• ICJ calls for CHOGM venue change

    Mar 21

    The International Commission of Jurists have welcomed a recently passed UN HRC resolution on Sri Lanka, and called upon the Commonwealth to change venue for the upcoming CHOGM away from Sri Lanka.

    Responding to the passing of the resolution, Alex Conte, of the International Commission of Jurists, said,

    “The ICJ welcomes this resolution as it underscores the international community’s continuing concern about the horrific atrocities committed by all sides to the Sri Lankan conflict”.

    “The UN, as well as the Commonwealth and other international organizations interested in helping the Sri Lankan people, should now press and assist the Sri Lankan Government to show tangible implementation of their oft-repeated promises”.

    “Sri Lanka has a long history of promising justice but delivering impunity, and the LLRC is only the most recent example of that. With this resolution, the international community shows it wants to see concrete action… Not only has the Sri Lankan Government not addressed the violations of the past, but there are strong indications that the rule of law has significantly deteriorated”.

    “In light of this resolution and the situation in Sri Lanka, the Commonwealth should change its plans to hold the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo… Sri Lanka has demonstrated its rejection of the Commonwealth Principles, notably democracy, the independence of the judiciary and human rights. This will no doubt be further confirmed when the High Commissioner for Human Rights presents her oral update to the Human Rights Council in September this year, just two months ahead of the scheduled Heads of Government Meeting.”

  • Failure of the UN system - BTF

    Commenting on resolution 22/L1 British Tamils Forum (BTF) said the "United Nations have failed a people on its own mandate of human rights," adding, "a clear political divide is apparent on the resolution passed today after being watered down to gain support of some voting member States."

    See here for full statement.

  • Canadian foreign minister Baird welcomes resolution

    The Canadian Foreign Affairs minister, John Baird, welcomed the UNHRC's adoption of resolution 22/L1 on Thursday. 

    In a statement, Baird said:

    “Canada welcomes the adoption of a resolution at the UN Human Rights Council that expresses growing international concern over Sri Lanka’s ongoing failure to address serious allegations of human rights violations that occurred in 2009. The Council also expressed concerns regarding threats to judicial independence and the rule of law, reports of enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings and torture, and violations of the rights to freedom of expression, association and peaceful assembly."

    “Canada was proud to support this initiative. I am pleased that the UN Human Rights Council is maintaining its focus on this gravely disturbing situation."

    “The resolution reminds courageous individuals and their families, as well as victims of human rights violations, that they have not been forgotten by the international community. Canada will continue to pursue this issue—and other troubling recent developments like the weakening of judicial independence and the rule of law in Sri Lanka — through multilateral and other channels, including the Commonwealth.”

  • Sri Lanka fumes over Indian support for resolution

    In light of India voting in favour of a resolution on Sri Lanka at the UNHRC and increasing anti-Sri Lanka sentiment in Tamil Nadu, Sri Lankan government ministers, political parties and even media have reacted furiously.

    Defence Secretary Gotabaya Rajapaksa reportedly expressed “deep disappointment with India”, saying the resolution employed “double standards” over “unsubstantiated allegations”.

    He went on to add, "would India address its accountability issues to the satisfaction of Western powers or the UN"?

    Rajapaksa has also called for all Sri Lankans to refrain from travelling to Tamil Nadu, “until the situation improves”.


    Meanwhile the Official Government News Portal of Sri Lanka posted an article entitled “India bowed down to American dictates”, adding that,

    “India became a lame duck under the domineering fist of Americans”.

    The Daily Mirror carried a lead banner that read “India joins USA to beat SL”.

    In an editorial headed “Geneva: A triumph for hypocrisy”, the Island slammed India writing,

    “Ironically, it fully backed Sri Lanka’s war on terror during which crimes against civilians are alleged to have occurred. It was fully au fait with the situation in the Vanni—it had its personnel on non-military duty in the operational areas—and if there had been excesses on the part of the Sri Lankan military it should have made a direct intervention to stop the war at that juncture.”

