|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 7 August 2004 |
 |
|
 |
News | |
| News Business Features Editorial Security Politics World Letters Sports Obituaries
|
Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Bill: SC postpones determination of Bill for Monday by Wasantha Ramanayake The Supreme Court postponed the determination of the "Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion Bill" for Monday. The Bench comprised Justices T.B. Weerasuriya, Nimal Dissanayake and Raja Fernando. President's Counsel H.L. De Silva for the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka submitted that the Bill was inconsistent with Article 9,10,14(1) e, 12, 12(1) and 12(2) of the Constitution and was violative of the freedoms, assurances and guarantees given by the Constitution. The counsel submitted that the Bill sought to prohibit the conversions by means of force, allurement and fraudulent means. He submitted that the Roman Catholic or the Reformed Traditions of the Christianity did not endorse forcible conversions. He submitted that the Christian concept of conversion was a change from former life to the acceptance of necessity for salvation essentially spiritual and did not signal the outside world. He argued that the Bill on one hand focuses on the external world, the preacher on one side and the convert to the new faith on the other. The counsel submitted that in terms of the Bill, both parties were under duty to intimate the decision to the Divisional Secretariat. The offenders would be given five years imprisonment and a Rs. 150,000 fine and if the offence of seriousness nature, the fine could be in the area of Rs. 500,000 and sentence would be seven years imprisonment and the prison and the fine were mandatory. He submitted that draconian punishments were disproportional and was violative of the Constitution. The counsel contended that the word "forcible" contemplated the mental "force" i.e., the mental pressure or threat of religious displeasure but not physical force. He argued that in terms of the extended meaning of "force," any condemnation or critical comment of any religion would be a criminal offence. The counsel submitted that in terms of the extended meaning given to the word "fraudulent means", the religious symbols such as the cross, Pirith Nool, or holy water would be evidence for the prosecutor. The extended meaning of word "allurement" was often a temptation that was not within the Criminal Law of Sri Lanka. He submitted that the introducing a pastor to a person could be argued as aiding and abetting. Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran for the President of the Methodist Church, the Dutch Reformed Church, Rev. Kumara Illangasinghe, Bishop of Kurunegala and Rev. Duleep de Chickera, Bishop of Colombo submitted that religion could not be defined; process of thought of a person was active and not static. A person could be 60 per cent Buddhist, 25 per cent Hindu and 15 per cent of some other religion; therefore, conversion of one religion to another was uncertain and ambiguous. Thus referring a person belonging to a particular religion was violative of his freedom of thought, conscience and religion or belief guaranteed in Article 10 of the Constitution. The counsel submitted that the preamble to the Bill stated that Buddhism was the foremost religion. However, in terms of Article 9 of the Constitution, Buddhism was placed in the foremost place but was not the foremost religion thus, the Bill was violative of Article 9. Counsel Cineol Cooray for Rev. Frank Marcus Fernando, Bishop of Chilaw submitted that the conversion of non-believers was inherent to the practice of Christianity. He submitted that charity works such as looking after the poor and providing education were part of the manifestation of the religion and nay fetter on the such manifestation would be violative of the Article 14 (1) e of the Constitution. Colombo University Law Faculty lecturer V. Thambirajah Thamilmaran appearing on person cautioned that the Bill would divide the already torn nation on religious line. The Petitioners alleged that Clause 2 of the Bill would prohibit a person from converting from one religion to another by means of force, allurement or by any fraudulent means. They stated that "the use of force, fraud or allurement" was a fetter placed on the freedoms guaranteed under Article 10. They argued that if the freedoms guaranteed under Article 10 was to be given effect to, such fetters should not be imposed on the exercise of such freedoms. The petitioners sought a court determination that the Bill was not consistent with the Constitution and needed to be passed by a two third special majority of the whole number of Parliament. Meanwhile 21 intervenient-petitioners including six Buddhist monks of the Jathika Hela Urumaya sought to intervene on the basis that if the provisions in the Bill would be held to be inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution, their right to the Freedom of thought and the religion would affected. They stated that non-governmental organisations funded by foreign organisations were engaged in forcible conversions in the country for decades. They claimed that such conversions violated their rights to the Freedom of Thought and the religion guaranteed under the Article 10 and 14 of the Constitution. They Stated that the Bill was in accordance with the Constitution and the provisions of the International Human Rights Convention to which Sri Lanka was a signatory. R.K.W. Gunasekera, Nihal Jayamanne PC, J.C. Weliamuna, Mohan Pieris, A.R. Surendran and Elmore Perera also made submissions. Deputy Solicitor General R. Wijethillake appeared for the Attorney General. The court put off the hearing for Monday allowing the Counsel for the intervenient-petitioners to make their submissions on Monday. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security
Produced by Lake House |
