Klāvs Sedlenieks: Tēvzemes piemineklis

Nacionālā radio un televīzijas padome (NRTP) ir pieņēmusi lēmumu sodīt kanālu TV5 un žurnālistu Mamikinu par uzdrošināšanos 18. novembra raidījumā pajautāt skatītājiem, vai gadījumā Latvijas neatkarības atjaunošana nav uzskatāma par liktenīgu kļūdu. NRTP šāda jautājuma uzdošanu uzskata par “nacionālā goda un cieņas pazemošanu televīzijas raidījumā”. Naudassods tieši tik liels, lai to varētu samaksāt ar divām banknotēm, kuras rotā meitenes profils, tautā saukts par Mildu - gluži tā pat kā tēlu, kurš balsta trīs zeltītas zvaigznes un kura pakājē rotājas vārdi ‘Tēvzemei un brīvībai.’

Mani kā latvieti pazemo šāds lēmums. Uzskatu, ka tas noniecina latviešu tautu un it īpaši tās spēju uz brīvību.

Interesanti būtu zināt, ko tieši NRTP locekļi domā par latviešiem un to, ar kādām vērtībām saistās šīs tautas gods un cieņa. Katrā ziņā jau tagad zinu, ka pat būdams ļoti kritisks pret cilvēku kopienu, ko pieņemts dēvēt par latviešiem, mans viedoklis radikāli atšķiras no aizskarošā NRTP viedokļa.

Par spīti visam, es sevi pieskaitu pie latviešiem. Manā izpratnē Latvijas sabiedrības labākā puse ir brīvības mīlestība. Šī brīvība ir nevis vairāk vai mazāk apšaubāmā politiskā vai ekonomiskā neatkarība, bet gan domu, gara un apziņas brīvība. Mūsu Satversmes tēvi domāja līdzīgi, dodot Latvijas tautai lielāko iespējamo teikšanu valsts dzīvē. Kārlis Zāle, iespējams, domāja līdzīgi, kad izvēlējās iekalt Brīvības piemineklī Ziemeļmeitas meklējumu autora vārdus ‘Tēvzemei un brīvībai’. Nevis vienkārši ‘dzimtenei’ nevis ‘neatkarībai’, bet abām divām - tēvzemei UN brīvībai. Jo kam gan vajadzīga šī Tēvzeme, ja nav Brīvības? Bez brīvības labāk dzīvot arī bez tēvzemes - tā vismaz ir vieglāk. Domāju, ka brīvības sajūta bija arī tiem Latvijas iedzīvotājiem, kas ziedoja piemineklim, kura ideju bija radījis Zigfrīds Anna Meierovics - viens no visu laiku dižākajiem brīvās Latvijas valstsvīriem. Ironiski, ka 1935. gadā, kad piemineklis tika atklāts, šī brīvība jau bija smagi iedragāta. Tomēr piemineklis ar visu uzrakstu pārdzīvoja kā šo paklupienu, tā arī vēlākos bezbrīvības laikus.

Tāpēc mani un manas nacionālās jūtas aizvaino cilvēki, kas ierobežo brīvību jautāt un brīvību atbildēt, kuri mēģina man iegalvot, ka latvieši ir tauta, kuras motivācija apvienoties valstiskā veidojumā ir bailes un naids pret citādību. Ja latvieši tiešām būtu tādi, tad taisnība vien būtu tiem, kas viņus dēvē par fašistiem. Taisnība varētu būt arī tiem, kas šos latviešus dēvētu par staļinistiem. Viens pīpis - cilvēki, kuri ir tik vāji, ka nespēj izturēt brīvību, neko labāku par totalitārismu nevar sagaidīt.

Tomēr es gribu ticēt, ka ir pietiekoši daudz tādu latviešu, kas ir pelnījuši ko labāku. Tie ir cilvēki, kuri nav aizmirsuši, ka padomju laikā apspiestība neizpaudās tikai plānveida ekonomikā un krievu valodas dominancē, bet daudz vairāk -  faktā, ka pastāvēja ‘kompetentas iestādes’, kurām bija tiesības un pienākums sodīt pārdrošniekus, kuri uzdrīkstējās uzdot valdošajiem nepatīkamus jautājumus. It īpaši pareizi bija sodīt mutes palaidējus un brīvdomātājus-šizofrēniķus, kuri nepārstāvēja pareizo lingvistiski-etnisko grupu.

17 gadus pēc Latvijas neatkarības iegūšanas Latvijas tauta bija saziedojusi līdzekļus, lai radītu mākslas darbu, kas slavināja brīvību. Varbūt 18 gadus pēc Latvijas neatkarības atjaunošanas ir pienācis laiks rosināt kompetentās iestādes, lai tās organizētu patriotisku vārda ‘brīvība’ izskrāpēšanu no pieminekļa pamatnes, jo tas vairs neatbilst nacionālajām interesēm. Vai nebūtu jauki, ja šo pieminekli varētu vienkārši dēvēt par Tēvzemes pieminekli bez visādām kaitinošām brīvībām?

22. decembrī, plkst. 23:13 satori.lv

Sad. The cornerstone of democratic societies is that its members are allowed to ask unpopular questions and state unpopular opinions. Silencing such voices serves no one. It only gives their opinions a validity which they do not deserve.

Andrejs

What about questioning the Holocaust?

Spectator wrote, “What about questioning the Holocaust?”

Are you contending that those who deny the Holocaust in Latvia are fined 1000 Ls (approx. 2000 USD)?  If so, please provide a source for your info.

Thanks.

What about questioning the Holocaust? Which part of the below are you having difficulty understanding?

