OPEN LETTER TO HRC-SL – Rejection of HRC’s Proposal to Repeal Sections 365 & 365A: A Call to Protect 6.1million of Sri Lanka’s Children, Culture, and Constitutional Morality

 

To:

Justice L.T.B. Dehideniya

Chairman

Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka

Colombo

Subject: Rejection of HRC’s Proposal to Repeal Sections 365 & 365A: A Call to Protect 6.1million of Sri Lanka’s Children, Culture, and Constitutional Morality

Dear Justice Dehideniya,

We write to express our unequivocal objection to the Human Rights Commission’s recent recommendation to repeal Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code — two provisions which remain vital to protecting the most vulnerable members of our society, especially children.

Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code are among the few strong legal safeguards shielding children from sexual predators — repealing them would be an unforgivable act of legal and moral irresponsibility.

1. The repeal of Sections 365 and 365A would strip this nation of critical legal protection for children and embolden predators under the guise of “rights.”.

Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code are not outdated relics — they are Sri Lanka’s vital legal shield against paedophilia, child sexual exploitation, and abuse. Repealing them would strip this nation of critical protections, embolden predators under the guise of “rights,” and open the gates to legalised vulnerability for our children.

Section 365

“Where the offence is committed by a person over eighteen years of age in respect of any person under sixteen years of age… \[shall face] rigorous imprisonment not less than ten years…”

Section 365A

“… any act of gross indecency in respect of any person under sixteen… \[shall be punished similarly]

These provisions are a clear legal deterrent against paedophilia, grooming, and predatory behaviour. To repeal them would be to invite a legal and moral vacuum that predators can exploit. No country truly committed to child welfare would propose such a move — least of all under the banner of “human rights.”

What These Laws Do:

• Section 365: Criminalizes “carnal intercourse against the order of nature” — including non-consensual and exploitative acts, especially against minors under 16.
• Section 365A: Criminalizes gross indecency — including sexual advances, grooming, or acts with or in front of children — again with strict punishments for adults involved with those under 16.

These laws are not merely about private adult relationships — they are a line of legal defence against paedophilia, child abuse, and exploitation.

So why would anyone want to Repeal them?

1. Activist Misrepresentation

Some human rights activists mischaracterize these sections as being “anti-LGBT” or “colonial-era morality laws,” ignoring the fact that:

• The amended versions (1995, 2006) are modern laws not colonial
• They contain specific protections for children, which have nothing to do with consenting adult relationships.

Repealing them entirely would remove protections for minors.

2. Imported Western Agendas

Internationally funded NGOs and some UN-linked entities push “decriminalization of all consensual same-sex acts” without understanding — or deliberately ignoring — how Sri Lankan law is structured.

They don’t propose reforms. They propose total repeal, which would:

• Leave gaps in protecting children.
• Enable predators to exploit those legal grey areas

Sri Lanka should not be forced to adopt foreign solutions that have failed elsewhere.

3. Ideological Extremism

Some proponents of repeal argue that any regulation of private sexual conduct is “oppressive.” But that’s a dangerous logic:

• By that standard, even paedophilia and incest laws could be challenged under “personal liberty.”
• Globally, fringe activists have already started pushing to normalize “youth-attracted” preferences under “rights-based” arguments.

Repealing these laws could embolden dangerous movements.

1. The Real Danger

Repealing Sections 365 & 365A in their entirety would:

• Legalize many forms of grooming and indecency if the child cannot testify to penetration.
• Invalidate punishments for same-sex abuse involving minors.
• Allow loopholes for predators under the cover of “privacy” or “consent.”

No parent, teacher, judge, or religious leader in their right mind would support the repeal of protections for children under 16.

The only people who would benefit are:

• Predators,
• Abusers,
• Or those with a radical agenda that places ideology above child safety.

2. Global Crisis: Don’t let Sri Lanka Repeat the West’s Mistakes

Across the Western world, societies that removed such protections are now dealing with the devastating consequences:

• Paedophilia networks have flourished under vague “consent” laws.
• Child sex trafficking and online exploitation are now multibillion-dollar criminal industries. The issue is slowly penetrating to Sri Lanka as the Crimes Division of the Sri Lanka Police would confirm.
• Medical experimentation on minors through puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries has led to irreversible damage — with young people now speaking out about being manipulated and medically harmed in the name of gender “identity.”
• Thousands of youth are suffering from sterility, bone damage, loss of sexual function, and lifelong depression because adults failed to draw a line.

Sri Lanka cannot, must not, and will not follow this irreversible damaging & destructive path. We must learn from the West’s errors — not import them.

