RNDr Jiří Šoler
CSc., Member of the Czech Parliament
Committee for Local Administration,
Regional Development and Environment
Patriot Republican Party
Elišky Přemyslovny 393, 156 00 Praha - Zbraslav,
tel: 42 2 401 00 96, e-mail: soler@psp.cz
In the answer present reference number 001/95
doc ing Václav Klaus CSc.
Premier-Minister of the Czech Republic
Zbraslav, 7 March 1995
INTERPELLATION
to the Premier-Minister of the Czech Republic doc
ing Václav Klaus CSc.
Concerning Free Competition of the Political Parties,
Observance and Protection of Human Rights,
Trial and Punishment of Political Crimes.
Motto:I am best man next to God; I devise slogans.
I fetter you at the oars firmly by your arms.
J. Voskovec, J. Werich, Boatman's song
Dear Mr Premier,
one declared goal of the coup d'état in November 1989 was creation of the true democratic and legal state based on the pluralistic democracy, free competition of political parties and consistent thorough observance of human rights. Unfortunately, instead of realizing this ideal, there occurred only the change of the establishment concluded in advance; nevertheless new establishment had and have no scruples to use for reaching and keeping its government the same criminal means used by generations of communistic rulers. So, meanwhile much people prattle about the non democratic character of the last establishment and about punishment of communistic crimes (naturally, except prattling there is almost no activity), the new rulers commit new crimes, with the same sort of inhumanity as their predecessor's crimes, only with camouflage of the false humanism slogans.
Immediately after the coup d'état, we had opportunity to meet the slogans prepared before and the screen organisations (namely movement called Civic Forum), the main goal of which was transfer of power to the hands of in advance prepared structures and to disable creation of any independent initiatives. Some slogans proclaimed ideals of false humanity ("we are not like they are") with the goal to suppress not requested really spontaneous actions; other slogans reminded peoples with knowledge of history the true matter of the new prepared establishment. This is no accident, that e.g. the familiar slogan "Strength through unity" may be found as subsidiary heading in the chapter "fascism" in the Czech translation of the book by Andrew Heywood "Political Ideologies". No doubt, when main ideologists of this movement similarly as ideologists of fascism started from the negation of all experience, often from the primitive and thoughtless negation of communism.
Some time ago was in television Italian film "Mountain woman" beginning with several shots from demonstrations of Benito Mussolini (the rest dealt with something another). And from the screen I felt the spirit of the meetings from the Václavské Square and from Letná in 1989, therefore I paid my attention to comparison of both movements. As an evidence of similarity of both ideologies I beg leave to present several quotations from the book mentioned above by A. Heywood in order of their inclusion in the book (quotations are shown by italics):
The negative features of fascist ideology are often clearer than its positive ones. … For example, in fascism "freedom" came to mean complete submission, "democracy" was equated with dictatorship, and progress implied constant struggle and war. … Above all, fascism was a movement; its major ideologists, like Hitler and Mussolini, were essentially propagandists, interested in ideas and theories only in so far as they had power to elicit an emotional response and awaken the masses to action. How true image of the November events, where essential for the success was control of the frenetic crying crowd! … fascists wished to obliterate the individual altogether and establish the dominance of the community or social group. From there results the effort to justify the crimes of the present establishment by the consent of the fanatic crowd. It was this prospect of social cohesion, or as the Nazis promised "strength through unity", which has given fascism its popular appeal at times of crisis and disorder. Primarily disallow people to begin to think. In contrast, fascism addressed the soul, the emotions and the instincts. … Finally, there were the masses, who sought guidance and direction, and whose destiny was unquestioning obedience. … Leader's authority is absolute and unquestionable because he, and he alone, understands the "real" will of the people, the "general will". … Leader possesses both unlimited constitutional power and unquestionable ideological authority. (Cf. article 65 paragraph 3 of the Czech Constitution). Leader should enjoy direct, personal contact with his people, typically organised through mass meetings, popular demonstrations and plebiscites. (In fact, he already cannot to cope with it). Intermediate institutions such as elections, parliaments and parties, must either be abolished or weakened. Preferably along with the communist methodology of the "National front".
Understand, please, that when slight modification of the slogan from the Mussolini march to Rome "Parties are for party-men, bundles (fasces) are for all" appeared on the streets, the new elite uncovered its true matter wholly; unfortunately the fable about democratic substance of the new movement is accepted by many peoples that only slowly wake up. Even I must confess my initial fall in this mass suggestion, when I rang with keys with so pleasure, that I intend to repeat it again. Further, even I had terrible experience with communistic establishment. But similar ways may help to destroy old society, but may not be successfully applied for building new better ones. And my experience with new society is not much better. Understand, please, for that reason, when I use from time to time for characterisation of its elements the term "fascistic".
Finally, there are ever more difficult to deny the personal relations among the collaborating elite from times of Nazi occupation, ideologists of the communistic totality and present ideologists. And show-trial in preparation with heroic defenders of the National Nazi Victims Monument in Terezín against Hitler's successors undoubtedly proves direct linking of the present establishment and Hitler's Germany. And may be found better explanation for demand to Members of Parliament to forgive for their presenting of the objective facts from the time of occupation, to say nothing of their mention of political crimes of present establishment? How may be explained attempts to restrict (during hearing state budget) financial support of the veteran organisation of the anti Nazi resistance League of the Freedom Defenders? While there are raised new monuments of Nazi criminals, the anti-Nazi defenders are in silence liquidated. Further just 50 years after the end of Nazi occupation!
One base of philosophy of the current Czech totality is creation of artificial enemy according to the slogan "Everybody not with us is against us". The slogan was surprisingly not found by communists, as many people expect; its analysis may be found already in work of Karel Havlíček Borovský, e.g. in the article Slavonic policy in journal Slovan in June 1850. The object "we" points at current "national elite"; the object "they" (the enemy) points at certain sort of abstract communists. Those entirely different from the real ones, full of which are ruling parties, and those to whom is now delegated the economic power; another significant part of the new arising middle and higher class is recruited from the former criminal rabble (underhand moneychangers, pimps etc.). Present moral collapse of the society is a result of this fact. The fight against the artificial enemy justifies the worst crimes. I personally see the category of crucial importance, where it is necessary to be fundamental and no retreat is possible, not in the fight against the fictive enemy, but in the honesty and democratic character of the political system and observance of the political rights and freedoms of all citizens. No matter of their sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, pertinence to national minority, property, birth or other status.
I beg leave to return to ideals forming for many years democratic Europe. I shall again reference Havlíček, now from the article Journalist foreword from Pražské noviny on 6 January 1848: Each government and each political party may be good or wrong; partly depending on situation and nation (since each kind of government is not for each nation evenly suitable); but namely according to one property, in absence of which no government and no political party, no matter how its name is beautiful and modern, is valuable for the nation, and without which no party may benefit its country. It is honesty, when government objectively and fairly rules, when government observes itself its own law, when it does all prescribed to others, and it does nothing for what it punishes its common citizens, and it respects the real bless of the nation and not its own profit and its comfort, when government respect wise and by many monarchs declared principle, that government serves to the nation and not the nation to government in the world. In short, when government does not exclude itself from the moral principles being prescribed to individuals and society by everlasting law of nature.
So I cannot believe peoples prattling many years about human rights, but when they have came to power, they have started in oppressing it. I put no trust in peoples accusing others of exciting pogroms, but they themselves excite such hate and pogroms against their opponents. I principally reject the slogan "the end justifies the means", even if the fall in it is sometimes so pleasant. Namely to prevent such fall, there is essential some codex. On the contrary of Havlíček, my codex was not created by God, but by modern society as basic principles and rules called political and human rights. And since namely in this field is in our society something rotten, I submit you in the supplement of this interpellation detailed analysis of the situation and I demand improvement of the present miserable one. Although my analysis may be incomplete, it may at least rather improve fatal state of our democracy.
I reject in principle populist approach offending last establishment, and simultaneously committing similar inhumanities of the present system. I propose therefore, so as the political crimes of the post November establishment should be measured by the same methods like crimes of communistic establishment. I do not require creation of the Bureau for Documentation and Investigation of the Present Political Crimes (it would attend by cushy job for some political protégé of the Civic Forum or Charter 77), in the legal state it should be manageable by constitution institution. Naturally, if it is led by specialists, not by criminals.
I apply to you also based on the resolution of the congress of the coalition Czech Moravian Centre Party - Liberal Social Union - Agrarian Party from 17 December 1994, requiring verification of the competence of the administrative obstacles for the fuse of those parties by the Ministry of Finance (fuse would cause the loss of the state financial support), if necessary, including international institutions for protection of civil and human rights.
In the pluralistic democracy has nobody right to screen either citizens or political parties and illegal attack against any political party should be considered as attack against the basis of the democratic state. I principally reject the leading role of any party or group pretending itself determining who is, and who is not democratic. In the same manner, as did it communistic personal officers, as we met during constitution of the Czech National Council in 1992, I reject in principle compliments to any lordship. I further refuse to recoil from any individual or state terrorism.
On the square I visited the school was the sculpture of Karel Havlíček Borovský, on the pedestal of which were several verses from his poem "My song". By my opinion, the time is just right to consider.
You can promise me,
You can command me,
You can threaten me,
I never become the traitor!
With compliments
Jiří Šoler
1. Free competition of political parties
1.1. Financing of Political Parties
1.1.2. 1.1.2. Financing of the Political Parties from the State Budget or using Criminal Practices
1.2. Manipulation of elections
1.2.1. Manipulation of Parliament Elections on 8 a 9 June 1990, Case Bartončík
1.2.2. Manipulation of the President Elections on 3 July 1992 by means of fascistic troops
1.2.3. Manipulation of the President Elections in January 1993, the State Support of Terrorism
2. Freedom of Expression and Right to Information
3.1. Fascistic Attacks against the Public Meetings, Contrast with the Situation in November 1989
3.2. Fascistic Attacks against the Constitutional Officials
3.3. Desecration of the National Memorial of the Nazi Victims in Terezín.
4. Other Forms of Human Rights Violation
4.1. Disintegration of Czechoslovakia in December 1992
4.2. Abuse of the Security Information Service (BIS) for the Political Purpose
5. Obligations of the Czech Republic in the Field of the Human and Political Rights
5.1. Constitution of the Czech Republic
5.2. Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
5.2.1. Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
5.3. Charter of United Nations Organization
5.4. Declarations proclaimed by General Assembly of United Nations
5.5. UN Conventions on Human Rights
5.5.1. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
5.5.2. International Covenant on Civil and Political rights
5.5.3. Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
5.5.4. Convention on the Rights of Children
5.5.5. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
5.5.6. Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages
5.5.7. Convention on the Nationality of Married Woman
5.5.8. Convention on the Political Rights of Women
5.5.10. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
5.5.12. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
5.5.13. International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid
5.5.14. International convention against Apartheid in Sports
5.5.15. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
5.6. Obligations to International Labour Organization
5.7. Documents of the Conference on the Security and Co-operation in Europe
5.7.1. Final Act of the Conference of the Security and Co-operation in Europe, Helsinki 1975
5.7.3. Concluding Document of the Vienna Consecutive Meeting CSCE, Vienna 1986-1989
5.8. Obligations to Council of Europe
5.8.1. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
1. Free competition of political parties
According to article 5 of the Czech Constitution, our political system shall be based on the free and voluntary emergence and free competition of political parties respecting the basic democratic principles and rejecting violence as means of furthering their interests. Unfortunately, on the contrary to democratic countries, our Constitution is only a scrap of paper used only wherever it is suitable to establishment.
Political parties and their life and development belong certainly among the foundations of pluralistic democracy; any intervention of the state administrative into internal affairs of the political parties is consequently attack against foundations of the democratic state. Such interventions are of course prevented by article 9 paragraph (3) of the Constitution: No interpretation of the legal regulations may justify the abolition or endangerment of the foundations of the democratic state. According to article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, even the legal provisions governing all political rights and freedoms, their interpretation, and their application shall make possible and shall protect free competition between political forces in a democratic society. Such principle is consequently not only the matter of law and legislators, but it should imbue namely practical policy realized by executive and judicial power.
1.1. Financing of Political Parties
Success of the political parties in competition depends i.a. on their chance in obtaining information and alternatively to inform public about their activities, which is considerably influenced by their finance resources. For that reason, financing of the political parties, particularly their election campaigns, are often in the democratic countries controlled by law. In our country, the legislators decided decrease of the dependence of political parties on various sponsors by state assist, which depends on their success in elections. Unfortunately, the amount of the assist does not correspond to general principles that is the law based on, but rather on complaisance of various political parties to collaborate with present system, but further is this assist used as instrument of intervention to internal parties' life.
Following the paragraph (4) of article 20 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms Political parties and political movements, as well as other associations, are separated from the State. Unfortunately, the attempts of financing ruling structures are often observed, either directly from the state budget (by means of bribes from state enterprises), or by means of bribes from the private firms. The bribes, which are given for the certain compliance of the state administrative in appropriation of state orders, preferences in privatisation or making room for their business. The situation is similar to Germany of twenties and thirties, when Hitler's NSDAP was financed in similar way; it enabled NSDAP not only to gain control over mass media, but also keep i.a. its own private armed forces (SA) practising terrorist activity and making room for taking over the rule in 1934.
The recent measure of the Ministry of Finance is in contradiction with principle of non intervention of state to the internal affairs of the political parties. The ministry refused, on the base of the overbearing interpretation of the Political Parties Law, providing of financial support to Czech Moravian Centre Party, Liberal Social Union and Agrarian Party in the case of their fuse. Such approach must be considered as serious violation of principles of democracy, constitution and political rights. The conclusion is stated in the letter of ing Pavel Pelant from 18 November 1994, ref. 145/62 716/1994.
Due to possible financial problems the fuse of those parties was stopped and only the close coalition was created. In the concluding resolution i.a. its congress appeal administration of the coalition for prompt resolution of the financing of the new subject, the condition for fuse of our parities using an assertion of our political and civil rights even at international organisations.
I ask you for your contribution to the satisfactory resolution of this problem; in the cultural states, the dirty linen is washed at home with no necessity of troubling of international institutions with similar problems. This is true also for other problems mentioned by this my interpellation. But if problems would not be solved, there is no other way than appeal to world public, similarly like appeals of former "dissidents". Ultimately, the substance of the former and present political system is similar.
1.1.2. Financing of the Political Parties from the State Budget or using Criminal Practices
According to our experience from the history, the large transformations of property analogical to current extensive privatisation, are optimal for the criminal rabble to get underhand possession of the property or at least to wash dirty money. Nevertheless danger of such situation for the society is not only in the underhand possession, but much significant danger is represented by so crated profiteers reaching due to so obtained money leading positions in the society and bringing their criminal moral even to the political spheres.
The danger of this kind is not too high in the stabilised society, where the main political end economical positions are controlled in majority representatives of the business and commerce spheres respecting basic moral and social rules. On the contrary in the society of the transforming economy, where recently all legal incomes and property were significantly equalized and proprietary classes arose from the representatives of the former totalitarian system and criminal rabble, is such danger seriously.
Namely such moral is now typical for our leading political spheres. It is usual, that members of the highest political representatives' families obtain in the privatisation extensive property, privatised (i.e. distributed among the members of the establishment) is also property created by joined labour of the residents of municipalities, members of the civil associations etc. The legality of so-called coupon privatisation is significantly damaged by corruption affair Lízner, when director of the Centre for the Coupon Privatisation, private firm Enterprise of Computing Technology ensuring technologically the privatisation, was caught accepting the multimillion bribe. To say nothing of the membership of their wives (including the premier-minister wife) in the director board of the joined-stock companies with the state majority. So occurs mutual penetration of the ruling political party and state, including economical spheres, in the full discrepancy with the principle to separate the political parties and the state. It is the same manner as during Nazi and communistic establishment.
Exemplar demonstration of the criminal moral of our political representation was so-called dinner with premier on last December. Premier-minister Václav Klaus, simultaneously leader of the state-party ODS there for a million bribes to the bank account of the ODS organised dinner for the business community. Invitation card with the state symbol of the Czech Republic promised in fact no advantage for the presence on the dinner and related bribe, but still is evident hidden form of extortion. May somebody be surprised, when at the dinner appeared on the most privileged (and so most expensive) places representatives of the enterprises with the majority of the state, expecting clearing of debt, state appropriation, or firms living from the state orders like "coupon" Enterprise of Computing Technology?
May you bring a guaranty, that similar abuse of the authority of the public servant shall not repeat? How will be penalised all offenses up to now? May you guarantee true separation of the political parties and state?
1.2. Manipulation of elections
The base of pluralistic democracy in the democratic state is free and democratic elections based of universal, equal and direct suffrage; the right to elect and to be elected shall be restricted by no administrative regulations, pressure, expression of the physical or psychological violence. The candidates shall be screened by no personal managers or lustration committee. Any offending against the election process shall be strictly punished. Such rules are at least used in the cultural and democratic countries. Unfortunately, our reality is not of this kind, and so our elections are attended by series of election scandals and manipulations. Only the most flagrant examples will be presented.
