Story in English V

DA VINCI CASE

(PART V)

Third Associate Judge: “You really consider yourself like da Vinci?”
Laughter is heard from the courtroom. Reporter and Dr. Hokius looked at each other, disturbed by that sound from discussion which continued by Novatius who didn't seem to be disturbed at all.
Novatius: “I worked so hard and I knew the craziness of burnt knowledge, unrealized power that I found right under the noses of others. Colossal possibilities appear when you step across one horizon and perceive another. And, at the same time, you are conscious of the tens of thousands of steps needed for man to cross this new unknown distance. I respect everyone who was in a similar situation. They seem to you very close, though they are separated by hundreds of years and different experiences.”
First Associate Judge: “A moment ago you said that you don't respect any authorities.”
Novatius's lawyer: “He didn't say that!”
Judge: “We will not dispute this. Defendant, how did you become so alienated? I could say misanthropic.”
Novatius: “Da Vinci himself said that the greatest love is born from the greatest knowledge of what we love. And I, all my life but particularly recently, have devoted myself to knowing myself -- and through myself other people -- and I think that I expend more effort on this than you.”
Judge: “But unlike me, you, with your decision consciously hurt humankind.”
Novatius: “On the contrary. If my invention was fully developed and applied, it would, no doubt, seem a momentary advance. Our generation wouldn't be afraid of cruel, premature death. But at the same time, it could get rid of the responsibility for the future of mankind, whose sensitivities are the product of thousands of years of evolution. Unexpected changes in our genetic code, systematic attacks. These threats try our ability to survive and adapt. If we are genetically conserved, we start to be an ameliorated monoculture that will lose the possibilities to be found at the outer limits. And in this way, we can also lose the ability to react to extreme situations which can light up this special spark in humankind's quintessential nature. Man became the most developed species through his ability to adapt to extremes through opportunism and absence of his own specialization. New inherited traits come from faults and the appearance of mistakes. Progress without mistakes, faults, and suffering is impossible.”
Second Associate Judge: “Are you able, looking into the eyes of those who are dying today, to say that you regard them as inevitable cast-offs of progress?”
Novatius: “No, but are you able to look into the eyes of the generation that in exchange for prolonged life now could jettison all of civilization and its future? The generation which breaks the tie that emanates from the pain of many upcoming generations? If our species submitted to this therapy, it would degenerate.”
Third Associate Judge: “You are a defender of perverse characters, a prophet of errors, pain and suffering, and all of this you conceal in confused phrases about progress and humanity. What is progress? It's even difficult to define it. But about suffering and pain, no one doubts.”
Novatius: “There was a man like Leonardo da Vinci, but in philosophy. His name was Soren Kierkegaard, and he said that genius burns in suffering. And I believe that thanks to genius of this kind, mankind came to this stage of development, and we have no right to stop now because we are afraid of the pain, which has accompanied us throughout our history.”
Second Associate Judge: “I'm an amateur in this topic. But I think the danger of what you speak about can't be manifest immediately. And the progress, which you believe in, surely brings the starting point for the semblance of this unsolved problem, too. Are you sure you didn't make a mistake in your consideration? Can you assure me that you are not a victim of these sacrificial mistakes that you pervasively appeal to?”
Reporter: “The defendant is quiet, so I'll quickly ask our science expert -- do you, as a scientist, also think that humans could degenerate in these conditions?”
Scientific Expert: “Fortunately, I'm not on the bench and I have no duty to judge. I can say only that thanks to this court, Novatius, at least, explained his reason for concealing his invention and destroying it.”
Reporter: “Can the result of this process change? This is a question for our legal expert...”
Legal Expert: “Certainly not. Also because, whatever the defendant's arguments, it doesn't change the conditions of his freedom -- publishing his invention.”
Reporter: “During the whole court case, the prosecutor is strikingly silent. As our listeners have surely noticed.”
Legal Expert: “The prosecutor has no other role in this case. Only the threat of proposing the final punishment, which this trial will approach when it draws to its conclusion. Punishment could be an extreme means. The paradoxical victory of the prosecutor could be when Novatius obtains his pardon by publishing his secret.”
Reporter: “Many citizens, and even some governments, ask that the defendant be executed for what they call a crime against humanity. Because of the quick progress of the trial, we could not present a broad spectrum of views, samples of opinions from other people who, as one of the associate judges pointed out, the defendant considers the inevitable "cast-offs of progress'.”
Legal Expert: “I think that there are exaggerated emotions which don't have a lawful and material base. If this regional court succumbs to this pressure and on this special occasion decides 'in the name of humanity', we can think about manifest punishment which none of the higher courts presumably accept.”
Reporter: “This case will not be decided in this court?”
Legal Expert: “Obviously not. What we heard here we can regard as an overture because after an appeal will follow a long line of appeals leading from the National Court to the Supreme Continental Court and later international courts.”
Reporter: “The Judge has finished today's proceedings, and for myself and our guests I say goodbye to our listeners. Stay tuned for continuing coverage.”
Red-light lamp in studio went out. Speaker is for a while full of whistling and humming, bustle and music.
Director: “Peter, when you plan any future programs tell us about it so we are not so surprised.”
Reporter is laughing: “Don't worry. From Novatius there will be a never-ending soap opera. And what about Mrs. Kisbon?”
Director: “Just said good-bye to continental listeners, but now maybe she is saving her comments for this series of appeals.”
Reporter is relaxing for a moment in his chair. Headphones down, his eyes are closed. Not for a long time as Legal expert, Dr. Hokius, is in hurry: “Can we go?”
Reporter is in a moment on his legs, shining like robot after full-energy re-loading. Reporter is shaking a hands to his guests.
Reporter: “Thank you, but don't run away. Producer has prepared contract for you.”
Scientific Expert: “Were we that good?”
Reporter is only smiling silently. He is satisfied.

