The 230-page report, “A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela,” examines the impact of the Chávez presidency on institutions that are essential for ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law: the courts, the media, organized labor, and civil society.
“Ten years ago, Chávez promoted a new constitution that could have significantly improved human rights in Venezuela,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “But rather than advancing rights protections, his government has since moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing basic guarantees in pursuit of its own political agenda.”
Chávez was first elected in 1998, promising to overhaul Venezuela’s largely discredited political system. The enactment of a new constitution in 1999 offered an extraordinary opportunity for the country to shore up the rule of law and strengthen the protection of human rights. Yet the report finds that this important opportunity has since been largely squandered.
“The most dramatic blow to Venezuelan democracy in the last 10 years was the 2002 coup against Chávez,” said Vivanco. “Fortunately it lasted only two days. Unfortunately the Chávez government has exploited it ever since to justify policies that have degraded the country’s democracy.”
In the absence of credible judicial oversight, the Chávez government has systematically pursued often discriminatory policies that have undercut journalists’ freedom of expression, workers’ freedom of association, and civil society’s ability to promote human rights in Venezuela.
Political discrimination
Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency.
The Chávez government has engaged in wide-ranging acts of discrimination against political opponents and critics. At times, the president himself has openly endorsed acts of discrimination. More generally, he has encouraged the discriminatory actions of subordinates by routinely denouncing his critics as anti-democratic conspirators – regardless of whether they had any connection to the 2002 coup.
The courts
Another defining feature of the Chávez presidency has been its open disregard for the principle of separation of powers – and, specifically, the notion that an independent judiciary is indispensable for protecting fundamental rights in a democratic society. After the 2002 coup, the most damaging blow to the rule of law in Venezuela was the political takeover of the Supreme Court by Chávez and his supporters in 2004, which effectively neutralized the judiciary as an independent branch of government. Since the 2004 takeover, the court has repeatedly failed to fulfill its role as a check on arbitrary state action and safeguard of fundamental rights.
The media
The Chávez government has undermined freedom of expression through a variety of measures aimed at reshaping media control and content. Venezuela still enjoys a vibrant public debate in which anti-government and pro-government media are equally vocal in their criticism and defense of Chávez. However, by expanding and toughening the penalties for speech and broadcasting offenses, Chávez and his legislative supporters have strengthened the state’s capacity to limit free speech, and created powerful incentives for critics to engage in self-censorship. It has also abused the state’s control of broadcasting frequencies to intimidate and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming.
Organized labor
The Chávez government has sought to remake the country’s labor movement in ways that violate basic principles of freedom of association. It has fired workers who exercise their right to strike, denied workers their right to bargain collectively and discriminated against workers because of their political beliefs. Through its systematic violation of workers’ right to organize, the Chávez government has undercut established unions and favored new, parallel unions that support its political agenda.
Civil society
The Chávez government has pursued an aggressively adversarial approach to local rights advocates and civil society organizations. During the Chávez presidency, rights advocates have faced prosecutorial harassment, unsubstantiated allegations aimed at discrediting their work, and efforts to exclude them from international forums and restrict their access to international funding.
The report provides detailed recommendations to the Venezuelan government to reverse the damage done by its policies and to strengthen the country’s human rights protections. These include seeking to restore the credibility of the Supreme Court through a ratification process for all justices who were appointed after the 2004 court-packing law and establishing a new autonomous agency to administer broadcasting frequencies.
“Chávez has actively sought to project himself as a champion of democracy, not only in Venezuela, but throughout the region,” the report observes. However, “Venezuela will not achieve real and sustained progress toward strengthening its democracy – nor serve as a useful model for other countries in the region – so long as its government continues to flout the human rights principles enshrined in its own constitution.”
Post edited by FiveB247x on
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chávez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government "human rights" official and that we were being expelled from the country.
With government cameramen filming over his shoulder, the official did his best to act as if he were merely upholding the law. When we said we needed to gather our belongings, he calmly told us not to worry, his men had already entered our rooms and "packed" our bags.
But when we tried to use our cell phones to get word to our families, our colleagues, and the press, the veneer of protocol quickly gave way. Security agents surrounded us, pried the phones from our hands, and removed and pocketed the batteries. When we then insisted on contacting our embassies, they shoved us into a service elevator, took us to the basement, and forced us into the back seat of an SUV with tinted windows. When we asked where we were headed, they told us only that we were going to the airport.
Three security agents sat behind us, at least two with weapons drawn. One used a cell phone to receive and relay orders as we raced through the streets of Caracas and out onto a highway. At one point an order came to turn on the SUV's radio so we could listen as the state news agency announced our expulsion. The announcers told their captive audience—which also included every other Venezuelan listening to the radio, since all stations are required to broadcast such messages—that our organization was funded by the US government and that we were part of a campaign of aggression against Venezuela.
Human Rights Watch does not and has never accepted funding from the US or any government, directly or indirectly. But we are accustomed to such false accusations, especially coming from authoritarian governments. Venezuelan officials have repeatedly denounced us as CIA stooges, right-wing partisans, and, more commonly, "mercenaries of the empire." (By contrast, in neighboring Colombia, officials have repeatedly sought to discredit us with labels like Communist, guerrilla sympathizer, and even terrorist.) Once, after releasing another report in Caracas, one of us was publicly and falsely accused by Chávez's vice-president of having collaborated with former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. This time, a close Chávez ally in the legislature suggested on national TV that the two of us had been sharing a single hotel room where we were indulging our "weaknesses."
The official reason we were given for our expulsion was that we had violated the constitution by criticizing the government while on tourist visas. It was a curious allegation since our immigration cards included a "business" box, which we had dutifully checked off. In any case, Venezuela's foreign minister, Nicolás Maduro, made clear the next day that the government's decision had nothing to do with our visa status. "Any foreigner who comes to criticize our country will be immediately expelled," he declared. Of course, had the Chávez government actually been interested in upholding its laws, it would have respected our rights—enshrined in the Venezuelan constitution—to immediately contact our embassies, obtain legal counsel, and receive a fair hearing. Instead, as we discovered only after we were finally ushered onto a plane at the airport, it bought us a one-way trip to Brazil.
The ease with which the government disregarded these rights only reaffirmed the central finding of our report: the Chávez government is more than willing to violate the country's constitution in pursuit of its own political agenda. Ironically it was Chávez himself who first championed that constitution a decade ago, after he was swept into office promising to overhaul the country's largely discredited political system. Enacted in 1999, the "Bolivarian" Constitution offered a unique opportunity for the country to shore up the rule of law and strengthen human rights protections. But that opportunity has since been largely squandered. The most dramatic setback came in April 2002, when opponents of Chávez temporarily ousted him in a coup d'état. Fortunately, the coup lasted less than two days. Unfortunately, the government has exploited it ever since to help justify policies that have degraded the country's democracy.
Today Venezuela is hardly the brutal dictatorship that some critics of Chávez paint it to be. Yet the country's democratic institutions have suffered considerably since the coup. Chávez and his allies have effectively neutralized the judiciary. While some newspapers and broadcasters are still independent and some are outspoken in their opposition to Chávez, the President and his legislative supporters have strengthened the state's capacity to limit free speech and created powerful incentives for self-censorship. They have, for example, expanded laws making "contempt" for government officials a criminal offense, increased prison sentences for criminal defamation, and abused the state's control of broadcasting frequencies to intimidate and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming. While there are independent labor unions, the government has systematically violated workers' rights and fostered pro-government unions. There are dedicated human rights advocates. But they have been subjected to a virulent barrage of verbal assaults and even harassment by prosecutors.
A central goal of the "Bolivarian" Constitution is the promotion of a more inclusive democracy in Venezuela. In view of the history of exclusion and the glaring inequalities that plague Venezuela and countries throughout Latin America, it is a goal that deserves to be taken seriously. Yet Chávez's own professed commitment to this vital and ambitious aim is contradicted by his government's willful disregard for the institutional guarantees and fundamental rights that make democratic participation possible.
In the more than twenty years that Human Rights Watch has worked in Latin America, no government has ever expelled our representatives for our work, not even the right-wing dictatorships guilty of far more egregious abuses than those committed by Chávez. Presumably they knew better. After all, Chávez's decision to expel us merely served to confirm the central message of our report and ensure that it received extensive coverage around the globe.
Why did Chávez do it? One Brazilian on the plane on which we were forced to leave Venezuela offered a view that is increasingly widespread throughout Latin America: "Chávez is crazy." But the human rights defenders we work with in Venezuela have drawn a far more sobering conclusion. Chávez, in their view, was sending a deliberate message to his fellow countrymen: he will not allow human rights guarantees to get in his way, no matter what the rest of the world may think.
If their interpretation is right, it does not bode well for the future of Venezuelan democracy.
—October 9, 2008
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The Venezuelan government should provide a full accounting of its relationship with Colombian guerrillas responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, Human Rights Watch said today.
In 2007, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez served as a mediator, with the authorization of the Colombian government, in efforts to secure the release of prisoners held by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC). Yet email messages found on laptop computers reportedly recovered from a FARC encampment by Colombian security forces in March 2008 describe meetings in which Venezuelan officials also appear to have offered assistance to the Colombian guerrillas, including safe havens, weapons procurement, and possibly even financial support.
Interpol announced on May 15 that its forensic experts had verified that the computer files were authentic and had not been modified in any way while in the custody of Colombian authorities, though they did not assess the accuracy or source of their contents. Chávez dismissed Interpol’s findings as a “clown show that doesn't deserve a serious response.”
“The emails raise serious questions about Venezuela’s relationship with the Colombian guerrillas that deserve serious answers,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “At the very least, they appear to show that the guerrilla commanders who were engaged in horrendous abuses believed they had the backing of the Venezuelan government.”
