• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Mass riots happening in Venezuela, 3 dead, dozens injured

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fyrion

Member

FerDS

Member
The number of deaths has risen to 39. The situation in Táchira seems to go worse and worse, but there's very little information because no media is talking about it.

Also, the guy responsible for the death of Adriana Uroquia has confessed, he's currently out of the country because he "didn't want the situation to be politicized"
 

FerDS

Member
How do you know you're winning an argument? The other side is referring to you as "brainwashed".

Well, as much as I disagree with empty vessel's opinions on the subject, there is a lot of brainwashing being done (from both sides), and I'm pretty sure he was referring to the article itself. Would he be so quick to call out an article if it was from VTV? I don´t know, bot that's not the point.
 

Fyrion

Member
Well, as much as I disagree with empty vessel's opinions on the subject, there is a lot of brainwashing being done (from both sides), and I'm pretty sure he was referring to the article itself. Would he be so quick to call out an article if it was from VTV? I don´t know, bot that's not the point.

We are free and completely responsible in choosing to believe or not in any source revealed by the media. Is dumb play any attempt to censor or control media, also is quite childish to accuse media for anything too.

I don't wish to deviate the post but. May I ask you for any valid example of venezuelan opposition's brainwashing?.

I clarify. I don't deny there's manipulation from both side. But I assume you are aware which side took control of almost all every paper and T.V(commiting autocensorship) media in Venezuela. I assume you are aware which side is teaching ideology to children in schools too.

The only reason opposition manipulates people is to make them believe there's an "exit" through fake elections and avoid the awakening of a justified civil disobedience supported by our constitution as the current one. Right now They are trying to stop it arranging an international "dialogue" whose only purpose is to save Regime from it's possible downfall.
Do you remember the 2004 dialogue arranged by Coordinadora Democrática whose terms were not accomplished after all? Do you want ANOTHER conditional dialogue after all this massacre? After the recent assaults to Tachira? to Palaima? Chacao? etc. The only terms We are going to accept in a dialogue is to submit this regime (and even opposition) to a trial for all crimes commited.
 
This has nothing to do with what I said.
How does it not? How does me pointing out that the Minister of Communications made an insane statement have anything to do with my 'brainwashing
'
APKmetsfan will especially enjoy that one from his political ally.
I'm glad Rubio is bringing more attention to the Crisis. I often will agree with people in a different party if they're ideas match with mine. I don't know why I should be ashamed of that.

Though I would imagine I would differ on a response with the Senator.

Well, as much as I disagree with empty vessel's opinions on the subject, there is a lot of brainwashing being done (from both sides), and I'm pretty sure he was referring to the article itself. Would he be so quick to call out an article if it was from VTV? I don´t know, bot that's not the point.

I've pointed out insane statements from US elected officials.
 

FerDS

Member
We are free and completely responsible in choosing to believe or not in any source revealed by the media. Is dumb play any attempt to censor or control media, also is quite childish to accuse media for anything too.

I don't wish to deviate the post but. May I ask you for any valid example of venezuelan opposition's brainwashing?.

I clarify. I don't deny there's manipulation from both side. But I assume you are aware which side took control of almost all every paper and T.V(commiting autocensorship) media in Venezuela. I assume you are aware which side is teaching ideology to children in schools too.

The only reason opposition manipulates people is to make them believe there's an "exit" through fake elections and avoid the awakening of a justified civil disobedience supported by our constitution as the current one. Right now They are trying to stop it arranging an international "dialogue" whose only purpose is to save Regime from it's possible downfall.
Do you remember the 2004 dialogue arranged by Coordinadora Democrática whose terms were not accomplished after all? Do you want ANOTHER conditional dialogue after all this massacre? After the recent assaults to Tachira? to Palaima? Chacao? etc. The only terms We are going to accept in a dialogue is to submit this regime (and even opposition) to a trial for all crimes commited.


You're right, perhaps "brainwashing" is not the appropriate word for describing what I ment, manipulation being more accurate.

