Columns

Last week the Sunday Punch commented on President Sirisena’s intention to implement the death penalty, which had been in abeyance for the last 42 years, when he declared on 10th July in a speech in Kandy that he will sign the death warrant for those convicted by the courts and sentenced to death for drug trafficking if they still continued their drug pushing operations whilst behind bars.

The Sunday Punch, in the same article, also pointed out that the Archbishop of Colombo had also subscribed to the President’s views. The Sunday Punch questioned the propriety of the Archbishop’s gratuitous embracement of the President’s call for the death penalty for drug pushers when his own Catholic Church and his own Pope Francis were vehemently opposed to it whatever the crime was and no matter how serious it was. Nowhere in the article was it ever suggested that the Cardinal was for the implementation of the death penalty for all sentenced to death by the courts.

The Sunday Punch comment was certainly based on news reports filed by the reporters who attended the news conference held by the Archbishop at the Archbishop’s Palace on July 12th. The Sinhala daily the Lankadeepa which carried the Archbishop’s story under the headline, ‘Hirageval wela idhan dhamarika wada karana ayata marana dhadhuwam deema sadaranai’ or ‘It’s just to hang those in prison who commit serious crime’, reported that “that it is just to implement the death penalty on those in death row who still conduct serious crimes”. The Daily Mirror reported the same under the headline “We support the death penalty” says Archbishop.’

The interview took place on the 12th of July and was published online that same night and published in the national newspapers on the 13th morning. But the Cardinal’s clarification to show that his published comments were not at variance with that of his pope’s stated stance on the death penalty, certainly took a long time in coming. In fact, five days lapsed after the news report was published. The news reports went uncorrected or clarified till this Wednesday.

But after reading last Sunday’s Sunday Punch, His Eminence the Cardinal Ranjith seems to have seen red; and realised that he may have unwittingly, perhaps, placed himself, at variance with the present stated position of the Catholic Church as represented by the Servant of the Servant of God, His Holiness Pope Francis.

On Wednesday the Archbishop’s letter landed on the desk of the Sunday Times Editor. It commented on the Sunday Punch column. It strove to clarify his statement and to state unequivocally that he is not for the death penalty.

And pray, what does his belated letter published in full today on Page 12 have to say? Let’s see whether he succeeds in his zeal to reaffirm faith with the Holy See’s stance on the death penalty as he strives to say therein he is not for the death penalty, period. And that he has been misinterpreted. But does he, in his letter, convey his conviction on that score. Let’s see. And, you, dear reader, you be the judge.

The Archbishop Cardinal Ranjith states at the start: “My attention has been drawn to a comment that has been published in the Sunday Times on the 15th of July 2018 under the heading ‘Execute them, says the Archbishop’. Though in this column, the columnist Don Manu seems to give the impression that I welcome the death penalty in toto, that is a conclusion erroneously arrived at as a result of partial reporting of an interview I gave, by the Daily Mirror newspaper on 13th July 2018. ”

DON MANU’S ANSWER TO
CARDINAL’S RIGHT OF REPLY
DON MANU’S ANSWER: Firstly, nowhere in the article referred to by His Eminence has it ever been suggested that he was for the death penalty to be implemented for all crimes carrying the death sentence. It was confined to his agreement with President Sirisena’s declaration that he will sign the death warrant on those convicted to death by the courts for trafficking in drugs and who still persisted in running a drag operation behind closed Welikada walls and make them swing on the gallows.

Secondly, the Archbishop’s statement ‘Don Manu seems to give the impression that ‘I welcome the death penalty in toto’.
In toto? Even if I was under the impression — and I was not — that he welcomed the death penalty in toto, doesn’t the Archbishop’s phrase that he is in favour of the hangman’s noose around a human’s neck to tighten and snuff the life out of a man in certain cases of the Archbishop’s choice and delicacy alone where he deems the punishment merits the crime, violate the cardinal principle of the Vatican Church which Pope Francis recently reaffirmed when he said that “It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel, because a decision is voluntarily made to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of whom, in the last analysis, only God can be the true judge and guarantor.”

