The Minister of Justice, Emily Giolitis, was in a position of defense today during the meeting of the Human Rights Committee on the issue of the parody account and the episodes that took place last Saturday. “They came ready for quarrels and populism,” she said. Gioliti referring to the attacks she received from the deputies, emphasizing that the scene was set and the level of discussion was not what she expected.
Speaking to reporters after the end of the debate in Parliament and referring to the parody account, Ms. Gioliti stated that she submitted a complaint, as any citizen would submit, and stressed that her only purpose was to protect her family and relatives. “The procedures followed by the Police are the ones that are always followed,” the Minister of Justice added.
Ms. Gioliti also stated that the climate he experiences every day is very toxic, while he stressed that he does not feel that he has to apologize for something.
For Saturday's episodes, Ms. Gioliti said that the images that everyone saw have troubled her. “The AKEL MP, Eleni Mavrou, asked me if I slept peacefully on Saturday night. The answer is that I did not sleep peacefully neither on Saturday nor on Sunday “, stressed Mrs. Giolitis, emphasizing that those responsible will be held accountable.
Concluding, Ms. Gioliti said that he got in touch with 25-year-old Anastasia who was injured in the episodes and wished her all the best with the operation she is undergoing. “Extreme behavior has no place in the police. “An investigation will be carried out and the perpetrators will be held accountable”, the Minister of Justice concluded.
Earlier in the Human Rights Committee, in her initial statement, the Minister of Justice, Emily Giolitis stated:
“First of all, I would like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here before you today, so that an honest discussion can take place, away from any expediency, and so that we can put things in perspective. I hope that there will be a civilized debate, within the framework of a parliamentary committee, and we will not set up a people's court, as we have seen happening on Social Media with non-existent and false allegations.
First and foremost, I want to make it clear that I fully respect freedom of speech and expression for every human being, even if the views expressed from the other side do not agree with me. This position of mine had become clear in previous cases, for which, as you may remember, I had received strong criticism.
What I boldly want to emphasize is that every human being has the right to express and present his or her own view of the world, to evaluate, judge and criticize the social and political core of our environment. This, after all, is the quintessence of Democracy, this is the cornerstone of all political and legal manifestos that have contributed over time to the establishment and safeguarding of human rights.
In this context, satire is undoubtedly included, which in the case of politicians is expected, I can say, and welcome. We need satire to stigmatize the wrongdoers, to highlight in a light, but equally poignant way, the weaknesses of the system but also of us politicians. We need it because it gives every politician the opportunity for self-evaluation, for a kind of political introspection, if you will, and reflection. Even in cases where it does not derive from the pure interest of its creator for the public, but emanates, in a few cases as I like to believe, from other interests and intentions.
At the same time, however, it is equally fundamental for Democracy to have the maturity to be able to define the framework that will serve the above purposes, without interfering with people's privacy, without touching on aspects of personal and family life. of each of us. Especially aspects, which have nothing to do with our political status and which in no case have we put ourselves in public view.
I believe we all agree that politicians should be particularly tolerant of criticism, satire and even insults. But I wonder how many agree that they should remain tolerant and apathetic when criticism and satire are directed not at them but at their relatives, their father, their mother, their children, people who have never sought publicity and should not. they are exposed to exposure in the public sphere. Is there anyone in our society who would agree to expose their father and mother or their minor and adult children with photos and mocking comments without reacting? It was in this spirit that I had submitted my complaint to the Police, when I realized, based on my own criteria, that in this case, under the veil of satire, people from my close family environment had started to be offended, and in fact with a photo that did not was made public neither by the protagonists nor by their relatives. I consider it imperative that every citizen be able to engage with the public, without this meaning that his parents and children will be north in public debates, without creating a risk of disturbing his family peace.
I would also like to mention that this account also used photos of my mother, which were published, but I want to believe that we all understand the difference between being published by the user or a relative, by publishing them a third party with the aim of distorting them, mocking them and writing offensive comments. I add that both the photos of my father and my mother were downloaded from this account when the complaint was submitted.
I note that my complaint was made in my capacity as a citizen of a prosperous society, which reserves this right to each of us, regardless of our political office. My complaint was lodged in early December and I state unequivocally that I have not received any information, I have not exerted any pressure nor have I been involved in any way in the investigation process that followed.
It would be an abuse of power if I was involved in any way in the investigation of the case, if I had intervened in the procedure followed by the Police, if I had intervened in the district court that issued the search warrant, which of course did not happen. Both the procedure followed by the Police and the procedure followed in the District Court are procedures that have been followed for years and not, of course, from the day I took over as Minister. I also find it offensive for both the Police and the Court to challenge procedures and decisions that have been in place for years.
I want to reiterate that my intention is not to prosecute the person who manages this account, nor do I want the legal process to continue, nor was it ever my intention to prosecute that person. However, I considered and consider it my obligation to safeguard the sacred institution of the family and to preserve this right for every citizen or politician.
It even makes me very sad that while in the past people from the entire political spectrum of the country, including party leaders, followed (I clarify correctly), the same process without any noise and outcry, in my case the exact opposite happened. The Police has all the information and if called, it is ready to submit it before the Parliament. I repeat that the protection of the family should and must be absolute, away from party banners and slogans.
In closing, I want to emphasize my absolute respect for state institutions and court decisions and to reiterate that my ultimate goal has never been to prosecute my fellow citizen but to defend my family. “