ELECTIONS IN VENEZUELA ... ...Future of the Bolivarian homeland

By Laura Bécquer Paseiro

 

 

 

 

APPROXIMATELY 19 million Venezuelans are convened to vote in the October 7 presidential elections. On that day, the candidate who wins the majority of valid votes cast within a system of universal, direct and secret suffrage, as established in the Article 228 of the Constitution, will be responsible for leading the country for the next six years.

The nation’s future is in the hands of Venezuelans: to continue the revolutionary process or hand the country over to the oligarchy and the transnationals. In the power equation, a win for the right would not only signify a retrogression in terms of everything attained in the 14 years of Bolivarian Revolution, but also the possibility of the return of a large counterrevolutionary wave in the region.

At the external level, the country’s electoral process represents another key decision, as to whether there will be a continuance of the politics of integration on the basis of cooperation among the peoples, a politics in which the Bolivarian government has played a leading role, or whether this line is broken in Our America.

Running for the October 7 elections are the Gran Polo Patriótico (GPP), a coalition of parties and organizations supporting the candidacy of current President Hugo Chávez Frías, and, on the opposition, the right-wing Mesa de la Unidad Democrática (MUD), whose candidate, Henrique Capriles Radonski, is backed by powerful economic groups among the bourgeoisie, closely linked to the United States. The remaining candidates are María Bolívar, Partido Democrático Unido por la Paz y la Libertad; Orlando Chirino, Partido Socialismo y Libertad (PSL); Rafael Uzcátegui, Patria Para Todos (PPT); Yoel Acosta Chirinos, Movimiento Vanguardia Bicentenaria Republicana (VBR); Luis Reyes, Organización Renovadora Auténtica (ORA); and Reina Sequera, Poder Laboral

(PL).

HOMELAND PROGRAM V. NEOLIBERAL PACKAGE

The GPP candidate Comandante Hugo Chávez’s program for Bolivarian socialism in Venezuela 2013-2019 was presented by the President when he registered for reelection in June. It contains five principal strategic objectives, which will become the Simón Bolívar 2nd Socialist Plan of the Nation. The proposals – put to the population – include consolidating national independence, continuing the construction of Bolivarian socialism, converting Venezuela into both an economic and political power, contributing to the development of a new international geopolitics defending a pluripolar world, and preserving life on the planet and humanity’s survival.

This is a broad outline of the government proposal for the next six years, formulated in order to continue the revolutionary process, which has promoted major social projects based on larger investments in the fields of health, education, housing, public services, increased pensions and the development of missions.

The opposition "counterpart" is attempting to implement a neoliberal package which would destroy efforts directed at the equitable development of Venezuelan society. The economic program presented by Capriles, known as Guidelines of the Unidad Nacional Government Program, "is an attempt to reedit neoliberal formulas in counter to the well-being of the population," according to Jesse Chacón, director of the 21st Century Social Research Group (GIS XXI).

The right-wing formula is the same installed in Venezuela years ago. Under the slogan "progressive," it contains measures directed at the privatization of public assets to the benefit of private capital and, as part of this attempt, to re-channel state priorities.

It is a project which overtly proposes to dismantle state economic power and, if that were little enough, the gradual elimination of the social programs under the pretext that they are a too great a cost for the state.

In this context, Chacón warns that "as a classic neoliberal economic prescription, the program seeks to create the conditions for the gradual dismantling of social rights, taking the route of financial austerity spending cutbacks." This is why many analysts are calling Capriles the Caribbean Rajoy.

The equation has been posed in the political plane of contemporary Venezuela: two development models, one based on popular participation and the other comprising politics linked to the old exercise of bourgeois power. Venezuelans will decide which direction to take.

 

September 20, 2012

 

Granma.cu

 

Bahamas Blog International

The young Bahamians who are demoralized by the dysfunction of the modern Bahamas ...should examine Paul Adderley’s service over the years... ...If you want your country to change, offer yourselves ...and make the change happen

The death of an intellectual

thenassauguardian editorial

Nassau, The Bahamas

Paul Adderley was an attorney, lawmaker, politician and thinker.  You might not always agree with him, but having an argument with the former attorney general required thought and intellectual skill.

