Bolivia enacts anti-racism bill opposed by press

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Business Week

Bolivia enacts anti-racism bill opposed by press
LA PAZ, Bolivia

Bolivian President Evo Morales has enacted an anti-racism bill opposed by most of the nation's major newspapers.

The law sets penalties for disseminating content deemed racist or discriminatory, up to and including suspending media licenses.

Newspapers say it limits freedom of expression. Opposition leaders fear officials will misuse the law to quiet dissenting voices.

Several papers ran editions Thursday with blank front pages except for the words: "There is no democracy without freedom of expression."

Read more: http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9INKV9G0.htm

[Skip Intro]

1. I'm with the papers. Glad they're able to challenge such restrictions. nt

[meowomon]

2. I'm with the papers too.

This law seems too vague and subjective and would deny freedom of speech.

[Judi Lynn]

3. Bolivian newspapers protest against planned racism law

7 October 2010 Last updated at 15:45 ET
Bolivian newspapers protest against planned racism law

Several major newspapers in Bolivia have made a joint protest against a proposed anti-racism law which they say threatens press freedom.

Their front pages were blank but for the slogan: "There is no democracy without freedom of expression."

~snip~
Mr Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president, has rejected the concerns, saying he is determined to approve the law without modifications.

He said freedom of expression was protected, but could be used as a pretext for racism.

"The time has come to eliminate the practice of racism in Bolivia because it is the most undemocratic practice in the world as it does not respect equality between citizens," he said.

The anti-racism law is supported by organizations representing Bolivia's indigenous communities, which have suffered severe discrimination dating back to the Spanish colonial era.

The legislation is being considered by Bolivia's senate, where Mr Morales's supporters have a majority.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11497489

(my emphasis)

[Judi Lynn]

4. Short look at typical Bolivian president in recent Bolivian history,

and I should add that since this tiny portrait of Bolivian President Hugo Banzer was published in 1995, Hugo Banzer was elected for the first time and served part of another term before withdrawing due to his terminal cancer. During that time he still managed to privatize Bolivia's water supply, and hand it over to a subsidiary of US-based Bechtel, which raised the cost of water so high poor Bolivians couldn't afford to use water, and when they started trying to collect rain water in cisterns, barrels, etc., the company attempted to get the right to charge them for COLLECTED RAINWATER. When they protested, ran into the streets to protest this unbearable action against them, the government brought out snipers and shot into crowds of Bolivians, murdering one young man, blinding someone, injuring many, then proceeded to chase people into their homes, beat them, arrest some, and torture anyone they could haul into their jails.

The people won the Cochabamba water war.

Here's a look at the early portion of the career of President Hugo Banzer:

COLONEL HUGO BANZER
President of Bolivia
In 1970, in Bolivia, when then-President Juan Jose Torres nationalized Gulf Oil properties and tin mines owned by US interests, and tried to establish friendly relations with Cuba and the Soviet Union, he was playing with fire. The coup to overthrow Torres, led by US-trained officer and Gulf Oil beneficiary Hugo Banzer, had direct support from Washington. When Banzer's forces had a breakdown in radio communications, US Air Force radio was placed at their disposal. Once in power, Banzer began a reign of terror. Schools were shut down as hotbeds of political subversive activity. Within two years, 2,000 people were arrested and tortured without trial. As in Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil, the native Indians were ordered off their land and deprived of tribal identity. Tens-of-thousands of white South Africans were enticed to immigrate with promises of the land stolen from the Indians, with a goal of creating a white Bolivia. When Catholic clergy tried to aid the Indians, the regime, with CIA help, launched terrorist attacks against them, and this "Banzer Plan" became a model for similar anti-Catholic actions throughout Latin America.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/US_ThirdWorld/dictators.html

It would be truly important to start looking into the astonishing history of human degradation, humiliation, vast, wide-scale brutality, massacres, torture, standard hatred, slavery, social ostracism, mockery which has been inflicted upon the indigenous people of Bolivia by the Caucasian invaders for hundreds of years by first the Spanish, then by waves of other European people, including Nazis fleeing Europe after the 2nd World War, and Nazi collaborators from Croatia, etc., as well.

Take time to find out about what's beyond the thin, misleading surface of articles about Latin America.

[COLGATE4]

5. Evo is feeling left out.. All the spotlight has been on Hugo and

Correa. Now's his chance to show that he too is a 'geniune 100% bona fide revolutionary". Plus, being able to close down the opposition press does have its bright side for Evo, too. It's a win-win.

[Judi Lynn]

7. Do you have any actual substance in making that claim?

Feel free to share the information you've gathered to help you reach that conclusion.

