Anti Terrorism Laws or Pro Racism Facilities?

 You would find that I do not criticize the Sinhalese majority race in Sri Lanka – but all majority races in common – towards which I use my Australian experience. Those who keep criticizing the Sinhalese only – become like them. Likewise if you are driven by 9/11 and Bali bombing only - you are risking becoming like the terrorists against whom you claim to have introduced these laws.

by Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam

(November 17, Melbourne, Sri Lanka Guardian) I refer to the recent passage of the National Security Legislation Amendment Bill 2010 which according to you would ‘protect Australia, its people and its interests … instilling confidence that our national security and counter-terrorism laws will be exercised in a just and accountable way’.

As an Australian of Sri Lankan origin, I have serious concerns regarding the above Bill and the way it has been introduced – i.e. without including consultations from Australian Tamils of Lankan origin, who to the Police – Federal as well as State - are Sri Lankans with close links to the LTTE. It is reported by your Office that ‘The legislation has been the subject of extensive public consultation’. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade organized a meeting between various parts of the Federal Government and Tamil Community Leaders, on 08 October 2010. Terrorism was not brought up by either side and yet as per our recent history, Australian Tamils of Sri Lankan origin were targeted by the Police. These are registered pictures in the minds of people who would use them until they know otherwise.

Mr. Bruce Douglas Haig, former Deputy High Commissioner of Australia to Sri Lanka, for example is reported to have stated as follows during an interview with Mr. Nilantha Ilangamuwa, of the Sri Lanka Guardian:

‘Australian/Sri Lankan relations have yet to be built on a proper and sound basis. Australian security agencies have driven the relationship in the wake of 9/11, when the Sri Lankan Government convinced some Western governments that it was waging a war against terror. That veil has been lifted and it is plain for all to see and now widely accepted that it was a civil war.’

But, it is highly likely that to the average Australian Police officer – a Tamil close to a scene of violence is a Terror suspect. This to me would eventually contribute to Racism.

As per the laws of nature, in anything that surfaces to the physical level, there is cause as well as effect. Those above us in position and/or those of majority group (including race) at that time and place, have the responsibility to show the connection between ‘cause’ and their actions. Take for example, the charges made by the NSW Police when they arrested me when I was Peacefully seated in a Public Area of the University of NSW. They charged me under Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 on the basis that I did not leave when asked by the ‘Security Officer’ to leave the University premises. There was no violence on my part and the Security Officer said in court hearing criminal charges against me – that he did not consider me to be violent. Yet, the Police brought a caged van and were ‘waiting’ for me to arrive. As per the legislation used – I would have been guilty of Trespass only if I were not Australian by law. To the Police I was Sri Lankan and they recorded my nationality as Sri Lankan, despite my strong claims that I was Australian. The Police did NOT show ‘cause’ as to why they arrested and sent me to prison. They merely stated the name of the legislation that seemed to fit their purpose. They failed at that point in time to become conscious of my rights under Racial Discrimination Act 1975, to require Objectively measurable evidence that I was not an Australian and/or that I had acted violently or have been certified as a ‘mental case’ – as eventually I was by the psychologist (Appendix 1). I draw your attention to the following conclusions in particular:

“Mrs. Paramasivam has a paranoid psychosis. This condition has been present for several years and is characterized delusions of grandiosity, passivity and persecution and probable visual and auditory hallucinations, In addition she has prominent obsessional traits in her personality with a tendency to be quite moralistic, rigid and somewhat inflexible in her manner in relating to the world.

I have been listed according to this as a mental case and yet, Mother Mary MacKillop as well as Mother Theresa who also would have gone ‘beyond the law’ to help the needy – are listed by your people as Saints.

Had I been justly rewarded by the Administrators of the University of NSW, on merit basis – I would not have been arrested and sent to prison and thereafter threatened with enforced medication to subdue my mind. The damage is exponential when a person who has been denied benefits on merit basis is unlawfully punished subjectively by someone of a different culture and therefore Faith. Once we ‘show’ our costs of our genuine work, the benefits will ‘happen’ one way or the other – here in Australia and/or there in Sri Lanka. My benefits did happen and I now feel global – truly global. I would have gone into depression if I had not prevented the medication proposed by your system. I stuck to the Truth I knew.

