Christian organisations all over the world have been combining their efforts in an attempt to ensure that a restrictive new anti-conversion law in Sri Lanka does not pass through the nation’s parliament. However, in a new statement the Sri Lankan Ambassador to the US has defended the bill and tried to ease fears.

The proposed law contains rules to prevent people from changing their religion, and was formed by Sri Lanka's Minister of Buddhist Affairs, Ratnasiri Wickremanayake, with the support of the JHU - party of nationalist Buddhist monks.

If this law passes, it will forbid anyone to "unethically convert or attempt to unethically convert any other person espousing one religion ... to another religion, religious belief, religious persuasion or faith which such a person does not hold or belong to".

Penalties for breaking the law have been set up to a fine of around 100,000 rupees (£500) or a five year prison term.

Even though there will be a free vote on the Bill, as observers expressed; however, most of the MPs are expected to approve it, since there is very little chance for a secret ballot.

The World Evangelical Alliance (WEA) previously has hosted a special meeting at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) in Geneva, and spoke out against "religious persecution in Sri Lanka".

"Laws dealing with religious freedom are meant to protect minority religious groups, but this law is trying to protect the Buddhist majority," said Godfrey Yogarajah, Secretary General of the Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka and one of the speakers at the 5th April meeting.

In a document on international religious freedom presented to the UN Commission on Human Rights, the WEA said that the Anti-Conversion Bill – presented by the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) Party to Sri Lanka’s parliament in July 2004 – had as its stated aim, to promote Buddhism within Sri Lanka. The constitutionality of the bill was challenged last year in Sri Lanka's Supreme Court, which found two sections of the proposed legislation to be unconstitutional. If enacted, the legislation would have contradicted the freedom of religion guarantee in Article 10 of the Constitution.

In addition, the Institute on Religion and Public Policy called for "round-table" talks with Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the US, Bernard A.B. Goonetilleke in Washington on April 12th. The main topic of discussion was the anti-conversion bill

They discussed whether there were sections in the anti-conversion bill that would result in Sri Lanka breaking its international human rights and freedoms obligations, and in addition it was a concern that the bill could affect the foreign assistance given to the country. Noting that a bulk of the tsunami aid into the country has come from faith-based organisations, it was mentioned that the new law, if passed, could severely restrict the potential aid available from church groups.

Another worry shown was that they worried that the tension caused by the proposals had led to a series of attacks against local churches over recent times, and it was feared that these could increase.

Ambassador Goontilleke said that there were no connections between the anti-conversion proposals and the increase of faith based social service NGO’s following the December tsunami. He commented that the work done for Sri Lanka was deeply appreciated by all Sri Lankans and that there were no reasons to believe that the work of these faith-based groups taking part in redevelopment would be affected by the proposed bill.