Julian Assange
617 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
617 weeks of deprivation of liberty for telling the truth
« Political language — and with some variations, this applies to all political parties, from conservatives to anarchists — has the function of making lies credible and murder respectable, and of giving what is only wind an appearance of consistency.
George Orwell(1)
It’s not that I was particularly excited about it, finding these government press conferences particularly bland and uninteresting, a bit like a RTBF or RTL-TVI newscast, an editorial in Le Soir or La Libre. Pushed in the back by relatives who slipped me » We can’t let that happen! Go ahead and ask more questions « I decided to go there. It was on April 15, with this extraordinary banal question about the legitimacy of a government and of groups of experts who eat from all racks and invite us to take care of ourselves while they take care of their interests and those of the pharmaceutical multinationals(2). What if the art of politics was only to disguise words, to construct a reality that does not exist, to hide everything they do and do not say? Therein lies the real lesson of my question and the political reaction of April 15. They will do everything to make sure that I never come back and ask them to account for their actions in front of hundreds of thousands of Belgians.
My first contact with the Minister’s communications department was on March 30, via an email to the Minister’s French-speaking spokesperson, Steve Detry:
« Hello, as a journalist, I would like to attend the upcoming government press conferences that will be held. Could you please tell me what to do? Thanking you in advance. Sincerely, Alexandre Penasse, accredited journalist (F08882) »
They will do everything to make sure that I never come back and ask them to account for their actions in front of hundreds of thousands of Belgians.
Response from Steve Detry (March 30)(3):
» Hello, due to the strict instructions related to the Coronavirus, access to the press room is strictly limited to certain newsrooms in pool. However, you can follow in streaming press conferences on our official websites. This configuration will be re-evaluated when the social distancing will be lifted. Thank you for your understanding »
I send back an email (March 30):
« What do you mean by « some of the pool editors ». Could we know them to let our followers know which essays are allowed? Being part of a different type of media than the conventional ones, it would be interesting to be able to go to these press conferences. Especially since the social distancing is no reason for some media to get a pass and not others. On what criteria do you make the distinction? »
Response from Steve Detry (March 31):
« Hello, Physical access is allowed to newsrooms that are listed by the General Association of Professional Journalists of Belgium. These are organized to form pools between them. It goes smoothly. That being said, all press conferences and their contents are available to anyone, in their entirety, in live streaming « .
March 31, I reply:
« I am recognized as a professional journalist (F07882) and the newspaper I edit (Kairos) registered as a periodical press with the Wallonia-Brussels Federation. I don’t see what would prevent us from sending one of our journalists to a government press conference? I have just contacted the AJP(4)of which I am obviously a member, to know my rights.
On April 2, having no answer from the communication service of the minister, I send an e‑mail:
« Could you answer the questions in the previous email, but also point me to the authorized redactions, this pool you’re talking about? »
The next day, I get the answer:
« I think I’ve already answered your question about newsrooms. At future press conferences, you will be asked to register as is the case for any media organization. We will advise at that time according to the configuration of the room and the number of requests; all in good consultation with your journalist counterparts. »
As of April 3, I will not hear from the Minister’s communication department. On April 15, the day of the press conference, at 12:53 p.m., I strangely received an e‑mail from Louise Ringuet, who was always copied on Steve Detry’s e‑mails, but with whom I never communicated directly:
« Mr. Penasse, there will be a press conference after the NSC this afternoon at 16 rue de la Loi. Are you planning to come? If so, a link can be sent to you so that you can follow the conference live from a distance. Thank you in advance for your prompt response. »
I will answer him and confirm my presence.
« Are you planning to come? If so, a link can be sent to you so that you can follow the conference live from a distance ».
Minister’s Communication Service
One may find it curious, when Steve Detry’s last email indicated that they would make their decision on the day of the press conference based on » theconfiguration of the room and the number of requests « , and that they knew perfectly well that I wanted to attend the press conference and ask my questions, that another official from the Minister’s communication department invites me to send a link to » follow the conference live from a distance « . Similarly, shortly before 3:00 p.m. on April 15, after having informed Sophie Wilmès’ spokesperson that I wanted to attend the press conference, a person linked to the minister’s communications department sent me an SMS with the YouTube link, even though I had not asked for it:
« Here is the YouTube link to watch the press conference. I still don’t have more info on the time of the press conference ».
