I am having a real hard time understanding how the main Chavista defense for the RCTV case is the fact that there was no legal proceeding and that Chavez waited for the end of the license to not renew it as an act of Totalitarian Dictatorship. Really, if you don't see how this was a totalitarian decision, let me try to illustrate you.
First I'm going to quote, what globovision quoted of what, Ecuador's President, and Chavez's firend Rafael Correa, said this sunday about the RCTV case:
"Les digo muy claro, si después de probar que un canal apoyó un golpe de Estado y que estuvo al lado de los golpistas, como lo hizo RCTV, yo cancelo ese canal", declaró Correa el diario Hoy.
Señaló que "eso no hizo Chávez, él esperó para no renovar la frecuencia".Translation: I say it very clear, if after PROVING that a TV station supported a coup and that it was sided with its participants, like RCTV did (although this was never proved since there was no trial), I will cancel that TV station. Chavez didn't do that, he waited so he could not renew the license."
Is anybody seeing the irony here? Correa basically admits that Chavez had a complete disregard for the laws and basically skipped the due process to see if RCTV had a real involvement in the coup. Since he's such a nice guy, he waited till their license expired so he could make the decision (he, himself, and only he) to not renew it.
Can this be a more clear example about how the law is carried out on Venezuela? How can people defending Chavez admit to this and not have a problem with it? I guess they don't believe in democracy, or better yet, they believe in it when it doesn't apply to them like Chavez does. It is important to remember that Chavez created his own constitution on 1999. Who knows, maybe he failed to tell us that he was exempt from following it.
|