HIS EMINENCE CARDINAL MALCOM RANJITH: ‘Don Manu seems to give the impression that ‘I welcome the death penalty in toto’

Is the Archbishop totally against the death penalty or only partially? Does he thus approve of human beings being hanged by their necks till the last breath have expired from their bodies and are pronounced dead in certain cases only — in instances when he removes his cardinal zucchetto and dons the black cap of secular judges when they pronounce the death penalty — which he condones and does not condemn?

And isn’t such a hybrid stance at variance with the present Catechism of the Catholic Church on the issue of the death penalty as espoused so eloquently by the Holy Father Pope Francis last October is that “It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospels.” And that “that, no matter how serious the crime committed, the death penalty is inadmissible, because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person,”

THE ARCHBISHOP THEN SAYS: The Holy Father Pope Francis has in fact not accepted the death penalty which is also my own position invariably. I am not for a generalised return of capital punishment. It should be the last option, if at all.

DON MANU’S ANSWER: Again, does his statement that he is not for a ‘generalised return of capital punishment’ implicitly imply that he welcomes it in certain cases? Does it not revolt against the position of his Pope, who stated not even nine months ago that “it is necessary to reiterate that, no matter how serious the crime committed, the death penalty is inadmissible, because it attacks the inviolability and dignity of the person.”

THE ARCHBISHOP THEN SAYS: In fact the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that: “Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only way of effectively defending human life against the unjust aggressor” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, revised edition, 1997 No.2257].

DON MANU’S ANSWER: But has it now been further revised? And especially and more explicitly so in view of Pope Francis’s who, speaking at the 25th anniversary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church at the Vatican in October last year said “the Catechism’s discussion of the death penalty, already formally amended by St. John Paul II, needs to be even more explicitly against capital punishment. Capital punishment, heavily wounds human dignity” and is an “inhuman measure. It is, in itself, contrary to the Gospel, because a decision is voluntarily made to suppress a human life, which is always sacred in the eyes of the Creator and of whom, in the last analysis, only God can be the true judge and guarantor.

THE ARCHBISHOP ALSO SAYS: From the above it is clear that neither have I advocated a re-introduction of the death penalty carte blanche as Don Manu seems to have understood. DON MANU’S ANSWER: But hasn’t he? The issue here is not whether he has advocated the death penalty carte blanche. That was never at issue or, as said earlier, suggested at all in last week’s Sunday Punch. The issue here was whether the Cardinal was advocating the death penalty on a selective basis based upon his own judgment in violation of the doctrine of the Catholic Church which now holds all life to be inviolate and beyond the hangman’s noose, however serious the crime.

The Archbishop’s statement that “People in prison who engage in organising such crimes are doing a grave harm to society. They commit a grave sin. Thus there is nothing wrong in punishing such people. Not all people fall into that special category. They could be identified on the basis of only credible witnesses and solid facts. That is up to the justice system to do. Perpetrators of such gruesome crimes could be considered as having forfeited their own right to life. Because such activities cause death to other people. His Excellency the President has not expressed the idea of executing all those who are condemned to death” clearly shows he is for the death penalty.

It’s no longer a question of replying to Don Manu. It’s now a matter to be answered to his Supreme Pope.
Finally, His Eminence Cardinal Malcom Ranjith says: “May I also refer to what Jesus, the Lord, mentioned with regard to those who cause scandal and mislead our children and youth in order to gain filthy lucre for themselves: “It would be better for you, if a millstone were hung around your neck and you were thrown into the sea than for you to cause one of these little ones to stumble” [Lk.17:2].

But can this quote, by any means, be interpreted as an exhortation by Jesus Christ for the death penalty? Is Jesus calling for some external man made force to crucify the sinner or is Jesus merely admonishing the sinner to mend his ways or else to tie a stone around his neck and jump into the lake for he is no good to none, mainly to himself and to his soul for the more he continues with committing sin, the more he will place himself beyond the pale of redemption?

