Statement No. 49: On the question of Churches property restitution

On the question of Churches property restitution

We have always considered and still are considering at least a partial recompense of the property detriment done by the previous regime to the Churches a necessary component of the society transformation after November 1989. A righteous adjustment of property relationships between Churches, Orders and Congregations and the State has been considered since November 1989 a necessary presumption for the proper legal solution of property relationships but a necessary presumption, too, for an objective materialization of economic independence of the Churches, sui generis, on the State. We are stating here with regret that, not even after the twenty years from the appropriate laws acceptance the CR Parliament have not found good will and courage enough to carry the restitution of property to Churches, church organizations and associations through, in spite of the fact that, such a procedure is the most righteous form of “privatization” of the property confiscated by the monstrous totalitarian regime, and moderation of the caused injuries moreover.

Therefore, we are welcoming the consensus declared by the Government Parties, on the proposal of agreement reached after the long negotiations and reciprocal concessions by the Commission composed of representatives of both the State and the Churches in the matter of the Act on Churches Property Restitution. We are being alarmed, however, by the voices being heard again, even from the Government Parties, throwing doubt on the restitution.

One of the restitution opponents´ arguments is the question of ownership of the property. It is doubtless, anyway, that the property, before its confiscation by the Communist regime, had been owned by the Churches. Therefore it is necessary to return it, in order to rectify the injustice caused by the confiscation and to make the full development of the Churches life possible at the same time, since these are an important component of the civil society.

Another argument of the opponents currently is the strained State budget situation of the CR. We are assuming this argument to be a “populist” one and deeply amoral at the same time since there is no acceptable argument against the redress of crime consequences. Not mentioning the fact that, the financial part of the compensation is assumed distributed over a long period, hence, the Budget will be charged minimally only.

Therefore, we are asking the CR Parliament Members hereby, to render the Churches property restitution possible using their votes the way, the Coalition agreement is presuming.

Prague, June 4, 2012.

Statement No. 48: Concerning the activity of members and supporters of radical parties and movements in the executive sphere

Concerning the activity of members and supporters of radical parties and movements in the executive sphere

During the second half of February 2011, circulated was news concerning intentions of the Minister of Education to appoint as his first deputy a person who, in previous elections, led a list of the radical National Party in the region of Vysočina and who in his statements evoked the suspicion of supporting xenophobic and racial ideas. The Democratic Club vigorously defends the free exchange of opinions.  But it also vigorously believes that persons with radical and extremist views cannot hold leading positions and functions in the executive branch of a democratic state.  Furthermore, the Club believes that would mean tresspassing all tolerance and would eventually threaten the democratic character of the state.For that reason, we accepted and support a similar statement of Prime Minister Petr Nečas, and we expect that the appointment isn´t going to be made. At the same time, we are disconcerted that the President of the Republic has been backing a controversial candidate and who has expressed inadaquate critisism of some citizens who had refused appointment to a high position. It is the duty of democratic-minded citizens to step out against persons of suspected ideas and it is the duty of democratic apparatus in power to prevent such persons from influencing in particular the country’s education’s system, which is a very critical and sensitive sphere. Historically there is a number of examples when the inaction of citizens in similar situations resulted in endangering democracy or even in establishing undemocratic regimes.

Prague, March l3 th, 2011