[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
The question of the journalist Klevin Muka to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Olta Xha\u00e7ka regarding the relationship with her husband who is a strategic investor, and the intervention of the Prime Minister Rama that led to the re-education of the journalist, has evoked a storm of reactions.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n
Invited today to Top Talk, the head of the Union of Journalists, Aleksand\u00ebr \u00c7ipa and analyst Genc Burimi, call the Prime Minister’s behavior unacceptable and a dangerous precedent for free speech.<\/p>\n
Analyst Genc Burimi said that the question was very provocative from the journalist Muka, which Xha\u00e7ka did not expect and therefore Rama’s intervention was necessary.<\/p>\n
Genc Source:<\/strong> It is a provocative question. In the West, you either don’t answer this question or you say that there is some kind of contradiction. The journalist is right, but the minister did not expect this question. If you saw Xha\u00e7ka’s facial expression, you didn’t expect it, that’s why Rama reacted. Rama’s intervention was disastrous. The journalist’s question was so provocative that it was not easily understood. Perhaps many have not understood the context.<\/em><\/p>\n \u00c7ipa said on the other hand that the prime minister has no authority to send a journalist for re-education, as it affects the Albanian law on information. He said that what Rama said was blackmail and he regretted it. He said on behalf of the Union that this action of Rama will be followed by legal means.<\/p>\n Alexander Chipa:<\/strong> There were practices of punishment, but not re-education. Punishment, I understand the removal of accreditation, but re-education is alarming. It is a conflict of interest. The Prime Minister has no reason to announce such re-educational measures for journalists. Unwillingly, he gives in to the law on the right to be informed. There is no attribute that can deprive a journalist of the right to be interested in such causes. It is impermissible. What is this re-education, it is a practice that we cannot accept for many reasons. It’s a kind of blackmail, all involved. He has repented or will repent. This goes beyond verbal definition. It will be attacked legally. We will ask for clarification of this decision and we will follow the legal path and not with rhetoric.<\/em><\/p>\n \n<\/p>\n top channel
\n<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n