Jose Medina, a Colombian artist from Bogota known professionally as Jose Mier, is 34 years old and is going through one of the most complicated periods of his public career. Since his departure from Casa de los Famosos of Colombia, his name has been at the center of a controversy that has extended beyond the realm of entertainment and into the broader realm of debate over freedom of expression, diversity, and the limits of dissent in a society that defines itself as inclusive.
Miel is not an improviser. His trajectory in music, acting, and television reflects a continuous process of training, work, and exposure across various platforms. He participated in “Yo me llamo” (2019) and “La Descarga” (2022), establishing himself as a versatile artist in the Colombian entertainment industry. His career has been built on hard work in an industry where persistence is not guaranteed without discipline.
However, the focus these days is not on his artwork, but on his words.
On March 15, Caracol TV’s program “La Red” published an interview on digital platforms, in which the singer spoke frankly about the difficult moments he was facing, referring to his comments after leaving “La Casa de los Famosos” and saying that his words “cost him dearly.” His opinions on Pride, inclusive language, and the LGBTQ acronym sparked an immediate and polarizing reaction.
From that moment on, the discussion went beyond the content of his words and opened up another angle that couldn’t be overlooked.
Miel is known for expressing his ideas precisely, firmly, and clearly. He is not an improvisational artist, either in discourse or on stage. However, this debate also raises questions that are worth considering from a journalistic perspective.
What was the intention of the journalist, commentator, or media outlet who asked the questions that led to these statements?
This is not about shifting responsibility for what was said, but about understanding the context in which it happened. At a time in his career when he had multiple opportunities and projects, Miel’s response placed him at the center of controversy with real consequences.
In that sense, it is worth asking whether these questions were genuine questions in the context of an open dialogue, or whether they followed a more provocative line aimed at generating headlines or exposing interviewees in sensitive situations.
This is not a trivial question.
In a media environment where every word is amplified, the role of the person asking the question is also part of how the story is constructed.
In this context, this news organization held a telephone conversation with the artist this Wednesday and gathered his position firsthand. Below are his responses to three central themes: the consequences of his words, his identity, and his call to respect.
Regarding the personal cost of voicing his opinion, Miel clarified:
You are now paying a high price for speaking your mind.
Do you regret speaking up or do you still believe your voice is non-negotiable?
response:
“As human beings, I think we all know that when we express our opinions on any topic, we get into trouble. That’s the problem with society. Society doesn’t respect other people’s opinions, because a lot of people think they’re always right, and that’s actually not the case. Everyone has reasons, everyone has opinions, and they have to be respected, even if you don’t agree with them.”
What I expressed was an opinion that was non-discriminatory, would not hurt anyone, and would not trample on anyone. Yet, the opposite has happened to me. I’ve been downtrodden, I’ve been hurt, I’ve been threatened, I’ve had some really ugly messages sent to me, I’ve been harassed, I’ve had hate from everywhere.
I knew what I was getting into. I knew what was going to happen. But I’m proud of myself. I am proud of my beliefs and sincerely believe in what I say, I will stand by it to the end. I have no regrets. ”
When speaking about his stance on labels, pride, and self-definition, the artist said:
You said you don’t identify with certain expressions of Pride or its acronym.
So how do we define who we are with labels and die cuts?
response:
“Well, I don’t identify with Pride marches, because they don’t represent me at all. If it’s respectful and appropriate, they will represent me, because a lot of family members participate, kids, grandparents, parents. Everyone is there.
And it’s downright disrespectful to see many people (and I stress not all) exposing their bodies, wearing little clothing, drinking alcohol, being inebriated, and using drugs. I don’t think that’s how I want respect and equality.
I don’t like the term LGBTIQ+ community or the characters that keep getting added. Because I feel like these acronyms discriminate against people more. I know that things without names don’t exist, so I understand why they exist, but it doesn’t feel like the right way to do it.
To me, everyone is a member of society. we are humans.
There is no label or type. I’m a man and I’m gay, that’s all. The fact that I wear makeup and feminine clothes is part of my art work and part of my stage. My daily life is completely different. ”
Finally, Mr. Miel made a point that permeates his entire position, referring to the reaction he received.
You talk about respect, but you also get attacked from within the same community. What would you say today to people who want inclusion but don’t respect that someone thinks differently?
response:
“I realized that the same community was discriminating against us. Many gay people wrote to support me and told me how brave I was and that they thought the same way but never dared to speak.
I say to people who disagree with my opinion, please respect their opinion, even if you don’t like it. We live in a free country, so you can express your opinion, but do so from your own point of view and without trampling on others.
Because that’s not the method.
I understand the struggle and I understand what is needed, but I feel like we can achieve a lot through respect and equality if we listen to other ways of fighting.
Everyone is free to think and say what they want, but always with respect. It’s that simple. ”
In addition to his remarks, what the artist is currently facing was also revealed in an interview with La Red on March 15th. In it, Miel described in his own words what he called “a series of problems,” including constant harassment on social media, direct threats, hate messages, canceled performances, lost contracts, and stalled projects due to outside pressure and boycott threats.
The situation highlights not only the impact his words have on the media, but also the profound impact of voicing an opinion in today’s digital environment.
His remarks caused a reaction from the political world as well. Colombian Congressman Mauricio Toro wrote on social media:
“Hatred and discrimination are learned. Sometimes they are so deeply ingrained that we turn our backs on ourselves. Jose Miel, you and I have nothing to hide or be ashamed of. To be free and to love without fear is the best thing a human being can experience.”
However, this position was also criticized. A significant number of users, including those who disagree with the artist’s statements, point to the growing tension between inclusive discourse and tolerance of dissent, and argue that his right to express his opinion should be respected.
Jose Mier’s case is more than a media controversy. It reflects the broader reality of the difficulty of maintaining respect when there is disagreement, even within spaces that promote diversity.
In a climate where social media amplifies every position, reactions to differences are immediate and often disproportionate.
Beyond individual positions, what happened raises deeper questions.
If we can’t respect differences, can we even talk about inclusivity?
The philosopher Voltaire left behind ideas that are still important today.
“I don’t agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
That’s the point.
Because a society is not building inclusivity if it cannot protect the right of others to express themselves, even when it makes them uncomfortable. It simply manages contracts.
And in that scenario, Jose Miel’s case would no longer be an isolated episode.
It will be a test.
It’s a test of how much respect we can have when others don’t think the same way we do.
Support does not imply consent.
In this case, support means something more basic and more necessary. That is, to protect the right to exist, think, and express without having it destroyed for the sake of it.
Source: Washington Blade: LGBTQ News, Politics, LGBTQ Rights, Gay News – www.washingtonblade.com
