|
In light of recent disinformation from the international media regarding the closure of a number of radio stations in Venezuela and a “Draft Law against Media Crimes" presented to the Parliament, here Hands Off Venezuela reproduce the facts as presented by the Bolivarian government and not mentioned in the mainstream media.
In light of recent disinformation from the international media regarding the closure of a number of radio stations in Venezuela and a “Draft Law against Media Crimes" presented to the Parliament, here Hands Off Venezuela reproduce the facts as presented by the Bolivarian government and not mentioned in the mainstream media.
Fact Sheet:
THE TRUTH ABOUT RECENT MEDIA EVENTS IN
VENEZUELA
There has been much uproar in the
international media in recent days as various
radio stations in Venezuela have been closed
and a “Draft Special Law against Media
Crimes” has been presented to the Venezuelan
Parliament by the Public Prosecutor last week.
As usual, much disinformation has guided the
debate around these topics. This fact-sheet
should clarify the issues and rectify the
imbalanced reporting of the mainstream
media.
CLOSURE OF 34 MEDIA STATIONS
The National Telecommunications
Commission (Conatel) ascribed to the
Ministry of Popular Power for Infrastructure
and Housing (Mopvi) announced the closure
of 34 Venezuelan media stations as they
operated outside the margins of the
Telecommunications Law as ratified in the
year 2000.1
The mainstream international media tries to
portray the closure of these stations as if it
were the result of a deliberate decision taken
by President Chávez, when in fact it is the
consequence of the rightful application of the
law.
Here are the Facts:
- Conatel and Mopvi are currently in a
process of data revision, updating
information on Venezuelan television and
radio broadcast concessions. This process
is being carried out under utmost
transparency and the public has
continuously been informed about all
decisions taken by the responsible state
institutions.
- The data-revision process brought to light
that the 34 media-stations in question
were clearly not complying with the law
because of one or more of the following
failures:
- the expiration of the broadcastconcession
and/or the lack of renewal
of the concession within the time
period determined by the law;
- the passing-away or the renunciation
of a concession holder and;
- the lack of the lawful transfer to a new
concession holder.
- In that context Diosdado Cabello, Minister
for Infrastructure and Housing, faced those
opposing the measure and said "I
challenge those who operate the Circuito
Nacional Belfort to provide a document
showing that CONATEL has authorized
them to operate the 102.3 frequency. They
are saying that the station is theirs and it's
not true…They have started to say that we
are revoking concessions and that is not
true. The state is simply recovering the
concessions that were being used
illegally for more than 30 years. It is an
act of justice that has to do with giving
power to people". 2
- Nonetheless those affected by the measure
can continue broadcasting their programs
through the internet as the regulation only
applies to the use of the state-owned
airwaves.
- According to Venezuelan law, the 34
stations had to stop broadcasting
immediately. Cabello stated in a recent
press conference that authorities went to
inform the 34 stations about the
incompliance with the law, but they closed
the doors in front of them. Cabello said
“there is no way to close the doors to the
truth”.
- In other cases, administrative processes
were opened.
Decisions are still
pending on 206
more stations.
- The 34 mediastations
(32 radio
and 2 television)3
have not presented
any evidence
whatsoever that
would put into
question the
decisions made by the authorities. They
have the right to take their case to the
Supreme Court.
- Furthermore it is worth noting that despite
these 34 stations being off the public
airwaves and 206 being under revision,
there are another 872 TV and radio
stations operating in Venezuela. There
are currently 794 FM radio stations, 210
AM radio stations and 108 TV stations
using the public airwaves in Venezuela. In
total 65 % are commercial, 10 % are
public, and 25% are community outlets. In
fact, CONATEL has increased the use of
the airwaves by private stations by
granting, for instance, 181 concessions
to private FM radio stations owned by
the private sector during the
administration of President Hugo
Chavez. 4
- Another aspect that has not been
mentioned in the international media is the
fact that people in Venezuela have rallied
in favor of the measure. On July 23, the
National Association of Free and
Alternative Community Media (AMCLA),
rallied in Caracas and called for radio and
television airwaves to be given to the
people. On Sunday several hundred people
convened in front of CONATEL in
support of the
government measure. In
that context one person
mentioned "I'm totally
in agreement with the
measure that minister
Diosdado Cabello has
taken of placing the
airwaves in the hands of
the Venezuelan
people." 5
DRAFT SPECIAL LAW AGAINST
MEDIA CRIMES
The closure of the 34 broadcast stations is
completely independent from the
discussions of a “Draft Special Law Against
Media Crimes” that has been presented to the
Parliament by the Public Prosecutor last week.
The President of the Media Commission of the
Venezuelan National Assembly, Congressman
Manuel Villalba, has been emphatic in
pointing out that there is no consensus in the
Parliament around the possible contents of
the proposed Special Law against Media
Crimes “there are different proposals that
will be debated”. In fact, the Media
Commission is actively promoting a national
debate about this matter.6
Even before discussing the draft law in the
Parliament, it has already received harsh
criticism from the international press. Critics
have mainly focused on the following two
aspects of the proposed law: First, that
journalists could face prison-punishment for
“publishing material deemed to harm state
stability” (BBC World) and second, that the
law would strongly limit the freedom of
expression.
