The Scars of the Erasure_web

Erasure_4a 10.1.11 20:29 Page 106106 THE SCARS OF THE ERASUREa dead letter. In this concrete example, the Constitutional Court establishedthat the Act Regulating the Legal Status of Citizens of Former Yugoslavia Livingin the Republic of Slovenia was inconsistent with the Constitution and orderedthe legislator and the Ministry of the Interior to eliminate unconstitutionalitywithin six months. This did not happen. Until 2009, the constitutional ruling wasput into practice only in part, by issuing 4093 complementary decisions in2004; practically all other decisions were issued in 2009, while at the time ofwriting this text the above-mentioned Act has not yet been changed in accordancewith the Constitutional Court’s guidelines. Taking into account all of theabove, it is possible to conclude that the initiative to assess constitutionality iseffective only if there is sufficient political will in the country on the part of thelegislative and executive branches of the government. Consequently, the erasedpeople’s right to an effective remedy protected by international law had beenviolated at least until 2009.3.10 Prohibition of hate speechThe erased people we interviewed recounted hostile attitudes and hatespeech on the part of state officials in various situations when they attemptedto fix their legal status. When Siniša learnt that he was erased, he went to theadministrative office but found no sympathetic ear there. The officials treatedhim with contempt, telling him that he did not have the right and that he wasfree to complain to Slobodan Milošević.The official at the administrative office did not help me but said, “Mister, you’reerased, go to Milošević!” Something like that. And the policeman stopped me andsaid, “Well, you can complain to Milošević!” (Siniša, 38)Hate speech against the erased people is frequently present in politics, inParliament and in the media, including the Internet media. Online forums andcomments on journalistic texts have proved to be the most fertile ground for hatespeech. The more the erasure is discussed in public, the more frequent are hostileresponses to media reports. Hate-speech against erased people often borderson the permissible and often does not meet the criteria to qualify as thecriminal offense of inciting hatred, violence or intolerance, as defined in Article297 of the Penal Code of the Republic of Slovenia (KZ-1) which states: “Whoeverpublicly provokes or stirs up ethnic, racial, religious or other hatred, strife or intolerance,or incites other inequalities on the ground of physical or psychologicaldeficiencies or sexual orientation, will be punished by imprisonment of up to twoyears.” Therefore, to qualify as punishable, a certain instance of hate speechmust fulfill these conditions:- it must provoke or stir up hatred, strife or intolerance;