Navineetham Pillay’s services as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should be terminated for being a racially prejudiced person.

Navineetham Pillay a Tamil, has already taken her stand on the issue with regard to Sri Lanka Tamil terrorists, and therefore she cannot be objective, and cannot act as an Independent Commissioner of  the UN Human Rights Commission.

When I recently read in an article that, «…….. Navi Pillai, ….started a “Tamil EELAM in Ceylon” movement, in South Africa when she was a teenager at high school.  »  I was hesitating  to quote it  as there was no mention of the source  of  the information.

But reading  the following reports  the extracts of which I have given below, I think I have reason to believe that she was as a poor school going teenager victimised for her poverty and the colour of her skin  was a « fan » of the Sri Lanka terrorists  :

Recently at a press conference,

« ………….. Pillay was asked by blogger Mathew Lee of Inner City Press what she thought about General Silva's appointment. "It's a matter of concern," Pillay said in response. "The United Nations has very clear policies on vetting and this is part of the work that my office does," she added.

"We keep a list of individuals who are suspected of committing human rights violations and I have addressed a letter of concern to the secretary-general about this individual," the human rights chief said. »

I thought that it is most reprehensible  that a person who is the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights  makes such a seriously disrespectful statement  about, (i)  a Deputy Ambassador of a Member State of the United Nations, and  (ii) who is also a person selected to serve in the UN Secretary General’s Advisory Panel on Peace Keeping, by the Asia Group of countries.

She  has to be cautious about statements she makes in her position as the UNHCHR., and not make statments like Sampanthan of the Tamil National Aliance. After all General Shavendra Silva had been selected to the UNSG’s Advisory Panel by the UN Asia Group Member Sates.  Her irreverent  or more appropriately the « stupid »comment is an insult to the Asia Group of Countries who are Member States of the UN.

Navi Pillay spoke of United Nations having “very clear policies on vetting”.  But it is regrettable that these clear policies on vetting do not seem to have been followed in her appointment  to her position as the High Commissioner for the UN HRC.

Then examining precisely where this deep seated  prejudice  of this woman, which is almost a hateful obsession against  Sri Lanka Sinhala Community and every one connected to Sri Lanka other than Tamils, could have come from, I found that this  depraved psychological  hatred is embedded in her mind as she had been from her childhood a victim of strong rabid apartheid of the South African Government and its Adminstration.

She has in many interviews mentioned difficulties she had as a Lawyer in the apartheid regime into which she was born, but nothing of her anti apatheid activities and thoughts about racism and apatheid prior to that.

In order to understand Navi Pillay’s  hatred towards Sri Lanka and her all out  efforts as the UNHCHR  to incriminate the President and the Armed Forces of Sri Lanka for violation of human rights and war crimes, we have to go into her past beyond her legal professional period.

She also has misunderstood terrorism for apartheid.  Apartheid is defined as  a social policy or racial segregation involving political and economic and legal discrimination against people who are not Whites.  In Sri Lanka there is neither apartheid nor racism.

She was born to a poor Tamil family of Indian origin in Clairwood  Durban, South Africa, in 1941.  Her  father was a bus driver  whose entire monthly wage was R5.  It was her neighbours who contributed for her studies. They were Tamils and therefore she has a duty by them if not to them all Tamils in general. That may be part of her prejudiced agains the Government of Sri Lanka thinking it is against Tamils, whether those Tamil be terrorists or not.

In an interview to  Vino Reddy on 11 August, 2002 she had said, “  We lived in Clairwood …… a victim of race riots in 1949 and that’s what caused the fear on part of the residents of Clairwood, including my parents. With me, firstly, when I was six-years old I was the victim of robbery. My mother had given me my father’s entire monthly wages, which was R5 to take to him. He was a bus driver I was supposed to meet him at the corner and hand this money to him. Meanwhile he had not asked for the money it was his conductor who had planned that ruse and he grabbed the money from my hand off he went.

