Wrestling Forum banner

Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

1K views 22 replies 15 participants last post by  DOPA 
#1 ·
Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-venezuela-politics-idUSKCN1AW2A1?il=0

Venezuela's Socialist-run 'truth commission' to investigate opposition

CARACAS (Reuters) - Opposition candidates running in Venezuela's October gubernatorial elections will be investigated to make sure none were involved in violent political protests this year, the head of a new pro-government truth commission said on Wednesday.

The panel was set up earlier in the day by the constituent assembly elected last month at the behest of socialist President Nicolas Maduro. Government critics say the commission is designed to sideline the opposition and bolster the ruling party's flagging support ahead of the October vote.

Also before the assembly is a bill that would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up 25 years in jail. The opposition fears such a law would be used to silence criticism of a government that, according to local rights group Penal Forum is, is already holding 676 political prisoners.

"Whoever goes into the streets to express intolerance and hatred, will be captured and will be tried and punished with sentences of 15, 20, 25 years of jail," Maduro said last week.

Over 120 people have died in four months of protests against the president's handling of an economy beset by triple-digit inflation and acute food shortages.

Maduro loyalist Delcy Rodriguez was named as head of the truth commission, on top of being president of the assembly. She said she would ask the country's CNE elections authority for information about candidates running in October.

"We have decided to ask the CNE to send a complete list of gubernatorial candidates to the truth commission in order to determine if any of the them were involved in incidents of violence," Rodriguez told the assembly, stressing this would have a "cleansing effect" on Venezuela.

"We have seen tweets, messages on social networks and photographs of opposition leaders responsible for convening and organizing violent events in Venezuela," Rodriguez told the commission on Wednesday.

"JAIL ANYONE, FOR ALMOST ANYTHING"

Maduro defends the all-powerful assembly as the country's only hope for peace and prosperity.

"The question is whether this is the peace he's looking for: creating a law that gives him and his obedient supreme court judiciary powers to lock up dissidents for 25 years," Tamara Taraciuk, head Venezuela researcher for Human Rights Watch, said in a Wednesday telephone interview.

"The proposal includes incredibly vague language that would allow them to jail anyone for almost anything," she added.

The opposition, which won control of congress in 2015 but has seen its decisions nullified by Maduro's loyalist Supreme Court, boycotted the late July election of the assembly.

'ENTRENCHED IMPUNITY'

In its first session after being elected on July 30, the assembly fired Venezuela's top prosecutor Luisa Ortega and appointed a Maduro loyalist to replace her.

The Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists said in a report on Wednesday that Ortega's dismissal "removes one of the last remaining institutional checks on executive authority."

The country's new chief prosecutor, Maduro's ex-human rights ombudsman Tarek Saab, on Wednesday outlined corruption accusations against Ortega and her husband German Ferrer.

They, and members of Ortega's former staff of prosecutors, are accused of running an "extortion gang" and funneling profits to an account in the Bahamas, the new chief prosecutor said.

"The Sebin (intelligence service) is raiding my house right now as part of the government's revenge for our fight against totalitarianism in Venezuela," Ortega said on Twitter late Wednesday afternoon.

It was not immediately possible to reach Ferrer. In the past, his wife Ortega has said accusations against them are politically motivated.
 
#16 ·
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

Here's a novel idea: let Venezuela deal with Venezuelan problems.

I don't give a fuck what's going on in their country and neither would the US government if they weren't sitting on the world's largest oil reserves. They ain't a threat to our national security and never will be. Someone give me a call when Venezuela decides to invade Louisiana but until then, let's mind our own fucking business.
 
#2 ·
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

Authoritarianism needs to be stopped wherever it takes place. The country's in a disastrous state and it's sad to see.

Whether it's fascism or communism, government down the barrel of a gun is something we need to remove from this world. That's what supra-governmental authorities like the UN are meant to be for, but sadly fail too often.
 
#4 · (Edited)
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

Absolutely horrific news there @DesolationRow. Unfortunately, this is what happens when a socialist country inevitably collapses and the ruling power wants to hold on to their ideological framework. Knowing that the vast majority of the country is rebelling due to there being a shortage of food, clean water, utilities etc. the ruling power has shown the true authoritarian nature of Socialism in practice. A reminder of what the main opposition leader in the UK said about Venezuela only a few years ago @InUtero:



Of course Corbyn condemns the violence on "both sides", because he cannot admit to himself and the public what is truly going on: That his socialist dream utopian country has well and truly economically collapsed and that the Maduro regime has gone full totalitarian against their own people.

