translated from Spanish: The sanction to Pamela Jiles

Sir: we have seen how a controversy concerning the decision of the Ethics Committee of the Chamber of deputies that was created It would have issued a sanction against the Congresswoman humanist Pamela Jiles, this cause of its actions to the inside of the lower House once the UDI Osvaldo Urrutia Deputy insulted the memory of torture and the victims of the dictatorship.
Coverage to the fact seems interesting to observe, since that it is spread by many means of communication which was a “symbolic sanction”, thus, in a quote, but without reference it issued who that statement. In the case of the third indicated that that statement was carried out by “members of the Commission”, and I think is valid to wonder who are those members? Do several members said the same thing? Is it the Declaration of the decision of the Commission? Other media chose to indicate “as he recorded the third”. What is relevant is that not is clear the issuer of such appointment, and this case does not warrant nor justifies protecting the source, since it would easily lend for moves and individual or sectarian political interests. In addition, because this appointment fulfilled a very important role in the news since he was somehow validity and accuracy, since there is no document visible that faith of the sanction. The phrase “symbolic sanction” was replicated by almost all media of communication, some of which even made reference to who issued that phrase or your media source, but they used it even in the title of the publication.
This fact should make us think on how the press covers news events. Many journalists and publishers trust blindly in the investigation of other media and journalists, as if there were no their own agendas, different ethical standards, thinking it would be if the information is not correct, responsible for this lack of ethical and professional only the middle of which “hung”. It is logic should be obviously incorrect.
We should also reflect on that seems to be that nobody investigated as a failure the Committee on ethics, information that is easily accessible, which is even explained in the resolutions of the Commission. A quick investigation by “google” would have given light to the Ethics Commission rulings are based on regulatory standards, not on the basis of personal moral considerations with respect to a fact. I want to delve into this: personally the attitude of the Member Jiles liked to aberrations of the sayings of Urrutia, however if I were a member of a Council or Commission of ethics, my personal appreciation of the fact should be relegated so it indicates the regulations or rules of the organization. If you know that the Ethics Commission fails according to regulatory standards and these standards are investigated would be truly “unusual” failure? “This questioning is direct to this medium that titled news” Insolito: Ethics Commission sanctioned to Pamela Jiles by “altercado”by Ignacio Urrutia”.
According to my experience, and I think that here many you can see representatos, when you start a work certain companies you obligated to sign a regulation of conduct setting standard or ethical behavior within the organization. Why is this necessary? Because if us desenvolvieramos based on our personal morality there would never be consensus, it would be a chaos. If logic were to fail from individual morality the Ethics Commission would be a political instrument to will, a weapon, a threat to democracy.
Finally, I am surprised that the Congresswoman Jiles chose to remain silent, and that devote himself the last few days to spread support from third parties even with attacks on their companions of the Frente Amplio. She when she was sworn in as Deputy in March accepted the regulations of the Chamber of Deputies, my guess is that he was responsible for and read them, I guess should know that you are not allowed inside the Chamber to verbal aggression, believe strongly it, such as I, who It was justified by the gravity of the sayings of Urrutia. Then, I think is relevant to thinking that I must be responsible for our actions, even though they bring us sanctions for actions that we think morally that they are fair and correct.
If we see him well, a penalty of 18 pesos considering what projected wins as a single member of the insignificane of ethical failure have committed something that defined him the Commission. In other works, do not comply with the standards of behavior or rules is grounds for dismissal, wouldn’t mind nothing if the aggression that you made was because another attacked you first.
Robinson Palacios

Original source in Spanish