Thread by @GehanDG

The state has a number of legal provisions at it's disposal to punish persons who say things that are perceived as offensive to a religion or belief. #lka

Section 3 of the ICCPR Act is one of them.

But to fall within the ambit of that section, there must be 'incitement'.

1/

'Incitement' isn't defined in the Act, but it generally means encouraging others to act in some way.

So, encouraging someone to commit an act of violence or discrimination (and if there's a real chance they would in fact act in that way) could be considered 'incitement'.

2/

If the speech concerned (however offensive) does not involve 'incitement', it falls outside the ICCPR Act.

3/

There are also offences under the Penal Code that can be deployed against allegedly offensive speech.

These offences are much broader than section 3 of the ICCPR Act, and can cover speech that doesn't involve incitement.

4/

For example, section 291B of the Penal Code refers to speaking words that insults the religion or religious beliefs of a particular group.

But a crucial element in this offence is that the relevant words must be spoken with a specific intention.

5/

The offender must have a deliberate AND malicious intention to outrage the religious feelings of a group.

If words are spoken without such a deliberate and malicious intention, they fall outside the scope of the offence.

6/

But there is little benefit in deconstructing or analysing these offences if the problem is not a matter of textual interpretation, but a matter of good faith or bad faith application of the law.

7/

If law enforcement officials act purely in good faith, it may not be very difficult to examine the relevant speech and determine whether there is incitement (for the ICCPR Act to apply) or deliberate and malicious intent (for s.291B of the Penal Code to apply).

8/

But if law is applied in bad faith, ANY speech that discusses religion or belief in some irreverent way, and can be potentially offensive towards some group, can be treated as falling within the scope of one of these offences.

9/

And, in some cases, (e.g. the cases of Shakthika Sathkumara and Sepal Amarasinghe), after a prolonged period of harassment and pre-trial detention, the total irrelevance of the offences is acknowledged, and the charges are eventually dropped.

10/

*its