You would find that I do not criticize the Sinhalese majority race in Sri Lanka – but all majority races in common – towards which I use my Australian experience. Those who keep criticizing the Sinhalese only – become like them. Likewise if you are driven by 9/11 and Bali bombing only - you are risking becoming like the terrorists against whom you claim to have introduced these laws.

Terrorism is proven only when you start with zero base – a base clean of RACISM. Most of our officers continue to suffer from the effects of racism in their favour. This was the reason why Tamils in Sri Lankan Public Service usually do not complain of racial discrimination – even today. Often they are not aware of it themselves. It looks as if America and its allies are now trying to deal with criminals at global level. If we do not really have a problem – then the government is creating one.


Your legislation projects the effect of keeping the issue at the physical level due not only to your officers concluding hastily as per the seen and the heard but also due to majority in the ethnic communities stagnating at their local levels instead of raising their experiences to the Common level which is then applicable globally.


I recall reading an example about the way the mind works. A young guy went to a guru and asked the guru to help him control his mind. The guru said to the young guy to keep saying ‘I am not a monkey’. The guy did that and then went back to the guru and said that his mind was full of ‘monkey’ picture and that he thought he was a monkey. Then the guru said to keep saying ‘Narayana’ (another name for Lord Vishnu) – and the guy did that. When he came back he thanked the guru for helping him develop a steady mind. When we chant the positive the mind becomes steady and there is no room for negative monkeys/terrorists. Last week during a Spiritual Study Circle – one young lady asked ‘How do I control my mind?’ My response was ‘Don’t try to control it. Accept it without seeing rights or wrongs.’ Truth is absolute – it does not have right side and wrong side. Until we produce facts we cannot be accused of being wrong by those of different faith. Once we accept our Truth the solution has already begun to happen.

Mr. McClelland, to the extent your officers consider us to be Australians – they have the moral authority to use subjective evidence. But to the extent they believe that we are Sri Lankans etc. – they have the requirement to ‘show’ objectively measurable ‘cause’ for their actions and not just legal theories or worse hearsay dressed up as legal theory. None of the officers showed adequate understanding of the relevant provisions of the Inclosed Lands Protection Act 1901 and there were no Due Processes spelt out by the Police in regards to Trespass. They did not observe violence nor evidence of lack of ownership. They saw someone of lesser power and they concluded. Like the monkey picture – mine was a Black Female picture.


As stated above – those with higher powers are to be measured through cause and those below including minorities – through effects. That’s when we have Equal Opportunity to Justice through Its agencies. Example of effects include loss of status. Where no cause is provided by the perpetrator with higher / majority power – the apparent reason is taken as the cause. In my case it was racism due to my looks – because the minds of the Police were passive and absorbed the story painted by the University Administrators.


Objective evidence of loss to Australians needs to be produced before charging minorities through anti terrorism laws. If the Australian Government had properly monitored and actively used the Racial Discrimination Act – there would have been no need for anti terrorism laws now.

The Courts asked me for objective evidence that the loss I had experienced was due to Racial Discrimination. The base model was wrong – because those of higher powers had the responsibility to prove through ‘cause’. Minorities had to establish loss and pain through effects and their belief as to reason is to be accepted as correct until proven otherwise . That is a reliable justice system. The Courts did not require the Police who arrested me to show evidence that I was not an owner of the University of NSW – i.e – that I was not an Australian. It was a silent acceptance of the picture produced by the Police at the request of the Vice Chancellor of the University of NSW.


The Central Administration of the University of NSW suffered much – including the dismissal of the Vice Chancellor who sent me to prison. If your officers arrest similarly through counter-terrorism laws – someone who is genuinely committed to independence – they would be punished through the Court of Natural Justice and its agencies.


Your latest legislation has therefore increased the risk of unjust arrests due to racism – often passive racism. I urge you to take measures to include effects based testing of racial discrimination pain to compensate for the additional risk to our ethnic communities due to your latest actions.

Appendix 1

I am aware that Mrs. Paramasivam has been charged with enter enclosed lands and remain on enclosed lands. The purpose of the report was to obtain an assessment of your client’s mental condition and options that are available to the client.

Mrs. Paramasivam is a fifty five year old married woman. She has three children aged thirty one, thirty and twenty seven. She resides in Coogee with her husband who is employed as a teacher at the University of Technology. At the time of the assessment she was on bail and informed me that she had been required to undergo psychological treatment at Prince of Wales Psychiatric Unit.