News Presenter: “...and to conclude today's news, in scientific news we want to add one item. A trial of scientist Novatius, about which we brought detailed information and have broadcast live already, finished today. The court, after much consideration, at the proposal of the prosecutor, handed down a guilty verdict and a death sentence. The defendant refused his right to appeal to any other court.”

The End

Translated by Robert M. Davis

Story in English IV

DA VINCI CASE

(PART IV)

Novatius: “I only want to say that science, like art, awaits from man, from a given individual, the best -- and maybe even self-destructive -- performance of what the brain can accomplish ...the scientist closes his eyes to what's right in front of him in order to see the most distant horizons. In these crystallized moments of concentration, he must inevitably find release from reality if he wants to conceive and bring into being something that stretches today's rules and even upsets fundamental premises. To accomplish these crazy aims it need a fool unaware that he maybe won't be able to come back to reality. If you ask this person in this strained excited mood, to properly say hello to everybody around him, to comply with such social niceties and to observe all these social mores of the wolf den -- full of seeming or real insults -- you simply want too much.”
Second Associate Judge: "Defendant, believe me, I came here as an independent representative of the law, and also as a man who was surprised about your decision. But you have convinced me that you are an asocial element."
“Hello there, representative of the law! If anything, I am a representative of top-trained professionals and acting like a professional fool is what I do. I am that whom you can call today a personality, an individualist, but also an individual. And that's why against all machinery of science my main tool is my -- I repeat my -- unique and inimitable brain. As yours is unique and inimitable, but I think you have only your independence.”
First Associate Judge: “This is impertinent.”
“Sorry, but the defendant didn't mean it ...”, Novatius's Lawyer is trying to calm the atmosphere at the court, but he is parallely ignored by defendant.
Novatius: “When an actor plays his role with such concentration no one molests him on the stage. When an athlete heads toward the finish line, he is not obliged to bow to everyone around. A scientist has no special time, finish line, or stage for his creativity. The scientist, without some breakthrough, is not recognizable in the masses. But the scientist with the most urgent ideas is this absent-minded fool who forgets everyone else. He is possessed and the idea materializes, like a burning carbon arc which has suddenly touching a sidereal 22,000-volt hook-up, and is able to hold it, to tempt to earth this crazy electric charge of new perspective. But, whenever this urgent, importunate idea comes, he must be prepared ...always susceptible to voices that you can't hear. And after all, what value has that my impertinence, which, relatively speaking, concerns only you, in comparison with importance of this discovery, with consequences that concern everyone.”
Third Associate Judge: “Look, we can admit all, but you can help all of us if you would be more modest.”
Novatius: “Why do I have to be more modest? When an athlete runs to the finish line, he raises his hands and everyone understands it. I raise my head. It's my chance for joy from victory.”
Judge: “Defendant, you talk a lot. Come back to the topic at hand.”
Reporter: “At least, this tribunal, thanks to the strong hand of the Judge, makes this look like a real court, not a debating society. Nevertheless, it looks as if the considerations of the defendant are logical.”
Legal Expert: “They didn't concern the substance of the trial and, as a result, are worthless. Really, it makes things more difficult for him.”
Scientific Expert: “What he says concerns, in essence, a fortunately small group of exceptional individuals. The idea about which he spoke is only a slight fragment of the time of scientist, a little detonator that starts an avalanche of long-term monotonous work to substantiate the idea.”
Reporter: “And someone has to do this, too?”
Scientific Expert: “Yeah. In science there are thousands of standard employees, who move -- maybe not very expressively, but constantly -- our knowledge forward. It's unfortunately a fact, as Einstein said: 'the universe is infinite but limited.' It's the same with the brain. Its infinite possibilities are limited by its information capacity. As in the case of some scientists like, for example, the physicist Landau, who had problems with opening a tube of toothpaste because he was too concerned about his scientific problems to learn about it when this new everyday item appeared. Is it strange, or just absent-minded?”
Judge: “Defendant, do you have any consideration for anything? Does some authority exist for you?”
Novatius: “Most of the authorities I've met fail under detailed examination. Maybe I accept some of them deadly seriously. Others can't help me with the problems I want to solve. Fortunately, very early on I discovered that I must rely only on myself. The force of authority, of slaps in the face for adults, I don't accept.”
First Associate Judge: “Is this an allusion to our court?”
Third Associate Judge is breaking in: “You don't feel alone without the support that everyone needs? There are usually teams of scientists.”
Novatius: “But there is someone who is first among equals. Individuality is a natural law. If you don't admit that, don't think about its consequences. Simply put, there will be no valuable result for society as a whole if you destroy individuality. Respect for this principle is good for everyone.”
First Associate Judge: “You are sick with ambition.”
Novatius: “It's an engine of progress.”
Judge: “Don't juggle with words. According to our information, you haven't earned support among your peers.”
Novatius: “A truly good character, without sudden expected diversions and experiments to realize them ...a good natural fellow can't be an inventive scientist, artist or inventive anything. His mind, a priori, expressly forbids some things, blocks undesirable ideas before they are formulated. Temptation is the devil's requisite. And if you want to make some new discovery you must attempt just those things that have never occurred to others, or at least they haven't had the courage to talk about them. You must be aware of everything in focus and be open to ideas from all directions. Consequently, it is naive to think that you can have your brain on a long leash in the laboratory and a short leash when you leave.”
Third Associate Judge: “You strongly defend amorality and abnormality.”
Novatius: “I admit that the type of person I described from many perspectives is not very desirable for peaceful life. But I'm sure that these people are bearers of morality and stubborn power in dangerous moments, when most good-natured people go home with their tails between their legs, or they stay dumb, without any idea of how to deal with an unexpected situation.”
Judge: “You keep changing the subject, and I really don't understand why you raise this topic here. I want to warn the associated judges about the defendant's inability to give a clear yes or no answer. He can't take an unambitious, responsible standpoint toward life. He uses paradoxes and sophistry, and this helps him in his megalomaniacal ambitions. The only argument in his defense is using Leonardo da Vinci as a precedent ...only in order to mention that he was painter, sculptor, discoverer and other things, but that story's at least 500 years old.”
Novatius's Lawyer: “Da Vinci's genius is still acknowledged. But it's less well known that he, like my client, rejected his invention when he realized that it could hurt humans. He destroyed it.”
Second Associate Judge: “What was it?”
Judge: “It was a submarine that was later improved upon and built. Da Vinci's example in this case does not seem relevant.”
Novatius's Lawyer: “Nevertheless, it further proves that a personality like da Vinci concluded that in the name of humanity, all ideas, even his own, should not be put into practice. His foreboding proved accurate, for in WWII, more than 60,000 people died in submarine battles.”
Judge: “On the other hand, think how many people today live from seas and oceans that we have penetrated, in part, thanks to submarines. Da Vinci never faced a trial for this decision. This case is only an empty manoeuvre of the defendant and testifies to the megalomania of the accused.”

