The Law And The Mace

What was the intended meaning of this piece of ‘poetry’? ‘Execution’ usually refers to someone in power, because those in power execute, criminals kill, while ordinary people die as a result of manslaughter or murder. Who was the executor in the above example? What happened to the remains of the ‘executed truth’? What is the connection between the ‘execution’ and the ‘extremely liberal law’?

What does it mean when accountable officials use such expressions in official communication, when they apply war-time vocabulary to civilian matters, when they refer to sections of the media as ‘the fifth column’, ‘traitors’, etc. Are they trying to frighten someone, or to cover up their own fear? Or maybe they are producing internationally sanctioned hate speech, more commonly known as the incitement of national, racial, religious, and other prejudice, or in more old fashioned terms - persecution?
Has this phenomenon lead to tragic consequences in the past? Should the public prosecutor be informed? Or the Tribunal in the Hague? Or the European court of human rights? Or the Security council?

What happened to the legitimacy and constitutionality of law if the members of the legislature and the government use such expressions when introducing legislation? Is it appropriate or morally justified that they should be protected by parliamentary immunity for such actions?

The whole thing is no joke: it is very serious and important for the survival of the state, its constitution, and for the safety of its citizens.

On 26, October, the UN Special envoy for human rights Jirzi Dinstbir requested that the Serbian authorities stop suppressing the independent media. Jirgi Dinstbir’s (1937, Kladno) mandate and experience give him the right to make such a demand. He was a signatory of the Charter 77, and was tried by the Polish communist authorities for being a member of the Committee for the defense of the unjustly persecuted.

‘The international community must understand that a fierce attack on the freedom of the press is being carried out under the umbrella of the Milosevic-Holbrooke agreement. The International community must exercise pressure on the government to put an end to this’, Dinstbir said after he visited, in the night between Sunday and Monday, 21. October, the flat of Slavko Curuvija, and personally witnessed when court officials, helped by the police, confiscated the property of the ‘Dnevni Telegraf’, following a ruling by a Belgrade magistrate against the weekly magazine ‘Evropljanin’, its editors, proprietors and founders. The UN special envoy for human rights has seen with his own eyes the implementation of the new press law, which was previously passed in parliament and published on 21 October.

Legal representatives of the editors have raised a number serious objections  about the trial heard by a Belgrade magistrate in the street which, ironically, bears the name of Tomas Masarik (1850-1937), the first president of Czechoslovakia (1918-1935), the architect of Czech independence, a man who as a member of the Austrian parliament fought, in 1907 against an aggressive Austrian policy in the Balkans, and a fighter for democracy.

The eightieth anniversary of Masarik’s inauguration was commemorated with a neo-Stalinist and Richelieu-like construction which links the text from one page with a photo on another, and a cartoon on a third, etc. However, this school of thought requires further discussion.

One of the main objections raised by the Defense refers to the fact that the magistrate applied the law retroactively, considering that the magazine issue bears the date 19 October. The other objection concerns the magistrate’s refusal to hear all the defense witnesses, including the authors of the incriminated texts and a number of public figures and politicians which were referred to in the text. Also, it has been announced that a request will be filed with the constitutional court, demanding an assessment of the constitutionality of the new law.

This announcement was followed by a statement on state television (27 October, 1998) by Dobrivoje Gladovic, Belgrade’s chief magistrate, in which, before the appeal procedures were exhausted, he indicated suggestively that ‘believe it or not I myself was shocked by what I saw, by the texts and the photos’, and claimed that more journalists gathered in Masarikova Street for the hearing than in Magura (where journalists protested against the kidnapping of two Tanjug journalists). Shouldn’t someone point out to the chief magistrate that it is neither appropriate nor legal for him to denounce the members of a profession and reproach them for not doing what they have already done, and accuse them of lack of professional solidarity.