Adderley died at hospital yesterday at 84.  He held various posts in the Pindling Cabinets during his long time in public life.  He served as minister of national security, minister of education, minister of foreign affairs and minister of finance.  He was attorney general for 17 years.

Prime Minister Perry Christie yesterday described Adderley as the architect of the country’s foreign policy in the early years after independence.

Adderley was from a prominent family and his story was not the poor to prominence story many of the black elite tell today.  His father A.F. Adderley was a well-to-do lawyer in The Bahamas at a time when blacks were not a part of that order.   Paul Adderley was the fourth consecutive generation of his family to serve in the Bahamian legislature, having been preceded by his father and before that by his grandfather Wilfred Parliament Adderley; and before that by his great granduncle, William Campbell Adderley.

Adderley did not have to give himself to public service.  He could have just lived the good life as many who inherit wealth and status do in The Bahamas.  Yet, he joined the fight of his generation for the self-determination of these islands.

As a parliamentarian from 1962 to 1967 and then from 1972 to 1997, Adderley helped shape the laws of our country and our legal system.  This willingness and desire to offer for service must not be downplayed – especially for a man who came from a privileged background.  People make nations great.  And it is the kind of commitment demonstrated by men like Adderley that helped transform The Bahamas from being a mere colony to an independent nation state.

As a long-serving member of the Progressive Liberal Party (PLP), Adderley saw the good and the bad of his party.  The PLP is the party of majority rule and independence.  It is also the party that by the 1980s was so mired in drug-related scandal that the reputation of The Bahamas internationally was poor.

Some PLPs of that era had to resign in shame.  Some were prosecuted.  Some were sidelined.  Adderley, however, left politics with his reputation intact.

“I can attest that the 1980s proved particularly challenging for Mr. Adderley as he strove to serve a government with which he was often at odds,” former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham said yesterday in tribute.

“It was a time of turmoil for many in our country as we were confronted not only by the threats presented by the illicit international drugs trade, but also by the vigorous demands of the United States government in response to drug trafficking.

“I shall never forget Mr. Adderley’s support and encouragement of me during that difficult period.  Notwithstanding that we eventually followed different political paths, my respect for the integrity which typified his public life and his commitment to preserving our democracy remains.”

In the 2002 to 2007 period, Adderley was one of the key advisors to Christie.  Christie remembered him with fondness yesterday.

“Mr. Adderley was a man of extraordinary intellectual brilliance,” he said in a statement.

“Indeed, it is quite impossible to overstate the importance of his many and varied contributions to the development of our nation.”

Adderley will be buried in a state funeral.  His contributions to nation building will be remembered over the weeks to come.  The young who are demoralized by the dysfunction of the modern Bahamas should examine Adderley’s service over the years.  If you want your country to change, offer yourselves and make the change happen.

Sep 20, 2012

thenassauguardian editorial

Bahamas Blog International

The war in Afghanistan... ...An issue virtually absent from U.S. presidential campaigns

By Enrique Román

THE war in Afghanistan has the strange property of frequently disappearing from the headlines, despite being the longest waged by the United States and, to date, having cost half a trillion dollars, the lives of 2,000 U.S. soldiers and close to 1,000 of the accompanying coalition forces. And the lives of tens of thousands or more of Afghanis, combatants and civilians.

Undertaken to dismantle the Al Qaeda forces and locate Bin Laden, it became a giant operation to defeat the Taliban movement – not anti-U.S. – and, for its followers, a liberation movement of longstanding against the Soviet occupation and for restoring the power lost by the Pashtun ethnicity, to which it belongs, among the many others in Afghanistan.

With the retreat of the Taliban and Hamid Karzai, a minor Pashtun leader, in power, and the goal of finding Bin Laden unfulfilled, the war, subsequently involving the presence on the ground of 100,000 U.S. troops and a further 40,000 from other countries in a sudden armed coalition (including soldiers from New Zealand, Iceland, Tonga, and Luxembourg), the war became virtually bogged down and forgotten: Iraq was the real goal for the neoconservatives of the Bush administration.

This oblivion had its costs. When Barack Obama became President, the Taliban had reemerged and controlled more than half of the country, the Karzai government was sinking in a mire of accusations of corruption at the highest level and, although Al Qaeda had disappeared from the map of Afghanistan (reappearing in other countries like Yemen), Bin Laden and his whereabouts continued to be a mystery.

