JHU to re-present amended Anti-conversion Bill

The Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) is to revive anti conversion laws by re-presenting an amended bill in place of the controversial “Prohibition of Forcible Religious Conversions Bill,” presented in 2004.
“We will be re-presenting a slightly amended bill, but it will not differ significantly from the previous one. After its first and second reading, the earlier Bill was referred to a Parliamentary Select Committee headed by dissident Parliamentarian Wijedasa Rajapaksa,” Speaking to The Bottom Line, JHU Spokesperson Nishantha Sri Warnasinghe said.
“However, Ven. Itthapane Dhammalankara Thera and Ven. Maduluwawe Sobitha Thera made representations last year to the Committee on behalf of the Inter faith Confederation (Sarwagamika Samuluwa) stating that such legislation was unnecessary and that issues of conversions should be resolved by forums comprised of religious leaders,” he said.
“However, with the defection of MP Wijedasa Rajapaksa, the committee became dysfunctional. We have made a proposal to the Speaker to appoint a MP from the JHU in order to fulfill our promise.”
“Following the Supreme Court determination and select committee proceedings, we have made some slight changes but the Bill has not changed in principle,” he added.
Leader of the JHU, Ven. Ellawala Medhananda is tipped to have been nominated to the chair, The Bottom Line learns.
The draft bill proposed that imprisonment of not exceeding five years and a fine not exceeding Rs.150,000 should be imposed on a person found guilty of using force, allurement or fraudulent means to convert a person to another religion.
Schedule I referred to in Section 4 (a) of the bill further states that a person found guilty of converting a minor, a woman, Samurdhi beneficiary, prison inmates, inmates of rehabilitation and detention centers, physically and mentally disabled, employees of an organisation, members of the armed forces or police, students, inmates of hospitals and or places of healing and refugee camps and any other category as may be prescribed by the Minister of the subject by regulations, will have to serve an imprisonment not exceeding seven years and also be liable to a fine not exceeding Rs.500,000.
The constitutionality of the bill was challenged and the Supreme Court ruled that Clause 3, which made it mandatory to report a conversion to the Divisional Secretary and Clause 4(a), which made it an offence where one failed to meet the terms of Clause 3, were unconstitutional.
Clause 4 was amended to provide for the institution of all prosecutions under the Bill to be carried out according to the Criminal Procedure Act; while Clause 5 was altered to stipulate that such institution of prosecution should have the written sanctions of the Attorney General.
In June 2004, Buddha Sasana Minister and Deputy Defence Minister Ratnasiri Wickramanayake presented another bill aimed at curtailing conversions named Freedom of Religions Bill, which was more draconian than the JHU bill in its outlook.
Mainline Christian Churches, including the Roman Catholic Church, said that although both the JHU and the Government assured that mainline churches have nothing to fear from the new bills and that they were solely against certain activities of fundamentalist churches, the bills in question did not make any distinction between mainline churches and fundamentalist churches.
Either of these two bills, if enacted into law, would result in the persecution of religious minorities under statutory sanction, minority religious leaders opined.( Bottom Line)