MOSCOW |
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russian President Vladimir Putin's opponents warned on Wednesday that their protest movement could become more radical while more than 10 protesters were detained after parliament approved a law increasing fines on demonstrators who violate public order.
Almost unanimous approval by the upper house completed rapid parliamentary approval of the law, which opponents say is intended to stifle dissent against Putin, whose return to the Kremlin for six more years has triggered large protests.
Putin has said that Russia needs new regulations on protests and earlier this week defended tougher rules governing them as being in line with European norms.
The bill now needs only his signature to become law and the opposition expects it to be in force by Tuesday, a public holiday when new demonstrations are planned.
"Criticism of the authorities is becoming the main crime in our country," Gennady Gudkov, an opposition member of the lower house of parliament, told Reuters. "This is a draconian law."
"That the authorities are in a hurry, that they are doing everything at lightning speed, points to their key priority ... to suppress dissent and put pressure on peaceful protests," he said.
People at protests where public order is violated could face fines of 300,000 roubles ($9,100) - more than the average annual salary - and the organisers of such rallies could be fined up to 1 million roubles. The maximum fine had been 5,000 roubles.
Following the passage of the new legislation, Russian news wires reported that police had detained 12 protesters in front of the Kremlin walls at Manezh Square and at nearby Pushkin Square, where demonstrators were holding small unsanctioned rallies.
"Putin attempted earlier somehow to imitate democracy, he was not very successful at it, but at least he tried," said opposition leader Sergei Mitrokhin whose Yabloko party has no seats in parliament before his detention.
"Now, however, he is taking off all masks and saying 'I spit on the law'," he said minutes before police pulled him into a nearby van.
LAW COULD HAVE UNINTENTIONAL EFFECT
In a rare show of defiance by what has long been a largely rubber-stamp parliament, opposition lawmakers in the State Duma lower house had dragged out debate on Tuesday before Putin's United Russia party eventually managed to ram it through.
The Federation Council, the upper house, approved it by 132 votes to one, with one abstention, after a short debate.
Although the aim is to discourage protests against Putin, who has dominated Russia for 12 years, some of his critics said the law could unintentionally fuel opposition.
"I was still debating whether or not to go (to the Moscow rally) on June 12. Now there is only one possible choice," psychologist and blogger Yulia Rubleva said.
Mikhail Fedotov, the chairman of the Kremlin's human rights' council, said the bill could violate the constitutional right to free assembly.
"If this amendment governing demonstrations casts doubt on the real constitutional right of citizens to gather peacefully, without weapons, there is a real threat that it will serve only to radicalise the protests," he told Reuters.
Communist Party deputy Anatoly Lokot said the protest mood will only grow.
"This law is deepening the gulf that separates the people from the Russian president," he said, adding that "instead of dialogue" the authorities were "brandishing a truncheon".
Police largely left alone the mostly middle-class crowds who protested against Putin's 12-year rule this winter but beat protesters and detained hundreds at a rally in Moscow on May 6, one day before Putin's inauguration.
Some young professionals who have been regulars at the protests, some of which involved just singing songs or walking through parks dressed in white, say they have lost their jobs.
"They thought they would discourage the protests by arresting people like me, who had never before been detained, but they only poured fuel on the fire," said Alisa Obraztsova, a 24-year-old lawyer.
(Additional reporting by Darya Korsunskaya; Writing by Timothy Heritage and Alissa de Carbonnel; Editing by Michael Roddy)
Source: uk.reuters.com
Essex Amends Credit Facility - Zacks.com
Essex Property Trust Inc. (ESS - Snapshot Report), a real estate investment trust (REIT), has recently amended its existing unsecured revolving credit facility worth $425 million to increase the borrowing capacity to $500 million.
The amended credit facility bears an interest rate of LIBOR plus 120 basis points and a facility fee of 20 basis points. Scheduled to mature in December 2015, the amended credit facility has two one-year extension options and an accordion feature that enables Essex Property to further increase the borrowing capacity to $600 million.
Essex Property reported first quarter 2012 FFO (funds from operations) of $59.3 million or $1.63 per share, compared with $48.5 million or $1.44 per share in the year-earlier quarter. Funds from operations, a widely used metric to gauge the performance of REITs, are obtained after adding depreciation and amortization and other non-cash expenses to net income.
During the first quarter of 2012, the company entered into an agreement to obtain private placement unsecured notes worth $200 million for a term of 9 years at a rate of 4.3%. The net proceeds from the note offering were intended to repay secured mortgage debt due in late 2012 and 2013.
Based in Palo Alto, California, Essex Property acquires, develops, redevelops, and manages apartment communities primarily in highly desirable, supply-constrained markets. Essex Property currently owns 158 multifamily properties with an additional 5 properties in various stages of development.
Essex Property currently retains a Zacks #3 Rank, which translates into a short-term Hold rating. We presently have a long-term Neutral recommendation on the stock. One of its competitors, BRE Properties Inc. (BRE - Analyst Report) has a Zacks #4 Rank, which translates into a short-term Sell rating.
Source: www.zacks.com
New South African press law 'more harmful than apartheid-era censorship' - The Guardian
The new protection of state information law is more harmful to South African press freedom than apartheid-era censorship, according to the widow of the legendary anti-apartheid journalist and editor, Donald Woods.
Woods was stripped of his editorship of the Daily Dispatch newspaper and banned from public speaking because of his investigation into the death of black activist Steve Biko in 1977. He fled South Africa after threats to his life and family, settling in London, where he died in 2001. He is best remembered as the author of Biko biography, which became the basis for the film Cry Freedom.
Despite her husband's experiences, Wendy Woods believes the vagueness of the legislation passed by the African National Congress government makes it potentially more restrictive.
"I would say it's more insidious that what my husband had to deal with," Woods told the Guardian. "There were many laws in his time restricting journalists, but they knew what they were. This bill allows any government official to deem any information a state secret. It's worse than the apartheid era because its so unspecific. You don't know what it is you are up against."
"The penalties sound dreadful: 25 years in prison, which is horrendous," she added. "The prospect of 25 years in jail would scare anyone, I would have thought."
Speaking in an interview at home on the outskirts of London, Woods said she was heartened by what she called "a huge groundswell of opposition" to the new law by former colleagues in the anti-apartheid movement. Her husband would also have been "outrageous and vociferous" in resisting it, she said.
" [It will] disempower journalists because they won't have a working knowledge of what they can or cannot say, which is more or less what they had during the apartheid era. Donald said through experience and instinct he grew to know … what he could or couldn't say," Woods recalled.
For example, he would reserve his most outspoken editorials skewering the apartheid system for Friday, in the knowledge that most government ministers had farms they would go to at the weekend. They would have two days to cool down before returning to their offices and deciding on a response. Under Woods editorship no Daily Dispatch journalists were jailed for what they wrote.
The new law, Wendy Woods said, is by comparison "too all-encompassing". She said South African journalists old enough to remember apartheid "will feel it's back to the old days". But she added: "They are ready to fight, because they remember what it felt like."
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
No comments:
Post a Comment