The Persecution of the Differently Differently Differently Minded

“The differently minded” was the label adopted years ago by the pioneers of the Slovenian fight against wokeness. The nom de guerre of brave souls who began to raise their voices against the tyranny and single-mindedness of the civilizational values on which the Western world, and above all Europe, built after the Second World War its system of defense against a repetition of one of the darkest episodes in world history. Respect for human dignity, solidarity and empathy with people in distress, equality, human rights and political freedoms. Leaving aside the fact that the Western world has not always been the most consistent in respecting these values, that was not what bothered the differently minded most. The problem was these values in themselves, not the way they were, or were not, applied.

It was, of course, a very transparent alibi for legitimizing hate speech against particular social groups. Homophobia, misogyny, hatred of refugees. Every time such speech met with a response, a counterattack followed, labeling the criticism a violation of freedom of expression, a liberticide, so to speak.

From today’s perspective it is clear that these were not spontaneous outbursts of intolerance, but a strategy that sought, by stigmatizing certain social groups, to weaken the social, and also the constitutional and legal, safeguards of their human rights and freedoms. Once this protection stops applying to some, sooner or later it stops applying to everyone. All this unfolded, and is still unfolding, alongside simultaneous attacks on the judiciary, the media and civil society, as the most important democratic safeguards protecting society against authoritarianism and the dictatorship of the executive.

The response to the offensive of the differently minded was confused. On the one hand, many demanded at all costs the intervention of prosecutors and the criminal prosecution of hateful discourse, even in cases where it did not—and most often it did not—reach the high threshold that Slovenian and European legal standards set for banning and prosecuting speech. All this was only grist to the mill of the differently minded, who gladly seized the opportunity to present themselves as victims of the undemocratic persecution of people with different positions and views on social questions.

Politics responded in different ways, but what stood out was the doctrine of the former President, who, in the name of overcoming differences and respecting different opinions, sought a compromise at the arithmetic midpoint between defending fundamental civilizational values and spreading intolerance, thereby of course doing a great service to those who were paving their way to power with hatred.

When they succeeded, the predictions came true that all …

[The Slovenian source text in the archive breaks off at this point.]