Manlio Fabio Beltrones, new president of the Mexican Senate

Manlio Fabio Beltrones was elected new president of the Mexican senate, on his birthday no less. Expect him to use this position at every occasion to promote his bid to become the PRI's candidate for president in 2012. His first occasion to do so will be in his "reply" to President Felipe Calderón's "Informe," equivalent to the State of the Union, which will be delivered to the Senate. Beltrones pointedly refused to attend the recent "Security Dialogue" convoked by Calderón.


(Ricardo Monreal, who was a PRD senator until he left it for the PT in December 2008, put up a clownish show to protest the PT's exclusion from the Senate directorate). 


(On Sunday, José González Morfín was elected new PAN group leader, replacing Gustavo Madero who will compete for the PAN's national presidency. González Morfín was elected by unanimity.)


While it was the PRI's turn to preside over the Senate, its usurping of the presidency of the lower house, the Chamber of Deputies, is a whole other matter. Jesús Ortega, president of PRD whose turn had come to preside over the chamber's directorate, yesterday met with members of the Supreme Court, as the party is analyzing taking legal action to obtain what is their rightful turn. 


One question remains: Will Alejandro Encinas be fully behind the PRD's quest to head the directorate, or has AMLO already instructed him to block Jesús Zambrano, of the opposing Nueva Izquierda faction, from assuming this powerful position? The PRD's internal war, far from over, is merely heating up ahead of the battle over the 2012 candidacy nomination, and AMLO has on numerous occasions demonstrated he will torpedo his old party if it favors his own agenda. 

Alejandra Barrales declares her candidacy for Mexico City... of sorts.

Alejandra Barrales, the flight attendant-cum-leader of the legislative assembly in the federal district (ALDF), announced during her report on the activities of the ALDF that she had "an aspiration, an aspiration that many of those here share with me; you know very well, because you know me, that I will work incessantly to achieve this aspiration." While likely the entire crowd took the message to be her declaration for candidacy, she then meekly added, "my aspiration is that in this city we can guarantee the right of every citizen to happiness." If Barrales didn't have the guts to take it all out - the field for candidates is getting quite crowded already - consider it at the very least a feeler, from a very likely candidate who is moreover one of AMLO's favorites for the position as chief of Mexico City. 


Barrales, a member of the more radical Izquierda Social faction of the PRD,  has held a range of public positions, from secretary general of the union of airline attendants (ASSA) to federal deputy to secretary of tourism in Ebrard's government to president of the PRD in Mexico City to now head of the ALDF. She has hardly excelled in any of these positions. 

El Universal editorial denounces Interior Minister Blake Mora's cowardice

An El Universal editorial rightly takes on José Francisco Blake Mora's failure to simply do his job, which as ministry of the interior includes protecting the constitution. El Universal has been at the forefront in the defense of the secular state following the recent outrageous attacks of the catholic church on key provisions of the Mexican constitution. Yet Blake has not uttered a single word of criticism in public against the church and in defense of the constitution, despite having the occasion as recently as yesterday, when he met with church representatives. The editorial concludes: 

"If the federal government wants to give more freedom to the religious sector, it will have to push for a change in the Constitution. It is in the meantime obliged to enforce existing regulations rather than to deal with the subject according to the whims or personal beliefs of its staff."

Luis Armando Reynoso, outgoing governor of Aguascalientes, kicked out of the PAN

Luis Armando Reynoso Femat was officially expelled from PAN following a vote on its National Executive Committee - by unaminity, no less. The case was rather clear cut: Reynosa Femat went out of his way to sabotage the PAN candidate for governor in the recent elections, Martín Orozco Sandoval, campaigning instead for the PRI's Carlos Lozano de la Torre, who came out on top. Reynoso Femat didn't even bother to show up at the hearing, and the expulsion only means he will not have to resign to rejoin the PRI, a party he left in 1995.

An occasion to be noted: A New York Times editorial that gets it all right

From The New York Times editorial on the gruesome massacre of 72 migrants in Tamaulipas:

"The temptation may be to write this atrocity off as another ugly footnote in Mexico’s vicious drug war. But such things do not exist in isolation. Mexico’s drug cartels are nourished from outside, by American cash, heavy weapons and addiction; the northward pull of immigrants is fueled by our demand for low-wage labor....

We have delegated to drug lords the job of managing our immigrant supply, just as they manage our supply of narcotics. The results are clear."

PRI anger, part II: PRI will push for impeachment

Francisco Rojas, PRI group leader in the Chamber of Deputies, announced that PRI would push for an initiative that would introduce a reform allowing for the impeachment of the Mexican president:

"The federal government has not tired of showing us that it is capable of anything, rather than to allow our electoral rise, because the spectacle cynically put on by him and his party to harass and try to shown by him and his party, to harass and to try to bring down the PRI, can not and should not be an option that we accept passively."

The PAN, meanwhile, through party leader César Nava declared its full support for the PRD to head the directorate of the Chamber of Deputies the coming legislative period. PRI is reneging on an earlier agreement where the PRD would take over the rotating presidency, yet in an act of vengeance against the PRD is now seeking control of the directorate for itself.

And to this, which on its own can lead to a serious climate of political instability, ungovernability and unconstitutionality, PRI has now added threats of impeachment.

PAN-PRD alliance in Mexico State speeds ahead: PRI admits it fears it

Recently, Carlos Hank Rhon, son of the notoriously corrupt Carlos "a politician who is poor is a poor politician" Hank González, in an unusual display of honesty bluntly admitted that PRI fears a PRD-PAN alliance in Mexico state.  Hank also reiterated that the PRI has not yet settled on a candidate to replace Enrique Peña Nieta as governor of the state, but active candidates remain the federal deputies Luis Videgaray and Humberto Benítez Treviño, PRI group leader in the local congress Ernesto Nemer, former governor  César Camacho, and finally, Alfredo del Mazo Maza, who is mayor of the municipality of Huixquilucan, adjacent to the Federal District. The latter is usually regarded as Peña Nieto's anointed one, and as such the most likely PRI candidate.


