Over 60,000 dead in a two-decade long war and Sri Lanka has not yet learnt a hard enough lesson to prevent more bloodletting. Or, so it seems. This is the likely outcome if short-sighted political policies continue and legislation is passed in the country, banning religious conversions.
If proposed drafts to introduce laws banning religious conversions are indeed passed repentance no doubt will swiftly follow.
Surely the last thing Sri Lanka needs on her platter right now is a holy war-a battle over religion, religious belief and religious practice. Hardly have we put the lid on a long and bloody war of which the embers are still smouldering, certain sections appear to be gearing up for another conflict-this time, between Christians and Buddhists.
Of course the two are not so easily separable unlike in the conflict between the Sinhalese and Tamils. In this case there are Sinhala Buddhists as well as Sinhala Christians and Roman Catholics by birth who adhere to the teachings of the Buddha. And in turn many who are born Buddhist, not to mention Hindu, practice Christianity. The Roman Catholics too fall into this category. Christianity has no ethnic barriers. For that matter no religion or religious philosophy, defines followers by ethnicity.
But right now in Sri Lanka, political incitement has fuelled anger and intolerance prompting leading Buddhist prelates to push for laws that would effectively ban a Buddhist by birth from converting to Christianity. And this rush to push through anti conversion legislation does not stop with just the Buddhist prelates.
Same bandwagon
The United People's Freedom Alliance government too is on the same bandwagon with vested political interests in the forefront. In June, Minister of Buddha Sasana, Ratnasiri Wickremanayake submitted a draft bill to cabinet calling for a total ban on religious conversions. The bill is called 'Act No ... of 2004 for the Protection of Religious Freedom' and will be a government bill.
Prior to this draft, a separate attempt was made to enforce this law by Ven. Dr. Omalpe Sobitha Thero. This bill put forward by the JHU as a private member's bill was titled "Prohibition of Forcible Conversion of Religion" and was gazetted on May 28. The bill proposes that laws be enforced to prohibit conversion from one religion to another by use of force, allurement or by fraudulent means and for matters incidental.
The preamble states that Buddhism is the "foremost religion professed and practiced by the majority of people of Sri Lanka" and that the constitution stipulates that Buddhism should be given the "foremost place" and that "the state has a duty to protect and foster the Buddha Sasana.."
The bill proposes that any person who changes his religion is required to inform the Divisional Secretary of this fact.
According to the bill, any person who performs or "takes part either directly or indirectly" in an 'initiation ceremony' to convert another, is required to inform the Divisional Secretary of such an act.
The words 'allurement' 'force' and 'fraudulent' are defined as follows in this bill. 'Allurement' - offer of any gift or temptation in the form of any gift in cash or kind, grant of any material benefit, monetary or otherwise, grant of employment or grant of promotion in employment.
'Force' is defined as including "threat of religious displeasure or condemnation of any religion or religious faith."
This may be construed to mean that any Christian sharing the basic tenants of their faith with another Christian within a group maybe accused of invoking 'religious displeasure' in an attempt to convert others to Christianity.
'Fraudulent' in this bill includes misinterpretation or any other fraudulent act. A senior lawyer pointed out it would indeed be interesting to ascertain if a court of law can determine that a Christian who claims the biblical truth that Jesus Christ is the Son of God is committing fraud through misrepresentation.
Severe punishment
Punishment for anyone found guilty of converting or attempting to convert another under Section 2 will be imprisonment up to five years and a fine of Rs. 150,000.
The bill further stipulates that any person found guilty of converting or attempting to convert a minor (person under 18 years), a woman, a samurdhi beneficiary, prisoner, inmates of rehabilitation centers and detention centers, persons with physical or mental infirmities, employees of an organisation, members of the armed forces or the police, students, patients in hospitals or nursing homes, refugees, and any other category determined by the minister is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years and a fine of Rs. 500,000.
An awareness programme conducted on the two pieces of draft legislation by an organisation calling itself 'Solidarity for Religious Freedom' states that in this context baptism in Christianity maybe construed as an 'initiation ceremony' which may cast a duty upon all clergy performing baptism and those who 'take part' in a baptism ceremony (God-parents) to report to the Divisional Secretary.
Punishment for failure to report such conversion according to this bill should be imprisonment for a maximum of five years or a fine up to Rs. 150,000.
The government's draft bill in Section 2 makes conversion under any circumstances, even legitimate conversions, or an attempt to convert, illegal. In this context how a legitimate conversion will be defined is the all important question.
Needless to say, this clause is in direct contravention to Article 10 of the Constitution and violates the rights granted to all persons under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Convention on Civil and Political Rights.
Section 8 in the government draft defines conversion as, "direct or indirect action or behaviour designed to cause a person to embrace a religion or religious practice, or religious philosophy to which he does not subscribe or to attempt to cause a person to do so, or any direct or indirect action or behaviour designed to cause a person to abandon his practice of religion, religious philosophy or to attempt to cause a person to do so.
