Chavez Puts an End to Sexual Descrimination

[Coggeh]

The current reforms to the Venezuelan constitution will add sexual orientation to the categories under which discrimination is prohibited. The reforms have already been put forth by the National Assembly and are scheduled for a national referendum on December 2nd 2007.

The reform is specifically to Article 21 and it is believed this will pave the way to allow for gay marriage and the claiming of inheritance etc.

Anti-discrimination was proposed in the past under Chávez, but due to forceful opposition from the Catholic Church, they were dropped from the final drafts
In 2002, Current President Hugo Chávez voiced his regret for their exclusion, signalling that they may be included in future rounds of constitutional reform.


http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section....id=5&detail=789 (http://www.iglhrc.org/site/iglhrc/section.php?id=5&detail=789)

[lvleph]

I am so mixed about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. There are definitely some good reforms (this being one), but there are some other reforms, that I am not so sure about (term limits).

I don't think they took it far enough with this, though. How can they claim non-discrimination and then discriminate when it comes to gay marriage?

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:00 am
I am so mixed about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. There are definitely some good reforms (this being one), but there are some other reforms, that I am not so sure about (term limits).

I think you are taking the term limits issue a bit out of context; France and some other European countries have no term limits for their presidents as well, and do you see the United States and its media apparatus getting angry with those other countries? No.

The only people who wish to propagate the concept of Chavez "imposing the end of term limits as an attempt to consolidate a dictatorship" are those that have this, almost instinctive, fear that Chavez may eventually go all the way and get rid the order of Capitalism in that country, through the pressure of the masses. In their eyes, this would set a dangerous example to the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean and, may very well cause revolutions in those countries that are similar in content.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Communist FireFox+November 20, 2007 11:53 am--> (Communist FireFox @ November 20, 2007 11:53 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 11:00 am
I am so mixed about Hugo Chavez and Venezuela. There are definitely some good reforms (this being one), but there are some other reforms, that I am not so sure about (term limits).

I think you are taking the term limits issue out of context; France and some other European countries have no term limits for their presidents as well. The only people who wish to propagate the concept of Chavez "imposing the end of term limits as an attempt to consolidate a dictatorship" are those that have this, almost instinctive, fear that Chavez may eventually go all the way and get rid the order of Capitalism in that country, through the pressure of the masses. In their eyes, this would set a dangerous example to the rest of Latin America and the Caribbean and, may very well cause revolutions in those countries that are similar in content. [/b]
I guess I feel the new 7(?) yr term is too long.

[VukBZ2005]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 11:54 am
I guess I feel the new 7(?) yr term is too long.
Many other countries have presidential terms that are about six to seven-years long. I do not really see it as a problem.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Communist FireFox+November 20, 2007 11:58 am--> (Communist FireFox @ November 20, 2007 11:58 am)
[email protected] 20, 2007 11:54 am
I guess I feel the new 7(?) yr term is too long.
Many other countries have presidential terms that are about six to seven-years long. I do not really see it as a problem. [/b]
I don't agree with those other countries limits either.

[RedStarOverChina]

I'm pretty sure this won't "put an end" to discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it's quite progressive indeed.

[dty06]

This is a great step forward. It seems that pretty soon the US will be the only country without gay marriage. When countries like Venezuela can do this, but the US cannot, it only proves that we are a very backwards nation indeed.

[manic expression]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 05:48 pm
I don't agree with those other countries limits either.
You're an anarchist, right? Then you probably wouldn't agree with any term, especially since it's an executive position within a state.

Anyway, this is another great step from Venezuela.

[lvleph]

It shouldn't be ignored that they are not providing for Gay Marriage or Civil Unions, and so they are still discriminating.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Who -- besides those with faith in some non-existent "democracy" -- cares about the length of the presidential term in the Venezuelan capitalist state?

The duty of revolutionaries is to make revolutions. Period. That's what we need to look for.

Besides, if you're really concerned with "democracy for the sake of democracy," you should know that term limits are undemocratic. If the majority of people want to elect the same person for 100 years, any law that prevents that would go against their will, and therefor be undemocratic.

[Faux Real]

This is great, LBGTs in Latin America have had a historically difficult life with the tight grip of Catholicism/homophobia among the populaces. Hopefully neighboring countries' gay communities will demand changes similar to what's being done in Venezuela to their national laws as well.

[spartan]

I think that having term limits is un-Democratic because what if the majority of people want a specific person to still lead them and their country but this person cant because this person has reached the term limits and cant go on leading (even when the majority of people want this person to carry on leading the country)?

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20, 2007 09:21 pm
I think that having term limits is un-Democratic because what if the majority of people want a specific person to still lead them and their country but this person cant because this person has reached the term limits and cant go on leading (even when the majority of people want this person to carry on leading the country)?
That's traditionalism for ya.

[lvleph]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 20, 2007 03:51 pm
Who -- besides those with faith in some non-existent "democracy" -- cares about the length of the presidential term in the Venezuelan capitalist state?

The duty of revolutionaries is to make revolutions. Period. That's what we need to look for.

Besides, if you're really concerned with "democracy for the sake of democracy," you should know that term limits are undemocratic. If the majority of people want to elect the same person for 100 years, any law that prevents that would go against their will, and therefor be undemocratic.
I wasn't referring to the number of times someone could serve, but the length each term was. Sorry for the confusion.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Just a quick reminder, is abortion legal in Venezuela?

[Faux Real]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 20, 2007 01:32 pm
Just a quick reminder, is abortion legal in Venezuela?
-_- Nope, only when the womans life is in danger.

The country should take steps towards full legalization too.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I knew the answer. That question was rhetorical. :)

[bootleg42]

I think that's more because of the culture. Remember than in many ways socially in latin america, things like abortion or homosexuality are seen as bad and are not seen as good. This comes DIRECTLY from traditionalism and from the influence of the church in society in ALL of latin america. Hopefully it will change but it must change from the people wanting it and believe me, in latin america, most people claim to be against things like abortion. Everytime I visit my family and friends in Bolivia and Venezuela, they rip on me for believing abortion should be legal.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Abortion is legal in Cuba.

Blaming things on "culture" is scape-goating, and blaming oppressed people for their oppression.

"Most workers claim to be against communism." How does that sound?

[Herman]

Abortion is legal in Cuba.

Blaming things on "culture" is scape-goating, and blaming oppressed people for their oppression.

No it isn't. Cuba has had almost 50 years of legalized abortion. In all those years, culture has changed, so most Cubans now view that every woman should have the right to decide over their own body. And no one is blaming "oppressed" people for anything.


"Most workers claim to be against communism." How does that sound?

Which could be true in many countries. Again, cultural hegemony.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Cuba is not a part of Latin America? Were most people for or against abortion before the Cuban Revolution? Why did the Cuban Revolution extend the right to abortion on demand to all women, instead of rejecting such an idea in the name of not offending "culture"?

"Culture" is a reflection of the underpinnings of society. Our goal is to change all of that, which includes having women assert their right to control their own bodies.


Which could be true in many countries.

Of course it's true. That was the point.

Should we not fight for communism because "most workers are against it"?

[Sankofa]

Should we not fight for communism because "most workers are against it"?

If this is what the majority of you all believe; you visionaries about a socialist revolution in the United States can throw in the towel.

And before some leftist patriot comes in here swinging, no I'm not "attacking" the American working class, just stating the reality of the situation.

[bootleg42]

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 20, 2007 11:12 pm
Cuba is not a part of Latin America? Were most people for or against abortion before the Cuban Revolution? Why did the Cuban Revolution extend the right to abortion on demand to all women, instead of rejecting such an idea in the name of not offending "culture"?

"Culture" is a reflection of the underpinnings of society. Our goal is to change all of that, which includes having women assert their right to control their own bodies.


Which could be true in many countries.

Of course it's true. That was the point.

Should we not fight for communism because "most workers are against it"?
I think you missed my point. I was not trying to justify the fact that abortion is illegal in Venezuela nor do I believe it should be illegal.

I was just stating the reason why it is illegal and that if it changes, it must come from the people themselves. Again read my quote:


This comes DIRECTLY from traditionalism and from the influence of the church in society in ALL of latin america. Hopefully it will change but it must change from the people wanting it and believe me, in latin america, most people claim to be against things like abortion. Everytime I visit my family and friends in Bolivia and Venezuela, they rip on me for believing abortion should be legal.

Everytime I go back to latin america, I always try to change the minds of my friends and family and I do my best.

I say in order to change it, we must un-do what traditionalism and the influence of the church has done to people's thinking instead of hoping that any government changes it.

If we can un-do what those regressive forces has done, we can get more changes than just the abortion issue to enter social awareness.