The War on Democracy
Options
Comments
-
FiveB247x wrote:Ok, firstly, the link you posted doesn't show the source of your information so if you could please say which source you're posting from, it would be appreciated. I clicked the link and it doesn't show anything more than ads.
The link I posted is your own link. Maybe next time you should make the effort to produce the relevant section of the article under the links you post instead of just posting 6 links on the board and expecting somebody else to do the work for you.FiveB247x wrote:Secondly, from what you posted in type, all it does is morally denounce the US's deteriorating democracy and practice in order to justify Chavez's practices. That's nothing to justify wrong-doing, merely deter guilt by saying, hey look at others doing bad things too, so it makes it ok if we do as well. That's not anything you or anyone else should be pronouncing as good, moral or common practice others should employ.
Funny, but didn't you post the following on this very thread:FiveB247x wrote:is he really promoting democracy, freedom, justice, equality and the types of moral princicples we as a nation or people want to admire in a leader or even a nation?
'We as a nation'?FiveB247x wrote:Lastly, you haven't really addressed the links I posted from reputable organizations with no real bias other than practicing fair human rights and justice (something everyone should want to promote). Please feel free to discuss Chavez's ill-record as discussed in the articles I posted, which you've yet to do.
Neither have you. You simply posted a bunch of links. Why should I do your work for you?0 -
If you read the comment I said about the link, all I said was I couldn't view what you posted. I didn't question it's source until I see what it is. All that came up was ads, so I don't see why you're getting all bent out of shape.
Secondly, you're not discussing what Chavez has done or is doing, merely discussing what the US has done or failed to do - yet we're not discussing that fact. And even if a wrong-doing occurs, it doesn't make it ok for others to follow in line as justification.
Lastly, I backed up my statements of Chavez's poor record of human rights and similar with links to stories from reputable organizations. You've failed to acknowledge that or comment in return about in any substance other than saying others do it, so somehow that makes it ok? Pretty poor excuse if nothing else.Byrnzie wrote:The link I posted is your own link. Maybe next time you should make the effort to produce the relevant section of the article under the links you post instead of just posting 6 links on the board and expecting somebody else to do the work for you.
Funny, but didn't you post the following on this very thread:
'We as a nation'?
Neither have you. You simply posted a bunch of links. Why should I do your work for you?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 Brandeis0 -
FiveB247x wrote:If you read the comment I said about the link, all I said was I couldn't view what you posted. I didn't question it's source until I see what it is. All that came up was ads, so I don't see why you're getting all bent out of shape.
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.FiveB247x wrote:Secondly, you're not discussing what Chavez has done or is doing
Neither are you. You just posted six links. Feel free to pick an example and then we can discuss it.FiveB247x wrote:I backed up my statements of Chavez's poor record of human rights and similar with links to stories from reputable organizations. You've failed to acknowledge that or comment in return about in any substance other than saying others do it, so somehow that makes it ok? Pretty poor excuse if nothing else.
I never said it was o.k. I said that with regards the links you posted the U.S is no better, therefore why do you feel that you're in any position to condemn Chavez's Venezuela as a bad example to the world?0 -
Let me understand this, you claim something, I disagree and back my opinion with links and because you won't read the stories and links I post, I'm lazy and "making others do work for me"? Seriously?!
As for your claim about the US and Venezuela, isn't or shouldn't it be all of our responsibility and in our best interests for all to practice good? We should all strive for these types of things for everyone, which is what I've claimed.Byrnzie wrote: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.
Neither are you. You just posted six links. Feel free to pick an example and then we can discuss it.
I never said it was o.k. I said that with regards the links you posted the U.S is no better, therefore why do you feel that you're in any position to condemn Chavez's Venezuela as a bad example to the world?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 Brandeis0 -
FiveB247x wrote:Let me understand this, you claim something, I disagree and back my opinion with links and because you won't read the stories and links I post, I'm lazy and "making others do work for me"? Seriously?!
You claimed that Venezuela is a bad example to the world. Your links don't support this claim. And yes, I read them. Did you? Because you've failed to refer to anything in those links.FiveB247x wrote:As for your claim about the US and Venezuela, isn't or shouldn't it be all of our responsibility and in our best interests for all to practice good? We should all strive for these types of things for everyone, which is what I've claimed.
