Anniversary Party with Hugo Chavez
In England and the United States many prominent figures have praised Hugo Chavez for the great strides that he has made for democracy in Venezuela. They have even pointed out that he was victorious in elections that they claim were more legitimate than that of U.S. President George W. Bush.
So let’s savor some choice quotes that pay homage to this highly regarded democracy in Venezuela…
1. The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, wrote a heartfelt plea to support Chavez. It was originally published in the Guardian, a British newspaper that many of my readers are familiar with;
“Not a Difficult Choice at All.
Chavez and Venezuela deserve the support of all who believe in social justice and democracy.”
“For many years people have demanded that social progress and democracy go hand in hand, and that is exactly what is now taking place in Venezuela. It therefore deserves the unequivocal support of not only every supporter of social progress, but every genuine believer in democracy in the world.
…Sometimes it is necessary to choose the lesser of two evils. Britain fought with Stalin against Hitler. But with Chavez the choice is not difficult at all. He is both carrying out a progressive programme and doing so through the mandate of the ballot box.
George Bush’s refusal to respect the choices of the Venezuelan people shows that his administration has no real interest in promoting democracy at all.”
2. In an open letter published on August 12, 2004 (several days before Chavez faced a very important recall vote) prominent Americans including Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Reverend Jesse Jackson wrote the following…
“Dear President Chavez,
We are writing to express our solidarity during this important moment in Venezuela’s history. It is our hope and expectation that, on August 15, you will once again win an electoral mandate from the Venezuelan people to be their president…
…We are committed to doing what we can, as U.S. citizens, to heal those relationships and encourage Congress and the White House to see Venezuela not only as a model democracy but also as a model of how a country’s oil wealth can be used to benefit all of its people.”
Weeks before this letter was released there was a similar letter produced by a group of 69 intellectuals, artists, politicians and Nobel laureates from around the world. It was entitled, “If We Were Venezuelan, on August 15th, 2004, We Would Vote for Hugo Chavez.” They wrote an inspiring piece and I’d like to share some of its highlights with you;
“…we wish to denounce the disinformation campaign that is being orchestrated by the major media and that attempts to characterize as a tyrant, a President who has consistently respected the rule of law and the country’s Constitution…
…We are certain that, on August 15th, the Venezuelan people will celebrate a new victory that will allow them to continue building a freer and fairer society; the country that Simon Bolivar dreamt of.”
3. In January of 2006 a delegation of Americans including singer Harry Belafonte, actor Danny Glover, Princeton scholar Cornel West and several others visited Venezuela to show their support for Chavez. Harry Belafonte led the way by heaping praises on the dictator and bashing President Bush.
“No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we’re here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution”
So while Belafonte portrayed Bush as a tyrant, he also lashed out against the US media for portraying Chavez as a dictator. Instead he insisted that Venezuela is a democracy and that the Venezuelans are “optimistic about their future”.
4. It seems that Caracas is a prime port of call for many Americans who are seeking out the bold leadership of President Chavez. Activist, Cindy Sheehan, who has been the most vocal critic of the Bush Administration over the last couple of years, embarked on an all expenses paid excursion to the 6th Annual World Social Forum in Caracas, Venezuela. She took the opportunity to promote Chavez’s fear mongering that the US is ready to destroy the Venezuelan democracy and invade the country.
“I have talked to many citizens of Venezuela who are understandably nervous about a US invasion and they know that it is not about the idea that President Chavez is a “dictator”, which he is not, he is a democratically elected leader who is very popular in his country. The people of Venezuela are very savvy and they know that if the US invades their country that it won’t be because we are spreading “freedom and democracy” to them. They know they already have it.”
As these intellectual powerhouses have spent the last couple of years defending the democracy of Presidente Hugo Chavez, Venezuela has been steadily sliding into a dictatorship in the model of Nazi Germany … another democratically elected government that used the rule of law to install a totalitarian dictatorship.
I apologize for using the dreaded Hitler comparison, but it is very appropriate.
First, because Bush is continually compared to the Nazi dictator.
Second, because the parallels between Chavez and Hitler are uncanny.
The Quest for Power
As many have pointed out, Chavez and Hitler both attempted a coup d’etat before using democratic means to seize power. When the supporters of Chavez decry the 2002 coup against the Venezuelan “democracy” I have to laugh. If Chavez didn’t receive a pardon he would have been in jail instead of being sworn in as president on February 2nd, 1999. While Hitler used his time in jail to write Mein Kampf, Chavez used his time behind bars to plot a second failed coup.
Although Hitler ruled by decree through an Enabling Act when he first came to power, Chavez actually has him beat by implementing an Enabling Act twice (I love how Chavez frequently one-ups Hitler). Over a week ago Venezuelan legislators voted unanimously to grant Chavez initial approval to rule by decree for a year and a half. As if marking the 74th anniversary of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany, January 30th 2007, the latest Venezuelan Enabling Act will be formally approved.
Actually a second vote will be held tomorrow, but it is expected to easily pass because the Venezuelan National Assembly is completely controlled by Chavez loyalists. The opposition holds no seats in the Assembly due to a boycott that marred the parliamentary election of 2005. Only Chavez’s party, The Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR) and its allies are represented. I should point out that this may not last for very long.
To celebrate last month’s reelection victory Chavez announced his intention to unite all political parties allied to the MVR into one consolidated party. This will effectively turn Venezuela into a One Party State. Chavez was really serious about forcing his subordinate parties to consolidate. He addressed the fact that some parties may oppose submitting to his will so he put his foot down saying, “I don’t have time to bury myself in a debate … they are entirely free to pursue their course. Obviously, they will leave the government.”
It doesn’t get any clearer than that. The quote is taken from The Socialist Voice, a Marxist website that is fanatically pro-Chavez. When Chavez proclaims that he will allow no debate on this issue and forbids any political party that is not under his control to share power in Venezuela’s government, they are actually pleased.
Now this behavior by Chavez is nothing new. Upon assuming his office in 1999 he has embarked on a ruthless campaign to remake the Venezuelan government so that it primarily serves his ambitions. He added a dozen loyal justices to the Supreme Court and fired hundreds of lower-court judges so that he could replace them with more of his cronies.
To add insult to injury, he has now added three additional years to his presidency. He rewrote the constitution to add one year per term and he has been elected to two terms for a total of two additional years. After passing the constitution he was “reelected”. Since he was originally elected in December of 1998 and he was “reelected” according to the new constitution in 2000, he was able to squeeze a free year out of the deal. I pointed this out before, but it is worth repeating... Can you imagine if President Bush extended his term of office by three additional years? Furthermore, Chavez has announced that he plans to change the constitution again in order to allow him to run for reelection in 2012.
Freedom of Speech
Some of the most serious criticisms of Chavez don’t relate to the vast amount of power that he is accumulating, but to the disturbing violations of civil rights that he is presiding over. Under Chavez a number of new legislative restrictions on the freedom of speech have been adopted into law.
The first outrage was the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television. Groups that promote Human Rights and the Freedom of Press have harshly criticized this law, especially Human Rights Watch (HRW) and The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The measure was justified to protect minors, but was written so broadly that advocates of freedom of speech say that it is really geared towards stifling dissent. One of its articles states that, “Any program or news containing moderate violence - such as the fall of the Twin Towers in New York or a street confrontation between police and political demonstrators - is banned from 5:00am until 11:00pm”.
In the aftermath of massive amounts of public unrest this was a very effective tool for keeping the coverage of opposition rallies off the air. The fact that Venezuelans are not allowed to have access to such information is a blatant act of censorship. It is also incredibly unfair to compare the protests for democracy to the world’s most horrific act of terrorism in our history. Socialists may be the most incompetent economists, but their grasp of propaganda surpasses even the Nazis and as a result perverts the core of their institutions.
In 2005 The Inter-American Press Association (Socidad Interamericana de Prensa) related how badly the situation had become;
“Every day violence against journalists and media outlets that are critical of the government increases, threatening them with the possibility of being taken over or disappearing. The International Association of Broadcasting reported that on September 14 the National Telecommunications Committee (CONATEL) opened administrative proceedings against seven private television stations, including Globovision for alleged failure to use assigned frequencies. On September 20, the same proceeding was brought against 22 private radio stations for alleged infractions or offenses against the Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television.
This situation is aggravated by the fact that President Chavez has granted himself all power by putting the National Assembly, the judiciary and the electoral system under his supervision. In this way, he was able to impose laws and regulations that allow him to attack those who dare to dissent.
Given this situation it would be utopian to believe that press freedom exists.”
According to the CPJ the law also stipulates that television and radio stations which broadcast programs that “promote, defend, or incite breaches of public order” may be suspended for up to 72 hours. If a media outlet repeats the infraction within the next five years, its broadcasting concession may be suspended for up to five years. As a result news networks curtailed their coverage of civil unrest in fear of violating this vaguely-worded law.
On the heels of the Law of Social Responsibility there were more media content laws that were passed a month later. Jackson Diehl from the Washington Post outlined some of the more disturbing articles. He stated that it was a new penal code that criminalizes virtually any expression to which the government objects - not only in public but also in private:
Article 147: “Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light.” That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who “disrespect” the president or his functionaries in private; “the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly.”
Article 444 says that comments that “expose another person to contempt or public hatred” can bring a prison sentence of one to three years; Article 297a says that someone who “causes public panic or anxiety” with inaccurate reports can receive five years. Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications.
In response to criticism from international human rights groups the Chavez-controlled Supreme Court upheld such legislation by saying that, “The recommendations of international organizations, particularly those of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights … are not binding … Freedom of speech is not an absolute right of human beings”. In reality this is true because hate speech is not always protected, but it is an ominous choice of words. The Chavez regime has repeatedly used such language to trample legitimate speech.
These measures have strengthened the ability of the regime to leverage the country’s legal system in its attempt to silence its opposition. There are currently more than 200 political prisoners in Venezuela. According to The Freedom House, out of all the countries in the Western Hemisphere Venezuela now ranks 34th out of 35 countries in press freedom. Only Cuba, Chavez’s closest ally, is ranked as more repressive. The hostility to free speech stems from the fact that most news agencies are opposed to the regime. Chavez Supporters claim that this is evidence that Venezuela is a healthy democracy. The truth is that these news agencies are the legacy of Latin America’s most long-lived democracy, which has been led by civilians without interruption since 1958 (a rarity in Latin America).
Radio Caracas Television (RCT) was formed in 1953 as the nation’s third television network. Since the station gave positive coverage to a strike against Chavez in 2003, the President has declared that he will shut them down when their license is up for renewal. Chavez contemptuously stated, “It runs out in March. So it’s better that you go and prepare your suitcase and look around for what you’re going to do in March.” Since Chavez has inherited a democratic press he has done everything he can to silence it. In addition to the legislation mentioned above, his supporters have used the Chavez-controlled judiciary to persecute journalists that are only doing their job. Journalists that criticize the regime have also been killed, abused and had their property attacked.
Below is an incomplete list of Journalists that have faced legal action in response to their criticism of the regime and its allies. Each name contains a link to an article that describes the repression that they are facing. Since the attacks on journalists have been so extensive, I do not have the space to address each one of them. Please visit the linked sites for more information. I regret not including a list of those that have been killed or assaulted, but I had to limit myself because I feared that I would never be able to finish this post otherwise. However, the links below do include quite a bit of information on the violence that these reporters have also had to face.
Julio Balza
Napoleon Bravo
Leopoldo Castillo
Marta Colomina
Ben Ami Fihman
Carlos Gibson
Ivan Martinez
Faitha Marina Nahmens
Marianella Salazar
Pablo Aure Sanchez
Jose Angel Ocanto
Ibeyse Pacheco
Patricia Poleo
Alberto Federico Ravell
Pablo Lopez Ulacio
Mireya Zurita
Big Brother
George Orwell’s novel 1984 is famous for the slogan, “Big Brother is Watching You”. In Venezuela the Tascon and Maisantas Lists have made it a reality. The Tascon List was originally compiled by a pro-Chavez politician, Luis Tascon. On his website he published a full database of all those Venezuelans who signed the recall petition against Chavez in 2004. A threat was issued by President Chavez claiming that, “Whoever signs against Chavez, will have their names recorded for history”. Public dissemination of this blacklist resulted in widespread discrimination against those listed. Some lost their government jobs, or were denied government services and/or were denied access to employment. It took a year, but widespread criticism led to the removal of the list from Tascon’s website and a full repudiation of it.
However, since that time the Tascon List has been expanded into the Maisantas List. Maria Uzcategui, Director of International Affairs for Ciudadania Activa, relates that the new list contains records of the country’s 12 million voters. It is used at street corner checkpoints to screen those wishing to enter public buildings. Those classified on the list as a “radical” face retaliation like the loss of their jobs, denial of credit, access to education, passports, fair trials and health care. The list can be purchased from street vendors in Caracas for ten dollars.
Influence for Oil
Here in the United States politicians from the Democratic Party have benefited from sweetheart oil deals given to their constituents by the dictator. In return Chavez has found words of praise from prominent Massachusetts Democrats like Senator Chris Dodd, Congressman Bill Delahunt and former Congressman Joe Kennedy II. While they have mildly denounced a few of Chavez’s more outrageous publicity stunts, all of those involved in the dictator’s “oil for influence scheme” have defended him in one way or another.
Chavez has been throwing around his country’s oil wealth to purchase influence all over the globe. He has destroyed his country’s democracy and seeks to undermine our own as well. Subsidizing oil deliveries to the poor is a noble pursuit, but it comes at too high of a cost. If our leaders are serious about subsidizing oil for the poor they should do so out of their own pockets or from the coffers of our government. Reliance on a dictator that seeks influence in our country is not a good idea.
One Democratic politician has tripped all over himself to seek out bribes for his supporters. Congressman Jose Serrano drank straight from the tap of the Chavez oil machine, without any apologies for the dictator’s inflammatory behavior. On one of Chavez’s trips to the UN Serrano sought out his hero to offer his services as a tour guide to his district in the Bronx. Chavez was delighted for the propaganda coup that it would offer him. When the time came to give the tour Serrano set up display booths for local activist groups to greet the dictator. To pay his debt Chavez had an aide take down as much information as possible about Serrano’s pet projects so that the Venezuelan embassy could make donations to them.
In Defense of A Dictator
A common theme among Democrats when defending their ties to El Presidente is to say that Chavez is democratically elected. Senator Dodd expressed such sentiments in a letter to the Washington Post. He wrote, “There is no question in my mind that many of Mr. Chavez’s actions have been provocative. But the reality is that he was democratically elected - a fact The Post seems to ignore… I believe that the institutions of democracy must be nurtured and encouraged, regardless of who is in office”.
If this kind of twisted logic seems familiar to you, then perhaps you recall those Leftists that triumphantly defended the terrorist group Hamas when they were victorious in last year’s Palestinian elections. We have now had some time to reflect upon their influence on their peoples’ experiment with democracy, but that’s another story.
Being elected, even in the fairest election possible, does not guarantee the winner a blanket of immunity. No sane person ever said that democracy is perfect. It is only as healthy as the people who participate in it. Besides, an attack on a democratically elected politician is not the same as an attack on democracy itself. To suggest otherwise is intellectually misleading.
In the period between the two World Wars, if critics of Adolph Hitler’s democratically elected government felt that they should refrain from criticizing the regime out of respect for democracy - they would have been badly mistaken. The opposite was true, if they really cared about democracy they would have spoken out against the corruption of such a noble institution. I am grateful for the warnings that were issued by brave people like William Shirer, Ernest Hemingway, Tom Hopkinson and Freda Kirchwey. If only more people listened to them before it was too late.
Besides apologizing for the authoritarian abuses by Chavez there is one other trait that self-professed progressives like Mayor Ken Livingstone, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Congressman Jose Serrano, Jesse Jackson, Harry Belafonte and Cindy Sheehan all share in common. They unanimously condemn the struggle to bring democracy to Iraq. If they have misled us about democracy in Venezuela, are they misleading us in Iraq as well? This is a question to ponder on the anniversary of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany and the formal approval of Venezuela’s Second Enabling Act.
So let’s savor some choice quotes that pay homage to this highly regarded democracy in Venezuela…
1. The Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, wrote a heartfelt plea to support Chavez. It was originally published in the Guardian, a British newspaper that many of my readers are familiar with;
“Not a Difficult Choice at All.
Chavez and Venezuela deserve the support of all who believe in social justice and democracy.”
“For many years people have demanded that social progress and democracy go hand in hand, and that is exactly what is now taking place in Venezuela. It therefore deserves the unequivocal support of not only every supporter of social progress, but every genuine believer in democracy in the world.
…Sometimes it is necessary to choose the lesser of two evils. Britain fought with Stalin against Hitler. But with Chavez the choice is not difficult at all. He is both carrying out a progressive programme and doing so through the mandate of the ballot box.
George Bush’s refusal to respect the choices of the Venezuelan people shows that his administration has no real interest in promoting democracy at all.”
2. In an open letter published on August 12, 2004 (several days before Chavez faced a very important recall vote) prominent Americans including Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich and Reverend Jesse Jackson wrote the following…
“Dear President Chavez,
We are writing to express our solidarity during this important moment in Venezuela’s history. It is our hope and expectation that, on August 15, you will once again win an electoral mandate from the Venezuelan people to be their president…
…We are committed to doing what we can, as U.S. citizens, to heal those relationships and encourage Congress and the White House to see Venezuela not only as a model democracy but also as a model of how a country’s oil wealth can be used to benefit all of its people.”
Weeks before this letter was released there was a similar letter produced by a group of 69 intellectuals, artists, politicians and Nobel laureates from around the world. It was entitled, “If We Were Venezuelan, on August 15th, 2004, We Would Vote for Hugo Chavez.” They wrote an inspiring piece and I’d like to share some of its highlights with you;
“…we wish to denounce the disinformation campaign that is being orchestrated by the major media and that attempts to characterize as a tyrant, a President who has consistently respected the rule of law and the country’s Constitution…
…We are certain that, on August 15th, the Venezuelan people will celebrate a new victory that will allow them to continue building a freer and fairer society; the country that Simon Bolivar dreamt of.”
3. In January of 2006 a delegation of Americans including singer Harry Belafonte, actor Danny Glover, Princeton scholar Cornel West and several others visited Venezuela to show their support for Chavez. Harry Belafonte led the way by heaping praises on the dictator and bashing President Bush.
“No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we’re here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution”
So while Belafonte portrayed Bush as a tyrant, he also lashed out against the US media for portraying Chavez as a dictator. Instead he insisted that Venezuela is a democracy and that the Venezuelans are “optimistic about their future”.
4. It seems that Caracas is a prime port of call for many Americans who are seeking out the bold leadership of President Chavez. Activist, Cindy Sheehan, who has been the most vocal critic of the Bush Administration over the last couple of years, embarked on an all expenses paid excursion to the 6th Annual World Social Forum in Caracas, Venezuela. She took the opportunity to promote Chavez’s fear mongering that the US is ready to destroy the Venezuelan democracy and invade the country.
“I have talked to many citizens of Venezuela who are understandably nervous about a US invasion and they know that it is not about the idea that President Chavez is a “dictator”, which he is not, he is a democratically elected leader who is very popular in his country. The people of Venezuela are very savvy and they know that if the US invades their country that it won’t be because we are spreading “freedom and democracy” to them. They know they already have it.”
As these intellectual powerhouses have spent the last couple of years defending the democracy of Presidente Hugo Chavez, Venezuela has been steadily sliding into a dictatorship in the model of Nazi Germany … another democratically elected government that used the rule of law to install a totalitarian dictatorship.
I apologize for using the dreaded Hitler comparison, but it is very appropriate.
First, because Bush is continually compared to the Nazi dictator.
Second, because the parallels between Chavez and Hitler are uncanny.
The Quest for Power
As many have pointed out, Chavez and Hitler both attempted a coup d’etat before using democratic means to seize power. When the supporters of Chavez decry the 2002 coup against the Venezuelan “democracy” I have to laugh. If Chavez didn’t receive a pardon he would have been in jail instead of being sworn in as president on February 2nd, 1999. While Hitler used his time in jail to write Mein Kampf, Chavez used his time behind bars to plot a second failed coup.
Although Hitler ruled by decree through an Enabling Act when he first came to power, Chavez actually has him beat by implementing an Enabling Act twice (I love how Chavez frequently one-ups Hitler). Over a week ago Venezuelan legislators voted unanimously to grant Chavez initial approval to rule by decree for a year and a half. As if marking the 74th anniversary of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany, January 30th 2007, the latest Venezuelan Enabling Act will be formally approved.
Actually a second vote will be held tomorrow, but it is expected to easily pass because the Venezuelan National Assembly is completely controlled by Chavez loyalists. The opposition holds no seats in the Assembly due to a boycott that marred the parliamentary election of 2005. Only Chavez’s party, The Movement for the Fifth Republic (MVR) and its allies are represented. I should point out that this may not last for very long.
To celebrate last month’s reelection victory Chavez announced his intention to unite all political parties allied to the MVR into one consolidated party. This will effectively turn Venezuela into a One Party State. Chavez was really serious about forcing his subordinate parties to consolidate. He addressed the fact that some parties may oppose submitting to his will so he put his foot down saying, “I don’t have time to bury myself in a debate … they are entirely free to pursue their course. Obviously, they will leave the government.”
It doesn’t get any clearer than that. The quote is taken from The Socialist Voice, a Marxist website that is fanatically pro-Chavez. When Chavez proclaims that he will allow no debate on this issue and forbids any political party that is not under his control to share power in Venezuela’s government, they are actually pleased.
Now this behavior by Chavez is nothing new. Upon assuming his office in 1999 he has embarked on a ruthless campaign to remake the Venezuelan government so that it primarily serves his ambitions. He added a dozen loyal justices to the Supreme Court and fired hundreds of lower-court judges so that he could replace them with more of his cronies.
To add insult to injury, he has now added three additional years to his presidency. He rewrote the constitution to add one year per term and he has been elected to two terms for a total of two additional years. After passing the constitution he was “reelected”. Since he was originally elected in December of 1998 and he was “reelected” according to the new constitution in 2000, he was able to squeeze a free year out of the deal. I pointed this out before, but it is worth repeating... Can you imagine if President Bush extended his term of office by three additional years? Furthermore, Chavez has announced that he plans to change the constitution again in order to allow him to run for reelection in 2012.
Freedom of Speech
Some of the most serious criticisms of Chavez don’t relate to the vast amount of power that he is accumulating, but to the disturbing violations of civil rights that he is presiding over. Under Chavez a number of new legislative restrictions on the freedom of speech have been adopted into law.
The first outrage was the Law of Social Responsibility in Radio and Television. Groups that promote Human Rights and the Freedom of Press have harshly criticized this law, especially Human Rights Watch (HRW) and The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ). The measure was justified to protect minors, but was written so broadly that advocates of freedom of speech say that it is really geared towards stifling dissent. One of its articles states that, “Any program or news containing moderate violence - such as the fall of the Twin Towers in New York or a street confrontation between police and political demonstrators - is banned from 5:00am until 11:00pm”.
In the aftermath of massive amounts of public unrest this was a very effective tool for keeping the coverage of opposition rallies off the air. The fact that Venezuelans are not allowed to have access to such information is a blatant act of censorship. It is also incredibly unfair to compare the protests for democracy to the world’s most horrific act of terrorism in our history. Socialists may be the most incompetent economists, but their grasp of propaganda surpasses even the Nazis and as a result perverts the core of their institutions.
In 2005 The Inter-American Press Association (Socidad Interamericana de Prensa) related how badly the situation had become;
“Every day violence against journalists and media outlets that are critical of the government increases, threatening them with the possibility of being taken over or disappearing. The International Association of Broadcasting reported that on September 14 the National Telecommunications Committee (CONATEL) opened administrative proceedings against seven private television stations, including Globovision for alleged failure to use assigned frequencies. On September 20, the same proceeding was brought against 22 private radio stations for alleged infractions or offenses against the Law on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television.
This situation is aggravated by the fact that President Chavez has granted himself all power by putting the National Assembly, the judiciary and the electoral system under his supervision. In this way, he was able to impose laws and regulations that allow him to attack those who dare to dissent.
Given this situation it would be utopian to believe that press freedom exists.”
According to the CPJ the law also stipulates that television and radio stations which broadcast programs that “promote, defend, or incite breaches of public order” may be suspended for up to 72 hours. If a media outlet repeats the infraction within the next five years, its broadcasting concession may be suspended for up to five years. As a result news networks curtailed their coverage of civil unrest in fear of violating this vaguely-worded law.
On the heels of the Law of Social Responsibility there were more media content laws that were passed a month later. Jackson Diehl from the Washington Post outlined some of the more disturbing articles. He stated that it was a new penal code that criminalizes virtually any expression to which the government objects - not only in public but also in private:
Article 147: “Anyone who offends with his words or in writing or in any other way disrespects the President of the Republic or whomever is fulfilling his duties will be punished with prison of 6 to 30 months if the offense is serious and half of that if it is light.” That sanction, the code implies, applies to those who “disrespect” the president or his functionaries in private; “the term will be increased by a third if the offense is made publicly.”
Article 444 says that comments that “expose another person to contempt or public hatred” can bring a prison sentence of one to three years; Article 297a says that someone who “causes public panic or anxiety” with inaccurate reports can receive five years. Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications.
In response to criticism from international human rights groups the Chavez-controlled Supreme Court upheld such legislation by saying that, “The recommendations of international organizations, particularly those of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights … are not binding … Freedom of speech is not an absolute right of human beings”. In reality this is true because hate speech is not always protected, but it is an ominous choice of words. The Chavez regime has repeatedly used such language to trample legitimate speech.
These measures have strengthened the ability of the regime to leverage the country’s legal system in its attempt to silence its opposition. There are currently more than 200 political prisoners in Venezuela. According to The Freedom House, out of all the countries in the Western Hemisphere Venezuela now ranks 34th out of 35 countries in press freedom. Only Cuba, Chavez’s closest ally, is ranked as more repressive. The hostility to free speech stems from the fact that most news agencies are opposed to the regime. Chavez Supporters claim that this is evidence that Venezuela is a healthy democracy. The truth is that these news agencies are the legacy of Latin America’s most long-lived democracy, which has been led by civilians without interruption since 1958 (a rarity in Latin America).
Radio Caracas Television (RCT) was formed in 1953 as the nation’s third television network. Since the station gave positive coverage to a strike against Chavez in 2003, the President has declared that he will shut them down when their license is up for renewal. Chavez contemptuously stated, “It runs out in March. So it’s better that you go and prepare your suitcase and look around for what you’re going to do in March.” Since Chavez has inherited a democratic press he has done everything he can to silence it. In addition to the legislation mentioned above, his supporters have used the Chavez-controlled judiciary to persecute journalists that are only doing their job. Journalists that criticize the regime have also been killed, abused and had their property attacked.
Below is an incomplete list of Journalists that have faced legal action in response to their criticism of the regime and its allies. Each name contains a link to an article that describes the repression that they are facing. Since the attacks on journalists have been so extensive, I do not have the space to address each one of them. Please visit the linked sites for more information. I regret not including a list of those that have been killed or assaulted, but I had to limit myself because I feared that I would never be able to finish this post otherwise. However, the links below do include quite a bit of information on the violence that these reporters have also had to face.
Julio Balza
Napoleon Bravo
Leopoldo Castillo
Marta Colomina
Ben Ami Fihman
Carlos Gibson
Ivan Martinez
Faitha Marina Nahmens
Marianella Salazar
Pablo Aure Sanchez
Jose Angel Ocanto
Ibeyse Pacheco
Patricia Poleo
Alberto Federico Ravell
Pablo Lopez Ulacio
Mireya Zurita
Big Brother
George Orwell’s novel 1984 is famous for the slogan, “Big Brother is Watching You”. In Venezuela the Tascon and Maisantas Lists have made it a reality. The Tascon List was originally compiled by a pro-Chavez politician, Luis Tascon. On his website he published a full database of all those Venezuelans who signed the recall petition against Chavez in 2004. A threat was issued by President Chavez claiming that, “Whoever signs against Chavez, will have their names recorded for history”. Public dissemination of this blacklist resulted in widespread discrimination against those listed. Some lost their government jobs, or were denied government services and/or were denied access to employment. It took a year, but widespread criticism led to the removal of the list from Tascon’s website and a full repudiation of it.
However, since that time the Tascon List has been expanded into the Maisantas List. Maria Uzcategui, Director of International Affairs for Ciudadania Activa, relates that the new list contains records of the country’s 12 million voters. It is used at street corner checkpoints to screen those wishing to enter public buildings. Those classified on the list as a “radical” face retaliation like the loss of their jobs, denial of credit, access to education, passports, fair trials and health care. The list can be purchased from street vendors in Caracas for ten dollars.
Influence for Oil
Here in the United States politicians from the Democratic Party have benefited from sweetheart oil deals given to their constituents by the dictator. In return Chavez has found words of praise from prominent Massachusetts Democrats like Senator Chris Dodd, Congressman Bill Delahunt and former Congressman Joe Kennedy II. While they have mildly denounced a few of Chavez’s more outrageous publicity stunts, all of those involved in the dictator’s “oil for influence scheme” have defended him in one way or another.
Chavez has been throwing around his country’s oil wealth to purchase influence all over the globe. He has destroyed his country’s democracy and seeks to undermine our own as well. Subsidizing oil deliveries to the poor is a noble pursuit, but it comes at too high of a cost. If our leaders are serious about subsidizing oil for the poor they should do so out of their own pockets or from the coffers of our government. Reliance on a dictator that seeks influence in our country is not a good idea.
One Democratic politician has tripped all over himself to seek out bribes for his supporters. Congressman Jose Serrano drank straight from the tap of the Chavez oil machine, without any apologies for the dictator’s inflammatory behavior. On one of Chavez’s trips to the UN Serrano sought out his hero to offer his services as a tour guide to his district in the Bronx. Chavez was delighted for the propaganda coup that it would offer him. When the time came to give the tour Serrano set up display booths for local activist groups to greet the dictator. To pay his debt Chavez had an aide take down as much information as possible about Serrano’s pet projects so that the Venezuelan embassy could make donations to them.
In Defense of A Dictator
A common theme among Democrats when defending their ties to El Presidente is to say that Chavez is democratically elected. Senator Dodd expressed such sentiments in a letter to the Washington Post. He wrote, “There is no question in my mind that many of Mr. Chavez’s actions have been provocative. But the reality is that he was democratically elected - a fact The Post seems to ignore… I believe that the institutions of democracy must be nurtured and encouraged, regardless of who is in office”.
If this kind of twisted logic seems familiar to you, then perhaps you recall those Leftists that triumphantly defended the terrorist group Hamas when they were victorious in last year’s Palestinian elections. We have now had some time to reflect upon their influence on their peoples’ experiment with democracy, but that’s another story.
Being elected, even in the fairest election possible, does not guarantee the winner a blanket of immunity. No sane person ever said that democracy is perfect. It is only as healthy as the people who participate in it. Besides, an attack on a democratically elected politician is not the same as an attack on democracy itself. To suggest otherwise is intellectually misleading.
In the period between the two World Wars, if critics of Adolph Hitler’s democratically elected government felt that they should refrain from criticizing the regime out of respect for democracy - they would have been badly mistaken. The opposite was true, if they really cared about democracy they would have spoken out against the corruption of such a noble institution. I am grateful for the warnings that were issued by brave people like William Shirer, Ernest Hemingway, Tom Hopkinson and Freda Kirchwey. If only more people listened to them before it was too late.
Besides apologizing for the authoritarian abuses by Chavez there is one other trait that self-professed progressives like Mayor Ken Livingstone, Congressman Dennis Kucinich, Congressman Jose Serrano, Jesse Jackson, Harry Belafonte and Cindy Sheehan all share in common. They unanimously condemn the struggle to bring democracy to Iraq. If they have misled us about democracy in Venezuela, are they misleading us in Iraq as well? This is a question to ponder on the anniversary of Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany and the formal approval of Venezuela’s Second Enabling Act.
38 comments:
Blogging is not glamorous. It is now 2am and I have to wake up in a couple of hours for work.
Later in the next couple of days I will add pictures to this post. I just had to get out what I had in time for the big Anniversary Party!
Also, I have not addressed issues like Nationalization, police violence, civilian militias loyal to Chavez not Venezuela, cult of personality (that is central to the political philosophy of any dictatorship), anti-US rhetoric that needlessly exacerbates his country’s relationship with our country and is geared to deflect attention from the internal problems that he has created.
There just isnt enough time in the world to devout to addresses the insanity that is Chavez...
You are far too kind in attributing "ignorance" to Chavez's American supporters/ enablers.
I lived in Caracas in the late 60's and spent many a happy childhood afternoon roaming the city and surrounding mountains.
But a fear and distrust of America was always an underlying current in Venezuelan society. Even then, Venezuelan youth idealized personages like Cuban's Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro... Cuban Jose Marti was a beloved and respected poet... there was a "Carribean" influence, even in the music that made the country "special".
During Carnaval, my brother and I used to get into water-baloon fights with all the neighborhood kids. It was usually a 50 vs 2 affair... everyone against the gringos. But even today, I still reserve a warm-place in my heart for the Caraquenos and Venezuelan culture.
It's just so hard to believe that whatever it was that I loved, is now gone.
My first memory of Puerto Rico was of some grafitti just outside the airport boldly stating, "Yankee Go Home".
As a Puerto Rican it disturbed me because I didnt speak Spanish, but still felt that I had a right to freely visit the land of my heritage. Instead I felt a bit unwelcome.
Quite often when Leftists talk about us Yankees being divisive and overly aggressive it is nothing more than the pot calling the kettle black.
They have severely disenfranchised me from their politics.
Hey Freedomnow,
Thanks for stopping by and commenting on my site. But I want to be sure I understood what you meant exactly.
You said, "Those are 4,000 very naive people.
Thank God there are 299,996,000 Americans that didnt sign that piece of trash... "
Those '4,000' [now over 7,000] were the ones protesting the renaming of a NYC street after cop-killer Mumia, not the other way around.
Thanks, UI
Hey UI, thanks for dropping me a line.
Damn they are really groovin' now.
I guess we can bump it up to 7,000 idiots and 299,993,000 victims of sanity.
At this rate Mumia will soon be President for Life.
FN,
Outstanding post! So much to digest! Burning the midnight oil was worth it. I say that because I'm not the one with eyes propped open by toothpicks. LOL.
I'll have to come by in dribs and drabs so as to drink in everything.
From that Sheehan link:
We need a new world. This one is broken.
Isn't this always the mantra of utopianists? And what has become of every attempted utopia? Dysfunction at the least and disaster at worst.
Farmer makes a good point about Venezuela and, indeed, about much of Latin America:
a fear and distrust of America was always an underlying current in Venezuelan society. Even then, Venezuelan youth idealized personages like Cuban's Che Guevarra and Fidel Castro
Chavez will lead Venezuela into an even worse state than it now is. So sad for the average person there, just trying to lead his own life.
I forgot to say....You closed with a very powerful paragraph.
Hi Freedomnow,
Maybe there is a misunderstanding here.
The 7,000+ are not the 'idiots'.
If you go to the petition, they are law-abiding citizens and police officers and their families who are trying to STOP the Mumia freaks.
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/say-no-to-naming-a-harlem-street-after-cop-killer.html
Oh my, I really messed this one up. I thought they were the people who signed the petition asking for the name change to Mumia Freak Street.
What does that make me?
Dont worry there is still hope...
There are 299,999,999 Americans that could be much smarter than me!!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks
Its okay!
I get blog-eyed myself sometimes too.
Generalissimo Hugo Chavez ushers in a new socialist era.
Herbert Marcuse is smiling down from heaven. "Eros and Civilization", Political Preface 1966:
The historical chance of the backward countries is in the absence of conditions which make for repressive exploitative technology and industrialization for aggressive productivity. The very fact that the affluent warfare state unleashes its annihilating power on the backward countries illuminates the magnitude of the threat. In the revolt of the backward peoples, the rich societies meet, in an elemental and brutal form, not only a social revolt in the traditional sense, but also an instinctual revolt — biological hatred. The spread of guerilla warfare at the height of the technological century is a symbolic event: the energy of the human body rebels against intolerable repression and throws itself against the engines of repression. Perhaps the rebels know nothing about the ways of organizing a society, of constructing a socialist society; perhaps they are terrorized by their own leaders who know something about it, but the rebels’ frightful existence is in total need of liberation, and their freedom is the contradiction to the overdeveloped societies.
Western civilization has always glorified the hero, the sacrifice of life for the city, the state, the nation; it has rarely asked the question of whether the established city, state, nation were worth the sacrifice. The taboo on the unquestionable prerogative of the whole has always been maintained and enforced, and it has been maintained and enforced the more brutally the more the whole was supposed to consist of free individuals. The question is now being asked — asked from without — and it is taken up by those who refuse to play the game of the affluents — the question of whether the abolition of this whole is not the precondition for the emergence of a truly human city, state, nation.
hiya Freedom Now..what a thorough analysis!!...how anyone can trust or cozy up to dictators is mind boggling no doubt..follow the money?
AOW,
I saw the MEMRI video on your blog and its the same thing. Leftwing activists promote Islam and deride Christians, but smuggled videos of what goes on in a lot of "mainstream" mosques reveals the folly of their smear campaign.
WHT,
"The enemy of my enemy is my friend". Its as if these Western activists were enemies of themselves!!!!!!!!!!
I will add ya to my blogroll right away!
Yes comrade, only through the dictatorship of the proletariat will we be able to break the power of the bourgeoisie. Remember that the dictatorship is only temporary until we achieve liberation.
However, the Socialist Republic can only be defended by permanent revolution, but I’m sure that Chavez will be able to step down peacefully when we have achieved our unachievable goals.
This is the high quality post we expect at this site.
The only struggle Ducky has ever been involved with was the great Baklava strike at MIT in 2005
By Lenin's beard were you there at the Baklava strike, comrade Beak?
Our great leader is still on a hunger strike to protest...
http://www.mosnews.com
you do realize you are the ONLY person i put up with censoring me? well, without putting up a fuss?
BAKLAVA STRIKE?!?
say it ain't so!
How did I censor you?
Viva la Revulsion de Chavez!
LOL Farmer! Revulsion de Chavez....I love it! Anyways--great in depth post Freedom Now. I dispise this "chango". He's the empitemy of a dictator who will eventually spill blood as soon as all the power is his--and that's happening very quickly. Freedom loving Venezuelans are leaving in droves to Chile, Spain and Colombia in a huge exodus to free themselves from this mad man. My only question is when do we stop buying oil from this bastard?
...eventually spill blood?
Ahhh... now I regret not covering the regime violence against the opposition.
You couldnt fill an entire encyclopedia set with all the outrages done by this dictator.
very funny.
terror free oil:
http://www.terrorfreeoil.org/
http://www.psfk.com/2007/01/terror_free_oil.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245900,00.html
blog librarian at your service, you little whippersnapper.
I was in Venezuela a couple of years ago, some 10 years after visiting such country for the first time. I have to say, the difference I found is immense. More poverty than ever, as well as clashes between social classes, are things that happen everyday.
To all those people who defend Chavez's democracy, I'd like to ask them what do you understand by "democracy"... because in my mind, democracy and authoritarian dictatorship don't get along very well.
Sorry I got to this party so late. I often check by to see if you have a new post up.
This one is by far one of your best yet.
It makes me wonder what our Cindys and Danny Glovers would do if George Bush did exactly the same things that Chavez has done to retain power?
Let's extend Bush's presidency by three years.
Next pass an American version of the "Enabling Act".
So much for the Constitution...
Throw away the First Amendment as Venezuela is doing and then go round up these morons i.e. Cindy, Danny, Rev. Jackson, and throw away the key.
What seems so obvious is so oblivious to this crowd.
We can hope they move to this "Democratic" Paradise.
Please wear your hard hats, Nanc is busy working!!!! Its an injury-free workplace thanks to her new safety program.
Hi Eddie, its been awhile since I've seen you come around. I hope you had a great New Year.
AC, Cindy, Danny, Rev. Jackson would be tied down in court if Bush was anything like Chavez.
After Bush extends his term by 3 years he could change the Constitution again and run for another term in 2011. (Theres one standard for them and one standard for us.) LOL
it is a sad day in blogdom - when beamish was switching to beta, his original crankfiles - every single post - all comments - EVERYTHING - disappeared - he's now back at square one. he's pretty distraught, not that being distraught is pretty - you know what i mean...
What superlatives can I adduce that others have not already adduced? You should be paid for this! Excellent investigative work.
Thanks RS, Your comment squares away my account and I am now paid in full.
Cheers
Chavez doesn't care about "power to the people" only "power to Chavez". He's been concentrating his power in both the judicial and legislative branches and the leading business daily of Argentina, Ambito Financiero, described Venezuela under Chavez in 2007 as having a "nationalized economy, out-of-control spending, government by decree, and perpetual re-election."
The paper also compared Chavez to King Louis XIV of France, stating his 2007 inauguration would mark "a concentration of power without precedent in Venezuela"
On the birth of dictatorships out of democracies...(it was too long to post here)
If this kind of twisted logic seems familiar to you, then perhaps you recall those Leftists that triumphantly defended the terrorist group Hamas when they were victorious in last year’s Palestinian elections. ..and NOW look what that has wrought!
"Ahhh... but we must not attack Hamas because that would be an attack against democracy."
So says the wise sages of the Left. What other nuggets of truth would they also defend?...
"We must not fight back against terrorism because it will collectively victimize all Muslims."
Sorry for paraphrasing. This is the sum result of leftwing propaganda. A legacy of which will find its reputation even more soiled than Chamberlain's, because he at least never intentionally undermined his country's foreign policy or interests. Although he did betray his allies in Czechoslvakia amost as badly as the American Left wants to betray our Iraqi allies.
I dont know what happened to the picture. I had to re-upload it...
It's not all perfume and roses for Chavez...
And after Chavez fired thousands of oil workers for political reasons, for a short time Venezuela actually had to buy oil from abroad because the dictator damaged his own petroleum industry so badly.
They are still trying to recover.
Inflation in Venezuela is an incredible story for the country because of their vast oil wealth and the recent high prices for petroleum. If Chavez never received a pardon and stayed in jail instead of seizing so much power for all these years, Venezuela would have the best economy in all of Latin America. They could have even eclipsed the standard of living of many European nations.
Post a Comment