The Houston Chronicle Lies About the Recall Referendum in Venezuela

I am writing to express Human Rights Watch’s deep concern about credible reports we have received that National Guard and police officers beat and tortured people who were detained during the recent protests in Caracas and other Venezuelan cities. Such cases were not unusual or exceptional. The abuses allegedly committed were widespread and appeared to enjoy official approval at some level of command in the forces responsible for them.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/12/venezu8423_txt.htm

Human Rights Watch has repeatedly stated that Venezuelans enjoy ample margins of freedom of expression. It has pointed out that the country’s major newspapers and television channels are highly critical of or even opposed to the current government, and do not hesitate to express their views. Nevertheless, Human Rights Watch has also firmly opposed actions or legislation that might restrict this freedom.

In a letter sent to President Hugo Chávez on July 1, for instance, Human Rights Watch criticized the investigations opened by the Ministry of Infrastructure against RCTV, Globovisión, Televen and Venevisión. Such investigations, Human Rights Watch stated, could encourage a climate of self-censorship. In the same letter, Human Rights Watch also expressed its concern about the proposed television and radio law.

Human Rights Watch believes that, with a recall referendum currently under discussion in Venezuela, the democratic benefits of an open public debate are more than ever crucial. It therefore urges the government to firmly avoid infringing on the freedom that Venezuelans currently have to express their views.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/venezuela102803.htm

I am writing to express Human Rights Watch’s deep concern about credible reports we have received that National Guard and police officers beat and tortured people who were detained during the recent protests in Caracas and other Venezuelan cities. Such cases were not unusual or exceptional. The abuses allegedly committed were widespread and appeared to enjoy official approval at some level of command in the forces responsible for them.

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/12/venezu8423_txt.htm



PLEASE ANSWER Is the apparently official policy of beating and torturing of protestors what you mean by 'full freedom of expression'?

Venezuela: Official Press Agency Distorts Human Rights Watch’s Position

(Washington, October 28, 2003) Venezuela’s official government press agency has published an article that distorts Human Rights Watch’s position on freedom of expression, Human Rights Watch said today.

The article, published on October 23 by Venpres on the website, quoted Americas Division Executive Director José Miguel Vivanco as saying that “Venezuela enjoys full democracy and freedom of expression.” Taken out of context and used as a headline for an article defending the government’s proposed Bill on the Social Responsibility of Radio and Television, the quotation misinterprets the opinion of Human Rights Watch.

At a recent breakfast in Washington with Venezuelan authorities, Vivanco offered strong criticisms of both the draft law and of the country’s other obstacles to freedom of expression. He noted that the proposed law contains repressive provisions that could stifle the public debate and foster self-censorship in the media. He also expressed concern about the recent confiscation of broadcasting equipment from Globovisión.

Vivanco specifically rebutted remarks made by Jesse Chacón, Minister of Communications and Information, who said that there is no norm in Venezuelan legislation at present that penalizes criticism of government authorities (desacato). As Vivanco pointed out, the Venezuelan Supreme Court has expressly declared the desacato norms in the country’s Criminal Code to be constitutional. In doing so, the Court ignored Venezuela’s international treaty obligations to protect free expression.

Human Rights Watch has repeatedly stated that Venezuelans enjoy ample margins of freedom of expression. It has pointed out that the country’s major newspapers and television channels are highly critical of or even opposed to the current government, and do not hesitate to express their views. Nevertheless, Human Rights Watch has also firmly opposed actions or legislation that might restrict this freedom.

In a letter sent to President Hugo Chávez on July 1, for instance, Human Rights Watch criticized the investigations opened by the Ministry of Infrastructure against RCTV, Globovisión, Televen and Venevisión. Such investigations, Human Rights Watch stated, could encourage a climate of self-censorship. In the same letter, Human Rights Watch also expressed its concern about the proposed television and radio law.

Human Rights Watch believes that, with a recall referendum currently under discussion in Venezuela, the democratic benefits of an open public debate are more than ever crucial. It therefore urges the government to firmly avoid infringing on the freedom that Venezuelans currently have to express their views.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2003/10/venezuela102803.htm

Reporters Without Borders - Venezuela - Annual Report 2004


The media are still sharply divided between supporting and opposing President Chávez. After many attacks on journalists at the beginning of 2003 and new threats by the government against the media, the press freedom situation gradually became less tense.

2003 began very badly for press freedom and most of the year's 75 physical attacks on journalists were during the general strike that began in December 2002 and lasted until February 2003 in a bid to force President Hugo Chávez to resign. The attacks, during anti-government demonstrations that accompanied the strike, especially targeted journalists from the privately-owned media and were mostly by Chávez supporters angry at the biggest media outlets, which actively backed the opposition movement, sometimes violating journalistic principles. In such a polarised atmosphere, some pro-government journalists took an equally partisan stance and were in turn attacked by opposition supporters.
After the strike ended, administrative and legislative measures replaced physical attacks. When it became clear the strike had failed, the government stepped up attacks and harassment of the media, launching proceedings against five TV stations for "inciting rebellion," threatening tax penalties and foreign exchange restrictions and passing a law about the "social responsibility" of the media. The new law would punish "excusing or advocating disrespect for lawful institutions and authorities" and penalties would be decided by a commission, eight of whose 11 members were named by the government.

MORE: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10240&Valider=OK