The Latvian National Police see no violations of any laws in campaigning activities by two candidates of the Vienotība (Unity) alliance who had confrontations with security guards by the Riga Central Station and the Central Market, according to press reports.
Rasma Kārkliņa, a German born Latvian political scientist who worked extensively in the US, was told by security guards hired by the Norwegian-owned Linstow property management company to stop. Police were summoned after Kārkliņa objected and she went to a police station to make a statement.
Lolita Čigāne, another Vienotība candidate, was campaigning in the largely open-air Central Market where she got into a confrontation with security guards and firmly stood on her constitutional right to free speech,
A spokesperson for Linstow, which has stewardship over the public areas by the Central Station, where it manages the Origo shopping center, which is integrated with the train station, said that Kārkliņa should have obtained approval to campaign by signing an agreement with the company. However, such contracts apparently apply to semipermanent campaigning facilities, such as tents, sheds, or stand-alone signs (such as a large one erected to promote the candidacy of Ainars Šlesers, once associated with Linstow and Norwegian retailing interests). As Kārklinā said in an updated statement, she is "neither a tent nor a large banner". The law cited by the Linstow spokesperson also speaks of "public institutions", which means there should be no political campaigning in closed spaces, such as municipal offices, police stations, City Hall and the like.
A reasonable approach would be to treat peaceful, free speech and assembly as a nearly inviolable right in all areas that are functionally public spaces (that is, open to all and generally allowing both transit by the public and the peaceful presence of members of the public). This means that the stewardship the Linstow can exercise over this area by contract or other legal right should be limited to strictly technical matters (cleaning and safety issues) and, to some extent, the placement of semi-permanent structures in the area, as well as some scheduling issues (hard to have two public gatherings in the same place at once).
What Linstow has chosen to do, instead, is to aggressively assert what amount to maximum property rights(like those of a private home, office and, to some extent, the enclosed areas of the Origo shopping facility) and the ability to dictate limits on the speech and behavior of persons in an area that is for all intents and purposes.
It may be a bit far-fetched to say that Linstow is acting on behalf of Šlesers, who helped set them up in Riga when he was a private businessman in the 1990s, it can be claimed on indisputable fact that the company has acted as a defacto private political police. Personally, I don't blame this so much on the Norwegians, who have always been Scandinavian-style democrats, but on the local Latvian mentality, to forbid and intimidate first, then ask questions about free speech and political rights later, when forced by a public scandal to do so. Unfortunately, the authoritarian reflex and the authoritarian personality are very much alive in Latvian political and corporate culture. In Norway, the spirit of the authoritarian Vidkun Quisling is dead, but in Latvia, the mentality of the distant authoritarian past, and of the not-so-distant totalitarian times, is still with us.
Friday, September 17, 2010
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Two Latvian parliamentary candidates expelled from public areas
Two candidates in the upcoming Latvian parliamentary elections were prevented from campaigning in two public places -- the square by Riga's Central Station and the Central Market.
Rasma Kārkliņa, a candidate for the "Vienotiba" (Unity) alliance was told by Origo shopping center security guards to stop speaking to passers-by in front of the Central Railway Station, a place where campaigning has been conducted previously, where concerts and public gatherings have been held and where young people gather, loiter, talk and sometimes skateboard.
Kārkliņa, a political scientist who moved to Latvia from the US, was eventually taken to a police station to give an account of what happened. She says she was simply talking to bypassers, urging them to vote for Vienotības. She did not set up a table, stand, tent or other object that might have required permission from Norwegian-owned Linstow, the property management company that runs the Origo shopping center inside the Central Station and charged with maintenance and care of the public area near the station.
A spokesperson for Linstow in Latvia, responding to a discussion on Twitter, said that Karkliņa had been asked to officially coordinate her campaigning with Linstow, but had not done so. She said political parties who got approval could conduct campaign activities.
In a press release, Kārkliņa said she believed her expulsion from the Central Station Square had to do with political opponent Ainārs Šlesers former business ties to Linstow and other Norwegian business interests. Before going into politics, Šlesers played a key role in bringing the then Norwegian Rimi supermarkets, the Dressman and BikBok clothing stores and other Norwegian retailers and real estate managers into Latvia in the late 1990s. Šlesers spokespeople have denied these accusations.
