The deputies did well in outvoting President Václav Klaus' veto. Their decision makes life easier for one minority. Looking back at the bill's long history, we see that, with the exception of the Christian Democrats (KDU-ČSL), every political party in the chamber always had deputies in favor of the motion and against it. The president's veto changed everything.

Some could say Prime Minister Jiří Paroubek and his Social Democrats pushed the bill through to show defiance to the honorary Civic Democrat chairman at Prague Castle. However, I consider Klaus to be the one who started a war over what seemed quite a harmless topic.

KDU-ČSL Deputy Vlasta Parkanová said in the chamber that passing the registered partnership bill was opening a Pandora's box of assorted minority claims. And we do know how the president feels about whoever offers any "difference."

I am glad the draft won the necessary 101 votes, even if it didn't get a single vote more than this required figure. Also, I would like to thank Klaus 101 times. It was thanks to him that none of the 177 deputies present was able to say during the vote that he had no idea what he was doing, Franěk writes.

- Politicians have found an acceptable compromise by deciding that the faces and names of juvenile brutal murderers and assailants can be published with judges' approval, Jana Bendová writes in Mladá fronta Dnes March 17.

I am among those who usually defend the right of juvenile offenders to have their identity withheld. Children aren't born bad; it's adults who often harm their souls. They should get a second chance because a bad start does not have to mean a spoiled finish.

Even with adult offenders, we often hear stories of how they were abused or mistreated in their childhood. There are times when pictures of such parents should be published together with that of the juvenile criminal. We hear of the growing brutality of juvenile lawbreakers and how we have to be tougher on them. But history tells us there have always been cases of children committing murder and theft.

It's only that today we are better informed about particular cases. We can agree with the publishing of the names of the most brutal assailants. Exceptional crime justifies exceptional treatment. Who should be subject to this treatment? Cynical murderers, those assaulting women ...

Take two cases from the media: A 16-year-old stabbed his father in a family quarrel, and witnesses say he defended his mother after she was assaulted by her husband; a 17-year-old took part in brutal murders of old women. The first juvenile's identity should remain anonymous — in a way, he's a victim. The trial of the other juvenile should be public. And not only for public safety in case this youngster "cannot be reformed."

The chance to publish the offenders' photo and name amounts to additional punishment. In the United States, a thief was sentenced to walking in the streets with a sign describing what he did. He said public shame was worse than an anonymous prison stay. A brutal murderer is unlikely to come to the same conclusion. But the people's right to be protected from such a dangerous person outweighs the right of a 17-year-old criminal to an anonymous second chance, Bendová writes.