Do the Slogans of a Few Speak for Everyone? / Leader Steps In to Confront Unwarranted Division

People have the right to protest and criticize. But should any slogan chanted by a small group be exempt from criticism simply because it was shouted in the street, even if it involves discrediting officials or accusing them of treason?

According to the report of Ambassador Arjan, one of the presenters in the program "Beh Vaght Iran" says that people should not be assigned a task as to what to say, because these people have preserved the country. But does this mean approving every slogan and action by a limited number of people and ignoring the need to maintain national unity?

What is this argument that because the people have preserved the country, then we should not talk about the slogans of a limited number of people? Of course, some people in the gatherings raise issues that are aimed at strengthening the country, and it seems very logical. Does anyone deny the role of the people in protecting the country? Respecting people is different from unconditional approval of any slogan. People have the right to protest and criticize, but should every slogan by a limited number of people, even if it implies the destruction of officials or accusing them of treason, be immune from criticism just because it is shouted in the street? With this logic, where is the border between demanding and destruction?

The leadership's repeated emphasis on maintaining national unity, avoiding division and preventing the destruction of officials cannot be ignored. When the leadership's messages and statements emphasize the necessity of maintaining unity and avoiding behaviors that lead to division in society, the question arises as to what slogans, positions and actions have been formed in the political and social environment that have necessitated such warnings? It is clear that disagreement and criticism of officials is a natural thing; But destroying people, making accusations and fueling disputes is not the same as criticizing their performance. It is not possible to emphasize the necessity of national unity on the one hand, and on the other hand, consider any slogan out of the scope of criticism based on the presence of the people.

Radio and Television should know that if the emphasis on unity and avoiding the destruction of officials is serious, why is there no boundary drawn between protest and divisive slogans in your words? In addition to listening to people's voices, isn't the media supposed to ask about the content of slogans and their consequences? The fact that the people have preserved the country does not mean that every word that is said in the name of the people is true. By the way, maintaining the achievements of people's presence creates a greater responsibility to avoid literature that can polarize society and damage public trust.

The people have preserved the country; But this fact is not a license to approve every slogan and every action by a few people. It is better for the radio and television to know that defending the people means listening to their demands, not ignoring the necessity of preserving national unity. When the leadership has repeatedly emphasized on unity, avoiding division and refraining from destroying officials, it is impossible to ignore the content of the slogans with the argument that "the people have kept the country". If any slogan can be defended simply because a few people chant it, then what is the meaning of emphasizing unity and avoiding destruction and division?