Ecolo calls for debate on the behavior of politicians and public figures

Ecolo calls for debate on the behavior of politicians and public figures

The Vivant Group’s response to the controversy is “neither factually correct nor clear,” Greens writes in a press release: “Instead, Vivant is trying to use ‘fake news’ and smoking candles to divert attention from the actual debate.” uses,” it says. In the press release, Ecolo cited three examples from Vivant’s response to underline this: Vivant is against the trivialization of Nazi crimes on the one hand, but changes this statement shortly afterwards. “One implies that the comparison of Pascal Baudimont’s posts is not a trivialization of these crimes, but a ‘warning sign of a history of similarly dangerous development at present’ and an expression of fear of the negative effects of vaccination. To be told: Anyone can have fears, concerns or doubts about vaccination. It is legitimate, humane and much is being done to provide people with the best possible and differentiated education about side effects. Fear or suspicion do not give anyone the right to spread baseless comparisons, false facts or disgrace,” writes Ikolo.

In fact, the use of symbols does not automatically mean that they have been trivialised. “That’s fundamentally correct, but not in this case, because: affixing a Star of David with the inscription ‘without vaccination’ on your T-shirt, car or profile picture, opposes state-mandated vaccination against vaccination.” want to do. But there is no such thing in Belgium and there is no plan to do so.”

So if a politician in Belgium today places “unvaccinated people” with Jews in the Third Reich, he compares the non-existent vaccination requirement with a Nazi-era genocide. “It lacks any factual basis and downplays Nazi crimes by putting a non-existent order on the same level as one of the most brutal massacres in human history. Vivant also claims that Pascal Baudimont removed the problematic post.” given. But anyone who isn’t “friends” with her on Facebook can check if that’s true,” as one of her two profiles has been set to ‘private’ since yesterday. On the other hand there is a post with a yellow asterisk on the subject of vaccination from April 19, 2020″, said the press release from Thursday afternoon. It is clear to Ecolo that “Vivant is trying to use this type of logic . With a clear statement on conspiracy theories, it could, in the end, cost the party a large number of votes. Furthermore, communication deviates from the real debate: it is not about a single wrong move by an individual, but about how politicians and public figures behave on the Internet”, hence the Ecolo group. Whether a party can be held responsible for the views expressed by its official representatives on the Internet.

“We would like to take the proposal of the Vivant Group for a public debate on the issues in Parliament and we propose precisely these two questions, because for Ecolo the separation between the opinion of a party and the opinion of its mandate is clearly is not defined, nor is the distinction between private and public statements given by the online imperative.”

For Ecolo, the Internet is a public place: “With its own rules. Social networks and the trading of personal data are deliberately blurring the line between private and public on the Internet. In most cases you cannot be private there because you are in the same virtual room with thousands of people. A public person should behave in a public place according to his role. In fact it means real discussion on the internet. “(red / sc)