Aller au contenu


Photo
- - - - -

Le respect de la démocratie selon Chávez...


  • Veuillez vous connecter pour répondre
276 réponses à ce sujet

#81 Lucilio

Lucilio

    .

  • Animateur
  • 32873 messages

Posté 20/10/2008 - 13:41

Le régime nord-coréen est désormais plus proche d'une dictature militaire que communiste.

Je ne pense pas, comme Cuba n'est pas une dictature militaire. Bien sûr, le régime s'appuye sur la force policière et militaire, mais le cursus honorum passe bien par le parti communiste.

#82 Taranne

Taranne

    Scribe

  • Utilisateur
  • 9780 messages
  • Ma référence:Pierre Suitet-Malakoff
  • Tendance:Libéral de gauche

Posté 24/10/2008 - 18:13

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22033

Today Venezuela is hardly the brutal dictatorship that some critics of Chávez paint it to be. Yet the country's democratic institutions have suffered considerably since the coup. Chávez and his allies have effectively neutralized the judiciary. While some newspapers and broadcasters are still independent and some are outspoken in their opposition to Chávez, the President and his legislative supporters have strengthened the state's capacity to limit free speech and created powerful incentives for self-censorship. They have, for example, expanded laws making "contempt" for government officials a criminal offense, increased prison sentences for criminal defamation, and abused the state's control of broadcasting frequencies to intimidate and discriminate against stations with overtly critical programming. While there are independent labor unions, the government has systematically violated workers' rights and fostered pro-government unions. There are dedicated human rights advocates. But they have been subjected to a virulent barrage of verbal assaults and even harassment by prosecutors.


"I WILL rule the universe. Even if I am the only one LEFT in the universe!" - Starscream

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." - William E. Gladstone

"Nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right." - Le même

"De toute façon, tous nos politiciens sont partisans de la révolution - c'est à dire, on fait un tour sur soi-même et on se retrouve exactement au même point." - Jabial


Image IPB

#83 Toast

Toast

    Casseur de rêves

  • Habitué
  • 3057 messages
  • Location:Agen - Bordeaux
  • Tendance:Libéral conservateur

Posté 24/10/2008 - 18:22

Je ne pense pas, comme Cuba n'est pas une dictature militaire. Bien sûr, le régime s'appuye sur la force policière et militaire, mais le cursus honorum passe bien par le parti communiste.

Ne pourrait-on pas prétendre la même chose à l'égard de Cuba ? Castro n'est devenu coco qu'aux portes du pouvoir.
« Quel est le meilleur gouvernement ? Celui qui nous enseigne à nous gouverner nous-mêmes » (Goethe)

Fors l'honneur

#84 Lucilio

Lucilio

    .

  • Animateur
  • 32873 messages

Posté 24/11/2008 - 10:10

Le reflux s'amorce : Chávez vient de remporter les dernières élections régionales de ce week-end, mais perd néanmoins 5 régions, dont les deux plus peuplées (Zulia, là où est le pétrole, et Miranda) et la capitale.

#85 free jazz

free jazz

    Erudit

  • Utilisateur
  • 11895 messages
  • Ma référence:Sowell

Posté 02/12/2008 - 11:38

L'antenne de Human Rights Watch expulsée manu militari par la police politique de Chavez, ce grand démocrate qui n'apprécie pas les rapports d'une ONG un peu trop curieuse :

http://www.lepoint.f...ch/924/0/275601

Publié le 20/09/2008 à 09:40 Reuters

Hugo Chavez expulse une délégation d'Human Rights Watch


Le président Hugo Chavez a expulsé du Venezuela une délégation de Human Rights Watch (HRW), l'organisation de défense des droits de l'homme lui ayant reproché la veille d'avoir fait reculer la démocratie depuis qu'il est arrivé au pouvoir, en 1999.

Voici une semaine, déjà, le chef de l'Etat vénézuélien avait expulsé l'ambassadeur des Etats-Unis à Caracas. Jeudi, la secrétaire d'Etat américaine, Condoleezza Rice, a estimé que le Venezuela était devenu une autocratie.

HRW est une organisation non gouvernementale, mais Chavez l'accuse de collaborer avec le gouvernement américain, dans le cadre d'une campagne visant à le renverser, et d'ignorer les progrès du Venezuela dans la lutte contre la pauvreté.

"Ces groupes, qui se font passer pour des défenseurs des droits de l'homme, sont financés par les Etats-Unis", a affirmé le ministre des Affaires étrangères Nicolas Maduro. "Ils suivent une politique visant à attaquer les pays qui construisent de nouveaux modèles économiques."

Les deux membres de la délégation de HRW, José Miguel Vivanco et Daniel Wilkinson, avaient tenu jeudi une conférence de presse au Venezuela, dans le cadre de leur brève visite, pour rendre compte de l'état des droits de l'homme dans ce pays. Ils avaient notamment pointé du doigt les atteintes à la liberté d'expression.

"HRW EST TRÈS CRITIQUE À L'ÉGARD DES ÉTATS-UNIS"

La télévision vénézuélienne a diffusé des images de l'expulsion des deux militants quittant le pays. On peut voir dans ces extraits des responsables leur signifier leur expulsion au motif qu'ils sont entrés sur le territoire grâce à un visa touristique.

"Nos téléphones nous ont été confisqués et nous n'avons pas été autorisés à contacter nos ambassadeurs", a déclaré Wilkinson quelques minutes avant le décollage de leur avion pour Sao Paulo, joint à l'aide d'un téléphone qu'il a réussi à dissimuler aux autorités.

À son arrivée au Brésil, Wilkinson a fait part de son indignation quant à la manière utilisée par les autorités vénézuéliennes pour l'expulser, symbole selon lui qu'Hugo Chavez a des choses à se reprocher.

"Être expulsé de la sorte est un acte évident de censure et une preuve que notre rapport avait du sens", a-t-il confié avant d'embarquer sur un autre vol, en direction des Etats-Unis.

"Plutôt que de réagir sur le fond du rapport, ils ont fait valoir ces accusations ridicules, affirmant que nous étions financés par les Etats-Unis. Or, je rappelle qu'Human Rights Watch est très critique à l'égard des Etats-Unis et que nous avons déjà rédigé plusieurs rapports sur ce pays", a-t-il poursuivi.

Franck Jack Daniel, version française Gregory Schwartz et Olivier Guillemain


Pourquoi le camp chaviste a perdu Caracas? Contrairement à la propagande du régime, le socialisme bolivarien, malgré ses bonnes oeuvres, loin d'améliorer le sort des pauvres, enfonce les populations les plus fragiles dans la misère et la criminalité.

