Yes, it is. Section 9 of the constitution of Sri Lanka explicitly states exactly what the president just read. It's the state's responsibility to protect Buddha Sasana. That's very clearly defined, even now, in the constitution.
I think that's been one of the problems that's not been highlighted. In 1957, 1965, and 1972, when the peace process was going through, every time the politicians realized they had made a mistake and tried to come to a negotiated settlement with the Tamil parties, the opposition party, together with the Buddhist priests, immediately went on a protest, and they had to abrogate the pact. The Prime Minister, Mr. S.W.R.D. Bandaranaike, who brought the Sinhala only act in 1956, actually signed the pact with the Tamil leader at that time, Chelvanayakam. However, when the Buddhist priests came marching up to his house, he actually brought the pact outside and tore it up in front of them. And that was the very first time, in 1957, that the peace process broke down immediately. Certainly, even now, the state actually has to protect the Buddha Sasana first. Of course, there are equal rights given to everybody else, but once you put the onus on the state to protect Buddhism, everybody else takes second place.
In this process, even during this difficult time in February, there was a bill that came to Parliament called the anti-conversion bill. Knowingly or unknowingly, if you try to convert somebody else to another religion--it's mainly against the missionaries who are working in the south--you're going to be fined seven years or $50,000 Sri Lankan rupees. I think it was raised in the Canadian Parliament. I think the high commissioner in Sri Lanka heard that, and somehow it's now been shelved in Sri Lanka. It's gone through three readings already.
Yes, that's one of the problems.