By: Kavarna Hayek
It is probably a coincidence that Robert Golob used the round number 40 when describing the “representatives of experts, civil society, ministries, and other official institutions” who sat at the table searching for solutions on “how to prevent hate speech from even emerging (…) and how to punish those who refuse to stop spreading such hate speech in any way.” It is also likely a coincidence that the Strategic Council for Preventing Hate Speech issued exactly 57 recommendations to the government.
The number 57 has a significant symbolic meaning in Slovenia. Everyone is familiar with the 57th issue of Nova revija, which was published in January 1987. In it, brave and upright intellectuals presented the programme for Slovenian independence, and the magazine was filled with a spirit of freedom. On the other hand, the number 40 reminds us of the tale of Ali Baba and the 40 thieves. If you just replace the names (Ali Baba with Robert Golob, and the thieves with the members of the strategic council), you will get the current reality: an arrogant and power-hungry prime minister, who instead of traditional thieves from the street, gathered professional and career killers of freedom (of speech) and seated them at the table to discuss something they call “hate speech”. With carefully chosen words, which they used (and abused), they wrapped the whole thing in the guise of good intentions to make it appear lovely and pleasing to the people. However, anyone who closely follows the individuals sitting on the council immediately recognised that it is, in fact, an inquisitorial council for censorship, which will under threat of force and punishment sanction those who think differently.
First, let’s talk about good intentions. My colleagues at Demokracija and I experienced such “good intentions” in recent years. When we expected support for freedom of speech, not just for Demokracija, from the right-wing, we received longer and sharper knives in our backs than from the left. At that time, in several comments and essays, I wrote that they came after us, and tomorrow they will come after you. And today, the same people cry (otherwise correctly observe) that the implementation of autocratic ideas by the government council could mean that promoters of the film “The Miracle of Life” could face criminal or misdemeanour prosecution because they cause shock and excitement among the public. Yes, they got what they wanted. When they attacked Demokracija magazine, they imagined they could set the limits. Now, they hypocritically cry that the Golob’s council is setting the limits. Freedom of speech either exists or it does not. And these limits are not set by either the left or the right. As soon as a limit is set, it is no longer freedom of speech. Even if the intentions are noble.
What the government council presented is not even so new. Some of those who sit on it three years ago helped write a report on Slovenia for ECRI (European Commission against Racism and Intolerance at the Council of Europe). In it, they expressed shock over Article 297 of the Slovenian Criminal Code, claiming that it does not allow enough convictions for “hate speech”. They regretted that Slovenia had abandoned Article 133 of the Criminal Code of the SFRY after independence, as that formulation of a “verbal offense” would make prosecuting hate speech easier. Today, they are implementing these “good intentions” through the Strategic Council for Preventing Hate Speech.
Without freedom of speech, there is no freedom (and consequently, no democracy). More than any other value, freedom of speech defines a free and democratic society. As soon as various enlightened councils feel called to limit and punish free expression of opinions and views to prevent (alleged) offenses, freedom is lost. Boštjan M. Zupančič is right when he wrote on Twitter: “It is an orchestrated attack on freedom of speech guaranteed in the Constitution, in the ECHR, and negatively in the Criminal Code. Now, among other things, because they cannot avoid Article 297 of the Criminal Code, they are planning an attack through loose misdemeanour legislation. (A Stalinist trick). HATE SPEECH DOES NOT EXIST! Now, fight against censorship and dictatorship …!!!!!”
No one should be arrested, prosecuted, or fined for what they say and express their thoughts. It is quite unusual and (for us, freedom of speech advocates) also depressing that this needs to be emphasised in the 21st century. What Robert Golob and his 40 thieves have conceived is alarming; it is a Stalinist forecast of censorship. Believe me, what Katarina Bervar Sternad, a member of this government gang, is saying, is a scary forecast of the future. According to her, (because the “sociological definition of hate speech exceeds the definition of a criminal offense in the Criminal Code”) when prosecuting those who can upset the public, they need to use misdemeanour procedures. We have seen what this means in the case of Roman Vodeb. If anyone thinks that they will stop at the expression “wild mare”, they are mistaken. What can cause shock or disturbance to the public is highly subjective. It will not be long before they start punishing those who oppose tax increases. Public opposition to higher taxation can cause shock to “vulnerable groups” or “disturbance” among public employees who live off the money collected from net taxpayers.
The turning point seems to be social media, where the left does not yet have as much influence as it desires. It will be a moment of total digital hysteria, where inflated egos will become career hunters of those who think differently and incite the angry mob, whose actions will be much more shameful and dangerous than the words that angered these people.
The freedom of speech for those who strut in the strategic council and see themselves as important is to silence ideological opponents, intimidate those with different opinions. Their intention is not dialogue, as Golob claims; their fight against alleged hate speech is to lash out indiscriminately, insult, disrupt, accuse, and prosecute those who dare to challenge them, those who are not afraid to raise their voice and still care about the truth. The diversity of professions boasted by the government council has nothing to do with pluralism, differing opinions, or perspectives; it lacks various faces. It has only one uniform and one-minded face, hidden behind different masks. Our lives are now at the mercy of a handful of people who will change the fate of others every time they feel more offended and threatened than others. When it comes to this, society is already in a totalitarian system. Slovenia is already there or at least on its way.
American journalist Lawrence G. Proulx, who worked for major American media, has three rules for recognising tyrannical rulers. First, if someone has the right to say something, another has the right to say the opposite. This is the elementary foundation of freedom – freedom of dissent. Secondly, if you have the right to say something positive about someone or a topic, you also have the right to say something negative or offensive. Otherwise, dialogue is not possible. And thirdly, everyone has the right to be wrong. “Therefore, we must give everyone the right to criticise someone for their opinion, but we must never grant anyone the right to punish someone for their opinion,” Proulx concludes.
I really do not know where the times have gone when everyone, regardless of ideological or political differences, clearly stood on the side of freedom of speech. I am afraid that those times are forgotten, a lost passion for freedom.