Btw, I don't think that article has anything but facts in it, for what is worth
 
NYT now has an Op-Ed from Nicolas Maduro

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/opinion/venezuela-a-call-for-peace.html

THE recent protests in Venezuela have made international headlines. Much of the foreign media coverage has distorted the reality of my country and the facts surrounding the events.

Venezuelans are proud of our democracy. We have built a participatory democratic movement from the grass roots that has ensured that both power and resources are equitably distributed among our people.

According to the United Nations, Venezuela has consistently reduced inequality: It now has the lowest income inequality in the region. We have reduced poverty enormously — to 25.4 percent in 2012, on the World Bank’s data, from 49 percent in 1998; in the same period, according to government statistics, extreme poverty diminished to 6 percent from 21 percent.

We have created flagship universal health care and education programs, free to our citizens nationwide. We have achieved these feats in large part by using revenue from Venezuelan oil.

While our social policies have improved citizens’ lives over all, the government has also confronted serious economic challenges in the past 16 months, including inflation and shortages of basic goods. We continue to find solutions through measures like our new market-based foreign exchange system, which is designed to reduce the black market exchange rate. And we are monitoring businesses to ensure they are not gouging consumers or hoarding products. Venezuela has also struggled with a high crime rate. We are addressing this by building a new national police force, strengthening community-police cooperation and revamping our prison system.

Since 1998, the movement founded by Hugo Chávez has won more than a dozen presidential, parliamentary and local elections through an electoral process that former American President Jimmy Carter has called “the best in the world.” Recently, the United Socialist Party received an overwhelming mandate in mayoral elections in December 2013, winning 255 out of 337 municipalities.

Popular participation in politics in Venezuela has increased dramatically over the past decade. As a former union organizer, I believe profoundly in the right to association and in the civic duty to ensure that justice prevails by voicing legitimate concerns through peaceful assembly and protest.

The claims that Venezuela has a deficient democracy and that current protests represent mainstream sentiment are belied by the facts. The antigovernment protests are being carried out by people in the wealthier segments of society who seek to reverse the gains of the democratic process that have benefited the vast majority of the people.

Antigovernment protesters have physically attacked and damaged health care clinics, burned down a university in Táchira State and thrown Molotov cocktails and rocks at buses. They have also targeted other public institutions by throwing rocks and torches at the offices of the Supreme Court, the public telephone company CANTV and the attorney general’s office. These violent actions have caused many millions of dollars’ worth of damage. This is why the protests have received no support in poor and working-class neighborhoods.

The protesters have a single goal: the unconstitutional ouster of the democratically elected government. Antigovernment leaders made this clear when they started the campaign in January, vowing to create chaos in the streets. Those with legitimate criticisms of economic conditions or the crime rate are being exploited by protest leaders with a violent, antidemocratic agenda.

In two months, a reported 36 people have been killed. The protesters are, we believe, directly responsible for about half of the fatalities. Six members of the National Guard have been shot and killed; other citizens have been murdered while attempting to remove obstacles placed by protesters to block transit.

A very small number of security forces personnel have also been accused of engaging in violence, as a result of which several people have died. These are highly regrettable events, and the Venezuelan government has responded by arresting those suspected. We have created a Human Rights Council to investigate all incidents related to these protests. Each victim deserves justice, and every perpetrator — whether a supporter or an opponent of the government — will be held accountable for his or her actions.

In the United States, the protesters have been described as “peaceful,” while the Venezuelan government is said to be violently repressing them. According to this narrative, the American government is siding with the people of Venezuela; in reality, it is on the side of the 1 percent who wish to drag our country back to when the 99 percent were shut out of political life and only the few — including American companies — benefited from Venezuela’s oil.

Let’s not forget that some of those who supported ousting Venezuela’s democratically elected government in 2002 are leading the protests today. Those involved in the 2002 coup immediately disbanded the Supreme Court and the legislature, and scrapped the Constitution. Those who incite violence and attempt similar unconstitutional actions today must face the justice system.

