Sri Lanka News Updates with Discussions

publish right now. I love to see it.

GAJA LAKSHMI PARAMASIVAM
AUSTRALIAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT
906/ 56, Carr Street; Coogee N.S.W. 2034; Australia ;
Email gajalakshmi_param@bigpond.com ; Phone 61 2 9315 7417


The Hon Philip Ruddock, MP
Attorney General
Parliament House
Canberra.

02 January 2007

Your Ref: 06/17101, MC06/19565

Dear Mr. Ruddock,
I Will Not be TOLD What to do

?First they ignore you; then they laugh at you; then they fight you and then you win?
Mahatma Gandhi

Thank you for your response dated 19 December 2006, on the above issue.

You state in your letter ?As Commonwealth Attorney-General, I have portfolio responsibility for the federal courts and the federal judiciary and the matters you raise in relation to the Supreme Court of New South Wales fall outside my portfolio responsibilities.?

As per my work and observations, the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission, Federal Courts & Federal Judiciary would do well to learn from the Supreme Court proceedings ? especially in relation to the definition of ?Frivolous / Lacking in Substance? clauses in our Court systems. All these agencies have established through Objective evidence that they abuse their powers under ?Frivolous / Lacking in Substance? clauses, to dismiss complaints that they are not comfortable or in agreement with.

In addition, the Supreme Court proceedings, in which the Commonwealth had the opportunity to be a party, reveal the root cause of Terrorism problems in Australia. The Hindu religion, through the Bhaghavath Gheetha, recommends physical war through Due Process, against unjust governments and judiciary who are driven by physical power. This is recommended even when this involves fighting against one?s family elders & gurus. Some Tamils and Muslims do believe that they are fighting against governments to uphold Dharma (Righteousness). Your government tends to label all fighters against government as Terrorists. The University of New South Wales and the NSW Police / State of NSW, have likewise labeled me as a criminal and a mad one at that. Contrary to your expressed beliefs that the problem is outside your portfolio, I believe that it is very much within your portfolio ? because you are primarily responsible for the administration of Racial Discrimination Act 1975, through which I have presented the case to the Federal Court and which Act was part of the basis on which the case was presented to the Supreme Court of NSW.

I believe that such matters could be resolved at three levels:

1. At the ?local? level where the problem was born. In my case this was the University of New South Wales which includes the Federal Government Administration.

2. At the National level ? through Judicial outcomes

3. At the International level ? through Public Reporting.

Genuine work in the consciousness of the higher levels automatically takes the matter to the next higher level.
My letter dated 13 November 2006, to you, belongs in category 3. If you are genuinely seeking to protect Australia from Terrorism, you will find the answers in my work. All genuine seekers will know the connection between Cause and Effect which is beyond the control of your government and the judiciary when it involves Independent citizens like myself.

Truth exists independent of physical level endorsements and confirmations ? both Objective and Subjective. It reproduces Itself as ?natural facts?, which we often describe as independent facts. The closer these facts are to the environment in which they are born ? the more natural they are. If you choose to close your eyes and ears to such ?natural facts?, but without a higher common purpose, you lose the war due to your attachment to the material benefits from positions that are required to think at the National and Global levels. Local outcomes are temporary and unless you lose consciousness of time and space limits that control the facts, you would not be able to release them to the Global level to benefit all. By recommending that I take the matter to the State Attorney General, you are directing me to go back to stage 1, instead of raising it to the international level through your portfolio.

The Administrative part of your portfolio ceases at stage 1. But the political part of your portfolio is not yet exercised to uphold the Truth beyond Administrative restrictions. Given that the system of Natural Justice, which is the ultimate goal of all genuine Administrative and Judicial systems, is driven by Truth, it is important that you learn the Truth through your own investments and translate the experience at the National level ? so we are ready to participate through everyday life, in International activities, rather than ?wait? for Mr. Howard to tell us what to do and which side to support. If you believe through your own observations and calculations that I am NOT a criminal ? then you have the responsibility to uphold that Publicly through your portfolio, especially through the Racial Discrimination Act. If on the other hand you do not believe that I am genuine, then you have the responsibility to recognize the ?Terrorist? in me. I may call myself a rebel ? but your system as it is today has effectively recognized me as a Terrorist. At ownership level, it does not matter which side you take ? for they are both part of our society. If I am seen as a terrorist, then I would help terrorists weaken their violence, by merely being a part of them. If I am seen as a rebel, then I would help strengthen your administration as your legitimate opposition. If you choose to be indifferent ? as Mr. Howard has been, then you are not a part of the whole of Australia but only the slice that you ?feel? for. When you care genuinely, you would not worry about rights and wrongs and being marked right or wrong. You would be driven by participation. If you fail to ?think? to include us, then the system of Natural Justice would bring / has brought, you pain through losses and pain in your specific group ? the group you feel for.

