“In order to draw attention to the double standards, the writer copied the threat sent to Minister Aleš Hojs word by word and sent it to MEP Tanja Fajon. He was asked to report to the police, even though the prosecution refused to prosecute the perpetrator who wrote the original threat and sent it to Aleš Hojs. This socially critical provocation was a great success,” Tomaž Štih, one of the most popular commentators on social networks, pointed out. Since, according to the Constitution, the highest law in the country, everyone is equal before the law, it is not surprising that many were upset by this news – which is expected, of course, as no ordinary citizen wants the country to have one set of rules for “our people” and a different set of rules for “the others.”
The suspect in the case of the threat against Tanja Fajon said that he was indeed the person who published the post in question to Twitter. He also admitted that he did not intend to threaten MEP Fajon but instead wanted to draw attention to the shameful decision of the district state prosecutor to not prosecute the perpetrator who sent threats to the Minister of the Interior, Aleš Hojs. His words, which were written on Twitter, were a direct transcript of Alojz Breznik’s threat which he sent to Minister Hojs. A photo was also posted under the tweet, showing the decision of the state prosecutor to reject Minister Hojs’s complaint against Breznik.
Following the impact of last year’s letter, sent by Prime Minister Janez Janša to the State Prosecutor General Drago Šketa, who allowed for death threats to the highest representatives of the state and their supporters to continue, the prosecutor’s office announced that every individual needs to file a criminal complaint separately. Following this announcement, Minister Hojs decided to file a criminal complaint against Facebook user Breznik. However, according to District Prosecutor Klementina Prejac, the post in which Hojs was described as a “dog that needs to be liquidated” does not represent a “serious threat.” Horrified by the outcome, Minister Hojs wrote the following on the 11th of February: “The prosecution believes that the statement: ‘a dog that should be liquidated’ which refers to me, does not represent a serious threat. Even though the post is provocative, it merely reflects Breznik’s mental pain, which is the result of implementing the governing policies, of which I am also a part of, they say. A new low for the prosecution.”
District State Prosecutor Klementina Prejac emphasised in the case in question that the threat must be of such a nature and intensity that it arouses a feeling of fear for one’s own life or physical integrity in the person who receives the threat. According to her, the subjective fear or agitation of the injured party is insufficient, as the expressed threat must objectively be serious. She decided not to prosecute the perpetrator, saying that Breznik wrote what he did about Hojs because he disagrees with the ruling policy and to show his support of the anti-government protests which happened on the 5th of November last year. So, in support of the violent protests, after which Ljubljana looked like a war zone, because of the fact that the rioters threw pyrotechnic products and granite cubes all around, leaving destroyed property behind. They also injured several people. The Prosecutor agreed that the comment was provocative and inappropriate, but in her opinion, it cannot be considered “a serious threat which, given its nature and intensity, could cause a feeling of fear for the life or physical integrity of the proponent of prosecution.”
As the competent institutions ignored the death threats, the whole thing escalated. As a result, intolerance spread – among other things, it also spread through social networks. Here, of course, part of the blame also lies with the mainstream media, which have never actually managed to condemn such threats. They have also not managed to admit that they are also to blame. In any case, regardless of who the threats are directed against, we need to be aware that they should be unacceptable. And since the prosecution rejected the request to prosecute the original perpetrator who wrote the threat against Hojs, many find it interesting that the suspect in the Fajon case was asked to report to the police station when he sent the same threat to the MEP. Undoubtedly, the question arises as to how the matter will unfold in the future. Given that the prosecution decided not to prosecute the author of the threat in Hojs’s case, it is to be expected that the same thing will happen in Fajon’s case. If that would not be the case, however, then it would be clear to even the most naïve people that we are not all equal before the law. However, the judiciary cannot afford that.
If we live in a country where the law does not apply equally to everyone, where the police officers prosecute someone for one action but do not prosecute someone else for that same action, and where prosecutors use two different sets of rules for the same case, we will not be able to count ourselves among the countries of the Western civilisation. Given that the citizens have been noticing for years how virtually untouchable some are and how severely others are judged for minor things, it is not surprising that confidence in the judiciary is so low. And on top of that, people also see certain judges appear at political rallies of certain parties, where they wear the Titovka caps. Is anyone still surprised when they hear accusations of some people who say that we are actually being judged according to revolutionary law?
Sara Kovač
