This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 COLOMBO 000858 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
 
STATE FOR SA/INS AND DRL/IRF 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PHUM KIRF PGOV CE
SUBJECT: LEGISLATIVE LIMBO?:  ANTI-CONVERSION BILL SENT TO 
PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE 
 
REF: A. COLOMBO 0818 
 
     ¶B. COLOMBO 0787 
     ¶C. 04 COLOMBO 1379 
 
¶1.  (SBU)  Summary:  The private member's bill presented by 
the Buddhist nationalist Jathika Hela Urumayu (JHU) to 
prohibit "unethical" conversion was read out in Parliament 
for the second time on May 6.  The Speaker referred the bill 
to an as-yet unconstituted Standing Committee for further 
review; the Committee will have six months from the date of 
its appointment in which to complete its review.  Although 
the JHU is optimistic that the bill will pass by mid-June, we 
believe the Speaker's move could be a delaying tactic 
intended to keep the bill from ever seeing the legislative 
light of day.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (U)  The private member's bill presented by the Buddhist 
nationalist Jathika Hela Urumayu (JHU) to ban so-called 
"unethical" conversions was read out in Parliament for the 
second time on May 6. Speaker W.J.M.Lokubandara, a member of 
the opposition United National Party (UNP), referred the bill 
to an as-yet unconstituted Standing Committee, to be composed 
of 35 government and opposition MPs, to modify the bill in 
accord with Supreme Court findings that key parts of the 
proposed legislation were unconstitutional (Ref C).  The 
Committee will have six months from the date of its 
still-pending constitution to consider proposals for 
amendments to the bill, including from members of the public, 
before presenting its final recommendation.  Any changes 
proposed to the bill by the Committee in addition to those 
recommended by the Supreme Court can then either be accepted 
or rejected by the JHU before the bill is brought for a third 
reading and final vote.  If the bill is not amended in accord 
with Supreme Court recommendations, it will require a 
two-thirds majority for passage. 
 
¶3.  (SBU)  The JHU seems confident that the Standing 
Committee will move expeditiously and the bill will 
pass--with one optimistic MP suggesting June 21, the day Sri 
Lankan Buddhists celebrate the conversion of the island's 
inhabitants to the majority religion almost 3,000 years ago, 
as a possible date.  Another JHU MP, Ven. Athureliye Ratana 
Thero, told us on May 9 that he does not expect the 
Government to introduce its own draft legislation, leaving 
the way clear for the JHU bill to go forward.  (Note:  His 
assessment that the government will not proceed at this time 
with its bill tracks with our understanding as well.  The 
Secretary of the Buddha Sasana Ministry told POL FSN in late 
 
SIPDIS 
April that the Minister had instructed him to withhold 
gazetting the Government bill, citing U.S. opposition.  End 
note.) 
 
¶4.  (U) Catholic, evangelical and mainstream Protestant 
leaders staged a protest rally against proposed 
anti-conversion legislation in the predominantly Christian 
area of Chilaw in northwestern Sri Lanka on May 7.  The 
two-hour rally was peaceful, according to the Senior 
Superintendent of Police for the area, but few national-level 
or local politicians attended, other than Minister of 
Christian Affairs Milroy Fernando, who hails from Chilaw. 
The National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka 
estimated the crowd at 2,500. 
 
¶5.  (SBU)  It has been ten months since the JHU presented its 
controversial bill for a first reading, and nine months since 
the Supreme Court found essential parts of it 
unconstitutional.  Depending on how quickly the Speaker 
appoints members to the Standing Committee--and how quickly 
the Committee decides on revisions to the bill--it could be 
many months more before the JHU's proposed legislation has 
its third reading.  We think this extended time frame would 
suit most members of the two largest parties, from whom there 
seems to be little enthusiasm for the bill, just fine.  With 
the exception of the JHU, most MPs we talk to acknowledge 
that passage--and even discussion--of such a bill would be 
inimical to religious tolerance and could incite greater 
communal discord.  In his April 20 discussion with Assistant 
Secretary for South Asian Affairs Christina Rocca, Opposition 
 
SIPDIS 
Leader Ranil Wickremesinghe said that his United National 
Party is opposed to the legislation and had tried to stop the 
JHU bill in committee (Ref B).  The Speaker's foot-dragging 
in appointing MPs to the Standing Committee may be intended 
to do just that by drawing out the proceedings for as long as 
possible.  We are pleased by the Government's apparent 
decision to hold off on pushing its own version of 
anti-conversion legislation forward, and will continue to 
press our view that any such legislation could undermine 
religious freedom in Sri Lanka. 
ENTWISTLE