THE FERAL TRIALS OVER

AIM, ZAGREB, September 27, 1996

"Your Honour, give us some light, give us "Feral" (beacon)," closed his plea Branko Seric, one of the seven counsels for the defense in the political process against the editor and the journalist of the weekly "Feral" Viktor Ivancic and Marinko Culic charged for committing a slander and insulting the image and work of the President of the Republic with their texts and tailored photos published in the 554th issue of this weekly in May this year. The first hearing was held on June 14 and the second, the main and the last one for the time being, on September 25. A day later Marin Mrcela, judge of the Municipal Court rendered an acquitting verdict and gave "light" to those present in the large hall. With a large chunk of glory he left the hall "heading a column of people", to the applause of almost 400 hands.

He explained his decision by the fact that with their texts and satire the Feral men did not present any facts or claims, but rather their opinion of the work of the President of the Republic, which was precisely what the defense pleaded. Namely, value standards may be different, expressed in different ways, but do not represent a libel as long as they are acceptable and concern an idea and not (only) a person. Mrcela said that in Croatia today "one can freely express his critical judgment on the moves of even the most prominent political figures", so that if such a model was "sanctioned, we would come very close to processes which the young people could only read about". And according to Mrcela the incriminating texts in "Feral" were not defamatory as they only represented a value judgment.

He spoke in a similar tone about the controversial rigged photos which were given in the satirical part of the paper, and as we all know satire is the mother of exaggeration and absurdity, and vice versa, as such it is inappropriate to be considered as belittling the President of the Republic". All in all, "Feral" may write as much as it wants since, according to judge Mrcela "a presentation of a critical opinion in a medium is in question and which is permissible in a state of law".

That was that. Let us recall the whole story. It all started with the idea of President Franjo Tudjman to make a small gesture of appreciation for all the dead and turn Jasenovac into a memorial landmark where the bones of Ustashas, the killers, and camp inmates, the victims, would rest mixed together. In medicine this is called "the state of mental derangement", and in politics reconciliation for the purpose of historic fantasies of a dubious historian who believes his dreams to be true.

The historian and citizen Tudjman (as that idea did not come into being yesterday) builds his ideas on the ideology and practice of the Generalissimo Franco, Spanish dictator, who carried out in practice a similar idea and built a mausoleum for the Fascists and the Republicans. "For the Sake of Reconciliation" said Tudjman in his interview to "START" in 1991. The boys from "Feral" used this idea to criticize him. For writing what Tudjman thought, what he actually is and said, Ivancic was sued because of the editorial in which he said that "Tudjman was a declared follower of Franco", who even killed all who disagreed with him. He goes on to say "that our general Franjo adopted this thanatognomonic obsession, announcing the pending realization of his old threat on the building of the Croatian Santa Guadarrama in Jasenovac and is just about to break ground at the digging site of a huge common grave under the entire Croatia". Our fascist intends to generously open to the dead the land which the living are abandoning, demonstrating most brutally what kind of Croats he actually needs. "Viva La Muerte" reverberated from Pantovscak. That is what happened to Ivancic.

In that same issue Marinko Culic wrote that Tudjman was half Pavelic - half Tito, i.e. an ideological hybrid and that the Spanish example could only be used for the "de-Francoisation of the country and not for the creation of a fascist-communist one (...)". The satire also reacted with a rigged photo showing Pavelic handing Tudjman his "most favourite cup" in the shape of the Jasenovac monument.

With Tudjman's approval the State Attorney's Office formulated an indictment according to which "Feral" had offended and slandered President of the Republic by "presenting him as a follower of a fascist regime". Since just before the controversial issue came out amendments to the Criminal Law were introduced fiercely attacking criticism and journalists, the persecution thus became legal. Boris Dezulovic, deputy editor-in-chief was summoned to the second hearing. He stated that Viktor Ivancic was in charge of editing the serious part, while Ivancic, Predrag Lucic and himself were in charge of the satire; Leo Nikolic and Nino Maracic, printing editors also came and stated that they were in charge of the aesthetic and not political side of the paper.

A major part of the principal hearing was taken by the defense counsels: Vesna Alaburic, Slobodan Budak, Mirko Franchesci, Anto Nobilo, Dafinka Vecerina, Cedo Prodanovic, Branko Seric and Emil Havkic. Each of them spoke about one part of the indictment or, for example, like Franchesci, about Feral's history. The prosecutor opened the principal hearing by stating that in this case had nothing to do with politics, but with facts since Tudjman was a well known anti-fascist, as well as a fighter against communism on account of which he had been elected President of the Republic.