It was no longer clear what the objective of the war was: to combat terrorism, prevent the return of the Taliban? Or more illusory: to build a centralized state, an unnatural state in a multiethnic country subject to influences from Pakistan, Iran Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and even China and India? Nevertheless, Obama decided to dispatch an additional 30,000 troops there, NATO extended its presence in the country through 2014, and the permanence of a good part of the occupying forces until 2020 or beyond.

Given the above, the real situation and future prospects do not encourage the presidential candidates to talk about Afghanistan.

While military operations – accompanied by scandals such as the insults directed at President Obama by General McChrystal, commander of forces in Afghanistan – have ousted the Taliban from certain regions, there is no sign whatsoever that its forces have diminished or that they would be prepared to lay down arms. Their contacts with the United States – they are not disposed to talk with Karzai – have not produced any results and Taliban leaders have promised that the armed struggle will increase.

According to U.S. sources, the degree of violence this year has increased by 15% in relation to 2011. Taliban sanctuaries in Pakistan are virtually intact.

The new Afghan army, the training of which is the principal justification for a prolonged foreign military presence, comprises an enormous fragmented mass, given its ethnic and tribal structure, forces which will define their future loyalties once left to themselves, and whose members are being trained by foreign forces who have no understanding of the country’s cultural complexities. While there has been news about Afghanistan in recent days, these items have focused on the death of U.S. soldiers at the hands of elements within this army.

The withdrawal of 33,000 U.S. soldiers is scheduled for the end of 2012. Approximately 100,000 American and NATO troops will remain. The war will continue to drag on. Stephen Biddle, professor of political science at George Washington University, states that the possibility of the United States bringing the war to a successful conclusion on the battlefield is zero at this point.

In one of his few references to the Afghanistan war, on June 22, Obama spoke reluctantly but with realism about the issue. In essence: Bin Laden is dead, Al Qaeda is being disbanded in the country and the troops can begin to withdraw.

At one rate or another, it could be added. A false victory could be declared and this strange and cruel war declared over. Afghanistan would continue immersed in an interminable civil war, which foreign intervention has done nothing but foment. And it would return to its condition as a forgotten country, with its population decimated, devastated by more than a decade of occupation and more than 30 years of diverse wars.

The silence of the two presidential candidates on the subject announces that, for the United States, Afghanistan will once again become the remote and impoverished country it always was, and whose only vital interest was its having harbored those responsible for the 9/11 attacks. And the troops of the United States and its allies will become yet another of the many foreign armies who have had to withdraw with their dead from this seemingly undefeatable country.

 

September 13, 2012

 

Granma.cu

 

Bahamas Blog International

The Oil Drilling Referendum in The Bahamas ...and Pontius Pilate

No Referendum For Oil Drilling


Tribune242
Nassau, The Bahamas




ALREADY they are discussing how to share the oil wealth, even before the first vein of oil has been discovered to make the discussion relevant.

 

In our opinion politicians are putting the cart before the horse or, as the farm hand would say, “counting their chicks before they are hatched.”

 

What they should be giving serious thought to is whether they should even be playing russian roulette with the future of these islands, whose wealth lies in the extraordinary beauty of its waters, powder soft beaches and colourful marine life. One slip of the drill and our future is gone forever.

 

Already, the livelihood of our fishermen are threatened with the overfishing of the conch, and the threat of a US ban on its importation as a food delicacy to save the species from extinction. Now enters King Oil with its offshore rigs which could further pollute — despite safety precautions — the natural habitat of the conch.

 

We need only one slip — equipment failure, staff error, a hurricane — and the purity and beauty of our shallow seas are gone forever.

 

As pointed out in the book Environmental Impact of the Offshore Oil and Gas Industry, the “main hazard is connected with the spills and blowouts of oil, gas, and numerous other chemical substances and compounds.

 

“The environmental consequences of accidental episodes are especially severe, sometimes dramatic, when they happen near the shore, in shallow waters, or in areas with slow water circulation.”

 

Offshore rigs, said another report, “can dump tons of drilling fluid, metal cutting, including toxic metals, such as lead chromium and mercury, as well as carcinogens, such as benzene, into the ocean.” And yet another report claims that “exploration for offshore oil involves firing air guns which send a strong shock across the seabed that can decrease fish catch, damage the hearing capacity of various marine species and may lead to marine mammal strandings.” It is claimed that “drilling activity around oil rigs is suspected of contributing to elevated levels of mercury in Gulf of Mexico fish.”