3. Equality before Law not Legalising every Lifestyle

All people deserve protection under the law.

But not all private sexual preferences are fundamental rights to be legalized.

You are attempting to elevate private sexual conduct — which the vast majority of our population rejects — into a constitutionally protected class.

This is legally flawed, culturally alien, and morally unacceptable.

ICCPR Article 18(3) allows governments to limit freedoms to protect public morals.

ICCPR Article 19(3) explicitly allows expression to be limited for the same reason.

The rights of 0.1% cannot override the conscience of the nation.

Elevating a lifestyle choice into legal supremacy is not equality — it is ideological tyranny.

4. Majority Rights Must Be Respected

Sri Lanka is a culturally rooted nation. The moral code of Buddha Sasana, Article 9 & our Buddhist, Hindu, Christian, and Muslim communities rejects homosexuality and sexual anarchy.

That is not bigotry. It is a civilizational identity.

Any attempt to repeal child protection laws under the guise of “freedom” will be seen by the public as an attack on religious freedom, parental rights, and national sovereignty. The Human Rights Commission must represent the rights of all citizens, not a vocal activist minority.

5. Misuse of International Law

Your letter misleadingly claims that Sri Lanka is bound under international human rights law to repeal these sections. That is factually and legally false.

There is no binding treaty that requires Sri Lanka to:

• Legalize unnatural carnal conduct
• Remove age-based child protection laws

On the contrary, international law affirms Sri Lanka’s right to protect its children and moral order.

In fact:

ICCPR Articles 18 and 19 both allow restrictions on rights to protect public morals and the rights of others.

There is no universal definition of “morality” — it is determined by culture, religion, and the people that has been passed down from generation to generation over centuries.

By falsely invoking international law, you mislead the public and policymakers and risk discrediting the Commission itself.

6. This Is not Equality — This Is Social Engineering

It must be said plainly:

• Children are not lab rats.
• Culture is not a Western experiment.
• Rights must be balanced — not weaponized.

If this repeal is permitted, it will:

• Undermine parental authority.
• Destabilize the education system.
• Remove barriers that currently protect children from ideological, sexual, and pharmaceutical exploitation.

You risk opening the floodgates to foreign-funded influence that treats our children as collateral in a cultural war. And for what gain?

7. Opposition is not Hate

Your dismissal of national concern as “homophobia” is both intellectually lazy and democratically dangerous. The majority of this nation has a right to express concern, to dissent, and to resist these proposals without being slandered or silenced.

Disagreement is not discrimination. Opposition is not hate! Freedom of expression includes the freedom to oppose what we do not believe in.

8. Conclusion: Protect the Children. Preserve the Nation.

We urge the Human Rights Commission to:

• Immediately withdraw this reckless recommendation.
• Respect the rights of the majority and uphold the moral code of this nation.
• Reaffirm your duty to protect Sri Lankan children from global forces that have already destroyed countless lives elsewhere.

Why is the Human Rights Commission of Sri Lanka prioritizing adult sexual liberties of a very minute number of people over the xafety of Sri Lanka’s 6.1million children under the age of 18?

These are the children whose legal protection from sexual predators, grooming, paedophilia, and psychological trauma currently depends — in part — on the existence of Sections 365 and 365A of the Penal Code.

Yet the HRC-SL, a body mandated to protect the rights of all citizens, is calling for the repeal of these provisions — with no plan to replace them, and no evidence of broad public demand, and no assessment of harm to children.

So we ask directly:

• What child protection impact assessment was conducted before issuing this recommendation?
• Did the Commission consult with paediatric psychiatrists, teachers, child protection officers, or religious and community leaders? Then again some of these so-called “experts” also seek to repeal 365 and 365A because of the funding they receive.
• Why has the Commission failed to provide a single safeguard proposal for children under 16 in the event of repeal?
• Are the rights of children — 1/3rd of our nation — less important than the sexual preferences of a very few adults?

The Moral Reality:

HRC SL cannot protect the future of a nation by stripping away the very laws that shield its children from sexual abuse.

HRC SL cannot claim to promote rights while enabling legal gaps that predators can exploit.

HRC SL cannot claim to speak for justice while ignoring the voices of parents, religious leaders, and teachers & centuries of morality & ethical behavior who oppose this repeal on moral, medical, and cultural grounds.

The children of Sri Lanka must not become the next casualties of a failed ideological agenda. We call on all responsible institutions — legal, religious, medical, and political — to stand united in defending the laws that protect our people.

Shenali D Waduge