 Your
View...
Dear reader, the Sunday Observer welcomes
your letters. Keep them brief, legible include the name,
address and contact number of the writer and mail them to:
‘Letters’, The Sunday Observer, 35, D.R. Wijewardene Mawatha,
Colombo 10. Email: [email protected]
Handwritten copies should be duly signed.
|
Sri Lanka Attorneys’ letters not credible
Reading the Sunday papers, my attention was drawn to an article with
the above heading. The article went on to say that an officer in the
visa section of the British High Commission in Colombo had written to
the Home Office in U.K. stating that ‘the credibility of Sri Lankan
attorneys has been called into question’. The visa officer reached this
conclusion after carrying out necessary investigations into U.K. asylum
applications. The report went on to say that, in the case of a sample 80
such applications, 30 of these involved letters/credentials presented by
SL attorneys in support of said applications. Of this 30, 86.6% of such
documents verified were not credible. Reports of live court cases/arrest
warrants, etc. were proved to be fictitious on checking. To the average
Sri Lankan, this should not be any sort of surprise.
Here is damning proof – coming from no less than the visa section of
the British High Commission – as to how the West is duped by many an
asylum seeker who, in the process, is helping in no small measure, to
tarnish the good name of the security forces and by extension the
sovereign state of Sri Lanka. Why cannot our foreign Office diplomuts
use these things to bolster their defence against the diaspora-sustained
lobbying of Western Governments for punitive sanctions/human rights
demands against Sri Lanka? Does it not prove the
inefficiency/ineffectiveness of our Foreign Office heads in particular?
Is it any wonder that the LTTE propaganda machine was more
proactive/effective against our Government throughout the 30 year war
and thereafter?
Ainsley de Silva
Kohuwala.
Azwer writes to President Offering of Qurban, Ulhiyya and Aqeeqa
The Quran and Hadees had made it incumbent on the Muslims to offer
Qurban, Ulhiyya and Aqeeqa.
Under the circumstance, the President’s announcement at the
Thaipongal celebration at Hindu College in Paiyagala, on January 18,
2016 on banning the slaughter of cattle has an impact on the Muslims.
Even under foreign rule or under self-rule, no government imposed
such a ban.
Even the present Constitution ensures this freedom, viz.
Article 10 and 14(1) (e) states: Every person is entitled to freedom
of thought, conscience and religion, including the freedom to have or to
adopt a religion of belief of his choice, and 14,(1) (e) : the freedom
either by himself or in association with others, and either in public or
private, to manifest his religion or belief on worship, observance,
practice and teaching:
Since this matter is essentially a part of Islamic religious practise,
it will constitute a denial of the Fundamental Right of the Muslims to
impose a ban. If it is wrong to slaughter in Sri Lanka, the logical
conclusion would be that it is wrong to do so elsewhere. Islam forbids
any form of animal cruelty. One can find many examples in the teachings
of the Prophet (Sal) on this matter.
I would urge on behalf of the Muslim community, to desist from
banning the slaughter of cattle. Let the Muslims practise their
religious obligation as they had been performing throughout the ages, as
enjoined upon them by their religion, and let those who want to avoid
meat be afforded that freedom.
At this point, I also wish to stress the importance of including in
the proposed new Constitution a Chapter on Fundamental Rights like
Section 29 of the Soulbury Constitution – Entrenched Clause - which
firmly guaranteed the religious rights of the minority communities -
which cannot even be amended by a 2/3rd majority in Council.
Alhaj A.H.M. Azwer
Former MP/Minister of Muslim of Religious and Cultural Affairs
|
