Sri Lanka News Updates with Discussions

Where is Chennai ...?

but my question was they didnt had ant problems when it was english which was not their language either right?
so how come all of a sudden they have problems in changing english to sinhala?
and for your info ''mr know it al there were enough provisions in the 56 language act to work in tamil in the tamil speaking areas

'As a Tamil speaking citizen, if I do not use my mother tongue, I will soon be forced to use my brother's tongue. The sterile and impotent provisions now appearing in our constitution have little meaning to the Tamil-speaking people of the northern and eastern provinces. They need to govern themselves in their own language with little interference from outside,' the newly appointed supreme court judge said.

'Whether the Tamil language is spoken and preserved in other countries is irrelevant. The Sri Lankan Tamils need to develop their language and culture peculiar to themselves in their country'.


'The majority of those in the northern and eastern provinces were always Tamil speaking until independence and their language, religions -mainly Islamic, Christian and Hindu- culture, and customs and ways of life within the special topographical and climatic environment should have been allowed to blossom and flourish without interference after independence.'

'The vast majority of the denizens of the north and east seek the restoration of their rights and not devolution of power. These are the rights which were snatched away from them by virtue of a mathematical innovation where the majority in the two provinces were added to the majority in the seven provinces and thus made a minority in the nine provinces' said Justice C.V Vigneswaran in his ceremonial acceptance speech Wednesday on being appointed as judge to Sri Lanka's Supreme Court.

Portuguese prathical carapothu

tamil home land in the north n east and does it says that tamils were discriminated by changing the official language from english to sinhala?

in courts :))))

The Tamils are not against the Sinhala language but they were against the second class status given by the 1956 language law of Bandaranaike government.

Don't get upset on the fact that mostly history deals with Sinhalese and some times Tamils.

In a historic judgement, the Delhi High Court on Thursday decriminalized homosexuality by reading down section 377 of the Indian Penal Code.

The Section 377 of the IPC as far as it criminalizes gay sex among consenting adults is violation of fundamental rights, said the high court. However, Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code which criminalizes homosexuality, will continue for non-consensual and non-vaginal sex.

Any kind of discrimination is anti-thesis of right to equality, said the court, while allowing plea of gay rights activists for decriminalization of homosexuality.

A bench of Chief Justice Ajit Prakash Shah and Justice S Muralidhar said that if not amended, section 377 of the IPC would violate Article 21 of the Indian constitution, which states that every citizen has equal opportunity of life and is equal before law.

The court said that this judgement will hold till Parliament chooses to amend the law.

'In our view Indian Constitutional law does not permit the statutory criminal law to be held captive by the popular misconception of who the LGBTs (lesbian gay bisexual transgender) are.

'It cannot be forgotten that discrimination is antithesis of equality and that it is the recognition of equality which will foster dignity of every individual,' the bench said in its 105-page judgement.

Section 377, a law from the British Raj era, says homosexuality and 'unnatural sex' is a criminal act.

While the home ministry wanted the petition to be dismissed, the health ministry supported its contention that section 377 criminalized homosexuality per se, it was obstructing the AIDS/HIV prevention efforts among high-risk groups. Whatever the outcome, this is the second time the Delhi high court will be pronouncing on Naz Foundation s petition against section 377. In 2004, it dismissed the petition at the preliminary stage stating that an academic challenge to the constitutionality of a legislative provision could not be entertained. It further said that when no personal injury was caused to the petitioner by this provision, the petition could not be examined.

The foundation then approached the Supreme Court, which disapproved the manner in which the high court had disposed of the matter. SC observed that when there was a debate on this issue the world over, where is the question of the petition being academic? We are not able to accept the approach of the high court that it is an academic exercise and there is no personal injury. Accordingly, in 2006, SC directed HC to reconsider the matter in detail. The judgment is coming close on the heels of statements from ministers on the possibility of a legislative intervention because of growing demands from the community of lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders (LGBT). If the judgment serves the purpose of decriminalizing homosexuality, the government will be spared the burden of amending a provision laden with religious and cultural sensitivities.

Interestingly, in the new team of law officers appointed by the government, at least two of them attorney general Goolam Vahanvati and additional solicitor general Indira Jaising - have publicly supported the demand for decriminalizing homosexuality.

timesofindia