Private socio-political weekly ‘Nasha Niva’ got two warnings at once

2010 2010-07-28T19:32:17+0300 1970-01-01T03:00:00+0300 en The Human Rights Center “Viasna” The Human Rights Center “Viasna”
The Human Rights Center “Viasna”

In one week the newspaper has received two warnings from the Information Ministry for publications indirectly related to Godfather, a documentary about Aliaksandr Lukashenka broadcast on the Russian TV channel NTV.

In the warning of 22 July, the Information Ministry charges the newspaper of disseminating information which does not s not reflect reality. The reason is the title of the article Godfather Has Confiscated (Nasha Niva, #26) providing information about the issue of Nasha Niva that couldn’t be found by readers in kiosks of the Belsayuzdruk retailer all over the country. ‘According to Article 244 of the Civil Code of Belarus, confiscation is seizure of property from an owner without compensation as a sanction for a crime or other violation’, the Information Ministry notes. And then representatives of the ministry are referring to the information of Belsayuzdruk retail trade network that the circulation of the newspaper Nasha Niva of 25 July 2010 ‘was forwarded to be sold by mercantile establishments of the enterprise’. And so, the Information Ministry believes, ‘the confiscation of the newspaper had not taken place’.

As noted in the letter signed by Minister Aleh Praliaskouski, the information in the article Godfather Has Confiscated, ‘can cause damage to state interests among other things, as it distorts the practice of interaction of the state with mass media’.

The other warning, dated 26 July, concerns the article Belarusian Republican Youth Union promotes “Godfather film’, published in Nasha Niva #25. ‘According to the information of the public association the Belarusian Republican Youth Union’, on 6 July activists of this organization staged a rally in Minsk that wasn’t aimed at advertising the abovementioned film,’ the letter notes. Consequently, the Information Ministry believes that ‘the published information contradicts the reality and discredits reputation of this legal entity’.