The Racial Discrimination Act 1975, states through Section 9(1) ?It is unlawful for a person to do any act involving a distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of any human right or fundamental freedom in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.?

I believe that it is primarily through this section that one has to establish whether the complainant was treated on ?equal footing? as the respondent. In the absence of Objectively Measurable and / or External Subjective merit base, one has the right to the highest level of service as the other person to the complaint. Other sections of the Act indicate and / or specify how to measure ?service? / experience and not why it happened. Section 9 is the primary section to assess whether race was a factor that influenced the service.

As per this section, all services and benefits that cannot be measured on the basis of merit have to be divided Equally between the participants who qualify as ?Australians?. The merit basis is needed for the progress of an ?individual?. The Common pool to be divided Equally is needed for us to remain a family / institution / nation. The higher this Common Pool, the stronger the family / institutional / national feelings.

As per the questions asked by many Australian and New South Wales government agencies, race / ethnic origin is a factor in assessing a person?s eligibility for service. Hence the questions as to Aboriginality and Nationality. It is common knowledge that migrants who ?look? non-English are described by their ethnic origins ? for example ? Indian / Sri Lankan / Italian / Aborigine etc. It is a ?natural fact?. The University of New South Wales and the NSW Police were not exceptions to this. But an officer on duty is required by his position to think on merit basis ? as per his / her institutional values and / or common principles. The NSW Police Officers who arrested me described me as an Indian ? purely on the basis of my ?looks?. This is a recorded ?natural fact? born in the eyes and described through the personal knowledge of the officer. Police Officers who had deeper knowledge of me through their information from the University of New South Wales (UNSW), described me as ?Sri Lankan?. This is a ?natural fact? born in the ears of Police and eyes of old UNSW staff, which overrode the facts observed by the eyes only. As per the NSW Crown Solicitor there is nothing wrong in describing a person by his / her ethnic origin in the ?nationality? field. In other words, all the work I had done to obtain Australian citizenship is wasted when I am before the NSW Government and its agencies. Given that the Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission has also effectively endorsed this, I conclude that my work is wasted before Federal agencies also. Today, whilst waiting to be seen by a doctor, I heard in the news that your government is moving towards having an ?Australian Proficiency? test for migrants before they become citizens. I said to my husband that the ones to fail first would be the Police and the Government Officers born in Australia. It?s like the exams that I, a Sri Lankan Chartered Accountant was required to do to qualify for Australian qualifications. Had I spent time and money to do this, it is highly likely that I would not have known that Sri Lankan qualified accountants were in fact technically superior to Australian qualified accountants of my time / generation. Migrants are getting more and more educated into becoming adopted children of Australia. But those who are born here and who ?look? naturally Australian are not ready for multiculturalism and therefore for internationalism which is necessary to be successful in today?s multicultural Australia. This need for multicultural path cannot be overridden by Anti Terrorism measures, without the serious risk of physical level war, where migrants have worked genuinely to enjoy life on merit basis.

When your government introduces legislation to combat Terrorism, it is important to take into account the realities of government administration. If you fail to allow for the weaknesses of government administration, such legislation would lead to Terrorism. Terrorism already exists each time there is unjust discrimination. The UNSW Administrators and the NSW Police have already created Terrorism through my matters. The ?form? has already been given in local terms. I am doing all I can to return their active terrorism through my legal actions. Once I give up ? others are likely to ?pick? up the action and react as per their ?local? translations of the matter ? as the Courts and the Health Service did ? when UNSW failed to take ?ownership? of the problem born within its system. If you call rebellious Muslims and Tamils terrorists, then so are the Australian and NSW Governments and the Judiciary.

Racial Discrimination does exist and is actively promoted by the Australian and NSW Governments. This is necessary if one were to benefit from the diverse cultures that make up Australia. In all cases where the complainant ?looks? to be of a different race to the respondent and / or where the administration includes questions relating to race and / or ethnic origins, the test ought to be limited to whether or not the ?merit? base was applied first and ?Equal footing? was measured after and whether the complainant actually believed that race was a factor that influenced the actions.