Also challenged by private security guards at the Riga Central Market was Vienotiba candidate Lolita Čigāne, who was campaigning with two assistants. According to some reports, she aggressively verbally challenged those asking her to leave, citing her right as a citizen to free speech The Central Market management said they had a right to restrict Čigānes activities under a law forbidding election campaigning on property that is more than 50 % owned by a municipality. The Central Market is owned by the City of Riga, as is the Central Station.
The Central Station area and the Central Market are two areas of downtown Riga with very high pedestrian traffic with commuters going to trains or shoppers at Origo and the Central Market. They are natural areas for meeting large numbers of "ordinary" citizens.
There has been some discussion on Twitter (in Latvian) of holding a protest "Tweetmob" in the Central Station Square in the next few days to peacefully protest the violation of freedom of speech and assembly.
Rasma Kārkliņa, a candidate for the "Vienotiba" (Unity) alliance was told by Origo shopping center security guards to stop speaking to passers-by in front of the Central Railway Station, a place where campaigning has been conducted previously, where concerts and public gatherings have been held and where young people gather, loiter, talk and sometimes skateboard.
Kārkliņa, a political scientist who moved to Latvia from the US, was eventually taken to a police station to give an account of what happened. She says she was simply talking to bypassers, urging them to vote for Vienotības. She did not set up a table, stand, tent or other object that might have required permission from Norwegian-owned Linstow, the property management company that runs the Origo shopping center inside the Central Station and charged with maintenance and care of the public area near the station.
A spokesperson for Linstow in Latvia, responding to a discussion on Twitter, said that Karkliņa had been asked to officially coordinate her campaigning with Linstow, but had not done so. She said political parties who got approval could conduct campaign activities.
In a press release, Kārkliņa said she believed her expulsion from the Central Station Square had to do with political opponent Ainārs Šlesers former business ties to Linstow and other Norwegian business interests. Before going into politics, Šlesers played a key role in bringing the then Norwegian Rimi supermarkets, the Dressman and BikBok clothing stores and other Norwegian retailers and real estate managers into Latvia in the late 1990s. Šlesers spokespeople have denied these accusations.
Also challenged by private security guards at the Riga Central Market was Vienotiba candidate Lolita Čigāne, who was campaigning with two assistants. According to some reports, she aggressively verbally challenged those asking her to leave, citing her right as a citizen to free speech The Central Market management said they had a right to restrict Čigānes activities under a law forbidding election campaigning on property that is more than 50 % owned by a municipality. The Central Market is owned by the City of Riga, as is the Central Station.
The Central Station area and the Central Market are two areas of downtown Riga with very high pedestrian traffic with commuters going to trains or shoppers at Origo and the Central Market. They are natural areas for meeting large numbers of "ordinary" citizens.
There has been some discussion on Twitter (in Latvian) of holding a protest "Tweetmob" in the Central Station Square in the next few days to peacefully protest the violation of freedom of speech and assembly.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
Latvia's "Wikileaks Lite" closed, investigate journalist flees country
Lato Lapsa, a controversial Latvian investigative journalist with access to hundreds of pages of documents in a criminal investigation of politician and Ventspils mayor Aivars Lembergs, announced he was fleeing the country and shutting down his websites, including one that was a kind of Latvian "Wikileaks Lite".
Lapse told Latvian media that serious threats had been made against him and his sister and her chidren and he was leaving Latvia until at least October 3, the day after the national elections. He indicated he had been in touch with the Latvian Security Police (Drošības Policija/DP), but it was not clear whether the agency had advised him to close his websites.
The website www.rokasgramata.com published copies of what it claimed were bank statements, witness affidavits and other documents from the criminal investigation files concerning Lembergs, who Lapsa says skimmed some LVL 1 billion (almost USD 2 billion) that would otherwise have gone to the state treasury through various schemes, offshore companies and the abuse of political office and influence. The website has now been taken down.
