Skip navigation.

Labris

Banka hrane

 
Srbija 2020
Naslovna » blogs » James Lyon

Tačka Po Tačka, Tačkica.......

James Lyon (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 18:21)

Has anyone actually bothered to read through the Constitution and analyse it Article by Article? I have. Below you will find a point-by-point analysis of the Constitution, with reference to its good points and bad points. I would like to hear your thoughts on this. Did I exaggerate? Did I leave something out? Did I misinterpret? What do you think? Is it just me, or does the Serbian text contain grammatical errors?

The Constitution's Contents:

In regard to the constitution itself, the contents are a very problematic mixed bag. This constitution will depend heavily on the police, the judges who interpret it and the politicians who control those judges and police. Although there are some positive points to it, they can be essentially limited to the following issues:

A.    Positive Aspects:

  1. The constitution is easier to amend (Article 203).
  2. The category of "socially owned" property is abolished (Article 86).
  3. It appears that the category of "City construction land" may now be abolished, although this is unclear and appears subject to further numerous possibilities for delay or non-implementation (Article 88).
  4. Municipal governments appear to have the right to own their own property (Article 86).
  5. Minority and human rights are mentioned and "guaranteed" (Articles 18, 19, 23-27, 39-47, 50, 55-59, 61, 75-79).

B.    Potential Problems: Overview. The constitution opens the door to a dictator coming to power via a method similar to that used by the National Socialists in Germany in 1932. The courts -- including the Constitutional Court -- are placed under the control of the central government. The prosecutor's office is a sub-branch of the government. The parliament can constantly harass the President of the Republic because a minority of deputies can initiate an impeachment procedure. The level of centralisation is increased, with the government being able to dissolve and appoint municipal councils and mayors. The appointment of Belgrade City officials is now regulated by the central government. The constitution is full of internal contradictions. The authors of the text would have benefited from the assistance of a legal expert.

  1. Article 1: Serbia is no longer a civic state, but rather a state of Serbs and other minorities. This looks like a "cut and paste" from Franjo Tudjman's Croatian constitution. Although there is a precedent for this in some neighbouring countries (Croatia and Hungary), it is not considered a positive step.
  2. Article 5: This creates a party state. "Political parties may not exercise power directly or submit it to their control." This contradicts Article 102, which states that "Under the terms stipulated by the Law, a deputy shall be free to irrevocably put his/her term of office at disposal to the political party upon which proposal he or she has been elected a deputy." In other words, the new constitution essentially permits the parties to control the parliamentary mandates of the deputies, creating a system where parties "exercise power directly" and "submit it to their control," thereby violating both the letter and spirit of Article 5, as well as earlier Serbian Constitutional Court rulings that the parliamentary mandates belong to the deputies and not their parties.
  3. Article 10: "Serbian language and Cyrillic script shall be in official use in the Republic of Serbia. Official use of other languages and scripts shall be regulated by the law based on the Constitution." Not only is this a departure from previous practice and law, it will also create significant problems for Serbia's minorities. The Article states that "official use of other languages and scripts will be regulated by the law." At present the only laws regulating the use of these languages and scripts are old Federal and State Union laws which are of no legal force. This means that until such time as the Serbian parliament gets around to passing new legislation permitting the use of the Latin alphabet and other languages (which could take a very long time), from the moment the constitution comes into effect the use of the Latin alphabet and the Albanian, Bosnian, Croatian, Czech, Hungarian, etc., will be illegal.
  4. Article 16: "Ratified international treaties must be in accordance with the Constitution." Should Serbia's government ever decide that it wants to actually work towards European integration, this article will make the automatic implementation of legislation and EU treaties difficult. It is unclear whether this calls into question all the heretofore adopted treaty obligations that were part of the requirements for Serbia's accession to the Council of Europe. This is reiterated in Article 194.
  5. Article 20: All the high-sounding human rights, minority rights, freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc. that are "guaranteed" by the constitution in Articles 18, 19, 23-27, 39-47, 50, 55-59, 61, 75-79, are in fact subject to curtailment by the government. Article 20 contradicts both itself and these other parts of the constitution by giving the government the right to curtail all rights on an as-needed basis. "Human and minority rights guaranteed by the Constitution may be restricted by the law if the Constitution permits such restriction and for the purpose allowed by the Constitution, to the extent necessary to meet the constitutional purpose of restriction in a democratic society and without encroaching upon the substance of the relevant guaranteed right." Not only is this sentence a tautology, but it sounds just as bad in the original Serbian:  "Ljudska i manjinska prava zajemčena Ustavom mogu zakonom biti ograničena ako ograničenje dopušta Ustav, u svrhe radi kojih ga Ustav dopušta, u obimu neophodnom da se ustavna svrha ograničenja zadovolji u demokratskom društvu i bez zadiranja u suštinu zajemčenog prava." The Article then continues to state: "The attained level of human and minority rights may not be lowered. When restricting human and minority rights, all state bodies, particularly the courts, shall be obliged to consider the substance of the restricted right, pertinence of restriction, nature and extent of restriction, relation of restriction and its purpose and possibility to achieve the purpose of the restriction with less restrictive means." The Article is internally contradictory, vague and open-ended, and essentially lets the government do whatever it wishes to restrict human, civil and minority rights.
  6. Article 44: "The Constitutional Court may ban a religious community only if its activities infringe the right to life, right to mental and physical health, the rights of child, right to personal and family integrity, public safety and order, or if it incites religious, national or racial intolerance." Does this mean a religious community may be banned on the grounds of "family integrity." Does this open the way to banning religions that gain converts from other established churches and where the immediate family members are opposed?
  7. Article 97: Why is this in there?
  8. Article 105: This opens the door to a parliamentary dictatorship. By a simple majority vote the parliament is permitted to: Declare a state of emergency; Suspend or rescind human rights and minority rights under a state of emergency.
  9. Article 114: The oath of office prevents the President of Republic from undertaking any activities that would in any manner recognise the government of an independent Kosovo. “I do solemnly swear that I will devote all my efforts to preserve the sovereignty and integrity of the territory of the Republic of Serbia, including Kosovo and Metohija as its constituent part…" This will create problems for future efforts to create regional stability.
  10. Article 118: The procedure for removing the President of the Republic from office may be set in motion by a parliamentary minority -- one third of the parliamentary deputies. "Procedure for the dismissal may be initiated by the National Assembly, upon the proposal of at least two thirds of deputies." This provision is guaranteed to create a situation where the President is constantly being held hostage by a parliamentary minority and could lead to long-term legislative gridlock. For removal from office, a two thirds parliamentary vote is required, even though the president is elected by popular vote.
  11. Article 141: "The Army of Serbia shall be subject to democratic and civil control." Other than this one sentence expressing a wish, there is no mechanism established.
  12. Article 142: "Courts shall be separated and independent in their work…" The remainder of this article, as well as the processes and structures envisioned in Articles 143-155 clearly remove the independence from the judiciary and place the courts firmly under the control of the government. The potential for abuse of the judiciary is enormous.
  13. Article 152: "A judge shall be prohibited to engage in political actions." What exactly constitute "political actions"? Is this article intended to muzzle the judiciary? The potential for abuse is enormous.
  14. Article 153: "Electoral members [of the high judicial counsel] shall include…a professor at the law faculty". Is this intended to provide a job for Kosta Čavoški?
  15. Articles 156-165: These articles remove all independence from the Prosecutor's office and make it a sub-branch of the government. The potential for abuse is enormous.
  16. Articles 169: According to this article, if one third of the parliamentary deputies request it, the Constitutional Court must review any law that the parliament has passed within seven days and render a decision on its constitutionality. If the Constitutional Court declares the law constitutional, then it appears that subsequent legal challenges to the constitutionality of the law on any grounds are impossible. "A Process of assessing constitutionality may not be instituted against a law whose compliance with the Constitution was established prior to its coming into force."
  17. Article 170: This establishes the right to mount a challenge to the constitutionality of the law. Is it in conflict with Article 169?
  18. Article 172: The method for choosing Constitutional Court Judges places the Constitutional Court under the control of the government, giving it power to appoint ten of the fifteen judges, with a veto power over the other five. It also sets the term for a Constitutional Court judge to the relatively short term of nine years. The actual process for choosing judges sounds as if it will be open to the worst possible political manipulation. "Five justices of the Constitutional Court shall be appointed by the National Assembly, another five by the President of the Republic, and another five at the general session of the Supreme Court of Cassation [which is under the control of the parliament]. The National Assembly shall appoint five justices of the Constitutional Court form among ten candidates proposed by the President of the Republic, the President of the Republic shall appoint five justices of the Constitutional Court from among ten candidates proposed by the National Assembly, and the general session of the Supreme Court of Cassation shall appoint five justices from among ten candidates proposed at a general session by the High Judicial Court and the State Prosecutor Council."
  19. Article 183: This maintains central control over the Autonomous Province of Vojvodina. "Autonomous provinces shall manage the provincial assets in the manner stipulated by the Law." The law in question is passed by the Republic parliament. It offers no possibility to Vojvodina to protect either its property or sources of income.
  20. Article 184: This cements central government control over Vojvodina. "An autonomous province shall have direct revenues for financing its competences. The kind and amount of direct revenues shall be stipulated by the Law." This law will be passed by the Republic parliament.
  21. Articles 188-189: The central government is able to take control of the City of Belgrade, as well as all other cities in Serbia via the parliament.
  22. Article 191: Belgrade's city government is placed under the control of the central government. The central government is able to pass laws governing the selection of city government officials in Belgrade. The central government is essentially able to take control over the laws governing local municipalities. Municipal Assemblies now elect the mayors. "Municipal bodies shall be the Municipal Assembly and other bodies designated by the Statute, in accordance with the Law. The Municipal Assembly shall decide on the election of municipal executive bodies, in accordance with the Law and the Statute."
  23. Article 192: The central government can dismiss and appoint municipal assemblies, officials and governments. "The Government may, under the terms specified by the Law, dismiss the Municipal Assembly. Simultaneously with the dismissal of the Municipal Assembly, the Government shall appoint a temporary body which shall perform duties within the competences of the Assembly."
  24. Article 200: State of Emergency. There is no chain of command or authority laid out for governing the country during a state of emergency. From reading between the lines it appears that the government will be the supreme authority and govern the country unhindered during this period. What is the role of the President of the Republic during a state of emergency? Does he continue to control the armed forces? Or do they fall under the government's control? There are numerous questions that go unanswered here.
  25. Article 202: This defines the government's ability to proscribe human rights and minority rights during a state of emergency. The article itself appears internally contradictory and the list of other articles to which it refers does not include all the articles that contain provisions on human rights, civic rights and minority rights.

