In its rather emotional quest to combat religious disharmony, religious insults, and religious hatred, Sri Lanka appears to have found itself in a situation where it has to struggle to deal with social issues through legal actions and assign biased meanings to vague statements to take such actions.
It has become evident in the cases of stand-up comedienne Nathasha Edirisooriya and Pr. Jerome Fernando, whose religion-based statements placed them under severe criticism and even triggered legal actions, that there is a widespread discourse on more religion-related statements made by several other parties.
On the one hand, the Police are wondering how to have Fernando extradited from Singapore, because proving that his statements, which allegedly insulted Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam, constitute an offence, is a practical challenge. On the other hand, in granting bail to Edirisooriya, the Colombo High Court noted that her statements cannot be considered an offence under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Act, No. 56 0f 2007. Both cases point to a conundrum on where we draw the line between criticism and insult, in a context where the meaning of the term “insult” is an extremely subjective one and which also pertains to who interprets it and to what extent such an interpretation could be used in a court of law. These are pressing concerns, because the law enforcement authorities seem to be ready, with the Government’s blessings, to wage a war against almost any person who discusses religion-related matters in a manner that goes against the conventional discourse on religion/s, and they are even ready to introduce laws to achieve it, as per the ministry in charge of religious affairs.
One of the root causes of this issue is the prevalence and promotion of the ill-informed and harmful idea that criticism necessarily constitutes an insult, or hate speech, especially when it comes to religions and ethnicities, and that therefore, it inherently leads to religious or ethnic disharmony. This was also the case in Edirisooriya’s and Fernando’s incidents. It is concerning that these concerns that arise among the general public are often exacerbated by politicised, nationalistic Buddhist monks, and pro-Government political activists who continue the Government’s crackdown on the freedom of expression that began with the “aragalaya” (the public movement to overthrow the former Government led by then-President Gotabaya Rajapaksa) as well as ill-informed religious fanatics who live in constant fear of anti-Sinhala Buddhist movements. The Government also adds fuel to the fire with its obsession to provide excessive recognition and protection to religion-related speech, which seems to be leading to the violation of the freedom of speech and expression.
The improper implementation of the law is another key issue. In its bail-related order regarding Edirisooriya’s case, the court noted that it is not the duty of an investigator to arrest a person based merely on a complaint filed by a religious leader or an influential person. However, it seems to be the case in the abovementioned incidents. What of the standard preliminary investigations that the law enforcement authorities are supposed to perform in order to ascertain the veracity and gravity of a complaint is a question that we need to ask. What happened in Edirisooriya’s case shows what legal actions initiated on inadequate evidence or understanding could lead to.
The court further noted that a person merely making a statement that may cause hurt to any ethnic or religious group does not warrant actions not only under Section 3 of the ICCPR but also under the Penal Code. In fact, if the law enforcement authorities had performed a proper preliminary investigation without allowing the complainants’ influence to affect the proper procedure, cases would not have been filed under the ICCPR Act, which, in Section 3, refers to “propagating war or advocating national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence,” none of which was observed in Edirisooriya’s case which was also acknowledged by the court.
The country’s response to religious criticism – fair criticism of which is permitted by the Profane Publications Act, No. 41 of 1958 (Section 2 permits “any fair comments on, or any fair criticism of, any religion or religious belief”) – at the moment, is limited to legal actions and it is an exceedingly narrow-minded approach. The best way to counter criticism, especially harmful, misguided, and baseless criticism, is through accurate, informed and constructive criticism. With regard to the present context, Buddhist scholars have stated that what one says about Buddhism, even if it was a Buddhist monk, is largely his/her interpretation of the original teachings and is based on how they comprehended what they learnt, and that therefore, what could lead to true harmony is but constructive discourse. That applies to all major religions practised in Sri Lanka today, and in a context where Buddhism remains a major religion, such wisdom not being practised or taught to followers by Buddhist monks, who claim to even be ready to kill and die to protect Buddhism, is a tragedy. Putting someone in jail for allegedly spreading false information or hateful comments about religion does not provide a solution to false information or hateful comments, even if those allegations were true.
The main takeaway that Sri Lanka should take from the aforesaid spate of incidents is that if they truly value harmony amongst the people despite religious or other differences, it should be prudent enough to discern criticism from insult, and not be victims of political or other agendas that are trying to show religious issues even there is none. Most Sri Lankans are Buddhists who claim to be followers of Buddha and his teachings. The Buddha was a figure that relied on facts and logic, and that is what Buddhists should do. When they become that, even outright insults would not matter, and parties with ulterior motives to create religious and ethnic divisions would have no power.