Features

THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND GENOCIDE

Published

3 years ago

2023/12/17

by Vijaya Chandrasoma

The first ten Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America, the Bill of Rights, were ratified on December 15, 1791. The First Amendment to the Constitution stipulates that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”.

The Presidents of Harvard (Claudine Gay), MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Sally Kornbluth) and the University of Pennsylvania (Liz Magill) were summoned, on December 5, before a Congressional hearing relating to anti-Semitism protests on college campuses. Mass protests and counter protests held since the October 7 Hamas attacks on Israelis and the Israelis’ subsequent airstrikes, bombings and ground invasions on Gaza in response.

First, anti-Muslim protests after the atrocities against an estimated 1,200Israeli civilians, men, women and children, tortured, beheaded and burnt by Hamas terrorists on October 7. The terrorists also kidnapped over 240 hostages, Israeli, American and civilians of other nationalities during the attack.

Second, anti-Israel protests, when the Hamas’ acts of terrorism were immediately followed by indiscriminate airstrikes and bombings in Northern Gaza by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF). In addition, IDF ground forces have begun flooding the tunnels of Gaza in an attempt to flush out the terrorists. These attacks have been continuing relentlessly for over two months, so far claiming the lives of nearly 20,000 Palestinian civilians, mostly women and children, and seriously wounding a further 35,000, while ravaging the infrastructure of Gaza City and its environs, including hospitals, schools and refugee camps.

The savage attack by Hamas on Israeli civilians on October 7 was a war crime which ended that day, though the terrorists are still holding about 135 of the originally kidnapped 240 hostages in inhumane conditions in the tunnels of Northern Gaza. But the inexorable airstrikes and bombings on Gaza by the IDF against Palestinian civilians, most of whom were not complicit in the October 7 atrocity by Hamas, constitute a never-ending series of war crimes, fast approaching levels of genocide.

Although members of the Security Council of the United Nations, bar the USA (and a non-committal UK) have been repeatedly calling for a ceasefire, Israel has not complied; but for a seven-day “humanitarian pause” to conduct an exchange of hostages. The truce fell through when the Israelis accused Hamas of not honoring their side of the bargain. The attacks resumed immediately thereafter.

Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, has since resisted all such calls for a ceasefire. He is determined to continue the war against Gaza until all Hamas terrorists are killed and all hostages returned, unharmed. How many more murders of Palestinian civilians will satisfy the blood thirst of Netanyahu and the members of his hardline Likud Party, as revenge for the atrocities of that one day in October?

Actually, Netanyahu has already answered this question, when he stated last month: “The war will continue until we have achieved complete victory”, by which he means the elimination, by displacement, genocide or any other means, of the entire race of Palestinians, and the establishment of the Jewish State of Israel.

The Congressional hearing on December 5 featured fourth ranking Republican in the House, Elise Stefanik. Her question to the Presidents of these prestigious universities demanded a Yes or No answer, with neither qualification nor prevarication. A question of the “Gotcha” variety, which ensured that the response of the interviewee will be detrimental and humiliating to herself, however she responds.

The loaded question to the lady Presidents of three of the most famous universities in the world was: “Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate – Upenn’s, Harvard’s, MIT’s – rules of bullying and harassment in its Code of Conduct? Yes or No?”

Loaded because the question would be impossible to answer with a simple Yes or No. The answer would have to be qualified on two counts.

First, the omission the words “of Jews”, if genocide of all stripes would have so violated the universities’ Codes of Conduct, may have tempered the political flavor of the original question. However, even the answer to that question would prove impossible to answer with a simple Yes or No, as it would have to be qualified as to whether “calling for genocide”, which in itself constitutes free speech within First Amendment rights, had led to violence or criminal activity.

Protests and the freedom of assembly are protected by the First Amendment. However, there is a grey area, subject to interpretation, when such protests, combined with hate speech, result in violence or the commission of criminal activity.

Hate speech, though, is not a First Amendment term, and there is no defined line at which free speech crosses onto hate speech. Indeed, there is doubt whether such a line exists at all. The general consensus of constitutional scholars is that the line would be crossed only if speech leads to, or is designed to incite, criminal activity.

All three Presidents of these universities refused to give the easy answer, to take the easy way out, as could be expected of ladies of high intelligence, education and integrity. They are above the need, unlike Ms. Stefanik, to seek sensational publicity, or to score cheap political points.

They all went by a strict interpretation of the First Amendment, that the Universities’ Code of Conduct would be violated only depending on the context, whether such student protests had led to or incited violence or criminal behavior. As the President of Harvard, Ms. Claudine Gay said, the answer would be context-dependent on the interpretation of the aforementioned grey area of the First Amendment.