    “Its vote for a country specific resolution at the UNHRC is widely seen as a diplomatic bêtise vis-à-vis India’s accountability issues in Kashmir as well as discrimination and violence against its ethnic and religious minorities. Diplomatically speaking, two can play at that game.”

    “Now that India has voted for the US resolution against Sri Lanka, Karunanidhi is likely to rejoin the UPA government propping it up and America will pat Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on his back. But, India is sure to realise its folly sooner or later; it is digging itself into a hole.”

    Ceylon Today in its piece entitled “Tamil Nadu plays aggressor” stated,

    “Delhi will eventually mend its relations with Colombo, for it must. The increasing Chinese influence in Sri Lanka may not be the ideal political backdrop for this tiny island, but it is the perfect antidote to keep India in her place, when the need arises.”

    The state-owned Daily News added in its editorial “United Nations Pvt. Ltd.”,

    “This is the grandest indictment yet on a UN system that’s broken down, polarized and serving the interests of a few member states, as opposed to the larger UN community of nations.”

    “But, what’s more important is that this news confirms the inconvenient truth about the new means of keeping member countries on a leash controlled by the big powers.”

    “This is a fraud perpetrated on UN member states, and it is in very simple terms an instrument for neo-colonialism.”

    "This time she (UN High Commissioner Navi Pillay) incorporated everything that was in the Darusman report into her own report and tried to palm that off as an acceptable and legitimate UN document."

    "Well, it isn’t - and this is the considered opinion not just of Sri Lanka but UN member nations such as Russia and China. ‘There is hole in your bucket - dear Pillay dear Pillay, there is hole in your bucket - there is a hole!’ . The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights might as well brush her teeth and do her morning ablutions to this refrain, because there is a gaping hole now deeper than the Grand Canyon due to her extra legal machinations to prostitute the UN system to serve the ends of her own masters, the dominant powers that seek to subvert the consensus nature of the UN system through the agency of the offices of the High Commissioners."

    "This is what the Commonwealth seeks to do as well, and to this end Sri Lanka’s wise refusal to try and block the creation of a Human Rights High Commissioner’s office in the Commonwealth is astute. But the Commonwealth is toothless and decorative, compared to the substantially empowered United Nations."

     

  • UNHRC session on SL resolution begins
    Published 10:36am Geneva time.

     

    The final text of the draft resolution brought on Sri Lanka - Promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka' - tabled at UNHRC session.

     

    Follow @TamilGuardian Twitter for live commentary and images of final draft texted tables by the United States.

    Watch the proceedings live here.

  • UNHRC adopts draft resolution 22/L1 on Sri Lanka

    Published 10:59 Geneva

    In a vote that took place today in Geneva, the UN Human Rights Council adopted a draft resolution (22/L1) on Sri Lanka entitled - 'Promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka'.

    Twenty-five member states voted in favour of the resolution, whilst 13 votes against and 8 member states abstained. Gabon's vote did not register on the UNHRC's live voting screen.

    The thirteen against: Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kuwait, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Phillippines, Qatar, Thailand, Uganda, UAE, Venezuela.

    Eight abstentions: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia. Gabon's vote did not register on the screen. (**See update below)

    The resolution was tabled by the United States together with 40 co-sponsors including: Austraia, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and UK. The names of other final co-sponsors are yet to be issued.

    Updated 11:21 Geneva

    Unconfirmed reports are now coming through that Gabon's vote that did not register on the UNHRC's live voting screen was in fact a yes vote, bringing the total number of member states who voted in favour of the resolution to 26.

    **Awaiting confirmation

     

     

  • UNHRC resolution a 'missed opportunity' - CTC

    The Canadian Tamil Congress (CTC), called the UN Human Rights Council latest resolution on Sri Lanka 22/1 a 'missed opportunity' but that the 'adoption of another resolution this year signifies the Council’s engagement and commitment to follow through Resolution 19/2.'