 

The big oil companies will extol the benefits of oil drilling, the elaborate safety measures taken around the wells, until the big blow comes and then they are in such a state of confusion that their tongues are tied to find an explanation of what went wrong. In 2010 the world watched in horror the explosion of BP’s Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico. As the thick oil spread south, even the Bahamas trembled. The talk then was who would our government hold responsible to clean up the mess that Bahamians feared might touch our shores. Fortunately the Bahamas was spared.

 

But in that disaster 11 workers were killed and more than three million gallons of crude oil poured into the Gulf.

 

Don’t say that it can’t happen here. It can happen here and this is where it is most likely to happen because, as we know in the Bahamas no one observes the rules for long, and security will soon slip.

A news report recently suggested that the Gulf accident happened because the US interior department “exercised lax oversight in approving BP’s operations in the Gulf, accepting too readily the company’s claims that there was little risk of an accident.”

 

It is almost obscene to think that the politicians are discussing the financial returns before investigating whether the dangers are too great for us to subject our fragile tourist economy to the oil consortiums.

 

As for a referendum. This is one problem that should not be put to a referendum. All Bahamians will see is the possibility of quick wealth — as in the drug peddling years — they will not even consider the possibility of these islands being covered in thick tar — off limits to everybody.

 

When Bahamians went to the polls on May 7th they elected Perry Gladstone Christie as prime minister, not Pontius Pilate, who washed his hands and walked away from the problem. Rather than leaving such a weighty problem to voters, who do not have access to the necessary information, it is for MPs to study the pros and cons, the benefits and the dangers, and with a vote of the Assembly, where they represent the people, make a rational and considered decision. If they are incapable of doing that then call it quits, go back to the people and give them a second chance to find someone willing to do the job they were elected to do.

 

This is not a vote for a referendum. This is a vote for members of parliament — all of them.

 

September 13, 2012

 

Tribune 242

 

Bahamas Blog International

 

Abortion in Venezuela... ...In Venezuela, more people are opposed to abortion than they are to violence in a relationship

Venezuela: The Dangers of a Revolution against a Woman’s Right to Abortion


By Tamara Pearson

 

In Venezuela, more people are opposed to abortion than they are to violence in a relationship. 87% of Venezuelans would criticise a 17 year old teenager deciding to get an abortion, according to a GISXXI survey conducted in November last year, while 81% reject aggression between partners. The first figure is just slightly less than those who identify as Christian (71% of Venezuelans are Catholic, 17% Evangelical, 0.6% Jewish, and 8% either agnostic or atheist) which is not just a reflection of how strong an influence the Church still has in Venezuela, but also of how small the gains have been for women in this revolution in terms of sexual rights.

 

Abortion is illegal, expensive, and risky in Venezuela

 

In Venezuela, abortion is only legal when the woman’s life is in danger. In situations where it is necessary to preserve her health or mental state, where she has been raped, if the foetus has birth defects, or for economic reasons, abortion is not legal. The penalty on paper is six months to two years prison, though in practice few women are actually “caught”. The unprescribed but real punishments experienced by women facing an unwanted pregnancy however include social condemnation, reinforced by its illegality, secrecy, the monetary cost of abortion, and the health risks if it can’t be paid for.

 

An illegal abortion with a medical practitioner these days in Venezuela costs around 4-6,000bs, or 2-3 months minimum wage, as doctors take advantage of the illegal status to charge inflated black market prices for what is a fairly simple procedure. Some women pay it, but the vast majority of working class women cannot, and perform the abortion themselves without medical help or even moral support from family. According to a study by the Central University of Venezuela, 16% of maternal deaths (of women aged 12 to 49) here are caused by complications resulting from clandestine abortions, making them the second highest cause of death of women in that age range, higher than cancer, accidents, or suicides and murders. Venezuelan feminist leader Gioconda Mata claims the figure is closer to 30%. Because private medical centres obviously aren’t going to publish the number of illegal abortions they perform, it’s impossible to say the overall number of annual abortions, but the numbers of women resorting to unassisted (cheaper) abortions means the issue is also a class one that disproportionately affects poorer women.

