Lizardo Herrera
On Thursday 30 September morning I read the editorial "Did coup?" on the blog of Martin Pallares, who argued that on that day there was no coup in Ecuador. He said no successor had been appointed to replace this belt being sufficient proof that the rebels would not overthrow police. In addition, he argued that the president never left to govern as it was the same who signed the declaration of state of emergency. To Pallares, the insurrection was exclusively a union demand (wage), which condemned as deplorable and unjustifiable, that got out of bed because of the arrogance of impulsibidad or Correa. He also complains that under the pretext of state of emergency, with the resulting chain-binding Television and manipulation by the government of the thesis of an alleged coup, the president could control its sole discretion the media fulfilling their "totalitarian dreams."
first thing I asked was whether such comments are born of naivety. Then I remembered a scene from Spike Lee's Malcolm X, where the mother of Malcolm claims to the insurance agency to pay the policy after the death of her husband. The company's agent replied that according to the police report it was a suicide and that the contract clearly states that suicide if not for payment. The mother asks how can a man commit suicide three hammer blow on the neck and then autoamarre to the railroad tracks for a train passes over it. I, like a mother, I also asked whether Pallares-thesis of the opposition is not an argument that seeks the fifth leg cat in order to justify the unjustifiable, as with the police in large part Spike Lee.
From my point of view, comments such as unilateral analysis Pallares are resposabilizan the same belt of the crisis, without analyzing in depth the behavior of the rebels nor the role of weapons in the events of 30 September Quito. The author only uses two adjectives to convict insubordination and then refers superficially to the arrest of the President to challenge the thesis of abduction Correa. In short, the text throws all his darts against the president and gives me the impression that the condemnation of the insurgents operate more like a mask behind which lurks a feeling of sympathy with those who intended to qualify as deplorable and unjustifiable .
From my point of view, the armed uprising of the last few days is not only a protest or a claim union wage or a reaction to the negligence or arrogance of the president (although these elements clearly exist.) I propose to analyze how the surveys were generated to see that nothing was spontaneous. It turns out that the lifting Quito Regiment in line with those of the guard in the Legislative Assembly. Then very quickly join the military at the airport in Quito and La Recoleta, then we have the unfortunate events in Guayaquil and other regions. To complicate matters, in the afternoon, opposition assemblymen proposing an amnesty for the rebels without the evidence needed to launch such a motion. This motion is more like an act of complicity, as the police report on the death of the father of Malcolm, whose purpose is intended to prevent a thorough investigation of the uprising. And anyway if it were true that the riot police had not been planned or cares destabilization, although much evidence proving otherwise, when the police are insobordina because they have control of weapons already there is a risk that someone will take political power by force and there is not a visible head or a master plan to organize.
Although I sympathize with the state media as operating in Ecuador, 30 September, there were sufficient grounds to declare a state of emergency and this did not originate from an abuse of power as we want to do or understand Pallares opposition. First, the president's life was clearly in danger. Second, unlike previous surveys in 1997, 2000 and 2005, the rebels were unarmed civilians, but a group that did not hesitate to use weapons against the civilian authorities and, worse still, civilians began to emerge. In this group, there were misfits who called civil war hovering on motorcycles for the quarters as shown in images that appeared Quito Regiment.
It is therefore absurd to grant the same rights to those who take advantage of public weapons for personal gain, that is, the insurgents did not have the same right to express themselves in the media nor were those who sympathized with raised until delivery of the weapons. For this reason, was necessary to restrict the coverage of events to prevent armed acquire images appearing on television too much prominence because it had strengthened its position. In other words, though I disagree with the official papers, which with a huge mediocrity were limited to interview government officials, or a political slogans, it was urgent to restrict access to the media to counter those who were unlawfully and illegally using weapons. Their presence in the media only put more fuel on the fire and, especially, threatened to kill the president and civilians demonstrating against of armed.
In conclusion, I think in this case you must analyze the use of arms and the right to freedom of expression together. So the private media had wanted to show other points of view responsible for the insurrection could not afford to overexposure of the rebels because they were making an illegitimate use of public arms, and especially because they put at risk the lives of those not were armed. Otherwise, things could create chaos more and end up in a wholesale slaughter.
0 comments:
Post a Comment