    In a statement released immediately after the Council voted, CTC said:

    'Given the notorious history of failed domestic commissions in Sri Lanka - outlined in the High Commissioner’s report to this Council, and as noted in this resolution -,the unconstitutional impeachment of the Chief Justice this year, the fractured state of the rule of law, and the deteriorating current human rights situation in Sri Lanka, against the backdrop of Sinhalization of Tamil areas, any demands on the Sri Lankan state to investigate itself is unacceptable.   Sri Lanka has consistently demonstrated its inability and unwillingness to initiate a proper and objective mechanism that would be in line with international norms.  The Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission and the Army Court of Inquiry serve as a reminder of its failure in this regard. It gives Sri Lanka additional time and space to further delay and will not bring us any further to accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka. International investigations of violations of human rights and humanitarian law require timely responses to ensure the integrity of the investigation, and for the protection of evidence and witnesses.'

    In a statement, CTC spokesperson Vani Selvarajah said:

    “We are very disappointed that the resolution again calls on Sri Lanka to conduct an independent and credible investigation into allegations of violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law”

    “In this regard, the Council missed an opportunity to clearly articulate Sri Lanka’s abysmal failure to undertake an objective domestic investigation, and opt to establish an International Commission of Inquiry,”

    See here for full press release by CTC.

  • UNHRC resolution 22/1: 25 yes, 13 no, 8 abstain

     

    Confirmation of final vote details on the adoption of resolution 22/1 by the UN Human Rights Council on Sri Lanka:

    25 member states voted YES: Argentina, Austria, Benin, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cote d'Ivoire, Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Italy, Libya, Montenegro, Peru, Poland, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Sierra Leone, Spain, Switzerland, USA.

    13 member states voted NO: Congo, Ecuador, Indonesia, Kuwait, Maldives, Mauritania, Pakistan, Phillippines, Qatar, Thailand, Uganda, UAE, Venezuela.

    8 ABSTENTIONS: Angola, Botswana, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, Kazakhstan, Japan, Kenya, Malaysia.

    Gabon was not present during the vote.

    The resolution was tabled by the US. It was co-sponsored by 11 Human Rights Council members: Austria, Estonia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Spain, Switzerland and Czech Republic, as well as non HRC members: Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Malta, Monaco, Norway, Portugal, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, UK, Albanida, Australia, Bosnia and Herzogovina, Cameroon, Cyprus, Latvia, The Netherlands, and New Zealand.

    See here for the general discussion that preceded the official vote today.

  • US calls for action on reconciliation and accountability

    The US Secretary of State John Kerry has called on Sri Lanka to take “meaningful action” on longstanding issues such as reconciliation and accountability.

    See full statement below.

    Today’s vote in the UN Human Rights Council encourages the Government of Sri Lanka to continue on the path toward lasting peace and prosperity following decades of civil war and instability. This resolution, which builds on a similar 2012 resolution, reaffirmed that Sri Lanka must take meaningful action on reconciliation and accountability in order to move forward. The United States, together with international partners, calls upon the Government of Sri Lanka to fulfill its public commitments to its own people on these longstanding issues.

    While some important progress has been made, there is much work still to be done. We look to the Government of Sri Lanka to implement the recommendations of the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission (LLRC) and to reverse recent negative developments on rule of law and human rights. The United States stands ready to assist with this vital work. I look forward to continuing our engagement with the Government of Sri Lanka and strengthening our friendship with the Sri Lankan people.

  • Last ditch efforts...
    A Discussion and Conclusions session regarding the adoption of a tabled draft resolution (22/L1) on Sri Lanka entitled ‘Promoting reconciliation and accountability in Sri Lanka’, ended with successful adoption of the draft resolution at the United Nations Human Rights Council session.
    See our Twitter feed here our live updates from Geneva.
     
    Thanking the 40 cosponsors of the tabled resolution, the United States delegate introduced the resolution, noting the 9 additional nations that decided to cosponsor the resolution.
     
    Drawing upon the Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights report on Sri Lanka, the US delegate reiterated that,
    “Sri Lanka must take meaningful action and address growing concerns over deteriorating Human Rights Situation.”
    Highlighting the lack of progress with regards to the recommendations of last year’s resolution (19/L2), the US delegate purported that this year’s resolution (22/L2) was intended to foster “genuine reconciliation and accountability”.
     
