PPA returns confiscated replica Lihula monument to owner

The Police and Border Guard Board (PPA) has returned a replica of the controversial Lihula monument to its owner after it was confiscated last autumn.
In January, a man informed the police he was the rightful owner of the statue, which led to its return.
Although the police advise against publicly displaying the monument, authorities do not plan to prevent it.
"There has been no public order violation as such regarding the statue, but its installation in a public place could potentially lead to conflicts. The PPA's recommendation is not to display it publicly in this form," said Inna Toater, head of the Ida-Harju police station on Thursday.
However, if the statue is put on display, no penalties will follow, Toater confirmed.

The Lihula Monument is the colloquial name of a monument commemorating the Estonians who fought for Estonia against the Soviet Union in World War II, which is today located in a privately owned museum in Lagedi.
The monument has been controversial due to, in part, its dedication to those who served in the German Wehrmacht and particularly in the Waffen-SS.
The monument was originally unveiled in Pärnu in 2002 only to be taken down just nine days later, having been condemned by then-Prime Minister Siim Kallas.
Next, the statue was relocated to Lihula in Western Estonia in 2004. Following another removal and scandal, it was finally put on display in Lagedi in October of 2005.
Attorney commends police for returning statue

Attorney Carri Ginter, who criticized the PPA's decision to confiscate the replica monument, said he was pleased it had been returned to its owner.
But he said it still sets a dangerous precedent, as it was carried out under the Public Order Act.
"The Public Order Act should apply to an imminent and significant threat. But if we determine that some monument is being transported along a highway and that, at some point, unrest might occur in Lihula, and based on this, we start restricting people's freedoms, then we have a serious problem," the lawyer said.
"For example, if we criminalize hate speech in such a way that if someone merely suspects that you might write something on your typewriter that constitutes hate speech, and as a result, we confiscate your typewriter — such an expansive interpretation of the Public Order Act is something we, as a state, absolutely cannot allow," he added.
--
Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!
Editor: Huko Aaspõllu, Mait Ots, Helen Wright