Print
Category: Blog
Hits: 1529
Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

immunityAt first look healthy forces insist on the abolition of the parliamentary immunity. These are nationalsit movements - "Svoboda" ("Freedom" party), "Azov" (National Corps), "Right Sector" and even C14.

It is obvious that parliamentary immunity have been implemented to protect deputies form the pressure of the executive power and judicial power. It is a fuse which allows oposition to have strength to influence something. Now an opposition deputy is able to to oppose police tyranny during protest actions. The abolition of the parliamentary immunity would allow the police and our "honest' courts to eliminate or neutralize opposition. This would allow to arrest any deputy for "foul language" or to call one for an interrogation exactly instead of the protest action. So all duputies would be easily removed from the protests, trial, blockades, etc.

 

The arguement that our "honest courts" would be able to bring to justice our corrupeted politicians is a hypocrisy.

Corrupted deputies would be at low risk with or without the immunity. Well, they would become more obedient. The honest deputies would be neutralized.

Why do some kind of healthy forces stand for the removal of parliamentary immunity? "Because it's popular in the people." That is, the nationalist forces consider their own nation to be stupid, unable to add two to two. And they believe that electoral sympathies are more important than their own convictions. Do we need such "nationalist" forces?

I'm extremely disappointed with the inferiority and hypocrisy of those who claim to be called nationalists.

Found a typo? Please select it and press Ctrl + Enter.
FaLang translation system by Faboba