| by Gajalakshmi Paramasivam

( July 8, 2014, Colombo, Sri Lanka Guardian) There are diverse assessments of the current situation in regards to Maritime Asylum seekers from Sri Lanka. The Australian Government seems to stand on its own against many other groups with vested interest. As per the Doctrine of Separation of Powers – all groups would be right as per their independent assessment within their boundaries. They thus become the natural opposition of the Australian Government.

According to news reports [Lawyer George Newhouse says the 153 asylum seekers are “entitled to have their claims for protection processed in accordance with Australian Law. The (immigration) Minister cannot simply intercept their vessel in the middle of the night and ‘disappear them,” Mr. Newhouse told AAP on Monday night]

The question here is ‘What is Australian Law?’ The same law would be interpreted by various groups as per their own investment in the issue. The deeper the investment the more close to Truth the mind of the decision maker is. Hence the user needs to beware as per caveat emptor principles. This includes the statements made by lawyers such as Mr. Newhouse who to my mind is new to the Equal Opportunity debate. His statements as a lawyer – are to be valued as per the legal profession’s ownership investment in equal opportunity principles and values. To the extent the legal profession aided and abetted Australian Government to knowingly or otherwise act in breach of the principles governing Equal Opportunity – Mr. Newhouse is without the empowerment of his own profession in relation to this issue. Likewise, other parts of the Judiciary – including the High Court to which level the matter has been escalated. I also took the current Prime Minister’s guru – Mr. John Howard to the High Court. Then the legal profession was on the side of the Federal Government that paid them. They as a profession were against this migrant with demonstrated record of practice of Equal Opportunity values. It is therefore not acceptable that their ‘judgment in the context of equal opportunity issue’ is more valid than the judgment of the Australian Government.

According to media reports [The court last night issued an interim injunction to block the handover of the asylum seekers to Sri Lanka, just hours after the Government confirmed another boat-load of 41 people had been returned.

Members of that group - 28 men, four women, seven boys and two girls - are set to face criminal charges in Sri Lanka, but the Human Rights Commission says it is the Federal Government which has a case to answer.

Commissioner Gillian Triggs says the screening process appears inadequate and the applicants have been denied the means to challenge it.

The screening process for the 41 returned refugees reportedly involved a four-question interview via teleconference.

"It sounds as though three or four or five questions are being asked by video conference, snap judgments are being [made], and they're simply being returned," she said.
"There is an obligation with international law to have a proper process."]

As per the records of the Australian Human Rights Commission – the parallel of this happened within Australian borders – with the Human Rights Commission handing me back to the authorities against whom I complained – and they handed me over to the Police who arrested me, sent me to prison and threatened me with enforced medication for alleged mental illness.

The Australian Human Rights Commission also did not follow due processes as per my previous performance and earned status – but left me to lower level investors make the judgment. Effectively they now see themselves through the Federal Government.

Then there is the following report in reference to academics [ Fifty-three legal scholars from 17 Australian universities say they are "profoundly concerned" the asylum seekers were subjected to "rapid and inadequate screening interviews at sea" before being returned to Sri Lanka.

In a statement, the academics say the Government's actions in returning the asylum seekers to their country of origin "raises a real risk of refoulement."]

The collective Equal Opportunity value of these asylum seekers and their supporters was tested and proven to be far below mine – an Australian migrant from Sri Lanka who went to prison for upholding and expressing her belief that her Sri Lankan qualifications and knowledge were not second to Australian qualifications and knowledge. The moment I go beyond the highest practitioner of a particular law in the current official system with its authority to judge me – I become a governor through my natural position. I am beyond administration and any punishment to me would naturally have exponential return values to the perpetrators. One such perpetrator is the Australian Federal Government.

They say in Hindu culture – that when a person dies the essence of her/his life is carried as Paavam / Sins and Punniyam / Virtues. To me they are the Balance Sheets at the end of a reporting period. When my complaints were ‘dismissed’ as lacking in substance – my loss became the sins of those responsible for upholding Equal Opportunity principles and values. Their balance sheets are therefore reflecting this as negative governance reserves. They would naturally be activated as motivational forces – through those who have invested in common faith / belief as I through common cultures – even though we may not know each other or even be conscious of each other. This is the reason why we must seek amends when a matter is still active – a reason why I raised the complaint against former Prime Minister to High Court level. The Registrar did approach me and showed valuation by asking for a copy of my oral submission in Court – as a lay litigant empowered by my simple Truth. Truth is universal power and is beyond calculations.

Often Equality is confused with Equal Opportunity. The Australian Government and the Sri Lankan Government are not equal in status in terms of practice of International Laws. Australia’s status is higher than Sri Lanka’s for that reason. Status is the body of Human Resource carried by a person/nation. It is higher than money resource due to ‘belief’. Once we believe – we invest in the common system through our souls. It is this belief that renders one’s judgment the real status as per Natural Justice. The laws of Natural Justice are the highest known laws. Those who are known to operate at that level should not be brought down to lower systems. Australian government while enjoying the high status as a country that provides refuge has lowered itself to be of ‘Equal Status’ to Sri Lanka from which country people are fleeing – for whatever reason.

Similarly – within Australia – the authorities are driven by ‘physical’ and personally acceptable evidence when making judgments in relation to racism. I was for example required to produce objectively measurable evidence that what happened to me was race based. My belief in that matter did not count with the judges. They used their own discretionary powers and thus confirmed their weak investment in Equal Opportunity. Opportunity is a combination of belief/ownership and benefits. Benefits on their own do not have exponential value. They cannot therefore be greater than the sum of the individuals. Majority boat arrivals who come without support of family and community are surface investors in the issue of global governance. Unless therefore they are taken as part of someone or some group that has invested in ‘opportunity’ – they have earned the punishment to be sent back to their country of origin.

The interesting outcome here is that as reported ‘ the asylum seekers' boat, intercepted west of the Cocos Islands, was carrying 37 Sinhalese and four Tamils from Sri Lanka.’

Given that Tamils fleeing Sri Lanka are suspected as Terrorist supporters – one needs to ask the question as to whether these 37 Sinhalese are accusing their government of State Terrorism. One needs to take their actions on community basis. Hence the terrorism karma returns to sender at community level. Likewise the Australian Government being accused of racism by Australian Lawyers and Academics. Given that race is recognized as the root cause of Sri Lankan war – it infects all matters related to it. Had the Australian Government invested at ownership level in Human Commonness – the basis of all Global Laws – it would have not missed the Equal Opportunity with UN status and authority to manage the Human Resource that came in the form of boatloads of Sri Lankans representing the Sri Lankan government’s opposition in action.