Unprecedented Crackdown on Civil Society
(Moscow) April 24, 2013 –
The
authorities have introduced a series of restrictive laws, begun a
nationwide campaign of invasive inspections of nongovernmental
organizations, harassed, intimidated, and in a number of cases
imprisonedpolitical activists, and sought to cast government critics as
clandestine enemies.
The report analyzes the new laws, including the
so-called “foreign agents” law, the treason law, and the
assembly law, and documents how they have been used.
“The
new laws and government harassment are pushing civil society activists to
the margins of the law,” said Hugh Williamson, Europe and Central
Asia director at
Human Rights Watch.
“The government crackdown is
hurting Russian society and harming Russia’s international
standing.”
Many of the new laws and the treatment of
civil society violate Russia’s international human rights
commitments,
Human Rights Watch said.
Several of the new laws
seek to limit, or even end, independent advocacy by placing new, draconian
limits on association with foreigners and foreign funding.
The
“foreign agents” law requires organizations that receive
foreign funding and supposedly engage in “political activities”
to register as “foreign agents.”
Another law, adopted in
December, essentially bans funding emanating from the United States for
“political” activity by nongovernmental organizations, and bans
groups whose work is “directed against Russia’s
interests.”
A third law, the treason law, expands the legal
definition of treason in ways that could criminalize involvement in
international human rights advocacy.
The report documents the
nationwide campaign of intrusive government inspections of the offices of
hundreds of organizations, involving officials from the prosecutor’s
office, the Justice Ministry, the tax inspectorate, and in some cases the
anti-extremism police, health inspectorate, and the fire inspectorate.
The
inspection campaign, which began in March 2013, was prompted by the
“foreign agents” law.
Although many organizations
have not received the inspection results, at least two have been cited for
failing to register as “foreign agents,” and others have been
fined for fire safety violations, air quality violations, and the like,
Human Rights Watch said.
Inspectors examined the groups’ tax,
financial, registration, and other documents.
In several cases they
demanded to inspect computers or email.
In one case, officials demanded
that an organization prove that its staff had had been vaccinated for
smallpox, and in another the officials asked for chest X-rays of staff to
ensure they did not have tuberculosis.
In yet another case, officials
demanded copies of all speeches made at the group’s recent seminars
and conferences.
“The government claims the inspections
are routine, but they clearly are not,”
said Williamson.
“The
campaign is unprecedented in its scope and scale, and seems clearly aimed
at intimidating and marginalizing civil society groups.
This inspection
campaign can potentially be used to force some groups to end advocacy work,
or to close them down.”
The first organization against
which Russian authorities filed administrative charges for failing to
register as a “foreign agent” was Golos, the election
monitoring group that had documented violations in the 2011 parliamentary
vote.
A court in Moscow is scheduled to rule on the case on April 25.
Golos
and its director face maximum fines of 500,000 (approximately US$16,280)
and 300,000 rubles (approximately US$9,700), respectively.
If the court
rules in the ministry’s favor, the organization would either be
forced to register as a “foreign agent” or would be further
sanctioned under the “foreign agents” law.
The
“foreign agents” law does nothing more than demonize groups
that already reported to the authorities on foreign funding and their
activities,
Human Rights Watch said.
The authorities should immediately
withdraw the charges against Golos.
As the laws were being
debated and adopted, pro-government media outlets ran propaganda campaigns
targeting prominent nongovernmental groups, accusing them of promoting
Western interests in exchange for funding.
“The term
‘foreign agent’ is ubiquitously understood in Russia to mean a
spy or traitor, and it is difficult to avoid the impression that by
adopting this law, Russian authorities sought to discredit and demonize
civil society groups that accept foreign funding,”
Williamson said.
In addition to the laws specifically aimed at nongovernmental
groups, the government has subjected Internet content to new restrictions.
Libel, decriminalized at the end of Dmitry Medvedev’s presidency, was
recriminalized seven months later.
A new assembly law imposes limits on
public demonstrations, and provides for a maximum fine on those found to
violate the law that is 10 times the average monthly wage in Russia.
Russia’s Constitutional Court has ruled that several of the
assembly law’s provisions were unconstitutional, and the Venice
Commission of the Council of Europe found that the amendments represent
“a step backward for the protection of freedom of assembly” and
urged Russia to repeal or revise key provisions.