Human Rights Watch has not had direct access to the computer files. But according to excerpts released by the Colombian government and reviewed by Human Rights Watch, the files contain email correspondence in which FARC commanders recount multiple meetings with Venezuelan officials. These messages refer to a meeting in which President Chávez reportedly offered to provide the FARC with safe havens within Venezuelan territory. They also mention meetings in which two Venezuelan generals, Hugo Carvajal Barrios and Clíver Alcalá Cordones, appear to offer the guerrillas assistance in procuring weapons. The email message refers to another meeting in which Interior Minister Ramón Rodríguez Chacín reportedly promised to facilitate the delivery of arms shipments to the guerrilla group. In addition, there are several email messages that allude to what appear to be offers of financial support to the FARC, including allocating to the guerrillas an oil ration which they could sell for profit.
Chávez has categorically denied that Venezuela has provided a safe haven or financial assistance to the FARC, or maintained any contacts with FARC commanders other than those aimed at securing the release of hostages.
At the same time, however, Chávez has repeatedly expressed sympathy for the FARC. In his effort to persuade the international community to stop classifying the FARC as a terrorist group, Chávez said in January 2008 that the FARC had “a political and Bolivarian project that is respected here [in Venezuela].” Chávez also called for a national moment of silence in Venezuela for senior FARC leader Raúl Reyes and praised him as a “good revolutionary” after he was killed in February 2008.
“For any government to support a guerrilla group like the FARC that routinely commits atrocities against civilians is entirely beyond the pale,” said Vivanco. “If the contents of these emails are in fact accurate, they show that the FARC was set to receive much more than rhetorical support from the Chávez government.”
The FARC have a horrendous record of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The group systematically takes hostages for ransom, as well as for political gain, in some cases holding victims hostage for years under horrific conditions, posing grave risks to the hostages’ lives and health. The FARC also engage in targeted killings, “disappearances,” acts of torture, and massacres of civilians. The FARC routinely recruit children as combatants, including many under the age of 15, the minimum recruitment age permitted under the Geneva Conventions. Children in the FARC’s ranks who attempt to desert are often shot, and the FARC have been known to order children to torture and execute other children or captured enemies.
Human Rights Watch called on the Venezuelan government to clarify whether any Venezuelan officials have provided, or offered to provide, assistance of any kind to the Colombian guerrillas. Venezuela should explain what exactly was discussed in the FARC meetings with President Chávez, Interior Minister Rodríguez Chacín, and other Venezuelan officials. It should also clarify whether FARC commanders met with Generals Carvajal and Alcalá, or any other military personnel, and if so, what was discussed at those meetings.
Human Rights Watch also urged President Chávez to issue clear instructions that no Venezuelan government or military official should provide any form of assistance to the FARC, and to guarantee that any officials found to have done so will be appropriately sanctioned.
On June 2, José Miguel Insulza, secretary-general of the Organization of American States (OAS) promised that the OAS would conduct an investigation of the computer files to assess the accuracy of their contents after Ecuador officially requested an inquiry.
“It would be a mistake for the OAS to limit its investigation to Ecuador and not address the relationship between the FARC and the Venezuelan government as well. A rigorous and impartial investigation is urgently needed to get to the bottom of this matter,” said Vivanco.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
A constitutional amendment proposed by a pro-government committee in Venezuela’s National Assembly would allow the suspension of due process protections, Human Rights Watch said today.
The amendment would eliminate the constitutional prohibition on suspending due process rights in states of emergency. Under Venezuela’s constitution, these rights include, among others: the right to the presumption of innocence and to a fair trial; the right to an attorney; the right against self-incrimination; the right of a defendant to know the charges and evidence against him; and the right against double jeopardy.
“This amendment, if approved, would allow President Chávez to invoke a state of emergency to justify suspending certain rights that are untouchable under international law,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch noted that under international law many of these rights are considered so fundamental that countries are not permitted to derogate from their obligations to respect them – even in a state of emergency. Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have made this clear.
The proposed amendments would also eliminate previous constitutional time limits on states of emergency. In addition, the amendments eliminate the requirement that the Constitutional Tribunal review the decree regulating the suspension of rights during times of emergency, as well as language establishing that such a decree “meet the requirements, principles, and guarantees established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights.”
Proponents of the amendment have argued that the government needs to have free rein to suspend due process and other rights, including the right to freedom of information, in the event of another coup attempt like that which occurred in April of 2002 against President Hugo Chávez.
However, Human Rights Watch pointed out that it is during highly politicized emergencies that it becomes most pressing to respect basic due process guarantees, such as protections against arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial.
“Recent Latin American history shows that it is precisely during states of emergency that countries need strong judicial protections to prevent abuse,” said Vivanco. “Otherwise, what has historically prevailed is the brutal exercise of power.”
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Between 27 February and 4 March 2004 political violence erupted once again in Venezuela. Street protests and demonstrations by supporters of the opposition movement led to repeated violent confrontations with police and security forces in different parts of the country. There were also demonstrations by government supporters. According to information received by Amnesty International, in the context of the disturbances, as many as 14 people were killed in circumstances that have yet to be clarified and over 200 people were injured, with credible reports of excessive use of force by the security forces. There were also more than 500 detentions and a number of reports of ill-treatment and torture. Several police and security force officials were also reportedly injured in the frequently violent demonstrations. Both the government and opposition sought to gain political advantage from the disturbances: the opposition focussed on allegations of abuses by the security forces, while the administration stressed the violence used by protestors and justified the response of the security forces as proportionate and within the law.
Amnesty International believes that the Venezuela government had a clear duty to guarantee public order in the face of frequently violent protests - which included the use of firearms by some protestors. However, there is strong evidence that the use of rubber bullets, tear gas and batons was frequently indiscriminate and disproportionate and significantly contributed to a week of spiralling violence rather than preventing it.
Furthermore, the cases included in this report indicate that several of those detained were not only not involved in criminal acts prior to detention, but then faced ill-treatment and torture while in the custody of the security forces. Reports received also indicate that subsequent investigations undertaken by the Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas (CICPC)
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Let me know if you find anything of substance there....
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Roughly a year or two ago, we had a woman here who was from Venezuela and went back back to visit her family.
She said that the money was NOT trickling down to the poor people, as Chavez's supporters claim it has.
She said that poverty and lack of resources was still plaguing a very large percentage of Venezuelians and that the infrastructure was it a terrible condition. She also said that the money that has trickled down, has largely trickled down to Chavez's upper class allies and supporters.
Upon reading that, I called a woman I used to work with years ago, who is from Venezuela and still has a large portion of her family, there. I asked her if she knew what was going on there and what were the experiences of her family, there. And she echoed the same thing. No one in her family has seen anything in the way of money and improved access to resources.
So I'll take the word of these women.
Ultimately, this discussion is not about America vs. Chavez. This about true freedom and humanity. And neither the USA, China or Chavez are on the good side of this topic.
And it is all of our duties to stand up, protest, challenge and be critical of any government (and leader) that behaves badly and commits attrocities against human rights.
In case you haven't noticed, what America has been doing for decades; does not sit very well with a lot of Americans. Certainly many Americans didn't even know what our governement was doing behind our backs......for decades. But more and more people are becmoing aware and standing against it. It's not happening fast enough for my tastes, but it is happening.
What atrocities against human rights are you referring to?
And you mention that not all of the money has 'trickled down' to the poor. Did you watch the above documentary? It touches on this issue.
And as for Chavez's 'Chavez's upper class allies and supporters', can you please explain what you mean?
To quote you from earlier in the thread:
"I'm not bent out of shape. I simply suggested that in future you should refrain from simply posting six links in succession and then expect somebody else to do your work for you."
You post a link to an hours long documentary and expect us to view it, but balk at someone posting links to 5 minute articles and asking you to read them so they don't have to explain something that has already been explained in articles they've linked to.
To everyone: I would quit this argument. Nobody will change each other's minds in this thread. America haters see the rest of the world through rose colored glasses, and NOTHING will change this. Hell, terrorists fly planes into the WTC and it was an inside job apparently! They'll ignore anything and everything that does not support their anti-America agenda.
You post a link to an hours long documentary and expect us to view it, but balk at someone posting links to 5 minute articles and asking you to read them so they don't have to explain something that has already been explained in articles they've linked to.
I also posted some accompanying text from Wikipedia giving a brief outline of what the documentary is about. You forgot to mention that, but then it wouldn't have benefited your point would it.
Simply posting 6 links and claiming those links as your argument doesn't cut it. For all I know he hadn't even read them himself.
The 230-page report, “A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela,” examines the impact of the Chávez presidency on institutions that are essential for ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law: the courts, the media, organized labor, and civil society.
“Ten years ago, Chávez promoted a new constitution that could have significantly improved human rights in Venezuela,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “But rather than advancing rights protections, his government has since moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing basic guarantees in pursuit of its own political agenda.”
Chávez was first elected in 1998, promising to overhaul Venezuela’s largely discredited political system. The enactment of a new constitution in 1999 offered an extraordinary opportunity for the country to shore up the rule of law and strengthen the protection of human rights. Yet the report finds that this important opportunity has since been largely squandered.
“The most dramatic blow to Venezuelan democracy in the last 10 years was the 2002 coup against Chávez,” said Vivanco. “Fortunately it lasted only two days. Unfortunately the Chávez government has exploited it ever since to justify policies that have degraded the country’s democracy.”
In the absence of credible judicial oversight, the Chávez government has systematically pursued often discriminatory policies that have undercut journalists’ freedom of expression, workers’ freedom of association, and civil society’s ability to promote human rights in Venezuela.
Political discrimination
Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency.
The Chávez government has engaged in wide-ranging acts of discrimination against political opponents and critics. At times, the president himself has openly endorsed acts of discrimination. More generally, he has encouraged the discriminatory actions of subordinates by routinely denouncing his critics as anti-democratic conspirators – regardless of whether they had any connection to the 2002 coup.
The courts
Another defining feature of the Chávez presidency has been its open disregard for the principle of separation of powers – and, specifically, the notion that an independent judiciary is indispensable for protecting fundamental rights in a democratic society. After the 2002 coup, the most damaging blow to the rule of law in Venezuela was the political takeover of the Supreme Court by Chávez and his supporters in 2004, which effectively neutralized the judiciary as an independent branch of government. Since the 2004 takeover, the court has repeatedly failed to fulfill its role as a check on arbitrary state action and safeguard of fundamental rights.