Maybe it's something those who have made a point of learning everything they could about Bolivia in the time available have overlooked. You'd be doing everyone a favor.

[Judi Lynn]

6. Event some DU'ers discussed only 2 years ago:

BOLIVIA: Local Indigenous Leaders Beaten and Publicly Humiliated
Franz Chávez

LA PAZ, May 27 (IPS) - Bolivia may have its first-ever indigenous president, but racism is alive and well in this country, as demonstrated by the public humiliation of a group of around 50 indigenous mayors, town councillors and community leaders in the south-central city of Sucre.

The incident, which shook the country but received little attention from the international press, occurred on Saturday, when President Evo Morales, an Aymara Indian, was to appear in a public ceremony in Sucre to deliver 50 ambulances for rural communities and announce funding for municipal projects.

But in the early hours of Saturday morning, organised groups opposed to Morales began to surround the stadium where he was to appear a few hours later. Confronting the police and soldiers with sticks, stones and dynamite, they managed to occupy the stadium.

The president cancelled his visit, and the security forces were withdrawn, to avoid violent clashes and bloodshed.

But violent elements of the Interinstitutional Committee, a conservative pro-autonomy, anti-Morales civic group that is backed by the local university and other bodies, continued to harass and beat supporters of the governing Movement to Socialism (MAS) and anyone who appeared to belong to one of the country’s indigenous communities.

A mob of armed civilians from Sucre, partially made up of university students, then surrounded several dozen indigenous Morales supporters, including local authorities who had come from other regions to attend the ceremony and were unable to leave the city after the event was called off.

The terrified indigenous people, who had sought refuge in a poor neighbourhood on the outskirts of Sucre, were stripped of their few belongings, including money, identity documents and watches, and forced to walk seven kilometres to the House of Liberty, a symbol of the end of colonial rule in Bolivia, which was declared there on Aug. 6, 1825.

In the city’s main square in front of the building, they were forced to kneel, shirtless, and apologise for coming to Sucre. They were also made to chant insults to Morales like "Die Evo!"

They were surrounded by activists from the conservative pro-autonomy movement, who set fire to the blue, black and white MAS party flag, the multicolour flag of the Aymara people, and colourful hand-woven indigenous ponchos seized from the visiting Morales supporters, as a signal of their "victory" over the president’s grassroots support bases.

More:
http://boliviarising.blogspot.com/2008/05/bolivia-local-indigenous-leaders-beaten.html

http://www.democracyctr.org.nyud.net:8090/blog/uploaded_images/sucre-794790.jpg
Racism Run Amok

On Saturday May 24th President Evo Morales was scheduled to visit the city of Sucre on the commemoration of the 199th anniversary of Latin America’s first steps of independence from Spain, General Sucre's "first shout of liberty (May 25, 1809)." The President planned on delivering ambulances for Chuquisaca’s rural communities and to announce development projects for the region, all actions typical of what Presidents do here on such dates. The events were to take place in the “Patriotic” Stadium, surrounded by and under the protection of indigenous people from different parts of the province.

However, the night before the event, organized groups antagonistic to Morales began to provoke disturbances around the stadium and stoned a house where a fundraising dinner was taking place for a MAS candidate for Governor, Walter Valda.

Then on Saturday, the day of the anniversary, the anti-Morales violence went into racist overdrive. Mobs armed with sticks and dynamites confronted the police and military. The government retreated the public's armed forces, cancelled all scheduled parades (of the military and police), and President Morales’ visit.

With the police and military presence gone, the indigenous peasants who had come to see the President were left face-to-face with armed civilians from urban Sucre, among them university students of the public University of San Francisco Xavier. More than two dozen indigenous peasants were beaten and captured, their few possessions were taken away and they were forced to walk for three miles and then kneel shirtless in front of Sucre’s House of Liberty. Sucre mobs humiliated their indigenous captives in a repeat of a ritual from the most brutal pages of colonialism. Under threat of violence, and half naked in a public square the captives were forced to apologize for the offense of coming to the city to receive President Morales. "Llamas, ask forgiveness," the mob ordered. Among the captives was the mayor of the rural town of Mojocoya.

