Rudy Sanon Case: If This Stands, Everything Collapses

By Jean Cenel Casséus Recently, two spokespersons for the armed group « Viv Ansanm » issued an unprecedentedly grave threat to Haitian society as a whole. They publicly declared that any business placing an advertisement in journalist Rudy Sanon's morning show would be considered a target. Furthermore, employees of these institutions would also be exposed to reprisals. This is no longer a warning; it is a sentence pronounced aloud, amidst general indifference. In a functional state, such a declaration would have prompted an immediate reaction from the authorities. It would be an institutional reflex, an automatic response. Then would come the voices of the private sector, human rights associations, journalists' unions, and the press itself. But in a country where every social group has ceased to respect itself, where everyone hopes for the arrival of a foreign savior instead of defending what belongs to them, silence becomes complicity. Rudy Sanon divides. He disturbs. He shocks. His tone is not always tempered, nor are his interventions irreproachable. But he embodies commitment. He stays. He still speaks, where others have fallen silent or left. He practices his profession. He questions, he investigates, he provokes debate. And this, in Haiti, becomes an act of bravery. Like any work, his has its flaws. Awkwardness. Excesses. But should we conclude that he deserves to be isolated, starved, targeted? Through this threat, it is not a person being attacked. It is a function. A freedom. The stakes far exceed Rudy Sanon himself. What « Viv Ansanm » has just established is a new form of terror: no longer the fear of speech, but the fear of supporting those who carry it. The very principle of a free press rests on a fragile balance, of which advertising is an essential component. Threatening advertisers means sabotaging this balance. It means targeting the heart of the system. It means wanting to silence not a man, but the right to inform. This mechanism of deterrence through terror now risks spreading. Today Rudy, tomorrow other voices. A host who is too frank, an editorial team that is too curious, a station that is too independent. The message is clear: whoever gives or receives a voice becomes a target. And if this method works, if businesses retreat, if citizens fall silent, if the press yields, then everything collapses. Public discourse. The space for debate. The already fragile democratic contract. Never in human history has an armed group established an economic blockade around a journalistic voice by threatening not only the professional but also those who enable them to exist. What Rudy Sanon is experiencing is a tipping point. And in the absence of collective reaction, in this normalization of terror, it is society as a whole that is abdicating. Here lies 1986! August 6, 2025.