Piše: Dr Matevž Tomšič
During the reign of the Freedom Movement, some government officials have shown extreme sensitivity about their public image. Of course, this is generally true of many politicians, regardless of their political affiliation. Negative assessments of their “character and work” tend to bother them deeply. Some are so affected that they are willing to take concrete action against the authors of such criticism. The most common method of “defending one’s good name” is a civil lawsuit, through which the allegedly offended party seeks satisfaction.
For some people in power, even that is not enough. They seek to punish authors they dislike through the use of repressive state apparatus. This has become a practice of the Speaker of the National Assembly, Urška Klakočar Zupančič. After sending the police after psychoanalyst Roman Vodeb, she did the same to publicist and television host Aljuš Pertinač. He allegedly caused her “feelings of humiliation, distress, and emotional pain” through statements made on the show Ura resnice (the same show that prompted her complaint against Vodeb) and in an article published on the Požareport portal. She highlighted words such as “whorehouse,” “brothel,” “sexual services,” and “during working hours,” which she claims suggest her actions were “motivated by sexual intent.” Pertinač now faces the possibility of being fined for his remarks.
This intervention by the parliament’s leading lady amounts to a scandalous abuse of police power for political ends. She seems unaware that those who hold public office must be able to withstand criticism, yes, even when it is expressed in sharp or even crude language. Pertinač was harsh in his commentary on Klakočar Zupančič, but in characterising her actions, he did not cross the line of what is legally permissible. He expressed a highly negative but entirely legitimate opinion. His criticism was no different from what politicians on both the left and right routinely face, some to an even greater extent. Therefore, this complaint and the resulting proceedings can only be understood as an attempt to silence a critic of the ruling elite. It constitutes a blatant attack on freedom of expression. Such moves do not just target the author in question, they aim to intimidate anyone who might follow in his footsteps.
Equally troubling as the conduct of one of the highest representatives of the ruling class is the excessive compliance of the police. They appear highly receptive to the demands of this particular official. At the Ljubljana Šiška Police Station, Pertinač was pre-emptively labelled a violator, with the claim that “the elements of the offense have been met.” This is a prejudgment of guilt, which runs counter to the principles of the rule of law.
One must ask why the police accepted the complaint at all. It should have been summarily dismissed, as it is based solely on the personal feelings of the complainant. Since when is it the police’s job to deal with the emotional states of public officials? Their role is to maintain public order and safety, to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens, and to punish those who violate them. And in that regard, there is no shortage of work. But tending to the emotional well-being of those in power is certainly not part of their mandate. They must not cater to the whims and sensitivities of those who feel offended when their public image does not match their expectations.
Ordinary citizens are, by nature, the weaker party in relation to those who hold power and belong to centres of influence. That is why law enforcement must act fairly and impartially. In this case, that is clearly not happening. It appears that under Golob’s government, more than ever before in independent Slovenia, the institutions responsible for maintaining order and safety have become a personal service for the political elite.