Last Sunday, I was wondering whether I ought to seek the services of a Tamil doctor in our Sathya Sai Baba religious group to treat me for the physical pain I was experiencing. This doctor is from Carlingford area and I am from Coogee. Whilst the thought was tempting, I felt that it would deny my local doctor the opportunity and it would have been due to me feeling comfortable with my own race. In effect, it would have been in breach of Section 9 of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 because the choice of Medicare doctor ought to be made on ?merit? basis except in an emergency. I do use private services in ?Homebush? area where they are less costly in terms of money now that I have more ?time?. Some of them are less than half the Coogee price. Sometimes I added my own ?bonus? so I did not feel that I was unjustly exploiting migrant services. But these are on ?merit? basis which includes the dollar value of the service.

The NSW Police had the ?time? and the UNSW had the money. NSW Police are like Sri Lanka and the UNSW is like Australia. Sri Lankans have the pain and Australians show it to the world. Unless Australians ?feel? the pain they have the responsibility to ?think? through common principles and ?show? their thinking through common language. We measure civilization through this common ?thinking? and ?showing?. I recall the controversy over your description of Aboriginal civilization, a few years? back. I ask you to now assess the English-Australian civilization through International measures and ask yourself whether you had the ?authority? to ?judge?.

Recently, I said to a UNSW Law graduate who was eagerly offering to help me publish my book, that the Court system in Australia was very uncivilized. I said that ?affidavits? were used often to submit external evidence. This indicates that those lawyers were trying to fool judges into thinking that the lawyers had had the experience. According to my Sri Lankan brains, Affidavits ought to be produced only when external evidence is not available to present the experience to the Court. Once the primary players are ?hidden?, lawyers do not have the authority to submit affidavit evidence. But in Australian courts ? both Federal & NSW State, Affidavit evidence is used to present evidence external to the person making the affidavit. The affidavit is the transcript of our conversation with God / Conscience on that matter. The sanctity of such affidavit evidence is being tarnished by lawyers who desire quick wins by influencing weak judges. I believe I brought this out through my Supreme Court proceedings and hence if you are seeking to have a civilized Federal Court system, you would find ways to clean up such weaknesses.

Racism, like cancer, exists in Australian society. Unless you are ready to work to cure it, please do not raise it to the surface through alleged Anti-Terrorism measures. Former Australian Prime Minister, Mr. Malcolm Frazer confirmed recently that the Federal Government was aware in 1976 of Terrorism threats against Australians. The current Australian government is not equipped to cure Terrorism because it has failed to cure itself of Racism. This morning when I saw the doctor about the cyst that was causing me pain, she asked me to take a mammogram. I said ?no? ? on the basis that I would not put myself through the medical process. Hence why surface something for which there is no cure for me? My mind is a major part of curing invisible illnesses. I believe that this is the case with all strong minded persons. This is why I am not fearful of going into war-zones that others consciously avoid. I tend not to recognize what I cannot cure directly. I strongly recommend this to you and your government especially in Terrorism matters. Once you know / recognize that you cannot ?cure? what you consider to be a disease / problem, you would start observing the Truth as it exists. When I am not able to ?improve? my children without abandoning other more needy children outside my biological circles, I start ?seeing? them as part of wider society ? the society into which I helped them integrate and feel ?homely?. That way I do not feel directly responsible for ?common weaknesses? that majority Australians suffer from. Hence I do not feel special anxiety that my children are wrong. I strongly recommend this approach for you , in relation to those below you in government positions. Otherwise, your good work would be limited to your biological circles where they would not be appreciated and valued by the members of the current Government system. I believe that when you sacrifice earned benefits you become ?independent? to that extent and hence you would ?own? and derive your own values through the next level which could be International for you.

Out of the three levels mentioned above, the first two indicate a degree of dependence on ?others? outside ourselves. It?s like ?asking? God to be ?given?. At the third level, we are the owners and we derive our own benefits. That is true Independence / Nirvana.

I urge you to please recognize that majority Australians do discriminate on the basis of the ?seen? which includes race and skin colour. There is nothing unlawful about this. It is when we fail to apply the merit basis when ?Common? resources are included in producing our benefits, that such discrimination becomes unlawful. The assumption that Australians do not discriminate on the basis of race, gender, age, disability is a big lie in most cases ? especially in Public Service where time is more a factor than money. Only those who are driven by merit basis prove this assumption to be right. I asked the UNSW to ?show? that merit basis because I felt alienated. They failed to ?show? that merit basis. Hence those services ought to have been afforded Equally. In other words, the Vice Chancellor and I had the same status for such Common Services where merit basis was denied to the Public who own the UNSW.