Congresswoman Stefanik expressed indignation at what she opined was an equivocal response, which sidestepped the question and did not condemn strongly enough the anti-Semitic furore at these universities. Though she did succeed in achieving the backlash she sought, protests from the general public, including the powerful Jewish lobby and threats of withdrawal of donations. And probably more importantly, earned herself brownie points with Trump, who had probably initiated the question with the political motive of earning the approval of the Jewish community.

After the initial reaction of horror by the Jewish community and the radical right subsided, many constitutional scholars have now recognized that Stefanik’s question was a political hit job, designed to elicit pro-Israel sentiments from the presidents of these prestigious universities. These learned lawyers agreed that the university presidents’ qualified response was perfectly in keeping with the US constitution and the Codes of Conduct of Harvard, MIT, UPenn and other universities.

However, under intense pressure as a result of the turmoil caused after the hearings, Liz Magill, President of UPenn, resigned her post; and the Presidents of Harvard and MIT tendered their apologies after condemnation of their response by the Jewish community, members of Congress and even the White House.

The statement by the White House spokesman, Andrew Bates, signifies the hitherto blind support of Israel by the USA. He said, “Any statements that advocate the systematic murder of Jews are dangerous and revolting – and we should all stand firmly against them, on the side of human dignity and the most basic values that unite us as Americans”. Completely ignoring the fact that the systematic, dangerous and revolting murder under current reference is being executed by the Jews against Palestinian civilians, and the human dignity under attack is that of defenseless Palestinian men, women and children.

The First Amendment is one of the main lines of defense exploited by the twice impeached, four times indicted former President of the United States, in many of the 91 felonies with which he has been charged, arrested and is on bail.

Trump’s speech at the Ellipse on January 6, 2021, inciting a mob of white supremacist terrorists he had assembled to attack the Capitol, was considered to be protected under the free speech clause of the First Amendment, by Ms. Stefanik and the Republican Party. In spite of the fact that Trump’s speech incited those insurrectionists to attack the Seat of Democracy of the nation, to kill and maim hundreds of police officers defending the Capitol, and to threaten the lives of lawmakers who had convened to perform their constitutional duty of certifying Joe Biden’s presidency. An insurrection that nearly brought America’s democracy to its knees.

So, according to the legal expertise of Elise Stefanik and the Republican Party, the First Amendment protects the free speech of a criminal president, although it directly resulted in the worst political violence in the nation since the Civil War.

This while protests by university students, expressing condemnation against the ongoing genocide of Palestinian civilians, violate the same free speech clause of the First Amendment, on grounds that they may result in the unlawful harassment of Jewish students.

No such congressional hearings were deemed necessary to question the constitutional validity of anti-Hamas protests after October 7, when innocent Muslim students were violently harassed. A double standard of hypocrisy, the classic hallmark of the Party of Trump.

We have been inured over the years against all kinds of lying and treachery of Trump and the radical, white supremacist cult that is the Republican Party. But to see President Biden recently approving a supply of $106 million worth of ammunition for tanks to enable Netanyahu continue the massacre at Gaza was deeply distressing. As was the lame response of Secretary of State Blinken when asked about the administration’s motive for the supply of this ammunition:

“Washington remains committed to supporting Israel’s right to self-defense, but has stepped up calls for Israel to comply with international law and protect civilians”. No explanation as to how this call for Israel’s compliance with international law is being monitored. Also, how Israel’s relentless onslaught on Gaza for over two months could possibly be construed as “Israel’s right to self-defense” is beyond comprehension.

However, at long last, American complicity in the current Israeli war crimes in Gaza seems to be cooling, in the face of global outrage. The Biden administration is openly criticizing Israel’s continuing genocide against Palestinians in North Gaza. In fact, just last Tuesday, Biden said that “Israel is losing international support over the indiscriminate bombing of Gaza”, expressing concern that the “most conservative government in Israeli’s history” is making progress in the resolution of the conflict “difficult”. Netanyahu responded that there was “disagreement with Biden over how a post-conflict Gaza would be governed”.

This exchange seems to indicate a rift in Biden/Netanyahu relations, providing stark contrast to Biden’s literal and political embrace of the Israeli Prime Minister in Tel Aviv days after the October 7 attacks.

The Americans may have finally realized that Netanyahu and the majority of the Israelis have never had any interest in a two-state solution. They will not stop the war in Gaza until all Palestinians are eliminated, one way or another, so successfully completing the genocide that has been in progress over the past 75 years. The Final One State Solution. The Promised Land.