 

Influence of the Church

 

Since its arrival on the continent over 500 years ago, the Church has been one of the main forces behind the demonisation of abortion, trivialising a woman’s protagonism in society and her right to a full life in which she is sovereign.

 

Cuban doctor Digna Mayo Abad described how abortion was a common practice “many centuries before our time”, where; in “patriarchal primitive peoples’” families, the head could sell and even kill his children, even before they were born. In that situation, abortion wasn’t punishable. The foetus was also seen as part of a woman’s bowels, but since she was inferior, the father or family head still exercised control over the foetus. Likewise in Ancient Greece, the foetus was considered part of the mother. According to Abad, “the repression of abortion began in Rome”.

 

Two hundred years after the birth of Jesus Christ, the Church enacted measures against women who committed abortion- including the death penalty, physical torture, and exile -based on the idea that women didn’t have the right to rob their husbands of their descendents. However, the idea that the foetus is an “innocent being” was only adopted by the Church in 1312, as before that, it wasn’t believed to have a soul, so abortion wasn’t considered murder. However, theologists decided a soul inhabited the foetus from 40 days of conception in the case of a male and 90 days in the case of a female foetus. In 1533 (just 11 years after Spain began to colonise Venezuela, and just a few years after it had already managed to completely devastate the indigenous population of Venezuela’s Margarita and Cubagua Islands) it was decided the soul entered the foetus around mid-pregnancy, when movements could be felt. Finally, in 1588 Pope Sixtus V proclaimed that all abortions are criminal and punishable by excommunication.

 

A Brazilian Catholic nun, Ivone Gebara, the first person of her standing to identify with feminism in Latin America, said, “The dogma of abortion has been manufactured over the centuries. Who wrote that the birth of children can’t be controlled? There have been priests, celibate men, closed-up in their world where they live comfortably...they don’t have a wife or mother in law and they don’t worry about a sick child, some of them are even rich...like that, it’s easy to condemn abortion”. According to Gebara, a society where men are free of responsibility and women receive all the blame is “an abortive, macho, and excluding society”.

 

This dogma of abortion dominates the Venezuelan mentality on the issue, with most people here who are against abortion using virtually identical language to the Church to explain their opinions. 

Abortion is “pre-natal murder”, “taking the life of an innocent and defenceless human being”; with the quality of the life of the pregnant woman rarely part of the discussion. This is despite the fact that while 90% of Venezuelans in a GIS XXI March 2011 survey said they were “believers”, only a small proportion are regular church goers and many Venezuelans reject the Pope and the largely opposition role played by the Church here.

 

This shows that patriarchal culture also plays a key role in attitudes towards women’s sexuality (as well as towards sexual diversity, though a lower percentage; 69% of Venezuelans, rejected the idea of sex between the same gender in the GIS XXI survey), reinforcing those aspects of Church doctrine, while leaving others more open.

 

Patriarchal culture

 

The discourse around abortion, and the little debate that does happen, revolves around the supposed rights of the foetus and basically ignores any rights of the woman to control her own body and make decisions over her own life. Prohibiting abortion means that women are sometimes forced to have children (or more children) against their will or economic means, though their male partner is not at all obligated to contribute towards the care of those children, and it is culturally common and accepted for him not to. Biological fathers often decide not to participate in caring, or leave altogether- around 50% of mothers are single mothers in Venezuela.

 

Likewise, while the government has made a valiant effort to promote more sexual education, including printing pamphlets, school and education mission based book series, and distributing condoms to the Barrio Adentro medical units, most discourse and education still focuses on teaching women and female teenagers to be sexually responsible rather than seeing sex and conception as a mutual act, with mutual responsibility, between both genders.

 

Male leaders of this revolution, including president Chavez, as well as women’s movements have pushed for great women’s participation in all aspects of politics (from the ministries to the communal councils) and in some aspects of the economy (with more women in the army and leading trade union movements such as UNETE, more female police, fire-fighters, doctors, and so on, though certain professions such as building or cleaning still completely adhere to the old ideas about gender roles) and the revolution is seeing a significant change in this respect.

