Georgia faces a pivotal moment as controversial amendments to both the Broadcasting Law and regulations on temporary structures during assemblies and demonstrations raise concerns. While media freedom teeters on the edge, fears of a shrinking civic space and limited freedom of expression are palpable. This dual threat jeopardises Georgia's democratic aspirations and raises concerns about its EU candidacy, prompting calls for careful consideration and protection of fundamental rights.
No temporary structures are allowed during demonstrations
The amendments, passed on October 5 about temporary structures during assemblies and demonstrations, received support from 74 Members of Parliament, while 22 voted against it. The changes prohibit participants of any assembly or demonstration from setting up "temporary structures" like tents or shacks under specific conditions. These conditions include posing threats to participants, disrupting public order, interfering with the functioning of institutions, or when the assembly can proceed without such structures. Violators face fines of 500 GEL (170 EUR) and, in severe cases, detention for up to 15 days.
The rationale behind the amendments lies in the State Security Service's (SSSG) claims that certain groups plan to create a "tent city" from October to December 2023, aiming to destabilise the country. These allegations were vehemently denied by opposition parties and civil society groups, who view this move as an attempt to quell dissent.
Legal watchdogs have voiced deep concerns. GYLA argues that the amendments unreasonably restrict civil rights, limiting the space for free expression and creating a repressive environment for free speech. They emphasise that existing legislation already offers ample grounds for the state to intervene when necessary. TI-Georgia and ISFED have jointly criticised the vague language in the amendments, asserting that these changes curtail the right to assembly and expression. They highlight a concerning pattern of administrative detentions for activists, further complicating the civil sector's ability to function freely. ECNL and ICNL have found that, if adopted, the Law will violate multiple Georgian commitments in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), as well as Georgia’s constitutional obligation to guarantee freedom of assembly.
The President of Georgia, Salome Zurabishvili, vetoed the amendments to the Law on Assemblies and Demonstrations on October 18, which was unsuccessful and the ruling party overcame it in the same parliament session.
The government's responsibility to maintain law and order should not infringe upon citizens' fundamental rights. Activists worry that these restrictions could deter citizens from participating in public demonstrations, impacting the diversity of voices in Georgia's civic discourse.
Civil society fears of further suppression of critical voices with new changes in Broadcasting Law
On October 19, 2023, Georgia's Parliament passed amendments to the Broadcasting Law in an accelerated manner, sparking concerns among media experts and human rights advocates. The amendments significantly empower the National Commission, allowing intervention in the content decisions of broadcasters, especially in regards to hate speech, incitement to terrorism, and obscenity. Critics fear the potential misuse of these provisions. Previously, violations were addressed via self-regulation mechanisms. The changes grant the National Commission considerable authority to impose sanctions directly, raising concerns about censorship and government control over the media landscape. Media watchdogs worry these amendments might be exploited to suppress critical voices.
The amendments also face scrutiny regarding compliance with international human rights standards. The Council of Europe expressed reservations about the law, highlighting concerns about the Commission's independence. The lack of transparency in the selection process for commission members, primarily chosen by the ruling party, raises questions about the body's autonomy from political influence, potentially compromising its decisions. While the law aims to combat hate speech, the lack of clear definitions might enable subjective judgments, stifling legitimate criticism. Striking a balance between curbing hate speech and protecting free speech is crucial to avoid silencing dissenting opinions.
These amendments, hastily implemented weeks before a crucial decision on Georgia's EU candidacy, cast a shadow over the nation's democratic aspirations. The rushed process, limited consultations with civic sector, and concerns raised by international bodies spark doubts about the amendments' credibility. As Georgia moves forward, addressing these concerns and upholding democratic values will be crucial in protecting an independent media landscape that fosters diverse voices and meaningful dialogue.