    Addressing the session, the Pakistan Delegate, echoed previous claims by Sri Lanka that the 22/L1 resolution was unacceptable.
     
    Drawing on previous Sri Lankan rhetoric that the resolution was based on an unsubstantiated Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) report, the delegate stated,
     
    “the draft resolution which bases itself on a report whose credibility is so blatantly questioned, cannot be seen by this body as a reasonable one for further engagement.”
    Labelling the situation in Sri Lanka as a product of “externally funded terrorism” the delegate concluded that Sri Lanka needed ‘time and space’ and that,
    “Disproportionate attention paid to SL by this council is not commensurate with the actual situation on the ground.”
    Echoing concerns US concerns with regards to progress regarding last years resolution, the Indian delegate noted “with concern the inadequate progress made by Sri Lanka in fulfilling its commitments on the previous resolution”
     
    The delegate reiterated calls for demilitarization of the NorthEast and an independent credible investigation into human rights abuses at the end of the war.
     
    Conveying full support to the United States resolution, the European Union delegate, welcomed the OHCHR report recommendations.
     
    The European Union delegate stressed the importance of the debate on Sri Lanka asserting that,
    “Given the very limited progress of the last year, the EU believes the current HR situation in SL should remain on the agenda of this Council.”
    The delegate ended by highlighting the struggle against intimidation in Sri Lanka, reiterating the “need for free and unhindered” work by the Civil Society.
     
    Making his final address before the vote at the general assembly, the Sri Lankan delegate, Mahinda Samarasinghe denounced the resolution, describing it as,
    “totally unacceptable to Sri Lanka” and “highly intrusive.”
    Challenging the resolution’s reference to the discrimination of minorities and religious groups, the delegate purported that the claims are
    “manifestly not the case in Sri Lanka, and form no part of government policy or practice.”
    Samarasinghe went on to repeat previous expressions of the government of Sri Lanka’s complete reject of the Plan of Action report, a study that provided basis for the recommendations of OHCHR report, that were included in the tabled resolution.
     
    Drawing upon the fact that human rights violations occur in several nations, Samarasinghe questioned,
    “why this preoccupation with Sri Lanka?”
    The Sri Lankan delegate concluded the his statement by  warning  the “politicised” council that,
    “proponents of the resolution did nothing to safeguard paramount principles of universality and impartibility.”
    “today Sri Lanka, tomorrow it may be another country in this council,” he said.
    Following the voting procedure and successful adoption of the draft resolution, the delegate of Maldives, in a final contribution to the council, echoed the government of Sri lanka's sentiment , stating that,
    “the resolution was unnecessary.”
  • Advocating the Use of the G word - Genocide' - TAG

    Published by TAG on 21st March. See here.

    In the run up to today’s HRC vote on Sri Lanka, there has been some considerable debate over how the demands of justice are to be met, and the use of the word genocide. The latter debate was sparked by the DMK’s withdrawal from the Indian central government, in a protest against the government’s position with respect to the US sponsored resolution before the HRC. The DMK demands were twofold, India should work to strengthen the resolution, not weaken it, and the word genocide should be used in the resolution.
     
    In New Delhi last month TAG pushed for India to strengthen the resolution, to call for an International Independent Investigation, and one taken in the context of 60 years of persecution. With regards use of the word “genocide”, given our name, there can be little doubt over where we at Tamils Against Genocide stand. 


     
    The Criticisms.
     
    Criticisms fall broadly into 2 categories, one of tactics, and one of ownership.
     
    Tactics. These criticisms argue from a position of pragmatism, not, by in large, of denial - the argument runs that the time for the inclusion of genocide is not yet upon us. The fear is that the G word will turn away the more hesitant supporters, and what a pity if the resolution falters because of demands to include genocide in the wording.
     
    2009 witnessed such a line of thinking in action. The Petrie report (the UN Internal Review Panel Report on Sri Lanka, November 2012) exposed the extent of UN knowledge of civilian casualties at the hands of the Sri Lankan state, and the depth of UN inaction. It was not for lack of verification that casualties were not reported, rather silence was a calculated decision, the result of an internal conflict between the demands of a humanitarian operation and human rights considerations. Practical concerns won out. Silence won out. The Petrie report acknowledges that had the extent of crimes been revealed, many deaths could have been averted.
     
