By: Jože Biščak
Conservative politicians and journalists do have the constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of speech, but on the left, they can insult their political and ideological opponents and be acquitted in case of a lawsuit. Luka Mesec, the coordinator of the Levica party, who labelled Bernard Brščič as a fascist, is the latest and very typical example.
Bernard Brščič, a publicist, commentator, and former president of the Homeland League, is far from being a fascist. Through his statements and positions, which he has publicly advocated, he has demonstrated his worldview as a classical conservative liberal; he is a conservative in terms of values and a liberal in terms of economics (Austrian School of Economics). He has never deviated from these principles.
Progressive logic of the judge
The problem arises from the fact that left-wing politicians, intellectuals, and the mainstream media have completely distorted the term fascism. Today, anyone who upholds traditional family values, expresses patriotism, opposes illegal migration, rejects LGBT and transgender ideology, advocates for a lean state, market economy, and low taxes, is branded as a fascist by the left.
This progressive logic has also been followed by the judiciary, as evidenced by the district court judge Živa Sila, who referred to the defendant’s public appearances as “provocative and full of prejudices” and believed that he should be more tolerant of criticism against him. She also believed that the term “fascist” should be understood in a broader sense: “It is true that during wartime and post-war periods, we used the term fascist to refer to fascist criminals, including those involved in the genocidal policies of Nazi Germany. However, today the term fascist is used much more broadly, in political, economic, cultural, and even personal debates.” It is quite evident that the judge has adopted a progressive interpretation of the term fascist. As a result, she acquitted Luka Mesec and rejected Brščič’s lawsuit, in which he demanded an apology and €4000 in damages from the leader of the Levica party, as well as a public apology in the National Assembly.
The label is offensive for Brščič
For Brščič, the label is indeed offensive. Fascism is, in fact, a left-wing ideology and a form of 20th-century totalitarianism that developed from Marxism. One only needs to look at the fascist manifesto (programme) published in 1919 by the newspaper Il Popolo d’Italia, written by syndicalist Alceste De Ambris and the leader of the Futurist movement Filippo Tommaso Marinetti (drawing inspiration from the ideas of French socialist Louis Auguste Blanqui) to understand that it is far from what Brščič advocates.
Let’s examine some highlights from the fascist programme: minimum wage, an eight-hour workday, progressive taxation, expropriation of the wealthiest, seizure of church property, and so on. The fascist programme is much more similar to the program of the Levica party and the positions of Luka Mesec than to the views of Bernard Brščič. Therefore, it is justifiable that on the Nova24TV portal, they stated that Mesec is also a fascist.
The manner of the “neo-Bolsheviks”
Bernard Brščič expressed his dismay to the Nova24TV website, stating that he is appalled that the judge adopted the “manner of extreme leftists” or “neo-Bolsheviks” – labelling anyone who opposes cultural Marxism, who are anti-communists, who advocate for the rule of law, freedom of speech, market economy, lean government, and traditional family values as fascists. This is not a new phenomenon. George Orwell wrote about how leftists tend to label all those who think differently as fascists. “What is horrifying, however, is that this kind of thinking is apparently close to the judge and the Slovenian judiciary,” warned Brščič.
Brščič also finds it strange that he has not yet received the court judgment, even though he had already written about it in Dnevnik. “I came home, thinking that I would find a registered mail from the court waiting for me. I have not received the judgment yet. It is very interesting that it first appeared in Dnevnik and then spread ‘urbi et orbi’,” Brščič said to the Nova24TV portal.
Double standards
It is undisputed that freedom of speech also allows for offensive speech, which means the possibility of insulting someone. And everyone has the right to sue the person they believe has insulted them. This is one of the foundations of the rule of law. However, in Slovenia, things are moving in a direction where the court allows certain ideological groups (the left) certain things, while considering them offensive and promoting intolerance for others (the right). And that is concerning. Let’s just remember the case of “presstitute” (a combination of the words “press” and “prostitute”). The president of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), Janez Janša, was convicted because in March 2016, on the social media platform Twitter, he posted the following message: “that on a certain Facebook page, public houses offer cheap services of worn-out prostitutes Eugenija C. and Mojca PŠ. One for 30 euros, the other for 35 euros.” In this case, when it came to a conservative politician, the court did not assess the statement in a “broader context” (that Eugenija Carl and Mojca Pašek Šetinc are left-wing propagandists), but rather interpreted the words very narrowly. “Now we know that if you call Eugenija and Mojca Milan’s prostitutes because of their propaganda reporting, you get a prison sentence (conditional), but if you call Bernard a fascist, you are almost praised. Because some are in media and political power, while others are not,” wrote journalist and editor Peter Jančič in response to the verdict regarding the “fascist” tweet. Uroš Urbanija, the director of TV Slovenija, stated, “Now in Slovenia, we can call each other fascists, but the term ‘prostitute’ is not allowed.”
Similarly, the court ruled in the case of Škorc’s satire, convicting author Aleksander Škorc and the writer of these lines (at that time as the editor-in-chief of Demokracija) to a prison sentence or two years of probation. Neither the district court nor the higher court assessed the published satire in a “broader” context or considered it as a non-serious journalistic genre filled with metaphors. In both cases, individuals with conservative worldviews were accused and convicted of “inappropriate” and “hateful” words, while Luka Mesec, as a representative of progressivism, was acquitted. Uroš Urbanija says that it would be best to “adopt a list of allowed and prohibited terms for labelling political opponents. So that the rules are clear, and we know when it constitutes hate speech.”
What is allowed for the left is not allowed for the right
And not only that. It would be good if the state adopted a list of words that a certain political option can use for ideological and political opponents. Because what is allowed for the left is not allowed for the right. Leftists can publicly write that after the war, communists did not get rid of enough right-wingers, and people from the right can be insulted with terms such as fascists, Nazis, and racists. They say all this should be understood in a broader sense, not literally. But when someone from the right says something strong, it is immediately labelled as hate speech, inciting hatred, and promoting violence.
Bernard Brščič is now being widely labelled as a fascist by the left, claiming that the court ruled him as such. And the question is whether Judge Živa Sila even realises what she has ruled, or if she is just blindly following the progressive interpretation of the world and concepts. The judge relativised fascism, altered historical facts, and adapted the understanding to contemporary verbal and mental acrobatics of the left. It is certainly a shame for the judiciary.
(This article was originally published in the printed edition of Demokracija on June 22nd, 2023.)