The illegal demonstration by Sri Lankan Tamils in London last week that required the closure of Westminster Bridge for several hours was the result of years of British laxity in applying the law.
Even the British authorities concede that the demonstration that needed a fair concentration of police to maintain order, was illegal because its organizers- said to be some Tamil students- had not sought police permission as the law requires them to do. This requirement would not have been unknown to the organizers, for all they had to do was ask their mentors who have staged many demonstrations and rallies over the years in support of what they called the Tamil cause. It would seem therefore that this was a deliberate attempt to thumb the noses at British law enforcement on the one hand and embarrass the British Government (strangely enough, with the support of some of its own MPs) for its seeming impotence at enforcing its will through diplomatic or other means, on the Sri Lanka government.
 |
| Sinhaleese protest in london |
 |
| Tamils protest in london |
It might be claimed by some that this was a spontaneous show of grief mingled with anger by sections of the Tamil community that have no truck with the LTTE. But having seen several previous demonstrations and rallies staged in London it would be true to say that the instigators of such shows of strength were hardly politically uncommitted Tamils though many of them would have later swelled the crowds. Just as much as the LTTE is today holding civilians forcibly in the safe zone as publicly stated by UN and other international agencies, the ordinary law abiding Tamils in London and in many western countries, provide the cover for the LTTE gatherings.
Those activities often held under the sponsorship of organizations which were believed to be LTTE front organizations helped 'legitimise' the power of the LTTE among the Tamil community and also influence some British politicians because those who were in the forefront were LTTE supporters or sympathizers who had emerged as British local government councillors and others active in the social field in the community. Had the Labour government which introduced the Terrorism Act 2000 and guided it through parliament, under which the LTTE was banned as a foreign terrorist organization, faithfully implemented from the start the law which it fathered with much fanfare and trumpet blowing, these challenges to the law and its own authority could have been nipped in the bud as it were.
Though immediately after the law was enacted those in the LTTE front lines in London carried out their activities out of public gaze, they did not stop what they were accustomed to -raising funds and holding cultural and sporting activities whose raison d'etre was the promotion of the LTTE among the diaspora and filling its coffers in the process.
They had also been worming their way into the British political system either by using the concentration of Tamils in given parts of a borough to contest local elections and make quiet inroads into the party mechanism, especially the Labour and Liberal parties.
The public face of the LTTE was Anton Balasingham, the LTTE's political advisor who was able to meet and greet diplomats including British officials without let or hindrance. In fact he became even more visible after the signing of the Cease Fire Agreement (CFA) in 2002 as he led the LTTE's negotiating team at the several rounds of peace talks. He would meet and greet British officials and foreign ambassadors like any plenipotentiary. The Terrorism Act which quite clearly stated that being a member of or supporting a banned organization, displaying its signs and symbols, advocating its cause and publicly espousing it were offences, Anton Balasingham and other LTTE activists were permitted to carry on regardless.
In fact during the annual Heroes' Day commemoration the organizers not only relayed the LTTE leader's speech and allowed thousands to watch the telecast but allowed without demur the display of the LTTE flag, the sale of LTTE promotional material which obviously went to LTTE coffers while the police stood outside virtually motionless. The lackadaisical attitude of the British Government and its law enforcement agencies led the LTTE to believe that, apart from some token gestures by the authorities, they would not crack down on the LTTE.
This approach of the British authorities became even more pronounced after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in the US and the 7/7 attacks in London following which the law concentrated on cracking down on the Muslim community in the UK.
The war against terrorism that was launched with the brotherly holding of arms across the Atlantic turned into a war against Islamists in which innocent people were shot and even a passing Brazilian youth who was not even remotely connected with terrorism was killed by the pistol packing police.
The concentration of British attention on Islamists both foreign and home grown allowed the LTTE to act brazenly violating British law, helped by British politicians without a cause and in danger of losing their parliamentary seats.
The British were either too cowardly or too inefficient to fight on two fronts. It is the support the LTTE got from British politicians who were either ignorant or were looking for a convenient band wagon from where they could cacophonously urge Sri Lanka to engage in peace talks, which has provided the LTTE with the additional strength to brazen it out with the British government.
It has now come to a stage where the Tiger flag that was once flown inside convention halls are now carried and waved publicly opposite the British House of Commons which passed the terrorism law that banned that flag and the flag-wavers from doing so.
It is not just a supreme irony. It shows the contempt with which these people, many of whom were asylum seekers that the British embraced over the years, treat the law makers of their adopted home and the government that let them in.
Many would say it serves the British right and many would agree. While the British authorities preach humanitarian law to smaller nations which have no strategic or commercial interest for them, they have been secretly violating the same laws in their dealings with foreign and perhaps local nationals.
That is why some say that British Foreign Secretary should watch his words. Having read the recent statements of David Miliband, an Asian journalist friend reminded me of the story of the fish with the big mouth. To keep the story short, he said the fish would not have got caught if it had kept its big mouth shut. Well who am I to question such homely wisdom? |
E-mail