1.2.1. Manipulation of Parliament Elections on 8 a 9 June 1990, Case Bartončík
After the November coup d'état, we all expected the true free elections based on the principle of pluralistic democracy and several political parties. But when some parties have arisen, there were immediately attempts to pacify them by incorporating to a new "National Front", to the Civic Forum. When some political party rejected servility, their representatives have immediately a possibility to know the new totalitarian face of this movement, various attempts of threat and terror; I personally have known it as regional coordinator of the Green Party in the region Praha 5.
Under the Mussolini's slogan "Parties are for party-men, Civic Forum is for all", the new movement covered by the false populism of the slogan "Václav Havel - guaranty of the free elections" came in the elections. Actually, namely he was an initiator of the unlawful manipulation denying the "free" character of the elections. Manipulation culminating by the expression of inhumanity demonstrating, that character of the new establishment is from the point of humanity and human rights the same as the previous one.
The period immediately before the elections was influenced by so called "Fight for the Interior", as was the situation characterised by the article title in the journal Mladý Svět. Namely contradiction between the Minister of Interior JUDr Richard Sacher and his first deputy Jan Ruml was external appearance of the conflict of interests of two parts. The main goal or the representatives of the Civic Forum and Jan Ruml were securing of the compromising materials from the fifties, when many exponents of the new establishment or their relatives occupied highest positions in the communistic party and in the state, or the compromising materials related to the originating and activity of the Charter 77 and similar "dissident" organizations.
The typical expression of those contradictions was on 31 May attack of the fascistic troop of the activists of the organisation HOS against the secretariat of the strongest democratic and non communistic party, the Czechoslovak Peoples Party (ČSL), part of the election coalition Christian Democratic Union (KDU). Let us quote according to the journal of the ČSL Lidová Demokracie (further LD) from the 2 June from the article "The Violence as Election Argument" the testimony of the witnesses: "Their manners reminded the fascistic troop" said office women. "They attacked our porter; the 65 years aged man. Small wonder, that they do not strangle he the deputy of the general director with his tie." Indeed, original expression of the velvet!
On the Tuesday 5 June was president of ČSL, member of the ceding Federal Assembly protected by the deputy immunity and the president of the House of People of the Federal Assembly dr Josef Bartončík (born 18 March 1943 in Pozlovice) invited on the carpet to the president of the Czech Republic Václav Havel (born 5 October 1936 in Prague). Under the threat of the publication of some facts he was pressed to abdicate from the list of candidates. According to declaration of Václav Havel from 9 June: "Josef Batrončík promised me something, but has not observed it. Mr Jiří Křižan (born 26 October 1941 in Valašské Meziříčí), was present during our interview and is ready on Saturday in 14 hours bear testimony to the matter.
I feel myself indebted to my activities and to all I realize by this declaration by the proposition I accepted after my election for president of ČSFR, namely guaranty of the freedom of elections and protection of the democratic ethos of the democratic changes in our country." Exactly as was it commented by LD several days ago: "Peoples wielding sense to democracy and calls himself to be its guaranty begin digging its grave."
After the audience with "humanist" Havel, affected JUDr Bartončík has collapsed. According to report signed by three prominent physicians "JUDr Bartončík … was on 5 June 1990 accepted to the coronary unit of the Faculty Hospital 2 with the polyclinic in Praha 2 for the suspicion for the heart disease. This suspicion was approved by objective exploration." The report was published on 8 June morning in LD, own fact of the hospitalization well-known to responsible persons already on Wednesday, so that they were familiar, which they have dealt with people whose life is seriously endangered.
According to LD from 8 June "on Wednesday, next day after the hospitalisation, the administration of ČSL has obtained the following message: during the accidental meeting of the general prosecutor of the Czech Republic dr Rychetský and member of the central committee of ČSL ing Motyčka has announced dr Rychetský existence of material, because which is necessary for dr Bartončík to resign all functions and to leave the political career.
Present members of the administration of the ČSL have adopted the view to consider, that without more detailed information they regard this manner as certain kind of extortion.
According to valid election law was during the elections and 48 hours before (i.e. from Wednesday 6 June from 14 hours) any election propaganda prohibited. Nevertheless there has occurred on 6 June evening an affair described comprehensively in the article "Gangster methods in the political praxis" from LD on Thursday 7 June: "Shocked television viewers have heard in Wednesday political sensation: the leader of the ČSL JUDr Josef Bartončík, vice-chairman of Parliament, is said to have no moral competence. It was established and announced to the world by Vice-Minister of Interior Jan Ruml, within the authority of which is administration of the Bureau for the Protection of the Constitution and Democracy of the Federal Ministry of Interior. He demonstrated the democracy extra truthfully - the democracy demonstrated by communists for all decades of their government. They also cheerfully ignored any agreements, morality and fair play. All for the triumph of socialism.
. . . . .
Television has shown recently some shots from the totalitarian system. The methods are not completely the same, since today is not possible to force anybody to confession by beating. But some elements are the same. The gangster methods used in the policy are often effective for limited time - see e.g. Stalin or Gottwald, the idols respected formerly by many of present democrats.
Let us present still declaration form 7 June in the LD: Administration of the ČSL issues this comment to the message of the Federal Vice-Minister of Interior Jan Ruml published in the TV journal.
The message of the vice-minister Jan Ruml is purposively timed as a part of the election campaign, which had already finished. We regard this act as violation of the election law. We take it as culmination of all previous attacks in the mass media, including physical assault of the personnel of the central committee of ČSL. Administration of the ČSL expects, that Federal Vice-Minister of Interior Jan Ruml will present conclusive evidence definitely demonstrating his declaration and simultaneously will eliminate the possibility of its falsification or forging in the previous period by anybody.
. . . . .
ČSL lodges a complaint against Federal Vice-Minister of Interior Jan Ruml for the election law violation.
For completeness we present declaration of the leader of the coalition partner of the ČSL, the Christian Democratic Party, Mr Václav Benda: He also noticed rumour circulating through Prague, that Civic Forum passed lustrations extra unluckily. Some people related the attack of Jan Ruml to relations with those unfortunate results of Civic Forum. It concerns the lustration results of the parliament elections candidates. According to declaration of the general administration of ČSL: "in the performed lustrations in responsibility of the vice-minister Ruml, the personality of dr Bartončík was not named." In the law-governed state, such official certificates are valid and are simply doubtless, the public official assaulting reliability of them would be called to criminal account.
How the election committee has evaluated assault against dr Bartončík? The central election committee proclaims, that the declaration of Mr Jan Ruml, the Vice-Minister of Interior, concerning JUDr J. Bartončík, published in the mass media by means of the Czechoslovak Press Agency, is serious violence of the article 27 paragraph 7 of the law No. 47/1990 Sb., on the elections to Federal Assembly. According to this law is 48 hours before the beginning of the elections prohibited any electioneering for the political parties by words, print, sound or the image in the state mass media.
Accurate diction of the article 27 paragraph 7 of the election law reads:
(7)During 48 hours before beginning of the election and during the elections, there is prohibited either any electioneering for the political parties or publication of the data, which would damage any political party or candidate, namely by word, print, sound or image in the public mass media, in the buildings, where resides the local election committees, and in their immediate neighbourhood. Publication of the results of the election prognosis is allowed up to seventh day before the elections.
After the end of elections, no actual evidence was submitted. The three bandits, Vice-Minister of Interior Jan Ruml (born 5 March 1953 in Praha), Attorney General Pavel Rychetský (born 17 August 1943 in Praha) and the President's Speaker Michael Žantovský (born 3 January 1948 in Praha), took part in this action. With no scruples, they attacked against this defenceless human and in the live TV transmission confirmed alleged verification of the expressed suspicion based on the so-called index of volumes and the problematic witness of the StB (State Secret Police) fellow-worker JUDr Miroslav Machatý (born 5 June 1944). Material used later i.a. in so-called lustration law; during the consequent legal proceedings, many accusations based on the law were cancelled. It is difficult to say, if due to unreliability of materials or the "independence" of the court; there are even peoples having both positive and the negative certificate, so such material cannot be used for another reasons than is manipulation of elections or assault against momentary defenceless human.
It is worth to mention, that according the same material, even one actor of this crime, Mr Václav Havel, has collaborated with StB. One person, who proclaimed so called lustration act No. 451/1991 Sb. to be controvert human rights. What is then the inhuman crime, which he took part on personally?
In the final protocol, the election committee states violation of the election act by state mass media. According to the statement of ČSL, the declaration of president Václav Havel toward the case Bartončík, which had similar consequences, should be evaluated from the same point of view (based on the complaint of ČSL). The ČSL further appeals the Central Election Committee to deduce from all cases of the serious violations of the election act, namely from the case of the Federal Vice-Minister of Interior J. Ruml the most strict consequences against responsible persons. It is not of course general practice in the totalitarian state.
I have experienced some time later similar health incident as dr Bartončík. I have struck even to the hard reality of that time (not political, but the bad state of the health service), so I have a good image of absolute impotence of the human in this situation, when any complication brings him agonizing mental and often also physical suffering. Apart from the fact, that it can directly endanger the health and life of the affected human. Consequently, I have complete understanding for dr Bartončík.
In the law-governed state, the citizen shall not be punished without legal proceedings. Ultimately, the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights declares in the article 14 paragraph (1): In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his right and obligations in a suit of law, everyone shall be entitled to fair and public hearing by the competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law.
Finally, the right to be elected is vested and inalienable right of everybody, which cannot be restricted either by lustration law or other legal rule nor by violent act of the ruling establishment.
What concerns of the case Bartončík? I beg leave to cite JUDr Michal Lakatoš from the Institute of State and Law of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences according to LD from 10 June: "Mr Vice-Minister Ruml has taken it thoroughly. He apparently had found out some facts, then performed with dr Bartončík trial, and, imaginary, said he even executed him." Like in the times of Genghis Khan! And we are forever prattling about our entry to Europe!
For illustration of the humanity and ethical point of view I shall still quote from the article "Voice of the Physician" published by MUDr Jiří Pešl in LD from 11 June 1990:
The statement was transmitted in the moment, when the administration of the ČSL has already no possibility to remove dr Bartončík from the list of candidates, and it has consequently no political effect. The administration of the ČSL could not press upon patient with the new myocardial infarction to resign from the candidate list without the risk of a stress and consequently even second infarct with eventually the mortal end. As physician, I should such procedure definitely inhibit. …
Mr Ruml and others were conscious of this fact, and nevertheless have dealt with the awareness of the all medical consequences. This idea scares me ever more. Like a doctor I conclude, that this scandal - irrespective of the blame of dr Bartončík - … would eventuate in the relapse of the infarct, what would be equal to death punishment. But such punishment we have as humanists abolished. In any civilized country can be such judgement deliver only the court of justice. Nobody can excuse, that he was not known with the relevancy of the disposition of dr Bartončík at least on 9 June in 14 hours.
May then anyone protests, when is this terrible act considered alike the crimes form the Nazi concentration camps or crimes of communists from the fifties?
How should be such exemplary violation of the most elementary rules of humanity classified? Let us study the UNO documents. Article No. 1 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment contains this definition:
For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or from the third person information or a confession, punishing him for the act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or the third person, or for any reason bad on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent of acquiescence of a public officials or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Mentioned action is thus unquestionable violation of the referenced international convention. It is not perhaps possible to accuse Václav Havel form the intention to endanger the health and life of dr Bartončík during his first blame (even if also such assumption I have heard in context of the death of the Moravian patriot doc Boleslav Bárta). However, the inhuman attack against defenceless human is the evident complement of the referenced article. Common objections against such accusation are used, that first "free elections" after the coup d'état was exceptional circumstance justifying such action. Such argument would allow to understand, even if not excuse, assault against representatives of the former establishment, e.g. against the officials of the communistic party, however not against representatives of the strongest non-communist party. This kind of assault can be assumed only as an aid of the unscrupulous fight of the new lordship for their power. In addition, even in such a moment, there is very important the actual freedom of the elections. Eventually, let us have a look, how the use of such inhuman means appreciates article 2 paragraph (2) of the quoted convention:
No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
Another objection used by some trespassers of such inhuman crime is the order of the superior authorities. Such cases are reflected in the paragraph (3) of the quoted article of the convention mentioned:
An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Recently, the lustration act is often put as example of the political discrimination and violation of human rights, often namely by those, which took part in the most flagrant "lustration" affair, in the case Bartončík. Evidently, the feeling of the greatest human rights advocates in past for the real and actual meaning of this conception is completely missing.
The necessary condition prohibiting repetition of this act is the trial of its trespassers by the truly independent court, similar, like the International Military Tribunal in Nürnberk or the present tribunal trying the war crimes in the former Yugoslavia. What will do the Czech Republic for the bringing its trespassers to justice of the similar tribunal?
1.2.2. Manipulation of the President Elections on 3 July 1992 by means of fascistic troops
In contrast to parliamentary elections, president our republic is elected by Parliament. President elections in summer 1992 were influenced by actions of the troops, which, being decorated by portraits of Václav Havel, and under supervision of the state police, terrorized members of the Federal Assembly after unsuccessful election for the President of ČSFR. Appeals of the Slovak MP ing Víťazslav Móric CSc. for the restoration of the public order brought no reaction, since terrorism of those troops fully suited ruling establishment. Even this ignorance certainly contributed to systematic disintegration of our Czechoslovak country.
Nevertheless according to article 1 paragraph 5 of the law No. 84/1990 Sb. on the free assembly:
(5) The assemblage of the citizens in the distance of 100 metres from the buildings of the Legislative Assemblies, or the localities where those Assemblies deal, is nor allowed.
Such law is applied naturally only when it suits to the establishment.
1.2.3. Manipulation of the President Elections in January 1993, the State Support of Terrorism
Unfortunately nor the first president elections in the new created republic hold on 26. January 1993 did without manipulation and anomalous incidents. Let us illustrate the situation in details:
Before the own election was opened discussion, in which individual MP's expressed their meaning to individual candidates: Václav Havel, Miroslav Sládek and Marie Stiborová. My presentation and the presentation of some my fellows brought some objective facts from the era of the Nazi occupation. Particularly the facts in relation of the family of candidate Havel and its collaboration with Nazism and some facts from the recent times, i.a. warning about the criminal matter of the mentioned case Bartončík and the contribution of Václav Havel upon it. The facts generally used in similar events to evaluate the personalities of all candidates. The plenary session was during discussion interrupted, because the unknown terrorist, they said, noticed by telephone about the bomb located in the proceeding hall. After approx. the one hour the hall was inspected, but no bomb was found, the assembly was continued and Mr Václav Havel was elected for President. He came after several days to the President office by taking the oath according to the article 55 of the Constitution.
One entire deputy club (ODS) became an accomplice of this terrorist attack calling for the creation of the gathering to support its offender. How can Parliament put the country toward the democracy, when one deputy club became by this act a terrorist gang? How continues the criminal prosecution of this gang?
The terrorist attack against the Parliament during the president elections was investigated by police with successful disclose of the trespasser. But with no punishment, since on the order of elected President Václav Havel and acceding to article 62 paragraph 62 g) of the Constitution the investigation was interrupted.
I consider such approach as the open support of terrorism. What would be behaviour of the true democratic and cultural countries in such case? What would e.g. make Americans after the terrorist attack against the American Congress? Certainly not by amnesty of the offender. Only people with the disturbed criminal thought may sympathize with the terrorist. I beg leave to compare it with the fire of Berlin Reichstag in 1933, leading in their consequences to unleash of the largest world war fire in the human history.
The Czech Republic has accepted the obligations of the Czechoslovak Republic resulting from the documents of Conference on the Security and Co-operation in Europe including the obligations for the fight against terrorism; details of then obligations contain the final document from Madrid (chapter 5.7.2) and from Vienna (chapter 5.7.3).
I am afraid, that the president amnesty of the offender of the terrorist attack against Parliament is in absolute contradiction with the accepted international obligations, particularly item 10.1 from the Vienna Protocol of the CSCE. By amnesty of the terrorist attack against Parliament aligned the Czech Republic the group of such states like Libya, and its president Václav Havel stood side by side with Muammar Quaddafi.
Further international agreement that obliges the Czech Republic in this domain is the European Convention on the Suppression of the Terrorism promulgated under No. 552/1992 Sb., entered into force on from 15 July 1992.
The Czech Republic is related to international terrorism due to plastic explosive Semtex of our production. Meanwhile our representatives are so extra tolerant to offenders of the terrorist attacks (according to common conventions, the similar threat is also thereby classified), then the reputation of our republic becomes still worse. Shall we intend so as connection of our entry to Europe with the permanent terrorist attacks, e.g. against its Parliamentary authorities?
It is worth to mention the strange fact, that public official elected on the base of elections affected by the terrorist attack has finally amnestied its offender. There arises naturally suspicion if the attack was not ordered beforehand, even I have heard an opinion (not too well-founded), that the break caused by the threat was used for influence or the manipulation of the result of elections.
Also political cause "Matoušek" relates to the president elections analyzed later in chapter 2.1.
The attitude of various social organisations towards the elections has brightly illustrated their democratic character. Often they instead of their reaction upon the inhumanity expressed e.g. against the Christian politician dr Bartončík, they expressed their forbearance to the criminal establishment by assault against MP's, which made it instead of them. As examples presented "Declaration of the Czech Bishop Conference toward the president elections" delivered to administration of the Czech Republic Parliament Speaker on 27 January 1993 under No. 385/93:
The Episcopacy of the Bohemia and Moravia, assembled on their plenary session in Prague, welcome the election of Václav Havel by the first president of the Czech republic.