Hugo Chavez has been democratically elected President of Venezuela on numerous occasions. He has transferred the nations wealth from out of the hands of U.S companies and given it back to the poor people of Venezuela. But you have a problem with this and suggest that it's not compatible with 'practicing good'. Perhaps you can explain your position instead of just posting half a dozen more links?0 -
FiveB247x wrote:isn't or shouldn't it be all of our responsibility and in our best interests for all to practice good? We should all strive for these types of things for everyone, which is what I've claimed.
http://dissidentvoice.org/Apr07/Ash02.htm
Venezuela: The Times They Are A-Changin'
April 2, 2007
'...immediately after the failed coup against him, his first act was to guarantee the constitutional rights of the coup leaders, none of whom have been harmed. Likewise, he has consistently avoided using military and police forces under his command to repress the opposition, and had been exceedingly cautious towards foreign companies and investors. Some of his strongest supporters therefore consider Chavez excessively soft. The ideological message of Bolivarianism is straddling this society -- deeply divided by class -- with a strong Venezuelan and pan-Latinoamerican nationalism. The ambiguity is patently visible in the street iconography of Caracas, which combines the faces of the aristocratic liberal Simon Bolivar and the radical communist Che Guevara, both sharing the landscape with huge billboards of fashionable young women advertising beer.
Yet if the future is foggy, the present is dramatically clear. Under pressure from Venezuela's poor, on whose support Chavez's political survival depends, the government moved decidedly leftwards over the course of the last few years. This leftward move consists in two processes: democratization and redistribution.
First, redistribution. Having wrestled control of the national oil company from the old oligarchy, Chavez redirected a portion of Venezuela's significant oil revenues to new social projects, called missions, each targeting a specific social privation. The bulk of the resources were earmarked for non-cash benefits such as education and health. But government policies have also helped more people to move out of the informal economy and take formal jobs, affecting a significant rise in cash wages for the poorest workers. An international chorus of snickers erupts whenever these social spending programs are mentioned. Most completely miss the point. Is there corruption? Inefficiency? Probably. But by relying on the army, the national oil company, and ad hoc communal organizing rather than on the traditional state bureaucracy, the social missions manage a level of efficiency that is quite stunning.
As a small example, take the latest mission, 'energy revolution,' announced in November 2006. Its first project was to change all the light bulbs in Venezuela (52 million of them) to energy efficient ones by the end of 2007. The goal is to reduce the consumption of oil in electricity generation by about 25 million barrels a year, and cut a typical family's monthly expenses by $4.6 (a non-trivial sum in the poor neighborhoods). The distribution of free bulbs is carried out by different means: youth organizations, community councils, and reserve units. By mid February 2007, over 30 million bulbs have been distributed, 10% faster than planned. The white glow that rises at night from both the poor neighborhoods and the houses of the better-off confirms the statistics.
More complex missions, such as mission Robinson and Riba, which provide adult primary and secondary education with Cuban help, have been no less spectacular. "Proofs" that these missions are bogus are a dime a dozen in the Western media. Yet in Venezuela, even fierce Chavez's critics I spoke with conceded that the missions were having a strongly positive effect on the life of the poor. The change is fast and visible. In a peasant community's primary school in western Venezuela I saw the preparation for an internet room for both the pupils and the larger community. In the nearby high school -- a school that only a few years ago did not exist -- students who divided their time between the classroom and their families' coffee fields talked of going to university.
Another common criticism is that the missions are not sustainable because they depend on oil prices remaining high. No doubt a drop in oil prices would force the government to cut spending (leaving aside the unresolved question as to whether high oil prices are themselves sustainable or not.) However, the thousands of people who learned to read during the oil boom would remain literate even if oil prices dropped. Nor would such a drop deprive the beneficiaries of an oil-financed cataract removal surgery of their vision. A more enlightened view would note that access to such basic services as dental and eye care is valuable in itself. But even if one were to look at Venezuela from the most narrow-minded economist perspective, one that only values economic growth, it would be impossible to find an oil-producing country that uses its oil bonanza in a better way. Improving health, education, housing and infrastructure contributes more to prosperity and economic growth than the preferred choice of conventional wisdom -- hoarding a large portfolio of U.S. bonds.
The proof is in the pudding. Caracas is booming. Fancy consumer malls are mushrooming, trendy shops and restaurants ring the cash register. In one mall, strongly anti-Chavez store managers expressed gloom and resignation about the government's economic policies while conceding that business was excellent. But in a restaurant off the airport highway, the owner, a man of humble background, took us with pride through the private orchard from whose fruits he serves fresh juice to his customers, and explained the situation thus: "Chavez is good for people who want to work….they dislike Chavez because the government now collects taxes from businesses." The opposition to Chavez is surely more than just about reinvigorated tax collection; a recent (and perhaps not fully trustworthy) survey shows a loss of income over 20% at the high end of the extremely skewed income pyramid. But there is little doubt that the boost to the income of poor households (80% of the population) is driving Venezuela's impressive economic expansion (9.4% in 2006) and also trickling up significantly to the better-off, especially those in the fast expanding retail sector -- the delivery period for a new imported car, including luxury models, can be longer than six months.
The democratization focus of the Bolivarian revolution involves structural changes to both politics and economics. Politically, those measures that help the foreign media paint Chavez as an autocrat are precisely those perceived in Venezuela as means of political decentralization and democratization -- the rule by decree, the formation of a unified party, and the direct executive control of funds. To understand the paradox it is necessary to grasp the historical context: the political parties, the parliament and the governmental bureaucracy have been, and still are, bastions of corruption and clientelism, providing the main interface between political power and economic wealth. It is quite possible in theory that the creation of alternative political mechanisms under Chavez's personal rule will lead to a new centralization of autocratic power. But mitigating that danger is the new sense of political entitlement of commoners, a deep cognizance of their own rights, and foremost the right to organize and take control over decisions that affect their lives. Encountering the strength of this democratic consciousness, fostered by education, public awareness campaigns, Chavez's speeches, and the recurrence of popular mobilizations, is one of the most intense experiences one has as a visitor to Venezuela today. While Chavez is the undisputable hero of this popular awakening, the latter is anything but a docile body of followers. On the contrary. Visiting a community center in Barquisimeto, we saw a local TV and radio station run by locals. The organizers were supposed to be trained by a professional government manager. Relations with the official boss however soured quickly and the community expelled the imposed manager, locking her out of the building. It took a month of struggle, but the new locally chosen administration was eventually recognized as legitimate. He would be a strange autocrat who encouraged small communities to run their own TV and radio station, free of government control. But this is exactly what the current government's policy is. Finally, the most important political development following the last elections is the plan to constitutionally empower local councils (of 200-400 households each) to take control of budgetary priorities and local services. This institutionalization of participatory democracy would irreversibly transform Venezuelan politics.
The linchpin of the change is economic structure is the fast growth in co-operatives -- worker managed businesses with a variety of internal democratic structures. The co-operative movement in Venezuela predates Chavez. However, with government support, this form of economic organization changed from a radical but marginal element to a significant component of the economy. Already in 2004 4.6% of jobs in Venezuela depended on co-operatives. By extrapolation, the over 100,000 co-operatives operating today in Venezuela probably account for 15% of jobs...
There is a lot to be fearful about in Venezuela -- the high level of crime, the dead weight of entrenched corruption, the unresolved tension between consumerist and socialist values, the danger inherent in Chavez's outsized shadow, and not the least the certain intensification of U.S. destabilization efforts. But outside the small pockets of privilege and affluent ressentiment, the Venezuela I saw is not in the grip of fear. On the contrary, it is in the grip of hope, pride and an infectious sense of self-confidence and ownership.'0 -
All you're saying is that Chavez's economic redistribution and avoiding US economic entanglements is what makes him so good. How about his human rights record - that is primarily the links I posted about. Also, one article from 2007 from a blatant leftist and socialist source doesn't necessarily defend his long time record of abuses, which is what I posted from reputable human rights organizations.
And you keep saying he was democratically elected, this doesn't mean all that much as even in dictatorships, elections take place.Byrnzie wrote:You claimed that Venezuela is a bad example to the world. Your links don't support this claim. And yes, I read them. Did you? Because you've failed to refer to anything in those links.
Hugo Chavez has been democratically elected President of Venezuela on numerous occasions. He has transferred the nations wealth from out of the hands of U.S companies and given it back to the poor people of Venezuela. But you have a problem with this and suggest that it's not compatible with 'practicing good'. Perhaps you can explain your position instead of just posting half a dozen more links?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 Brandeis0 -
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.0 -
NMyTree wrote: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?0 -
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/09/18/v ... der-ch-vez
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.”Post edited by FiveB247x onCONservative 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 Brandeis0 -
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/10/09/h ... man-rights
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, 2008CONservative 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 Brandeis0 -
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/06/02/v ... guerrillas
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 Brandeis0 -
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2007/10/15/v ... ue-process
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 Brandeis0 -
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset ... 004en.html
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)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 Brandeis0 -
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 Brandeis0 -
Byrnzie wrote:
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.0 -
bootlegger10 wrote: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.0 -
FiveB247x wrote:http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/09/18/venezuela-rights-suffer-under-ch-vez
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.”
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?0 -
....Post edited by Byrnzie on0
Categories
- All Categories
- 148.8K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110K The Porch
- 272 Vitalogy
- 35K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.1K Flea Market
- 39.1K Lost Dogs
- 58.6K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.7K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help