All News Advertisement

Up Next

Film Series: Daughters of Destiny

Don't Miss

Neurodiversity, inclusive education and quality assurance in Sri Lankan universities

Click to comment

Features

Complexities in global politics deepen as economic pressures intensify

Published

18 hours ago

2026/08/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham meets Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in Kyiv. (BBC)

The present offer by the UK to strengthen Ukraine’s defense capabilities in the missile technology field in particular comes as ‘a stitch in time’ and the initiative is also likely to be appreciated considerably by democratic opinion world wide for the possible morale-boosting effect it would have on Ukraine. Besides continuous arms support, the conviction that the world’s frontline democracies are behind it would prove a huge plus in Ukraine’s eyes in its grinding fightback against the Russian invasion.

While continued US support for Ukraine could not be considered ‘a given’ any more, British Prime Minister Andy Burnham’s words during a recent visit to Kyiv that the UK would stand by Ukraine ‘for as long as it takes’ is the kind of assurance that Ukraine needs at present. For, the conflict in Ukraine is essentially a war of liberation conducted by the latter against an invader and deeply at issue here is the upholding of International Law and its foundational concepts, such as national sovereignty and a nation’s right to political self-determination. The world of democracy is of the firm view that the latter ideals cannot be compromised, come what may.

The UK has its work cut out in this connection. It would find it difficult to convince the Trump administration that it should staunchly stand by Ukraine but it could campaign vigorously with the rest of the West and the EU fold in particular to unflaggingly support the embattled and over-run country.

Ukraine has shown an impressive adeptness in using drone technology in particular against her enemy and has even manufactured her own hardware in this respect but using the relevant blueprints handed over by the UK for the manufacture of more sophisticated cruise missiles, for instance, may prove financially difficult, going forward. It is left to be seen whether the UK and the rest of the West who are with Ukraine will continue to be with her, considering their own rising financial constraints.

The latter impediments could only multiply in the future. Oil, gas and energy prices are on the rise and the latter costs are glaringly reflected in kitchens and meal tables the world over. As we go along consumer discontent would steadily intensify and governments, East and West, would need to figure out with considerable rigour and foresight how such disaffection could be ably managed. Failing which, in most democratic societies, the chances are that publics would be out on the streets demanding that their grievances be redressed forthwith.

These rising concerns are reflected in a recent move by some EU governments to consider imposing what is described as ‘a windfall tax’ on the profits specified major oil companies operating within their shores have made in the wake of the US-Israel war on Iran. The rationale apparently is to use such tax earnings to cushion the rising cost of living of their publics and bolster the respective countries’ social expenditure.

In a recent letter to the president of the EU Council the EU governments referred to said, among other things, while drawing attention to the ‘discontent that is growing over the rising cost of living’: ‘A common approach’ is needed that ‘ensures those who profit from the crisis contribute their share to reducing the burden on the general population.’ Meanwhile, Oxfam with reference to the above development is on record as calling for a ‘permanent windfall tax of at least 50% on profits exceeding a 10% return on investment.’

Such are the rising economic pressures on the majority of Western governments. The question to be posed is how consistent they would be in their assistance to Ukraine if they decide consensually to stand by her. The soaring cost of living in the West compels the conclusion that there could be no guarantee that Western assistance to Ukraine, particularly in the defense and security fields, would be of a longstanding kind.

Of particular concern would be the fact that the weapons systems on offer from the UK to Ukraine could be increasingly costly to manufacture going forward. Besides they would need to be manufactured and put into action without delay.

However, these considerations should in no way deflect Ukraine’s supporters from the principled policy stance of defending her to the extent possible. Because at issue is the defense of International Law and the democratic system of government from their enemies; fascism and authoritarian rule.

While during World Wars 1 and 2 the US was with the major democracies of the West, this time around with regard to Ukraine, the US has chosen to be at cross-purposes with them. For instance, in relation to tariff matters and defense expenditure, in the NATO context, the US is pursuing a hard line which puts it at polar opposites with the West. Thus it is no longer possible to talk unreservedly of a ‘Western democratic alliance’. Put plainly, the cause of democratic development has been weakened.

A measure of relief for the supporters of Ukraine in the West could come by way of the upcoming mid-term polls in the US. If the Democratic Party fares well in them the pressure would be on the Trump administration to defer to opposition opinion at home, accommodate the best interests of Ukraine in its West European policy and perhaps even work towards a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis in cooperation with Russia. Accordingly, the Democratic Party would need to put the Trump administration on the defensive, so to speak.