Reportage
Venezuela : Petare, quartier pauvre de Caracas, déçu par les "chavistes"
LE MONDE | 25.11.08 | 14h22

CARACAS ENVOYÉ SPÉCIAL


De loin, les collines de Petare forment un immense demi-cercle rouge. De près, des milliers de cubes de brique s'étalent et s'empilent dans un entrelacs pyramidal à l'équilibre précaire sillonné de venelles et d'escaliers abrupts. Petare est l'un des plus grands quartiers populaires d'Amérique latine. Ce barrio pauvre de Caracas, qui appartient à la municipalité de Sucre, était une citadelle électorale du pouvoir d'Hugo Chavez. Dimanche 23 novembre, lors du scrutin régional et municipal, Petare a basculé dans le camp de l'opposition au président vénézuélien. Ce revirement a contribué à propulser l'opposant Antonio Ledezma à la mairie de Caracas, de l'aveu même du perdant, Aristobulo Isturiz.


Pourquoi un tel retournement ? Chacun y va de son explication. Joicer, 24 ans, travaille comme serveur dans un restaurant. Originaire de province, il est venu avec sa mère à Caracas pour y travailler. Il a voté pour l'opposition parce qu'il n'aime pas les "chavistes", auxquels il reproche leur "arrogance" : "Ils croient tout savoir et ont toujours raison", résume-t-il.

Les électeurs, affirme Gerardo Gomez, un employé du marché couvert, ont voulu "punir" les élus sortants pour leur indifférence envers les difficultés de la vie quotidienne. Les raisons de se plaindre sont nombreuses. Il y a les trous dans la chaussée, l'absence de lumière dans les ruelles, les glissements de terrain lorsque la pluie se déchaîne, comme récemment lorsque d'incessants orages ont tué 14 personnes et paralysé Caracas.

Il y a aussi le temps perdu dans les interminables déplacements à cause des embouteillages d'une ville asphyxiée par la circulation et de la faiblesse du réseau de transports en commun, même si la station de métro, qui est proche, rend de nombreux services. Il y a l'inflation, qui galope au taux annuel de 36 %, mange les salaires et décourage toute épargne. Il y a les ordures qui s'éternisent sur les trottoirs et transmettent des maladies aux enfants.


LE FLÉAU DE LA CRIMINALITÉ


Il y a surtout la criminalité, ce fléau dont tout le monde se plaint. Ligia, la quarantaine avenante, tient avec son mari, un ancien menuisier, un étal ambulant qui offre des fruits superbes. Il y a quelques jours, elle raconte avoir vu devant son éventaire un homme en poignarder un autre mortellement. Dans une rue commerçante voisine, la maison funéraire, précise une inscription, "est ouverte vingt-quatre heures sur vingt-quatre".

Avec 13 000 homicides en 2007, soit 48 pour 100 000 habitants, le Venezuela est le pays le plus sanglant d'Amérique latine. Les homicides y sont la première cause de décès des jeunes de 15 à 24 ans. Dans certains quartiers comme Petare, les assassinats sont deux à trois fois plus nombreux que dans le reste du pays.

La population pauvre est celle qui souffre le plus de la violence : vols à main armée, enlèvements, règlements de comptes entre trafiquants de drogue. Le pouvoir n'a jamais pris le problème à bras-le- corps. La valse des ministres de l'intérieur, une dizaine depuis 1998, a aggravé la situation. Les adversaires d'Hugo Chavez l'accusent même d'avoir involontairement encouragé la violence en fustigeant sans cesse les "oligarques" responsables, selon lui, de la misère.

Le nouveau maire de la municipalité de Sucre - l'une des cinq de Caracas - a fait de la lutte contre l'insécurité l'un de ses chevaux de bataille. A 37 ans, Carlos Ocariz a déjà une solide expérience à son actif. Fondateur d'un petit parti d'opposition, Primero Justicia (Justice d'abord), il est devenu, en 2000, le plus jeune député du pays. Il s'est spécialisé dans le travail social et a beaucoup arpenté le terrain. Il jouit d'une bonne image et incarne l'un des espoirs de renouveau de l'opposition.

Hugo Chavez, qui a senti le danger, a multiplié les meetings à Petare. Mais cela n'a pas suffi. Le président a toujours affirmé que les pauvres étaient dans le camp de la "révolution bolivarienne". Carlos Ocariz vient de lui infliger un cinglant démenti.

Jean-Pierre Langellier


http://www.lemonde.f...22825_3222.html

Je partage mon rhum avec le ciel, à moi le rhum et à lui la part des anges.


#86 Taranne

Taranne

    Scribe

  • Utilisateur
  • 9780 messages
  • Ma référence:Pierre Suitet-Malakoff
  • Tendance:Libéral de gauche

Posté 02/12/2008 - 17:08

Human Rights Watch, l'Amnesty International du riche.
"I WILL rule the universe. Even if I am the only one LEFT in the universe!" - Starscream

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." - William E. Gladstone

"Nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right." - Le même

"De toute façon, tous nos politiciens sont partisans de la révolution - c'est à dire, on fait un tour sur soi-même et on se retrouve exactement au même point." - Jabial


Image IPB

#87 free jazz

free jazz

    Erudit

  • Utilisateur
  • 11895 messages
  • Ma référence:Sowell

Posté 03/12/2008 - 00:11

Human Rights Watch, l'Amnesty International du riche.


C'est d'ailleurs à peu près la ligne présentée par Chavez pour justifier l'expulsion de ses membres par ses services : une organisation inféodée à la bourgeoisie contre-révolutionnaire.

On se souvient du rapport de RSF en 2006. L'alter-propagande niait simplement les allégations contre le régime du gorille rouge sur ses pratiques de torture, assassinats de journalistes et musellement de la presse. La réaction de l'intelligentsia gauchiste européenne fut de mettre ces faits au compte de l'éternelle accusation de l'impérialisme américain. Cette campagne ne pouvait venir que des faucons sionistes de la CIA, d'un nouveau plan Condor - ainsi que les poncifs habituels sur les banquiers de Wall Street. RSF devait donc être un poisson-pilote de la CIA. RSF fut accusé de comploter pour fomenter un putsch.

Chavez n’avait rien d’un dictateur puisqu’il était métisse, de gauche et défenseur des pauvres. N'utilise-t-il pas des méthodes démocratiques comme le référendum sur la nouvelle constitution, pour instaurer un Etat policier lui donnant les pleins-pouvoirs? Donc il ne pouvait pas réprimer ses opposants puisqu’il se disait démocrate, étranger aux méthodes fascistes dénoncées ici et là. Si l'opposition réactionnaire était silencieuse, hors du jeu politique, c'était pour discréditer aux yeux de l'opinion les avancée du "résistant" Chavez et de la révolution bolivarienne.

L’histoire se répète donc avec Human Rights Watch, accusée de travailler pour le grand satan américain, inféodée à l'impérialisme, etc : ça en devient répétitif. De quoi s'interroger sur l'aveuglement de nos gauchistes, qui continuent à présenter le régime chaviste comme un modèle de démocratie sociale.

Je partage mon rhum avec le ciel, à moi le rhum et à lui la part des anges.