The media
The Chávez government has undermined freedom of expression through a variety of measures aimed at reshaping media control and content. Venezuela still enjoys a vibrant public debate in which anti-government and pro-government media are equally vocal in their criticism and defense of Chávez. However, by expanding and toughening the penalties for speech and broadcasting offenses, Chávez and his legislative supporters have strengthened the state’s capacity to limit free speech, and created powerful incentives for critics to engage in self-censorship. It has also abused the state’s control of broadcasting frequencies to intimidate and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming.
Organized labor
The Chávez government has sought to remake the country’s labor movement in ways that violate basic principles of freedom of association. It has fired workers who exercise their right to strike, denied workers their right to bargain collectively and discriminated against workers because of their political beliefs. Through its systematic violation of workers’ right to organize, the Chávez government has undercut established unions and favored new, parallel unions that support its political agenda.
Civil society
The Chávez government has pursued an aggressively adversarial approach to local rights advocates and civil society organizations. During the Chávez presidency, rights advocates have faced prosecutorial harassment, unsubstantiated allegations aimed at discrediting their work, and efforts to exclude them from international forums and restrict their access to international funding.
The report provides detailed recommendations to the Venezuelan government to reverse the damage done by its policies and to strengthen the country’s human rights protections. These include seeking to restore the credibility of the Supreme Court through a ratification process for all justices who were appointed after the 2004 court-packing law and establishing a new autonomous agency to administer broadcasting frequencies.
“Chávez has actively sought to project himself as a champion of democracy, not only in Venezuela, but throughout the region,” the report observes. However, “Venezuela will not achieve real and sustained progress toward strengthening its democracy – nor serve as a useful model for other countries in the region – so long as its government continues to flout the human rights principles enshrined in its own constitution.”
I already replied to this. There's nothing substantial or specific in any of it - just generalizations.
Seems that protecting the government against another coup attempt is something you have a problem with?
A constitutional amendment proposed by a pro-government committee in Venezuela’s National Assembly would allow the suspension of due process protections, Human Rights Watch said today.
The amendment would eliminate the constitutional prohibition on suspending due process rights in states of emergency. Under Venezuela’s constitution, these rights include, among others: the right to the presumption of innocence and to a fair trial; the right to an attorney; the right against self-incrimination; the right of a defendant to know the charges and evidence against him; and the right against double jeopardy...
Right, so under a state of emergency, such as another coup attempt, the Venezuelan leadership can apply the same measures that the U.S currently applies to all of it's citizens under the terms of the Patriot act.
Your assumption that because most Americans are either dim or ill-informed and therefore told to hate Chavez doesn't defend Chavez's actions and that is kinda the point you seem to be ignoring. Thus far in this thread, you've defended his underminding of democratic practices, human rights, censorship and similar. I have more than stated clearly my point and backed it with detail. Have a good day sir.
Let's face it. Americans are told to hate Hugo Chavez's Venezuela. So they hate it. The majority of Americans don't even know where Venezuela is, let alone why they hate it. They just do what they're told like good Americans.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
To everyone: I would quit this argument. Nobody will change each other's minds in this thread. America haters see the rest of the world through rose colored glasses, and NOTHING will change this. Hell, terrorists fly planes into the WTC and it was an inside job apparently! They'll ignore anything and everything that does not support their anti-America agenda.
i like this little throwdown between fiveB and byrnzie ... i don't know if they'll convince each other of anything - what i do know is when i see america hater - i know you're not open to learning anything ...
Your assumption that because most Americans are either dim or ill-informed and therefore told to hate Chavez doesn't defend Chavez's actions and that is kinda the point you seem to be ignoring. Thus far in this thread, you've defended his underminding of democratic practices, human rights, censorship and similar. I have more than stated clearly my point and backed it with detail. Have a good day sir.
I've not 'defended his undermining of democratic practices, human rights, censorship and similar', I'm just not convinced by any of these accusations.
Most know me on this board as leaning left and very critical of foreign policy and similar, but generically, I call a spade a spade. Overall, is Chavez's denouncing US power in the world a good thing, in my opinion, generically it is, but that doesn't mean we should ignore the rest of what he does. I don't plan on convincing anyone of something, but just back up my statements with details and facts, if someone doesnt want to acknowledge that or considers it false, I can't help that. Anyways, I think this discussion has been beaten into the ground..haha
To everyone: I would quit this argument. Nobody will change each other's minds in this thread. America haters see the rest of the world through rose colored glasses, and NOTHING will change this. Hell, terrorists fly planes into the WTC and it was an inside job apparently! They'll ignore anything and everything that does not support their anti-America agenda.
i like this little throwdown between fiveB and byrnzie ... i don't know if they'll convince each other of anything - what i do know is when i see america hater - i know you're not open to learning anything ...
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Thanks for posting this Byrnzie. I've been trying to get a better handle on Chavez for years. It's obvious that you can't take the media at face when it comes to opinions on other countries and their systems...still, this film was an eye-opener.
It appears that at worst, Chavez has manipulated the system to maintain power, at the cost of true democracy....and at best really IS a sort of Robin Hood...I'm sure the truth lies in the middle. Either way, I don't think he is anywhere near the bogeyman he's made out to be in western media (shocking, I know)....esp when his democratic and human rights records are viewed in comparison with the countries criticizing him.
Thanks for posting this Byrnzie. I've been trying to get a better handle on Chavez for years. It's obvious that you can't take the media at face when it comes to opinions on other countries and their systems...still, this film was an eye-opener.
It appears that at worst, Chavez has manipulated the system to maintain power, at the cost of true democracy....and at best really IS a sort of Robin Hood...I'm sure the truth lies in the middle. Either way, I don't think he is anywhere near the bogeyman he's made out to be in western media (shocking, I know)....esp when his democratic and human rights records are viewed in comparison with the countries criticizing him.
I won't bother discussing the pros and cons of Chavez. I've waisted way too much time in here trying to convey a different perspective and I've come to learn that it's pointless.
However, Drowned Out if you want a different point of view about Chavez I recommend you this website: http://www.caracaschronicles.com It is written in english by two Venezuelan guys. I personally know one of them because I used to attend the same university as him in Caracas. They don't like Chávez (they are very critical of the opposition as well) but they provide you with data, facts and well their personal opinions. I'm not asking you to agree with them, I just think you could use another point of view to balance things out.
inmytree: I was the one that went back to visit Venezuela a couple of years ago. I stand by the opinion I posted on the old Moving Train.
I just want to know one thing Byrnzie. You say Chavez -in a very simplistic manner- that Chavez has improved income distribution (taking money from the rich etc etc). Even if we assume that your assertion is correct, I want to know how do you measure the trade-off between respecting human rights/constitution and improving socioeconmic indicators. How many percentile points in income distribution improvement is worth, to you, each Constitutional violation? Did you know that under Pinochet's regime Chile's infant mortality rate diminished more than it has during the past decade in Venezuela? Just to make it clear I despise Pinochet, I'm just trying to make a point.
Chavez has been breaking his own Constitution so often these days. Did you know that in those cities where opposition majors were elected, during the latest elections, Chavez just issued a decree and appointed a "super-major" that of course answer to him? Google Antonio Ledezma (elected) y Jacqueline Farias (appointed just like that, just because I don't like that major of the capital is from the opposition)
I want to know how do you measure the trade-off between respecting human rights/constitution and improving socioeconmic indicators. How many percentile points in income distribution improvement is worth, to you, each Constitutional violation?
How do I measure the trade-off between improving the lives of hundreds of thousands of poor Venezuelans and giving them a place in the running of the country and their own affairs, and constitutional violations such as appointing 'super majors', or issuing decrees that t.v stations that promote military coups against the elected government will be subject to closure? Seems like a fair trade-off to me, especially when no-one has yet produced details of any 'constitional violation' of any significance.
And what about these Mayors? What are the details of it? How unconstitutional is it? How does it effect the country and the government?
Did you know that under Pinochet's regime Chile's infant mortality rate diminished more than it has during the past decade in Venezuela? Just to make it clear I despise Pinochet, I'm just trying to make a point.
Chavez has been breaking his own Constitution so often these days. Did you know that in those cities where opposition majors were elected, during the latest elections, Chavez just issued a decree and appointed a "super-major" that of course answer to him? Google Antonio Ledezma (elected) y Jacqueline Farias (appointed just like that, just because I don't like that major of the capital is from the opposition)
I guess I got dragged into this debate again....
It seems to me like people are just splitting hairs and jumping on every morsel of an excuse to criticize him.
People keep talking about human rights violations but so far nobody has presented any evidence of anything worthy of the name.
The documentary points out that there are still countless numbers of impoverished people in Venezuela, but that at least Chavez is trying to tackle the problem. People in Venezuela now have opportunities that they never had before.
Let's face it, the only people in Venezuela who don't like Chavez are the Middle Classes and the rich.
I want to know how do you measure the trade-off between respecting human rights/constitution and improving socioeconmic indicators. How many percentile points in income distribution improvement is worth, to you, each Constitutional violation?
How do I measure the trade-off between improving the lives of hundreds of thousands of poor Venezuelans and giving them a place in the running of the country and their own affairs, and constitutional violations such as appointing 'super majors', or issuing decrees that t.v stations that promote military coups against the elected government will be subject to closure? Seems like a fair trade-off to me, especially when no-one has yet produced details of any 'constitional violation' of any significance.
And what about these Majors? What are the details of it? How unconstitutional is it? How does it effect the country and the government?
Did you know that under Pinochet's regime Chile's infant mortality rate diminished more than it has during the past decade in Venezuela? Just to make it clear I despise Pinochet, I'm just trying to make a point.
Chavez has been breaking his own Constitution so often these days. Did you know that in those cities where opposition majors were elected, during the latest elections, Chavez just issued a decree and appointed a "super-major" that of course answer to him? Google Antonio Ledezma (elected) y Jacqueline Farias (appointed just like that, just because I don't like that major of the capital is from the opposition)
I guess I got dragged into this debate again....