The American government supported the 2002 coup and recognized the coup government despite its anti-democratic behavior. Today, the Obama administration spends at least $5 million annually to support opposition movements in Venezuela. A bill calling for an additional $15 million for these anti-government organizations is now in Congress. Congress is also deciding whether to impose sanctions on Venezuela. I hope that the American people, knowing the truth, will decide that Venezuela and its people do not deserve such punishment, and will call upon their representatives not to enact sanctions.

Now is a time for dialogue and diplomacy. Within Venezuela, we have extended a hand to the opposition. And we have accepted the Union of South American Nations’ recommendations to engage in mediated talks with the opposition. My government has also reached out to President Obama, expressing our desire to again exchange ambassadors. We hope his administration will respond in kind.

Venezuela needs peace and dialogue to move forward. We welcome anyone who sincerely wants to help us reach these goals.

I'll leave the commenting to another post.
 
Mirrors EV's 'points' to a T. And of course completely dismisses the complaints and accusations.

Most of the references are a giant circle of links to each other. The guardian citing CEPR, CEPR citing the government sources which in return cite CEPR, the Guardian and Venezeula Analysis as independent sources.

It makes no references to media suppression, violation of separation of powers and erosion of any independence of the judiciary. It also characterizes the opposition has a bunch of neo-liberal capitalists who just want to turn things back to the post Chavez era. But that doesn't really square with the campaign that Capriles ran. Saying he looked to Brazil's economic model as something he wanted to end, denied wanting to end all of Chavez's programs like the 'Misiones bolivarianas' and even mentioned expanding them.

Here were his positions in 2012
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/12/uk-venezuela-election-capriles-idUSTRE81B0FG20120212
 
Mirrors EV's 'points' to a T.

That's because they are good points. I am sure you can find fault with the Venezuelan government. As can I. No government is perfect and all oppress in various ways (that's a project for future humanity to remedy). My opposition is to the undemocratic overthrow of the Venezuelan government, and especially to my own government's involvement in any undemocratic overthrow of the Venezuelan government (because I have moral accountability for that).

If the Venezuelan opposition is going to fuck over poor and working class Venezuelans, let them at least first win an electoral mandate to do so.
 
That's because they are good points. I am sure you can find fault with the Venezuelan government. As can I. No government is perfect and all oppress in various ways (that's a project for future humanity to remedy). My opposition is to the undemocratic overthrow of the Venezuelan government, and especially to my own government's involvement in any undemocratic overthrow of the Venezuelan government (because I have moral accountability for that).

If the Venezuelan opposition is going to fuck over poor and working class Venezuelans, let them at least first win an electoral mandate to do so.

Serious question can a democratically elected government ever lose legitimacy if it violates human rights, democratic norms, oppresses free speech? Don't dance around the question, don't turn it around to the US. Yes or no?
 
Serious question can a democratically elected government ever lose legitimacy if it violates human rights, democratic norms, oppresses free speech? Don't dance around the question, don't turn it around to the US. Yes or no?

I think so, the question is where you draw that line. And I don't think the Venezuelan government is anywhere near it. I also think democratic governments can use force to defend themselves against violence by political minorities (but not against peaceful protesters). The Venezuelan government has so far observed that principle, typical law enforcement excesses aside. Contrast this, for example, with Egypt, where because the government was never democratic to begin with, no violence it exercised was ever legitimate.

I should add that I think the instances in which a democratic government has crossed the line would be rare in the real world. That's because by their very nature democracies must obtain the political support of half of the country's politically active people. Of course, sometimes the political majority is insane. See 1930's Germany and even Jim Crow US. Did the US government's enforcement of racial segregation render it democratically illegitimate? I suspect were I alive I might have thought so. Democracies in all countries are far from perfect. Some are better than others, but all can stand vast improvement. This is something humanity needs to struggle to reform the world over.
 

alstein

Member
Serious question can a democratically elected government ever lose legitimacy if it violates human rights, democratic norms, oppresses free speech? Don't dance around the question, don't turn it around to the US. Yes or no?

