Reorienting the Tigers

IT IS now quite evident that there is growing international agreement on the need for the LTTE to wage peace rather than help in perpetuating the current no-war, no-peace state of suspense. Sweden is the latest Western opinion moulder to impress on the LTTE the need to get back to the negotiating table.

Just a few days ago, reports said that a Tamil group based in Norway had urged the Norwegian government to prevail on the Tigers to disarm and make peace with the Lankan Government.

Continuing LTTE-inspired killings in particularly the East are likely to be adding to the urgency of these calls to the Tigers to desist from the path of armed confrontation.

Hopefully, the LTTE would see the wisdom of saying 'no' to war and appreciate the importance of getting back to the path of negotiations.

This point needs to be strongly impressed on the Tiger delegation which is currently touring the West with the expectation of winning a substantial amount of post-tsunami rehabilitation and reconstruction assistance.

While it is up to the governments concerned to tie or not tie the relief in question to the resumption and continuation of the Lankan peace process, we believe it is incumbent on them to enlighten the Tigers on the need to give peace a chance.

The Government of Sri Lanka could be said to be adhering to the letter and spirit of the Ceasefire Agreement by keeping the peace in the areas under its control. The same couldn't be said of the LTTE which is continuing its killing spree, gunning down with gay abandon those whom it sees as its enemies.

This has been happening from the time the Ceasefire Agreement was signed, and public opinion, both here and abroad, couldn't be faulted for seeing in the LTTE, the same old bestial streak. How come this continuing capacity for terror if it is believed to be inclined to peace?

While it is our hope that the Government of Sri Lanka would sooner rather than later do what is expected of it to reactivate the peace process, the LTTE is obliged to furnish concrete evidence of its peaceful intentions.

World opinion could help greatly in changing the LTTE attitude for the better and we call on more and more Western governments to bring pressure on the LTTE to return to the negotiating table.

Some Western governments have done well to raise the issue of child soldiers with the LTTE but they need to also impress on the parties to the conflict, the need to cooperate in an aid distributing administrative mechanism for the North-East which would eventually soften hearts and reorient them towards peace.

A landmark case

IF you believe that the Washington Post, no less, has wronged you in an article and you live in the United States, filing action the newspaper ought to be a rather straightforward matter. With the Internet, things are not so clear cut.

The Internet is not a physical entity and one can access it from anywhere. Is it possible to sue an online publication from any part of the world ? The legal and ethical complications are too complex.

Hyperbolic visions of the web's future are emerging in a landmark legal battle being waged in Canada - pitting the Washington Post and 50 media giants against an aggrieved former United Nations official.

The case hinges on whether persons who believe they have been wronged on a website can challenge a foreign publication in court where they live - or in a place where they may chose to reside in future.

Both sides are testing the limits of libel and defamation laws designed years ago for print publications. The Post is challenging an earlier court ruling that former UN official Cheickh Bangoura can sue the Post in Ontario over two articles that accused him of sexual and financial transgressions.

The paper and backers including CNN, the London Times and the Yomiuri Shimbun, argue that if the case goes ahead, any media organisation could be sued anywhere, over stories posted on its website.

This is indeed alarming from a purely journalistic point of view, as no online publication would be "safe" from legal action.

Some journalistic organisations have pointed out that the case could have important consequences for press freedom and online freedom of expression. If upheld on appeal, this ruling could dissuade many journalists from publishing their articles online.

Critics warn that media firms would be forced to employ lawyers in virtually every country with an online connection.

But there is another side of the coin. Anyone, not only the reputable newspaper companies, can maintain a website and it is rather difficult to trace their origins.

People can be slandered and reputations shattered. As Justice Robert Armstrong, one of three judges hearing the case, says, "the Internet can be a tremendous force for destroying a person's reputation".

It will not be an easy 'web' to untangle. There are too many complications and implications to consider, ranging from media freedom to privacy rights. There is no doubt that the outcome of the legal battle in Canada would shape of the future of online journalism.