2008-04-12
In preparation for the NATO summit and during the period of the NATO Summit in Bucharest, the Romanian state and Bucharest city government may have violated all or more than the following Romanian Constitutional articles:
1. Article 21 Access to Justice
2. Article 23 Individual Freedom
3. Article 24 Right to legal counsel
4. Article 25 Freedom of movement
5. Article 29 Freedom of conscience
6. Article 30 Freedom of expression
7. Article 39 Freedom of assembly
8. Article 40 Right of association
In consideration of these abuses of national and local government powers, a Romanian civil liberties group has filed an official complaint with the Romanian Public Ministry - the same institution which may be responsible for said violations. Some Romanians, however, believe that complaints should be taken to the EU Courts for Human Rights in Brussels. They argue that the Romanian Public Ministry is unlikely to condemn itself or those officials within the institution which continuously demonstrates its contempt for the Romanian Constitution.
The most cynical of Romanian critics believe this civil liberties group is conspiring with the Romanian government to take the heat off by allowing such questions to be handled by the foremost guilty party and, as soon as possible, to be swept under the carpet and forgotten. Interestingly, this is no serious story about this in the mainstream Media (Television, Print or Radio).
Are Romanian journalists intellectually incapable? Or are they cowards - afraid of the fight for Freedom and Democracy?
Eleanor Roosevelt once wrote:
“It is not only in war, however, that we fight for freedom. One fights for freedom in personal contacts and in many phases of civilian life. At all times, day by day, we have to continue fighting for freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom from want, for all these things that must be gained in peace as well as in war.”
What happened
According to the Romanian Press and main stream media, nothing much happened on April 3rd, 2008.
According to reports of the persons involved, peaceful educational activities (the showing of anti-Nato and anti-globalization films) were planned at a rented facility. Supposedly, the manager canceled the rental contract and refused to return the fully pre-paid rental fees and a verbal dispute arose between the manager of the facility, a security guard, and two persons representing the renters. The police were called. Anti-terrorist assault teams [stormtroopers] arrived on the scene and proceeded to arrest all persons at the facility with the exception of the facility manager and security guard. Some injuries occurred to those persons and they were taken to the hospital.
According to anonymous reports, those persons taken into custody were denied access to or communication with legal representatives and/or their embassies.
According to press accounts, all persons in the facility were taken into custody and held for questioning. The press sent one or more persons to learn more about the situation and at least one person was detained by police at a separate detention location.
The chief of Police confirmed that females from the said facility were released immediately thereafter. Males were held for many hours. Although the police describes all the detained persons as protesters; the authorities decided that the detained were not a threat to the state nor were any of them in possession of materials and propaganda that was considered to be a threat to the state.
There also remains unconfirmed reports that others were randomly picked up off the streets by members of the anti-terrorist brigade and police, but no one is coming forward. And no journalists are coaxing them to come forward.
source: stanfaryna.wordpress.com