By Pavel Ferluga
I barely opened “fb”/rn, after a month of blockade, and published my old article “ANTISEMITISM AS A DOGMA,” which seemed perfectly normal to me, as the article experienced quite a bit agitation in the left wing majority newspaper. I was even reported to the Prosecution and they wrote misleadingly, in several “our” media, I experienced an unpleasant surprise! Again, a blockade for 30 days. The Koper Prosecutor’s Office flatly rejected the accusation at the time, which was completely logical and also justified, as long as I only described my view in the newspaper “Demokracija” on the issue of illegal migration. We no longer have honorary journalists in our media (80%), but, unfortunately, only “journalists”. That “fb, Twitter, etc.” indeed are the bottom of the “intellect” of the basal mass, it is not necessary to state, but their rules should be in harmony with the legislation of the host country, where the legal profession operates impartially. Far from it! The rules of these “giants” of the web are completely futile, as they do not follow them equally for all users. They are extremely selective. In our country, this is even visible to the blind. I wrote to a leftist that his father had a “pitekus” (regarding the shallowness of his comments), and they blocked me. However, if you write that the families of Janez Janša and the right wing politicians should be killed, then this is in the standards of their “rules”, not to mention the lowly insult with tasteless epithets which are on the agenda daily, but this is media freedom.
I am quite surprised how censors on “fb” behave and censor according to political sympathies and biased “rules” adapted to their needs, where EVERYTHING THAT IS NOT LEFT is labelled as “hate speech” that is not in line with their “regulations”. What is “hate speech”? Is it treated as such anywhere in the judiciary? Undoubtedly, every judiciary has the appropriate answers to every legal dilemma, but I have not yet come across a “legal” definition of “hate speech” that would illuminate the mind of an individual ignorant person who has no concept of “justice” (like, e.g., me). I still remember my relative uttering this sentence in connection with a thief who stole something valuable from his neighbour’s house: “…if it was my son, I would cut off his hand…!” Has this man uttered a “verbal delict” of hate speech and is ripe for prosecution for our “justice”? I just ask because I think that the judiciary should also decide, on its own national territory, what is criminal and what is not, and this should also apply to foreign guests of the web portals of “our censorship”, always, of course, on national territory. There are few countries that have such an organised “judicial system” where “justice” rules, and these are certainly not those countries that are UNAMBIGUOUS, that are, essentially SOCIALIST (in all variations of their chameleonism), even with the label “people’s democracies”. One such hybrid is “our country”. The top of “our justice” is undoubtedly “wrong-judging”, as blatant judicial abnormalities are happening, which do not need to be listed, as they are also quite clear to laymen in the field. This is why completely illegal persecutions take place, which are even deliberately sinister, because the head of the state body is still a sick “two-headed” with a stronger part of LIES, which prevails over the part of TRUTH, which has a thorny path (a glaring example is a person named Janez Janša, who is ALWAYS everything that is NOT real). Even some “proletarians” are aware of this fact, which is at least encouraging, not to say perhaps liberating, if the correct “effect” (e.g. in elections) would follow.
The national judiciary has a duty everywhere in its own territory to watch over offenses that are prosecuted by law. What the court honestly decides, in a normal country with the trust of citizens, no one can dispute, on the basis of fair and well-founded legislation, and it should not be politically conditioned even for a joke, let alone visibly biased (Judges with the occupying flag and Titovka, not to mention other serious, even psychological pressures in their “judgments”).
Today we cannot deny this blatant injustice of “justice”, which in fact it is not, although some judges are completely fair, but have no say, because they are outvoted by the “ideologically orthodox”, who are almost always in the majority and, what is monstrous, in the top itself, even in US.
There is still a lot to be written about the deviations of “our judiciary”, but I leave that to the competent lawyers. Some of them are still unwavering, although they risk career neglect due to the broken two-headed top. Despair grips anyone who is aware that the ignorant masses of the proletariat have a much greater sympathy for the LIE (usually a lie is sweet and does not need an explanation because it satisfies primitive reason). The TRUTH, however, is usually hard and unpopular and complicated. I leave it to psychiatrists to explain this gap.
Certainly, man is overwhelmed by discouragement when he becomes aware of such blatant inconsistencies in his relationships with his environment, which leads to despair.
There is a very old Trieste saying in Latin: “Tra il DIRE ed il FARE, c’é di mezzo il mare!” (Between SAYS and DO, there is the SEA in between!). This saying of our neighbours (otherwise “poor wisdom” if I paraphrase “poor art”) has probably never been heard by our “supreme culprit-judiciary” to dig deeper into its MIND!
Pavel Ferluga is a publicist and a long-time contributor to the weekly Demokracija.