Patriotism or terrorism or otherwise:
Public will decide
Defence Secretary tells BASL:
Defence Secretary Gotabhaya Rajapaksa has responded to the concerns
underscored by the Bar Association of Sri Lanka (BASL) on an article
published on the www.defence.lk.
Defence Secretary
Gotabhaya Rajapaksa |
The BASL has condemned the news article titled “Traitors in Black
Coats Flocked Together?” that appeared on July 10, 2009, and also called
it an attempt to prevent lawyers appearing for clients and/or clients
having the service of lawyers.
In a letter addressed to the President of the Bar Association, the
Defence Secretary highlights that the defence media is equally free to
comment on certain publicly known features as the lawyers are free to
appear for any cause. He states that it is for the public to decide on
the appropriate classification of patriotism or terrorism or otherwise,
if that is material or relevant. `
Also, the Defence Secretary points out the selective nature of the
Bar Association’s concerns, as it has never appealed on behalf of any of
its members who were often labelled as “xenophobic”, “racist”,
“extremist” and “chauvinistic” by media whenever such individuals stood
up for the country.
The full text of the letter:
22nd July 2009
The President Bar Association of Sri Lanka, Hultsdorf Colombo 12
Dear Sir,
Your letter of 14.7.09 requires a response.
Lawyers have a right and an obligation to appear for any person. More
so, a person is always deemed to be innocent unless proved to the
contrary. I have sought and received legal advice from your profession
which I value greatly.
After 30 years of brutal LTTE terrorism to which some of your
illustrious members did succumb at the hands of such terrorists- the
desire to protect the interest of your members or profession by
addressing the terrorists condemning such operations did not appear to
surface with such intensity or was not reflected as strenuously as when
peace has now dawned. Of course it is your prerogative and maybe the
Association was then under a different leadership or there were other
known considerations to which I do not propose to dwell presently.
It must be mentioned that it is a known feature in the public domain
(which includes members of the defence and security establishment) that
during the 30-year war there are/were members of your profession who are
well-known in the public arena to cover causes for and against terrorism
with dedication personally and professionally. The public are aware of
such categorisation and accordingly media unit of the defence outfits
too are free to comment, just as you are free to appear for any cause.
The public will decide on the appropriate classification of patriotism
or terrorism or otherwise, if that is material or relevant.
The media both State and private have often accused and labelled
members of your profession (under different administrations) who stood
up for the country as “xenophobic”, “racist”, “extremist” and
“chauvinistic” but I am told you have never appealed on their behalf.
Possibly as a defence you may say such of your members were not ‘cry
babies’ or ‘their nannies’ and did not seek your assistance.
I categorically state there is not a semblance of a sentiment in the
article referred to where there is any effort to prevent or deprive or
truncate lawyers of their right to appear and defend.
The lawyers historically were respected as fearless and doughty
fighters for causes they believed in and for those that they were
retained professionally to appear; for which they were/are publicly
acclaimed. It appears that a few feint/chicken-hearted members of your
profession have reached you to make representation and accordingly the
contents are noted with the expression that it is in the greater good of
the country which includes members of your Association and their
families that terrorism is not permitted to raise its ugly head after
having plagued the country for three decades.
Faithfully Yours, Gotabhaya Rajapaksa Secretary Ministry of Defence,
Public Security, Law and Order. |