The censorship at the national media outlet Radio-Television Slovenia (RTVS), where Polona Fijavž, editor-in-chief of the news programme at Television Slovenija, arbitrarily cancelled the interview of the presenter Jože Možina with the coordinator of the Slovenian March for Life, Urša Cankar Soares, is causing quite a stir in the public. The Association of Journalists and Publicists (Združenje novinarjev in publicistov – ZNP) and the Council for the Protection of Freedom of Speech (Svet za zaščito svobode govora – SZSG) of the Assembly of the Republic (Zbor za republiko – ZzR) have spoken out, strongly criticising the decision of the public broadcaster.
The Association of Journalists and Publicists described the decision of the editor-in-chief of the news programme, Polona Fijavž, to prevent Urška Cankar Soares from appearing as a guest on the television show Interview (Intervju) as scandalous and, from a journalistic point of view, unacceptable. In their opinion, Fijavž’s actions have opened the field for discrimination, new divisions and differentiation between “our people” and “your people” on public television. The Council for the Protection of Freedom of Speech of the Assembly of the Republic, for its part, sees the decision as an unacceptable blot on at least two inalienable and constitutionally guaranteed rights of equality before the law and freedom of speech, as well as a violation of the public’s right to be informed.
The Association of Journalists and Publicists: Marches for Life are a distinctly non-violent form of expression
The Association of Journalists and Publicists stressed that the Marches for Life, led by Urška Cankar Soares, are a distinctly non-violent form of expression of views within Slovenian society. They are held in a tolerant manner and in accordance with the existing legal order, which cannot be said of their opponents.
According to them, Urška Cankar Soares has recently become an important motivator and influencer, as her calls and views have been massively supported and followed by many people. Therefore, she would absolutely also be a very interesting interviewee at the public media outlet, where the doors are practically closed for her.
“When the journalist and presenter Jože Možina tried to open the doors to RTV Slovenia for Cankar Soares and invited her on his show – the Interview, the editor-in-chief Polona Fijavž banned the already arranged guest appearance. The reasons she gave were absolutely astonishing. Chief among them is the one that the invitee represents views and values that are contrary to the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia. This is pure abuse of the Constitution as the highest legal act in the country to take on those who have views that go beyond the left-wing activist propaganda structure,” the Association of Journalists and Publicists warned.
The Association also warned that the Constitutional Court is the only institution that can decide what is or is not in line with the Constitution, and alarm bells should be sounded when this power is usurped by the editor-in-chief at a public media outlet in order to prevent an already-agreed recording of a show from happening. The task of editors and journalists is not to judge what is constitutional and what is not, and whether or not someone is in breach of the Constitution, but to present impartially the different points of view that arise in the public domain on a given issue. The latter is particularly true of public television, which is paid for by all of us.
“On public television, many people are regular guests on the programmes, including left-wing extremists, who have, in fact, called for violations of constitutional principles en masse when it came to protecting health and life during the epidemic. The highest representatives of the former system, who acted contrary to the principles of democracy and so on, are also regular guests in the aforementioned media. It is only right that the public media should be open to the cultivated expression of different views, opinions, concepts and ideas. However, the latest case shows that the times of blatant discrimination based on the fact that someone advocates views that are opposite to those internalised by the management of RTV Slovenia have not yet passed, or worse, that they are returning again,” the Association pointed out the hypocrisy of the public media.
The Association of Publicists and Journalists expects the immediate resignation or dismissal of the editor-in-chief for these reasons, as this would at least somewhat wash away the blame that may otherwise have greater consequences for the reputation of journalism and the state of media freedom in Slovenia.
The Council for the Protection of Freedom of Speech: this is an arbitrary interpretation by the editor
The Council for the Protection of Freedom of Speech noted that it was with great astonishment and indignation that it received the news of the censorship at RTV, the reason for which, according to media reports, was that Fijavž was convinced that Cankar Soares held views that were contrary to the Constitution.
The Council pointed out that Fijavž is in no way denied the right to judge, as editor-in-chief, whether something is suitable for publication or not, but, as they say, she should be aware that she is not an editor-in-chief in a private media outlet, but in a national media outlet of the Republic of Slovenia, which is obliged to facilitate public debate on all issues of the Slovenian society, on which she must take a neutral position. The Council also pointed out that Articles 4 and 5 of the Radio-Television Slovenia Act clearly state that editors must provide programmes “reflecting the lives and concerns of the different population structures” and “respecting the principle of political balance and pluralism of world views”.
In this particular case, this means that both those who are in favour of abortion and those who are against it, or who point out that abortion is a question of ethics, have the right to express their views on public television.
“The editor referred to the Constitution (apparently to Article 5, paragraph 5, which states that editors must respect the principle of ‘constitutionality and legality in the formulation of programmes’) when she cancelled the interview. At this point, at least two things need to be said. First, the Constitution is the result of a democratic process. It must be treated with care, but that does not mean that it cannot be changed. This means that it is not something immutable, and that it is possible to discuss issues and problems that are already covered by the Constitution. If what Fijavž claims were true, then we would not be allowed to talk about changing the electoral system on national television (for example). Therefore, the democratic process by which the Constitution is changed (part of which is freedom of speech and confrontation of opinions) must be protected,” wrote the Council for the Protection of Freedom of Speech.
The Council also believes that the reference to the Constitution is an arbitrary interpretation by the editor of what something is supposed to mean. They note that the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia is the only competent court for such an interpretation. According to the information available to them, the Constitutional Court judges have not ruled on whether the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia guarantees the right to abortion. Article 55 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, which provides that the decision on the birth of children shall be up to each individual, does not mean that the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia thereby also guarantees the right to abortion. There are divided legal opinions, but only the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia can judge this, and certainly not the news editor at a public institution, which must ensure the plurality of different world views in the programmes it regulates.
In the response of the Council for the Protection of Freedom of Speech, signed by the President of the said Council, Jože Biščak, and the President of the Assembly for the Republic Janez Remškar, they therefore believe that Polona Fijavž, by her decision and unprincipled selection of guests, violated Articles 4 and 5 of the Radio-Television Slovenia Act and, as a public servant in the state media, also violated Article 39 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, which states that “freedom of expression of thought, speech and public speaking, of the press and other forms of public information and expression shall be guaranteed. Everyone shall be free to collect, receive and impart news and opinions.”
I. K.
