“Zhoghovurd” daily writes:
“Restrictions on the work of journalists in the National Assembly are entering a new phase. “Zhoghovurd” daily learned that by the decision signed by Vice President Ruben Rubinyan, who is temporarily performing the duties of the NA Speaker, the new security rules in the territory of the Parliament seat and in the building were approved, a number of provisions of which are directly related to the professional activities of accredited journalists.
With the new rules, the free movement and work of journalists in the parliament is actually more limited. accredited journalists can carry out professional activities only in specially designated places. And in order to work in other sectors, they must get the permission of the head of the NA staff-general secretary.
In other words, the accreditation, which in itself should enable the journalist to carry out his professional work in the parliament, is no longer enough. in some cases, the journalist has to obtain additional permission from the structure whose activities he covers and subjects to public control.
But the limitations do not end there. Also, in order to ensure the presence of journalists at the sittings of the NA standing committees, their list must be submitted at least two hours before the start of the session. And in the so-called “special control zones” journalists are generally prohibited from carrying out professional activities.
The question arises: by what criteria will these zones be determined, to what extent are the restrictions proportional to the real security requirements, and will they not turn into an administrative tool to keep journalists away from deputies and officials?
The ban on video recording or taking photos of State Security Service employees while performing their official duties is also more problematic. In many cases, it was the journalistic camera that recorded the incidents that took place in the parliament, the use of force against oppositionists, the obstruction of journalists’ work and other events of public importance. Now, in such situations, the journalist’s camera can simply be banned on the grounds that the police officer is performing his duties in the shot.
The rules also stipulate that persons in the territory of the protected facility are prohibited from “unnecessarily interfering or otherwise disrupting the normal work of the National Assembly”, “making insulting expressions” and not complying with the requirements of the Security Service officer arising from the law and rules. In other words, the staff of the National Assembly has assumed an editorial function and will decide what is an insult and what is not.
However, especially in the case of the work of journalists, the wording “unnecessary interference” can be problematic if it is not clearly defined what is its legal limit. Sharp questioning, walking while asking a question to a member of parliament, following, asking a double question or demanding an answer should not be qualified by administrative discretion as behavior that interferes with the normal work of the parliament. Although it is noticeable that this is exactly what will be done.
Another important provision concerns appearance. Visitors to the National Assembly are required to have a “proper appearance”, it is forbidden to enter not only in sports or work clothes, but also in “improper, unrepresentative clothes”. It is not at least clear from the rules that who and by what criteria will decide whether the clothes are “representative” or not. Such evaluative formulations always carry the risk of arbitrary application.
At the same time, the rules are quite clear regarding privileges. The President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the National Assembly, the Catholicos of All Armenians, as well as a number of high-ranking officials and their accompanying persons have the right to enter and exit through the checkpoints of Baghramyan and Demirchyan streets without inspection. Cars of the President, Prime Minister and Speaker of the National Assembly also pass without inspection.
Meanwhile, a separate period of stay in the parliament is set for journalists, from 08:00 to 19:00. If the NA session continues, they can stay until its end.
All this is presented as security regulation, but security cannot become a universal justification for limiting journalistic activities to administrative permits, special zones and vague wordings.
The National Assembly is not an ordinary administrative building. It is one of the key platforms for political debate, public control and accountability, and journalists are not just “visitors” in the parliament. They are there to convey information to the public, to ask questions to deputies and officials, and to record the processes that citizens cannot physically see in person.
Therefore, the problem is not only in which corridor of the National Assembly the journalist can stand or where he can turn on the camera. The problem is much more fundamental: is the parliament once again increasing the physical and administrative barrier between the journalist and the representative of the government in the name of security?
If an accredited journalist is allowed to work only in pre-separated areas, permission of the Secretary General is required to go to another place, professional work is completely prohibited in some areas, and the video recording of the actions of PSS officers is limited, then it is not only about “security rules”. We are talking about the significant narrowing of journalistic work opportunities in the parliament.
And here the government should answer a simple question: from whom does the National Assembly protect itself, from real security threats or from journalists’ cameras and uncomfortable questions?
—