Ljubljana, 29 January (STA) - A council tasked with responding to hate speech publicly was set up on Thursday as part of a project headed by the Ljubljana-based Peace Institute for Contemporary Social and Political Studies. The Anti-Hate Speech Council will be chaired by former Information Commissioner Nataša Pirc Musar.

The best way to fight hate speech is to address the issue rather than to ignore it, believe the proponents of the project dubbed Responding to Hate Speech in Slovenia, which is partly funded by the Norwegian Financial Mechanism.

Veronika Bajt of the Peace Institute said that intolerant, xenophobic and discriminatory public discourse was becoming an ever bigger part of public communication. "Unless we respond to hate speech, we allow it to take root in public discourse."

The nine-member council is an independent body bringing together a broad circle of interested individuals from the civil society, the media, education and state institutions, while not representing any groups of interest nor institutions, the Peace Institute said, adding that its members will work pro bono.

Members of the council are also: Deputy Human Rights Ombudsman Jernej Rovšek, media researcher Brankica Petković of the Peace Institute, psychologist Metka Mencin Čeplak of the Social Sciences Faculty, gay rights activist Mitja Blažič, journalist Lea Širok, Lija Mihelič of the online hate speech watch Spletno oko, cartoonist Ciril Horjak - dr. Horowitz and rapper Zlatko.

Petković said that much of hate speech in Slovenia was generated by politicians.

Rovšek meanwhile argued that the definition of hate speech in Slovenian legislation was rather narrow, so he announced the council would also draw attention to unacceptable discourse.

The council moreover intends to discuss the definition of hate speech, he said.

It will base its work on hate speech on the definition of the Council of Europe, which says the term covers "all forms of expression which spread, incite, promote or justify racial hatred, xenophobia, anti-Semitism or other forms of hatred based on intolerance, including: intolerance expressed by aggressive nationalism and ethnocentrism, discrimination and hostility against minorities, migrants and people of immigrant origin".

In accordance with the provisions of Article 19 of the Minor Offences Act (the ZP-1), a court may force an offender who fails to pay a fine partially or entirely within the specified time limit to pay said fine by imposing on him or her fine enforcement by imprisonment. The Human Rights Ombudsman believes that the introduction of fine enforcement by imprisonment into our legal order is problematic from many aspects and that the regulation itself is inadequate. The Ombudsman has been concerned about the issue of fine enforcement by imprisonment since its entry into force. We wrote on this matter in our 2010 Annual Report (p. 121).  Since all of the amendments to the ZP-1 ignored our views and the warnings of (at least some of) the experts who have objected to this measure and pointed to doubts about its constitutionality, the Ombudsman, believing that this measure encroached upon human rights or fundamental freedoms, proposed at the beginning of 2012 that the Constitutional Court should review the constitutionality of paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the ZP-1 and repeal it on the grounds of its being in contravention of the Constitution.

In the review of constitutionality, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia ruled at its session of 11 December 2014 that paragraphs 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Article 19, paragraph 7 of Article 19, insofar as it refers to the execution of fine enforcement by imprisonment, and Article 202.b of the Minor Offences Act (Uradni list RS (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia), Nos. 29/11 – official consolidated text 21/12 and 111/13) should be repealed. The court also ruled that all decision-making proceedings on fine enforcement by imprisonment that have not been completed by the time of the publication of this decision of the Constitutional Court in Uradni list RS should be stayed.  Where proceedings on fine enforcement by imprisonment have been completed, fine enforcement by imprisonment should not be executed or its execution should be stayed.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia did not find the challenged measure of fine enforcement by imprisonment unconstitutional. However, it established that individual conditions and the regulation of the procedure as they are prescribed for the imposition of fine enforcement by imprisonment were in contravention of the Constitution, as they failed to provide to a sufficient extent the guarantees that are provided for by said Constitution. Since the established unconstitutionality, particularly the way this measure was regulated, did not allow the court to repeal only particular provisions, the court repealed fine enforcement by imprisonment in total. In Decision U-I-12/12 of 11 December 2014, the court emphasised, among other things, that, in the event of an offender failing to perform the tasks in the general interest in their entirety, the court, in accordance with the ZP-1, should reject his or her appeal even if the offender has proved in the proceedings for deciding on the proposal for the performance of tasks in the general interest that he or she is unable to pay the fine due to his or her poor financial situation; the challenged regulation therefore misses its goal, not being an appropriate means of achieving the ends envisaged and being in contravention of the right referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Constitution. In addition, the ZP-1 is in contravention of the requirement for proportional balance between the consequences of encroaching on personal freedom and benefits that might arise from it, as it excludes the possibility of a court taking into account the amount of the fine imposed and not paid when determining the duration of the imprisonment for the enforcement of the fine. This is why it is in contravention of the right referred to in paragraph 1 of Article 19 of the Constitution. The regulation by which the court imposes fine enforcement by imprisonment on an offender without inviting him or her to state reasons against such a decision, whereby the court decides on the basis of a formally conducted procedure, encroaches on the right to an impartial court and the right to make a statement. Since fine enforcement by imprisonment encroaches on personal freedom, it should not be the only measure used to tackle a default in payment, as this intention cannot justify the encroachment on the right to an impartial court and the right to make a statement at the initial stage of decision-making on fine enforcement by imprisonment. This is why the challenged regulation, which makes this possible, is in contravention of Article 22 and paragraph 1 of Article 23 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia therefore upheld the view of the Ombudsman, which had constantly drawn attention to the fact that the regulation of fine enforcement by imprisonment encroaches upon human rights or fundamental freedoms. If the legislature decides to insist on this measure, it will have to regulate fine enforcement by imprisonment anew, with the new regulation taking into consideration the guarantees provided for by the Constitution.

Ljubljana, 15 January (STA) - The Human Rights Ombudsman joined on Thursday the debate on the EUR 10m cut in the education funds planned by the government, expressing criticism that the measures will abolish the funding of additional teaching aids to special needs children.

The ombudsman's office said in a press release that the government did not specify how long the cuts would be in place.

The EUR 10m savings plan imposed on 1 January includes several measures, but the biggest cut, worth over EUR 3m, was imposed on teaching aids for special needs children.

The ombudsman pointed out that Slovenia was obligated to work to the benefit of children and provide them with the best education, health care and welfare possible in line with the Children's Rights Convention.

The government could find a number of other fields where funds are being spent carelessly and without oversight, the press release said, adding that the cuts in teaching aids should be scrapped.

Ljubljana, 13 January (STA) - Pollution was in the focus during a meeting Human Rights Ombudsman Vlasta Nussdorfer held with Environment and Spatial Planning Minister Irena Majcen on Tuesday. Nussdorfer presented to the minister the environmental issues for which people most often complaint to the ombudsman.

Air pollution issues related to French-owned cement maker Lafarge Cement, located in the town of Trbovlje, and soil pollution from past operations of Celje chemical company Cinkarna Celje are among the issues most often addressed by those who turn to the ombudsman for help.

"After eight years, we are back to square one," Nussdorfer said of Lafarge Cement, which has been trying to get a permit to burn waste for years despite strong objections from locals.

"There is no environmental permit, the issue has been referred back to the Environmental Agency and raises a number of questions as regards the jurisdiction of inspection services," she said.

Majcen agreed with the ombudsman that the procedure was taking a very long time, underlining that the ministry devoted a lot of time to the Lafarge-related issues.

The pair moreover talked about soil pollution on the site of Cinkarna Celje and the Mežica valley, where there is a high content of lead in the soil.

Nussdorfer said that her office will keep a close eye on the general health of the population in these areas and will continue to demand action from authorities.