Sexual Revolution or pillorying Dr. Senaratne?

Was it an attempt to bring about a Sexual Revolution or was it political pillorying of that acerbic, pungent and politically devastating new orator to UNP ranks, Dr. Rajitha Senaratne ?

Last week there were salvoes after salvoes fired from the guns of the state media—radio, TV and press—blasting away at Dr. Senaratne for a speech he made at Matara recently. Almost the entire repertoire of adjectives of a crime reporter used to damn criminals such as: Mariyakade filth, shades of Choppe and ‘Madaviya, thugs of Deans Road fish market, uncivilised barbarians and dregs of society, smut merchant' etc. were deployed in an attempt to bury the dentist -cum -politico, in an avalanche of government propaganda.

Of equal interest were expressions such as .... 'his (Dr. Senaratne's) whole outlook towards homosexuality was outmoded and backward - looking in the extreme'..... 'Sri Lankans are quite open and tolerant about sexuality',... 'Villagers who have not been corrupted by Victorian Puritanism have been amazingly frank in their outlook towards sex... Homosexuality had been known both in society and our literature for quite sometimes.'

The cause for this umbrage against Dr. Senaratne and the enlightened view on homosexuality has been the speech made by Dr. Senaratne. He had accused a high ranking minister of homosexual tendencies, referring to certain quotations of the minister as reported in the Hansard. He had also pointed out that homosexuality in this country was an offence under the Penal Code.

Reading through the froth, fume and slimy sycophancy expressed by the state media faithful, we could not find any specific instance to damn Dr. Senaratne for being a 'smut merchant 'or anything of the kind. One editorialist's objection was that the 'element of risquŽ in it was utterly tasteless and crude while his whole outlook towards homosexuality was outmoded and backward-looking in the extreme'. The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word "risquŽ" as being ‘slightly indecent or liable to shock'. Sri Lankan politicians being 'slightly indecent' or in fact being indecent to the hilt, or 'shocking' is not news in this country. If then, is it Dr. Senaratne's attitude towards homsexuality that is the cause of all this ire?

Whatever state propagandists may say, the PA government it appears is not onto a Sexual Revolution. The staid Prof. G.L. Peiris when questioned about legalising homosexuality had said that ‘there were more pressing problems the government had to resolve than consider the issue of legalising homosexuality'. Mr. Mangala Samaraweera, the media minister who too was present at the press conference had said that there were 'more pressing problems to resolve than worry about what two consenting adults do in private'.

The question we raise is whether last week's hysterical outbursts in the state media against Dr. Senaratne were caused because his speech was in 'bad taste' or his outlook towards homosexuality was outmoded or was it an attempt to pillory Dr.Senaratne whose oratorical punches are hard hitting and is hurting the PA? As for bad taste, we refer readers to the Hansard for speeches made by government ministers in parliament – in particular the favourites which the state media are attempting to defend. Political oratory both of the UNP and the PA has been in very bad taste of late and we have commented on this earlier. But this highfalutin attitude of the state media cannot apply only to Dr. Rajitha Senaratne and his UNP colleagues. Decency and morality bind us all.

The other issue is why was Dr. Senaratne's' obscene' speech televised over TV late at night as an 'Adults Only' feature? Surely one does not give publicity to obscenities whether they be pictures or speeches? The government censors should ask Rupavahini why they did telecast ‘obscenities.’ The PA's excuse is that it was meant to show to the people the low depths to which the oratory of Dr. Senaratne had descended to and it would thereafter be deterrent to such speeches being made in the future. On this principle of deterrence, obscenities and pornography and the like could be eradicated from the face of this earth by merely televising them!