Yes, there is another way Corbyn. It's called socialism and it's evil and it doesn't work.
 
#6 ·
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

Yes, there is another way Corbyn. It's called socialism and it's evil and it doesn't work.
Meh, the term socialism is incredibly wide-ranging and not very useful. New Zealand, Canada, Holland and most of Scandinavia are all socialist under plenty of definitions, doing just fine and are among the best countries to start an enterprise in the world.

Corbyn looks like a plum with that statement, certainly. He has an authoritarian tendency that is my main problem with him. But since both the current UK "Conservative" Party (who aren't conservative. Or indeed liberal. Or anything other than sort-of right-leaning traditionalist reactionary incompetents) and the New Labour model that he's replacing, not to mention the populist UKIP option or the Lib Dems, have if anything even more authoritarian streaks than he does then I struggle to see it as a difference maker.

As a British voter wanting to vote for a legit anti-authoritatarian party right now you pretty much have to either trust that the Greens wouldn't go mad, or vote for an incredibly fringe libertarian option. It's a sad state of affairs.
 
#17 ·
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

The problem, of course, is that people have widely different interpretations and levels of sensitivity as to what constitutes "hate" and "intolerance." So you're looking at a country where most of the population could be reasonably jailed over some bullshit depending on how the leader views things.
 
#12 ·
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

I invite those that live in the USA and support Socialism to tell me again that the system can work.

Now is the perfect time to tell me about the benefits of socialism.
 
#22 ·
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

Trump Versus the Venezuelan Revolution



Trump’s threats against Venezuela escalated recently from the economic to the military: after announcing sanctions he threatened that all military options were “on the table.” Trump’s actions were perfectly timed to lend support to the U.S.-backed opposition in Venezuela, whose ongoing violent rebellion aims to topple the government of democratically elected President Nicolas Maduro.

The apex of violence was focused on stopping the recent elections to the National Constituent Assembly (ANC), convened by President Maduro to rewrite Venezuela’s constitution with the goal of resolving the current social-economic crisis.

The ANC was tasked to become the most powerful governmental body while in session. Part of Maduro’s motivation in convening the ANC was to break the political deadlock that started when the U.S.-backed opposition gained control of the Venezuelan parliament, the National Assembly.

The wealthy opposition promised to prevent the ANC elections from taking place, while Trump promised economic sanctions if the ANC election wasn’t cancelled. The other usual suspects of Latin American counter-revolution also condemned the ANC elections: Spain, the Vatican, and the Organization of American States (OAS) were among other governmental and western NGOs that denounced the ANC, since they recognized that the U.S.-backed opposition would be deflated if the ANC were successful.

The western media that condemned the ANC elections has consistently failed to condemn the ongoing street violence by the U.S.-backed opposition, who used attacks on voting centers, roadblocks, economic sabotage and “general strikes” to prevent the election from taking place.

But the elections happened, and the unexpectedly high turnout rattled the nerves of the opposition, who didn’t expect the traditional base of Chavismo — the working and poor — would come out by the millions to support a broad diversity of candidates within the Chavismo Left.

The Chavismo Base Revived, For Now

The international media covering the election took zero notice of the enthusiasm from Venezuela’s poorest neighborhoods. A U.S. labor delegation that travelled to Venezuela to witness the elections was impressed by the broad participation and long lines at various voting centers in poor neighborhoods. SEIU 1199 Executive Vice President Estela Vasquez made notice of the lack of western media attention:

“One thing that I did think was significant is that I didn’t see any international media. No reporters from the New York Times, no cameras from CNN, no cameras from Fox Television, or any other international media… covering the poor working class neighborhoods that are the backbone of this revolutionary process in this country,”

The enthusiasm for the election that Vasquez noticed was echoed by a prominent left critic of Maduro, Stalin Perez Borges, who said:

“July 30 [the election] was also a tsunami within the ranks of Chavismo that propelled even those who are unhappy with the government to participate and send a message to the domestic and international right that we have not yet surrendered to imperialism nor are we willing to kneel before the neoliberal plans that the politicians and economists of the [opposition] have prepared for us…the [election] result has led to a recuperation of confidence as a social force, and provided a glimpse of the possibility for Chavismo to once again be able to call itself the majority.”

