Former MP Amal Abu Zeid responded to calls to prosecute young men who distributed protest leaflets related to the general amnesty law, stressing that those who took this step were young men from the “Free Patriotic Movement,” and warning against any harm to them or their freedom to express their political position.
Abu Zeid wrote on the “X” platform: “A police scene when a representative demands the prosecution of young men simply because they distributed a leaflet, while he is a signatory to an amnesty law for criminals,” considering that the demand to pursue the leaflet distributors does not require, as he put it, “research or investigation,” because the identity of the party behind the campaign is public and clear.
He said: “Those who distributed the leaflets are the youth of the movement, the youth who believe in justice and the importance of protecting it and preserving it from amnesty laws that legalize crime,” adding that they belong to a movement that believes, according to him, in freedom of expression of opinion.
Abu Zeid raised his stance, warning against harming the young men participating in the campaign, and said: “We warn you against harming them and their freedom… We are a free national movement and we are ready to do everything to preserve our freedom.”
He concluded his message with a sarcastic statement, saying that the leaflets “did not write anyone’s name,” adding: “But the one who has an obelisk under a blanket is wearing a hat… and peace.”
Abu Zeid’s position comes after the debate over the general amnesty law moved from the House of Representatives to the street, following the launch of a protest campaign by the youth sector in the “Free Patriotic Movement” that included the distribution of leaflets in several Lebanese regions in the form of “criminal records” directed politically at the representatives who participated in passing the law or supported it.
The leaflets bore a design that mimicked the criminal record, and included phrases accusing the representatives participating in approving the amnesty of contributing to passing a law that included convicts and convicts of serious crimes, among whom, according to the campaign’s narrative, were involved in assaulting members, non-commissioned officers, and officers in the army and security forces.
The leaflets also carried the phrase “In Blood” inside a circle designed in the form of a seal or signature, a symbolic reference to the blood of soldiers who fell in security confrontations, which gave the campaign a sharp political character and sparked mixed reactions between supporters who consider it a form of political expression, and objectors who saw it as direct targeting of specific representatives.
The youth sector in the “Movement” had officially announced its responsibility for distributing the leaflets, placing the action within the framework of continuing its campaign against the amnesty law, which revived the discussion about the boundaries between freedom of political expression and the use of protest images and methods that the targets could consider defamation or incitement against them.
The “Free Patriotic Movement” adheres to a position opposing the wording of the amnesty law, and focuses mainly on what it considers to be an infringement on the rights of military personnel and their families, and its refusal to benefit from those convicted of serious crimes or files related to attacks on military and security institutions.
On the other hand, supporters of the law defend it as a necessary step to address the prison crisis, overcrowding, and long detention without trial, considering that the amnesty cannot be reduced to one category of beneficiaries, and that it came as a result of years of discussion about an accumulated judicial and humanitarian crisis.
Thus, the debate is gradually shifting from the content of the amnesty law itself to the method of objection to it, after the leaflet campaign opened a new political confrontation between the “current” and some representatives who support the law.
Abu Zeid’s position adds a more severe dimension to this confrontation, as he not only defended the campaign, but also explicitly declared that its perpetrators were the youth of the “movement,” refusing to deal with them as an unknown party or subject them, from his point of view, to prosecution because of their expression of a political position.
Thus, it seems that the amnesty file, which did not subside after its approval, is entering a new chapter, the title of which this time is freedom of expression and the limits of political protest, amid anticipation as to whether the debate will remain media and political or will move to judicial and security steps.
