy, as falsely claimed by the GSL,

    Justifiably, the UN wants a true democratic constitution with equal rights for all, and Ms Pinto, the UN Special Rapporteur, rightly spoke of a need for a speedy constitution in place for SL, with participation by all nations that constitute it

    But, the Sinhalese, the journos and their media, do not have either the will or ability to do justice. They want uncivilised Tamil oppression, impunity and genocide to continue, which the civilised world through the UN will never permit.
    The Sinhalese and their media are yet to understand and accept that killing of civilians is and will never be an internal matter but a world matter to be addressed fully by the UN, This became entrenched in UN work after the genocide in Rwanda about 20 years ago, But the Sinhalese are still unaware of the automatic internationalisation of civilian killings.

    When civilians are killed, justice becomes a UN matter, especially, when the history of doing justice to the victims of oppression or killing, are biased, with the Sinhalese vernacular judges putting a finger on the scale.

    SL practiced state Terrorism against Tamils from 1979. Arbitrary arrests, torture, disappearance and murder were rampant. Thr killing of about 100,000 civilians including women and children during the last days of war, are Human Rights violations that need justice, and punishment to the offenders.

    SL is like a naughty school kid complaining about the priincipal of his schoo,
    What is needed is remorsefulnes of the wrongs done to the Tamils since 1972. Unless that is done and the wrongs rectified, the UN will sit on the neck of GSL and the citizens will sit on the brink !! .

Leave A Comment

Comments should not exceed 300 words. Embedding external links and writing in capital letters are discouraged. Commenting is automatically shut off on articles after 10 days and approval may take up to 24 hours. Please read our Comments Policy for further details. Your email address will not be published.