#88 Lucilio

Lucilio

    .

  • Animateur
  • 32873 messages

Posté 08/12/2008 - 10:20

Un documentaire PBS sur le tyranneau vénézuélien. Très bien fait. Qui montre comment la critique au sein du parti n'est jamais sans conséquence. Les images de Chávez humiliant ses propres ministres et officiers parlent d'elles-même : "The Hugo Chávez Show"

#89 rixxe

rixxe

    Pisse-bleu

  • Utilisateur
  • 258 messages
  • Location:Lausanne

Posté 09/12/2008 - 16:41

Un documentaire PBS sur le tyranneau vénézuélien. Très bien fait. Qui montre comment la critique au sein du parti n'est jamais sans conséquence. Les images de Chávez humiliant ses propres ministres et officiers parlent d'elles-même : "The Hugo Chávez Show"


Très bon documentaire en effet. Les billboards avec marqué "Por ahora…" qu'il a fait installer après avoir perdu le scrutin sur les reformes font froid dans le dos…
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largess from the public treasury. From that time on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the results that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

Sir Alex Fraser Tytler (1742-1813)

#90 Lexington

Lexington

    Scribe

  • Bureau
  • 9287 messages
  • Location:Paris
  • Ma référence:Hayek, Popper
  • Tendance:Libéral classique

Posté 10/12/2008 - 16:36

Such a surprise :icon_up: Après avoir juré ses grands dieux qu'il ne solliciterait pas de nouveau mandat, Chavez avait dit que si on lui demandait, il accepterait. Le processus a été lancé par son parti, spontanément bien sur.

Parliament launches Chavez' bid for unlimited reelection
13 hours ago

CARACAS (AFP) — The Venezuelan parliament has begun a process to grant the country's president unlimited reelection, backing a bid by President Hugo Chavez to rule through 2021.

Chavez said last month he was directing his ruling United Socialist party (PSUV) to seek a constitutional amendment to reelect the president, saying he was ready to govern through 2021. The National Assembly must give the proposed amendment two readings before it can be brought to a referendum.

"The presidential term is six years. The president can be re-elected," the text of the amendment would read, according to the parliament's president, Cilia Flores on Tuesday.

The proposed amendment would only affect Article 230 of the Constitution, which currently reads: "The presidential term is six years. The president of the Republic may be re-elected, immediately and only once, for an additional period."

Chavez, who came to power in 1999, was reelected president of Venezuela in December 2006, for a term expiring in 2013.

Lawmakers hailed the amendment, singing "Uh, ah, Chavez is not going!"

Two debates will take place at the PSUV-majority National Assembly -- one on December 18, followed by another in January, parliamentary sources indicated. The National Electoral Council would then convene a referendum within 30 days, Flores said.

"Our political position and that of most of the people is that (Chavez) should remain at the forefront of the transformation taking place in this country," said parliamentarian Earle Herrera, who will formally present the text.

Three anti-Chavez lawmakers said the proposal did not comply with parliamentary rules because they were not allowed to talk about it.

A constitutional amendment can be requested by 30 percent of national assembly deputies, by 15 percent of eligible voters (more than 2.5 million people) or by the president of the Council of Ministers.

The PSUV said it would also collect signatures to give symbolic support to the proposal, at the request of the National Assembly.

In December 2007, a referendum that sought to declare Venezuela a socialist state and allow unlimited reelection did not prevail, and dealt Chavez his first major defeat at the ballot box.

The Venezuelan opposition has been critical of re-submitting the question to a referendum.

Last weekend, the main opposition parties joined forces to reject the proposed amendment and announced they would launch legal and political actions opposing the proposed amendment.


Source : AFP

Sans surprise également, l'achat de voix a marché à pleins lors des dernières élections régionnales :

Chavez accused of paying for votes
By CASTO OCANDO
McClatchy Newspapers

Venezuela's government distributed electronic appliances, food and cash totaling tens of millions of dollars in an effort to secure the loyalty of voters in poor sections in advance of recent elections, according to evidence and testimony obtained by El Nuevo Herald.

Pro-government officials in the municipality of Sucre alone handed out $10 million in cash on Nov. 22 and the day of the balloting, Nov. 24, offering each person between $140 and $480, according to campaign workers who spoke to El Nuevo Herald. Their candidate nevertheless lost.

President Hugo Chavez' allies won 17 of the 22 state governorships and most of the municipal elections, though opposition candidates captured the other five governorships and enough municipalities to claim a victory over the leftist president.

Documents seen by El Nuevo Herald showed that several companies associated with the government, primarily the state-owned oil company PDVSA, purchased the items distributed during the campaigns with the assistance of businesses located in Panama and South Florida.

The goods included mattresses, water tanks, small appliances, food and even cell phones and vehicles, according to the documents. Some of the electronics and small appliances were obtained from the Panamanian free-trade zone and distributed to prospective voters throughout Venezuela, as part of the campaigns.

The massive loyalty-buying schemes were denounced prior to the vote by opposition leaders, including Jose Albornoz of the Patria Para Todos (PPT) party, who had backed Chavez up until recently.

Two days before the vote, Albornoz told voters who had received goods from pro-government campaigns to “vote without fear. Your conscience is worth more than a washer, refrigerator or money.”

In some cases the schemes were not even concealed.

A pamphlet titled “Building the Beautiful Revolution” that was distributed to low-income and rural sectors of Sucre state promised those voting for pro-Chavez candidate Enrique Mestre almost $1,160 in food items, a refrigerator, a blender, a washing machine, dry goods and a freezer filled with meat.

In the states of Falcon and Carabobo, squads of workers armed with brooms, paint and brushes went into the homes of rural families, cleaning and painting the properties in exchange for votes, according to testimonies obtained by El Nuevo Herald.

Purchasing votes is not new in Venezuelan elections. Prior to Chavez entering the political scene, parties were known to offer cash, groceries and transportation to and from the polls as a means of persuading convincing people to vote for them.

“In the past, it was customary for parties to give bags of cement, bricks, roofing materials to voters, completely improper because it was preying on the needs of the people to purchase votes,” said Carlos Berrizbeitia, leader of the opposition Proyecto Venezuela party. But in the recent elections, this practice became “disproportionate, unprecedented.”

In the eastern city of Cumana, the pro-Chavez candidate distributed more than $11.6 million in cash through a local bank to 66,015 voters to win the elections, according to documents shown to El Nuevo Herald. Similar schemes were conducted in all of Venezuela's 300 municipalities by pro-Chavez candidates with funds obtained primarily from PDVSA, Berrizbeitia said.

Polling expert Alfredo Keller said he estimated that vote-buying could have accounted for one-third of the votes received by the pro-Chavez candidates in the November elections. Of the 52 percent of the total won by pro-government candidates during the regional elections, he said, only 34 percent represents voters truly loyal to Chavez.

