I haven’t written on the arrest of Tissainayagam till now. For one thing I didn’t know that much about the case, for another I’ve been a bit scared myself. The one thing I’ve personally drawn from the case is that they can do whatever they want. I read through the case finally and it seems that he was convicted for 20 years for publishing a magazine that sold about 50 copies and for receiving deposits of about Rs. 50,000. There must be more, but that’s what seems to have been said in court. I read some of the stuff and I don’t agree with it, but it is what many people think, especially among the Tamil community. I think the sentence and the prosecution is a bit absurd, and tragically so.
I say absurd because Tissainayagam is such a small fish. No one’s ever heard of the North Eastern Monthly and the Sunday Times pieces weren’t that big. He wasn’t reporting specifically on defence affairs, procurement, or sensitive information. He was saying that the army was bombing and blockading Vaharai. In the common view, criticizing the military is tantamount to treason. It is quite possible that Tissainagayam didn’t want the army to win. However, I’m not sure this is enough to prosecute him under the Prevention Of Terrorism Act.
That Act, applicable under emergency, basically makes it illegal to rile up communal tension. It is already illegal under the Constitution to call for a separate state. However, I think it’s a bit of a stretch to say that a little read magazine was riling up communal tensions so. Many if not most Tamils didn’t support the war. It is also quite possible to be, say, a Buddhist and not support the war, or not support it for any number of reasons. That doesn’t make one a traitor.
The most damning accusation for Tissa, however, was that he met with the LTTE and took money from them. I do think it’s possible for a journalist to meet terrorist groups in the course of doing a story. Reporters do meet with the Taliban, Hamas, etc. People did meet with the LTTE. Taking orders and money from them, however, is something else. That charge, however, seems to rest as much on the deposits being anonymous as anything else. And they were tiny amounts.
All in all it adds up to a small and probably harmless fish, fried at very high temperature. I don’t think it’s about the case so much as just showing that the government can do what they want. That dissent, especially anything akin to Tamil Nationalist dissent, will be crushed. I should be clear that I don’t agree with Tamil Nationalism/Chauvinism myself, but I’m not sure punishing its expression with hard labor is either proportional or just.
Tissa’s prosecution plus Lasantha’s killing all send a pretty clear signal. The government can do whatever they want. People had better stay in line. That’s kinda why I didn’t say anything for so long. I heard the message loud and clear.
And that’s the tragedy of Sri Lanka, our government can do any-thing it wants, with impunity
If he was guilty of what he was accused of, does really the quantity matter?
Besides, was LTTE this huge when it all began?
The main charge seems to be riling communal tensions, banned under the PTA. This is a very sketchy area, and the stuff I’ve read doesn’t actually call for a separate state. Most of what I read is actually more tame than what many Tamils have told me in private. I really don’t think it amounts to an incitement to communal violence.
I guess the amount doesn’t matter, but the quality of the stuff is not really an incitement to violence. It’s mainly not pro-war/pro-government. It’s quite chilling that that can get you tossed in jail for 20 years.
Tissanayagam via the North Eastern Monthly
“Providing security to Tamils now, will define north eastern politics of the future”.
“It is fairly obvious that the government is not going to offer them any protection. In fact it is the state security forces that are the main perpetrator of the killings”.
“Such offensives against the civilians are accompanied by attempts to starve the population by refusing them food as well as medicine and fuel with the hope of driving out the people out of Vakarai and depopulating it. As this story is being written, Vakarai is being subject to intense shelling and aerial bombardment”.
“I really don’t think it amounts to an incitement to communal violence”- indi
But the court thought otherwise why?
Because the above statement made by Tissanayagam was proved to be a lie.
How?
Because either through an embarrassing strategic misstep by Tissa’s defense or poetic justice getting activated (take your pick depending on your world view),….
“….one of the witnesses called by the defence, the deputy chairman of the Human Rights Council, actually ended up testifying against the defendant! The witness stated that he had been visiting the Vakarai area and meeting the divisional secretary for the area and that the World Food Programme had been distributing food through this divisional secretary and that there were government hospitals and governments doctors even though it was an LTTE controlled area in 2006. This witness had also said that he had met LTTE commanders of the areas as well.
So the defense deftly proved that the defendant had been factually incorrect in his reporting, thus making the imputation of an intent to incite hatred that much easier! When shown what Tissanayagam had written about Vakarai, this defence witness had agreed that the statements were indeed incendiary.”
“The court interpreted these as incendiary statements meant to generate hatred between ethnic communities.”
I can relate to the court’s interpretation. Can’t you? Misrepresenting the facts, outright lies, half truths… why else do the parties concerned resort to these if not to generate hatred, deepen the chasm and muddy the waters between the communities?
And the Court clarified further it seems
“The judgment also quotes an Indian case Satyaranjan Bakshi vs King (1929). The accused in this case had said that 200 persons had died in a train accident whereas the number of dead had actually been 50. The judge said in this case that “If the words used naturally, clearly and indubitably, have the tendency to incite one community against another, then the intention to do it should be inferred”.
“I really don’t think it amounts to an incitement to communal violence” says Indi and apparently there were others who thought in a similar vein and still the Court was unimpressed because…..
“Even though defense witnesses like Vasudeva Nanayakkara, Manouri Muttettuwegama and Ven Baddegama Samitha had argued that these statements do not constitute an incitement to hatred, the court decided based on case law (Morgan vs Oldhams, 1971, and Hough vs London Express Newspapers Ltd, 1940) that if the ‘ordinary man’ is taken as a guide, then some ‘lose thinking’ has to be accepted as the ordinary man does not formulate reasons in his own mind.”
“I guess the amount doesn’t matter, but the quality of the stuff is not really an incitement to violence” says Indi.
I wonder how he can conscientiously say this. If someone says (falsely) that my people are being slaughtered, starved and denied medical attention by the State how can it not be an incitement to hatred. And since the ideological brotherhood that Tissanayagam belongs to invariably calls the State “the Sinhala State” is it that hard to figure out where the hatred so incited will be directed?
My thanks to 1) http://bailaman.blogspot.com/2009/09/curious-case-of-j-s-tissainayagam.html
2) The commenter at above Dorene
3) http://www.island.lk/2009/09/06/politics1.html
dude, until everyone feels the same goosebumps that you are currently experiencing, there will continue to be pointless and suffocatingly detailed explanations of why official sanction weighted with a prison sentence is JUSTIFIABLE (but of course not justified–where would we socialize if everyone knew we felt that way) and that this is a respectable and moral position to take.
in ole USA we have birthers (Obama is not a citizen), truthers (9/11 was orchestrated by Bush II) and tenthers (people who believe the 10th amendment gives states carte blanche to defy the federal gov’t–somewhat like judges who’s jurisprudence consist solely of citing precedents favorable towards whichever way the political winds blow.)
despite all that we are rich, no? Our discourse and economy are no worse for the inclusion of nutcases of all varieties. we have many shiny things which allow even the most marginalized among us to know where our loved ones are, that we can reach them if they are ill and that there is a very good chance that they will be in good health when we finally are reunited.
please don’t interrupt with relevant quotes, analysis or reasonable arguments. Can’t you see we
are having a moment?
Your use of prior legal precedents convinces that you are on the wrong blog. even wannabe lawyers argue by ad hominem here.