DOKAZ NI DOKAZ (EVIDENCE IS NOT PROOF)



"Schadenfreude originates in the fact that, in certain respects of which he is well aware, everyone feels unwell - is oppressed by care or envy or sorrow: the harm that befalls another man makes him our equal; it appeases our envy. If, on the other hand, he happens to feel perfectly well, he nonetheless gathers up his neighbour's misfortune in his consciousness as a capital upon which to draw when he himself faces misfortune: thus he too experiences schadenfreude."
       -- Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human: A Book For Free Spirits

Here's Ptuj's creationist Prosecutor Mrs Bernard Korpar, following the acquittal of a man accused of organising the murder of a person he owed 600,000 euros.
https://x.com/TVMaribor/status/1888857497449955624 [4758]

Explaining how after three years, two restarts and 53 hearings, she is convinced the result is incorrect, and therefore plans to appeal the acquittal (which in Slovenia is not double jeopardy, oh no), Mrs Bernard Korpar explains that "dokazi dokazujejo" the exonerated defendant's guilt - which as far as the present Defendant can discern means that "evidence evidences" this.

As in all walks of life, limitations are placed upon the concepts essential to justice, by language.

In my own present action, a lively discussion broke out between the lawyers during the preliminary hearing about the heading of a document - "Ovadba" - as the Defendant wanted to know what that meant. A statement? No. Indictment? No.

The result was inconclusive, and no definition was ultimately proffered by either side. It later turned out the meaning the Slovenians were squirming around and hiding is "denunciation" - so Soviet.

By bothering more people with better things to do, it was learned that "evidence proves" was "the nearest thing" in the case of "dokazi dokazujejo".

But "evidence evidences" and "evidence proves" are not the same.

And so in the regrettable case of Mr Slodnjak, simply pointing and saying "you did it" did not, after three attempts, prove he had done it, something I imagine would have been immediately apparent to the CPS under the British system, meaning the case would never have gone to trial, ovadba or no ovadba.

The astrophysicist Carl Sagan said "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." In Slovene this can take many forms:

Če nimaš dokaza, to še ni dokaz, da dokaza ni – If you don't have proof, that's not yet proof that there is no proof;

Odsotnost indicev še ni dokaz o odsotnosti – Absence of clues/indications is not yet proof of absence;

To, da nekaj ne najdemo, še ni dokaz, da to ne obstaja – The fact that we haven't found something isn't proof that it doesn't exist;

The most faithful to the original does not rely on ancillary concepts like clues or indications, and somehow eludes the central problem of the shapshifting dokaz:

Odsotnost dokaza ni dokaz odsotnosti – Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Moreover, in the present case, the evidence alleging that the Town Smell-opposing Defendant was reducing obesity, diabetes, and cancer and so on, and increasing longevity, hippocampal spine density, female orgasm frequency, and so on - arrived in the form of an ovadba from an alcoholic burglar manipulated by Ptuj Police.

Whereas the ovadba in the case of Slodnjak came from the Police and Prosecutors themselves, without a front-person.

In Slovene the concept of evidence and the concept of proof are blurred, overlapping, confusable.

Circular reasoning and wishful thinking are routine amongst racists and bigots of all varieties.

 In English the concepts of evidence and proof are quite separate. The avoidance of circular reasoning and wishful thinking is considerably enhanced by having different words for different things, in the same way that an arm (roko) is easily distinguished from a hand (roko). The Defendant commends this system to the justices.

German has a similar problem to Slovene, with Beiweis, but has a multiplicity of other terms distinguishing the two: Evidenz, Zeugnis, Aussage, these are equivalent to evidence, testimony, in English.

Nachweis is something more concrete than a court concluding from what they are told that you are a black jew, when you are a Japanese Taoist. Here are some examples of what Ptuj has proved so far.

 

And let us not forget mother Russia: proof is доказательство dokazatel'stvo - and evidence in court the familiar sounding доказательства в суде dokazatel'stva v sude.

But neizpodbiten dokaz leaves us no better off in defining the quality of the proof, or distinguishing evidence that is irrefutable from any old rubbish.

Consequently it should come as no surprise that for many, the distinction is rather inconclusive, and likely to fall to baba rekla baba čula, which the Defendant avers has also played a part in his reputational, physical, and economic injuries in Ptuj.

