The interpellation was not successful, but what standards is the institute of interpellation subject to in our country if the interpellation even happened at all?

Minister of the interior Aleš Hojs.

The interpellation against Minister Hojs fell in a democratic way, in the National Assembly: more deputies voted against it than in support of it. But we came close to there being more votes for the interpellation than against it, and in a democratic way, Minister Hojs could have already been a former Minister by now. If the interpellation was morally unjustified and legally unfounded, as the winners claim, what does this mean for the institute of interpellation itself, if the collapse of standards still allows for such a filing against the Minister to happen? And for our readers, we have once again checked what supposedly morally and legally justified the aforementioned interpellation, and have shown that in both categories, the reasons could be labelled as – nonsense. We have also reviewed the statements of some key politicians on the subject of the failed interpellation.

Let us remind you what the interpellation was actually about, with a timeline of the events leading up to it: Thompson‘s concert in Maribor was banned, the administrative court annulled this decision, Minister Hojs lifted the ban. Although Hojs has not signed any document, allowing Thompson to perform in Maribor – he only followed the instructions of the experts on lifting the ban, he was accused of supporting the Ustasha movement. This was an attempt at both a moral justification as well as legal justification for the interpellation. All of the other accusations did not come as part of the accumulation of various types of evidence against the Minister, but as a predictable, and also unpredictable reaction in the style of someone whose only piece of evidence is shattered, but he cannot come to terms with it, so he starts naming all of the negative things he can think of at the moment. How very dilettante.

The next thing that the MPs who filed the interpellation motion accused Minister Hojs of was interfering in the work of the police. Giving direction to the police, which is also one of the functions of the Minister, is, by definition, a legal type of interference in the work of the police. Of course, there is a certain limit to how a Minister may and may not direct the police in its work, and Minister Hojs easily rejected the allegations that he crossed the line in his giving of directions. In all of this, it was even more problematic that those who filed the interpellation were not even able to clearly articulate whether they opposed the function of interference alone, or opposed to a particular interference, and why. This was all done at the level of communication described above.

The third thing that the Minister was questioned about, in the slippery slope of the already low standards of argumentation, is why he is still performing his function, even though he resigned, and then in the middle of the interpellation against Hojs, the opposition’s MPs started attacking Janez Janša and the SDS party. From the point of view of argumentation and standards of conduct in the National Assembly, this was the last straw.

A symbol of the grotesqueness of the interpellation and the low intellectual range of the opposition are the tweets of the SD party and their MP Matjaž Nemec. Let’s look at one of the most significant ones: “We get into the paradox of looking for the perpetrators of a crime, even before there are grounds to suspect that the crime was committed. And these are the controversial things that I want to point out, without ideologies, without everything, and here, Minister, in my opinion, you have crossed the line. “

 This statement would make sense if the interpellation was not based on the matter of the SD party wanting to ban the rock concert because it SUPPOSEDLY encouraged violence and glorified the criminal and totalitarian regime. Let’s just forget the fact that members of the SD party regularly worship the main actors of the criminal and totalitarian regime, even Thompson himself distanced himself from the Ustasha movement, and they are prosecuting the alleged verbal offenses that could hypothetically become physical.

Here is what the Minister wrote, in response to the interpellation: “While reading the content of the interpellation, I was personally offended, as was my extended family. We never sympathized with or supported the Ustashas. I am not signed under any document related to the concert. The SD party’s propaganda on this topic in the last week is reminiscent of Goebbels’ methods.”

And here are some of the responses of other prominent politicians: “Congratulations on a good fight and a convincing victory!” wrote the Member of the European Parliament, Milan Zver. Anja Bah Žibert, a member of the SDS party, wrote the following: “The SD party’s primitive introduction of the interpellation against Minister Hojs was already filled with nonsense and lies. Matjaž Nemec once again referred to the findings of the Commission for the Supervision of Intelligence and Security Services. The only truth is that the Commission found nothing! Tanja Fajon, you should be ashamed! Is that all you’ve got?”

This is the tweet that was posted on the official twitter profile of the SDS party: “Branko Grims: All that the #interpellation is based on, is legal ignorance and the conscious incitement of negative emotions. It is the inciting of intolerance, which is actually unconstitutional conduct. Its purpose is to deepen the ideological differences.”

And the President of the SNS party, Zmago Jelinčič, tweeted the following: “Yesterday, the leftists repeatedly said: “Today, we will present ARGUMENTS for the Minister’s resignations.” REASONS!!!, not arguments. You support the REASONS for the resignation with arguments, not the resignation itself.”

Aleš Ernecl