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."