The blogger from iDnes.cz, František Matějka, filed a criminal complaint against the chairman of the KSČM, Vojtěch Filip, due to his condolences to the death of Kim Jong-il.
His a criminal complaint builds on the 1993 law on the illegality of the communist regime.
Let's think about it now. We have a law here that tells us what we should think of the past. No matter what it really was, there is a law and that is the way it is.
I personally think that the regime between 1948 and 1989 was monstrous. But do I have the right to impose this opinion on someone?
What if a law was passed that said that "The period of the 90s was a period of successful and famous transformation into a market economy“- how would you like this interpretation interpreted by law? How about your parents, how your friends?
What the previous regime did, what I also consider (among other things) monstrous to do, was the distortion of history and the manipulation of facts - enforcing a single correct view of historical events. But what does the pre-Velvet Revolution regime law illegally do?
Perhaps we will now sue anyone who declares that "it wasn't that bad" and that "everyone was better"? We will close anyone who has a different view to the events that took place here? By what right are we trying to impose on someone an opinion on history?
The analysis of the past is the work of historians, not politicians and laws. What about Act of Events of 1938? 1968? How about the law on White mountain? What about replace history textbooks with a collection of laws about the right view of history?
What made the past regime monstrous (among other things) was to impose the only right view of the past. People with a different opinion were sent to uranium mines, prisons or executions.
But what does the 1993 law on the illegality of the previous regime do? What will he do Act on the Merits of Václav Havel? What does any lawwhich imposes on us the only correct view of history? He is doing what the previous regime did. The form is the same, only the content is different.
Similar laws must be repealed without compensation. No one has the right to impose on anyone the only right view of the past. If people think that the previous regime was monstrous, the law is not needed at all. If they don't think so, the law shouldn't exist at all, because then it is violation of freedom of speech and thought.
There are similar laws an example of totalitarian thinking in those who create and promote them.