At 2:45 p.m., I texted back:
« I would like to attend, not as a viewer on YouTube, thank you ».
At 2:48 p.m., I was told:
« It’s up to you, » he said, » so see what the practicalities are with the chancellery.
… that’s just what I was doing…
On April 15, prior to this exchange, I had called the press office of the chancellery to obtain more information about the place and time of Sophie Wilmès’ press conference. Following my call, the press service of Minister Wilmès could not inform me about the time and place, so they called me back a little later:
» Concerning « the press conference of this afternoon or evening, I can already tell you where it is, it will be at the Egmont Palace where the press conference will take place, so you see where it is the Egmont Palace, it is behind the Sablon. So for any practical question related to this press conference, you can call the chancellery, there the number, but I think you have it, it is 02/301.02.11. »
- « So, the time we don’t know ».
- No, we don’t know the time, we are making bets ourselves. We will see when they have decided.
This was false information, because the press conference took place in the « bunker », rue Ducale. It is astonishing that the Minister’s communication department, the first to know, is wrong about this.
On April 15, I entered the « bunker » and asked my question to a bewildered minister: « You have just introduced a politically biased question in this press room, which is not usually the habit of journalists « (5). The Minister refused my second question, citing the tight timing and the fact that questions could be asked after the press conference. This will be the first lie to suggest that the freedom of expression of journalists is tolerated: we don’t go outside the box!
On that day, tens of thousands of people heard a question that contrasted with the banality of the reverent journalists who did not seek to reveal the truth, but rather to remain on good terms with the authorities. Following the press conference, hundreds of people will subscribe to Kairos, more than 8,000 to the Facebook page of the newspaper.
Having broken their show and introduced » the politically biased question « , i.e. the right question, I send an email on April 20 to Steve Detry:
» I will be present at Sophie Wilmès’ press conference on Friday, April 24. Could you make a note of this and keep me informed of the time and place? »
He will answer me the same day:
« As announced last time, we are proceeding in a pool due to the limited access to the press conference room in view of the social distancing measures .. Your colleagues should also have access to the press room. The teams are rotating. As already mentioned, the content is available, live, on the internet. If you have a question, I invite you to get organized with your fellow journalists. It is customary for some journalists to also ask a question for another newsroom. It is also possible to send it to us later. »
These assertions have been proven false. None of the questions sent to the firm afterwards were answered and no journalist, of course, relayed our questions. Why « obviously »? For it is this very functioning of the mass media, which we have been denouncing for years, that explains why « disturbing » questions cannot be asked. For several reasons, there is an indecent proximity between the media and politicians, which means that the former no longer play their role as a counter-power and remain nothing more than a sounding board for political decisions, a communication service for the government, which ensures that its decisions will be accepted and its continuity assured.
Because of the difficulty in getting invited to government press conferences, on March 31 we informed the journalists’ union, the AJP, in advance. The latter will then prove to be at the service of the media status quo, and therefore of political power, a logical conclusion when those who run it come from the mass media whose harmful role we denounce(6).
We wrote to the AJP:
» I contacted Minister Wilmes’ spokesperson to gain direct access to one of the upcoming press conferences. This one answers me: « Physical access is allowed to editorial offices that are listed by the General Association of Professional Journalists of Belgium. They organize themselves to form pools among themselves. It is going smoothly ». Could I also have access, as a professional journalist and editor of a newspaper recognized by the FWB as a periodical press? Thank you for your help. »
The email was reportedly forwarded to the legal department, which we did not hear from again until April 20, when we wrote: « You had not informed me of the outcome of my request for legal aid regarding the refusal to attend Sophie Wilmès’ press conference. They are refusing to let me attend the next one. What are my rights? This is urgent.