Key PAN and PRD senators such as Santiago Creel Miranda (likely PAN presidential candidate), Héctor Miguel Bautista López (leader of the important ADN faction of the PRD), Ulises Ramírez Núñez (PAN) and Adriana González Carrillo (PAN) reiterated their willingness to strike yet another alliance against the PRI. 


Within the PRD, Alejandro Encinas, unconditional ally of AMLO yet opposed to the alliances, has also expressed a desire to contend, as has former failed gubernatorial candidate Yeidckol Polevnsky. Yet Senator Héctor Bautista, were he to lead a PRD-PAN coalition, looks a particularly strong candidate with a wider appeal than Encinas and Polevnsky. Bautista is very popular with PRD cadres - like Encinas, but unlike Polevnsky - and his ADN ally Luis Sánchez Jiménez is currently the head of the PRD in Mexico State. 
Expect things to heat up very soon: Elections will be held less than a year from now, on July 3 2011.

PRI confirms its scorched-earth politics by robbing PRD of the Congress directorate

No holds barred: The PRI is angry with PAN and especially the PRD, and increasingly uses every occasion to demonstrate it. (Main reasons: The PRD's success in luring PRI Senator Ángel Aguirre to break with the PRI in Guerrero, as well as the enveloping scandal surrounding the granting of dirt-cheap licenses for Mexico's wireless spectrum to Televisa, undoubtedly for some quid pro quo. More on that later).

Despite the fact that it is now the PRD's turn to preside the mesa ejecutiva, or the directorate or "executive board" of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies, PRI declared it will use its majority to impose a priísta to head the directorate when PAN deputy Francisco Javier Ramírez Acuña (PAN) steps down in - or not, if chaos ensues - in September. The PRI then intends to lead the lower house of the Mexican Congress until December 2011, either directly through a PRI president of the directorate or through a federal deputy of the Green Party, which is allied with the PRI and together form a majority in congress. 

Beyond a jab at the PRD, this issue is of great importance to the stability and functioning of congress itself, and for a range of reasons. Most obviously, controlling the directorate of congress means having control of congressional debate - arranging discussion and votes, deciding what type of vote to be held over initiatives, making sure parliamentary rules are followed, and so forth. The Organic Law of Congress, in its most recent revision, states that the three largest parties are to rotate the presidency of the mesa ejecutiva. Putting a Green Party (PVEM) deputy to head it would clearly breech this law, but also would mean reneging on an oral agreement made earlier that PRD would now lead it. 

Crucially, as it is the PRI's turn to preside over the Senate (the outgoing president is PRD's Carlos Navarrete), it would leave PRI in control of both chambers of the Mexican congress - the Senate as well as the Chamber of Deputies.

There are obstacles here, both legal and practical ones. For one, while PRI and PVEM have a majority that they intend to use to justify their control of the congress directorate, they will still need 2/3 majority, or the support of other parties. This would then turn into a test of "loyalties," so to speak, of the PRD-PAN alliances, which were principally electoral and not legislative in nature. Will the PAN stick with the PRD and block a 2/3 vote, or will it vote with the PRI in exchange for a political favor? 

Another obstacle: In addition to the mesa ejecutiva, another crucial organ is the Junta de Coordinación Política, which first and foremost sets the actual agenda of what Congress is to discuss in the first place - and it is the only organ that has this power. (The Junta also has the power to shape the legislation itself, redrafting proposals directly, or indirectly through the individuals it places to head parliamentary committees, another key function). The Junta is set to be lead by PAN, and while some initial reports suggested that PAN might be willing to leave the PRD with presiding this organ, this deal apparently fell through. 

Moreover, had the PRD taken over the Junta, it might also have caused quite a bit of internal tension in the PRD: While Jesús Zambrano, a key member of the Nueva Izquierda faction in the PRD, would have been the new president of the Mesa ejecutiva, Alejandro Encinas, an inconditional AMLO ally, as coordinator of the PRD parliamentary group would have headed the Junta (it is made up of all the parliamentary party group leaders). The pro and anti-AMLO factions in the PRD's parliamentary group had, as such, different agendas.

Should the PRI somehow manage to win control over the mesa while PAN heads the Junta, it would leave the PRD completely out of having key agenda-setting powers, and also greatly reduce its powers to introduce or shape legislation. Yet there is more to it than a mere slight to the PRD: No party is allowed to preside over both these organs simultaneously. Given the sequence of rotations, should the PRI follow through on its threat to preside the mesa, it would mean that down the road PRD would be scheduled technically to head both the junta and the mesa, which is unconstitutional. 

Yet for now, the PRI doesn't seem too concerned about these scenarios of ungovernability or unconstitutionality. Let's hope cooler heads in the party prevail. 

IFE and TEPJ at loggerheads over a crucial issue: What is illegal propaganda vs. what is an "interview"?

The Federal Electoral Institute (IFE) is well aware that something needs to be done to avoid a "perfect storm" ahead of 2012. Specifically, IFE is calling for a new electoral reform to decide, once and for all, what amounts to freely exercising journalism and the free flow of information through interviews with candidates, and what amounts to outright abuse of this mechanism, where "interviews" are merely thinly disguised propaganda for a candidate. The obvious case of Enrique Peña Nieto stands out here: The Mexico State governor continues to flaunt electoral laws such as the prohibition of propaganda by public officials by agreeing to a plethora of "interviews" that only serve to boast of his supposed achievements and drum up support for the  PRI. Yet many of the members of IFE's general council do not agree with TEPJF's recent decision on where to draw the line. 


(This is related to, but not identical, to the recent clampdown on president Felipe Calderón by the TEPJF, where the federal electoral tribunal deemed Calderón to have broken electoral as well as constitutional law by his "announcements" ahead of recent electoral contests).


Put simply, the TEPJF declared that a PAN candidate in Tabasco and his party, as well as the radio station, should be sanctioned for breaking electoral law, as the candidate held a total of nine interviews with the radio station. This was found to be excessive, and as a result both TEPJF and the radio station will be sanctioned in one way or another. 