The cornerstone of democratic societies is that its members are allowed to ask unpopular questions and state unpopular opinions.

Question anything. I have no problem with anyone asking a question on any topic. Its the answers that matter.

Andrejs

I don’t know about Latvia, but in some Western European countries questioning the Holocaust is a felony, and people have gone to jail for that.

Really? People have gone to jail for asking questions? Or is it for providing some of the answers? I know of no Western European countries which have laws against questioning the Holocaust. A few might have laws against denying the Holocaust. And even that I wouldn’t support.
You do know there is a difference between questioning and denying?

Andrejs

The difference between questioning and denying resides in the head of the judge!

Provide some examples and I’ll gladly offer a judgement.

Andrejs

Spectator does make an observation that should always be critically seen:

The difference between questioning and denying resides in the head of the judge!

But Andrejs responds (with tongue in cheek——hmmm, but which cheek though!)

Provide some examples and I’ll gladly offer a judgement.

Mikus E.

P.S. Reminds me of the OJ thing (an inverse though). You know, where OJ was assuredly known by all to have “done it”, but the judge in his own head, decided he did not.

The O.J. Simpson acquittal was by jury, not by judge.

Evidently, more than one person came to the wrong conclusion.

Personally, I’d agree.  But it was interesting seeing the reaction at the courthouse where I was working at the time of the OJ verdict.  Half of the staff was stunned into silence, the other half was jubilant.  And a very astute Latvian friend pointed out to me - this is as if a Latvian man had been found not guilty by a Soviet jury.  Even if he was guilty as sin, it was analogous to a Latvian man freed by a Soviet jury.  And a black colleague of mine, who was not one of the jubilant crowds, telling me I had a very astute Latvian friend.

I would had hoped that every JD knows the following:

Juries usually weigh the evidence and testimony to determine “Questions of fact”, while judges usually rule on “Questions of law”. Jury determination of “Questions of law”, sometimes called “Jury nullification”, may lead to the overturning of a verdict by the judge.

And it is also unfortunate that you (Anita) had to add:

And a very astute Latvian friend pointed out to me - this is as if a Latvian man had been found not guilty by a Soviet jury. Even if he was guilty as sin, it was analogous to a Latvian man freed by a Soviet jury.

—- Hey, a Soviet “jury” would not ever had any option, even if “he” was “guilty as sin“.
...Was your very astute Latvian friend merely putting emphasis on the obvious incongruities?

Mikus E.

P.S. As for the “jubilant crowds” you (Anita) make reference to… Not in the circle of friends and the public that I am familiar with.
P.P.S. Oh Anita, fess-up!

Actually, there’s no such thing as a Soviet jury as far as I know; the procedure was (and is; we don’t have juries in the restored Republic) inquisitorial. This isn’t confined to post-Soviet space, either; the system in most of continental Europe is quite different from the American and British systems. Whilst on the subject of Soviet law, lest my vārdabrālis Briedis succeeds in giving the impression that the Bolsheviks were all Jewish or Kyrgyz, the father of Soviet law was a Latvian—none other than our vārdabrālis Stučka, who married Rainis’ sis and whose name adorned the University of Latvia for many a year.

Vysu lobu,
/P

Mikus, you’re trying too hard to argue.

First you wrote:

P.S. Reminds me of the OJ thing (an inverse though). You know, where OJ was assuredly known by all to have “done it”, but the judge in his own head, decided he did not.

I pointed out that a jury was the one that decided he did it.

In response, you posted some oddly worded jurisprudence that didn’t really apply.

“Who done it” is a question of fact.  The jury tried that question of fact.  Jury nullification occurs where the jury does not agree with the law.  For instance, a jury may find a “mercy killer” not guilty because they disagree with the law that defines a mercy killing as murder, not because they didn’t think the defendant actually committed such an act.  In the OJ trial, the jury was not making a statement against the law.  They weren’t saying the law against murder is wrong.  I found this explanation online, specifically about the OJ trial and jury nullification - because you started me wondering if anyone had seriously suggested that the OJ trial involved that:

” ‘Jury nullification’ means that a jury finds a defendant innocent because the law itself is unjust, or is unjust in a particular application, and so should not be applied. Since no O.J. jurors expressed or implied opposition to the laws against murder, their verdict was certainly not an example of nullification in that sense. Nor did any jurors admit that they were persuaded of O.J.‘s guilt but that they thought it was OK for him to have committed the murders anyway. Instead, jurors simply said that they accepted the defense argument that police carelessness and possible misconduct, motivated by racism, introduced an element of reasonable doubt against the prosecution’s case. Since Judge Ito allowed the defense to make that argument (judges typically do not allow defense lawyers to make pleas for nullification), it certainly doesn’t look like a nullification case. The jury may have been more suspicious of the police than was reasonable, but that was the luck of the draw in the jury pool—a jury in Santa Monica later found O.J. liable for the murder, under the less rigorous standard of ‘preponderance of the evidence,’ rather than ‘beyond a reasonable doubt,’ in the civil case against him.”

Cite available if you want it.

I don’t know if Lance Ito has ever commented on his own beliefs with respect to the case.  The fact that he did not issue a JNOV did not, however, say anything about what the judge decided in his own head.  The jury was the trier of fact, not the judge.

As to jubilant crowds - apparently you didn’t watch any television that day.  You certainly weren’t in the hallways of the Cook County courthouse at the moment of verdict.

Peteri-

I know Latvia didn’t and doesn’t have juries.  The point was to compare the relative (perceived) oppression of categories of people - and I still think it was a very apt comparison, at least when talking about perception.