And by its misuse of language in categorisation, the SCND in its misrepresentation of cannabis as a harmful substance, and a narcotic on a par with heroin, has irreversibly convicted many people, as the UN now sees it, very wrongly.

Today the absurdity and weakness of the drug verbiage is laid bare: while cannabis is no longer a "narcotic" in Germany, it will remain a "narcotic" in proposed Swiss legislation:
https://cannabishealthnews.co.uk/2025/02/25/switzerland-could-become-europes-first-fully-fledged-adult-use-market-by-2026/?utm_content=365696194&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&hss_channel=tw-1138396664069337088 [4779]

Thus not only have the public and the authorities been "pumped up" in their opinion of cannabis by its former classification, but for many it must be a conviction to which they have, by this point, become long habituated. And dokaz makes this particularly easy for native Slovene speakers, with their many ovadbe.

The previous classification cannot be instantly wiped from public memory, and there are those in power that prefer this. If nobody hears cannabis isn't heroin any more, they won't have to squirm out of their now-obsolete thought patterns, or somehow remedy the effects of their injurious errors on past victims of cannabis justice. Their ignorance - long known to many - will not be exposed.

Ways in which Slovenians might think "dokazi dokazujejo" include primacy error, availability error, the influence of authority, the influence of the crowd, and if we add a general disinclination on the part of the human race to think forensically, neutrally, analytically - well your dokaz is no dokaz at all.

Rather, prohibition is an accessory to tyranny of all kinds, an invitation to conduct enquiries into the truth in the form of a playground slagging match, in which volume and power, repetition, dogma, and religious dogma, are the most effective components - in other words exactly how we see the worst of politics conducted.

And exactly how we have seen drugs policy conducted, not just here, but around the world. Slovenia owes its 51.55% fun-loving citizens something a little more sophisticated than that on matters of their autonomous rights.

So to take one well known example: for a while, for Mr Janša and Nova 24 TV, it became more important to say the Social Democrats operate out of a stolen jewish villa. Over and over again this evidence evidenced, in social media, in right wing outlets.

Well why not do the obvious thing if you think a villa has been stolen from some jews or anybody else, and you are bothered about it - which is of course to report it to the Police? Eventually, on the proposal of this author, the SD sued the former PM, and won 10,000 euros.

We had the same problem with a Mr Tony Blair, who insisted Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. Of course no such weapons capable of threatening the UK were ultimately found.
https://theintercept.com/2018/02/06/lie-after-lie-what-colin-powell-knew-about-iraq-fifteen-years-ago-and-what-he-told-the-un/ [727]

Colin Powell said it to the UN Security Council. The CIA said it. The dodgy dossier said it. The BBC was saying "weapons of mass destruction" a dozen times a minute. You could not turn on the tv or radio without WMDs entering your head.

At least a million people were smart enough to see through this and bothered enough to protest: what resulted was the largest demonstration in London, ever. Blair and his press office shrugged it off, and "weapons of mass destruction" was simply repeated a few thousand more times. Over sixty million people of course did not go on that protest, and that's the point of this technique.

And the Iraq war went ahead anyway. A weapons inspector who didn't go along with this agenda died under mysterious circumstances, and the police on the borders of Europe are still dealing with the fallout from this extraordinary lie. What characterised this "evidence" was the old advertising adage: reputation is repetition.

Even though the WMD dokaz was ultimately a mix of invention and hyperbole, and the alleged mission a failure, imagine how much harder it would have been for opponents of the war if "evidence" also meant "proof" and "proof" also meant "evidence". And how much easier it would have been for Blair and Bush to wave it away after none were found.

Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about, thought Benjamin Lee Whorf (1897-1941). The pioneering linguist grasped the relationship between human language and human thinking: how language can shape our innermost thoughts. His basic thesis is that our perception of the world and our ways of thinking about it are deeply influenced by the structure of the languages we speak.

"Whorf laid out his views in an essay titled 'The Relation of Habitual Thought and Behavior to Language.' Contrasting the way time is discussed by English speakers (as an object that can be quantified and divided) and by Hopi speakers (as a more continuous process, or so Whorf believed), he suggested that linguistic differences contributed to differences in how each group understands temporal flow. Despite the boldness of his claims, he was also cautious, proposing merely 'traceable affinities' between language and behavior, nothing ironclad, and stressing that he was 'the last to pretend that there is anything so definite as "a correlation."'

