In the name of a ‘Secure Existence’…
“Must people actually be exterminated to provide the rest of society a comfortable and secure existence?” I took this line off a friend’s blog post. This particular line struck me as quite ironic especially taking into consideration the happenings of last Thursday.
Bus loads of “Tamil lodgers” were packed off on buses bound to Vavuniya, (all bullshit aside) to “provide the rest of society a comfortable and secure existence…”
Some might say “this act was a complete violation/infringement of FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS!” Others might quietly add “something had to be done no? It’s better to be safe than sorry…it’s a state of emergency after all!”
It’s funny you know…this phrase “a state of emergency?” What exactly do people our Governments mean by it? Is it a safety net for the State, to justify their actions? Is it a means for society to ease their guilt for harbouring racist thoughts? Or is it as simple as it claims to be; a state of emergency.
If we’re to go by the Government’s interpretation, our country has been in a ’state of emergency’ for the past 25 years! Even if that were true, we still come down to the very same point. What does it mean?
Can any action of the State be justified by this ‘so called’ state of emergency? If so, does our non-committal attitude indirectly endorse all actions taken by the State during this time? Yes, it’s true that the people have now been brought back, more due to the Government realising their folly and jumping at the chance to reverse their action, rather than out of the kindness of their hearts. But nevertheless, I doubt that it’s actually possible to reverse an action such as this. Yes, superficially, the people have been reinstated in their respective homes, but what about the heightened sense of animosity created and the lives that were so rudely disrupted? What of the ‘HUMAN BEINGS’ caught in the middle of this ‘age-old tussle’?
Somewhere down the line we’ve lost sight of many a thing; our humaneness, basic respect for one another and ability to truly empathise with another, for starters. If this is the start, I dread to think where we’ll end…
while i whole hearted agree with you on the bass of this article. we must also remember it is not clear cut as it may seem. are we to say at no point and at no given circumstance can this sort of action be taken. whilst i do believe our government should not have violated fundamental human rights enshrined in our constitution ,i can also understand why some people might think it was justified.
Comment by Marsh — June 13, 2007 @ 12:11 pm
“whilst i do believe our government should not have violated fundamental human rights enshrined in our constitution ,i can also understand why some people might think it was justified.”
Yeah, Marsh, I can understand why some people might think that too: because they’re either thick as pig shit, or because they haven’t taken the time to think about it.
1. The police exists to uphold the law. There is absolutely no justification for the police breaking the law in such a flagrant, planned fashion.
2. The government exists to serve its citizens. If Tamils from the North and East are citizens of the government and the government represents them and serves them, the government has no business whatsoever to punish them without cause. If they aren’t citizens that deserve the same rights as everybody else, then they’re claim of discrimination and call for separation is justified, is it not?
3. Racial profiling is discriminatory, but it happens all over the world because it is effective. It’s an effective way of determining who is more likely to be guilty. However, it is no way a determination of guilt itself. Therefore, while temporary detention and lengthier questioning may be justified of a profile group, meting out punishment before guilt is determined is completely wrong. There is a world of difference between justifiable racial profiling and what happened with the bussing of evicted Tamils in Colombo. I am amazed that the police chief actually went along with it. It’s his job to uphold the law.
Comment by ravana — June 27, 2007 @ 3:18 pm