The president’s words sound good until you
ask yourself what actions would have been taken. The answer is, unfortunately,
by no means clear. A recent ban on peaceful protests outside
the Presidential Administration
until the end of 2013 is particularly telling. The ban was issued in response
to a picket by the mother of a small disabled child, who had
gone on hunger strike in a desperate attempt to attract the president’s
attention to their plight.
Although the authorities have presently backed off initial
attempts to bring charges over damages caused during the
popular protest in Vradiyivka, local residents anticipate repressive measures
once emotions subside and the media loses interest.
During Yanukovych’s presidency, the number of peaceful
protests banned has risen markedly, as have
entirely inappropriate responses involving the Berkut riot police
against protesters.
What is particularly disturbing is that a bill just
registered in parliament on freedom of peaceful assembly, even if passed, might
not necessarily improve the situation. This latest ban, as well as its
predecessors, cites, in verbose if unconvincing fashion, domestic and
international legislation in alleged justification for restricting the
constitutionally enshrined right to peaceful protest.
The application to ban two peaceful protests outside the
Presidential Administration came, as usual, from the Kyiv City
State Administration, but was purportedly prompted by the Kyiv Police. They had
stated that the protests would arouse disgruntlement from ordinary members of
the public, obstruct the normal functioning of the authorities and, most
incredibly, jeopardize the safety of people under official
protection.
Judge Keleberda of the District Administrative Court in
Kyiv didn’t stop at half measures. In a June 16 ruling,
just made public, he banned any protests on the relevant
streets up until the end of the year.
Since the Constitution does not specify how much prior
notification must be given, documents of dubious legality, such as a decree
from the now long-defunct Soviet Union, are frequently used to prohibit
gatherings by claiming insufficient warning was given. In
this case there was even some justification since both organizers appear to
have notified of their plans on the very day that their protests began.
Judge Keleberda mentions this infringement, but clearly feels
more is needed.
Not surprisingly, since one of the
notifications was from Jan. 14, 2013, and the other was issued on June 6. If police
had not been given advance notice to organize extra
means to safeguard public order, they could certainly have done
so in the time since the application
for a ban was lodged.
Two protests were thus underway when the ban was issued. On
Jan. 14 the Kyiv authorities were notified of the continuation of
an indefinite hunger strike and protest by up to 50 people with the use of
banners and loudspeakers. The goal seemed modest enough – to
draw the president’s attention to infringements
on human rights by his subordinates.
Why a protest involving a picket by a mother wanting to
tell the president about the problems she and her small
disabled child were facing proved the final straw for the city administration
and police is not easy to understand.
Fathoming how such protests could threaten national
security is quite simply impossible, yet Judge Keleberda was not daunted by the
task. He cites among others Ukraine’s Constitution and the European
Convention on Human Rights to demonstrate that restrictions on peaceful
assembly may be needed if the protests could jeopardize national security or
the rights of others.
With the broad scope of the Law on the Principles of
Ukraine’s National Security to set him off, it was a mere hop, skip and jump to
yet another blanket ban. The court, he says, believes it possible that
this indefinite hunger strike could infringe on “the
interests of national security and public order.” The
court concluded that the indefinite use of loudspeakers violates public order
and the rights and freedoms of residents of the adjacent buildings, while
“protests planned outside the Presidential
Administration create difficulties in organizing the state
protection of President Yanukovych and other public officials …”
But since public access to a site by definition creates
security implications, will we see a complete ban on public gatherings soon? For
three years now all plans to hold entirely peaceful protests outside
Yanukovych’s controversial residence at Mezhyhirya have resulted in court bans.
A blanket ban recently stopped any peaceful protest outside the prosecutor
general’s office for two months.
A law on peaceful assembly is undoubtedly needed, but can
only provide deceptive gloss in a country where courts
restrict the fundamental right to peaceful protest, claiming this to be “in
defence of other people’s rights” or citing nebulous considerations
of “national security”.
Ukrainian courts quote
international documents and the European Court of Human Rights
with ease, but brazenly ignore other key conditions of a
democratic society. The bans rapidly becoming commonplace in Ukraine are
needed only by those who fear the public and want them to go away.
As Vradiyivka showed, they won’t.
Halya Coynash is a member of the Kharkiv Human Rights Group.
