Little Videos

If anything good came out of the recent early-morning session to rescue our soldiers from Iraq, it is that we now know our president likes little videos. That can be very useful. In my job, for example, we have produced a whole series of short videos and other illustrated educational material that explain the basic information and knowledge in our field of work to eager young learners in an accessible way. Unfortunately, our organization’s remit explicitly excludes defense and military matters, so I can hardly offer help on how the supreme commander of the armed forces should behave in situations involving important military and foreign-policy issues. But even though I don’t know much about military matters, I would venture to say: not the way we saw in the president’s video. I am not entirely convinced that citizens’ legitimate expectations of how a supreme commander should act in such situations can be satisfied by a presidential scowl about which, with the best will in the world, you can’t tell whether it is caused by the weight of command responsibility or just one or two cabbage rolls too many.

There is, however, a whole range of videos and picture books that can explain to the president—and not only to him—the basic concepts of some of the fundamental institutions on which a functioning pluralist democracy rests and depends. Freedom of expression, for example. In Slovenia we all know everything about these things, and yet, or perhaps precisely because of that, we have a whole host of problems with them. In the name of respecting different opinions, the President of the Republic of Slovenia recently listened to a ceremonial speech by a man serving a prison sentence for economic crime. If this becomes a habit, it would be worth including an honor guard of judicial police officers in state protocol. It would come in handy again as early as the commemoration at Osankarica. The belief that respecting freedom of expression requires us to respect any speech and all different opinions is, of course, wrong. You won’t find it in any handbook, any picture book, any video or any judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. On the contrary, freedom of expression as defined and protected by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights functions normally only if society is able and willing to respond clearly and firmly to abuses of this freedom to express intolerance and hatred or to undermine the democratic institutions and values that we protected in the Constitution at independence. It probably goes without saying that in this social response, the voice of people in elected political office is particularly important. For example, the voice of the President of the Republic. So when, some time ago, one of the Slovenian MPs vulgarly attacked the members of the Constitutional Court, the problem was not that there was no criminal prosecution, but that instead of a firm public reaction in defense of one of the key institutions of the rule of law, we were confronted with silence—in the name of respecting different opinions. This silence legitimizes hatred and gives it cover. Tolerance of intolerance does not defend freedom of expression and democracy; it endangers them.

On the other hand, a video about freedom of expression might also be watched by those who, whenever they encounter speech that disturbs, offends or shocks, start grasping for repression, bans and prosecutors. Democracy is not a real democracy if its survival depends on censorship. In this light, it cannot and must not be a problem if the leader of the largest opposition party in the country is given the opportunity on public television to present his views, even though his public appearances, especially on social networks, are often tinged with offensive messages. The threat to democracy would arise if the opposition leader did not have this opportunity. The problem is rather that, when he appears on television, he doesn’t have to answer for such views. Because a “balance” derived from a misunderstanding of freedom of expression prevents journalists from asking uncomfortable questions. Which, in a functioning democracy, they ought to.

A weak understanding of freedom of expression is also reflected in the increasingly tiresome political replaying of the film Home Alone, in which you no longer know who is Kevin, who is the burglar and who is Donald Trump. Those who lost it over a state secretary’s tweet are now making a racket in the streets and on social networks, demanding his resignation. Others mock them, saying this contradicts their usual positions on freedom of expression, which they use mainly to legitimize their own intolerant views and statements. I would suggest both sides calm down. The tweet was clumsy and inappropriate. Someone in political office should have enough judgment to avoid such a mess. And if he slips up, he must be prepared to accept the consequences, including public criticism and outrage. In a democracy, it is perfectly legitimate for people to protest against a statement they subjectively experience as shocking, offensive and disturbing. Another question is whether this anger is really entirely spontaneous and free of political motives. I also doubt that this unfortunate tweet can really be characterized as hate speech that should be followed by resignation and all the other sanctions loudly demanded by the indignant right. A thoughtless blunder is one thing; a political witch-hunt and hatred of people who celebrate Christmas is quite another. Which, let us be clear, here at home is not something only right-wingers do.

I found no indication that this was anything other than stupidity and a slip-up. Unlike many other public statements that are without doubt part of deliberate and continuous intolerance and the spreading of hatred against certain groups and individuals. And about which, including those clearly tinged with racism and antisemitism, no condemnation was heard either from those now demanding Štromajer’s head or from those who, in the name of a misunderstanding of freedom of expression, are always and ever more deafeningly silent. Moreover, the state secretary repented and apologized for his statement. In the Slovenian context, this is a great rarity that should be taken into account.

In this story, the prime minister should also watch a picture book or video. His statement that this state secretary should resign over his slip-up because it happened while he was already in office—unlike his own state secretary, who can stay where he is because he spread his own considerably cruder, intolerant and racist statements “only” before being appointed to his cabinet—is, to put it mildly, not serious. In the second case there was neither distancing nor an apology. What is more, in a later interview the state secretary even boasted of his statements, saying that with them he had pushed the boundaries of freedom of expression in our country. In Slovenian politics, the prime minister certainly deserves the compliment of being the sharpest tongue in the local tavern, but sometimes that is simply not enough. When it comes to intolerance and racism, for example, it is good to be clear, principled and consistent. “Those are my principles!” Groucho Marx declared in one of his films. “And if you don’t like them… well, I have others.” Good joke, you’ll say, but Groucho was a comedian.