"Unfortunately, that nuance has usually been forgotten. Whorf has since become the mascot of linguistic determinism - the position that language is the ultimate arbiter of thought. Whorfianism, as its sometimes called, quickly dissolves into absurdities: if your language lacks a proper future tense, tomorrow will be inconceivable; if your language lacks certain emotion words, you will never feel them. Preverbal infants, orangutans, and all other creatures incapable of language are, by implication, powerless to perform many basic mental operations."
https://web.archive.org/web/20241224022537/ [3825]

So for the non-Slovene at least, dokaz is not dokaz. But in Slovenia, for most of the people most of the time, it is. What this means is that Slovene IN PARTICULAR is a wellspring for denunciation and police corruption. It offers a kind of circular reasoning which is hard to challenge. Ptuj, the Defendant is advised, is "full of hate". Slovene is an ovadba-fest and Ptuj's malignant mudslingers know it.



Conflation - such as the superstitious conflation of heroin and cannabis, a real historical event which cannot be denied - is an easier act to perform unchallenged when you do not have a word for conflation...Slovenia did not possess the present word "konflacija" in its 2001 Pravopis, so the concept is more recent there than its drug law the ZPPPD. The ZPPPD and its Schedule conflated heroin and cannabis by Group until 8 April 2017.

Worse is to come for legal equality of arms as Slovenia's ever-busy bureaucrats, having appropriated conflation and remodeled it into konflacija to replace a missing concept, have decided to allocate to it a relatively tame, uncontroversial, and barely related concept.

To wit, konflacija has been looming on the Slovenian concept horizon since around 2020. 

Konflacija is destined for the Pravopis 8.0 - but with the revision under discussion by linguists, looks likely to be bent into a grammatical rather than logical term, something akin to the English borrowing "portmanteau".

Grok at least seems sure Slovenia will be little better off with this:

"Da, "konflacija" se v slovenščini (in širše v jezikoslovju) obravnava predvsem kot gramatični (oziroma tvorbeni, morfološko-leksikalni) koncept, ne kot logični. V jezikoslovni teoriji in praksi se konflacija nanaša na specifičen način besedotvorja (word formation): gre za zlitje (blending, portmanteau) dveh ali več besed, pri čemer se prekrivajoči deli glasovno/črkovno združijo v novo enoto (npr. angleški primeri kot brunch ← breakfast + lunch, slovenski primeri kot smog ← smoke + fog, ali sodobnejši neologizmi tipa infotainment, webinar itd.). To je torej proces na ravni morfologije in leksike, ki spada v slovnični (gramatični) opis jezika – specifično v poglavja o tvorbi besed, zloženkah, zlitjih ali glasovno-črkovnih premenah pri tvorbi novih besed.

"V kontekstu Pravopisa 8.0 (ki je še vedno v fazi javnih razprav in dokončevanja leta 2026) se takšni pojavi najverjetneje obravnavajo v poglavju Slovnični oris za pravopis (zlasti del o tvorbi besed, priponah, predponah in sekundarnih tvorbenih procesih) ali v Glasovno-črkovne premene (ki je bilo objavljeno v razpravi 2024). Tam gre za pravila, kdaj in kako se take zlitje zapisuje skupaj, kako se obravnava prekrivanje glasov/črk, in podobno – torej gre za normativno-gramatična vprašanja pisanja in oblike, ne za logično sklepanje ali semantično logiko.

"Logični vidik bi prišel v poštev le posredno, npr. pri analizi, ali je novo tvorjena beseda semantično logična (ali pomen res sledi iz sestavin), vendar to ni primarna raven, na kateri se termin "konflacija" uporablja. V slovenščini in sosednjih jezikih (npr. srbščini, kjer se termin prav tako pojavlja) je "konflacija" jasno uvrščena v leksikologijo in morfologijo, ne v logiko ali filozofijo jezika.Skratka: da – močno prevladujoče kot gramatični/tvorbeni koncept, ne kot logični. Če bi se v kakšnem specifičnem besedilu (npr. v filozofiji jezika ali kognitivni lingvistiki) uporabljal v logičnem smislu (npr. zlivanje konceptov), bi to bilo izjema in ne standardna raba termina v slovenskem jezikoslovju."