(To be continued)



Translated by Robert M. Davis

Story in English III

DA VINCI CASE

(PART III)

Reporter and experts are staring at each other for while. Suddenly Director's voice break the music from speaker: “Peter, what happened there?”
“I don't know exactly, but...”
“Please check it out.”
“Right now, sure...” But when music come from speakers again, he turns to legal expert, whispering: “Please be careful, you are a lawyer. How can anyone do their job here? I relied on you!”
Nevertheless, now is our Reporter sure that he has to rely only on himself. In a minute he is out of the studio, at the passage, immediately curious about accidental presence of young lady with microphone in her hand.
“Sorry, Mrs. Kisbon, what are you doing here?”
“You know, this international event warrants World News coverage. Nothing against your station, but our continental broadcasts have curious listeners. I see you’re quite annoyed about all of this.”
“Me? No. Only there's something I must have verified.”
“If you're looking for one of the judges, they're locked in their chamber. Novatius is in a state, and the lawyer is in with him and the prosecutor is running between Novatius and judges, thus he's the last one who has time for your presumptuous questions.”
“Great, the things they come up with...”
“You didn't know that the defendant refused to give evidence?”
“Wow!”
“It's his right.”
“Really? I didn't know that. Interesting.”
“But I see an opportunity to find out more. There is a deputy of supreme court...”
Kisbon turns quickly to man coming through the corridor:
“Sorry, Mr. Dalger.”
Reporter is following her, pressing himself closer to Dalger:
“Sorry, pardon me.”
Kisbon: “Mr. Dalger, what do you think, will they continue today?”
“I can answer only off record.”
Reporter: “No. Unfortunately. Oh, sorry, fortunately, I forgot my microphone back at the studio.”
Dalger: “Then hurry up, because it's going to start up again in 10 minutes.”
Kisbon: “So all this means that the break was not such a serious affair?”
“Mrs. Kisbon, in regional courts they use to make mistakes. In this case, one of the associate judges will apologize to Novatius and we will continue soon.”
Reporter: “Then I'll go back to the studio. Thanks very much.”
Kisbon: “Thanks too, but I'm also interested in...”
Entering the studio Reporter is again full of confidence, blinking at the experts to encourage them: “Everything seems to have been cleared up. We'll continue in a moment. Take the headphones, please.”
Music is still playing, but Reporter has already something for Director: “Director, can you hear me?”
Legal expert is interrupting him with guilty feelings: “What happened, in fact?”
Reporter is answering carelessly, focused to find contact with Director: “You know, the associate judge...”
Director's voice interrupt him suddenly: “We hear you, Peter, and we have an interesting bit of tape for you to listen to. Before the break, they were broadcasting this from the continental competition...”
Sooner than Reporter could respond the record begin.
Judge: “Defendant, we have confirmed from our computerized data that your whole life attests to you being this sort of a person who is unsettled, has a confrontational nature, is exhibitionistic and overly-assertive, shows cheek to authorities and rules. Do you have anything to add?”
Novatius: “I only want to point out that for each characteristic there are usually two contrasting traits. Someone can be avaricious, but also miserly. It's depends on how you see it. It's quite possible that if you turn around these accusations, you could see me from another perspective.”
Judge to his colleagues: “It's this kind of impertinence...”
Novatius continue without allowing any interruption: “But if you really want to find some good characteristic in me, you should consider my sense of humor. When so many one-sided and simplified opinions have been dumped on me, I can only smile. Laughter is also, in fact, the last bastion of self-preservation against demagoguery.”
First Associate Judge: “Are you making a mockery of this trial? Do you even realized where you
are? This trial can pass sentence without your involvement.”
Three men in studio are string at each other. From speakers they hear a courtroom noises, wave of excited voices, identical to that used before science expert and Reporter began their discussion. Suddenly a new voice break a quarrel they have heard.
Kisbon: “Dear friends, I'm sorry to interrupt this little war of words. We will be happy when you make up your mind. That's why I didn't comment on the overly emotional speech from the judge. But at this time, for your information I must add, that the verdict without the defendant is of course possible. But it testifies to the complete lack of understanding of this bizarre case. The process of this performance has only one goal: for the defendant to be brought before the court and advised, under the pressure of logical, positive arguments, to change his mind and publish his important discovery. To punish him would be society's confession of its inability to persuade a crucial person at a crucial time and place about humanity common aim. Physical accomplishment is possible from compulsion. But with spiritual accomplishments there exists some obstacle which is not possible to conquer with violence or other force. If this regional tribunal can't deal with this case, it may be headed to the Supreme Court.”
Record from tape is finish. Director's voice come from the speaker: “What do you think?”
Reporter: “Now I understand what Kisbon is doing here. And why that Supreme Court judge is swaggering around here. So, we have to get ready for another stunt from the Supreme Court, I think.”
“Peter, about any trips abroad... we'll speak later.”
“I only want to make sure we plan ahead for it.”
“What's happening in the court?”
“Don't worry. We're all prepared here. Take out this gloomy music. We're set.”
Red light is again illuminating studio. And Reporter is again in his job: “After a short intermezzo, we're back live. The first associate judge formally apologized to the defendant, and the defendant is about to answer...”

