De-radicalisation contorted

De-radicalisation is the word, pinpoint to the intention of the legislation in Government Gazette (GG). The wording of GG regulation is however in want of intelligence, if that defect, in itself, was not calculated in the draft.

Extremist religious ideology is the declared objective of these regulations No 1 of 2021 (GG). The specific offence is by a person who: ‘by words spoken …. causes or intends to cause commission of acts of violence or religious racial social causing disharmony or feelings of ill will of hostility BETWEEN different communities …etc’ OR ‘intended to be read … cause…etc’. De-radicalisation from holding extremist religious ideology is by a person and against groups. Several problems however emerge through the above provisions. In order yet that these perceived problems are presented in some orderly manner, recourse is had to certain basic principles of Aristotelian (A) logic enunciated over 3000 years before. This thinking has some relevance even today.

Objective:

Firstly, in looking for the objective in GG, it is found these same provisions in the GG are contained in the Penal Code, duplicity in law. The difference is perhaps reference to the ‘extremist’ in the GG, not in the Penal Code. The relationship of the objective of one to the other, the GG to the Penal Code, is nevertheless not clear. But that want of clarity does not stay in the hand of the GG. The issue in terms of A is one of apparent reasoning, of objectives confused, which A called a fallacy. That fallacy is one of apparent reasoning which ‘appears to conclude but does not’. This fallacy comes from a propensity to jump in the process through apparent reasoning from one cause to another, from the single to the others. This fallacy also comes from recognition of the appearance of likeness of the truth, not the truth itself. In this instant case, the fallacy has the characteristics noted by A. This fallacy, by its very nature, leads, as A notes, to deception, intentional or unintentional.

Sophism:

Another name for this deliberate fallacy in reasoning is sophism. Sophism is calculated to exploit this apparent likeness of objective even at the cost of truth. This, as A notes, is a habit of specious wisdom. The apparent teaching under sophism, as A further notes, is also a purveyor of phony wisdom. It is added here that apparent wisdom is to produce for the sake of profit. The need then, even now, 3000 years later, is to consider whether similar impulses can be discerned in the garb of the current GG.

Fallacies:

Since the objective of the GG is not clear, and a practice specious wisdom termed Sophism intrudes into the discussion, the logic of A advises the concept of fallacies. This malady also enters into the consideration. Fallacious is the equivalent of specious reasoning. These can originate, A says, from two sources: from the words used in the reasoning; from the connections made between the things brought about. These are also termed fallacies dependent on language, fallacies independent of language.

Fallacies dependent on language

. – This is the result of a plausible error of equivocal usage of words. One of the ambivalent words used in the GG is De-radicalisation. De-radicalization comes from the word radical. But the word radical has a double meaning, one the extremist in the negative sense it is used in the GG, the other radical means fundamental, thorough, in a positive sense. One is extreme in tone, the other is moderation. GG does not differentiate it meaningfully, intelligently. Ambiguity then runs through the provisions of the GG. The equivocal ambiguity does not make for good law, for good police action. Apparently this draft was made by the Minister of Justice (M of J), unthinking or perhaps intentional. Either way it was set down by MoJ. This sophist practice of using words with double meaning presents therefore a problem for the Supreme Court (SC).

Fallacies independent of language

– Action is prescribed in terms of the GG. There are serious problems the GG law encounters in the course of its action. Primarily the difficulty is with the Police. If the law in the GG is not clear as described above, the executive action following would be seriously questionable. In practical terms Police have been taking into custody persons whose actions are not within the terms of the GG. Individual criticisms of the government on diverse matters unrelated to the scope of the GG. In many cases Magistrates have rejected the submissions of the Police, even criticising Police action. The load of rights law violations is heavy and the issues are replete in the records. The GG will only add to the burden of the courts to deal with.

The exact point MoJ is trying to prove is that of De-radicalisation. In the draft of the provisions for the GG, MoJ is using only a general reason or partial reason, not to the very point of the radical, or using the reasoning process misleadingly. The reasoning in the GG has then only an appearance of reasoning, not reasoning to the exact point. Here reasoning is of the one radical which is to include all radicals, the consequence of one radical on all radicals etc. as examples of fallacy in reasoning in specious wisdom.

It is not clear either that such confusion of issues engaged the attention of MoJ. Whether intentional or unintentional, the draft has been made by MoJ. Apparently then, the De-radicalization programme embodied in the GG provisions are riddled with faulty construction, noted above, which is even inimical to Aristotelian principles of logical thinking.

If the law is not clear, violation of rights under this law can also be problematic. The issue of rights therefore is prominent in this mal-arrangement. The issue of rights of persons arrested under dubious provisions will come to the fore. The question is whether the BASL will take cognizance of this. Apparently not, going by what has transpired thus far under the GG provisions. It is unlikely the BASL will act as the AAA in the US, the parallel of BASL in the US. If yet, some cases of flagrant violations of rights are filed against miscreant police officers an effective check of such malpractices can then be expected. Trust this observation will catch the eye of the Petitioners before the SC.

FRANK de SILVA Narahenpita