Slovenia has therefore turned its back on an opportunity to unpick such popular uses of language such as "all gypsies are trouble" and "left-wingers are all going to massacre you and yank out your eyeballs", conveniently (for some) absenting a counterargument to popular right-wing anti-individualist wisdom.


Back in 1999, the conflation implicit in the sloppy epithet "drugs" could not have been examined, as conflation did not exist in Slovenia. Thus the authors of drug law ZPPPD could not then or since have considered the influence upon them of a concept inexpressible in their language. And in 2026, as far as the Defendant can ascertain, proficient English speakers in Slovenia do not know what either "conflation" or "konflacija" mean.




We can only remind the Court of the other way of describing conflations such as "drugs" and "narcotics" as flattening words (izravnavanje besed) in the hope this will convey the logical fallacy meaning of conflation.

"Združevanje" was another machine translation guess. "Confusion" made an appearance in the other direction. But these are unable to complete the concept of a fallacy in logic or rhetoric which SAZU is rejecting.

The original conflator in Latin was a maker of alloys, his crucible the conflatorium. We hope the Court can see that as in the present argument, the ideas of fusion or something being baked-in are more crucial to the Defence than a name for types of word like bromance and glamping.

As the word is rather important to the dissection of dumb ideas we hope after six years that Slovenia's language academy is able to find out what something is before informing the masses. Let us recall that due to some similar past bureaucratic process, Slovenians earnestly believe custard is "pudding". On its own!



But knowing how the bureaucrat's bread is buttered, we can guess, I think, that a non-foreign, uniquely Slovenian meaning will ultimately be baked-in, to no one's benefit, in Pravopis 8.0. If you want to leave a mark in linguistics, just make up a new word, don't prat around giving existing words alternative identities, as an expression of national independence.

The last people on the planet to believe cannabis is like heroin, the doubly conflatory "United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime", finally gave it up and slithered off on 2 December 2020 with nary an apology for all the harm and injustice caused by the "drugs" word.

Nowadays UNODC are diversifying into more dependable Weltanschauungen, such as saving the pangolin.

Sure, Police lie and bend the rules everywhere "for the greater good". But their job of tricking docile and easily-led witnesses is considerably simplified by this particular linguistic spaghetti hoop, which really helps to keep jurisprudence caught up somewhere around the level of the Inquisition and the Witchfinder General.

We should not be surprised, then, if witnesses say what they think they ought to say, believing it to be true because the Police told them other people said it.

We shouldn't be surprised if an 83-year old woman who sells a few vegetables here on the sunny side of the Alps is reported for unlicensed trade and tax evasion because the neighbours saw she had a new jacket.



https://mojcavocko.si/luksuzni-sosedje-prijavili-revno-83-letno-ano-kupila-si-je-novo-bundo/ [728]

So we shouldn't be surprised the director of the healthocracy NIJZ said CBD turns into THC in the body. Because proof-dokaz of something is easy to produce when all you have to do - after passing your medical exams containing no endocannabinoid system (b. 1990-1993, first mention in a Slovenian foreigner-prosecution 20 Oct 2020) - is say it's true. The evidence will show this doesn't even begin to hold up, and is just a kind of scientific rumour, debunked long before his statement.

Even as an atheist, the Defendant has no trouble agreeing with Proverbs 10:23... "To do evil is like sport to a fool, But a man of understanding has wisdom." That's a big, big problem in Slovenia, and one reason the courts are so busy with SLAPPs (in Slovene the rather funless STZUJ) - a SLAPP is a strategic lawsuit against public participation. Bojan Požar has defended over 30 SLAPP actions, Necenzurizano 39 SLAPPs at the last count, not a single one successful.
https://www.mfrr.eu/slovenian-investigative-news-outlet-necenzurirano-hit-with-39-slapp-lawsuits/ [729]

Is this good news for lawyers in Slovenia? Perhaps it is good practice for real defamation suits, or has Slovenia simply not found the boundary between fair reporting and libel? But shouldn't Slovenia find a proper word for proof first? Don't give me the "context" argument.

Was xyz a truth, or overwhelmingly likely to be true at the time of the author's action?

Clearly also, all political differences cannot and should not be resolved in the courts.

These are what we call vexatious actions - doing evil is like sport...to a fool.

This conduct of politics, including theocratic politics, through the courts is an undesirable phenomenon. But compared to the war on drugs it is a tiny fish. The present gravy train, based on prohibition, is bigger and more personal than SLAPPs. A secondary gravy train travels from moral medicine via social work and invasive and prejudicial drug testing regimes (now outlawed in New York), to the religious question of "appropriateness".



gravy train: a position in which a person or group receives excessive and unjustified money or advantages with little or no effort: The top executives were on the gravy train with their huge bonuses. Implies a bandwagon effect.

Drug prohibition is intertwined with geography, racism, religiosity, geopolitics, and economics. The Defence evidence evidences how the history of cannabis prohibition fits in with the history of hemp vs. cotton and their respective technologies, with the commercial situation at the 1925 Opium Convention, with the convenient redirection of Anslinger's prohibition force, with the success of newsprint and other media, with the success of DuPont, with the ideas about eugenics prevalent before WW2, with the Nixon and Erlichman statements and how, now the War On Drugs has become a global business in a symbiotic relationship with its opponents, civilised society is finally tiptoeing away, making a horrified retreat from this hypocritical and ill-informed criminalisation of its own right to usefully alter one's consciousness.

And it is doing this with various degrees of enthusiasm, by tinkering around with categories, with piecemeal repeal of prohibition country by country because the UN is frozen in the headlights of its own deus ex machina.

This celestial intervention imagines itself humane, short of admitting that CaPs are ok. In more enlightened jurisdictions it stops short of inviting the previously overprosecuted to sue it en masse.

Unlike the Greek one, the prohibition deus ex machina did not make manifest a solution, but instead created a bunch of unwanted hassle via the mixing of nice with not so nice people.

This machine was not designed to sort everything out in a flash. It slinks along at a glacial pace. With the scrubbing of criminal records, with restitution plans, and half-assed versions of legalisation, a grudging acceptance that illegality is not a guarantee of harmfulness - nor vice versa - is in the air.

But they cannot go from wrong to right overnight. In deference to the harmful legal drugs, much ass-covering with respect to CaPs is accomplished with the word "illicit".

"Illicit drugs" is a way of saying "We know this is stupid and alcohol is far more dangerous to use and sell, but it's a law". For the Police "illicit" means "We are going to search you and your property because it smells a particular way." Not like a pub.

Wisely, the ZPPPD does not explicitly declare that the effects of drugs are harmful. Its rationale is ethereal, not toxicological. The ZPPPD has set the Police an impossible target, leading inevitably to other discrimination, according to their needs, here and there, at the time.

Who started this war on reason? Racists, businessmen, politicians.

Not doctors, not pharmacists, not the voters, not much, not really.

MP: 'You can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.'
Professor Nutt: 'Why not?'
MP: 'Because one's illegal.'
Professor Nutt: 'Why is it illegal?'
MP: 'Because it's harmful.'
Professor Nutt: 'Don't we need to compare harms to determine if it should be illegal?'
MP: 'You can't compare harms from a legal activity with an illegal one.'
repeats

https://www.crimeandjustice.org.uk/sites/crimeandjustice.org.uk/files/Estimating%20drug%20harms.pdf [730]

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Englishman stands for the rights of everyone disadvantaged, discriminated against, persecuted, and prosecuted on the false or absent bases of prohibition, and also believes the victims of these officially-sanctioned prejudices have been appallingly treated and should be pardoned and compensated.

The Englishman requests the return of his CaPs and other rightful property, for whose distraint Slovenia has proffered no credible excuse or cause.

The Benedictions represent both empirical entities as well as beliefs. Beliefs which the Defence evidence shows may be reasonably and earnestly held about the positive benefits of CaPs at the population level, in which the good overwhelmingly outweighs the bad. Below, the latest version of this dynamic list.


THE BENEDICTIONS    REFERENCES    TIMELINE OF DRUG LAW v. SCIENCE