 

However, the government has made no attempt to promote women’s sexual rights. Women’s bodies are still largely male property or public property, with their use in advertising as rife as ever, and even, in one case, used to publicise Chavez’s current electoral campaign. An image of a woman from her navel to her upper legs, wearing red underpants with the Chavez campaign slogan, has been passed around Facebook. It seems to have been made by PSUV campaigners, though it’s hard to be sure. Of course this doesn’t compare at all to opposition candidate Henrique Capriles’ organising of a mass meeting of women last week, which he formally and publically dubbed a “panty-thon”.

 

This idea that a woman’s body is public property supports the notion that when she is pregnant, her own needs are secondary to the supposed public desire to protect the “life” growing inside her. It means the state, the church, and the penal code (the latter written by men only and of course in the case of the Church, run by men only) have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

 

The Feminist Spider group and the Network of Women’s Collectives in Venezuela made a declaration in September 2010 in which they argued for the right of women to determine the number of children they’ll have, and to sovereignty over their body. Such rights “imply recognising women as social subjects, and as people with autonomy and moral agents capable of deciding if they want to be mothers or not, as well as the number of children and the time between births...”.

 

“All women want a planned pregnancy, a joyful and a safe one, not one forced by laws or obligated by ideological imperatives full of prejudice and hypocrisy... in that sense the Venezuelan state has a debt to women and their dignity as people,” their statement concluded.

 

A silenced and taboo issue being gradually brought out into the open by feminist movements

 

“That almost half the women who live in this country have had to go through this [illegal abortions] is a fact kept quiet,” one anonymous friend told me. “And we have illegal abortions, not because we think they’re great, but because the right conditions aren’t there, you know?”

 

That illegal abortions and the women who have to go through with them are invisible reinforces the stigma around the issue, even though it is so common. The silence condemns abortion as a disgrace and the lack of information around what is actually involved in an abortion, as well as on the psychological and biological impacts of a forced pregnancy on a woman, makes it hard for alternative views to be formed. Political leaders and the media also either demonise abortion or are silent on the issue, and even many pro-Chavez women’s movements (as distinct to feminist ones) refuse to talk much about their own rights, instead focusing on their support for the government.

 

It’s true however, that feminist movements have been able to grow because of the general radicalisation and activation of the people in the Bolivarian revolution, and that they have made some small gains in breaking this silence.

 

The Skirts in Revolution group has provided an abortion advice line since May 2011, where volunteers supply information about abortion options, and how to use, and where to find Misoprostal. Also, the boom in alternative and community radio stations and online media has given the issue somewhat more space, with a daily feminist column in the state run Correo del Orinoco as well.

 

On the other hand, the feminist television program El Entrompe de Falopio (The Fallopian Challenge ) was wound back from a daily show on Caracas alternative television station Avila and national community station TVes, to twice a week, then once a week, and then cancelled altogether in April this year. The show discussed “hard” or more controversial issues such as transgender politics, female sexuality, and abortion, and according to Mota was an “important conquest”, as such issues had never been visibilised on television before. However, people working on the show reported pressure from “above” to “dress better” and for the hosts to be more “appealing”, and to discuss more “popular” topics.

 

It’s worth noting though, that the fight for the legalisation of abortion in Venezuela did not start during the revolution, but rather over thirty years ago. Feminist Giovanna Merola published her book In Defense of Abortion in Venezuela in 1979, creating headlines in the media, and becoming a pioneer for the struggle in Latin America. Rosita Caldera also had a weekly column in the private newspaper El Nacional, discussing women’s reproductive rights during the early 1980s. Also around that time, a large meeting of doctors, lawyers, and feminists proposed the legalisation of abortion under certain circumstances (including congenital malformation of the foetus, incest, and rape), but the national congress didn’t approve it.

 

Laws, the constitution, and lack of guts in an Electoral Revolution

 

Because this revolution came to power, and in many ways depends on maintaining its collective power through elections, there is the constant dilemma around dividing time and resources between on the ground organising and constructing new social and economic relations, and electoral work (especially right now with the presidential and regional elections coming up). Likewise, there’s a related dilemma between promoting socialist and radical policy or appealing to the commonly held capitalist values in order to obtain more votes. The unpopularity of abortion (and other “radical” issues, such as same sex marriage, anti consumerism, environment before profit etc) means very few elected leaders are prepared to talk about it.

