MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentine highest court blasts CFK government for arbitrary distribution of state advertising
A milestone ruling from the Argentina's Supreme Court calls for the omission of discriminatory criteria and “reasonable balance” in the allocation of state advertising. The ruling stems from a 2006 injunction filed by Editorial Perfil, the country's largest magazine publisher, claiming arbitrary distribution of official advertising. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesNo doubt a response to the UK's Supreme Court rule against the “Falklanders” guilty of Human Rights Abuse.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Except this article is crap.
“No doubt a response to the UK's Supreme Court rule against the “Falklanders” guilty of Human Rights Abuse.”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 06:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a load of crap Martin, theirs been no such ruling in the UK against the falkland islanders and never will be, because they have not committed any abuse of human rights. Though argentina has.
“Except this article is crap”
So anything that enforces the right to freedom of press and freedom of speech, Making it clear the kirchners were acting in breach of Articles 14 and 32 of the Argentine constitution, which prohibits censorship and guaranties freedom of the press, respectively, and Article 13 of the American Convention on Human Rights. Is in your opinion a load of crap is it? Well you wont be saying that if you woke up one morning to find all your human rights have been traken away, and you are no longer free but someones slave, would you?
All my human rights? Are we talking about the Junta dictatorship again? Or a news agency which happened to be affiliated with the Junta?
Mar 09th, 2011 - 07:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Clearly you don't know much about Argentina
“Journalists at Clarín and La Nación believe the government is engaged in an intimidating campaign to silence critics. But journalists sympathetic of the government said the Papel Prensa investigation is necessary to establish the role of the media during the dictatorship, and said both La Nación and Clarín have been silent about crimes committed against opponents during military rule.”
http://www.cpj.org/blog/2010/08/argentine-government-feud-with-clarin-deepens.php
There is more going on here that meets the eye, only one news agency blasting the government. Why not all of them? Or half of them at least.
And you don't know much about your “democratic” “Falklanders” either.
Supreme Court Declares “Falkland” Islands Guilty
http://www.cpj.org/blog/2010/08/argentine-government-feud-with-clarin-deepens.php
Or the reason why they got in so much trouble in the first place.
Falklands Penguins Starve to Death
http://www.cpj.org/blog/2010/08/argentine-government-feud-with-clarin-deepens.php
1 - it was the argentine supreme court not the UK (so says it all in my opinion as probably just an argentinian governments attempt to get one up of the falkland islands).
Mar 09th, 2011 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 02 - He was the victim of a misguided hate campiagn
3 - He was allowed to publish his work (so no breach of his rights)
4 - Actions by individuals harassing him are not a breach of his human rights par se, but a criminal act by the offending individual whom should be held accountable for his/her crimes.
5 - Bingham failed to account for argentine over fishing in waters south of the falkland waters, and therefore fishing in the migration routes of many of the species the penguins feed on. In 2009 alone the argentine fishing industry landed 60,000 tonnes of blue whiting, despite the fact The Atlantic Fishing Commission said that no more than 50,000 tonnes of southern blue whiting should be caught. (the falklands caught 25,000) As a result scientist now say that the falklands will have to limit their catch to 6,000 this year (2010 not 2011) to compensate for argentine over fishing.
6 - Argentine penguins are now dying too as a result of argentine overfishing and changes in oceanic conditions - http://www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/magellanic-penguins534.html#cr
7 - Changes in the oceanic conditions results in changes to migration routes of the penguins food source, meaning less food for the penguins at the falklands islands.
So key oversights by Bingham there.
As for the article, well your keen to point out the war ended 30 years ago and is no longer relevant, then it that case any media outlets support to the then dictorship is irrelevant too. But then regardsless of whom they supported back then, discrimination against them for it resulting in restricting them access to news and what they can publish is a breach of human rights to freedom of speech, which believe it or not they had that right to freedom of speech under the dictorship and have always been in entitled to it by law.