(To be continued)

Translated by Robert M. Davis

Story in English II

DA VINCI CASE

(PART II)

Judge: “Defendant. Do you agree with copy of your testimony being recorded by the computer?”
“Sure.”
“Sure, or yes?”
“Sure, yes.”
Judge turns to his colleagues and says openly: “I warn the members of the tribunal that the same arrogant way Mr. Novatius behaved...”
Novatius's Lawyer: “I protest.”
Judge: “You can when I finish. The defendant behaved in the same arrogant way during the interrogation by the computer, which in some ways confused the programmed concept of the interrogation software.”
“I have to protest again!”
Judge: “You can, I've finished.”
Reporter: “Mr. Novatius's lawyer doesn't seem to have an easy job.”
Legal expert: “Yes, it's absolutely terrible. The defendant originally even refuses to have a lawyer. He pleads his case like an amateur -- spontaneously, without consulting with his lawyer, who can only scrimmage with the Judge. It can't bring him professional satisfaction with sure -- and no sympathy at all from the public.”
Bustling in the hall is heard in studio too.
Reporter: “The defendant seems to have embittered not only the public, but also those who are, unfortunately, near to him. It can tell much about his character. Now with me, listening to the proceedings, is the distinguished scientific expert, Dr. Gropius, who has known the defendant for a years. Am I right, Dr. Gropius?”
“Not so much. In fact, I met him few times. During studies and later mostly in seminars or conferences.”
“Could you tell us anything about him?”
“He wasn't a perfect student. Above average, but undisciplined. He had a smattering of interest in everything besides the problem at hand. He adopted science for himself like short runs. He shut himself in the laboratory for a set period, and when he succeeded discovering something during that period, he published it. And when he didn't, he quickly got over the disappointment by turning to one of his hobbies.”
“Which hobbies? Drugs, women, politics.”
“He didn't overdo anything. And he didn't stick with one hobby as well. He had real panache about everything he did and specially enjoyed attention of crowds. I don't think that this surroundings in the court will scare him.”
Interview breaks for a while noise in the hall, incomprehensible voices in the background from the trial.
Scientific expert continues: “In those quick actions in his laboratory he was able to concentrate thoroughly, but this is no way to work in science. I'm sure that he made this discovery quite by chance.”
Reporter: “We could say that what he easily got, he cynically easily lost.”
“You could say that.”
“Although our listeners know something about his discovery, can you clarify its importance?”
“After the AIDS epidemic was finally controlled and changes in lifestyle radically reduced the number of heart attacks, two deadly hindrances still faced humankind -- cancer and ageing. They don't seem to have anything in common. But there are reparation mechanisms for protecting the genetic code of each cell. If they work well and repair all genetic defects that occur during the cell's life, the organism -- and also the man -- grow old. If they can't preserve this programmed process, degeneration takes place and all cells grow young. Unfortunately, it's the malignancy growing young, which is beyond the control of the organism -- and this is cancer. We concluded that growing old and cancer is the same process, but in opposite directions.”
“The defendant conducted just such experiments. What was he successful in achieving?”
“First, a little background. Some 10 years ago, the exceptional ability of bacterium Deinoccocus radiodurans to repair genetic damage from radiation was discovered. Thanks to more effective repair mechanisms, coded in its genes, this bacterium was 50 times more resistant than human cells. About the HIV virus, we knew that it also has a special gene ´tat´. Thanks to it, after successfully attacking human cells, this gene is responsible for enhancing a 1,000-fold the ability of these cells to produce more HIV viruses. Army laboratories succeeded in combining these two different genes and...”
“Thanks to genetic engineering, soldiers facing the greatest risk had these two new genes implanted into the nuclei of their cells and no longer fear radiation sickness. If they aren't right next to an atomic explosion, they can move safely in radioactive territory. But the defendant wasn't involved in army research...”
“No, he wasn't. He speculated about the idea for prolonging life. He wanted to save life against mutations, from radiation, chemical materials, genetic risks.”
