Musliu for Osman: Children should be used as a shield from public criticism

According to Musliu, displacement of children from a public school due to infrastructure conditions should serve as alarm for institutional action, not as justification for lack of transparency. She adds that concern for security is fair, but cannot serve as a shield against public accountability.

Musliu points out that media and journalists are not responsible for the school situation, while the president, even without formal competence in education, has a moral and public voice that can affect institutions for change.

The MP stresses that rather than victimising and attacks on the media, calm, transparency and state responsibility are required, as children should not be used as political shield.

Full Posting:

It is disturbing, but now not surprising, how emotion and family standing are used to avoid public responsibility.

In the country's recent statement, through a dramatic and emotionally charged language, she tries to silence criticism and legitimate public interest by calling it “persecution” any media reflection that does not fit her narrator.

To be clear: No one has the right to risk child safety, much less minors. But nobody also has the right to use a child's image as a shield from public criticism when it deals with decisions, actions, or conduct of a high state figure.

In this case, the president has chosen to turn children away from a public school because of severe infrastructure conditions, a move that, for a common citizen, is everyday, but for a president, should be an alarm for institutional action, not personal secrecy.

Instead of alerting and looking for responsibility for the sad reality of the public education system, which it estimates only “ex1> The president decides to return to emotional victimisation, accusing the media of risking the safety of her children.

We stress: security concern is fair, but it cannot be an excuse for lack of transparency and public accountability.

Are the media responsible for the situation at school “Ismail Kemali”?

Are the journalists guilty of the fact that the president, although without formal competence in education, has a powerful moral and public voice that he does not use to shock institutions that actually have the power to change the situation?

Is the reporting on the displacement of her children from a public school towards another because of the miserable conditions a “pursuit” or a reality that should all be distracted?

The president forgets that for five consecutive years the presence of her children has been publicly promoted in a public school as a symbol of simplicity, humility and association with the citizen. Today, when reality exposes unable to improve the educational system, this choice becomes “security risk” and “privacy breach”.

We cannot love public attention only when it suits us and calls it an attack when it exposes hypocrisy.

For the end, the way it is labeled “is alarming, the so-called journalist”, each critical voice, an open contempt for one of the most fundamental institutions of democracy: free media.
In a democratic society, journalists are not accountable to the President on the contrary, it accounts to citizens, through them.

So instead of victimising and attacking media, calm, transparency and state responsibility are required. Because children are not guilty but are not a shield of political accountability./Periscopi/