First... this whole “freedom of expression” thing on behalf of the poor victim Clarín group. Sounds nice, doesn't it? It's a very safe shield go hide under, no one ever questions a news agency's motives, they can do no wrong even if there is no objectivity whatsoever in their articles.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Second... Mike Bingham. “Actions by individuals harassing him are not a breach of his human rights par se” Who's actions then would you categorize as a breach of human rights if not those of individuals? Those 'individuals' were in part 'government officials' -which hardly fit the qualification-. In other words, you're willing to admit that such actions did indeed occur, but not that there was anything wrong with it.
Third... your link, “A combination of changing weather patterns, overfishing, pollution, and other factors - ...declined by more than 20 percent in the last 22 years” In the last 22 years 6 MILLION penguins in Malvinas were reduced to less than 1 million on accounts of overfishing alone. And you're comparing Malvinas, two tiny islands to a huge continental area that receives millions of tons worth of maritime cargo a year.
“Magellanic penguin populations declined in the Falkland Islands when food became scarce due to commercial fishing of squid and fish. Other populations have declined as a result of pollution from oily ballast water released by tankers. http://marinebio.org/species.asp?id=654
The penguins cause of death in Argentina is not starvation, it's pollution from marine traffic. No country in the world can contain that much traffic.
Fourth... ”In 2009 alone the argentine fishing industry landed 60,000 tonnes of blue whiting”
I can't reply to that comment on this post, not enough room. Post anything so I can post a new comment.
Argentinean sailor in a pub with a pint of Carlsberg and states.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ROYAL ,??Probably the best navy in the world,
Kristina said it was the drink talking ??
,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7060361.ece
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The prospect of losing a source of revenue that has helped to lift average annual income for the 2,000 islanders to almost £32,000 per head adds to the significance of oil exploration under way off the Falklands” - I see, what we should do instead is look after the very same people that occupy Malvinas illegally, make sure they can make £32,000 [per head] a year. Uh, no.
“Selling licences to foreign trawlers to permit them to catch illex squid has brought the Falkland Islands’ revenue up to £16 million a year, but recent catches have plummeted. Where once it was possible to catch 200,000 tonnes of squid in Falklands waters, in 2009 only 45 tonnes were found.” - 2000 people: 200,000 tons.
“Before Argentina left the South Atlantic Fishing Commission it was agreed that no more than 50,000 tonnes of southern blue whiting — worth about £650 a tonne — should be caught in the region.” - So, a country of 40 million people is only allowed 50,000 tons, while a community of 2000 people is allowed to catch 200,000 tons. Why would you catch any less of any other species if you're already getting away with 200,000 tons of illex squid? - No wonder Argentina left the “South Atlantic Fishing Commission”
“Argentina used to co-operate to ensure ample stocks in the region but in 2005 the Government of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner began allowing its fishermen huge catches.” - 2005, and you've been hauling in 200,000 tons for how long?
“While the Falklands restricted its catch to 25,000 tonnes, last year Argentina hauled in 60,000 tonnes. As a result scientists in the Falklands say that only 6,000 tonnes can be landed this year.” - You didn't “restrict” your catch to 25,000 tons, you ran out. Had it been up to you the catch would've been 200,000 tons.
40 million people: 60,000 tons a year since 2005
2000 people: 200,000 tons a year - usually more, since... forever.
Argentina's fault. ;-)
@#5 Martin
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“First... this whole “freedom of expression” thing on behalf of the poor victim Clarín group. Sounds nice, doesn't it? It's a very safe shield go hide under, no one ever questions a news agency's motives, they can do no wrong even if there is no objectivity whatsoever in their articles.”
Regardless of their views or political stance they are entitled to freedom of speech and expression, denying them of this is not only breach of there human rights, but also goes against the democratic foundations of democracy where all are entitled to express themselve by their vote.
“ Who's actions then would you categorize as a breach of human rights if not those of individuals? Those 'individuals' were in part 'government officials' -which hardly fit the qualification-. In other words, you're willing to admit that such actions did indeed occur, but not that there was anything wrong with it.”