Because the opposition boycotted the elections, the ANC consists overwhelmingly of representatives of the left, where there lives a diversity of revolutionary political opinion. A third of the ANC was specifically reserved for representatives of trade unions, communal councils, indigenous groups, farmers, students, and pensioners, all sectors that have been radicalized by their experience under Chavez and by the violent actions of the opposition.

The class basis of the Constituent Assembly — the poor and working class — provides hope that this governmental body can provide real revolutionary initiative to resolve key issues that have been demoralizing the Chavismo ranks while empowering the wealthy opposition.

The ANC will not fix every problem and it will likely not usher in a socialist economy, but radical measures can precipitate a revolutionary dynamic that carries with it a logic of its own. The left in Venezuela is more dynamic than the Stalinist images accorded to it by the western media and U.S. Left.

Ultimately, the very convening of the ANC means that Maduro has moved to the left; and it was this leftward shift that provoked enthusiasm from the Chavismo rank and file. Convening the ANC surprised everyone and carried enormous political risks, especially in the middle of an opposition uprising backed by U.S. imperialism: if the masses did not participate in the elections the government would be exposed as lacking a broad social base, and such a weakness would have been instantly exploited by the Trump-supported opposition. But Maduro proved that he has a bit of Chavez in him yet, having correctly predicted that the masses would consider the ANC as a revolutionary tool to be used against the oligarchy.

Much of the international left has either not recognized Maduro’s shift to the left or not realized its significance. Their error is rooted in a misunderstanding of the Venezuelan revolution, which has always been a contradictory movement rooted in the poorest neighborhoods of Venezuela, yet reflected through a bureaucratic prism at the top; a process that under Chavez retained, at times, a call and responsive dynamic that propelled the base to take action, which, in turn resulted in more pressure on the leadership to move left. Such a fluctuating, complicated phenomenon is difficult to pigeonhole, and requires a more nuanced analysis than the intellectually lazy “pox on both houses” approach that has long-infected the U.S. left.

It’s true that there are powerful sections of Maduro’s bureaucracy who plan to use the ANC simply to out-maneuver the wealthy opposition and maintain their power and, if possible, to strike a deal with the opposition should the opportunity arise. Such a betrayal would, in effect, mark the end of Chavismo and prepare the ground for total victory of the opposition.

But the victory of the bureaucrats in the ANC isn’t a foregone conclusion, as some cynics on the left would have you believe. Maduro doesn’t command Chavez’s authority; he lacks the charisma and he’s been lacking in revolutionary initiative. The divisions within Chavismo’s upper layers opens up further opportunities for the impatient ranks that can push the project forward against the will of even the more conservative sections of leadership.

The job of the international left is to highlight the possibilities, amplify the program of the revolutionary wing and to educate people internationally about what’s at stake in order to reduce the interventionist options of Trump’s imperialism.

The majority of left analysis regarding the Venezuelan crisis fails at these basic tasks, focusing wasted energy on Maduro’s shortcomings while proposing nothing of substance to win the fight in progress. The ranks of Chavismo need concrete solutions not endless denunciations.

The central question is not whether one is pro-Maduro or pro-opposition, the question is “how do the revolutionary forces resolve the current crisis” and “what strategy should revolutionaries deploy?” Most of the left has nothing to say about these basic questions, while refusing to even discuss the relevance of the Constituent Assembly.

The working class in Venezuela recognizes that their fate depends on the outcome of the current struggle; they are in a fight for their lives and hope to use the Constituent Assembly as a weapon. The slogan “No Volveran” remains a revolutionary demand of Chavismo that declares the oligarchy will never return to power. But unless bold action is taken to drive the revolution forward the victory of the opposition is inevitable, and such a nightmare is currently trying to kick in the front door.

False Solutions From the Left

The current intensified class fight cannot be wished away, it’s based on the material conditions embedded in the economy: the unfulfilled needs of the working poor versus the opposition’s demand to retake the state apparatus and privatize public resources. The two sides cannot “make peace” with another round of elections or negotiations, yet this is exactly what many pro-revolution analysts are promoting as “solutions” to the crisis.

One such mistake can be found in the analysis of Carlos Carcione from Marea Socialista, a grouping who until recently was in coalition with the other socialist parties inside of the ruling United Socialist Party of Venezuela (PSUV).

