Human Rights in Mexico

May has been more moderate than I remember from last year. We have had 3 rains; 3 nights ago it amounted to about 1 inch and altogether between 1.5 and 2 inches so far. We are beginning to see some green spots on the mountains. The temperatures have been more moderate as the highs in the afternoons are only about 30 C or so. We have not even put the fan on at nights for several nights. Most afternoons, it clouds up between 4 and 5 p.m. We are hoping that that presages a good rainy season and raising the level of the lake even higher towards its maximum.

Tomorrow night we are going to Monte Coxala (the lovely spa in San Juan Cosala) with our new neighbours from Toronto. They bought and have been renovating the house next door. We have been interested and have followed their changes. They plan to split their time between their farm in Ontario in the summers and here during the winters.

Today we attended the first of a planned 6 weeks of lectures on human rights in Mexico, especially as they apply to ex-pats. The 3 men who are presenting the lectures are Mexicans who belong to a recently established human rights association. This is a good example of the enormous progress made in Mexico in the last 20 years or less. The press has become very free (especially as compared to previously) and the last 3 elections have been widely regarded as open and above board. Mexico has had a far-reaching statement of human rights in its constitution since the mid-19th C, but practice was often far removed from the ideal set out in the constitution. Now, there seem to be large strides to making the ideals more of a reality.

This human rights association had a big success last year. The governor of the state of Jalisco, where we live, was being very free with public funds without authorization of the state congress. One of his big donations was to the Catholic Church to build a monument and shrine to the ‘martyrs’ of the 1930s. The Mexican constitution from the 19th C had decreed an absolute separation of church and state. However, in the 1920s in the wake of the revolution and civil war 1910-20, a Catholic political party was formed and participated in politics. Later, other political parties decided that this violated the separation of church and state and outlawed religious political parties. The supporters of the religious party revolted and in the suppression of this revolt many people were killed; these were the ‘martyrs’. The main center for this revolt was in the state of Jalisco and the influence of the Catholic Church is still greater in Jalisco than most other states in Mexico; the opposition to abortion, sex education, etc. is greater here than many other states. The governor argued in defense of his donation of public money that the proposed monument and shrine would be a tourist attraction and therefore be a public benefit. However, the human rights association launched a suit and publicity campaign arguing that this contravened the separation of church and state and was unconstitutional. In the storm of protest, the Church returned the money (or most of it). This is representative of the changes and the demands for greater accountability of officials that is taking place in Mexico.

Two of the men giving the presentation are lawyers; I don’t know what the other does besides this involvement as a volunteer in the human rights association. One of the men who spent part of his early life growing up in the US said that a main reason for mounting these lectures at the Lake Chapala Society is because he has heard so many ex-pats declaring that they don’t have any rights in Mexico. He says that that is untrue; any one living here has the same rights as Mexican citizens. Of course, legal procedures and even many principles do differ from what exist in Canada and the US. That came out in questions that members of the audience raised. Also, I think that the gap between the ideals of the constitution and actual practice may still be fairly wide at times. However, I think that the lectures are going to be very interesting and illuminating. These men are at the forefront of the efforts to stabilize the rule of law and to put into general practice respect for human rights. Such movements are usually seen as evidence of a strong, middle class which demands public accountability and due process in public affairs. It also disproves the stupid statement by the Bush Administration drug czar that Mexico is in danger of becoming a ‘failed state’ dominated by drug gangs.