Jean Mahnič without a hair on his tongue: Udba people collected signatures against the political police
The article reports on a debate in Slovenia's National Council regarding a proposal to hold a constitutional referendum on parliamentary investigations. SDS MP Žan Mahnič strongly supported the referendum, criticizing the opposition, particularly the Freedom Movement, for hypocrisy and misuse of power. He highlighted that over 40,000 signatures were collected against 'political police,' noting irony in former communists signing such petitions. Mahnič accused opponents of wanting to return to Yugoslavia and communism, and criticized the practice of checking bank accounts, questioning who investigated specific individuals and citing alleged misconduct by Vesna Vuković. He framed the referendum as a vote on corruption and urged citizens to participate, warning that voting against would mean accepting clientelism and corruption. Mahnič also addressed claims of reading SMS messages, arguing that Slovenian police lack legal authority to monitor encrypted apps like WhatsApp or Signal. He compared internal coalition communications to the Karigador scandal, asserting they are unrelated to political policing. The article highlights Mahnič’s accusations of double standards, pointing out that,
At the 19th extraordinary session of the National Assembly, lawmakers debated a proposal to hold a constitutional referendum on amendments to the Law on Parliamentary Inquiry. The motion was supported by SDS MP Žan Mahnič, who criticized the opposition, particularly the Freedom Movement, for hypocrisy, abuse of power, and fear of effective parliamentary investigations. He highlighted that over 40,000 signatures had been collected in support of the referendum, noting the irony of collecting them against a "political police." Mahnič pointed out that many signatories might have interpreted the initiative differently, believing they were supporting a return to Yugoslavia and the communist party. Mahnič sharply criticized the practice of checking bank accounts, questioning who had accessed the accounts of Zoran Mojškerc, private firms, and clients of Democracy. He cited alleged conversations in which Vesna Vuković allegedly boasted that she had ordered the submission of requests to the Financial Inspection Service (Furs) and had influenced the director to send more data than required. “Are you talking about these abuses? The thief is shouting, catch the thief,” he remarked. He labeled the referendum a “referendum on corruption” and urged citizens to vote en masse on October 11. Those voting against, he claimed, would be supporting “corruption, clientelism, and the status quo, and should never speak about these issues again.” He also addressed claims about reading SMS messages, stating that only the Slovenian police could intercept SMS messages. He advised citizens to install apps such as WhatsApp, Viber, Signal, or other applications that operate through data transfer since the Slovenian police lack both tools and legal authority to monitor these apps. He compared the exposure of SMS and email content (such as the Karigador affair) with internal discussions within the coalition, asserting that these had nothing to do with political police or investigative committees. Mahnič highlighted cases he believed demonstrated double standards. He mentioned accusations against MPs (including NSi MP Jožef Horvat) who merely supported the establishment of the authorized group KNOVS, while in the previous term, the same group had conducted similar practices. He criticized Nataša Sukić for voting against the inquiry committee into Franc Kangler during her tenure from 2018 to 2022, and Urška Klakočar Zupančič for not wanting to establish an investigation into GEN-I and Robert Golob. Instead, they allowed individuals or private entities to file complaints with the Constitutional Court within 30 days, a move Mahnič claimed undermined the effectiveness of parliamentary inquiries. “Who was the judicial protection made for? For Robert Golob. For Robert Golob and his queen from the ministry, you created judicial protection. Because your deity is untouchable,” he stated. Mahnič also strongly criticized the investigative committee regarding the interference of the third Janez Janša government in the police and the Unified Police and Protection Directorate (UPPD). “Where are the results? ... When Anika Vrabec happened, there was no further meeting. According to Damjan Žuglj’s account, there was no further meeting in a year and a half.” He noted that Anika Vrabec initially worked on the UPPD case involving Telemach, later moved to Telemach, and returned as director, after which the committee ceased its sessions despite the coalition holding a majority. Mahnič listed several instances where he believed the current government had acted inconsistently. He referenced the handling of the Anika Vrabec case, highlighting how the committee stopped functioning after she returned to the UPPD, even though the coalition still held a majority. He argued that this inconsistency reflected a broader pattern of selective enforcement and lack of transparency. The debate over the proposed referendum has intensified tensions between the ruling coalition and the opposition. While the ruling parties argue that the referendum would lead to excessive state surveillance and political persecution, the opposition insists that it is necessary to ensure accountability and prevent misuse of power. Mahnič emphasized that the referendum was not just about legislative changes but also about addressing systemic corruption and ensuring democratic integrity. The ruling coalition has faced criticism for its past actions, including the establishment of judicial protections for certain individuals and the perceived reluctance to investigate high-profile figures. These criticisms have fueled public discontent and increased pressure on the government to address concerns about transparency and fairness in governance. As the date of the referendum approaches, both sides are preparing their campaigns. The SDS has pledged to conduct an active campaign, contrasting it with what they describe as the opposition's past boycotts. Meanwhile, the opposition continues to warn against potential overreach and the risks associated with granting additional powers to investigative bodies. Public opinion remains divided, with some citizens expressing concern over privacy and security, while others see the referendum as a crucial step toward greater accountability and reform. As the situation unfolds, the outcome of the referendum will likely shape the future direction of Slovenia's political landscape.
