Cobzaru v. Romania

Curtea Europeana pentru Drepturile Omului a dat astazi o noua hotarare intr-o cauza in care statul roman a incalcat drepturile unui etnic rom, un dosar la care am lucrat in ultimii ani. Petent in acest caz a fost Belmondo Cobzaru, un rom din Mangalia.

Dupa o cearta cu prietena sa, si o altercatie cu cumnatul prietenei, Belmondo s-a prezentat la sectia de politie solicitand ajutor. La Politie, doi ofiteri l-au inchis intr-un birou si l-au batut TARE, eliberandu-l dupa doua ore. Acest incident a avut loc pe 4 iulie 1997. A urmat o ancheta superficiala a Parchetului, care a rezultat, normal, intr-o solutie de neincepere a urmarii penala. Mai mult decat atat, politistii si procurorii implicati in ancheta si-au bazat deciziile pe rationamente de genul “e tigan, deci minte, ca asa sunt tiganii’.

Ei bine, Curtea a condamnat Romania in termeni duri pentru incalcarea prohibitiei relelor tratamente, pentru lipsa unui remediu eficient pe plan intern pentru genul de probleme pe care le-a avut Belmondo, si pentru incalcarea prohibitiei discriminarii, ordonand guvernului roman sa plateasca daune petentului si costuri avocatilor acestora.

Sau, in termeni mai puti seci, Romania si romanii (nu de alta dar autoritatile din Romania sunt o sublimare fidela a poporului roman as a whole) au fost facuti din nou de cacao la Strasbourg pentru rasism institutionalizat. Urmeaza ca atoritatile sa redeschida dosarul lui Belmondo, sa-i trimita pe politistii batatusi la puscarie, sa-i traga la raspundere pe procurorii care au inchis ochii la aceasta combinatie, inclusiv prin condamnarea lor la plata despagubirilor care sunt in ultima instanta suportate de fiecare dintre noi, si sa imbunatateasca legislatia privind urmarirea si sanctionarea abuzurilor de natura rasista, fie ca sunt comise de politisti, fie de persoane particulare. (thats me daydreaming).

Fundamentalismul Balkanik

Part of the Croatian course I took in Zadar, a prominent Croatian language scholar delivered two lectures, the first on the history of the Croatian language, and the second on the history of the Croatian lands.

I will write here about the latter of the two. The professor did not lose time on any subtleties, and presented a compressed history of Croatia, starting from the Greek colonization of the coastal region to the present day, in half an hour. He recited the whole story like an incantation, in a trembling voice, with transfixed eyes. Although speaking in Croatian, he hardly ever stopped to allow the translator do her thing, and without allowing, let alone asking for any questions.

He presented the Croatians as hardened and righteous survivors fighting off relentless aggression throughout their history. Placing lots of weight on the obscure coastal Croatian kings at the end of the first millennium (mutatis mutandis, Glad, Menumorut & the others). Croats as unfortunate victims of the predatory Hungarians next door, who took advantage of an accident of nature (lack of a male heir) in order to establish their hegemony. Croats acting for centuries as the bulwark of Christendom against the Turks (sic!). Croats falling prey to the Austrians, despite their heroic fight against the Turkish invaders. Croats falling to second place in the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes after WW1. Stjepan Radic mischievously slain in the Parliament in Belgrade in the 1920s. Only a cursory mention of the criminal Ustase regime of Dr. Ante Pavelic, during WW2, highlighting though that back then Croatia engulfed the whole of Bosnia for the first time. The Croatian Spring in the 70s and the oppression unleashed by Belgrade. And the recent war. Serbs invading Croatia, Croats defending their homeland. Tudzman compared to de Gaulle. Slamming the judges in the Hague for their ignorance. Croats as undeserving victims of political scheming - what otherwise could be the explanation for allowing Romania (and Bulgaria) in the EU– Romania, of all countries! – and not Croatia?

We are family.