Evidence of meeting #6 for Subcommittee on International Human Rights in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was macrae.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Callum Macrae  As an Individual

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

I call the meeting to order.

Today is November 28, 2013, and this is the sixth meeting of the Subcommittee on International Human Rights of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. As per our agenda, pursuant to Standing Order No. 108, we are continuing our study of the human rights situation in Sri Lanka.

With us today from London is Callum Macrae, who is a reporter—there may be a more grandiose title—with Channel 4 News. He has done work on the killing fields in Sri Lanka and can add, I think, some very interesting testimony.

Welcome to our subcommittee, Mr. Macrae.

1:10 p.m.

Callum Macrae As an Individual

Thank you for inviting me.

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

Please take as much time as you want. We'll give you some uninterrupted time to give your testimony, which you can structure any way you want, and then when it's done, we'll go to a question and answer session in which all of the members who are present will have the opportunity to ask you a few questions.

1:10 p.m.

As an Individual

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

Thank you.

1:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Callum Macrae

Should I commence now?

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

Absolutely.

1:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Callum Macrae

I'll just introduce myself. My name is Callum Macrae. I am the director of a series of films. I've made three films looking at the human rights situation in Sri Lanka, and in particular, the events of the last few months of the war.

The first two films were made for British television in Sri Lanka's Killing Fields series, and then the most recent one is a feature documentary, No Fire Zone, which looks at the last 138 days of the war, and in particular, presents the evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed by both sides, although the vast majority of people who died did die as a result of government shelling.

The films have been cited by the UN as having had a significant role in bringing the attention of the world to what happened. Indeed the most recent film, No Fire Zone, was raised in Parliament by David Cameron, our Prime Minister, who saw it and actually raised the issues in it directly with President Rajapaksa. There is a reason I'm telling you all this; it's fair to say that I'm not a particularly popular person with the regime in Sri Lanka.

I understand that you have had a lot of evidence about particular events and statistics, and material about what's been going on in terms of human rights. I thought it might be most useful, rather than repeating that kind of material, if I could actually describe very specifically what I saw and experienced in terms of media freedom and freedom of expression in Sri Lanka the week before last when I was at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, CHOGM.

1:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

That would be really great testimony, yes.

1:10 p.m.

As an Individual

Callum Macrae

I suppose the process and my experiences with freedom of expression first started when I was interviewed by a Sri Lankan newspaper and mentioned that I intended to come to CHOGM, as I had done with the Australian CHOGM, to cover events there. The immediate response of this was a series of tweets by a middle-ranking diplomat called Bandula Jayasekara in Australia, who is significant also because he used to be the president's media adviser. He did a series of tweets in which he said, "I will make sure you don't get a visa." He tweeted 30 to 40 times and accused me of being funded by the Tamil Tigers and of being a propagandist on behalf of terror, despite the fact that quite clearly in the film we condemn the Tamil Tigers for having used acts of terror and suicide bombers, and for having shot at their own civilians. This clearly condemned them as people who have committed war crimes.

That set the tone for an incredibly hostile attitude towards me, which captures the paranoid nature of the regime. I don't use this term lightly as an insult. I think it's actually a technical description, because anyone who criticizes the regime or raises concerns over human rights, war crimes, and crimes against humanity is regarded as either an enemy of the state or a terrorist supporter, or perhaps worst of all, if they are Sinhala, a traitor.

The other thing that was consequent on my saying that I was planning to come was a series of online comments in response to the interview that said things such as, “You're welcome to come to Sri Lanka, but you will leave in a coffin.” “Come to Sri Lanka, we will have a white van waiting for you.” I'm sure you've heard testimony about the white vans. They're an instrument of terror and are used partly as a kind of act of political intimidation, but also very specifically are used to abduct people who usually disappear subsequently.

Another one said, “Come to Sri Lanka, and we will take you to meet Lasantha.” Lasantha Wickrematunge was the editor of the The Sunday Leader, the founder of The Sunday Leader who, after he wrote an editorial in January criticizing the triumphalism of the imminent defeat of the Tigers, was shot down in the streets by four assailants who have never been found. He subsequently, as you may have heard, published an editorial posthumously in which he identified his assassins as the government.

That was the kind of context in which we arrived. I went and travelled out. I'm actually the director of these movies, but the first two were made through Channel 4, and the last one is co-produced by Channel 4, so I went out with the Channel 4 news team. During the war, the Channel 4 news team was itself expelled for having raised some of these concerns. We were only able to go, and I was only able to be given the visa, because we understand that the British Prime Minister said that unless the media were given free access, he would not go.

We then arrived. We were met at the airport by a large demonstration, clearly orchestrated by the government. Indeed, we hadn't announced what plane we were coming on, so there was clearly intelligence behind it. It was a large demonstration of people with large numbers of banners, condemning us as supporting the LTTE, shouting "Macrae go home", and so on. We then went to our hotel where there was another demonstration with similar posters.

For the next few days, everything we did was monitored. There were intelligence officers outside our hotel, and everywhere we went we were followed by them. I just heard today, in fact, that at one point I went to visit someone from Amnesty International who was staying at a different hotel, and the next day, a whole series of intelligence officers turned up at that hotel and demanded the guest list to see who was there. There was a very intimidatory atmosphere.

At one point, we tried to go to the north to see if we could get to the former war zone, because we had been invited and told we would have free access to do our job.

We left the hotel at six in the morning, discreetly without announcing we were going, and we were immediately followed onto the train by intelligence—military intelligence, we understand—who sat on the train. After about four or five hours, the train was suddenly stopped by a large demonstration of several hundred people all carrying very similar posters, which obviously either had been organized at very short notice when it was discovered we were getting on the train or had been organized earlier, if perhaps intelligence had been listening to our telephone calls or monitoring our conversations in our rooms, which we suspect now was also happening.

That demonstration—again, there were the same slogans—prevented us from travelling north. The train was stopped. We sat there for about two hours and were eventually bundled off the train by the police. There was a slightly curious incident, in fact, where we were bundled by the police into a van, with police motorbikes in front and the police van behind, and we were sent indirectly back to Colombo. Then the next day all the papers ran a story saying we had refused to pay the taxi driver and he had lodged a complaint with the police. This was a farcical situation, and it went on for about two or three days, in which the press was obsessed with the fact that we tried to avoid paying a taxi fare. The fact that it's generally regarded as inappropriate, if you're bundled into a van by the police, to offer them money didn't seem to wash.

Rather more seriously, however, clearly there was an orchestrated attempt to prevent us from doing our job. Rather more seriously, while we were trying to get up north, there were three busloads of relatives of the disappeared trying to get down south to attend a human rights vigil and event, and they were stopped by the police. They were prevented from travelling down to the south. Some who did get there were then surrounded by police who would not let them leave and threatened to arrest them saying that there were suspected terrorists there.

There was also an orchestrated demonstration, this time led by the BBS, we understand, which is an ultra-Sinhala nationalist organization that has been responsible for a series of violent demonstrations and violent attacks on Muslim business and also on Christian churches now, increasingly in the south, led by saffron-robed Buddhist priests. The leader of the opposition party, the UNP, tried to attend this vigil also and his car was stoned.

Subsequently, my colleague Jonathan Miller was also stoned in a demonstration, apparently spontaneously organized, when he was interviewing somebody. He went to interview some businessmen, actually some Sinhala businessmen, to talk about progress in the country. When he came out, there had been a demonstration organized and stones were thrown at them.

There is an incredible culture of repression, and I have to say, absolutely no evidence of any kind of freedom of expression in the country, something that was really brought home to us. Also we spoke to the media. I did speak to quite a few journalists, and they have an enormously difficult job. It's necessary, because of the threats and because so many media workers have disappeared, to use self-censorship or to use mechanisms for telling the truth, for example, slipping in bits of information dressed up in clearly uncritical pro-government rhetoric, but actually with news slipped in there. The work of journalists is very, very difficult. There are many journalists who are trying to do their best in extraordinarily difficult circumstances.

Equally, there are state-sponsored, state-owned newspapers, The Daily News, for example, which is a Sri Lankan newspaper, that are utterly slavish in their commentary, and also television as well. For example, I was interviewed and repeatedly made the point that I regarded the Tamil Tigers, those people who used acts of terror and who committed war crimes, as a reprehensible organization. I noticed on one news report that the people of Sri Lanka were being told that Callum Macrae, the Tamil Tiger supporter, was there causing trouble. It actually showed footage of me making that speech with the audio turned down and with a commentary that simply described me as a Tamil Tiger supporter who was there to tell lies about the government.

It is a very, very difficult situation.

I'm not quite sure how much more time I have before I should answer questions. Please do let me know if I've spoken for too long.

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

I have no objection to your going a bit longer, if you have something else that you think will help wrap things up. I can tell you, however, that I think you'll find the questions and answers quite helpful as well in allowing you to expand on the things that are important to you.