BACKGROUND TO ALLEGED OFFENCE

Ms Paramasivam gave me a very detailed account of the event that led up to her current charges. In 1998 she was recruited by the University of New South Wales to be a management accountant. She was assigned to the Faculty of Medicine and said that she came into conflict with the head of Business and Finance when she refused to sign Grant statements which she said did not reflect the truth. She said that people doing the accounts had manipulated the category in which the information was presented.

Mrs. Paramasivam stated that she had been persecuted by the Deputy Head of Business and Finance. She said that when she met with him he tried to substantiate his evidence by quoting from the Public Finance & Audit Act Section 12 and she said this was an inappropriate use of the Act.

She complained about his behaviour to the Human Resources Department of the University and said no action was taken. She said they wanted to check on her previous employers and she found this to be humiliating and added that she had never experienced any difficulty with her previous employers.

In August 1998 she resigned because of the alleged persecution. When asked to clarify what the persecution consisted of she said that her work was not valued and she was made to feel intimidated and they wanted her to change her approach. However despite resigning she continued to work until a replacement was found and eventually left in October 1998. She told me that she did not want to leave and was disappointed that she was not asked to stay on.

From January 1999 she was re-employed on a contract with the Medical Faculty. She said that as long as she had no contact with Central Administration all was well. When she was denied access to some financial reports she complained to the University Council. She said that because of pressure from the Business and Administrative manager all the schools within the university terminated her service except for the Sports Medicine Branch who continued to use her services.

In September 1999 a legal officer attached to the University asked the Dean to instruct the head of Sports Medicine to stop using her services. She continued to work on a volunteer basis and said that during 2000 and 2001 she worked for Sports Medicine when required and never sent any accounts.

Throughout this time she wrote numerous emails on a daily basis to a wide range of people. She said that she was invited to make a contribution to a defence paper and one on higher education.

She told me that due to her complaints to the University Council the Vice Chancellor undertook an investigation in May 1999. She was not happy with the results of the investigation as she felt that her two main complaints were not dealt with and she believed that the resolution was unfair and wrote criticizing the report.

At this stage she was sent a letter from the University legal department informing her that legal action would be taken if she did not stop writing her numerous emails. She said that her emails were objectively critical of the report. She estimated that she sent at least five emails a day and she regarded them as an expression of her level of pain. She questioned the legal officer why she could not write. She believed that there was no law that stated she was committing an offence and for this reason she continued to send her emails.

Mrs. Paramasivam eventually took the matter to the Anti Discrimination Board. She believed that she had been victimized because she was a woman who was of Sri Lankan nationality and her qualifications were from Sri Lanka. However she said the Anti Discrimination Board could find no evidence that she had been victimized because of race or gender. She told me that one of the reasons she believed that she had been victimized was that in the past she had professed very quickly due to her many skills and this had not occurred whilst she was employed with the University.

Mrs. Paramasivam was not satisfied with the results of the Anti Discrimination Board. She then applied to the Administrative Decisions Tribunal who upheld the verdict. When asked why she continued to pursue the matter despite obtaining numerous knockbacks she said that it was the principle that matters. She said that she enjoyed the process and she knew that she was benefiting a lot of other people who had been though similar experiences and who identified with her work.

She said that while she was in Sri Lanka working for the United Nations Development Program with the Tamil Tigers her application to the Supreme Court came through. Before she proceeded with this the Vice Chancellor wrote to her and suggested mediation with the people involved. She then wrote to the university executives whom she had issues with and said that she did not receive any response and there was no response from the Vice Chancellor. She then told the Vice Chancellor that she was coming to see him on a certain date. She acknowledged that she was anxious that she might be thrown out because there had been no response to her request.

When she went to the Vice Chancellor’s office she was met by the Director of Human Resources and who informed her that he was acting on behalf of the Vice Chancellor. She said that the Director made a comment that she should be the advisor to the Chancellor because of the breadth of information demonstrated in her various emails.

She told me that based on her own experiences she had been trying to resolve the various recruitment issues she had identified in the University system. She said that the Director asked her to make some policy recommendations in order to change the recruitment guide.