The Venice Commission is
currently reviewing the “foreign agents” law and the new
treason law.
The new law regulating Internet content creates a
federal register of websites that host child pornography images,
narcotics-related content, and information that “incites people to
commit suicide.”
Several government agencies are already authorized
to submit websites for the registry without a court order.
Once
a website is on the registry, content-hosting providers have 24 hours to
notify the website owner to remove the prohibited content.
The website
owner is given another 24 hours to comply. If the website owner fails to
take down the banned content, Internet service providers must cut off
access to the website within 24 hours.
The lack of transparency and
independent oversight over administration of the register raises concerns
that the new Internet content law could be abused to silence criticism of
the government online,
Human Rights Watch said.
The Russian
government should end the crackdown on civil society and instead respect
basic civil and political rights to foster an environment in which civil
society can thrive,
Human Rights Watch said.
It should repeal overly
restrictive legal provisions and follow recommendations from such
intergovernmental organizations as the Council of Europe and the United
Nations to bring legislation and practices into line with Russia’s
commitments under international law.
The Council of Europe
should request the Venice Commission, its advisory panel on constitutional
matters, to review the December 2012 amendments to the law on
nongovernmental organizations, the Internet content law, and the law
reinstating criminal liability for libel with a view to determining their
compliance with Russia’s obligations under the European Convention,
Human Rights Watch said.
The European Union should articulate a
unified policy toward Russia that commits the 27 EU Member States and EU
institutions to a strong and principled common message on the crackdown in
Russia and on the central role of human rights in the EU-Russia
relationship.
“Russia’s international partners
should leave no doubt about the seriousness with which they view the
crackdown underway in Russia, and impress upon Moscow the urgent need to
stop abuses,”
Williamson said.
A key opportunity for
Russia’s partners to mark strong concern about the crackdown is the
upcoming Universal Periodic Review before the UN Human Rights Council, to
take place on April 29 in Geneva,
Human Rights Watch said.
Human Rights Watch is publishing
“Laws of Attrition: The Crackdown
on Russia’s Civil Society after Putin’s Return to the
Presidency” together with Amnesty International and their report,
“Freedom under threat:
The clampdown on freedom of expression,
assembly and association in Russia.”
The two human rights
organizations expose the ongoing assault on freedoms of expression,
association, and assembly which gathered strength during the first year of
Putin’s third presidential term.
Human Rights Watch Press release
...........................................
Οι Νομοθετικές απ τη μια και οι Επικοινωνιακές απ την άλλη κινήσεις Πούτιν, μετά την επάνοδό του στην Εξουσία της Ρωσσίας το Μαιο του 2012,
Θυμίζουν έντονα τα βήματα ΓΑΠ στην εξουσία το 2009
αλλά έντονα λέμε.
-για παράδειγμα: και οι 2 μεταχειρίστηκαν με την επίφαση Δημοκρατίας απ τη μιά, την κοινωνική αποδοχή, τα συνθήματα για καθολική αλλαγή και τον έντονο Λαϊκισμό απ την άλλη, την εξουσία, τη δύναμή της και τη σχέση τους μαζί της από το πρώτο διάστημα της Διακυβέρνησής τους.
-για παράδειγμα: και οι δύο κυνήγησαν τις ΜΚΟ που δε γούσταραν και οι δύο έφτιαξαν ρυθμίσεις επίφασης διαφάνειας- ΔΙΑΥΓΕΙΑ.
-για παράδειγμα: ο ΓΑΠ δεν απαγόρευσε τη χρηματοδότηση απ τις Ηνωμένες Πολιτείες, αλοίμονο!, αλλά απαγόρευσε ή αν θέλετε ψήφισε την απαγόρευση στην ΕΕ, για τις επιδοτήσεις από φίλες Αραβικές ή Μουσουλμανικές χώρες, πετρέλαιο από Ιραν, αν προτιμάτε.
κλπ κλπ κλπ
Οι "ΗΓΕΤΕΣ" μοιάζουν.
Τελικά αυτή η παγκοσμιοποίηση δεν κρατάει τα προσχήματα..
Language:
Ελληνικά
