Greetings to the honourable members of Parliament. It's an honour to be here to be able to address this committee. Thank you very much for this opportunity.
We understand that this parliamentary subcommittee is conducting a study of the situation of human rights in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It is a difficult task for any country to get a fully accurate view of the human rights situation in any other country, as statistics are not always available or comparable, and anecdotal information is unrepresentative. This situation is not helped by a national media such as exists in Venezuela, which is largely controlled by admitted opponents of the elected government and is connected to the international media.
Even reputable Canadian newspapers have succumbed to their campaign of misinformation. For example, the Toronto Star was disciplined by the Ontario Press Council for publishing articles on Venezuela that had “significant deficienc[ies]” in terms of the standards of good journalism.
Due to this intentionally biased campaign, it is understandable that Canadians and their honourable representatives may have an insufficient and inaccurate picture of the state of human rights in Venezuela. We have come here to share with you information from a variety of sources and our first-hand experience on this issue, because the decision that the Parliament of Canada may make regarding human rights in Venezuela could have important ramifications for both countries, and even Latin America as a whole, and we would not want this august body to fall prey to media distortions.
I'd like to tell you a little bit of background. Although Stéphanie has covered it, I do want to mention that the last Constitution of 1961 was practically irrelevant for the practice of government. Torture, censorship, disappearances of opponents, killings, use of secret police, and suspension of civil rights were all commonplace in the administrations of the four previous presidents, most notably in 1989, as 3,000 people were massacred on the streets by the army when they spontaneously protested sudden price hikes instigated by the World Bank. The international community and the media scarcely paid any attention to these events; nor did they defend the human rights of the Venezuelan people at that time.
The Venezuelan people who have lived through all of this are judging the Chávez administration based on what went on before. Numerous recent polls have shown that Venezuelans have a high regard for their democracy and for its capacity to solve problems and its very high happiness rate.
It all started with the Constitution of 1999, which placed human rights at the very core of law and politics, an emphasis that was not there before. Why? Because those who were tortured and jailed by the previous governments became supporters of President Chávez and helped write the Constitution and made sure that human rights had a central place in the rule of law and the practice of government. The word “justice”, for example, appeared about three times in the previous Constitution. It appears 30 times in the new Constitution.
Stéphanie has talked about the civil rights and the social rights, the rights to food and housing and employment and a clean environment and health. The Constitution is not a boring topic for Venezuelans. On the contrary, it's sold in the streets, and people carry it around with them and discuss it. It is held in high regard, and even now the opposition is taking it very much into consideration. In contrast, hardly anyone read the last previous Constitution.
As one constitutional expert has said:
There is a large consensus both within Venezuela and among foreign observers that Venezuela now has one of the world's most “advanced” constitutions...provid[ing] for some of the most comprehensive human rights protections of any constitution in the world.
There are some key issues. One is the media. The history of Latin America is full of the fact that the media has been in the hands of oligarchies that did not allow its use by ordinary citizens. This was especially the case in Venezuela, and since the election of the present government, the private media abandoned all attempts of balanced reporting and journalistic standards.
In Venezuela, the great majority of radio and TV outlets are owned by the same people who had a pivotal role in the 2002 coup d'état that overthrew the elected government for 48 hours, kidnapped the president, and were within minutes of assassinating him.
The private media in Venezuela is the opposition. It has displaced the regular opposition parties. This is why the coup of 2002 was considered as the first media coup. In my own experience, every Spanish speaker I have taken to Venezuela to visit has been dumbstruck by the amount of criticism, indeed, by the vitriolic criticism of the government that appears in newspapers and on TV and radio, and there is full freedom of expression to do so. The government has not forcibly or illegally closed any TV or radio stations. The only TV station that has been closed was the one that was ransacked and closed by the coup supporters in 2002.
Ninety-five percent of the TV and radio is in private hands, but instead of censoring them or closing them down, the government amplified freedom of expression. Today, community radio and TV is numerous in areas where it would not have been dreamed of, in urban poor areas, in rural towns, and most importantly, in indigenous villages.
There was a new telecommunications law that was enacted, and it was based on the same laws that we have in Canada, the United States, and Europe. It regulates the time and content of children's programs and adult programs. It enables community media, and it prohibits racist, sexist, inflammatory content, and incitement to violence or hatred. This was not there before.
The opposition opposed this law vehemently and made demonstrations in which two students were shot dead by unidentified snipers. They were both supporters of President Chávez. It is deeply disappointing that there is scant international attention to the violence in Venezuela when the opposition perpetrates it.
The issue of Radio Caracas is already solved. This is a company that refused to register, to pay its fees, or to follow the telecommunications laws; however, in February it registered.
I'd like to go to the judicial system. In the past it's had the worst reputation. Previous governments refused to reform it, even though the World Bank pressured them to do it. With President Chávez, there was a series of stepped reforms in 1999, 2004, and 2005. It's a very hard thing to transform a judicial system and take away the corruption. Before, only those who could afford it were able to study law, and only those who could afford it were able to get a lawyer. This is not the case now.
On the issue of the judge, it's unheard of in Canada for a judge to be jailed, so it's understandable that this case may have been important here, but I would like to point out that the judge has been legally held in custody. Unlike in former times, the law is the law, and it applies to all, even judges. Article 266 of the Constitution expresses how a judge is to be charged with a crime. They can be suspended if the attorney general, the human rights ombudsman, and the comptroller general unanimously declare there has been a fault by the judge. Then it goes before the national assembly, which can remove the judge with two-thirds. What's important to point out here, and I would like you to note this, is that neither the judge nor the banker who stole millions were opposition members or even politically active.
As for the police, there has been a reform of the police, which has been very important, because crime is a problem all over the region. I would like you to know that for the first time in 40 years there is no secret police in Venezuela. With the new national police force and the new law, the police force has been modernized with education on community policing, professional ethics, knowledge of crime prevention, and human rights training. In October 2008, for the first time, 5,000 policemen were specifically trained in human rights during a two-year course. I would also like to mention that the police force is forbidden from having live ammunition during demonstrations or strikes.
I would like to also address the Inter-American Press Association, which issued a report last month denouncing violations in Venezuela. This is the same association that did not condemn the coup d'état in 2002, nor the closing of the TV station. The Latin American Federation of Journalists--