The Rev. Luis Ugalde S.J., president of the Andres Bello Catholic University, estimated that official party candidates would have obtained only 30 to 35 percent of the votes “without schemes, vote purchases and threats.”

Political analysts predicted that the massive vote purchasing strategy could come at a high price for Chavez during tough economic times. PDVSA is the main source of government revenues, but the price of oil has been plummeting.

“If votes are only obtained by giving away homes and refrigerators, no one will be able to govern,” said Gustavo Linares Benzo, a columnist for the Caracas daily El Universal. “This Chavez legacy is the worst of the decade.”


Source

«Racine peint les hommes tels qu'ils sont ; Corneille, tels qu'ils devraient être, j'éprouve la tentation de dire que les libéraux sont raciniens et les socialistes cornéliens. Mais cette transposition ne convient pas. C'est par les mouvements de leur âme que Corneille entend élever hommes ou femmes jusqu'aux sommets de l'hé­roïsme ; c'est par la contrainte que les socialistes veulent conduire leurs sujets à la pratique de ce qu'ils proclament être la vertu. Comparant libéralisme et socialisme, ce n'est pas Racine et Corneille qu'il faut évoquer. C'est Racine et Savonarole», Pierre de Calan

«Savoir se libérer n'est rien ; l'ardu, c'est savoir être libre», André Gide, L'immoraliste

Sur la dette publique: «L'Etat est un alcoolique gravement atteint qui souffre à présent de problèmes de manque. Il en est à un stade où son addiction le rend incapable de travailler et où ses maigres revenus en constante baisse ne suffisent plus à subvenir à sa consommation d'alcool en augmentation. Il n'arrive plus à acheter assez pour éviter les sueurs et les tremblements. Votre diagnostic consiste à dire que le problème est seulement causé par un manque d'alcool et qu'il suffit de donner un peu de vodka au patient pour que tout aille mieux dans le meilleur des monde». (Pan)

contrepoints200.gif
Contrepoints, journal en ligne facebook_mini.jpg twitter_mini.png


#91 Taranne

Taranne

    Scribe

  • Utilisateur
  • 9780 messages
  • Ma référence:Pierre Suitet-Malakoff
  • Tendance:Libéral de gauche

Posté 17/01/2009 - 21:52

Faut-il en rire? Faut-il en pleurer?

[badurl]http://www.legrandsoir.info/spip.php?page=meme&id_auteur=1279[/badurl]
"I WILL rule the universe. Even if I am the only one LEFT in the universe!" - Starscream

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." - William E. Gladstone

"Nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right." - Le même

"De toute façon, tous nos politiciens sont partisans de la révolution - c'est à dire, on fait un tour sur soi-même et on se retrouve exactement au même point." - Jabial


Image IPB

#92 h16

h16

    Capitaine Blâme

  • Administrateur
  • 54643 messages
  • Location:libéraux.org
  • Ma référence:Achille Talon
  • Tendance:Anarcap

Posté 17/01/2009 - 21:56

"LeGrandSoir".

Tout est dit.
Méluche, c’est un poème. Ecrit en gros caractères tordus, avec des fautes et des bavures, de travers sur une carte postale, mais un poème tout de même.
Dieu c'est un peu un gros trampoline cosmogonique au syncrétisme quasi caoutchouteux. (Jim16)
hashtable

#93 Taranne

Taranne

    Scribe

  • Utilisateur
  • 9780 messages
  • Ma référence:Pierre Suitet-Malakoff
  • Tendance:Libéral de gauche

Posté 17/01/2009 - 22:02

Le service des relations publiques de Chavez "répond" à HRW. On notera la présence de Chomsky au nombre des signataires.

More Than 100 Latin America Experts Question Human Rights Watch's Venezuela Report
Experts Highlight Exaggerations and Inaccuracies in "Politically Motivated" Study

WASHINGTON - December 17 - In an open letter to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch, over 100 experts on Latin America criticized the organization's recent report on Venezuela, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, saying that it "does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility." The signers include leading academic specialists from universities in the United States, including Harvard, Johns Hopkins, and a number of state universities, and academic institutions in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, México, the U.K., Venezuela and other countries. The letter cites Jose Miguel Vivanco, lead author of the report, saying "We did the report because we wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone…"[1], as evidence of its political agenda. The letter also criticizes the report for making unsubstantiated allegations, and that some of the sources that Human Rights Watch relied on in the report are not credible.

"By publishing such a grossly flawed report, and acknowledging a political motivation in doing so, Mr. Vivanco has undermined the credibility of an important human rights organization," the letter states.

The letter notes that numerous sources cited in the report - including opposition newspapers El Universal and El Nacional, opposition group Súmate, and a mentally unstable opposition blogger - have been known to fabricate information, making it "difficult for most readers to know which parts of the report are true and which aren't." The letter also argues that the Human Rights Watch report makes sweeping allegations based on scant evidence. For example, its allegation of discrimination in government services is based on just one person whose nephew claimed she was denied medicine from a government program.

The full text of the letter follows:

December 16, 2008

Human Rights Watch 350 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor

New York, NY 10118-3299 USA

To the Board of Directors,

We write to call your attention to a report published by Human Rights Watch that does not meet even the most minimal standards of scholarship, impartiality, accuracy, or credibility. The document, A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela, appears to be a politically motivated essay rather than a human rights report. Indeed, the lead author of the report, Jose Miguel Vivanco, stated as much when he told the press just a few days after its publication, "We did the report because we wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone…"[2]

Clearly Mr. Vivanco is entitled to his views about Venezuela, but such statements run counter to the mission of Human Rights Watch and indeed any organization dedicated to the defense of human rights. By publishing such a grossly flawed report, and acknowledging a political motivation in doing so, Mr. Vivanco has undermined the credibility of an important human rights organization.

We do not make these charges lightly and we hope you will understand the seriousness of such grave errors in judgment. As scholars who specialize in Latin America, we rely on what are supposed to be independent, non-partisan organizations such as Human Rights Watch for factual information about human right abuses committed by governments and sometimes non-governmental actors. So do many other constituencies, including the press, government officials, and the public. It is a great loss to civil society when we can no longer trust a source such as Human Rights Watch to conduct an impartial investigation and draw conclusions based on verifiable facts.

The report makes sweeping allegations that are not backed up by supporting facts or in some cases even logical arguments. For example, the report's most important and prominent allegation is that "discrimination on political grounds has been a defining feature of the Chávez presidency." (p. 1) Yet the report does not show, or even attempt to show, that political discrimination either increased under the current government (as compared to past governments), or is more of a problem in Venezuela than in any other country in the world.

What is the evidence offered for such a broad generalization?

"In most cases, it was not possible to prove political discrimination-with rare exceptions, citizens were given no grounds at all for the actions taken-yet many were told informally that they were losing their jobs, contracts, or services for having signed the referendum petition [to recall President Chávez]. For example, in one case reported to Human Rights Watch, a 98-year-old woman was denied medicines that she had long received from a state development agency because, as her family was told by the program secretary, she had signed the referendum petition." (p.21) (Italics added).