1:20 p.m.

As an Individual

Callum Macrae

Okay, I'll just make one final point, which may be useful. It is a perception that I had, and it may or may not be useful to you. I'll do it very briefly.

What seems to be happening in Sri Lanka is that the government knows it has to stay in power or it's all over, as it were. The regime is very much a nepotistic family-run regime with a great deal of corruption, a great deal of family business tied up in it, a great deal of financial and business interests linked with the family. Of course, there are these war crime allegations and the very serious evidence of war crimes hanging over them, so they know in a sense that they have to stay in power or it's all over.

I have discussed this with Sri Lankans whom I managed to have conservations with when we were fairly sure we weren't being listened to, and it seems that the regime is increasingly reliant on a very—I mentioned the word paranoia earlier—xenophobic, paranoiac, increasingly ultra-nationalist, and increasingly, in conventional terminology, ultra-right base which they use to maintain their support, and to maintain a rather dangerous support of organizations such as the BBS.

They increasingly seem to be less concerned about taking with them the Sinhala liberal establishment, if you like, the lawyers, the law society, and various.... I use “liberal” in the British sense of the word, rather than the North American sense of the word.

They don't seem to see the need to preserve the illusion of a broad democratic liberal process. They are increasingly happy to rely on this rather dangerous ultra-nationalist, xenophobic, and violent culture to hold on to power. That is a cause for deep concern.

In a sense, that is what I think lay behind Navi Pillay's comment that the country was sinking into authoritarianism. I found it quite disturbing and quite sinister. It's certainly an indication that things are getting worse rather than better.

1:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

Thank you very much. Before we go to questions from the membership of the committee, I have just a brief one myself.

In regard to your videos on the subject, your documentaries, if we wanted to find them online, given the fact that our committee operates in both languages and we have members of the committee who speak only French, is there any availability of French subtitles or anything of that sort for your videos? If so, could you give us the address for it?

1:20 p.m.

As an Individual

Callum Macrae

Yes, I did actually send to your committee clerk two links that I am more than happy to make available to your committee members. I think she has that information already, and she could perhaps pass it on. There are links to both the English version of the film and a version with French subtitles. These are password protected, because obviously, we're still trying to sell some of the films, trying to raise money to pay for them, so we can't make them completely available, but for your members, I would be more than happy that they be given the address and the password so they could look at either the English or the French-subtitled versions.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

That's excellent. If you could send that to our clerk, I'll undertake that we give that information to the committee members, and they will undertake to not make that generally available.

1:25 p.m.

As an Individual

Callum Macrae

That would be very kind, thank you.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

Let's go now to Mr. Schellenberger. You have six minutes for questions and answers.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Mr. Macrae, for your testimony here today.

How do you believe the international community can be most effective in pressing for accountability and reconciliation in Sri Lanka?

1:25 p.m.

As an Individual

Callum Macrae

In a sense, the next key event which is coming up is the United Nations Human Rights Council.

I think the problem is that the international community has for the past four years said, quite correctly, that the state should first investigate the allegations within the state. This would be in line with all international norms, in any case. The problem is that the Sri Lankan government has not done so for four years, and I believe is not capable of doing so.

It did launch a thing called the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission, LLRC, which you may have discussed, which entirely failed to deal in any respect with allegations of war crimes or crimes against humanity. It did make a few good suggestions in terms of responsibility to search for the disappeared or to trace the disappeared, responsibility of getting the Ministry of Defence to withdraw from civilian administration to the extent that it is involved just now. These kinds of recommendations, although good ones, were completely ignored. The trouble is that Sri Lanka does have a record of producing endless investigations and presidential commissions which are often never published at all. Even when they are published, nothing is done on them. I think that in practice they've shown that they are not willing.

I'm sure you will also discuss this, but the removal of the chief justice, the impeachment of the chief justice, and this is what the law society of Sri Lanka, the Bar Association of Sri Lanka, is also saying, has effectively gone some way to destroy, if not actually to completely destroy, the independence of the judiciary. I would argue that they have demonstrated they're not willing, and in practice, they are no longer capable because they do not have an independent judiciary for managing such an inquiry. For that reason, I think that the pressure and the demands for an international independent inquiry are overwhelming.

I think it should have happened a long time ago, but I certainly think it should happen in March. I think it's extremely important that in March at the United Nations Human Rights Council that call be made formally. Navi Pillay has said that if nothing happens before March, that should happen. I think that David Cameron has now also said exactly the same thing.