In short, the constitution goes against EU trends in that it creates increased centralisation by permitting the central government to dismiss and appoint municipal councils and mayors. The constitution creates a state that is ruled by the political parties and removes much of the freedom from the individual parliamentary deputies to vote their conscience. The preamble placing Kosovo as an integral part of Serbia along with the President's oath of office and the constitutional provisions required to modify the preamble, will make short and medium term instability and bad relations in the Balkans a near certainty, as it will prevent Serbia from liberalising relations with an independent Kosovo or perhaps even with countries that recognise Kosovo. This constitution could well mean that it will be impossible for Serbia to join the EU anytime within the next 25 years.

These are only some of the areas of concern. In some respects the Milosevic constitution was superior, not to mention shorter by half. It is of interest to note that the SRS and SPS were instrumental in writing this document, and that both are now publicly trumpeting that the new constitution is simply a continuation of the old one. This constitution will depend heavily on the police, the judges who interpret it and the politicians who control those judges and police. Given that Kostunica has purged the judiciary, prosecutorial service and police of Djindjic appointees and replaced many of them with Milosevic-era loyalists, Serbia appears headed somewhere to east of the European Union.


» James Lyon

како вас не

ратазјајев (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 19:17)

како вас не мрзи, лајоне џејмсе.. ко би то чито..


»

"ко би то

zokster (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 19:51)

"ко би то чито.."

Чите свакако не.


»

Frogs end grandmaderz u mekeki porfavor!

Tine i Radojka (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 22:30)

"zokster (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 16:53)
I'll second Hadri."
Ih bin Tarzan du bist Dzejn lele dunje ranke,
La costa from Morava iz die beste for opanke!


»

у праву си

ратазјајев (21 Oktobar, 2006 - 01:11)

у праву си зокстер, глупа ми упадица. мени била згодна тад.. извињење и џејмсу.


»

"Serbia appears headed

zokster (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 20:03)

"Serbia appears headed somewhere to east of the European Union."

Serbia aren't going anywhere, it takes tremendous efforts for Serbian government just to stay where they are...They are like a derranged bicyclist in a Formula One race.


»

Please, stop!

Bubili (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 20:20)

Again, Mr. Lyon, please stop! Stop reading and trying to decipher for us proposal of our new constitution, stop telling us what is good and what is bad, stop thinking that all Serbs are dumb and that can not decide what is wright and what is wrong, stop wating your time and someone else money to promote USA-like democracy. Do you know old Serbian saying: "Ocistite prvo svoje dvoriste" (I know that you speak Serbian better than our "crown prince" and many others!)
So, keep your eye on some other country and try to achieve what you failed here. Obviously, your patrons are not satisfied, so you had to start this campaigne just few day before the referendum.
Leave us alone, please!
Regards,
Milan


»

"Do you know old Serbian

zokster (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 20:34)

"Do you know old Serbian saying: "Ocistite prvo svoje dvoriste" (I know that you speak Serbian better than our "crown prince" and many others!)"

I ruandski novinar Žorž Rižiu, osudjen za podstrekivanje na genocid protiv Tutsija, nikada nije rekao: 'Ubijte Tutsije!'. Njegov omiljeni džingl glasio je: 'Počistite oko svoje kuće!'". Toliko o narodnim mudrostima.


»

Bravo, zokster

Bubili (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 21:10)

You are reading and know a lot, aren't you!
You know exactly what I was trying to say and I am sure Mr. Lyon does not need "drvene advokate" (another phrase from wisdom of ordinary people).

Milan


»

"Every ass loves to hear

zokster (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 21:26)

"Every ass loves to hear himself bray" - Mexican proverb (another wisdom of ordinary Mexican people).


»

Zoksssss,

angie (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 21:34)

tebi danas bas krenulo, vidim:)))))))))


»

Harder rajt izier rong

Tine i Radojka (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 22:32)

Aj tinks ic rezultat real!


»

jel

shubidubi (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 21:41)

tebi Bubili prezime ili o chemu se ovde radi?:)


»

...mr. lyon, please do not

aion (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 21:35)

...mr. lyon, please do not leave us alone ! i am realy impressed by your analysis.

i don´t understand what does "bubili" has against you. i think he is from SRS, and that is very bad, you know.

bubili, do you think that this web-blog is now under the surveilence or pressure of cia, ndi and pentagon ?
are we alowed to think here loudly ?
we are waiting for further instructions.

samo sloga srbina spashava !
ili mozda, smrt fashizmu-sloboda narodu !
ili smrt srbina slobodu spashava !
ili smrt slobode srbina spashava !
ili

smrt demagozima - sloboda slobodnima !

bice da je ovo poslednje !


»

Quote:Article 10: "Serbian

milentije (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 21:18)

Quote:
Article 10: "Serbian language and Cyrillic script shall be in official
use in the Republic of Serbia. Official use of other languages and scripts
shall be regulated by the law based on the Constitution."

Not only is this a departure from previous practice and law,
it will also create significant problems for Serbia's minorities.
The Article states that "official use of other languages and scripts
will be regulated by the law." At present the only laws regulating
the use of these languages and scripts are old Federal and
State Union laws which are of no legal force.