But clearly we have many competing ideals here, as IFE is well aware of. 
- To what degree do interviews (radio, tv, newspapers, etc) extend to electoral propaganda?
- What is the difference between performing a public service - the free flow of information - and doing propaganda for a candidate?
- Is there a maximum limits for interviews? (nine? eight? five?)
- Should journalists, already under enormous pressures in Mexico, also work under the threat of possibly being sanctioned while merely doing their job of informing?


The burden here clearly falls on the IFE to draw the line, and the electoral institute is not all too happy of this enormous extension of its sphere of operation that the TEPJF's decision in practice entails for the IFE. 


To recall, the 2007-2008 reform set strict limits on political campaigning, such as granting parties a set amount of time/resources for electoral propaganda, yet banning the parties (and, to be sure, other actors such as business, NGSOs, the church, etc) from paying for further political advertising. 

Yet where does one draw the line between what is carrying out the crucial duty of political reporting, versus actively campaigning for a party through phony/paid "interviews"?
There is hardly an easy answer, but it is in my view of utmost importance that this line is clearly drawn ahead of 2012.


And may I also add: Mexico's neighbor to the north could very well use a revamping of its own electoral and media laws: Should Fox "News" really be allowed to operate as such when it  is not only acting as a propaganda arm for the Republican party and the nativist fringe "Tea Party" organizations,  but its owners even donate money to the party it is supposed to cover objectively as a news organization?

Senator Gustavo Madero as PAN party president would signal continuity

Gustavo Madero, head of PAN's senate group, announced he would leave his current position in order to compete for the presidency of PAN, given that César Nava will not run for reeelection.

Madero is a very strong candidate for the position, and given his earlier support for the PAN-PRD alliances, his eventual party presidency will signal continuity.

PAN wisely chooses their presidency by a majority vote of its National Council, avoiding - as has happened on every single occasion - acrimonious and devastating mass elections by the party base membership, such as the case of the PRD.

On the subject of money laundering: When will the United States do its part?

Calderón's belated initiative to counter money laundering through limitations on cash limits is laudable, but again, the key may lie on the U.S. side, where most of the money is being made in the first place. 

As Martin Woods, formerly of Wachovia, put it: "“If you don’t see the correlation between the money laundering by banks and the 22,000 people killed in Mexico, you’re missing the point."
Woods is referrring to anks like Wachovia, for which he headed a anti-money-laundering unit 2006-2009, but quit in disgust when it became clear that his bosses didn't like what he found: That drug gangs were using the bank to funnel billions to Mexico. 

Why not indict the bastards? That's the tricky part: According to an excellent investigation by Bloomberg a few weeks back,

"No big U.S. bank... has ever been indicted for violating the Bank Secrecy Act or any other federal law. Instead, the Justice Department settles criminal charges by using deferred-prosecution agreements, in which a bank pays a fine and promises not to break the law again.‘No Capacity to Regulate’Large banks are protected from indictments by a variant of the too-big-to-fail theory.Indicting a big bank could trigger a mad dash by investors to dump shares and cause panic in financial markets, says Jack Blum, a U.S. Senate investigator for 14 years and a consultant to international banks and brokerage firms on money laundering."

The United States, then, in addition to being responsible for much of the drug consumption that fuels Mexico's "drug war," and of putting in place very few obstacles to selling the assault rifles and guns used to kill Mexican police, civilians, and drug rivals, for fear out of financial panic blocks a full indictment of the criminal wrongdoings of big banks such as Wachovia, meekly asking them pay merely a small fine and to promise not to do it again...

It has often been noted that the key to win Mexico's "drug war" is found in the United States and its policies, and the absurd banking laws of the latter country only throws more fuel on that argument.

Calderón's money laundering initiative could be hugely important, but why now?

President Felipe Calderón's recent initiative to counter money laundering, which includes a ban on using cash for real estate transaction or  spending more than 100,000 pesos in other transactions, if passed, may be hugely important. Given the support of both governor Enrique Peña Nieto of the PRI and Mexico City chief of government Marcelo Ebrard of the PRD, it does stand a great chance of being made into law by congress.

Yet I cannot help but wonder: Why on earth did it take Calderón more than three years to come up with this initiative? Anyone who has lived or visited Mexico will know that cash remains king; indeed, according to Washington Post, 3/4 of all commercial transactions are done with cash in Mexico, compared with only 20 percent in the United States. As such, as measures to counter money-smuggling from the United States to Mexico are of little value - the WP article expands on the  subject of money smuggling, and  reports that only about an estimated 1 percent of southbound cash is actually detected -  this may be one of the most important legislative initiatives taken in Calderón's "war on drugs."

Yet why so long in coming? Put differently, what interests have been blocking this fairly obvious initiative for such a long time? PRD senators Tomás Torres and Minerva Hernández, while supporting the initiative, pointedly noted that one similarly important money laundering initiate has long been in the works in the senate, but that PRI blocked it in the last minute. Why? One is entitled to one's own conclusions.

IFE confirms: No penalty for the president for breaching law

Despite the resolution by the TEPJF, Mexico's electoral tribunal, that president Calderón broke constitutional and electoral law by his "public announcements" ahead of this summer's state elections, the Federal Electoral Institute confirmed that the president will not face any sanction, for the simple fact that no such penalty is contemplated for what are defined as "electoral crimes" by the executive power. 


Expect a legislative push soon to change this legal absurdity. 


President of the PRD, Jesús Ortega, noted congress should reform the law to end this "guaranteed impunity." (For tis part, IFE itself, said council president Leonardo Valdés, has been pushing for an overhaul of this aspect of the law since 2008).
This sounds very reasonable. While the 2007 electoral law made it illegal to publish government propaganda ahead of electoral contests, leaving out any specific penalties only undermines the respect not for this particular electoral prohibition, but for law in general.

Picture of the day, front page on La Jornada: "So that Sandoval can see these"

Mexico City mayor Marcelo Ebrard, passing by a stand at a food industry fair, couldn't resist the temptation when he saw a pack of eggs: He lifted up the huevos (functionally equivalent to cojones), joking, "So that Sandoval can see them."

(Front page picture in La Jornada here)


The joke aside, it appears the church is backtracking somewhat from its very strident language and belligerent postures; church spokesman Hugo Valdemar, a sheep in a rabid wolf's clothing if there ever was one, recently declared Ebrard would not be expelled from the church. Ebrard had threatened, should this happen, to take his case to the Vatican. 


Even Juan Sandoval, cardinal of Guadalajara and a main protagonist in the church-Ebrard confrontation, has toned down his rhetoric. 


Sandoval has over the years many times been exposed as a coward: He barks loudly, but as soon as anyone stands up to him, this clerical equivalent of the schoolyard bully tends to back down. It could simply be that as a judge accepted the slander suit launched by Ebrard, Sandoval realizes that Ebrard is not intimidated.


Yet I am suspecting that what may be an attempt by the church to calm the rhetoric is also the product of having realized they may have stumbled into a trap set up by themselves, where the spat with the church, which has appeared extremely intolerant, may strike a chord with voters, most of who may remain catholic but also quite anti-clerical. The Ebrard-church confrontation, finally, has also helped raise Ebrard's international profile, as the international press has given the conflict much attention.  


He went into this battle swinging, and may well come out on top. 

Electoral tribunal: Calderón violated constitutional and electoral law.

The TEPJF,  Mexico's highest electoral court, declared that Calderón broke both constitutional and electoral law by publicizing the "achievements" of his government ahead of the recent state elections, in a period where no government publicity-propaganda is allowed. 

Even though former president Vicente Fox was criticized by the TEPJF, for blatantly interfering in the 2006 election through the same kind of acts president Felipe Calderón has apparently learned little from his predecessor. And, as in the case of Fox, he will not be sanctioned, as electoral law still does not stipulate any clear mechanism to punish public servants who engage in these actions. 

Clearly, much remains to be done with the COFIPE, or the federal law regulating elections, in a future electoral reform. 

Former PRI governor Ángel Aguirre Rivero favorite in poll to be PRD candidate

To the list of official PRD "pre-candidates" for the governorship of Guerrero one can now add  PRI senator Ángel Aguirre Rivero. According to a poll commissioned by the national leadership, the former PRI interim governor (1996-1999) is far ahead the current pre-candidates, PRD senators Lázaro Mazón Alonso and David Jiménez Rumbo, former PRD national deputy Cuauhtémoc Sandoval Ramírez, and PRD national deputy Armando Río Píter, the latter considered until now the top contender. 


The decision of Ángel Aguirre Rivero to drop the PRI for the PRD is, of course, purely opportunistic: An informal yet longstanding agreement with his cousin Manuel Añorve, current PRI mayor of the all-important district of Acapulco, fell through as Añorve sought and won the PRI's candidacy (though not fully official). Aguirre Rivero, denied the backing of the PRI leadership, promptly engaged in conversation with the PRD and the DIA coalition of PRD-PT-Convergencia, regarding a possible run on the PRD ticket. 


He appears now the coalition's most likely candidate.


This rather last-minute candidacy (though talks have been going on in secret for weeks) is quite stunning for a number of reasons. For one, should Aguirre Rivero become PRD candidate, it will cause much turmoil within the party. He took over as PRI governor following the infamous Aguas Blancas massacre in Guerrero in 1995, where scores of campesinos were murdered by the police and eventually forced the resignation of then-governor Rubén Figueroa, who was implicated in the massacre. Aguirre Rivero was designated by the state congress to replace him. 


Within the PRD, in particular the followers of Armando Río Píter are likely to protest Aguirre Rivero's inclusion. But the story gets even more interesting: While Manuel Añorve, the PRI candidate, is the candidate of the powerful PRI senator and possible presidential contender Manuel Fabio Beltrones, Aguirre Rivero is a friend of Mexico State governor Enrique Peña Nieto, Beltrones's strongest rival for the PRI candidacy. 


The million-dollar question is: Will Peña Nieto back his friend, who might then win on the PRD ticket, or will he rally behind the official PRI candidate who is close to Beltrones -whose presidential candidacy has been given a boost in recent weeks - which in the short run may hurt his own nomination for 2012?


The likelihood of a PRI split looms even larger than a PRD split.

Poll: Trouble for parties

Almost three years ahead of the 2012 contest, any poll on possible presidential contenders is likely to reflect principally name recognition rather than any clear intended vote among the electorate. Not unsurprisingly given his excessive promotion in media, governor Enrique Peña Nieto is ahead with just above 50 percent, according to a poll by Gabinete de Comunicación Estratégica. 


What is more notable is the low party identification among the electorate. PRD, for one, has a vote intention of only 10 percent in Michoacán, 11.8 in Baja California Sur, and 14 percent in Guerrero, states it currently governs. More disturbingly, in its bastion Mexico City, PRD's vote intention - regardless of candidate - is only 10 percent. 


Notably, within the 31 states and federal district, the percentage of people who do not identify  directly with a party ranges form to to 49 percent.


A poll is a poll is a poll. Yet it is likely to throw more fuel to the fire for those within the PRD and the left in general who are advocating a "citizen candidate" not directly affiliated with a party. Here, Juan Ramón de la Fuente and even José Woldenberg stand out as clear alternatives. 

Five minutes before scheduled meeting, Interior ministry cancels on PRD

The silence and cowardice from the Mexican interior ministry with regards to the blatant breaches by the catholic church of Mexican law and of the constitution itself continues. Five minutes before the Interior Ministry's director of religious affairs Juan Pablo Tort was to meet with PRD representatives, the meeting was abruptly cancelled, leaving PRD federal legislators literally standing at the gate of the interior ministry. 

PRD declared it would file another criminal complaint against the church directly with the interior ministry, for its hate speech against gays and for contravening the laws regulating religious associations, and for constitutional transgressions such as openly calling for its congregation not to vote for the PRD. 

Ulises Ruiz still has 100 days left of plundering and covering his tracks

More than seven weeks(!) after winning the election, governor-elect Gabino Cué was finally able to convince outgoing governor Ulises Ruiz of sitting down for a meeting. Ruiz' failure to meet his successor, as well as a rash of legislative initiative to secure his impunity, is another testimony to the absurdity of having to wait six months from election day until assumption of power. A little over a week ago, the local PRI-dominated congress om its "own initiative" decided to exonerate Ruiz for the massive human rights violations - the gunning down of protesters - on his watch; just recently, the same state congress approved Ruiz' cuenta pública, or public expenditure, despite reports of a budget deficit of a billion pesos. 