The analysis put forward by Carcione contains some important critiques of Maduro’s government, but a key error is his “solution” to the crisis, which was put forward at the end of a recent interview:

“…the only democratic road, which cannot be captured by either of the two elites [Maduro’s government and the opposition] that are instigating violence, is the struggle to renew the Constitution of 1999.”

The demand to “renew the Constitution” is a talking point taken directly from the wealthy opposition. To renew the Constitution means to disband the Constituent Assembly and carry on with the electoral process on its normal timeline, as if a life or death crisis wasn’t engulfing the nation that requires revolutionary action now. It’s as if Carcione believes that erasing the ANC would be a “pause button” to the conflict.

Such a “demand” will find zero resonance in the Chavismo rank and file; they’ve voted more in recent decades than any other population in the world, and their voting for the Constituent Assembly was itself a showcase of democracy that Carcione oddly fails to recognize as important or legitimate.

The demand to “renew the Constitution” also fails to acknowledge that the opposition is skillfully using the elections to the National Assembly to retake power and undermine the government, by exacerbating the crisis and talking openly of overthrowing Maduro.

Elections to the National Assembly have become the path to power for the oligarchy, while a more directly democratic path has emerged with the Constituent Assembly elections, an infinitely more representative body than the National Assembly with actual capabilities of taking revolutionary action.

Ultimately one’s attitude towards the situation in Venezuela shouldn’t be decided by legal or so called democratic norms, but by which actions promote the interests of the working class and poor and push the revolution forward.

A similar non-solution to the crisis was put forth by Eva Gollinger, a longtime promoter of Chavismo who has been an increasingly vocal critic of Maduro. Gollinger’s critique of Maduro is often spot on, but her solution falls into the fantasy realm, where both sides realize they’re guilty of excess and thus agree to dampen the rhetoric for the good of the country:

“Voices of moderation need to emerge without fear of being branded traitors or opportunists, as has been happening to anyone publicly criticizing the government or opposition. The opposition leadership and its international backers must immediately condemn all violence….The opposition must accept the legitimacy of President Maduro and his administration and allow him to fulfill his presidential term, which ends in 2019. In return, the parliament should be allowed to assume its full mandate without further obstacles. Fair elections overseen by an independent electoral council should be held within the timeframe stipulated by law instead of being manipulated by political parties or foreign pressure.”

Gollinger certainly has good intentions, but her “solutions” are daydreams that ignore the material interests radicalizing both sides: the ranks of Chavismo need radical solutions to the crisis and the U.S. backed opposition will continue to take radical, right-wing action to regain state power. There hasn’t been a “reasonable middle ground” between these two extremes in decades, if ever, in Venezuela.

Revolutions are notoriously absent of moderation. Chavez himself was accused of being an extremist every time he took action against the oligarchy, which earned him the love and respect of the broader population in Venezuela and inspired revolutionary movements across the hemisphere.

Maduro’s moderation is precisely what has demoralized his base and empowered the U.S.-backed opposition. The working class of Venezuela does not have moderate demands, they require revolutionary action against their class enemies before the wealthy regains the state power to use against them. Moderate actions cannot attack the drastic inequality that pervades Venezuela to this day.

The left “demand” to renew the Constitution is a return to a dead end: one of the limitations of Chavismo was the over reliance on a representative democracy, as opposed to direct democracy. The energy of the revolution was funneled into constant electioneering, and the representative system wasn’t representative enough, allowing politicians to be unaccountable to the movement that opened the door to careerism, while the slower moving legislative system allowed the demoralization to creep in.

The Constituent Assembly is a legitimate tool of revolution that can be used or wasted. Wishing for the return of the conditions that precipitated the crisis is an odd “solution.” The opposition chose to boycott the ANC elections because they hoped for a U.S.-backed coup. Let their miscalculation be their undoing.

What actions should the Constituent Assembly take?

Instead of warning incessantly of authoritarianism the left should be advocating revolutionary solutions: ones that stem the power of both the oligarchy and Chavismo upper-bureaucrats, a “revolution within the revolution.” Divisions among Chavismo’s leadership make such a scenario possible, and it’s desperately needed.

Agitational demands from the Chavismo base in a time of flux can move mountains. Economic solutions that incorporate more socialist policies at the expense of the oligarchy-controlled private sector are also crucial to advancing the revolution, since the capitalists have used their ownership over important economic sectors — like food production — to sabotage the economy.