Taking services first, the above paragraph refers to an allegation that one Venezuelan citizen was denied medicines for political reasons. Amazingly, this is the only alleged instance of discrimination in government services cited in the entire 230-page report. In other words, the Barrio Adentro program has provided health services to millions of poor Venezuelans each year since 2003, and the authors found one allegation (as reported to the authors in a phone conversation with the nephew of the alleged victim) of discrimination involving one person. On this basis the authors make the sweeping generalization that "Citizens who exercised their right to call for the referendum-invoking one of the new participatory mechanisms championed by Chávez during the drafting of the 1999 Constitution-were threatened with retaliation and blacklisted from some government jobs and services." (p. 10, italics added).

This is outrageous and completely indefensible. We do not expect a report of this nature to adhere to rigorous academic standards, but there have to be some standards.

With regard to employment, there is no doubt that there were cases where individual government officials discriminated on the grounds of employees' political beliefs. (There were also cases of discrimination and firing of pro-government employees in the private sector, which the report mentions in a parenthesis (p.10) and does not investigate). However, the report does not show that there was any organized or systematic effort to purge the government of anti-government employees. Indeed, as anyone who is familiar with the government of Venezuela knows, after nearly ten years since the election of President Hugo Chávez, the civil service is still loaded with employees who are against the government.

The report does not demonstrate whether the firings that occurred, in both the public and private sector, were simply the result of individual actions in a highly polarized society in which the opposition spent at least four years (according to opposition leader Teodoro Petkoff)[3] trying to dislodge the government though a military overthrow. Indeed, it is not hard to imagine that many government officials would, in such a climate, be apprehensive about employing people who are against the government. The report does not consider this possible cause of observed discrimination. Of course this would not justify such discrimination, but neither would it support the sweeping allegations of this report, which attempts to argue that the government is using its control over employment in the public sector in order to repress political opposition.

Indeed, the report's most serious allegation of discrimination in employment concerns a case where discrimination was not based on political partisanship, but in regards to unlawful subversion that no government would, nor should tolerate: "In the aftermath of the oil strike, PDVSA purged its ranks of thousands of workers who participated in the strike." (p.29). But as anyone who was in Venezuela at the time can attest, this was quite openly a strike to topple the government, which the opposition had succeeded in doing less than eight months earlier. The oil strike devastated the economy - which lost 24 percent of GDP in the resulting recession -- and came close to achieving its goal a second time.

The report implies that public employees, in this case oil workers should have the right to strike for the overthrow of an elected government; we do not support that view. It is especially dubious when that group of employees makes up less than one percent of the labor force, and is using its control over a strategic resource - oil revenues made up nearly half of government revenues and 80 percent of export earnings -- to cripple the economy and thereby reverse the result of democratic elections. The view that such a strike is "a legitimate strike" is not, to our knowledge, held by any democratic government in the world.[4]

But most importantly with regard to the credibility of the HRW report, it is profoundly misleading for the authors to argue that "political discrimination is a defining feature" of a government that is not willing to risk the continuing employment of people who have carried out such a strike.

The report's overwhelming reliance for factual material on opposition sources of dubious reliability also undermines its credibility and makes it difficult for most readers to know which parts of the report are true and which aren't. The most cited source with regard to political discrimination is the newspaper El Universal.[5] This is not only a stridently opposition newspaper, it has also, for the years during which it is cited, repeatedly fabricated news stories. For example, in a typical fabrication of the type deployed to libel government officials, El Universal reported that then Interior Minister Jesse Chacón had purchased a painting for $140,000.[6] This turned out to be completely false. There are many examples of fabrications in El Universal, as well as other opposition sources cited by the report.[7]

We find it troubling that a report on Human Rights depends heavily on unreliable sources. Would a report on human rights in the United States be taken seriously if it relied so heavily on Fox News, or even worse The National Enquirer? Indeed, this report ventures even further into the zone of unreliable sources and cites a mentally unstable opposition blogger as a source. (p. 20, footnote 30). This is a person who indulges not only in routine fabrications and advocates the violent overthrow of the government, but also has publicly fantasized about killing his political enemies and dumping the bodies from helicopters into the slums, and torturing others by "pour[ing] melted silver into their eyes."[8]

A disturbing thing about the report's reliance on these sources is that it indicates a lack of familiarity with the subject matter, or perhaps worse, a deep political prejudice that allows the authors to see most of these sources as unproblematic. Indeed, there is only one passing indication that the newspapers El Universal and El Nacional, are opposition newspapers, and it is a reference to the past[9], which the reader might therefore reasonably judge to be irrelevant. On the other hand, the report refers to the newspaper Últimas Noticias as "largely sympathetic to Chávez and his government" and "a generally pro-government tabloid." (p.70, p.89) This is a newspaper that prints articles that are harshly critical of the government on a daily basis, and according to polling data in Venezuela is seen as vastly more independent than any other major newspapers. The authors' view of the Venezuelan media seems to mirror the view of the right-wing Venezuelan opposition, or the U.S. Right's view of the "liberal media" in the United States.

Such profound prejudice, in which events are interpreted overwhelmingly through the lens of Venezuela's right-wing opposition, is apparent throughout the document: for example when the authors describe groups that helped organize and supported the April 2002 coup as "new organizations dedicated to the defense of democracy and the rule of law." (p. 203).

But the worst thing about the report's reliance on opposition sources like El Universal, El Nacional, or Súmate, is that these sources have engaged in enough fabrications as to make them unreliable sources for factual material.

In its discussion of the media, the report also paints a grossly exaggerated picture of reality, while presenting some valid criticisms of existing law and practice. It is acknowledged in footnotes buried deep within the text that the opposition still dominates both broadcast and print media (footnote 184, p.74; footnote 181, p.73). Yet the government is reproached for "having significantly shifted the balance of the media in the government's favor" by creating pro-government TV stations since the 2002 coup, when "Chávez faced an almost entirely hostile private media." This is an odd position for a human rights organization to take. While it would be nice if the government could create TV stations that had no bias whatsoever, isn't it better to have some competition in the media - from left-leaning, pro-government stations - than to have a right-wing, anti-democratic, private monopoly? Especially when that right-wing monopoly had, as never before in world history, organized a military coup against a democratically elected government and led a devastating oil strike that nearly toppled the government a second time? Do the authors consider this type of media monopoly to be more protective of human rights than a media that is still dominated by the opposition but also presents some other sources of information?

The report refers repeatedly to the danger of "self-censorship," but does not provide any examples of this actually happening. This is a major weakness in its argument, since it is not that difficult to find examples of self-censorship in response to government pressure in, for example, the U.S. media.