Martine Simonis, Secretary General of the AJP, will respond(7): « Following your previous message, I had indeed personally intervened with the organizer of the pools (the Prime Minister’s Office) so that you would have the opportunity to participate. This was the case. Pools are by definition limited groupings of journalists, which then serve all other media (image, sound and information sharing). There is a rotation among these journalists/media within the pools. There is no « right » to be in the pools. Your participation in the pool also seems to have caused some problems (e.g. with other journalists) .This, and the above, probably explains why the organizer of the pools [le cabinet de la ministre] does not respond favorably to your request (sic). We have no other way to intervene on your behalf.
« Your participation in the pool also seems to have caused some problems (especially with other journalists). This, and the above, probably explains why the pool organizer [le cabinet de la ministre] is not responding favorably to your request.
Martine Simonis, Secretary General of the Association of Professional Journalists
This answer raises several questions. First of all, besides the fact that it is surprising that a union would respond to our request and support us without even informing us, it is even more surprising that it would tolerate the Prime Minister’s Office assuming the right to organize the pools, while we will see later that this is done in the greatest opacity.
But most significantly, what happened next will show that the union itself was preparing to defend the mass media and anticipate the government’s posture. When I will indeed attack the State for hindering the freedom of the press (see below), the latter will justify, via his lawyer, my ban on attending press conferences by my alleged attitude of July 27 (see lawyer’s letter), whereas before he could not support it on any rule, except that of the » This is the » pool « , an arbitrary and falsely democratic creation on which the media and politicians agree. At times, « pools » are old journalistic habits, at others measures taken because of Covid-19(8). In other words, a measure whose semantic vagueness leaves room for arbitrariness and censorship.
On April 23, I will respond to Ms. Simonis of the AJP:
« I want to thank you at the outset for your initial intervention with Minister Wilmes’ press office. However, you should know that, despite this, many elements lead me to believe that they acted so that I would not be present on April 15. The reactions of many Belgian citizens to my question that day clearly indicate that they expect journalists to ask certain questions that they consider important. It is clear that this is very rarely the case, for reasons that we have already analyzed many times in the journal Kairos. So it follows, logically enough, that when journalists say something different, it is disturbing.
« My behavior towards other journalists » ? What you are relaying here without proof, constitutes serious accusations. Don’t you think that it is rather the object of my question that provoked the search for pretexts, to now try to justify their refusal that I go to a press conference again? Your wording (« including ») also indicates that there would have been other problems. May I know which ones?
You announce in your letter of April 20 that you can no longer support me — what about your support for the defamation of me in the mass media? Yet you represent the journalists’ union: aren’t you supposed to defend me when the right of the press and freedom of expression are clearly flouted?
Could you also give me some legal texts about press conferences and the journalist’s right. It seems that, representing only one media and having my press card, they cannot deny me access to the press conference. »
« Don’t you think that it is rather the object of my question that provoked the search for pretexts, to now try to justify their refusal that I go to a press conference again »
Mail to AJP
Without any answer, I call again on April 29 and receive an answer the same day:
« I wrote to you on April 20 that « I had indeed personally intervened ». This email also stated: » Pools are by definition limited groupings of journalists, who then serve all other media (sharing images, sound, information). There is a rotation among these journalists/media within the pools. There is no « right » to be in the pools.
You are asking us for » legal texts on press conferences and journalists’ rights « . Press conferences are not regulated. In this case, The rules of sanitary distance do not allow to open the press conferences of the NSC to all journalists. This is the reason for the organization of pools of journalists. The pools aim (I re-explain) to put the information given in press conferences (beyond the streaming that everyone can view) at the disposal of journalists who cannot, for reasons of space or security, be present. The pools are frequent in places like the Courts of Assizes for example. The principle of pool is the rotation. There are 5,000 professional journalists in Belgium. They are either employees or freelancers, for large or small media, mainstream or not. They have a press card. There is no individual « right » to be part of the pools. Not for you, not for anyone else. The public authority must ensure access to information (public broadcasting) and the opportunity to ask questions (presence of journalists). Then the journalistic work begins. Investigation is not conducted in a press conference, all professionals will tell you that and you know it too.