Wrong. There are municipal laws that mandate the use of minority languages
(on a municipality-by-municipality basis, based on actual needs, i.e. ethnic composition),
and a Provincial law that elevates Hungarian, Croatian, Slovak, Romanian,
and Ruthenian to the status enjoyed by Serbian (i.e. Vojvodina has 6 official languages).

Any member of any of the minorities has a right to receive & submit documents
in his/her native language, as well as speak his/her own language when
communicating with a local/provincial government office.

Any minority MPP has the right to address the Assembly in his/her own language.

"Official use" means just that. It relates to the government's use of language,
not the citizens'. Every non-Serb has the right to their own language,
alphabet, customs, religion, etc. It's their basic human right.

As for Cyrillic - it's *the* Serbian alphabet. It has been in use, in various forms,
for 1400 years. The Latin script, on the other hand, arrived in Serbia along with
Austrian howitzers not even a century ago. The Serbian language and its alphabet are
one of the most economical in the world (Serbian is an "open order" language whereas
our script is one of the best ever devised -- and this is according to respected linguists
such as Chomsky, Halle etc).

So, if we've extended Constitutional and legal protection to our
minorities' languages and alphabets, I think we ought to do the same for our own.

What about Greece, Macedonia, Bulgaria...? They all have a non-Latin script
and sizable minorities. I don't see them having any issues with their
alphabets, nor is anyone complaining about "difficulties."

It is expected of all minorities to learn the Serbian language and its script.
I don't think that's too much to ask. You've learnt it - so why can't
someone who was born and lives here?

As for minority languages, they cannot be written in any alphabet other
than their own. Nobody expects a Serbian-Hungarian to write Hungarian using Cyrillic.

Quote:

Article 1: Serbia is no longer a civic state, but rather a state of
Serbs and other minorities. This looks like a "cut and paste" from Franjo Tudjman's
Croatian constitution. Although there is a precedent for this
in some neighbouring countries (Croatia and Hungary),
it is not considered a positive step.

The article states nothing other than that the Serbian people is
the first among equals. BTW, was Serbia really a civic state
under Miloshevich just because the Constitution said/says so?
The Preamble, in any constitution, is a bunch of symbolic statements.
Our Preamble is subject to the Constitution and it would be
uncostitutional to discriminate against non-Serbs.

We can go further than Croatia and Hungary, but we don't have to.
Why should Serbia be chastised for doing the same thing most
Euro states have done?

Here's an excerpt from the Croatian Constitution (2001):

I. IZVORIŠNE OSNOVE

Izražavajući tisućljetnu nacionalnu samobitnost i državnu
opstojnost hrvatskoga naroda, potvrđenu slijedom ukupnoga
povijesnoga zbivanja u različitim državnim oblicima te održanjem
i razvitkom državotvorne misli o povijesnom pravu hrvatskoga
naroda na punu državnu suverenost...

They don't even mention the "others." Truth be told, "the others"
have been ethnically cleansed.

Quote:

Article 183: This maintains central control over the Autonomous
Province of Vojvodina. "Autonomous provinces shall manage the
provincial assets in the manner stipulated by the Law."
The law in question is passed by the Republic parliament.
It offers no possibility to Vojvodina to protect either
its property or sources of income.

Article 184: This cements central government control over Vojvodina.
"An autonomous province shall have direct revenues
for financing its competences. The kind and amount of
direct revenues shall be stipulated by the Law."
This law will be passed by the Republic parliament.

There are MPs from Vojvodina sitting in Serbia's Parliament.
Who is going to represent Vojvodina and protect her interests if not them?
The legal basis is provided, it's up to the MPs to act.

I am from Banat, and I don't think autonomy is a good idea. Why should Serbs
need autonomy within Serbia? They make up 70% of the population of Vojvodina.
The 30% should be given all the possible minority rights. Autonomy is redunant,
therefore. It should be done away with as it is nothing but additional
burden to the taxpayers up north. What exactly do the Provincial
assembly/government/agencies do that cannot be done by coordinated
efforts of the local and state governments?

Local governments should be given more power, and the provincial
structures should be abolished. Why isn't there a referendum on autonomy?
Why did the Serbian Parliament (through the recently adopted draft)
automatically broaden the competencies of the provincial authorities
without even asking us who live in Vojvodina whether we wanted it or not?

We all hear about Belgrade's "plundering" of Vojvodina.
How about Vojvodina's (Novi Sad's) plundering of Srem, Banat & Bachka?

Why should I support three levels of government and those south
of the Sava/Danube only two? Isn't the Constitution adamant
about every citizen of Serbia being equal? How are we equal?
I have to pay more taxes, and the other guys have no autonomy. We're not equal.


»

"Article 1. Serbia is no

Peter Griffin (21 Oktobar, 2006 - 02:56)

"Article 1. Serbia is no longer a civic state, but rather a state of Serbs and other minorities. This looks like a "cut and paste" from Franjo Tudjman's Croatian constitution. Although there is a precedent for this in some neighbouring countries (Croatia and Hungary), it is not considered a positive step."

Really, Croatia and Hungary are the only examples you could think of? Ever read the German constitution?

This is just the preamble:

"Conscious of their responsibility before God and men, animated by the purpose to serve world peace as an equal part in a unified Europe, the German People have adopted, by virtue of their constituent power, this Constitution.
The Germans in the States of Baden-Wurttemberg, Bavaria, Berlin, Brandenburg, Bremen, Hamburg, Hesse, Lower Saxony, Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania, North Rhine-Westphalia, Rhineland-Palatinate, Saarland, Saxony, Saxony-Anhalt, Schleswig-Holstein and Thuringia have achieved the unity and freedom of Germany in free self-determination. This Constitution is thus valid for the entire German People."

Throughout the German constitution references are made to "the German People" or simply "Germans." If the EU's wealthiest member can use the phrase "German people" I see absolutely no reason why Serbia can't do the same.


»

Great work

Kum Djole (21 Oktobar, 2006 - 03:52)

...as always. Article 97 is a shortened version of existing article 72, possibly intentional - to expand the scope of interpretations in favour of a centralized state, and set a predetermined judicial review of disputes between the national and subnational policy making institutions.

If this is not a one-party constitution, it is certainly a one-ideology constitution, in some ways an introduction to a legitimized political monism (refer this to a popular joke about the Serbs becoming the orthodox talibans). Aristotle, Hobbes and Rousseau would all endorse the role of public authority and "wholehearted devotion to common good", with "common good" being a matter of values - not "a value". Since the Serbs have skipped that class, today Kostunica and his satellites have defined The Value in the preamble and it is for this blind, illiterate and gullible nation to swallow the bait, once again.


»

Great effort James

Armadiljo (21 Oktobar, 2006 - 22:06)

I did not read through your post, though. That's only partially because I already decided to vote against. I did read through the new text that we are now supposed to decide upon. I was also reading the text of the present constitution and I must say that I did not find anything so terrifying in that one. Then something came up on me and I gave up on any further analysis.

Yes, the consitution is the most important legal document in any one country. It is the foundation of the society and provides for its ever needed stability on a deep level. However, constitutional text is only a part of the whole thing and I dare say it is a smaller part. What is more important is the constitutional practice. Does the highest court in the country has so much independence, dignity and responsibility to translate constitutional text into constitutional practice only to the benefit of the whole society? Does the highest court in the country have influence on the state apparatus to accept any ruling and enforce it?

We never had that in this country and it does not seem we will have it any time soon. And nothing else matters.


»

in reverse

in reverse (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 00:28)

Hi James,

I am quite impressed that you have gone through the constitution. What have you concluded would be the best in the end - to vote AGAINST, vote FOR or not vote wahtsoever?

The resistance is futile and we are soon going to see this new constitution replacing the Milosevic one.

The number of irregularities occurred - the correct procedure for passing the law was not followed, there was no lengthy public debate or any debate whatsoever, it was created in the middle of the night by some minor brains in the government and the ruling parties. There was no input whatsoever from the intellectuals, experts, advisers, media and public. Thus this constitution is not a democratic document.

Having said that, I don't think that the new constitution is that bad. It is essentially the same as Milosevic one with a couple of minor changes. Yes the constitution is open to interpretation but any law is subject to interpretation.

This constitution is a result of a compromise and negotiations between the EU, the USA and the political parties SRS, DSS and DS and it is very clear that everyone got a deal out of it.

The western media supported this new constitution and openly stated that it is pro-EU and pro-democracy (the Financial Times article).


»

So have I

Urosh (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 01:15)

I have also bothered to read and analyze this "Constitution" and decided to boycott it.
Not only because of LDP-GSS (CAS)-SDU-LSV coalition call for boycott, but because this is not a referendum,but a plebiscite, and I do not want to confirm the decision of any government.
What I want to say is that there is a tiny difference between a referendum and a plebiscite, and that I noticed it, and, as a citizen and bachelor of law and junior barrister, I make that decision.
Also, this is imposed "Constitution.
Third, this "Constitution" victimizes the Serbs from Kosovo, because Kosovo is proclamed independent by the "Govt" with this "Constitution", preambule is not obligatory part of any constitution, and, in the article in which the amount of money that is given to Vojvodina is written down, it is not given to Kosovo.
So, one should notice that Kosovo is used as a manipulation for Kosovo Serbs, who will, if Kostunica continues to hold office until the Kosovo status final formal decision, end up like Croatian Serbs in 1995, and will be used for additional satanization of Albanians, like Croatian Serbs were used for satanization of Croats.
Fourth, Serbia stops being civic state.
Fifth, Vojvodina loses its legislative, executive and judiciary authorities.
Sixth, in the article in which the affirmative action is mentioned, there is no clause on the specific condition, which is neccessary for the affirmative action to exist-the limitation of duration.
Seventh-There are no animal rights,
Eighth,this is the "Constitution" of continuance and compromise with former, non-lustrated and non-prohibited parties of the past (SPS, SRS).

BOYCOTT OF THE CONSTITUTION OF HEAVEN'S SERBIA!

ULICA ZORANA DJINDJICA-OBAVEZAN SMER!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC-MALO MORGEN!


»

Uroshe, you do realise that

milentije (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 05:05)

Uroshe, you do realise that the majority actually thinks it was a good idea to characterise Serbia as the state of Serbs and others?

So many countries, far more multinational than ours, are characterised as "belonging" to the founding ethnic group. Germany, for example. Does this mean that everyone else in Germany is discriminated against? Of course not.

You say you "bothered" to read the constitution. That says a lot. You're calling for a "civic" state, yet it "bothers" you to act like a citizen (i.e. to get informed).

You also say that you are going to boycott it "not only because of LDP-GSS...". So, you failed again. You're listening to what some minor parties have to say and you've partially based your decision on their political stance. Why? Why do you think their opinion is more worthy than your own?

Can you tell me the difference between 'referendum' and 'plebiscite'?

You also state that you "do not want to confirm the decision of any government." Again, not acting like a citizen. You'd rather they went behind your back?

Quote:
Third, this "Constitution" victimizes the Serbs from Kosovo, because Kosovo is proclamed independent by the "Govt" with this "Constitution", preambule is not obligatory part of any constitution...

Exactly. The preamble is a symbolic statement. So, what seems to be the problem? I can't discuss the other points in your paragraph because they don't make any sense. How did the government proclaim Kosovo independent? How does the constitution victimise the Serbs?

Quote:
and, in the article in which the amount of money that is given to Vojvodina is written down, it is not given to Kosovo.

Vojvodina and Kosovo are not the same. Never were. Would it have made any difference to you if Kosovo had received at least 7%, like Vojvodina?

Quote:
So, one should notice that Kosovo is used as a manipulation for Kosovo Serbs, who will, if Kostunica continues to hold office until the Kosovo status final formal decision, end up like Croatian Serbs in 1995, and will be used for additional satanization of Albanians, like Croatian Serbs were used for satanization of Croats.

This statement is so ridiculous, I don't know where to begin. This government has nothing to do with the Kosovo situation. Do Kosovo Albanians really need Koshtunitsa's "help"? They are a bunch of savages already. They've murdered or ethnically cleansed half a million people since 1990. Serbs, Jews, Turks, Roma, Croats, Montenegrins, Macedonians... Whatever I think of them, my opinion of them is based on their own actions.

Quote:
Fourth, Serbia stops being civic state.

So what? It was "civic" under Miloshevich's Constitution. Was it in reality? This draft guarantees equality for all. That's civic enough for me. I prefer substance over form.

Quote:
Fifth, Vojvodina loses its legislative, executive and judiciary authorities.

I have to laugh. Have you really read the draft?
Being from Vojvodina, I think we should dismantle the provincial power structures. Unfortunately, this draft strengthens them. They are useless and they are a burden to me and all the other taxpayers in the province. They don't warrant the exorbitant amounts of money we pour into them. I wrote about this in my previous post.

Ban the provincial government, give more power to the municipalities and cities.

Quote:
Sixth, in the article in which the affirmative action is mentioned, there is no clause on the specific condition, which is neccessary for the affirmative action to exist-the limitation of duration.

Affirmative action is wrong. It should've never appeared there.

Quote:
Seventh-There are no animal rights.

Are you serious? You say you're a LL.B - you should
know that things such as this one are mandated by a law (say "The Law on Treatment of Animals"), not a constitution. A constitution is a framework, a basis for all the other laws of the land. It is not in its scope to mandate every single aspect of our lives. We don't live by the Constitution, but by the laws which are in accordance with it. The Constitution certainly leaves the possibility for a law on animals to exist, doesn't it? There you go. Rest assured, your four-legged friends will be OK.

Quote:
Eighth,this is the "Constitution" of continuance and compromise with former, non-lustrated and non-prohibited parties of the past (SPS, SRS).

Why don't we go back to 1945? Or even 1974? Why stop at 1990? Why don't we ban from public life all the people/parties/organisations who had had links to the Communist Party? That would be fantastic, if you ask me.

This is the right time for a compromise. For the next 20 years, the top 3 parties will continue to dominate Serbia's political life (SRS, DS, DSS). The draft simply had to be adopted this year.

As for the Radicals: good luck banning a party with 35% of the electorate behind it. Hopefully Sheshelj gets edged out. This is a party with great potential (see Maja Gojkovich) but they need to cool it down a bit.

Banning parties accomplishes nothing.


»

2 Milentije

Urosh (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 11:32)

your post is full of nationalistic collective affectations and national collectivism.
Serbia should be civic state, not national.
Because of all the wars Serbia started and all crimes Serbian forces committed.
Not only in BiH, Croatia, Slovenia and Kosovo, but in very Serbia (Zemun, Hrtkovci,Sjeverin).
This constitution is an insult for me as a citizen, because it is imposed and written by war criminal past (SPS, SRS and DSS).
I am sorry, but you have to be realistic-THIS "CONTITUTION" IS AN CONFIRMATION OF MILOSEVIC'S GREAT SERBIAN POLITICS AND APPROVAL OF ALL CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE NAME OF CITIZENS OF SERBIA.
This is the absolute victory of Serbian aggressions on Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, apartheid in Kosovo, genocide in Srebrenica.
First lustration and denazification should be done, and the cooperation with the ICTY should start (I do not think that the volontary surrenders are the form of cooperation, they are an insult of the victims) and it should come to an end.
And then constitution.
Because it cannot be written by the nationalistic and war criminal powers of the past.

Quote:

Are you serious? You say you're a LL.B - you should
know that things such as this one are mandated by a law (say "The Law on Treatment of Animals"), not a constitution.

Yes, I am very serious.
You don't know that animal rights are mandated by a constitution in Germany, Sweden and Norway.

ULICA ZORANA DJINDJICA-OBAVEZAN SMER!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC-MALO MORGEN!


»

Quote:your post is full of

milentije (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 15:54)

Quote:
your post is full of nationalistic collective affectations and national collectivism.

Which part? The one where I favour equality of all citizens of Serbia? Or the one where I think autonomy is a drain on mine and the pockets of about 2 million other citizens of Vojvodina?