In the 2004 U.S. Presidential election, the Sinclair Broadcast Group of Maryland, owner of the largest chain of television stations in the U.S., planned to show a documentary that accused candidate John Kerry of betraying American prisoners during the Vietnam War. The company ordered its 62 stations to show the film during prime-time hours just two weeks before the election. Nineteen Democratic senators sent a letter to the U.S. F.C.C. http://leahy.senate....410/101504.html calling for an investigation into this proposed intervention by Sinclair in the campaign, and some made public statements that Sinclair's broadcast license could be in jeopardy if it carried through with its plans. As a result of this pressure, Sinclair backed down and did not broadcast the film.

This example is directly relevant to the HRW report on Venezuela, because it shows that, in order to have a broadcast license in the United States and other democratic countries, the licensee is expected to follow certain rules and not to become a major political actor, e.g. by intervening in elections. As Vivanco himself has noted, "lack of renewal of the contract [broadcast license], per se, is not a free speech issue." Yet this report cites the denial of RCTV's broadcast license renewal as a simple, and indeed its primary, example of the Venezuelan government's alleged attack on free speech. It does not seem to matter to the authors that the station had participated in a military coup and other attempts to topple the government and would not receive a broadcast license in any democratic country.

The report even uses innuendo to imply that the government is to blame for attacks on journalists, which have occurred against both opposition and pro-government journalists. The authors state that the opposition TV station Globovisión "has received warning letters from CONATEL because of the political tone of its reporting, it has been frequently refused entry to government press conferences, and its reporters and cameramen have been physically attacked and threatened by Chávez supporters." (p. 117) The authors provide no evidence that the government in any way condoned or supported such alleged attacks.

The major media in Venezuela to this day are practically unmatched in this hemisphere, and indeed most of the world, for their vehement, unfettered, and even vicious, libelous, and violence inciting attacks on the government[10]. While the HRW report presents a number of valid criticisms of existing law and a few cases of unwarranted intervention by government officials, it serves no legitimate purpose to hide or distort the actual state of Venezuela's media.

The same can be said for the rest of the report, including its treatment of the judiciary.[11] HRW has an obligation to criticize any laws or practices of the Venezuelan government that it sees as endangering human rights, and we welcome the valid criticisms that it raises in its report. But Mr. Vivanco has gravely undermined the credibility of Human Rights Watch by producing a report that, by his own admission, is politically motivated, as well as grossly exaggerated, based on unreliable sources, and advertises broad and sweeping allegations that are unsupported by the evidence.

We therefore request that HRW retract and revise its report so as to produce a credible document. Mr. Vivanco should also retract his remarks as to the political motivation for the report.

We would be glad to meet with you to discuss this issue further, and would welcome a debate with Mr. Vivanco in any public forum of his choosing, should he be willing to defend his report in public.

We hope you will consider these requests with the seriousness they deserve. Our letter is not meant as a justification for the Venezuelan government's decision to expel the authors of the HRW report from the country. Human rights are too important to be used as a political football, as has so often been the case when Washington singles out another government as an enemy state. This is why we depend on civil society organizations for independent, non-partisan, non-political reporting and investigation.

In the spirit of sharing our concerns with our Spanish-speaking colleagues, we are having this letter translated to be circulated in Latin America.

