Press conference on February 5, 2021
After the credits rolled during my question at a previous press conference, this time they cut off my microphone. Censorship has no limits…
593 days since the press conference of April 15, 2020, where we introduced in the room » a politically biased question « , which » is not the habit of journalists « , says Sophie Wilmès. The habit of journalists is to ask the questions that politicians expect and to comment on their decisions, rather than to seek the truth. The mass media do not play the role of a fourth estate, but rather manufacture consent. Not being adept at such collusion, the political power will close the doors of press conferences for more than eight months. We were not counting on our determination…
Every Monday, Tuesday and Friday, Kairos will publish the 17 press conferences we attended. More than 20 unanswered questions. In front of them, no doubts, no questioning, no desire to understand, but a fixed, rigid end that justifies all their means.
Imagine for a moment if all these issues had been debated democratically. Do you think we would be there today?
-Alexandre Penasse: How do you justify the fact that citizens no longer have the right to demonstrate freely? Do you find it normal that police deployments like those of January 31 are systematic? The right to demonstrate is enshrined in the constitution, but people are afraid of being fined, afraid of being beaten, afraid of being arrested and therefore do not demonstrate anymore or are afraid to go and demonstrate. What do you think?
-Alexander De Croo: So there is a right to demonstrate. To demonstrate in a static way with a maximum of one hundred people, but it is up to the cities to decide if they think it is allowed to demonstrate or not. For example, in the town where I live, an authorization was given to hold a demonstration, there were twelve people, but there was an authorization to do so.
-AP: Are the Prime Minister and his government aware that one of the biggest studies has just come out from a leading epidemiologist at Stanford University? He compared different countries and showed that there is no significant benefit of the most coercive social measures on the spread of SARScov2 so, does the government take into account these studies? Are they going to adapt their measures when we know that the closing of hairdressers, restaurants and bars, the confinement and the curfew have no proof of effectiveness (muted), are you going to take that into account for restaurants or bars?
-ADC: No. Honestly, I saw a summary of a study that clearly shows that containment measures are the only measures that have been proven in all countries to have an effect. You cite a study that I have not seen but there is a summary of all the places that show that containment measures are the measures that are most effective. You see it everywhere. The countries that have a surge, Portugal, Ireland, UK, why did it happen? Because at some point, they let go and the effect was almost immediate.