Manslaughter is NOT Murder

I'm amazed by the number of people who have said to me (up till now from just yesterday!!) - "this is why Sri Lanka needs the death penalty - cos the courts don't give good judgments! Did you hear that the murderer in the Jonsson case got only 12 years jail time and a fine??"

Why do people take what one person says and run instead stopping to find out the facts??

The guy who was found guilty of killing the Jonsson girl in SL was not found guilty of murder. He was found guilty of "culpable homicide" - this is what is more commonly known as manslaughter.

YES, there is a difference.

Prosecution must show intention (=mens rea) to prove murder as opposed to manslaughter. Manslaughter is, in simple terms, where a killing happens, but without intention to kill. Of course this is a subjective element - though generally it's decided on the principle of "would a reasonable person..." which is meant to minus the subjective element.

However, in manslaughter too there could be intention present - called voluntary manslaughter - where there is a mitigating factor in the relevant facts such as provocation as opposed to involuntary mansalughter where the killing is due to, say, negligence.

In the Jonsson case, the judges found that the prosecution was not successful in showing intention and hence the final judgement of manslaughter - hence the sentence of 12 years + fine. If murder had been found - yes, life/ death sentence. (Please note that nowhere on this blog have I said that the judgment is right/ wrong - this is merely a clarification of the facts as they stand now.)

It's annoying when you have to point these little things out to people not cos they don't/ didn't know (which is fair), but cos they didn't actually find out the facts of the case or the judgment - and are merely angry cos they heard from someone else that a murderer in SL got only this. One of these days, I swear, I will murder (mens rea present!) one of these fuckwits out of sheer irritation (although I wonder if it would hold up in court if my defence were to plead involuntary manslaughter with the provocation factor being idiot-cy of killed party??)

The Star!! For your viewing pleasure..

While I'm out of sorts, thought I'll upload some pics of Chico, the most adorable dog in the world, for your viewing pleasure:

--------------------------------------------

This is a post-script - apparently I've violated some intellectual property rules ;o)

The above photographs were taken by Turtle.

Turtle's Eyes ;o)

Henceforth I shall I write in a bigger font in an effort to preserve Turtle's eyesight.

I'm sick! ;o( But the skiing was great!!

Back from the skiing which was FANTASTIC!! I loved it! ;o)

But am v.v.v sick with the flu hence am gonna head off to bed and drink Peyawa for the rest of the day!

Poor me!

Skiing, Skiing, SKIING!!

Why oh why have I written two such looooooong posts today?

Cos tmrw I'm going skiing, yes, skiing (!!) and will not be back till Sunday and I would not dream of leaving all you people without good fantastic reading material for that long!

So while you read, I will be skiing (yes, I do enjoy rubbing it in)

PS: Plz pray that I will not break my neck

PPS: You better pray I don't break my neck and die cos how else would you be able to get such an intimate peek into complete psychosis?

PPPS: For those of you who don't know, psychosis is a condition defined as "severe mental derangement involving loss of contact with reality."

PPPPS: Yes, ok, I will shut up now.

Life and Relationships

This is a photo taken by Pradeep Jeganathan at the Gallery Cafe, Colombo, that appeared on his Flickr page ages ago, which completely arrested me the minute I saw it. Since then, I've been back to check out his many, many beautiful photos, but mostly to look at this pic again. Why? The photographer has called it 'lunchtime' (or maybe this is merely a description? I'm not sure here), but what the photo is, to me, a representation of Life.

Look at the photo for a moment - what do you see? The flower - centre-stage, lit up, beautiful. The ash tray and glass of water pales and are merely 'there'.

Now look again. Take a moment.

The ash tray stuck to the flower as close as it can, is unusual, unique, yet is in semi-shadow.

And in the glass of water, there is a tiny, tiny reflection of the flower.

Isn't this what life is like?

We are all so busy focusing on what is lit up (for us) and beautiful and centre-stage that we forget there are so many things that are in shadow that are perhaps begging for our attention and care too. And how many times in our lives do we take a moment to notice the little reflections in the water around us that our caused by ourselves?

Maybe it is because I have seen so many relationships break up, or have gone so far down the track towards break up, over little things like this that I saw "life" in this photo. But I'm not talking about just couples and marriages when I say relationships. I mean relationships in general - with your parents, siblings and friends.

Life is such that we get caught up in it, in the things that are lit up around us and forget those that are relatively in shadow. We rush through life oblivious to the reflections (however little) that are caused by ourselves.