Video footage of the abuse can be seen here. (see at link)

More:
http://www.democracyctr.org/blog/archives/2008_05_01_democracyctr_archive.html

http://www.bolivia.com.nyud.net:8090/noticias/autonoticias/ImagenNoticia84446.jpg http://files.splinder.com.nyud.net:8090/855924071c3dc978f59313f7dd7d399d.jpeg http://2.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_LvP4mWx84Tk/SGOl5I2wEEI/AAAAAAAAH9M/p2pyTbbj2Gs/s400/1209928083395bolivia%25202dn.jpg http://2.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_LvP4mWx84Tk/SGOhrpDO_zI/AAAAAAAAH70/th6x5otrnAE/s400/0094191B.jpg http://farm3.static.flickr.com.nyud.net:8090/2132/2071347727_b75d0ec6b4_o.jpg http://www.pueblos-originarios.com.ar.nyud.net:8090/img/foto_principal_articulo_nota5.jpg
In educated Sucre: “On your knees, shitty Indians”
Racist Fascism
Alex Contreras Baspineiro

"On your knees, shitty Indians, yell long live the capital," "Respect Sucre, goddamit," "Llamas, ask for forgiveness," were the orders imposed by a group of young people from the Bolivian department (province) of Chuquisaca by means of kicks and punches, forcing around 50 Quechua campesinos to take off their shirts, get on their knees, and burn the MAS flag and the Wiphala flag (symbol of indigenous nations) in front of the Casa de la Libertad, located in the main plaza of Sucre.

It was on May 25th, 199 years ago, that the continent's first cry for liberty was sounded in this same place. 2008, paradoxically, heard cries full of racism, hate and discrimination against representatives of the national majorities, exactly those who liberated this country from the Spanish yoke.

"Kill the Indian, they said, and all of this occurred in the presence of the President of the Municipal Council of Sucre, Fidel Herrera, and the Mayor Aidée Nava; they applauded everything these violent groups did," reported the Mayor of Mojocoya, Ángel Vallejos, who also was brutally punched and forced to walk on his knees.

On May 24th, the President of the Republic, Evo Morales Ayma, was supposed to arrive in Sucre to present a series of projects and two ambulances at each of the municipalities of the department of Chuquisaca. However, violent conflicts halted these activities.

In spite of police and military intervention, forces whose membership is composed of an indigenous majority, the force and organization of the youth groups-armed not only with sticks and stones but also tear gas and dynamite-resulted in many human rights abuses.

The images of violence captured in different neighborhoods of Sucre were simply bloodcurdling: the youth, many of whom were inebriated, used sticks and stones to attack the campesinos, who fell to the ground. Neither women nor children were spared.

Medical reports show that 35 people were wounded, and in addition the campesinos suffered the theft of their documents, watches and the little money they had.

More:
http://alainet.org/active/24535&lang=en

http://www.radiomundial.com.ve.nyud.net:8090/yvke/files/img_noticia/t_amalia_dimitri_191.jpg

http://www.indymedia.ie.nyud.net:8090/cache/imagecache/local/attachments/may2010/460_0___30_0_0_0_0_0_unionjuvenilcrucenista.jpg http://3.bp.blogspot.com.nyud.net:8090/_LvP4mWx84Tk/SGOlTDNVCxI/AAAAAAAAH88/Z9Pm0OPjtrU/s320/t_80985182_381.jpg http://www.radiomundial.com.ve.nyud.net:8090/yvke/richedit/upload/2k7eba163104.jpg

[bherrera]

8. How to deceive people and control freedom of the press

The communists like to impose one party rule together with autocratic government, and use control of the freedom of the press to gradually impose a false reality. It is true that in the USA, Canada, and Europe, the media distorts the facts to fit a certain consensus about reality, in the case of dictatorships and autocracies, the distortions become much more extreme.

Those who attack freedom of the press sometimes do so by disguising or diverting attention from the subject at hand, and engage the interlocutor in a different direction by listing past grivances, or explaining the USA already does that, and so on. But we must always remember George Orwell's 1984, and understand its message. And we must realize that one of the reasons why extremism of the left and the right is so dangerous and destructive is precisely the methods these extremists use to distort reality.

The first time I read 1984, I understood the message, but I did not really learn it, because I felt "my side" was blameless, and the "other guys" were guilty. The truth is a lot more ugly, all of us engage in these distortions, and we are selective in what we accept, and what we say to others, to make the message adequate to our reality.

My advice is to always be careful when forming an opinion, because the "facts" used to form the opinion may be wrong. And when a person tries to change the subject by saying endless words which are not really relevant, or posts a lot of irrelevancies and photographs which do not relate to the point, then it is better to understand this person is unable to discuss the subject at hand, and is trying to make smoke to support those who would allow freedom of expression, and who will be jailed and persecuted for expressing themselves.

Thus we see the same people who defend the Cuban regime and other dictatorships where freedom of the press is not allowed, defending moves by so called socialists to gradually muzzle expression elsewhere. It must be clear in our minds, these people are not true socialists, as we define the word today, they are virulent communists, destroyers of society, bringers of dictatorship, corruption, war, and poverty. Do not allow them to lie to you, and deceive you, and take control of your lives, because they will destroy you.