Yes if sufficient enough. See Ukraine for an example. Once they do that, it's inevitable they'll vote-rig next, and then it's just another dictatorship.

Respect for minority rights is a cornerstone for freedom.
 
I think so, the question is where you draw that line. And I don't think the Venezuelan government is anywhere near it. I also think democratic governments can use force to defend themselves against violence by political minorities (but not against peaceful protesters). The Venezuelan government has so far observed that principle, typical law enforcement excesses aside. Contrast this, for example, with Egypt, where because the government was never democratic to begin with, no violence it exercised was ever legitimate.

I should add that I think the instances in which a democratic government has crossed the line would be rare in the real world. That's because by their very nature democracies must obtain the political support of half of the country's politically active people. Of course, sometimes the political majority is insane. See 1930's Germany and even Jim Crow US. Did the US government's enforcement of racial segregation render it democratically illegitimate? I suspect were I alive I might have thought so. Democracies in all countries are far from perfect. Some are better than others, but all can stand vast improvement. This is something humanity needs to struggle to reform the world over.

Thanks for answering the question. I mean that sincerely and not in a snide way.


Corker is blocking a bill to sanction the regime. Would this put make him 'your political ally' if Rubio is mine?
 
Corker is blocking a bill to sanction the regime. Would this put make him 'your political ally' if Rubio is mine?

He is at least demonstrating some sanity on the issue, but do note that all he said was that Congress should wait to hear the Administration's position (which is likely to be the wrong one). The call for sanctions is a transparent attempt to meddle with another country's democratic governance because of ideological disagreement with the Venezuelan people's free and independent choices for self-government. All (small d) democrats should oppose such actions on principle.

None of the members of congress nor any of the resolutions mention the fact that of the 18 tragic deaths in Venezuela since the protests began, many were not protestors, but individuals removing barricades and motorcyclists killed by wires strung across streets, or by crashing into barricades. In one case, a member of the Venezuelan National Guard was shot and killed. The Senate resolution makes no call for both sides to refrain from violence nor does it condemn the violent actions of some from the protest movement, however it does deplore “the use of excessive and unlawful force against peaceful demonstrators in Venezuela and the inexcusable use of violence...to intimidate the country’s political opposition.”

While, undoubtedly, excessive force has been used by members of the Venezuelan security forces, over 10 individuals have been arrested for these actions and further investigations are under way. According to the Attorney General (AG) of Venezuela, there are currently 27 investigations into violations of human rights. The AG, Luisa Ortega Diaz, stated that her office “will not tolerate violations of human rights under any circumstance and that any official turns out to be responsible will be sanctioned as established by the laws of Venezuela.” Far from censoring information or trying to hide the extent of the arrests or of those killed in the last few weeks, Diaz has provided regular updates to the press and has kept the public informed about the status of investigations.

http://www.cepr.net/index.php/blogs...ions-against-members-of-venezuelan-government

In any event, a government that targets its own citizens for summary execution, refuses to prosecute torturers, and recently repressed its own people's attempt to exercise basic political rights is hardly in a position to castigate the Venezuelan government.
 
http://fusion.net/leadership/story/meet-venezuela-news-anchor-quit-air-censorship-571125

Television host of Globovision (formerly private network that was for all intents and purposes taken over Chavez/Maduro government)

Resigns a long with 50 others in protest of government control.

Funny thing though. EV constantly brings up the firing of Phil Donahue for the criticism of the Iraq war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJ5dmkkFno

PHIL DONOHUE: You didn't have him alone. He had to be there with someone else who supported the war. In other words, you couldn't have Scott Ritter alone. You could have Richard Perle alone.

BILL MOYERS: You could have the conservative.

PHIL DONOHUE: You could have the supporters of the President alone. And they would say why this war is important. You couldn't have a dissenter alone. Our producers were instructed to feature two conservatives for every liberal.

BILL MOYERS: You're kidding.

PHIL DONOHUE: No this is absolutely true.

BILL MOYERS: Instructed from above?

