Columns

Attorney-at-Law and Sri Lanka Podujana Party (SLPP) Parliamentarian Premnath Dolawaththa’s Private Members Bill that seeks to amend the Penal Code provisions that criminalise consensual same-sex relations between adults will very soon be taken up for discussion in Parliament.

Soon after the Bill was presented to Parliament, several Petitioners challenged the Constitutionality of the Bill in the Supreme Court. After hearing submissions from several parties including the Petitioners and Respondents as well as several Intervenient Petitioners, the Supreme Court has held that the Bill did not violate Constitutional provisions and could therefore be passed by a simple majority in Parliament. 

What is striking is that despite the far reaching implications for the country and Lankan society, there has been little public discussion on the intended legislation so far.

It may be opportune therefore to flag a few issues that may impact Lankan society if the intended legislation is passed.

The laws of any country must reflect the social values and norms that a society holds, and must not be at variance with such value systems. Taken in that context, the family is the social unit that goes to make up society in Sri Lanka currently and from time immemorial. Any move that is likely to threaten family values and the welfare of children has and must be resisted so that the family unit is preserved.

Tinkering with any laws that have preserved the unity and stability of Sri Lankan society can pose difficult challenges for the country which is already beset with innumerable problems that are formidable. The experiences faced by other countries, particularly in the Western world are an indication of what is in store for the country in the future if the intended legislation is enacted.

Attempting to justify any changes on the grounds that it is a repeal of laws based on the values of the Victorian era and is being done in order to bring it in line with contemporary norms is neither here nor there. The mere fact that a particular law reflects some of the values of that society does not make it bad per se. The sanctity of marriage and family life cannot be discarded merely because it belongs to a different era. Such changes can only be made if it is in contravention of the norms governing current society.

For instance, slavery was abolished not because it was a product of an ancient era but because it did not reflect the values and norms of modern society.

Before any steps can be taken to repeal the provisions of Section 365 and Section 365A as envisaged in  Dolawaththa’s Bill, a vibrant discussion must take place in the country with regard to the fundamental values relating to family life and social relations.

Sri Lanka being home to four great religions must necessarily draw those values from the teachings of these religions. None of these religions will endorse the path that Sri Lankan society will have to traverse if Parliamentarian Dolawaththa’s Bill is to pass into law.

When viewed from this perspective, it is amazing that none of the leaders of the four religions have come out with their views on the intended legislation. Their silence is indeed deafening.

One recalls some religious leaders and politicians critically poking fun at the Yahapalana Government alleging that it was attempting to legalise homosexuality. But today when such a possibility is closer to home the voices of these leaders remain muted.

It is also rather intriguing as to why the SLPP Parliamentarian suddenly woke up one morning and decided to present his Private Members Bill. Dolawaththa had not shown any previous interest in human rights nor had a previous record as a human rights campaigner, and what prompted him to move in the matter is not known.

But as a matter of prudence it cannot be left to the whim of one individual to initiate such far reaching legislation. Rather it should, at the least, be initiated by a Cabinet paper and discussed in Cabinet with whom the direction and control of Government is constitutionally vested.

Some of the scenarios that can be envisaged and the consequent social chaos that can be caused can be understood if one looks at the experiences of other countries.

There are reports of many parents in the United States and in European countries strenuously fighting attempts to insidiously introduce some of the LGBTQ values through cartoons and school text books to unsuspecting young ones and thereby portraying concepts that are alien to current values as being normal.

More recently there are instances of ‘transgender’ men invading the space and privacies of females. In the United States there are reports of individuals born as biological men declaring themselves as women and taking part in sporting events of females and appearing in female changing rooms and themselves changing in front of the female occupants contributing to the latter’s discomfort and violating their dignity and privacy.

The recent cases of Riley Gaines and Lia Thomas in the United States very vividly bring home these dangers.

With LGBTQ activists pushing aggressively for their aspirations regardless of consequences, it is a slippery slope that society will have to go down unless vigilance is shown in this regard.

Discrimination in any form is obviously totally unacceptable and if a person is, for example, denied employment because of his sexual orientation that will amount to clear discrimination.

The sexual orientation of an individual is a matter for him or her and there is no objection to the State taking steps to protect them for any inability caused by such orientation. But such State action must only be undertaken after thoroughly examining the implications of such action on the social fabric of the country.

It is time for concerned citizens including religious leaders to speak up on Premanath Dolawaththa’s BIll before it is too late. (javidyusuf@gmail.com)