Parliament defers debate on anti-conversion bill

Debate on a religious-conversion bill in Sri Lanka´s parliament has been deferred amid opposition from Christians.

A parliamentary committee comprising Christian parliamentarians and leaders of political parties on Feb. 18 examined the bill and agreed it might have serious consequences on religious activities, spark interreligious conflict and possibly violate the country´s constitution.

“We have to avoid possible conflict between (the majority) Buddhists and Christians,” remarked Joseph Michael Perera, a Catholic parliamentarian who is chief opposition whip. Sri Lanka´s parliament has about 10 Christians out of 225 legislators.

Pandu Bandaranayake, minister of religious affairs, confirmed Christians have called for more clarity on some words in the bill. Catholic Church leaders have also suggested some amendments to it, he told UCA News. “So it will be re-examined by the religious consultative committee of the Ministry of Religious Affairs.”

However, Athureliya Rathana Thero, a leading parliamentarian of the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), argued that according to standing orders in parliament, a bill cannot be referred to such a committee. JHU is a political party formed by Buddhist monks.

Religious conversion was among the top issues of the February parliamentary session.

Local media reported that according to the Prohibition of Forcible Conversion Bill, the offer of a gift, cash or any other incentive to convert or attempt to convert a person from one religion to another is punishable with up to seven years´ imprisonment and a maximum fine of 500,000 rupees (about US$4,400).

The bill was first presented in parliament in 2005 and Catholic Church leaders and evangelical pastors have been campaigning against it since January. They charge that it is against the country´s constitution and urged all parliamentarians, especially those who are Christians, to scrutinize it.

Bishop Norbert Andradi of Anuradhapura, secretary general of the Catholic Bishops´ Conference in Sri Lanka, has pointed out that some words in the bill such as “allurement” and “fraudulent” are subject to interpretation.

Perera, speaking on the deferment of the bill as he was leaving the lobby of the parliament building, remarked, “It may be a temporary relief.”

END