What remains to be seen is exactly to what lengths Cué will go to in order to end Ruiz impunity and launch his own investigations of Ruiz' many institutional transgressions and what is likely to be uncovered as massive corruption. In the meantime, Ruiz' will have 100 days more in office to cover his tracks: This, unfortunately, is what the "transition period" entails. 

Recommended source in English on the rule of law in Mexico: Justice in Mexico project

The Justice in Mexico project, part of the The Transborder Institute of San Diego, CA, and headed by academic and Mexico specialist David Shirk, offers plenty of useful reports on the rule of law and justice in Mexico. One fairly straightforward source that is quite readable and accurate and offered in English is their monthly news report, which offers a run-down of the most significant rule of law developments in Mexico at both national and state levels. The project also offers a blog. Both are worth checking out. 

Cardinal Juan Sandoval Iñiguez: No man of god, but a trajectory of infamy

Cardinal Juan Sandoval of Guadalajara is the subject of an article in Milenio Semanal, the weekly supplement to the newspaper Milenio. It is a highly recommended introductory summary to the dark story of Sandoval Iñiguez' life, and is not pretty reading. To begin:


On protestants: "To be a protestant, one cannot have any shame"
On women rape victims: "Women should not go around being so provoking; because of this there are so many rapes."


The cardinal's role has always been eminently political in nature, as he has organized opposition to the use of condoms, sex education, emergency contraceptive pills, and, of course, his recent activism on the subject of gay marriage. 


Yet as the article touches upon, he has also been under investigation by SIEDO (Subprocuraduría de Investigación Especializada en Delincuencia Organizada), or the special office for investigating organized crime, as well as UEIORPIFAM (the real title is far too long!), which specializes in economy crimes, for possible money laundering. The investigation petered out, allegedly due to political pressures, as Sandoval is a very powerful and well-connected man. He is very close to infamous governor of Jalisco Emilio González Márquez, who caused a scandal when he sought to "donate" more than 15 million pesos of state money to a church (the governor famously responded to the critics of this blatant theft from the state coffer and violation of church-state separation, with the exhortation that they "go fuck their mothers").


Yet there is much more. An investigation by Sanjuana Martínez relates how the cardinal was not only close to the infamous serial pedophile Marcial Maciel, of the Legionares of Christ, but helped found Casa Alberione, a church institution in Tlaquepaque that claims to treat "addictions" of pedophile priests but has been denounced as a safe house for pederasts. Sandoval, as other high members of the Mexican catholic clergy, has notoriously rejected organizations helping the church's victims such as SNAP(Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) for merely being in it for the money, rather than addressing their complaints. 


Martínez, in her 2008 investigation, interviews at depth  Jorge Carpizo - former UNAM rector, minister (justice) of the Supreme Court,  and president of the Human Rights Commission, among other offices - who was Attorney General for a period under the government of Carlos Salinas, and pressed the criminal charges of money laundering and illicit enrichment mentioned in the Milenio Semanal article. Carpizo notably accuses the investigation of having stalled after much political pressure: The cardinal simply has too much powerful friends in high places. As such, this hardly warrants much optimism regarding the recent suit against the cardinal. 


The article, Cardenal de los Ricos by Sanjuana Martínez, in Jorge Zapeda Patterson's Los Intocables from 2008, is very well worth further read on the subject of cardinal Sandoval. I'll let Carpizo have the final word here (p. 18): 

"It turns out that this gentleman commits the most serious of affronts to mankind. And that this gentleman is supposedly a representative of god on earth, yet commits so many sins. Can cardinal Sandoval Iñiguez really believe in God? Or is he simply a true hypocrite?"

The specter of violence is looming as a consequence of the church hate speech

Yesterday's events in downtown Guadalajara are frightening, for so many reasons. 
Civil society groups defending sexual diversity and separation of church and state had announced they would hold a demonstration the Plaza de Armas. Yet a group of catholic activists got hold of the demonstration, arrived early, and prevented them from displaying banners repudiating cardinal Juan Sandoval's recent declarations. 


The level of discourse? From the catholic activists: "Go adopt a dog, fags!" 


Such hate speech is far from isolated to a few extremist activist elements in the streets; they merely mimick Sandoval's infamous "Would you like to be adopted by a pair of lesbians or fags?"
The frightening implication is: When the Mexican church's own leaders, rather than calling for tolerance, respect, and love for the other, are directly responsible for whipping up such hatred, when will it come to blows?


Moreover, yesterday's demonstration also shows the proximity of the most most reactionary, pre-enlightenment, homophobic, inteolerant, misogenic sectors of the church with the state government: Two of governor Emilio González Márquez' own sons joined the catholic activists in preventing the pro-gay groups from demonstrating. 

Despite washing his hands, Daniel Karam of IMSS under attack for denying gay rights

A couple of days ago, Daniel Karam, head of Mexican Social Security (IMSS), declared IMSS would refuse gay couples access to social security, despite the recent Supreme Court decision that gay couples are constitutional. Karam's reasoning, a hand-washing worthy of a Pontius Pilate, was the following: 
The IMSS statutes does not explicitly mention gays, hence, IMSS have to wait for Congress to change the statutes.


Karam: "It is not my place to say whether I am in favor or against a change in the law; it is my place to apply it as it is."


This is quite pathetic. Given the salience of the issue and the recent Supreme Court interpretation, as the IMSS statutes stand, one hardly need to engage in institional engineering to interpret that gay couples, who certainly do pay taxes to IMSS, should have the same rights to e.g.  social security, medical attention, or kindergarten services that straight couples are entitled to, in case of the death of a IMSS-registered partner. 
(as gays are not mentioned in the IMSS charter, does that mean they do not have to pay IMSS contributions either?)


Regardless, health secretary Ángel Córdova Villalobos, a possible presidential contender, responded favorably to "initiating a debate" on the issue. Already, one IMSS client has filed an injunction against IMSS for its refusal to register her partner. So far only one political party, the PRD, is standing up for equal social rights for gay couples . 

