Updated: Today's interrogation at the Beroun Police Station lasted 3 hours (damage to creditor and slander). I am not allowed to disclose more. I am attaching what the law and freedom of speech allows me to say: Criminal complaint of Mgr. Miroslav Stiebal dated 8 April 2003 against "JUDr." Martin Michal: PART I - PART II. I quote from the conclusion: "As a citizen of the Czech Republic, I am forced to state that I am very sorry that the universally accepted principles of the moral and ethical code of citizens are not part of the Criminal Code." JŠ
***
I published the article below on July 16, 2012, and its contents still apply today. The criminal complaint against Šinágl was filed by former Federal Assembly deputy Bohuslav Hubálek, singer Helena Vondráčková and her husband Martin Michal. Today I have been summoned to the Beroun Police Station for questioning in connection with another criminal complaint filed by Mgr. Jana Gavlasova, attorney at law of the MM Agency. JŠ
***
The activist does not deny genocide, only the official interpretation of history. That is his "crime". Every liberal should rebel against the prosecution of Jan Šinágl. But there is another way to put it. If this activist is prosecuted, a controversy will erupt that could shed light on many things. We shall see. .. Let's say right now that it's not just about Šinágl. In fact, it's about general freedom of speech, opinion and interpretation of historical events. It is about the freedom to interpret or criticize today's attitudes towards the events of the 1940s. And that already applies to anyone who comments on the subject.
Jan Šinágl is a man who breaks out of the norm here. He is one of those people who are described by the majority as at best opinionated and at worst assholes. And those who openly defend him are labeled crazy. Yes, Jan Šinágl interprets the facts in a rather extreme way. But is that a crime? If we look at his articles that founded the lawsuit, there is no denial of Nazi crimes in them. He doesn't deny them, he just puts them in a very specific context....
So let us now repeat: interpreting the facts - however much we dislike them - is not denial. When Šinágl writes that the communist regime in the 1950s was worse than the Nazi government before the assassination of Heydrich, that is his interpretation and he is entitled to it. He is not denying the crimes of the Browns or the Reds, he is merely putting them in an unusual order. ...
A Protectorate lie?
Šinágl does not deliberately lie or deny the crimes, he only interprets them in a way that goes beyond the conventional way of thinking. If his prosecution continues, if he is threatened with trial, the observer will get the feeling that a paragraph with the working title "denying the logical outcome of history" is informally anchored here.
In practice, this would mean cementing the "protectorate lie". And that would already be a very rubbery conception of the law against genocide denial. No way. Let Šinágl write and grind out his own argument.
Zbyněk Petráček, LN, 14 July 2012
***
P.S.
"JUDr." Martin Michal: "I am very sensitive to such things - my entire family perished in Auschwitz," he told Šinágl. - Martin Michal was born 1.4.1959. JŠ
Read more...