The Bled and Majlinda case was one of the stories addressed yesterday evening in the second work of "I Want to Make You Happy." The spouse case prompted a backlash on social networks, where, based on online comments (which you can follow at the end of the article), viewers disagreed with the story in question.
But what is it about? For those who did not follow the story, Bledi came to "I want to make you happy" to publicly apologize to his wife for the violence inflicted on her. He indicated that he had been subjected to violence twice and feared because of Majlina's distrust, their relationship was no longer the same. Majlinda's arrival on the scene revealed another dynamic. She recounted a horrific episode of violence where Bledi, after a debate, had taken her with him into the woods, where he had been severely raped.
"If I hadn't escaped them, today I probably wouldn't be here," Majlinda recounted. She described the moment - which from the details looks like an assassination attempt - as an episode she had only seen in the movies. "I see it in a dream," he added in another moment.
What prompted suspicions was the inconsistency of details, because Bledi did not mention this unjustifiable case in his confession. Majlinda's confession told of constant violence in their report, which did not necessarily happen twice, as he pointed out. However, she decided to give it another chance.
Judging on the surface, of course Bledi, as Arbana Osmani pointed out in the show, has the right to apologize, have the right to repent and try to mend the relationship with his wife. Likewise, Majlinda, on the other hand, has the right to make her own decisions. However the case is far more problematic than that.
Judging beyond individual names, many questions certainly arise: Should this case be given a broadcast? Should this election be promoted? Who assures us that the situation will not recur? Does the fact that Bled apologize publicly or in the heat will he lose the logic again? Was the case handled properly?
For more specialized information Anabel.al turned to the specialists who shared their opinions with us.
Aljona Jonuzi, a graduate psychologist in Russia, said the case has a positive side and a negative side, of course. "There is a positive side because battered women see there is a solution, but there is a negative side because battered men are given inadequate attention."
Jonuzi emphasized that "violence against women should not be promoted", but couple therapy should be promoted. "Couple therapy and therapy for jealous people with different and violent addictions should be promoted."
Asked if the situation could recur, she said yes, it could. ?The situation can be repeated because it is a person with a very problematic history. They are serious addictions like gambling or alcohol. These are addictions that need to be addressed by psychologists and it is not just a decision or a word of mouth that he will enforce, ?she explained. "Promises are promises and this is not the first time that happens and under the influence of alcohol no one gives us a guarantee of a person's actions."
In dealing with the case, it is worth noting that Arbana, the moderator and author of the program, took care to maintain a neutral stance, without affecting Majlinda's decision, instead stressing that she should seek help if she felt threatened. But is it enough?
Jonuzi points out that the case was handled well by Arbana, however "many psychological details had to be added". "There had to be a psychologist in the studio throughout the show and both parties had to go through a couple psychotherapy sessions."
Violence needs treatment and the same opinion is shared by psychologist Griselda Rushanaj, who considers violence "a rarely cured disease".
At this point, it would probably be best for the couple facing economic problems to be offered the opportunity to have couple therapy where the hearing fees were covered by the show. So the unjustified case of violence that led to the assassination attempt, which aired on national television, would be dealt with properly.
Comments:
