The Attorney General’s Office denied, in a demonstration sent to the DPU (of the Union), that the governor (MDB) committed fake news about the.
In protest against a law that, they argue, could pave the way for the implementation of distance education in the villages.
A to demand that the government of be prevented from propagating news that the agency evaluates to be false on the subject.
The agency demands compensation for collective moral damages of R $ 10 million, which would be reversed to indigenous communities.
The defender cites the governor’s video excerpt where he says it is “important to emphasize that the movement began from a misinformation that we would be ending the face -to -face education system in indigenous villages, which would change to a distance education system. Something that has never existed and will never exist.
The State Attorney General’s Office states that the governor’s speech “is not mistaken, much less one could qualify the speech of Chief Executive Pará in order to give vent to ‘discrimination’ and ‘prejudice’ against indigenous communities, much less to the accusations of ‘hate speech’ and ‘xenophobia’ “.
The PGE argues that Barbalho’s manifestation is based on the “need to restore the administrative order and in the search for dialogue with the protesters, highlighting the state’s disposition to meet legitimate claims that were presented.”
It also says that the “narrative built by DPU, on the contrary, disregards the integral context of the statement and misrepresents its content, moving away from the reality of the facts.”
In the action, the DPU cites response from the Secretary of Education of Pará, to a procedure of the Federal Public Prosecution Service in which he indicates that there would be implementation by CEMEP (Media Center) of Distance Education for the indigenous community.
The PGE says the document “is a mere reference to the position of the board of Cemep regarding the specific meeting of the needs of TI Parakana”.
The Paraense agency also states that the ordinary law contested by the indigenous people would not extinguish indigenous modular teaching and would not deal with the replacement of face -to -face teaching by the remote.
The Attorney’s Office says that the declarations on the extinction of indigenous modular education and the change to remote teaching are untruths.
“The simple fact that the public authority refutes the premise of protesters or disagreeing with the narrative presented by DPU cannot, by itself, be framed as a hate or xenophobia speech, under penalty of compromising freedom of expression and the right to contradictory in the public debate, “he says.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