[Imajika]

9. Gotta side with the newspapers...

This just sounds bad. Seems like an attempt by Morales to control the media.

[Downwinder]

10. The OP is extremal short on data and deals in generalities.

Which newspapers, out of how many.

[Peace Patriot]

11. This is kind of like the "hate speech"/"hate crime" controversy here. It is a VERY difficult problem

of "free speech" versus the human and civil rights of oppressed groups. Where does "free speech" end and incitement to murder, torture, rioting and mob rule begin? We are still struggling with this question here, every time the KKK or some Nazi group marches. Indeed, the issue of offensive protests at the funerals of U.S. military personnel is currently before the Supreme Court. What are the parameters of religious nuts' "free speech" rights for harassing the mourners at a private funeral? And if the Supreme Court curtails their rights, how will this affect the protest rights of people who represent far less weird opinions--anti-war protesters, anti-globalization protesters, labor protestors and strikers?

This issue is especially difficult when it comes to racist and homophobic incitement.

The U.S. public airwaves and movies initially promoted a viciously racist stereotype of African Americans, including presenting African Americans always as SERVANTS, and often as dumb, silly, over-emotional and irrational, but mostly completely "black-holing" African-Americans--i.e., as if they didn't exist. They were not included in depictions of American life as normal human beings doing normal things--as teachers, businesspeople, workers, investors, parents, members of neighborhoods and communities. And, for the most part, they were not portrayed at all. The U.S. entertainment/news industry gradually reformed itself as to this stereotype, and by the time of the civil rights protests of the mid- to late- 1960s, did a pretty good job of objective presentation of that movement in news broadcasts. But what if it had not voluntarily reformed itself? What if it was STILL portraying African Americans as "Hattie McDaniels" or as invisible?

What would we, as a society, do about it? What if the private media--using our public airwaves--were promoting white bigotry and egging on white separatist groups whose members machine-gunned unarmed black Americans, and beat up and humiliated black Americans, in a white separatist insurrection against a government headed by a black American president? (I won't get into the issue of brown immigrants here, and their portrayal or invisibility in the media, because it's complicated by undocumented/illegal immigration. But it is a similar problem.)

This is, essentially, what Bolivia is dealing with--centuries of violence and virulent racism perpetrated by the rich white minority against the Indigenous--who comprise the majority in Bolivia--with the un-self-reformed corporate-controlled media on the side of the rich white minority (--with multinational corporate motives of regaining control of Bolivia's natural resources, from the democratically elected leftist government, headed--for the first time in Bolivia's history--by an Indigenous president). Is it any wonder that the Indigenous majority doesn't want to be insulted or rendered invisible by the media any more--since racial insult or invisibility is clearly connected to both past and recent violence and vicious oppression?

How do you deal with such a problem--in both broadcast and print media?

In broadcast media, the answer is very clear. NO ONE has a "right" to use the public airwaves. Use of the public's TV/radio airwaves is licensed and regulated in every country in the world, and such licenses are routinely contingent upon promoting the public good. (That is why the Chavez government's de-licensing of RCTV was never a "free speech" issue. RCTV had actively participated in the 2002 rightwing coup d'etat attempt. They forfeited their use of the public airwaves by those actions, and the Chavez government actually showed restraint in letting their 20 year license expire, rather than shutting them down immediately.)

The control of racist imagery or statements in print media is not so easy. Almost everyone recognizes the exponential harm of broadcast media. It was perfectly illustrated in Venezuela in 2002--the power to "create" a false reality in the public venue, and to seek overthrow of the legitimate government by manipulation of information to every home in the country with a TV and every person or vehicle with a radio. That's a power orders of magnitude greater than print media. And it has been recognized from the beginning of broadcast media (--in the U.S., for instance, with the "Fairness Doctrine" and other regulation.) But print media has traditionally been exempt from such regulation--and you can see why, in the simple fact that a person has to pick up a newspaper and read it. That involves individual choice to pay attention to something. With broadcast media, that "choice" is very attenuated and often does not exist (especially if all broadcast media are corporate-run and feeding the public the same line of propaganda.) Broadcast media also has more 'hypnosis' power. It is more compelling--using sound, colorful imagery and repetition. In a print newspaper, you might read an ad once. If you see it again, you can ignore it--turn the page. And you don't have to read it the first time. Not so in TV/radio. They hook you in, with something that you are interested in, then hammer you repeatedly, with the same ad, over and over. You can't "turn the page."