“Then, the fantastic perspective for almost unlimited prolongation of human life opens up!”
“Sure, but there’s a hitch. If Novatius worked on strengthening the reparation mechanism, he had to stick to the problem of how to ensure that this new ability reaches all the cells of the body. One possibility was to experiment with human embryos...”
“These experiments are forbidden.”
“Yes, but difficult to monitor. Scientific teams at this field work very closely and confidentially. Only those involved in similar experiments can understand what they're doing, and outsiders are not welcomed to visit competitive laboratories. Reliable controls don't exist. Getting human sperm and eggs isn't a problem. And in-vitro fertilization is routine.”
“Then the defendant did conduct forbidden experiments.”
“We don't know. But we know this knowledge from military experiments can't help him. The soldiers had cells altered, but as adults. Experiments in whole organisms at so early an age could have major consequences.”
“And he solved this problem?”
“Perhaps, yes.”
“But I understand that he refused to publish his results and destroyed everything including any supporting data. Is it certain that he actually discovered something?”
“He succeeded with monkeys, published just a general conclusions from his results and held a short press conference at which he revealed monkeys from his experiments. Then he radically changed his mind. He ordered the laboratory animals killed. Only his favorite lab monkey, Rikky, stayed alive. Her exceptional resilience he later demonstrated to some important academic colleagues. It was his typical vanity. As far as I know, everyone of these colleagues was allowed to bring some perfect gene-destroying agent and apply it into Rikky's food. But Rikky was able to resist all of these gene-attacks. As a small compensation, Novatius insisted that the colleagues had to buy huge quantities of bananas. He said that the bananas were the only real risk for Rikky because she had an especially sweet tooth.”
“Where is Rikky today?”
“She stayed alive against all that deadly experiments, but she couldn't bear to be separated from Novatius. When he was arrested, Rikky refused to eat.”
“Couldn't anyone do anything..?”
“No, when we speak about biotechnologies it is impossible to make additional incursions into a live system. We can't open it up, draw a schematic and recreate it. Basic cytological and biochemical tests didn't show anything. For detailed research we require long-term cultivation of Rikky's cells. This culture we can only make from the culture removed cells, which we call calus. But calus will grow only when the cells spontaneously changes to the new system and starts to divide. Rikky's cell-reparation system was perfect and precluded anything like this.”
“And what about Novatius's colleagues?”
“He had only helpers and lab assistants. He was an absolute individualist. Sure, the authorities questioned them. But they learned only partial information that somebody was injecting something somewhere and another poured some well-know agent into some unknown liquid. It was worthless.”
“So, everything is lost?”
“In contemporary, state-of-the-art scientific technology, we don't need to know details if we know the premise or principle. Very often we only need confirmation that this way is realistic. That it's possible. A few sentences or schemata, a catalyst, and the process is under way.”
“Does it mean that we could hear the solution here at the trial?”
“If they can convince Novatius to tell it, sure. But he's silent.”
“Thank you. Actually, we can see that he is really silent... he's not only silent, he's leaving! The guards have taken him away. Mr. Hokius, what's going on?”
“Sorry, I was so interested in my colleague's words that I didn't see what happened... but it's not finished, I'm sure. It's just a break.”
“We planned a longer broadcast and our listeners surely would welcome a little musical interlude...” Reporter replays with despair, “... a little musical interlude..!”
Red-light lamp marking broadcasting from studio went out.

(To be continued)

Translated by Robert M. Davis

Story in English I

DA VINCI CASE

(PART I)

Radio stings break up the news bites. News presenter's voice: “The top story in today's news, attracting worldwide attention, is trial of Dr. Novatius. He is accused for crimes against humanity, specifically for destroying his discovery, the immortality gene. We'll be going live to the trial as soon as its begins... In other news...”