Lembergs, who spent several months in investigative detention, has denied these charges and told a panel of journalists on Latvian television recently that he had sown the seeds of his large fortune (estimated at over LVL 100 million) by selling hunting rights for stags in Latvian forests to "wealthy Germans" during the last year of the Soviet occupation. After obtaining the local Soviet hunting trophy permits (Lembergs was a Communist Party official in Ventspils at the time), for a few tens of rubles (dollars), he sold them to the "millonaire" Germans for DM 10 000 (around USD 5 000 at the time) apiece. The politician, who has been in power in the port and, until several years ago, major petroleum transit city Ventspils since Latvia regained its independence.
Lapsa, often called a "notorious" investigative journalist with dubious methods of presenting his evidence, published, among other documents, the bank statements of Lemberg's adult children showing then spending large amounts on clothing and restaurants in Latvia and in European capitals, as well as handling deposits of millions of LVL. Lembergs says that, according to official income statements filed as a public official under Latvian law, he earned LVL 25 million in salaries, fees and dividends over the past three years, making him probably the most highly remunerated person in Latvia in any position, public or private (by contrast, the head of Lattelecom would have made less than LVL 1 million over the same three year period). Lembergs has denied all charges leveled against him and won a court case in which he was accused of wrongly and obstructively refusing to register a well-lnown public official because the man was not identified by personal code in a document from the Minister of Economics at the time.
Lapsa also shut down other websites, including those promoting his latest book on the politician Ainars Šlesers. Lapsa's methods in this and other "expose" books have been criticized. In the latest book on Šlesers, still being sold despite the website closure, he discloses that the politician's and former businessman's father was a mentally disturbed, abusive murderer who played only a short, traumatic role in Šleser's upbringing. He alsi claims that Šlesers, now the vice-mayor of Riga, evaded taxes on fish imported from Norway in the early and mid-1990s, events now beyond the statute of limitations for such violations.
Nonetheless, the silencing and temporary exile of "Latvia's most scandalous" journalist and the closing of his "Wikileaks Lite" websites by threatening the health or life of Lapsa's sister and her children has darkened the already strange and murky pre-election political and journalistic scene in Latvia. It strongly suggests that powerful, criminal interests are involved in the struggle for political power, setting Latvia apart from other Northern European countries where dirty politics, while hardly non-existent, never reach such an intensity.
Lapse told Latvian media that serious threats had been made against him and his sister and her chidren and he was leaving Latvia until at least October 3, the day after the national elections. He indicated he had been in touch with the Latvian Security Police (Drošības Policija/DP), but it was not clear whether the agency had advised him to close his websites.
The website www.rokasgramata.com published copies of what it claimed were bank statements, witness affidavits and other documents from the criminal investigation files concerning Lembergs, who Lapsa says skimmed some LVL 1 billion (almost USD 2 billion) that would otherwise have gone to the state treasury through various schemes, offshore companies and the abuse of political office and influence. The website has now been taken down.
Lembergs, who spent several months in investigative detention, has denied these charges and told a panel of journalists on Latvian television recently that he had sown the seeds of his large fortune (estimated at over LVL 100 million) by selling hunting rights for stags in Latvian forests to "wealthy Germans" during the last year of the Soviet occupation. After obtaining the local Soviet hunting trophy permits (Lembergs was a Communist Party official in Ventspils at the time), for a few tens of rubles (dollars), he sold them to the "millonaire" Germans for DM 10 000 (around USD 5 000 at the time) apiece. The politician, who has been in power in the port and, until several years ago, major petroleum transit city Ventspils since Latvia regained its independence.
Lapsa, often called a "notorious" investigative journalist with dubious methods of presenting his evidence, published, among other documents, the bank statements of Lemberg's adult children showing then spending large amounts on clothing and restaurants in Latvia and in European capitals, as well as handling deposits of millions of LVL. Lembergs says that, according to official income statements filed as a public official under Latvian law, he earned LVL 25 million in salaries, fees and dividends over the past three years, making him probably the most highly remunerated person in Latvia in any position, public or private (by contrast, the head of Lattelecom would have made less than LVL 1 million over the same three year period). Lembergs has denied all charges leveled against him and won a court case in which he was accused of wrongly and obstructively refusing to register a well-lnown public official because the man was not identified by personal code in a document from the Minister of Economics at the time.
