Tłumacz
Georgia has passed a transparency law
Serious setback for the USA and EU/NATO in Georgia: The government has passed the transparency law. Now the Western NGOs have to disclose their finances.
The new Georgian law that requires NGOs to disclose their finances doesn’t seem to be that “controversial.” The vote was 84:4 in favor of the new transparency law after the president briefly delayed the government's plans. Georgia has thus taken a step towards defending its own sovereignty. The USA and the EU will respond with sanctions.
Decision for sovereignty
So-called “civil society groups” that receive more than 20 percent of their funding from abroad must now disclose their funding. Because it presumably represents “the interests of a foreign power”. Even the opposition abstained from the vote; only four MPs voted against it. The ruling party says that the law is intended to push back “influence from abroad” – for example when it comes to “LGBT propaganda”. Here is more about the direct EU influence on Georgia via “NGOs”.
There are certainly voices who would also like to see such a law in Austria or Germany, although the number of foreign-financed NGOs is manageable compared to Georgia, but they still exist.
- Gonder, Ulrike (Author)
Earlier, Georgian President Salome Zurabichvili refused to sign the law, calling it a “Russian law” that “contradicts our constitution and all European standards.” However, their veto was overruled by a simple majority in Parliament. Now the speaker of the parliament, Shalva Papuashvili, will sign the law, but the president is announcing a referendum on whether there should be a “European future” or “Russian slavery” for Georgia. Critics of the president call her the country’s “top foreign agent.”
“We should prepare a real referendum,” said Zurabichvili. “Use the energy you have within you to collect signatures and bring them to me. I will sign the referendum.” 200,000 signatures are required.
Washington – and its protectorate called “EU” – will also strike back at the same time. The law caused a certain panic in the West. And now it really comes into effect. By the way, one Twitter user says: "It's strange that a law that requires NGOs to register as foreign agents if they are funded from abroad can cause so much panic."
Well, here comes a sanctions regime. Washington has said it would impose travel bans and other sanctions on politicians "involved in undermining democracy in Georgia," and the EU had said passage of the law would torpedo the South Caucasus country's hopes of joining the EU. What the sanctions really look like will be seen in the next few days. There is already a massive mood for tough intervention against Georgia's democratically elected government. Recently the Prime Minister was even threatened with terror.
Reacting to the passage of the bill, the EU's top diplomat, Josep Borrell, said in a statement that the EU "deeply regrets" this move and warns that it violates Georgia's obligations under its candidate status. He said that “insufficient political attention” had been paid to other key areas where reforms were needed and that Brussels would now consider its response.
Well, I don't know Georgian, so I only know rumors about the law. But obviously it's about more than just disclosing financial flows, because there's no need to get so worked up about it. It seems that the Shame Movement is organizing the demos. So what exactly does the law say?
https://shame.ge/en/about-us
And the donors are named there. What does that change now?
Hello,
according to what the search engine gives me in German, NGOs that are at least 20 percent financed from abroad have to register.
What exactly “register” means would of course be interesting, but the German-language sources go straight to criticizing instead of first explaining it in concrete terms. Local democracy experts criticize that the NGOs could somehow be harassed by the authorities if they have to register.
By the way, I think they are most upset about financial disclosure. Because the critical citizens are looking for information from journalists who deal with the NGOs anyway, nothing changes there, but with the rather uncritical majority, the NGOs will probably no longer be able to go after the farmers as easily if the financing is official, so to speak .
That would be roughly as if the Tagesschau were obliged to show “Member of Atlantic Bridge” under Claus Kleber and Claus Kleber was obliged to say “financed by…” when he says “WHO”. Even some of the idiots wouldn't have believed everything.
federkiel
May 30, 2024 at 8:22 amReply
“What difference does that make now? "
Nothing.
Or does someone here believe that NGOs have no means of circumventing the law.
The law is not worth a single article except for the alternative media who are clutching at straws because they are drowning.
Soros' "philanthropic" efforts focus on promoting "democracy" around the world and he is a long-time donor and supporter of "liberal and progressive causes." He founded organizations that support and build up the opposition in all areas, including demonstrations. He pays students and media, many of which he simply bought. It promotes destabilization and brings climate and gender madness into society, both of which decompose and harm young people, who thereby lose their support because they are turned against their parents.