It seems to me like people are just splitting hairs and jumping on every morsel of an excuse to criticize him.
People keep talking about human rights violations but so far nobody has presented any evidence of anything worthy of the name.
The documentary points out that there are still countless numbers of impoverished people in Venezuela, but that at least Chavez is trying to tackle the problem. People in Venezuela now have opportunities that they never had before.
Let's face it, the only people in Venezuela who don't like Chavez are the Middle Classes and the rich.
I'm sorry, but the way to try to excuse him for everything is just funny. So, people of Caracas go and vote, they elect Antonio Ledezma and he wins. Since he's from the opposition, Chavez appoints Jaqcueline Farias as "super major" and strips of all power the man the caraqueños chose to be their major. Democracy at its best.
¿What about the incarceration of General Baduel? The man that saved Chavez's life during April 11th?
What about the fact that the Constitution said that you can only call 1 referendum on each presidential term. Well, on 2007 a referendum took place for people to decide whether they wanted to modify the Constitution to allow indefinite elections. People voted no. So, Chavez goes and calls for another referendum, even though his own Constitution prohibits it. Of Course the Supreme Court (integrated only by Chavez supporters. They can be seen in YouTube singing "Uh Ah Chavez no se va", (Uh Ah, Chavez won't go away ) gave him the green light.
What about people blacklisted at Lista Tascón and Lista Maisanta? I know friends of my father that have lost their jobs and are being denied retirement funds because they signed the petition for the Fist referendum.
Ohhh, btw in Petare (Venezuela's largest slum dwell) the newly elected major is from the opposition (Carlos Ocáriz). So, yeah, only the rich disagree Chavez. That statement of yours goes to show that you just started paying attention to Chavez when he started cursing Bush. Do you really know Venezuela? Because from what you wrote one would think that Venezuela was Sierra Leona before Chavez. I understand why Chavez came to power, trust me I was there, I lived the whole 90's decade in Venezuela and I saw corruption and greed take over. But Chavez is trying to re-write history, public health and education were always available, same goes for literacy programs (ACUDE). Actually, both public health and education are as mediocre now as they were before him. Try going into a hospital with a broken bone, be sure to bring the material for nurses to make you a cast. Right now PDVSA is going broke and has not paid to its suppliers for the past 6 month. Try to find out a little about what's going on Zulia with oil workers being fired...
Anyways, thanks for treating Venezuelans as 2nd classs citizens, undeserving of both prosperity/equality and democratic institutionality. You know, in South America we have to settle, we either have lower infant mortality rate or we have a proper democracy. Thankfully, Chile and Brazil are leading the way in South America, showing that you can improve people's life while respecting their constitutional rights
How come Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch are reliable sources for HR violations in plenty of cases, except when it comes to Venezuela? Did you know that José Manuel Vivanco (HRW Director for Latin America) was taken out of hotel room and literally kicked out of the country, they took him like he was a crook and sent him to Brazil. They did not even give him time to gather his personal belongings.
Ohhh, what about Chavez inviting Omar Al-Bashir to Venezuela, after the International Court condemned him?
Anyways, I'm outta here, because it is pointless. Whatever I say is going to be dismissed as circumstancial evidence, whereas everything you say is the gospel of truth. I'm wrong and you're right.
They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security - Benjamin Franklin.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
I'm sorry, but the way to try to excuse him for everything is just funny. So, people of Caracas go and vote, they elect Antonio Ledezma and he wins. Since he's from the opposition, Chavez appoints Jaqcueline Farias as "super major" and strips of all power the man the caraqueños chose to be their major. Democracy at its best.
¿What about the incarceration of General Baduel? The man that saved Chavez's life during April 11th?
What about the fact that the Constitution said that you can only call 1 referendum on each presidential term. Well, on 2007 a referendum took place for people to decide whether they wanted to modify the Constitution to allow indefinite elections. People voted no. So, Chavez goes and calls for another referendum, even though his own Constitution prohibits it. Of Course the Supreme Court (integrated only by Chavez supporters. They can be seen in YouTube singing "Uh Ah Chavez no se va", (Uh Ah, Chavez won't go away ) gave him the green light.
What about people blacklisted at Lista Tascón and Lista Maisanta? I know friends of my father that have lost their jobs and are being denied retirement funds because they signed the petition for the Fist referendum.
Ohhh, btw in Petare (Venezuela's largest slum dwell) the newly elected major is from the opposition (Carlos Ocáriz). So, yeah, only the rich disagree Chavez. That statement of yours goes to show that you just started paying attention to Chavez when he started cursing Bush. Do you really know Venezuela? Because from what you wrote one would think that Venezuela was Sierra Leona before Chavez. I understand why Chavez came to power, trust me I was there, I lived the whole 90's decade in Venezuela and I saw corruption and greed take over. But Chavez is trying to re-write history, public health and education were always available, same goes for literacy programs (ACUDE). Actually, both public health and education are as mediocre now as they were before him. Try going into a hospital with a broken bone, be sure to bring the material for nurses to make you a cast. Right now PDVSA is going broke and has not paid to its suppliers for the past 6 month. Try to find out a little about what's going on Zulia with oil workers being fired...
Anyways, thanks for treating Venezuelans as 2nd classs citizens, undeserving of both prosperity/equality and democratic institutionality. You know, in South America we have to settle, we either have lower infant mortality rate or we have a proper democracy. Thankfully, Chile and Brazil are leading the way in South America, showing that you can improve people's life while respecting their constitutional rights
How come Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch are reliable sources for HR violations in plenty of cases, except when it comes to Venezuela? Did you know that José Manuel Vivanco (HRW Director for Latin America) was taken out of hotel room and literally kicked out of the country, they took him like he was a crook and sent him to Brazil. They did not even give him time to gather his personal belongings.
Ohhh, what about Chavez inviting Omar Al-Bashir to Venezuela, after the International Court condemned him?
Anyways, I'm outta here, because it is pointless. Whatever I say is going to be dismissed as circumstancial evidence, whereas everything you say is the gospel of truth. I'm wrong and you're right.
Where do you live? America or Venezuela?
Seems to me that a lot of Americanized rich Venezualans are upset because they've had some of their toys taken away from them.
Edit: What's 'the petition for the Fist referendum'? It's just that, like every other 'condemnation' on this thread, you've provided no explanation or background info with which to explain what the relevance is, and I doubt that anyone here has the foggiest what the petition for the Fist referendum is.
Also, who is Omar Al-Bashir? And what was he condemned for? And why should he not have been invited to Venezuela?
I guess I'm just looking for a bit of clarity from you Chavez haters, and so far I haven't found any.
inmytree: I was the one that went back to visit Venezuela a couple of years ago. I stand by the opinion I posted on the old Moving Train. ....
Thank you, Caterina. It's been a long time and I could not remember your username.
I'm not going to sit in this thread and argue/debate this with Byrnzie. I neither have the patience or desire to do so.
I'm not pretending I have personal, hands-on experience in Venezuela. I'm not claiming to have that kind of insight.
But for me, the most insightful and legitimate insight and information comes from people who either live there, have been there recently or have extensive family living there. That's as realistic and valid as it gets.
I'm not going to pretend that Byrnzie and some questionable links and writers have the truth scooped out on a spoon for me.
And from what you shared of your experience and from what my friend shared (through the experiences of her very extensive family and friends); I find the true clarity of the situation.
And it's not just very very extensive family. It is the experiences of all of her family, their network of friends, neighbors and acquaintances. Which turns into a very large network of friends, who are spread through out Venezuela.
it's not a coincedence that their experiences reflect what you have stated. People who live there have the only accurate and legitimate information.
I was never a Bush/Cheney guy and I have no partisan/party loyalties, whatsoever.
I am not sharing this on Chavez, in favor of America Obama...Bush...Clinton...Reagan....etc. I have often expressed my opinions on our government, in this forum. Anyone who knows me, knows I never defend the bad, under-handed, dirty things our country does (and the men behind it). Never.
But Chavez is not better.
Maybe one day people will stop choosing and defending one dictator ...one political leader...one President.....one scumbag over the other; on the basis of best of the worst. Maybe one day, we as human beings and citizens of our own individual countries; we will hold ourselves and our political candidates to extremely higer standards and immediately dethrone them when they fail to live up to those standards.
I wish you and your family (and friends) the best, Caterina. Thanks again.
I'm sorry, but the way to try to excuse him for everything is just funny. So, people of Caracas go and vote, they elect Antonio Ledezma and he wins. Since he's from the opposition, Chavez appoints Jaqcueline Farias as "super major" and strips of all power the man the caraqueños chose to be their major. Democracy at its best.
¿What about the incarceration of General Baduel? The man that saved Chavez's life during April 11th?
What about the fact that the Constitution said that you can only call 1 referendum on each presidential term. Well, on 2007 a referendum took place for people to decide whether they wanted to modify the Constitution to allow indefinite elections. People voted no. So, Chavez goes and calls for another referendum, even though his own Constitution prohibits it. Of Course the Supreme Court (integrated only by Chavez supporters. They can be seen in YouTube singing "Uh Ah Chavez no se va", (Uh Ah, Chavez won't go away ) gave him the green light.
What about people blacklisted at Lista Tascón and Lista Maisanta? I know friends of my father that have lost their jobs and are being denied retirement funds because they signed the petition for the Fist referendum.
Ohhh, btw in Petare (Venezuela's largest slum dwell) the newly elected major is from the opposition (Carlos Ocáriz). So, yeah, only the rich disagree Chavez. That statement of yours goes to show that you just started paying attention to Chavez when he started cursing Bush. Do you really know Venezuela? Because from what you wrote one would think that Venezuela was Sierra Leona before Chavez. I understand why Chavez came to power, trust me I was there, I lived the whole 90's decade in Venezuela and I saw corruption and greed take over. But Chavez is trying to re-write history, public health and education were always available, same goes for literacy programs (ACUDE). Actually, both public health and education are as mediocre now as they were before him. Try going into a hospital with a broken bone, be sure to bring the material for nurses to make you a cast. Right now PDVSA is going broke and has not paid to its suppliers for the past 6 month. Try to find out a little about what's going on Zulia with oil workers being fired...