Until such time Ukraine’s Western supporters have no choice but to remain committed to it, ensure its steadfast defense against the invasion and work judiciously towards keeping the economic pressures at home in check.

Interestingly, at the present juncture in international politics the US could be said to be more weak than strong. For example, it has to some extent been militarily humbled by Iran; so much so it is resorting to economic means to keep Iran in check.

In keeping with this strategy, the US has launched ‘a new big wave of anti-Iran economic sanctions’ at the time of writing, aimed at cutting Iran away from all its major income sources. Some of these relate to digital assets, technology, gold, aviation and shipping. The hoped for result is the complete severance of Iran from the US dollar system.

However, while the UK and EU have no choice but to adhere to their policy of backing Ukraine, going forward they would need to dialogue more closely with the US and ensure that it cooperates with them on outstanding questions, such as Ukraine and the strengthening of democracy. The well being of the world is served when the latter aim is pursued.

Features

“Envisioning Sri Lanka: Beyond Recovery”

Published

18 hours ago

2026/08/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya opening the event

OPA 39th Annual Conference calls for Sri Lanka to move Beyond Recovery towards Sustainable Transformation

The Orgnisation of Professional Associations (OPA) successfully concluded its 39th Annual Conference, held recently at the Cinnamon Grand Colombo, under the theme “Envisioning Sri Lanka: Beyond Recovery”.

Held under the patronage of Jayantha Gallehewa, President of the OPA, with the leadership and guidance of Tisara De Silva, President-Elect and Chairman of the 39th Annual Conference, the Conference brought together leading professionals, academics, business leaders and representatives of the public and private sectors to deliberate on Sri Lanka’s next phase of national development.

The Inaugural Session, on August 2026, was graced by Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, as the Chief Guest; Andrew Patrick, British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka, as the Guest of Honour; and Murtaza Jafferjee, Chairman of the Advocata Institute, Sri Lanka, as the Keynote Speaker.

In her address, Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya emphasised that overcoming the economic crisis alone should not be Sri Lanka’s ultimate objective, stressing that recovery must serve as the foundation for a broader economic and institutional transformation necessary for sustainable national progress. Reflecting on the difficult period experienced by the country, the Prime Minister noted that Sri Lanka had faced significant economic, social and institutional challenges, which had weakened public confidence and created uncertainty about the country’s future.

She stressed that “recovery only provides the foundation” and that Sri Lanka can move forward sustainably only by using that foundation to bring about meaningful transformation.

The Prime Minister observed that the theme of the OPA’s 39th Annual Conference, “Envisioning Sri Lanka: Beyond Recovery,” aptly encapsulated these national aspirations. She emphasised that Sri Lanka’s objective should not merely be to return to the conditions that existed before the crisis, but to forge a stronger national foundation characterised by robust institutions, a resilient economy, high-quality public services and an enabling environment in which every citizen has the opportunity to thrive.

She further underscored that Sri Lanka’s future development cannot be secured through economic growth and physical development alone. She emphasised that the effective mobilisation of the country’s knowledge, skills and professional expertise, is equally essential to achieving sustainable and inclusive national progress

The Technical Sessions held on 12 August 2026 brought together 19 distinguished experts and professionals representing academia, industry, banking and finance, public health, technology, management and business leadership. Their diverse expertise provided a multidisciplinary platform to examine the critical challenges, emerging opportunities and strategic choices that will shape Sri Lanka’s next phase of development, with particular emphasis on economic transformation, institutional strengthening, digitalisation, private-sector growth, human capital and sustainable development.

The deliberations were structured around four principal sub-themes: “Resilient Recovery and Sustainable Economic Development”; “Future Readiness: Innovation & Transformation”; “Policy for Impact: Advancing Equity, Sustainable Living, and National Well-Being”; and “Leadership, Governance and National Responsibility.”

Across these thematic areas, the sessions explored the structural reforms, institutional requirements and policy choices necessary to move Sri Lanka beyond economic stabilisation towards a more productive, competitive, resilient and inclusive economy. The discussions brought together diverse professional perspectives, enabling participants to examine national priorities through economic, technological, industrial, financial, social and governance lenses.

Particular emphasis was placed on the need to move beyond the diagnosis of problems towards pragmatic, evidence-based and implementable solutions. The deliberations recognised that sustainable national progress requires not only sound policies, but also effective institutions, professional competence, innovation, responsible leadership and the capacity to translate policy into tangible outcomes.

