mistermack wrote:Coito, I don't know if you believe the stuff you write, but if you do, you should check up the facts. Chavez doesn't control the media. He refused to renew the licence of RCTV, because it took part in the coup attempt, and hadn't paid it's taxes and fines owed for four years.
That's what he said. Amnesty International and the other human rights groups I mentioned stated otherwise.
mistermack wrote:
And it was only taken off the air, it was still available by satellite and cable.
"it?" Are you under the impression that there was only one?
mistermack wrote:
And my comments about the human rights quotes were about you. Not the US.
You asked if I knew what those groups said about the US.
mistermack wrote:
How you treat them as relevant when it suits you, and mischievous if they are critical of the US.
The reports about Chavez were not about the US.
What is it that you are talking about? What criticism? Quote it - or link it.
mistermack wrote:
It's double standards. That's the expression I was looking for.
The US has seized media outlets for broadcasting messages critical of the President?
mistermack wrote:
For anybody who want's an UNBIASED account of the media coverage re: Chavez,
Wikipedia has a page on that subject. And it bears little relation to what Coito imagines.
(Media representation of Hugo Chávez)
.
LOL - Wikipedia is a secondary source. You advance that as an "unbiased source," but you think "Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the InterAmerican Press Assoc., The international Press Institute, Reporters Without Borders and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (all of which are cited and linked to by wikipedia in its article "Human Rights in Venezuela") are biased against him....
And, because Chavez is so trustworthy, must be why he expelled Human Rights Watch employees from the country....
Venezuela: Human Rights Watch Delegation Expelled
SEPTEMBER 19, 2008
RELATED MATERIALS:
Venezuela: Rights Suffer Under Chávez
Chávez’s expulsion of Human Rights Watch’s team is further evidence of Venezuela’s descent into intolerance.
Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch
(Sao Paulo, September 19, 2008) - The Venezuelan government's expulsion of two Human Rights Watch staff underscores the Chávez administration's increasing intolerance of dissenting views, Human Rights Watch said today. The government expelled José Miguel Vivanco, Americas director at Human Rights Watch, and Americas deputy director Daniel Wilkinson on September 18, 2008, hours after they held a news conference in Caracas to present a report that describes how the government of President Hugo Chávez has weakened democratic institutions and human rights guarantees in Venezuela.
The 230-page report, "A Decade Under Chávez: Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela", examines the impact of the Chávez presidency on the courts, the media, organized labor, and civil society. The report documents how the extraordinary opportunity to shore up the rule of law, and strengthen the protection of human rights presented by the enactment of a new constitution in 1999, has since been largely squandered. Among other things, the report found that the government had undermined freedom of expression, expanding penalties for speech offenses, and intimidating critics.
"Chávez's expulsion of Human Rights Watch's team is further evidence of Venezuela's descent into intolerance," said Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch. "Chávez may have kicked out the messenger, but he has only re-enforced the message - civil liberties in Venezuela are under attack."
Vivanco and Wilkinson were intercepted on the night of September 18 at their hotel in Caracas and handed a letter accusing them of anti-state activities. Their cell phones were confiscated and their requests to be allowed to contact their embassies were denied. They were put into cars, taken to the airport and put on a plane to Sao Paulo, Brazil, where they landed this morning.
Human Rights Watch is an independent, nongovernmental organization and does not accept any government funds, directly or indirectly.
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2008/09/19/v ... n-expelled
And, check out the 236 page report on Chavez's Venezuela:
A Decade Under Chávez
Political Intolerance and Lost Opportunities for Advancing Human Rights in Venezuela
SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
This 230-page report examines the impact of the Chávez presidency on institutions that are essential for ensuring respect for human rights and the rule of law: the courts, the media, organized labor, and civil society.
READ THE REPORT
ISBN: 1-56432-372-2
GET THE REPORT
Download this report (PDF, 931.83 KB)
Purchase this report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A Decade Under Chávez
I. Executive Summary
II. Political Discrimination
III. The Courts
IV. The Media
V. Organized Labor
VI. Civil Society
Acknowledgments
Take a look at Section II, political discrimination, for its recounting of Chavez's political discrimination. For example, "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. After denouncing the referendum effort as an act “against the country”, Chávez requested that electoral authorities give legislator Luis Tascón a list of those who signed the referendum petition, which was made publicly available on the internet. The “Tascón list” and an even more detailed list of all Venezuelans’ political affiliations—the “Maisanta program”—were then used by public authorities to target government opponents for political discrimination. (There were also reports that private sector employers utilized the lists to discriminate against Chávez supporters.) In one prominent case from 2004, a government banking agency used the lists in compiling political profiles of its employees and then fired more than 80 employees deemed to be part of the political opposition. " (pg. 10-11 of pdf report).
On page 11: "Political discrimination has been a recurring feature of the government’s policies and
actions in a wide variety of areas. Subsequent chapters of this report show how
political discrimination has affected the media, organized labor, and civil society.
The government has threatened opposition journalists and media outlets with
criminal prosecution and termination of broadcasting licenses. It has favored the
formation of new pro-government unions, while refusing to bargain collectively with
those associated with the opposition. And it has also harassed prominent human
rights advocates and NGOs critical of the government."
On page 12: "For example, after his energy minister told PDVSA
workers they should give up their jobs if they were not Chávez supporters, Chávez
publicly defended this openly discriminatory message and called on all oil workers
who were not committed to the “revolution” to abandon their jobs and “go to
Miami.”
On page 16: "In the aftermath of a contentious 2004 referendum to
recall Chávez from the presidency,13 some government officials blacklisted those
who called for the removal of Chávez from government jobs, contracts, and
services.14 Chávez encouraged holding those who signed the petition for a recall referendum on
his mandate “accountable” for their decision, although he stopped short of
endorsing political discrimination. In October 2003, Chávez insinuated that there
might be future uses of the petition: “
Those who sign against Chávez, in truth are not
signing against Chávez. They will be signing against the country…. They will be
recorded in history, because [the CNE] will have to register their name, their surname,
their signature, their ID, and their fingerprints.”
It's a big report - 236 pages - but it's readable. Feel free to check it out. Those are just select quotes, and it's impossible to quote the whole thing. Just think about that last insinuation by Chavez, ay? Signing against Chavez is not really signing against Chavez - it's signing against the country. Typically, gives me a little pause when one person suggests that being against him is the same as being against a nation. Kinda rubs me the wrong way. Not you, maybe, though.
. And then when they come back, they can 
