Chavez backtracks on spy law

[spartan]

Chavez backtracks on spy law
http://english.aljazeera.net/mritems/images/2008/5/15/1_248125_1_5.jpg
Chavez said his government was not backtracking
but rectifying "errors" [AFP]

Hugo Chavez is annulling a controversial intelligence law that his opponents say is autocratic.

The Venezuelan president said that the country's national assembly would draft a new version of the law that originally would have sent people to jail for four years if they refused to work as informants for intelligence agencies.

"I think it's best to annul this law and make another one," Chavez said, but denied that his government was on the defensive.

"This is a government that rectifies," he said during a televised address on Tuesday.

"Some say Chavez is backtracking. Well, whoever wants to see it that way can see it that way. No, I move on."

Critics said the law would have obliged citizens to spy on each other, and Chavez has since said that the law had "errors" amnd must be "corrected" by congress.

Demonstrators have held up signs depicting toads - the Venezuelan term for people who inform on their neighbours.

Human rights groups and the Roman Catholic Church also criticised the decree.

Farc turnaround
The latest backtrack by the left-wing president follows another turnaround on Sunday when he urged Colombia's Farc rebels to lay down their weapons and unilaterally release their hostages.

Five months ago Chavez urged world leaders to back the left-wing group's armed struggle.

First elected in 1998, Chavez is still trying to recover from the defeat in December of a constitutional referendum that would have enabled him to run for re-election indefinitely and extend his power in other ways.

Now his party is facing elections in November, and Chavez is seeking support for another referendum in 2010 to end term limits on his presidency.

"Chavez cannot be oblivious to the public reaction" as the elections near, said TeodoroPetkoff, a political opponent who now edits the daily newspaper Tal Cual.

"He doesn't want too many polemical issues circling around."

On Tuesday Chavez also denied he fathered a child who is filing a paternity suit.

Speaking at a rally for steel workers, the president, who has been divorced twice and has three children, said he did not know the accuser's mother.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4EF93CAF-600C-4193-878B-7555113B12B8.htm

[BIG BROTHER]

That spy law, or ley del sapo is a law that I didn't like very much, since it gives the state a good deal off power over the individual. The only problem though is that with the U.S. and the Venezuelan opposition rallying against Chavez it seems to me that a law like that is somewhat necessary.

[Comrade B]

The empire bears similar laws. It's nothing new to tell people that they must report crimes or they will be arrested.

[Robespierre2.0]

Aww Chavez... you're disappointing me!
Oh well, this just means that Venezuela is all the more vulnerable. It's only a matter of time before the U.S. pulls another Pinochet...

[BIG BROTHER]

Aww Chavez... you're disappointing me!
Oh well, this just means that Venezuela is all the more vulnerable. It's only a matter of time before the U.S. pulls another Pinochet...

Thats what worries me, and the worst part is that they already tried!

[Saorsa]

I think that Chavez is making a mistake in his strategic line. He thinks that because he lost the referendum, he needs to "slow things down" and moderate. But the only reason he lost the referendum is because 3 million Chavistas didn't turn out to vote! The No vote was no larger than the vote against him in the presidential elections.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of some currents within the PSUV, he needs to speed things up and radically transform he economy to meet the needs of the workers, if he wants to retain the worker's support. Unfortunately, he seems to me to be taking the opposite approach, and I can only see that ending in failure for him.

[DancingLarry]

Kudos to Chavez for recognizing that giving the state the power to compel citizens to act as informants on one another would contribute little in terms of any real security, and would breed all sorts of fears, resentments, and demoralization that could only be damaging to the long run interests of his revolutionary program. I doubt those here castigating Chavez for scrapping this approach would appreciate being forced by their respective governments to spy on their friends, family, neighbors, co-workers and comrades. There's no reason that the reaction of the average Venezuelan should be any different.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

"This is a government that rectifies," he said during a televised address on Tuesday.
My opinions of Chavez are split. I used to be a die-hard supporter, but in my opinion, he has made several mistakes over the years.

But who hasn't? Many people in his situation would have made many more.

How many politicians in that situation would be willing to admit a mistake.

I believe it's refreshing that a government exists somewhere that isn't as arrogant as the others.

Love him or hate him, one should respect Chavez's abilities and willingness to admit error.

[Saorsa]

Does anyone have a link that contains the actual details of the law? I'm not particularly trusting of the capitalist media's interpretation of it...


Kudos to Chavez for recognizing that giving the state the power to compel citizens to act as informants on one another would contribute little in terms of any real security

Well, considering the fact that he's already had one coup launched against him, I'd say it's perfectly reasonable and indeed sensible to try and ferret out these plots before they actually hit.