Liable for prosecution
Concerned Christians requesting anonymity voiced fear with regard to this clause asking if living an exemplary life and witnessing the teachings of Jesus Christ could be considered "behaviour designed to cause a person to embrace a religion" and make them liable for prosecution.
Will this mean, they ask, that the public manifestation of religious events such as Church feasts and celebrations could be curtailed as they could be forms of behaviour designed to cause a person to embrace a religion?
For example any religious body, individual, organisation or church engaging in social action by providing food, shelter, medical care, education etc., including the running of orphanages, schools, homes for the aged, vocational training programmes, providing food or medical care maybe accused of attempting to convert a person through 'allurement.' A senior lawyer who perused the two drafts but preferred to remain anonymous pointed out that this means the activities of priests and nuns could be interpreted as allurement and they can be imprisoned.
According to both drafts, teaching one's religion or practicing one's religious beliefs in a multi-religious environment may be considered illegal, since it can cause another person to become interested in your religion, and possibly lead to a conversion.
Legalised persecution
The bottom line is this. Either or both of these two bills, if enacted into law would result in the persecution of religious minorities under statutory sanction. It also effectively violates the fundamental rights of minority religions to practice and propagate their faith, and restricts the right of religious freedom.
What cannot be ignored, in the backdrop of these two draft propositions on religious conversions is the political machinations behind this whole ugly scenario. One of which has already drawn blood.
A clear example of ulterior political motive was when the rebel monk of the JHU, Ven. Aparekke Pannananda Thero accused his party of becoming a tool of missionary forces. In a letter to JHU Leader, Ellawala Medhananda Thero, on June 25, Ven. Pannananda Thero said four lawyers appearing on behalf of Ven. Akmeemana Dayaratana Thero in his case against six UPFA MPs, are Christians. The four lawyers are S. L. Gunasekara, Romesh de Silva, Srinath Perera and G. G. Arulpragasam. The President herself has told the JHU that Ven. Aparekke Pannananda Thero is a close cohort of the JVP. Or rather that the JVP were involved in faking the kidnapping of the monk with the priest's consent.
This by itself proves this whole attempt to introduce anti conversion laws in this country carry deep political connotations. In fact, the UPFA and the JHU appear to be competing with one another to introduce this piece of legislation. The government draft presented to cabinet on June 28 appears to be an attempt to pre-empt the private bill introduced by Ven. Omalpe Sobitha Thera.
This is just another classic example of the machinations of the JVP. It is no longer a secret that the Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna perceives the political monks to pose a very real threat to their vote bank. This is why the JVP has instigated not only fake abductions of these monks but also initiated assault on their person. Now, it is a battle of supremacy even in this context between the two to be the first to score brownie points with sections of the masses by introducing and passing this law. And while these political machinations continue the disposable commodity as usual, will be the masses. Christians and Buddhists together will all pay a bloody price and be part of a numbers game - that of the deadly kind - unless and until saner counsel prevails.
Buddha Sasana Minister Ratnasiri Wickremanayake last week assured Director, Law and Public Policy, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, Dr. Janet Epp Buckingham, that followers of established religions in Sri Lanka need not have any fear whatsoever regarding this proposed legislation to prohibit unethical conversions by fundamentalists.
But Wickremanayake better get his act together fast. The clauses in the Draft bill are crystal clear and in black and white. If he does not watch it, these clauses are not going to be subjective only to Christian fundamentalists but will serve as blanket legislation covering all Christians and Roman Catholics. When conflict erupts at ground level those carrying the sword will not stop to differentiate between Christian fundamentalists and followers of established religions. It is the clarion call of a holy war.
What the act will mean.....
The government draft on anti-conversion and its proposed punishments.
This act sets out more stringent punishments than the Private MP's Bill. The law, if enacted, will carry imprisonment for up to five years or a fine of up to Rs. 100,000 or both.
If the offence is committed against a minor, imprisonment for up to seven years or a fine of up to Rs. 500,000 or both.
If the offence is committed in a school or educational establishment by a teacher or principal, in a prison, detention camp, refugee camp, hostel, hospital, nursing home, medical center, children's home, home for elders, home for disabled, place of employment or a military establishment the punishment may be more severe.
Where a person is found to be guilty of converting, attempting to convert or provide assistance or encouragement to convert another using funds or resources, his assets, funds and resources shall be confiscated by the state.
A foreign visitor found guilty will be deported after serving his sentence (imprisonment, fine).
If the offence is committed by a group of persons, every director, shareholder, officer and every employee of that organisation is considered guilty of the same offence.
** ** **
Jeyaraj says "no" to bill.....
COMMERCE and Consumer Affairs MinisterJeyaraj Fernandopulle said he had not been present when the government's draft bill on anti-conversion law was presented and approved by cabinet.
"Personally I will not support such a bill," Fernandopulle said, adding, " I will ask for a consensus vote. At an international level this bill will cause problems because most of the diplomatic missions are against it."
The Minister added, "Most of our Buddhist monks have temples in England, Germany and elsewhere. So we should not support this kind of bill because our people will then have problems with other countries."
(Sunday Leader ,4th July 2004)
