|
|
 |
 |
| Sunday, 23 February 2003 |
 |
|
 |
Editorial |  |
| News Business Features Security
|
Please forward your comments to the
Editor, Sunday Observer. E-mail: [email protected] Snail mail : Sunday Observer, 35, D.R.Wijewardana Mawatha, Colombo, Sri Lanka. Telephone : 94 1 429239 / 331181 Fax : 94 1 429230 Tears The Janatha Vimukthi Peramuna is now protesting the use of tear gas and water cannon by the Police to quell unruly mobs in the course of the mass protest demonstration organised by the JVP in Colombo last Thursday. "Chemicals" is the latest accusation by the Peramuna against the state law and order authorities, although the JVP itself cannot easily brush aside its own reputation for mayhem in the past and fears about similar behaviour in the future. Tear gas and water cannon are typical methods of crowd control in all societies with any sort of democracy that allows public displays of mass opinion whether of dissent or of approval. Such methods are acceptable to democratic societies as non-lethal and less harmful means of crowd control in the event of unruliness that threatens public safety or national security. Whether or not any unruly action does threaten public safety or national security depends on the specific situation and everybody involved becomes responsible for a judgement on the issue. In the event of the use of force by the police, it becomes incumbent on that institution to explain and justify its action, before courts if necessary or, in the public eye. Similarly, the demonstrators themselves bear the onus of explaining and justifying any breakdown of orderly behaviour on their part. Public eye witnesses will also decide for themselves. The important thing is that such procedures of crowd control are in place precisely because crowds are allowed to congregate and engage in public actions such as demonstrations, satyagrahas and other forms of action to express mass opinion. Hence mass demonstrations, along with the possibility of unruliness as well as the non-lethal quelling of such unruliness are all characteristic of democracy. If unruliness is acceptable in crowd behaviour, then some humane methods of controlling that unruliness must also be acceptable. Of course the whole society must be alert to ensure that the definition of 'non-lethal' is not stretched to allow for increasingly harmful or traumatic forms of force to be used by the law and order agencies. What is not acceptable in a functioning democracy is the deliberate resort to violence by anyone, either civilian groups or individuals engaged in public actions or State agencies or officers. This country has experienced both kinds of violence to the extreme. And our experience has been that the State has taken the initiative to use various kinds of brute force, including the killing of people, to quell demonstrations and other forms of public action. Sri Lanka remembers a dark period of repression in the 1980s and 1990s when even those attempting to plan such public actions have suffered not just detention and legal harassment such as court actions on false or exaggerated charges, but worse, torture and death. There have been instances when police officers using brute force against demonstrators have been actually promoted after the courts found them guilty of violating human rights. It is crucial that the country's political leadership, both in Government as well as in Opposition, takes care to ensure that neither is brute violence meted out to demonstrators nor is it courted by those demonstrating. A strict and responsible control of behaviour of both officers and demonstrators by regulation and restraint and, prompt action to rectify and punish, is fundamental to the protection of democracy. Tear gas only induces tears. Bullets spill blood. Both may be an inevitable part of life, but still, in a democracy where choices can, and have to be made, tears are better than blood. |
|
News | Business | Features
| Editorial | Security Produced by Lake House |