The corridor to courtroom is full of waiting people. Atmosphere is nervous. New guy appeared, it is Reporter crawling through a crowds directly to the guarded doors: “Sorry, sorry, excuse me... Hello, sergeant, I just need to get a little closer.”
“You can't get any closer,” say Sergeant patiently, “The whole passage is closed. There is no admission.”
“Hey, you know me, right? Just one question, I'll slip in. No one will notice me.”
“Mr. Collin, it's impossible today. Strict measures.”
“I understand, everybody wants to see him. And I heard something about a lynching, too. But I work here. Don't you listen to the radio? In 45 minutes I'm broadcasting live.”
“Don't get excited, it's not my fault.”
Reporter get immediately excited: “What do you mean, not my fault, it's nobody's fault. Then why are you here? You are here to decide who can see him and... Hey, there is man leaving cell over there. What's going on?”
Sergeant is answering without looking that direction: “It's his lawyer, and if you want to see the defendant, you can ask him.”
“Oh, good! I thought it was the competition.” Meanwhile lawyer approached crowd and is trying to get through out. “Just a minute, sir, you, as a lawyer...”
Lawyer is passing the Reporter with no answer, looking strictly forward. It is also possible that he simply didn’t hear him as more and more bustling, humming is coming from crowd in the passage. Reporter in the midst of the crowd: “Wait, sorry, hold on! They're pulling my microphone apart! One moment. Testing microphone - one, two, three. Okay. Could you tell us, sir, how the defendant, Mr. Novatius, feels before the trial?”
Surprisingly lawyer stop for a while, turn his head back to the Reporter and says shortly with cold face: “I can't.”
Reporter move quickly closer to lawyer, whole body and face expressing hope and eagerness: “But you spoke with him just a moment ago.”
“He doesn't speak with anyone.”
Reporter is for a while loosing his drive. “I'm so relieved...”, he says instinctively but these few seconds are enough to lose lawyer who is continuing his way through crowd. Reporter see just back from the leaving lawyer. As he is trying to attract lawyer's attention back, he is partly screaming and immediately changing a voice to that official tone announcing first question to his microphone: “Just a moment... don't run away, please. Could you tell me what you think about ...”
Clamour of crowds drowns out Reporter... Another policeman is trying to get order in front of the courthouse.
“Tickets, show me your tickets! Entry to courthouse with tickets only. Do you have your ticket?”
Addressed man stopped hesitating: “I am... I haven't, but I cooperated with him as a scientific colleague, you know... My name is Grobius, Dr. Grobius.”
It has no impact on the policeman: “It's interesting how you're all family and colleagues now. Even stabbing can make someone famous, and this...”
Reporter is here again. He appeared like he jump up from the floor. As obviously, full of energy and eagerness: “Sorry, are you defendant’s former colleague, mister...?”
Unknown man repeated patiently: “Grobius, Dr. Grobius.”
Reporter is shining: “Oh, this is great.” And with authoritative tone to the policeman: “He's coming with me. Let's go!”
Policeman without change in his face: “Whatever you think, Mr. Collin.” Turning back to the crowds he is again in his official tone: “Tickets, let's see your tickets!”
Studio in courthouse is small and when Reporter and Dr. Grobius enter it, somebody is already sitting and waiting there. Soon they could say anything, voice of Director come from the speaker: “Mr. Collin, Peter, do you hear me? Are you with us?”
Reporter is gasping for breath: “Yes, I just arrived.”
“We start in 10 minutes. Do you have something on tape?”
“Nothing. The crowd almost pulled apart my microphone, and my hand with it. But I have his former colleague here. He's a schoolmate, friend, or something like that.”
“Great. We introduce him like a scientific expert. What about the legal expert?”
“He is already here. I'm pleased to welcome the distinguished barrister, Mr. Hokius.”
In a moment it is crowded now also in studio, like in the corridor outside. Legal expert woke up to shake hands with Reporter and Scientific expert: “Good afternoon.”
Because studio is really small, the best for those three is to sit and not too move. Reporter is managing them to the chairs.
“Now, we're together. Let's play some quiet music and after five minutes we begin.”
When louder music come from speaker, Reporter turns to the experts: “Now we've met each other, and I hope everything is clear ...this Novatius is so uppity. He doesn't speak with anyone and his lawyer is even more uppity. He speaks, but about nothing. In brief, this whole process is so ridiculous, in fact it's the last chance to see that bubble burst. We show this miserable scene to the public, so they can find out that even in our little district, we know why flies die. Don't worry, take heart!”
In moment music sound decrease replaced by Announcer's voice: “And now, as promised, we're going live to the town courthouse.”
Reporter blinked at the experts, to encourage them, and in next moment is fully focused at broadcasting: “Good afternoon. I'm here in the middle of the court case that is the focus of worldwide attention. At this moment, the judges are arriving. Five dignified men, led by their Judge. They're sitting down. The lawyers are in their places and, now, here comes the defendant... As you certainly hear, audience in the courthouse welcome him with whistling, bustling and humming. They came today to see Novatius with their own eyes. And he's provoking them, and they're angry. On the first day of the court, the Judge respectfully asked: 'Mr. Novatius, what right did you have to destroy your discovery, which have to be understand as the property of our progressive society?' And Novatius answered... 'fortunately, for human civilization, the soul and brain of man never became the property of any society.' But while the defendant claimed to speak on behalf of humanity, the actions for which he stands trial seem to be clearly against humanity's interest. But, meanwhile back in the courtroom... Here in the hall, the atmosphere is nearly explosive. But, unlike the turmoil in the audience, the trial itself is like in the eye of hurricane. In front of the judges stands the defendant, and now it's a fairly routine process taking place. We can take this occasion to ask our legal expert, Mr. Hokius, what's going on?”
Legal expert: “This formal part that begins a trial is an example of the progress in our judicial system. It's a process of checking of testimony by computer. In the past, investigators tried to gain complete confessions at any price, or, at least detailed testimony of a presumption of guilt from the perpetrator. At first glance this seemed right but it was a case, unfortunately, of the means celebrating the end, and it wasn't fair. Consequently, the lawgivers established the right of the defendants to answer only when their lawyer was present. But an experienced lawyer always came with some objections with aim to get the investigator off the topic or confused him. It shaken presumption that the interrogator can investigate effectively only when he is sovereign and know his own intellectual power. Fortunately, this problem was solved a few years ago by electronic equipment, and now you can see the result. A greater part of the interrogation can be delivered holus bolus to the court in a lawful way. Only the computer can ask and register the answers of the defendant. This way has secured the freedom of expression of the individual on the one hand and the respect for the law's sovereignty on the other.”
“Thanks for your answer, Mr. Hokius. There will be more questions during the trial, but let's go back to the courtroom...”