Herewith is the full rendering of Luke’s quotation as contained in the King James’s Bible which reveals the forgiving creed of Jesus Christ in full measure which the Catholic Pope now follows without exception:

• Then said he unto the disciples, It is impossible but that offences will come: but woe unto him, through whom they come!
• It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.
• Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him.
• And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
• The message is clear: Jesus Christ’s law is love.

Why Sirisena cannot play hangman and tie noose around druggies’ neckSUNDAY PUNCH REVISITS THE DEATH DEBATE AS All HELL BREAKS LOOSE OVER PLANS TO REVIVE THE GALLOWS For a country riddled with debt and hocked to the hilt to bleeding heart western nations and with the UNHRC summit, hanging like a Damocles Sword over its head, coming up shortly where Lanka’s human rights track record will be taken up, the last thing President Sirisena should have done was to have called for the re-imposition of the death penalty and aroused a hornets’ nest to sting him. It’s almost as if he had a death wish for the wasps. Especially when there was no pressing need to do so in order to curb the crime. Those whom he wished to see swing were already in government custody. Behind bars. Is this Government so bereft of imagination that it can see nothing beyond its limited ken and resort to the extreme when the solution to drug traffickers carrying out their trade behind prison bars stares in its ruddy face? And the answer is apparent to all? Strengthen prison security and ensure that crime within prison walls will cease to exist than shamelessly admit that this Government is unable to curb crime within its own household, committed by those in Government custody. Instead of doing that, Sirisena preferred to do a Duterte’s Philippine style. Kill the rascals. Possibly with the aim of projecting himself as the strongman of Lanka, even as those around him would have advised him to do as they carried him in the palanquin and, as the Sinhalese idiom goes, talked splendorous whilst the walk was on foot. What he may not have realised is that he has no legal power to do so. And perhaps he has not also fathomed the damage he will be causing to the Lankan economy by his call for the resurrection of the gallows to make a handful swing. But first the economy. If the garment industry uncorked their bubbly at the news last March that the European Union will be restoring GSP Plus status, they would have been busy this week trying to find the cork to bung the bottle. For the grant of the GSP, which was suspended by the EU due to the Rajapaksa government’s long catalogue of human rights violations was won again only after a great struggle waged by the present government which had to prove its credentials in deed and not by words alone that it respected human rights. It took a lot of time and diplomatic effort to persuade the European Union Governments that Lanka had come of age. And now the president, by his macho chatter, Duterte’s style, that drug dealers in his custody, will be hanged at his own discretion, has blown the GSP rose even before it had a chance to bloom. This Monday it was revealed that a delegation of EU representatives as well as the Canadian and Norway Governments had written to President Sirisena seeking clarification as to his intention to resume implementing the death penalty. Issuing a statement, the EU Embassy in Colombo said the death penalty is incompatible with human dignity, does not have any proven deterrent effect, and allows judicial errors to become fatal and irreversible. The diplomatic missions have requested the President to maintain the moratorium on the implementation of the death penalty and to uphold Sri Lanka’s tradition of opposition to capital punishment. As Amnesty International South Asian Deputy Director Dinushika Dissanayake put it, “By resuming executions after more than 40 years, Sri Lanka will do immense damage to its reputation. The Government must immediately halt plans to carry out any executions, commute all death sentences, and establish an official moratorium on the implementation of the death penalty as a first step towards its full abolition.” But hold on. Are the European nations, Amnesty International included, getting their knickers in a twist over President Sirisena’s humbug call to condemn a handful of drug dealers in prison custody to burn in hell? The question which they should have focused their minds upon is this: Does Sirisena have the legal power to give effect to his rhetorical blah, blah? Or whether it’s all hot air not worth a flipping tosh? Let’s consider his statement which he made in Kandy last week: “I will sign the required orders to execute capital punishment for convicted drug traffickers, who carried out large-scale drug smuggling operations, while in detention.” FIRST: He has stated that he will sign the death warrant on those drug dealers convicted by the courts, given the