PHIL DONOHUE: Yes. I was counted as two liberals.

BILL MOYERS: Eric Sorenson, who was the president of MSNBC, told the NEW YORK TIMES quote: "Any misstep and you can get into trouble with these guys and have the patriotism police hunt you down."

PHIL DONOHUE: He's the management guy. So his phone would ring. Nobody's going to call Donahue and tell him to shut up and support the war. Nobody's that foolish. It's a lot more subtle than that.

MICHAEL MASSING: I think that what happened in the months leading up to the war is that there was a sort of acceptable mainstream opinion that got set. And I think that people who were seen as outside, that mainstream were viewed as sort of fringe, and they were marginalized.


Globovision Reporter:

You’ve worked with the previous owners and the current owners of Globovision, have you found any differences?

There are lots of differences. There is no balance now. Perhaps under the old ownership we made mistakes, we have to admit that. But here there is absolutely no balance. For example, the mode of operating for show producers is that if you are going to talk about a political issue with a member of the opposition, you must invite someone from the government for that same show. If a government spokesperson is not available, you have to cancel the segment. But the same is not true if an opposition person is not available. Then the segment can run.
What do you think that people outside Venezuela, should know about the current situation in Venezuela?

“Wow. It’s a long story. What should they know? They should know that there is a big lack of respect for the law here, that occurs daily. They should know that in this country there is no separation of powers. For example, with Chavez and also now, you see the president saying on TV that x person should be imprisoned, and not many days pass before that person is imprisoned. There is almost no respect for human rights here.
If you're gonna call the US news propaganda for the white house doesn't it follow with examples like these that Venezuela is the same? At least in the US its a metaphorical police.

Would you admit there there isn't a 'free press' in the country?
 
http://fusion.net/leadership/story/meet-venezuela-news-anchor-quit-air-censorship-571125

Television host of Globovision (formerly private network that was for all intents and purposes taken over Chavez/Maduro government)

Resigns a long with 50 others in protest of government control.

Funny thing though. EV constantly brings up the firing of Phil Donahue for the criticism of the Iraq war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJ5dmkkFno

Globovision Reporter:

If you're gonna call the US news propaganda for the white house doesn't it follow with examples like these that Venezuela is the same? At least in the US its a metaphorical police.

Would you admit there there isn't a 'free press' in the country?

First, I think some context is in order. According to a 2002 Le Monde Diplomatique article,

After Chávez came to power in 1998, the five main privately owned channels - Venevisión, Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), Globovisión and CMT - and nine of the 10 major national newspapers, including El Universal, El Nacional, Tal Cual, El Impulso, El Nuevo País, and El Mundo, have taken over the role of the traditional political parties, which were damaged by the president’s electoral victories. Their monopoly on information has put them in a strong position. They give the opposition support, only rarely reporting government statements and never mentioning its large majority, despite that majority’s confirmation at the ballot box. They have always described the working class districts as a red zone inhabited by dangerous classes of ignorant people and delinquents. No doubt considering them unphotogenic, they ignore working class leaders and organisations.

Further,

Never even in Latin American history has the media been so directly involved in a political coup. Venezuela’s ’hate media’ controls 95% of the airwaves and has a near-monopoly over newsprint, and it played a major part in the failed attempt to overthrow the president, Hugo Chávez, in April. Although tensions in the country could easily spill into civil war, the media is still directly encouraging dissident elements to overthrow the democratically elected president - if necessary by force.

And specifically,

On 7 April Ortega and Carmona announced that there was to be a general strike. The editor of El Nacional, Miguel Enrique Otero, stood shoulder to shoulder with them and spoke on behalf of the press: "We are all involved in this struggle in defence of the right to information." Two days later the BPV, which had just been visited by the new US ambassador, Charles Shapiro, decided to back the strike. From then on the television companies broadcast live from the headquarters of the PDVSA-Chuao, the designated assembly point for opposition demonstrations.

