joep182

The difference is in Britain the people and parliament can get rid of a PM, In Venezuela, if the reforms pass only the people can get rid of the President. To me that is a good thing

joep182

Okay, on the point of the juidicary i am not so sure. I can give examples for the others in Britain, the media in WW1 we had the Defence of The Realm act. "The legislation gave the government executive powers to suppress published criticism, imprison without trial and to commandeer economic resources for the war effort".

Defence of the Realm Act

There was also a long period were the voice of Sinn Fein members were not allowed to be heard on tv or radio. It was censorship by the state. They also detained people without trial in Northern Ireland, because it was deemed to be an emergency. Certainly in Britain Parliament has the power to do absolutely anything it wants. There is a saying that "the only thing the British Parliament can not do is turn a man into a woman" (though they could even do that if they wished in this age). The fact is in Britain parliament is sovereign, it can overturn any law it wishes whenever it wishes.

On the US i'm no expert of domestic laws or the constitution. Far from it. But i dont believe at least, that i said these things could happen in the US, if i did i certainly take it back. I believe what i said was in most countries this could happen.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

The recall is not perfect and in the form used previously in Venezuela does not protect against a dictator. The people favoring recall have to amount to a total greater than the number of people who voted in favor of the President in the last election. So theoretically Chavez could be swept in, and then take away more freedoms and it would be hard to get him out afterwards, since you would be voting against a previous landslide, and not voting for a simple majority. A referendum with a simple majority would have been more democratic.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

OK, so there's no support for your comment about the ability of a President to sack Supreme Court Justices in your own country. As for the Defence of the Realm Act, there's two problems with that.

(1) That's during a time of war, and it's likely that Chavez will use a state of emergency in other situations besides that.

(2) Since you agree with what Chavez is doing in allowing people to be held without charge in a "state of emergency", that is politically going in the wrong direction. You are advocating the crushing of dissent and anti-democratic measures. Needless to say, you would be crying bloody murder if Bush or Gordon Brown passed a measure like this. So that's also inconsistent with what you're saying.


WEB

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

nerv14

Some time ago i really supported that Chavez was creating a democratic socialist country that would stand up to the United States but now he is trying to become a dictator like all of the other communist countrys.

Before i die i really want to see a democratic socialist country with freedom of speach just to see if it could work. why does every socialist country try to develope a dictator? i think that it is a complete myth that socialist governments need to be dictoral

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

You should read up on anarchism. It's far more respectable than authoritarian communism (i.e. Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc).

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Let's throw a few more items on the stack to the President's powers:

* Already gets appointed for a 6-year term (current status quo)
* Will have total control over the central bank if the referendum passes
* Can appoint governors in some provinces in the country if the referendum passes


I don't have much respect for Chavez in terms of wisdom. Even a person who really does believe in socialism, should also believe in democracy and there should be tons of other people who can be entrusted to pick up where he left off. He is destroying the institutions of government that the country will need when he is out of power.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

joep182

I cant provide an example of it happening, but as i said earlier, Parliament can do anything, it's powers are limitless. All our ideas on what government can do are laid out in Hobbes Leviathian. An old book but it still stands, the powers of Parliament are limitless. If parliament wanted to sack judges all it would have to do is pass legislation stating so.

Yes but Norther Ireland wasn't under DORA. Neither was it a time of war but the government still excercised its powers. Only the IRA and Sinn Fein called it war. The British deny that it was a war - they said the IRA were criminals and nothing more. They still clamped down on Sinn Fein in the media.

Another aspect of control of free speech is that you cant 'glorify terrorism'. Which of course is a very vague term and could land many unsuspecting people in trouble.

No i think your quite off the mark here. We already have these measure here. If the reforms pass in Venezuela the President has these powers if he declares an emergency. In Britain Brown and more to the point Parliament indefinately has the power to hold people without charge and the likes. All it has to do is draw up a bill, have a vote and hey presto you have the legislation.

Now my stance is all governments should have the ability to do this. It is when and how it uses it i may take issue with. I would take it on a case by case manner and judge each arrest or limit on free speech accordingly. I dont think there is anything inconsistent in that.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Well you definitely have me at a loss over the laws of the land in your own country. I did start a thread for it before you posted this though. I have a feeling that there's more control in your laws than you are saying here. We'll see. How does the UK operate without a written constitution?

Well there was terrorism involved in Northern Ireland. It is legitimate to take down terrorist media as it broadcasts instructions to support terrorism. Will Chavez use it that way or in any legitimate way? I doubt it. Venezuelans will grow tired of Chavez, Chavez will find a scapegoat and say that he's a terrorist and then declare a state of emergency to extend his stay of power. He may turn out to be even less democratic than Pervez Musharraf.

I don't believe that. There'll be more discussion on this later on though.

OK, just out of curiosity, do you think it would be alright if Chavez declared himself dictator for life and then setup a communist state?

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.

Sebelius for VP, not Hillary

Oh shit, look at this picture I just saw:





Wow.

__________________
Forum Rule 3: Discuss the Issue, not your opponent.