I think that is very, very important. I'm slightly concerned that there is some discussion or suggestion that South Africa is suggesting helping setting up some kind of form of truth and reconciliation commission. Obviously, in principle, I'm absolutely in favour of such a thing. I think that South Africa is absolutely the best country to help advise on such a thing. The problem is that we know from the pattern of the past that this would be seized upon by the Sri Lankan government as an excuse for putting off the international inquiry, which I now believe is the only way forward. It would not actually be, given what we know about the way Sri Lanka operates, a useful way forward, and I think it needs to be shown as not being a sensible way forward.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Prime Minister Harper did not attend the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting held in Sri Lanka because of the country's poor human rights record. Some close Canadian allies, including Great Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, chose to attend.

In your view, what was the effect of the decision by Prime Minister Harper, and the prime ministers of India and Mauritius, not to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting? What is your assessment on the impact of British Prime Minister David Cameron's efforts to call attention to continuing impunity in Sri Lanka in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting?

1:30 p.m.

As an Individual

Callum Macrae

I think that both approaches were significant, and I think, actually—this may seem to be a curious thing to say—the approaches were quite effective. I think that the decision of your Prime Minister early on to say, “Look, unless you deliver, I'm not going to come”, was important. I wish actually that, in fact, other countries had done that. I was unhappy personally that David Cameron had so early on said he was going. I think that kind of undermined the pressure that could have been built up in advance of the Commonwealth meeting for some kind of progress and some kind of improvement.

I support both of them, in a sense. I didn't support my Prime Minister's decision to announce that he was going so early. Having said that, it is certainly true that he did speak out quite boldly and quite firmly when he was there. Given that the meeting was going to go ahead, this also helped, and he then, I think, was clear and unequivocal in the concerns he raised.

That's not a very satisfactory answer, but I think in a sense he did, if you like, in my personal view, redeem his decision to go by raising the issues very firmly, and given that it was then happening, that was useful. But I would have hoped that more people would have supported your Prime Minister's position earlier on and used that not just as a kind of negative, “I'm not going”, but to use that as a way of exacting pressure.

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Gary Schellenberger Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON

Sure.

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Scott Reid

Thank you Mr. Schellenberger.

Mr. Marston, it's your turn.

1:30 p.m.

NDP

Wayne Marston NDP Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Macrae, welcome. We're pleased to hear from you.

Looking at this situation, we see the LLRC clearly has been a failure. It's been pretty much window dressing. What would you like to see the Commonwealth in particular, or the United Nations do to draw attention to the government's attack on the media?

1:30 p.m.

As an Individual

Callum Macrae

I'm very concerned about the damage that will be done to the Commonwealth by what is going on, by the fact that Sri Lanka is chairing it. It is an almost breathtakingly contradictory situation. You have a country that is appalling in its record on freedom of expression allegedly chairing an organization committed to freedom of expression.

It is incumbent upon members of the Commonwealth, and particularly through CMAG, the ministerial action group, to put continuous pressure on Sri Lanka. Unfortunately, of course, that committee is now chaired by Sri Lanka. Also, considerable pressure has to be put on the secretary-general of the Commonwealth, who I believe has played a deeply unhelpful role and has in a sense enabled this to happen.

One of the problems is that when the Sri Lankan government committed their final offensive, they used very much the language of the war on terror to justify what was happening, and to buy silence. The Tigers, leaving aside the ethics of what they did, also played into that by their continuous use of terrorist tactics. This has allowed the Sri Lankan government to represent what was going on as part of the war on terror.

At the end of all this, the president made a very clever speech to the United Nations in 2010, in which he basically claimed to have solved the terror problem and then demanded that everyone back off and let Sri Lanka come up with a culturally legitimate, homegrown solution. Ironically, that speech was written by a British public relations company, Bell Pottinger, which is run by a Conservative supporter. There was indeed a kind of irony that they were adopting this almost anti-imperialist rhetoric.

The thing is, it does ring true with a lot of non-aligned nations. It rings true with many nations in the Commonwealth, Asian and African countries. At the same time, other countries on the United Nations Human Rights Council, including North American countries, grow suspicious when the west lectures a small independent nation on human rights.

Getting the word out within the Commonwealth could be hugely important to these countries. It's important to make people understand that this is not a question of the west ganging up on a small independent nation. It is in fact a question of fundamental international humanitarian law and human rights. This is a process of discussion and argument, constant vigilance, and raising the issue within the Commonwealth and the Human Rights Council.

I'm not sure that's a particularly useful answer, but this is an important issue with a context that has to be taken into account.