Most of the terrible chaos that characterizes the present process for the guilt establishment regarding the people that have collaborated with the former Security in the past is a consequence of the emotional excess of the public discussion. I am absolutely sure that in Germany, for example, the clarification of the situation of the people in East Germany that had collaborated with Stasi has been more lucid and more systematic. We shout a lot, in offense and in defense, we hit bellow the belt, and play dirty against our adversaries without even knowing or understanding the things we are actually talking about. This is the consequence of the fact that the entire process is taking place mainly in the media, on TV and in the press, but not where it should take place, in the law, in a well-developed system, which should set a hierarchy of guiltiness, of responsibilities and of consequences of the facts in the past.
Any discussion with such a national importance, at least morally, usually gets to a dead end. The ethical part is extremely relative and influenced a lot by the emotional pressures. Actually, many people in this part of Europe donât have a conscience: they are small people that manage through life by their means, that donât feel sorry at all about their past collaboration with the Security. They will say they didnât harm anyone by writing all those things in the Security reports, because this is how times used to beâ¦
There is a total criteria selection when it comes to the collaboration of the Romanian citizen with the former Security. There have been hundreds of thousands of ratters that have signed engagements and written information. Are they all guilty, from the penal point of view? The situation is somewhat similar to the one of the 4 million members of the Romanian Communist Party. When the only proof is the signing of an engagement,