"Take to the streets" thundered El Nacional on 10 April (in an unattributed editorial). "Ni un paso atrás! (not one step backwards)" responded the hoardings on Globovisión. Another TV company broadcast: "Venezuelans, take to the streets on Thursday 11 April at 10am. Bring your flags. For freedom and democracy. Venezuela will not surrender. No one will defeat us." The call to overthrow the head of state became so obvious that the government applied Article 192 of the telecommunications law. More than 30 times -for all television and radio channels - it requisitioned 15-20 minutes’ air time to broadcast its views. But the broadcasters divided the screen in two and continued to urge rebellion.

The private Venezuelan media was (and largely remains) the tea party on steroids, far, far worse than Fox News and serving no real press function at all. It was (and largely remains) simply the radical (revolutionary) political opposition. Since 2002, some actions have been taken against media. For example, RCTV's broadcast license was not renewed in 2007. But that is a perfectly legitimate governmental action. Broadcast licenses are not rights and those who receive their privilege have certain social responsibilities, responsibilities which much of private Venezuelan media wholly failed to abide. Globovision and RCTV both lost cases before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights challenging the Venezuelan government's actions (decision here (PDF)). People aren't generally allowed to foment imminent violence and the overthrow of a democratic government under the guise of press freedom.

Circling back to Globovision, that company changed ownership in May of 2013. This was a private market transaction. The new ownership has tempered its strident anti-government advocacy, and this has caused some journalists to leave, probably perceiving this tampering down of extremist, one-sided coverage as "bias." Again, think about a tea partying Fox News viewer who thinks every other media outlet is liberal. That is the frame through which you should be understanding these events.

Now, all of that said, if your question is whether I think US media is unique, the answer is absolutely not. I think media the world over operates much the same. The one difference between Venezuela and the US is that the range of acceptable debate in the Venezuelan press is much broader, because there is both private media that represents business interests (which has the largest share of viewership in Venezuela) and state media which represents the Venezuelan people's democratic choices. US business interests have a solidification of power that is currently lacking in Venezuela, which is politically divided. I do think that if the US government ever came into control by progressives or socialists who presented a real threat to corporate control, you would see a broadening of the range of debate in US media, precisely because the range of power has broadened.

Powerful interests always try to control and shape public opinion. And it should be obvious that media owners and editors have a huge impact on what gets covered and can and do use that power to shape public opinion. That is indeed happening here, just as it happens in the US. In this particular instance, however, I happen to think moderation of Globovision (and the exit of radicalized, Fox News-like journalists) will probably produce better journalism, if by that we mean the provision of accurate information that is useful to self-government.
 

FerDS

Member
Today at 3:00 am 243 people where detained. Most of them had been in protesting in some of Caracas squares and the biggest group was in front of the UN, they had been there for some weeks with tents. According to the government they had information that the "violent groups" had these places as operational bases. The protestors called these "freedom camps"

Also, today is the preliminary audience of Leopoldo Lopez to decide if he goes to trial, the zone around the palace of justice is militarized and I just read he's being transfered there right now.

El Universal, one of Venezuela's biggest newspaper (if not the biggest) has announced that they only have enough paper left until around the 15th of this month, because the government has yet to approve the dollars needed for the 600 tons of paper (that has been in Venezuela's port since January 17th) to enter the country


Edit: Leopoldo López audience was suspended...
 

mantidor

Member
Today at 3:00 am 243 people where detained. Most of them had been in protesting in some of Caracas squares and the biggest group was in front of the UN, they had been there for some weeks with tents. According to the government they had information that the "violent groups" had these places as operational bases. The protestors called these "freedom camps"

Also, today is the preliminary audience of Leopoldo Lopez to decide if he goes to trial, the zone around the palace of justice is militarized and I just read he's being transfered there right now.

El Universal, one of Venezuela's biggest newspaper (if not the biggest) has announced that they only have enough paper left until around the 15th of this month, because the government has yet to approve the dollars needed for the 600 tons of paper (that has been in Venezuela's port since January 17th) to enter the country

I remember reading Colombia send trucks full of paper but they couldn't get through, you know anything about that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom