A group of 29 civil society organizations and activists condemned the “several-day attack” by Democratic Montenegro on the personality and integrity of the director of the Human Rights Action, Tea Gorjanc Prelevi?, due to, as they said, her clear, principled and well-argued position that insists on the law and international standards, including the right to criticize the government.
They said that in a democratic society, differing opinions are not only permitted, but also desirable, and that it is worrying when the government begins to equate a party with an institution and the state, because this stifles any space for a critical stance. No party, including Democratic Montenegro, may be above institutions or assume the right to dispense justice and determine who is “worthy” of public participation and in what way, they said in a joint statement.
They point out that Tea Gorjanc Prelevi? has been contributing to building a more just society for almost two decades, without calculations and with courageous opposition to every government, and that attributing political bias to her means covering up the powerlessness and lack of arguments of those who basely attack her.
It is particularly unacceptable, they said, for a ruling political party to take action against a prominent civil society activist, through anonymous statements.
“While Tea Gorjanc Prelevi? signs all her positions with her name and integrity, the Democrats hide their attacks behind a collective seal, which best speaks of their ‘strength’,” they point out.
They believe that the Democrats, as a constituent of the government, have an obligation to show more tolerance and responsibility towards criticism. “Unfortunately, we witness their almost daily confrontations with anyone who dares to think differently – from lawyers to activists – while trying to turn the security sector into a training ground for political promotion.”
They also said that lawyer Veselin Radulovi? has the right, within the legal framework, to protect the rights of his clients, as well as to proactively try, through existing legal mechanisms, to influence the limitations of dangerous autocracy in the security sector.
