Forgetting Critics, CFK Touts Free Speech for All

If ever there were a defender of liberty and freedom of speech in Argentina it is Cristina Fernández de Kirchner.

That, at least, is what Fernández wants you to believe.

On Friday the president described herself as an “icon” of freedom of speech.

Fernández said she would rather have 10 million people criticize her presidency than allow even one person to be harmed by an act of government “repression.”

“If there is an icon or something that defends freedom of speech with greater density and power, and defends what can be done in Argentina – from the media, or from the street, or from wherever – it is this president,” she said, referring to herself.

It’s unclear how Fernández might try to reconcile her comments Friday with her actions two years ago, when the former government official, street thug and racist hate-monger Luis D’Elía left a meeting with her to silence the voices of peaceful protesters gathered in the Plaza de Mayo.

The protesters — woman, children and grandparents among them — were mostly farmers who were angry about a series of tax hikes on agricultural exports like soybeans. The farmers posed no threat to public order and were, in reality, much more orderly and peaceful than most who occupy the Plaza de Mayo to protest in it.

D’Elía, who has said he hates white people, has made a name for himself by taking to the streets, setting up roadblocks, organizing protests and, on one occasion, breaking into and destroying a police station. He has done this to be heard, to get his voice across, to exercise, among other things, his right to freedom of speech.

But D’Elía has often shown little deference to those who disagree with him. This was certainly the case when he violently drove farmers from the Plaza de Mayo. As I wrote at the time:

A band of roughly 150 thugs stormed the Plaza de Mayo and used brute force to push out the thousands of protesters who were peacefully exerting their right to free speech and assembly. D’Elía, who earlier in the evening had been a special guest at the Casa Rosada, led the blitzkrieg. Minutes after leaving the Casa Rosada, he barnstormed the plaza. His black shirt unraveled to his navel, his arms flailed in mid-air as he lurched toward anyone within reach of his tightly-clenched fists. The Plaza, D’Elía later would say, while panting for breath on national television, had to be “liberated from the people who had come to occupy it from Barrio Norte and Recoleta.”

Apparently, as D’Elía’s actions and words seem to demonstrate, the government and its allies actually believe that some Porteños – those who hail from the city’s wealthier barrios – are not all equal under the law. Evidently, if you live in Barrio Norte or Recoleta, your free speech is not as worthy of protection as that of people who hail from other parts of the city or the country. This presents a stark contradiction because for years Cristina Kirchner’s husband and predecessor actively supported protests throughout the country. Both Kirchners also have sponsored massive protests in the Plaza de Mayo.

It is not clear if Kirchner or one of her cabinet members personally directed D’Elía to storm the plaza and silence its “occupants.” But it is clear that neither she nor anyone in her cabinet prevented D’Elía from savaging the rights of peaceful Argentines to speak freely that night. Indeed, two days after D’Elía drove fellow Argentines from the plaza, she invited him to appear near her during a major speech at Parque Norte that was broadcast on national television. The inescapable conclusion from this is that Kirchner not only supported D’Elía’s violent actions but that his style of confrontation had the backing of her entire cabinet, which was also present at the speech. In an interview with Gente magazine, D’Elia said this about the Parque Norte event:

“I’m not a member of the government. I am simply a Kirchner militant. I can tell you that when I was in Parque Norte I received the recognition, the warmth and the care of everyone who was there.”

Earlier this year, President Fernandez sent D’Elía to Europe as a goodwill ambassador to explain the benefits of Argentina’s new media law. After the trip, D’Elía traveled to Iran to meet with one of the people accused of blowing up an Argentine Jewish community center in a terrorist act in 1994. The bombing killed 85 people and wounded hundreds. Iran has jailed countless numbers of its own citizens for expressing their views in public.

This, of course, is to say nothing about the farmers themselves or the validity – or lack thereof – of the complaints they tried to express that night at the Plaza de Mayo.

The point here is simply to highlight the fact that they were unable to express themselves because of a government-backed decision to silence them. Countenanced by the state, D’Elía violently prevented them from doing so. He curtailed their freedom of speech and, by punching people, caused physical and mental harm. It was precisely the kind of “repression” that Fernandez has often criticized and said she would never tolerate.