Lapsa also shut down other websites, including those promoting his latest book on the politician Ainars Šlesers. Lapsa's methods in this and other "expose" books have been criticized. In the latest book on Šlesers, still being sold despite the website closure, he discloses that the politician's and former businessman's father was a mentally disturbed, abusive murderer who played only a short, traumatic role in Šleser's upbringing. He alsi claims that Šlesers, now the vice-mayor of Riga, evaded taxes on fish imported from Norway in the early and mid-1990s, events now beyond the statute of limitations for such violations.
Nonetheless, the silencing and temporary exile of "Latvia's most scandalous" journalist and the closing of his "Wikileaks Lite" websites by threatening the health or life of Lapsa's sister and her children has darkened the already strange and murky pre-election political and journalistic scene in Latvia. It strongly suggests that powerful, criminal interests are involved in the struggle for political power, setting Latvia apart from other Northern European countries where dirty politics, while hardly non-existent, never reach such an intensity.
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Turning up the repression in many ways
I haven't had the time or energy to post, although I should have. The country continues to ease toward a crypto police state. Just a few incidents as examples.
During Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov's visit to Riga, a number of deputies of the pro-Russian, left-leaning For Human Rights in a Unified Latvia (Latvian= PCTVL) picketed near the Riga City Council building, not against Luzhkov, but to demand that a street named after the deceased Chechen leader Dzhokar Dudajev be renamed. They were dispersed by the police, some taken home under compulsion.
You can have more than mixed feelings about the PCTVL, but they have a right to free speech and assembly like anyone else, and to use police force in a discretionary manner against a peaceful, "spontaneous" and technically "illegal" assembly just shows where the country is going.
Another sight, that would seem to have little to do with free speech, is the presence of joint police and Riga traffic wardens (the people who catch and fine fare jumpers) on the streets at night. These operations, to nab a few persons who have stolen 70 santims (or $ 1,40) worth of services look intimidating. The whole crew of burly police in bright green-yellow fluorescent vests and sometimes burly wardens standing around one or two people who have failed to pay or whose electronic tickets expired simply says " police state" to me and other passers-by. Is this the most serious kind of crime in Riga at the moment? With bike thieves rampaging and other petty crimes with real victims (not the revenues of the Riga transport organization Rīgas Satiksme), is this what the police should be doing?
I do see a similarity with the dispersal of the spontaneous PCTVL protest, because the sometimes brutal and unfair actions of the traffic wardens have and will trigger spontaneous protests by other passengers. Children have been thrown off public transport at night, tourists who misunderstood how to pay or use tickets have also been taken off the bus from the airport, their first contract with Latvia. There have been incidents of resistance -- verbal and otherwise -- to this behavior by some wardens. At the same time, there have been cases of unprovoked and disproportionate abusive behavior and even violence by fare jumpers, so there is sometimes reason to have the police nearby, but why these nightly shows of force and intimidation? Seems to me the message is -- if you see repression, brutality, unfairness - don't you dare protest, resist or rise up.
Finally, there was a case of two men running a professional marijuana farm in the countryside getting 12 and 8 year jail sentences. I decided to Twitter in Latvian that this was outrageous, because such sentences are disproportionate for what is essentially a victimless crime. I was assailed on another news site, along with those who expressed sympathy for my views, as being an advocate of drug use, which I am not. A few commentators suggested that even to debate such matters -- the scientific basis for calling marijuana growers "merchants of death" (a possible lethal dose starts at 10 kg of active ingredient THC in one sitting) and the folly of a hysteria-driven, repressive drug policy-- was something that should be repressed or punished.
Unfortunately, these commentators, as representatives of public sentiment, indicate that what a large part of the Latvian population wants is to be ignorant, scared, and to not only live in an increasingly repressive society, but to actually cheer it on.
During Moscow mayor Yuri Luzhkov's visit to Riga, a number of deputies of the pro-Russian, left-leaning For Human Rights in a Unified Latvia (Latvian= PCTVL) picketed near the Riga City Council building, not against Luzhkov, but to demand that a street named after the deceased Chechen leader Dzhokar Dudajev be renamed. They were dispersed by the police, some taken home under compulsion.
