Our belief is that smokers do have rights.
First, the report gives the impression of being about human rights violations in general in Venezuela the subtitle is: Also, if one were to take economic rights seriously, it would be almost silly to claim that attention to courts, media, labor unions, and civil society are more important, since people who do not have their basic economic rights guaranteed, and are thus too busy finding food and shelter, are generally incapable of taking advantage of these institutions.
HRW's emphasis on political rights thus reflects its bias towards the better off, who are already able to enjoy their economic and social rights without restriction. As a result, by excluding this context, readers interpret the issues that the report discusses through the lens of their own prejudices or the false media impressions of Venezuela, such as the widespread images of Chavez the "caudillo" or "dictator" of Venezuela.
Third, as almost all critics of the report have noted, the report was launched for maximum effectiveness with an embargoed press release just two month before Venezuela's November 23rd regional elections.
This is the third time that HRW releases a major report shortly before an electoral contest the first being in Junejust before the presidential recall referendum and the second in latejust before the constitutional reform referendum. Finally, this is one of the longest other than its annual reports special reports that HRW has done on any one topic or country.
There are very many and very strong opinions, but it is difficult to find concrete facts. We wanted to make the most faithful picture of what is happening here so that the world would know it. For a human rights group to make such a massive investment into a project just how much did it cost and who paid for it?
This circumstance adds credence to one blogger's sarcastic that apparently Human Rights Watch believes that it's original mission has been accomplished, of rooting out torture, forced disappearances, and political imprisonments and that now it can afford the luxury of focusing on weak judiciaries and political discrimination in the hiring processes for civil service jobs.
We have yet to see a comparably long report on human rights violations in Colombia, Mexico, or the U. More than that, there seems to be a political motivation for the report, based on Vivanco's statement, "We did the report because we wanted to demonstrate to the world that Venezuela is not a model for anyone Rather, the model that Chavez and his supporters defend and Chavez himself has always said that every country should find its own path are the policies that go against free market capitalism and in favor of redistribution of wealth and of political power.
One just needs to keep in mind that in practically all of the areas it does not examine there have been tremendous advances, whether, for example, in education, in reducing poverty, or in including the previously excluded such as women and indigenous and afro-Venezuelan populations.
One specific measure of this progress is the fact that Venezuela is one of the few countries in Latin America to be on track for reaching the Millennium Development Goals. First, they each display a lack of contextualization of the problems they discuss.
Second, they represent what some have called trumped-up accusations in that they accuse the government of definite wrongdoing in areas where the facts of the matter are not that clear or where relatively minor problems are turned into major issues.
Third, and closely related to the second, each section brings up issues where the interpretation of events relies almost exclusively on that of the opposition.
Finally, because there is so much overlap in the issues the report discusses, there is a tremendous amount of repetition, thus giving the impression that there are far more human rights problems than is actually the case. Beginning with the section on political discrimination, this section is perhaps the most decontextualized.
The stated purpose of the list was to give individuals who did not sign the petition, but who were placed on the list against their will, an opportunity to have their name removed from it.
The list, however, ended up being used by government officials to screen job applicants, to make sure they weren't hiring opposition sympathizers. The HRW report does make a token effort to provide historical context by pointing out that in the pre-Chavez era, governments regularly discriminated against political opponents in the hiring process for the public administration.
However, the report completely skips over the extent to which opposition supporters in the public administration were involved in sabotage.
Such information might be difficult to come by, but if one were to speak to any departmental director in the public administration, they could tell many stories of such occurrences. Certainly, ideally a minister or vice-minister or departmental director ought to fire those engaged in sabotage, following the formal procedures for such a case.
This, however, is almost impossible because of restrictive labor laws in the public sector and because it can be extremely difficult to prove an on-the-job slow-down. If a department director faces the choice between having an apolitical hiring process, but an unmanageable department because some opposition supporters are subtly sabotaging, versus illegally politicizing the hiring process and thereby having a better functioning department, most managers will opt for the latter option.
While they list a few cases,  these pale in comparison to the total number of employees in the public The most prominent case to which HRW refers, though, is without any merit whatsoever, which is the case of the state owned oil company PDVSA. By calling the two-month oil industry shutdown, which started in December"legitimate strike activity," HRW shows quite clearly that its sympathies lie with the opposition.
For everyone who was present in Venezuela during that extremely stressful period and who saw the daily "strike reports," it was more than clear that the one and only demand of the strikers was Chavez's resignation.
They clearly hoped that Chavez would resign if they could bring Venezuela's oil dependent economy to its knees.
The only reason HRW refers to this oil industry shutdown  as a legitimate strike is because it relies on a ruling of the ILO's Freedom of Association Committee, which claimed to have found that the PDVSA "strike" also involved labor-related demands.Sep 18, · Canadian Non-smokers' Rights Association Accuses CAGE of Being a Tobacco Industry Front Group In a document entitled "Exposing Recent Tobacco Industry Front Groups and Alliances," the Canadian Non-Smokers' Rights Association (NSRA) accuses Citizens Against Government Encroachment (CAGE) of being a Big Tobacco .
|But conflicts can arise over rights, such as when the public health perspective encounters the individual freedom perspective. This perspective makes paramount individual freedom of action.|
August 10, Great analysis and perspective on the right to commit suicide by smoking. The absurd portrayal of smokers as in-your-face freedom fighters belies the reality that smokers forfeit freedom as long as they allow nicotine addiction to dictate where they can work and play.
Relative to children of never-smokers, children whose mothers smoked throughout the pregnancy have an elevated risk of asthma in the first five years of life.
Children whose mothers quit smoking prior to the pregnancy show no increased risk. Essays Related to Smokers And Non Smokers Rights. 1. Smokers or Non-smokers: Who Should Make the Sacrifice? People who smoke in today's society are directly affecting the health and personal rights of both smokers and non-smokers around them.
The main reasons for this are: it restricts the rights of non-smokers, it is dangerous to the body /5(5). Environments Law Project (SFELP) has received from public housing managers, owners of section 8 housing and tenants across the country about the legality of adopting smoke- free policies in publicly-assisted residential rental units.
Smokers - Do They Have Any Rights? Our belief is that smokers do have rights. If they don't hurt others and have paid their way, it is hard to argue sensibly that they don't.