Anyways, thanks for treating Venezuelans as 2nd classs citizens, undeserving of both prosperity/equality and democratic institutionality. You know, in South America we have to settle, we either have lower infant mortality rate or we have a proper democracy. Thankfully, Chile and Brazil are leading the way in South America, showing that you can improve people's life while respecting their constitutional rights
How come Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch are reliable sources for HR violations in plenty of cases, except when it comes to Venezuela? Did you know that José Manuel Vivanco (HRW Director for Latin America) was taken out of hotel room and literally kicked out of the country, they took him like he was a crook and sent him to Brazil. They did not even give him time to gather his personal belongings.
Ohhh, what about Chavez inviting Omar Al-Bashir to Venezuela, after the International Court condemned him?
Anyways, I'm outta here, because it is pointless. Whatever I say is going to be dismissed as circumstancial evidence, whereas everything you say is the gospel of truth. I'm wrong and you're right.
Where do you live? America or Venezuela?
Seems to me that a lot of Americanized rich Venezualans are upset because they've had some of their toys taken away from them.
Edit: What's 'the petition for the Fist referendum'? It's just that, like every other 'condemnation' on this thread, you've provided no explanation or background info with which to explain what the relevance is, and I doubt that anyone here has the foggiest what the petition for the Fist referendum is.
Also, who is Omar Al-Bashir? And what was he condemned for? And why should he not have been invited to Venezuela?
I guess I'm just looking for a bit of clarity from you Chavez haters, and so far I haven't found any.
I really want to thank you for your total lack of prejudice, you have no idea about me, yet you dismiss me as "an americanized Venezuelan"? I was born in Chile 36 years ago, I grew up in Venezuela and currently I live in Buenos Aires, Argentina dear Byrnzie. Never ever have I lived in the US. You can ask polaris-x, he knows me personally.
I provided very basic information, nothing strange or obscure, Venezuela's politics 101. I was referring to the first referendum, sorry if I wrote "fist" (English is not my mother's tongue). In 2004, the opposition signed a petition -full name, address, identity card- to call for a Referendum to decide if Chavez should remain president or not. Thousands of people that signed such petition have had problems in finding jobs, receiving their retirement funds, other were forced to leave the country, so on and so forth. Former Minister Tascón admitted to the press that he had indeed kept the information of those who signed the petition and created that list...
¿Are you really asking me who Omar Al-Bashir is? Darfur genocide does not ring a bell to you? He was Sudan's presidente and recently was condemned by the International Court of Justice for the Darfur genocide.
I have to admit my disappointment in you not knowing who Al-Bashir is, I really thought you were a HR champion...
Maybe one day people will stop choosing and defending one dictator ...one political leader...one President.....one scumbag over the other; on the basis of best of the worst. Maybe one day, we as human beings and citizens of our own individual countries; we will hold ourselves and our political candidates to extremely higer standards and immediately dethrone them when they fail to live up to those standards.
I wish you and your family (and friends) the best, Caterina. Thanks again.
Yeah, it's been a while since I last posted, mainly because I gave up on debating Chavez here, and even though there are other topics of my interest, I rather not post unless I really know what I'm talking about.
I agree 100% with your last paragraph. And I really hope that Venezuela one day -through democratic channels, I won't take it any other way- gets rid of Chavez and elects reponsible leaders, because Chavez is nothing but a consequence of the corruption and greed of his predecessors. There's plenty of young people doing interesting things in Venezuela these days, I have faith in them, especially in Carlos Ocáriz, newly elected major of Petare (Caracas, heck, Venezuela's largest poor barrio (ie slum))
yes ... i know caterina personally and i wouldn't mess with her ...
seriously tho - i think what this topic boils down to is this: dissent is the ultimate symbol of democracy but democracy is the most inefficient form of governing ... if we prioritize what we each feel is important in a leader - he's gonna fall differently on a scale based on that ... yes - chavez has had to fight a history of foreign intervention and corruption and he has done much for the poor people of venezuela however, in the year 2009 - is it wrong to want a leader to be able to accomplish that within the context of true democracy and beholden to the charter of human rights? i don't think so.
venezuela, as in all countries, should be governed for all people not just a segment or special group - it is obvious based on the evidence provided that isn't the case right now ... having said that - i will add the caveat that it doesn't take a whole lot from some powerful group to disrupt a country in latin america - defending against these groups is easier said than done ..
yes ... i know caterina personally and i wouldn't mess with her ...
seriously tho - i think what this topic boils down to is this: dissent is the ultimate symbol of democracy but democracy is the most inefficient form of governing ... if we prioritize what we each feel is important in a leader - he's gonna fall differently on a scale based on that ... yes - chavez has had to fight a history of foreign intervention and corruption and he has done much for the poor people of venezuela however, in the year 2009 - is it wrong to want a leader to be able to accomplish that within the context of true democracy and beholden to the charter of human rights? i don't think so.
venezuela, as in all countries, should be governed for all people not just a segment or special group - it is obvious based on the evidence provided that isn't the case right now ... having said that - i will add the caveat that it doesn't take a whole lot from some powerful group to disrupt a country in latin america - defending against these groups is easier said than done ..
Thanks Lien ,
"in the year 2009 - is it wrong to want a leader to be able to accomplish that within the context of true democracy and beholden to the charter of human rights? i don't think so" This pretty much sums up what I wanted to say...next time I'll send you a draft of my post hehe
I really want to thank you for your total lack of prejudice, you have no idea about me, yet you dismiss me as "an americanized Venezuelan"? I was born in Chile 36 years ago, I grew up in Venezuela and currently I live in Buenos Aires, Argentina dear Byrnzie. Never ever have I lived in the US. You can ask polaris-x, he knows me personally.
I didn't dismiss you, but it seems to me that the only people in Venezuela who like to criticize Chavez are rich Venezuelans. The poor of Venezuela don't seem to have a problem with him, which may be why he keeps getting voted in every election.
I provided very basic information, nothing strange or obscure, Venezuela's politics 101. I was referring to the first referendum, sorry if I wrote "fist" (English is not my mother's tongue). In 2004, the opposition signed a petition -full name, address, identity card- to call for a Referendum to decide if Chavez should remain president or not. Thousands of people that signed such petition have had problems in finding jobs, receiving their retirement funds, other were forced to leave the country, so on and so forth. Former Minister Tascón admitted to the press that he had indeed kept the information of those who signed the petition and created that list...
So after Chavez was democratically elected by the people of Venezuela the opposition decided to vote on whether he should be ousted from office? And some of those who took part in this effort to instigate a second coup attempt have since faced some difficulties?
¿Are you really asking me who Omar Al-Bashir is? Darfur genocide does not ring a bell to you? He was Sudan's presidente and recently was condemned by the International Court of Justice for the Darfur genocide.
I have to admit my disappointment in you not knowing who Al-Bashir is, I really thought you were a HR champion...
Of course I know about the war in Darfur, I just wasn't aware of the name of the President of this small region in the Sudan.
I provided very basic information, nothing strange or obscure, Venezuela's politics 101. I was referring to the first referendum, sorry if I wrote "fist" (English is not my mother's tongue). In 2004, the opposition signed a petition -full name, address, identity card- to call for a Referendum to decide if Chavez should remain president or not. Thousands of people that signed such petition have had problems in finding jobs, receiving their retirement funds, other were forced to leave the country, so on and so forth. Former Minister Tascón admitted to the press that he had indeed kept the information of those who signed the petition and created that list...
So after Chavez was democratically elected by the people of Venezuela the opposition decided to vote on whether he should be ousted from office? And some of those who took part in this effort to instigate a second coup attempt have since faced some difficulties? [/quote]
The possibility of asking for a revocatory referendum was stated in the Constitution, nothing illegal. Not a second coup attempt, Chavez's Constitution (the Bolivarian Constitution that he, himself, wrote) contemplated the possibility of a referendum, by collecting over a million signatures, and presenting them to the CNE (National Electoral Council). So, the opposition gathered the signatures, which were verified by the CNE, and the Referendum took place. Are you really telling me that it's ok for these people to be blacklisted? You call losing your job, not being able to collect your retirement pension a "some difficulties"? I know people that had to leave the country because they received life threats. And guess what, plenty of these people really relied on their job for making ends meet. Are you telling me that Gumersinda (she used to babysit me and my sister every now and then, and we've always kept in touch with her) really deserve to be blacklisted? She is everything but rich, she's always worked as a nanny, she just had "the nerve" to sign the referendum petition.
But I guess it's OK just because they are from the opposition, they are not entlitled to their civil rights.
So, again I ask you, if only rich Venezuelans disagree with Chavez, how come Carlos Ocáriz was elected major of Petare, which is the largest poor neighborhood of Caracas?
You did not give me your opinion about Chavez's invitation to Al-Bashir, nothing major, just a little genocide in Darfur, you know...
Anyways, as usual, it's fun being called a rich-spoiled brat, just because I don't support Thugo's regime. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I just feel the urge to let people know he's not all that he claims to be. That's all, I just want to state that Venezuelans and Latin Americans are deserving of both prosperity, equality, justice AND civil rights. We should not settle with less...
Comments
Venezuela: Rights Suffer Under Chávez
Political Discrimination and Weakened Institutions Define Presidency
September 18, 2008
Jose Miguel Vivanco, Americas director, holds a news conference in Caracas.
© 2008 Reuters
After winning a referendum on his presidency, President Chávez appears from the Presidential Palace in Caracas, Venezuela, before supporters.
© 2004 Christopher Anderson/Magnum
Related Materials: A Decade Under Chávez
Ten years ago, Chávez promoted a new constitution that could have significantly improved human rights in Venezuela. But rather than advancing rights protections, his government has since moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing basic guarantees in pursuit of its own political agenda.
José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch In its efforts to counter political opposition and consolidate power, the government of President Hugo Chávez has weakened democratic institutions and human rights guarantees in Venezuela, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.
The 230-page report, “A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela,” examines the impact of the Chávez presidency on institutions that are essential for ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law: the courts, the media, organized labor, and civil society.