Sincerely,

1. Rodolfo Acuña, Professor, Chicano/a Studies, California State University , Northridge
2. Federico Álvarez, Professor Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
3. Tim Anderson, Senior Lecturer in Political Economy, University of Sydney , Australia
4. Miguel Angel Herrera, Historia, Universidad de Costa Rica
5. Robert Austin, Ph.D, Honorary Fellow, School of Historical Studies, University of Melbourne
6. Márgara Averbach, Professor of Literatura, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
7. William Aviles, Associate Professor, Political Science University of Nebraska , Kearney
8. Mario Ayala, Programa de Historia Oral, Facultad de Filosofía y Letras, Universidad de Buenos Aires
9. David Barkin, Profesor de Economía, Universidad Autonoma Metropolitana-Xochimilco
10. .Carlos Beas, Activista Movimiento Indígena, Oaxaca-MEXICO
11.. Alejandro Alvarez Béjar, Professor Economics Universidad Autónoma Nacional de México
12. Donald W, Bray, Professor Emeritus, California State University , Los Angeles
13. Marjorie Woodford Bray, Professor, Latin American Studies, California State University , Los Angeles
14. Charles Bergquist, Professor of History, University of Washington
15. Atilio A. Boron Director del PLED, Programa Latinoamericano de Educación a Distancia en Ciencias Sociales, Buenos Aires, Argentina
16. Chesa Boudin, Yale Law School
17. Clara Mantini Briggs, Associate Researcher, Demography, University of California , Berkeley
18. Charles Briggs, Professor Anthropology, University of California , Berkeley
19. Julia Buxton, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for International Cooperation and Security, Department of Peace Studies, Bradford University
20. Maria Emilia Caballero, Comitè ´68 Pro Libertades Democràticas en Mèxico
21. Marisol de la Cadena, Associate Professor of Anthropology, UC-Davis , CA
22. José Calderon, Professor Sociology and Chicano/a Studies, Pitzer College
23. Hernán Camarero, Professor, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
24. Cristina Castello, Poeta y Periodista, Buenos Aires, Argentina
25. Ana Esther Ceceña, Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas, UNAM
Observatorio Latinoamericano de Geopolítica
26. Eleonora Quijada Cervoni, School of Language Studies, The Australian National University
27. Julie A. Charlip, Professor, Department of History, Whitman College
28. Norma Stoltz Chinchilla, Professor of Sociology and Women's Studies, California State University Long Beach
29. Christopher Clement, Visiting Professor Politics, Pomona College
30. Ron Chilcote, Professor Economics, University of California Riverside
31. Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
32. Antonia Darder, Professor Educational Policy and Latino Studies, University of Illinois , Urbana-Champaign
33. Michael Derham, University of Northumbria , School of Arts and Social Sciences
34. Mônica Dias Martins, Professor Political Science, State University of Ceara , Brazil
35. Héctor Díaz-Polanco, Centro de Investigaciones y Estudios Superiores en Antropología (CIESAS)
36.Luis Duno, Associate Professor of Hispanic Studies, Rice University , Houston , TX
37. Steve Ellner, Professor Political Science, University of Oriente , Venezuela
38. Arturo Escobar, Kenan Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, UNC-Chapel Hill , NC
39. Raul Fernandez, Professor, School of Social Science , University of California Irvine
40. Sujatha Fernandes, Queens College , City University of New York
41. Bill Fletcher, Jr., Executive Editor, BlackCommentator.com
42. Gabrielle Foreman, Visiting Distinguished Professor of Africana Studies, Bowdoin College
43. Cindy Forster, Associate Professor History, Scripps College
44. Félix Hernàndez Gamundi, Comitè ´68 Pro Libertades Democràticas en Mèxico
45. Raúl Alvarez Garìn, Comitè ´68 Pro Libertades Democràticas en Mèxico
46. José Francisco Gallardo Rodríguez, General Brigadier y Doctor en Administración Pública
47. Marco A. Gandásegui, (h) Professor, University of Panama
48. Lesley Gill, Professor and Chair of Anthropology, Vanderbilt University , Nashville , TN
49. Magdalena Gómez, Columnist, La Jornada
50. Gilbert Gonzalez, Professor School of Social Science, University of California , Irvine
51. Armando Gonzalez-Caban, Latin American Perspective
52. Jeffrey Gould, Professor of History, Indiana University .
53. Greg Grandin , Professor of History, Director of Graduate Studies, New York University
54. Angel Guerra, Journalist, La Jornada
55. Maria Guerra, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
56. Peter Hallward, Professor of Modern European Philosophy, Middlesex University , UK
57. Daniel Hellinger, Professor Political Science, Webster University
58. Ramona Hernandez, Director, CUNY Dominican Studies Institute & Professor of Sociology, The City College of New York
59. Derrick Hindery, Assistant Professor of International Studies and Geography, University of Oregon
60. Forrest Hylton, Ph.D. Candidate, History, NYU
61. Robin D. G. Kelley, Professor of History and American Studies
62. Misha Kokotovic, Associate Professor Department of Literature, UC San Diego
63. Maria Lagos, Associate Professor Emerita, Dept. of Anthropology, Lehman College , CUNY.
64. Sidney Lemelle, Professor of History, Pomona College
65. Deborah Levenson, Professor of History, Boston College
66. Nayar López Castellanos, Universidad Autónoma de la Ciudad de Mexico
67. Gilberto López y Rivas, Instituto Nacional de Antropología e Historia, Centro Regional Morelos
68. Florencia E. Mallon, Julieta Kirkwood Professor of History, University of Wisconsin-Madison , WI
69. Luis Martin-Cabrera, Assistant Professor, UCSD
70. Jorge Mariscal, Professor, Literature, University of California , San Diego
71. Peter McLaren, Professor, Graduate School of Education and Information Studies, University of California , Los Angeles
72. Frida Modak, Chilean Journalist
73. Daniel Molina, Comitè ´68 Pro Libertades Democràticas en Mèxico
74. José Mollet, Profesor Asistente y escritor, Director del Centro de Investigaciones Socioculturales, Instituto de Cultura del Estado Falcón, Venezuela
75. Carlos Montemayor, Writer
76. Maricarmen Montes, Nuestra América
77. Josefina Morales, Investigadora UNAM, México
78. Luis Hernández Navarro, Journalist
79. Fabio Gabriel Nigra, Assistant Professor of History, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
80. Enrique Ochoa, Professor, Latin American Studies, California State University , Los Angeles
81. Elizabeth Oglesby, Department of Geography, University of Arizona
82. Jocelyn Olcott, Department of History, Duke University Press
83. Mercedes Olivera, Centro de Estudios Superiores de México y Centroamérica, Universidad de Ciencias y Artes de Chiapas.
84. Mark Overmyer -Velazquez, Associate Professor of History, University of Connecticut
85. José Herrera Peña Centro de Investigaciones Jurídicas, Facultad de Derecho y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo.
86. Rebeca Peralta, Nuestra América
87. Salvador E. Morales Pérez, Instituto de Investigaciones Históricas, Universidad Michoacana de San Nicolás de Hidalgo
88. Hector Perla, Assistant Professor Latin American and Latino Studies, University of California , Santa Cruz
89. John Pilger, journalist and documentary film maker
90. Deborah Poole, Professor, Anthropology, Johns Hopkins
91. Carlos Walter Porto Gonçalves Professor do Programa de Pós-graduação em Geografia da Universidade Federal Fluminense
92. Pablo A. Pozzi, Professor of History, Universidad de Buenos Aires, Argentina
93. Vijay Prashad, Professor, International Studies, Trinity College
94. Gerardo Renique, City College , City University of New York
95. William Robinson, Professor Sociology, University of California , Santa Barbara
96. Victor Rodriguez, Professor, Chicano Latino Studies, California State University , Long Beach
97. René Patricio Cardoso Ruiz, Director en Estudios Latinoamericanos, Investigador Nacional I del SIN, Facultad de Humanidades, Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México
98. Jan Rus, Latin American Perspectives
99. Emir Sader, Secretario Ejecutivo de CLACSO, Sociólogo, Argentina
100. Miguel Tinker Salas, Professor of History, Pomona College
101. Rosaura Sanchez, Professor, Literature, University of California , San Diego
102. John Saxe-Fernández, Essayist, México
103. Alejandro M. Schneider, Assistant Professor of History, Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Argentina
104. Enrique Semo, Professor of Economics, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
105. T.M. Scruggs, Associate Professor, Ethnomusicology
106. Jose Steinsleger, Mexican Writer and Journalist
107. Beatriz Stolowicz, Universidad Autónoma Xochimilco
108. Oliver Stone, Filmmaker
109. Sinclair Thomson, Professor History, New York University
110.Steven Topik, Professor, History, University of California , Irvine
111. Jorge Turner, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
112. Carolina Verduzco, Comitè ´68 Pro Libertades Democràticas en Mèxico
113. William H. Watkins, Professor, College of Education , Univ. of Illinois , Chicago
114. Mark Weisbrot, Co-Director, Center for Economic and Policy Research
115. Dr Stephen Wilkinson Assistant Director International Institute for the Study of Cuba London Metropolitan University
116. Gregory Wilpert, Ph.D, Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Brooklyn College
117. John Womack, Professor, History, Harvard
118. Nahirana Zambrano, Professor of American Studies, University of the Andes, Venezuela

###

[1]"Venezuela no es modelo para nadie," September 21, 2008, El Universal. Since El Universal is not necessarily a reliable source (see below), we confirmed that this quote from Mr. Vivanco was accurate.

[2]"Venezuela no es modelo para nadie," September 21, 2008, El Universal. Since El Universal is not necessarily a reliable source (see below), we confirmed that this quote from Mr. Vivanco was accurate.

[3] Petkoff describes the opposition "strategy that overtly sought a military takeover" from 1999-2003, and also writes about the opposition's use of its control over the oil industry to topple the government. "A Watershed Moment in Venezuela." Inter-American Dialogue Working Paper (July 2008)

[4] The United States has several laws that would have prevented such a strike from even having been carried out, and allowed for firing the participants and even jailing of its organizers.

[5] In addition to these opposition newspapers, the section on political discrimination cites extensively other opposition newspapers (El Nacional, Tal Cual) and the opposition group Súmate.