What I have learnt in my 26 years of existence on this fast-rotating planet is this:

Focus on the flower, appreciate its beauty, but never, never forget the ashtrays in shadow and always, take a moment to notice the reflections in the water.

The 'Da Vinci Code' Movie Ban in Sri Lanka

All righty, I'm utterly, completely sick and tired of being asked this question which a lot of people seem to find some thrill in asking me. Therefore I will say what I think on the issue with a warning: do not bloody ask me what I think about this EVER again.

The Question: Was it right to ban the Da Vinci Code movie in SL?

First let me put this into context. The Catholics Bishop Conference, in its letter to the President said

"The movie attacks the very roots of Christian faith and hurts the sentiments of all Christians," and that “it matters greatly to us as it adversely affects the most sacred beliefs of our people when it levels the charge that the Catholic Church is essentially a vast network founded on maintaining the lie of Jesus' Divinity…"

They also said the film must be banned urgently because “the book version has caused confusion between fact and fiction. It is manipulative and is an odious, false, unjust and irreverent portrayal of Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. It attacks the very roots of our Christian faith and hurts the religious sensibilities of all Christians."

So what the Catholics Birshops Conference is saying is basically that Christians would take the film to be fact instead of the fictional garbage that is so often released by Hollywood and they would assume that Dan Brown’s novel, on which the film is based, is actually a book of fact – akin to a gospel. This is a fictional book, AKIN to Roald Dahl’s “The Witches” and Rowling’s “Harry Potter” series.

Do the religious leaders of SL really believe that the SL Christian community is made up of complete duds who cannot tell the difference between gospel and fiction? I have many, many Christian friends who would not give up or change their faith because they read something otherwise in a book or saw it in a film. What it comes down to is, can you not trust your followers to keep their faith?

In fact, the Auxiliary Bishop Marius Peiris of Colombo, the secretary general of the Bishops' conference, told Union of Catholic Asian News (UCA News) the film "depicts sheer blasphemy and outrageous interpretations of the Catholic faith…. [and said it was]an attempt by Hollywood to achieve ratings by using the Catholic Church."

The keyword here is “Hollywood.” Not BBC, not CNN, not even the Daily News (though the facts in that paper tends to relate more closely to what is a now a genre of writing known as “faction” – fiction based on a few facts..but that’s a different story altogether). There are very people who would take what Hollywood churns out to be the word of God - and those people who do, are not worth addressing in this time and space.

The most interesting statement on this issue, however, came from none other than the director of communications for the Colombo archdiocese, Father Sriyananda Fernando,when he told UCA News that "whenever the church is attacked by such sacrilegious books and films, it is up to the hierarchy to take the best possible action to protect their people {and on the issue of the film being allowed to be screened in Sri Lanka} it would have made the church an easy target of lies and deceit." All right that’s his opinion and I guess we must respect that.

The contention that banning the film in SL would stop the church from being made an easy target and the arguments of the Bishops Conference that the film would confuse the audience between fact and fiction not only underestimates the public’s level of intelligence, but more importantly their faith. But why I found the above statement by Father Fernando interesting (what I mean when I say interesting is that it made me laugh hard enough to fall off my chair) is this further statement from him. In regard to causing the curious to buy the book or watch the film on video, he said “we cannot stop people from reading the book or watching it on video disc. They must be mature enough to differentiate between fact and fiction," he said.

So only those buying the book or watching the film outside of the local cinema would need to use their maturity (not to mention intelligence and faith) to differentiate between fact and fiction?

The question often put to me at this stage of the argument is but what else could they do (other than banning the film) to make sure that those who MIGHT believe the film does not? It's a simple little concept called educating the public. They've made use of the media to express their reasons for banning to film - why not use the media (and more importantly churches) to emphasize the FICTIONAL quality and content of both the book and the film?

My final answer on this issue is merely this: if I were a Christian I would find it extremely insulting to think that the leaders of my religious faith think that my faith is so feeble and insubstantial that they feel they need to ban a fictional film to make sure I keep my faith.

Now, please don't ask me what I think on this matter again! Understand??

(Sorry this is so long!)

???

Why does everyone seem to have a problem with how much Kumar Rupesinghe is earning??

I don't get it.

Sometimes I think Torture and Death is the best punishment!

Human beings are the most cruel animals on earth. People like this should be tortured without mercy, I swear.

If you are sensitive, please skip this blog.

