In Greece we have had experience of facing antidemocratic procedures under a
thin façade of democratization that usually remains only in name and on paper,
in the efforts of all those Oligarchs who have beset us since the constitution
of the Greek State, to convince us that we are being suppressed on account of
our Democracy and by choices none of which has been made by us but which
nonetheless are attached to us: from referenda whose total percentages exceeded
100%; in elections that the whole flora and fauna voted; in parliamentary safety
valves guaranteeing the impunity of ‘representatives of the people’ who however
represented only their own personal and class interests; to the recruitment of
migrant and European aliens to produce the most recent election result, which,
despite the extra help afforded to the governmental camp, it could not cover the
general public outcry FOR INDISCRIMINANT DISAFFECTION FROM ALL POLITICAL PARTIES
INVOLVED. And rightly so because no political party is there to truly serve
Popular Will and interests. If we were enjoying, even in the very least, some
true Democratic Regime, the recent election results should have precipitated the
official fall of the present government.
Back in 2008, I had officially declared that were in the midst of a Dictatorship
and that I would prove my words. Later I spoke publicly about it as well. Thus,
today we find ourselves collecting the last proof that we are facing a Junta in
full blast, which has come not to rule under an totalitarian model as the older
type of juntas have done, but to raze to the ground whatever we, as a People
were able to build, at least since 1821. This is because the GAP government,
apart from the various informal coups d’ etat it has committed since 2009, has
really taken a lot of pains to reduce us to scapegoats (and thus, to targets)
for everybody, to the point where even the U.S., in the words of Obama, dared to
claim that it was Greece that should be blamed for their own economic problems,
forgetting that the sequence of events makes it simply impossible for something
like it to have happened (the bank crisis started first in the U.S. and other
European Banks, and then it reached our soil).
We shall not endeavor to explain how the fact is hushed that globally, all
people are being impoverished just to provide support to a basically private
banking system, whose professed crisis could have been a huge lie, anyway. Yet
we should keep it in mind as an answer to the question of who would gain out of
this Global situation, which seems to have greater epidemic potential than the
Black Death of the Middle Ages (!).
What we should see is what the recent proof is, proof that in fact exposes the
very thinly veiled Papandreou’s junta and of course to consider pertinent
Citizen action, since the latter are threatened not only with complete and utter
dissolution of their basic Freedoms, but also loss of our property and capacity
to secure any livelihood.
This proof exists (and luckily, they can not be made to disappear because they
constitute official government documents), in the legal action taken against the
Memorandum by various parties, Citizens as well as in the running legal action
against GAP himself.
It is clear that according to International Law in effect across all Nations,
and on the basis of which Nations themselves stand trial, there can be no
grounds of just support nor legal precedent on the basis of actions or behaviors
themselves products of illegal activity or encroachment of Human Rights. It is
also well-known to all those involved in such matters that The Tribunal of Human
Rights does not recognize as ‘general Public interest’ the strict benefits from
taxation or revenue sufficiency of a country. Also, the general encroachment of
Human Rights at a mass level can be grounded only if such right is lifted
indiscriminately from everyone (in all social classes and groups of people)
PROPORTIONALLY AND NOT BY A SINGLE STANDARD FIT FOR ALL, when it is clear which
right is being lifted, when such lifting is accompanied by a clearly set date of
such lifting of the right, and under the condition that there is possibility of
amending the consequences of such lifting in the subsequent time period.
Also, it also should have been proven that no other, even a more difficult one,
route to solving the problem exists in lieu of lifting any Human Right at all.
In the purported government report in favor of the Memorandum which is heard
this week in the Supreme State Court, we have a ridiculous effort to present ALL
of the above encroached rights as enjoying legality. This is a truly baseless
and unsubstantiated set of argumentation that every truly objective and free of
forceful junta-like submissive court will immediately reject, as apriori
baseless, PRECLUDING EVEN THE SLIGHTEST NEED OF LEGAL SUPPORT BY THE OTHER
LITIGANT , i.e, the lawyers representing those who have attacked the Memorandum.
Simple and undeniable acts such as the tripling of VAT changes destroy the claim
that such measure respected proportionality; statism and protectionism of
certain sectors (bankers, shipowners, large-scale industrialists, etc) to secure
their flow of profit, precluding anything like that happening for the rest of
society, destroys the claim that damages from such acts falls on all social
groups; the unending talks on extending the Memorandum beyond 2013 destroys the
claim about a specific date governing the end of the lifting of the Human
Rights; the precariousness of any attempt to guarantee sufficient food for
masses of population and continuous rises in the prices of all basic goods in
combination with the cuts in incomes destroys the claim about the government’s
capacity to secure viability of Citizens’ incomes, excepting of course those
Citizens who belong to the protected groups, like those I referred to above, the
parliamentarians, the politicians and the government cronies inclusive. Finally,
the much evidenced effort to ‘update the Referendum’ destroys the sum total of
all of their claims because we have a continuous and limitless encroachment and
lifting of Human Rights, which to be legitimized would have to be voted for by
consensus of the 300 representatives in the Parliament, as the Constitution
stipulates.