As for your behavior towards other journalists: the AJP Board of Directors was informed of your attitude outside the NSC last Friday. You have deliberately hindered journalists in their work of interviewing at the time of the exit of the ministers. The Council would like to remind you of the rules of confraternity that govern the profession and which imply respect the work of other journalists(9)whatever you may think of it. We thank you for your attention in the future.
Finally, if, as you write, you believe that you are being « defamed » in the « mass media », or that your freedom of expression and the right of the press are being « violated », you should seriously build a case (with supporting evidence). The AJP’s legal department will consider requests from its members if they are substantiated.
Please accept, Mr. Penasse, the assurance of our highest consideration.
« Investigation is not conducted in a press conference, all professionals will tell you that and you know it too »
Martine Simonis, Secretary General of the Association of Professional Journalists
On May 8, I answered him:
» Ms. Simonis,
On April 23, I told you that you were relaying without proof serious accusations about behaviors that I would have had against colleagues during the press conference of April 15. In addition to not answering my questions in your letter of April 29, you persist in a biased attitude and accuse me again, without any proof, of an inappropriate attitude that I would have had on Friday April 24. This time, the factual inaccuracy adds to the accusation without evidence.
I quote: « As for your behavior towards other journalists: the Board of Directors of the AJP has been informed of your attitude outside the NSC last Friday »… I did not go outside the NSC at any time, but was only present at the press conference venue on Rue Ducale. Therefore, there was no « behavior towards other journalists outside the NSC ».
« You purposely interfered with reporters taking interviews when the ministers were leaving… » As Minister Jeholet arrived at the press conference, I was the first to interview him. A colleague from RTL-Tvi stepped in and stood in front of me to ask his questions. While I was prevented from putting mine down, the RTL cameraman deliberately knocked on my camera, with the clear intention of preventing me from continuing to film. We have all the evidence in pictures and will not fail to use them in our defense.
« ...The Council would like to remind you of the rules of confraternity that govern the profession and that imply respecting the work of other journalists, whatever you may think of them. We thank you for taking care of this in the future. You must know, Mrs. Simonis, the presumption of innocence? How do you explain that you give more credibility to certain media? I remind you: you accuse me a first time without proof, in relation to the day of April 15, while not answering my questions contained in my mail of April 23(10). Instead, you are again making accusations about my supposed attitude on April 24, without consulting me or finding out what happened. You ask me to make sure that I respect the work of other journalists as if their word had the value of truth. Shouldn’t there be an investigation before condemning acts for which you have no evidence?
« …respect the work of other journalists, no matter what else you think ». « No matter what I think about it » ?… Qhat do you mean by that? Isn’t this a trial of intent?
I am attaching a passage from the video so you can judge for yourself. You will see in particular that my colleagues of RTL do not respect the rules of confraternity. Did you admonish them in the same way? I therefore invite you to watch this video, from the beginning, and particularly the second 59(11) where the RTL cameraman tries to drop my camera. At the same time, I would like to point out that I approached Minister Jeholet before the RTL team, but that the latter went before me. Other images in the process of being sequenced will prove to you the blatant lack of solidarity on the part of my fellow journalists, contrary to what Sophie Wilmès’ spokesman, Steve Detry, stipulated before the press conference of April 24, recommending that I ask other journalists to ask my questions.
For hours, I stayed in front of the entrance of the rue Ducale, approached several colleagues. All of them refused to ask my questions, some of them even arguing that they were not going to attend the press conference, although most of them did.
To return to the beginning of your email, you mention that there is no right for a journalist to be in the pools. Representing a single media, Kairos, like the journalists of RTL whorepresent only one media, RTL, can you assure me that our media is not allowed to be represented at the press conference, and on which rule of media law is this refusal imposed? As the only journalist in Kairos with a press card, I am the only one who can enter. So my question is: does every media outlet have the right to be represented at a press conference?
We prepare a proper complaint file.
Sincerely,
Alexandre Penasse
« Representing one media outlet, Kairos, like the journalists of RTL who represent one media outlet, RTL, can you assure me that our media outlet is not entitled to be represented at the press conference, and on what rule of media law is this refusal imposed? »
Mail to AJP
Following Steve Detry’s letter forbidding me to attend the press conference of April 24, a lawyer will put the firm on notice to provide within 24 hours :
» - the address and time of the upcoming press conference;
- confirmation of your agreement to my client’s participation in the next conference;
otherwise, I will be mandated to take further action (judicial and summary judgment if necessary), unless you can justifyiUnless you can justify your position in a more detailed manner, and this, on a legal basis, unequivocally produced?
