An interesting case to be tried on free speech vs. unsubstantiated claims that may or may not be slander:
Journalist/writer Anabel Hernández, author of Señores del Narco, is facing a claim from former Attorney general and former head of the federal electoral institute of slanderous, false accusations.
Her book, among many other (and far more explosive claims), suggests Carpizo nabbed a big sum of money set aside for the hunt against El Chapo Guzmán. Yet the problem is only this: There seems to be very little concrete evidence for this rather incendiary claim, at least as offered in this book.
It is an interesting case as it raises some complicated yet crucial issues: To what an extent can a journalist really rely on what appears to be the lack of clear and concrete evidence, in order to make very strong accusations against public figures? I haven't read her book, so I have no idea of the merits of these claims, but reading an excerpt in Proceso this truly struck me as very sensationalist work, which, if it had the evidence to back up its many other claims, should really have made an impact on the political scene. And I don't think it has.
On principle I think the bar should be set very, very high for what a public official will have to endure. Yet should there be no limits at all on what s/he can be accused of, especially if, it appears, the evidence is very thin?
I am trying to put myself in the shoes of Carpizo, who I think is generally pretty well regarded. If he never took any of this money, he would naturally be interested in clearing his name - and, for good and for bad, it seems the burden is on him to prove his innocence - and how would he do this except by suing Hernández?
Perhaps he was dirty, but it seems to me when you make a very concrete claim, you should have some matching concrete evidence. I would be very interested in opinions from others familiar with her work and the case, in particular as I may well be wrong here.
Showing posts with label Jorge Carpizo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jorge Carpizo. Show all posts
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Sunday, August 22, 2010
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):
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?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)