Herewith they express deep regret for the unworthy course of the Parliamentary proceeding before the president elections. Expression of the low political culture, slander, and violation of the basic ethic principles by the group of MPs is irritating phenomena threatening the authority of the state and moral level of the society.
dr Miroslav Vlk
Prague Archbishop
chairman of the Bishop Conference
Apparently like in the times of John Hus, there is for them worthiness more important than truth and moral.
2. Freedom of Expression and Right to Information
One basic human right is freedom of opinion, the right to search and disseminate information. The right, which is generally an eyesore of the all totalitarian systems, including present one. Those rights are guaranteed namely by those regulations:
Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, article 17:
(1) Freedom of expression and the right to information are guaranteed.
(2) Everybody has the right to express freely his or her opinion by word, in writing, in the press, in pictures or in any other form, as well as freely to seek, receive and disseminate ideas and information irrespective of the frontiers of the State.
(3) Censorship is not permitted.
(4) The freedom of expression and the right to seek and disseminate information may be limited by law in the case of measures essential in a democratic society for protecting the rights and freedoms of others, the security of the State, public security, public health, and morality.
Covenant on Civil and Political rights, article 19
(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
(2) Everyone shall have right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carry with special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;b) For the protection of national security or the public order (ordre public), or for public health or morals.
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and fundamental freedoms of the Council of Europe, article 10:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
(2) The exercise of these freedoms, since carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation of rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or the maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Unfortunately, the rule of law of the Czech Republic is not in harmony with those principles. For instance will be presented only article 103 of the criminal law No. 160/1961 Sb. in the actual version:
Who insults in public the President of the Republic for the accomplishment of his authorities or in general for his activity in the political life shall be punished by prison for up to two years.
(1) Freedom of thought, conscience and religious conviction is guaranteed. Everybody has the right to change his or her religion or faith, or to have no religious conviction.(2) Freedom of scientific research and of the arts is guaranteed.
(1) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:a) To take part in cultural life;
b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications;
In Praha, on August 9-th, 1851
In the November 1989, there were promised to us the victory of truth and love over the fable and animosity. Unfortunately, the external exhibition of this love is ever more often the brutal violence applied against everybody, who allow himself to reject kowtow to new lordship. Of course, after lost of confidence to such love appeared also lost of confidence to such truth. But the new lordship had no scruples to use any means to enforce such heretics to accept its fashion of the love.
3.1. Fascistic Attacks against the Public Meetings, Contrast with the Situation in November 1989
The citizen meetings requesting such changes were the main aid used in November 1989 to overthrow the communistic establishment. And the main fear of the assembled citizens was the possibility of the attacks of the repressive forces, whether police, army or the communistic peoples militia. Fortunately, after the massacre on the Národní Třída, there was already the further course of such assemblage conformable with the rules of democracy. The danger of such intervention is in the similar situations always actual; I never forget my experience from the student strike on September 1968 after the Soviet occupation, held in the Karlín building of the Mathematical-Physical Faculty of the Charles University, when we were afraid of the possible attacks of the militiamen from the near Vysočany. Alas when the new power elite fixed its position, it has no scruples to use the same methods. After the massacre on the Národní Třída, there was the use of the state repressive forces like the army or police too unpopular. Therefore, the new power garniture completed those methods by the attacks of the organised anarchy-fascistic troops against the peaceful citizen assemblage allowing themselves demonstration of its objections against the new power malpractice.
Like the democratic state, we have in our legal system naturally embedded the freedom of meeting and essential protection of such assemblies, in the concrete:
The basic Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms, article 19, states:
(1) The right to assemble peacefully is guaranteed.(2) This right may be limited by law in the case of assemblies held in public places, if measures are involved, which are essential in a democratic society for protecting the rights and freedoms of others, public order, health, morality, prosperity, or the security of the State. However, assembly shall not be made dependent on permission by an organ of public administration.
Convention for the Protection of the Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe states in the article 11:
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including to the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
The law No. 140/1961 Sb. (criminal law) makes possible according to article 238a sanctions against offenders disturbing such assemblies:
Violation of the Freedom of Meeting and Assembly
(1) Who restricts other people by violence, by threat of the violence or by threat of another serious detriment his achievement of the right to meeting or assembly, shall be punished by prison up to two years or the financial penalty.(2) Who in the conjunction with a meeting being subjected to notification duty, by violence or threat of the immediate violence intercepts the order measures of the organizer or intended organizers of the assembly, shall be punished by prison up to one year or the financial penalty.
I have observed the first terrorist actions against the public assembly during the orderly notified quiet memorial action of the Association for the Republic - Republican Party of Czechoslovakia on the 74 anniversary of the Czechoslovak Republic on 28 October 1992 from 12 a.m. at Václavské Náměstí in Prague. The exhibition of the political intolerance was not limited only to frenetic animosity exclamations, putting of food, however culminated by open brutal attack against participants of the quiet demonstration. E.g. by the cruel kicks of the teacher Mr Miroslav Remsa, lying after the attack on the pavement before the milky bar on the corner of the Opletalova Street. It was promptly shot up by the photographers of the newspaper "Práce"; it bears testimony to absolute inhumanity of the aggressors, but the quiet nod of the police bears testimony to quiet support of the establishment for those troops.
The way of forming those troops may be illustrated by the letter to the newspaper "Špígl" from 30 October 1992. The reader was in the evening on 27 October in the area of the Saint Wenceslas monument, where he has met the group of provocateurs. "Before midnight during departure one of them said another, do you come tomorrow? I do not know, actually I obtain plate (argot notation for one thousand crowns)? Come tomorrow and you will see. Hey, Sir, will you not also tomorrow come to shout against Sládek?
I did not believe. Really the will give thousand crowns for 3 hours? If you would come, you would see. One gentleman also heart it. He said, that he believes. They are tricky taxi-drivers, pimps and peoples whom the present situation suits. They may lay down some money without delay."
By my opinion, it is no problem for the qualified policeman with minimal effort to disclose such terrorists and avoid their further activities. Indeed, the political system based on the personalities releasing on the streets thousands of the amnestied bandits and killers would welcome such phenomena. I hope, that it will not finish as Germany in the thirties, where the establishment had profit from the cooperation with the criminal rabble.
Under the same direction, there occurred the assault the quiet meetings on 28 October 1993, 15 March 1994 (anniversary of the occupation of Czechoslovakia by Nazi) and on 28 October 1994. In addition, during meeting on 15 March 1994 commanded the fascistic troops an officer of the Czech Army, as was enunciated in the interpellations of my colleagues; during laying of flowers after the demonstration on 28 October 1994 was injured MP Jan Vik during the intervention of the city police. This event is described in details in chapter 3.2.
This monstrous repressive action in addition evokes reminiscence on the earlier celebrations of the anniversary of the creation of the Czech Republic, which is still treated by many of us treat as our motherland; it necessarily evokes reminiscence upon the past years.
There are also other analogies. As noticed in the article in the Newspaper "Špígl" from the 5 November 1994, in the year 1939 have German Nazi (possibly even the fathers of the Nazi provocateurs from Terezín) intervened against the celebration of 28 October. According to the eye witness: On the 28 October 1939 I took part in the procession, joined by approximately four fourteen years old nippers at Smíchov "U Anděla" and finished at the crossing in Žitná Street with Štěpánská around 5 p.m. There was already twilight. This all I have seen in front of my eyes, when I saw in the TV shot under the St. Wenceslas monument the young MP laying on the back. That time in 1939 above the crossing beside Baťa lay on the ground also the injured young man and lamented. There namely finished presence of me and my friends. From the Štěpánská street stormed out against us the German uniforms. We four nippers have admitted a porter within doors and locked up behind us.
Let us remember, that we all are Czech.
Unfortunately, not even I can avoid comparison of the injury of Jan Vik with the injury of Jan Opletal on 28 October 1939. I have not fortunately been so tragic, but present time too much reminds the reality of the protectorate Böhmen und Mähren in 1939. In the present time, the German police and the actual Gestapo are only substituted by City police. Can we wonder, when we hear from the crowd clamour "Ruml's Gestapo"? The situation after the disintegration of Czechoslovakia (the same event in years 1938-39 was evaluated by the International Military Tribunal in Nürnberg like the crime against peace, how will history evaluate its analogy in year 1992?) is similar; even some quisling families play in both cases similar parts. Unfortunately the personality is missing with the ability of dr Emil Hácha, which would instead of open betrayal even in such situations would use all chances for the protection of the national interests.
The use of the state terrorism certainly brings no political stability. Meet rudeness with rudeness. After the events from 17 November 1939 and later may nobody criticize Kubiš and Gabčík, that they did not stand against Heydrich with the slogan "Make Love - Do not War". And the moral aspect of the case can be studied perhaps from the Drda's novel "Higher principle". The similar policy leads to similar ends as in Nagorny Karabakh or in the former Yugoslavia. Or perhaps you wish such ends?
3.2. Fascistic Attacks against the Constitutional Officials
The first exhibition of the organised terror against the constitutional officials was the attack against the Speaker of House of People of the Federal Assembly JUDr Josef Batrončík described in chapter 1.2.1., next attacks against the MPs after the unsuccessful president elections described in chapter 1.2.2. The further forms of terror have passed rather individually. Attack against the Member of the Federal Assembly Pavel Mozga was finally interpreted as his disturbance, to which he was provoked. After my presentation in the Czech National Council on 23 September 1992 even I was selected as victim of the attack. On the next day 24 September 1992, there waited even for me on the Malostranské Square the penalty commando and even I was subjected to the hard fist of the present establishment. This attack was, including the medical finding, duly notified at the police department in the Vlašská Street. I withstood the provocation; contrariwise I calmed citizens by assurance, that though in the totalitarian state, there is the similar event entirely normal, therefore I was not signed as the offender and the affair is discreetly kept silent. Nor the answer to my interpellation has not brought more clarity to this affair.
During the police intervention on 28 October 1994, there occurred the serious injury of the MP Jan Vik, described in chapter 3.1. Even thought his injury was perhaps not intentional, it is the evidence of the non sensitive approach of the repressive components to the constitutional officials, who should be rather protected then terrorized.
As example of the discouragement of the MPs for the accomplishment of their authorities may serve also the accusation of MP Bohuslav Kuba in the case "Matoušek" described in chapter 2.1.
3.3. Desecration of the National Memorial of the Nazi Victims in Terezín
One factor exciting strongly the distrust of our citizens to new political representation is its provocative tolerance to exhibitions of Nazism. Among the most serious belong the repetitive provocations of the criminal Sudeten-German organizations based on the Nazi ideology proclaimed already by the International Military Tribunal in Nürnberk as criminal. And the worst of them is the repeated desecration of the National Memorial of the Nazi Victims in Terezín opened in the year 1950 at place of the Nazi prison and Jewish ghetto in Terezín.
According to press news (Špígl, 28 May 1993, page 3 down), on 22 May 1993 the representatives of the German and Austrian Sudeten-German compatriot association laid down in the Monument Terezín to wall of the IV yard wreaths. The group leader Horst Mück flaunted with the alleged agreement of the director of the monument Jan Munk and also with the statement, that the chief of the lansmanchaft dr Franz Neubauer is informed about it. On the bands of the wreaths, there were counter-Czech oriented inscriptions "They have died, since they were Germans", "Lapsed, but not forgotten" etc.
The Sudeten-Germans wished apparently commemorate the relic of 70 Germans, beaten to death according to proposition of Horst Münck at this locality on 24 May 1945. No matter, that neither he nor his compatriots made no difference, that the official examination of the history of the Small Garrison in Terezín up to now found out nothing of this sort.
The public expects now the information of the measures undertaken by the government against the provocateurs. The similar cases should be yet solved immediately. By clearing away the improper subjects and inscriptions and pass the matter to police for investigation and the punishment of offenders, at least by prohibition of admittance to the Czech Republic.
Our administrative authorities must not allow foreigners to make from our democracy the anarchistic disorder! Concerning some Germans it is necessary to constantly remind, that the way to reconciliation leads across the removing of the injustice caused to our citizens by Germans during occupation.
From the comments of the newspaper "Špígl" worth to quote:
We supply, that it is certainly documented from the resources, that Germans deported to Terezín during the second world war over 200 thousands prisoners from all Europe. Each fifth of them had died there and about 100 thousands of them had died after the deportation from Terezín in the exterminatory concentration camps, prisons, penitentiaries and in places of execution.
(…)
So the viewpoint of our reader. We supply, that we are interested, if director of Terezín Monument has known issuing the licence to Sudeten-Germans, what actually should beside the IV yard occur. If yes, then his decision is inconceivable. Indeed, he desecrated the locality, where lies thousands victims of the fascistic despotism, where innocent peoples experienced such incredible suffering, that it already demands indeed a strong stomach!
In my interpellation from that time I have commented the event as follows: I understand, that after the end of the Second World War, there have occurred in relation to some German citizens excesses not also explainable by the revolutionary enthusiasm or justified by the previous suffering. I know personally one case, when the Czech avenger, who have killed whole German family in the half of May 1945, was brought to justice, adjudged, and spent many years in prison. But the mentioned action of the Sudeten-Germans is not reaction on similar infrequent regret cases, but the attempt to desecrate hundreds thousands of the victims of Nazi in Terezín. And so I must regard even tolerance of the present establishment collaborating likewise the quisling establishment of president Hácha with the hydra of the German hegemony. It is no accident, that the surname Havel played considerable part already during disintegration of Czechoslovakia in the year 1939.
. . . . .
In the context of such experience, I cannot understand the inconceivable tolerance of our state institutions to exhibitions of the German hegemony otherwise, than the same exhibition of the quisling establishment of the protectorate "Böhmen und Mähren", finally after the disintegration of Czechoslovakia is the situation very similar. I cannot forget the stories of my mother, which as the young Czech teacher in the last moment left the occupied Sokolov. The arrogance of the Henlein ordners was very similar.
Unfortunately instead of the promised measures, the Nazi provocation was repeated in the year 1994 on 30 June; this time for a change served as pretence the alleged massacre of Germans as far as somewhere in Ústí nad Labem. It is indeed admirable to relocate the reminiscence tenths kilometres up to Terezín. The collaborating state institutions entirely failed in this matter, the memorial director granted the unworthy provocation and the police had to protect even the Nazi provocateurs. Fortunately there appeared a group of the patriots of the wide political spectrum preventing Nazi to unfold the prepared portrait of Adolf Hitler and prevented him to continue in trampling of the memorials of their victims. That I think verbatim, since the present peoples, some of which were former Terezín prisoners, recognised among the present provocateurs even the former warder and Nazi killer Rojko. The patriot police officers rejecting protection of the Nazi bandits were persecuted; the police commander was revoked from his grade. I treat this provocation as exhibition of quite disrespect to victims of the Nazi and the protectors of the Nazi bandits I regard as the Nazi criminals protected by them. I consider the respect for dead as the basic exhibition of the culture own to all civilized peoples.
The deep anxiety was provoked also by the problematic demonstration of the New York rabbis two weeks later, where they requested the change at burial ground in the Terezín crematorium the crosses for the David stars.
Our people have deep respect to its fellow-citizens sacrificing their lives in the fight against Nazi or were victims of the Nazi terror irrespective of their birth, but the extra solidarity merited the Jewish citizen paying particularly for the dread of the Nazi occupation. This feeling survived in substance even 40 years of the communistic system. At the burial place in the Terezín ghetto, where was spilled the ash of the all Nazi victims from Terezín and its neighbourhood irrespective of their birth, was established the dignified museum of the Jewish Terezín ghetto.
Even during the communistic system, which was straight allergic upon the religious symbols, there was placed crosses generally accepted in the Czech society like symbols of the respect to dead irrespective of their confession. With no protest even from the Jewish religious community. There were located also some typically Jewish symbols, e.g. the artistic replicas of the seven arms shone. If the Czech Jewish communities have another request, it would be respected. But the protests of the New York rabbis, two weeks after the Nazi provocation, was considered like the open exhibition of their solidarity with the Nazism together with another exhibitions of the similar characteristics from the last times have brought certain loss of the confidence to all this community. Similar ill-considered actions of the extremist Zionist fundamentalists may cause the same distrust of our public to the Jewish community like those caused by the Nazi provocations in the relations to Germany.
The Nazi provocation in Terezín caused the deep alarm of out citizens beyond the present situation in the Czech Republic and beyond activities of the Nazi organizations. Our bitter experience was paid by the enormous suffering of our people and considerable number of the human victims. The National Memorial in Terezín represents for our people a symbol of the fight against Nazism, the desecration of which, but namely absolutely failing of the state in the protection of such memorial against Nazi bandits, rises deep fear of the democratic character of our state. And the disgusting provocation of the New York rabbis soon after is only evidence of the direct relation of the present Nazi elements with the Zionist activities. The relation, which would appear still a few years ago as entirely nonsense.