Because D’Elía was a private citizen who could later claim he was acting on his own volition, the government could have, if it had wanted, distanced itself from his actions, claiming that it had not “repressed” anyone. But the government did nothing to distance itself from D’Elía’s actions. Its behavior was thus a tacit validation of D’Elía’s.

In recent days similar – though less violent – forms of protest have prevented other voices from expressing themselves openly.

At the international book fair, a group of (what appeared to be) government-backed protesters crashed a press conference held by the authors of a book that describes alleged fraud at the national statistics institute, Indec.

Local media published photos of Commerce Secretary Guillermo Moreno with at least one of the protesters, indicating that Moreno knows them. Moreno, who does not speak with the media, is widely believed to manage Indec from the shadows. Indec officials have denied this repeatedly.

Last month, posters began appearing in Buenos Aires that questioned the integrity of numerous journalists, most of whom are associated in some way or another with Grupo Clarín, Argentina’s biggest media company.

Virtually all analysts and opposition parties said the government ordered the posters pasted around town.

Some in the government tried to distance themselves from the posters while others, like federal communications chief Gabriel Mariotto, defended them openly, implying that it was OK for the government to “anonymously” question the integrity of journalists.

Former president Nestor Kirchner recently said journalists and the media are the government’s primary “opposition.”

Last year, former cabinet chief Alberto Fernández told me that journalists like La Nacion’s Joaquin Morales Sola and Clarín’s Eduardo van der Kooy are “enemies of the government.” Interestingly, Fernandez also said the two columnists “have good information,” indicating that their articles aren’t necessarily inaccurate.

To be sure, both commentators are frequently critical of the government. It’s easy to understand how the Kirchners might feel that the columnists are, in some ways, the government’s opponents.

But this type of thinking seems fundamentally misguided for multiple reasons, not the least one of which is the fact that columnists who question government statements or policies don’t do as reporters but as editorialists. Their very job is to express their opinions about political matters.

Moreover, they do so within the framework of a constitutional democracy. The Kirchners have equated these and other journalists with coup-mongering, alleging that their ulterior motive is to overthrow the government. As with the farm protesters, I have yet to meet a journalist who has expressed any desire to overthrow the government. Indeed, even those most critical of the Kirchners have said it is crucially important for the president to finish her mandate. A failure to do so would be major step backwards for the country’s young democracy.

The local media are not flawless. Indeed, there have been numerous examples of poor reporting and, even worse, maliciously written indictments of the government. But government media also have been guilty of malpractice, publishing articles that are patently false and biased.

Last year the government published a video on state-run television that aimed to destroy the reputation of La Nacion columnist Carlos Pagni. It was clearly an attempt to ruin the reputation of a columnist who has been critical of the government. Instead of publicly stating what, if anything, was objectionable with Pagni’s reporting, the government tried to slander Pagni anonymously. It was hardly the act of a government that values open, transparent debate.

Instead of providing specific details that refute the facts or arguments presented in poorly written or researched articles published in “opposition” mediums, the Kirchners typically limit themselves to name calling. This limits the First Couple’s credibility, even when they might have a legitimate point to make. It always makes more sense to highlight the fallacy of an argument or its unsound nature than to attack the person making it.

Barbara Strauch, author of The Secret Life of the Grown-Up Brain, recently told the NY Times about a recent discovery of neuroscience that seems relevant: “One of the most intriguing findings is that if you talk to people who disagree with you, that helps your brain wake up and refine your arguments and shake up the cognitive egg, which is what you want to do.”

Just as debate and intellectual diversity aid in the development of the individual brain, so, to a certain extent, can debate assist in the collective development of a society. Stifling debate impedes the refinement of a country’s ideas and the maturity of its politics.

Forcing intellectual or political consensus by silencing or muzzling criticism is a prescription for hampered development.

Defending the freedom of speech of all Argentines hasn’t always seemed important to the government when those speaking are critical of it.

If the president’s comments Friday constitute a change in policy, this would be a welcome development.

*Photo is of Luis D’Elía, punching protesters out of the Plaza de Mayo.

Popularity: 1% [?]