Revised:
The Constitutional Court of Georgia held a preliminary hearing from 29 to 31 August to address the lawsuits filed against the Foreign Agents Law by various parties, including President Zurabishvili, civil society and media organizations, opposition MPs, and journalists. The Court consolidated these cases into one and will decide on the admissibility of the constitutional claims and whether to temporarily suspend the practical provisions of the law, as requested by the plaintiffs.
The session began with a testimony from linguist Manana Beridze, who was invited to appear before the Court by the plaintiffs. The issue of stigmatization of organizations was a central topic of discussion during the first two days, with both sides debating whether the terms used in the law had negative, neutral, or positive connotations. Beridze presented an 88-page study that analyzed the key words and phrases in Georgian used in the text of the law, such as “foreign,” “interest,” “conductor,” “foreign power,” and “organization pursuing the interests of foreign power.” The study concluded that these terms have negative connotations and can only be interpreted positively or neutrally with specific modifiers and context. Beridze also noted that the key word in the law is not “foreign,” but “interest,” and that the term “agent” has been replaced with “organization pursuing the interests of a foreign power” in the latest version of the law, but the synonymous meaning remains.
When asked by Judge Eva Gotsiridze for alternative words to remove the negative connotations without changing the ideas, Beridze stated that even with different terminology or a changed title, the essence of the law would remain the same. Interestingly, the linguist pointed out that the word “transparency,” which the defendant and ruling party claim is the sole purpose of the law, appears rarely in the text. It was also noted that the linguist’s study was based on the 2023 version of the law, which has since been replaced by the 2024 version.
In conclusion, the linguist’s testimony highlighted the negative connotations of the terms used in the law and the difficulty of changing the essence of the law without changing its language. The Court will continue to hear from other witnesses and experts before making a decision on the admissibility of the constitutional claims and the temporary suspension of the law’s provisions.
Read More @ civil.ge