It worth to mention, that the Nazi provocation occurred in the Small Terezín Garrison on the right side of the river Ohře, i.e. in the locality used namely as prison and the exterminatory camp for the political prisoners, i.e. namely the active participants of the anti-Nazi resistance. There was minimum of the prisoners of Jewish birth; those were located in the Great Garrison on the left side of the river Ohře, i.e. directly in the town Terezín. This town, which according to propaganda of this time (and according to materials from the museum located in the former crematorium) "devoted the führer to Jewish nation", was used as Jewish ghetto. But this town was not used straight like exterminatory camp, for the liquidation they transferred the prisoners elsewhere; but the inhuman life conditions caused many human victims directly in Terezín Ghetto.
If somewhere in the world, e.g. in the report of the US Congress and the Department of Foreign Affairs approach the problem by the other way, it is consequence of their absolute lack of understanding of our history and experience. How they would understand the affairs better, when as the source of their information is the accomplice of the case Bartončík Michael Žantovský. How would the Americans look on, if on their National Arlington Cemetery in Virginia near Washington, there would be arranged provocation activities by representatives of the Hirohito Japan establishment? How they would look on, if there would be organized party by Viet Cong under the portrait of Ho Chi Minh? I believe, that they would turn them away, if their police would fail, the affair would be undertaken by common Americans. And then would they turn away the government, which is not able to protect their National Cemetery. Those peoples are namely always full of the healthy patriotism and the feeling of the own sovereignty and internal freedom acquired during colonization of the wide American plains and so beautifully expressed in their declaration of independence.
But such comparison is still superficial. The Americans in practice from the war with Mexico and the Civil War recognised no war and the occupation of their own territory, their army even during the Second World War fought out of the US territory and their rear was safe and free. Conversely, our country was occupied, and the consequences of the occupation hardly influenced namely the civilian inhabitants. For that reason they can hardly understand the feeling of the nation depressed by foreign occupation in the territory trampled under food of the foreign soldiers and the terror of the Nazi Gestapo men. Such experience learned Americans last perhaps in the Texas garrison Alamo, but in contrast to our reality, when the eye witnesses those events are living between us, the American experience is old already many generations.
Neither can be our experience compared with the experience of Americans from Vietnam, Korea etc. There, the American solders fought in foreign country, often against the will of its inhabitants, and even if the ideals of the freedom for which they fought should be respected, the inhabitants of this country had even similar experience, as had our peoples during the Nazi occupation. Even Americans understand, that it is preferable to take off their war dead bodies home and commemorate them in Arlington, then to provoke, e.g. in Pyongyang or in Hanoi. Let us hope, that even present Nazi shall understand, that there is preferable to carry their war dead bodies home, both the actual and the political ones!
Last time is often discussed dialog and reconcile with the German nation. I dare say, that while would be our relations disturbed by similar provoking actions like one in Terezín, then the continuation of the debate is impossible. In particular, when similar suggestions are heart from the mouths of peoples demonstrating by their acts, that the spirit of Gestapo and the communistic fifties is not still bygone, and that like father like son, the quisling family traditions are not still disrupted.
For the remembrance, I quote from the materials of dr Ečer two memoranda, taken from the mouth of the visitor of Nazi parties in the Prague Lucerna K. H. Frank. The first memorandum follows from 31 August 1940:
"The geographical situation of the Bohemia and Moravia dictates incarnation into the Empire. Due to the situation, the Czech are not capable to organize their own state. By race are the Czech and German states so close by mixing, that can be realized the policy of assimilation or the change of the nationality for the majority of Czech. The intelligence is excluded from the assimilation. That hopes, that Germans will be overthrown and Czechoslovakia again arises. This class is implacable. Other classes can be subjected to German administration."
The next memorandum comes from Nürnberk from the course of the investigation of the International Military Tribunal: "Passes through thousands years and the blame of Germany will not be washed down and erased."
No, I do not propose to postpone the Czech-German dialog by thousand years. I want only remember, that such dialog cannot bring reasonable results, since would not cease the Nazi provocations like those in Terezín and the dialog would not bring peoples demonstrating by their everyday activities their close relation to the traditions of the crime Nazi system. It seems, that those peoples can draw a lesson with more difficulties than was K. H. Frank.
4. Other Forms of the Violation of Human Rights
4.1. Disintegration of Czechoslovakia in December 1992
One fundamental feature of democracy is respect to will of the people in principal decisions and constitutional legal acts. For the disintegration of the state, perhaps the only appropriate procedure is the referendum. Even in such cases, the proper manipulators are often able to use the manipulations of mass media, agency corruption of the raising national political organisations (see the present affair concerning the abuse of BIS mentioned in the chapter 4.2), state terrorism against constitutional officials (chapter 3), forming unequal conditions for the competition of the political parties (chapter 1), manipulation of elections and other expressions of the citizen will (chapter 1.2), or by restraint of the civic freedoms (chapter 2).
I would not in detail analyze the methods of manipulation of the members of the Federal Assembly, either by the false promise of their transformation to Senate, or the formal failures of the accepted laws and unconstitutional cause of the whole process of the disintegration of the federation; I let this lesson for the others more conversant in such legal argumentation. Furthermore many of them are not able to suppress the nostalgic tone due to their loss of the deputy mandate in the Federal Assembly. I pay the attention to basic lack of the whole cause, i.e. the disintegration of the federation without referendum giving citizens no chance to express their will.
The democratic procedures cannot be of course applied, while the political marionettes assigned outwards have to observe their dirty political obligations, and do not hold the situation so fast in their hands to take liberty of using the democratic means, for the disintegration of the state particularly the referendum. Such a situation occurred in the history of Czechoslovakia twice: at the end of thirties in the time of Nazi occupation and in the year 1992 under the government of Charter marionettes.
The situation in the thirties can be best characterised by the part of the Nürnberk judgement, again according to materials of dr Ečer: "The conference on 5 November 1937 brightly demonstrates, that the occupation of Czechoslovakia was predetermined and remained to cause the appropriate instant for this affair." I am afraid, that the situation in the year 1992 was similar. The ruling marionettes, which had enjoyed the years of the sweet dissident life, had to pay their debts, keep their promises of those years including the disintegration of Czechoslovakia and gradual assimilation of the Czech inhabitants, exactly according to quoted Frank plans, exactly according to the Nazi plans, along with them should step by step arise on the European territory the uniform monotonous Europroduct. We need not, that the Europeans would march under the unified melodic of Richard Wagner or Ludwig van Beethoven, as we are obliged by some "Europeans", naturally without loss of respect to those great representatives of the German culture.
The integration of Europe is the positive process, which enable the better economical and cultural co-operation of the European nations, their better mutual recognition, and even the better ability in competition on the world markets. But we may not allow influencing of this process by the criminal Nazi ideology, violation of the human rights and fundamental freedoms, violation of the basic standards of humanity defined by the international law, we may not allow the criminals to become its representatives. We may not allow its relation to such acts of manipulation, as the disintegration of Czechoslovakia without corresponding democratic procedures. Such splitting of the state without the referendum has no analogy in the contemporary history, perhaps except for the breaking of Czechoslovakia by Nazi evaluated by the International Military Tribunal in Nürnberk as crime against the peace. We may not allow this process to be joined like the crime break of Czechoslovakia at the end of thirties with Nazi or the surname Havel.
4.2. Abuse of the Security Information Service (BIS) for the Political Purpose
The most serious danger for any totalitarian state is spontaneous arisen associations of the liberal citizens. Consequently, the main effort of the establishment is corruption of their activities through the medium of secret agents and security services, corruption of their organisation or by means of the dummy organisations leading the active citizen away in the desirable and harmless direction.
Any state shall naturally protect itself from the terrorist attacks or the violation of the foundations of democracy by political extremists, no matter if their motivation is political or criminal. Consequently, even the democratic state have to retain the secret services monitoring the suspicious organizations. And when their activities exceed the frame of the law, the state would intervene. The main difference from the totalitarian state is, that the secret services must neither intervene in the activities of the monitored organizations nor abuse found information for the political purposes.
A part of the scenario of the coup d'état in 1989 was avoiding of the creation of any independent popular political initiatives and organizations; for that reason was prepared number of the shadow organizations under the actual control of the new rehashed lordship, which initiatively appeared after the coup and strove to decline too active initiative citizen to the desirable course. Anybody standing out of this scheme was instantly accused of the collaboration with communists and StB (State Secret Service). The nice example of such action was the attack against Czechoslovak Peoples Party during the case Bartončík; I personally learned the similar situation during attempts to corrupt the independent Green Party by activists of the old (communistic) environmental structures, which played the same part under the former establishment. Just for this reason rose various Green Rings, ministers have organized for the state financed balls for their officials, meanwhile the voluntary activists of the independent political parties beside the Civic Forum were subjected to various attacks, threat or the terrorism directly organized by the state. Ultimately, it was in details discussed in previous chapters.
Those facts are well known to all peoples involved then in the independent political structures. Many of us suspect who of the functionaries of the present parties are observing the foreign directives. But there is seldom successfully submitted accurate evidence. Hardly can resist the political non-professional to actions of the trained professional. However as well as StB and KSČ have adopted their informers and trained repressive personnel from Gestapo and NSDAP, Civic Forum or ODS and FBIS or BIS has adopted the experienced personnel from the KSČ and StB.
Since possible abuse of secret services is significant danger for any democracy, the effective inspection of their activities is unavoidable. The effective but discrete inspection, since the escape of information can endanger effectiveness of those services. The inspection so difficult realized in our society, where all supervisory mechanisms are under control of the narrow ruling establishment. Furthermore it is essential to pursue every violation of their authorizations immediately endangering the democratic foundations of the society.
After the agency breakage of the active components of the Green Party, I actively joined the Association for the Republic - Republican Party of Czechoslovakia, for which I become the Member of Parliament. I co-operated with one organization of this party working in the region Beroun. The organization, which attempted to eliminate the rehashed non-democratic structures in our society and refused subordination of the directive centralized control attempting to decline the member activities in the directions harmless for the new lordship. Particularly the extreme exhibition of the xenophobia and primitive anti-communism.
The administration initially excluded one active member of the administration of the Beroun organisation, and later the whole Beroun branch. The active members often lost their jobs and were subjected to various forms of persecution. When the administration of the party refused to answer my request for explanation and when I recognised similar methods of elimination of other active organizations of the Republican Party, also I finished my membership.
So far the matter dealt with the entirely internal party problems, with which I should not trouble the broad public. Fortunately, there have occurred the affair with the abuse of BIS against the constitutional political parties. And, during the TV news on the program NOVA, in the list of the monitored extremist organization, there appeared also the Militant group of Republicans from Beroun. The same information can be found even in "Rudé Právo" from 28 January of this year. The strange circumstance in the situation, when the parliament committee has affirmed, that the BIS has not monitored the parliament political parties! Thus, that is the whopper!
It is admirable, that one organization was initially monitored by BIS, but later was suppressed by the administration of its own party! Indeed there were no relationships? Thus that I cannot believe!
So I request the answer, if there is some relation between FBIS and BIS and the representatives of the SPR-RSČ, namely Mr Alois Krčma, Josef Krejsa and dr Miroslav Sládek, which took part in the agency corruption of this organization. And since this is the apparent case of the violation of human rights, I request information, if some personnel of BIS, but namely its director Stanislav Devátý, are criminal responsible for this violation. If they are, I request drawing of the stringent consequences from the circumstances.
The abuse of the secret services is the most serious danger for the democracy, and the organization supporting it become automatically the criminal organization responsible for the political persecutions of the parliamentary political party. Such party was NSDAP abusing i.a. services of Gestapo, such was KSČ abusing StB, and such become even ODS abusing the services of BIS. They are responsible for all, who was persecuted for their political opinions, those, which became the second class citizens, since they rejected to serve or to the pay bribe, e.g. the supper with the premier. I know many politically persecuted, but I cannot indicate the offenders, since the conclusive evidence of such blame is extremely difficult.
Many members of this organisation would perhaps shuffle, that they have not been known of those factors, or that they dealt on the order of the superior officer. For them I should quote the report of JUDr Bohuslav Ečer from 29 March 1943 for the Committee for the Punishment of the War Criminals subjected to the theme "The order do not justify".
Members of NSDAP, SA, SS, Waffen-SS, Gestapo have beforehand undertaken the responsibility for the fulfilment of all orders, including criminal. By formally voluntary entering to those organizations, they have expressed their criminal will. There occur no moral constraint for them obtaining the criminal commands. They are accomplices, since they have wanted the crimes themselves following their superior officers. The legal position of those Germans is similar, like the legal position of those, who have voluntarily entered the criminal gang. The crimes ordered to them and accomplished by them are their own crimes.
The institution of the collective blame is strong, but delicate spice, and would be use with care. That is why the International Military Tribunal adjudged as criminal only those groups: Board of political leaders of NSDAP, Gestapo, SS, SA, Reich Government, General Staff of Army, Headquarters of Wehrmacht. Similar way should be used even in present time.
How there was already stated, the methods used by Nazi and the present establishment are not entirely the same. But their matter is the same, accordingly our approach to punishment of the present political crimes would arise from the same principles.
5. Obligations of the Czech Republic in the Field of the Human and Political Rights
5.1. Constitution of the Czech Republic
In the democratic states is the basic guarantee for the observance of political and human rights their constitution. Unfortunately, our constitution is imperfect, sometimes in the direct conflict with international conventions; but the worse is the fact, that some basic facts are not respected. The more detailed analysis follows.
Article 3. The Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms shall form part of the Czech Republic's constitutional order.
Detailed analysis of this Charter may be found in the part 5.2.
Article 5. The political system shall be based on the free and voluntary emergence and free competition of political parties respecting the basic democratic principles and rejecting violence as a means of furthering their interests.
Unfortunately the free competition of political parties is violated by the intervention of the state bureaucracy to the internal life of the political parties (e.g. the administrative obstacles of the Ministry of Finances during attempts of joining ČMSS - LSU - ZS), attempts of financing of the political parties by means of bribes or from the state budget (Chapter 1.1), fascistic attacks against the public meetings (Chapter 3.1) and against the constitution officials (Chapter 3.2).
Article 6. Political decisions shall stem from the will of the majority, expressed by means of a free vote. The majority's decisions must heed the protection of the minorities.
With difficulty can one speak about the minority protection in the House of Representatives of the Czech Parliament, where the majority (i.e. ruling) parties control all significant positions including supervisory ones. The greatest paradox occurred, when after the elections were according to model of KSČ differentiated the parliamentary political parties into the democratic and non-democratic ones. Using this method, some parties labelled themselves just to non-democratic ones, namely those parties applying the methods described. The result of this situation was the uncontrollable power and the power arrogance of the ruling elite, similar to arrogance of Stalin, Gottwald, Husák and Jakeš. See the chapter 3.1.
For example of the extreme totalitarian arrogance of the ruling establishment, I will present one example of one parliament dialog, which occurred on 28 January 1993 during establishment of the permanent delegations of the House of Representatives into the interparliamentary organizations. Such arrogance was not frequent nor yet from the communists, it is comparable only with the German Nazi:
MP Tomáš Fejfar: Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, I propose further change, namely elimination from the list of alternates for the permanent delegation to Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe MP Milan Loukota, further to exclude from the permanent delegation to Interparliamentary Union the MP Bohuslav Kuba. I shall shortly explain the reason.
Beyond MP Šoler, who was nominated and withdrawn by the previous decision, there are two next MPs from the Republican Party, the party, which presented during the president elections an unprecedented part.
I guess, that the members of this Party should not represent this state this state abroad. (Applause.)
MP Jaroslav Novák: Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I should state by the name of the MP Club of Republicans, that there has occurred the explicit political discrimination of the certain part of MPs and we stringently protest against it. Thank you.
MP Vladimír Budinský: I do not think, that this is political discrimination, but considering, that MP Kuba has taken no part in this marathon, I should propose to vote about the names separately.
. . . . .
MP Jiří Šoler: Dear Presidium, Dear Representatives, I should read two articles from the UN General Declaration of Human Rights: Article 2 - Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political and other opinion, national and social origin, property, birth or other status.
Furthermore, no distinctions shall be made on the basis of the political, juridical or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it is independent, trust, non-self-governing or under other limitations of sovereignty.
I guess, that this is the typical example, when the state power study the restriction of whole half million of peoples, electors of our party. I stringently enter the protest against it, on the other hand I warn, that if I were able to correspond with the Council of Europe and similar organizations before I became MP, I achieve it even the later. And the opinion of anybody and anybody himself can prohibit me in the communication with those peoples.
. . . . .
MP Libor Novák (1958): Ladies and Gentlemen, but namely Mr Deputy Šoler, I speak now especially to you. I am convicted, that nobody of us sitting here intent to trample over that you just read. But I guess, that concerning of representation of all electors, and it is possible to speak of all citizens of this country; the matter is not only in ones conviction, however in the matter of ones behaviour. (Applause.)
. . . . .
MP Zbyšek Stodůlka: Dear Mr Chairman, Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, I was one of MPs leaving during the presentation of the MPs from the Republican Party the Chamber. However my conscience commands me to express one fact - that for the statements in the Chamber, according to the Constitution, according to the procedural orders may be the MP punished only by the disciplinary affair, and there - as far as I know, cannot be inflicted prohibition of activity or similar prevention measure. Thank you.
