SUPREME COURT RULES KEY PARTS OF ANTI-CONVERSION

C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 001379 SIPDIS DEPARTMENT FOR SA, SA/INS, DRL, DRL/IRF NSC FOR E.MILLARD PLEASE ALSO PASS TOPEC E.O. 12958: DECL: 08/19/2014 TAGS: PGOV PHUM PREL KIRF CE SUBJECT: SUPREME COURT RULES KEY PARTS OF ANTI-CONVERSION BILL UNCONSTITUTIONAL REF: A. COLOMBO-SA/INS 08-19-04 FAX ¶B. COLOMBO 1280 AND PREVIOUS Classified By: Charge' d'Affaires. Reason 1.5 (b,d). ¶1. (C) SUMMARY: On August 17, the Supreme Court issued its ruling on a religious anti-conversion bill, finding that key parts of the bill were unconstitutional. The bill's sponsor, a Buddhist monk MP, will likely push for the bill to go forward, although a constitutional lawyer says any redrafted version may not be enforceable. The legislative process for the bill will continue, with a future presentation to Parliament after reworking by the government's legal draftsperson. Foreign Minister Kadirgamar predicted the bill's imminent demise, noting that the Supreme Court decision effectively had removed the "teeth" from the legislation. It is not clear how the Supreme Court's ruling will ultimately affect the final outcome. One unanticipated benefit of the controversial proposal: the continued public debate on the issue is bringing the various opposing parties together for dialogue. END SUMMARY. ¶2. (C) SUPREME COURT RULES: On August 17, the Speaker of the Sri Lankan Parliament announced the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of a religious anti-conversion bill presented by a Buddhist monk MP with the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU party). The announcement followed two days of hearings on the controversial bill before a three-judge panel of the court, in which over 40 petitions from assorted interested parties challenging and supporting the draft bill had been filed. The Supreme Court found that certain parts of the bill contravened the constitution and allowed three options for addressing the situation. The ruling stated that the unconstitutional clauses may be deleted, amended, or left as is with the approval of a two-thirds majority in Parliament and then a national referendum. ¶3. (SBU) Highlights of the Supreme Court ruling (Ref A) stated: -- that the illegality of converting any person from one religion to another "by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means" would be constitutional with suggested amendments to the definitions of "fraudulent" and "allurement" to show willful intent; -- the concept of registering a conversion or the performing of a conversion is unconstitutional, as is any subsequent legal penalty for not so registering; and -- anyone found to convert a person by force or allurement can be prosecuted under the criminal code. ¶4. (C) OPTIONS FOR PROCEEDING: With the Supreme Court ruling only parts of the bill unconstitutional, both sides will claim partial victory. In an August 18 conversation with poloff, Venerable Omalpe Sobitha Thero, the Buddhist monk MP who presented the bill in Parliament, declared that "ninety percent of the bill" was constitutional. While August 18 headlines in the local press indicated the JHU would press to keep the bill intact and attempt to secure two-thirds majority in Parliament, Sobitha Thero expressed a different opinion. Characterizing his views as personal ones, he felt that the unconstitutional language in the bill should be amended so that legislation would only require a simple majority to pass in Parliament. He did not want to champion a bill that would challenge the constitution, he said. Sobitha Thero stressed that the JHU party members and their lawyers would have to discuss the various options laid out in the Supreme Court's decision before making a party-wide choice about which to pursue. ¶5. (C) On the anti-legislation side, Foreign Minister Lakshman Kadirgamar (an opponent of the bill) told Charge' August 19 that the Supreme Court's decision "basically killed" the JHU bill, having "pulled out all its teeth." Rohan Edrisinha, a constitutional lawyer and author of one of the petitions challenging the bill, estimated the Supreme Court had found approximately 50 percent of the JHU bill unconstitutional. He was disappointed, however, that the court had upheld the constitutionality of declaring forced or fraudulent conversions illegal. Edrisinha felt that the remaining parts of the bill upheld by the court, if approved by Parliament, would be hard to enforce. In his legal opinion of the court's ruling, the only way to prosecute someone for unethical conversion would be to prove a church or organization engaged in economic activity with the specific act of converting. Such intent would be difficult for prosecutors to establish, he said. ¶6. (C) REALITY OF GOING FORWARD: Teresa Perera, Legal Draftsperson in the government's department of the Attorney General, outlined for poloff August 18 the bill's next legal steps. As a private member's bill, it must be take up taken up by a ministry, likely the Buddhist Affairs Ministry in this case. Together, the ministry and the Attorney General's office will be responsible for making changes to the bill, based on the Supreme Court's August 17 decision. Ms. Perera indicated that her office would take advice from the ministry on how to implement the ruling, whether to amend, delete, or let stand those clauses the court found unconstitutional. Once the bill has been revised by her office and approved by the Attorney General, it will be forwarded to Parliament for the first of several readings and debates. As Ms. Perera said she was still reviewing the court's decision, she could not comment on a timeframe for the draft bill to reach Parliament. ¶7. (C) COMMENT: In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, both the pro- and anti- legislation sides are still assessing the implications of the ruling. What is most likely is that the process will continue with each step providing another opportunity for review and debate. How much input the JHU will have in shaping the final version of the bill that reaches Parliament is unclear. It is possible that politics may play a factor in how closely the Buddhist Affairs ministry coordinates with JHU members in developing the next version, especially given the government's lack of majority in Parliament. President Kumaratunga is widely known to be against any anti-conversion legislation, and she could pressure the Buddhist Affairs Minister Wickremenayake to push for a weakened version of the bill. ¶8. (C) Comment Continued: There is some hope that the public discourse and controversy on the issue, while contentious, are nonetheless promoting dialogue among the various religious groups. There are low-level murmurs of efforts to establish something along the lines of an inter-religious council that would address the issue of alleged unethical conversions through a non-legislative approach. Such a formalized dialogue, in a council-like setting, is something that Embassy officials have often suggested to government and religious leaders and we will continue our efforts along these lines. END COMMENT. ENTWISTLE