The sessions further underscored the importance of collaboration across sectors, recognising that Sri Lanka’s complex development challenges cannot be addressed in isolation. Stronger engagement among Government, private sector, professional associations, academia and civil society was identified as essential to fostering a coherent national response and ensuring that professional knowledge and expertise are effectively translated into policy and action.

Collectively, the Technical Sessions provided a substantive platform for knowledge exchange, critical reflection and forward-looking dialogue, reinforcing the OPA’s commitment to bringing the country’s professional expertise to bear on the task of building a resilient, innovative, equitable and prosperous Sri Lanka.

The OPA expressed its sincere appreciation to Prime Minister Dr. Harini Amarasuriya, the Chief Guest; Andrew Patrick, British High Commissioner to Sri Lanka and Guest of Honour; and Murtaza Jafferjee, Chairman of the Advocata Institute, Sri Lanka and Keynote Speaker, for their distinguished contributions to the Conference.

Much of what the 39th Annual Conference achieved would not have been possible without the leadership, commitment and generous contributions of Jayantha Gallehewa, President of the OPA; Tisara De Silva, President-Elect and Chairman of the 39th Annual Conference; Eng. Ravi Rupasinghe, General Secretary; Dharshana Wijemanne, Treasurer; Bhanu Wijayaratne, Convener & the Chairman of the Session Planning Committee of the 39th Annual Conference Committee, Past Presidents and Office Bearers; Presidents and representatives of Member Associations; members of the Executive Councils and General Forum; and the distinguished Session Chairmen, Resource Persons and professionals who shared their time, expertise and insights in pursuit of the Conference’s shared vision. The OPA remains immensely grateful to all those whose collective contributions enriched the 39th Annual Conference and strengthened its role as a meaningful platform for professional exchange, informed dialogue and national reflection.

Features

Nostalgia for Lankans in Toronto …

Published

18 hours ago

2026/08/27

Sahan Weerasooriya

‘Avurudu Musical Show 2027,’ a uniquely styled musical Avurudu celebration … Ceymphony Band style.

For Sri Lankans living 14,000 kilometres from home, the sound of home has never felt closer — and that’s thanks to one man and his band.

Since stepping into the spotlight, Gamini Hemalal and the Ceymphony Band have turned into the heartbeat of the Sri Lankan community in Toronto.

Their mission is simple: bring the music, bring the memories, bring the people together. And it’s working.

What turned out to be the talk-of-the-town was their intimate musical evening with Sri Lanka’s legendary crooner Sohan Weerasinghe.

Sohan Weerasinghe: Had
everyone on their feet at the
Angus Glen Golf Club, in
Toronto, Canada

It was a ‘full house’ long before the big date. Tickets vanished within days — demand was that overwhelming.

According to those who were there, it was a truly amazing evening. The hall was packed, the energy electric. Sohan didn’t just sing — he owned the stage.

With his velvet vocals, his charm, and that signature style, he had everyone on their feet. The ladies, especially, couldn’t get enough. No wonder they call him “The Ladies’ Man!”

One attendee summed it up perfectly:

“We had so much fun. It is truly a blessing to have our kids around us, enjoying these beautiful moments together. Thank you, Gamini Hemalal, for such a wonderful evening, with an amazing crowd and an incredible atmosphere. Your hard work and dedication truly made it a special night.

“We also need to say a big thank you to the Ceymphony Band for delivering such an outstanding performance. You all were absolutely amazing! Our entire family had a fantastic time, and we truly enjoyed every moment.

Ceymphony Band: Extremely popular in the scene in Toronto

“Wishing you all continued success. Keep up the amazing work, we can’t wait for the next.”

And the next is already on the cards: ‘Halloween Pissu Baila Party 2026,’ on Friday, 30th October, at the famous Angus Glen Golf Club.

Gamini promises a crazy night of baila, music, dancing and Halloween vibes with the Ceymphony Band. Action runs from 8:00 PM to 12:00 midnight, with plenty of prizes to be won.

Gamini Hemalal: Amazing work for the Sri Lankan community,
in Toronto, Canada

Gamini is also putting together a special event, connected with the 2027 Avurudu celebrations — ‘Avurudu Musical Show 2027,’ a uniquely styled musical Avurudu celebration … Ceymphony Band style.

It’s scheduled to be held on Saturday, 10th April, 2027, also at the Angus Glen Golf Club.

Through music, Gamini Hemalal and Ceymphony are doing what diaspora bands do best — they’re shrinking the distance between two worlds.

One baila beat at a time, one full house at a time, they’re making sure that even in Canada, Sri Lankans feel like home.

Yes, there is plenty of action, indeed, for the Sri Lankan community in Toronto, Canada.