The ideology of a depraved individual is as irrelevant as the color of his shirt or the fabric of the pants he was wearing. What is crucial, what demands a relentless analysis, is the security protocol, the prevention system, and the vulnerabilities that allowed such an abomination to occur in a public space. Discussing the political label of the perpetrator while ignoring the failures that put children at risk is simply a betrayal of common sense. The debate must, quite simply, focus on protocols. The safety of minors is non-negotiable and not subject to the political divide. This absurd discussion, by the way, functions as a smoke screen, a sophisticated distraction mechanism that paradoxically allows the true culprits to evade necessary explanations. The debate becomes contaminated and bifurcates into a sterile exchange of cross-accusations between political factions, where each side uses the tragedy as ammunition for the 'divide.' In this verbal fray, no one stops to ask the essential questions: Did the building's security protocols fail? Were there functional surveillance cameras at the time of the incident? Who is responsible for security in an agency that depends on the Secretariat of Culture of the Nation? While society bleeds out in a irrelevant (and irreverent) dispute over political ideologies, the officials in charge of the security and operation of the Palacio Libertad find the silence opportune for avoiding explanations. Collective outrage, fragmented by polarization, loses strength and focus, allowing accountability to be postponed indefinitely until the next scandal takes the front page. The result is impunity by omission. The trivialization of public debate is not merely a misstep in focus; it is the safe pass obtained by those who should be stepping up and guaranteeing that such aberrations never happen again.
In the theater of human tragedies, reason sometimes abdicates to the circus of ideological polarization. The recent and chilling incident of the man who threw himself from the Palacio Libertad after being caught spying on minors sparked a public debate that borders on the absurd. Instead of a serious reflection on the protection of childhood and failures in protocols (if any existed), society witnessed a shameful and bombastic discussion about whether the individual was a 'libervirgo' or a 'kuka.' This diversion of focus constitutes a moral and intellectual abdication.