The lawyer will not receive any response to this demand letter. Since Steve Detry’s response on April 20, when he and his colleagues could not be reached by phone, we have not received any response from the Press Office of the Prime Minister’s Office.
On April 29, 12:42, I will send a letter to the communication department of the minister:
« This letter to let you know that:
- Not having responded to the formal notice from my lawyer, having forbidden us to enter the press conference on April 24, under the pretext that we had to organize ourselves by pool, This « obligation » is necessary in order to respect the social distancing and the rotation of journalists in the press conference room, a social distancing that has never been respected by the ministers during all the press conferences.
- The « obligation » to form a pool is nothing more than an arbitrary protocol issued by the Prime Minister’s Office, supposedly put in place by your ministry to guarantee press freedom and ensure democratic media rotation.
- Since there is no legal obligation for other journalists to take over our questions and relay them, and since there is no guarantee that this will be done effectively, the « accredited » journalists refused to relay our questions(12) as you assumed (under the fallacious pretext that they did not attend the press conference, which they all finally did attend, or that it was none of their business); we are therefore forwarding to you these questions (as you stipulated in your previous letter), which should have been asked at the press conference, particularly to Mrs. Sophie Wilmès. However, these questions are only relevant if all Belgian citizens hear the answers, not if we alone receive them « in private ». Submit these to the Minister and her team a posteriori does not make up for the loss of their non-mediatization on April 24;
- Given all of the above, our media, Kairos, should have been present, even in the case of a pool, and our journalist intern (who has a press card) should have been able to attend the press conference. Aren’t you supposed tos guarantee the freedom of the press?
We hereby inform you that we will be present at the next press conference. Please keep us informed of the date and place of the event.
Sincerely,
Alexandre Penasse »
Faced with their silence, on May 4, the lawyer sent a final notice which » in the absence of a convincing answer, confirmed that she was mandated to file a summary action (with a request for damages of about €100,000) if this situation were to continue. The demand letter addressed:
» — the address and time of the upcoming press conference,
- confirmation of your agreement to the participation of a Kairos journalist at the next conference, and ideally my client’s inclusion on your list. As a reminder, Mr. Penasse is seriously prejudiced by certain measures specifically taken against him. »
On May 5, Steve Detry replied :
» Madam,
Lhe information concerning the organization of press conferences is known from the beginning by your client.
Caution regarding the health situation in Belgium obliges us to take measures to limit the risks of contamination within the press conference room of the Sixteen, Rue de la Loi. It would have been possible to use a method similar to the twice-daily press conference at the Crisis Center (questions via digital means) or to follow the example of other European countries that restrict access to the room to one or two journalists (thus becoming the « spokesperson » for the entire profession). This is something we have refused to do so far for the sake of transparency. This demonstrates our commitment to press freedom as well.
Considering its surface and the number of places available in the public (75), we have planned an access limited to twenty people (1–2‑1x5) so that it is possible and « easy » to respect the distances, knowing that we also have to count the technical teams on site.
Five places are provided for the collaborators of the Minister-Presidents.
The remainder is therefore earmarked for the press, according to a distribution key for agencies — audiovisual — written press; on the basis of a « pool » operation. This system allows everyone to have a chance to attend the press conference. Of course, we keep a place for requests from media that have less means and less audience than the big media players of the Belgian landscape. Your client was awarded this position on April 15. On April 24, Le Ligueur occupied it. For this conference, we attribute it to DaarDaar(13).
This way of proceeding is validated and supported by all the participants and the professional union of journalists.
Moreover, I would like to point out that the access to information is total: the press conference is broadcasted live on the internet, without editing.
Your client is free to have a colleague ask his or her question or even to send it to us by e‑mail and we will answer it. I notice that no questions were ever addressed to us before or after a press conference (sic).
