Opinion of the Government on the proposed amendments to the media Law shows that the tabloid Informer is just an extended arm of the executive branch used to perform media lynch of their opponents and spread hate speech.
Otherwise the Government would have shown elementary constructiveness and gave concrete proposals in order to ensure respect of the Constitution, laws and final judicial decisions, as well as the human rights of all individuals regardless of their religion, nationality and political orientation.
However, rather than to respond to specific comments of the prosecutor and court about the facts that the Law on media in practice proved to be meaningless and absurd, and inadequate to protect the constitutionally guaranteed human rights, the executive brunch allows that the organized crime and corrupted officials using the tabloid continue to spread hate speech and to fight with those who reveal their crimes.
Special absurd is the fact that about the freedom of the media speaks Dusko Markovic, a former longtime intelligence chief during whose term journalists have been killed, and the rights to freedom of speech and the media have been brutally violated, and when that service has established close links with the biggest criminals in the country and the region. At the same time, Markovic, as the Minister of Justice, have been deaf to the fact that one imported media mocks to the Montenegrin judiciary, which seeks amendments to the Law on media in order to be able to ensure compliance with its judgments, protection of minority rights and human rights of all individuals, and also those who fight against crime.
Proposed amendments to the Law of the media are in accordance with the Constitution of Montenegro and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the judgments of the Court in Strasbourg.
In fact, the Constitution, in Article 47, Paragraph 2 also provides that freedom of expression can be limited by other’s right to dignity, reputation and honor and if threatens public morality or security of Montenegro. Addditionly, the Constitution in Article 7 and 8 prohibits incitement of hatred or intolerance, as well as any type of discrimination.
In addition, Article 10, paragraph 2 of the European Convention stipulates a limit on freedom of expression when they are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
European Court of Human Rights in a number of its decisions held that the protection of the right to freedom of expression does not enjoy hate speech, and that effective prevention of serious offenses, where are threatened the fundamental values and basic human rights, requires efficient criminal-law provisions. The Court in Strasbourg considers that it is legitimate and permissible to restrict the spread of ideas that incite hatred and discrimination, and the freedom of expression can not be used in a way that would lead to the destruction of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the European Convention.
This is confirmed by the judgment of Groppera Radio AG and Others v Switzerland (1991), Demuth v Switzerland (2002), and in particular the judgment in the case of Muller and Others v Switzerland (1988), and Perrin v United Kingdom (2005).
Therefore, the spread of information and ideas that represent the execution of the crimes, propagate hate speech, discrimination and violates basic human rights and freedoms is prohibited in all civilized societies. In Montenegro, the executive brunch openly stands behind such media, under the alleged concern for freedom of the media.
Moreover, one of the criminal sanctions prescribed by the Criminal Code is the security measure of prohibition of the pursuit of calls, business and duties. The Criminal Code does not provide an exception of use of this sanctiontion for any profession, and journalists as well. However, based on the logic of the Minister Markovic and followed the principles he represents, this measure could not be imposed on a journalist who on the order of organized crime and corrupt officials that spread fascism, threaten the security of the country, incites discrimination, violates fundamental human rights and similar things because it would be censorship.
Also, the Law on the liability of legal persons for criminal offenses envisages sanction the termination of a legal entity whose activity is entirely or largely put into operation of the offenses. Here is also not intended that this penalty can not be applied to the media with such behavior.
Therefore, the Minister Markovic should significantly alter the legal system of Montenegro, as well as an international documents, if he wants to protect those in whose behalf changes to the law are suggested.
Therefore, we must conclude that the standards of the Minister Markovic and executive brunch have contact with European standards, law and justice as well as writing of “Informer” has contact with journalism. Because of that it is not surprising that their interests, opinions and attitudes regarding the proposed amendments to the media overlap.
MANS
