About a month ago I was showing about the war waged in court by Alexandru Uiuiu with the Ministry of Culture for the annulment of the order by which he was illegally dismissed, from the position of director of the County Directorate for Culture, because CNSAS caught him with a patalama of “safety foundry”, the patalama overseen by the courts. But if we look at the CNSAS documents, the so-called informative notes in Uiuiu’s file, and written by the security officer Liviu Călian, we come to the conclusion that the situation of the former director of DJC is a very hairy one. Specifically, the Founder’s stamp at Security was forced, without the court taking into account anything, not even the legal norms in the field, including a CCR decision. Everything was interpreted as it pleased!

However, Uiuiu’s case is very similar to that of other Romanians, even bistritans of ours, who forcibly signed a commitment with the Securitate, they came up with the undersigned there, through informative notes, and who later came to office, but to the fullest, CNSAS considered that they could not be assigned the quality of collaborator of the Securitate. Why? Because, following the so-called informative notes, no one suffered. The same in the present situation. But what is strange is the fact that the courts, both the Bucharest Court of Appeal and the High Court of Cassation and Justice, they did not take into account any argument that Alexandru Uiuiu brought and they seemed totally uninterested to lean carefully on the so-called “returns.

He set fire to Ceausescu’s portrait! „He had a clear attitude against the regime”

We remind you that it all started one evening in March 1984, when Alexandru Uiuiu, second year student at the Faculty of History-Philosophy at Babeș-Bolyai University in Cluj-Napoca, he set fire to the dorm room of a portrait of Nicolae Ceaușescu. Along with him were other 7 students in the room. The incident is very well exposed by one of Alexandru Uiuiu’s roommates, filed in the case file, but not taken into account by the court.

“(…) Ionel Alexandru Uiuiu I met as a good colleague and I always considered him a nonconformist man, who had literary, cultural and sports concerns. In 1984 we were roommates in the Avram Iancu dormitory with other 6 students. One evening I was present when Ionel Alexandru Uiuiuiu, helped by Alin Nemecz, set fire to the lighter of Ioan Cioloș (sincerely deceased) to a portrait of Nicolae Ceaușescu, portrait I found on the table in the middle of the room after I went up from dinner in the canteen on the ground floor. I think the portrait was brought by our roommate Horia Moldovan, I don’t know why, but after the events no one knows how to claim it. Before setting fire to Ceausescu’s portrait, in the room we all made jokes about him, jokes about the need to disappear the character he represented.

It was not the first time we had made a „cool” of the PCR leadership, as we spoke at the time, it was a practice commonly done by telling political jokes, by listening to music or watching forbidden movies. Often in the college years, we reported negatively to the then Romanian leadership and to the Ceausescu spouses. Ionel Alexandru Uiuiu had a clear attitude against the regime, especially since being sporty he walked through foreign countries, knowing better realities that he told us about when he returned to the country wondering rhetorically: „Why the hell can’t we make a change. I remember, in this sense, a short film that he directed and filmed with some of us in different locations in Cluj, as well as our participation in the „triangular” (exchange of experience) organized by the three faculties of philosophy in the country, since then: in all these events, the spirit of the frond against the Ceausescu regime was obvious.

Returning to the burning of the portrait, the two mentioned colleagues put the ashes of the burned poster from the big ashtray in a jar that I took and put right on my closet, they say they will „serve it for breakfast to rid the country of a fool. The undersigned and the other roommates present – among which I remember not only Ionel Alexandru Uiuiu and Alin Nemecz, but also Ioan Cioloș, Horia Moldovan, Nicolae Chirrilov and Tiberiu Furdui – we made anti-regime remarks because we were all young, students who know the ideological slippages, eager to live and learn differently and other things, who expected much more from life and school than the communist regime offers us.

The next day after dinner, two security officers dressed in long leather clothes entered our room, they went straight to the jar and asked us what happened in the evening in the room and what was there. It was obvious they knew. They took us and took us all to the Securitate headquarters inside the home, I don’t remember if others: for example, I don’t know if our college and year colleague Ion Hirghiduș, who did not live in the room with the rest of us, but who passed by that evening. There we were taken over, put in separate rooms and investigated, each by another officer. We were threatened with expulsion from college and even political prison, we were asked to write what happened and then some of us (I don’t) were made to make other statements under the officer’s dictation „to escape” (I know this from subsequent discussions).

I, the undersigned, Clitan Gheorghe, state that the investigation took place in an atmosphere of pressure and threats, that we were simply terrorized, and for the 21-22 year olds we were then, this investigation left traces and traumas for life. (…) ”, wrote Clitan Gheorghe, former college colleague and year of Alexandru Uiuiu, in the document submitted to the case file.

General information interpreted in vain

After the investigation of the Securitates, Uiuiu was obliged to sign that collaboration commitment, and between April 1985 and February 1986, he was convened four times at the Securitate headquarters in Cluj, where he wrote as many informative notes. But nothing to harm the „pourished”, being given generically.

Thus, about a colleague of his, Uiuiu wrote that “he has a rich literary activity, he writes poetry, science fiction literature, he works in a movie club, he directs a poem about I.H. Rădulescu, his diploma thesis refers to Bogdan Petriceicu Hașdeu, is a bonom and has many friends, in the home and outside him ”.

Although CNSAS did not argue how the target student was exposed to any danger or harmful consequence of his or her rights or freedoms, the judges of the Bucharest Court of Appeal concluded that what Uiuiu wrote concerned aspects of the privacy of his colleague, failing to indicate, however, what these issues are, and would have generated the intrusion of security bodies into its unpublished literary activity.

In another note, written by security officer Liviu Călian, Uiuiu presents extremely succinctly some of his college and dormitory colleagues, probably the occupants of a neighboring room. Thus, one says that he „generally misconduct”, in the sense that the student was a subscriber of pubs and parties, which is why he was kicked out of the dormitory.

„Sobber, restrained. Good at learning, concerned with the book. Don’t drink, don’t smoke. He has some weirdos – states where it is not good to be upset „, Uiu described another colleague.

About another, Uiuiu said that: “it owns a radio. I was never present at an audition of any foreign radio station „, although the truth was completely different, most students listening to the hell out of Free Europe, in particular.

Related to the latter statement, the court considered the information to be compromising (??) or would it be an intrusion into privacy (???) not to mention which rights and freedoms were violated by that person, especially since the whole Romanian owned a radio in those days.

“Regarding this note, the court of first instance also illegally and unrealistically retains the record of the Security Officer, in the sense that further checks would have been ordered by other sources who were accommodated in that home. The officer’s note does not contain such a record.

As regards the officer’s record of the possible hearing of foreign radio stations, not only could that record not be retained, according to the statutes of the said Constitutional Court, but it is clear from the content of my note that the information I provided was of no use to the Securitate, whereas they have not affected the rights or freedoms of any of my colleagues in the home, „said Alexandru Uiuiu in his appeal to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, and over which it seems that the magistrates did not lean diligently.

Security upset that the students have them „attacked” the Russians

Strange interpretation was given by CNSAS to another informative note showing that at a meeting of students from the three faculties of philosophy in the country, meeting that took place at the Student Culture House in Cluj, the participants sang patriotic songs. The people from Iași sang the song „Bucovina plai cu sun”, which referred to the Russians: „Bucovina plai cu sun / The Russians trampled on you” (…) „From the Dniester to the Tisza / All the Romanian complained to me ”.

In this document no name appears, but a general situation is reported, but both CNSAS, as well as the court took into account a footnote of security officer Călian in which he wrote: „The song was sung by students from Iași together with those from Bucharest: teachers had a tolerant position (they had a confusing position). The students did not take a stand in front of this event. The students from Cluj who were present and some students from Bucharest, who were talking, did not take part in these songs, but they did not try to stop the event.

In a word, the security guard was upset about the students’ attack on the Russians, although the song showed love for Romania and Romanians, and CNSAS and the court concluded that the song was not a patriotic one but one that had a „negative connotation to the external relationship with Russia, this although, at that time, Romania, in which even if the regime was a communist one, had long since detached itself from the strong influence of Moscow. Moreover, none of the students or teachers present at that meeting suffered any further problems, provided that none were identified by name and surname, which neither CNSAS nor the judges took into account.

Noica, considered a court dissident, although the communist regime had rehabilitated him

The fourth informative note, and the last, to which the people from CNSAS were related is the one that refers to the student Ioan Hirghiduș, who was then a fourth-year student at the same college, and editor-in-chief of Echinox magazine, and who at one time had a meeting in Păltiniș with the philosopher Constantin Noica, was politically detained, arrested, investigated and convicted in 1958. Due to the meeting of the respective student with Noica from Păltiniș (where he witnessed discussions of the history of philosophy between him and Gabriel Liiceanu), both CNSAS, as well as the court argued that the information note contained the characterization of a person as having a Noician vision could have represented only a denunciation of an attitude contrary to the totalitarian regime of those times. However, the two forums did not take into account the fact that Noica was no longer considered a political dissident and even had many books published in communist Romania, ante and post-mortem.

Here is their list, according to Wikipedia:

  • 1934 – Mathesis or simple joys
  • 1936 – Open concepts in the history of philosophy at Descartes, Leibniz and Kant
  • 1937 – De caelo
  • 1940 – Sketch for his history as it is with something new
  • 1943- Two introductions and a transition to idealism. With the translation of the first Kantian introduction of the Critique of Judgment
  • 1944 – Pages about the Romanian soul
  • 1944 – Philosophical diary
  • 1962 – The phenomenology of the spirit of GWF Hegel narrated by Constantin Noica
  • 1969 – Twenty-seven steps of the real
  • 1969 – Plato: Lysis (with an essay on the Greek meaning of the love of people and things)
  • 1970- Romanian philosophical utterance
  • 1973 – Creation and beauty in Romanian utterance
  • 1975 – Eminescu or thoughts about the full man of Romanian culture
  • 1975 – The breakup of Goethe
  • -1978 – The Romanian feeling of being
  • 1978 – The Romanian spirit at the beginning of time. Six diseases of the contemporary spirit.
  • 1980 – Stories of man, after a book by Hegel: The Phenomenology of the Spirit
  • 1981 – Becoming a being, vol. I: The test on traditional philosophy; vol. II: Ontology Treaty
  • 1983 – Three introductions to become a being
  • 1986 – Letters about Hermes’ logic
  • 1988 – The Europae Dignity (work published after the writer’s death).

I only remembered those published until 1989, when the communist regime fell.

It should be noted that Constantin Noica was sentenced in 1958 to 25 years of forced labor and confiscation of all wealth, of which he executed only 6 in Jilava, he was released in 1964. Starting with 1965, Noica settled in Bucharest, where she will work as a researcher at the Logic Center of the Romanian Academy, having as domicile a two-room apartment, in Drumul Taberei, where he will hold private seminars on Hegelian, Platonic or Kantian philosophy. In a word, Noica was not a non-grateful person for the communist Ceausescu regime.

In conclusion, even in this case, the then student Ion Hirghiduș did not suffer from that meeting with Noica, which was not considered by the communist regime to be an anti-communist, but CNSAS but also the court took the mentions of the security officer Călian, who could eventually write about Martians on documents without anyone being able to resist them. As there are many aspects to be highlighted in the case of Alexandru Uiuiu regarding this “collaboration” with the Securitate, we will continue with a new episode in next week’s edition. So, FOLLOW!


Vă rugăm să introduceți comentariul dvs.!
Introduceți aici numele dvs.