You can have more than mixed feelings about the PCTVL, but they have a right to free speech and assembly like anyone else, and to use police force in a discretionary manner against a peaceful, "spontaneous" and technically "illegal" assembly just shows where the country is going.
Another sight, that would seem to have little to do with free speech, is the presence of joint police and Riga traffic wardens (the people who catch and fine fare jumpers) on the streets at night. These operations, to nab a few persons who have stolen 70 santims (or $ 1,40) worth of services look intimidating. The whole crew of burly police in bright green-yellow fluorescent vests and sometimes burly wardens standing around one or two people who have failed to pay or whose electronic tickets expired simply says " police state" to me and other passers-by. Is this the most serious kind of crime in Riga at the moment? With bike thieves rampaging and other petty crimes with real victims (not the revenues of the Riga transport organization Rīgas Satiksme), is this what the police should be doing?
I do see a similarity with the dispersal of the spontaneous PCTVL protest, because the sometimes brutal and unfair actions of the traffic wardens have and will trigger spontaneous protests by other passengers. Children have been thrown off public transport at night, tourists who misunderstood how to pay or use tickets have also been taken off the bus from the airport, their first contract with Latvia. There have been incidents of resistance -- verbal and otherwise -- to this behavior by some wardens. At the same time, there have been cases of unprovoked and disproportionate abusive behavior and even violence by fare jumpers, so there is sometimes reason to have the police nearby, but why these nightly shows of force and intimidation? Seems to me the message is -- if you see repression, brutality, unfairness - don't you dare protest, resist or rise up.
Finally, there was a case of two men running a professional marijuana farm in the countryside getting 12 and 8 year jail sentences. I decided to Twitter in Latvian that this was outrageous, because such sentences are disproportionate for what is essentially a victimless crime. I was assailed on another news site, along with those who expressed sympathy for my views, as being an advocate of drug use, which I am not. A few commentators suggested that even to debate such matters -- the scientific basis for calling marijuana growers "merchants of death" (a possible lethal dose starts at 10 kg of active ingredient THC in one sitting) and the folly of a hysteria-driven, repressive drug policy-- was something that should be repressed or punished.
Unfortunately, these commentators, as representatives of public sentiment, indicate that what a large part of the Latvian population wants is to be ignorant, scared, and to not only live in an increasingly repressive society, but to actually cheer it on.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Latvian right-wing extremist gets two year suspended sentence for hate speech
Valdis Rošāns, a self-proclaimed Latvian right-wing extremist charged with hate-speech writings on the internet (including comments on a Latvian-language libertarian blog that I wrote), was given a two-year suspended sentence by a Latvian court on August 18.
Rošāns published remarks that were allegedly demeaning to Jews, gays and other minorities. He claims his internet comments were reported to the authorities by Dialogi.lv, an organization dedicated to tolerance and, among other things, to diminishing hate and abusive behavior on the internet.
While these are admirable aims, I believe Latvia and other European countries should adhere to the broadest possible interpretation of free expression. Repulsive as some of the tbings Rošāns has written may have been, they should not be grounds for imprisonment, suspended or otherwise.
Supporters of free speech such as Article 19 have argued against hate speech laws. They are counterproductive and dangerous, giving the power to chill or even censor free debate and expression. Repressing people like Rošāns not only violates his right to free expression, it also, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, violates my right to be exposed to all kinds of expression and allowing me, not the state, to decide what I will or will not listen to or read.
Rošāns published remarks that were allegedly demeaning to Jews, gays and other minorities. He claims his internet comments were reported to the authorities by Dialogi.lv, an organization dedicated to tolerance and, among other things, to diminishing hate and abusive behavior on the internet.
While these are admirable aims, I believe Latvia and other European countries should adhere to the broadest possible interpretation of free expression. Repulsive as some of the tbings Rošāns has written may have been, they should not be grounds for imprisonment, suspended or otherwise.
Supporters of free speech such as Article 19 have argued against hate speech laws. They are counterproductive and dangerous, giving the power to chill or even censor free debate and expression. Repressing people like Rošāns not only violates his right to free expression, it also, as Christopher Hitchens pointed out, violates my right to be exposed to all kinds of expression and allowing me, not the state, to decide what I will or will not listen to or read.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Did Sweden's Bonnier Group inadvertently pump cash into Latvian political faction's black war chest?
