“Disinformation is a tool used to break you as a person.”

To begin, can you describe the disinformation attack that was the most problematic or resonant for you?

The first happened immediately after I took office. In both cases it was the same media machinery — right‑wing portals that are being investigated for whether they are financed by a particular political party.

What claims were used to attack you?

The first attack alleged that I had not shown my medical record when I took office. That is a completely absurd claim. I don’t know whether you have ever had to show your medical record to anyone — I never have. Nobody walks around with medical records, nor are you required to present them when taking up a job or office. Besides, today we no longer carry paper medical records at all — everything is electronic and strictly protected.

Why are such claims problematic?

A medical record can contain information that is painful for an individual — for example, past operations. There is no need for others to know that, as long as you are otherwise medically fit to do your job. When Mr. Požar published this, rumors about my mental state began to spread. This has followed me constantly. They talk about my alleged psychoses, even though no one has ever seen my medical record. It’s utter nonsense, but it has a big impact — people write to me saying I should be locked up in a psychiatric hospital.

How do you perceive those kinds of attacks as a woman in public office?

As a judge under the Mental Health Act I know what psychiatry means. But I also know what it means in public understanding. I am horrified that we are still a society where a woman who is louder and decisive is quickly labelled hysterical. In the past they were even locked up in psychiatric institutions for that. It hurts me — not because they would send me there, but because it shows we are still at that point. If I were a man, my decisiveness would be respected. As a woman, I am labelled crazy.

Do you recall concrete examples from public life?

I also remember statements at protests. Mr. Rupar shouted in the street that I should be locked up in a psychiatric ward. That is terrible, because I know who the people in a psychiatric are. These are not people who deserve contempt — they are patients. Mental illness is an illness like any other and it is effectively treated today.

Have you experienced even more personal attacks?

The second attack was even more personal. The same portal published that I allegedly had sexual relations in toilets and cellars — with a man who is my partner. That was extremely hard. In addition to being labelled as someone who belongs in a psychiatric hospital, I was also tarnished with this stain. These are things you can only respond to by saying: it’s not true.

Did you legally protect yourself against these attacks?

Yes. I decided to act against the worst insults. When they really crossed the line, I filed a police report for an offense against public order and peace. One of the successful cases was against Roman Vodeb, who called me an “insatiable sexual person.” He received a fine and lost in court. I see that courts now view these matters differently — that this is no longer political criticism, but an assault on one’s humanity.

What is the difference between a fine and criminal proceedings?

A fine is often more effective than criminal proceedings. In criminal cases the perpetrator often receives a suspended sentence, which has no educational effect. A fine hurts — when you have to pay it, you reflect.

What are the social consequences of such attacks?

The consequence I felt is that society quickly labels women who have certain traits that some do not approve of — those who are not traditional or are not embedded in established frameworks. Such women are perceived by society as either mentally ill or as a whore. I was labelled both. Once you are characterized in that way, society accepts it all the more gladly and spits on you.

Society grabs onto it quickly because then it does not have to deal with real problems. It is easier to revel in someone who has been labelled, especially if that person is a woman. And it is completely irrelevant whether it is true or not — it is enough that someone writes something, and a landslide begins.

We like to stone someone, whether they are guilty or not. In reality we stone them because in them we see our own shortcomings, because we ourselves do not have an interesting life, because we do not dare to be what we would like to be. And then we project those frustrations onto those who dare. These are the “witches” — those who dare to be authentic, who are themselves, and do nobody any harm.

How did you defend yourself personally?

First I had to protect myself and my inner life. I would have difficulty fulfilling my maternal duties if I were internally shattered. It helps me to talk to people I trust, who strengthen me and help me maintain a good self-image.

Self-esteem can be quickly wounded when so many attacks are poured on you. That is why I surround myself with people who can be critical, but in a way that helps you. It also helps a lot that I have already gone through harder experiences in life than these — because of them today’s attacks cannot hurt me so deeply.

I also talk a lot on a professional level with people who have similar experiences — in foreign policy, with women and also with men. That way I take care of my positive self-image. I engage in activities that fulfill me — I read history books, I spend time with animals because they do not judge you. I remain grounded and persist in my position.

How do you assess the effectiveness of legal mechanisms?

The most effective is a fine under the Public Order and Peace Act — it hits the wallet and really makes a person reflect. Procedures are slow and the punishment often comes late, but nevertheless it is an effective means of protection against personal discreditation.

How do disinformation campaigns typically spread?

They often start on Požareport, where the biggest nonsense is published. Then the content is picked up by Demokracija, Nova24 and similar portals, which spread it further through their networks. I am not active on most social networks; I use only Facebook, where I see these stories spread quickly. Negative comments are encouraged and probably moderated — that is, comments that are not liked are deleted. In this way the story is built and disseminated into society until it grows into a broader discreditation of the person they want to destroy.

In the end it all reaches parliament. There the discreditation of political opponents continues, because every MP has immunity. That is then exploited further — they say: “It’s being written about, as you know.” And so the circle closes.

What needs to change for the situation to improve?

We must begin to seriously think about protecting freedom of speech. I am not talking about restricting it, but about protecting it — so that freedom of speech truly means what it is meant for: expressing critical, cynical, even humorous opinions, expressing disagreement with those in power.

If we do not protect freedom of speech, it can turn into a tool for carrying out personal violence against one another. If such violence is not suppressed, it can escalate into physical violence as well. Psychological violence is no less painful — sometimes it can be even worse. If we do not stop it, it will keep escalating, the wounds will deepen and sooner or later someone will snap.

---

More conversations