My mother beat me up for that. I don’t know why the victim gets beaten. Anyway, and I ended up giving evidence in court at the age of , (seven) six in the same Durban High Court where I many years later sat as a judge. And this individual was sentenced to three months imprisonment. But what really bugged me is that we didn’t get the R5 back and I felt so guilty as a child that I had caused the loss to my parents. “

That is when seeds of racial hatred germinated in her.  She could not distinguish apartheid and racial difference.  In her mind as a six year old she despised the idea of being treated differently.  When she was old enough to understand  the terrorism in Sri Lanka of which she had heard , she understood it in personal terms as the Sinhala majority government a regime of apartheid and the Tamils, like she is in Durban , were victimised by the Sinhala Government and its Armed Forces.  That became therefore another cause she would be fighting later on in her life.

Hillel Neuer, executive director of UN Watch, an independent human rights group wrote after an interview with her : « While understandably cautious on her first day in the job, Ms Pillay says she sees her new role as returning to that of being an advocate.

"This is the only office at the UN to be fiercely uncompromising and independent about human rights standards. The commissioner is the voice of the victim everywhere."

“ So when human rights groups and some American officials expressed scepticism before her appointment on Thursday, she said she was used to it. As a member of a minority from a poor Indian neighbourhood in apartheid-era South Africa, she was long kept from becoming a judge by the colour of her skin. For years, although she was a lawyer, she could not even sign a contract without her husband’s consent. »

She grew ap constatnly being a victime of the South African apartheid regime and this made  her a fanatic Tamil swearing to defend her people victimised by any one she thought was racists, « The commissioner is the voice of the victim everywhere. »

Hence Navi Pillay’s statement to the press, « she had informed U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon of her misgivings about General Shavendra Silva, Sri Lanka's deputy U.N. ambassador, who commanded the Sri Lankan army's 58th Division during the final assault against the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) in 2009 »

Navy Pillay because of her intense racial prejudice cannot look at a problem independent from her personal experience, and therefore she does not fit into the role of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.

If we were to look further into her past through her own words in the interview to Vino Reddy as far back as 11 August, 2002,

(http://scnc.ukzn.ac.za/doc/Audio/VOR/PillayNavi/PillayNavi%20transcript.htm)

we will understand better why she is not fit to Serve as the High Commissioner  in the UN Human Rights Commission.

She tells Vino Reddy :

«  I married Gaby Pillay. His full name is Paranjothi Anthony Pillay, and his background is he grew up in the Hlobane Mines, the colliery; so of course, his favourite food was the hard porridge that the miners used to eat. He spoke absolutely fluent, beautiful Zulu. And he was at the university with the help of his brothers because he was an orphan. And he started teaching and later became a lawyer and we ended up as partners in the same law firm. So we married in January 1965, he started teaching and I served two years of Articles with Mr NT Naicker who was the secretary-general of the African National Congress, here in Durban. »

Her life was thus shaped according to the circumstances that prevailed under apartheid. Her short stint working for the ANC further shaped her mind against apartheid and every form of  racial discrimination.  It is that which has stopped her from making a distiction between terrorism and a government’s inherent duty to use its Armed Forces to eliminate terrorists if they  do not agree to any approach for a peace settlement, and continue with   determination to win the cause for which they fight through use of « arms » and terrorising the country.

Then she goes on to say how she acquired experience in her work as a Lawyer, and found that suffering of people  and everything  boils down to   politics : « Mr NT Naicker who was the secretary-general of the African National Congress, here in Durban. And he was banned and house-arrested, he could not leave his home, which meant that he sent me to cases in, outside Durban and to the rural areas. And I then picked up experience from day one, but also learnt firsthand the suffering of people and how everything was political. »

In her understanding that people’s suffering  is basically political, she  also understood terrorists Tamils in Sri Lanka  subjected to suffering by the « apartheid »  Sri Lanka Goverment as mere political victims.  That comes closer to US State Department’s view repeated by Robert O.Blake that there is no military solution to terrorism, but a political solution.

Again she says ,

« I learnt many lessons from the clients themselves. These rural farmers would explain to me why, on principle grounds, they would refuse to have their cattle dipped because I would say, "Why don’t you just dip your cattle in there and then you are over with this case."And they would say no they would rather go to jail because the political movements had taken a stand on these issues and these poor farmers were paying huge sacrifices to stand by that principle.”