MP Josef Ullmann: Ladies and Gentlemen, Dear Mr Speaker, I should like to follow up my predecessor. He used two terms. Namely the term punishment and term prohibition of activities, if my memory is so confident. I think, that there is completely another problem. I think, that the matter is not indeed in prohibition of activities, but since we representatives have been elected here to this House and our activity consist of activities we are doing there. I also think, that there happened no discrimination. In the opposite case should also I feel myself under discrimination. I do not feel, that it is not my failure, that I do not satisfy corresponding language conditions. And even from this point of view I could feel discriminated.
I think, that the matter of the problem is completely another. This House has responsibility, and I tell full responsibility, for whom it delegates to the world, who will there represent the Czech Republic. I am convicted, that gentlemen from the Republican Party do not represent it, but that represents something, what I would wish not to be in the Czech Republic. But it is not only my wish, the reality is evidently little another.
So, I in principle do not agree, that the peoples being able to appear thereby would have opportunity of officially appearance somewhere abroad by this manner. I should be ashamed for it, so I cannot raise my hand for it. Thank you.
MP Vladimír Korontály: Dear Mr Chairman, dear Mr Speaker, Dear Chamber, I do not know, what we discuss there so long about. Though there is no legal demand for the membership in the permanent delegation. In addition, there does not exist, even if we would read all declaration of the all human rights and further would add another, I do not know no of them with the article obligating the representative to vote or not to vote somebody. Thank you.
I worth to mention, that the main item of my presentation that time, which have so excited my colleagues from the "democratic" parties, was presentation of the case Bartončík from the exactly same point of view, as in this report. More evident examples of the "democratic" screening cannot be found than the conception of the MP Budinský!
The fact can be reminded, that the General Declaration of Human Rights was created on the ground of UNO namely for the reason to oblige the democratic deputies for their respecting. Unfortunately, so far yet not come to some "representatives" of this country. Therefore can be namely this statement understand as the open declaration disclaiming the democratic character of this country.
Something forces me to add now my reply of that time presentation of the MP Libor Novák (1958). The history has swept Gestapo, had swept Peoples Militia, and I believe, it shall once sweep even you!
Article 7. The state shall take care for the natural resources are exploited economically and that Nature's wealth is duly protected.
The present government policy is in the gross difference with this principle, reaching the cheap economical prosperity by selling off of the basic raw materials, development of the technologies harmful to the environment end exporting of their products or by granting their prices (e.g. the price of energy). This police conflict i.a. with practice of the European Union and the Council of Europe, where are accepted effective measures just for the protection of environment and the limitation of the transfer of the environmental problems among the states.
Article 8. The self-administration of territorial self-governing units shall be guaranteed.
Since no territorial self-governing units were created, there is no constitution guaranteed self-administration. For more details see the chapter 5.1.4.
Article 9.(3) No interpretation of any legal regulations may justify the abolition or endangerment of the foundations of the democratic state.
Unfortunately, the problematic bureaucratic interpretation of the law about the political parties in practice has inhibited the join of the political parties of our coalition, whereby was infringed our freedom of assembly and was violated the constitutional principle of the free competition of the political parties. See the chapter 3.1.
Article 10. The ratified and promulgated international treaties on human rights and fundamental freedoms, by which the Czech Republic is bound, shall be applicable as directly binding regulations, having priority before the law.
The detailed analysis of those treaties can be found in chapters 5.3. to 5.9.
Article 65.(3) The prosecution for any criminal offence committed during the exercise of the function of President of the Republic shall be ruled out for ever.
This paragraph is the immediate expression of the totalitarian character of our state.
The tradition of the European civilisation has treated the heads of states, i.e. dukes, kings and emperors, as governors from the God dispensation free from any criminal responsibility for their acts. Ultimately in the Old and Middle Ages, the king was the sovereign master of its subjects, and human rights have concerned only the aristocracy and free commons (e.g. so called Magna Charta Libertatum in Britain from the year 1215). If the governor was a week or immoral, as a rule was removed by some competitor and when the governor with success saved his life, he finished at prison or in better case in some monastery.
Along with the progression of our civilisation was the relation to the heads of states changed. Meanwhile Europe has approached a problem rather without restraint, what was shown especially in the period of the French revolution, raising United States of America cancelled the aristocrat concessions of the head of state in the Constitution from the year 1787. Particularly according to the article II. section IV: "The president, vice-president and civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from the office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours."
According to article I. section 2 of the Constitution: "The House of Representatives … shall have the sole power of impeachment." According to article 3: "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on the oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside; and no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two-thirds of the member present.
Judgement in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office or honour, trust or profit under the United States; but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgement and punishment, according to law."
The judgement of the American President is thus not simple, but if he is impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from its office by Senate, he is liable to the courts as any other citizen.
In the European context, the impunity of the head of state was respected still after the end of the First World War; while the war has brought millions of victims, the offenders, particularly the German emperor Wilhelm II, have concluded without any punishment. During the Second World War was composed the Committee for the Punishment of the War Crimes, Czechoslovakia was there represented by JUDr Bohuslav Ečer. And, just thanks to his worth, there came to the present European legal system two institutions. First institution is the collective blame (i.e. a group or organization is adjudged as criminal, then only membership in such organization is crime), which is expressed in the chapter II. articles 9 and 10 of the Charter of International Military Tribunal in Nürnberk. As to second institution, the article 7. of the same document states following the proposals of JUDr Ečer, that the legal position of the accused, whether as head of state or as the responsible official in the governmental offices, would not be considered as condition delivering his responsibility or commutation of the sentence. In the other articles are defined crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity; from there are accepted these definitions by the corresponding UNO treaties.
The whole activities of JUDr Ečer are described in the books: Ečer Bohuslav, Právo v boji s nacismem (The Justice in the Fight with Nazism), Zář, Brno 1946 and Ečer Bohuslav: Norimberský soud (Nürnberk Tribunal), Orbis, Praha 1946; it is pity, that this Czechoslovak contribution to the European and the World juridical culture is now well known in our juridical spheres. His fight for the recognition of the criminal responsibility of the head of states can be illustrated e.g. by his memorandum from 10 October 1942, where he told: "Those, who unleashed the invasive war by occupation of Czechoslovakia on 1-10 October 1938 and 1 Mart 1939 and by attack against Poland on 1 September 1939 and their allies are criminals, who can and must be arrested, judged, condemned and punished. They are: Hitler, Government of the Third Empire and their accomplices. Their criminal responsibility is beyond question."
So meanwhile the international law worth to the outstanding Czechoslovak jurist JUDr Bohuslav Ečer has cancelled the institute of the absolute impunity of the head of state, e.g. by abrogation of the non-applicability of statutory limitations of the worst crimes according to conventions described in the chapters 5.5.11 and 5.5.15., our Constitution introduces this Middle Age institution back. Thereby it has fallen in conflict with i.a. the quoted treaties.
Article 96.(2) Judicial proceedings shall be verbal and open to the public; exceptions shall be specified by law. The judgement (sentence) shall invariably be pronounced publicly.
As far as it is not suitable for the state, particularly in the cases of the political causes, the trial at chambers is held in such small court room, that it in practice excludes the presence of public. If the public appears, the room is in advance occupied by pro-regime claque. From such proceedings are excluded even Members of Parliament. See chapter 2.1.
5.1.4. Territorial Self-Government
5.2. Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms
5.2.1. Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Article 7.(2) Nobody may be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
Whereabouts then belongs the attack against dr Bartončík disabled by infarct during elections 1990? At that time the Charter did not exist, but the corresponding UN convention was valid. For more details see chapter 1.2.1.
Article 17.(1) Freedom of expression and the right to information are guaranteed.
(2) Everybody has the right to express freely his or her opinion by word, in writing, in the press, in pictures or in any other form, as well as freely to seek, receive and disseminate ideas and information irrespective of the frontiers of the State.
(3) Censorship is not permitted.
(4) The freedom of expression and the right to seek and disseminate information may be limited by law in the case of measures essential in a democratic society for protecting the rights and freedoms of others, the security of the State, public security, public health, and morality.
Those rights were seriously violated in the causes Matoušek and Tomáš described in the chapter 2.1 and 2.2.
Article 19.(1) The right to assemble peacefully is guaranteed.
(2) This right may be limited by law in the case of assemblies held in public places, if measures are involved, which are essential in a democratic society for protecting the rights and freedoms of others, public order, health, morality, prosperity, or the security of the State. However, assembly shall not be made dependent on permission by an organ of public administration.
In reality, the opposition meetings are disturbed by the organised fascistic troops, functioning under the command of the officer of the Czechoslovak Army. More details in chapter 3.1.
Article 20.(1) The right to associate freely is guaranteed. Everybody has the right to associate with others in clubs, societies and other associations.
(2) Citizens also have the right to form political parties and political movements and to associate therein.
(3) The exercise of these rights may be limited only in cases specified by law, if measures are involved, which are essential in a democratic society for the security of the State, protection of public security and public order, prevention of crime, or for protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
(4) Political parties and political movements, as well as other associations, are separated from the State.
There is effort of intervention to the natural political life, as is the integration of the political parties by the arbitrary interpretation of rules of financing political parties by state. More details contain chapter 1.1. Furthermore the internal life of the political parties is corrupted by the intervention of the Security Information Service (BIS) analyzed in details in the chapter 4.2.
Article 22. The legal provisions governing all political rights and freedoms, their interpretation, and their application shall make possible and shall protect free competition between political forces in a democratic society.
The same as for the article 20.
Article 23. Citizens have the right to resist anybody who would do away with the democratic order of human rights and fundamental freedoms, established by the Charter, if the work of the constitutional organs and an effective use of legal means are frustrated.
The typical example of such frustration of the constitutional bodies was the desecration of the National Monument of the Victims of Nazism in Terezín. Nevertheless instead of punishment of the Nazi provided with the portraits of Adolf Hitler (I know the witness taking part in its removing) and the Nazi killer Rojko would be assaulted by state police citizens defending this National Monument; the police officers who refused to defend the Nazi bandits were prosecuted (similarly as their colleagues from the thirties who have stood against the Henlein bandits), on the contrary against the heroic defenders of the monument is prepared disgraceful monstrous process. How would perhaps behave the Americans, if somebody would throw similar parties on the Arlington Commandeer in Washington? Nevertheless, the scenario of these actions reminded the plunder of the old Jewish graves by Hitler ordners! More details in the chapter 3.3.
5.2.2. Economic, social and cultural rights
Article 26.
Article 27.
How is with those principles in agreement persecution of railwaymen venturing recently to strike?
Article 28. Employees are entitled to fair remuneration for work and to satisfactory working conditions. Detailed provisions are set by law.
Article 29.(3) Detailed provisions in this respect shall be set by law.
Article 30.(3) Detailed provisions in this respect shall be set by law.
Article 32.(5) Parents who are raising children are entitled to assistance from the State.
Article 33.
Article 35.(1) Everybody has the right to live a favourable living environment.
5.2.3. Right to Judicial and Other Legal Protection
Article 36.(3) Everybody is entitled to compensation for damage caused to him or her by an unlawful decision of a court, another organs of the State or public administration, or through wrong official procedure.
(4) The conditions and detailed provisions in this respect shall be set by law.
Was somehow compensated the damage of Mr Matoušek caused by the absurd despotism of the state power, which prepared him the year of the political persecution entirely irregularly? What are then guarantees of the political freedom of the citizens? How was punished the offenders of the possessive crime, which have committed causeless confiscation of the corresponding notice board? The justice should efficiently protect citizens just against similar despotism of the initiative bureaucrats of the totalitarian administration!
Article 38.(2) Everybody is entitled to having his or her case be considered in public without unnecessary delay and in his or her presence, and to expressing his or her opinion on all the submitted evidence. The public may be excluded only in cases specifies by law.
See comments to the article 96 of the Constitution.
Article 40.(5) Nobody may be prosecuted under penal law for an act of which he or she was already convicted under a final verdict or of which he or she was acquitted. This rule does not preclude the application of special means of legal redress in accordance with the law.
How can be explained "endless loop" of the court hearings in the case Gabriel, which took place at the regional court Praha 5? In any normal state is in at very most after the two appeals the cause concluded; if the defendant is thrice acquitted, the next legal prosecution is impossible.
5.3. Charter of United Nations Organization
Charter of the United Nations Organization presents the basic document of the international lawconcerning particularly international relations. It was signed on 26 June 1945 in San Francisco in conclusion of the UN Conference, entered into force on 24 October 1945 and was proclaimed under No. 30/1947 Sb., was novelized under No. 127/1965. The specific position of the UN Charter among the other international treaties is determined under No. 103:
Article 103. In an event of conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.
Extraordinary consequence for the Czech Republic and its international position has its article No. 107:
Article 107. Nothing in the present Charter shall invalidate or preclude action, in relation to any state which during the Second World War was an enemy of any signatory to the present Charter, taken or authorised as a result of that war by the Governments having responsibility for such actions.
One of such actions was the transfer of the German inhabitants from Czechoslovakia and Poland based on the Potsdam treaty of the victorious powers, thus the action often doubted by criminal Sudeten German organizations, but alas even the constitutional officials of our republic. Such doubts, often heard from the official constitutional officials of the Federal Republic of Germany, are thus violation of the UN Charter, and I request the corresponding approach to them. Such actions are conterminous with aggression along with the common rules of the international law. So, I do not understand, why our republic does not protest following article 34 of the UN Charter, i.e. by way of the UN Security Council. Even according to press, the Minister of Foreign Affairs proclaims our support of FRG as further member of the UN Security Council! The state systematically violating the UN Charter! Such defeatist practice is for me the further evidence of the tight relation of the present establishment with German Nazi. I ask for explanation of the entire situation and taking unavoidable measures preventing from the further Nazi provocations, even similar as the one described in chapter 3.3.
According to article 68 of the UN Charter, there was in year 1946 established UN Committee for Human Rights, where can be applied complaints concerning human rights violations according to UN conventions.
5.4. Declarations proclaimed by General Assembly of United Nations
Declarations of the UN General Assembly are not obligatory; they have only the declarative character; they are usable only for the moral argumentation. There are those declarations:
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It was proclaimed on 10 December 1948.- Declaration of the Rights of the Child. It was proclaimed on 20 November 1959.
- Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. It was proclaimed on 14 December 1960.
- United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It was proclaimed on 20 November 1963.
- Declaration on the Promotion among Youth of the Ideals of Peace, Mutual Respect and Understanding between Peoples. It was proclaimed on 7 December 1965.
- Declaration of the Principles of International Cultural Co-operation. Declaration was proclaimed on 4 November 1966.
- Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. It was proclaimed on 7 November 1967.
- Declaration on Territorial Asylum. Declaration was proclaimed on 14 December 1967.
- Declaration on Social Progress and Development. It was proclaimed on 11 December 1969.
- Declaration on the Rights of Mentally Retarded Persons. It was proclaimed on 20 December 1971.
- Universal Declaration on the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition. Declaration was proclaimed on 16 November 1974.
- Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict. It was proclaimed on 14 December 1974.
- Declaration on the Use of Scientific and Technological Progress in the Interests of Peace and for the Benefit of Mankind. It was proclaimed on 10 November 1975.
- Declaration on the Protection of All Persons from Being Subjected to Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. Declaration was proclaimed on 9 December 1975.
- Declaration of Rights of Disabled Persons. It was proclaimed on 9 December 1975.
- Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice. It was proclaimed on 27 June 1978.
- Declaration on the Fundamental Principles concerning the Contribution of the Mass Media to Strengthening Peace and International Understanding, to the Promotion of Human Rights and to Countering Racism, Apartheid and Incitement to War. Declaration was proclaimed on 28 November 1978.
- Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief. It was proclaimed on 25 November 1981.
- Declaration on the Right of Peoples to Peace. It was proclaimed on 12 November 1984.
- Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. It was proclaimed on 29 November 1985.
- Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals Who are not Nationals of the Country in which They Live. It was proclaimed on 13 December 1985.
- Declaration on Social and Legal Principles relating to the Protection and Welfare of Children, with Special Reference to Foster Placement and Adoption Nationally and Internationally. It was proclaimed on 3 December 1986.
- Declaration on the Right to Development. It was proclaimed on 4 December 1986.
5.5. UN Conventions on Human Rights
Basic obligatory international documents in the domain of human rights adopted by UN General Assembly. The survey of those treaties ratified and promulgated in the Czech Republic or taken over from jurisdiction of Czechoslovakia follows supplemented by comments to their observance.
5.5.1. International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The Covenant was adopted by UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 23 March 1976, was promulgated under number 120/1976 Sb.
Article 1.(1) All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue they economic, social and cultural development.
(2) All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
This article designated in particular for the developing countries undoubtedly enables application of the protection measures against export of the row materials and damage of the environment. I it has higher priority than even GATT treaties. The demand is conformable with the article (7) of the constitution. However, our policy does not often use its possibilities.
Article 2.(2) The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guaranty, that the rights enunciated in the present Covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
Nice declaration! What contrast with the thousands peoples, who have recognised in the recent past the political persecution only for the reason, that they have refused to pay respect to the criminal policy of Václav Havel and his companions from Charter 77. Who took leave to defend the monuments of the Nazi victims. Who took leave to protest against the robbery of the century called privatisation. Who took leave to protest against the state bankruptcy in the field of the social care and health service. In what contrast with the representatives of the present fascism, who treat the greatest accident of this country the national revival of the Slavonic nations, who prevented from the genocide of the inferior Slavonic race! What contrast with the policy of government to enable education or to guarantee the dignified medical care only for members of the propertied social rank! What contrast with opinion proclaimed recently in our committee, that the best resolution of the serious illness of the social weak citizens is their death! The common citizens of this country become due to present policy the citizens of the second-rate category, only hostages ensuring the sweet life of the ruling elite.