All of this is known, including his role in the Maidan uprising. Yes, his NGOs were also highly active in Ukraine. He likes to speculate, for example on the bankruptcy of states. The EU politicians who are now so outraged have obviously all been bought. They gave themselves away with their illogical reaction. Anyone who wants to prevent transparency in donations from NGOs and the opposition is actually contemptuous of democracy. But they always mean their Newspeak “democracy” with quotation marks, because as we all know, that means the opposite.
Like Ukraine, Georgia is likely to be armed for another proxy war. People have already been divided and agitated. A second Maidan will probably be staged. It is strategically located on Russia's southern border and also on the Black Sea. That's why people are actually outraged because this law reveals who is behind it and what their intentions are.
The law prevented it for the time being. But the Georgian Prime Minister should be advised to choose his bodyguards carefully so that he doesn't end up like Fico. He's already been threatened.
PS: One would also like to know who pays the TroII armies in the media and the “fact checkers”… (at Correctiv it is known to be Soros anyway). That would also be important for democracy, because this is about manipulation of opinion and disinformation. These people are particularly active on social media platforms, but also as moles. It is known that the German Office for the Protection of the Constitution, for example, pays a lot of undercover agents who pose as right-wing extremists on these platforms. Anyone who likes such statements is then observed and otherwise they hope to be connected so that they can infiltrate. This also increases the number of “right-wing extremist crimes” for the statistics. This is all part of “democracy”…
The Evil Medium reported on the reaction of the Greens like the World Interior Minister, who used the Internet to instruct Georgians what they should wish for. Of course, that's what people from Western NGOs shout - but when people demonstrated against compulsory vaccination at home, they were all evil lateral thinkers and "Reich citizens". The article is reminiscent of the imperial airs of German politics 120 years ago, when the whole world was supposed to heal on the basis of German nature - only today it is made for foreign interests, for which local woke people make Michelstan unpopular worldwide.
This is indeed unfortunate, because the European standard is the good infiltration of sovereign states by fucktencheckers, while we ourselves suffer from the bad infiltration by Russia and have to react to it with increasing irritation.
The fact that almost the entire opposition stayed away from the vote could perhaps have already been mentioned; 84:4:62 is still clear, but still controversial. The Junge Welt even manages to mention this in an opinion article that clearly takes sides with the law (see https://www.jungewelt.de/artikel/476254.georgien-eu-putsch-vertagt.html ).
To give an example of what such argumentation leads to: With such argumentation one could also say that the Bosnian independence referendum of 1992 was not controversial because 99.7% voted for it.
If you don't vote against it, vote for it. Even when you leave the room. That's just how politics works.
To Christoph Hello,
“The fact that almost the entire opposition stayed away from the vote could perhaps have already been mentioned.”
Yes, Thomas Oysmüller could work on the journalistic quality of his articles.
“84:4:62 is still clear, but still controversial.”
I see it differently, 84:66 could be called “controversial”, but by staying away the opposition made the result for this law even clearer.
I find the term “controversial” strange anyway, because cultivated arguing is the purpose of the opinion-forming process in a democracy, so that should be the norm.
Hello,
there is financial transparency in sport. The names of the sponsors are written all over it. (The fact that they all only drive with their own blood, like the unforgettable Jan Ullrich, is a different topic :)
Because in sport , the sponsor wants his name to be seen, that's positive for the sponsor, advertising for him.
Naive question :-)
If these NGOs are so super trouper extra good, then why don't their sponsors push for their names to be seen?!
Funny …
"Washington has announced... the EU regrets..."
Another loss of face for the Western hypocrites, which catches them off guard and hits them hard. Yesterday in Africa (e.g. Niger), today in the Caucasus, tomorrow? For Western imperialism and its Quislings and Fifth Columns, things are becoming increasingly crowded on the various continents...
Anyone who arranges billion-dollar deals via SMS and keeps the content secret is of course against transparency.
🤣🤣🤣
😎
Since when has transparency been against democracy and against European values?
It seems to me that Leyen cannot fulfill the European contracts. Time to call the lady back, Mr. Scholz!