    Continued silence now is not the answer. International inaction and silence, not ignorance, made it possible for Sri Lanka to continue and to escalate its mass killing. Continuing to muffle calls for genocide, to water down the crimes committed by the Sri Lankan state, grants the Government of Sri Lanka (GoSL) time and space to continue in the same vein. The crimes committed by the GoSL are not a thing of the past but are ongoing. Accountability and recognition are not sought merely as salves for old wounds. They are necessary to preventing crimes today and in the future.   
     
    Ownership. A second vein of criticism avers that genocide is a legal term, to be determined by courts, that to speak of genocide before it has been declared such by an independent judiciary is to put the cart before the proverbial horse.
     
    History tells a different tale. The UN Secretary General, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, Oxfam and other non-governmental organizations referred to the Rwandan Genocide contemporaneously in April 1994 years before it had been designated as such by the ICTR. The Nuremberg trials did not use the term genocide in reference to the Holocaust yet few would deny the term is appropriate.
     
    Additionally, there have been many calls for an investigation into crimes against humanity and war crimes, without such criticism being levied.
     
    ___________________
     
    The credible allegations of crimes committed in the final months of the conflict, 2009, amount to genocide. They need be viewed and investigated within the framework of genocide, within the historical context of decades of persecution. The crimes committed against the Tamil people within Sri Lanka did not end with the military defeat of the LTTE; they are ongoing. Recognising the scale of crimes matters for Tamil lives now.
     
    The inadequacy of the crimes against humanity charge rests in its failure to properly explain the intent of the perpetrators in this instance. Those who survived the mass atrocities in Sri Lanka wish for a satisfactory explanation of the intent behind those atrocities.
     
    States who rejected the US resolution today and those who advocate playing it softly, who vote for the resolution but fear to speak of genocide, not only deny justice to the survivors, they grant Sri Lanka more time and space to continue to act with impunity.

  • ‘Indian army uniforms’ and ‘Doctored photos’ claims Fonseka

    Former Sri Lankan Army General Sarath Fonseka has claimed that the LTTE had used Indian army uniforms asserting that this explains freshly uncovered evidence of war crimes, and maintained that he was willing to answer any questions over the conduct of the war.

    Speaking to reporters in Colombo, Fonseka said,

    “These pictures could have been doctored… The bunker where he was looks too tidy and orderly to be one of our bunkers. In the battle field, we did not have the luxury of having such neat and tidy bunkers”

    “The camouflaged uniform worn by someone who is claimed to be a Sri Lankan soldier is not we issue our troops. This is the camouflage that is used by Indian troops. We know Tigers used smuggled Indian army-type uniforms”.

    Addressing the issue of accountability and allegations of war crimes, the former general said it was his “duty” to face any questions, commenting,

    “People want to know what happened. Some want to clear doubts… Accountability is something that you can’t ignore basically,”

    “(I) should be able to answer the questions if any queries are made about the conduct of the soldiers and the manner the operations were conducted… Those are things you can’t just try to ignore".

    “We don’t have to shy (away), we can answer. But they (the government) are not doing that… I have no problem. I am confident and I know how the battle was conducted”.

    "If somebody is shy and tries to hide from facing questions, then obviously, people will start suspecting more and more.. In my case I have no problem like that and I am ready to answer anybody and clarify any doubt. If anybody questions me, I am ready to answer".

     

  • Chinese-funded 'Rajapaksa International Airport' opens

    Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa has officialy opened the country's second international airport, constructed in his hometown of Hambantota after a $209 million Chinese loan.

    State television showed Rajapaksa arriving at Hambantota airport on a state-owned Sri Lankan Airlines flight, with a 213-member delegation.

    Teresita Schaffer, a former US ambassador to Sri Lanka, said,

    “This recent huge increase in [Chinese] money was very convenient for Rajapaksa, who wanted to show he didn’t need the west and all its talk of human rights abuses”.

