The government and ruling party have thrown themselves into a full-blooded campaign in support of a website, the Truth Squad, on the grounds that what it peddles is the “truth”. And it’s not only the usual cheerleaders; ministers and MPs are literally queuing up, jostling to be first to express their admiration for the Squad’s work.
Let’s accept that the site tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
But could a citizen rob a bank, finance a newspaper with the proceeds, and ask the court to acquit them of the robbery because their newspaper only publishes the truth? Because the issue that has arisen with the Truth Squad, and certain Internet trolls who have been shown to be spreading vile untruths in partnership with inter alia New Democracy associates and officials, isn’t whether they do a fine and professional (which is the operative word here) job in providing “news”.
No, the issue is that a private company without any significant presence in the sphere in which it is supposedly active, with a monthly payroll in excess of half a million euros and a disproportionately small turnover for that outlay, is alleged to have (or have had) no fewer than a few dozen (!) individuals in its employ who, during their period of employment, can be proven to have held full-time positions, of discharged full-time duties, within New Democracy. Or, in the case of the Truth Squad, to have spent their days, as they have themselves admitted, engaged in an activity for which the Vice-President of ND has thanked them personally and which the Prime Minister has praised, in the context of this discussion, for “shedding light on the character” of his political opponents. Which raises the question of the nature of the service they provided to the private company that paid them, and where and when they provided it. A question which neither the company nor the specific employees, who constitute the majority of its personnel, have even begun to answer.
Of course, defenders of the ruling party reply that this is none of anybody’s business: “private individuals pay private individuals,” so what’s the big deal? But is that really so? The fictitious employment of an employee who is simultaneously providing their services elsewhere “without pay”, and the related expenditure and issuance of documents, are serious economic crimes which the authorities are legally obliged to prosecute.
And if the jobs really are a fiction, and the “elsewhere” a political party, there is also a clear violation of the provisions on the financing of parties, which is a separate and distinct offence. I can accept the possibility that, following an investigation, it could be shown to be an amazing coincidence that the majority of the employees of a private company provided services to a party full-time on an unpaid, voluntarily basis, had the enviable physical and mental capacity to do so in their spare time after working for the company and doing other jobs, as well (like those members of the Truth Squad who simultaneously run other companies and media outlets which have been shown to receive fees from the public purse). In short, that no offences have been committed by anyone involved in this affair in any way.
But is there a single serious jurist in this country who would argue that there are no grounds for conducting a preliminary examination to determine whether such offences have actually been committed? And is it within the bounds of possibility that, with the Press kicking up a fuss about a private company that may be fictitiously employing and paying dozens of employees, no authority has taken the trouble to hit the premises and audit the owner with a fine-tooth comb? And does the Supreme Court prosecutor not consider the possibility that the provisions governing the funding of political parties has been systematically violated to be a matter of legitimate public interest, and a sufficiently major issue for the functioning of democracy to so much as order an enquiry? And does the Prime Minister not want to verify through the proper channels that those he has publicly praised have not done anything reprehensible, rather than simply presuming—and prematurely asserting—that nothing untoward has occurred?
Because after the legally obligatory investigation has—I hope—demonstrated that everything really was fully above board, then we can all follow the government and the New Democracy parliamentary group and thank these selfless fighters for truth and democracy in our turn. But not before the selflessness and legality of their actions have been proven. Not until the truth has truly been brought to light.