They may well have been government officials behind it, but their actions are criminal and that of harassment, they did not prevent him from actually publishing his findings or going to the newspapers on many occasions. victims harassed by others or suffer detriment are not having their human rights breached unless they are refused the right to justice. Saying someone threatened me was a breach of my human rights is pure nonesense.
“And you're comparing Malvinas, two tiny islands to a huge continental area that receives millions of tons worth of maritime cargo a year. ”
Same continent as that the falklands are on, and argentina is the one fishing the most in the southern atlantic, or do you think you own the southern atlantic and are entitled to all fish stocks? As for argentine penguins deaths being due to pollution well who sails in argentine waters and pollutes it, its not the islanders? your reason given is a small part of the course of deaths, but far from the main reason of argentine over fishing in argentine waters around the falklands, on the migration routes.
@#7 Martin
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your comparing 200,000 tonnage prior to 2009 of caught illex squid by the falkland license fishing vessel to that of the 60,000 Southern Blue Whiting Fish caught by argentina. Err wheres the logic their? other then to twist facts in your countries favour.
Well heres the facts.
Tonnage of Southern Blue Whiting fish caught by argentine and falklands licensed vessel in 2009.
Argentine = 60,000
Falklands = 25,000
Atlantic Fishing Commission it was agreed that no more than 50,000 tonnes of southern blue whiting should be caught. So what does argentina do, they take all 50,000 plus an extra 10,000 in stead of sticking to just 25,000 tonnes of blue whiting
Tonnage in 2008 for Illex squid
Argentina = 255 000 tonnes of Illex catch in 2008, a 22 000 tonne increase over 2007
Falklands = 106 600 a decline of 33% compared to 2007
Sure prior to 2007 catches were as high as 200,000 in illex squid but veried per season. Point is while the amount the falkland vessels decreased the argentine tonnage increased sharply.
So your comparison of 200,000 tonnes of falklands illect squid caught prior to 2009 to your argentine tonnage of blue whiting is a load of nonesense, and your argument as result shows the lack of integritory in your argument and as such your own lack too. So it is clear with your deliberate malpuliation of the figures and facts that your argument fails completely. And any thing you post on these comment boards should be not be taken seriously at all.
And going by the total tonnage of argentina for both being 184,000 tonnes in blue whiting and squid tonnage than that of the falklands, its save to say - YES IT IS ARGENTINE OVERFISHING IN THE SOUTHERN ATLANTIC THAT IS THE MAIN COURSE OF PENGUIN DEATHS SINCE YOU FISH ON THE MIGRATION ROUTES THE MOST, AND IN DERICT CONTRADICT TO WHAT THE ATLANTIC COMMISSION SAYS YOU SHOULD LIMIT YOUR CATCHES TOO.
Plus it was argentine that pulled out of the commission and stopped co-operating on maintaining stocks.
sorry ment to say
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“total tonnage of argentina for both being 184,000 MORE tonnes in blue whiting and squid tonnage than that of the falklands total for both,”
You're so full of shit...
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No mention of the fact that only 2000 people live in Malvinas, and 40 MILLION in Argentina.
How do you justify 200,000 tones of ANYTHING???
Oh am so full of shit am i? sorry but clearly you have never heard of exports?
Mar 10th, 2011 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Has it not occured to you the reason why foreign fishing vessels and companies apply for licenses to fish in the waters, becuase its not to provide fish and chips to the falkland islanders but to provide supplies of fish to their own countries. Same applies to foreign vessel fishing on license in argentine waters.
Do you serious even know how many people 200,000 tonnes of fish will feed? err millions of people no doubt. No one ever said the 200,000 tonnes of fish was solely for the consumption of the islanders, did they? No, they didn't, thats just your own poor educated and ridiculous assumption.
In fact the falkland islands economy has lost the equivalent value of £32,000 per person. Thats a £64,000,000 economic loss, though the people themselves do not see the money as it goes to the falkland goverment. So its the government that is losing money as a result of lower tonnage landed.
