Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
In about a month after the Patriarchy urged the authorities to “ensure ade-
quate protection of religious feelings in a timely manner”, on the basis of the
application of a political party Georgian Idea, Tbilisi City Hall prepared a report
of administrative offence against founder of AIISA, Ani Gachechiladze, under
art.159 of the Code of Administrative Offences of Georgia, for violating the rules
1 Johann Wolfgang von Goethe for commissioning, producing and disseminating advertisements7. On May 4,
2 http://www.tabula.ge/ge/story/104217-komitetma-religiu-
ri-grdznobebis-sheuracxkofis-dasjas-mxari-dauchira Tbilisi City Court’s board of administrative cases subsequently found that AIISA
3 https://goo.gl/Dox1En
4 https://goo.gl/KdEhpQ
products were unethical and they “violate universally recognized human and
5 https://goo.gl/RpCn4P moral norms, infringe upon religious symbols by using blasphemous words and
6 https://goo.gl/AA3Xu3
7 https://goo.gl/V99KE5 comparisons (images)...” Ani Gachechiladze was fined GEL 500 by the court,
she was ordered to remove products with certain designs from the market and
was prohibited from using them in the future. The decision provides definitions
of epiphany, Didgori Battle, King Tamar and “blessing hand” but it says noth-
ing about legal motivation as to why placing an image of Didgori Battle on a
condom package is unethical, why it contradicts universally recognized human
norms and more importantly, how can it counterweigh restriction of freedom of
expression.
Alongside radical groups, certain Georgian MPs were also pleased with the
court’s decision. Ironically, members of the legal affairs committee were espe-
cially delighted. For instance, Zakaria Kutsnashvili announced: “we have written
and unwritten tradition that we don’t say bad things about those who have
departed from this world8.” Gedi Popkhadze said that the court’s decision was
absolutely right. According to him, those who want to defend AIISA are mental-
ly underdeveloped9.
Clearly, civil society was alarmed by this decision. Notably, Judge Lasha Tavart-
kiladze cited ECtHR case law to substantiate his position, including Handyside
v United Kingdom. According to him, states enjoy broad margin of apprecia-
tion to impose such restrictions, however the court deliberately avoided citing
ECtHR phrases that have become a standard, as reinforced in this particular
case: freedom of expression entails not only “information” or “ideas” that are
favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference,
but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the
population. Such are the demands of that pluralism, tolerance and broadmin-
dedness without which there is no “democratic society”. Exceptions to the
right to freedom of expression should be strictly defined and the necessity of
interference should be convincingly established.10
Bishop of Ruis-Urbnisi Eparchy Iob cursed him during a sermon11: “I curse him
and damn him, he will no longer repent, he’s the servant of the evil himself.
This television [Rustavi 2] should be abolished.” The following day Patriarchy
issued a statement in response to the program and urged the clergy to cut
any ties with Rustavi 2, not to give them any interviews or participate in their
programs12. The Patriarchy also urged the government to make effective and
quick steps to create legal and other mechanisms to protect public and pursue
appropriate policy to prevent development of uncontrollable processes.
There is a high public interest in the Patriarchy because it is one of the most
influential organizations actively involved in various political processes; it ex-
presses opinions about draft laws and policies of the State and is funded from
the State budget. Its statements may affect not only attitudes of the members
of its parish and formation of their opinion but also on decisions made by the
government, due to populist or other motives.
These processes are especially dangerous in light of the fact that the chair of
8 https://goo.gl/Cvu73B the parliamentary human rights committee supports punishment for offending
9 https://goo.gl/exMdif
10 https://goo.gl/Htqtcs, para.49 religious feelings and her committee endorses such legislative initiative13. Un-
11 https://goo.gl/ad5WAi
12 https://goo.gl/ymuL75
fortunately, Sophio Kiladze’s statement didn’t come as a surprise. For instance,
13 https://goo.gl/Dox1En in June 2017, about the case of “Birja Mafia” she stated: “what is there to like
THREATS OF LIMITING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
about a video that insults and discredits the law enforcement structures.”14
Further, due to homophobic attitudes of Sophio Kiladze, up to thirty NGOs
demand her resignation.15
In May 2018, head of the parliamentary legal affairs committee Eka Beselia
and MP Levan Gogichaishvili prepared a bill that amends art.9 of the Law
of Georgia on Culture. According to the existing version, “interference in the
creative process, censorship of creative activity, seizure of a creative work and
prohibition of its distribution shall be prohibited, except if it infringes upon the
rights and legal interest of another person, stirs up national, ethnic, religious or
racial discord, preaches war and violence, or propagates pornography.”16 This
regulation has been effective in Georgia since 1997 and it is essentially non-en-
forceable. According to the bill prepared by Beselia and Gogichaishvili, the
following sentence would have been inserted in the existing regulation: “prohibi-
tion of distribution of a creative work is allowed only under court decision.”
Clearly, none of the two versions of the Constitution allows limitation of creative
freedom based on grounds provided in art.9 of the Law of Georgia on Culture.
Violation of rights of others is a constitutional standard, a very high standard
and it should not be interpreted in a way that Judge Lasha Tavartkiladze would
have interpreted. The bill aimed to lower the Constitutional standard, instead of
harmonizing the existing Georgian legislation with amendments to the Consti-
tution of Georgia, as stated in the explanatory note. Instead of undermining the
constitutional standard, it would have been logical for the legislative body to
abolish art.9 of the Law of Georgia on Culture.
On May 29, it became known that the law of Georgia on Culture would no
longer be amended. Official motives of the decision are unknown, however it is
safe to believe that public criticism stopped the legislative initiative. Without ac-
tive public resistance, including by cultural public figures, Parliament may have
adopted amendments inspired by the spirit of censorship based on the motive
of harmonizing legislation with the Constitution.
Around the same time, on May 10, several MPs including chair of the human
rights committee Sophio Kiladze initiated amendments to the Law of Georgia
on Assemblies and Manifestations. The bill was adopted in September and it
will come into force as soon as the president elected in the 2018 presidential
election takes an oath. Up until now, everyone except employees of the armed
forces, armed law enforcement bodies, paramilitary and special institutions had
the right to participate in assemblies and manifestations without prior permis-
sion. The amendments extend the list, so that the prohibition also applies to
employees of defense forces or bodies that are responsible for protecting state
or public security. It may seem that the terms used in the two different formula-
tions are the same, however as a result of the amendments, the prohibition will
be extended to employees of the prosecution service, MIA, investigative service
of the Ministry of Finance, General Inspection of the Ministry of Justice, defense
forces, State Security Service, intelligence, Special State Protection Service,
special penitentiary service as well as the investigative department of the Min-
istry of Corrections, Emergency Response Center, the department of environ-
mental oversight of the Ministry of Environment and Agriculture of Georgia.
Conclusion
The foregoing cases illustrate how the authorities try to limit freedom of ex-
pression in certain cases, by imposing preliminary control, in order to avoid
problems and disgruntlement that has accumulated in public overtime over
policies pursued by the government. In addition, the ongoing processes can be
viewed as a courtesy to the church, the most influential institution in Georgia,
and a clear concession made to its parish by limiting freedom of expression
on religious issues. However, the fact that mobilized public resistance can still
influence decision-making by the government leaves hope.
19 https://goo.gl/gWCXU2
20 https://goo.gl/jbU6HX