BY
It is not
often – or certainly not often enough – that the courts of Odessa fail to
satisfy the requests/petitions of City Hall.
Indeed much
of the local constituency would perceive the courts of Odessa as being in
cahoots with, or at the very least tacitly approving (by way of inaction) many
acts of City Hall that would appear to breach the of City Ordnance to which it
is meant to comply.
As stated in yesterday‘s entry. there is the possibility
of some rather tense moments in Odessa over the coming weeks – the 2nd anniversary
of the 2nd May tragedy, the 9th May Victory day events, and the first
anniversary of Governor Saakashvili’s appointment.
All of these
dates have the potential for mass gatherings and perhaps spontaneous, or agent
provocateur instigated, or pre-planned violence, when considering the purely
politically and artificially created atmosphere of complete intolerance among
the local political class in recent weeks.
The “old
guard” is clearly pushing back – Messrs Kivalov and Skoryk are pushing their
agenda. Anton Kisse in the south-west of the Oblast is making
“Bessarabian” noises (again). Mayor Trukhanov is under the Panama Papers
cosh, Governor Saakashvili will face anniversary questions of accomplishments
(or not), and the persistent mention of both Ihor Kolomoisky and Alexander
Angert continues in the local political and underworld circles with regard to
continued disservices to the well-being of the city (and region). This
notwithstanding continuing societal discontent over issues such as the perceived
lack of rule of law and failure to tackle corruption within the local and
national elite.
Considering
these dates are upon the immediate horizon, City Hall petitioned the courts of
Odessa to ban mass events from 1st – 10th May at Kulikovo Field.
Kulikovo
Field, adjacent to the city centre railway station, has traditionally been the
location for 9th May Victory Day military parades, and is also the location of
Union House, the scene of several shootings and the fire that claimed so many
lives in 2014.
City Hall
claimed that allowing mass gatherings would “draw the
attention of a large number of radical parties with an opposing civil
position.”
Perhaps so.
Certainly a legitimate concern for those governing the city, and clearly
a symbolic and tragic location. It is to be duly noted that this was the
only location that City Hall sought to ban mass gatherings between the dates
identified.
The petition prima facie sought to prevent the opportunity for
large scale disorder by preemptively banning large organised gatherings at
Kulikovo Field, vis a vis the right of society to freedom of
assembly, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech.
Such decisions
are never particularly easy for any authority, albeit in a democracy the
default position of a court should lean toward the fundamental rights of the
constituency. The case to curtail such rights must necessarily have a
particularly high threshold. Existing human rights outweighing the
potential for human wrongs and all that.
(Reader’s
will duly note that democracy and rule of law, and indeed the independence of
the courts in Ukraine, can be perceived as somewhat subjective to be
charitable.)
The outcome
was that the court in Odessa refused to satisfy the City Hall petition to ban
mass events at Kulikovo Field. The court stated that the City Hall
arguments were simply not convincing as only one NGO had notified City Hall of
its intention to carry out activities on Kulikovo Field during the period
1st – 10th May.
The NGO that
notified City Hall of its intentions at Kulikovo Field was AutoMaidan
Odessa, who planned to carry out “military/patriotic education of the youth”
and familiarising “the youth” with MMGs (weaponry operation, size, weights etc)
including their use and the use of pyrotechnics.
Quite
rightly, the court banned the use of MMGs and pyrotechnics during the “military/patriotic
education of the youth“, but not the NGO from holding its activities
on Kulikovo Field. It now falls to the police to insure that ban is
robustly and uncompromisingly enforced. (The lack of enforced court
rulings across Ukraine is a significant problem – if a case gets to court at
all.)
This raises
the question of whether those that uphold the rule of law feel able to
adequately provide for the safety of the local constituency – or not – when
considering the risk of significant public disorder. A reader may
question what input, if any, the police and/or the SBU had in this City Hall
petition to the court, and/or what evidence these institutions gave at the
court hearing – if any.
All of that
said, the vast majority of the local constituency will not be engaging in any
AutoMaidan Odessa activities at Kulikovo Field, no differently from the
vast majority of the local constituency not partaking in the tragic events of
2nd May 2014. Indeed the vast majority of the local constituency have not
attended any of the numerous 9th May military victory parades at Kulikovo Field
of years past either.
It is
therefore perhaps not the only the local constituency that City Hall fears when
it states Kulikovo Field will “draw the attention of a large number of radical
parties with an opposing civil position”. Indeed, few would be surprised
if “concerned citizens” (of various persuasions) external of
Odessa were to arrive to “show their support” (to whomever).
Such
non-local actors may decide it entirely unnecessary to inform City Hall of
their attendance at Kulikova Field of course. Ergo it may be the case
that other organisations may be present.
What, if any,
input from the SBU and/or police was given to the court with regard to
intelligence is unknown. The court can only rule upon the evidence and
arguments presented.
If 2015 was an
indication of what is ahead on these sensitive dates in 2016, then the court
decision will certainly prove to be the right one. That said, 2015 did
not see the local political class so openly manipulating events and forcefully
pushing their own personal agendas in such a reckless manner – the tragic
events of 2014 however, did.
A few days of
politically soothing rhetoric, a (perhaps unfortunately temporary) changing ofmodus operandi for some, and unambiguous stern words
behind the curtain would seem in order to aid the court in its decision
ultimately proving to be justified by events (or lack thereof) in the weeks
ahead, rather than arguments presented upon which after due deliberation, it
has now ruled.
No comments:
Post a Comment