Finally, interior ministry offers a (tepid) response to the church attack on the Mexican state

Almost a week after various members of the Mexican catholic high clergy broke almost any conceivable law regulating the church's involvement in politics - strictly circumscribed according to the Constitution - and viciously attacked the country's institutions and democratic process, the Ministry of the Interior finally owed up to its institutional role of defending them. 


Well, sort of. The Interior Ministry acknowledged it had received the legal complaints from the national PRD and from the Government of Mexico City and is currently investigating them, while calling rather tepidly, and vaguely,  for the "recognition and respect for the institutions and laws of the country"


The church's rights and limitations to engage in public and political debate are circumscribed by the Constitution, above all article 130, as well as the Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público, which, although watered down quite a bit by Salinas, is quite clear on these topics. It is well worth a read, and can be found here. 


As for the church's recent denigration of the Mexican state, the most relevant parts are found in its Article 29: 



ARTICULO 29.- Constituyen infracciones a la presente ley, por parte de los sujetos a que la misma se refiere:
I. Asociarse con fines políticos, así como realizar proselitismo o propaganda de cualquier tipo a favor o en contra de candidato, partido o asociación política algunos;
II. Agraviar a los símbolos patrios o de cualquier modo inducir a su rechazo;
III. Adquirir, poseer o administrar las asociaciones religiosas, por sí o por interpósita persona, bienes y derechos que no sean, exclusivamente, los indispensables para su objeto, así como concesiones de la naturaleza que fuesen;
IV. Promover la realización de conductas contrarias a la salud o integridad física de los individuos;
V. Ejercer violencia física o presión moral, mediante agresiones o amenazas, para el logro o
realización de sus objetivos;
VI. Ostentarse como asociación religiosa cuando se carezca del registro constitutivo otorgado por la Secretaría de Gobernación;
VII. Destinar los bienes que las asociaciones adquieran por cualquier título, a un fin distinto del previsto en la declaratoria de procedencia correspondiente;
VIII. Desviar de tal manera los fines de las asociaciones que éstas pierdan o menoscaben gravemente su naturaleza religiosa;
IX. Convertir un acto religioso en reunión de carácter político;
X. Oponerse a las Leyes del País o a sus instituciones en reuniones públicas;
XI. Realizar actos o permitir aquellos que atenten contra la integridad, salvaguarda y preservación de los bienes que componen el patrimonio cultural del país, y que están en uso de las iglesias, agrupaciones o asociaciones religiosas, así como omitir las acciones que sean necesarias para lograr que dichos bienes sean preservados en su integridad y valor; y,
XII. Las demás que se establecen en la presente ley y otros ordenamientos aplicables.




Cardinal Sandoval's recent contribution to the political climate is to claim the Supreme Court "committed treason" against the country, the family, marriage, etc. 


As far as I can see, Sandoval and the church are the ones committing treason against Mexico. 

First effects of UN criticism: Guanajuato moves toward lowering abortion penalties

Following the recent visit of a UN mission to examine the atrocious human rights situation for women in Guanajuato, the  State Human Rights Attorney's office recommended to the state congress that penalities for illegal abortion. Currently, a woman can receive 25-35 years in prison for having an abortion, including a spontaneous abortion, in Guanajuato, and governor Juan Manuel Oliva, for his part, proposed reducing this to 3-8 years. 


The state human rights attorney is quite a misnomer - its protagonism is minimal, and it notoriously continues to deny that any woman in Guanajuato is locked up for the aforementioned crime, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary - and has absolutely no independent authority from governor Oliva. Yet these recent declarations, which may at the very least be considered a step forward, serve to illustrate that international pressures still matters.

Where the hell is Blake? Valdés: IFE has "full authority" to investigate complaints.

Head of the Federal Electoral Institute, Leonardo Valdés, after receiving a legal complaint from the national branch of the PRD, notably declared that the institute has "full authority" to investigate the claims that the church is breaking the COFIPE, or federal electoral law of constitutional rank, as well as constitutional articles regarding the role of religious organizations in Mexico. As such, IFE has the authority to pass on the case to the interior ministry, should it find the church guilty of constitutional transgressions. 


Yet the million-peso question is: Where the hell is José Francisco Blake Mora?
We must not lose sight of the fact that it was the PGR, or the national Attorney General-Prosecutor, that complained the alleged unconstitutionality of the gay weddings to the Supreme Court in the first place. As is now well known, the Supreme Court dismissed the Calderón-instigated complaint, and the issue is now blowing up in the president's face, chiefly due to the virulent and very public reactions of the church. While it is likely too much to ask that the president would take responsibility and ask the church to cool its tempers, one would certainly expect that the interior minister would make some kind of statement. 


Yet Blake's silence on this hugely important issue, which involves the defense of the constitution, the secular state, and Mexico's legal and democratic institutions, is, if a cliché is allowed, absolutely deafening. 

The church - and Calderón - is reaping what it sowed.

An ever growing chorus of voices condemns the Mexican church's intolerance and flouting of the Mexican constitution:


* Rubén Moreira Valdez, PRI national deputy from Coahuila, and the president of the Human Rights Commission in the Chamber of Deputies, responds: 

"Laws that permit marriage between the same sex and the right to adoption, do not not hurt the family; the injury happens when 'thugs' irresponsibly hurl curses or insults against people and institutions."

*Raúl Plascencia, Mexico City human rights ombudsman, calls on the catholic hierarchy to be tolerant and respect Mexico's institutions. 


* Ricardo Bucio, president of the National Council to Prevent Discrimination, said he will seek talks with the church to explain them the importance of not discriminating against others. 


* The PRD in Mexico City, for its part, filed a separate complaint to IFE, the Federal Electoral Institute, against cardinal Juan Sandoval Íñiguez and church spokesman Hugo Valdemar for calling upon people outright to note vote for the PRD, and for its many hateful statements against the political party. In my view, the party has demonstrated much patience in not doing so before. 


* Emilio Alvarez Icaza, El Universal: "Can someone tell them that the Middle Ages have ended?"

* José Cárdenas, prominent commentator, gets the final word in his column, entitled:  "Sandoval is a blight on society.""

