by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam
Race is identified at various levels:
Facts – as per direct observation of what happened
Guna/Quality – recognized through a combination of facts and inner feelings
Faith – intuitively often without conscious thoughts
Racial difference is Objectively identified with through the ‘looks’ of the persons concerned. On its own it is harmless – like an unused gun.
It is when this difference is combined with a feeling, that it has positive or negative values. In an area such as Vaddukkottai in Northern Sri Lanka, where caste based discrimination is practiced even today – race consciousness was a higher level force that helped override caste-consciousness to a degree. All discrimination is right when practiced on the basis of work values. Hence, in areas where there are toddy tappers as well as priests – positive discrimination is likely to include caste. It would however, stand up to tests through merit based discrimination. Unjust caste or race based discrimination would not.
Discrimination that is not on the basis of work is likely to be unjust. The legal system of a nation usually uses the ‘common’ / ‘general’ discrimination system. The likes of Mr. Basil Fernando have been arguing in favor of this for Sri Lanka. In the article about the book ‘Is Land Just for Men?’, ( in today’s Sri Lanka Guardian), Ms Bina Agarwal says ‘Rather, the context is one where there remain gender inequalities in those rights as defined in law, or as implemented in practice.’ The need to inquire into this might stem from the contributions made by those who have invested heavily in Gender Equality. The author continues as follows:
‘the fluidity of post-marital residence in a Sinhalese woman’s lifetime between the binna and diga systems (in the former the husband joins his wife in her natal home and in the latter she moves to her husband’s village and home), and the associated fluidity in the inheritance rights of daughters found under traditional Sinhalese law, was a most unusual practice. And it carried to the logical conclusion the link of inheritance rights with a married daughter’s geographic proximity and availability to care for her parents.’
The same legislation would be interpreted by different judges in different ways due to their own gunas which are closely linked to their cultural faiths. As shown in the letter appended below (Appendix 1), Justice Kirby and Magistrate Pat O’Shane for example judged differently through Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 (NSW). Magistrate Pat O’Shane is of Aboriginal origins. Magistrate Pat O Shane did judge differently to Magistrate Gilmour in my matters in relation to the same Inclosed Lands Protection Act. But Magistrate Gilmour approached it through a work angle – which was the purpose why I entered the University of NSW. Between the two, Magistrate Gilmour’s work culture was far stronger than Magistrate Pat O’Shane’s. Likewise, Justice Kirby’s but that matter was not current work related. It was ‘inheritance’ related. Culturally, Aborigines are better able to manage ‘free-lands’, than migrant Australians of all races. Hence, what happened – ‘the peaceful assembly’ - / fact combined with Aboriginal feelings of ownership would have identified with Magistrate Pat O’Shane’s guna / quality in this regard. Justice Kirby’s feelings of ownership in relation to Land would have been more close to general legal principles. Like Magistrate Gilmour’s – Justice Kirby’s would have been more close to current work. To such a person ‘protestors’ would have seemed idle. Magistrate Gilmour heard detailed evidence as to whether or not I had ‘lawful excuse’ to enter the University. The evidence submitted confirmed that I did. But Magistrate Pat O’Shane did not venture into it. It would have been very difficult for Magistrate Pat O’Shane to identify with my work standards. Likewise, protestors against damages to parklands are likely to have looked like Aborigines to Justice Kriby.
The above examples demonstrate the different interpretations by different judges of the same country. Unless therefore we are driven by compensation (money and status), we need to place a ceiling on actions through the legal system and start working through social networks. It is important that from then onwards we judge ourselves and stop expecting others to say that we are/were right. That is when we develop good gunas – enough to override bad ones that hurt us.
In a relationship, when one side does not invest much in good guna - say Racial or Caste Equality – but the other does – then the same act / happening / observed fact – would be received differently by the two sides. One who has the guna of racial / caste superiority is not likely to be conscious of hurting the other side of minority power. If one was bound by common faith – then the pain of one would be immediately felt by the other. The incarceration of the people of Vanni in mid 2009, is a good example of the Tamil Community feeling hurt by the acts of the Sinhalese Community through its Government. Similarly, Sinhalese Community feeling hurt by the attacks on its civilians by the Tamil Community through the LTTE. In both cases – the side that ‘acted’ did not identify with pain of the other side. Race has become a ‘guna’ to that extent.