To complete this brief and summary and certainly not detailed vitiation, we will
also destroy the claim ‘that the Memorandum is nothing else but a simple loan
contract which therefore does not necessitate special rules of voting stipulated
by our Constitution’. A contract that demands such vast restructuring of the
country’s infrastructure so that an installment of the said loan can be paid to,
automatically becomes a different legal relationship and disestablishes factual
right to equal negotiation of both parties and establishes a direct or indirect
blackmail, and hence, DE FACTO ALTERING OF A PREEXISTING REGIME OF NATIONAL
SOVEREIGNTY.
This is easily established by the statements made by Papoulias (on the issue of
restricting national sovereignty) as well as by others made from other
officials, but also by the very existence of Troika as overseers of every sector
of out government. Since the Troika meet to discuss issues with our union
representatives, the troika represent another state power and therefore in no
way can we say that they are simple lenders. Besides, submitting every document
related to economic management of the Country FOR CHECKING AND RATIFICATION BY
THE TROIKA as well as TROIKA’S ORDERS regarding the socially-relevant issues for
the State, constitute proof that the lenders exercise centrally important
governmental policy as a direct result of this so-called loan agreement, and
which upgrades itself from a simple loan agreement to a ruling agreement.
Hence, such a contract ,which should have been named ‘treaty’ and not
‘contract’, should have been voted for by consensus or ratified by the absolute
majority of the Parliament or by a Referendum.
So, what is the conclusion from all the above?
1. Every self-respecting legal expert should reject the governmental
argumentation even on the basis of one of these indisputable counterarguments,
and much more so on the basis of the totality of the argumentation.
2. That GAP’s government furnishes proof of its own malice and trickery by
producing such unacceptable legal proposal.
3. Every International Tribunal, on the basis of its legal precedent, will
proclaim the Memorandum counter to Human Rights and thus, illegal, ordering the
government of the country to annul it and ask for restitution.
5. If the Supreme Court of Justice accepts the Memorandum as constitutional and
legal, we shall have the ultimate proof of the establishment of an official
Junta in Greece, since the Instrument of Justice does not fulfill its duty as
stipulated by the Constitution but has been reduced to a servant of the
governmental, unconstitutional and anti-humanitarian interests. In other words,
it would prove the lack of independent Justice and thus the lack of a State of
Justice.
At this point I must inform you that on Tuesday, 30 of November, the court
injuction I have personally applied for against GAP and his cabinet for their
failure to produce pertinent written response to my written questions, is being
examined. It is my legal Right to insist on having an answer to a series of
signed-for letters and legal letters addressing GAP since the 2009 pre-election
era as well as during the first months of his government, mainly WARNING HIM
that there is dire need for protection of the Country’s economy and of the
general Social and National Policy so as not to face default and to bypass
social conflict, things that were imposed on us through the Memorandum. Namely,
the letters I sent are the proof that he was fully aware of the situation and so
knowingly (and maliciously) did what he did and led us to the Memorandum,
despite the fact that he had ample of time to protect the State and of course no
excuse of the type ‘I did not know/ I could not imagine’.
His answers to these letters, which, contrary to what the law stipulates, he
never answered, in total disregard of his own guarantee that every Citizen’s
letter addressed to him would be answered (let alone the issue of ‘discussing’
it), constitute legal proof regardless of the answer he may give.
Besides, this is the reason behind his never sending me any answer to my
questions, a thing I am asking of him legally now.
As in the case of vitiating the Memorandum at the Supreme State Court, a victory
of mine in securing a court injunction would show that the Junta is not yet
complete in Greece. As a result, I do not anticipate winning the petition for
court injunction next Tuesday. But it would constitute a double legal precedent
that justice on the back-and-call of government exists and hence, a dissolution
of our basic freedom and constitutional rights has been committed.
This furnishing of proof with bring to us, as Citizens, the following profit: To
begin with, we shall have grounds to claim activation of the ultimate
stipulations of the Constitution towards us, the Citizens, and we would be
completely legalized to act as we should to restore the Constitution and the
Democratic Regime. On the other hand, it will offer us the chance, on proof of
total lack of independent Justice in Greece, to seek retribution to
International Courts.
In a war (because war is this economic and institution-renting attack launched
not only against us but against all People who are forced to impoverish
themselves in favor of the new face of Nazism who runs by the names of
‘markets’, ‘investors’ ‘banking trust’, always nameless, always insatiable, and
always disregarding every human right) we have many fronts, all of which must be
defended against and all the battles fought won. What we just analyzed is out
legal front.
As far as the other fronts we should also defend so that we become victorious
and invite logic after this madness and slowly-killing insanity, we will not
talk about due to lack of space.
I however must stress something very important regarding those fronts we should
keep in mind: Troika was scared by a bunch of demonstrators outside the Ministry
of Environment and did not go to their pre-arranged appointment with the
Minister. This has repeated itself every time there are protesters and
constitutes a systematic proof as to how much they are scared of even a lukewarm
and censored by the mass media mobilization. Let us then close this article with
this question: how much will they stand to face a serious mobilization of the
people?
Translation courtesy of Michael T.