What started as a mere joke for a limited audience seems to have blown up out of proportion, making it look like an organised, foreign funded plot to trigger religious disharmony at the national level, among different religious groups, especially between Buddhists and other religions. Stand-up comedian Nathasha Edirisooriya’s statements about Buddhism, which many claim are part of the said alleged plot, are now a matter that concerns legal actions and possible legal reforms and also a national-level, ill-informed discussion on anti-Buddhist elements.

Following the arrest and remanding of Edirisooriya, the ongoing actions, including legal ones, have focused on several parties that are said to be considerably involved in her statements, or the event during which she made those statements. Among them is the owner of the YouTube channel that initially published the video of the said event, Bruno Divakara, who was also arrested and remanded. In addition, media reports claimed that certain other parties that had no role in deciding what she said, especially the participants of the said event, are to be questioned for ‘laughing’ at her jokes. The nature of this spree of legal actions, which seems to spare no one who had anything to do with Edirisooriya’s statements, gives a wrong message to the country about a person’s right to exercise the freedom of expression and also the right to decide what they find entertaining. The result is obvious. As a social media movement that aims to cancel those who laughed at Edirisooriya’s jokes started immediately after her arrest, a duo that creates comedy videos for YouTube that goes by the names Laka and Sika, had claimed that were receiving threats and massive opposition from various parties, while photos of several other public figures that attended the said event were widely circulated.

It is not only the manner in which the said investigations have chosen ‘suspects’ that is ludicrous. The process of determining the offence/s applicable to this case is also highly questionable due to its vagueness. While the general public, especially those commenting on this matter including demanding legal actions against Edirisooriya and other alleged offenders, could claim that Edirisooriya’s comments amount to an insult against Buddhism and is part of a plot hatched by anti-Buddhist groups, the law enforcement cannot be that immature and irresponsible. If insulting a religion, which then could lead to religious disharmony, is the offence in question, it is necessary to first interpret what an insult is. At the same time, whether the said insult was severe enough to cause religious disharmony and what are the actual events that could be interpreted as signs of religious disharmony occurring due to those statements, are matters that cannot be overlooked. We have a question before us as to how to go ahead with these investigations without properly gauging the nature and extent of the allegations, which are essential in order to determine a proportionate punishment for the alleged offence/s.

One party that has been overlooked in this discussion is the Public Performance Board (PPB) and the application of the Public Performances Ordinance, which governs various forms of public performances, including stage entertainments. In accordance with the Ordinance, those organising public performances, such as the one where Edirisooriya made those controversial statements, are to abide by the Ordinance, and no public performance should be held unless it has been certified by the certifying authority as suitable for public exhibition. The violation of the relevant permission and the venue’s suitability related provisions is an offence. Whether the organisers of the said event had taken the necessary measures according to the Ordinance, and whether the PPB conducted the necessary procedures remains unknown yet. If the organisers of the event did not follow the law, the PPB could initiate actions against the former, and if the PPB was informed of the event, whether the PPB received and scrutinised the contents of the event are matters that require attention.

The country should reevaluate whether the law enforcement authorities’ approach to dealing with this issue and the people’s way of looking at the same are logical, fair and practical, because it is not a mere stand-up comedian, but the country’s democracy and several freedoms and rights guaranteed through the Constitution that are at risk. The country that has gained a name as the oldest democracy in Asia should be more accepting of different opinions and the people’s right to respond to such opinions in any way that they prefer as long as it is not illegal. Sri Lanka should perhaps try learning from the Buddha’s responses to different opinions and even outright insults, which was extremely diplomatic and rational.