Georgia's Day of shame Huge outcry after Orthodox priests lead mob in violent breakup of peaceful rally

There has been a huge outcry from international quarters, as well as within Georgian society, following the violent break-up by a mob led by Orthodox Priests of a small peaceful rally marking the International Day against Homophobia in the Georgian capital Tbilisi. Participants in the rally, that was also attended by a number of foreign diplomats, had to be evacuated after the police nearly lost control of the situation. The Georgian government has condemned the violence and has promised an investigation but as yet nobody has been arrested.

Six leading Georgian civil society organisations have issued a toughly worded statement criticisng the government's handling of the events. The statement, issued by Transparency International Georgia; Georgian Democratic Initiative (GDI); Human Rights Education and Monitoring Center (EMC); Georgian Young Lawyers' Association; Article 42 of the Constitution of Georgia and the International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED) says:

"On May 17, the state failed to secure the area designated for the pre-arranged rally on International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. This is an infringement of the rally participants' freedom of assembly and demonstration.

The measures which had been put in place by the police to ensure the safety of the rally participants were both inadequate and ineffective. They failed to withstand the number and unrestrained behaviour of the counter-demonstrators.

According to information and material provided by our observers, counter-demonstrators faced no resistance when they came to break down the cordon. Having given a group of Orthodox clergy priests (who represented the counter-demonstrators) an opportunity to enter the scheduled anti-homophobia rally, the police were then unable to stem the flow of activists who followed them.

The mass of counter-demonstrators started aggressively moving towards the rally participants and proceeded to occupy the space allocated for the rally. Only a few rally participants managed to escape the scene safely.

At this stage we can make the initial assessment and state the following:


■ The Ministry of Interior failed to adequately assess the potential risks posed by the counter-demonstrators, and failed to prepare a suitable safety strategy. It was clear from the start that the number of police mobilized would be inadequate, and that the measures prepared against the offenders would have no effect;

■ The police were uncoordinated and unable to protect the citizens' freedom of expression. Furthermore, it seemed that the Ministry of Interior's focus was on the safe removal of the rally participants from the area rather than protecting the rally itself. The police did not make enough effort to ensure the safety of the rally participants throughout the demonstration;

■ As soon as the rally territory was occupied by the counter-demonstrators, the police simply stood back. This gave the counter-demonstrators freedom to behave aggressively and increased their opportunities to harass individual rally participants; an occurrence which unfortunately happened far too often;

■ Most alarming is the attitude of police officers towards the participants of the planned rally on the Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia. All our observers affirmed that the police officers frequently referred to the rally participants in a cynical and insulting manner and were seen sympathizing with the counter-demonstrators. This attitude was also evident in their general behavior.

At this point thousands of counter-demonstrators were still swarming the streets, marking themselves out by their patent aggression towards those they identified with the initial rally. The police force once again failed here, and limited their actions to simply diffusing various incidents of aggression.

Based on all of the above, we call on the Ministry of Interior to:
■ Immediately undertake effective measures for securing public order and the safety of citizens;

■ Hold all those officials responsible who failed to adequately assess the existing risks, and bring to justice those who did not ensure the safety of the rally participants and their right to assembly and demonstrate;

■ Investigate and bring to account all those who prevented the citizens from holding the planned rally on the Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia, who resorted to violence against those with different views and insulted them both verbally and physically.

Observer organizations shall monitor these developments and will provide the public with more information and assessments at a later date."

There have been statements of condemnation from the European Union, the United States and other governments and international organisations. The Foreign Minister of the Netherlands summed up the international outrage, "It is unacceptable, particularly on the International Day against Homophobia, that lesbians, gays, bisexuals and transgenders cannot exercise their fundamental rights, like the right to free expression and peaceful demonstration," said Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans, who expressed "shock" over the violence in Tbilisi.

"The Netherlands, together with other EU countries, will continue to remind the Georgian authorities that the Georgian police are obliged to respect the rights of these individuals," he said. The Dutch government said in a press release that it summoned the Georgian ambassador on May 17, following violence in downtown Tbilisi; it also says that defending LGBT rights is one of the cornerstones of Dutch human rights policy.

Commonspace.eu political editor said in a comment

"The incidents on 17 May highlighted more deep-rooted problems of intolerance and religious fundamentalism in Georgian society. Whilst the Georgian Orothodox church remains an important symbol of Georgian statehood, it has remained largely caught in a time warp , unreformed since the middle ages. The incidents have now put the church in the spotlight.

Observers also think that the size and the character of the protests indicates that it was a well-planned and resourced operation, likely aimed at distabilising the new government of Bidhzina Ivanishvili which has been going to great lengths to promote human rights issues but which now finds itself caught between a rock and a hard place."

source: commonspace.eu with CEW and agencies.

