Self Devolution to Prevent Conflict

| by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

( April 19, 2012, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I respond to the article ‘Norway's Andres Breivik: Our standard bearer?’ by Barry Lando, published in Sri Lanka Guardian.

Barry Lando highlights the ‘fear’ factor as follows ‘Deranged he may be, but his beliefs and bloody actions are very much a natural product of the mounting fear and hatred of Muslims through out much of Europe these past few years, as well as the United States.’

We observe through our body, we know through our mind and we believe through our soul. Not everything that we ‘see’ and ‘hear’ becomes belief. When we see the whole picture that picture becomes a ‘fact’. Hence the Opposition with Equal Rights in parliament so that the People would see the whole picture – each side being independent of the other. Towards this one needs to make oneself Equal to the side one considers to be one’s opposition. Hence Equal Opportunity laws in Democracy.

When the views of traditional residents of Europe and United States are enforced as being the ‘right’ ones, without merit based assessment and/or equal opposite expression of belief – they return to the enforcer. Thus desire for authority becomes fear of retaliation when the traditional residents of Europe and America ‘see’ the power of Muslims and know that their own powers could be matched at the physical level – on the basis of an eye for an eye. Often this happens due to lack of education on Equal Opportunity Principles and Values – for both sides. The memory that registered expectations as per perceived status, is now overpowered by stronger than expected physical power from the opposition.

A recent news item from the UN regarding racial discrimination in Denmark is in Appendix 1. This confirms my own experience here in Australia, where I was punished as a criminal for claiming that the actions of the University of NSW and the NSW Police were racially discriminatory. There is evidence that on merit basis as per the core purpose of the University – I was right and the University was wrong. If they did not know how to apply the merit basis – then I ought to have been facilitated to provide 50% of the picture based on which the Judges delivered their verdict. This did not happen. Majority picture was drawn as per the directions of the University Administrators followed by the Police. I was listed as an Indian/Sri Lankan national which information would ‘draw’ pictures on the minds of surface readers – which most judges were. By law I am Australian. That was the picture that the officers had the authority to draw. As per my own assessment I am Australian in Australian environment and Sri Lankan in Sri Lankan environment. This helps me access the Truth of others through common faith.

I gradually observed that when I did my best and left the rest to God / Society / Institution / Family – others who ‘looked’ like me and experienced discrimination at the level of those who caused me pain – were naturally empowered by my work and sacrifice to manifest the reaction at their level. Thus they ‘return’ at the physical level – as per the law of nature which says that there is an equal and opposite reaction to every action. I in turn become a higher level observer – contributing to policy in the satisfaction that Nature takes care of the physical level balance once we submit our costs and losses as well as benefits and profits to Nature/Society in common. .

When someone who claims to represent the whole – for example a Government Officer – acts on behalf of only a part – the equal and opposite forces of her/his actions are generated at that place, at that time. Where this is NOT facilitated to be manifested immediately, it lies in ‘waiting’ accumulating interest and empowers others in that environment who are ready to become the medium through which this reaction is manifested. Anything physical is born with its ‘other’ side – as demonstrated by birth and death of the body. That to me was how the Chief Administrators who I believed were responsible for my pain and loss were themselves dismissed from their positions in that environment.

It is in recognition of this that we have Equal Opportunity laws. Where there is no scientific merit based measure common to both sides, the two sides must be facilitated to present their belief as to why something happened. The expressed belief of the victim needs to be taken as ‘right’ until proven otherwise through logical derivation and/or objective evidence. Here in Australia, my expressions of belief were dismissed without any consideration. In the Danish case, the perpetrators were given light sentences. In my case here in Australia, I was punished as a criminal for daring to express my Equal rights as an Australian.

The judges may not accept our belief. But once we believe – we become part of Nature and hence the side we the believers see as our opposition would receive the very loss that they enforced on us for whatever reason. We in turn receive the other side - befits - from our environment of faith. If we do not go to that environment to receive the benefits but plough it back into the system – we become owners of both environments. Hence globalization.

Denmark and Norway are close to each other and are of similar culture. Karma in one is naturally connected to karma of the other. Taken as a whole, one is able to better see the path of Karma. Government acting to deny private individuals their earned facilities, create strong natural forces to the extent that individual Trusted the Government. Hence the Danish case is as strong as the Norwegian one. To my mind, my experience here in Australia is comparable with the pain of Tamils who suffered pain and loss due to Sri Lankan Government’s actions and/or negligence for this reason. The real pain we experience is as per our Trust in the other side. The rest is surface due to physical power. Once we know the Truth we have the Natural duty to self – devolve and keep producing manifestations of our belief so that they would have the opportunity to learn. Devolution is needed towards the independence to manifest our beliefs in our natural environments. Tamils of Sri Lanka who self – devolve confirm the Community’s ability to govern itself.

Appendix

‘A United Nations human rights body has ruled that Denmark failed to investigate the racist nature of a 2004 attack on an Iraqi family, and called on the Government review its policy and procedures on the prosecution of alleged racial discrimination or racially-motivated violence.

The incident involves a violent assault by 35 Danish youngsters against an Iraqi family in their house in the town of Soro on 21 June 2004, according to a news release issued by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

A group of 15 to 20 young people attacked the house of Mahali Dawas, who lived in Soro with his wife and eight children, all of whom are recognized refugees. More individuals joined the attack and at one point the group exceeded 35 people. The house was damaged and two family members, including Mr. Dawas, were beaten, states the <"http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12058&LangID=E">news release.

The family had to flee the house after the attack and seek alternative accommodation from the municipality. Before the attack, a sign saying “no blacks allowed” was placed near the house, and Danish pejorative term for “foreigners” was used by one of the perpetrators.

According to the news release, a police investigation was carried out and four men were convicted on counts of violence, vandalism and illegal possession of weapons. However, only light sentences were ordered, with no compensation to the victims and without addressing the possible racist element of the attack.

In addition, a subsequent civil lawsuit by the victims was rejected by the District Court of Naestved and the High Court of Eastern Denmark.

“In circumstances as serious as those in this case, where the petitioners were subjected, in their own house, to a violent assault by 35 offenders, some of them armed, enough elements warranted a thorough investigation by public authorities into the possible racist nature of the attack against the family,” the Committee stated in its decision.

“The onus was on the State party to initiate an effective criminal investigation, instead of giving the petitioners the burden of proof in civil proceedings,” added the group of experts, which monitors implementation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination by its State parties.

The Committee also determined that the investigation into the events was incomplete, depriving the complainants of their right to effective protection and remedies against racial discrimination.

It recommended that Denmark grant the petitioners adequate compensation for the material and moral injury caused by the violations of the Convention, in addition to reviewing its policy and procedures concerning the prosecution of alleged racial discrimination or racially-motivated violence.