Over a several year period she had applied for at least thirty positions within the university and said she only applied when she believed she was the best person. However every time she applied for a position she was knocked back and said after she was knocked back she sent an email analyzing the failure to consider her based on the selection criteria. She told me that she had been very appropriate for the last position she had applied for and because she was unsuccessful she wanted to know what was wrong with the recruitment system.

She said that the Director told her he would look into the reasons for her failure to obtain the position however when he got back to her he would not give her the details and the Vice Chancellor continued to refuse to see her. She said she was informed that security guard would be called if she insisted on trying to see the Vice Chancellor.

Mrs. Paramasivam felt that the Director was threatening her and she told him that she still planned to see the Vice Chancellor because he did not have “lawful authority” to tell her not to come. On several occasions she referred to her belief that various people did not have “lawful authority” to prevent her actions.
 
On 15 September 2003 she attended the Vice Chancellor’s office and was told that if she did not leave the police would be called and this was the first occasion that she was charged. She told me that she did not defend the charges. After this she wrote to numerous authorities including the Ombudsman, the Government, several universities and the Leader of the Opposition. She said that by then it was too humiliating to withdraw and she had to keep pursuing the matter.

Mrs. Paramasivam was arrested on s second occasion and said that following this she agreed not to attend the university though she continued to send numerous emails. In October 2004 she wrote to the Vice Chancellor once again and he agreed to see her. After the second visit she said she asked him to forward her concerns to the University council. He did not respond and wrote and asked her not to return. She said that she refused to accept his request as he had “no authority in the law”. She told me that she was very particular in following the law as per her interpretation.
At this stage Mrs. Paramasivam applied for an AVO and said she wrote to the Vice Chancellor on numerous occasions and suggested that if he believed she had been acting unlawfully he should also apply for an AVO. The day after their second meeting (22.10.04) the police arrived and she was charged however she said that as far as she was aware no AVO had been taken out against her and for this reason she presented to the university the following week (29.10.04) because she believed that she was not breaking the law.

She said that if there had been an AVO taken out against her she would have respected this however at the time she did not believe that there was an AVO in place and she said she still does not know if the University has taken an AVO out against her.

She indicated that it was her belief that the police, the university and the judiciary were all colluding against her. When asked why this was so she said that the police were waiting on the grounds in 2003 even before she arrived and this indicated that the police had not acted independently. She said that when she was in Court the judiciary did not let her question the police and this indicated that the judiciary was protecting the police. She believed that there was resentment from these three bodies because she knew the law better than they did.

CLINICAL ISSUES

Mrs. Paramasivam acknowledged that for several years she had been in communication with a range of people including Yoga Swami, Our Lady and Sai Baba the leader of an Indian Religious Group. She told me that Sai Baba was a saint and on the 5 November 1998 red powder materialized on her picture of him. She interpreted this as meaning that he was in communication with her and felt that it was a miracle, a sign of his love for society.

She said that Sai Baba was able to anticipate her thoughts and she felt comforted by this and said that she had experienced an intuitive relationship with Sai Baba and her communication with him had continued to this day. She described the communication as a “blissful state” it felt as if she did not have a care in the world. She acknowledges that her current charges did not concern her because of the comfort she received from Sai Baba and said that he was the only one whose opinion counted with her.

On specific questioning Mrs. Paramasivam said that she had never heard external imaginary voices (auditory hallucinations), the communications were through her body. She mentioned that she was a follower of Gandhi and when she meditates she believes that she is able to connect directly with Gandhi’s mind and she referred to how this was a form of “mental telepathy”. She went on to tell me about a doctor who is now deceased. She believed that the doctor sends his thoughts to her and said that when he is reborn the work she is doing based on their partnership will benefit him.

While on bail Mrs. Paramasivam said she had made no attempt to go back to the university because she honoured her word and she has also honoured her word by not sending any emails. However when asked if she would be able to guarantee that she would not send any emails in the future she said “why should I not educate them or share my experiences”. She again referred to her beliefs that Sai Baba was there to protect her and she was not concerned for her own well being. She told me that she was not a violent person, that she was someone who absorbs the pain so that others are protected and would never hurt anyone.

PAST PSYCHIATRIC HISTORY

Up until she was charged with the current offences Mrs. Paramasivam had no prior contact with any psychiatric services. As a requirement of her bail she has attended the Maroubra Community Health Centre where she was assessed by Dr. Tissa, a psychiatric registrar who is of Sri Lankan nationality. She said that he had recommended that she take Risperidone, an atypical anti-psychotic. She does not believe that she needs medication and has not taken nay. She said she was prepared to keep seeing Dr. Tissa because she did not want to disrespect the Court order.