(To be continued)

Translated by Robert M. Davis

Writers in Politics IV

Role of the literati in modern society

WRITERS IN POLITICS -- UTOPY FOREVER?

(PART IV)

Last stronghold -- Presidency?

In fact, politics is intellectually a very poor activity. Politics is based on stereotypes, averageness and moderate behavior. The language of ordinary politics is anodyne -- colorless, flavorless and odorless. Politics, in democratic states as well, requires discipline. Thinking within the limits of group interests, limiting individuality. Politics is a profession and the professionals must adhere to very strict rules. Therefore, we can clearly see that this is exactly what writers are not, what they don’t like to do. Writers are individualists; they hate to repeat the same sentence twice. Although for politicians it is necessary to repeat the same ideas a thousand times. Writers are exhibitionists, egoists -- they hate discipline. Another basic antagonity between writers and current political tendencies was shown in former Czechoslovakia. Writers by their nature, tended to the left on the political scene. But writers in former Czechoslovakia, although by their nature leftist, were after the “Velvet Revolution” logically forced to present themselves as conservative, rightist politicians. About what they didn’t actually know too much. They even didn’t know too much about democracy in practice how they could implement it successfully? They knew only slogans good for meetings. But in daily practice, they were lost. On the other hand, they were fascinated with the idea of how they are playing their role in history. And the highest pleasure from this for writers is -- to write memoirs. Could you imagine -- at that time the leader of the democratic movement in Slovakia was able through the day to fight with the remains of communist regime and by night to write his memoirs about what he did that particular day?! Illnesses of writing “instant memoirs” tend to infect others too.

Unfortunately, this was not a case only of writers in Czechoslovakia. In Macedonia this story was repeated in smaller, less medialized scale. However, very interesting is how many writers took highest places in their countries soon after revolutionary events -- and how poorly were holding them later. Radovan Karadžič, gain his reputation also as an established poet, but now is accused of war crimes. Zvjad Gamsachurdia was excellent example of writer in dissent who, after coming to the power, turns dramatically to be a dictator. Same it was in Armenia with Levon Ter Petrosjan. All these men were or still are for significant time Presidents and as such changed their behavior significantly too. These are the cases when Presidents were really ruling the country. And in most of the cases they led their countries to bigger troubles and bad times.

In some Central and Eastern European states the Presidency is generally a more symbolical role and does not have as much to do with practical politics. Consequently in such a position, a writer could do less damage in practical outcomes and show a better face. As well as Václav Havel, almost never-ending President of Czech Republic, the former President of Hungary, Arpád Göncz, and the former President of Bulgaria, Zhelju Zheljev, were writers as well. Likewise it was in Estonian President Lennart Meri. However, vision of the intellectuals and particularly writers ruling the nation in perfect agreement with the majority of ordinary people was tested within these years and found as an utopy forever.

In this view it is really extraordinary to know that exist also a third way. However limited are distant examples, it is clear that when Nelson Mandela became a President, it was certainly also the situation of the sharp change of regime from the totalitarian to the democratic. It happened also a peaceful way and need a great political skillfulness to save a gains of such a change for a better future. And Nelson Mandela succeed and further more he is not afraid to step down when he feel that his mission was fulfilled. Maybe the explanation is that he always dealt as a patient politician who was always able to distinguish between reality and theatrical gestures of absurd drama.

Nevertheless, this finding doesn’t automatically means that there is no role for writers in politics. It is true that writers are very unskilled in promoting democratic politics in practice, with all its rules and detailed implementation. But writers should not be necessarily politicians. They should, by their actual writings, to control politicians. Sharp comments of common practices and pragmatical tendencies in politics, that’s their best natural role. And for that, they have skillfulness enough.

(The End)

Writers in Politics III

Role of the literati in modern society

WRITERS IN POLITICS -- UTOPY FOREVER?