The Services of the NSW Police should have been Equally provided where it was established that Objectively measurable merit basis was not used. In other words, the Vice Chancellor and I had equal entitlement to the Police, Court & Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Services and benefits where there was no measurable merit basis. In terms of family, where we do not have a merit based system through which family wealth is distributed, it belongs Equally to all members of that family. The Tamil dowry system was part of that merit base. Where such merit base exists, there needs to be Equal Opportunity for all members of the family to prove themselves through such merit base. Where there is no such merit base, the wealth is commonly owned and where it is distributed for individual ownership ? it must be Equally divided. Likewise, Public Service. If you have a merit based system to which I have ?open? access, then I must be graded by you on that merit base, for your time and intelligence. If you do not have such basis that could be Objectively or externally Subjectively measured, you have the responsibility to write to me as many letters as you would write to any any other Australian including Mr. Howard, who seeks your services at the physical level. If you do not do so, you are guilty of unlawful racism, to the extent you know that I am of a different race to you. It was on this basis that I sued Mr. Howard ? only to be dismissed by your Federal Court system.

In essence, where you are not able to divide your physical level services / benefits equally to all those who are part of your institution / nation, you have to have Objectively measurable merit basis for ?seen? benefits / services and External Subjectively measurable merit basis for known services / benefits that are not seen. Failure to have these measures puts you at risk of being unlawfully discriminatory on the basis of race, gender, disability and age. You may never be sued for this but you do not get the benefits of actually ?practicing? Equal Opportunity principles in your daily life. This means that you would not feel the opportunities created by the practitioners of Democracy.

Mr. Ruddock, I do believe that you are a good man. It?s an intuitive feeling about a fellow Australian. To me, on the basis of my own merit system you are better than Mr. Howard in Public Management. Hence I am better able to share my feelings with you and express my merit based thinking to you. It is a good opportunity for you to know the thinking of Asians ? especially those who are likely to be Terrorists in your books. If they are of your biological circles you are likely to call them criminals. Since they are not you call them Terrorists ? confirming that you do discriminate on the basis of race. Where the punishment is greater and cannot be connected to common principles those who dish out the punishment are guilty of unlawful racism.

The more you practice lawful racism consciously and expressly, the greater the possibility of you identifying unlawful racism. Lawful racism is called diversity. For example, if you have the bibles of various religions in Australia, in our court system, you would be practicing lawful racism. Until all Australians are able to independently speak their minds as per their conscience, you need religious confirmation through oaths in affidavits and subjective evidence directly spoken in court. Until then the courts are biased towards Christians who see God through Jesus and the Christian Bible. This is needed by Australians who are dependent on others and who do not have the lawful facility to use their own religious bibles. The more you facilitate this, the more likely you are to not accuse a migrant of Terrorism.

Racial discrimination pain comes back to Australians in many ways that are not controlled by Australians. One such example is child-abduction by estranged migrant parents, about which you now seek to do something through the governments of the countries to which these parents return. Is that just and fair when you are not able to get your own system to deliver the statement that we, the genuine migrants are owners of Australia ? i.e. ? that Australia is our home just as much as it is yours? ? that I am Australian and not Sri Lankan? To the extent your system has failed to correct that statement I have every right to take my children back to Sri Lanka where I am taken to belong naturally. If you were god, would you not recognize that it is Australian racism karma that mentally and sometimes physically sends migrants back to their countries of origin that is coming back to Australians through estranged migrant parents who take away babies who are labeled Australians. How can they be truly Australians when even one parent is labeled as per his/her ethnic origin? I do believe that when you address the problem within, the solution for us would start developing in our own minds. The rest is to ?show? others.

Thank you again for sharing your thoughts with me ? more generously than any of your counterparts. You continue to be in my prayers for this reason. I do believe that like with choice of doctors, we the members of the public can reward politicians on merit basis through the avenues available to us ? which in this instance is through Our Lady of Schoenstatt.

Yours sincerely,

Gaja Lakshmi Paramasivam

CC: All Concerned, including:
The Hon Kofi Annan ? Secretary General of the United Nations
The Hon Louise Arbour ? UN High Commissioner for Human Rights OHCHR-UNOG
8-14 Avenue de la Paix 1211 Geneva 10 Switzerland
The Hon John von Doussa, QC ? President, Human Rights & Equal Opportunity Commission
The Hon John Howard, MP ? Prime Minister

And if you want to post your own work , post it in your own LN member space

Revy don't take care of forest.

I never saw such lying hypocrite, forest still not replied to my questions.

Kural bro, don't mind her, she has a good heart, just not such a good grasp on reality. She keeps going on about LTTE accepting a political settlement when the GoSL has never bothered to put one forward, etc. etc.