I have written this as a "dream" on my Latvian language blog, but in fact it is credible version of what may have happened in the controversial divestment by Sweden's Bonnier Group of the Latvian media group AS Diena and the business newspaper Dienas bizness (my employer for 11 years up to 2006).
The version I have heard is as follows:
By early 2009, Bonnier realized that its newspapers in Latvia had been loss-making for some years and it had to decide how to stop the losses. There were a few options. First, to declare the newspapers bankrupt. This could be a dragged out process and perhaps would require a restructuring of the Diena group to separate out some profitable and potentially profitable parts. It would also cause some bad PR for Bonnier, who came into the Latvian market in the early 1990s under the banner of bringing a free, independent press to the post-Soviet country;
Another, similar alternative would be to close the newspapers. This (also probably the bankruptcy proceedings) would require dismissing the entire staff, paying severance pay, etc. There would also be bad PR.
The third possibility was to divest the newspapers. However, with at least Diena making serious losses (both papers lost a total of LVL 2.7 million in 2009), it was unlikely to get a buyer for any reasonable price. Also, it didn't look like the media market in Latvia would recover in the foreseeable future with the country in the midst of a very severe recession.
It was then, according to a version I have heard, that the Bonnier Group decided to use a means of divestment that may have been used when the Swedish Social Democratic media group A-Pressen fell apart in the early 1990s. Then, in order to divest unprofitable regional and small-town newspapers, A-Pressen made some deals in which the "buyer" was actually paid to take over the asset. In other words, there was reimbursement for at least the first year of predictable losses that the paper would make.
For the "buyer", this meant little or no cash out of pocket and vastly reduced risk, at least for a while. The method is said to have also been used in non-media related transactions, for instance, filling the cash on hand of a company, then "selling" it for a roughlt equivalent sum.
Of course, I may have some of this wrong, there is some huge Swedish government study of the A-Pressen case I have yet to read. But should this version be reasonably accurate, it means that the "buyers" of Diena and Dienas bizness were compensated with a pretty good sum, that the Bonnier Group could show as an expense, not further losses from its Latvian subsidiaries.
To make a long story short, after the initial "sale" of the newspapers to a company founded by former Diena executive Aleksandrs Tralmaks, it appears that ownership of the newspapers came into the hands of the British Rowland family, who had little or no previous contacts with Latvia and with investments in media. There is consensus among observers in Latvia that the Rowlands were probably a front for political interests in Latvia, most likely the party alliance between oligarchs Andris Šķele and Ainars Šlesers, with Ventspils mayor and accused money-launderer Aivars Lembergs also probably involved.
Once the reimbursement for taking the two newspapers off the Bonnier Group's hands passed through the Rowlands (with some fee deducted), it may have found its way into the black (underground) or grey (hidden influencers, support organizations) war chests of the oligarchs.
It now appears to have turned up again in the latest bizarre twist in the decline and fall of both formerly Swedish-owned newspapers. On August 5, the Diena group announced that 51 % of its shares had been purchased by Viesturs Koziols, a Latvian entrepreneur, friend and former business associate of Ainārs Šlesers. Koziols said he had bought the shares with his own money, but also said he had no vision of how to develop the media group and bring it back to profitability.
If there is a Mrs. Koziols or other significant other, I would imagine that Viesturs would face her wrath for blowing a significant part of the family fortune on a loss-making, seemingly hopeless investment (hopeless if you have no idea what to do with your "purchase"). Koziols is listed as a Latvian millionaire and he didn't get to be that by being a foolish investor.
This leads one to believe that perhaps Koziols is spending a part of the money paid " through" the Rowlands from the Bonnier Group. Which is not to say, by any means, that the Bonniers intended for any of this to happen, nor that they can be held responsible, anymore than I can be blamed for spending a 20 lat bill that passes through a number of people and is, say, spent to buy liquor for an underaged alcoholic.
Circumstances strongly suggest that Koziols investment in Diena is a "risk-free" project since it is money entrusted to him, with sole purpose of keeping the weakened and discredited media group alive and inactive politically until after the October 2 parliamentary elections. Then it may be allowed to go under by the New Year, just as another Koziols media project, Republika.lv, did before and after the 2006 elections (I have no content analysis, but others say it was a short-term, election year project).