DRUG AND ALCOHOL HISTORY

There is no relevant drug or alcohol history.

PERSONAL HISTORY

Mrs. Paramasivam was born in Jaffna in Sri Lanka. She has an older sister and a younger brother. Her father is deceased and her mother lives in Canada. She grew up in Jaffna and was educated at a Catholic college.

She trained as a professional accountant in Colombo and had employment in a number of firms in Sri Lanka. In 1973 she married her first husband. Her parents were not happy with her choice of husband and said that this was because he was less educated than her.

She took up a position in New Guinea and her husband and children later joined her there. While in New Guinea she was divorced and met her second husband. They have been married for more than 20 years.

In 1985 she migrated to Australia with her children and second husband. He was sponsored by the University of New South Wales. Since coming to Australia she has had a number of “small jobs” and said that in all her positions she was given more responsibility when her skills were recognized.

Her three children have professional careers with the older two children having completed training as engineers and her youngest daughter is solicitor. Her main social network consists of former work colleagues. She acknowledged that she had not sought employment for several years due to her preoccupation with issues related to her former position at the University of New South Wales.

MENTAL STATE EXAMINATION

Mrs. Paramasivam was punctual for the interview. She was accompanied by her husband. She was casually dressed in jeans and T-shirt. She was very polite, pleasant and appropriate in her manner of relating. She has a broad range of emotional response and there was no indication that she was suffering from any disturbance in her mood. She was not at all concerned by her charges or the possibility that she could be incarcerated. Her speech was normal in rate and volume with no thought disorder. She was able to give a very detailed history of the series of events that led up to her current charges. She was supremely confident that her course of action was the right course and her self righteousness verged on grandiosity. She expressed a number of bizarre beliefs (delusions) with a belief that she was able to communicate via mental telepathy with various religious figures. She believed that she was being persecuted by the police and that the University and the Judiciary were colluding against her. She denied the presence of imaginary voices (auditory hallucinations) however it was probable that she had been responding to imaginary voices. She was quite insightless as she did not believe she had a mental illness and had no desire to take medication.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Following the termination of the assessment I spoke to her husband briefly and asked him about her behaviour. He was very supportive and he did not believe that his wife was mentally ill.

I note that as a result of her assessment provided by Dr. Conor O’Neil on 6 June she was sent on a Section 31A of the Mental Health (Criminal Procedures) Act 1990 to the psychiatric unit at Caritas Hospital where she was found to be mentally ill and to be suffering from a paranoid psychotic disorder. However the assessing doctor at the time did not deem it necessary to keep her in hospital on the basis that her condition was likely to be prolonged and difficult to treat.

PSYCHIATRIC DIAGNOSIS AND OPINION

Mrs. Paramasivam has a paranoid psychosis. This condition has been present for several years and is characterized delusions of grandiosity, passivity and persecution and probable visual and auditory hallucinations, In addition she has prominent obsessional traits in her personality with a tendency to be quite moralistic, rigid and somewhat inflexible in her manner in relating to the world.

There is no indication that she has a drug and alcohol problem or that she is developmentally disabled.

Mrs. Paramasivam is mentally ill and although she has made a nuisance of herself I do not believe that she would harm either herself or others in particular members of the university. She needs treatment with appropriate antipsychotic medication, Based on past experiences it is unfortunately highly probable that she would not be admitted if she was sent to a psychiatric hospital in the community. Two hospitals have already denied her care.

I believe that it was be appropriate to seek a Community Treatment Order under Section 32 of the Mental Health Act. Due to her total lack of insight she will not voluntarily seek treatment. As her beliefs are very entrenched and have been present for several years her response to medication is likely to be slow however this is not a reason to avoid or deny treatment. 

Without treatment I believe there is a considerable risk that she will reoffend. She perceives herself as a martyr who is fighting for the rights of others and her won well being is of little significance to her. Although she is prone to place her own interpretation on the law she does have a strong moral code. She indicated that she would adhere to an AVO if she knew that there was one in place and for this reason I would encourage the University to take out an AVO if this has not already been done.

Tell a Friend