The summons to apologize to the farmer and agricultural trade unionist Thomas Moschos by the Supreme Court is not a «neutral» institutional act. It is a political event. And we must judge it as such.
A production man, a sheep and goat farmer, a small dairy producer, is being called to account for daring to say publicly what science says, that vaccinating animals is a protective measure against smallpox. Not for spreading lies or for encouraging illegality. But because he invoked science and did not support the government narrative Because he participated in organizing the rural mobilizations and promoting the demands of farmers and ranchers Because not conformed, he was not silent.
This alone is enough to raise the alarm.
There is no misunderstanding in the case of Thomas Moschos. There is no «official misconduct». There is no bad timing. There is political choice. And this choice has a goal, to silence anyone who speaks out, to scare anyone who speaks up, to dismantle any collective voice that is not controlled.
Of course it is not wrong. It is warning to all.
When public discourse becomes a criminal procedural object, we are not talking about the rule of law. We are talking about state of fear with a legal envelope. The Mitsotakis government is not just trying to control the management of a zoonosis. It is attempting to control who speaks, what they say and how they say it.
Anyone who speaks without permission, anyone who interferes socially, anyone who mobilises without belonging to the circle of power, anyone who invokes knowledge instead of government directives, is targeted. That is the message. And it is clear.
The state of incompetence is disguised as a state of order, when the government fails to protect agricultural production; fails to plan, fails to anticipate, fails to support. And like any incompetent government, instead of being held accountable, is looking for culprits to cover up its responsibilities.
Instead of controlling those politically responsible for the management of the crisis, the illegal distribution of European aid, the man who lives off his animals, works the land and produces is called to account. He is among the leaders at European level as an organic producer. He does not live from contracts, from communication campaigns, from government offices. He doesn't drink raki with the Frappes and the Butchers. He is not photographed with Mitsotakis, Voridis, Avgenakis.
The imposition of the disastrous CAP and the Mercosur agreement is baptized order. Fear is baptized as legitimacy; silencing is baptized as protection.
In such moments, justice is not judged theoretically. It is judged actively. And when higher judicial mechanisms are involved in cases involving social intervention and public discourse, then the judiciary ceases to be neutral. It becomes player.
It is not collectively guilty, of course, but its leadership is co-responsible. Why selects.
The summons to apologize does not fall on deaf ears. It comes at a time when the judiciary appears - rightly or wrongly - to be operating under the heavy shadow of the executive. When agricultural trade unionists are targeted, when social groups are «branded» as dangerous, when criticism is dubbed a threat, then democratic legitimacy is wounded.
No one is saying that the judiciary should not investigate. But it is one thing to investigate and quite another to intimidate and show power. It is one thing to protect public health and another to silence those who do not align with the government's narrative.
The erosion of the authority of the judiciary does not come from society. It comes from the Supreme Court justices themselves who have chosen to conform to the executive.
«Bespoke decisions» is not popular hyperbole. They are a social realisation. When critical cases are consistently aligned with the needs of the government, when social voices are treated with overzealousness and power scandals are lost in institutional oblivion, then we are not talking about independence.
We are talking about subjugation in the guise of legitimacy.
Supreme Court justices are not weak. They have power, guarantees, historical responsibility. No one compels them to act as a disciplining mechanism. They do so because they choose to. And that choice makes them co-responsible for the delegitimisation of the institution.
Justice lives only as long as they believe in it. And today, with the responsibility of its top, they don't believe her.
When an agricultural trade unionist is called upon by the highest judicial authority to apologise for his views. Then there is a problem, then the judiciary has changed its role. From being the guarantor of democracy, it turns into co-manager of fear.
History does not respect axioms. It respects attitudes. And this period will go down as a time when Justice retreated, resigned with or without quid pro quo.
None of this happens without political cover. Maximos has built a culture of social extermination, anyone who resists is targeted. Anyone who persists is intimidated. Anyone who does not comply is «controlled».
Kyriakos Mitsotakis is not an observer. He is politically responsible for a system that does not rule but disciplines. That does not converse but imposes. That does not account but threatens.
Ahead of the meeting with the agricultural delegation, the government is activating its oldest and dirtiest tool, divide and conquer.
First one unionist, then the other. Faces alternate, so that there is no single voice. To present a peasantry fragmented, harmless, controllable. The targeting of Moschos is fully in line with this strategy. .
But none of this would have been so easy without the silence of the opposition. An opposition that sees but does not clash. That knows and does not take risks. That counts costs instead of defending democracy. When the criminalisation of speech, the targeting of trade unionists and the application of justice on demand do not cause a political earthquake, then the opposition is not just ineffective, it is complicit through inaction.
The Left, the political force that has historically defended society against arbitrariness, today has an obligation not only to speak out, but to act in terms of a tough defence of rights and democracy. There are no mid-term moves, no «show of interest» announcements. Inaction in the face of the subjugation of justice, the silencing of speech, the targeting of agricultural trade unionists, is tantamount to tolerance of intimidation and arbitrariness.
The Left must speak and act against the power that criminalizes the truth, to confront decisively the institutional games that daily deconstruct Justice, and to defend those who are threatened for their public duty. Any delay, any retreat, any «strategy of waiting» is disastrous to the detriment of the popular movement. And history will record it.
And now the truth without any embellishment, if the trade union movement as a whole does not take up this cause collectively, aggressively and publicly, then it's over, then ceases to have a reason to exist.
When a trade unionist is called to apologise for his speech and the others wait, then power has already won. Targeting one is a message to all.
Today it's Moschos.
Tomorrow it will be anyone who does not keep silent.
The Mitsotakis government does not manage crises. He's afraid of them. It has shown that in the pandemic period we have the experience we do not forget so easily.
And when it is afraid, it reacts in the same way it always does, repression, targeting, splitting. Against smallpox, against the farmers, against the farmers and agricultural production. There is embarrassment. And behind the embarrassment, panic. The panic of a power that knows it has no control over the situation and is looking for enemies to hide its responsibilities.
So we reach the unthinkable point where he is called upon to apologise,
the man who defends animal life,
the man who invokes scientists,
the man who speaks in public,
Kyriakos Mitsotakis cannot hide behind ministers, officials or «failures». The culture of intimidation, targeting and silencing is a political line.
Around Maximos there is a mechanism of social extermination,
character assassination, threats, criminalization of dissent, constant suspicion of anyone who disobeys. It's no accident. It's methodical. And it has one goal, to make sure no one raises their head.
A government that attempts - even indirectly - to blackmail, target and terrorise social representatives has no right to govern. Democracy cannot tolerate any more «misunderstandings». It cannot bear any more fear. It cannot bear any more silence.
We have to know that democracy is not only destroyed by coups, but also when the executive imposes, the legislature ratifies, and the judiciary adapts,
This government must go.
Not because he simply «made mistakes».
But because repeatedly crossed the boundaries.
It can't be fixed. It does not change. Retrieved from.
It is a democratic necessity.
And if it is not removed politically, then the responsibility will fall on all those who see, understand and remain silent.
