Originally posted by generalissimoHugo Chavez Allies Score Big Wins in Venezuela Elections
Can't handle the truth, heh?
President Hugo Chavez's candidates won a majority of the governor's elections in Venezuela on Sunday, but opposition forces could point to gains with victories in several major states as well as the capital city, Caracas.
"The people are telling me, 'Chavez, continue down the same road, the road of socialism,' " Chavez said early Monday just after the main results were announced. But he also acknolwedged the opposition's advance. "We have to carry out a self-criticism where that's necessary[...]
Venezuelans voted on touch screen machines. Each person had up to six minutes to vote. After voting, each person dipped their right pinkie in an inkwell to prevent voting a second time.
The rest of the article is here...
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/56347.html
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat if it's legislation that's worsening working conditions? You seem to be missing my point - strikes for purely political purposes are indeed not covered by human rights. That's pretty obvious, and repeating point to polarise my argument does not constitute debate. Strikes are, however, permitted by the ILO as a method of social and economic policy change. This is the part that's being violated.
Your refusal to accept the reality that the pre-existing unions in Venezuela were dismal failures or to accept that most workers willingly left them is predictable. Your refusal to admit that what the HRW is proposing is that government unions be allowed to strike for nothing more than political purposes rather than to better the working conditions of th won't listen to anything but the anti-Chavez propaganda of a hack like Vivanco.
http://training.itcilo.org/ils/cd_foa/English/articles/Principles_strike/Principles_strike005.pdf
For example, a general strike to raise the minimum wage is permitted under the ILO, but not under the Chavez government.
This is a huge grey area, but what Chavez does blocks it out completely. Yes, he did it in response to an attempted coup, but he's now put policy in place that goes too far and he openly abuses it. I previously made the point that he's made a lot of progress with unions but there's room for improvement. How is that "not listening to anything but anti-Chavez propaganda". Or are you subconsciously referring to your inability to objectively read a source that criticises Chavez? Do you have any problems with Chavez's government or is he absolute perfection?
Since you don't understand how the rights are being violated I'll spell it out for you. Leaving unions in limbo for over a year without a leader because they're not pro government is a violation of rights. All the members of that union are being denied the right to collectively bargain in that time. Burying your head in the sand and saying that it takes 17 months to ascertain whether or not an election is legit is incredibly naive. If it took this long for a presidential election, there would be a huge outcry.
By the way, quoting a comedian to justify a leftist bias is pretty damn hilarious. Not only is it a dreadful justification for using a bias source, it's another non-sequitur. Go look up non-sequitur because it seems to crop up in your arguments quite frequently. Are there any articles in your source that criticise Venezuelan policy? I had a quick look and they were all too happy to quote Vivanco praising the media before it was manipulated by the government. One bit of criticism and Vivanco's expelled from the country for trying to bring down the government. If this happened in a Westernised country there'd be a big freedom of speech outcry. The fact is people are being more and more ostracised for criticising the government, and that's not exactly what you'd call democratic.
Originally posted by mrstabbyAre you aware what an "Ad Hominem" fallacy is? Because that is what you are doing. You haven't disputed a single factual point raised by the venezuelanalysis site, you just say it should be disregarded because it's "left wing". My mentioning this is not a "non sequitur"; I suggest YOU look up what that phrase means. Until you can actually point out something in the source that is factually erroneous, you have failed to raise any argument worthy of notice.
What if it's legislation that's worsening working conditions? You seem to be missing my point - strikes for purely political purposes are indeed not covered by human rights. That's pretty obvious, and repeating point to polarise my argument does not constitute debate. Strikes are, however, permitted by the ILO as a method of social and economic policy ch ...[text shortened]... criticising the government, and that's not exactly what you'd call democratic.
HRW continues to insist that the oil strike 6 months after the coup was "legitimate strike activity". To say that strains credulity is putting it mildly. Your example of a strike to raise the minimum wage has nothing to do with the topic at hand as you well know; in fact the minimum wage has been significantly increased under Chavez. Talk about non sequiturs ......................
As pointed out by the sites I gave and has is generally well known, there are many sources in Venezuela for opposition viewpoints including three large circulation newspapers in Caracas. The hysterical parroting of false claims regarding suppression of opposition speech is intellectually dishonest. The opposition was allowed to get their message across and the voters rejected them and it. And that is exactly what you call "democratic".
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, I'm aware of the Ad Hominem fallacy, your article is FULL of them. If you could be bothered to read what I said it was your use of a comedian's quote to justify using a bias source was the non sequitur. I pointed out some factual fallacies in the article which were used to smear the author of the paper.
Are you aware what an "Ad Hominem" fallacy is? Because that is what you are doing. You haven't disputed a single factual point raised by the venezuelanalysis site, you just say it should be disregarded because it's "left wing". My mentioning this is not a "non sequitur"; I suggest YOU look up what that phrase means. Until you can actually point out somet ...[text shortened]... and the voters rejected them and it. And that is exactly what you call "democratic".
