Protests in Oaxaca:

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2006/10/29/mexico-.html

This week protesters in Oaxaca have had the police move in on them in an attempt to silence their voices. The protesters claim that President Vicente Fox stole the last election and has been violating human rights throughout his term in order to quiet political dissidents.

Three people were killed in the protests and it is thought that the police were somehow involved in the killings.

This article does really shine a good light on the human rights situation in the region. One right that we enjoy is the right to protest (while these protests should remain peaceful and there was no information easily available regarding the manor of the protests in Oaxaca). Furthermore, the protests are regarding the functioning of the democratic process. These are serious concerns. If a president has fixed an election (not saying either way) but shouldn't there be someway to appease the concerns of the public? How far is reasonable to go? How much work should the government have to do to prove that? Does the burden of proof lie on the government or on the public?

In a legal setting the burden of proof lies with the accuser, however, in this scenario, if a real and credible claim can be brought (assuming that people can agree upon what would be reasonable and credible) should the public have to prove that the government is guilty or would the government have to prove their innocence. Would those in charge be treated as guilty first... ?

Thoughts from an accountant on Sunday night.

tag: target="_blank">last301