Following the above statement by the chief magistrate, would the magistrates court be fit to judge this case, should it require further consideration, or hear any other press related trial. And who should decide this? Has the Serbian Minister of Justice, Mr. Jankovic who was clearly and publicly involved in the election fraud in 1996 before all his actions we canceled out by Milosevic’s Lex Specialis, got the moral authority to do so. Can his current behavior be interpreted as a vengeance for all the denouncements he suffered in the past?

The Serbian Government will probably have to face the fact that a number of actions during this crisis have brought into question the political survival of the Minister of information, the Minister of justice and two deputy prime ministers. The government will also have to provide the answers to several other important questions.
The MPs first saw the text of the law at the parliamentary session during which they discussed it. In a number of speeches which were heard during the discussion, the independent media were accused of treason, while some MPs used similar vocabulary (traitors, fifth column) in the lobbies, when addressing journalists who were there in the line of duty. In such an atmosphere, as an act of protest, MPs from the Serbian Renewal movement left the chamber. In an attempt to defame them, deputy prime minister Dr. Vojislav Seselj call the Serbian Renewal movement a ‘party of deserters’, and with the same purpose referred to some journalists as- the officers of NATO. The chairman failed to caution the deputy prime minister for defaming political opponents, which is not surprising since he himself, in a statement given before the session, spoke critically of the independent media. MPs and government officials have immunity before the law for anything they say in parliament, but their actions are regulated by the parliamentary code of conduct. What happens when the code of conduct is not applied although conventions are breached, and in an atmosphere of intolerance MPs are using hate speech? In this country, so far, nothing at all happened. How did the laws passed in such atmosphere function in the past? Doesn’t such behavior suggest that the law was intended to settle accounts with somebody rather than to regulate an area of crucial importance for political freedom? This question cannot be swept under the carpet. ‘The right of every citizen to be freely, objectively and fully informed, his right to participate in the dissemination of information, presents a democratic achievement which very few other countries in the world can boast about’, emphasized Alexandar Vucic, the Serbian Information Minister. This ‘democratic achievement which few other countries in the world can boast about’ has very quickly placed this country on the world community’s agenda.

‘The Security Council is deeply concerned about the recent closure of independent media by the Yugoslav authorities, and would like to emphasize the need for these media to be allowed to continue freely with their activities’ (preamble of the UNSC resolution 1203). On Tuesday morning Reuters reported that the Organization for European Security and Cooperation (OESC) condemned the closure of independent media in Serbia, while the statement issued by the OESC chairman Bronislav Geremek, says that the new ‘draconian press law violates OESC standards’. The statement invites the Belgrade regime to abolish censorship which  contravenes the principles of OESC, and which contributes to the deterioration of the atmosphere for the political dialogue on Kosovo’.

At a meeting in Luxembourg, on October 27th, the European Union foreign ministers condemned the recent actions by the Yugoslav authorities against the independent media as ‘a new step in the abolishment of democratic principles’. The ministers of fifteen EU member states have, in a joint statement, pointed out that the victim of the recent action by the Yugoslav authorities are ‘media which are not under state control, which constitutes a violation of internationally accepted norms.’
The International press institute (IPI) points out that the new law presents a ‘draconian measure’ the aim of which is to silence the critical voices of the independent media in Serbia. The IPI firmly believes that the recent verdict is wholly unfounded and that the court failed to observe the right of every citizen to ‘request, receive and transmit information and ideas’ guaranteed by section 19 of the Universal declaration of Human Rights of which Yugoslavia is a signatory. The new press law also violates, it is added, section 46 of the Serbian constitution which guarantees the freedom of the media and forbids censorship.

The general director of the UN education, science and culture organization (UNESCO) Frederico Maior invited the Belgrade authorities to abolish the laws which suppress free flow of information and the freedom of the media.

