The defendant would have had access to judicial protection post festum or not at all
A group of former members of the Human Rights Protection Committee, established 38 years ago, has initiated a referendum against a coalition-backed amendment to the parliamentary inquiry law. The proposed amendment, which is legally disputed and incomplete, reintroduces inconsistencies with the constitution that were previously resolved. The initiators argue that the amendment seeks to eliminate one of the key safeguards against political abuse of parliamentary inquiry commissions. They claim the amendment would limit the ability of individuals under investigation to challenge the decision to initiate an inquiry before the Constitutional Court, and would only grant them legal protection after the conclusion of the inquiry. The amendment introduces a form of administrative justice as an alternative to constitutional review, allowing victims of alleged human rights violations during parliamentary inquiries to file lawsuits within eight days of receiving the final report. Critics, including the legislative assembly’s legal service, warn that the amendment lowers the standard of legal protection for those investigated, is unclear, and does not provide effective legal recourse, as court
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and your personalized For You feed.
A group of former members of Slovenia’s Human Rights Committee has collected over 44,600 signatures to call for a referendum on a recently passed amendment to the law on parliamentary investigations. The proposed referendum aims to challenge whether Slovenia will continue to operate under a system where political power is legally constrained by judicial oversight or if it will shift toward a model where political actors have unchecked control over investigative mechanisms. Critics argue that the amendment removes individuals’ ability to appeal against decisions made by parliamentary investigation committees at the Constitutional Court, effectively enabling a form of 'political police.' The amendment would allow politicians to access personal data—including banking records, private communications, audio and video recordings—without requiring court approval. The Constitutional Court is expected to decide soon on the legality of this referendum.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both perspectives—those supporting the referendum and those opposing it—and does not favor one side through loaded language, one-sided sourcing, or omission of context. It provides balanced quotes from proponents and critics of the law, allowing readers to draw their own结论.
Why factuality (88): This article provides accurate details about the referendum campaign, including the number of signatures collected (44,619) and the involvement of specific individuals. It references the primary source document’s information about the legal framework and the concerns raised by critics. Minor discrep
Why objectivity (68): The article maintains a somewhat balanced tone but still uses emotionally charged language, particularly around the term 'politična policija'. While it presents both sides of the argument, the emphasis on the threat posed by the law leans slightly toward the opposition perspective.
Zanima.meIndependentProgressiveFactual 87Objective 6619 hr. ago
The article discusses a referendum campaign in Slovenia regarding a proposed amendment to the parliamentary inquiry law, which has been framed by campaigners as introducing a 'political police.' Over 44,600 signatures were collected against the amendment, highlighting concerns that it could enable politically motivated investigations and reduce individual legal protections. Supporters argue the amendment opens the door to politically biased inquiries, while opponents claim these claims are exaggerated. The term 'political police' is examined through historical examples like East Germany’s Stasi, the Soviet KGB, and Yugoslavia’s UDBA, all of which engaged in covert surveillance and suppression of political dissent. Publicist Igor Omerza explains that the concept refers to secret operations by authorities against perceived political enemies, contrasting it with parliamentary inquiry commissions, which he argues are transparent and not equivalent to a 'political police.'
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the opposition to the proposed amendment as a legitimate concern over potential abuse of power, emphasizing transparency and legal protections. It highlights the risks of politically motivated investigations and draws parallels to authoritarian regimes, suggesting a left-leaning关切
Why factuality (87): The article accurately reflects the number of signatures (44,619) and the motivations behind the referendum, referencing the primary source document. It includes quotes from key figures and explains the legal implications of the proposed law. There is some overlap with other articles, but the facts
Why objectivity (66): The tone is passionate and urgent, using phrases like 'vojna' (war) and 'antidemokracijo' (anti-democracy). This suggests a clear alignment with the referendum supporters, potentially influencing the reader's perception of the issue.
The article reports on a political initiative led by former members of the opposition, non-governmental actors, and disgraced politicians who have submitted signatures for a constitutional referendum aimed at amending the parliamentary inquiry law. The group, described as part of the 'transitional left,' has collected over 44,619 signatures, which they claim could trigger a legislative referendum. The article frames these individuals as hard-left figures, some of whom are labeled as communists, and highlights specific names including Rastko Močnik, a registered Udbe informant, and others like Franca Jurij, Pavla Gantar, and Vlado Miheljak. It criticizes the proposed law as limiting the ability of those under investigation to challenge the initiation of an inquiry before the Constitutional Court, calling the referendum a fight against political arbitrariness. The tone suggests a strong ideological stance against the current government, drawing comparisons to past authoritarian regimes.
Bias read (Progressive): The article presents the referendum initiative as a democratic struggle against political abuse, using strong ideological language and labeling opponents as 'communists' and 'anti-democrats.' It emphasizes the threat posed by the current government and frames the proposed law as an attack on civil,
Why factuality (86): The article accurately reports the number of signatures (44,619) and the context of the referendum campaign. It references the primary source document and includes relevant legal arguments. Some repetition occurs, but the core facts remain consistent with the primary source.
Why objectivity (67): While the article remains relatively objective, it uses emotionally charged language, especially when describing the potential consequences of the law. Phrases like 'vojna' (war) and 'antidemokracijo' (anti-democracy) suggest a pro-referendum stance.
The article reports on opposition parties in Slovenia preparing to actively participate in a referendum campaign regarding a proposed amendment to the parliamentary inquiry law. The initiative has gathered over 44,000 signatures from voters in the National Assembly. Opposition figures from Gibanje Svoboda, SD, and Levica/Vesna emphasize the need to prevent abuse of parliamentary inquiries and protect civil liberties. They argue the proposed law would enable unchecked investigations against individuals without legal recourse. The ruling coalition, led by Resnica, is accused of blocking the establishment of investigative commissions while simultaneously drafting legislation that could allow arbitrary investigations. The article highlights tensions between the governing coalition and opposition groups over the balance of power and legal protections.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the opposition's stance as protective of democratic institutions and civil rights, emphasizing concerns about potential abuse of power. It criticizes the ruling coalition for contradictory actions—blocking investigative commissions while proposing laws that could enable broad, un-
Why factuality (85): The article reports on the opposition's involvement in the referendum campaign and mentions the collection of over 44,000 signatures, aligning with the primary source document which states 47,223 signatures were collected. It accurately reflects the political stance of the opposition parties but doe
Why objectivity (70): The article presents the opposition's perspective and emphasizes their active participation in the campaign, using emotionally charged language like 'political police' and 'activating citizens.' This suggests a biased tone favoring the opposition.
More than 44,600 signatures have been collected for a constitutional referendum opposing a proposed amendment to Slovenia’s law on parliamentary investigation. The initiative was launched by former members of the Human Rights Committee established 38 years ago, including figures like Franco Juri and Vlado Miheljak. They argue the amendment would remove protections allowing individuals under investigation to request a constitutional review of the legality of the inquiry. The group claims this referendum is not just about legal changes but represents a broader struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. They accuse the ruling majority of targeting civil society, NGOs, and the media, drawing parallels to Hungary under Viktor Orbán. The proposal has now been submitted to parliament, which has seven days to decide whether to hold the referendum.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a battle against 'authoritarianism' and 'anti-democratic' forces, using strong language such as 'war between democracy and anti-democracy.' It emphasizes the threat posed by the ruling majority to civil liberties and draws explicit comparisons to Hungary under Or
Why factuality (85): The article reports on the submission of over 44,600 signatures for a referendum against a parliamentary inquiry law, aligning with the primary source document which mentions 47,223 signatures. It accurately describes the context, including the involvement of former human rights committee members an
Why objectivity (65): The tone is highly emotive and confrontational, using strong metaphors such as 'vojna' (war) and 'politična policija' (political police). The article frames the issue as a battle between democracy and anti-democracy, which could be seen as biased towards the referendum supporters.
