Anti-government propaganda is only intensifying before the referendum on the law amending the water law. Activist actors play on the audience’s sentiment in their recordings – they obviously have no real arguments, and the majority media are insanely reporting on the alleged lies that the government coalition is supposed to spread with its leaflet. However, there are also interesting findings – for example, that organisations and political parties are cooperating immorally, because the campaign is more than obviously led from a single center. If you do not have your own opinion on the matter, it is, of course, easiest to trumpet the same nonsensical sentences that have no substantiated argument.
Barbara Čenčur Curk, a professor at the Department of Applied Geology at the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Engineering and president of the GWP, claimed in a chat on the MMC portal that everything stated on the government leaflet was a lie and a deception. According to her, the amendment to the Water Act allows, among other things, construction outside the settlement and directly on the water, which has not been allowed so far. As a physical person, Curk is also registered as the organiser of the referendum campaign within the framework of the Referendum on the Act Amending the Water Act (ZV-1G), which would take place on July 11th. As one of the organisers of the campaign, she sent an application for the use of free poster sites – what is interesting is that all the applications were obviously written according to the same proposal, that is, as if they all came from one center, from the same source.
“Below we provide you with an application for the use of free poster places in your municipality, for the purposes of the campaign,” wrote several associations and parties, and all continued in exactly the same style. In addition to Curk, such a letter was sent from the ‘Danes je Nov Dan’ Institute, from the SD party, the March 8th Institute, from the Eco Circle, from the Red Tree Heritage Institute, the Morigenos Society, the Focus Society, the Svetumet Society, the Cedrad Society of Cyprus, the civil initiative Danes! and of course also from the Levica Party. The various organisations that are struggling to overthrow the water law are therefore more than obviously cooperating with each other or are probably even run from the same center.
It is interesting that a week before the referendum, almost all the majority media began writing – of course in favour of the initiators of the referendum or opponents of the amendment to the law or, better said, the current government. Delo, MMC and 24.com reported that the coalition’s leaflet on the water law was full of lies. “So my approach to the law is not that it cannot be improved or that it does not need improvement. However, one should be aware that changes to such an important law simply need to be tackled prudently and with the timely involvement of the profession,” the initiator of the referendum, Aljoša Petek, told siol.net.
Distrust of politics stems from past experience – which is not surprising given the past political set
Proponents and opponents of the amendment to the Water Act also faced President Borut Pahor. According to MMC, Marko Starman, a lecturer at the European Law Faculty in Nova Gorica, said that the discussion was mainly in the direction of distrust in the implementation and supervision of the implementation of certain legal regulations. Klemen Bergant, a member of Pahor’s standing advisory committee, secretary at the Environmental Agency of the Republic of Slovenia and a lecturer in the field of meteorology at the University of Nova Gorica, said that there could be no a priori doubts about professional institutions and their decisions. Rok Fazarinc, an expert in water and flood safety and a designer at Izvo-r, said that for now the opinions of the Water Directorate of the Republic of Slovenia are very strict and trustworthy. Curk was also there, who felt that distrust of politics stems from past experience. According to her, most of the interventions will not be possible, but there are always a few chosen ones.
Sara Bertoncelj