Even your country exports fish too - 88,987 tonnes of fish and shellfish in the first 3 months of 2009 to be exact. So why on earth would argentina need to land 315,000 tonnes of illex squid and blue whiting fish for 40 million people, when they sell the equivalent to almost 1/3 of that in just the first 3 months of 2009.
What happens to the tonnage is not relevent, nor is the population of the islanders. Whats relevent is argentina is overfishing in the southern atlantic not the falkland islanders. In fact the falklands landed tonnage has reduced whilst argentinas has increased. Its not bloody rocket science, though clearly your unable to comprehend the figures or the fact that the majority of the 200,000 tonnes of illex squid is exported by the falklands islands.
The uk landed only 408,200 tonnes in fish, and we have a population 62 Million (2009). So how do justify 594,949 tonnes in the first 10 months of 2010, to feed just 40 million? You can't can you, as you fail to understand export economics
I don't see links, just words from your “educated” estimations.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have already proven that your stupid Kelpers have overfished the living crap out of the South Atlantic. Done.
We wouldn't even be having this conversation if they had gone back to the UK WHERE THEY BELONG.
And if you want a truly educated guess, I'll give you one. Their economy will crash back to the stone-age, as they've grown too reliant on exploiting Argentine waters for their whole wretched life. That, I know for sure, so weather we agree on anything or not, really doesn't matter.
I'll still have the last laugh, expert. ;-)
No Martine am sorry, but you have not proven that the islanders have over fished at all. All you have proven is that you do not understand licensing and exportation.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have proven that argentina fishing vessel (which we all know fish in water south of the falklands along the fish migration routes etc) land far more tonnage, i have proven the tonnage of argentina continues to increase whilst the falklands decreases. As for the links well google fishing tonnage 2009 etc i.e argentine fishing tonnage export 2009. You will soon find all the info you need.
I proven my argument not by assumption but with actual facts and factual figures. You say you know the islanders are exploiting argentine waters, sorry mate, they never fish in argentine waters, unless the vessel or fishing company also holds a argentine license in which case they would have to land their catch at an argentine port. Oh and by the way the falklands never belonged to argentina as i have said many times, with no one able to provide an accurate historical and/of factural argument to prove me wrong. So sorry but flakland waters are not argentine either.
You may think you will have the last laugh, but somehow i very much doubt that. So given this argument is in my opinion over and you lost, i will say no more about it.
“You may think you will have the last laugh”
Mar 10th, 2011 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You think so, and know so as well...
“...i have proven the tonnage of argentina continues to increase whilst the falklands decreases.”
...bye bye Kelpers ;-)
“You think so, and know so as well... ”
Mar 10th, 2011 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes i do.
”...bye bye Kelpers ;-)”
Sorry but the oil will provide much more economic income than any amount of fish tonnage landed. LONG LIVE THE ISLANDERS AND LONG MAY THE ISLAND CONTINUE TO BELONG TO THE ISLANDERS.
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 03:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry martin, please be more precise - As to how its not working in my favour. After all, i proved you wrong in the argument on fishing tonnage and over fishing and anyone reading the debate we had will see you clearly did not have a clue as to the tonnage, exportation and the fact it is mostly argentine or argentine licensed vessels operating in the southern atlantic south of the falkland islands, in the fish and squid migration route from the antartica to the falklands and the latin american continent.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0And there is oil in the falklands and it is the next economic boom for the falkland islands. So they will not need to fish anymore anyway, unlike argentina who still need to fish to stop their children dying from malnutrition as happen recently. You call yourselves a modern country, yet you act like 3rd world political brats that think they are bigger then they actually are, and you still have people dying of 3rd world related causes such as malnutrition.
Am sorry martin, but your attempt to make it look like i lost the argument when i clearly, in fact, won the argument. Is nothing more than pathetic and shows just what sort of person you really are. You clearly have a psychological problem that prevents you from accepting you were wrong and/or have lost the argument. I am sure many others on this site would agree with me. Though as most of the the argentines here share you psychological inability to accept the facts and the truth, and accept they are wrong, then i doubt any such argentine would agree with me. But them that have at least the level of intelligence that us Brits have would no doubt see the flaw in your argument and why you lost the argument. Your inability to counter my argument is yet more prove.
