Quakes Shake More than Plates in Lat Am History

Looting is being reported in the press as Haiti grinds on into another day of paralysis. Campus Progress has a nice article on how the "looting" is being played up in Haiti and makes a great comparison to New Orleans after Katrina.

Still, should the folks in Haiti start getting a little grumpy about the paralysis of the central government in the face of a disaster, it wouldn't be the first time. Citizens are willing to put up with a lot if basic security is provided (security in Foucaltian sense of being the neutral response to incidents that harm the population). When that basic security is absent, things can get sticky. A reminder of the three biggees for Latin America: The San Juan quake of 1944 catapulted Juan Domingo Peron in to the spotlight in Argentina; the 1972 quake in Nicaragua highlighted for the world the limits and depravity of the Somoza regime; the 1985 quake in D.F. not only showcased the corruption, limitations, and callusness of the PRI but it also created a plethora of neighborhood organizations that helped propel the capital into the hands of the PRD in later years.

Is Haiti in for a lot more pain beyond the immediate effects of the quake? Possible. On the other hand, what would any sort of shake up yield but to put different people in charge of total poverty?

PRD Saddles Up... Against Free Speech?

Milenio today reports that deputies from the PRD have asked the Secretary of Gobernacion to go after the Catholic Church for expressing its views on gay marriage in D.F. According to the PRD, the Catholic Church has violated the Ley de Asociaciones Religiosas y Culto Público (LARCP) which carves out a legal space for religious organizations in Mexican civil society.

The original reforms took place under the Salinas administration's very classical liberal drive to codify all segments of society, as well as their efforts to show the U.S. before and during NAFTA talks that Mexico could extend the rule of law to all areas of society. In short, it was Salinas de Gortari's way of signaling to the world (remember, he was gunning for UN or IMF positions at that point in time) that Mexico was "civilized" and that El Presidente was the grand reformer and modernizer of Mexico. Religious rights were human rights, as was argued at the time, and Mexico had a duty to protect those rights.

Move forward almost two decades, and we find ourselves in a conundrum. D.F. seeks to protect the civil rights of homosexuals to enter into the marriage contract (above all a civil act in Mexico - as thousands of dead liberals and conservatives can attest). The Catholic church seeks to excercise its rights to object without legal retribution - as laid out in the 2006 version of LARCP (Article 2, subparagraph e).

The PRD position is weak, but reforms in 2006 to the law could help their cause. Article 8 requires that churches "fomentar el diálogo, la tolerancia y la convivencia entre las distintas religiones y credos con presencia en el país." While you might argue that isn't the same as tolerance in general society, in combination with Article 14, it might have some punch. Article 14 states that "Tampoco podrán los ministros de culto asociarse con fines políticos ni realizar proselitismo a favor o en contra de candidato, partido o asociación política alguna." Taking a public stand against gay marriage might be seen as a violation of this portion of the law.

Finally, throughout the document the state reserves the right to protect the rights of third parties. Is it then the state's duty to mute the Catholic Church if the speech of the church could result in legislation that restricts the rights of a third party? My own U.S. history demonstrates that only the right of the central state is powerful enough to protect the rights of minorities - but the central state has also acted to protect the hateful language of those who would seek to terminate the rights of minorities. And the big gun, Article 29: "Convertir un acto religioso en reunión de carácter político." That statement is as loaded as Amy Winhouse.

I would tend to see the PRD as hunting flies with vinegar by taking this approach, and restricting speech to protect other rights seems counterproductive to civic society. I'd also point out that Mexico has "tolerated" plural marriage for the indigenous and quirky religious groups, as well as a mind-blowing amount of cohabitation for decades (well...centuries). The Catholic Church has complained the whole time, and those outside the reach of the Madre Iglesia continue on their way.

Smells Like Chilangos

Wow, so I just had my twittery little notion of the PAN as an "outside the distrito" bubble burst. Running through the members of the gabinete I am hard pressed to find any non-Chilangos in the highest levels of power. Interior, PGR, defense, foreign affairs, finance, econ.... and on and on.

Reach for the Sky, Balthasar, You Dirty Rat

With Little Christmas on the way, Mexican politicians have taken to the street in Mexico City to urge the Reyes Magos to not bring guns or war toys this year, according to Excelsior. The hope is to encourage a society with less violence in Mexico. Sounds good ... I have a request that the three kings bring health care, education, loving parents, extended families, and community involvement to the United States, lowering our narcotics consumption and making sure some kids in Mexico have a less violent year.

As an added bonus, the article mentions the Ley de Cultura Cívica of DF and how it prohibits pointing a toy gun at folks. For grins and giggles, the whole thing (passed in 2004) is available on line (here). It reminds me of the time a buddy of mine was detained (justly and reasonably so) in Switzerland for spitting on a train platform.

a) Establecer reglas mínimas de comportamiento cívico;
b) Garantizar el respeto a las personas, los bienes públicos y privados y regular el
funcionamiento de la Administración Pública del Distrito Federal en su
preservación, y
c) Determinar las acciones para su cumplimento.

This smells of the nineteenth century, and I am certainly going to have fun going over these rules in the next few days.

The Rain God's No Rain Maker

Sol de Toluca reports that the folks in San Miguel Coatlinchan (former main city of the Acolhua) near Texcoco are getting a little grumpy, as 45 years has gone by since the National Anthropology Museum packed off the giant figure of Tlaloc. Losing out on the tourism that the stone used to bring in, the people are getting a little agitated - so much so that they are guiding visitors to archaeological zones and letting them dig for artifacts. It looks like the Municipal President in Texcoco is going to step in and "build a museum" to attract visitors to the town that won't loot the place. While the town traded Tlaloc for a road, school, electricity, and a hospital, the services have apparently not kept coming. And of course, one has to ask why a town has to swap heritage for services.

A year ago it looked like a replica in the central plaza might work to draw some tourists (they had a catchy tourism campaign about the past being the future) it looks like things haven't quite caught on as expected (like ecotourism in Chihuahua, I suppose).
(click on the photo to read the story of moving Tlaloc at Mexico Lore)

When Texcoco started to recognize that Tenochtitlan was taking a little too much off the top of the Triple Alliance deal, they probably weren't thinking that the city would continue to loot Texcoco for years to come. While I like the National Museum, I think it would have been far more beneficial to creat a string of museums around the old lake that celebrate the culture of the Central Valley... one out in Chalco, out in Xochimilco, over in Texcoco. The big museum in the center could still show case the culture of the nation, but it seems that some attempt to spread the wealth of history should be in order. Perhaps as Greece demands the repatriation of its artifacts, the pueblos of the nation should demand that Mexico return their heritage (no matter how imagined for some places).