Editorial - Lydie Polfer's liberal approach to the truth

By Misch Pautsch Switch to German for original article

The discussion about the "muzzle" clause in the contract between the municipality of Luxembourg and the ASBL HUT, followed by Lydie Polfer's assurance that it was not meant that way, reveals a worrying pattern. This is the second time, after the begging ban, that she has tries to teach us all to reject the evidence of our own eyes and ears.

On 16 November 2024, the municipal council of the City of Luxembourg voted in favour of the contract with the new ASBL HUT (Hellëf um Terrain), which will take over Caritas' tasks, with the opposition abstaining. It contained a new excerpt that was not yet in the Caritas contract, but was added for the HUT: "Any communication of the association with the press about the present project must be done in consultation with the City of Luxembourg." ("Toute communication à la presse par l'association concernant le présent projet devra être faite en concertation avec la Ville de Luxembourg") Here is a sentence from the letter signed by Mayor Lydie Polfer to the Press Council, in which four days later she sought to settle accusations of censorship: "It is clear to us that the clause in question is not intended to oblige the ASBL "Hëllef um Terrain" to obtain authorisation from the City of Luxembourg for any communication with the press." ("Pour nous, il est évident que la clause susmentionnée n'a pas pour objet d'obliger l'association sans but lucratif 'Hëllef um Terrain' à obtenir l'accord de la Ville de Luxembourg pour toute communication faite à la presse.")

Sharp readers may notice that the two statements not only contradict each other, but also manifestly mean the opposite of each other. Does the HUT now have to "coordinate all communication" with the press with the municipality or not? The answer is clear: yes, it must, according to the contract, whose sole task is to define the rules of the game in a crystal-clear and binding manner. Polfer's denial does nothing to change this. What the "aim" of the section is supposed to be is completely irrelevant.

Would potential whistleblowers interpret this section just as loosely? Doubtful. Would the Caritas affair have come to light at all if this clause had been in her contract? If a HUT employee (even anonymously) talks to the press without "consultation with the municipality", this would be a potential breach of contract. And new associations that take over tasks from others that have become problematic are – as we have all seen – quickly established.

Just as with the begging ban, the mayor of Luxembourg city is trying to make us believe a second time that there are different words on paper than we can all read with our own eyes. The "begging ban" was, as she never tired of emphasising in interviews, only about "aggressive and organised begging", while on the paper it says "every form of begging" for everyone to read, clear as day. A contradiction, that the human rights commission also noted. Why "every form of begging" was listed in black and white in the municipal regulations, even though it was never the issue, will probably forever elude our collective understanding. But it is still there to this day – even though, as is clearly stated ambiguously, it obviously means something completely different.

You want more? Get access now.

  • One-year subscription

    €185.00
    /year
  • Monthly subscription

    €18.50
    /month
  • Zukunftsabo for subscribers under the age of 26

    €120.00
    /year

Already have an account?

Log in