Some of the below demands have been discussed in different sectors of the Chavismo left, and may find expression in the Constituent Assembly if left groups organize effectively. Ultimately demands that empower the working class at the expense of the oligarchy have the potential to inspire the broader population to action, keeping the revolutionary flame lit:

1. Remove the economic power of the oligarchy by nationalizing the sectors of the economy that have been used in economic sabotage, especially food production, the banking sector and international trade.

2. Strategically default on the foreign debt repayments that are bankrupting the nation, so that the money can be used for basic necessities and rebuilding the economy. The high interest debt repayments are shifting billions of dollars from the Venezuelan state into the pockets of rich foreign investors.

3. Fully fund and expand the key victories of Chavismo: education, health care, pensions, and housing
while increasing the power of localities to administer these programs. Ensure that wages are rising above inflation for all wage workers. Pay for these initiatives by drastically raising taxes on capital gains, property, inheritance, and other oligarchy-targeted measures.

4. Jail the oligarchs who promote street violence and participate in economic sabotage. A longstanding demand among the Chavismo ranks is to take a firmer hand with an opposition who’s grown accustomed to no consequences for violent behavior.

5. Attack corruption of black market dollar profiteering by nationalizing foreign trade.

6. No reconciliation with the oligarchy and their patron, U.S. imperialism. Any “deal” cut by the opposition will be intended to stall the revolutionary process and require economic concessions that come at the expense of the Chavismo base. The opposition has proven that they will never accept a government they don’t directly control. With each new uprising they test the resolve of the government and its popular support, and when this support dissipates a successful coup — either militarily or legislative — is inevitable.

7. Use the National Constituent Assembly as a weapon of the revolution by taking the above actions while expanding direct democracy, enshrining increased constitutional power of communal councils, labor unions and other social-political bodies of the Chavismo rank and file to directly exercise state power.

If the ANC doesn’t take bold actions soon, the new constitution won’t survive the national referendum vote. And if the Chavismo rank and file don’t see a pathway to a better, more stable life with the ANC they will abstain, and the U.S.-backed opposition will have an unobstructed path to power.

Another reason the ANC needs to take radical action immediately is the upcoming gubernatorial elections that the opposition plans to participate in. These elections can be easily won by the left if the ANC takes swift action that inspires people to the polls.

Conclusion

Time is short. The ANC gave itself two years to fulfill its mission, but the enthusiasm generated by the election will fade quickly if revolutionary action isn’t forthcoming, or if the masses conclude that the new legislative body is content on maintaining the current balance of power instead of smashing it. Maduro’s bureaucratic/administrative maneuvers have outlived their usefulness, and projecting this strategy onto the ANC will transfer the disease of demoralization onto an otherwise healthy body.

The several co-occurring crises in Venezuela require a shift of power to the masses at the expense of the capitalists: any action that the ANC takes that promotes this while encouraging the self-activity of the working class will help refresh the cycle of bottom-up activity that flourished under Chavez but has waned under Maduro.

The street violence of the U.S.-backed opposition that has killed over 100 people and included two coup attempts will not subside on its own, especially when Trump has prioritized Venezuela for regime change. Successive U.S. presidents have understood the special “threat” to imperialism that Venezuela has posed, even if much of the left doesn’t. Defeating Trump requires that Venezuelans move towards socialism, while requiring that socialists in the U.S. actively support this movement.

If the new constitution is a lifeless document it will fail the referendum vote and catapult the opposition into power. However, if the path to the constitution is full of revolutionary action the people will respond enthusiastically, and the broader hemisphere will be re-infected by the revolutionary energy that originally birthed the “pink tide.”

But the pink tide politics that eschewed western imperialism and neoliberalism has reached its ideological limits, demanding deep socialist inroads against the capitalists who’ve frustrated the project. A “red tide” can rejuvenate the revolutionary forces across the hemisphere and easily drown out the recent victories of various counter-revolutions. Venezuela remains the focal point of hemispheric revolution, to be won or lost, supported or ignored.

SOURCE
Ya Basta! Hands off Venzuela!

In 1973, when the United States decided, in the interest of US telecom companies, to oust the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende, by assisting and encouraging a military coup led by Augusto Pinochet, then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger justified the atrocity saying:

“I don’t see why we need to stand by and watch a country go communist due to the irresponsibility of its own people. The issues are much too important for the Chilean voters to be left to decide for themselves.”