The article reports on a political action where former members of the Slovenian opposition, non-governmental actors, and disgraced politicians submitted signatures for a constitutional referendum aimed at amending the parliamentary inquiry law. The initiative, supported by the media, presents these individuals as former human rights protection committee members but criticizes them as hard-left figures who have not adequately upheld democracy and human rights. It specifically names Rastko Močnik, a registered Udbe informant, along with other disgraced politicians such as Franca Jurij, Pavel Gantar, and others, some of whom are involved in legal issues related to misuse of public funds. The article frames the proposed law change as an attempt to limit the ability of those under investigation to challenge the initiation of an inquiry before the Constitutional Court, which supporters argue would prevent abuse of power. The rhetoric used suggests that the referendum represents a broader struggle against 'political arbitrariness' and warns of potential authoritarianism similar to past experiences in Hungary under Viktor Orbán.
Bias read (Progressive): The article uses strong left-leaning language, portraying the signatories as victims of a democratic system and framing the proposed law change as an attack on democracy. It labels opponents as 'hard-left' and 'communists,' while emphasizing their alleged failure to uphold democratic values. The use
Why factuality (84): The article accurately reports the number of signatures (44,619) and the reasons for the referendum, matching the primary source. It also discusses the legal implications of the law and the concerns raised by critics. The tone is generally consistent with the primary source, though it occasionally u
Why objectivity (66): The article maintains a reasonable level of objectivity but still uses terms like 'vojna' (war) and 'antidemokracijo' (anti-democracy), which can be seen as biased towards the referendum supporters.
The article reports that over 44,619 verified signatures were submitted to the Slovenian Parliament (Državni zbor) for a referendum on a legislative amendment regarding parliamentary investigations. This exceeds the legal threshold of 40,000 signatures required to trigger a constitutional referendum. The petitioners argue that the amendment removes a key safeguard against political abuse of parliamentary investigations, allowing greater powers to establish investigative committees. They warn that the amendment could enable unchecked access to personal data, communications, and financial records of individuals and their families, potentially infringing on privacy rights. Petitioners frame the referendum as a democratic safeguard against authoritarian overreach, with some calling the proposed law a step toward fascism. The referendum is expected to take place in late autumn, after the proposal is reviewed by a parliamentary committee.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a defense against political abuse and authoritarianism, using strong language such as 'fašizem' (fascism) and emphasizing threats to democracy and individual rights. It highlights concerns about increased state power and potential violations of privacy, which are
Why factuality (83): The article accurately reports the number of signatures (44,619) and the arguments against the law, aligning with the primary source. It includes quotes from key figures and explains the legal implications of the proposed changes. The factual content is reliable, though some emotional language is us
Why objectivity (65): The tone is again emotionally charged, using phrases like 'vojna' (war) and 'antidemokracijo' (anti-democracy). This suggests a clear alignment with the referendum supporters and a possible bias in the narrative.
The Slovenian National Assembly is set to discuss a proposal for a constitutional referendum on a new law regarding parliamentary investigations. The initiative, supported by over 44,000 signatures, was submitted by former members of the Human Rights Committee and activists who argue the proposed law threatens democratic principles by limiting the ability of individuals under investigation to challenge the legality of the inquiry before the Constitutional Court. They claim the law would enable the ruling majority to target civil society organizations, NGOs, and unions, echoing concerns similar to those raised under Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. Activists emphasize that this referendum is not just about legal changes but represents a broader struggle between democracy and authoritarianism.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a defense of democracy against 'politically motivated' actions by the ruling majority, using strong language like 'war between democracy and anti-democracy,' 'authoritarian and repressive state,' and references to Hungary under Orbán. It emphasizes the threat to'
Why factuality (80): The article accurately reports the submission of 44,619 signatures for the referendum on parliamentary inquiry laws, matching the primary source. It includes quotes from key figures and explains the purpose of the referendum, showing alignment with the primary source. It also mentions the expected t
Why objectivity (75): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting both sides of the debate, including concerns about the erosion of protections and the political implications. It avoids taking an overtly partisan stance.
An article reports that 44,600 signatures have been collected in support of a referendum on parliamentary investigation. The initiative was launched by former members of the Human Rights Protection Committee, including Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, and others. They argue that the proposed law undermines democratic principles by limiting the ability of individuals under investigation to challenge the legality of the inquiry before the Constitutional Court. The group claims the referendum would represent a broader fight against political authoritarianism and the erosion of democratic standards. They emphasize that the issue goes beyond legal content and relates to the preservation of fundamental rights and freedoms.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a defense of democracy against authoritarian tendencies, using strong language such as 'war between democracy and anti-democracy' and 'authoritarian and repressive state.' It emphasizes the role of civil society and opposition groups, portraying the legislation's
Why factuality (80): This article closely mirrors the primary source by reporting the submission of 44,619 signatures for the referendum on parliamentary inquiry laws. It provides context about the proposed changes and the rationale behind the referendum, staying aligned with the primary source’s facts.