Best regards, »
« Caution regarding the health situation in Belgium obliges us to take measures to limit the risks of contamination in the press conference room of the Sixteen, Rue de la Loi.
Response from the Prime Minister’s Communications Office
The lawyer replied on May 6:
» Ladies and Gentlemen ,
I am following up on your letter of yesterday, for which I thank you.
First of all, it isinappropriate to claim that my client was aware of the rules concerning the organization of your conferences (pooling ) sincethe situation is unprecedented, in addition to being relatively confusing.
I think that Mr. Penasse did not call for a council by pure pleasure and I myself questioned you on April 22 to obtain some clarifications, in vain.
After two weeks of waiting, I finally received some answers.
This being the case, it seems to me, on the one hand, inappropriate to consider that your practices are validated and supported by all the participants, without which I would not have allowed myself to put you on notice on two occasions.
On the other hand, I also notice that some of your selection criteria seem to be discriminatory since, for example, the media LN24 was represented by the same journalist during the last two conferences (the same goes for other journalists!).
Out of a few authorized actors, I also notice that several photographers have access to the conference, which makes me wonder about your priorities, as well as your real attachment to the freedom of the press, given the circumstances.
I am also surprised by your choice of the « bunker » when other, more accessible places could have been preferred.
Given your concern for transparency, I would like to have your lists so that I can be sure of the validity of your argument, especially since the Daardaarcolleagues will not be able to relay the Kairos question because according to them, they will not be present later… In order not to procrastinate any further, I remind you that my client sent you thes following questions by email dated April 29:
- You often say that citizens will have to tighten their belts and that efforts will have to be made, but there are alternatives to the austerity policies imposed on people. One of them is to suspend the repayment of the debt using the argument of necessity. Will you implement this solution? »
- Do you intend to put human and technical means to stop tax evasion? Because preventing tax evasion would make it possible to bring back the money from tax havens and, in particular, to reinvest in the health sector? »
It istherefore completely false to claim that the Kairosmedia would never have addressed questions to you, and I would therefore be grateful if you would put them on the agenda for today, in order to put your words into action.
(…) « .
On May 6, I sent this email to Steve Detry, as he invited us to submit our questions to the Minister:
« Mr. Detry,
Following your invitations in various e‑mails, in which you proposed to transmit to us the questions that we could not ask ourselves during this press conference of May 6, and that other journalists present refused to ask for us, we complied and are waiting for the answers of the minister, in addition to the two questions that we already sent you on April 29 and to which you did not give any follow-up:
- How does the government justify the sudden availability of masks when caregivers have been without them for so long?
- Why doesn’t the government regulate the price of these masks, as is done in other countries?
- What will the Belgian government do with the money collected from the breach of the containment rules? Will it be donated to associations, will it be used to purchase sanitary equipment? Will it be used to fill the equipment gap in hospitals? Or will it be used for other purposes that have nothing to do with the current health crisis?
- Is it appropriate to maintain the’F35 purchase? »
Without any response, on May 11, the lawyer sent :
» Ladies and Gentlemen ,
I’m coming back to you to follow up on my email of May 6, which has not been answered yet.
The next press conference is scheduled for this Wednesday, May 13, and my client would like to know about his upcoming registration?
Attached you will find a publication that is very interesting for what concerns him… Broadcasting a media mainstream which is truly scandalous(14). Insofar as some colleagues had access to the conference, without rotation (!), and that the colleagues of DaarDaar would not have attended the previous conference as indicated, I would be grateful if you could confirm a future date that will allow my client to enjoy his rights again.
Failing that, please let me know which small media outlet would have the privilege of appearing on your selection this week, and most importantly, please assure me that if it fails to make the list, thequestion of Kairosmedia can be asked this time at the next conference. »
To date, we have received no response from Sophie Wilmès’ communications department. The supposed solidarity of our fellow journalists, defended by both Steve Detry and the AJP, has never been seen. Their famous pools have seen the same editorial staff and no questions about the legitimacy of the power in place, its decisions, its obvious conflicts of interest and the impact of all these realities on the liberticidal decisions that are taken by a state supposedly acting for our good.