Indeed, there may have been no actual transfer of funds, merely a shift of front men from 100 % Rowlands (with people still WTF'ing their presence) to 51 % for a local boy with at least some entrepreneurial credibility. One sign that no new money is coming into Diena is that journalists are not being paid their per-item honoria any more, just basic (as little as LVL 180) salaries. Since the Latvian media job market is very limited and depressed, this will not set off a stampede away from Diena, but will very seriously demoralize the already confused and demoralized reporting staff.
What does this have to do with freedom of expression in Latvia? It is not directly on point, there is no state authority repressing the media. However, there are political interests undermining the quality and independence of the press. These political forces, especially the First Party of Ainārs Šlesers, are homophobic and have a hidden authoritarian agenda. There will be less freedom of the press, a kind of Russia Lite, if these political forces win. So, ultimately, it is a freedom of expression issue.
The version I have heard is as follows:
By early 2009, Bonnier realized that its newspapers in Latvia had been loss-making for some years and it had to decide how to stop the losses. There were a few options. First, to declare the newspapers bankrupt. This could be a dragged out process and perhaps would require a restructuring of the Diena group to separate out some profitable and potentially profitable parts. It would also cause some bad PR for Bonnier, who came into the Latvian market in the early 1990s under the banner of bringing a free, independent press to the post-Soviet country;
Another, similar alternative would be to close the newspapers. This (also probably the bankruptcy proceedings) would require dismissing the entire staff, paying severance pay, etc. There would also be bad PR.
The third possibility was to divest the newspapers. However, with at least Diena making serious losses (both papers lost a total of LVL 2.7 million in 2009), it was unlikely to get a buyer for any reasonable price. Also, it didn't look like the media market in Latvia would recover in the foreseeable future with the country in the midst of a very severe recession.
It was then, according to a version I have heard, that the Bonnier Group decided to use a means of divestment that may have been used when the Swedish Social Democratic media group A-Pressen fell apart in the early 1990s. Then, in order to divest unprofitable regional and small-town newspapers, A-Pressen made some deals in which the "buyer" was actually paid to take over the asset. In other words, there was reimbursement for at least the first year of predictable losses that the paper would make.
For the "buyer", this meant little or no cash out of pocket and vastly reduced risk, at least for a while. The method is said to have also been used in non-media related transactions, for instance, filling the cash on hand of a company, then "selling" it for a roughlt equivalent sum.
Of course, I may have some of this wrong, there is some huge Swedish government study of the A-Pressen case I have yet to read. But should this version be reasonably accurate, it means that the "buyers" of Diena and Dienas bizness were compensated with a pretty good sum, that the Bonnier Group could show as an expense, not further losses from its Latvian subsidiaries.
To make a long story short, after the initial "sale" of the newspapers to a company founded by former Diena executive Aleksandrs Tralmaks, it appears that ownership of the newspapers came into the hands of the British Rowland family, who had little or no previous contacts with Latvia and with investments in media. There is consensus among observers in Latvia that the Rowlands were probably a front for political interests in Latvia, most likely the party alliance between oligarchs Andris Šķele and Ainars Šlesers, with Ventspils mayor and accused money-launderer Aivars Lembergs also probably involved.
Once the reimbursement for taking the two newspapers off the Bonnier Group's hands passed through the Rowlands (with some fee deducted), it may have found its way into the black (underground) or grey (hidden influencers, support organizations) war chests of the oligarchs.
It now appears to have turned up again in the latest bizarre twist in the decline and fall of both formerly Swedish-owned newspapers. On August 5, the Diena group announced that 51 % of its shares had been purchased by Viesturs Koziols, a Latvian entrepreneur, friend and former business associate of Ainārs Šlesers. Koziols said he had bought the shares with his own money, but also said he had no vision of how to develop the media group and bring it back to profitability.
If there is a Mrs. Koziols or other significant other, I would imagine that Viesturs would face her wrath for blowing a significant part of the family fortune on a loss-making, seemingly hopeless investment (hopeless if you have no idea what to do with your "purchase"). Koziols is listed as a Latvian millionaire and he didn't get to be that by being a foolish investor.
