Venezuela's communist tyrant stifles freedom of the press.

[Comrade]

I wonder how Chavez's latest actions against the people's freedom of speech not only in public but in private will affect the love affair America's left has with him. Not much, I suppose.

But things are looking grim for any possibility of peacefull coexistance with the new Castro of South America.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5755-2005Mar27.html

Venezuela's minister of communication and information, Andres Izarra, recently accused The Post and several other American media of being part of a campaign to defame Venezuela directed by the Bush administration and funded by the State Department. Apparently I drew Izarra's attention by writing several columns and editorials lamenting President Hugo Chavez's assault on press freedom and the independent judiciary and his support for anti-democratic movements elsewhere in Latin America.

One of the journalists libeled by Izarra pointed out that he had no evidence to back up his accusations. According to the newspaper El Universal, that inspired the following outburst, in Spanish, from the cabinet minister: "Mister gringo, be sure that we are going to come back to defeat you . . . because we work with the truth, we have spirit and above all something very special, a leader who unites and inspires us, the commandante Chavez!"

It's easy to laugh at such buffoonery if, like me, you have the privilege of working for an independent newspaper in a capital where demagogues such as Izarra aren't taken seriously. In Caracas, however, the minister's rantings -- and those of his master, Chavez -- are no longer funny. Beginning this month journalists or other independent activists accused by the government of the sort of offenses alleged by Izarra can be jailed without due process and sentenced to up to 30 years.

To be sure, much of the Venezuelan media has aggressively opposed Chavez's populist "Bolivarian revolution," though not without reason: The former coup-plotting colonel is well on his way to destroying what was once the most stable and prosperous democracy in Latin America. Some newspapers and television stations openly sided with attempts to oust the president via coup, strike or a national referendum. Having survived all three, a strengthened Chavez is moving to eliminate critical journalists and create in Venezuela the kind of state-controlled media environment in which a minister of information such as Izarra is all-powerful.

The first step was a new media content law, adopted by the Chavez-controlled legislature last December, that subjects broadcast media to heavy fines or the loss of their licenses for disseminating information deemed "contrary to national security." Its impact was soon felt: Two of the most prominent anti-government journalists lost their jobs as anchors on morning television shows, and Venezuelans quickly noticed the appearance of self-censorship among those who remained.

Ten days ago Chavez handed Izarra a still-bigger stick: a new penal code that criminalizes virtually any expression to which the government objects -- not only in public but also in private.

Start with 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." (Well there goes any semblance of Western style Democracy) 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."

There's more: Article 444 says that comments that "expose another person to contempt or public hatred" (Gotta start locking up those bickering neighbors and fighting spouses) 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. (Dan Rather got off easy)
Prosecutors are authorized to track down allegedly criminal inaccuracies not only in newspapers and electronic media, but also in e-mail and telephone communications. (Now they have to arrest almost every host of a political webpage or blog!)

The new code reserves the toughest sanctions for journalists or others who receive foreign funding, such as the election monitoring group Sumate, which has been funded in part by the National Endowment for Democracy. Venezuelans or foreigners living in the country can be punished with a 10- to 15-year sentence for receiving foreign support that "can prejudice the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela . . . or destabilize the social order," whatever that means. Persons accused of conspiring against the government with a foreign country can get 20 to 30 years in prison. The new code specifies that anyone charged with these crimes will not be entitled to legal due process. In other words, should Izarra determine that my Caracas-based colleagues continue to collude with the State Department against Venezuela, they could be summarily jailed.

Chavez and his propaganda apparatus don't feel compelled to live by their own rules. The president has directed crude epithets at President Bush and even more vulgar sexual innuendo at Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. His government has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to fund Americans in the United States who write articles and letters glorifying Chavez and attacking the Bush administration. Izarra himself could be charged under his own slander law for his false claims about American journalists. Lucky for him his adversaries here are a democratic government, and a columnist who merely thinks he's ridiculous.

All except the American left who considers Chavez's actions 'the will of the people'.

 

[theim]

As seen in several stories (ie. Elian Gonzales), liberals do not mind the lack of freedom in Communist dictatorships, but care more abou the socialist aspect of them. My high school teacher never once criticised Castro, but constantly stressed how great education and health care in Cuba were. Many liberals think it is a better place to live than America, and are positively baffled as to why they do not see boatloads of Floridian refugees making their way to Havana.

 

[Said1]

As seen in several stories (ie. Elian Gonzales), liberals do not mind the lack of freedom in Communist dictatorships, but care more abou the socialist aspect of them. My high school teacher never once criticised Castro, but constantly stressed how great education and health care in Cuba were. Many liberals think it is a better place to live than America, and are positively baffled as to why they do not see boatloads of Floridian refugees making their way to Havana.

Precisely, forced distribution of wealth ect seems to give them a little high. Sticken in to "the man" so to speak.

 

[dmp]

Freedom of the Press is not a universal right. Does Venezuela have a provision in their laws?

 

[Said1]

Freedom of the Press is not a universal right. Does Venezuela have a provision in their laws?

Probably not, and if they did, I'm sure they don't now.

 

[onedomino]

Start with 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." (Well there goes any semblance of Western style Democracy) 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."

We are not surprised. Chavez has been taking lessons in totalitarianism:

 

[Said1]

We are not surprised. Chavez has been taking lessons in totalitarianism:

Ha! I was just looking for the photo of Chavez and Saddam from around 2000.

This article is good too, regarding media censorship in Venezuala.

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/articles.php?artno=1030

 

[Annie]

It may come to a head:

http://www.strategypage.com/dls/articles/20053300.asp

Venezuela Gets Ready For Civil War
by James Dunnigan
March 30, 2005
Discussion Board on this DLS topic
Venezuela is having problems with the loyalty of its armed forces. The current government is run by a former army officer Hugo Chavez. Normally, that would not be a problem. But Chavez sees himself as another Fidel Castro. That is, the rebel Castro before he proclaimed himself a hard core communist. Chavez wants social revolution in Venezuela, but many, perhaps a majority, of Venezuelans don’t want to be another Cuba. While Venezuela's oil wealth has not been distributed equally, it has created a large middle class. This includes the military. Many of the troops are nervous about Chavez, and his social programs. Even some of Chavez’s military decisions have caused unease among officers and troops. For example, Chavez is now buying military equipment from Russia. This includes helicopters (nine Mi-17s and one Mi-26) for the navy. The navy considers these helicopters unsuitable for naval use. The sailors are correct, but the price is cheap, and Chavez wants to make a political point.

The army is unhappy about the cozy relationship between Chavez and leftist rebel groups in neighboring Colombia. Venezuelan troops have been operating more aggressively along the Colombian border. This is officially a crackdown on the smugglers who always have operated there. But the Venezuelan troops are accused to really going after the Colombian rebels, or supporting them. Take your pick. No one is sure exactly what is going on.

To top it all off, Chavez is now organizing a new army, one loyal to him personally. This is part of his plan create "Bolivarian Circles of Venezuela Frontline Defense for National Democratic Revolution." These are political clubs all over the country, particularly in poor areas, where Chavez has the most support. Chavez expects to have 2.2 million members, who will be the backbone of the “democratic revolution unfolding in Venezuela." What upsets the armed forces is Chavezs decision to pass out infantry weapons to these political clubs, so that his new political clubs can use force to “defend the revolution.” There are believed to be Cuban advisors involved in this effort. This sort of mass organization has been used before in Latin America, by both leftist and rightist dictators (pro-fascist Juan Peron of Argentina, and communist Fidel Castro of Cuba.) But by passing out guns to his most dedicated followers, Chavez is angering the military, making the middle class even more nervous, and setting the stage for a bloody civil war.

 

[the swede]

This is to all of you above.
You can go on complaining for years about Chavez and how totalitarian he is, but you're totally missing the point, he's been DEMOCRATICALLY elected by his people several times. But perhaps the word democracy is to radical for republicans?

 

[Said1]

This is to all of you above.
You can go on complaining for years about Chavez and how totalitarian he is, but you're totally missing the point, he's been DEMOCRATICALLY elected by his people several times. But perhaps the word democracy is to radical for republicans?

Who wouldn't elect a man who promised to rob the rich and give to you?

 

[manu1959]

This is to all of you above.
You can go on complaining for years about Chavez and how totalitarian he is, but you're totally missing the point, he's been DEMOCRATICALLY elected by his people several times. But perhaps the word democracy is to radical for republicans?

sadam was elected by his people......hitler was elected by his people....what's your point :huh:

 

[CSM]

This is to all of you above.
You can go on complaining for years about Chavez and how totalitarian he is, but you're totally missing the point, he's been DEMOCRATICALLY elected by his people several times. But perhaps the word democracy is to radical for republicans?

Well, let's see where you stand once the mass murders commence...they will come....they always do.

 

[Said1]

Well, let's see where you stand once the mass murders commence...they will come....they always do.

But it's there choice, they elected him - doh!

 

[the swede]

so chavez is a mass murderer now? Tell me who did he kill? Well I still don't hear any answers, c'mon now tell me, who did he kill? Still no answers huh? Could it be that he's not a mass murderer?
To compare Saddams fake elections with venezuela's democratic elections only shows that yuo really don't have any arguments. All the international observants said that the elections were fair and democratic, so why are you saying that he's a tyrrant`?

 

[manu1959]

so chavez is a mass murderer now? Tell me who did he kill? Well I still don't hear any answers, c'mon now tell me, who did he kill? Still no answers huh? Could it be that he's not a mass murderer?
To compare Saddams fake elections with venezuela's democratic elections only shows that yuo really don't have any arguments. All the international observants said that the elections were fair and democratic, so why are you saying that he's a tyrrant`?

he possed a hypothetical question.....

you stated he was elected.....i was just pointing others who had been elected

i never said he was a tyrant....seems like a nice guy....

 

[Said1]

so chavez is a mass murderer now? Tell me who did he kill? Well I still don't hear any answers, c'mon now tell me, who did he kill? Still no answers huh? Could it be that he's not a mass murderer?
To compare Saddams fake elections with venezuela's democratic elections only shows that yuo really don't have any arguments. All the international observants said that the elections were fair and democratic, so why are you saying that he's a tyrrant`?

Here's a few tid bits.

EARLIER THIS YEAR, the U.S. media was atwitter with coverage of the protests against ousting Saddam Hussein. At the same time, just weeks before the war in Iraq began, a record-setting one and a half million Venezuelans marched in protest against a law proposed by the president of Venezuela, Lt. Col. Hugo Chavez. Simultaneous marches against Chavez took place across the world. It was the largest peaceful protest in Latin American history.

These protests did not register even a blip in the international and U.S. media. There were no page-one articles or photo-spreads about this widespread rejection of the Chavez regime. That the international media failed to cover these events is particularly dispiriting, since the protest was organized specifically to support the Venezuelan media, which has been tirelessly exposing human rights violations by the Chavez regime.

Despite being followed, harassed, arrested, tear-gassed, fire-bombed, shot at, and even killed by Chavez supporters and party members, journalists here have bravely persevered in their jobs and serve as the only effective check to arbitrary government power. Given that the courts, congress, military and the executive branch are firmly under Chavez's control, it's little wonder that in poll after poll, the Venezuelan media ranks as the most respected institution in the country.

Since January, using a presidential decree, Chavez has interrupted regular television and radio broadcasts on 60 separate occasions, forcing all media to transmit his hours-long tirades and pro-government propaganda.

And Chavez now seeks to formalize his control through the "Media Contents" law, a
bill that controls TV programming by defining time slots suitable for children. The law assumes that children will be watching television for 18 hours a day and prohibits the broadcasting of news or any content with violent images or political language except between 11:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. For example, live footage of Chavez militia members shooting at innocent protesters, would be content unsuitable for children.

IN ADDITION to controlling the programming, the law criminalizes any content that "promotes, condones or incites disrespect for the legitimate authorities and institutions." Known locally as the "gag law," it states explicitly that mocking or criticizing the president and his henchmen is illegal. Broadcasters face million-dollar fines, loss of their broadcast licenses, and even jail time for noncompliance. If this column was published in a newspaper or read on television here in Venezuela, it would be in violation of the proposed Chavez media law.

When journalists expressed opposition to the law's barefaced censorship, Chavez responded: "That's just like drug traffickers opposing anti-drug laws or criminals complaining about crime-fighting."

And to further control the media, Chavez has imposed exchange controls. No Venezuelan citizen may purchase foreign currency without government permission--an act that renders the local currency worthless for import transactions. As a result, any television company that needs to purchase electronic equipment or any newspaper editor wishing to order newsprint paper or buy ink must petition the currency control agency that is, conveniently, headed by a man who assisted Lt. Col. Chavez in his failed 1992 coup attempt

Link

 

[the swede]

you might like or disslike Chavez but as a matter of fact he's democratically elected. If you have respect for democraticall values you should accept the fact that he's the legittimate president of venezuela.

 

[Said1]

you might like or disslike Chavez but as a matter of fact he's democratically elected. If you have respect for democraticall values you should accept the fact that he's the legittimate president of venezuela.

Well, the thing is, a lot of these guys are real nice until AFTER the election. Wonder why that is?

 

[manu1959]

you might like or disslike Chavez but as a matter of fact he's democratically elected. If you have respect for democraticall values you should accept the fact that he's the legittimate president of venezuela.

i accept the fact that he is the legitimate president of venezula

only time will tell if he is what you belive him to be ...

 

[the swede]

this is absurd. You could might as well argue that Tony Blair is a mass murderer then. I mean, who knows what he might do to his people after the next election? well, let's imagine that he all of a sudden started to kill thousands of britts after his reelectionm would that make all of them who supported before the election bad people? Of course not since they're not phsycic. As far as I know chavez hasn't shown any signs of being a massmurderer yet. So why are you still going on about this "chavez is a tyrrant" mumbo.jumbo?