I doubt those here castigating Chavez for scrapping this approach would appreciate being forced by their respective governments to spy on their friends, family, neighbors, co-workers and comrades.

I would steadfastly oppose any such action undertaken by the New Zealand government, because the New Zealand govt is a capitalist regime acting in the interests of the capitalist class, and thus any actions by the NZ state simply act to prop up the capitalist system.

However, I do not oppose such measures being undertaken by a socialist government such as the Venezuelan one, because a socialist regime acts in the interests of the proletariat and the other oppressed classes, and undertakes actions with the intention of reinforcing the dictatorship of the proletariat and prevent reactionaries from overthrowing socialism.

Obviously this can't be undertaken entirely from the top down and through using the state apparatus, but that must be a part of it, and an important one. The enthusiastic support of the masses is not enough to defend socialism on it's own - you need a workers state for that as well, and a workers state that is willing to strike harshly and ruthlessly to destroy counter-revolution.

While a truly proletarian state does not yet exist in Venezuela, the state there is a transitional one, with elements of both socialism and capitalism present in it. The same goes for Venezuela as a whole. I don't see what's so bad about a law that aims to strengthen the socialist part, and prevent the capitalist part from regaining complete economic and political power.

[Killer Enigma]

One cannot support this act and have similarly denounced the PATRIOT Act. Though the specifics of each were different, the principle of both was largely the same. Chavez had indeed been attacked (2002 coup d'etat), but the United States suffered an attack also (September 11th attacks). Unlike President Bush, though, Chavez recognized that such a law would have infringed on the Venezuelan people's civil rights.

[Louis Pio]

One cannot support this act and have similarly denounced the PATRIOT Act.

Of course one can unless one base their politics on ethics. I support Venezula fighting coup attempts and so on. I don't support Bush. So opposing the patriot act doesn't neccesarily mean one has to oppose this act.

I don't know much about the law in question so im not sure what I think about it though.

[dirtycommiebastard]

However, I do not oppose such measures being undertaken by a socialist government such as the Venezuelan one, because a socialist regime acts in the interests of the proletariat and the other oppressed classes, and undertakes actions with the intention of reinforcing the dictatorship of the proletariat and prevent reactionaries from overthrowing socialism.

But Venezuela is not a socialist state, it still is a bourgeois-democracy. Though I understand what you meant by your post.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

But Venezuela is not a socialist state, it still is a bourgeois-democracy.
That is what worries me.

Chavez has done some good things for Venezuela, no denying it.

But when is it time to pass the torch?

One minute, you've got some consecutive terms then before you know it you've got a "president for life". Before long you've got another dictator. A socialist structure simply is not compatible with a dictator at the helm (although undoubtedly it will continue to call itself "socialist".)

I wouldn't go as far as to call Venezuela a "bourgeois-democracy", but it takes more then one person to start a revolution and run a government. There will be somebody competent to take over for Chavez.

The worse thing that can happen is the bourgeois (backed by capitalist world powers) starts a coup against Chavez and the government using despotism as a "just cause".

The second worse thing that can happen is Chavez dies unexpectedly while in power without a clear successor (or a successor and a pretender). Succession is questionable and we end up with a tyrannical "socialist" regime.

[Herman]

One minute, you've got some consecutive terms then before you know it you've got a "president for life".

Spain, Italy, Germany, France, Britain and many more countries have "consecutive terms". Why would Chavez be "president for life" because of this? Spain had the same president for 14 years (a social democrat!), France had Miterrand for 16 (a "socialist", later becoming centrist)...

[dirtycommiebastard]

That is what worries me.

Chavez has done some good things for Venezuela, no denying it.

Okay.


But when is it time to pass the torch? When the people of Venezuela no longer want Chavez as their President.


One minute, you've got some consecutive terms then before you know it you've got a "president for life". Before long you've got another dictator. A socialist structure simply is not compatible with a dictator at the helm (although undoubtedly it will continue to call itself "socialist".) There is not socialist structure in Venezuela yet. Either way, Chavez could only be 'President for life' if the people voted that way.


I wouldn't go as far as to call Venezuela a "bourgeois-democracy", but it takes more then one person to start a revolution and run a government. Well it is not a socialist democracy. Chavez did not start the revolution, capitalism did.


The worse thing that can happen is the bourgeois (backed by capitalist world powers) starts a coup against Chavez and the government using despotism as a "just cause". There already has been a coup against Chavez in 2002 under the facade of being for a just cause. It was defeated by the masses.

You have yet to offer any real criticism of Venezuela and the revolution there, though there are many.