This is an article, which appeared in South African newspaper, The Daily Voice. I'm copying the article content here cos the uploaded is too small to read:

"Horrified Daily Voice readers are petitioning to put the owners of burned dog Tammy behind bars.

Animal lovers want the Cape Flats couple to receive the maximum possible punishment for setting their pet pitbull alight.

The heartless pair could face jail sentences of up to a year and fines of up to R200,000.

Beautiful Tammy was burned alive in her kennel this month.

The high-spirited dog used to jump over the fence into the neighbour's yard. But Tammy's carefree days came to an end when her owners decided to punish her.

They doused the dog's kennel with petrol and set it alight.

Thammy was badly scorched on her legs, face and belly, says Allan Perrins of the SPCA.

"Can you imagine being on fire for days on end?," he asks.

And she was also blinded.

Wept

Animal welfare workers wept when they found Tammy.

And Daily Voice readers phoned in wanting to adopt the poor creature.

But SPCA decided she had suffered too much for her to be kept alive.

There are already more than a thousand signatures on the petition.

"Animals cannot speak for themselves," says HIllary Faulman, who started the petition. "They are special creatures who deserve more respect."

To add your name to the petition e-mail Helen at hfaulman@bremner.uct.ac.za

Moragoda a sanctimonious humbug: Mohamed

...ran the headline on one of yesterday's (Monday July 17th) front page stories on the Daily Mirror.

The article ran thus (this is an edited version of course!):

"Referring to a letter Mr. Moragoda reportedly sent to UNP leader Ranil Wickremesinghe...'There never was so outstanding an example of sanctimonious humbug,' Mr. Mohamed said."

"Mr. Mohamed explained that Mr. Moragoda had made a passionate appeal to members of the party, to rally round the leader, after sending a letter to deputy leader Karu Jayasuriya, in the form of an MoU, under which he supported the latter for his appointment as leader of the Opposition, if Mr. Jayasuriya took action to secure the appointment of himself as the deputy leader of the party. "

"In addition, Mr. Mohamed said that Mr. Moragoda deserves a very special accolade for his role in the unprecedented tragicomedy in the present state of affairs of the Colombo Municipal Council."

Isn't it SO refreshing when someone speaks their mind?? My faith in Sri Lankan politicians have been somewhat remedied..I think!

Clear Glass

Guess what I did today???

I walked into a glass door cos I mistook it for thin air.

In my defense, it was very clean glass.

Under the circumstances, I would like to make a suggestion to all those people out there who own offices which have glass doors which are very clean: paste a bright red sign right in the centre of the door reading along the lines of "very clean glass - not thin air" so all the rest of us can not bash our brains out on them.

That'll be all for today!

..and speaking of hair!

..so speaking of hair (in my second last blog) I just remembered something I did a couple of days ago which must be said here.

I decided to cut my hair and after much walking, finally found a place which didn't threaten to charge a government-clerk's-monthly-salary price to snip off my tresses.

So while I sat fighting (successfully!) the urge to swirl round and round on that turning chair (as I could have had I been 20 years younger!), the hair-dresser turned my face this way and that. Finally she sighed, pursed her lips in a satisfied manner and delivered the verdict:

"You must get a hair style that will minimise your nose and long chin."

OMG!! To think I had been going around all this time quite oblivous to my long chin and big nose! What tragedy! What humiliation!! What suffering on all those who were forced to look upon this tragic ugliness! Hence I decided on the spot that I must go under her knife scissors.

I have always believed that seeing as I have had the good fortune to be born in this world, I must do something worthwhile for mankind. Here was my opportunity! It would have been against everything I believed in, all that I held dear, against my very conscience to prolong the suffering of mankind (at least of those that have had the misfortune to meet me). It was time I put a stop to the suffering I had imposed on the world these 26 years by giving it no choice but to put up with my long chin and big nose. Therefore, going under this good lady's scissors was my selfless act for the world. Making sense so far? Perfectly.

So, half an hour later, most of my hair lay on the floor, I'm pretty sure I'd lost at least 2kgs in weight/ hair, and was positively sure that I could expect divorce engagement-breaking papers any day in the mail. To me, in all honesty, my chin and nose pretty much looked the same sizes as they had half an hour earlier.

Why am I writing this on my blog? Merely so that you, my friend (or random-blog-reader), will now have the opportunity to propose my name for the Nobel Peace Prize for my selfless act (or at least for the selfless intention behind the decision for the act).

I will now go Google some plastic surgeons in the region to make sure my chin is shortened and nose is "minimised" in time to make the Nobel Peace Prize Acceptance Speech.

