Conversions 2020 and the new mantra

Ever the shrewd political strategist that he is, Sri Lanka’s Prime Minister, ( and let us not forget, President Rajajapaksa the First), Mahinda Rajapaksa wishes to rejuvenate the controversial anti-Conversions Bill that had been discarded years ago following enormous public concern and an adverse ruling by the Supreme Court.

Factors behind this move

This wish, expressed in the Rajapaksa ‘comfort zone’ of a gathering of the All Ceylon Buddhist Council recently, attended by the adoring faithful, had been articulated with charm and a wink, as the media informs us. The Rajapaksa articulation has been to the effect that, if this Bill is re- activated, it must have unanimous support ‘ across the board’ as otherwise, it will rebound negatively on his Government.

Probably, an objective assessment would conclude that no time would be right for the bringing back of this Bill if not now. Helped largely by the culpable blindness of the previous Government and their equally blind supporters from ‘civil society, to creeping jihadism in the East and elsewhere, culminated disastrously in the Easter Sunday attacks on churches and hotels last year. One direct result of this was the pan-Sinhala vote that propelled Gotabaya Rajapaksa to the Presidency last November, which has brought about a receptive environment for such a move.

But its poisonous germination was long before. Arguably this could be said to be the crest of a wave that had started slowly but menacingly so, more than a decade ago, as communities which had long lived peacefully besides each other despite religious differences, fractured as a result of relentless political propaganda. The point is that, as much as Sinhala Buddhist majoritarianism was a motivating factor for Sri Lanka’s religious minorities to withdraw into frightened corners post the 2009 war victory in the Wanni, the blame is not one-sided.

Culpable blindness by many

Religious proselytism by evangelical pastors with money as their new brash ‘ God’, the advent of Wahabi preachers from overseas, the mushrooming of extremist mullahs and unregulated ‘mosques’ were all contributory factors. Indeed, it came to a point that, during the ‘yahapalanaya’ years, even the slightest critique of the growth of Islamist jihadism in notable areas like Kattankudy and Mawanella drew stinging criticisms from those living in the Colombo ‘ bubble’ as it were.

But in the face of hundreds of innocents who cruelly died in front of the altar when praying to their source of strength close upon a year ago, that culpability cannot be waved away so easily. Tomes of theses on threats to religious freedoms and select gatherings to bemoan the same do not serve for anything, apart from lucrative assignments for the lucky. Far away from these prestigious enclaves and in the trenches of Sri Lanka’s enraged communities, fear and suspicion battle each other with the slightest provocation sufficing to set off a spark that lights a deadly fire. It is these people who are the frontline victims as usual as they have neither the means or the power to flee overseas when their lives are at threat.

So, there is a context to what we hear now regarding the reactivation of the discarded Conversions Bill that must not be forgottten. That being said, it is also worthwhile to remember exactly why this Bill was objected to, decades ago.

Problems with the Conversions Bill

First, its definitions of offensive action were vague and arbitrary. For example, it prohibited ‘ allurement’ but Clause 8 which defined ‘allurement’ was a clear legislative overreach violating Article 10 of the Constitution ( freedom of thought, conscience and religion). Clause 8 referred to ‘ allurement’ as ‘ offer of any temptation in the form of any gift or gratification whether in cash or in kind” which was patently obnoxious as a legal definition.

Secondly, similar ambiguity attended the other clauses as well. For example, the term ‘ force’ was defined in Clause 8( c) as including ‘ a show of force, including a threat or harm or injury or any kind and threat of religious displeasure as well as condemnation of any religion or religious faith. And the term ‘ fraudulent means’ was defined in Clause 8( d) to include ‘misinterpretation’ or ‘any other fraudulent contrivance.’ The imprecision in these terms need no extra effort to point out.

Indeed, laws and courts around the world have proceeded very cautiously in these matters precisely due to the fact that ‘religious conversions’ are subjected to difficult points of assessment and judgement that are a minefield. Terms like ‘sacrilegious’ invite contrary opinions of the most violent kind. Modern international law has been extremely cautious in upholding the constitutionality of such phrases on the basis that they violate freedom of speech. The US Supreme Court, in Joseph Burstyn, Inc v. Wilson, (343 U.S. 495 (1952) is moot on this point. Here, the State of New York banned the showing of a film by the Italian producer/ director Roberto Rossellini entitled "The Miracle" on the ground that it was "sacrilegious."

The film's distributors thereupon brought an action arguing that the statute pursuant to which it was banned was an unconstitutional prior restraint upon freedom of speech. The Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, agreed with this argument. Justice Clarke explained the Court's reasoning by saying that ‘ a potential assessor of what is ‘ sacrilegious’ is ‘ set adrift upon a boundless sea amid a myriad of conflicting currents of religious views, with no charts but those provided by the most vocal and powerful orthodoxies...[ U] nder such a standard the most careful and tolerant censor would find it virtually impossible to avoid favouring one religion over another, and he would be subject to an inevitable tendency to ban the expression of unpopular sentiments sacred to a religious minority. “

Rife with many dangers

The Bill was rife with many other dangers such as its direction that if there is an allegation against any person for converting a person "by the use of force or allurement or by fraudulent means", it should be the responsibility of the affected person to lodge a complaint with public officials of the relevant area.The overriding danger in the Bill was that the overbreadth of its clauses put into issue, the possibility of abuse under and by virtue of the Bill in that genuine conversions though a real process of transfer of faith may also stand challenged.

Indeed a thought by the Supreme Court many decades ago may serve as a good concluding reminder for those inclined to think otherwise. The Court stated thus; “Beliefs rooted in religion are protected. A religious belief need not be logical, acceptable, consistent or comprehensible in order to be protected. Unless the claim is bizarre and clearly non-religious in motivation, it is not within the judicial functions and judicial competence to inquire whether the person seeking protection has correctly percieved the commands of his particular faith. The Courts are not arbiters of scriptual interpretation and should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs ( per Ranasinghe, J. in Premalal Perera vs Weerasooriya ( 1985

(2) Sri LR, 177)

Perhaps we may reflect on these words of caution a tad more deliberately.