Go to the primary sources (2)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
At the 19th extraordinary session of the National Assembly, MPs discussed a request to hold a legislative referendum on the Law on Amendments and Supplements to the Law on Parliamentary Inquiry. SDS MP Žan Mahnič strongly supported the referendum and criticized the opposition, particularly the Freedom Movement, accusing them of hypocrisy, abuse of power, and fear of effective parliamentary inquiries. He noted that over 40,000 signatures were collected for the referendum and pointed out the irony of collecting signatures 'against political police' while former members of the ruling coalition signed the petition. Mahnič questioned who had accessed bank accounts of politicians and private companies, citing alleged conversations where Vesna Vuković claimed to have ordered the submission of requests to Furs, while she personally arranged for more data to be sent. He labeled the referendum as a 'referendum on corruption' and urged citizens to vote en masse on October 11. Those voting against would support 'corruption, clientelism, and corruption,' he said, adding that SDS would lead an active campaign rather than boycott as the opposing side did previously. Mahnič also addressed claims关于
Bias read (Conservative): The article presents a strong critique of the opposition, using loaded language such as 'hypocrisy', 'abuse of power', and 'fear of effective parliamentary inquiries'. It frames the referendum as a 'referendum on corruption' and explicitly criticizes specific individuals and parties, suggesting a sl
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports the event of the parliamentary debate on the referendum proposal and quotes Mahnič’s statements directly. It mentions over 40,000 signatures collected, aligning with other sources. However, some details like the specific accusations against Vesna Vuković are not corrob
Why objectivity (65): The article uses emotionally charged language such as 'lopov se dere' (the thief cries out) and makes direct accusations against opposition figures, showing clear bias in favor of the SDS and against the opposition. The tone is confrontational rather than neutral.
DemokracijaParty-alignedConservativeFactual 85Objective 6013 days ago
The article reports on a debate in Slovenia's National Council regarding a proposal to hold a constitutional referendum on parliamentary investigations. SDS MP Žan Mahnič strongly supported the referendum, criticizing the opposition, particularly the Freedom Movement, for hypocrisy and misuse of power. He highlighted that over 40,000 signatures were collected against 'political police,' noting irony in former communists signing such petitions. Mahnič accused opponents of wanting to return to Yugoslavia and communism, and criticized the practice of checking bank accounts, questioning who investigated specific individuals and citing alleged misconduct by Vesna Vuković. He framed the referendum as a vote on corruption and urged citizens to participate, warning that voting against would mean accepting clientelism and corruption. Mahnič also addressed claims of reading SMS messages, arguing that Slovenian police lack legal authority to monitor encrypted apps like WhatsApp or Signal. He compared internal coalition communications to the Karigador scandal, asserting they are unrelated to political policing. The article highlights Mahnič’s accusations of double standards, pointing out that,
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the debate around the referendum as a fight against corruption and political policing, using strong language to criticize the opposition and accuse them of hypocrisy. Mahnič emphasizes the need for direct citizen participation, warns of negative consequences for those opposing the
Why factuality (85): This article closely mirrors the first one, accurately reporting Mahnič’s speech and the number of signatures. It includes direct quotes and aligns with other sources. Some of the specific allegations against Vesna Vuković lack corroboration, slightly affecting the overall factuality score.
Why objectivity (60): The article exhibits a clear bias in favor of the SDS and against the opposition, using strong language and direct accusations. While it attempts to present the debate, the tone remains highly partisan.
Zanima.meIndependentProgressiveFactual 80Objective 6015 days 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 (80): The article correctly identifies the referendum topic and the number of signatures collected. However, it introduces an analysis by Igor Omerza regarding the historical meaning of 'political police,' which is not confirmed by other sources. This adds some uncertainty to the factual reliability.
Why objectivity (60): The article uses emotive language and presents the term 'political police' as if it were a universally accepted definition, potentially misleading readers. It also implies criticism toward those opposing the referendum without providing balanced counterpoints.
DemokracijaParty-alignedConservativeFactual 80Objective 559 days ago
The article discusses a statement made by Žan Mahnič, a member of the Slovenian Democratic Party (SDS), regarding an upcoming referendum on October 11th. Mahnič urges voters to support the referendum, arguing that voting 'YES' would prevent public funds from being misused by politicians such as Alenka Bratušek, Zoran Janković, and Robert Golob. He criticizes the current opposition, suggesting they previously opposed investigations into certain individuals but now fear similar scrutiny. Mahnič frames the referendum as a democratic opportunity for citizens to demand transparency and accountability in governance.
Bias read (Conservative): The article presents a clear ideological framing favoring the SDS party's stance on the referendum. The language used, such as calling opponents 'thieves' and accusing them of hypocrisy, reflects a strong partisan tone. The emphasis on supporting the referendum as a means to hold specific political
Why factuality (80): The article accurately describes the referendum and Mahnič’s call to vote 'ZA.' It references the number of signatures and the political context. However, it lacks detailed verification of specific claims made during the debate, making some parts less substantiated.
Why objectivity (55): The article takes a strong stance in favor of the SDS position, using phrases like 'državljani 11. oktobra odločali kakšnih preiskav si želijo' which suggests a biased interpretation of the referendum’s purpose. It also uses direct and confrontational language.
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 every other Supporter feature.
Slovenia