Quote:
Serbia should be civic state, not national.
Because of all the wars Serbia started and all crimes Serbian forces committed.
Not only in BiH, Croatia, Slovenia and Kosovo, but in very Serbia (Zemun, Hrtkovci,Sjeverin).

These crimes were committed by individuals who ought to stand trial for their deeds. I see no relevance to the Constitution.

Quote:
This constitution is an insult for me as a citizen, because it is imposed and written by war criminal past (SPS, SRS and DSS).

...and President Tadich & DS / team of constitutional experts. The Constitution has been well received by the EU, OSCE etc. It has not been imposed. You do have the right to reject it, you know.

Quote:
I am sorry, but you have to be realistic-THIS "CONTITUTION" IS AN CONFIRMATION OF MILOSEVIC'S GREAT SERBIAN POLITICS AND APPROVAL OF ALL CRIMES COMMITTED IN THE NAME OF CITIZENS OF SERBIA.

That is your baseless interpretation of it. I am amazed by your ability to suspend reason and logic and come out with such ridiculous constructions.

Again, nobody committed any crimes in MY name. If they did, they certainly never asked me for permission. They all have a name and let them stand trial for their crimes. I don't believe in collective guilt. I've done no wrong to anyone and I don't wish to be held responsible for anything. I have nothing to do with the Wars of Yugoslav Succession and I certainly have no intention of apologizing for other's people's crimes.

Quote:
This is the absolute victory of Serbian aggressions on Slovenia, Croatia, BiH, apartheid in Kosovo, genocide in Srebrenica.

All Hail the Glorious Conquests! You forget Macedonia and Montenegro. Those two were really nasty campaigns.

Genocide in Srebrenica? Don't let the Tutsis, Armenians or Jews hear you. You have absolutely no problem cheapening the notion of genocide, do you?

The apartheid in Kosovo came as a response to - apartheid in Kosovo. I'm not saying it's OK, but there's a reason why it was they way it was (see David Binder's New York Times dispatches from Kosovo, 1981-1988).

Quote:
First lustration and denazification should be done, and the cooperation with the ICTY should start (I do not think that the volontary surrenders are the form of cooperation, they are an insult of the victims) and it should come to an end.

You can denazify yourself all you want, you sad, self-loathing person. Stay away from me. And don't force your views on the rest of us.


»

...

Urosh (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 16:23)

1st No, these crimes were comitted by Serbia as a state, and we, as citizens of Serbia, have collective moral responsability for them.Because we did not do much to stop Serbian military and paramilitary forces to commit them.
2nd I don't believe in collective guilt, but I believe in collective moral responsability.
3rd Genocide in Srebrenica really occured, in 1995, from 11th July through 19th July, and it was confirmed as a genocide in two verdicts of ICTY, in the cases of Radislav Krstic and Dragan Obrenovic.
If you were a citizen of Germany, you would be convicted on 5 years of prison, because of relativization of crimes.
4th I am not nazified at all.
I do not force anyone, I just express my opinion.

ULICA ZORANA DJINDJICA-OBAVEZAN SMER!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC-MALO MORGEN!


»

2 Milentije

Urosh (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 16:27)

Godišnjica ubistva Sjeverinaca
22. oktobar 2006. | 10:18 -> 14:58 | Izvor: B92, Beta
Beograd, Priboj -- Danas se navršava 14 godina od otmice i ubistva 16 Muslimana iz Sjeverina, većina počinilaca zločina je još na slobodi.

Toga dana u mestu Mioče, selu na samoj granici BiH sa Srbijom, grupa vojnika Vojske Republike Srpske, na čelu sa Milanom Lukićem iz Višegrada, je zaustavila autobus koji je saobraćao na relaciji Rudo - Priboj. Posle legitimisanja, oni su izveli 16 putnika muslimanske nacionalnosti i kamionom ih prevezli u Višegrad.

Tamo su ih, ispred hotela Vilina Vlas, prvo brutalno zlostavljali, a zatim odveli na obalu reke Drine, gde su ih sve streljali. Tela ubijenih ni do danas nisu pronađena.

Žrtve ovog zločina su: Mehmed Šebo, Zafer Hadžić, Medo Hadžić, Medredin Hodžić, Ramiz Begović, Derviš Softić, Medhad Softić, Mujo Alihodžić, Alija Mandal, Sead Pecikoza, Mustafa Bajramović, Hajrudin Sajtarević, Esad Džihić, Ramahudin Ćatović, Idriz Gibović i Melvida Koldžić.

U maju 2006. Vrhovni sud Srbije je doneo pravosnažnu presudu, kojom se Milan Lukić, Dragutin Dragičević, Đorđe Šević i Oliver Krsmanović, kao pripadnici oružane formacije Osvetnici, osuđuju na višegodišnje kazne zatvora zbog ovog zločina. Ovim suđenjem pravda je samo delimično zadovoljena jer su optužnicom Okružnog tužilaštva u Beogradu, obuhvaćena samo četiri izvršioca, od kojih je dvojici suđeno u odsustvu.

U optužnici, vojna formacija Osvetnici okarakterisana je kao paravojna iako je de fakto pripadala Vojsci Republike Srpske.

Fond za humanitarno pravo i Sandžački odbor za ljudska prava podsećaju da Srbija do sada nije pružila nijednu vrstu materijalne pomoći porodicama 16 otetih Sjeverinaca, a izostala je čak i podrška izgradnji spomenika u Priboju koji bi bio posvećen sećanju na stradanje ovih državljana Srbije.

"Svi činili zločine, ali srpske trupe najviše"

Etničko čišćenje i ostale ratne zločine činile su sve strane u ratovima na prostoru bivše Jugoslavije u protekloj deceniji, ali postoje velike razlike u težini i obimu počinjenih zločina, zaključak je istraživanja "Etničko čišćenje i ratni zločini".

"Najveći deo zločina počinile su srpske snage protiv Bošnjaka od aprila do oktobra 1992, te, u manjem obimu, protiv Hrvata", navodi se u zaključku istraživanja koje je sprovedeno u okviru međunarodnog projekta "Inicijativa naučnika", i dodaje da je u periodu od 1991. godine do 1995. godine, u Hrvatskoj i Bosni i Hercegovini raseljeno približno tri miliona stanovnika.

"Inicijativa naučnika" je međunarodni projekat u kojem učestvuje više od 300 naučnika, najviše iz regiona bivše Jugoslavije, ali i iz sveta.

Dodaje se da se na prostorima BiH gotovo 70 odsto svih progonstava i smrtnih slučajeva desilo u razdoblju od aprila do avgusta 1992. godine, a "ubedljivo najveći broj" počinile su jedinice Vojske Republike Srpske.

"Od ukupnog broja od 2,2 miliona izgnanih i približno 100.000 ubijenih, nedvosmislenu većinu čine Bošnjaci. Više od 80 odsto nesrpskog stanovništva nestalo je sa prostora današnje Republike Srpske", piše u zaključku istraživanja.

Naglašava se da se etničko čišćenje samo po sebi ne može izjednačavati sa genocidom i ocenjuje da se do danas samo nekoliko najtežih slučajeva etničkog čišćenja u BiH mogu označiti kao zločin genocida, poput masakra u Srebrenici 1995. godine.

Karla Jaspersa i Ralfa Djordana u ruke, Milentije!

ULICA ZORANA DJINDJICA-OBAVEZAN SMER!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC-MALO MORGEN!


»

Quote:1st No, these crimes

milentije (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 18:03)

Quote:
1st No, these crimes were comitted by Serbia as a state, and we, as citizens of Serbia, have collective moral responsability for them.Because we did not do much to stop Serbian military and paramilitary forces to commit them.

I don't care what outragous concoctions you use to justify your skewed perception of law, morality, responsibility etc. I am not responsible for any of the crimes. I was 12 when the war broke out. So, no I didn't do much - I couldn't. Is that my fault? Do you realise that some people don't care and do not wish to be involved in this? I've got more pressing issues to be concerned with.

