Sanguinetti dedicated his editorial column in the Friday Mail to questioning the Broad Front, the PIT-CNT and the National Institution for Human Rights and the Ombudsman’s Office (INDDHH).
Through his editorial entitled: “The degradation of the great causes”, Sanguinetti expresses that for the Broad Front, there are no longer limits. “All causes, however sacred, are run over and degraded.”
“Unfortunately, the Broad Front has lost all autonomy and is led by the PIT-CNT, which, in turn, is raided by radical groups that condition national leaders without the historical weight of Vázquez, Mujica or Astori. These had margins of action. The current frontline proto-candidates, mayors themselves, totally lack the independence to act. They take refuge in their tasks and do not influence fundamental political issues that deserve respect and serious consideration”, considers Sanguinetti.
March
In this sense, the former president expresses that the case of the March 8 march is conclusive. “This year the PIT-CNT decided that the march was theirs, that the tribute was to working women and that they would accompany nothing less than a general strike. Some radical feminist activists were upset, because they saw it as a kind of expropriation of their work. But they fell silent after the consequent pressure was felt.”
She also said that feminist women who are not frontists “rightly felt overwhelmed”, because “they were forced to participate in a practically oppositional act”, and exemplified with the case of the vice president, Beatriz Argimón.
Benefit
He added that the current Broad Front, “progressively radicalized, degrades everything it touches.”
“It partisans it, it biases it, it tries to confiscate it for its benefit. This is the case of women in our country, whose progress in society is identified with the action of Batllismo from the first presidency of Don Pepe to our last governments. The newcomers to the subject, the communists who cultivated since Marx, Lenin and Stalin, the most radical misogyny, now dress in clothes they never wore. Unfortunately they have been clever and their invasion has been successful. But they want to go all the way. It is not enough for them to predominate: they also want to kick out those who do not line up, ”she says.
INDDHH
He added: “We can say the same about that unlikely National Human Rights Institution, which disregards legality and tramples national history in a totalitarian way. It is the clamorous case of declaring a Site of Memory the place of the clash in Salsipuedes of the national army, led by President Rivera, with the unanimity support of the Senate, with the last group of charrúas that still devastated the campaign.
Sanguinetti said that “without greater precision”, there is talk of 40 dead indigenous people and 300 prisoners, “figures that already reveal that there was no ‘genocidal’ attempt on any side, in which the numbers would be the other way around. It was an episode in the long clash between Hispanic-Creole society and the Charrúa tribe, which began in 1702 with the Battle of Yí, in which the Guarani army commanded by the Jesuits inflicted the greatest defeat, declaring some 500 indigenous dead.
He recalled that the Ministry of Education and Culture, the ANEP and the Heritage Commission, “voted against considering that a commission destined, by law, to inquire about ‘recent history’ does not have the slightest competence to laud a tired historical debate controversial about an episode from 1831. In other words, the law is violated and, with ‘ignorance and bad faith’ as Maiztegui said, a non-existent genocide is invented. It is the pretense of imposing an officialist history, just as communism did in the late USSR and Kirchnerism in Argentina.”
The former Colorado president assures that “as if all this were not enough, now he is going out, two weeks before a referendum, to challenge the law. A State institution assumes the right to question a law sanctioned in accordance with the Constitution. And he does it in the middle of a political debate, with an intention that is stripped bare in all its crudeness by the opportunity. They try to influence the popular definition, echoing the insistent preaching of those in favor of repealing the law”.
“They condemn the fact that the law presumes that, unless there is evidence to the contrary, the police act in accordance with the law. The norm should have always existed and extended to other State officials, be it a traffic inspector or one from the tax offices”, he opines.
He points out that the other challenge is that the law “increases the period of detention before informing the prosecutor, from 2 to 4 hours.” He wonders: “Is it that serious? Don’t you think that is a more than reasonable deadline for the initial police action? Every term is conventional, there is no exact science, but no one in their right mind can imagine that this is opening the way to torture in an absolutely democratic country, where even the press constantly monitors the action of the State”.
He said that the arguments are “gross” and are based on an “unbelievable” accusation from the Association of Public Defenders who reported to the Justice “a hundred possible abuses, without any judge paying attention to them”, which he does not consider serious. and defines as a “trap, defamatory construction, attempt to demonize the police when they begin to reverse the crime curve.”
At this point in his exposition, Sanguinetti proposes going back to the beginning of his editorial: “The Broad Front is degrading the most sacred causes. Everything deforms. The excesses in the feminist march pay the opposite cause. The Human Rights Institution, although it hurts to hear it, is helping criminals. They are the ones who would celebrate the repeal of the law.”
