PARLIAMENT - LAW ON GATHERINGS HAS CHANGED HOW IT IS SHAPED AFTER THE OSCE SLAP - WHAT ABOUT HOODS - Filenews 27/2 - by Theodora Nikolaou
Changes to the legislation that was passed last year and concerns the regulation of gatherings and parades, were brought about by the Parliament by approving an amending proposal submitted by MP Irini Charalambidou in cooperation with the Ministry of Justice.
The amendments were voted with the disagreements of AKEL, which had initially submitted a proposal for a law for the complete abolition of the law on gatherings, while then put forward a series of amendments which were rejected by the majority of the House.
According to the introductory report, the purpose of the proposal adopted into law was to amend the Law on Public Gatherings and Parades, so that it would be in line with the conditions set out in the recent OSCE legal opinion. The new regulations aim to clarify vague concepts of the legislation and to add the necessary safeguards for the effective protection of the right to peaceful assembly.
In particular, with the new regulations, among other things, a license is no longer needed to organize an event, nor will the organizer have sanctions or liability. In particular, in the event that an organizer has been appointed, he does not bear any kind of responsibility for acts or omissions of the participants in the rally or parade.
With the changes, individual acts of violence by a group of persons can be dealt with by removing the rioters, whereas previously under the law the Chief of Police had the right to disperse the gathering.
As far as the hood is concerned, anyone can demonstrate with a hood, but if they are holding a pocket knife, bat or other offensive instrument, the Police have the right to ask them to remove the hood to verify their identity.
The last resort, according to the new regulations, is the dissolution of a rally or parade. The use of similar violence is provided for the dispersal of a parade or rally. It is also provided that the Police keep a register for the parades.
Furthermore, it is provided that the organizer may send a letter to the Police or the local authority, seven days in advance, in order to inform about the time, place and purpose. An addition is inserted to the information that the organizer may send to the Chief of Police of the possible use of vehicles, signs, equipment or other objects, where applicable.
As far as spontaneous gatherings are concerned, they are allowed and do not need to have an appointed organiser.
Finally, it is forbidden to protest inside public buildings but not outside them.
The positions of the MPs
In her statement from the floor of the Plenary Session of the Parliament, Irene Charalambidou said that "when the law was passed last year there were strong reactions as it violated human rights. Our concerns were confirmed by the legal opinion issued by the OSCE experts. Freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are fundamental rights. States have an obligation not only to respect but to protect and facilitate the exercise of these rights. And according to the OSCE, the law does not protect them."
On behalf of AKEL, Giorgos Koukoumas said that "the legislation passed by the parliament last July is undemocratic. We have a proposal by Mrs. Charalambidou which improves the legislation but does not respond to critical points that keep the core of the legislation undemocratic. When we talk about such legislation, it is not what Mr. Hartsiotis, with whom the consultation took place, accepts and what does not.
We have specific comments:
First, spontaneous gatherings. What is the reason for there to be provision for them since, as the Government claims, they are all protected. The OSCE had requested that the reference to a sudden event leading to a spontaneous demonstration be deleted, but this is not reflected in the proposal.
Secondly, in relation to public morals, it allows demonstrations to be restricted or dispersed when they offend public morals. This term should be specified or deleted. And the question arises whether tomorrow we will have a government that considers that a demonstration for women's right to abortion is an insult to public morals. What will happen?
Third point in relation to the organizer. The definition is broadened to include not only the one who undertakes the coordination of the demonstration but also any citizen or group who extends an invitation to the general public to participate in the demonstration. This is absurd because someone can be held accountable for making posts in connection with the demonstration.
Fourth in relation to the imposition of restrictions on the demonstration. A key component is for the organizers to be able to determine the place, time, type and content of the demonstration even if the state does not like it. For example, the Government cannot ban events outside the Presidential Palace or the Parliament at such and such a time outside the Parliament or outside the American embassy because it will upset the State Department or the police to impose restrictions because it considers that there is a possibility that any offenses will be committed in tomorrow's demonstration. That is why we have tabled an amendment that clarifies the reasons for which restrictions are imposed.
Finally, for the concealment of faces. The establishment of the UN Human Rights Committee on the right to demonstrate. Covering the face cannot be equated with violent intent. That is why we say that if someone commits a violent act and the policeman calls him to remove it and does not remove it, then yes he should be prosecuted and sentenced. But what remains in the law that the Police will judge that an act can lead to an offense, then this is the tomb of Saint Neophytos."
DIPA MP Alekos Tryfonidis said that "the OSCE has identified specific points that can be improved. We support the amending law because we seek the full harmonization of Cyprus with international standards concerning human rights. We are not afraid to reconsider our stance when the common good and the shielding of the rule of law dictate it."
MP Alexandra Attalidou, in turn, noted that "the provisions were vague and general. Today we have before us a proposal that incorporates the recommendations made by the OSCE itself and comes to confirm that our concerns were well-founded. I also asked the European Commission to comment, but it was lazy and did not do its duty."
On behalf of DIKO, Panikos Leonidou stated that "after the OSCE remarks which mainly concerned three or five issues, which we accepted and included in the proposal which we will vote for. As far as AKEL's amendments are concerned, we are voting against them except for one because we believe that the right to public order is strengthened and we are consistent with what is determined by the Constitution itself."
AKEL against everyone – "We were waiting for a mea culpa»
AKEL MP Aristos Damianou said that he expected an elementary "mea culpa" from the MPs who voted for the monstrosity law in July. "If you had listened to our warnings then, we would not be here today," he concluded. In turn, Andreas Pasiourtidis said that at the critical time we stood on the right side, some others on the wrong side and now they come and find us."
ELAM MP Sotiris Ioannou noted that since the law was passed until today we have had eight demonstrations for Gaza, one bicommunal – LGBTQI and one for Cyprus and there was no problem in any of them. Furthermore, he added that he has not understood what AKEL will do, recalling that on January 21 a party MP had stated that "we are satisfied that the changes we were shouting for have been made. Obviously the cop from the OSCE had to come." "Will they vote against today? I realize that since then there have been too many internal party issues and they understand the differentiation," he concluded, leaving spikes.
The chairman of the Legal Committee and DISY MP, Nikos Tornaritis, said that they will not vote in favour of any AKEL amendment because they essentially abolish the legislation. "We respect the institutions, the decisions of the courts and you will never see us either against institutions or against the courts," he added.
AKEL's amendments were rejected by the majority. The law proposal was passed into law with 29 votes in favour and 13 abstentions from AKEL MPs.