 

Apart from that, overall feminist consciousness within the PSUV is extremely low, with even most female politicians and political leaders still feeling the need to dress up and make up, and talking about women’s rights only in terms of “equality” (always in the vague sense of the word) and participation. The women’s ministry and missions such as Mothers of the Barrio aim to improve women’s material well being, but do not question the notion that the main thing a woman should aspire to is being a mother.

 

Further, though it was never voted on, the vast majority of national assembly legislators- both opposition and pro-Chavez- were against the proposed reform to the penal code to decriminalise abortion in 2008, thereby deferring to Christian beliefs over various basic rights outlined in Venezuela’s own 1999 constitution.

 

Article 76 of the Constitution of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela states, “Motherhood and fatherhood are fully protected, whatever the marital status of the mother or father. Couples have the right to decide freely and responsibly how many children they wish to conceive, and are entitled to access to the information and means necessary to guarantee the exercise of this right.” The constitution also includes the right to free development of personality, the right to privacy, and the right to freedom of cult and religion, meaning the prohibition of abortion is unconstitutional.

 

Consequences for the revolution and for the feminist movement

 

While the Bolivarian revolution is challenging some fundamental aspects of capitalism, such as representative democracy and workplace and economic hierarchies, the failure of most forces within it to promote women’s sexual rights and our basic dignity in terms of sovereignty over our lives, our bodies, and the use of our bodies in publicity, is undemocratic. One worries about the revolution being able to move forward, if many are afraid to confront social norms and social vices (such as gender roles, amiguismo or nepotism: achieving things because you know the right people, disorganisation and bureaucracy and so on).

 

To promote women’s sexual rights would be to radicalise and deepen this revolution, it would empower women further and enable us to in turn participate more fully and enthusiastically. While it’s true that some change will inevitably take longer, especially when challenging norms that have been ingrained over the last five centuries, the dangers of not taking on this issue, and of silencing those movements which try to, can be seen in Nicaragua.

 

There, many attribute the limited change in gender relations, despite the decisive contribution of women to the revolution, as one of the factors in the eventual win of female opposition candidate Violeta Barrios de Chamorro over revolutionary FSLN leader Daniel Ortega in 1990. The recent deal between Ortega (re-elected as president in 2007 ) and the Catholic Church to completely criminalise abortion; even when the woman’s life is in danger, in November that year, was key in separating the FSLN from the strong women’s movement, which still sees the prohibition of abortion as part of the Somoza era of exploitation and inequality.

 

The first step towards women being seen as more than just mothers and bodies, is awareness raising and extensive public debate. This means that we have a responsibility to organise ourselves more, but also that the state and the PSUV should provide greater support to such movements, should not relegate women to merely organising their gender in order to support elections, nor categorise feminist movements as “fringe” and “radical” (as though radical were something bad), should provide the resources for feminist workshops across the country, and should remove the unconstitutional articles from the penal code that make abortion illegal. Eventually it should also, of course, provide accessible and free abortion.

 

September 12, 2012

 

Venezuelanalysis

 

Bahamas Blog International

 

Bishop Cedric Moss, pastor of Kingdom Life Church questions the integrity of any religious body in The Bahamas which supports the ministry of mega-church senior pastor Eddie Long ...who is hosting the Spirit and Truth Conference at the Atlantis Resort... ...Bishop Moss further said: ...by all indications - Eddie Long should not be considered a pastor ...considering his “checkered past.”

Controversial Pastor Visit Questioned


By KHRISNA VIRGIL

Tribune Staff Reporter

kvirgil@tribunemedia.net

 

Nassau, The Bahamas

A LOCAL clergyman yesterday questioned the integrity of any religious body supporting the ministry of mega-church senior pastor Eddie Long who is hosting the Spirit and Truth Conference at the Atlantis Resort today.

 

Long, senior pastor of the 25,000-member New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Lithonia, Georgia gained attention from several best selling books and an Emmy award winning broadcast.

 

Those accomplishments, however, were overshadowed when four young men in 2010 alleged that Long coerced them into sexual relationships with him. The claims later snowballed into Long temporarily stepping down from his duties at the church and a near divorce from his long-time wife Vanessa, according to several US based media outlets.

 

Speaking with The Tribune yesterday Cedric Moss, pastor of the Kingdom Life Church on Chesapeake Road, said by all indications Long should not be considered a pastor, considering his “checkered past.”