    Addressing a gathering at the airport, Rajapaksa stated,

    "We need international funding. We have not hesitated for external loans and we will not hesitate in future as well... We have been criticised for taking loans to build this airport... The loan was not for consumption, but to build infrastructure. We will build more power stations, highways and ports".

    "It is not possible to build internationally important development projects such as this solely from internal revenue. It is true that we launch most development projects from the revenue of our own country, but we need international assistance, too. This is a practice followed by other countries too. It is necessary to obtain loans to build a country. We too obtain such loans and assistance and build many things for the development of the country. Therefore, I express the gratitude of our people and our country to all of you".

    Meanwhile a poster has appeared in Sri Lankan newspapers depicting a Tamil father stating that since the end of the war they are now "living happily", which has only "increased" sicne his son obtained a job at the Mattala Rajapaksa International Airport.

    See report from TamilNet here.

  • Sampanthan welcomes resolution and dismisses criticism of India

    Welcoming the adoption of the UNHRC resolution 22/1 on Sri Lanka, the leader of the TNA, R Sampanthan, praised India's support to it.

    Asked for TNA's position on the passing of the resolution in an interview to BBC Tamil, R Sampanthan, said:

    "We welcome the passing of the resolution. The resolution was tabled a few weeks ago.. there were changes in the final days, however, this resolution is along the lines of the resolution previously passed."

    Stating that the inclusion of the office of the UN High Commissioner's expert report was an important component of the resolution, Sampanthan stated that the resolution called for the implementation of the report's recommendations.

    "Although the resolution does not call for an international investigation, when it calls for the implementation of the office of UN High Commissioner's report, this [an international investigation] is included in that."

    "The most important thing is that the resolution needed to be passed. Even though the US brought a stronger resolution initially, in order to get the resolution passed with the support of other countries, it accepted the views of other countries, and got it passed."

    Expressing happiness at the passing of the resolution, Sampanthan pointed once again to the reference to an international investigation via the HC's report, and that Sri Lanka was being asked to hold an credible and independent investigation.

    "Instead of focusing on the parts that we are not content with, it's important to view it as a whole," he continued.

    Asked if the TNA was content with India's position on the resolution, Sampanthan replied:

    "They voted in favour of the resolution. They did not vote against it."

    Dismissing criticism of India for not actively supporting the resolution, Sampanthan defended India stating that there were no reports the government of India had worked against the resolution, and did not take up such a position in their parliament or public statements.

    "India voted in favour of the resolution. That's an important point. They voted in favour last time too. Last time, it was not known whether they would vote in favour or against till the final moment."

    "In order to solve this problem, India's help is essential to us. India's contribution is vital to us. And therefore, we must work with India in a manner that ensures we can receive their help, and continue to receive their help, and also so that India's concern on this issue continues."

    Arguing that this was an unavoidable, but vital necessity, Sampanthan said, "I believe we must act acknowledging this."

  • Sri Lanka denies entry to Briton over tattoo

    Sri Lankan authorities have denied entry to a British tourist into the country over a Buddha tattoo on his arm, deemed to be ‘disrespectful’.

    42-year-old Antony Ratcliffe from Nottingham was “shocked and upset” over the decision, over what he said was “inoffensive” body art meant to be a tribute.

    Speaking to the BBC he said,

    "As soon as he saw it the chief officer went crazy. You could see it on his face, he looked really angry and said I would have to go back to London… They took my passport and held me there for an hour and a half. All the time they were bringing people in to look at my arm, and they were shaking their heads.”

    "I was explaining my case, pleading basically, and the chief officer just told me to 'shut up, shut up' and he refused to talk to me.”

    "I like the artwork in tattoos obviously and, due to my belief in Buddhist philosophy which I have followed for many years, I thought a quality tattoo of the Buddha was rather apt. It wasn't something I took lightly or did on the spur of the moment."

    "The whole experience has been a shock - it has been upsetting and a waste of my time. I'm not taking it further, but when I saw they had accused me of speaking disrespectfully about Buddhism, I had to put my side of the story"

     See our earlier post: Police arrest tourist for Buddha tattoo (11 February 2013)

Subscribe to Tamil Affairs