Sunday , August 1 2021

The court gives support to Channel 13 for a case of false "indoctrination" in Liceo 1

On October 21, a report on Channel 13 titled "Indoctrination in Liceo 1?" Was released on October 21, where parents' concerns against the presumed indoctrination of students from this commercial institution over alleged "violent actions in the school". She supported information on photographs of an activity in which students displayed the flags of Manuel Rodriguez Patriotic Front (FPMR).

Later, students and parents explained that the photographs correspond with the realization of academic activity in the field of history.

After broadcasting the journalistic work, the National Council for Television (SNV) received more than 125 complaints that alluded to "editing" in the implementation of the note. Therefore, the Office of the Ombudsman filed an appeal for protection in favor of the "student community" in the institution and against the TV station at the end of October. The agency claimed that there was a "violation of the student's honor" by broadcasting.

At the same time, the Ombudsman requested the elimination of audiovisual material from the platforms of Channel 13 and all measures, including the public apology. "

However, yesterday the Santiago Court of Appeal rejected the action presented by the entity. According to him, the Second Court says that there is a "lack of active identification of the Ombudsman for children" through the assumption that students will be represented. This, because the management of the educational institution did not appeal against Channel 13, "which points to a clear fact: who represents the" student community "of the said school, its director, does not feel indignant from what a media press published on television."

In a harsh opinion against the state entity, the appeals court referred directly to the situation in which Lizzo 1's "Carrera" lived in recent months, due to a series of recordings and demonstrations that took place there.

"It is remarkable that the Ombudsman for Children, whose main goal is to spread, protect and promote the rights of children (…), also did not encourage it to be studied and thus prevent the mass exodus of adolescents in other institutions" , he notes. failure.

Violation of rights

In the text, signed by ministers Juan Cristobal Mera and Jenny Kniga, along with lawyer Jorge Norambouen, the Court questioned the representativeness of the Office of the Ombudsman to take over the defense of students in the institution. He also defended the action of the Canal Press Department on Channel 13 when reporting on the subject.

"It is preferable to initiate this action without legitimizing it and without agreeing to any authority on the face, alone, from the" student community "- without clearly knowing what this concept means – against a medium that did nothing else but seriously informs about a situation that is in severe violation of the right of high school girls to receive education without violent turbulence ".

These are "girls who, according to the background of the given protection resource, receive political indoctrination and, nevertheless, the one who advocates political violence", adds the verdict.

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman's Office pointed out The third prime minister that the institution will analyze this decision in order to determine the way forward after the judicial determination.

Source link