“Ten years ago, Chávez promoted a new constitution that could have significantly improved human rights in Venezuela,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “But rather than advancing rights protections, his government has since moved in the opposite direction, sacrificing basic guarantees in pursuit of its own political agenda.”
Chávez was first elected in 1998, promising to overhaul Venezuela’s largely discredited political system. The enactment of a new constitution in 1999 offered an extraordinary opportunity for the country to shore up the rule of law and strengthen the protection of human rights. Yet the report finds that this important opportunity has since been largely squandered.
“The most dramatic blow to Venezuelan democracy in the last 10 years was the 2002 coup against Chávez,” said Vivanco. “Fortunately it lasted only two days. Unfortunately the Chávez government has exploited it ever since to justify policies that have degraded the country’s democracy.”
In the absence of credible judicial oversight, the Chávez government has systematically pursued often discriminatory policies that have undercut journalists’ freedom of expression, workers’ freedom of association, and civil society’s ability to promote human rights in Venezuela.
Political discrimination
Discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency.
The Chávez government has engaged in wide-ranging acts of discrimination against political opponents and critics. At times, the president himself has openly endorsed acts of discrimination. More generally, he has encouraged the discriminatory actions of subordinates by routinely denouncing his critics as anti-democratic conspirators – regardless of whether they had any connection to the 2002 coup.
The courts
Another defining feature of the Chávez presidency has been its open disregard for the principle of separation of powers – and, specifically, the notion that an independent judiciary is indispensable for protecting fundamental rights in a democratic society. After the 2002 coup, the most damaging blow to the rule of law in Venezuela was the political takeover of the Supreme Court by Chávez and his supporters in 2004, which effectively neutralized the judiciary as an independent branch of government. Since the 2004 takeover, the court has repeatedly failed to fulfill its role as a check on arbitrary state action and safeguard of fundamental rights.
The media
The Chávez government has undermined freedom of expression through a variety of measures aimed at reshaping media control and content. Venezuela still enjoys a vibrant public debate in which anti-government and pro-government media are equally vocal in their criticism and defense of Chávez. However, by expanding and toughening the penalties for speech and broadcasting offenses, Chávez and his legislative supporters have strengthened the state’s capacity to limit free speech, and created powerful incentives for critics to engage in self-censorship. It has also abused the state’s control of broadcasting frequencies to intimidate and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming.
Organized labor
The Chávez government has sought to remake the country’s labor movement in ways that violate basic principles of freedom of association. It has fired workers who exercise their right to strike, denied workers their right to bargain collectively and discriminated against workers because of their political beliefs. Through its systematic violation of workers’ right to organize, the Chávez government has undercut established unions and favored new, parallel unions that support its political agenda.
Civil society
The Chávez government has pursued an aggressively adversarial approach to local rights advocates and civil society organizations. During the Chávez presidency, rights advocates have faced prosecutorial harassment, unsubstantiated allegations aimed at discrediting their work, and efforts to exclude them from international forums and restrict their access to international funding.
The report provides detailed recommendations to the Venezuelan government to reverse the damage done by its policies and to strengthen the country’s human rights protections. These include seeking to restore the credibility of the Supreme Court through a ratification process for all justices who were appointed after the 2004 court-packing law and establishing a new autonomous agency to administer broadcasting frequencies.
“Chávez has actively sought to project himself as a champion of democracy, not only in Venezuela, but throughout the region,” the report observes. However, “Venezuela will not achieve real and sustained progress toward strengthening its democracy – nor serve as a useful model for other countries in the region – so long as its government continues to flout the human rights principles enshrined in its own constitution.”
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
On September 18, we released a report in Caracas that shows how President Hugo Chávez has undermined human rights guarantees in Venezuela. That night, we returned to our hotel and found around twenty Venezuelan security agents, some armed and in military uniform, awaiting us outside our rooms. They were accompanied by a man who announced—with no apparent sense of irony—that he was a government "human rights" official and that we were being expelled from the country.
With government cameramen filming over his shoulder, the official did his best to act as if he were merely upholding the law. When we said we needed to gather our belongings, he calmly told us not to worry, his men had already entered our rooms and "packed" our bags.
But when we tried to use our cell phones to get word to our families, our colleagues, and the press, the veneer of protocol quickly gave way. Security agents surrounded us, pried the phones from our hands, and removed and pocketed the batteries. When we then insisted on contacting our embassies, they shoved us into a service elevator, took us to the basement, and forced us into the back seat of an SUV with tinted windows. When we asked where we were headed, they told us only that we were going to the airport.
Three security agents sat behind us, at least two with weapons drawn. One used a cell phone to receive and relay orders as we raced through the streets of Caracas and out onto a highway. At one point an order came to turn on the SUV's radio so we could listen as the state news agency announced our expulsion. The announcers told their captive audience—which also included every other Venezuelan listening to the radio, since all stations are required to broadcast such messages—that our organization was funded by the US government and that we were part of a campaign of aggression against Venezuela.
Human Rights Watch does not and has never accepted funding from the US or any government, directly or indirectly. But we are accustomed to such false accusations, especially coming from authoritarian governments. Venezuelan officials have repeatedly denounced us as CIA stooges, right-wing partisans, and, more commonly, "mercenaries of the empire." (By contrast, in neighboring Colombia, officials have repeatedly sought to discredit us with labels like Communist, guerrilla sympathizer, and even terrorist.) Once, after releasing another report in Caracas, one of us was publicly and falsely accused by Chávez's vice-president of having collaborated with former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. This time, a close Chávez ally in the legislature suggested on national TV that the two of us had been sharing a single hotel room where we were indulging our "weaknesses."
The official reason we were given for our expulsion was that we had violated the constitution by criticizing the government while on tourist visas. It was a curious allegation since our immigration cards included a "business" box, which we had dutifully checked off. In any case, Venezuela's foreign minister, Nicolás Maduro, made clear the next day that the government's decision had nothing to do with our visa status. "Any foreigner who comes to criticize our country will be immediately expelled," he declared. Of course, had the Chávez government actually been interested in upholding its laws, it would have respected our rights—enshrined in the Venezuelan constitution—to immediately contact our embassies, obtain legal counsel, and receive a fair hearing. Instead, as we discovered only after we were finally ushered onto a plane at the airport, it bought us a one-way trip to Brazil.
The ease with which the government disregarded these rights only reaffirmed the central finding of our report: the Chávez government is more than willing to violate the country's constitution in pursuit of its own political agenda. Ironically it was Chávez himself who first championed that constitution a decade ago, after he was swept into office promising to overhaul the country's largely discredited political system. Enacted in 1999, the "Bolivarian" Constitution offered a unique opportunity for the country to shore up the rule of law and strengthen human rights protections. But that opportunity has since been largely squandered. The most dramatic setback came in April 2002, when opponents of Chávez temporarily ousted him in a coup d'état. Fortunately, the coup lasted less than two days. Unfortunately, the government has exploited it ever since to help justify policies that have degraded the country's democracy.
Today Venezuela is hardly the brutal dictatorship that some critics of Chávez paint it to be. Yet the country's democratic institutions have suffered considerably since the coup. Chávez and his allies have effectively neutralized the judiciary. While some newspapers and broadcasters are still independent and some are outspoken in their opposition to Chávez, the President and his legislative supporters have strengthened the state's capacity to limit free speech and created powerful incentives for self-censorship. They have, for example, expanded laws making "contempt" for government officials a criminal offense, increased prison sentences for criminal defamation, and abused the state's control of broadcasting frequencies to intimidate and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming. While there are independent labor unions, the government has systematically violated workers' rights and fostered pro-government unions. There are dedicated human rights advocates. But they have been subjected to a virulent barrage of verbal assaults and even harassment by prosecutors.
A central goal of the "Bolivarian" Constitution is the promotion of a more inclusive democracy in Venezuela. In view of the history of exclusion and the glaring inequalities that plague Venezuela and countries throughout Latin America, it is a goal that deserves to be taken seriously. Yet Chávez's own professed commitment to this vital and ambitious aim is contradicted by his government's willful disregard for the institutional guarantees and fundamental rights that make democratic participation possible.
In the more than twenty years that Human Rights Watch has worked in Latin America, no government has ever expelled our representatives for our work, not even the right-wing dictatorships guilty of far more egregious abuses than those committed by Chávez. Presumably they knew better. After all, Chávez's decision to expel us merely served to confirm the central message of our report and ensure that it received extensive coverage around the globe.
Why did Chávez do it? One Brazilian on the plane on which we were forced to leave Venezuela offered a view that is increasingly widespread throughout Latin America: "Chávez is crazy." But the human rights defenders we work with in Venezuela have drawn a far more sobering conclusion. Chávez, in their view, was sending a deliberate message to his fellow countrymen: he will not allow human rights guarantees to get in his way, no matter what the rest of the world may think.
If their interpretation is right, it does not bode well for the future of Venezuelan democracy.
—October 9, 2008
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
The Venezuelan government should provide a full accounting of its relationship with Colombian guerrillas responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity, Human Rights Watch said today.
In 2007, Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez served as a mediator, with the authorization of the Colombian government, in efforts to secure the release of prisoners held by the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, FARC). Yet email messages found on laptop computers reportedly recovered from a FARC encampment by Colombian security forces in March 2008 describe meetings in which Venezuelan officials also appear to have offered assistance to the Colombian guerrillas, including safe havens, weapons procurement, and possibly even financial support.
Interpol announced on May 15 that its forensic experts had verified that the computer files were authentic and had not been modified in any way while in the custody of Colombian authorities, though they did not assess the accuracy or source of their contents. Chávez dismissed Interpol’s findings as a “clown show that doesn't deserve a serious response.”
“The emails raise serious questions about Venezuela’s relationship with the Colombian guerrillas that deserve serious answers,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch. “At the very least, they appear to show that the guerrilla commanders who were engaged in horrendous abuses believed they had the backing of the Venezuelan government.”
