20 October 2023 12:01 am Views - 277
The newly revised Anti-Terrorism Act and Online Safety bill came in for discussion and were highly criticised by members of the Lawyers’ Collective which held a media conference on October 2 at Capri Club. Here President’s Counsel Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne (Third from left) is seen airing his views. Also in the picture from left are President’s Counsels Saliya Pieris, M.A. Sumanthiran and Upul Jayasuriya (Pix by Pradeep Pathirana)
The newly revised Anti-Terrorism Act and Online Safety bill was highly criticised by the citizens of the country. By taking this bill into account the Lawyers’ Collective held a
To begin with President’s Counsel Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne underscored the worst effects of the above mentioned act and the bill.
“We are here to discuss through this media event about the dangers inherent in the two bills that are to be presented in the parliament. The anti-terrorism bill was first gazette in March. It was later withdrawn due to pressure and protests from people and the international community,” added Dr. Wickramaratne.
He also spoke about the online safety bill.
“The online safety bill has been presented without any preliminary discussion. There has been no discussion with the people or stakeholders. The Anti-Terrorism bill is especially offensive because of the very wide definition of terrorism. In my view for an act to be a terrorist act there must be terror involved or that act must be an aim of a terrorist organization. The online safety bill seeks to establish a commission appointed by the president without any reference through the constitutional council. The commission has very wide powers,” said Dr. Wickramaratne.
“The reason why I am detailing the history of these acts is to show that everyone basically is opposed to the prevention terrorism act that is in place. There has been a wide range of campaigns across the country too,”
- President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran
President’s Counsel M.A. Sumanthiran was present at the occasion to discuss about the act and the bill.
“This press conference is specifically held to alert the country about the dangers regarding the two bills. One is the Anti-Terrorism bill and the other is the online safety bill. The anti-terrorism bill has a history. This is because we have in our statute books an act called prevention of terrorism. There was a provision act of 1979 placed temporarily. What was passed in 1979 as a temporary provision act is still valid and operative. In the last parliament there was a move to repeal the prevention of terrorism act and replace it with the Counter Terrorism Act. After extensive discussions and many changes it was abandoned. Now suddenly in this parliament- after the current president took over- they are bringing a bill which was earlier sent in March and termed as the anti-terrorism bill. When there was opposition for that they withdrew it and very few minor changes have been made,” Sumanthiran said. He went on to explain that the new anti-terrorism act-which was introduced in September- doesn’t contain huge difference when compared to the act proposed in March.
Sumanthiran explained his reasoning behind detailing the history of the above mentioned acts.
“The reason why I am detailing the history of these acts is to show that everyone basically is opposed to the prevention terrorism act that is in place. There has been a wide range of campaigns across the country too. No one actually supports the continuation of that law in our statute books. When that is the case what the government is trying to do is to bring another law saying that they are repealing the PTA. But in fact that might be a law that is far more dangerous in certain respects than the one that exists. One of the key aspects is the definition of the word terrorism. Now we know that the Prevention of Terrorism Act does not contain a definition for terrorism. But this draft bill defines terrorism so broadly. There are explanations in the draft bill which states of the presence of provisions to name a human act as an act of terrorism the moment such an act is declared unlawful and dangerous to the community or public health.
“The online safety bill has been presented without any preliminary discussion. There has been no discussion with the people or stakeholders. The Anti-Terrorism bill is especially offensive because of the very wide definition of terrorism,”
- President’s Counsel Dr. Jayampathy Wickramaratne
“Our position is that for anything to be a terrorist act there must be a high threshold. Any agitation against the government done in a democratic space must be welcome. And even in the event some law is violated ordinary laws must apply. Those are not acts of terrorism. Terrorism must have a high threshold. But here, deliberately, the definition has been made in such a broad manner because whenever the government wants to come down hard on citizens, who are protesting legitimately against the government, this act can be used. In fact in the current contest we don’t need an anti-terror legislation. Therefore we demand that the minister must withdraw this bill in parliament. The online safety bill is an oxymoron. There is no safety in that bill as prescribed,” added Sumanthiran.
Sumanthiran also spoke about the dangers of the online safety bill in a contemporary society. He said that in this current society people use social media and it is a media which people use to share their thoughts. Sumanthiran wound up his speech by demanding the minister to withdraw the online safety bill in parliament.