In the Guardian this weekend was a fluffy, myopic piece about Venezuela written by some left-wing student, named Pablo Navarrete, who has done some jobbing for the New Statesman's John Pilger and spent some time in Venezuela a few years ago. The article, entitled "Venezuela deserves a fair hearing" is so flawed it merits almost total clarification.

Venezuela- for obvious reasons (to those who know me) - is very close to my heart (I spend a great deal of time there and know the land well) and I'll not allow left-wing light weights to paint the place as some kind of haven when I know very well that its people  (and I tell you, I have mixed with the rich and poor, the weak and strong) are suffering there now far worse than they have ever been.

In his article in a section of the Guardian entitled Zeitgeist (this week as third class and spurious as the film) Navarette whines about how Western media outlets ("right-wing" outlets such as Murdoch's Fox News but even "liberal" outlets such as the BBC) offer distorted media coverage of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his government (which has now been in power for eleven years).

Navarrete despairs, for example, that of 304 BBC reports concerning Venezuela published between 1998 and 2008 only three mentioned any of the Chavez Government's positive reforms (here Navarette mentions Chavez halving the Venezuelan poverty rate from 46.5% in 1998 to 23% in 2009). Navarette talks of his own participation in a documentary on the contemporary political situation in the country and his desire to provide "a platform for the voices of the government's grassroots supporters, who the mainstream media (in the West) routinely ignores". Navarrete discusses how he visited in particular the government's grassroots supporters and community activists in the barrios (low-income neighbourhoods / shanty towns) that encircle Caracas and how these supporters insisted they, the people, were the true force behind Venezuela's process of radical change. Navarrete then goes onto discuss the "threats" from the US (lazily declaring US military support to Colombia's President in hisfight against drugs and FARC as "US militarization of Colombia" and then erroneously claiming that the Obama regime is supporting a return to US support of dictatorships in the region following the overthrow of the democratically elected Honduran Government of Manuel Zelaya last year - as if the Americans were behind Zelaya's overthrow in the first place). Navarette's main point is that he feels Venezuela gets a rough press and that (what he calls) "the other Venezuela's voice" is not heard as the media (in the West) refuses (as if in some conspiracy against Chavez) to air it.

Where do I start?!

A plethora of extremist groups operating in Britain are praying for a hung parliament and a weak Flib-Flab coalition. Amongst them are the extremist sect Hizb ut Tahrir al Islami who know that a Conservative government in May will spell a sorry end to their existence - at least cost them a load of money and support as they face a ban in Britain.

Hizb ut Tahrir this year - as with previous elections - tells its supporters that "the aim of encouraging Muslim participation in the secular politics of Westminster is to see us endorse this kufr political system (based on man making laws), its values and policies, which have caused occupation and bloodshed, as well as leading to the misery of ‘Broken Britain' today. In the forthcoming UK-parliamentary elections Muslims are being told to vote for people who would be part of lawmakers in Britain's secular political system, whose root and branch is built upon man's sovereignty, rather than that of Allah. This would clearly be haram." In other words Muslims (yes, HT still claims to represent Muslims in spite of their bizarre take on the religion of Islam) are forbidden from participation in the upcoming elections and face hellfire if they do.

What Hizb ut Tahrir Britain do in private and say in public is most often completely different. They justify this stance - we in the West refer to it as lying - by misinterpreting the concept of Taqiyya (but let's not go there as to do so gets us into theological arguments and presumes that the concept was justified to protect something of any value in the first place). Hizb ut Tahrir says that it condemns violence yet its very own little version of Mein Kampf states clearly that once Hizb ut Tahrir runs a state that state will expand globally through violence. Hizb ut Tahrir says that it does not engage in thuggery in the UK yet time and again its footsoldiers have been caught up in selling drugs to kufr (according to HT this is not haram) and operating in gangs. Hizb ut Tahrir says that it has not ever attempted to infiltrate key British institutions yet high ranking members have been exposed working in government; even in a top position at the Immigration office. Hizb ut Tahrir's mendacity is as well-known.

It is likely, therefore, that Hizb ut Tahrir members will be voting in May.  They will be voting either Labour or Liberal Democrat (whichever they think will keep the Tories out of Number 10). They'll probably not risk showing up at the polling booth in case someone takes a picture. They'll send in their postal votes and pray that the Conservatives do not get their chance to destroy Hizb ut Tahrir in Britain (from where now HT's global operations are funded and organised).