"A blight is a scar. The product of a wound. In the body and the soul. An ailment. A vice that brands the sufferer. A blight is usually a depravedperson. Perverse. His Eminence, Cardinal Juan Sandoval, is all that. A blight on society. A homophobe. A hypocrite. Slander. He does not speak as a pastor. He speaks as a herder. Crude. He is abusive. He distorts the doctrine of christ. He discriminates. He uses the cross as a sword. He confuses religious dogma and law. He is sweeping in the sewers of the secular state. He abuses the name of  god. He poisons." 

Amen to that. 

United Nations react to Guanajuato's war against women

The state persecution and high levels of violence toward women in Guanajuato is drawing the attention of the United Nations. Its Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights noted the "worrying levels of violence, against women, including sexual," in the state, whose state government is run by the ultra-conservative wing of the PAN and where the extremist catholic organization El Yunque has particular influence. Some tangible effects: Persecution of women who have aborted, including having had miscarriages; ignorance of high levels of violence toward women; and the banning of sex education in schools. As noted, Guanajuato's levels of teen pregnancy are as a consequence exploding. 

After having visited several women locked up in jail accused of having had an abortion - illegal in the state - the UN mission presented formal  several recommendations to state governor Juan Manuel Oliva to protect women's rights in the state. 

The observer mission confirmed "the persistence of  cultural patterns that encourage discrimination against women, while limiting the full exercise of sexual and reproductive rights."

One can only hope that the renewed international spotlight on Guanajuato may force the government into backtracking in its war against women.

Who is intolerant and hateful?

The Mexican church, as noted, has resorted to a time-worn tactics of launching vicious tirades against its stated enemies, yet whenever any political actor responds to the what often amounts to hate speech, the church plays the victim, such as in the recent declarations by

Hugo Valdemar, top spokesperson for the Mexican church, where he accused its critics of fomenting "visceral intolerance and hate."

The same Valdemar in a recent radio interview with Radio W, volunteered his opinion on Marcelo Ebrard and the PRD


* "He has a fascist calling"
* "They [PRD and Ebrard] are doing worse damage than drug trafficking and have become the family's worst enemy; he is responsible for this disaster" [gay marriage in Mexico City]

The response of Alejandro Encinas, PRD group leader in the Chamber of Deputies:

"I reiterate the respect of the PRD parliamentary group and our whole party to ideological and religious diversity of our country, and I reject statements that only leads to polarization and discrimination, factors which are not conducive to democratic development and equality we have built. "

Who is the intolerant? You be the judge.

An important point that begs repeating: Excessive transitions between state governments

The critique is not new, but El Universal deserves credit for bringing it up at a particularly important juncture in time, namely following the first transitions in 80 years to an opposition party in Oaxaca, Puebla and Sinaloa: The excessive transition period between governments. 


While most other countries allow for a mere few weeks between the election of a new governor and his or her assumption of power, Mexico is an extreme outlier. Some examples :

* Sinaloa: The new governor will have to wait six months to take power
* Puebla: The new governor will have to wait eight months to take power


* Hidalgo:  While the ruling party won (though its victory remain disputed), the new PRI governor will not take office until April 2011 - ten months after the election.


To those who have followed in particular the highly authoritarian and corrupt PRI states that finally switched parties, one does not need much imagination to envision the outgoing party, still in shock from its loss, desperately trying to cover its tracks and/or trying to sabotage the incoming administration. 


In sum: As far as I can see, there are no valid practical arguments for maintaining these excessive transition times, yet plenty of anecdotal evidence that keeping them is a really bad idea. In the paradigmatic case of Oaxaca, for instance, the lame-duck PRI-controlled congress' recent vote to absolve outgoing governor Ulises Ruis for any responsibility for the killings in 2006, as well as attempts to preempt future revisions of the state expenses during Ruis' reign, are very likely only the tip of the iceberg. 


And yet Oaxaca still has months to go. 

What century does the church live in? Ebrard is too kind.

Marcelo Ebrard:

"It's very serious that the majority church in Mexico call for a crusade against any party and and violates with this g Article 130 of the Constitution. This would mean that church is going to tell us who we are to vote for and what laws should be approved, so we would be in the nineteenth century."

Consider the following statement, who made it, and under what circumstances:

"In an interview given before the opening of the Congress of Exorcists, Father Pedro Mendoza Pantoja, coordinator of Exorcists of the Archdiocese of Mexico, said that homosexuality is against God's plan and warned of 'the temptations of the devil and the perversion of natural laws.'" (From La Jornada)

I wonder if Ebrard is being too generous. 

Brinkmanship from the Mexican Church: No apology or retraction, but attack

It is now clear that rather than stepping back from its aggressive rhetoric the past days, the Mexican catholic church is rather going on the attack. 

The Mexican Episcopal Conference, a permanent organization of bishops that make out the official leadership of the Mexican Church, expressed full support for the statements by cardinals Norberto Rivera Carrera  and Juan Sandoval íñiguez, defending its right to "free speech"  and astonishingly referred to its critics as "intolerant."  

To recall, not only is the Church's denigration of Mexican political institutions, its interference in national politics, and call to not vote for the leftwing PRD ("a fascist party") blatantly unconstitutional, but its attacks on gays is nothing but hate speech.

(the story was also just picked up by L.A. Times, which offers a good summary of the controversy).

Yet the church also accused the Supreme Court of having been bribed by no less than Mexico City Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard (thanks to Mexfiles for an etymological exploration of the word used by the church, "maicedo").

Sandoval, however,  declared he would not apologize or retract the statements, and that "proof" existed.

Ebrard followed through on his warning yesterday that that unless the church retract these very serious accusations - can one even imagine an equivalent situation  in the United States? - Ebrard would take legal action, bringing a complaint to the to the Superior Tribunal of Justice in Mexico City. 

The general perception, judging from the reactions of newspaper editorials and national political actors, is that the church has gone too far with its shrill statements and accusations.  

Nnotable political figures like Enrique Peña Nieto,  Fidel Herrera, Juan Manuel Oliva and José Reyes Baeza Terrazas, governors of Mexico State,  Veracruz, Guanajuato and Chihuahua, respectively, unequivocally stated they would not question the Supreme Court's ruling.