Article 6.(1) The State Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take the appropriate steps to safeguard this right.
(2) The steps to be taken by a State Party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual.
The current paragraph and the whole section III of the Covenant deals with the social affairs and the labour law. I.e. the field covered also by conventions of the International Labour Organization and the European Social Charter. And which is by present establishment broadly disparaged or ostentatiously ignored. The world trends to provision of the basic rights and the human dignity even of the disable and social weaker peoples, ensuring him definite social rights. Our society makes conversely from them the miserable paupers praying beside portals of the various "humanitarian" endowments and the committees of good will or praying beside the state-party personal officer for withdrawal of their modern interdict and ceasing enforcement upon the potential employers for his discharge or non-acceptance. It is necessary to ensure, so as such political discrimination in labour would pay dear either the manager in the factory, either e.g. the president of the Academy of Sciences.
It is worth to mention, that in contrast to ideological approach of the communistic establishment, the UN approach is entirely pragmatic. And, in contrast to political and civic rights, it requires no provision of the e.g. right to work to all individuals, but only general course of the policy in this field.
I guess, that namely in the social field is necessary to respect, in consonance with the preamble of the General Declaration of Human Rights, that "Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, the human rights should be protected by the rule of law". If we do not want our country to flounder from extreme right to extreme left systems similarly, as e.g. in the Latin America.
Article 7. The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of a just and favourable conditions of work which ensure in particular:8/P>a) Remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum, with:
(i) Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those by men, with equal pay for equal work;(ii) A decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
b) Save and healthy working conditions;
c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
d) Rest, leisure and reasonable limitations of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.
We now leave the system formally proclaiming the principle of the social equality, however in practice has contradicted it. Now we have changed to system, in which the new rich (according to the previous equalization of the incomes belongs there the whole rank of rich peoples) explicitly demonstrate their exclusivity. From here is not far from the further coup d'etat initiatively started by some new Gottwald.
The right for the satisfactory labour conditions and the similar rules become important particularly in the period, when employers originates to much greater extent the private activities, where the state inspection is more complicated than in the state enterprises.
Unfortunately, the present system applies as well as the past system the principle of the political discrimination of the system opponents in labour. The opponents are removed from their jobs; they have no chance of promotion; their potential employers are threatened. The situation is so far, that the representatives of concerns and state institutions often do not venture to meet MPs from the opposition parties in order not to be accidentally compromised in eyes of the ruling elite. So, due to traditional servility of the rehashed rank of the company chiefs, requires the political discrimination of the peoples in labour no extra form of force. Sufficient is the old approved method of the friendly advices, verbal or telephone suggestions etc. In the extreme case can the businessman employing the ineligible persons loss due to similar methods not only the state orders, but also orders of the compliant private firms, service of the compliant organizations etc. The tradition of the sixty years totality is very hardly destructible.
Article 8.(1)The State Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure:
a) The right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade unions of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;
b) The rights of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latter to form or join international trade-union organizations;
c) The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security and or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;
d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country.
(2) This article not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces or of the police or of the administration of the State.
(3) Nothing in this article shall authorize State Parties to the International Labour Organisation Convention of 1948 concerning Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organize to take legislative measures which would prejudice, or apply the law in such manner as would prejudice, the guaranties provided for in that Convention.
In contrast to democracies countries, we apply automatically to the trade unions the same basic methodology of the contemporary Czech fascism, i.e. application of the label of communists and StB-men. In the democratic countries are just the trade unions speakers of the employee rank and one of the guarantees of the social arrangement. In addition, there cannot be the general problems of the trade unions reduced on their present representatives, conversely only respecting of the trade unions as representatives of the employee rank can lead to creation of the necessary trade union structures.
Article 9. The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.
Meanwhile all citizens of this country have participated in the formation of the present national and state property, inclusive the means for the social care, the present ruling elite poses the position of the lordship graciously disposing those means exclusively to his favourites and lackeys. The present attempt of breakage of our traditions of social state, persisting in our country at least from the year 1918, returns us at least one century back.
Article 10. The State Parties to the present Covenant recognise that:(1) The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.
(2) Special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period and after childbirth. During such period working mothers should be accorded paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits.
(3) Special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children and young persons without any discrimination for reason of parentage or other conditions. Children or young persons should be protected from economic and social exploitation. Their employment in work harmful to their morals or health or dangerous to life or likely to hamper their normal development should be punishable by law. States should also set age limits below which the paid employment of child labour should be prohibited and punishable by law.
In contrast to the world-wide evolution is in our country position of the social week families more and more difficult, labour legal position of the pregnant women and mothers has deteriorated; from it follows the minimal natality, which produce further demographic problems.
In the social weak families, there happens common the use of the child labour for house production or agricultural production. Special attention worth the child's situation, especially in the Gipsy families, which are sent to steal or are abused for the prostitution.
Article 11.(1) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.
(2) The State Parties to the present Covenant, recognizing the fundamental right of everyone to be free from hunger, shall take, individually and through international co-operation, the measures, including specific programmes, which are needed:
a) To improve methods of production, conservation and distribution of food by making full use of technical and scientific knowledge, by disseminating knowledge of the principles of nutrition and by developing or reforming agrarian system in such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources;
b) Taking into account the problems of both food-importing and food-exporting countries, to ensure an equitable distribution of world food suppliers in relation to need.
While the own production of the cheap foods and state appropriation for the basic foods allowed in past the appropriate living standard even to social weak citizens, today are those peoples dependent on the charity from the table of the rich. Present break of the agriculture have caused dependence on the import of the even basic foods.
The chance of housing is for many young spouses and the young peoples at all basic limiting factors for their personal development. While the last system has several mechanisms of the building and acquirement of housing, today the housing construction almost stopped and the acquirement of housing is financially accessible only for the children from the rich families. In respect of the recent equalizing of incomes, housing is available to the children of the criminal elements or those abusing the legalised forms of the criminality, particularly the forms of the privatisation of the nationwide property to the hands of the ruling elite. Who do not thieve, that does not lodge!
Particularly inconvenient is the situation of the politically persecuted peoples having very limited chance to find the adequate job. While there are in practice no the political prisoners, the social position of citizens presenting explicitly their objections to the present establishment, and the situation of their families, is often very difficult.
Article 12.(1) The State Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
(2) The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:
a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;
b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;
c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases;
d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.
The present destruction of the health service and the factual desist from the state guarantee for the health service and tax free medical care is nothing but the confidence trick against the common citizens, which have contributed all their life for its composing. It is nothing but the state bankruptcy comparable with the monetary reformation in 1953.
Concerning abortions, our statistics, due to both medical problems (approx. half of our gravidities is risky) and the social ones (many abortions solve in fact the social problem of the young peoples), is indeed regretful. The health disposition of the children, obviously due to still worse environment, has also decreasing trend.
Article 13.(1) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone education. They agree that education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and the sense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. They further agree that education shall enable all persons to participate effectively in a free society, promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations and all racial, ethnic or religious groups, and further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(2) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that, with a view achieving the full realization of this right:
a) Primary education shall be compulsory and available free to all;
b) Secondary education in its different form, including technical and vocational secondary education, shall be made generally available and accessible to all by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education;
c) Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education;
d) Fundamental education shall be encouraged or intensified as far as possible for those persons who have not received or completed the whole period of their primary education;
e) The development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued, an adequate fellowship system shall be established, and the material conditions of teaching staff shall be continuously improved.
(3) The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to have respect for the liberty of parents and, when applicable, legal guardians to choose for their children schools, other than those established by the public authorities, which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions.
(4) No part of this article shall be construed so as to interfere with the liberty of individuals and bodies to establish and direct educational institutions, subject always to the observance of the principles set forth in paragraph 1 of this article and to the requirement that education given in such institutions shall conform to such minimum standards as may be laid down by the State.
Present procedure of the withdrawal of the tax free education in universities is in straight contradiction to UN conception of the gradual introducing of the tax free university level education. From the system enabling education even for the social weaker students having necessary capability, we pass on the education system only for the rich.
Unfortunately even the material conditions of teachers, as well as material conditions of those, who still have not learned to thieve, has still the decreasing trend. Not only due to low incomes growing slower than prices, but especially by degradation of the state intervention and state guarantee in the social field, health protection etc.
I remember, that when I entered the school, thus all schoolrooms were decorated by the portrait of the president of republic Klement Gottwald. Like the child, I withstood it well, particularly when that time was drawn for me this personality so optimistically the present Speaker of our House Milan Uhde; later become my relation to this personality a little more acute. This reason evokes in my mind no best senses sight on the portraits of the present president hanging on the walls of the present schoolrooms; now I am less influenced by the festive poetry of Mr Speaker, this time celebrating Václav Havel, influences somehow less, I have contrariwise ever and again appetite for marking such portraits by the red ink of the symbolically spilled blood. On the other hand, the youth has no sins, and the present school children should face up somehow to this fact in full age. But my conscience would welcome, if there would be schools without such decoration. But having no children, I have too no right to pose such requirements.
Article 15.(1) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone:
a) To take part in cultural life;
b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications;
c) To benefit from the protection of the moral and material interests from any scientific, literally or artistic production of which he is the author.
(2) The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for the conservation, the development and the diffusion of the science and culture.
(3) The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to respect the freedom indispensable for scientific research and creative activity.
(4) The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the benefits to be derived from the encouragement and development of international contacts and co-operation in the scientific and cultural fields.
Instead of the scientific and technological progress we experience now the renaissance of pseudo-scientists, medicine-men and healers. The freedom of the artist creation and scientific research is respected again only so long, while the "artist" sings the odes upon the VIPs of the present establishment. The universities, Academy of Sciences and other similar institutions again appreciate more the festive odes upon the present establishment than serious and objective scientific and artistic approach.
5.5.2. International Covenant on Civil and Political rights
The Covenant was adopted by UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 23 March 1976, was promulgated under number 120/1976 Sb.
Article 1. Is identical to the same article of the previous covenant.Article 7. No one shall be subjected to torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In particular, no one shall be subjected without his free consent to medical or scientific experimentation.
This article was over again violated in the case Bartončík, see chapter 1.2.1.
Article 8.(1) No one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.
(2) No one shall be held in servitude.
(3) a)No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour;
. . . . .
I cannot understand, why is then in our country projected with considerable glory the Spielberg film "Schindler`s list" making a hero from the Nazi crime profiting from the salve labour of the prisoners. I cannot understand creation of such film in the U.S.A. 120 years after the death of Abraham Lincoln. And why is in our country built the monument to Oscar Schindler, this modern slave-driver and Nazi criminal? Is not it again the syndrome of the race superiority of descendants of prophet Abraham?
Article 14.(1) All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his right and obligations in a suit of law, everyone shall be entitled to fair and public hearing by the competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. The press and the public may be excluded from all or part of the trial for reasons of morals, public order (ordre public) or national security in a democratic society, or when the interest of the private lives of the Parties so requires, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interest of justice; but any judgement rendered in a criminal case or in a suite at law shall be made public except where the interests of juvenile persons otherwise requires or the proceedings concern matrimonial disputes of the guardianship of children.
(6) When a person has by final decision been convicted of a criminal offence and when subsequently his conviction has been reversed or he has been pardoned on the ground that a new or newly discovered facts show conclusively that there has been a miscarriage of justice, the person who has suffered punishment as a result of such conviction shall be compensated according to law, unless it is proved that the non-disclosure of the unknown fact in time is wholly or partly attributable to him.
(7) No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.
As documented in details in another place, these principles are not thoroughly applied in the case of the political causes.
Article 19.(1) Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
(2) Everyone shall have right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
(3) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;b) For the protection of national security or the public order (ordre public), or for public health or morals.
These principles were violated e.g. in the causes Matoušek and Tomáš.
Article 20.(1) Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
(2) Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
However under the slogan of the fight against national, race or religious animosity is obstructed free dissemination of information; under the slogan of the national tolerance are protected even the Nazi provocations. For more details see chapter 3.3.
Article 28.(1) There shall be established a Human Rights Committee (hereafter referred to in present Covenant as the Committee). It shall consist of eighteen members and shall carry out functions hereinafter provided.
Perhaps at least this institution may help to protect the human rights in our society. Alas similar international institutions acts slowly and very deliberately.
5.5.3. Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
The option protocol was adopted by UN General Assembly on 16 December 1966, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 12 June 1976, was promulgated under identification 169/1991 Sb.
Article 1. A State Party to the Covenant that becomes a Party to the present Protocol recognises the competence of the Committee to receive and consider communications from individuals subject to its jurisdiction who claim to be victims of violation by that State Party of any of the rights set forth in the Covenant. No communication shall be received by the Committee if it concerns a State Party to the Covenant which is not a Party to the present Protocol.Article 2. Subject to the provisions of article 1, individuals who claim that any of their rights enumerated in the Covenant have been violated and who have exhausted all available domestic remedies may submit a written communication to the Committee for consideration.
Article 3. The Committee shall consider inadmissible any communication under the present Protocol which is anonymous, or which it considers to be an abuse of the right of submission of such communications or to be incompatible with the provisions of the Covenant.
At least some tool for the victims of the crimes of present establishment.
5.5.4. Convention on the Rights of Children
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 20 November 1989, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 6 February 1991, was promulgated under identification 104/1991 Sb.
Article 7.(1) The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the rights from birth to name, the right to acquire the nationality, and, as fare as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her own parents.
(2) State Parties shall ensure the implementation of these rights in accordance with their obligations under the relevant international instruments in this field, in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless.
Is destiny of so-called children from the road E55 in agreement with those principles? I understand complexity of the problem, the solution of which is not simple, but it worth certain attention.
Article 19.(1) State Parties shall take all appropriate legislative administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.
(2) Such protective measures should, as appropriate, include effective procedures for the establishment of social programmes to provide necessary support for the child and for those who have the care of the child, as well as for other forms of prevention and for identification, reporting, referral, investigation, treatment, and follow-up of instances of child maltreatment described heretofore, and, as appropriate, for judicial involvement.
On 18 December 1992, I interpellated for the maltreatment of the mental disabled 16-years old pupil Vít Kopecký from the Social Care Institute (Ústav sociální péče) in Lochovice on 5 June 1991. He was staked to tree by director PaeDr Milan Juříček (born on 3 November 1945 in Opava) and kept there under the charge of the unqualified person, his son, for several hours. I have obtained the entirely unsatisfactory answer to my interpellation; Mr minister ing Jindřich Vodička simply rejected to care for rights of the mental disabled children, and our House has with no problems validated his answer. The nice example of the true humanism of our new state!
All cause was passed to the UN Centre of Human Rights in Geneva, further I know, that the case was investigated by police; I have dealt personally with the Beroun investigator. Notwithstanding the director of the Institute dr Juříček was still recently in his function, since he has actively released one former local republican from his job. Would not it happen in the frame of the repressive activity of BIS? The fellow-worker of this repressive component can evidently with impunity commit even such crimes as the maltreatment of the mental disabled children, as well as the former fellow-workers of Gestapo and StB.
Article 23.(1) State Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance, and facilitate the child's active participation in the community.
Even this article concern the case presented with the article 19.
Article 33.States Parties shall take all appropriate measures, including legislative administrative, social and educational measures, to protect children from the illicit use of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the relevant international treaties, and to prevent the use of children in the illicit production and trafficking of such substances.
Besides of the nice declarations, there is applied practically nothing for the protection of children from the influence of drugs. Who would feed this drug user juniors in full age, when our society is even so in the population crisis and have the principal problems to feed even its pensioners?
Article 34.States Parties undertake to protect the child from all forms of sexual exploration and sexual abuse. For these purposes, State Parties shell in particular take all appropriate national, bilateral and multilateral measures to prevent:a) The inducement or coercion of a child to engage in any unlawful sexual activity;b) The exploitive use of children in prostitution or other unlawful sexual activity;
c) The exploitive use of children in pornographic performances and materials.
How is during the present explosion of the sex in mass media avoided inducement of children to unlawful sexual activities? How is inhibited (e.g. on the road E55) the abuse of the children (i.e. up to 18 years) for prostitution?
5.5.5. Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 18 December 1979, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 18 March 1982, was promulgated under identification 62/1987 Sb.
Article 6. States Particles shall take all appropriate measures, including legislation, to suppress all forms of traffic in women and exploitation of traffic in women and exploitation of prostitution of women.
What are the effective measures in this area? For the present is the system of pumps and the other forms of exploitation secretly tolerated. When will be accepted the appropriate legislative measures? Or the observance of this obligation is not desirable?
5.5.6. Convention on the Nationality of Married Woman
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 29 January 1957, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 4 July 1962, was promulgated under identification 72/1962 Sb.
One of a few conventions, for which I am not conscious of their violation.
5.5.7. Convention on Consent to Marriage, Minimum Age for Marriage and Registration of Marriages
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 7 November 1962, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 3 June 1965, was promulgated under identification 124/1968 Sb.
The further convention, for which I am not conscious of their violation.
5.5.8. Convention on the Political Rights of Women
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 20 December 1952, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 5 July 1955, was promulgated under identification 46/1955 Sb.
The further convention, for which I am not conscious of their violation, even if the international institutions state low representation of women in the political positions. But the convention perhaps requires the equal chance in the access to functions, not the ratio.
The convention was adopted by League of Nations on 25 October 1926, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 10 October 1930, was promulgated under identification 165/1930 Sb. Supplementary Convention adopted on 7 September 1956 was ratified 13 October 1958, but has not been promulgated.
See the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, article 8 of chapter 5.2.2
5.5.10. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 9 December 1948, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 12 January 1951, was promulgated under identification 32/1955 Sb.
Article II. In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
. . . . .
c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
. . . . .
That is the question, if the present form of government is not a form of genocide. Particularly due to stimulating pro-population policy. The present natality is lowest from the time, from which it is statistically registered. Is not it the quiet liquidation of the inferior Slavonic race?
Worth to mention is also the glorification of the heros of the forced re-Catholicization of the Czech nation in 17 century, which was apparent genocide of the Protestant religious group. It is so long, that some call for responsibility or the search of offenders has no reason (even if one descendant of the House of Smiřický has reclaimed me for restitution), but the glorification of the offenders of crimes against humanity is not the true way. The first Pinochet, then Schindler, Sarkander, who will follow?
5.5.11. Convention on the Non-Applicability of Statutory Limitations to War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 26 November 1968, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 11 November 1970, was promulgated under identification 53/1974 Sb.
Article I. No statutory limits shall apply to the following crimes, irrespective of the date of their commission:a) War crimes as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolution 3(I) of 13 February 1946 and 95(I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of the United Nations, particularly the "grave breaches" enumerated in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of war victims;
b) Crimes against humanity whether committed in time of war or in time of peace as they are defined in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Nürnberg, of 8 August 1945 and confirmed by resolutions 3(I) of 13 February 1946 and 95(I) of 11 December 1946 of the General Assembly of United Nations, eviction by armed attack or occupation and inhuman acts resulting from the policy of apartheid, and the crime of genocide as defined in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, even if such acts do not constitute a violation of the domestic law of the country in which they were committed.
Article II. If any of the crimes mentioned in article I is committed, the provisions of the Convention shall apply to representatives of the State Authority and private individuals who, as principles or accomplices, participate in or who directly incite others to the commission of any of those crimes, or who conspire to commit them, irrespective of the degree of completion, and to representatives of the State authority who tolerate their commission.
Article IV. The State Parties to the present Convention undertake to adopt, in accordance with their respective constitutional processes, any legislative or other measures necessary to ensure that statutory or other limitations shall not apply to the prosecution and punishment of the crimes referred to in articles I and II of this Convention and that, where they exist, such limitations should be abolished.
The article 65 of the Czech Constitution is in the flat contradiction to this convention.
5.5.12. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 21 December 1965, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 4 January 1969, was promulgated under identification 95/1974 Sb.
Article 1.(1) In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.
Article 4. State Parties condemn all propaganda and all organisations which are based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote racial hatred and discrimination in any form, and undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination and, to this end, with due regard to the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the rights expressly set forth in article 5 if this Convention, inter alia:
a) Shall declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement of racial discrimination, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any race or group of persons of another colour or ethnic origin, and also the provision of any assistance to racist activities, including the financial thereof;
b) Shall declare illegal and prohibit organisations, and also organised and all other propaganda activities, which promote and initiate racial discrimination, and shall recognize participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
c) Shall not permit public authorities or public institutions, national or local, to promote or initiate racial discrimination.
Article 5. In compliance with the fundamental obligations laid down in article 2 of this Convention, State Parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms and to guarantee the rights of everyone, without discrimination as to race, colour, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the following rights:
a) The right of equal treatment before the tribunals and all other organs administering justice;
b) The right to security of person and protection by the State against violence or bodily harm, whether inflicted by government officials or by any individual group or institution;
c) Political rights, in particular the right to participate in elections - to vote and to stand for election - on the basis of universal and equal suffrage, to take part in the Government as well as in the conduct of public affairs at any level and to have equal access to public service;
d) Other civil rights, in particular:
I) The right of freedom of movement and residence within the border of the State;II) The right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country;
III) The right to nationality;
IV) The right to marriage and choice of spouse;
V) The right to own property alone as well as in association with others;
VI) The right to inherit;
VII) The right of freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
VIII) The right to freedom of opinion and expression;
IX) The right of freedom of peacefully assembly and association;
e) Economic, social and cultural rights, in particular:
I) The right to work, to free choice of employment, and just and favourable conditions of work, to protection against unemployment, to equal pay for equal work, to just and favourable remuneration;II) The right to form and join trade unions;
III) The right to housing;
IV) The right to public health, medical care, social security and social services;
V) The right to education and training;
VI) The right to equal participation in cultural activities;
f) The right of access to any place or service intended for use by the general public, such as transport, hotels, restaurants, cafés, theatres and parks.
On the one hand, any public declaration to Zionism and the Jewish Question is automatically proclaimed as racism, see chapter 2.2., no matter, if it concerns restrictions of human rights or not. On the other hand, the presentations enforcing their preferred access to some rights are very appreciated. E.g. I have had in the Parliament opportunity to hear the statement concerning communities (the author thought evidently the Jewish ones) the right of which to restitution is more moral than right of others. In this case, there is evident effort to favour some racial, national or ethnic groups in access to civil rights, thus the evident accomplishment of articles 1 and 4 of this Convention, to say nothing of the reminiscence to Orwell's "Animal Farm".
Of course, the tolerance is impossible for the exhibition of discrimination or conversely racial superiority based on actual race origin, anatomical features, colour etc., as was applied e.g. by Nazi Nürnberk laws. No matter, if they are based on the hypothetical Aryan race (similar idea has perhaps been competent sometimes in the second millennium B.C. in India, but in the present Europe it is entirely artificial and purposive construction) or on the birth and the ancestry of the prophet Abraham (Genesis 11-25).
Sometimes, the situation is complicated. E.g. the members of the Church of Jesus Christ of the Saints of Last Days arguing in their book Mormon, that the original inhabitants of America are ancestors of Abraham, cannot be considered as racists. The element of exclusivity of this ancestry can be there found, on the other hand the motive of the discrimination of other peoples is missing. In addition, the matter is not in the civil rights, but the possibility of salvation. Further the Church accept even members of another origin.
Many religions have accepted idea of the "sons of Abraham", but are tolerant to peoples of other origin, e.g. Christianity or Islam. Otherwise, the own Jewish religion takes this idea literally, and the principle of the birth ancestry is its basic principle, but as far as the religion do not deny the same civil rights to the peoples of another religion or origin, it is tolerable. But if some Jewish communities try to transfer similar principles to civil life, then the natural defence of other citizens from those exhibitions of hegemony can be understood. It concerns namely the defence not from all members of the ancestry or race, but from the hegemony of those specific communities; the ancestry or racial principle has brought there the hegemony efforts.
In general, if somebody criticizes some typical exhibitions of the members of some ancestry, ethnical or racial group without their automatic application upon all its members and without effort to limit their human rights, he may not be in general denoted as racist. Naturally, similar exhibitions can easy overrun to genuine racism and such exhibitions are necessary following the analyzed Convention to suppress.
5.5.13. International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 30 November 1973, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 18 July 1976, was promulgated under identification 116/1976 Sb.
The further convention, for which I am not conscious of their violation.
5.5.14. International convention against Apartheid in Sports
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 10 December 1985, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 3 April 1988, was promulgated under identification 84/1988 Sb.
The further convention, for which I am not conscious of their violation.
5.5.15. Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment
The convention was adopted by UN General Assembly on 10 December 1984, in Czechoslovakia entered into force 6 August 1988, was promulgated under identification 143/1988 Sb.
Article 1.(1) For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for the act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or the third person, or for any reason bad on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent of acquiescence of a public officials or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Article 2.
(2) No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability or any other public emergency, may be invoked as a justification of torture.
(3) An order from a superior officer or a public authority may not be invoked as a justification of torture.
Article 4.
(1) Each State Party shall ensure that all acts of torture are offences under is criminal law. The same shall apply to attempt to commit torture and to act by any person which constitutes complicity or participation in torture.
All presented articles can be applied to the case Bartončík mentioned in chapter 1.2.1.
Article 5.(1) Each State Party shall take such measures as may be necessary to establish its jurisdiction over the offences referred in article 4 in the following cases:
a) When the offences are committed in the territory under its jurisdiction or on board a ship or aircraft registered in that state;
b) When the alleged offender is a national of that state;
c) When the victim is a national of that State if that State considers it appropriate.
The article 65 of Constitution is in the flat contradiction with this and previous articles.
5.6. Obligations to International Labour Organization
International Labour Organization (ILO) was created in the year 1919 with the participation of Czechoslovakia as part of the League of Nations and in the year 1946 became the first expert organization of UNO. The accepted and ratified treaties are oriented to labour law relations and the principles of the trade unions freedom. The constitution of ILO was as part of the Versailles treaties promulgated under No. 217/1921 Sb., its changes under No. 98/1947 Sb.
The assembly of ILO takes place every year and as rule accepts some recommendations or treaties. According to article 19 paragraph 5 of the Constitution of ILO (article 405 of Versailles treaty): "Each of the members undertakes that it will, within the period of the year at most from the closing of the session of the Conference, or if it is impossible owing to exceptional circumstances to do so within the period of one year, then at the earliest practicable moment and in no case later than eighteen months from the closing from the session from the Conference, bring the recommendation or draft convention before the authority within whose competence the matter lies, for the enactment of legislation or other action."
I am the MP already more than two years, but no such treaty has been presented to us. Why?
Since the detailed analysis would require extra extensive study, I bring here only their list and data concerning their validity.
- Workman's Compensation (Agriculture) Convention (No. 12). Convention was adopted on 12 November, for ČSR entered into force on 12 June 1950 and was promulgated under No. 437/1990 Sb.- Workmen's Compensation (Accidents) Convention (No. 17). Convention was adopted on 12 November 1921, for ČSR entered into force on 12 June 1950 and was promulgated under No. 437/1990 Sb.
- Minimum Wage-Fixing Machinery Convention (No. 26). Convention was adopted on 16 June 1928, for ČSR entered into force on 12 June 1951 and was promulgated under No. 439/1990 Sb.
- Forced Labour Convention (No. 29). Convention was adopted on 28 June 1930, in ČSSR entered into force on 30. October 1958 and was promulgated under No. 506/1990 Sb.
- Fee-Charging Employment Agencies Convention (No. 34). Convention was adopted on 29 June 1933, for ČSR entered into force on 12 June 1951 and was promulgated under No. 440/1990 Sb.
- Invalidity Insurance (Industry etc.) Convention (No. 37). Convention was adopted on 29 June 1933, for ČSR entered into force on 1 July 1950 and was promulgated under No. 469/1990.
- Invalidity Insurance (Agriculture) Convention (No. 38). Convention was adopted on 29 June 1933, for ČSR entered into force on 1 July 1950 and was promulgated under No. 469/1990.
- Survivors' Insurance (Industry etc.) Convention (No. 39). Convention was adopted on 29 June 1933, for ČSR entered into force on 1 July 1950 and was promulgated under No. 469/1990.
- Survivors' Insurance (Agriculture) Convention (No. 40). Convention was adopted on 29 June 1933, for ČSR entered into force on 1 July 1950 and was promulgated under No. 469/1990.
- Workmen's Compensation (Occupational Diseases) Convention (revised) (No. 42). Convention was adopted on 21 June 1934, pro ČSR entered into force on 1 July 1950 and was promulgated under No. 438/1990 Sb.
- Underground Work (Women) Convention (No. 45). Convention was adopted on 21 June 1935, for ČSR entered into force on 12 June 1951 and was promulgated under No. 441/1990 Sb.
- Holidays with Pay Convention (No. 52). Convention was adopted on 24 June 1936, for ČSR entered into force on 12 June 1951 and was promulgated under No. 442/1990 Sb.
- Medical Examination of Young Persons (Industry) Convention (No. 77). Convention was adopted on 9. October 1946, in ČSSR entered into force on 23 April 1981 and was promulgated under No. 23/1981 Sb.
- Medical Examination of Young Persons (Non-Industrial Occupations) Convention (No. 78). Convention was adopted on 9. October 1946, for ČSSR entered into force on 23 April 1981 and was promulgated under No. 24/1981 Sb.
- Freedom of Association and Protection of the Right to Organise Convention (No. 87). Convention was adopted on 9 July 1948, for ČSSR entered into force on 21 January 1965 and was promulgated under No. 489/1990 Sb.
- Employment Service Convention (No. 88). Convention was adopted on 17 July 1948, for ČSR entered into force on 12 June 1951 and was promulgated under No. 17/1991 Sb.
- Night Work (Women) Convention (Revised) (No. 89). Convention was adopted on in year 1919, revised in year 1934 and on 9 July 1948. Convention was originally promulgated under No. 81/1922 Sb., the last version entered into force on 12 June 1951 and was promulgated under No. 17/1991 Sb.
- Night Work of Young Persons (Industry) Convention (Revised) (No. 90). Convention was adopted on 10 July 1948, for ČSR entered into force on 12 June 1951 and was promulgated under No. 460/1990 Sb.
- Protection of Wages Convention (No. 95). Convention was adopted on 1 July 1949, for ČSFR entered into force on 11 January 1991 and was promulgated under No. 411/1991 Sb.
- Right to Organise and Collective Bargaining Convention (No. 98). Convention was adopted on 1 July 1949, for ČSSR entered into force on 21 January 1965 and was promulgated under No. 470/1990 Sb.
- Minimum Wage Fixing Machinery (Agriculture) Convention (No. 99). Convention was adopted on 1 July 1949, for ČSFR entered into force on 21 January 1965 and was promulgated under No. 470/1990 Sb.
- Equal Remuneration Convention (No. 100). Convention was adopted on 29 June 1951, for ČSR entered into force on 30. October 1958 and was promulgated under No. 450/1990 Sb.
- Social Security (Minimum Standards) Convention (No. 102). Convention was adopted on 28 June 1952, for ČSFR entered into force on 11 January 1991 and was promulgated under No. 461/1991 Sb.; for ČSFR are not valid parts IV (dole on unemployment) and VI (compensation on the work injuries and the vocational diseases).
- Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention (No. 111). Convention was adopted on 25 June 1958, in ČSSR entered into force on 21 January 1965 and was promulgated under No. 465/1990 Sb.
- Radiation Protection Convention (No. 115). Convention was adopted on 22 June 1960, in ČSSR entered into force on 21 January 1965 and was promulgated under No. 465/1990 Sb.
- Hygiene (Commerce and Officers) Convention (No. 120). Convention was adopted on 8 July 1964, for ČSFR entered into force on 11 January 1991 and was promulgated under No. 403/1991 Sb.
- Employment Policy Convention (No. 122). Convention was adopted on 9 July 1964, for ČSSR entered into force on 15 July 1976 and was promulgated under No. 490/1990 Sb.
- Minimum Age (Underground Work) (No. 123). Convention was adopted on 22 July 1965, for ČSSR entered into force on 7 June 1969 and was promulgated under No. 507/1990 Sb.
- Medical Examination of Young Persons (Underground Work) (No. 124). Convention was adopted on 23 June 1965, for ČSSR entered into force on 23 April 1981 and was promulgated under No. 25/1981 Sb.
- Invalidity, Old-Age and Survivors' Benefits Convention (No. 128). Convention was adopted on 29 June 1991, for ČSFR entered into force on 11 January 1991 and was promulgated under No. 416/1991 Sb.
- Medical Care and Sickness Benefits Convention (No. 130). Convention was adopted on 25 June 1969, for ČSSR entered into force on 27 May 1972 and was promulgated under No. 537/1990 Sb.
- Benzene Convention (No. 136). Convention was adopted on 23 June 1971, for ČSSR entered into force on 23 April 1981 and was promulgated under No. 26/1981 Sb.
- Occupational Cancer Convention (No. 139). Convention was adopted on 24 June 1974, for ČSFR entered into force on 11 January 1991 and was promulgated under No. 408/1991 Sb.
- Paid Educational Leave Convention (No. 140). Convention was adopted on 24 June 1974, for ČSSR entered into force on 24 May 1976 and was promulgated under No. 491/1990 Sb.
- Human Resources Development Convention (No. 142). Convention was adopted on 23 June 1975, for ČSSR entered into force on 6 March 1980 and was promulgated under No. 141/1980 Sb.
- Working Environment (Air Pollution, Noise and Vibration) (No. 148). Convention was adopted on 25 June 1977, for ČSFR entered into force on 11 January 1991 and was promulgated under No. 444/1991 Sb.
- Occupational Safety and Health Convention (No. 155). Convention was adopted on 23 June 1981, in ČSSR entered into force on 2 December 1989 and was promulgated under No. 20/1989 Sb.
- Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (Disabled Persons) Convention (No. 159). Convention was adopted on 20 June 1983, in ČSFR entered into force on 21 February 1986 and was promulgated under No. 72/1985 Sb.
