On 22 May, the Ministry of the Interior issued a decision with which they, as a second instance authority, definitively confirmed the administrative banning of the Thompson concert and dismissed the complaint of the Slovenian concert organiser as “unfounded”. The Ministry thereby confirmed the decision of the Maribor Administrative Unit, which justified the banning of the concert with a safety assessment that changed just a few days before the event and which compelled the police to suggest banning the initially authorised concert.
Branko Grims, the deputy of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS) and president of the Commission for the Supervision of Intelligence and Security Services (KNOVS), is convinced that a country that bans the concerts of musicians flagrantly violates the constitutional principle of freedom of expression as well as the constitutional principle of freedom of association. “In this instance, the matter is all the more constitutionally controversial because the altered safety assessment of the police and the resulting banning of the concert is justified with the ‘world view of the musician’. The very act of assessing the ‘commonly known’ (to use their words) world view of an individual is a flagrant violation of the fundamental democratic principles of society which are derived from the Slovenian constitution. Since such a justification can have grave consequences for the musician, the concert organisers, as well as all the people who wanted to attend the concert, it flagrantly violates constitutional principles and citizens’ rights and recalls a completely different time of totalitarian systems,” Grims wrote.
Grims questioned the government on their respect for the constitution
“If we subscribe to the idea that the world view of a performer can be the basis for a safety assessment and consequently the banning of a particular event (play, concert, sporting event, or anything of the kind …), we support a totalitarian police regime as a social system, which would enable us to ban any sporting, art, or other type of event that would not be to the liking of the current government – this would mean the end to any kind of democracy,” president of KNOVS made clear.
On the basis of the National Assembly of Slovenia Rules of Procedure, Branko Grims asks the government:
1. What is the opinion of the Government of Slovenia on the banning of the concert based on a changed safety assessment a few days before the event – an act which was justified with the world view of the musician?
2. Is the Government of Slovenia, which is led by a professor of constitutional law, truly convinced that the police referring to the world view of a musician when altering a safety assessment complies with fundamental principles of democracy and the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia?
3. What is the opinion of the Government of Slovenia on whether the banning of the concert complies with the constitutional right to freedom of expression and association?
4. Does the Government of Slovenia recognise the importance of the essential difference between aggressors targeting foreign countries and defenders of a home country in international law?
5. What is the opinion of the Government of Slovenia on whether the constitutional principle of equality is being exercised in light of the fact that concerts of musicians which support aggression and the slaughter of people based on nationality or religious beliefs, i.e. war crimes, have been held without any problem while the concert of a musician who legitimately and legally defended his country has been banned?
A.R.