Bolivia’s first anti-discrimination law, 200 years later

As Latin America celebrated its Bicentenario, Bolivia’s priorities appeared distant from the festivities. President Evo Morales and his administration were occupied drafting, analyzing, and approving the first anti-discrimination law to be implemented in a country that is highly divided, both regionally and culturally.The mechanisms of the “Ley contra el razismo y toda forma de discriminacion”, or “Law against racism and all forms of discrimination”, sanction and punish any citizen, member of the press, or media license holder for racist or discriminatory topics discussed or indirectly communicated through its outlets.The most controversial of the 100 articles of this law are those directly affecting the press. According to the Bolivian press, Articles 16 and 23 severely eliminate freedom of expression and information, threatening democracy, freedom of speech, and ultimately human rights.Article 16 establishes financial burdens and threatens the media with closure and license revocation for any communications that criticize or publicize ideas considered anti-discriminatory or racist. Concurrently, Article 23 provides penalties for the press for diffusing racist comments.As riots and protests broke out all over the country, Morales’ political supporters, such as mine workers and campesinos, arrived in La Paz on October 7th to surround the Presidential Palace and make sure the Senate finalized the law’s approval in a calmed and ethical way. This was the same day that Bolivian newspapers and online portals published their daily issues with a blank cover page. The blank cover page showed the discomfort of the press with the approval of the anti-discrimination law. The slogan on press websites said “there is no democracy without freedom of expression.”At this point, the press is threatening the government by denouncing the intentions of these two articles to the United Nations and Organization of American States (OAS) if the recently approved law does not get modified. There are over 240,000 signatures, collected from journalists, press employees, religious authorities, and citizens, urging the derogation of article 16 and modification of article 23.The implementation of this law is a milestone for the Morales administration and for Morales himself, who seems to take this issue personally. “Es hora de descolonizarnos,” said Morales, meaning “It is time to decolonize us.” He has strong feelings on the Bolivian regional divide and the colonization process. “It is time to finish with [these] people who treat us as Indians, and as a bad race” he explained in a press conference.Morales seems to be rushing the implementation of the law since it was drafted, analyzed, and approved within a month; compared to other countries’ laws on anti-discrimination. For example, Brazil spent over 10 years analyzing and approving a similar law. Germany has severe warnings on media as well, but is nowhere near as extreme with censorship on media license holders as the Bolivian law.The problem, however, does not seem to exist with the discrimination issue, but with the way in which the law would be implemented, interpreted, and enforced. If the entity that enforces the law defines terms that include interpretation of indigenous peoples and cultures in ways in which messages are not intended to be delivered, how and who is supposed to defend the true meaning of the messages?Critics of this law think it will be used to unfairly punish people who use their freedom of speech. Other groups, including gay and lesbian communities, say that perhaps they would benefit from this law; however, these groups do not hold high hopes as regulation is still undefined and vague.Morales may be seeking to censor media institutions that do not support his political ideology. His behavior closely resembles that of Hugo Chavez, who censored the most popular Venezuelan privately owned communication outlet two years ago. The outlet owner happened to be one of Chavez’s critics and a member of the opposition.In this instance, will the notable economist and philosopher Frederick Hayek prove his theory that shouting down the press is the first step for a government to take over its country and destroy its democracy?As observers, the only thing left to do is to wait and see whether the current petitions for modifying the law will be successful. This image is being used under Creative Commons licensing. The original sourcecan be found here.