The crime of Mary Pili

«Reject Juan Barreto, Ernesto Villegas, Mary Pili HernandezMario Silva, Luisa Ortega Díaz, Andrés Izarra, Eduardo Rodríguez and others is not hate. It is not being extremist, it is simply reacting to so much harm that these collaborators have done to the Venezuelan citizen,” wrote the Twitter user Erasmo Blanco. A perspective shared so many times that the group has ended up forming a combo that erases the differences between individuals. Which there are.

To counter this perspective, journalist Celina Carquez asked on Twitter: “Don’t people have the right to change their minds or rectify? What crime did Mary Pili commit?” By mentioning Mary Pili Hernández specifically, the respected journalist Carquez separates her from the group. It is as if she were admitting that others may have some unfinished business: “And the human right that every person is innocent until proven guilty remains in force.”

Don’t people have the right to change their minds or rectify?
1) What crime did Mary Pili commit?
2) There are complaints, but no trials against those you mention.
And the human right that every person is innocent until proven guilty remains in force. https://t.co/q8cNKIVZnq

— CelinaCarquez 🐈🐈‍⬛🐈🔆 (@CelinaCarquez) August 21, 2024

“There are a thousand reasons to question them,” Carquez wrote in another tweet. “But you cannot say that Mary Pili committed a crime. Besides, she is here. Not like many Chavistas who plundered the country and went to Europe. Justice must prevail, not revenge,” he said.

In this, Carquez blurs reality, because although it is true that Mary Pili Hernández has not had to go into exile, it is also true that she does not live in the same Venezuela where the masses impoverished by Chavismo live, condemned to live on less than 20 dollars a month, harassed by the FAES, without public services, health care or public transportation of average quality. No. Mary Pili Hernández, like all – or almost all – of the “original Chavismo” lives in the bubble that they themselves created to endure the hell into which they turned Venezuela.

This is not a crime, but it is a monstrosity. Lying or keeping silent about the truth in journalism is not a crime in the legal sense, but it is a serious violation of professional ethics. Celina Carquez knows this, having weathered the thousand sieges with which Chavismo has tried to degrade journalism. She also knows that lying and its counterpart, the concealment of the truth, do a lot of harm to society, since Disinformation is concocted with the express purpose of manipulating public opinion and creating chaos.

It is hard to believe that Mary Pili Hernández has woken up as a democrat and a reliable journalist whose word can be believed, when she keeps quiet and hides much more than she reveals. Or is it that Chavez’s long hegemony does not have a criminal record? Did Chavez not endorse corruption and perpetrate it himself, to the point of making himself and his extended family rich? Did Chavez not destroy Venezuela’s institutions and infrastructure; did he not distribute the country’s resources among the other clowns, who laughed at his jokes? Did Chavez not expropriate the victims without paying them, did he not have political prisoners, did he not end the separation of powers, did he not pervert the armed forces, did he not close down media outlets, did he not abuse the nation’s property by using it as his own? Did that not happen? Does Mary Pili Hernández not know that?

It may not be a criminal offense, but lying or keeping quiet about the truth in journalism is a serious offense with very negative effects for society. And in power, which Mary Pili Hernández is tired of exercising, opacity, lack of transparency and withholding information are poisoned darts for democracies, because they weaken institutions and favor shady dealings and bad practices, in which Chavismo has surpassed any other government in the history of Venezuela, from Guaicaipuro onwards. Is this false? Does Mary Pili ignore it?

If it is not a crime, contributing to avoiding accountability should be. And the Chavista network, of which Mary Pili has been a part – and will continue to be, as long as she does not appear before the country and say everything she knows – has committed a thousand abuses to prevent society from questioning and supervising the government’s decisions, as well as to nullify its ability to demand accountability.

Could Celina affirm that Mary Pili has done nothing to prevent society from scrutinizing the crimes of Chavismo and of Chávez himself? No? What is this, then:

#26sep | The original Chavismo cannot remain silent. Mari Pili Hernández says it clearly. Attacking Ramírez is attacking Chávez and the Bolivarian Project.#VolverAChavez #Venezuela #RafaelRamirez pic.twitter.com/Brv2RkDJGU

— Rafael Ramirez Press (@RojoRojitoVE) September 27, 2022

This is a video of the former minister of Chávez where she calls out the Maduro regime for questioning Rafael Ramírez, one of the plunderers of Pdvsa, because that path leads to the mother of the lamb, which is Chávez.

Nidia Ruiz, a Twitter user, also wrote: “I can’t forget the amused and complacent laughter of Mary Pili Hernández, standing next to NM, when he called Capriles and L. López ‘faggots’ at a rally.” It’s not a crime, but we don’t forget it either.

Celina criticizes the behavior of those who accuse the “critical Chavistas” of their slowness in not admitting their own mistakes – and even crimes, in some cases, of course. Because, mind you, those who are confronting the Combo Los Críticos are doing so as an act of opinion. They are not sending patrols to their houses, they are not threatening them or tapping their phones, they are not arresting them or dragging them to La Tumba. They are responding with words to the words of the Combo.

Let us allow the Spanish professor Norbert Bilbeny to explain it. In his book “Ethics”, he says: “It cannot be argued that forgiving someone is a duty, even if it is a duty to treat them fairly. (…) Nor is it a duty to protest, although it is a duty to disapprove or reject an action if it is justified. But whenever there are obligations, and responsible conduct is expected in accordance with them, there are also, in fact, excuses. After lying, for example, it is claimed that it was for someone’s own good, or out of fear, etc. But there should be no excuses. The excuse is not excusable. It is an expression of irresponsibility. If the excuse is so truthful and credible, then it is no longer an excuse, but a justification.”

If it is not criminal, it is certainly irresponsible; and here we are talking about an “irresponsibility” that has torn a country apart, sent a third of its population into exile and kept thousands of political prisoners. The “critics” cannot expect a pardon that they have not asked for, which would involve admitting their faults and giving the country information that belongs to them and that they continue to hide.

@MilagrosSocorro