Human Rights Watch has not had direct access to the computer files. But according to excerpts released by the Colombian government and reviewed by Human Rights Watch, the files contain email correspondence in which FARC commanders recount multiple meetings with Venezuelan officials. These messages refer to a meeting in which President Chávez reportedly offered to provide the FARC with safe havens within Venezuelan territory. They also mention meetings in which two Venezuelan generals, Hugo Carvajal Barrios and Clíver Alcalá Cordones, appear to offer the guerrillas assistance in procuring weapons. The email message refers to another meeting in which Interior Minister Ramón Rodríguez Chacín reportedly promised to facilitate the delivery of arms shipments to the guerrilla group. In addition, there are several email messages that allude to what appear to be offers of financial support to the FARC, including allocating to the guerrillas an oil ration which they could sell for profit.
Chávez has categorically denied that Venezuela has provided a safe haven or financial assistance to the FARC, or maintained any contacts with FARC commanders other than those aimed at securing the release of hostages.
At the same time, however, Chávez has repeatedly expressed sympathy for the FARC. In his effort to persuade the international community to stop classifying the FARC as a terrorist group, Chávez said in January 2008 that the FARC had “a political and Bolivarian project that is respected here [in Venezuela].” Chávez also called for a national moment of silence in Venezuela for senior FARC leader Raúl Reyes and praised him as a “good revolutionary” after he was killed in February 2008.
“For any government to support a guerrilla group like the FARC that routinely commits atrocities against civilians is entirely beyond the pale,” said Vivanco. “If the contents of these emails are in fact accurate, they show that the FARC was set to receive much more than rhetorical support from the Chávez government.”
The FARC have a horrendous record of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The group systematically takes hostages for ransom, as well as for political gain, in some cases holding victims hostage for years under horrific conditions, posing grave risks to the hostages’ lives and health. The FARC also engage in targeted killings, “disappearances,” acts of torture, and massacres of civilians. The FARC routinely recruit children as combatants, including many under the age of 15, the minimum recruitment age permitted under the Geneva Conventions. Children in the FARC’s ranks who attempt to desert are often shot, and the FARC have been known to order children to torture and execute other children or captured enemies.
Human Rights Watch called on the Venezuelan government to clarify whether any Venezuelan officials have provided, or offered to provide, assistance of any kind to the Colombian guerrillas. Venezuela should explain what exactly was discussed in the FARC meetings with President Chávez, Interior Minister Rodríguez Chacín, and other Venezuelan officials. It should also clarify whether FARC commanders met with Generals Carvajal and Alcalá, or any other military personnel, and if so, what was discussed at those meetings.
Human Rights Watch also urged President Chávez to issue clear instructions that no Venezuelan government or military official should provide any form of assistance to the FARC, and to guarantee that any officials found to have done so will be appropriately sanctioned.
On June 2, José Miguel Insulza, secretary-general of the Organization of American States (OAS) promised that the OAS would conduct an investigation of the computer files to assess the accuracy of their contents after Ecuador officially requested an inquiry.
“It would be a mistake for the OAS to limit its investigation to Ecuador and not address the relationship between the FARC and the Venezuelan government as well. A rigorous and impartial investigation is urgently needed to get to the bottom of this matter,” said Vivanco.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
A constitutional amendment proposed by a pro-government committee in Venezuela’s National Assembly would allow the suspension of due process protections, Human Rights Watch said today.
The amendment would eliminate the constitutional prohibition on suspending due process rights in states of emergency. Under Venezuela’s constitution, these rights include, among others: the right to the presumption of innocence and to a fair trial; the right to an attorney; the right against self-incrimination; the right of a defendant to know the charges and evidence against him; and the right against double jeopardy.
“This amendment, if approved, would allow President Chávez to invoke a state of emergency to justify suspending certain rights that are untouchable under international law,” said José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch.
Human Rights Watch noted that under international law many of these rights are considered so fundamental that countries are not permitted to derogate from their obligations to respect them – even in a state of emergency. Both the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights have made this clear.
The proposed amendments would also eliminate previous constitutional time limits on states of emergency. In addition, the amendments eliminate the requirement that the Constitutional Tribunal review the decree regulating the suspension of rights during times of emergency, as well as language establishing that such a decree “meet the requirements, principles, and guarantees established in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the American Convention on Human Rights.”
Proponents of the amendment have argued that the government needs to have free rein to suspend due process and other rights, including the right to freedom of information, in the event of another coup attempt like that which occurred in April of 2002 against President Hugo Chávez.
However, Human Rights Watch pointed out that it is during highly politicized emergencies that it becomes most pressing to respect basic due process guarantees, such as protections against arbitrary detention and the right to a fair trial.
“Recent Latin American history shows that it is precisely during states of emergency that countries need strong judicial protections to prevent abuse,” said Vivanco. “Otherwise, what has historically prevailed is the brutal exercise of power.”
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Introduction
Between 27 February and 4 March 2004 political violence erupted once again in Venezuela. Street protests and demonstrations by supporters of the opposition movement led to repeated violent confrontations with police and security forces in different parts of the country. There were also demonstrations by government supporters. According to information received by Amnesty International, in the context of the disturbances, as many as 14 people were killed in circumstances that have yet to be clarified and over 200 people were injured, with credible reports of excessive use of force by the security forces. There were also more than 500 detentions and a number of reports of ill-treatment and torture. Several police and security force officials were also reportedly injured in the frequently violent demonstrations. Both the government and opposition sought to gain political advantage from the disturbances: the opposition focussed on allegations of abuses by the security forces, while the administration stressed the violence used by protestors and justified the response of the security forces as proportionate and within the law.
Amnesty International believes that the Venezuela government had a clear duty to guarantee public order in the face of frequently violent protests - which included the use of firearms by some protestors. However, there is strong evidence that the use of rubber bullets, tear gas and batons was frequently indiscriminate and disproportionate and significantly contributed to a week of spiralling violence rather than preventing it.
Furthermore, the cases included in this report indicate that several of those detained were not only not involved in criminal acts prior to detention, but then faced ill-treatment and torture while in the custody of the security forces. Reports received also indicate that subsequent investigations undertaken by the Cuerpo de Investigaciones Científicas, Penales y Criminalísticas (CICPC)
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
To quote you from earlier in the thread:
"I'm not bent out of shape. I simply suggested that in future you should refrain from simply posting six links in succession and then expect somebody else to do your work for you."
You post a link to an hours long documentary and expect us to view it, but balk at someone posting links to 5 minute articles and asking you to read them so they don't have to explain something that has already been explained in articles they've linked to.
To everyone: I would quit this argument. Nobody will change each other's minds in this thread. America haters see the rest of the world through rose colored glasses, and NOTHING will change this. Hell, terrorists fly planes into the WTC and it was an inside job apparently! They'll ignore anything and everything that does not support their anti-America agenda.
I also posted some accompanying text from Wikipedia giving a brief outline of what the documentary is about. You forgot to mention that, but then it wouldn't have benefited your point would it.
Simply posting 6 links and claiming those links as your argument doesn't cut it. For all I know he hadn't even read them himself.
I already replied to this. There's nothing substantial or specific in any of it - just generalizations.
Seems that protecting the government against another coup attempt is something you have a problem with?
Right, so under a state of emergency, such as another coup attempt, the Venezuelan leadership can apply the same measures that the U.S currently applies to all of it's citizens under the terms of the Patriot act.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
i like this little throwdown between fiveB and byrnzie ... i don't know if they'll convince each other of anything - what i do know is when i see america hater - i know you're not open to learning anything ...
I've not 'defended his undermining of democratic practices, human rights, censorship and similar', I'm just not convinced by any of these accusations.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
It appears that at worst, Chavez has manipulated the system to maintain power, at the cost of true democracy....and at best really IS a sort of Robin Hood...I'm sure the truth lies in the middle. Either way, I don't think he is anywhere near the bogeyman he's made out to be in western media (shocking, I know)....esp when his democratic and human rights records are viewed in comparison with the countries criticizing him.
I won't bother discussing the pros and cons of Chavez. I've waisted way too much time in here trying to convey a different perspective and I've come to learn that it's pointless.
However, Drowned Out if you want a different point of view about Chavez I recommend you this website: http://www.caracaschronicles.com It is written in english by two Venezuelan guys. I personally know one of them because I used to attend the same university as him in Caracas. They don't like Chávez (they are very critical of the opposition as well) but they provide you with data, facts and well their personal opinions. I'm not asking you to agree with them, I just think you could use another point of view to balance things out.
inmytree: I was the one that went back to visit Venezuela a couple of years ago. I stand by the opinion I posted on the old Moving Train.
I just want to know one thing Byrnzie. You say Chavez -in a very simplistic manner- that Chavez has improved income distribution (taking money from the rich etc etc). Even if we assume that your assertion is correct, I want to know how do you measure the trade-off between respecting human rights/constitution and improving socioeconmic indicators. How many percentile points in income distribution improvement is worth, to you, each Constitutional violation? Did you know that under Pinochet's regime Chile's infant mortality rate diminished more than it has during the past decade in Venezuela? Just to make it clear I despise Pinochet, I'm just trying to make a point.
Chavez has been breaking his own Constitution so often these days. Did you know that in those cities where opposition majors were elected, during the latest elections, Chavez just issued a decree and appointed a "super-major" that of course answer to him? Google Antonio Ledezma (elected) y Jacqueline Farias (appointed just like that, just because I don't like that major of the capital is from the opposition)
I guess I got dragged into this debate again....
How do I measure the trade-off between improving the lives of hundreds of thousands of poor Venezuelans and giving them a place in the running of the country and their own affairs, and constitutional violations such as appointing 'super majors', or issuing decrees that t.v stations that promote military coups against the elected government will be subject to closure? Seems like a fair trade-off to me, especially when no-one has yet produced details of any 'constitional violation' of any significance.
And what about these Mayors? What are the details of it? How unconstitutional is it? How does it effect the country and the government?
It seems to me like people are just splitting hairs and jumping on every morsel of an excuse to criticize him.
People keep talking about human rights violations but so far nobody has presented any evidence of anything worthy of the name.
The documentary points out that there are still countless numbers of impoverished people in Venezuela, but that at least Chavez is trying to tackle the problem. People in Venezuela now have opportunities that they never had before.
Let's face it, the only people in Venezuela who don't like Chavez are the Middle Classes and the rich.
I'm sorry, but the way to try to excuse him for everything is just funny. So, people of Caracas go and vote, they elect Antonio Ledezma and he wins. Since he's from the opposition, Chavez appoints Jaqcueline Farias as "super major" and strips of all power the man the caraqueños chose to be their major. Democracy at its best.
¿What about the incarceration of General Baduel? The man that saved Chavez's life during April 11th?
What about the fact that the Constitution said that you can only call 1 referendum on each presidential term. Well, on 2007 a referendum took place for people to decide whether they wanted to modify the Constitution to allow indefinite elections. People voted no. So, Chavez goes and calls for another referendum, even though his own Constitution prohibits it. Of Course the Supreme Court (integrated only by Chavez supporters. They can be seen in YouTube singing "Uh Ah Chavez no se va", (Uh Ah, Chavez won't go away ) gave him the green light.
What about people blacklisted at Lista Tascón and Lista Maisanta? I know friends of my father that have lost their jobs and are being denied retirement funds because they signed the petition for the Fist referendum.
Ohhh, btw in Petare (Venezuela's largest slum dwell) the newly elected major is from the opposition (Carlos Ocáriz). So, yeah, only the rich disagree Chavez. That statement of yours goes to show that you just started paying attention to Chavez when he started cursing Bush. Do you really know Venezuela? Because from what you wrote one would think that Venezuela was Sierra Leona before Chavez. I understand why Chavez came to power, trust me I was there, I lived the whole 90's decade in Venezuela and I saw corruption and greed take over. But Chavez is trying to re-write history, public health and education were always available, same goes for literacy programs (ACUDE). Actually, both public health and education are as mediocre now as they were before him. Try going into a hospital with a broken bone, be sure to bring the material for nurses to make you a cast. Right now PDVSA is going broke and has not paid to its suppliers for the past 6 month. Try to find out a little about what's going on Zulia with oil workers being fired...
Anyways, thanks for treating Venezuelans as 2nd classs citizens, undeserving of both prosperity/equality and democratic institutionality. You know, in South America we have to settle, we either have lower infant mortality rate or we have a proper democracy. Thankfully, Chile and Brazil are leading the way in South America, showing that you can improve people's life while respecting their constitutional rights
How come Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch are reliable sources for HR violations in plenty of cases, except when it comes to Venezuela? Did you know that José Manuel Vivanco (HRW Director for Latin America) was taken out of hotel room and literally kicked out of the country, they took him like he was a crook and sent him to Brazil. They did not even give him time to gather his personal belongings.
Ohhh, what about Chavez inviting Omar Al-Bashir to Venezuela, after the International Court condemned him?
Anyways, I'm outta here, because it is pointless. Whatever I say is going to be dismissed as circumstancial evidence, whereas everything you say is the gospel of truth. I'm wrong and you're right.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Where do you live? America or Venezuela?
Seems to me that a lot of Americanized rich Venezualans are upset because they've had some of their toys taken away from them.
Edit: What's 'the petition for the Fist referendum'? It's just that, like every other 'condemnation' on this thread, you've provided no explanation or background info with which to explain what the relevance is, and I doubt that anyone here has the foggiest what the petition for the Fist referendum is.
Also, who is Omar Al-Bashir? And what was he condemned for? And why should he not have been invited to Venezuela?
I guess I'm just looking for a bit of clarity from you Chavez haters, and so far I haven't found any.
Thank you, Caterina. It's been a long time and I could not remember your username.
I'm not going to sit in this thread and argue/debate this with Byrnzie. I neither have the patience or desire to do so.
I'm not pretending I have personal, hands-on experience in Venezuela. I'm not claiming to have that kind of insight.
But for me, the most insightful and legitimate insight and information comes from people who either live there, have been there recently or have extensive family living there. That's as realistic and valid as it gets.
I'm not going to pretend that Byrnzie and some questionable links and writers have the truth scooped out on a spoon for me.
And from what you shared of your experience and from what my friend shared (through the experiences of her very extensive family and friends); I find the true clarity of the situation.
And it's not just very very extensive family. It is the experiences of all of her family, their network of friends, neighbors and acquaintances. Which turns into a very large network of friends, who are spread through out Venezuela.
it's not a coincedence that their experiences reflect what you have stated. People who live there have the only accurate and legitimate information.
I was never a Bush/Cheney guy and I have no partisan/party loyalties, whatsoever.
I am not sharing this on Chavez, in favor of America Obama...Bush...Clinton...Reagan....etc. I have often expressed my opinions on our government, in this forum. Anyone who knows me, knows I never defend the bad, under-handed, dirty things our country does (and the men behind it). Never.
But Chavez is not better.
Maybe one day people will stop choosing and defending one dictator ...one political leader...one President.....one scumbag over the other; on the basis of best of the worst. Maybe one day, we as human beings and citizens of our own individual countries; we will hold ourselves and our political candidates to extremely higer standards and immediately dethrone them when they fail to live up to those standards.
I wish you and your family (and friends) the best, Caterina. Thanks again.
I really want to thank you for your total lack of prejudice, you have no idea about me, yet you dismiss me as "an americanized Venezuelan"? I was born in Chile 36 years ago, I grew up in Venezuela and currently I live in Buenos Aires, Argentina dear Byrnzie. Never ever have I lived in the US. You can ask polaris-x, he knows me personally.
I provided very basic information, nothing strange or obscure, Venezuela's politics 101. I was referring to the first referendum, sorry if I wrote "fist" (English is not my mother's tongue). In 2004, the opposition signed a petition -full name, address, identity card- to call for a Referendum to decide if Chavez should remain president or not. Thousands of people that signed such petition have had problems in finding jobs, receiving their retirement funds, other were forced to leave the country, so on and so forth. Former Minister Tascón admitted to the press that he had indeed kept the information of those who signed the petition and created that list...
¿Are you really asking me who Omar Al-Bashir is? Darfur genocide does not ring a bell to you? He was Sudan's presidente and recently was condemned by the International Court of Justice for the Darfur genocide.
I have to admit my disappointment in you not knowing who Al-Bashir is, I really thought you were a HR champion...
Yeah, it's been a while since I last posted, mainly because I gave up on debating Chavez here, and even though there are other topics of my interest, I rather not post unless I really know what I'm talking about.
I agree 100% with your last paragraph. And I really hope that Venezuela one day -through democratic channels, I won't take it any other way- gets rid of Chavez and elects reponsible leaders, because Chavez is nothing but a consequence of the corruption and greed of his predecessors. There's plenty of young people doing interesting things in Venezuela these days, I have faith in them, especially in Carlos Ocáriz, newly elected major of Petare (Caracas, heck, Venezuela's largest poor barrio (ie slum))
Best wishes to you and your loved ones too
seriously tho - i think what this topic boils down to is this: dissent is the ultimate symbol of democracy but democracy is the most inefficient form of governing ... if we prioritize what we each feel is important in a leader - he's gonna fall differently on a scale based on that ... yes - chavez has had to fight a history of foreign intervention and corruption and he has done much for the poor people of venezuela however, in the year 2009 - is it wrong to want a leader to be able to accomplish that within the context of true democracy and beholden to the charter of human rights? i don't think so.
venezuela, as in all countries, should be governed for all people not just a segment or special group - it is obvious based on the evidence provided that isn't the case right now ... having said that - i will add the caveat that it doesn't take a whole lot from some powerful group to disrupt a country in latin america - defending against these groups is easier said than done ..
Thanks Lien
"in the year 2009 - is it wrong to want a leader to be able to accomplish that within the context of true democracy and beholden to the charter of human rights? i don't think so" This pretty much sums up what I wanted to say...next time I'll send you a draft of my post hehe
I didn't dismiss you, but it seems to me that the only people in Venezuela who like to criticize Chavez are rich Venezuelans. The poor of Venezuela don't seem to have a problem with him, which may be why he keeps getting voted in every election.
So after Chavez was democratically elected by the people of Venezuela the opposition decided to vote on whether he should be ousted from office? And some of those who took part in this effort to instigate a second coup attempt have since faced some difficulties?
Of course I know about the war in Darfur, I just wasn't aware of the name of the President of this small region in the Sudan.
So after Chavez was democratically elected by the people of Venezuela the opposition decided to vote on whether he should be ousted from office? And some of those who took part in this effort to instigate a second coup attempt have since faced some difficulties? [/quote]
The possibility of asking for a revocatory referendum was stated in the Constitution, nothing illegal. Not a second coup attempt, Chavez's Constitution (the Bolivarian Constitution that he, himself, wrote) contemplated the possibility of a referendum, by collecting over a million signatures, and presenting them to the CNE (National Electoral Council). So, the opposition gathered the signatures, which were verified by the CNE, and the Referendum took place. Are you really telling me that it's ok for these people to be blacklisted? You call losing your job, not being able to collect your retirement pension a "some difficulties"? I know people that had to leave the country because they received life threats. And guess what, plenty of these people really relied on their job for making ends meet. Are you telling me that Gumersinda (she used to babysit me and my sister every now and then, and we've always kept in touch with her) really deserve to be blacklisted? She is everything but rich, she's always worked as a nanny, she just had "the nerve" to sign the referendum petition.
But I guess it's OK just because they are from the opposition, they are not entlitled to their civil rights.
So, again I ask you, if only rich Venezuelans disagree with Chavez, how come Carlos Ocáriz was elected major of Petare, which is the largest poor neighborhood of Caracas?
You did not give me your opinion about Chavez's invitation to Al-Bashir, nothing major, just a little genocide in Darfur, you know...
Anyways, as usual, it's fun being called a rich-spoiled brat, just because I don't support Thugo's regime. I don't expect anyone to agree with me, I just feel the urge to let people know he's not all that he claims to be. That's all, I just want to state that Venezuelans and Latin Americans are deserving of both prosperity, equality, justice AND civil rights. We should not settle with less...