Statements

Civil Society Platform No to Phobia expresses extreme concern over the draft law initiated in the Parliament of Georgia envisaging administrative liability for insulting religious feelings. We believe that if adopted, the draft law will put considerable limitations on freedom of speech and expression in Georgia and will further oppress the country’s religious minorities.  

It is especially disturbing that the Parliamentary Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee, key function of which is promoting observance of human rights and freedoms and democratic principles, supported the draft law with first reading.

The draft law introduces Article 1661 in the Code of Administrative Offences, prescribing a fine of GEL 300 for insulting religious feelings of someone and a fine of GEL 600 for a repeated offence. According to the same draft, ‘desecration’ of religious objects and buildings will be fined with GEL 500, and a repeated offence with GEL 1,000. 

Both the explanatory note to the draft law and the discussions at the Parliamentary Human Rights and Civil Integration Committee on February 2, 2016, clearly suggest that that the enactment of the law aims to prohibit constructive criticism of the Georgian Orthodox Church.

This way, the draft poses considerable threats to the existence of different opinions in a democratic society, a necessary precondition for the development of society. It is immediately obvious that the enactment of the law will lead to suppression of critical opinion and will do nothing to stop incitement of religiously motivated hate in the society. Rather, it will be tailored to the needs of the dominating religious group and will further deteriorate the state of religious minorities in the country, while free expression of opinion and public debates on religious matters will become essentially impossible. These assumptions are further evidenced by the fact that the state has failed to take further actions in response to recent conflicts and violent acts against minorities (Nigvziani, Samtatskaro, May 17, etc.), and to prosecute offenders. 

Notably, a similar initiative was also initiated in the Parliament in 2013. At that time, the initiative was largely criticized by NGOs on grounds that “adoption of the law will impose an arbitrary and unjustifiable restriction on freedom of expression and pose a threat to free public debates in society”. 

Supporters of the draft law refer to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights and the common European standards which, in their opinion, allow restriction of freedom of expression to the extent in question. In this regard, we must note several circumstances:

The judgment on the case of Otto-Preminger-Institut, cited by the initiators of the draft law, was adopted by the ECHR in 1994. Although the judgment remains to be an important precedent, the calls to change and revise the double standards it establishes are gradually growing, including by judges of the ECHR. In addition, the ECHR has clearly explained that Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights “is applicable not only to "information" or "ideas" that are favorably received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that offend, shock or disturb the State or any sector of the population”. 

We must also note that the Venice Commission, in its 2006 report, emphasized that “it must be possible to criticize religious ideas, even if such criticism may be perceived by some as hurting their religious feelings.” It is also important that “an insult to a principle or dogma, or to representatives of a religion, does not necessarily amount to an insult to an individual who believes in that religion,” and “democratic societies must not become hostage to religious sensitivities, and freedom of expression must not indiscriminately retreat when facing violent reactions.”

In 2007, Thomas Hammarberg, Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, called on the Member States not to criminalize critical remarks against religions. In addition, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe clearly stated that blasphemy should no longer be deemed a criminal offence and that religious groups must tolerate critical public statements and debate about their activities, teachings and beliefs.

Broad interpretation of freedom of expression is also supported by the Constitutional Court of Georgia that has clearly stated: “it is not to be disputed that the Constitution protects critical opinion, including the opinion that may be perceived as excessively strict or inadequate by a part of the public.”

We regret that the Georgian Parliament has chosen to discuss unfair restriction of constructive public criticism of the Georgian Orthodox Church rather than to seek methods of appropriate response to attacks on religious minorities and to an increasing number of religiously motivated hate crimes. 

We urge the Parliament of Georgia not to adopt the law that places restrictions on freedom of expression and not to contribute to suppression of open and free public debates, as it will eventually hinder Georgia’s democratic development to a considerable extent.

Georgian Democracy Initiative (GDI)

Media Development Foundation (MDF)

Georgia’s Reforms Associates (GRASS)

Identoba

Tolerance and Diversity Institute (TDI)

Sapari Union

International Society for Fair Elections and Democracy (ISFED)

Transparency International Georgia (TI Georgia)  

Article 42 of the Constitution