The defense attorney Prodanovic, in opposing this thesis said that a person could have been an anti-fascist, but since many years have passed since it did not have to hold still true, and that there was not always continuity in ideology. According to the indictment the articles "reeked of personal tones, cheap humour, distortion of facts and thus represent the abuse of the freedom of press and were harmful to the reputation of the Republic of Croatia". The first to start was the attorney Alaburic with a somewhat inverted thesis from Mark Antony's well known speech against Caesar ("He killed, cheated and slaughtered, but you know, he is an honest man"). She said that there was no room for "mitigating the penalty, because for persons who did not come to their senses after informative talks, police raids, mobilization, threats, public burning of papers, imposed taxes (...), the only hope was - prison".

The defense demanded they should be imprisoned and the accused agreed to that. Namely, as the attorney stated, according to many newspaper prominent figures, regime newspapers and intellectuals the accused were "sons of a bitch" (Aralica); "new aggressive integralists, militant anti-Croats, hot-headed SKOJ-rock fanatics, notorious pagans, Yugo-zombies" (Josko Celan); "the only Chetnik nest in Southern Croatia" (Hrvoje Hitrec); "Chetniks at large, communist agents" (The Croatian Literary Magazine); "pro-Chetnik editorial office, journalistic terrorists" (The Croatian Horizon); "the Serbian scum, Serbian sluts, anarchists, followers of St.Sava" (The Vinkovac Croatian Herald); "Yugo-fascists, garbage, freaks that were not seen since the ancient Greece" (Milan Ivkosic); "monsters" (Drago Krpina).

The current President is not alien to such company either, and along these same lines he said: "(...)children of the YPA officers and offsprings from mixed marriages, a phenomenon whose roots lie in the "integralist" units which used to beat up Croats and in Croatian Chetnik units in the NDH (The Independent State of Croatia)". Namely, "Feral" was not the only thorn in the President's eye. There is also, for example, the opposition, i.e. the "cattle with tiny teeth", some intellectuals, i.e. "pharisees and dilettantes", and finally 20 percent of the Croatian population, i.e. around one million inhabitants, who have, willy-nilly, guilty or not, become - "public enemies".

Concerning Jasenovac and in order to avoid any misunderstanding that it was only "Feral" which thought and wrote so, the counsel quoted some other, both left and right, prominent figures: "(...) conciliation of the dead by force does not represent a way to national reconciliation, but a way of reconciliation with the evil" (Predrag Raos); "(...) a monstrous idea, a historically unnatural notion" (Krsto Cviic); "(...) spiritual violence, a nebulous idea" (Drago Pilsel); "Jasenovac should be preserved as a monument in memory of a crime that should not ever be repeated" (Vinko Nikolic). By this she proved that the freedom of public address, and not slander or offense, was on trial. Consequently, the necrophilic dream of Franjo Tudjman does not go on only Feral's nerves, but also many others who have not been included in the footnote on "public enemies" (eg.Peter Galbraith, the American Vice-President Al Gore, State Secretary Waren Christopher, Walter Reich, etc.) whose opinions were not on trial. Thus she concluded her claim that the controversial texts were "a superior reaction to a specific idea by which the task of the media to criticize notions which are considered unacceptable was being realized", and that the "idea on reconciliation was not the idea of the President of the Republic, but of the President of the Party".

Thus "Feral", not only on its own behalf, touched upon the central ideological system, the top of the illusion of the whole construction of Tudjman's power, i.e. the idea on reconciliation on which he had based the policy of his party and the state, which broke his conciliatory - Francoistic heart. This idea was repeated again and again throughout the defense plea. In his closing statement the counsel Ante Nobilo said that "what is claimed to be libelous statement has to be generally defamatory". He claimed that at that moment and in such a Croatia it was not generally defamatory to call someone a follower of fascism, Pavelic and Ustashas, as for many it was still an honour rather than shame.

He further said that the NOB (National Liberation Struggle) monuments were still being demolished in Croatia, that squares, streets and schools were being named after people who were Ustashas, that Defense Minister at Sinj Competition (at the tilting at the ring) welcomed the participants with the Ustasha salute, etc. On the other hand, similar situation existed among Tito's followers who "would not consider the fact that they fought in his units dishonourable". Other counsels explained the reasons for these proceedings in their own way.

Dafinka Vecerina asked that the court ruling should not be "stop the Reuters" or "stop Feral", but quite the opposite. And that is exactly what happened. Slobodan Budak warned of the disregard of the procedure whereby "an essential provision of the criminal proceeding was violated". He therefore demanded the annulment. Namely, the Criminal Law requires for the injured party, i.e. the President of the Republic, to be summoned to the principal hearing, which was not done. Nevertheless - the Feral men are free.

ALEN ANIC