It so happens that Alexander Lukashenko is 66 today. He was born in Kopy, Belarus on August 30, 1954.
Demonstrations continue across the country including the capital, Minsk.
The protests are about democracy, not about a westward geopolitical course.
Presidential candidate Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, who according to credible exit polls won the August 9 presidential ballot, has said:
“[The protest movement] is neither a pro-Russian nor an anti-Russian revolution. It is neither an anti-European Union nor a pro-European Union revolution. It is a democratic revolution.”
Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya spent a number of summers in Roscrea, learning English.
Minsk Archbishop Tadeusz Kondrusiewicz, has issued a statement after an altercation between people heading for church and Minsk police. The archbishop said that Belarusian armed forces are supposed to protect citizen rights, not hinder them.
He has called for reconciliation and dialogue to resolve the political instability in the country.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered to send police to Belarus in support of the Lukaschenko government. Or should it now be called a 'regime'?
4 comments:
Yesterday, Saturday (29.08.2020) a demonstration took place in Berlin. Senator of the Interior Andreas Geisel (SPD) first banned the demonstration because he did not want to accept that Berlin would once again become a stage for "corona deniers and right-wing extremists". The reason given by the authorities for the ban was that the gathering of tens of thousands of people - often without masks or distance - posed too high a health risk to the population. Only early Saturday morning, the Higher Administrative Court of Berlin-Brandenburg confirmed in the second instance that the ban did not last. (By the way, Robert F. Kennedy, JFK's nephew, gave a good speech in English: www.youtube.com/watch?v=-u3H3PvebBU )
What I would like to point out here is that as soon as the western media starts talking about the temporary mass rallies in Belarus or the unstoppable BLM/Antifa riots in the USA, "infection incidents", "super spreader events" and "social distancing" no longer play a role.
This disturbed phenomenon always manifests itself when the "international community" is on the side of the mob. As is the case in the USA, for example, and increasingly so in Belarus, Hong Kong and elsewhere. If the establishment is geo-politically and strategically in the mood to mobilise hundreds of thousands of people and drive them onto the streets, Corona does not exist. At the very least, the indignation and dismay at the colossal crowds of people that the anti-Corona lockdown demonstrations, for example, are generating is far from being aroused.
This stinking double standard is particularly noticeable in the debate on the right of assembly. If you are allowed to go out into the streets in the middle of a supposed pandemic to voice your displeasure in the world, you will only be determined by your political orientation.
You make many interesting points.
I watched the Kennedy clip and that too is interesting and makes me ask many questions. I do note that it is an RT production. But important to say that St Thomas Aquinas said that we should never concern ourselves with who said it but instead concentrate on what was said.
I think you are comparing apples and oranges to an extent here, Andreas. Three countries, three very different situations. Let's look at them in a bit more detail.
Belarus: There are serious (quite credible) allegations that the recent presidential election was massively rigged to ensure the victory of the incumbent. As a result, hundreds of thousands have taken to the streets in protest - something, incidentally, which strengthens the claims of massive fraud; if Lukashenko won by such a large amount, where are all the protesters coming from?
The protests in Belarus are about a serious perversion of a fundamental cornerstone of every democratic society, free and fair elections.
USA: The wave of protest engulfing the US in the past months was set off by the horrific murder of George Floyd by a policeman in Minneapolis. It brought to the fore deep issues of systematic injustice, discrimination, and racism in America.
The protests in the USA are about serious questions regarding the the basic rights of black and brown people and the concrete daily endangerment of their lives at the hands of the police (admittedly potentiated by the fact that the US is in the middle of an election cycle).
Germany/Berlin: In the face of the Corona pandemic, various public authorities have mandated specific restrictions in individual behaviour, including the wearing of facemasks and the maintenance of certain distances between people in particular situations. A group of people opposing these restrictions applied for a permit to demonstrate against them. The authorities in Berlin rejected the application, the protesters appealed to the courts, and the courts affirmed their right to demonstrate.
The demonstration had to be broken up by the police after it became clear that the regulations regarding masks and distancing (which had been implicitly accepted by the organisers of the demonstration for the purposes of obtaining the permit) were not being adhered to - thus practically justifying the reasoning of the authorities for originally not permitting the demonstration.
The protests were about specific public health measures enacted in an attempt to protect people from a life-threatening global pandemic. Moreover, no matter how many of us might have regarded the position of the demonstrators as deeply questionable, they were accorded basic legal rights of assembly and the demonstration was permitted.
+ + +
I would contend that the issues giving rise to protest in Belarus and the US were fundamental and deeply serious, those in Berlin, on the other hand, were about particular specific public health measures. There is a large difference in proportionality here.
The right to freedom of assembly does not give a right to break the law. It does not give a protester in Portland the right to throw a Molotov cocktail - and it does not give a protester in Berlin (under current legal regulations) the right not to wear a mask.
The issue of rights in the public sphere is always messy, because different rights may be in conflict with each other. It is completely permissible to decide that during a pandemic general public safety issues are more important than some people's discomfort at having to wear a mask. It is just as permissible to decide that protesting a fundamental concrete corruption of basic democratic rights (as in Belarus) is in this case more important than public health concerns.
These are questions of proportionality. And good judgement.
Francis, I have to correct that one. In Germany there is no requirement to wear masks in outside areas and it was not a condition of the permit for the demonstration. The only condition was to keep a distance of 1.5m and a maximum of 10 people in clusters.
Also the demo on yesterday's Saturday was not cancelled, unlike the demo 2 weeks before. Late in the evening the police closed down a night camp at 'Berlin Victory Column'.
In addition, there is no evidence of negative health effects caused by previous demonstrations, such as the 'good' demonstration on 06.06.2020. www.youtube.com/watch?v=51cAdVD1atI
What I forgot to mention in my previous comment was the case from Zimbabwe: Diplomats Warn Zimbabwe Against Using COVID-19 to Restrict Citizen Rights
www.voanews.com/africa/diplomats-warn-zimbabwe-against-using-covid-19-restrict-citizen-rights
As Michael always says: A funny old world
Post a Comment