She had never heard that the Tamils in Sri Lanka were never ever treated differently from others, be it  by the Sri Lanka Government or by the Ordinary people from different Communities.  It was only the terrorists who  were « created » by the Indian RAW and let loose in the North of Sri Lanka that were  treated “differently” as terrorists.

She explains her utter disappointment  being a  coloured Tamil growing up in apartheid South Africa.  Perhaps assuming all the Tamil people who are a minority in a country have the same problems as those she had  to suffer in apartheid South Africa.

« At high school some teachers discouraged me and they said you know "You can only become a lawyer if your father is very well to do; or if there are lawyers in your family. But you are a bus driver’s daughter you shouldn’t even think about that." And when I completed my Articles under Mr NT Naicker then, of course, nobody would employ a young woman. And so I had triple burdens I was a woman, I was black, and I was poor. And so that’s why I started my own law practice. And I know that some colleagues said, “She’s very presumptuous to start a law practice.” So mainly, I think, what motivated me, and most of the other law students, is this injustice that we saw all around us. All the laws, which we regarded as immoral and unjust laws and that, we had to defend our people against those laws » 

The Tamils never suffered that much in Sri Lanka and Navi Pillay cannot assume that their suffering was equal to her’s, though the Tamils in the terrorist controlled areas had to suffer the most under terrorists. Now three years after they may  perhaps say that they were better off with the Terrorit Prbhakaran than  being a free people in  a peaceful Sri Lanka under the the Govrnment of the President Mahinda Rajapakse . 

At least that is what the TNA Tamil MPs are trying to put into the minds of the Tamil people in Sri Lanka.  There is nothing new in that,  in the West there are those who believe that  there was no hollocaust under Hitler and the Auschwuitz is a fabrication.

Then she speaks of her husband who was detained under the South Adfrican Terrorism Act of 1967 :

“My husband Gaby Pillay was detained and so I went as a wife to the Security Police, shivering and weeping like any other wife, shocked by these events. Suddenly your husband is detained and the Security Police, I said to him, "Under what law are you detaining him?" Because as far as we knew, a person could only be detained for 48-hours and has to be brought to court after that. And the Security Policeman said to me: "You call yourself a lawyer, and you don’t know which law." And then he wrote it down for me, that it was the Terrorism Act of 1967 or something. And as far as we were concerned that law was passed in Parliament - they said at the time in Parliament "to arrest infiltrators at the borders." And here it was being used for ordinary people. It was first used to detain Winnie Mandela and a whole lot of people who had held meetings or called a street march, or something. Shanthi Naidoo, Winnie Mandela, all these people were detained and this was the second incident where the act was used for people who had held meetings. ”

So much for the reason of her prejudice against Sri Lanka coming from her battle with apartheid in South Africa, and living with that prejudice accepting any one who goes against Tamils even if they are terrorists as a  case she should defend prosecuting even  governments that eliminate Terrorists who are  of Tamil origin, as war criminals.

Then there are criticism  of her  questionable sense of priorities as the High Commissioner for UNHuman Rights Commission,  investigated  and highlighted by the  UNWatch an Independent Human Rights group .  I give bellow  some of the  findings.

(http://blog.unwatch.org/index.php/2011/06/07/study-un-rights-chief-navi-pillay-turned-blind-eye-to-worlds-worst-abusers/)

Ms. Pillay turned a blind eye to most of the world’s worst abusers. She made no statement on the human rights situations of 146 countries. She failed to voice any concern for victims in 34 countries rated “Not Free” by Freedom House—meaning those with the worst records, and the most needy victims. She failed to criticize another 50 countries rated “partly free” and 63 countries rated “free.” Among the countries not criticized: Algeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Bahrain, Belarus, Brunei, Cambodia, Cameroon, Congo (Brazzaville), Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Gabon, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Mauritania, North Korea, Oman, Qatar, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, United Arab Emirates, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

There were 21 statements on countries in the Middle East and North Africa. However, of these, 9 were on Israel, the only democracy in the region.