What was the response from the government building in Nemanja Street in Belgrade?: ‘The government of Serbia and the Ministry of Information are shocked and surprised by your interest in the legal process and the functioning of the rule of law in the sphere of the media, especially when  one has in mind your complete indifference when it comes to helping our government, country and our people to avert the attempts by some western powers to exercise their ‘Tomahawk’ democracy on the innocent people of Serbia and Yugoslavia...

...The reasons which you suggest have led the Serbian government to settle accounts with the independent media are strange. Besides, when referring to independent media you have in mind those whose editorial policy is most frequently directed against the interests of our country, those which are independent from our state but not from yours. A strange term isn’t it?

...Tons of paper which you spent explaining that Serbia is an undemocratic country and that it crushes freedom of the press only confirm the appropriateness of the recently passed press law, because we know from experience that you are not concerned about our people and the citizens of this state, but only about your own interests. We know that you would like all media in Serbia to start reporting democratically about the alleged Serbian repression and crimes in Kosovo and Metohija, about the totalitarian Serbian regime and the glorious and democratic Western world, but before this is achieved you will have to try harder to convince us of the authenticity of these assertions. Finally we must ask ourselves why it is that you are so interested in this law, but were never concerned about the problems of this country and its dead. It seems that everyone knows the answer to this question. We have hit the nail on the head’, concludes the statement issued by the Ministry of Information.

The Serbian Government therefore admits that, like the communist central committee, evaluates the editorial policy of the media (‘whose editorial policy is most frequently directed against the interests of our country’), which is unconstitutional; so it is informing the international community that it has ‘hit the nail on the head’ because international organizations waste tons of paper ‘explaining that Serbia is an undemocratic country’. Is the government trying to say that it is deliberately opposing international organizations and that this was the intention behind the legislation? Does the statement issued by the Ministry of Information, and which addresses ‘international organizations, institutions and associations’ violate UNSC resolution 1203? If that is what the Minister is trying to say, then this government is acting irresponsibly towards the fate of its people. If that is not what the government is trying to say, then it should go because it is incapable of formulating what it is that it wants.

Legalization of Fear

The Society for the truth about the anti-Fascist struggle for the liberation of the people in Yugoslavia between 1941 and 1945 protested the ‘tendency towards the suppression of freedom of speech and the media’, suggesting that ‘it strongly resembles similar tendencies in a number of European states in the early 1930s’.

Vojislav Kostunica, the president of the Democratic party of Serbia (DSS) labeled the law ‘very restrictive’, suggesting that, through its implementation, the Serbian Government aims to suppress the freedom of the media and supplement the state budget by imposing heavy fines. Zoran Djindjic, president of the Democratic party (DS) said that the press law will legalize censorship and fear in Serbia. Vice-president of the Democratic party argued that the new law which will ‘prevent journalists from working freely, is indispensable to the regime because of the recent developments which have not been in its favor’. In its statement, the DS suggested that the new press law will ‘legalize censorship, extortion and fear in Serbia’.

Social-democratic union (SDU) thinks that the way in which such an important piece of legislation was introduced is totally unacceptable. The Civil Union of Serbia (GSS) suggested (27 October) that the real purpose of the press law is to ‘frighten all those who do  not think the same as the regime’ and that the ‘deliberate and public breach of the constitution  and the law, is both the means and the end’. According to this party, ‘the retroactive implementation of the law, which is inconsistent with our constitution as well as with the universal declaration of Human rights suggest that no one can hope to evade punishment’

Vuk Draskovic, president of the Serbian Renewal movement (SPO) stated (27 October) that the new press law constitutes a ‘coup against the constitution’, and added that  the ‘president of Serbia must defend Serbia’s constitution and  its laws from everyone, including the deputy prime minister and all those who support his conspiratorial and damaging decrees and police laws which contravene the Constitution’

According to the new press law, some offences are punishable with a fine up to 800,000 dinars. In order to pay such a fine, 711,111 average monthly salaries would be required, or 59.26 years of a career (the average monthly salary in Serbia in September was 1125 dinars).