 

“Two things,” Mr Moss said, “should be considered. One, if he is coming here of his own accord and renting a hall. In that event, he can speak to whomever wants to listen. Now if Long is coming here and is being supported by a church, pastor or religion group that should be cause for concern.

 

“I don’t even believe Long is a pastor. He who is above reproach is the first qualification. That doesn’t mean perfect, but it means that persons should be credible.”

 

Mr Moss said because the matter has not been resolved or brought vindication to Long, he should not be considered a pastor.

 

The Conference, which ends tomorrow, will see a number of speakers, including Long and Bahamian Bishop Neil C Ellis, senior pastor, Mount Tabor Full Gospel Baptist Church. Both pastors, according to an endorsement which was written by Long of Ellis, are long time friends.

 

“Integrity,” said the endorsement, “is often a characteristic that, unfortunately is hard to find in the first word that comes to mind when I think about my friend, brother, confidant and accountability partner, Bishop Neil C. Ellis, he has proven to be a man of great integrity, strength and courage. I am often amazed at his ability to hear the voice of God and accurately communicate it with such passion.”

 

Several attempts to reach Bishop Ellis were made, but none of the calls was returned.

 

September 11, 2012

 

Tribune 242

 

Bahamas Blog International

 

Moody’s - a top rating agency says: ...it remains "unclear" whether The Bahamas' economic recovery can be sustained ...due to its dependence on the U.S. economy

Moody’s: The Bahamas Deficit expected to ‘accelerate’

Jeffrey Todd
Guardian Business Editor
jeffrey@nasguard.com

Nassau, The Bahamas

A top rating agency says it remains "unclear" whether the country's economic recovery can be sustained due to its dependence on the U.S. economy.

According to the latest credit opinion from Moody's, tourism arrivals and occupancy rates have improved in 2012. The assessment has indeed been confirmed by top government officials in recent weeks. However, revenues lag behind pre-recession levels, Moody's explained, depressed by competition from other Caribbean markets and weak growth in the U.S.

Stuart Bowe, the president of the Bahamas Hotel Association (BHA), noted in its last report that daily room rates continues to fall. Promotional investments and airfare offers have become increasingly common among tourism stakeholders. Although it brings people into the country, the approach has revenue implications.

As first revealed by Guardian Business, the Ministry of Tourism is rolling out a $6 million air credit program that will last all the way until the first quarter of 2013.

"Given increased economic uncertainties currently facing the U.S. - the Bahamas' major tourism market - it is unclear whether the economic recovery will be sustainable," the report said.

Analysts reported that the country’s financial deficit continues to widen, financed primary by short-term domestic borrowing.

"We expect this pace to accelerate as the government increases capital spending to support several resort developments and social spending on programs such as the mortgage support plan," Moody's explained. "Foreign currency debt, which accounts for 56 percent of total government debt, is on the rise as well, albeit at a slower pace."

That said, Moody's noted that the economy is on track to achieve growth of 2.5 percent in 2012, a fact recently confirmed by Michael Halkitis, the state minister of finance. The modest growth is being driven by "a modest recovery in the high value-added tourism sub-sector, public sector investment in construction, and foreign direct investment in the tourism sector".

Credit growth, however, has remained "relatively flat", according to Moody's, and the unemployment rate still hovers beyond 15 percent.

The rating agency noted the recent strides by the government to revisit the issue of taxation.

That development is welcomed by Moody's. Back in May, the rating agency felt increased spending was not being properly matched by new revenues.  The introduction of a value-added tax, for example, would bring The Bahamas in line with a number of other countries in the region and promote revenue stability.

The comments from Moody's follow a recent statement to Guardian Business by the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in Trinidad and Tobago. Caribbean leaders convened in Port of Spain to discuss rising Caribbean debt and limited prospects for growth.

For The Bahamas, mission chief for the IMF Gene Leon confirmed that the troublesome debt-to-GDP ratio of the biggest problem facing the country's fiscal future. He confirmed that the organization has provided debt management consultation services in the lead up to its visit in October.

Including its continent liabilities among public corporations, he said the debt-to-GDP ratio had fallen into the "gray zone" of above 60 percent.

Sep 10, 2012

thenassauguardian