Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2004-12-14-Speech-2-064"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20041214.6.2-064"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, Members of the European Parliament, Ladies and Gentlemen, this is a very emotional moment for me, because this is an extremely important, significant moment for my colleagues and I. The fact that we are receiving this prize as an organisation is a sign of solidarity and support for the entire Belarusian democratic movement and support for the political forces that will finally ensure that in future there will be a link between Belarus and the European Union. The fact that this prize was initially put forward for two Belarusian organisations – the second organisation was the youth organisation ZUBR – is probably a sign that Belarus is the focus of international attention and that my country, which one of my colleagues has described as a chess piece which has fallen off the chess board, will once again become an independent entity in European politics and will one day take a worthy place among the other nations around the European table.
The issue of the disappeared is still in the newspapers. Three years ago, during the presidential election campaign, we were punished for mentioning this. There was direct censorship. At the beginning of this year, in the last campaign for parliamentary elections and the referendum, we saw for the first time the summary closure of newspapers at the behest of the Ministry of Information. There were 19 cases of suspension of the activities of independent media outlets.
Our colleague, Andrey Shantarovich, actually went on hunger strike as a result of his paper being shut down. After the hunger strike he was charged with carrying out an unauthorised protest. This was absurd. The information about his hunger strike had been published all around the city and, as a result, he was fined for the hunger strike.
Suspending the activities of newspapers is aimed firstly at hitting the newspapers economically. Economic discrimination has become one of the ways of restricting the activities of the independent press. My colleagues in the press are coming up against major obstacles in the distribution of their newspapers. The distribution of alternative, accurate information to citizens is one of the major problems facing our society. If a publication criticises the authorities, this automatically leads to problems with the printing houses. According to the Ministry of Information, there are hundreds of independent printing presses, but already five independent publications can no longer be printed in our country; they have to be printed in Smolensk in Russia because they cannot use printing presses on Belarusian territory.
I can say quite categorically that the journalists – my colleagues from the independent press – remain true to the principles of their profession. The independent press, which still appears in Belarus, is virtually the only institution which exercises any scrutiny over the state and it is the only source of free information to citizens. It would not be possible for us to survive without the collective support of international and European organisations. I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to Article 19; to the International Federation of Journalists; Reporters without Borders; the International League for Human Rights; the Danish organisations; the Helsinki Committee from Sweden and Norway; the Centre of Extreme Journalism, as it is called – a Russian organisation; and the Glasnost Defence Foundation. All these are partner organisations that are helping us, and our strength lies in this partnership and cooperation.
It is very important for us that European society and the European institutions should not weaken their position with regard to the principles of freedom of speech and human rights. If there were to be any weakening of those positions, then the repressive machine within Belarus would start to go into overdrive and we would feel even more pressure against us. Recently, at international level, many politicians from eastern European countries have expressed their concerns about the situation in Belarus and are prepared to work towards formulating a strategy towards Belarus at European level. I would like to express our support for that and the certainty that a common European strategy towards Belarus will emerge and will very much help our situation.
We can only combat a totalitarian regime by creating an open information society; a society that would encourage debate; a forum – which is a place for people to receive accurate information. We have a comprehensive programme which we feel will help to unlock the situation in our country. We are prepared to discuss that with you. I will just mention a few of the priorities.
We need support for what is legal and what is still working in Belarus. Basically, what I am referring to is the independent press and the non-governmental organisations that are still operating in our country. What is also very important for us is the effect of the strengthened presence of the European Union in Belarus – something that we would encourage. Perhaps there is some way of establishing a European Union special representative for Belarus. We feel it is very important that our people should receive a message from the European Union. Its value would be that our return to Europe depends on us, the Belarusian people. We understand that today, Belarus's visiting card unfortunately implies the Lukashenko regime. In fact there are ten million people in our country and at least half of those associate the future of our country with a return to Europe.
I should like to take this opportunity to urge the Members of the European Parliament – especially the members of the delegation to Belarus – to support our proposals with regard to staging hearings on the media situation in Belarus. Such hearings might lead to recommendations on bringing our legislation into line with European standards and would help us to demonopolise the mass media.
Once again, I thank you for this award.
The prize is such an important signal for us because we understand our problems, but they are not just a matter of upholding our own professional principles. It is also about defending the rights of all our citizens to receive objective, uncensored information. It is extremely important that our problems are understood by you and by European politicians.
Unfortunately, the Belarusian authorities have managed to create a closed society built on isolation and disdain for democratic values. They protect their stability and survival by means of total control over the flow of information. The electronic media are almost totally monopolised by the authorities. The situation is worse because the work of these monopolised media is directed at discrediting any political adversaries, and the monopolised media try to reinforce stereotypes and myths. One such widespread myth in Belarus is that nobody in Europe is watching us, nobody expects us to join them and Europe is hostile and aggressive towards us, the only guarantee of stability in our country is the head of state, and so on and so forth.
Despite our constitutional provisions, there is only one obligatory ideology that prevails in Belarus now. In Belarus a process has now been completed – the creation of a new state structure which is known as the ideological 'vertical'. There is total intolerance of criticism and we are not allowed to object or express our views.
My colleagues know that we are subject to use of the criminal code against us if we criticise the President. Two years ago, Paval Mazheika, a young journalist, was given a prison sentence under the criminal code.
During political campaigns there is even more pressure on the non-state press; the referendum and the recent parliamentary elections are a case in point. On the eve of the referendum my colleague, Elena Ravbetskaya, the editor of the newspaper
published an article in which she said that calling the referendum was 'a challenge to society' and that to carry it out required a total lack of conscience and total neglect of public opinion. My colleague was also tried and fined as a result. Her newspaper has also been punished and has been closed down for three months as a result of that article.
Again, two weeks ago, a very well-known person, Garry Pahaniayla, Vice-President of the Belarus Helsinki Committee, was also sentenced for slander against the state. The reason for this was a cassette taped by a Swedish television journalist, which was confiscated from him at the border. Mr Pahaniayla had given an interview and mentioned the names of those suspected of involvement in the disappearance of Belarusian opposition politicians. That was sufficient for them to bring him to trial and he may well be imprisoned for five years as a result.
We are very concerned that, despite the conclusions reached in the report on the disappearances of Belarusian politicians and journalists by Christos Pourgurides, a Council of Europe special rapporteur, and despite the international community's close attention to this subject, it seems that the Belarusian authorities are still not interested in a full in-depth investigation of these disappearances or in publishing such an investigation.
We still do not know what happened to Dmitry Zavadsky, who disappeared four years ago. He is a journalist and a member of our organisation and the authorities have never told us what happened to him. His wife, Svetlana Zavadskaya, is on our delegation."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"Birzha Informatsii"1
"Litvina,"1
"representative of the Association of Journalists of Belarus"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples