Suspension of Free Speech

Martha Chávez: Courageous and Correct

================

PNE Opinion:

It appears the suspension of democracy and inequality of justice are already surfacing and readily accepted by the Humala Administration as business as usual. Congressperson Martha Chávez has been discordantly suspended for 120 days because she dare protest the unannounced switching of the old 1979 constitution (which has no protection of private property rights), for the 1993 constitution currently in force, during Huamla’s inauguration. This from Humala who swore on a Bible and in writing during his campaign that he would not change the current constitution.

Humala's first vice-president Marisol Espinoza (the one who talks out of the side of her mouth), on Primera Noticia TV news this morning, actually justified Humala’s position by saying that unequal application of laws is in every administration. She said this while explaining why congressperson Martha Chávez was harshly and inexplicably suspended for 120 days. While Alexis Humala (Ollanta’s brother) was investigated in closed door meetings in which the findings of the so called investigation will not be publicly disclosed. Then he was simply allowed to apologize for taking a secret trip to Russia and allegedly presenting himself as representative of his brother’s government in energy dealings with the Russian Government. When questioned about this inequity, by Álvarez Rodrich of Primer Noticia, first vice-president Marisol Espinoza said it was common for the party in power to discriminate in favor of their side. When reminded that no such discrimination occurred during the previous administration she had no answer.

Humala deliberately and boorishly created the classless cheap shot  “conflict of the constitutions” during his inauguration, challenged by constitutional lawyer and congressperson Martha Chávez, by not prudently and democratically presenting this change in the swearing in ceremony to congressional officials before the inauguration. Thereby allowing for input and debate before the ceremony took place.

In my estimation a gracious democratic leader would reject such harsh punishment of a sitting congressperson for simply protesting verbally a controversy purposely created to evoke such a reaction. I suppose it should have been obvious that this president does not fully comprehend freedom of speech when during his campaign he swore he would restore free speech rights that were never missing during Garcia’s presidency. They were never missing until now! A disturbing beginning.

For me it is personal insights like this into Humala’s thinking, telling much more than gratuitous appointments to appease the stock markets, that show how future policies decisions will be made. Indecorous presidents are not only annoyingly worrisome but dangerous.  

=============

Afterthought:

Don’t you think a new president taking office would have more meaningful issues and concerns, that are impacting the daily lives of people, rather than the distraction of the inconsequential and provocative juvenile stunt of swearing in on an out of force constitution, that is inferior in so many ways to the current in force constitution? It just strikes me as stunningly undignified, ignorant and ill-mannered. As were the behaviors and actions of the vice-presidents at the inaugural ceremony. It’s all so petty and extremely disappointing comportment from people at this high level of government. 

Comments posted here may be copied to the Peru-N-English Discussion Group site.