One who invests would ‘feel’ where there is damage. I felt damaged by the actions of the University of NSW, due to my strong investment in Racial Equality. I could not have achieved this without foregoing benefits through the hierarchical subjective system. One of the criteria required by a senior position within the University of NSW - was – the ability to maintain confidentiality. This directly opposes the key guna/quality of a democratic system – transparency. A strong academic from the old system would appreciate confidentiality. It works well when the issue is addressed at ‘guna’ level. But it should not be part of the objectively measurable open criteria.
The Sri Lankan ethnic issue has gone into to ‘guna’ stage. Facts are of little use for locals. They are of use to the Sri Lankan Diaspora (of all races) to get credits from Global Society of which they are now becoming a part. But one needs to be careful not to use those systems directly in happenings in Sri Lanka which are largely ‘guna’ based and therefore are strongly influenced by local culture. Subjective authority is justly earned through gunas. Hence Judges and Administrators who have not invested in Racial Equality should refrain from using discretionary powers to judge but facilitate the litigant demonstrating higher investor in Racial Equality to express that ‘guna’ through affidavit evidence on the basis of facts relevant to the matter.
This should apply to every authority using the powers of discrimination to judge and distribute facilities. The book ‘Is Land Just for Men?’ highlights the reason why Sri Lanka produced the first woman Prime Minister. To me it is due to Sinhalese culture as practiced more in favor of women. If this is Natural and Peaceful then it is good culture.
Working and living with Toddy Tappers I realized that the mothers of that community tended to promote early marriage for their daughters. Hence even with educational qualifications and work related status – they tended to place ceilings. Otherwise they would have had difficulty getting their daughters married due to slower progress amongst males who usually undertook/undertake manual labor.
Those who had ready access to these opportunities, tended to over produce at their lower levels – as Universities with ready access to funds tend to do. When I withdrew funding at the point they sought to stagnate – I felt letdown, hurt and upset. But later I found that males from that same community came forward to continue with the work. The genders found their natural niche as per their common culture. Likewise the different races need to be facilitated to find their natural places in society. Until our investment in general work is greater than our cultural work – our gunas would continue to be culture based. Equal Opportunity Laws if implemented in those environments would interfere with cultural Peace.
Appendix 1
Dr. Cephas Lumina
Independent UN Expert on the Effects of other related financial obligations
United Nations
Palais des Nations
CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
24 February 2011
Dear Dr Lumina,
UN Expert Guilty of Racial Discrimination?
Thank you for your return email last night (Australian time). I went to bed as soon as I read your email closely followed by Tarrin’s – which said ‘Oh my god I give up’. I smiled, mentally said to Tarrin ‘Ok permission granted’ and then shut down my system which tends to be more difficult to work if it is not shut down frequently. Unlike you and Tarrin, I do not have Blackberry system which says ‘Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!’.
In your first email on 17 February you wrote
1. Without addressing me by name or any title ‘Could you please remove me from your mailing list.’
In your second email which arrived late last night you wrote
2. ‘WOULD YOU KINDLY REMOVE ME FROM YOUR MAILING LIST. I DID NOT SUBSCRIBE TO IT AND DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE YOUR MAILINGS ‘
Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!
To this I replied:
2.1 ‘As I have said in this email to Tarrin - DO IT YOURSELF. THAT IS DEMOCRACY AND SELF GOVERNANCE. We do not submit to egos’
Your response to this which I read this morning:
3. ‘YOU BREAKING THE LAW BY MAILING TO PEOPLE THAT DO NO WISH TO RECEIVE AND HAVE NO INTEREST IN YOUR IDEAS’
Sent via my BlackBerry from Vodacom - let your email find you!
Below is my response and analysis on the basis of the Value rather than personalities.
To my mind, there is no common Australian Law through which you could legally ban me unless I do it for commercial purposes. If indeed there is such an Australian Law, then our Ministers including our Attorney General and the Leader of the Opposition and former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, are all acting in breach of those laws by responding back directly sometimes and through Due Processes at others. Most relevant is the UN News which keeps coming even after I said looong ago to stop – using their ‘unsubscribe’ facility. When it did not – I took it as being symbolic and allowed myself to be a Public facility for the UN of which you are an official part. Taking as an institution, the number of times I have received emails from your institution is far greater than the number of times they / you have received emails from me. If we need to feel ‘even’ / equal to the UN – we need to facilitate them to spend equal time studying our work as they/you expect us to study their/your work. That is Equal Opportunity in Natural Practice.
Hence if there is indeed an Australian Law, I would work to establish that the Australian Government must speak only to the extent it is heard. I await eagerly to know the name of the Australian Legislation that would facilitate this service to my nation.