Going Purple!

Henceforth, I shall write in purple.

Well, at least, till I decide on a different colour.

On the verge of tearing out my hair

An explanation for "Terrorism Legislation and 'Primitive' Punishments" of July 13:

The point I was really trying to make, in the midst of all that madness (sorry people!) would perhaps be better illustrated by a hypothetical example:

Premise 1: Country A has certain laws and punitive actions

Premise 2: Country B has difference laws and punitive actions

Premise 3: A, being the egotistical maniac it is, continuously declares that the laws, etc of B are barbaric (and even unacceptable in this world) and "primitive"

Intended Conclusion of A: A is so far more advanced than B could ever be and proud of it.

My question: but what if B, having learnt from the past, has evolved to its "primitive" laws, etc over the years? Then does that not make A's laws the "primitive" ones for they are still in the past (learning)??

Why do I get the feeling that this illustration makes no more sense, if not much more senseless, than my earlier blog??

Blogging

All righty

It is 8.14pm Thursday.

On Friday (tomorrow) I have:
(1). Work from some ungodly hour till noon.
(2). A presentation to hopefully-my-future-research-project-supervisors at 1pm.
(3). An exam at 3pm.

It is now 8.16pm. What am I doing??!??!
Bloody blogging.

Hey! An unintended alliteration! ;o)

Terrorism Legislation and "primitive" punishments

So it's a brand new day and it is sunny cloudy skies here Down Under. As per usual.

I think I've figured out how to write out one of the two concepts I was talking about yesterday (well, today v.v.v.early in the morning I guess). If you get bored easily, I would advise that you read the next para (= para 3 of this blog) and then go straight down to (let me go count now)..para 8.

There's all this terrorism legislation that's being enacted in some of the Western world. Some of the terms of the legislation is shocking from a basic-human-rights perspective, but quite easy to understand from a security, I'm-so-scared-I'm-wetting-my-pants perspective.

Let me first give you an idea of how dangerous some of these anti-terrorism laws are by some excerpts from the changes made to the Australian Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) in relation to terrorism offences.

S. 101.4 says someone who possesses a "thing" which is "connected with preparation for the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act” is committing an offence. Definition of "a thing"?? Not defined. Further, the defendant bears the onus of proof to show lack of intention if such a "thing" is held to intend "to facilitate preparation for, the engagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act" (S. 101.4(5)). What this means to me is, if a security official decides that I intend to assist a terrorist act by using the "thing" (which could be anything) I possess, I will be arrested.

Then S. 101.5 says that it is an offence to collect or make a document with which you "intend to facilitate preparation for, theengagement of a person in, or assistance in a terrorist act." Problem here, like with the above section, is that there's no definition of "collecting" or "making". The only thing that'll save me is if I can show that the collection/ making of the document/s was not "intended" for terrorist acts. Let's put this into a practical everyday situation. The LTTE has claimed that they are ready to attack the Sri Lankan forces with toxic weapons (see this article). I'm such a good researcher (not) that I manage to find info on these weapons and am filing these away in a bright purple file (what?? I can choose the colour I want!!) called "ingredients used for toxic weapons". A friend who knows this tips off the police. I am arrested. Now I must prove that I intended to use this info for an expose, for a newspaper article, to give in for a uni essay, etc. and not to make my own toxic bomb for a terrorist act. How??

Of course, I could have misunderstood the entire section and may have just gone off on a tangent boring you to death. ;o) If so, I apologize.

Eitherways (is it right to start a sentence/ new para with "eitherways"??), this is my point with this concept. Some measures need to be put in place to curb terrorism. Yes, agreed. And therefore, some of my fundamental freedoms (such as the freedom of movement), as I know them now, could be limited. However, this limitation brings with it the bonus of knowing that all those terrorists and possible terrorists, intending to indulge in terrorist acts, are being caught and dealt with, and hence I can go about my day without worrying about being incinerated or de-limbed by some random bomb.

What if, however, these security measures go so far as to severly undermine basic human rights (as the Western world sees it) by say, imposing punitive measures, such as, let's say for the sake of this argument, that if I'm found "intending" to use a "thing" for a terrorist act, my right hand will be chopped off. This is obviously sometime in the future (hopefully, I would have achieved Nirvana by then and will not be re-born in this mixed-up cruel world where people like me tend to randomly come up with concepts that make no sense anyone least of all me). Then at this point in time, would such punishments be accepted by people in the name of security? In the name of peace of mind?