It then goes on to reiterate the unsubstantiated claim made by Chavez that the motivation behind the strikes was to depose the government. Read pages 177-9 to see why the strike was not illegitimate. In short they were given no opportunity to discuss their reasons for a strike - Chavez's claim that the strike was illegitimate was not justified. In other words Chavez served as judge, jury and executioner.
Your link does nothing to dispute the HRW report, all it does is emphasise the concessions that the report has made and reiterate Chavez's argument. It provides arguments against the introduction, without looking at the points raised in the rest of the report. It's not even a rebuttal, so what is there to dispute?
One thing that puzzles me is your inability to answer my questions. If your argument has integrity then this should pose no problem. Incidentally, my example was one of a legitimate political strike that's geared towards protesting social and economic policies, as you seemed to be having trouble understanding the point I was making.
Suppression of opposition speech... How's about reading the article and showing me where it claims opposition speech is being suppressed? It only goes as far to say that pro government media stations are treated more favourably than those that criticise the government, abusing it's power... which is a bit of a strawman considering the rest of the content of the media section
Try and tell me how your link disputes the illegality of Insult laws... "all top Venezuelan officials now enjoy enhanced legal protection against media criticism. "
Also.. "Because the crime of insult does not require that the speaker or writer accuse an
official of specific actions but merely that he or she use language that subjectively
“offends” or “disrespects” a public official, defendants in insult prosecutions cannot
escape conviction by proving the truth of what they assert."
The claim made in your link that the laws regarding slander are demonstrably false - the laws are very vague, using imprecise and broad wording; for example saying something that causes a public official to lose reputation is illegal. People are being prosecuted for writing opinion pieces, which is obvious violation of freedom of speech. Defamation laws exists for when you deliberately present something false as fact. So yes, anti-government media exists, but so do examples of people being prosecuted for voicing their opinions.
Originally posted by mrstabbyWhen you actually ask a relevant question, I'll answer it.
Yes, I'm aware of the Ad Hominem fallacy, your article is FULL of them. If you could be bothered to read what I said it was your use of a comedian's quote to justify using a bias source was the non sequitur. I pointed out some factual fallacies in the article which were used to smear the author of the paper.
It then goes on to reiterate the unsubstanti ...[text shortened]... ia exists, but so do examples of people being prosecuted for voicing their opinions.
The reasons given why the oil strike was not a "political one" are the sheerest of BS. Even someone as gullible as you apparently are can't possibly believe that the goal of a general strike (which the vast majority of workers ignored) called less than 6 months after a failed military coup (which was supported by the CTV) wasn't the elected President's overthrow. It failed due to lack of popular support and some of those who engaged in that illegal activity (illegal in virtually every country on the globe) lost their jobs. Tough titty. Please google "Air Traffic Controllers Strike" and see how the US government treated those who engaged in an illegal job action (which was far less serious than the oil strike in Venezuela).
Originally posted by no1marauderWhen I ask a question you're not afraid to answer honestly you'll answer it. Every time you point out a US misdemeanour you're engaging in misdirection. What is your motive behind this?
When you actually ask a relevant question, I'll answer it.
The reasons given why the oil strike was not a "political one" are the sheerest of BS. Even someone as gullible as you apparently are can't possibly believe that the goal of a general strike (which the vast majority of workers ignored) called less than 6 months after a failed m ...[text shortened]... in an illegal job action (which was far less serious than the oil strike in Venezuela).
The workers that were fired - procedures to talk to heads of unions were not followed, and no investigation was undertaken to find out who the real saboteurs were. Chavez just branded them all as saboteurs when he could have been fair about it. No amount of rhetoric gets you past the fact that the strike was deemed legitimate by the ILO, and Chavez was obliged to hold talks with union leaders before taking action. All he had to do was hold talks and attempt to reach an agreement. Is that so difficult to do? If the strike was as politically motivated as you'd say it appears then he'd easily have shown they have no leg to stand on. It's the fact that they were all presumed guilty and not given a chance to prove their innocence that bothers me. Again, I say this whilst upholding that Chavez has made a lot of progress but still has a way to go.
1 edit
Originally posted by mrstabbyI explained this to you already, but you ignore anything that doesn't fit into the ill-informed position you have already taken:
When I ask a question you're not afraid to answer honestly you'll answer it. Every time you point out a US misdemeanour you're engaging in misdirection. What is your motive behind this?
The workers that were fired - procedures to talk to heads of unions were not followed, and no investigation was undertaken to find out who the real saboteurs were. C ay this whilst upholding that Chavez has made a lot of progress but still has a way to go.
The practice of nations is a relevant consideration as to what violates international law.
No country tolerates strikes who's purpose is the overthrow of the elected government. No government is required to negotiate with those who are attempting to topple the government by illegal means. No country tolerates work stoppages in public sectors that are critical to the safety of its people or are vital to its economy. These points are really beyond dispute, but you may ignore them if you wish.