Anyway, did anyone try to stop the Croatian Army or the mujahedeen in Bosnia - other than the VRS, that is?

Quote:
2nd I don't believe in collective guilt, but I believe in collective moral responsability.

I don't believe in anything "collective". We're all individuals capable of all sorts of things, and as such we, and we alone, should be held responsible for our actions.

Quote:
3rd Genocide in Srebrenica really occured, in 1995, from 11th July through 19th July, and it was confirmed as a genocide in two verdicts of ICTY, in the cases of Radislav Krstic and Dragan Obrenovic.

That was an act of mass murder, not genocide. The ICTY is hardly an impartial source of information. Not much to do with law or justice, either. Genocide is when you kill 1.5 million Armenians, 6 million Jews, 1.4 million Tutsis, 20 million Russians, etc. Every act of murder of an innocent person is a despicable crime, but let's not get carried away. You're not doing any favour to justice by calling Srebrenica an act of genocide.

Quote:
If you were a citizen of Germany, you would be convicted on 5 years of prison, because of relativization of crimes.

I'm just calling a spade a spade. How can the murder of 6 MILLION Jews be the same as the murder of 6 THOUSAND Muslims? The Holocaust was an attempt to eradicate the European Jewry. Srebrenica wasn't an attempt to eradicate Bosnian Muslims.

I understand why Germany would have such a law. They started two world wars and had murdered 6 million Jews over the course of 2 years.

Quote:
4th I am not nazified at all.

Neither am I, nor the other 8 million citizens of Serbia.

Quote:
I do not force anyone, I just express my opinion.

Well, you're calling me a genocide-denier just because I don't share your views. That's forcing it.

Can we go back to the topic at hand now?


»

No matter how you are trying to deny,

Urosh (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 21:06)

crime, which was being committed in Srebrenica from 11th through 19th July 1995 by Ratko Mladic and the forces from so called Republic Srpska and forces from Serbia (Uzice Military Dept.), is a genocide.
ICTY is the most impartial source of information, and the goal of ICTY is transitional justice achieving.
You are nazified, because you relativize Srebrenica genocide!
The fact is that you deny that there were genocide in Srebrenica and Serbian aggression on Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and apartheid in Kosovo on Albanians.
But they all happened, and there is no way of denying them.
I hope that the rest of six ICTY wanted war criminal will be in the Hague very soon.
And the journalists of RTS and Tanjug, who propagated the politics of aggression, genocide and apartheid, will be indicted by ICTY, too.
And they are Milorad Vucelic, Zoran Jevdjovic, Ljiljana and Dragoljub Milanovic, Tatjana Lenard, Spomenka Jovic and Milorad Komrakov.
And you should feel shame because of the international justice insulting and because of relativization of the crimes.
Hopefully, one day in Serbia, there will be the Srebrenica Law like Germany has Auschwitz Law, and then all who relativize or deny the crimes Serbian military and paramilitary forces committed during Serbian aggressions on Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina and apartheid in Kosovo, will be being convicted on five or more years of imprisonment!
Read Ralf Giordano and Karl Jaspers.
ULICA ZORANA DJINDJICA-OBAVEZAN SMER!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC-MALO MORGEN!


»

You never responded to the

milentije (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 23:07)

You never responded to the question re. Macedonia and Montenegro. Why? How come there was no war there?


»

German law

Wim Roffel (24 Oktobar, 2006 - 15:17)

In Germany you may be convicted for saying that nobody was killed at Auschwitz. But if you acknowlegded the facts but said that it was no genocide it would be seen as some abstract academic idea. No neo-nazi will bother to dispute just the word genocide: everyone would consider it as an irrelevant word game.

The whole discussion whether Srebrenica was a genocide is in my opinion a useless discussion. All sides were involved in massacres. Srebrenica was only different in scale.

In my opinion the whole genocide discussion is an excuse for some Bosniacs not to talk about what really happened - fact by fact. That way they can stay in their "we are good; they are bad" attitude.


»

just for the record, the Norwegian Constitution

Whyomar (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 21:49)

..does not have anything about animal rights in it, although there certainly are laws against cruelty to animals. Not surprising really, as it was written in 1814 when even "human rights" were a fairly new concept and it hasn't changed much since. If you want to read it(in English)try:
http://odin.dep.no/odin/engelsk/norway/system/032005-990424/index-dok000-b-n-a.html
(for other languages see: http://www.ub.uio.no/cgi-bin/ujur/ulov/sok.cgi)
I think you must be thinking of some other country.
But, as we are on the subject, the constitution of Norway was in fact thrown together mainly by a cultural elite during an intense period of about five weeks. Yet even though the process was extremely hasty and at best only semi-democratic, and contained a shameful ban on Jews(!)until 1851, it proved an excellent tool for the people of Norway, paving the way for better things to come. I just hope the new Serbian constitution is able to do the same. In the end it is the content and the practice of the new constitution that is going to count most, but the bottom line is: -it will MEAN what the WORDS say-


»

Yep, I was gonna burst his

milentije (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 22:59)

Yep, I was gonna burst his bubble and tell him that Norway is the only country in the world (alongside Iceland) that permits commercial whaling. (Japan is the third, but they swear it's only for "scientific research".) Animal protection? Norway?

Also, Norway has instituted Lutheranism as their state religion. It's in their Preamble if I remember correctly.

But why let the facts stand in the way. Eh, Uroshe? Why do you cite sources that don't support your contentions?


»

State Religion in Norway..

Whyomar (25 Oktobar, 2006 - 22:10)

quite right:
quote: "The Evangelical-Lutheran religion shall remain the official religion of the State. The inhabitants professing it are bound to bring up their children in the same."
--Of course this is really a dead letter; so nobody demands that parents bring their children up Lutheran or anything like that. The provision just gives the Government an excuse to interfere with the Lutheran Church whenever it feels like it, which is why many Lutherans want to separate Church and State.
What is interesting to see, though, is that on paper Norway had the most democratic constitution in Europe but the country was in fact ruled to start with by a political elite.
-Luckily, the electorate began to wake up to their power, -and to exercise their power, -and that is when the country truly became a democracy.


»

Can we then safely conclude

milentije (25 Oktobar, 2006 - 22:42)

Can we then safely conclude that a constitution wholly hinges on its interpretation(s)? :) I think this is one of the reasons why it was decided against a "public debate." That would've dragged on for years. In Serbia, literally everyone thinks they're an expert in at least 20 fields (pretty much everyone is an expert on politics, law, economics and football).

I was also suprised to learn that, in Norway, you must give your kids Norwegian names. If you want to give them a non-Norwegian name, you have to apply for a permit.

I wonder if this applies to non-Norwegians who live there.

Serbia looks more & more democratic the more you learn about other (European) countries.


»

I think you're right..

Whyomar (26 Oktobar, 2006 - 17:02)

wording the constituion does matter of course, but the practical interpretation will decide things most of the time. I think though that it's just as important that the people understand that it's their RIGHT to make demands of their leaders, and not just stand hat-in-hand and take whatever is dished out. But this mind-set takes time and patience, and unfortunately for people wanting quick results, democracy is a slow process. I still prefer it to some of the quicker alternatives, though!
I get the impression that the challenges to democracy are raising their heads all over, including, and maybe especially, in the places where it is most taken for granted.
When it comes to names, the law was recently radically liberalised, so people can call themselves (and their kids) more or less what they want, as long as the name won't be a serious embarrassment to the child. The children of non-Norwegians could always choose what they wished if it was accepted within their own community.
What you have of course to take into consideration is what other kids might make of the name you choose. For example "Odd" is not exactly a name I'd want for my son however "Norwegian"it is.
With adults, its less serious, and the law change had some funny effects because some people played jokes on their friends. They sent in bogus applications for name changes: "Buksesmekken", for instance which means your trouser-zipper(the one in front). The application got approved!


»

Men on a Mission

Doctor Wu (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 08:59)

Srđan Kusovac (13 Oktobar, 2006 - 07:20) Slobo vrati se, sve ti je oprošteno (Slobo, come back, all is forgiven)

Čeda Jovanović (19 Oktobar, 2006 - around 19:00) Ovo ni Milošević nije radio (Even Milosevic wasn't acting like this)

James Lyon (20 Oktobar, 2006 - 19:21) In some respects the Milosevic constitution was superior,


»

Considering James Lyon and ICG

Urosh (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 21:12)

ICG is the only international organization that does not accept nationalistic political forces in Serbia and criticizes them all the time.
And that is the reason why I respect ICG.
The rest of them accept Kostunica and his nationalistic "Govt" in order to prevent the radicals from holding office.
ICG and James Lyon are the only ones who condemn the very concept of Kostunica's authority-continuing of Great Serbia politics, promoted by Milosevic and Seselja and continued by Kostunica and revenge to Zoran Djindjic, which has been done since Kostunica started holding office two years ago!

ULICA ZORANA DJINDJICA-OBAVEZAN SMER!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC-MALO MORGEN!


»

Quote: And that is the

Doctor Wu (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 21:25)

Quote:
And that is the reason why I respect ICG.

Well, if you'd like to lodge a complaint, I'm not exactly the best person for this kind of problems. Why don't you try James? I'm sure he'll lend you guidance & support. All the best.


»

They will criticise every

milentije (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 23:05)

They will criticise every Serbian government that tries to reassert Serbia's sovereignty, conduct independent policy-making, run an IMF-free economy, etc.

Go to their website and take a look at their Board. And, as always, follow the money.

These people cheered on as YOUR country and city were being bombed. Nek' ti je na cast... ako je imas.


»

...

Kum Djole (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 00:16)

"If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell.


»

Oh, JFC,

Urosh (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 00:47)

do you really think that they will really criticize every Govt. of Serbia?
Or just the one(s) which promoted/promote(s) great Serbian nationalism and national collectivism?
I cheered also when NATO intervention occured.
Because NATO intervention was a consequence, Serbian apartheid on Albanian Kosovars in nineties was a cause.
NATO defended international order and politics of anti-fascism from Milosevic's fascistic politics.
And that is why NATO humanitarian intervention was totally justifiable.

ULICA ZORANA DJINDJICA-OBAVEZAN SMER!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC-MALO MORGEN!


»

Quote:Because NATO

milentije (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 04:45)

Quote:
Because NATO intervention was a consequence, Serbian apartheid on Albanian Kosovars in nineties was a cause.

So, why is NATO not bombing Kosovo today then? (What is a "Kosovar", anyway?)


»

Because

Urosh (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 09:20)

Kosovo Serbs are not ghettoized because of and by Albanians, but because of and by Kostunica and his war criminal Great Serbian politics.
Kostunica is the continuance of Milosevic, and DSS is ideological faction of SPS!

ULICA ZORANA DJINDJICA-OBAVEZAN SMER!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC-MALO MORGEN!


»

So, back in 1999, the

milentije (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 12:44)

So, back in 1999, the Albanians knew Koshtunitsa was going to be PM in 2004-06 and decided to act proactively?


»

Quote:I cheered also when

Doctor Wu (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 09:10)

Quote:
I cheered also when NATO intervention occured.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse...

Quote:
Because NATO intervention was a consequence, Serbian apartheid on Albanian Kosovars in nineties was a cause.
NATO defended international order and politics of anti-fascism from Milosevic's fascistic politics.
And that is why NATO humanitarian intervention was totally justifiable.

No, I think it was more of a part of Madeleine's (Albright, not Peyroux) hormone therapy.

All the best!


»

NATO intervention

Urosh (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 09:19)

was the only way of stopping Milosevic's apartheid on Albanians in Kosovo.
And it was fully justified by the international law (Chapter 7 of the UN Charter).
If NATO had not intervened in Kosovo, war would probably have spread to the other parts of the Balkans and international law would have been violated, because the apartheid would have continued.
You can't compare apartheid in Kosovo to NATO intervention. It is as though one compared Auschwitz and bombing of Dresden!

ULICA ZORANA DJINDJICA-OBAVEZAN SMER!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC-MALO MORGEN!


»

Quote:NATO intervention was

Doctor Wu (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 13:15)

Quote:
NATO intervention was the only way of stopping Milosevic's apartheid on Albanians in Kosovo.

If this is the case then why did they wait until 1999? What took them so long? Why didn't they 'prevent the disaster' and eliminated him in 1991/92? It would have been much easier for everyone and we'd all be happier.

If you are actually reading these posts you'll notice that the guys mentioned in the first post of this thread are effectively craving for 'good old times of Milosevic' (Kusovac was pretty explicit). How can you explain that?


»

UROS:Quote:and international

milentije (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 16:43)

UROS:

Quote:
and international law would have been violated

And, because NATO intervened -- breaching every possible international law, treaty and convention re. aggression, sovereignty and the use of force -- the international law was not violated. Am I getting this right?


»

...

Urosh (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 22:58)

Yes, you are getting it right.
NATO intervention protected democratic world from Serbian fascism and Milosevic's violating of the international law.

ULICA ZORANA DJINDJICA-OBAVEZAN SMER!
SLOBODAN MILOSEVIC-MALO MORGEN!


»

NATO saved the world from

milentije (24 Oktobar, 2006 - 03:01)

NATO saved the world from "Serbian fascism?" You are rambling uncontrollably. There's no point discussing anymore. I don't know why I've wasted this much time to begin with.


»

Quote:was the only way of

milentije (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 13:36)

Quote:
was the only way of stopping Milosevic's apartheid on Albanians in Kosovo.
And it was fully justified by the international law (Chapter 7 of the UN Charter).

Oh, so that's why NATO had to bypass the UN/Security Council? And break its own Charter? NATO had gone to war in defiance of the Security Council of the United Nations. The SC alone could authorise military action against another country. Yet the new NATO treaty claimed respect for the Security Council. The treaty states, “The United Nations Security Council has the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security.”

As NATO bombs fell on Yugoslavia the new NATO treaty also confirmed its commitment to “the peaceful resolution of disputes, in which no country would be able to intimidate or coerce any other through the threat or use of force.”

Quote:
If NATO had not intervened in Kosovo, war would probably have spread to the other parts of the Balkans and international law would have been violated, because the apartheid would have continued.

II. Intelligence report from the Foreign Office, January 12, 1999 to the Administrative Court of Trier (Az: 514-516.80/32 426):

"Even in Kosovo an explicit political persecution linked to Albanian ethnicity is not verifiable."

IV: Opinion of the Bavarian Administrative Court, October 29, 1998 (Az:22 BA 94.34252):

"The Foreign Office's status reports of May 6, June 8 and July 13, 1998, given to the plaintiffs in the summons to a verbal deliberation, do not allow the conclusion that there is group persecution of ethnic Albanians from Kosovo. Not even regional group persecution, applied to all ethnic Albanians
from a specific part of Kosovo, can be observed with sufficient certainty.

What was involved in the Yugoslav violent actions and excesses since February 1998 was a selective forcible action against the military underground movement (especially the KLA) and people in immediate contact with it in its areas of operation.

...A state program or persecution aimed at the whole ethnic
group of Albanians exists neither now nor earlier."

VI: Opinion of the Upper Administrative Court at Münster, February 24,
1999 (Az: 14 A 3840/94,A):

"There is no sufficient actual proof of a secret program, or an unspoken consensus on the Serbian side, to liquidate the Albanian people, to drive it out or otherwise to persecute it in the extreme manner presently described."

(...)

"Events since February and March 1998 do not evidence a
persecution program based on Albanian ethnicity. The
measures taken by the armed Serbian forces are in the first instance directed toward combatting the KLA and its supposed adherents and supporters."

You were saying...?


»

@Urosh

Milojko (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 14:03)

You have many logic errors in your thinking. Even if your sentence (which is btw. just a pure speculation) "If NATO had not intervened in Kosovo, war would probably have spread to the other parts of the Balkans and international law would have been violated, because the apartheid would have continued." was correct there is absolutely no way to support your statement that US did this because of "stopping Milosevic's apartheid on Albanians in Kosovo".
Reasons, a lot of them.
First there are many far worse situations then one in Kosovo in recent history when there was a genocide committed and where it would be easy to react in order to stop it, but US did nothing (Rwanda, Darfur, Lebanon).
Second there are many situations where there were complately no reasons for interventions, but US intervened (Vietnam, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan...).
This totally discredits the fact that US interest was ever human rights and therefore that NATO (euphemism for US) intervened in Kosovo in order to "stop Milosevic's apartheid on Albanians".

Therefore, if you build your conclusion on the wrong premises, your conclusion is most probably wrong too.


»

So why did NATO bombed

Atomski mrav (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 14:04)

So why did NATO bombed civilian targets hundreds of miles from Kosovo teritory? Like bridges in Novi Sad? You cheered for NATO intervention? Probably from some safe distance... Serbs from Kosovo are not in danger of Albanians? Where DO you live, on Mars?

**Take your place in history and prey you don't repeat it**


»

Respect the ICG? I think

Peter Griffin (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 00:17)

Respect the ICG?

I think people would agree that the most pressing issue in Serbia is the state of the economy. Has the ICG office in Belgrade ever done anything positive to address this issue? From my point of view, they've done absolutely nothing. Now I've studied economics at the graduate level, but I can't ever recall the lesson which looked at the positive role of old-hat, recycled criticism as a stimulus for economic growth.

Whatever you think of Kostunica and his government, at least he's accountable to you and the rest of every voting-age citizen in Serbia. (Btw, you'll get your opportunity to exercise that accountability soon enough.) Who precisely is James Lyon and the ICG accountable to? Why do they refuse to release a breakdown of their Belgrade office's budget?


»

ali covek prima platu da radi u Srbiji ...

Rodion (22 Oktobar, 2006 - 09:10)

i on zna srpski pa bih da pitam: zasto vi g. Lajon ne pisete na srpskom kad vec toliko dugo zivite ovde i govorite srpski odlicno, verovatno i pisete odlicno?
a koje je vase misljenje o nasem ustavu... nismo mi deciji vrtic za mentalno ogrtanicenu decu pa da nam neki cika iz inostranstva daje komentare... postoje strucnjaci iz vase zemlje koji su znatno upuceniji u ustavna pitanja i njih bi svakako trebalo konsultovati, ali vasa profesija nije da kritikujete ustav...

Rodion


»

The point of blog is to

d j o l e (23 Oktobar, 2006 - 12:30)

The point of blog is to enable us the mere mortals to exchange few words with somebody we “know”. The more famous celebrity, the more interesting blog becomes.

With all do respect to the English blog authors, the B92 could find some more famous authors in English, especially since lots of blog readers did not have opportunity to share opinions with even a bit more known people from the English speaking part of world.


»

Looks like the HCR has been reading your blog

tnosugar (24 Oktobar, 2006 - 14:02)

http://www.b92.net/eng/news/politics-article.php?yyyy=2006&mm=10&dd=24&nav_category=94&nav_id=37532


»

wooow

veselin (24 Oktobar, 2006 - 22:58)

Mr. Lion
Job well done, indeed.
Perhaps you can comment on US Constitution as well?
Or you are just not paid for that?
In reference of Article 10 - I believe that Spanish language is official one in California.
Most likely not.
In terms of minorities - reservations still exist un your country - if that is not minority segregation ...
In terms of self determination - what about those naughty boys in Texas Militia?
etc etc etc
Your religion is not good enough here - go preach somewhere else - like North Corea.
Sure that those boys will give you a warm hug.
Or, try to bitch slap Rossia, China...
What a joke.
As long you are paid from your albanian pets you shall dance, a dance of a lifetime.
You, such an expert on Serbs.
True joke indeed.

Soryy, but none of kindest regards


»

Suicide

s56a (25 Oktobar, 2006 - 22:04)

: This constitution could well mean that it will be impossible for Serbia to join the EU anytime within the next 25 years.

Serbs usually do mass suicides during world wars but lately they are trying it under limited circumstances.

I only hope Svilanovic's realpolitik explanation holds.

LP MMM from Novi Beograd


»

How on earth did you deduce that?

semele (26 Oktobar, 2006 - 20:51)

Quote:
This constitution could well mean that it will be impossible for Serbia to join the EU anytime within the next 25 years.

There is certainly not a uniform solution across the E.U. to the constitutional question and I am not aware that there are any requirements or even expectations from the candidate countries regarding their constitution.

There is a lot of tuning in when it comes to various pieces of legislation in the process of a new member country joining the E.U., but constitutions are such broad and general documents that I fail to see how a country's constitution can hinder its efforts to join the E.U. (unless obviously the constitution endorsed slavery or equivalent!).

A good example may be the U.K., where there is no constitution at all (some would say that there is an unwritten constitution, which probably is the most precise description of the situation as the U.K. is certainly is not a lawless country).

I also beg to differ when it comes to the potential Serbian membership in the E.U. I would not view it as a tragedy, should Serbia not join the E.U. in the next 25 years, on the contrary, a non-member status would probably prove to have many more advantages, rather than disadvantages in the long run.


»

Quote:a non-member status

milentije (26 Oktobar, 2006 - 22:57)

Quote:
a non-member status would probably prove to have many more advantages, rather than disadvantages in the long run.

I agree.

The EU is supporting the draft Constitution and they have had no objections to it (the process or the contents).

The EU has stated that Serbia needs a new constitution if it is to join the EU. Belgrade was only too happy to oblige.

Therefore, Lyon's remark is irrelevant.

===============================
A Conservative Angle
http://degaullist.wordpress.com


»

Surprise!

Хаџија (1 Novembar, 2006 - 04:36)

So, you've already started the campaign to discredit the referendum's success, je li? The unsubstantiated smears - a good choice I feel. Nothing else you could do after all ;) Apart from leaving us alone, of course. But then, you need a target when you're a paid propagandist. http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4478&l=1&m=1


»

just can't find him!

Bojan79 (5 Novembar, 2006 - 17:57)

Can anyone enlighten me on the whereabouts of Mr. Agim Ceku's blog? I did my best to find his name on the blog's sidebar here without any success. I'm sure it's here somewhere...

Bojan


»

Very nice

montenegro (6 Novembar, 2006 - 21:57)

Dear James,

Thanks for the most concise and informative analysis of the new Serbian constitution that I have seen anywhere!

It is a sad fact for Serbia that no one else was interested enough to go into detail, apart from you.

Thanks again for your help and support. Don't worry about the agents provocateurs who are trying to get to your nerves by means of childish comments to your blog.

It's the truth that hurts them the most.

A citizen of Serbia


»

Proverb 2U, proverb 2 Me

albert.humbert (7 Novembar, 2006 - 02:53)

JL:

Quote:
In some respects the Milosevic constitution was superior

In the spirit of the old Serbian proverbs: "You will make him out of mud!" Milosevic, that is. It was much easier managing a country with him in power. Or at least alive. Wasn't it?

This so called democrats are much tougher bunch to deal with, aren't they? Well, one can only work hard for what he is paid, try his best and hope he isn't made redundant. It is a good job if you can get it!

As for the Constitution, I mean, let's not kid ourselves: who cares!!!


»

The EU, US, Council of

Peter Griffin (7 Novembar, 2006 - 04:25)

The EU, US, Council of Europe, OSCE... have accepted the result of the referendum and approve of the constitution. The opinions of James Lyon and the ICG are completely irrelevant. Game, set and match; Serbia 1 - ICG 0.


»

Correction

montenegro (11 Novembar, 2006 - 15:12)

The EU, US, Council of Europe, OSCE... have accepted the result of the referendum and approve of the constitution. The opinions of Serbian citizens are completely irrelevant. Game, set and match; Serbia 1 - Serbian citizens 0.

And the good news is that every country in the world can now strike off the names of up to 2m voters (of another ethnic origin) from the electoral list and ... its OK! Bravo Serbia, for another major contribution to global democracy!


»