[6] http://www.elunivers...rt_chacon.shtml

[7] A few more examples: On August 4, 2004, El Universal ran a story on their front page that a recent poll showed the Yes vote against Chávez was winning and that there was "evidence that indicates the exit of Hugo Chávez as president." The poll turned out to be non-existent. Another opposition newspaper cited by HRW, El Nacional, has also fabricated stories in attempts to discredit the government. On January 12, 2003, El Nacional reported that an oil worker had been burned to death in an accident at El Palito oil refinery. On the day that the article ran, the reportedly "dead" worker appeared on television in good health. The HRW report also frequently cites the opposition group Súmate; Súmate maintained, on the basis of faked exit polls (for which it helped gather data), that the 2004 recall referendum was actually stolen by a fantastic electronic fraud. See "Polling and the Ballot in Venezuela www.cepr.net/documents/presentations/venezuela_polling.ppt . The opposition media in general promoted this bizarre conspiracy theory. (Chávez won the referendum, which was certified by international observers including the OAS and the Carter Center, by a margin of 58-41 percent).

[8] See http://www.guardian....endsinlowplaces

[9] "Two long-established daily newspapers-El Universal and El Nacional-were persistent critics"(p.69)

[10] A recent example is when the Editor of the Newspaper El Nuevo Pais, Rafael Poleo, stated on Globovisión's talk show, Alo Ciudadano, that "Hugo is going to end up like Mussolini, hung with his head towards the floor." See

[11] For a more detailed but still not exhaustive account of the HRW report's exaggerations, errors, and omissions, see Gregory Wilpert, "Smoke and Mirrors: An Analysis of Human Rights Watch's Report on Venezuela" Venezuelanalysis.com October 17, 2008. http://www.venezuela...m/analysis/3882


http://www.commondre...re/2008/12/17-2
"I WILL rule the universe. Even if I am the only one LEFT in the universe!" - Starscream

"Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear." - William E. Gladstone

"Nothing that is morally wrong can be politically right." - Le même

"De toute façon, tous nos politiciens sont partisans de la révolution - c'est à dire, on fait un tour sur soi-même et on se retrouve exactement au même point." - Jabial


Image IPB

#94 Lucilio

Lucilio

    .

  • Animateur
  • 32873 messages

Posté 02/02/2009 - 09:58

Il fallait s'y attendre, après les gesticulations du gorille rouge contre Israël :

Synagogue in Venezuela vandalized

A group of people - reports run as high as 15 - broke into Caracas's Sephardic synagogue late on Friday, held the guard at gunpoint, wreaked havoc on the building and damaged the Torah scrolls.

Before leaving at around 3 a.m., the vandals scrawled "Death to the Jews" and "We don't want Jews here" on the synagogue's walls.

The damage was discovered by community members on Saturday morning. The guard was found on the floor, one community leader said.

[…]

http://www.jpost.com...d…icle/ShowFull

#95 h16

h16

    Capitaine Blâme

  • Administrateur
  • 54643 messages
  • Location:libéraux.org
  • Ma référence:Achille Talon
  • Tendance:Anarcap

Posté 02/02/2009 - 10:47

Le socialimse, c'est le respect, qu'on te dit. Comme le communimse.
Méluche, c’est un poème. Ecrit en gros caractères tordus, avec des fautes et des bavures, de travers sur une carte postale, mais un poème tout de même.
Dieu c'est un peu un gros trampoline cosmogonique au syncrétisme quasi caoutchouteux. (Jim16)
hashtable

#96 JIM16

JIM16

    Carrelage chauffant

  • Utilisateur
  • 18316 messages
  • Ma référence:Irène Treuparlefillon

Posté 06/02/2009 - 21:27

Venezuela behind on payments to oil contractors


http://news.yahoo.co...venezuela_oil_1

CARACAS, Venezuela – Venezuela's state oil company is behind on billions in payments to private oil contractors from Oklahoma to Belarus, some of which have now stopped work, even as President Hugo Chavez funnels more oil revenue to social programs.


"hurh hurh uuuurhh mf mf mf mf"

Rocco Siffredi


#97 h16

h16

    Capitaine Blâme

  • Administrateur
  • 54643 messages
  • Location:libéraux.org
  • Ma référence:Achille Talon
  • Tendance:Anarcap

Posté 06/02/2009 - 21:37

Si maintenant le Venezuela fait faillite, où va le monde ?
Méluche, c’est un poème. Ecrit en gros caractères tordus, avec des fautes et des bavures, de travers sur une carte postale, mais un poème tout de même.
Dieu c'est un peu un gros trampoline cosmogonique au syncrétisme quasi caoutchouteux. (Jim16)
hashtable

#98 Astha

Astha

    Homme de lettres

  • Membre Adhérent
  • 2624 messages
  • Location:Pays-Bas français

Posté 08/02/2009 - 15:32

http://fr.news.yahoo...um-5c16fb8.html

Dimanche 8 février, 5h11
VENEZUELA, Caracas.

L'opposition refuse la présidence à vie au Venezuela.


Des dizaines de milliers de manifestants ont marché dans les rues de Caracas samedi pour s'opposer à un amendement constitutionnel qui permettrait au président Hugo Chavez de se représenter éternellement.

Brandissant le drapeau national, les opposants portaient aussi des lunettes décrivant les lettres "no" pour inviter la population à voter contre un texte qui supprime toutes limites à la réélection. Il sera soumis le 15 février au référendum, avec l'appui du président Chavez.

"Tout a empiré" note Yraiber Davila, un ingénieur en mécanique de 24 ans qui se plaint de la criminalité, du manque de services publics, et de la difficulté de devenir propriétaire quand l'inflation atteint 31%. "J'ai une fille de 10 ans et elle n'a jamais vu d'autre président" résume Davila.

Hugo Chavez, au pouvoir depuis 1998, avait déjà essayé en 2007 de balayer l'interdiction de se représenter au-delà de son actuel mandat, qui finit en 2012.



#99 Hobbart

Hobbart

    Ecrivain public

  • Utilisateur
  • 1265 messages
  • Ma référence:Le courrier des lecteurs
  • Tendance:Minarchiste

Posté 08/02/2009 - 21:14

Bah ! il se trouvera toujours des "progressistes" pour vous affirmer que tant que voter et manifester reste possible, la démocratie est toujours vivace !

1. Government can provide you with absolutely nothing except that which it has first taken from somebody else.
2. A government big enough to give you want you want, is big enough to take everything you have.
3. A free people are not economically equal, and an economically equal people are not free.

Larry Reed's 3 Lessons of Freedom We Are In Danger of Forgetting


#100 JIM16

JIM16

    Carrelage chauffant

  • Utilisateur
  • 18316 messages
  • Ma référence:Irène Treuparlefillon

Posté 08/02/2009 - 21:55

C'est malin maintenant il y a un risque que Chavez tourne en dictateur; c'est vraiment malheureux, car on ne s'y attendait pas.
Tous les espoirs étaient permis.
Chavez était tellement sympa depuis le début. Et pas autoritaire.
Franchement c'est un accident.
Et puis ça va s'arranger.

"hurh hurh uuuurhh mf mf mf mf"

Rocco Siffredi



1 utilisateur(s) li(sen)t ce sujet

0 membre(s), 1 invité(s), 0 utilisateur(s) anonyme(s)