Why objectivity (75): The tone remains objective, focusing on the legal and democratic implications of the law without overtly supporting or opposing any particular party or ideology.
The article reports that approximately 44,619 signatures were collected in support of a constitutional referendum on parliamentary investigation reforms, which has now been submitted to the Slovenian Parliament (DZ). The initiative was led by former members of the Human Rights Committee, established 38 years ago, including Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, Spomenka Hribar, Gregor Tomc, Rastko Močnik, Igor Vidmar, and Vlado Miheljak. They argue that the proposed law would limit the ability of individuals under investigation to challenge the decision to initiate an inquiry before the Constitutional Court, effectively removing their right to seek a judicial review. The organizers claim the referendum goes beyond legal content and represents a broader fight against political authoritarianism, drawing parallels to the situation in Hungary under Viktor Orbán. They emphasize that the reform aims to suppress civil society, non-governmental organizations, and opposition voices, and they hope to mobilize citizens to vote against the law.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a struggle against political authoritarianism and democratic erosion, using strong language such as 'war between democracy and anti-democracy' and 'falling into an authoritarian and repressive state.' It emphasizes the threat posed by the proposed law to civil-sy
Why factuality (80): The article accurately reports the submission of 44,619 signatures for the referendum on parliamentary inquiry laws, consistent with the primary source. It includes quotes from key figures and outlines the potential impact of the law, maintaining factual consistency.
Why objectivity (75): The tone is balanced, discussing both the legal aspects and the broader democratic implications without leaning heavily toward either side.
In Slovenia, a group of former members of the Human Rights Committee, established 38 years ago, has submitted a petition with approximately 44,619 signatures to initiate a constitutional referendum on a proposed amendment to the parliamentary inquiry law. The initiative aims to prevent the removal of 'guardians' who allow potential suspects to request a constitutional review of the investigation's legitimacy before proceeding. The petitioners argue that the amendment undermines democratic principles by limiting the ability of individuals under investigation to challenge the legality of their case. They frame the referendum as a broader struggle against political authoritarianism, drawing parallels to past experiences in other countries. The proposal was submitted to the Slovenian Parliament (DZ), and the deadline for organizing the referendum has now begun. The campaign is expected to involve civil society organizations, trade unions, and opposition parties.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a defense of democracy against political authoritarianism, using strong language such as 'war between democracy and anti-democracy,' and references historical examples like Hungary under Orbán. It emphasizes the role of civil society and opposition groups, which傾
Why factuality (80): The article reports the number of signatures (44,619) and the main arguments against the law, which align with the primary source. However, it introduces stronger rhetoric, such as calling the law an 'uvod v fašizem' (introduction to fascism), which is not explicitly stated in the primary source.
Why objectivity (60): The tone is highly polemical, using extreme language like 'fašizem' (fascism) to describe the law. This indicates a clear ideological leaning towards the referendum supporters and reduces objectivity.
The organizers of a referendum have postponed signing the petition, stating that 'this law is an introduction to fascism.' The headline suggests strong opposition to a proposed law, which the activists believe would lead to authoritarian governance. The article highlights the controversy surrounding the legislation and the growing concern among citizens about its potential impact on democratic values. No specific details about the law or the reasons for postponing the petition are provided beyond the activist's statement.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the law as a step toward fascism, implying a significant threat to democracy. This framing aligns with left-leaning perspectives that often critique policies they view as authoritarian or regressive. The emphasis on the law being 'an introduction to fascism' carries a strong moral
Why factuality (78): This article repeats much of the content from previous articles, including the number of signatures (44,619) and the arguments against the law. However, it adds new rhetorical elements, such as the claim that the law is an 'uvod v fašizem' (introduction to fascism), which is not substantiated by the
Why objectivity (58): The article continues to use strong, emotionally charged language, reinforcing the idea that the law represents a dangerous shift towards authoritarianism. This suggests a lack of balance and a clear ideological position.