Here are the facts:
- The law is in no way limiting the
freedom of expression but rather ensures
the subsequent imposition of liability,
according to Article 13 of the Inter-
American Convention of Human Rights.7
In fact, the proposed law sustains itself in
both, the Venezuelan Constitution and the
Convention of Human Rights. For
example, Article 13 of the mentioned
convention also says that “any propaganda
for war and any advocacy of national,
racial, or religious hatred that constitute
incitements to lawless violence or to any
other similar action against any person or
group of persons on any grounds including
those of race, colour, religion, language, or
national origin shall be considered as
offences punishable by law.”8 Article 58
of the Venezuelan Constitution says that
“Everyone has the right to timely, truthful
and impartial information, without
censorship, in accordance with the
principles of this Constitution, as well as
the right to reply and corrections when
they are directly affected by inaccurate or
offensive information.”9
- The law will establish what is to be
considered a crime. 10 According to Article
3 of this draft, among the actions or
omissions that might be considered a
crime are the following:
- Advocate against social peace, security
and the independence of the nation;
- Advocate against the public order,
stability of state institutions, mental
health and public morale.
- The Public Prosecution office explains
clearly that while other rights of the
Constitution are protected by the
Venezuelan Criminal Law, the right to
receive truthful and impartial information
does not enjoy this kind of protection,
which means that perpetrators who violate
this right go unpunished. For example,
Article 60 of the Constitution foresees that
everyone has the right of protection of
one’s honour and reputation. This right is
protected by the Criminal Law, which
establishes sanctions for those who
commit the crime.11 The proposed Special
Law Against Media Crimes intends to
protect the right to receive truthful and
impartial information, by establishing
clear rules of punishment for those who
violate these rights.
- Already back in 1966 the renowned
Venezuelan writer and intellectual Arturo
Uslar Pietri stated that "Today we are
confronting the danger that these [media]
companies convert themselves into grand
opinion factories; something that could be
very dangerous for a country, as the
possibility to determine public opinion
might end up in the hands of three or four
rich persons who could say: Let’s fabricate
this type of person, let’s destroy this other
one, let’s make people hate this idea and
like the other one. This is an immense
danger for democracy and we should not
contemplate it with romantic ideas. … We
have to set a limit to the power of these
plutocratic fabricants and opinion-manufacturers which could convert into
the country’s dictators through their
economic power.” 12 What Venezuela is
doing today has been a concern of
intellectuals already decades back, and
given the words of Arturo Pietri,
Venezuela through the proposed law is in
fact enhancing democracy and certainly
not limiting it.
- Interestingly, just those who most criticize
the proposed law today are those who
years ago would approve a constitution
that foresees the clear punishment of
‘criminal expressions’. Eleazar Diaz
Rangel, journalist and editor of the popular
Venezuelan newspaper, Últimas Noticias,
pointed out that “the Constitution of 1961
that they approved, guaranteed that
freedom in Article 66, but clearly stated
that those expressions which constitute a
crime are subject to punishment according
to the law”. It furthermore said that
“anonymity is not permitted, just like the
promotion of war, the offence of the
public morale or propaganda that would
provoke the disobedience of the laws.”13
- Finally, we should not forget the
destructive role the media has played in
the 2002 coup d’etat against the
democratic government of Hugo Chávez.
In fact, the coup was orchestrated and
directed by the private media. The support
that Globovision, RCTV and other private
media outlets gave to the coup has been
reported by various independent human
rights organizations, such as PROVEA.14
Venezuela is only one example of where
media-terror can lead to. In Rwanda the
media was a main actor in the civil war in
the 1990s and Kofi Annan made clear that
“the media in Rwanda was used to
disseminate hatred, to dehumanize the
people, and what is even worse, to guide
the genocide towards certain victims…
Three journalists and media owners were
found culpable of genocide, instigation to
genocide, of conspiracy and of committing
crimes against humanity.” He insisted,
“We have to find a way to respond to these
abuses of power”.15
“If someone thinks that this enormous power
that justifies wars, violence, coup d’etats, and
chaos around the world should not be
regulated…this means we will always live
vulnerably to any kind of
aggression”16…asserts the Public Prosecutor.
London, August 6th, 2009
Open the original document as PDF here.
1 Telecommunication Law, June 2000.
http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/LT_ley.htm
2 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4683
3 Ibid.
4 Fact-Sheet, Venezuelan Embassy Washington D.C.
http://www.embavenez-us.org/factsheet/Recent-Media-
Events_FS-US.pdf
5 http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/news/4683
6 Fact-Sheet, Venezuelan Embassy Washington D.C.
http://www.embavenez-us.org/factsheet/Recent-Media-
Events_FS-US.pdf
7 American Convention of Human Rights.
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-32.html
8 American Convention of Human Rights.
http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/treaties/b-32.html
9 Constitution, 1999 (Spanish)
http://www.tsj.gov.ve/legislacion/constitucion1999.htm
10 “Draft Law Against Media Crimes” (in Spanish),
retrieved August 3, 2009,
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17868174/ProyectoLeyEsp
ecialDelitosMediaticos
11 http://www.aporrea.org/medios/a82039.html
12
http://www.diarioalternativademocratica.com/noticias/4
550-diaz-rangel-no-es-primera-vez-que-se-intentalimitar-
libertad-de-prensa.html
13 “Diaz Rangel: No es la primera vez que se reclama
limitar la libertad de prensa”, RNV, August 2, 2009.
http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=2
&t=104128
14 Annual Report 2001-2002. (Spanish)
http://www.derechos.org.ve/publicaciones/infanual/200
1_02/derecho_lib_exp_inf.htm#01
15 http://www.aporrea.org/ddhh/a35265.html
16 http://www.rnv.gov.ve/noticias/index.php?act=ST&f=
2&t=104034
|