Nov 3, 2009
Ilia II, Freedom of Speech, and the Georgian Government…
One of the most fundamental freedoms is, I believe, the freedom of speech. Freedom of speech enables a country to show to every citizen that their opinion is allowed to be heard, no matter the content. In addition, a true democracy allows the mocking of important figures in society, and by doing so, it shows its maturity.
Recently, a few video‘s were released on youtube, which were making fun of the Georgian Patriarch. This, of course, led to some intense criticism. However, it were not only ordinary people calling the video shameful:
Few video clips mocking head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Patriarch Ilia II, which were first disseminated via internet and then through TV report, triggered wave of condemnation from Orthodox groups, opposition parties, the President’s administration and the Georgian Orthodox Church.
Well, that can be an understandable reaction, though I must admit I already find it a bit unprofessional for a government to react on something merely related to religion. However, I must add that the reaction of the presidential office might have seemed funny, if it were not so sad:
“Georgia is remarkable in the region for vibrant debating… At the same time, the Georgian President thinks that provoking of the Church and attempts to politicize [the Church] serves the interests of Georgia’s ill-wishers,” the statement reads. The statement praises the Patriarch and says that he “enjoys with huge support and respect of the society and of the President.”
I wonder, how this serves the interests of Georgia’s ill-wishers? In what way does the patriarch have anything to do with a country’s political situation. I just mean: a religious institution should not. Not to forget, that in the events it would, the mocking of any important figure in society is an illustration the country is able to receive withstand internal criticism.
However, the statement of the presidential office is not where it ended. Yesterday morning, civil.ge reported that the ministry of interior affairs launched an investigation and found the two makers of the movie.
The Interior Ministry said in a statement that two persons – one school pupil and another one a student – were identified as a result of “a preliminary investigation” launched together with the Prosecutor’s Office.
The story continues, becoming even more hilarious (and sadder):
Law enforcement agencies have refused to reveal based on what or on which legal grounds they decided to launch investigation into production and dissemination of videos mocking head of the Georgian Orthodox Church, Ilia II.
“As you know this fact [referring to mocking videos] has become so resonant issue among the society. The investigation was launched; but no one has been arrested. I can not tell you concretely based on what the investigation has been launched. I can not say more than what has already been said in the statement [released on November 1],”
To conclude, there is no grounds for investigating this issue, nor should there be; however, the law enforcement agencies did the opposite, because there is some kind of popular demand. As a student of law, this is easily one of the most ridiculous grounds for any judicial investigation I have ever heard.
I am glad the ombudsman has also asked questions about this.
I think there’s nothing wrong with investigating. For example, in the USA there was a story about someone posting a message on an internet forum of a threatening nature, regarding Obama.
The FBI or the Secret Service tracked down the person who posted that threatening message and either arrested them (if deemed there was intent behind the threat message) or gave a warning (if it was deemed a joke).
I have heard several stories of that nature–whenever there’s a threat made (joke or not) against any U.S. president, it’s the responsibility of the law enforcement agencies to investigate.
Another thing is the hypocrisy of the whole situation. When the story first broke, the opposition parties were quick to condemn and accuse the Georgian government of behind some “anti-church” campaign. Now they’ve changed their tune and are now pretending to be championing “free speech” after it was revealed the law enforcements are investigating.
So hypocrisy and sanctimoniousness shown by all (politicians, media, religious figures, commentators) in this matter, in my opinion.
Dear Rosa,
Thank you for your comment.
First of all, I think it must be made clear that the mocking video’s were not in any way a threat. They were merely making fun of the patriarch.
Secondly, I do not think that taking the United States as the example for freedom of speech is a good idea, since they are known lately for restricting it, due to what they call ‘security’ reasons.
In addition, it doesn’t matter where in the world a government decides making fun of someone, should be made a criminal matter. It happened in the Netherlands, and it made me furious; same goes for the Danish cartoons. We had centuries of enlightenment to acknowledge freedom of speech is of utmost importance in any sophisticated society.
Thirdly, the difference between a government pressing official charges, and an opposition just stating its resentment, is of course majorly different.
Furthermore, in this case, I believe it is not even important what any opposition thinks; what is important, is the fact that appareantly one is not allowed to say anything bad about Georgia’s patriarch; and that is scary. Not to mention, undemocratic. (To add: my true believe is that religion and state affairs should always be devided; however, that is not even the case. If they would be mocking Saakashvili, it should also be allowed).
Regards,
-IS-
Rosa, I think you make a pretty valid point about the shifting political undertones in the whole matter, but I think Inge’s fundamental premise – that people should be free to lampoon or criticize the Patriarch – still holds true.
I should also point out threats do not constitute free speech. But yes, free speech in America has been somewhat curbed in recent years, but speech laws in here are still relatively far less restrictive than in continental Europe or Canada (we do not have ‘anti-racism’ laws, for example), much less most elsewhere.
Thanks for the comments.
-MHC