If on the other hand, you are referring to an International Law, I would appreciate you educating me on this. This may well be the case given that you have the following qualifications in this discipline:
“Dr Cephas Lumina, a Zambian national, holds a Bachelor of Laws (LLB) (with Merit) from the University of Zambia, Master of Law (LLM) in International Human Rights Law from the University of Essex in the United Kingdom, Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) in international law / human rights from Griffith University in Australia, an Advanced Diploma in International Human Rights from Abo Akademi University in Finland and a Graduate Certificate in Higher Education from Griffith University.
He has over 22 years’ legal practice, research and teaching experience in several countries including Australia, South Africa, Swaziland, Sweden, Uganda and Zambia.”
Compare that with my current certificates – officially Australian –
1. ‘Mentally Ill Criminal’ (University of New South Wales)
2. Mentally Ill Sri Lankan Criminal (NSW Police)
3. Channel Partner (University of Technology Sydney UTS – Insearch)
I identity with 1 above as part of Australian Migrant Community – including convicts from England and their descendents who continue to carry those genes.
I identify with 2 above as part of Global Tamil Community. As you may know, and would be interested in as a specialist in International law, LTTE who are part of my community, has been re-listed as a terrorist group by EU as recently as 31 January 2011. In other words, like the descendents of convict migrants of Australia, we, the Tamil community are considered to be carrying the LTTE genes. Hence the listing. Like with you, I did urge the Transnational Government of Tamil Eelam to structure Administrative and Judicial systems parallel to the Political system. Just like you – they failed to respond and some of their junior members responded like you – asking me to delete them from my mailing list. Some, like the Tamil Tigers, were cleverer than you and found ways of blocking my emails. For the same level of commitment and work – those with lesser social responsibilities would seem cleverer than stronger social responsibilities. That was why LTTE is known as the group that said ‘Operation successful; Patient died’.
The only label I identify with as an individual is 3 above as Channel Partner of an Australian University. It’s your parallel of the UN label.
The rest is as a community – for better or for worse.
Like you, the Vice Chancellors of the University of New South Wales also made out their mere ‘wish’ as the Law. As a law expert you would want to know about our ability to stay within the limits of the law – especially in areas where our work investment and sacrifices of earned benefits - are low. The legislation (ab)used was the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901. (NSW). The relevant sections are:
4 Unlawful entry on inclosed lands
(1) Any person who, without lawful excuse (proof of which lies on the person), enters into inclosed lands without the consent of the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands, or who remains on those lands after being requested by the owner, occupier or person apparently in charge of those lands to leave those lands, is liable to a penalty not exceeding:
(b) 5 penalty units in any other case.
(1A) A drover or person in charge of stock being driven on a road lawfully inclosed within the lands of any person has a lawful excuse for entering those lands for the purpose of preventing the stock from straying, or regaining control of stock that have strayed, from that road.
(2) Where a road is lawfully inclosed with the lands of any person, and such road is not clearly defined but there is a reasonably defined track commonly used by persons passing through such lands, the centre of such track shall, for the purposes of this Act, be deemed to be the centre of the road.
(3) Where a road is lawfully inclosed with the lands of any person and such road is not clearly defined and there is no reasonably defined track through such lands a person passing through such inclosed lands shall not be guilty of an offence unless it is shown that the route taken by such person in so passing was, having regard to the circumstances, unreasonable.
4A Offensive conduct while on inclosed lands
(1) Any person, who remains upon the inclosed lands of another person after being requested by the owner or occupier or the person apparently in charge of those lands to leave those lands and while remaining upon those lands conducts himself or herself in such a manner as would be regarded by reasonable persons as being, in all the circumstances, offensive, is liable to a penalty not exceeding:
Dr. Lumina, as a Human Rights Lawyer with Australian connections, you need to be aware of the various ways in which legislations are culturally used – especially in relation to Peaceful Protests in Public areas. As is my way, I prayed to my Australian ancestors who developed this legislation, to guide me. They did.
Since you seem attached to official labels, I give below a brief explanation of how this law is being interpreted at various levels – in relation to ‘Campaigning and the Law in New South Wales’
I note that the two judges – Magistrate Pat O’Shane of Aboriginal origins and Justice Kirby of European origins demonstrate their respective cultural genes through these judgments of the One matter.