So then, does this mean that the present States that impose such punishments for other offences such a murder and theft, right now, have them because they've already learnt from the past? And hence, does this make the "soft" punitive action (such as mere life sentences for murder or a few year in prison for theft) that other States impose "primitive" and "outdated"?

Does any of this make any bloody sense??

If you need to borrow my pen to stab me in the eye, don't feel bad. I completely understand.

The Concepts

I'm obviously losing my mind. Or at least what was left of it.

The weirdest two concepts just occurred to me.. Extremely interesting..yet so very hard to think about and get around my head.. Gotta go think, think, think. But I'm too hungry right now to elaborate on this..or do any thinking for that matter! Dinner calls!

I will be back!!

Yeah, like you're going to hold your breath.

Terrorists

I'm currently reading Sunlight on a Broken Column by Attia Hosain, a novel set in India during the 1930s during the struggle for Indian independence.

What one character says of those going about the struggle by using "terroristic" means is SO relevant in today's climate, I had to jot it down here:

"Children in politics, that is what terrorists are, heroic but misguided."

Random Blogs

Ok..so I can't watch the soccer afterall..The wind is making SBS jump around..hence no soccer.. ;o( No Cannavaro.. Double ;o( It's 1-all and am comforting myself reading random blogs.

And what random blogs!

I've just read thru all the comments that this blog got and my head is spinning! It's weird though that people seem to keep writing - pulling this way and that so endlessly. But what's interesting is that of ALL those who've commented, only one blogger, "Sophist", has said something sane:

"Don’t forget that the war is a wonderful cover up for the fact that petrol is nearly a hundred bucks a litre, we can’t watch tv after 10 and my girlfriend can’t buy booze. Wake up and smell the Chinthanaya you daft Sinhala fucks…we voted for him no?"

I need to go think about that now.

Soccer Final

So the soccer final is on today and I'm determined to stay up to watch it.. I planned on watching the 2 semi-finals, but when the alarm went off I sat up in bed and thought what the F#%* was I thinking setting my alarm for 4.30am (Melbourne time) to watch a bunch a men run around kicking a ball??

So why have I been drinking mug after mug of coffee to ensure my awake-ness for the final? I suspect it may have something to do with Italy.. The truth is, soccer, at least to me, is one of the most mind-numbingly boring sports I've ever watched..But Fabio Cannavaro? Now that is a completely different story, isn't it?? ;op

The UNP and the Peace Process

The UNP came into power in 2001 on a platform of peace and end to the conflict. Subsequetly, they signed the CFA. Recently, as negotiations started falling apart between the present government and the LTTE, the UNP went as far as to ask the government to step down and let them take over so they can "bring peace."

In the middle of this week, the UNP, I guess in it's desperation to see peace in Sri Lanka, extended an olive branch to the government - drop the JHU and JVP, and the UNP will join the government in its peace efforts. The government invited the UNP leadership to talks.

Then yesterday, the UNP's feelings were hurt and angered by the President who had "lured" a UNP-er to the government ranks with a deputy ministership. Therefore, they (the UNP) were pulling out of the talks.

Is it just me, or is there a break down of logic here? The UNP wanted to join up with the government in its peace efforts TO ENSURE AN END TO KILLING AND BLOODSHED AND FIND A PEACEFUL SOLUTION. But all that goes out the window because the govt "lured" in one from the UNP ranks??

So does that mean that the first priority of the UNP is to make sure that those within their present ranks stay with them? Peace in the country plays second fiddle to this all-important priority?

I have heard the argument that the crux of the issue here is about trust - the govt went behind their back. Ok, I can see how that can make sense. But that still doesn't explain how an educated and intelligent lot (this is obviously a general assumption!) cannot see that there are two issues here - one, the peace process and two, building a trustworthy relationship with the govt.

If a UNP-er walked over to the other side, shouldn't the UNP be examining why one of theirs would do this? This is not the first UNP-er to cross over..hence isn't the root of the problem that UNP-ers feel they would be better off on the other side? Granted, there are a lot of people who would change political affiliations faster than their underwear at the promise of better positions. But isn't there also the question of earning loyalty? If the UNP leadership cannot earn the trust and loyalty of its members, how can it not expect frequent change overs?

And I STILL don't understand how a political party, who has claimed SO MANY times in the past, its enthusiasm to finding a peaceful solution to the conflict and has made pledges upon pledges to do what it can to help in this endeavour can throw it away on the basis of one man's decision to change political affilitations!