I just saw this article on the BBC website.
So let me just get the logic of this straight (facts are as I got them from the article by the way so correct me if they are wrong and pass that onto the BBC as well):
1) There is a Tamil language paper called the Uthayan
2) There is a group called the Tamil Alliance to Protect the Country
3) The Alliance has supposedly accused the Uthayan of being a “mouthpiece for terrorists” and aiming to destroy peace and that the Uthayan employees and all associated newsagents and such will be facing “capital punishment” if they do not resign by the 30th of June.
Now tell me do you see the fallacy there? Can you spot the mistake in this logical reasoning, assuming all facts above are true?
Because tell me how the hell can you be a Tamil Alliance to Protect the Country (from what/who exactly?) and at the same time threaten to kill people? How can you say you are safeguarding peace and accuse someone (whether it is true or not) of undermining peace in the country when you are threatening to kill people (which in itself is not a peaceful action)? But then logic and dogmatic belief don’t like to mix.
This was what I was afraid of, that even with the war ending, there is and still will be a lot of work to be done to ensure we don’t have all these odd factions of any ethnicity turning up thinking that the best way to solve these issues is to clearly intimidate, threaten, harrass or kill those who say something you do not entirely agree with. Taken to an extreme, that could very easily plunge us into another war again. We don’t need anyone fighting with anyone else for any more reasons – we have a country to rebuild and a global financial crisis to get through.
I hope there is a solution though so that people can get on with doing the work they need to do whether it is in the media or in any other industry.