Your Right to Peaceful Protest
You do generally have a right to lawful assembly in public spaces (see 8.4 below). This does not, however, extend to inclosed spaces. In O'Donohue v Wille [1999] NSWSC 661, three protestors were charged with trespass under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 as a result of entering an area of public parkland enclosed by barbed wire fencing that had been licenced to the RTA to construct the Eastern Distributor tunnel. The protestors argued that they had a lawful excuse for being on the inclosed lands occupied by the RTA since they were protesting against the construction of the Eastern Distributor and the associated tree destruction and reduction of public recreation space in Moore Park. At first instance, Magistrate Pat O'Shane dismissed the charges on the basis that the protestors "had a right to protest peacefully".
This decision was overturned on appeal. Justice Kirby of the Supreme Court of NSW held that entering land for a purpose that is not unlawful, does not constitute a lawful excuse.
This means that actions such as "sit-ins" in Ministerial Offices or corporate headquarters or, more generally, protests inside premises or in inclosed spaces are not lawful excuses that would allow you to avoid trespass charges/convictions under the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901.
The lawful excuse that I had, to enter the University of NSW, was employment related – after I withdrew my application to the Supreme Court of NSW, my complaint against the Vice Chancellor, as per my interpretation of the request of the Chancellor. The Court document specifically states that the Respondent would ‘talk’ to me. Talks with the Director of Human Resource failed and I sought to speak to the Vice Chancellor. I was arrested four times. There was change of Vice Chancellor after the second occasion. On the last two occasions, it was after the Vice Chancellor declined to follow usual Due Process to pass the matter on to the Governing Council headed by the Chancellor. In all instances I did have lawful excuse through the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and employment related policies of the University of NSW. Hence unlike the above protestors against whom Justice Kirby ruled, I did have lawful excuse.
As for section 4A – the Police confirmed in Court that they did not in any way find my conduct offensive or that I was a security risk,. They said that according to them I was not an owner – because I was neither a current member of staff nor a current student. Legally, as an Australian citizen I am an owner. The Truth manifested their ‘guna/genes’ of ownership denial – in the way they filled out details of my Nationality – repeatedly as Sri Lankan despite my repeated protests that I was Australian. They described my looks as ‘Indian/Black’ and none of this was accepted by the courts as confirmations of my claim of Racial Discrimination. Once we know that they did not consciously discriminate through merit basis – legal basis in this instance and there is no evidence of any particular conscious basis, we need to start looking for deep seated habitual discrimination. We call these ‘gunas’ in Tamil. The best English words I can think of are ‘attribute, quality, genes. Hence we continue to get blamed of racism at the International level.
Justice Kirby also seems to have missed that ownership point in the above case – that the Public are the owners of Public Lands and hence they need only their own approval to enter and remain on Public Lands. Identity with the core purpose of that particular Land is our moral authority. Magistrate Pat O’Shane heard the last two of my matters and ordered that I be sent to prison for One year. Later Magistrate Pat O’Shane legally ordered me to undergo psychiatric treatment and legally ordered that I take medication as prescribed. My family and my Legal Aid lawyer influenced me to release myself by signing bail conditions that I would not enter the University of NSW. Todate I have honored that legal undertaking, however unjust it may seem and feel.
In light of the above qualities in me, I urge you to go ahead and take legal action against me preferably through International Laws – so we do not carry these genes into the next stages of our life. Where there is evidence / symptoms of repeat offences – it is important to bring them under Administrative / legal paths using current environments – in this instance Global environments of our times. If we do not address it through these paths, there is the high risk that they become our gunas in a new environment. Once they become gunas – it is far more costly to treat them. The only way to protect ourselves from each other is through separation.
In the olden days, through the hierarchical system of autocracy, it was common for children to follow their parents’ trades and professions. Hence there was a pattern that Whites were usually the ruling class and blacks the class being ruled. At the country level again they carried these divisions. In countries such as India and Sri Lanka where my origins are, caste was the division that came closest to work based hierarchy. Recently, by living as part of a low caste (Toddy Tappers) in Northern Sri Lanka, I learnt that they had internal structures similar to the caste system – i.e. a sub-caste system. This helped me appreciate why some of them would not undertake cleaning or washing work inside their community – even though they would go outside for the same work. Hence the caste system continues even from the side of the victims. Likewise racism. Even amongst the ruling group – there were similar subdivisions as per their own culture. Hence the claim from those subdivisions that they also undergo pain and experience loss. This is invalid on the basis that they elect the government that makes the law and therefore they have the power to influence the development and implementation of appropriate laws to override past injustices. Once you class yourself as part of the ruling class – in this instance the UN and the Australian Government – you would naturally be influenced by their gunas. Hence your threat of legal action. That was also the reason why the LTTE dictated – just like the leaders they claimed to oppose and separate from.