death penalty and condemned to be hanged if they are found to be dealing in the drug trade yet. This criteria can apply only to those on death row who haven’t still received the customary presidential pardon. For as it has been the practice for the last forty years, successive presidents, including Maithripala Sirisena, have, as a matter of custom, commuted the death sentence of those sentenced to death to one of life imprisonment. But once commuted, it is not one that could be revoked. Not even the President can hang the man again. And if there are drug traffickers any amongst them who have been sentenced to death but whose sentence has been commuted to life in jail and who are still involved in drug trafficking, they need not fret the President’s lasso to noose them and have them strung and swinging on the gallows. In other words they can safely carry on conducting their business as usual, knowing the presidential sudden keenness to have them strung will not visit them. SECOND: The President’s wrath can only fall upon those on death row who haven’t still had their death sentences commuted to life by presidential decree and pardon. As stated in last week’s Sunday Punch, the procedure is as follows: Before the President commutes the death sentence to life imprisonment he is required to call for reports from the Attorney General and the Trial Judge which are thereafter submitted to the Minister of Justice who in turn submits them to the President with his advice whether or not the execution should be carried out. It’s only then the president must decide whether or not to commute the sentence of death to one of life in jail. Once the decision is arrived at, it’s not a decision that can be revoked merely because the president has second thoughts. THIRDLY: Apparently there are 18 people sentenced to death for drug trafficking on death row now who have still not received the presidential pardon, awaiting like chickens in a cage at a street corner butcher’s stall awaiting to be picked by the president at his sole whim and fancy to have its throat slit. For the fact remains that the President did not call for the execution of all on death row but only to those who still persist in carrying out the drug trade within Welikada walls. The only question is on what evidence is the President going to decide who amongst these eighteen are guilty of conducting drug pushing whilst in prison? The President has the power to sign the death warrant, since he has not commuted their death sentence to life but on what basis is he going to sign the death warrant, given his position that he will do so only to those who still deal in drug trafficking behind bars. It would have been easier for him, don’t you think, if he had said hang the lot? Alas he didn’t. He preferred the buffet style. Pick and choose. But on what basis? That is the question that must trouble him and trouble us all? When he flourishes his nib to sign the death warrant one thought must give him pause. Exactly on what basis will he sign the death warrant? Will it be on the Prison Warden’s or the prison guard’s recommendation, on the recommendation of those who whisper in his ear that a certain prisoner is drug trafficking behind prison walls? On what evidence will the President make his selective choice and ink the death warrant? Tonight as President Maithripala Sirisena retires to bed at his Paget Road residence in Colombo 7 he should, nay, he must have a restless night of sleep, tossing and turning fretfully on his bed and wondering over the nightmare whether he will be the first President of this country to officially authorise extrajudicial murder in the days to come if he were to carry out his threat and promise.

FRENCH KISS TO STEAL WORLD CUP: Win or lose, France’s Macron and Croatia’s Kolinda smooch Croatia loses soccer cup but Kolinda wins world’s hearts It took a world cup final to lift the iron curtain and present to the world the fifty-year-old stunning mum of two who also happens to be the president of her country Croatia. And though this soccer mum’s team could not score enough to grab the World Football cup from France, Kolinda swept the French president off his feet to score her own goal into the French post. But she’s not all beauty and glamour. And not just a pretty face either. Following are her vital statistics. She is 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighs 70 kilos. And behind her figure are the statistics you will want to know most. Born on April 29th 1968, she is Croatia’s first female president and also the nation’s youngest. She holds a Masters degree in International Relations from the University of Zagreb. She is fluent in English and Spanish. She knows a smattering of French but shows the world by her smooch with French Macron that soccer needs no lingua franca to give expression when the goal is scored. Take a bow Ms. Kolinda, as you make your international debut on the world stage. No doubt, you will be making many more appearances on the world catwalk in the days to come.