:quality(75)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/elcomercio/6Q5DD7EPR5GOFJMADL4FSSUB4I.png "‘Cock law’ loses favor: Two benches to discuss their stand on dangerous defamation scheme | principle")
Two benches Congress They hope to assess their position in a second vote on a bill aimed at increasing penalties for aggravated defamation. initiativePromoted by Free PeruThe first vote received 69 votes in favor, 28 against and 3 votes in favour.
Pursuant to the opinion concluded on May 4, it seeks to replace Article 132 (slander) Criminal Law. The proposal increases the jail term for those who commit this offense by book, magazine or “Other Means of Social Communication”, Although it is not specified what the latter is.
Meera: At least 29 congressmen have had an open process on ethics in the last 6 months alone: who are they? | Report
Regarding crime slander (Article 131), in addition, the bill prescribes that a civil indemnity be levied in favor of the complainant.
and calendar
Complete Congress It was also scheduled to address the second referendum called for this Thursday Law of Oration. However, it has been postponed to next week. This is after journalists’ associations including National Association of Journalists (ANP), Peruvian Press Council (CPP) and Institute of Press and Society (IPYS)A blockade was held in the Parliament to not approve the above plan.
The main reason the aforementioned groups oppose the proposal is the potential threat “For Journals Devoted to the Study of Public Action”As mentioned.
This Thursday, Juliana Lynes, President of the ANP; María Eugenia Mohme, President of the CPP; Among other delegations, they met Congress leader Jose Williams and expressed their concerns surrounding the bill. A letter signed by the ANP, CPP and IPYS explained that this type of initiative is against the status quo as stipulated by the Inter-American Convention. In addition, a deterrent effect is sought among journalists.
Laines commented after the meeting Trade what Williams He promised that the second poll would be held on Thursday next week. Likewise, earlier meetings would be arranged between ANP and IPYS with different benches of Parliament. “The impact of this plan on journalism is to be explained to the congressmen. These meetings will be between Friday and Monday.Lyness noted.
Finally, he commented that Williams was ready to start a conversation.
Projection
On May 4, benches Free Peru, Popular Action, Alliance for Progress (APP), Magisterial Module and Popular Renewal They overwhelmingly voted in favor of the verdict.
However, only these two constituencies are re-evaluating the stance expressed a week ago.
Eduardo Saljuana, Alternate Spokesperson for ProcessorAlthough his constituency supported the plan in the Justice Commission and in plenary session, “This is a very sensitive topic that has generated a disproportionate amount of controversy in my opinion.”He said this Thursday R.P.B.
Due to this he has announced that his session will meet today “Because of what happened in public opinion”. He added that members of Parliament have “It is the duty of citizens to listen. If there are conflicting opinions, it is important to review and evaluate the decision”.
Although he felt that the issue should be reconsidered, he also believed in Peru “Broad Freedom of Expression”.
“You have to be careful when making laws and know how to listen to the public. In the case of APP, we’re going to do that, we’ve coordinated with some colleagues over the phone, and we’ll talk beforehand and decide. No need to create controversies”Saljuana reiterated.
For his part, Jose CuetoAlternate Spokesperson Popular update, told El Comercio that they have not yet discussed the position they will adopt in their constituency. However, he did not reject the new assessment, although he felt that it was not a ‘cog’s law’.
“We’re going to evaluate it now, we haven’t defined it yet. It’s not a mock law. [Es un proyecto al que] I don’t see any difference from the previous one, not at all, the campaign seems to be going on against the Congress. I am going to state my position for a second vote when the bench decides, which has not yet been taken. [Será una posición] bench”Added Kyoto.
| Bench | Pros | vs | Neglect |
|---|---|---|---|
| People’s Army | 1 | 20 | |
| Free Peru | 14 | ||
| A popular move | 11 | ||
| Processor | 10 | ||
| Magisterial Vol | 7 | ||
| Popular update | 6 | ||
| A developing country | 1 | 3 | |
| Democratic Change-JP | 4 | 2 | 1 |
| We can grow | 3 | 1 | |
| Bicentennial Peru | 5 | ||
| We are Peru | 4 | ||
| Not grouped | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Total | 69 | 28 | 3 |
Approval of the opinion in the second vote requires the adhesion of a simple majority of the participants (half plus one). They add 20 votes that can tip the final decision between the APP and the popular update.
On the other hand, blocks that confirm their position Popular Action and Magisterial Vol.
Ilyich LopezAlternate Spokesperson A popular moveEl Comercio advanced to: “A decision has already been taken in the bench and we are not touching the matter again”.
Although he commented that he could not be sure how his colleagues in the parliamentary group would vote, he believed that “Misunderstood” Bill. “I think the passage of this law will not only strengthen the dignity of the people but it will also be very good for the press. It will strengthen diversity. Apart from that, the strengthening of fundamental right is also very important. All have voted in favour, and I have not heard of anyone going to vote against or contrary to their first vote.“, he added.
It contains Magisterial Vol They too will not change their votes,” said the Congressman Edgar Tello. “We believe that in a democracy there can be no excess, it must be restrained”Commented on this concept requiring a second vote.
For his part, People’s Army It has also confirmed that they will maintain their stand against the passage of this law to amend the Criminal Code. Patricia Juarez, spokeswoman for the constituency, told El Comercio that voting will take place. “The same person we supported from the beginning, as we voted for in the first referendum. We voted against the motion and now we are going to vote the same way..
He has explained that this situation has occurred because of “There can be no threat against the freedom of the press. These types of measures could also provide a boost to investigative journalism, which has been a key resource in recent years for uncovering corrupt practices. In a democracy there must be total freedom”.
While on benches like We can Peru, Peru two hundred years and we Peru The vote is expected to be split.
Carlos Zeballos, Alternate Spokesperson for We can grow, said the vote in his group would not be unanimous. Where appropriate, it shall support the opinion prepared. “What we have asked for is that the debate be broadened so that all positions are exposed so that it is not taken badly. I am going to vote in favor as I did in the first vote, not for the purpose of revenge, but we cannot allow the endorsement of falsehood, hiding behind computers to undermine people’s dignity. He argued in a conversation with El Comercio.
while, Victor KutibaSpokesperson Bicentennial PeruAnd indicated that the referendum would not be en bloc, and that in his case he would support the initiative. “This is a bill so that if the penalty is increased, no one will feel sorry, because no one will commit the crime. It is a program that will be imposed on those who pay it.he added.
Finally, Jose GerryAlternate Spokesperson We are PeruHe vowed to vote against the verdict. “We are going to have an individual criterion, under which of course some will vote the same, some may reflect their votes. I have my observations and I will stick to them. As a bench there is freedom of judgment. I don’t see an impulse. [en el proyecto] That would allow me to vote for it. I don’t think that’s appropriate.”explained Trade.