Notably, CONFRATERNICE, the National Fraternity of Evangelical Christian Churches - of ever-growing importance in Mexico - notably distanced itself from the catholic church, noting: 

"it is clear that we disagree with the policies carried out by the chief of government of the Federal District, Marcelo Ebrard, and with with the legal criterion of nine of the 11 ministers who supported the reforms; however, we respect the laws of democratic institutions."

It remains equally clear that the same cannot be said for the Mexican Catholic Church.

Free trade goes both ways: Mexico slaps tariffs on United States for denying its trucks access

NAFTA was ratified by the U.S. Congress 17 years ago. Mexican truckers, however, are still not allowed access into the United States, a rather clear breach of the free-trade agreement.


It also unnecessarily raises the cost of products sold in the United States, due to the cumbersome procedures involved in moving Mexican goods over the border and onto U.S. rigs.


Now Mexico has offered a response, according to Bloomberg: Raising tariffs on a range of products, most notably pork and oranges. This marks that Mexico's patience with the U.S. non-compliance is running thin, and the new tariffs, if enacted, will have major consequences for U.S. companies. 


While the issue may be considered a minor one when put in perspective - all in all, NAFTA did succeed in drastically expanding U.S.-Canadian-Mexican trade - it has remained a very sore issue for Mexico, especially given the official justification: Mexican trucks are said to be not as safe as U.S. trucks, which is false. 

The real issue, of course, is jobs: The Democrats are pressured by the Teamsters Union to maintain the ban in order to protect them from competition by a lower-paid and highly competitive trucking fleet. While understandable from the point of view of the Teamsters, this argument does not hold water if seen from the lens of NAFTA: Yes, there will be winners and losers as a consequence of NAFTA, and Mexico certainly has seen its share of both, as has the U.S., but all in all the goal is to stimulate trade and to lower prices on goods and services. 


There are a host of arguments against and in favor of "free-trade" initiatives - the term warrants to be put them in brackets from time to time, as it is somewhat of a euphemism, given that some national sectors, particularly those still receiving subsidies, tend to reap proportionate benefits from the lowering of tariffs - the bottom line remains: If you sign up to a free-trade agreement, you better stick to it. The argument that Mexican truckers are unsafe is simply not true: On the contrary, judging from date from a pilot project, Mexican trucks have far better safety records than U.S. trucks.


For more on the issue, the Web site-blog Mexicotrucker.com offers much information in English from the much-neglected Mexican side. For the Teamsters', here.

Killer lines from El Universal editorial pages...

El Universal really knocks itself loose on today's editorial pages. The otherwise fairly center-right paper has an excellent editorial lauding the Supreme Court's decision and its standing up for the secular state. I even find myself agreeing with Ricardo Alemán, for once. 


But the best lines in response to the hateful and bigoted utterances from cardinal Sandoval - "Would you like to be adopted by a pair of lesbians or fags?" - are the following:


Salvador García Soto: "And would you like to be adopted by a cardinal? I would not."


José Cárdenas: "Better to put a child in the hands of gays rather than in the hands of Paulette's parents."

Espino confirms he is "exploring" presidential bid.

As predicted, former PAN president Manuel Espino finally declared that he is "exploring" the possibility of being a candidate for the presidency in 2010 - on the PAN label. This declaration comes immediately ahead of today's vote in the party's National Executive Committee (CEN) on whether Espino should be expelled from the party, nominally given his criticism of certain recent PAN candidates, and the situation as such is rather remarkable. 


Espino claims to have created an organization with presence in 16 key states, composed of more than 60,000 sympathizers, yet repeats he will not resign from the PAN, and that the process that may lead to his expulsion is the product of pressure from president Felipe Calderón. Given the animosity that exists between the two men, I find it hard not to agree with this sentiment. 

Church interferences breach the Constitution, yet may also have legal consequences.

Juan Sandoval íñiguez, the arch conservative cardinal of Guadalajara, yesterday repeated his outrageous claims that the Supreme Court was "bribed" by Mexico City Chief of Government Marcelo Ebrard in order to accept the constitutionality of gay marriages and, it was declared yesterday afternoon, gay adoptions. 

This may now have legal consequences. Ebrard deemed it "reprehensible and unacceptable" that a man with the rank of cardinal would so easily hurl around such grave accusations.:

"What Sandoval íñiguez has said, accusing ministers [of the court] of receiving gifts and other things, he will have to provove, because it is that serious that a bishop of the church, or anyone, discredits the courts in such a manner.... what I would say to the cardinal is: Prove it, or retract it."

The Supreme Court is understandably upset by these claims of corruption, and responded on its own with a unanimous declaration (the earlier vote was a whopping 9-2) that criticized the church claims, and backed Supreme Court Judge Sergio A. Valls Hernández calls for legal repercussions. 
Don't expect this anytime soon. The hierarchy of the church, so out of touch with reality on a host of different levels, has always responded to criticism by playing the role of the victim, arguing it is only commenting on moral or religious affairs, not political ones, which has more often than not been a blatant lie. 

Article 130 of the Constitution states that the clergy "cannot, in public acts, or through religious propaganda, oppose the laws of the country or its institutions."

The church's highest spokesperson, Hugo Valdemar, in an interview in the church organ Desde el Fe, recently clamored that "God free us from a fascist party like the PRD."

It gets worse. The archdioceses in a communique said that "those who are baptized have the moral obligation to exercise in the next elections a serious an responsible vote" - that is, explicitly telling catholics not to vote for the PRD. 

Clearly the church has no absolute respect for the spirit of the law, yet if Ebrard and the Supreme Court respond to their irresponsible claims of corruption, which denigrates and undermines the institutions of Mexican democracy, with legal moves, the church may be forced to show respect for the letter of the law. It is well overdue. 

Ceser Nava, President of PAN, stupidly and utterly illogically noted that the Supreme Court decision is contrary to the Mexican constitution - which is absurd, as the very ruling of the Court just stated that gay marriages are not unconstitutional - yet that one has the obligation to comply with the ruling.