Second World War, UN member states pledged to prohibit hate speech inciting violence based on identity, drawing from lessons learned from the Holocaust (Gunatilleke, 2023). Dr. Gunatilleke identifies flaws in Section 3 of the ICCPR Act, which aims to mirror Article 20 of the Covenant but exhibits significant deficiencies. Firstly, Sri Lanka’s Section 3 lacks specificity, failing to differentiate between distinct forms of incitement outlined in the international treaty. For example, the consequences of offences like ‘inciting violence’ and ‘inciting discrimination or hostility’ and subsequent punishments vary greatly. While states can adjust penalties for different types of incitement, Section 3(1) clunkily groups all forms together. Secondly, Section 3(4) permits warrantless arrest and renders offences non-bailable, enabling arbitrary detention without evidence. This provision allows prolonged detention until a High Court appearance, penalising individuals without prosecution, as seen in the cases of Ramzy Razik, Shakthika Sathkumara, and Nathasha Edirisooriya. Echoing similar concerns, the Supreme Court, in the obiter of Razik’s case, addressed the allowability of prolonged remand custody under the ICCPR Act. The judgement predicts that such leeway given to law enforcement spills over to other infringements such as arrests without sufficient cause, lack of due diligence, objectivity during the investigation, and instances where police discretion was compromised. Similarly, the High Court in Edirisooriya’s case stressed the responsibility of investigators, emphasising that arresting a person solely based on a complaint, especially if the complainant holds societal influence, is not the investigator’s role. Instead, investigators should carefully assess the case facts, legal interpretations of applicable laws, and Sri Lanka’s international obligations and accountability in matters of this nature (Gunasekara, 2023). DOES SRI LANKA HAVE BLASPHEMY LAWS? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines blasphemy “to be a great disrespect shown to God or to something holy, or to something said or done that shows this kind of disrespect” (Blasphemy Definition & Meaning, 2024). Dr. Gunatilleke argues that the concept of blasphemy is not explicitly addressed in Sri Lankan law. However, legal provisions such as Section 290 of the Penal Code and Section 31 of the Antiquities Ordinance cover offences related to objects and sites considered sacred by religious groups. End Blasphemy Laws2 supports these claims by listing 290-292 of the Penal Code, Section 2(1)(h) of the PTA, and Section 3 of the ICCPR Act (Sri Lanka, 2021), which Dr. Gunatilleke argues, primarily concerns offences against individuals, rather than offences against specific faiths or sacred objects. Nonetheless, Sri Lanka has employed the ICCPR Act to address perceived acts of blasphemy that targeted the concept of religion rather than the specific nature intended in the ICCPR Act. This was addressed in the Supreme Court’s commentary in Ramzy Razik’s case which said that Sri Lanka has in many instances used the ICCPR Act outside of its mandate, in some instances, as a blasphemy law. A clear example of this is the arrest of Sepal Amarasinghe for allegedly making defamatory comments about the Temple of the Tooth Relic. Likewise, following the Easter Sunday attack in 2019, Abdul Raheem Masaheena was arrested due to her clothing, which featured a ship’s wheel mistaken for a sacred Buddhist symbol, the dharmachakra (Human Rights Watch, 2019). The United End Blasphemy Laws; an organisation dedicated to aboloish blasphemy laws worldwide https://end-blasphemy-laws.org/ 2 - 18 -