(PART III)

Peace to whom, tolerance to what

Keyword of “Velvet Revolution” was a proclamation of peace and tolerance as a counterpart to violence and intolerance of Communist regime. However, many years of Communist oppression replaced by post-Communist depression taught us that nothing in social life and politics is so clear as it looks at first sight.

Within following years the writers who had come out from behind their desks and had in very beginning everything in their hands, had again lost everything in terms of the political power. From that moment appears a myth, a legend that there were too tolerant to the former Communists, who are now recovering themselves from the shock of the revolution in 1989. This myth is still preserving a shelter of opposition where these writers retreated finally and it is until now a general excuse for all their failures in recent years. We have to raise the question -- should this be true?

Communist regimes in Central and East Europe were as a repeated Christian history of heretics, reformists and their oppression in the shorten way. Consequently, revolutionary democratic movements in post-Communist countries in the region were as a repeated Communist history in the shorten way too. Like Communists hated Christian ideology, but adopted its hierarchy of the power, velvet revolutionaries hated a hierarchy of Communist regimes but spontaneously adopted their sort of ideological practices in politics. Velvet revolutionaries were really tolerant to defeated Communists, with some exceptions like the uncovering of the former agents of the Secret police. Nothing happened even to hard, orthodox Communist leaders and apparatchiks after 1989. Some explanation could be in hypothetic peculiar and secret contract between the dissidents around Havel and part of the Communist leaders, which (under peculiar supervision of that same Secret police?!) triggered Velvet Revolution. But tolerance of velvet revolutionaries had one strict limit. They were intolerant toward their own colleagues and friends if there appeared only an attempt of the criticism from inside the velvet revolutionary leadership.

Tragicomic was fact that, especially in Slovakia, those pure dissidents were really only few. Enough for playing cards, but not enough to playing a real political game. However a larger circle of “sympathizers” very soon surrounded them. All of them had some history; some of them were former Communists and not only passive ones. Among them were also those who wrote adoring poems about the Communist party in the past. And now, overnight, they were perfect democrats, although hardly knowing what democracy is and how it should be implemented in Slovakia. Only confusing for them was that, instead of usual instructions from Moscow, they got no any detailed instructions from Bonn, London or Washington. They did not even get a “Vocabulary of Democracy” according to which they could prepare to teach and scrutinize others. Karel Kryl, well-known poet and protest singer, called them the leaders of “democraturaship”. They understood plurality as a chorus of voices singing their praises. They adopted very soon a Communist slogan “those who are not with us, they are against us” (strangely enough, later we have heard the very same one from Mr. Bush with his attempt to excuse “War against terrorism”, his conservativeness and methods were not far from the communists approach). And it was meant seriously and unconditionally. They simple understood that everything critical that was said about them (and not from Communist now, but from other writers who dared to do so) was against democracy. And finally they adopted a method of how to distinguish between “good” and “bad” boys -- ostracism.

Simultaneously with the rising demands for equal cooperation between Czechs and Slovaks (not for dividing the federal state primarily) these velvet revolutionaries found again their certainty. If democracy is so complicated that there isn’t even a User’s Guide, the question of nationalism is quite clear -- nationalism as such is wrong and what is most wrong if not the nationalism of a nation which (according they opinion and instructions from some extremists in Prague) doesn’t exist. If they were before so intolerant to their own friends not to listen to critical remarks, now they started to be intolerant again. Intolerant to anything that was against this purely intellectual and artificial construction describing the political situation in terms as simple as that of a schoolboy might be so bold as to do. If they were like a small group of courageous young intellectuals, now they started to behavior like an even smaller gang of the owners of the only truth. Ostracism started to be a weapon of mass liquidation among writers. It was so easy to recognize that, in this indirect way, you were labeled a bad boy. If in previous times they did not like to hear criticism, now they did not like to hear any alternatives. Beloved with waves of sympathy at the beginning, finally they isolated themselves and cut off serious two-way contacts with the political environment. A one-way information track led to nowhere. This way they lost. And until now are loosing their time and effort to not to seriously evaluate their mistakes (the simply idea how could they lost if not by their own mistakes, is now forbidden for themselves too), but to describe the stupidity of such a nation who did not listen them (but paradoxically was not regard so stupid when elected them and gave them full power at the beginning of this story).

The conclusion is obvious, and sad at the same time. For the shameful stages of human history are not responsible only that stupid pragmatics dying for instant success and recovering themselves by political corruption of all sorts, but also that nice boys that show disinterest for politics, dying only for their idealistic ideals (by the way at the beginning all these revolutionaries for democracy openly expressed how they hate to have power, but were so sorry to say it “good-bye” later). Paradoxically, these nice boys taught those now in power not to be ashamed about being intolerant to criticism, to use ostracism against other opinions and even counter everything that is critical against them like an attack against the Nation, against Homeland. It is not familiar slogan to you already? Yes, replace words Nation or Homeland with Democracy and surprisingly you will find that this sort of weapon was already used. Of course, the newcomers are dealing with such weapons in a more drastic way and, of course, they are not shameful to bring shame to everything, if honorable intellectuals showed them examples. The circle of intolerance of those who one time would like to be as a teacher of tolerance was closed.

(to be continued)