« To date, we have had no response from Sophie Wilmès’ communications department. The supposed solidarity of our fellow journalists, defended by both Steve Detry and the AJP, has never been noted. Their famous pools have seen the same editorial staff and no questions about the legitimacy of the power in place, its decisions, its obvious conflicts of interest and the impact of all these realities on the liberticidal decisions that are taken by a State supposedly acting for our good.
Letter from Alexandre Penasse’s lawyer to the government
On June 22, in response to the lawyer’s complaint to the AJP for infringement of press freedom, the AJP’s Board of Directors(15) replied that » the AJP’s vocation and social purpose is not to arbitrate disputes between journalists. He added that » more generally, it seems to us that the Belgian population does not suffer from any democratic deficit insofar as its press conferences following the NHA are broadcast in full and accessible to anyone, including your client. It is up to you to judge that silence on your client’s requests to re-attend a post-NSC press conference constitutes a « degrading treatment’, but we don’t think so.
« You are free to judge, to think… », but they are free to prevent us from asking our questions live… AJP does not take sides, but AJP takes sides when it accuses me of inappropriate behavior toward other journalists… » Freedom is oppression, » « War is peace. » They and we live in other worlds, while they are convinced that because of a full transcript of the press conferences on television and the Internet, we live in a democracy. That my question of April 15 has bothered? They won’t talk about it.
Therefore, nothing should have been expected from the AJP in this case. Faced with the pretexts, subterfuges, wooden tongues, inventions of all kinds of the government not to evoke the essential, namely that the mass media form a system with the political power allowing to never seize the problems at their root, we were going to try the recourse in justice.
While the State via its lawyer did not respond to my insistent requests to attend a press conference and the government invented all sorts of malleable and opaque rules to justify their refusal, my last attempt on July 27, 3 months after the one on April 25, was going to give them the pretext they were looking for. Only a few hours after showing those who followed us on our website and social networks the repeated refusal(16) to let me enter the press conference, the lawyers of the Belgian State sent :
» I am compelled to send you this official email. Your client, Mr. Alexandre Penasse, was at the end of the morning on the sidewalk of 4, rue Ducale in 1000 Brussels, i.e. in front of the FPS Chancellery of the Prime Minister, in the presence of other journalists (…) At about 12:15, Mr. Penasse took advantage of the exit of a member of the staff to surreptitiously enter the building, although he had neither been announced nor invited. This intrusion occurred in disregard of the security rules, which are applicable to all visitors, including journalists, and which all respect (except your client, obviously). Mr. Penasse, however, got stuck in the airlock and was unable to proceed with his intentions. He was asked to leave the premises immediately, especially since the time of the press conference was not yet known and he will be able to follow it in streaming « .
They conclude that » the Belgian State does not want Mr. Penasse to attend the press conferences following the National Security Council meetings. Indeed, Mr. Penasse’s recent behaviour confirms that, at least temporarily, he cannot be granted access to these press conferences « . They add that » despite the signs at the entrance indicating that, for security reasons, it is forbidden to film, Mr. Penasse filmed his behavior and broadcast it live on the Facebook of Kairos (…) This unacceptable behavior does not reflect responsible journalism and confirms that the presence of Mr. Penasse at a press conference could seriously disrupt the smooth running of the event. A press conference is not a place for investigation, although questions may be asked « . The rest sounds like a copy and paste of the AJP speech quoted above: the number of participants is limited due to sanitary measures; other journalists have previously been bothered by my presence; under the pool, I can ask colleagues to relay my questions, but » the State is not responsible for any refusal of Mr. Penasse ».(17).
In the rest of the letter, the Belgian State undertakes to answer the questions I asked earlier as well as the new questions. So we can ask questions away from the cameras, and the state can take the time to answer what it wants. Imagine the difference: my question on April 15 in front of hundreds of thousands of people live or this same question by email? They understood well what was a risk for them…
Here are some of the questions we could have asked at the last conference, which we are forced to email to the minister’s press office:
- At a press conference in early August, the tragic death of a 3‑year-old girl was mentioned, attributing it to Covid. Her father testified in the press, explaining that on July 16, his daughter » had been placed in intensive care where the Covid-19 infection was subsequently diagnosed. Testing also proved positive for the parents. « It was the coronavirus that came with her, but not the coronavirus that killed her. You don’t have to scare the world for nothing. It’s a lot of show, » he laments. This type of communication, which has political effects, namely the hardening of measures, but also generates anguish and worry among parents and grandparents, as the start of the school year approaches, is in our opinion proof of amateurism, or a desire to instill fear. How does the government collect and verify this Covid information?
