Trending

Newsletter

Venezuela’s Opposition Should Approach Unruly Attorney General with Caution

By: Guest Contributor - Jun 19, 2017, 10:15 am
Marcha_Altamira_2017
The political opposition has managed to open the door for a unified social opposition, which itself has not yet resulted in any unified political message able to facilitate the ousting of dictator Nicolás Maduro and his regime. (Wikimedia)

By Jorge Redmond Schlageter

EspañolWith no response to the problems it has created, the Venezuelan government is slowly deteriorating. The Bolivarian Revolution is facing the harsh reality that its official party is fracturing amid talks of ransacking the public treasury at the expense of the quality of life of the country’s citizens.

The Bolivarian National Guard, once the keeper of public order, is today another vivid example of the government’s dedication to corruption and disregard for human rights. It has repeatedly and consistently participated in the cruel and excessive repression of the people’s constitutional right to protest peacefully.

The military’s deafening silence in response to the government’s abuse of power is shocking. Certain members of the high command must be satisfying private interests that include, among other dubious activities, international drug trafficking.

The political opposition has managed to open the door for a unified social opposition, which itself has not yet resulted in any unified political message able to facilitate the ousting of dictator Nicolás Maduro and his regime, let alone the creation of a new Electoral Council, a new Supreme Court or for presidential, gubernatorial and mayoral elections nationwide.

Amid all this activity, the Attorney General has abandoned the regime and positioned herself in defense of the constitution and the legal system. In any normal country, that’s precisely what her job description calls for.

But it seems inexplicable that after 18 years assisting in dismantling the country’s democratic system, she would suddenly want to jump ship to defend the “legacy of Chavez.” Any initiative that contributes to ridding the country of this government and opening the door for free and open elections should be welcomed, but with the caveat of staying alert to any hidden agenda. Let us not forget where she came from in this political system.

These are difficult times for everyone, particularly those Venezuelans with limited resources. We cannot afford any mistakes. We must see the future with optimism but without wavering from maintaining a clear focus. Change will come, but it needs to be change that behooves us all.

Jorge Redmond Schlageter is the Director of Chocolates El Rey, a Venezuelan chocolate company.

Julius Caesar, Kathy Griffin and Reverse Censorship: How US Political Discourse Has Fallen Into Violence and Hatred

By: Guest Contributor - Jun 19, 2017, 9:03 am
no_hate_here_mini

By John Bianchi “Et tu Brute?” Most of us, even those who are unfamiliar with Shakespeare have heard this famous phrase. Shakespeare’s play, Julius Caesar, has contributed numerous quotable lines to the modern lexicon so it is no wonder that this play was chosen by The Public Theater for this year’s lineup of Shakespeare in the Park. However, a recent performance of the play has drawn harsh criticism for one simple reason. In a modern retelling of the play, the theater group chose to create a not-so-subtle reference to President Donald Trump as the protagonist It is not surprising that this type of imagery would draw the ire of theater fans and corporate sponsors. Although the account of Caesar’s demise is well documented, swapping in the image of a sitting President into a play recounting political treachery and assassination borders closely on a treasonous display. If this play took place in Caesar’s day, I’m not so sure that any of the members of the theater group would still be among the other free members of Rome. googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1459522593195-0'); }); While the media is mixed on its response, the New York Times is defending the play vigorously, this display brings up an important point and one which is not being carefully discussed at length in the media or elsewhere. We have reached a point in this country and around the world where violence has replaced metered civil discourse. We are no longer societies of educated and interested citizens willing to listen to someone else’s viewpoint without retaliating against them in violence and open displays of hatred. Free Speech, Defamation, and Kathy Griffin Now disgraced public figure, Milo Yiannopoulos was the recipient of such violence and suppression when he traveled to California’s Berkeley College last year. Students who took issue with Yiannopoulos’ views sought to silence him by attacking the building he was supposed to speak at along with burning objects and hurling debris. This is only one in a string of incidents that have resembled war zones rather than places where public discourse is enshrined. Our country was founded on the principles of free speech and the protections thereof. When does free speech become dangerous to society? Is all speech, especially speech designed to silence others, technically ‘free’? Libel and defamation lawsuits have fallen out of popularity with the rise of tabloids and late night T.V. coupled with a continued acceptance for more inflammatory speech by the masses. It seems today you can effectively say anything about anyone, public or private, on any platform as long as you don’t intend to act on anything you say or risk anyone taking your comments too seriously. Lines do still seem to exist as Kathy Griffin found a few weeks ago when she posted a gruesome photo of the President decapitated in her hand. It is doubtful however that 100 years or even 50 years ago if these types of displays would have been met with almost no response from the Secret Service. A political climate exists today that is verging dangerously toward force as a means of silencing opponents rather than a culture of engagement. In an effort to enshrine toleration, a pluralistic culture has decided that the only views that should be tolerated are its own at any given time. This mentality is prevalent on both the left and the right in both the media and among voters. Americans are increasingly seeing government as the means to achieve their ends and are more than ever willing to employ the use of force to do so. Reverse Censorship This is a frightening turn of events and one which will most likely have grave political and social ramifications. President Gerald Ford said, “We can disagree without being disagreeable.” Would anyone consider what Kathy Griffin did with her photo or what The Public Theater group decided to promote as part of their series anything but at the very least, disagreeable? We would do well to remember that there is a reverse type of censorship. By silencing others through civil unrest or through public displays of murder you are exercising their ability to promote censorship of these individuals and their ideals forever. Aristotle once said, “Republics decline into democracies and democracies degenerate into despotisms.” We may be nearing his third stage of despotism. When people produce public displays of ‘staged’ murder of any American citizen, we are all at risk. Anyone associating with that person has been given a message as to how they and their views are seen. 63 million people voted for Donald Trump, do Kathy Griffin and The Public Theater company want to see them dead as well?   This is the important question we should be asking. Leaders represent the views of the people who vote for them. We have a framework in this country for the peaceful transition of power and we have enshrined such civil rights as the right to peaceful protest and removal from office by vote. The founders knew there would be people of varying political sentiment living in America. Their design was not for open acts of violence to represent how opposing political viewpoints are viewed. American and global civil discourse is at a crossroads. We can either accept that violence will rule how we interact with others both behind the protection of our computer screens or openly in the public square or we can decide to reign in intolerance in the name of tolerance. Once these types of acts become mainstream it is not long before societies devolve into anarchy. Liberty minded individuals know the power of civil public discourse and education. That is how we spread the ideals of freedom. We must start championing these values. We need to end the violence and hatred before a despot decides to end it for us. John Bianchi is a marketing professional and the Chapter Leader for America's Future Foundation in Raleigh. This article was originally published on FEE.org. Read the original article.

Weekly E-Newsletter

Get the latest from PanAm Post direct to your inbox!

We will never share your email with anyone.