VečerIndependent🔒CenterFactual 75Objective 605 days ago
The article discusses a proposal to introduce two fixed referendum days per year and a consultative referendum mechanism initiated by voters. The initiative, led by representatives like Dušan Keber and Katarina Rotar, suggests that these changes would improve organizational efficiency, reduce costs, and prevent political manipulation of referendum dates. They argue that fixed referendum days would make citizens aware of their direct decision-making power and could increase voter turnout. The consultative referendum would allow voters to propose topics for discussion, though it would not be binding. The proposal draws inspiration from Switzerland’s system of four annual referendum days. The idea is to enable more democratic engagement while ensuring legal compliance and protecting minority rights.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the proposal in a balanced manner, explaining both the potential benefits and the rationale behind the changes. It does not overtly favor either side but provides factual information about the proposed reforms. The tone remains neutral, focusing on the mechanics and implications
Why factuality (75): The article introduces a new initiative proposing two referendum days and a consultative referendum, which is not covered in the primary source. While it refers to the existing referendum movement, it diverges into a different proposal, making it less aligned with the primary source.
Why objectivity (60): The tone is advocacy-oriented, promoting the idea of reforming the referendum process, which suggests a clear ideological position rather than neutrality.
N1 SlovenijaIndependentCenterFactual 70Objective 654 days ago
The Slovenian Constitutional Court has been called to meet next week to assess the constitutionality of a decision by the State Council rejecting a referendum on the 'intervention law'. The law was passed by conservative MPs before the formation of the new government and aims to reduce work burdens, boost competitiveness, and attract investment. Meanwhile, trade unions argue the law undermines social partners' core areas, threatens public sector wages and pensions, and violates constitutional provisions regarding taxes and compulsory contributions. Over 47,000 citizens have signed a petition to trigger a referendum, but the State Council has ruled against it. The Constitutional Court is expected to review this decision within 30 days.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both sides of the debate—proponents of the intervention law and opponents represented by trade unions—with balanced reporting. It does not take a clear ideological stance, nor does it emphasize one side over the other. The focus remains on the legal process and the implications,
Why factuality (70): The article discusses the upcoming session of the Constitutional Court regarding the referendum's constitutionality but does not provide detailed information about the number of signatures or the specific content of the law. It references the primary source indirectly but lacks depth on the actual p
Why objectivity (65): The tone leans towards concern about the legitimacy of the referendum process, using terms like 'dopustnosti referenduma' and emphasizing the need for judicial oversight, which could be seen as subtly critical of the political process.
DomovinaIndependentProgressiveFactual 70Objective 605 days ago
The article discusses the low turnout in a July 2026 referendum in Ljubljana regarding a parking regulation, highlighting concerns over democratic engagement and institutional trust. With nearly 94% of voters rejecting the measure, the referendum failed due to insufficient participation, falling short of the required threshold. The author suggests that the timing—during summer holidays—may have been strategically chosen to reduce voter turnout, potentially undermining democratic processes. The cost of organizing the referendum was approximately €1 million, or around €23 per vote, raising questions about the efficiency of traditional voting methods. The piece references global trends of declining voter participation, citing data from the Stockholm-based International IDEA institute, which notes a ten-percentage-point drop in average global voter turnout over the past fifteen years. It concludes by questioning whether electronic voting could improve democratic legitimacy and mentions ongoing research into this issue.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the low voter turnout as a systemic failure of democracy, suggesting deliberate manipulation through timing and bureaucratic barriers. It criticizes the political establishment for maintaining technological backwardness and obstructing democratic participation. While not overtly煽动
Why factuality (70): The article discusses the failed referendum on the parking regulation and compares it to the current situation, mentioning the low turnout and costs. However, it lacks direct reference to the primary source document about the intervention law referendum and focuses more on past events rather than th
Why objectivity (60): The tone is critical of the government and the system, using phrases like 'grezen streznitev' and 'razmetavanje davkoplačevalskega denarja,' suggesting a strong bias against the political establishment.