Imagine the difference: my question on April 15 in front of hundreds of thousands of people live or this same question by email? They understood well what was a risk for them…
- Can you tell us about the government’s dealings with multinational pharmaceutical companies, especially GSK? What is the status of your current collaboration with the latter? In particular, Pascal Lizin is both Chairman of the Société fédérale de participations et d’investissement (SFPI) and a director at GSK as the main lobbyist. It was also SFP I that put Vesalius Biocapital, where Philippe De Backer worked, in its » strategic priorities « .
- Since the beginning of the coronavirus in Belgium, nothing is said or done about the major risk, much greater than an epidemic, which concerns climate change and the major dangers for humanity associated with it. However, while Covid-19 would have allowed us to rethink our entire model of society, you hasten to financially support Brussel Airlines, which participates in the destruction of our ecosystem; nothing is done to curb air pollution, for which the automobile is largely responsible. Worldwide, 7 million people die every year from poor air quality; in Belgium, more than 10,000 people die prematurely because of air pollution. Do you intend to perpetuate this policy of growth, which has brought us to where we are today, and of which Covid-19 is also the result?
- Could you detail the numbers among those who test positive: which ones are asymptomatic, which ones require treatment but can stay at home, and which ones require hospitalization?
- Never in more than 5 months have you specifically and repeatedly mentioned the fact that the mortality attributed to Covid was in fact affecting people with co-morbidities (obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disorders) or very old people. You also ignored potential remedies and practices that could, at a lower cost, increase immunity. While the conflicts of interest of the groups of experts and members of the government, which you unashamedly call privacy, are obvious, we can legitimately ask ourselves what dictates the choices of the government: money or the common good. In view of your previous decisions, notably as Minister of the Budget, but also as a member of a party, the MR, which has always worked in favour of the richest (cf. notably the « notional interests » introduced by Didier Reynders), you will admit that doubt is allowed. Can you assure us that no private group is profiting from Covid-19 and the decisions that are made by your government?
- During the press conference of July 27, Elio Di Rupo, whom I questioned, did not seem to be aware that only one man was behind the tracing measures, a certain Frank Robben. Could you tell us more?
- Mental health professionals indicate that many people consult them for disorders related to the present situation, of which depression, loss of meaning, suicidal thoughts… are largely part. Do you weigh the collateral damage of your measures against their benefits when you decide on them, in a kind of cost/benefit calculation for the population? Do you have figures for the social/individual effects of your decisions?
- Do you think it is possible to avoid covid-19 contamination completely? In this field, there is no such thing as zero risk, yet one gets the impression that this is what you want to make people believe. What about herd immunity, which some virologists believe will be essential to reduce contamination if the virus returns seasonally, a herd immunity that you do not take into account at all?
- Sweden, which has taken measures quite different from those of Belgium, refusing the generalized confinement, and shows results that are not alarming, while some promised tens of thousands of deaths. What consequences do you draw from this?
- How do you explain that at the most crucial moment of the epidemic, only one laboratory was designated for the whole territory? This totally determined the number of tests and the criteria to perform them.
- Can you confirm to us at this date, while you are tightening the measures, in particular in Brussels with the imposition of the mask in all the public places, that the rate of lethality due to Covid is only decreasing?
- There is no scientific basis to impose the wearing of masks everywhere. What criteria do you rely on then?
Pulling out of the hat their » pools » to justify their refusal to allow me to attend a press conference, my » inappropriate behavior » which » could seriously disrupt the proceedings » from now on, no debate will take place. For sure, it is not at all the substance of my questions that disturbs them and undermines their work of representation…
How much longer can we put up with this?