Related articles

Editor's choice
News
Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

Israeli parliament votes to bring back the death penalty, but only for Palestinians

srael’s parliament approved a bill on Monday that would allow the execution of Palestinians convicted on terror charges for deadly attacks, a move that has been criticized as discriminatory and immediately drew a court challenge. Sixty-two lawmakers, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, voted in favor and 48 against the bill, championed by far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir. There was one abstention and the rest of the lawmakers were not present. Ben Gvir in the run-up to the vote had worn a lapel pin in the shape of a noose, symbolising his support for the legislation. “We made history!!! We promised. We delivered,” he posted on X after the vote. The bill would make the death penalty the default punishment for Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank found guilty of intentionally carrying out deadly attacks deemed “acts of terrorism” by an Israeli military court. The bill says that the sentence may be reduced to life imprisonment under “special circumstances.” Palestinians in the West Bank are automatically tried in Israeli military courts. Meanwhile, under the bill, in Israeli criminal courts anyone “who intentionally causes the death of a person with the aim of harming an Israeli citizen or resident out of an intention to put an end to the existence of the State of Israel shall be sentenced to death or life imprisonment.” Criminal courts try Israeli nationals, including Palestinian citizens and residents of east Jerusalem. The bill sets the execution method as hanging, adding that it should be carried out within 90 days of the sentencing, with a possible postponement of up to 180 days. - ‘Parallel tracks’ - The bill appears to conflict with Israel’s Basic Laws, which prohibit arbitrary discrimination, and shortly after it was passed, a leading human rights group announced that it had filed a petition with the Supreme Court demanding the legislation’s annulment. “The law creates two parallel tracks, both designed to apply to Palestinians,” the Association for Civil Rights in Israel said in a statement. “In military courts — which have jurisdiction over West Bank Palestinians — it establishes a near-mandatory death sentence,” the rights group said. In civilian courts, the law’s stipulation that defendants must have acted “with the aim of negating the existence” of Israel “structurally excludes Jewish perpetrators,” the group added. The association argued the law should be annulled on both jurisdictional and constitutional grounds. During the debate in parliament, opposition lawmaker and former deputy Mossad director, Ram Ben Barak, expressed outrage at the legislation. “Do you understand what it means that there is one law for Arabs in Judea and Samaria, and a different law for the general public for which the State of Israel is responsible?” he asked fellow parliamentarians, using the Israeli name for the West Bank. “It says that Hamas has defeated us. It has defeated us because we have lost all our values.” - ‘Discriminatory application’ - Lawmaker Limor Son Har-Melech from Ben Gvir’s party, who years ago survived an attack by Palestinian militants in which her husband was killed, urged fellow parliamentarians to approve the bill. “For years, we endured a cruel cycle of terror, imprisonment, release in reckless deals, and the return of these human monsters to murder Jews again ... And today, my friends, this cycle has come full circle.” The Palestinian Authority condemned the law’s adoption, saying that “Israel has no sovereignty over Palestinian land.” “This law once again reveals the nature of the Israeli colonial system, which seeks to legitimize extrajudicial killing under legislative cover,” it added. In February, Amnesty International had urged Israeli lawmakers to reject the legislation, citing its “discriminatory application against Palestinians.” On Sunday, Britain, France, Germany and Italy expressed “deep concern” over the bill, which they said risked “undermining Israel’s commitments with regards to democratic principles.” While the death penalty exists for a small number of crimes in Israel, it has become a de facto abolitionist country — the Nazi Holocaust perpetrator Adolf Eichmann was the last person to be executed in 1962. Israel has occupied the West Bank since 1967 and violence there has soared since Hamas’s October 7, 2023 attack on Israel triggered the Gaza war. (read more by clicking the image above).

Popular

Editor's choice
Interview
Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Thursday Interview: Murad Muradov

Today, commonspace.eu starts a new regular weekly series. THURSDAY INTERVIEW, conducted by Lauri Nikulainen, will host  persons who are thinkers, opinion shapers, and implementors in their countries and spheres. We start the series with an interview with Murad Muradov, a leading person in Azerbaijan's think tank community. He is also the first co-chair of the Action Committee for a new Armenian-Azerbaijani Dialogue. Last September he made history by being the first Azerbaijani civil society activist to visit Armenia after the 44 day war, and the start of the peace process. Speaking about this visit Murad Muradov said: "My experience was largely positive. My negative expectations luckily didn’t play out. The discussions were respectful, the panel format bringing together experts from Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Turkey was particularly valuable during the NATO Rose-Roth Seminar in Yerevan, and media coverage, while varied in tone, remained largely constructive. Some media outlets though attempted to represent me as more of a government mouthpiece than an independent expert, which was totally misleading.  Overall, I see these initiatives as important steps in rebuilding trust and normalising professional engagement. The fact that soon a larger Azerbaijani civil society visits to Armenia followed, reinforces the sense that this process is moving in the right direction." (click the image to read the interview in full)