Unless there is a strong hierarchical system as per our current work, we would continue to use these gunas/genes / memories of habit to discriminate on old bases. Some from the minority (to me you are one of them) convert themselves as the upper class – by changing ‘looks’ including educational looks such as yours. The first law you needed to practice was Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Had you done that, you would cured some of those ruling class hereditary gunas.
As per my research and discovery the four categories that we need in a democracy are:
1. Policy makers
2. Academics
3. Business persons
4. Process workers.
Whilst Policy makers may seem higher up – once we are really a part of them, we know that they are really not better off than us on the basis work done during equal time – because they have a wider area to cover – towards which they usually have to sacrifice current benefits – as we do when we undertake higher education. This must continue (which you did not demonstrate with me) so long as they are in that group. My origins are from a ruling caste in Sri Lanka and one of the ways in which we maintained the old gunas of higher thinking was by continuous actions to develop faith and / or to surrender our individuality to belong in that class. Hence my ability to class myself as the Tamil Community which includes LTTE who have been listed as Terrorists and migrant Australians of criminal origins. Many with origins in my caste (Vellala/Farmer caste) and above (Brahmin caste), like you, added themselves to the ruling class of their respective environments. Likewise many lower caste combatants who joined the LTTE. When the former is alone – one to one with the latter – they usually tend to use their habit – as happened with the Vice Chancellors of the University of NSW as well as the NSW Police. Likewise yourself. I interacted with you in the consciousness of UN policies. But you failed to show at least equal consciousness of Equality until known otherwise through merit basis.
The above classification might help you protect yourself from accumulating sins. Rights and Wrongs are applicable only through current systems commonly applicable to both. Once the outcome is old and past – due to not being active, they go into paavam and punyam – sins and virtues. The attachment to yesterday’s email from me was one such memorial book for my mother. On the last page is the prayer to Lord Shiva – the destroyer of Body Consciousness. Through this prayer we release the soul of the person towards freedom from earthly attachments – i.e – towards Policy level.
By responding as you did, you have demonstrated to me your need for more investment in policy work or to know at least for yourself as to which category you belong to. It is easy for an idle policy maker spoilt by free authority, to become a process worker in conduct. We often see academic behaving like business persons – requiring restructures of Universities to suit money making environments.
If we are true to ourselves and take our places silently within each group – as per our own work based assessment and speak and act according to our own hierarchy if it is lower than the apparent hierarchy, the outer groupings would not matter as much.
As per the apparent hierarchy – you are of the ruling class and I am of the ‘being ruled’ class. If you truly identify with that label, you would take legal action and if there are no laws that facilitate this, you would start action to develop and implement such a law at world standards. If you are not able to, then it is a social issue and you need to limit yourself to the ruling class and not interfere with this ‘being ruled’ class who seems like a mad process worker to some.
To me, it is no coincidence that you reacted through the email entitled ‘We are all Queens’. Intuitive habits work faster than conscious calculations. My intuitive governing habits must have threatened your intuitive ego based security of the ruling class status.
Today, I received the following message :
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, February 24, 2011 7:32 AM
Subject: My Bad Experience
I'm writing this with tears in my eyes,sorry I did not inform you about our trip.We made a quick trip to Spain and was robbed on our way to the hotel, everything we got were taken from us at gun point,leaving us stranded now we are having problems settling the hotel bills.
Am freaked out at the moment and I need help your right now.
Love Nenu
Dr. Lumina, Nenu is a business client of mine. I know her gunas and hence I know that this is a hoax – even though the email address looks the same. Hence I seek to share my wisdom anyway I can.
I await your next legal step in this regard.
If you fail to respond legally or socially, I would make a unilateral declaration that you are guilty of racial discrimination due to lack of practice. I would conclude also that this is why the UN is not able to facilitate Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. In other words, UN is itself yet to get rid of the racial genes of the ruling class.
If you identify with your inner Truth and it says that the effect of your actions establish racial discrimination – then I strongly suggest the equivalent of our Mantra for Lord Shiva ‘Ohm Nama Shivaya’ – 108 times each day. Practice and feel the difference. It is about cleaning our mental environments l – so that they do not become physical in the course of time.
 Racism seems an issue in common to both my parent countries – Mo...){kind=link}
Post a Comment