- Labour Statistics Convention (No. 160). Convention was adopted on 25 June 1985, for ČSSR entered into force on 25 February 1989 and was promulgated under No. 144/1988 Sb.
- Occupational Help Services (No. 161). Convention was adopted on 26 June 1985, for ČSSR entered into force on 25 February 1989 and was promulgated under No. 145/1988 Sb.
- Seafarers Welfare Convention (No. 163). Convention was adopted on 8 October 1987, for ČSFR entered into force on 11 January 1991 and was promulgated under No. 432/1991 Sb.
- Health Protection and Medical Care (Seafarers) Convention (No. 164). Convention was adopted on 8 October 1987, for ČSFR entered into force on 11 January 1991 and was promulgated under No. 445/1991 Sb.
- Safety and Health in Construction Convention (No. 167). Convention was adopted on 20 June 1988, for ČSFR entered into force on 11 January 1991 and was promulgated under No. 433/1991 Sb.
5.7. Documents of the Conference on the Security and Co-operation in Europe
The Conference on the Security and Co-operation in Europe was opened in Helsinki on 3 July 1973, was continued in Geneva from 18 September 1973 to 21 July 1975 and was closed in Helsinki on 1 August 1975. In the conference took presence Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Finland, France, the German Democratic Republic, the Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, the Holy See, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the Union of Soviet Socialistic Republic, the United Kingdom, the United States of America and Yugoslavia.
The next meeting was held in Madrid from 11 November 1980 to 9 September 1983; the last meeting was held in Vienna from 4 November 1986 to 19 January 1989. The final acts of the individual meetings are foundations of the security structures and mutual co-operation in Europe and Northern America.
5.7.1. Final Act of the Conference of the Security and Co-operation in Europe, Helsinki 1975
The basic document of CSCE declares the basic principles regulating relations among the concerned states:
- Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty.- Refraining from the threat or use of force.
- Inviolability of frontiers.
- Territorial integrity of states.
- Peaceful settlement of disputes.
- Non-intervention in internal affairs.
- Respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief. Unfortunately, neither that time nor present time establishment in our country is able to ensure at least partly such ideals.
- Equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
- Co-operation among states.
- Fulfilment in good faith of obligations under international law.
Further were accepted documents concerning co-operation in the humanitarian and other fields, enabling contacts among peoples, information exchange, co-operation and exchange in the field of culture.
5.7.2. The concluding document of the Madrid Meeting 1980 of Representatives of the Participating States CSCE, Madrid 1983
Concern was expressed about the continual lack of confidence among participating states. Concern was also expressed as to the spread of terrorism and following conclusion:
The participating States condemn terrorism, including terrorism in international relations, as endangering or taking innocent human lives or otherwise jeopardizing human rights and fundamental freedoms, and emphasize the necessity to take resolute measures for the prevention and suppression of acts of terrorism, both at the national level and through international co-operation including appropriate bilateral and multilateral agreements, and accordingly to broaden and reinforce mutual co-operation to combat such acts. They agree to do so in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations, the United Nations Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States and the Helsinki Final Act.
Further protocols were enlarged co-operation in humanitarian and other fields.
5.7.3. Concluding Document of the Vienna Consecutive Meeting CSCE, Vienna 1986-1989
In the Question relating to security in Europe has the meeting accepted the measures to suppress the terrorism, i.a.:
8. - The participating states unreservedly condemn, as criminal, all acts, methods and practices of terrorism, wherever and by whomever committed, including those which jeopardize friendly relations among States and their security, and agree that terrorism cannot be justified under any circumstances.
9. - They express their determination to work for the eradication of terrorism both bilaterally and through multilateral co-operation, particularly in such international fora as the United Nations, the International Civil Aviation Organization and the International Maritime Organization and in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Final Act and the Madrid Concluding Document.
10. - Convinced of the need to combine measures at a national level with reinforced international co-operation, the participating States express their intention:
10.1. - to pursue a policy of firmness in response to terrorist demands;
10.2. - to reinforce and develop bilateral and multilateral co-operation among themselves in order to prevent and combat terrorism as well as to increase efficiency in existing co-operation at the bilateral level or in the framework of groups of States including, as appropriate, through the exchange of information;
. . . . .
Further the meeting has accepted measures to build the confidence and to some aspects of the security and disarmament in Europe, co-operation in the field of economics, of science and technology and the environment, in humanitarian fields, information exchange, concerning the human dimensions of CSCE. While the atmosphere in Europe is constantly unbraced, our society is not able to ensure necessary level of human rights; in the field of environment it is almost the only European state not able to join the effective co-operation.
5.8. Obligations to Council of Europe
Council of Europe is further open structure studying to improve the mutual understanding and co-operation in Europe. Even if there are in Prague organizations co-operating with the Council of Europe, the present establishment such co-operation meantime does not encompass. Even the MPs must go to dealings with the Council of Europe as private persons.
5.8.1. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
Convention on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the version of protocols No. 3, 5, and 8 was adopted on 4 November 1950, further conventional documents follows the Convention:
Supplemental protocol concluded in Paris on 20 March 1952,
Protocol No. 2 concluded in Strasbourg on 6 May 1963,
Protocol No. 4 concluded in Strasbourg on 16 September 1963,
Protocol No. 6 concluded in Strasbourg on 28 April 1983,
Protocol No. 7 concluded in Strasbourg on 22 November 1984.
Within ratification, the declaration was done, that ČSFR
a) appreciates the authority of the European Committee for Human Rights to accept according to article 25 of the Convention complaints of the persons, non-governmental organizations or the groups of persons accounting themselves to be damaged in the result of violence of rights admitted by Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, articles 1-4 of the Protocol No. 4 and article 1-5 of the Protocol No. 7, as long as their violence of rights resulting from these documents have occurred after taking effect for the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic;b) recognises on the base of reciprocity the authority of the European Court for Human Rights according to article 46 of the Convention on Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms for interpretation and application of the Convention, articles 1-4 of the Protocol No. 4 and articles 1-5 of the Protocol No. 7, if the violation of rights resulting from these documents has occurred after their taking effect for the Czech and Slovak Federative Republic.
In the ČSFR entered Convention into force on 18 Match 1992 including supplemental protocol and was promulgated under No. 209/1992 Sb. Along with the information for MPs was in year 1992 signed and ratified protocol No. 9, I have no information concerning its promulgation. On 7 February 1995 was ratified protocol No. 11.
Article 3. No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.Article 6.
(1) In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to the fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgement shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
Article 10.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
(2) The exercise of this freedoms, since carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation of rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or the maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Article 11.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and to freedom of association with others, including to the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection for interests.
Article 14.The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinions, national or social origin, association with national minority, property, birth or other status.
5.8.2. European Social Charter
The European Social Charter is the only presented document not yet ratified by the Czech Republic. The document determines by the declarative way the basic character of the policy of countries of the Council of Europe in the social field. When will be the Charter presented for the ratification even in our republic?
The European Social Charter is complementary to the Convention of Human Rights in the field of the economical and social rights. It was signed in Turin on 18 October 1961 and entered into force on 26 February 1965.
On 21 October 1991 was signed Protocol amending the European Social Charter.
Likewise as the Convention of Human Rights, even the Charter establishes the international system of inspection upon its application by the contracting states. But due to different matter of the civil and political rights on one hand and the economical rights on the other hand, this system is not juristic by its character. Governments of the states will present to Council of Europe every two years their reports examined according to article 25 by the Committee of Experts. Within it contributes e.g. the International Labour Organization.
Even if the titles of many articles mighty remember the period of communism, their contents are not composed of the declarative non-executable phrases used former, but the really executable principles of the social policy being matured during the social development of the West European states in co-operation of the International Labour Organization. While some articles concern particularly the relations between the employers and employees, the other concern e.g. the disabled persons, family law, they fix even the rights of the migrating workers, which are citizens of the other state than they work.
The European Social Charter is foundation of the long term social conciliation, which is one of the reasons of the political stability in the West Europe; for the states of the European Union is their ratification guarantee of the political stability of the associated members. For the citizens it is the guarantee, that the evolution of the country would not fluctuate between the extreme right and left, as is practised e.g. in the Latin America.
Like the observance of the civil and political rights is a guarantee, that there would not rule one criminal gang, is observing of the cultural and social rights guarantee, that the country would not be subjected to social extremism. Europe has drawn the lesson from the French revolution, should we draw the lesson too?
5.9. The European Agreement Establishing Association between the Czech Republic on One Side and the European Communities and their Member States on the Other Side
The Czech Parliament ratified the mentioned agreement at the end of the year 1993. Meanwhile it was ratified by all countries of the European Union and the Czech Republic became the associate member of the EU.
The agreement defines particularly the rules of the free trade between the Czech Republic and the European Union. In the chapter II article 6, the agreement defines general principles:
"The respect to democratic principles and human rights given by the Helsinki concluding act and the Parisian Charter for the new Europe, as well as the principles of the market economy, acts on the internal and foreign policy of the parties and forms the basic elements of this association."
Let the Czech policy would respect instead of the empty declarations at least the elementary principles of this article!
Alas even on this level is demonstrated the fact, that the opposition MPs as a rule communicate with the European Parliament only as he private persons or on the base of the personal contacts.
The unprecendented crimes cry for stringent justice. The crimes commited by representants of several totalitarian establishments during last sixty years. The subjugation of our country, slaughter, enslavement, robery and humiliation, the victims of which became Czechoslovak people, all escalated bestiality of nazi, communists and false humanists during the last years, unfortunatly, often with help of czechoslovak citizens. Some of them abused their high positions, mandates and grades. The crimes shall come about the condign punishment, with no delay, as to root out the evil of totality.
For the justice cry there namely the crimes afficting common ordinary cizens enjoying only their basic rights of the free life, right of expression of their meaning and right of participation upon the government of the country they live in, right to obtain true information concerning situation in country. Namely the crimes restricting their access to information about state of country, the crimes inflicting anybody who rejected to kowtou to current establishment, who rejected their colaboration with its information and repressive bodies.
For those totalitary establishments, there has been characteristic full monitoring of press and persecution of journalists trying breaking their information embargo, abuse of information services, no matter if it has been Gestapo, StB, FBIS or BIS, intervention to internal life of political parties and other organisations, abuse of justice and other state administration, persecution of politically active citizens. For those establisments has there been characteristic persecution of all people having taken liberty to express their dissent with its government, no matter if by means of active opposition, passive resistance or rejecting their presence in the monstrous celebrations and obligatory expressing of respect to ruling authorities.
Of course, there has not still established concentration camps, it would not be acceptable in the present international context, but ruling establishment has achieved paralysing of the incompliant and cumbersome people by less drastic, by alike effective means. The other characteristic of all those establishments has been false justification of its power hegenony by sacred rights, either sacred right of the living room of german nation, sacred right of social security excusing all injury, or present false humanism legalizing the most crude instances of their violation by reference to human rights.
We can consent to accusation of the soviet prosecutor Rudnenko at International Military Tribunal in Nurenberk from 27 August 1946, no matter that proclaimed principles can be applied also to the political system ruling in the country he represented:
"Solicitors have spoken about humanity. We know, that civilization, democracy and humanity, peace and humanity are inseparable. But being fighters for civilization, democracy and peace, we resoutely reject inhuman humanism sensitive to executioners and indifferent to their victims."
I bow to the common citizens, who have not been broken by the most sofisticated oppression methods, who was not inhibited in independent mind, independent acting, who was not inhibited in searching contacts with the same mind citizens. I bow to those, who, as political non-professionals, have achieved in resisting to destructive activities of secret information services. I bow to all victims of political persecution aflicted either for anti-nazi resistance, for manifest against the communistic tyrany, or those who have afforded their public support of slogan "Enough was Havel" and has been for this reason bounced from their jobs or subjected to personal treatment of anarcho-fascistic troops.
Enough was propaganda, which, instead of resolving problems, hides reality by false glare. Enaugh was self-invented philantropists inhibiting true social progress by masquerade of the sacred theories. Future progress in this country requres namely open society, free information flow and rigorous observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms. The freedoms not according to false interpretation of usurpers, but according to internationally respected rules and conventions.
This country merits finally the true democratic government. The only guarantee, that there will not follow the injury of the past, is rigorous punishment of political crimes assuring true retirement of the political criminals from the public life. The request for their rigorous punishment is not act of revenge, but the gurantee of the true democratic developnemt in future. If such punishment will not be realised by domestic means, we must appeal upon all respectable people of the world, upon the wide world community.Tato země si konečně zaslouží skutečně demokratickou vládu. A jedinou zárukou, že se nebude opakovat bezpráví minulosti, je důsledné potrestání politických zločinů, zajišťující skutečný odchod politických zločinců z veřejného života. Požadavek jejich důsledného potrestání není aktem pomsty, ale zárukou skutečně demokratického vývoje v budoucnu. Pokud se takové potrestání nepodaří realizovat vnitrostátními prostředky, nezbyde než obrátit se na všechny slušné lidi na světě, na širokou světovou veřejnost.
Answer of Premier Václav Klaus
Prague, 5 April 1995
Dear MP,
I have to state, that your written interpellation, if ever may be this extensive material denoted as interpellation, tries to cast doubt upon everything still executed from the November 1989 and supported by the overwhelming majority of the citizens of this state. Your interpellation exceeded by its diction and its contents most decidedly all I have so far read in the interpellations of the oppositionist MP's.
After its study I have no illusions, that my answer would satisfy you, no matter of its contents. Your vision of the world, your internal tuning is already so diametrically opposite from my one, that any my argument will be a priori refused. It cannot be otherwise.
At first let me to demur to the vocabulary and inadequately critical tone of your interpellation, which was for me very unpleasant surprise. I shall enter stringent protest particularly against some your statements based on the problematic conviction about the general conspiracy of certain power structures against citizens of this state.
Recovery of the democratic principles in our country after 1989 you call the coup.
Present government arisen from the democratic elections (as far as you do not doubt them too), call the new establishment compared to communistic one, and in some passages you search even parallels with fascism.
You impeach the state institutions with the political crimes, state terrorism, manipulation of elections and mass media, discrimination of some political parties etc.
If you actually see and evaluate so our political situation, I can hardly convince you about the opposite. On my opinion, there do not follow from the supplement of your interpellation, that the Czech Republic violates presented international conventions, it is again your personal opinion, whereon you have certainly right, but which I in principle do not accept.
You apply me to make principle provisions in many fields of our present life. But I must you, Mr deputy, disappoint. Since I do not share your evaluation of the political situation in the Czech Republic, and I reject your catastrophic visions, I intend on the base of your interpellation accept no decisive measures you are calling for.
With compliments
Václav Klaus.
Reaction to answer on 20 April 1995.
(According to the stenographic report)
MP Jiří Šoler: Dear Mr Chairman, Dear Ministers of Government, dear MP's, unfortunately I cannot say Mr Premier, but it is one's destiny, that Mr Premier apparently does not love some deputies.
First I should like to thank Mr Premier for his appreciation. I quote: "Your interpellation exceeded by its diction and its contents most decidedly all I have so far read in the interpellations of the oppositionist MP's." He must take into consideration, that there is forming the new opposition, completely different from the post November analogy of the communistic National Front, which was again artificially created.
I should like to thank Mr Premier even for his assistance in formulating of my answer. I quote: "After its study I have no illusions, that my answer would satisfy you, no matter of its contents. Your vision of the world, your internal tuning is already so diametrically opposite from my one, that any my argument will be a priori refused. It cannot be otherwise." Yes, my vision of the world and my internal tune is, Mr Premier, perhaps actually different from your one. Different perhaps similarly, as differs democracy from totality, at least from my point of view.
Sometimes in the year 1991 I had, that time as common citizen, contacted the Committee for the Human Rights of the Council of Europe, and I had the opportunity to study the materials concerning activities of this institutions and the European Court for Human Rights, and there was for a wonder perhaps no traditional democratic European country, on the democratic face of which would be found at least one speck. Democracy is, say, no state, which can be installed or recovered. Democracy is a process requiring periodical check up, if its principles are respected. And therefore those activities of the European Court I do not treat as the doubt of democracy, but the evidence, that this process acts in those countries and that there is all right.
On the contrary, the totalitarian countries for the most part resolutely state, that any violation of human rights there cannot be considered, and they in principle reject any verification. For this reason, e.g. there has proceeded in fifties in the communistic Czechoslovakia the aggregate ratification of the appropriate UNO conventions concerning human rights in fifties.
The same diction we have heart within the ratification of the agreement concerning association of the Czech Republic to European Communities. There are, Mr Premier, our visions different. I recognise the proof of democracy in the permanent clearing of the specks from eyes, not in the rigid look, after the recovery and for ever. There conversely enters my mind a little profaned world temporary sojourn. Eventually, is the present establishment would respect yet my earlier warnings, my interpellation would not be so extensive.
The wise and democratic government takes so warnings concerning the slight violation of the principles even from the common citizens with respect and seriously undertakes them. On the contrary, the government not respecting, at least according to you have replied, completely private warnings from the deputies of Parliaments, should not be ranged to this category. And the deputies have no other choose, but application of their notes at international institutions for the human rights, what I am even going to do, since your answer do not satisfy me anywise.
I thank you for your attention.
After the speech, the House was asked, if it approved the answer. Neither positive nor negative statement was accepted.