In an “unprecedented effort to engage” with the Arab countries, Pillay made a 10-day tour of the six Arab countries comprising the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) from April 17, 2010 to April 26, 2010.  Public statements during or in reference to this tour were largely positive and benign. While the High Commissioner did raise some human rights concerns, the discussion of human rights situations in those countries was largely muted. In instances when Pillay raised a human rights concern, she favored praising the country’s progress over naming recorded abuses or highlighting ongoing violations.

********

 In view of this scandalous attitude of  Ms.Navi Pillay the UNHCHR,  the Secretary General of the United Nations in order to re organise the Adminitration of the UN to provide a justifiable Forum which evaluates  the activities of its Member States not with preconceived opinions , but with objective  investigations in dialog between  member states, not taking  instructions or unsubstantiated evidence from outside organs and individuals who have their own Agenda. It was abject injustice an irreverent act contrary  to the Principles of the United Nations Organisation to call the UK Channel 4 to provide  evidence against a Member State. UK Channel 4 is neither a member state nor  a representative of a member State .

In order to do that the UNSecretary General should in the first instance terminate the Services of Ms.Navi Pillay as the Commissioner of UNHuman Rights Commission for her evident prejudices with which she had grown up , which  continue to cloud her objective decision making capacity.

Whatever the sufferings she had undergone for being different through racism and apartheid, as the High Commissioner of  the august body of the UNHuman Rights Commission, she has to forget that past and perceive  world problems objectively without allowing them  to take the colour of her inner prejudices.  If she is unable to do so she should tender her resignation which is the most noble thing for her to do.

Sri Lanka was not playing any games with the Tamil terrorists.  Unknown to Navi Pillay, the terrorists of Sri Lanka had caused immense suffering to Tamil people of Sri Lanka themselves and the people of other Communities. 

The Tamil Alliance MPs who go round demanding retribution against  the Government of Sri Lanka for eliminating Sri Lanka terrorists, were the group of Tamils selected by the Sri Lanka terrorist leader Prbhakaran to represent not the TAMILS but the TERRORISTS in the Parlaiament to help the terrorists to partition Sri Lanka to form a separate Tamil Eelam State.

It is this  very same dream of the terrorist leader Prabhakaran that the TNA MPs lead by Sampanthan are trying to realise by putting the International Community against Sri Lanka.

The Armed Forces of Sri Lanka with Generals like Shavendra Silva did not fight poor unarmed Tamil rebels or freedom fighters.  General Shavendra Silva and the Armed Forces led by him were fighting trained well armed terrorist forces in a terrain  well known to them,  but unknown to the Sri Lanka Armed Forces who were  risking their lives every minute of their  Armed Operations . 

No military operation  is clean and beautiful.  No military operation against terrorists, or a conventional war between armed forces of Sovereign States are free from deaths to civilians. That is why war is called “dirty”.  And victory depends on the number of deaths .  But exaggerating numbers of deaths is to cloud the issue and blame the winner without taking into account to defeat what sort of an enemy the war was fought.

No body can give the exact number of deaths. Why diminish the importance of victory , if through that victory peace has dawned and the people are gathering force to reap the benefit of victory which is to unite and swear never again to have another war ?

Therefore, Navi Pillay should take note  before pointing her finger at General Shavendra Silva as “ this individual”, that for the Armed detachment led by General Shavendra Silva  the elimination of terrorists in Sri Lanka  was not a joyful walk over well define territories  shooting at pleasure killing unarmed terrorists and civilians. 

Today General Shavendra Silva undoubtedly regrets all those deaths as any one else,  but he was only doing his duty to protect his country and his people against a ruthless group of TERRORISTS.

But Navi Pillay through her prejudice using the position as the High Commissioner of the UNHRC, to take revenge against a heroic Soldier who helped to eliminate terrorism  from Sri Lanka, and accuse Sri Lanka Armed Forces for war crimes, she is failing in her duty as the High Commissioner of the UNHRC, which is a highly esteemed position which should remain unspoilt by personal prejudices of any sort of its holder. 

Therefore, she should resign to keep intact the halo of the Noble Institution that is United Nations Organisation.