Now, the dark and bloody history of US military violence against sovereign states in Latin America seems poised to get a new chapter, and Kissinger’s despicable, racist, logic is once again on display. On Saturday, Trump announced that the military option was on the table for Nicolas Maduro’s Venezuela. Why? For the crime of being a democracy out-of-lockstep with US interests.

This probably won’t come as much of a surprise to anyone who has been watching US media coverage, which is uniformly critical of Maduro’s government, frequently referring to the man himself as a “dictator” and strongly implying, when not outright saying, that he is ruling against the will of his people, is crushing dissent, unleashing violence against peaceful protesters and locking up opposition leaders without cause. It’s a scary story, and it’s supposed to be, in order to justify violent regime change, but it’s not the truth.



In fact Maduro was elected by the Venezuelan people, in elections that are considered a model for the world (that’s Forbes saying that), and of which even former US President Jimmy Carter said: “…of the 92 elections that we’ve monitored, I would say that the election process in Venezuela is the best in the world”. Yet, there are those in the United States, fed a steady diet of corporate media, who are bafflingly & distressingly unaware that Maduro was elected at all!

How it started

While there has been violent, undemocratic resistance to the Bolivarian Revolution by the Venezuelan opposition, backed by the US, since the days of Hugo Chavez, the latest troubles began in 2015 after the most recent elections for the National Assembly, Venezuela’s legislative body. The opposition party won with a comfortable majority of 109 to 55 (strange dictatorship Maduro’s got there, with the opposition holding a supermajority of congress).


Results of the 2015 election, from Wikipedia

However, video evidence revealed that three delegates from the state of Amazonas had been elected due to a series of bribes, and the National Assembly was ordered by the Supreme Court to remove the three delegates in question and hold new elections for their seats. The opposition refused. Remember that we’re talking three seats of a 54-seat advantage, three seats which could presumably be won again, if the elections were in fact on the up-and-up. After a series of refusals, the Supreme Court acted within it’s constitutional authority to hold the Assembly in contempt of the Constitution, and the Supreme Court itself undertook their responsibilities, until such time that they held the re-elections.

The right-wing opposition and United States ruling class went apoplectic, going as far as to call the move a coup, while calls for Maduro (who is not, in fact, on the Supreme Court) to step aside came in droves. On April 1st 2017, the National Assembly’s powers were restored by the Supreme Court, due at least in part to the advocacy of Maduro himself who said (and still says to this day) that dialogue and not “extreme positions” are the solution to the crisis. Despite this, on April 4th, opposition leaders began to encourage their supporters to protest the Maduro government.


The violence

In no time, the protests turned violent. To hear the corporate media say it, the violence has come in the form of police violence against peaceful protesters, and repression by the Maduro government. However, even a slight dig into the actual numbers on the ground tells a different story. There have been protesters killed by police, but the majority of deaths have been either assassinations of government-supporting Chavistas at the hands of protesters, or the indirect result of violence perpetrated by the protesters.



When police have killed protesters, they’ve been promptly arrested themselves, something almost unthinkable in our own country where police often kill with impunity. Futhermore, opposition protesters have admitted to being paid to engage in violence and no one can blame Maduro or the Chavistas for the torching of a maternity hospital (with new mothers and babies still inside), the burning alive of a suspected Chavista, or the literal terrorist attack on the Supreme Court building via helicopter, all carried out by opposition supporters. Any one of these events would spark intense reactions by any government in the world, let alone the authoritarian US security state, yet Maduro’s reaction has been almost understated. Even the recent arrest of opposition leaders, spun as a move of repression by corporate media, was a predictable response to their violation of the terms of their house arrest. A house arrest resulting from literally attempting a violent coup. Can you imagine an opposition group attempting a violent overthrow of the US state, and for it’s leaders to be punished with house arrest? Some dictatorship.

The Constituent Assembly

To end the violence, Maduro has called a Constituent Assembly. The people of Venezuela voted for delegates to represent their interests at this assembly which will write a new draft of the constitution, to be subsequently voted on by referendum (it must be stressed that the delegates will be drafting it, not Maduro). To call the assembly is a power well within Maduro’s purview (in articles 347 and 348 of the current constitution), despite the corporate media bizarrely calling it a coup. It’s been done before in 1999, to the great benefit of the Venezuelan people, and the hope is that it will end the violence and bring both sides together in dialogue.