Although media is changing, with the Internet and other technology--for instance, you can now watch a rented DVD of a TV series without the commercials (--if you don't mind that it's "old")--there is a traditional "free speech" line between broadcast and print media. Broadcast media are routinely regulated in the public interest. Print media are not. (--although, during the U.S. period of the "Fairness Doctrine," regulation of the broadcast media as to fair coverage of political viewpoints and operating in the public interest influenced print media toward higher journalistic standards.)

On this issue, I don't understand this Bolivian law. And it doesn't help that the article is from "Business Week" (very hostile to leftist leaders in Latin America). It says that the law is "opposed by" major newspapers. It doesn't say if or how newspapers are affected by the law. Are they just supporting their corporate brethren in the broadcast media against legitimate regulation? And if it pertains to "licenses," what licenses are they talking about? Broadcast licenses (regulated in every country in the world) or some kind of newspaper license (or business license)?

The article is very uninformative. And I suspect two things: a) that this law only affects broadcast media, and is perfectly legitimate in seeking to regulate them in the public interest; and b) that "Business Week" interests, who badly want to defeat the leftist democracy movement in Latin America, and get their hands on those gas and lithium resources in Bolivia (and the oil in Venezuela and Ecuador), are dictating the "news" and its lack of information and its bias.

They don't want you to know that Bolivia's, Venezuela's and Ecuador's governments are greatly benefiting their poor majorities and are, in fact, greatly improving public participation, voter turnouts, fair representation, transparent elections and all aspects of democracy, including the public's access to its own airwaves. "Business Week"'s corporate owners want you to believe, instead, that these democratically elected leaders are "dictators."

Regulation of corporate-run broadcast media in not tyranny. It is, in fact, democracy at work. It enhances the "free speech" and other human and civil rights of those who don't have the money to own broadcast networks--that is, most people. And it holds corporations responsible for operating in the public interest on the public's airwaves. But instead of seeking change honestly, if that's what they want--DE-regulation of the PUBLIC's airwaves, with regulation now THE LAW throughout the world--they slander Evo Morales with yet another false 'dictator' lie, that he opposes 'free speech,' in their on-going, very dishonest campaign to DEFEAT democracy in Latin America and re-establish corporate DICTATION.

[Peace Patriot]

12. Do NOT accept this "Business Week" article's promulgation of more BS about "free speech.'

The article is too uninformative, and specifically avoids the one fact that is most important to know: To whom does the law apply?

If it applies only to broadcast media, then it is well within "the rules" applied EVERYWHERE, that broadcast media must operate "in the public interest." The newspapers that are objecting may be opposing the LAWFUL AND NORMAL POWERS of government to regulate broadcast media--and, if so, it's probably because they have a common interest with those who own broadcast media networks--the desire to overthrow leftist governments and to profit from exploiting natural resources and slave labor. (And it would also be interesting to find out if the cited newspapers are part of the conglomerates who control broadcasting networks in Bolivia.)

Since this is the most critical fact, and they don't supply it, I think it's a pretty fair guess that the law applies only to broadcast media, and, by citing newspaper opposition, "Business Week" is trying to make it SEEM like a censorship issue, for the purpose of slandering Evo Morales as a "dictator" who is curtailing "free speech."

If the law also applies to print media--which are normally exempt from "public interest" regulation, except for having to obtain business licenses and operate lawfully--then we have a different issue, and one that we need more information to discuss. This article does not provide that information. It has no detail on the law, on who it applies to, on what journalistic abuses it is seeking to remedy, on who owns the media involved, or anything relevant to such a discussion. It aims at a "dictator" slander and deprives its readers of the very information needed to analyze and judge that slander.

As I said: BEWARE of this article, and I would add, on the basis of experience, beware of ALL corporate-produced 'news.' Ask yourself what information they are NOT giving you. And ask yourself what their FINANCIAL and/or POLITICAL interest is, and how they may be twisting the facts, or outright lying, to serve those interests.

[classysassy]

13. Who own the newspapers?

you better believe it's the wealthy racist we find in all societies world wide.

[bemildred]

14. Good. nt

[NuttyFluffers]

15. good. even we have rules against propagandizing our populace.

our first amendment does have restrictions - even though it is about one of the most lenient in the world. propaganda and mob mentality are dangerous things and Bolivia has already a sad history of the said dangers of such Goebbels-like manipulation of the vox populi.

Thanks Judi Lynn for bravely providing background history to Lat Am topics. it's far too facile to take a cursory read, apply our own cultural biases, and be done with the issue. using real judgment in life requires knowledge of context; life is context. here's a situation that would immediately insult us here on the face of it (amid our already established peace), is really more of a way of preventing oligarchic agitation for a racial civil war... to then steal the natural gas wealth for themselves.