On April 4, the community of the Fans of the IUM issued a public declaration which highlights the constitutional and cultural meaning of the previously reported support for the demonstrators, in light of the decision of the Constitutional Court to prevent President Yoon Suk-Yeol.
“This statement is based on discussions between longtime fans and aims to re -examine the constitutional meaning and contemporary value of the prepaid support of the IU for the protest, following the impeachment of President Yoon”. The community wrote.
They recalled the quiet act of IU to anticipate for 700 meals, including hot soup, bread, rice and drinks cakes, for fans who participated in the demonstration of 13 December 2024 asking for the impeachment of Yoon.
“IU prepaid support for protesters was a cultural intuition that protected the Constitution”, They underlined.
They continued, “Without expressing political opinions, iu was next to the citizens who exercised their freedom of expression. It was a warm act of solidarity expressed through a meal, with the right to the assembly guaranteed by the Constitution.”
The declaration also faced the repercussions, “Some groups have distorted the intention of IU, they derived it and even said to report it to the CIA. But today it is clear to everyone: IU’s decision was a courageous gesture for democracy and a cultural vision in advance of the times.”
Referring to the Court’s sentence that President Yoon violated the fundamental constitutional rights, the fans insisted, “The voices supported were the lawful shouts to support the Constitution and its actions were a cultural practice of constitutional defense”.
They concluded, “The iu is not simply a sponsor, but a cultural figure that confirmed the spirit of the Constitution. He introduced a new form of civic solidarity -” support prepared for protests – and has illuminated the values ​​of freedom and civic awareness as a small candle light light “.
However, the dispute surrounds the legitimacy of the declaration. Some fans of the EI have stated that the message was not emitted by the official fandom, but rather manufactured by the anti-shows.
According to dissidents, “The statement appeared on a gallery known for anti-ches content, not by the real base of IU. It was published without consent and subsequently eliminated after the backlash.”
Despite the debate, IU’s quiet gesture has once again aroused the discussion on the intersection of art, activism and constitutional rights and if the cultural acts can serve as powerful forms of civil expression.