This leads one to believe that perhaps Koziols is spending a part of the money paid " through" the Rowlands from the Bonnier Group. Which is not to say, by any means, that the Bonniers intended for any of this to happen, nor that they can be held responsible, anymore than I can be blamed for spending a 20 lat bill that passes through a number of people and is, say, spent to buy liquor for an underaged alcoholic.
Circumstances strongly suggest that Koziols investment in Diena is a "risk-free" project since it is money entrusted to him, with sole purpose of keeping the weakened and discredited media group alive and inactive politically until after the October 2 parliamentary elections. Then it may be allowed to go under by the New Year, just as another Koziols media project, Republika.lv, did before and after the 2006 elections (I have no content analysis, but others say it was a short-term, election year project).
Indeed, there may have been no actual transfer of funds, merely a shift of front men from 100 % Rowlands (with people still WTF'ing their presence) to 51 % for a local boy with at least some entrepreneurial credibility. One sign that no new money is coming into Diena is that journalists are not being paid their per-item honoria any more, just basic (as little as LVL 180) salaries. Since the Latvian media job market is very limited and depressed, this will not set off a stampede away from Diena, but will very seriously demoralize the already confused and demoralized reporting staff.
What does this have to do with freedom of expression in Latvia? It is not directly on point, there is no state authority repressing the media. However, there are political interests undermining the quality and independence of the press. These political forces, especially the First Party of Ainārs Šlesers, are homophobic and have a hidden authoritarian agenda. There will be less freedom of the press, a kind of Russia Lite, if these political forces win. So, ultimately, it is a freedom of expression issue.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Latvia puts anti-repression protest organizer on trial
CORRECTION:
It seems Janis Kuzins organized a second protest on May 13 near the Latvian Prosecutor's Office, a few hours after the chalk action. The organizer of that protest at the Cabinet of Ministers is also being charged.
The Riga Center district court will hear an administrative misdemeanor case on Monday, August 2 against Janis Kuzins, an organizer of a spontaneous protest in front of the Latvian Cabinet of Ministers (government house) against the arrest of cyberactivist Ilmars Poikans and the police search of the home of Ilze Nagla, a Latvian television reporter. She broke the story of Poikans' whistleblowing (revealing state and local government salary excesses based on State Revenue Service obtained through a security "hole" in a data base) under the name "Neo".
The protest in May was peaceful and involved up to 100 people using chalk to write protest slogans on the sidewalk in front of the government building in downtown Riga. The action was filmed by television and Nagla, one of the victims of police repression, attended the protest.
There was a second protest somewhat later at the Latvian Prosecutor's Office.
While technically illegal, the protest did no harm to property or public order and the chalk was scrubbed away in a few hours. The charges against Kuzins, who could face up to 15 days in jail or a fine of 250 lats (almost 500 USD), have been brought in an effort to put a chilling effect on spontaneous protest in Latvia.
It seems Janis Kuzins organized a second protest on May 13 near the Latvian Prosecutor's Office, a few hours after the chalk action. The organizer of that protest at the Cabinet of Ministers is also being charged.
The Riga Center district court will hear an administrative misdemeanor case on Monday, August 2 against Janis Kuzins, an organizer of a spontaneous protest in front of the Latvian Cabinet of Ministers (government house) against the arrest of cyberactivist Ilmars Poikans and the police search of the home of Ilze Nagla, a Latvian television reporter. She broke the story of Poikans' whistleblowing (revealing state and local government salary excesses based on State Revenue Service obtained through a security "hole" in a data base) under the name "Neo".
The protest in May was peaceful and involved up to 100 people using chalk to write protest slogans on the sidewalk in front of the government building in downtown Riga. The action was filmed by television and Nagla, one of the victims of police repression, attended the protest.
There was a second protest somewhat later at the Latvian Prosecutor's Office.
While technically illegal, the protest did no harm to property or public order and the chalk was scrubbed away in a few hours. The charges against Kuzins, who could face up to 15 days in jail or a fine of 250 lats (almost 500 USD), have been brought in an effort to put a chilling effect on spontaneous protest in Latvia.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)