Thread: Chavez moves on

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Originally Posted by DrB0b

The opposition media hasn't been shut down. Most of the media is opposed to Chavez and most of that media is still a going concern.

What media?

FFS have can you have a strong opinion on an issue and know sod all about it? There's a bunch of links on this thread, follow them - they give lots of information both pro and anti Chavez. Look here too, it's unbiased and lists many media outlets, if you check up on them you'll find that they're mostly anti-Chavez;

Venezuela Press, Media, TV, Radio, Newspapers

"According to the World Bank's 1994 data, newspaper circulation in Venezuela totals 215 papers per 1,000 people, which ranks the nation 29th among the 106 for which the data are available. This figure places Venezuela just behind the United States (228/ 1,000) and just ahead of Canada (189/1,000) in newspaper circulation. The same data indicated that the nation owns 180 televisions per 1,000 population, a figure which places Venezuela at number 69 among the 127 countries available" (from link above)

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Originally Posted by DrB0b

When they start dropping people out of helicopters or dragging them off to secretive island prisons where nobody can see what's going on, that's the time to start to start talking about oppressive techniques.

Oh, that's when you do it - when it's too late to prevent it.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Chavez may well turn out to be yet another dicator

You think so?

I don't know, do you? Can you tell us how you're so sure, you didn't even know there was a still an opposition media in Venezuela so how can you tell for sure that Chavez is heading down the Mugabe path? I think it's likely but not certain and I'd rather concentrate on the real problems in Venezuela than on some sideshow fanned out of all proportion by people who just want to topple Chavez and don't give a shit about Venezuela itself. I don't care much for Chavez, nobody on this thread has claimed they do, but I find the hysteria about him both confusing and amusing. Why don't we hear this kind of verbiage about the regimes in China and Burma from the same outlets crticising Chavez?

Preventing it before it happens is called pre-empting, governments have an appalling history of screwing up on pre-emptive attacks - it's currently US policy (you know, the government with the secretive island prison for political prisoners and the same government that supported South American regimes that dropped opponents out of helicopters) and doesn't seem to be going too well. But in the end it's up to you, if you feel so strongly about it there are anti-Chavez guerillas in Venezuela, well-funded and with nice new American uniforms and guns, I'm sure they'd welcome you with open arms.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Is that what you mean when you refer to "freedom, democracy, or justice"?

How are illegal mass-demonstrations in your country dealt with by authorities?

In Canada, they happen routinely; it's called: "freedom of association."

So in Canada illegal demonstrations are legal? Isn't that a bit of a tautology?

protest against police brutality

Thursday, March 16th, 2006
McGill Daily

Last night, for the tenth year in a row, Montreal was the scene of a heated anti-police-brutality demonstration. Established in 1997 as an initiative of Switzerland’s Black Flag organization and the Montreal-based Collective Opposé à la Brutalité Policière, the demonstration is meant to highlight the excessive use of power regularly attributed to the Montreal Police Department. Due to the ironic regularity of arrests and police violence that occur at the protest, it has become an anticipated and somewhat notorious event.

A raucous crowd of approximately 500 people gathered at Berri Square at 5 p.m. Many were street youth, the demographic most regularly subjected to police brutality. As the group set out on their meandering march, squeegees became implements of destruction against provincial election signs, while garbage cans and other debris were strewn across the streets.

The situation turned serious when the demonstrators marched up St. Laurent, north of Sherbrooke. The windows of resto-bar Club Med were splintered by projectiles and an officer was struck in the face with a bottle. While missiles continued to fly, police doused the crowd with pepper spray and several divisions of riot police charged the crowd.

Demonstrators fled down Sherbrooke and a lengthy pursuit ensued. After evading an attempted mass arrest, the remnants of the crowd eventually regrouped outside of the Berri-UQÀM metro station. Police kept their distance, but eventually moved in after a large fire was set in the street.

Approximately 25 riot police pursued fleeing demonstrators into the metro station. Hitting their shields in unison, officers cleared the main court as shocked commuters looked on. Police pursued demonstrators onto a platform. Many protesters found themselves sandwiched between the police line and the metro track.

Outside the station, riot police encircled the remaining demonstrators, pushing them up against the walls of the metro station. Those within the police cordon were not allowed to leave, and all were arrested. Those arrested included a passer-by not involved in the protest, two journalists – including Daily photographer Charles Mostoller – and many street youth.

As the arrested demonstrators were carted away in buses, a police Media Relations officer detailed the stats of the evening. In the end approximately 30 people were taken into custody. Four were charged with vandalizing vehicles, while the rest were issued municipal fines for attending an illegal demonstration.

"...squeegees became implements of destruction against provincial election signs, while garbage cans and other debris were strewn across the streets.

The situation turned serious when the demonstrators marched up St. Laurent, north of Sherbrooke. The windows of resto-bar Club Med were splintered by projectiles and an officer was struck in the face with a bottle. While missiles continued to fly, police doused the crowd with pepper spray and several divisions of riot police charged the crowd.

Demonstrators fled down Sherbrooke and a lengthy pursuit ensued. After evading an attempted mass arrest, the remnants of the crowd eventually regrouped outside of the Berri-UQÀM metro station. Police kept their distance, but eventually moved in after a large fire was set in the street."

In Canada the government does not close down media sites it disagrees with. Of course if a demonstration becomes violent, they have to do something. Were the Venezuelan protesters destroying property and setting fires?

Rosales—the governor of western Zulia state who was defeated by Chavez in December elections—said protesters are demanding not only free speech but also the right to protest "peacefully and democratically."

He noted that a home video broadcast on the Globovision network showed unidentified men in the doorway of a government office, apparently Chavez allies, firing guns at unseen targets. "For that there is no justice?" he asked.

As he spoke, about 8,000 student protesters chanting "freedom!" marched through Caracas. Although the march was generally peaceful, there were several scuffles between students and Chavez supporters.

The Carter Center, which has observed past elections here, said it is concerned that "non-renewal of broadcast concessions for political reasons will have a chilling effect on free speech."

"A plurality of opinions should be protected," it said. "The right of dissent must be fiercely defended by every democratic government."

Originally Posted by DrB0b

you didn't even know there was a still an opposition media in Venezuela

Venezuela - After closing RCTV, Chavez goes on offensive against sole remaining opposition TV station

MONTREAL, May 31 /CNW Telbec/ - Reporters Without Borders today accused President Hugo Chavez of aiming to eliminate all the opposition press after he publicly threatened independent TV station Globovisisn and CNN, claiming they were instigating a "vast destabilisation plan," just two days after the closure of Radio Caracas Televisisn (RCTV).

"By calling Globovisisn's staff "enemies of the motherland" and by clearly threatening participants in its broadcasts "if they don't calm down," President Chavez is displaying paranoia and intolerance," the press freedom organisation said.

"Motherland"? Who does that remind you of?

Venezuela

An opposition gagged

May 31st 2007 | CARACAS
From The Economist print edition
With the closure of RCTV and threats against another television station, Hugo Chávez has left few channels for discontent

Reuters
THEY prayed out loud, they wept and hugged each other. They sang the national anthem and chanted “Freedom!” But there was no stay of execution. Just before midnight on May 27th, Venezuela's Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV) went off the air after 53 years. A few minutes later, its Channel 2 slot carried the logo of TVes, a new government-run channel with a worthily anodyne schedule of cooking and cultural programmes, interspersed with cartoons and propaganda for the man who shut down RCTV, Venezuela's leftist president, Hugo Chávez.
He announced in December that there would be no more broadcasting for the “fascists” and “coup-plotters” of RCTV. His supporters argue that the channel's licence expired and was simply not renewed. RCTV's owners and staff, along with many independent human-rights organisations, see its closure as revenge for its editorial line. Troops seized its transmitters in fulfilment of a supreme-court order whose legal basis was unclear.

The country's most traditional and popular television station, RCTV attracted around a third of viewers. Gone are Venezuelans' favourite soap operas, the world's longest-running comedy show, and a breakfast talk-show that has earned its outspoken host, Miguel Ángel Rodríguez, a stream of insults and threats from government supporters.

According to opinion polls, an overwhelming majority of Venezuelans oppose what they see as interference with their choice of viewing. In protest, many took to the streets and to such airwaves as are still open to dissenting voices. Students faced tear gas and plastic bullets from riot police for three consecutive days. They were joined by journalists and, in an unusual show of solidarity, by soap-opera stars and news anchors from Venevisión, a rival private channel. Its owner, Gustavo Cisneros, caved in to government pressure in 2004 and removed critical commentary and news items from its broadcasts.

Mr Chávez, who was first elected in 1998, won another six-year term last December. Since then, he has taken a sharp turn to the left, in pursuit of “21st-century socialism”. But many of his own supporters disagree with the closure of RCTV. Ismael García, the leader of Podemos, the second-largest party that supports the president, told the National Assembly this week that, “pluralism should not just be a slogan.” Podemos boycotted a recent assembly session celebrating the decision, and party sources say its deputies are unanimously opposed to it.

Venezuela | An opposition gagged | Economist.com

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I don't know, do you? Can you tell us how you're so sure, you didn't even know there was a still an opposition media in Venezuela

You mean this "opposition media?"

When Mr Chávez came to power in 1999, the government owned a poorly funded television station called Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), a news agency and a national radio network. That began to change after the events of 2002 showed it to be disadvantaged in media power. Today it controls six television channels (two of which are national) and eight radio stations. It also pays for, and thus controls, almost 200 community radio and television stations, along with countless publications and over 100 websites.

The only remaining opposition television channel is Globovisión, which is largely confined to cable. Two days after pulling the plug on RCTV, Mr Chávez made a barely-veiled threat to close down Globovisión for “clearly and openly inciting” his assassination. “I recommend they ponder very carefully how far they want to go,” the president said. He also threatened the use of force against demonstrators whom he said were being “manipulated” and “used as cannon-fodder”.
Venezuela | An opposition gagged | Economist.com

Ecuador, Bolivia Following Chavez' Example

"Correa seems to be closely following the lead of Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, who has stepped up his own efforts to confront the far more combative media that he has to face. Furthermore, the atmosphere of partisanship that is beginning to take shape in Ecuador resembles the milieu of political discord in which Chavez and the various avatars of his opposition nervously co-exist."
Scoop: Tread Carefully Ecuador’s Rafael Correa
Bolivia, Ecuador restrict press freedom

Finally, I'm perplexed at the deafening silence surrounding this little item, which is by far the most unsettling aspect of Chavez' rule:

Chavez Seeks `Indefinite' Term as Venezuelan Leader

By Peter Wilson and Alex Kennedy

Sept. 1 (Bloomberg) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who is running for re-election in December, said he would call a referendum in 2010 to change the constitution, allowing him to hold office without any term limit.

``If the majority of the people say yes, we'll have to change the constitution so that re-election in Venezuela will be indefinite,'' Chavez, 52, said in a televised speech in Caracas before tens of thousands of red-shirted supporters. ``The people will decide.'' Chavez would have to step down in 2013 under the current constitution if he wins in December.
Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

I presume Chavez' apologists welcome "indefinite" rule?

13th, 14th, 15th Amendments to the US Constitution (abolition of slavery, guarantee of due process and equal protection, voting rights). 22nd Ammendment (limiting an individual as President to two terms). Referendums/mob rule should not be allowed to dismantle a constitution. Present citizens do not have the right to give away the rights of future generations in this manner.

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by attaboy

22nd Ammendment (limiting an individual as President to two terms).

Ah, so one generation of Americans has taken away the right to reelect a president they want from future generations!
Is a reversal of this limitation of the populace's freedom of choice never discussed in the US?

It's called "kratophobia" fear of power (unlike in England of course, where a PM can be re-elected indefinately but still has a 4-year term limit, if I'm not mistaken, unless the government falls to a non-confidence motion).

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I don't know, do you? Can you tell us how you're so sure, you didn't even know there was a still an opposition media in Venezuela

You mean this "opposition media?"

When Mr Chávez came to power in 1999, the government owned a poorly funded television station called Venezolana de Televisión (VTV), a news agency and a national radio network. That began to change after the events of 2002 showed it to be disadvantaged in media power. Today it controls six television channels (two of which are national) and eight radio stations. It also pays for, and thus controls, almost 200 community radio and television stations, along with countless publications and over 100 websites.

The only remaining opposition television channel is Globovisión, which is largely confined to cable. Two days after pulling the plug on RCTV, Mr Chávez made a barely-veiled threat to close down Globovisión for “clearly and openly inciting” his assassination. “I recommend they ponder very carefully how far they want to go,” the president said. He also threatened the use of force against demonstrators whom he said were being “manipulated” and “used as cannon-fodder”.
Venezuela | An opposition gagged | Economist.com

Globovision is a TV channel, it's not all the media. How does VTV's media ownership compare to privately held media?

What about Chavez' government controlling "six television channels (two of which are national) and eight radio stations. It also pays for, and thus controls, almost 200 community radio and television stations, along with countless publications and over 100 websites." Please answer a simple, direct question. Are you saying this information is false? Yes or no?

Further, you have no qualms or reservations about a government having that much control over the media?

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Finally, I'm perplexed at the deafening silence surrounding this little item, which is by far the most unsettling aspect of Chavez' rule:

"Deafening silence"??? Hardly, that's been discussed in here before. You're being a wee bit dishonest.

Not dishonest: consistent. At least you've answered. Dr. Bob? Any comments on Chavez' obvious autocratic power-grab? That sits comfortably with you it seems; you have no answer to my repeated enquiries as to how you stand on this issue.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

I presume Chavez' apologists welcome "indefinite" rule?

Originally Posted by stroller

No, but Chavez' supporters may think holding a referendum is a reasonable thing to do. What is your objection to such referendum?

You would trust a government as powerful as Chavez', that will ultimately have complete control of the media, in a country reknowned for its corruption, you would trust Chavez with the results of such a "referendum?"

Originally Posted by stroller

Besides, you are misrepresenting facts. This is not about Chavez ruling "indefinitely", but about removing the possibility of reelection.

The hyperbole you post clearly shows your bias.

Eh? What are you talking about?

"Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who is running for re-election in December, said he would call a referendum in 2010 to change the constitution, allowing him to hold office without any term limit."

It's about Chavez orchestrating a 'referendum" allowing him to hold office without any term limit. In other words, what difference does re-election make if you can rule without term limit? Your sugar-coating Chavez' obvious lust for complete power shows your bias (in a rather obvious and pathetic light, I might add). In any case, try and keep up

Originally Posted by stroller

I also note that you have not withdrawn your statement about illegal mass demonstrations being standard in Canada.

(sigh) If people protest peacefully, not destroy property, not set fires, etc., they can protest wherever and whenever they like. The protest like the one against Chavez would not have led to mass arrests of students in Canada; are you saying it would have? In any case, a protest like this would never happen because the Canadian government is not in the habit of closing down television stations while taking over virtually every other form of domestic news media and simaltaneously altering the Charter of Rights so that the PM can have a limitless term in office. Your attempt at equating apples and oranges with Canada and Venezuela continues to go nowhere

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by stroller

I like his politics!

Now, before you jump on this and expose my unconditional endorsement of a brutal dictator (), let me specify that I do not like all his antics.
As I already said before, the human rights violations and his powergrabbing hybris are negative aspects and may well lead to him going off on the wrong track and losing my and other observers' support.

Don't worry, Strol, I am sure with his hubristic nature he won't be too concerned about your endorsment or not.

Ahhh Shit, That is not a word either

Originally Posted by stroller

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Any comments on Chavez' obvious autocratic power-grab? That sits comfortably with you it seems; you have no answer to my repeated enquiries as to how you stand on this issue.

Now you are making up stuff, I answered this already months ago, and you have not asked me since.
You're dishonest.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Not dishonest: consistent. At least you've answered. Dr. Bob? Any comments on Chavez' obvious autocratic power-grab? That sits comfortably with you it seems; you have no answer to my repeated enquiries as to how you stand on this issue.

I was asking Dr. Bob, not you. Can you read? Apparently not.

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

It's about Chavez orchestrating a 'referendum" allowing him to hold office without any term limit. In other words, what difference does re-election make if you can rule without term limit?

Originally Posted by stroller

Ok, looks like I misunderstood that one.
This is worrysome indeed.

Answer the question: what difference does it make?

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

(sigh) If people protest peacefully, not destroy property, not set fires, etc., they can protest wherever and whenever they like.... The protest like the one against Chavez would not have led to mass arrests of students in Canada; are you saying it would have?

Originally Posted by stroller

No, I was asking for a background for the legal situation and practises in Canada. Are protest common place, as you earlier asserted?Apparently not.

In Canada, we don't arrest citizens for protesting peacefully, a practice of Chavez, your hero, that you applaud. Try and answer a question directly, rather then ask another one and then answer it yourself.

Originally Posted by stroller

Yes, I am biased, I like his politics! It's a different kind of dictator coming to power in South-America, and I rather enjoy the writhing and screaming of those who wouldn't raise an eyelid if it was just another pro-US, rightwing military regime establishing itself.

If anyone's writhing, it's you. And your answers are evasive and rather cynical, imho.

1) You applaud attempts at total government control of the media
2) You applaud the imprisionment of peaceful protestors
3) You applaud the establishment of a new dictatorship

You see, where you and I differ is I dislike any sort of dictatorship, left or right wing, and I'm also not a fan of US foreign policy in the region, but that doesn't mean I have to become a Chavez supporter.