Identifier
Created
Classification
Origin
04COLOMBO1379
2004-08-19 12:15:00
CONFIDENTIAL
Embassy Colombo
Cable title:  

SUPREME COURT RULES KEY PARTS OF ANTI-CONVERSION

Tags:  PGOV PHUM PREL KIRF CE 
pdf how-to read a cable
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
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).

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