Demonstrating that the will of the Venezuelan people is the last thing they are interested in, the opposition and it’s US backers have lambasted Maduro for having the tenacity to hold an election to resolve the current crisis (what are they afraid of, one must wonder, if they represent the will of the people). Opposition leaders called for boycotts and protests against the vote and the company that makes the voting machines used in the election has said that the government’s claim that 8 million people participated in the election was off by a million votes (without proof and without making clear how they would know such a thing). But, again, Venezuela’s elections are unparalleled in their ability to be audited, so the truth will soon be revealed. The same cannot be said of the travesty of a plebiscite the opposition held against the government, in which people were able to vote multiple times, and after which the ballots were burned by the opposition, you know, as one does.

In punishment for attempting to resolve the crisis democratically, Maduro has been personally sanctioned by the US. A move which itself makes little sense since, as Max Blumental and others have pointed out, it simply boosts Maduro’s anti-imperialist bona-fides and it’s unlikely the man has much money squirreled away in the country calling for his blood.



Hands off Venezuela

And now, we’ve returned to Trump’s Kissinger-esque threat to use military violence to overthrow a democracy that doesn’t serve US interests in Latin America. Anyone who claims to be a socialist, pro-democracy or anti-imperialist must stand in solidarity with Maduro and the Bolivarian Revolution, but really it shouldn’t even approach that question. To paraphrase Bernie Sanders, the question is not whether we like Nicolas Maduro, it’s not whether we are socialists or support the Bolivarian revolution (though I am and I do). The question in Venezuela is whether we will stand by as the US once again unilaterally decides which governments are legitimate, which states “get to” enjoy sovereignty and which democracies are real and which are “dictatorships”. The question is if we will let another right-wing government march into power unelected, as has Temer’s government in Brazil, to impose a neoliberal policy of austerity on the people of their country. This is not a hypothetical, this very same opposition staged a successful, if short lived, coup against Chavez in 2002, and a neoliberal policy of austerity is exactly what they tried to impose before the Venezuelan people ran them out and restored Chavez and the Bolivarian Revolution to power. Venezuela belongs to its people, not the US and its corporate masters.



It’s time for us on the left to say ya basta! Enough! Enough regime change, enough imperialism, enough US meddling in Latin American affairs.

To end, I’ll just leave you with this last little fact: Venezuela has the largest reserves of oil in the world



SOURCE
















It's funny how different the story is when it comes from sources outside of MSM corporate propaganda. Now, I don't claim to know the whole story of what's going on in Venezuela, nor do I particularly care, because they are a sovereign nation and should be handling their own business. What I do know is that the CIA has a long history of overthrowing democratically elected governments in Latin America and installing fascist puppet dictatorships to serve American corporate interests. I also know that the MSM regularly promotes false narratives in service to American imperialism, so when I see them all on the same page to heavily push a particular story (Russian election interference, Assad using chemical weapons against his own citizens), I tend to look elsewhere to find out the truth of the matter.

My interest in this particular story is not in Venezuela itself but in the USA and my desire to see us stay the fuck out of it. The practice of using our military to overthrow foreign governments because we want control of their resources has to end. Global hegemony is not what I consider to be national security.
 
#3 · (Edited)
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

Why hasn't someone shot him already. I just find it funny how several public figures of peace and tolerance have someone that wants to kill them but no one seems to able to kill guys like Hitler, Kim, this guy, etc. All you need is one guy from his bodyguard ls to sacrifice themselves and boom, he's dead. And if he is still having public assemblies or something, anyone can theoretically do it.
 
#5 ·
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

Love it!

We need something like that in the US, have to stop people from saying terrible things.

In no way would this be abused.
 
#10 ·
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

Champagne Socialists and Socialist "Bros" don't even know much about Socialism, don't feel bad L-DOPA!
More like Starbucks Socialists
 
  • Like
Reactions: BORT and Miss Sally
#13 ·
Re: Bill before Venezuela's assembly would punish those who express "hate or intolerance" with up to 25 years in jail, political opponents probed

^ The problem is not really Socialism, the problem is corruption.

It looks more and more like there's gonna be some kind of intervention by a certain foreign power, whether an open one like in Iraq or a secret one like in Ukraine. Also, it more and more looks like I'm gonna be completely fine with that.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top