Two bills which would severely limit evangelism and conversion to the Christian faith are before the Sri Lankan parliament.

The first, which is due to go to its second reading on May 6, is proposed by the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU), a Buddhist nationalist party of monks. The Supreme Court struck down two clauses of the bill as being unconstitutional and recommended several further amendments.

The JHU bill, known as the "Prohibition of Forcible Conversions of Religions Bill", if enacted, would require individuals who convert from one religion to another to inform the local authorities within a prescribed period. Those who fail to notify the authorities can be imprisoned for up to five years or fined up to 150,000 Rupees ('1,800).

The law also states that: "No person shall convert or attempt to convert, either directly or otherwise, any person from one religion to another by the use of force or by allurement or by any fraudulent means, nor shall any person aid or abet any such conversions." Anyone who breaches this law would be subject to up to five years imprisonment and a fine of up to 150,000 Rupees. If a minor, a woman, a physically or mentally disabled person, a prisoner, a student, a refugee or a hospital patient is converted by "fraudulent means", the penalty is seven years imprisonment and 500,000 Rupees ('5,900) fine.

The second bill is proposed by the Government, and called the Act for Religious Freedom. This bill, proposed by the Minister of Buddha Sasana, seems to have been postponed while the JHU bill is tested before Parliament.

The government bill has been approved by the Cabinet and it stipulates that no person should "unethically convert or attempt to unethically convert any other person espousing one religion'to another religion, religious belief, religious persuasion or faith which such person does not hold or belong to."

Major Christian groups, including the Catholic Bishops Conference, the National Christian Council and the National Christian Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka (NCEASL), have offered alternative means of addressing the concerns of Buddhist and Hindu groups in Sri Lanka.

NCEASL, CSW's partners in Sri Lanka, issued a statement, expressing "deep concern and regret" at the latest developments. The proposed bill will, according to the NCEASL, "enforce limitations on religious freedom, legitimise violence and harassment of minority religious groups and further de-fragment our already divided society."

The law violates human rights, and the NCEASL believes that "the tarnishing of our nation's image as a human rights violator will cause irreparable damage to our economy – a luxury that we can ill afford at this time of national crisis."

Buddhist groups have criticised the activities of a minority of evangelical Christians, accusing them of unethical and insensitive conduct. In its statement, the NCEASL says: "We reiterate our strong condemnation of any unscrupulous or unethical practices."

CSW, in partnership with the NCEASL, has been lobbying hard to prevent either bill from becoming law.

Stuart Windsor, National Director of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said: "We are deeply concerned that the Government's anti-conversion bill is again before Parliament. This bill, if passed, would profoundly violate religious freedom in Sri Lanka. We oppose unethical conversions and are sensitive to the concerns of Buddhists in Sri Lanka. We have listened to their views, but we would encourage the Government to work with the churches and the other religious groupings to explore non-legislative options as a way forward. We urge Sri Lankan Parliamentarians to vote against this bill, and we will continue to campaign to that effect."

Notes to editors.

The original JHU bill was challenged before the Supreme Court by 22 petitioners including the NCEASL, in August 2004. The Supreme Court struck down two clauses of the bill (Sec. 3 & 4 (b)) as being un-Constitutional; and recommended several other amendments. The Supreme Court determined that the bill would require a 2/3 majority in Parliament and a referendum by the people to be passed in its original form (without the amendments prescribed by the Court).

The bill placed on the Parliament Order Paper by the JHU is the original version of the bill, including Sec. 3 & 4 B), without any amendments. Therefore it appears that the JHU has ignored the Supreme Court determination and is seeking a 2/3 majority in support of this bill in Parliament.

According to Parliamentary Procedure, after the 2nd reading, the bill will be taken up by a standing committee for discussion before the final reading and vote. Amendments may be made to the bill during discussions at the committee stage. The standing committee may approve the bill for final reading & voting as it is, or with amendments.