And really, is there any need for insults? after all i have not called you names so why the childish name calling? Oh i forgot you can not accept you lost, and as you can not provide an intelligent counter argument to my argument, you revert to insults.
Martin ignore this idiot who has at least named himself well.He is about as clever as Palin too.The facts are you guys keep putting on the pressure in Mercosur and all other international organizations.Keep Argentina growing at its current rates and amplify the developments that are beginning to appear in defence.The english as I keep saying understand money guita and wont be long repatriating the planters when they begin to lose out badly enough.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@O gara
Mar 11th, 2011 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My name Teaboy is defined by my surname begining with the letters TEA and boy being that of a young MALE. My online ID is used in many a forums including consumer forums where i help with legal, credit and employment problems. I am a successful business man well versed in law and world history, with contacts deep in the government. So my username is not a reflection of my level of intelligence but simply a name of my own choosing that is recognisable to people within the online communities that i am part off.
I made my argument above clear and backed it up with true figures and facts. Martin could not understand why the falklands caught over 200,000 tonnes of squid and then tried to argue the falklands were over fishing by comparing the 200,000 tonnes of squid to argentines 60,000 tonnes of bluewhiting when argentinas squid tonnage was itself . and asking why a population needed to land 200,000 when in fact in 2008 the falklands landed just 106,700 tonnes in squid compared to the 255.000 landed by argentina. He completely ignored the fact that the falklands exports almost all fish and squid caught, and therefore clearly does not understand the economics and trying wth his absurd comparison of the falklands squid tonnage to argentines blue whiting tonnage prove that the falklnds do more overfishing. When it is in fact argentina that catches the higer amount of tonnage of all fish and squid.
Now your comments alone simply confirm your of the same level of poor understanding of the facts to that of martin. Refering to the falkland islanders as planters, clearly shows you do not know the history and historical facts of the islands, as no one was planted there, they are all there of there as of their own choosing or choosing of their ancestors 8-9 generations ago. The islands never belonged to argentina during the course of history and never will. I poved my argument, I won, Martin lost simple as that.
Martin_Fierro: your comments about Mike Bingham are not correct. It was the Supreme Court of the Falkland Islands that slammed (quite rightly) the Falkland Islands Government for refusing Mr Bingham a resident's permit for using the fact that he had crticised FIG over its environmental policies as one of the grounds for its refusal.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0As I say, it was only one ground that the Government used to refuse his application for a permit. There were plenty of others that were not criticised by the Chief Justice. Indeed, Mr Bingham came in for some very heavy criticism himself from the Chief Justice during the case, including lying about his academic qualifications to get himself a job in Falklands Conservation in the first place. His criticisms of the Government's “penguin policy” have been criticised themself as not true and under-researched. Certainly his predictions have not come true.
Also, his allegations that he was harrassed, threatened with harm and prosecuted without any reason have no basis whatsoever. He was a bit weird was our Mr Binhgham! I seem to remember that the only criminial case that he was involved in, he pleaded guilty to the charge - hardly what you would call being harrassed and prosecuted without good reason!
Yes, Mr Bingham was refused his resident's permit, but he was not kicked out of the Islands. He had a work permit and was entitled to remain. He left of his own free will.
The Falkland Islands are fortunate that they are governed by the rule of law. When their Government steps out of line, our courts are prepared, like in any good democracy, to step in and give them a good slap on the wrist. It is important that Government's are reminded every now and again what they can and cannot do. It stops them from geting complacent.
And before you start teling me, Martin, that I don't know what I'm talking about and that what it says on the website you posted is right, well, I do know what I'm talking about. I was a lawyer in the Islands at the time.
Nice post PominOz
Mar 12th, 2011 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice to see these idiot's put in their place on the Bingham issue.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!