Alerted to the text of the journalist Kristina Turčin, who for a long time we have been calling the spokesperson of the minister Milanka Opačić because of the way she writes about topics related to the Ministry of Social Policy and Youth, we still have to react this time because we believe that she crossed all the boundaries of good taste and the basic principles of professional journalism.
Ne ulazeći u priču oko sukoba u akademskoj zajednici, jer je ta zajednica mora razriješiti sama, osvrnut ćemo se na nekoliko teza koja se provlače čitavim tekstom. Iako je novinarka naizgled puna razumijevanja za nevladine udruge, koje, kako ona piše, moraju štititi skupine čije interese zastupaju, ona zapravo potpuno niječe ikakvu važnost njihova rada, a još više nipodaštava njihovu kompetenciju da se stručno uključe u raspravu. Bitno je što govori akademska zajednica, ali zapravo, ni to nije važno, jer je “činjenično” jedini problem zla i konzervativna žena koja je odlučila rušiti novi Zakon i prije nego što je napisan.
The question arises: for whom are laws written? To pit conservative and progressive parts of the academic community against each other or to make life easier for citizens, to protect them from possible human rights violations and injustices that befall them? When associations representing vulnerable groups make their voices heard, as journalist Turčin notes, isn't that a sign that the legislator should ask himself what is wrong and how to correct the mistakes made? Moreover, the text does not mention a single word about the lawyers who, with great expertise and based on many years of experience, said the same thing as the part of the academic community that the journalist attacked, as well as numerous associations – that the Draft Family Law is bad, inconsistent, incomplete and unprofessionally drafted.
The journalist did not comment on the fact that Minister Opačić, in the midst of the public debate that opened after the publication of the Theses, stated in the media that they were being criticized by associations that had nothing better to do and were doing nothing, and that lawyers were afraid that they would lose their jobs because the new Family Law would be so good that the need for their services would disappear! And in fact, if she were a competent minister who knows what public debate means, she should have thanked everyone who wanted the Law to be as high-quality as possible and who invested considerable effort and time in reading the Theses and trying to understand them. The journalist did not even mention that it was very strange that a public debate, now on the Draft Family Law, was being organized during August, a month in which the whole of Croatia is traditionally on vacation. And why would she, when she loves the minister and knows that she cannot make a mistake!
The end of the text is particularly impressive, a part of which is also highlighted by a frame, where Minister Opačić reminds Parliament and the public that taxpayers allocate funds for the salaries of the academic community, which, ungrateful as it already is, irresponsibly criticizes her ingenious plan to amend the Family Law and racketeers the person she chose. Because, for God's sake, Minister Milanka Opačić has the right to do so. No one regrets allocating funds for Milanka Opačić's hard working life, but we must consider whether we will continue to finance that ungrateful academic community, or rather that part of the professors who dare not support her Draft Family Law.
We could write a small novel about the work of Minister Milanka Opačić and the consequences of her leadership of the Ministry of Social Policy and Youth, but that will not sway Jutarnji list and journalist Turčin from continuing to write panegyrics for their beloved.
There will be time for dusting and objective analysis when Milanka Opačić is no longer a minister and deputy prime minister. And that, we are sure, will happen one day, no matter how difficult it is for the Turkish journalist to imagine now.
For Babe
Sanja Sarnavka
