| News |
||||
|
Down
come the unauthorised structures Police gave
time until 6.00 p.m. on Friday for the squatters to remove their
constructions and then set fire to the structures in a bid to execute
the court order. However, squatters
who claimed that they had paid money to the MP for their plots objected
to the police action saying that they will be displaced as a result. Some squatters
were heard lamenting that the MP had deceived poor people and had
cried asking for their money back. This controversial land encroachment took place last month when people allegedly backed by the MP had forcibly settled themselves in a big property, the major part of which was in the Muthurajawela Sanctuary while the rest belonged to businessman Paul Perera of Negombo. Politico
in role of alleged extortionist According to
sources people who buy various rejects from garment factories are
at the receiving end. The men planted
by the MP are allegedly demanding a fee of 25 percent from those
who come to buy items such as discarded machinery and cut pieces
from garment factories in the Katunayake Free Trade Zone. The sources
alleged that close supporters of the MP have been mobilized in the
Free Trade Zone to carry out the collection of money. According to
allegations, once a person buys some material from a garment factory
he is compelled to pay the 25 percent fee to the MP's men and those
who evade the on-the-spot payment are looked for and the fee is
extorted. A person who
evaded an on-the-spot payment to the extortionists when he bought
some used machinery from a garment factory said they later came
in search of him to extort the fee. This situation
has placed both the garment factory authorities and such buyers
in an insecure position as those who refuse payment or talk in public
about the matter are allegedly subjected to harassment from the
MP's supporters. Even though
it is required by law to obtain a permit to enter garment factories
in the Free Trade Zone, these extortionists are said to be freely
entering factories because the security guards are reluctant to
check them, out of fear. In this backdrop
it is alleged that much material from garment factories is smuggled
out from the Free Trade Zone. The MP has
also been accused of collecting money from those operating a cab
service at the Katunayake International Airport. It is alleged that
the cab service at the airport is controlled by the MP's supporters.
'Even though
the cab service is supposed to operate on a roster what actually
takes place is that the MP's supporters canvass, especially those
returning from abroad and travelling to distant places, to patronise
their cabs after promising a discount', an affected person said. But the person
who boards such a cab is not immediately taken to his destination
but instead is taken to a rest house in Katunayake and kept there
after getting his money for the trip. The next move
is to assemble more people who are going in the same direction or
to the destination of the person already at the rest house. For
example, if a person's destination is Batticaloa, he is kept there
until more people travelling to Batticaloa are found. This gives the operators the opportunity to confine their trip to one turn while charging every person the same amount paid for travelling alone. In this manner the operators allegedly earn four or five times the money obtained from a single trip. No
fundamental right to spread a religion: SC The Court's
determination, which was announced by Speaker Joseph Michael Perera
in Parliament on Tuesday, was in response to a petition against
the Bill titled 'Provincial of the Teaching Sisters of the Holy
Cross of the Third Order of Saint Francis in Menzingen of Sri Lanka'
which was presented to the legislature by Batticaloa district Tamil
National Alliance MP Joseph Pararajasingham in September, 1999. Leave to introduce
the Bill was granted last month following which the Court was petitioned
by Anula Irangani Fernando of Colombo 5 who said the Bill was unconstitutional
as it violates several clauses of the Constitution. Buddha Sasana
Minister W.J.M. Lokubandara who called a press conference the day
after the announcement of the judgment said this ruling would help
to stop unethical conversions with money and material benefits being
offered to poor people, taking place in many parts of the country. "This
is a clear judgment. It has clearly said unethical conversions are
illegal. This will give us the legal backing to stop this kind of
activity carried out in the name of religion," he said. The Court ruled
that although it was permissible under our Constitution for a person
to manifest his or her religion, spreading another religion would
not be permissible, as the Constitution does not guarantee a fundamental
right to propagate religion. Even in situations
where propagation is treated as a fundamental right enshrined in
a Constitution, the entitlement has not extended to convert another
person to one's own religion as that would impinge on the freedom
of conscience, the Court ruled, citing an Indian case-Rev.Stanislaus
vs. the State of Madhya Pradesh. Similarly where
there is no fundamental right to propagate, if efforts are taken
to convert another person to one's own religion, such conduct could
hinder the very existence of the Buddha Sasana. What is guaranteed
under the Constitution is the manifestation, observance and practice
of one's own religion while the propagation and spreading of Christianity
as postulated in terms of clause three of the Bill would not be
permissible, as it would impair the very existence of Buddhism or
the Buddha Sasana. Clause 3 (1)
and (b) in the Bill states that the organisation is constituted
and declared to be for the spread knowledge of the Catholic religion
and to impart religious, educational and vocational training to
youth. In these circumstance
we are inclined to agree with the submissions made by the petitioner
that clause 3 of the Bill, as presently constituted, would be inconsistent
with Article 9 of the Constitution, the Court held. Article 9 of
the Constitution guarantees Buddhism the foremost place and accordingly
it shall be the duty of the state to protect and foster the Buddha
Sasana, while assuring to all religions the rights granted by Article
10 and 14 (1) (e). The court also
held that clause 3 and clause 5 are unconstitutional. The two clauses
describing the powers of the organisation that includes, inter alia,
to be able to receive and hold property both movable and immovable
and or to dispose of such property, creates a situation which combines
the observance and practice of a religion or belief with activities
which would provide material and other benefits to the inexperienced,
defenceless and vulnerable people. The kind of activities projected
in the Bill would necessarily result in imposing unnecessary and
improper pressures on people, who are distressed and in need, restricting
their freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief as provided
in Article 10 of the Constitution. What Article
10 postulates is the right to adopt a religion or belief of his
or her choice and any improper inducement would not be compatible
with such a provision. Justices Shirani Bandaranayake, H.S.Yapa and Nihal Jayasinghe made the determination. |
||||
Copyright © 2001 Wijeya Newspapers
Ltd. All rights reserved. |