A group of former members of Slovenia’s Human Rights Protection Committee, including Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, and others, has initiated a referendum on a proposed amendment to the law on parliamentary investigation. They collected over 44,619 signatures from voters and submitted the request to the National Assembly (DZ) on Tuesday. The proposed amendment would limit individuals under investigation from challenging the legality of the investigation before the Constitutional Court. The referendum, if approved, would ask voters whether they support the implementation of this new law. The National Assembly is expected to decide on the referendum date by Thursday, with the official referendum scheduled for October 11, and the deadline for preparations set for September 1.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation objectively, outlining both the proponents’ concerns about the proposed legal changes and the procedural steps being taken. It does not favor one side over the other, nor does it use biased language or selectively omit information. The framing remains neutral, with
A group of former members of Slovenia’s Human Rights Protection Committee, including Franco Juri, Pavel Gantar, and others, has initiated a referendum to challenge proposed changes to the law on parliamentary investigation. They collected over 44,619 signatures from voters and eligible citizens to submit the request to the National Assembly. The proposed amendment would limit individuals under investigation from requesting a constitutional review of the legality of the inquiry before the Constitutional Court. The referendum, if approved, would ask voters whether they support the implementation of this new law. The National Assembly is expected to decide on the referendum date by Thursday, with the vote itself scheduled for October 11. The deadline for organizing the referendum would be set at September 1.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the situation objectively, outlining both the initiative behind the referendum and the content of the proposed legal changes without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from Juri and references the formal process within the National Assembly, providing a fact
The Slovenian parliament has agreed to hold an extraordinary session to address a request for a constitutional referendum on a controversial law amendment regarding parliamentary investigations. The proposed referendum would allow citizens to vote on whether to implement changes to the parliamentary investigation law passed by the National Council on May 26, 2026. The initiative was launched by former members of the Human Rights Protection Committee, who collected nearly 45,000 signatures with support from civil society organizations and opposition parties. The referendum would take place in October, with the official call for votes scheduled for September 1. The proposal aims to prevent the removal of 'guardians'—individuals who can request a constitutional review before an investigation begins—and would limit the ability of those under investigation to challenge the decision at the Constitutional Court. Supporters argue the referendum represents a stand against political overreach.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a democratic check against political overreach, emphasizing the role of civil society and opposition groups in mobilizing support. It highlights concerns about limiting judicial oversight and describes the initiative as a 'referendum against political arbitrarism
RTV Slovenija (MMC)State / PublicProgressive4 hr. ago
The Slovenian parliament (DZ) is set to consider a request for a constitutional referendum on amendments to the parliamentary inquiry law (ZPPre-B), which was approved by the National Assembly on May 26, 2026. The proposed referendum would take place on October 11, following the collection of over 44,619 signatures from voters and citizens, submitted to the DZ on Tuesday. The initiative was led by former members of the Human Rights Protection Committee, including Jure Frančić, who argue that the amendment undermines the ability of individuals subjected to inquiries to challenge the validity of the inquiry before the Constitutional Court. They frame the referendum as a broader protest against 'political arbitrariness' rather than just a legal change.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a fight against 'political arbitrariness,' using emotive language such as 'proti politični samovolji' (against political arbitrariness). It emphasizes the democratic process through citizen participation and portrays the opposition as defenders of rights, while淡化
The Slovenian parliament has agreed to call an extraordinary session to address a request for a constitutional referendum on a law amendment regarding parliamentary investigations. The proposed referendum would take place on October 11th, with the legal framework for the vote set to be finalized by September 1st. The initiative was launched by former members of the Human Rights Committee, including Franco Juri, who argue that the referendum would prevent the removal of safeguards allowing individuals under investigation to seek a constitutional review of the legality of the investigation. They claim the referendum would go beyond legal content and represent a 'referendum against political arbitrariness.' The proposal was submitted to the National Assembly on Tuesday, and the parliamentary committee for justice will prepare a draft resolution on the referendum's date.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the referendum as a significant democratic action against political overreach, emphasizing the importance of constitutional safeguards and the role of civil society in holding power accountable. The language used highlights the potential threat posed by the proposed law amendment,
★
Keep the news honest.
ObjectiveNews is reader-funded and ad-free — we show you the bias instead of hiding it. Support independent journalism for €5/month.
Slovenia
