Hate Crime Law: human rights activists insist on its repeal and that the dialogue table push for it

Commission chaired by Pedro Infante holds public consultation on the Law Against Hate. Photo: AN The special commission designated by the National Assembly (AN), chaired by Pedro Infante (Psuv), is carrying out a public consultation on the partial reform of the Law Against Hate, following its approval in first reading on November 3. Outside of Chavismo, the parliamentary group has summoned NGOs and guilds that defend freedom of expression to the Legislative Palace so they can present their positions on the legislation. This Friday, November 13, the commission moved to the Botanical Garden of the Central University of Venezuela (UCV) to hear from the university community. The request of the acting Executive, which proposed the reform, that only decriminalization be addressed, along with the positions of the head of Parliament, Jorge Rodríguez, and the Interior Minister, Diosdado Cabello, not to repeal the legal instrument because it is still "needed," gives grounds for expectations of a repeal of the law to be low. However, sectors of society insist on the elimination of the legislation, which NGOs and international bodies describe as "a tool for political persecution in Venezuela," with more than 300 people prosecuted. Human rights defenders consulted by Efecto Cocuyo hope that the dialogue table being installed for its fourth round of talks, starting this November 13, will have an impact and that somehow the Chavismo resistance to repealing the text, which still contains censorship mechanisms, will be overcome. Receptive commission but... On Wednesday, November 11, the organizations Conexión Segura, Redes Ayuda, Espacio Público, the National Union of Press Workers (SNTP), and other defenders of freedom of expression, as well as representatives of universities such as the Catholic Andrés Bello University (UCAB) and the UCV, met with the special commission. "They (the deputies) were receptive, considering that the consultation is to reform the law and not to repeal it. Several NGOs went to call for repeal. Journalists and communicators identified with the government were also at the meeting, but the debate was conducted respectfully between the parties. Despite our position, the deputies defended the point of reforming the law. A lot was said along the lines of 'mistakes have been made on both sides,' and citing Delcy Rodríguez, they said that 'abuses were committed in applying that law,'" commented Redes Ayuda coordinator Luis Serrano. The human rights and digital rights defender indicated that the commission received the participants' contributions in writing, although in his opinion Chavismo will not give in, at least in the AN. Even so, he highlights the opportunity to speak for many ordinary Venezuelans who no longer want to feel afraid of expressing a political opinion or participating in a protest. "If it is not repealed, which is the demand, I think the discussion must go beyond the reform of articles and address the substance of the law, which seeks to curtail freedom of expression. Fine, you don't give the person prison, but you impose an unpayable fine. Are they going to fine you for saying what you think? If they recognize the victims, what is the reparation? On the reparation of victims, they said they would review it," said Serrano. The director of Espacio Público and former political prisoner, Carlos Correa, recounted that the deputies — among them Jorge Arreaza, a member of the dialogue table — nodded at several of the human rights defenders' positions, but he also perceived distrust. "We proposed that if they insist on not repealing it, the issue of reparation for the victims of the law's application be incorporated, for example, for the people who were prosecuted, detained, the blocking of websites — an express transitional reparation regime must be included, establishing a deadline for people to obtain their freedom. When I made these comments, I saw them nod," Correa recounted. In his view, the distrust toward the repeal demand stems from the fact that Chavismo perceives any expression of social discontent or criticism of the government as hate. He explained that the violence that can arise in a street demonstration, or from racism or gender violence, is different from incitement to hatred, and mechanisms already exist to punish it. He recalled that the Penal Code punishes incitement to hatred to the extent that it may lead to a criminal act, which is what is punishable, so an additional law is not necessary. #EnPhoto || From the Dr. Mauricio Ramia Auditorium – Botanical Garden/UCV || Professors, students, and the general community participate in the Public Consultation on the Reform of the Law Against Hate. pic.twitter.com/aCbAMZwAzr — National Assembly 🇻🇪 (@Asamblea_Ven) November 13, 2026 Concern over fines and the Ministry of Justice's authority For the NGO Conexión Segura, the reform of the Law Against Hate retains mechanisms to restrict content and punish expression on the internet, which is why it also insisted before the commission on its repeal. The NGO reported 140 domains that remain blocked, including media outlets and anti-censorship tools and VPNs. "Article 15 requires the immediate removal of content without developing specific guarantees of defense and independent review. Removal prevents an expression from continuing to circulate and affects both the person who publishes it and those who seek and receive information. Article 21 allows the sanctioning of messages contrary to coexistence, peace, and mutual respect, without sufficiently delimiting the infractions. That breadth leaves room for arbitrariness and puts criticism, satire, and citizen participation on social networks at risk," the organization stated in a document submitted to the AN. They also expressed to the parliamentarians their concern that Article 24 concentrates in the Ministry of Justice the investigation and decision on the onerous fines provided for in the legislation. Conexión Segura warned that changing the sanction is not enough if the Executive retains the power to punish expressions under imprecise rules. The backbone of the reform is "decriminalization," that is, the elimination of prison sentences for conduct typified in the law (sentences of 10 to 20 years). But the application of fines ranging from 500 to 10,000 units of the highest-value currency, in this case the euro, is maintained. Other human rights NGOs such as Acceso a la Justicia and Provea have not been summoned by the AN, but are willing to attend, as happened with the Amnesty Law. "Because it is a constitutional law, a category invented by them, it has a special procedure different from the rest of the laws, which is why the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court ruled and authorized the reform. If, as a result of the public consultation, there is another modification, the law must return to that Chamber and it must rule again," said Acceso a la Justicia co-director Ali Daniels regarding the consultation. He likewise insists that the law must be eliminated, although for now he considers it positive that it is being decriminalized, which should lead to the release of people unjustly deprived of liberty and the dismissal of cases against more than 300 people under precautionary measures. "The law has confiscatory fines. A fine of 10,000 euros leaves a Venezuelan bankrupt; it is a confiscatory sanction. With the reform, it is no longer a judge who convicts; instead, the imposition of fines is left to the police, with obvious implications. It is a preview of what the application of the law will be like through disproportionate fines," said the lawyer. He maintained that acceding to the repeal of the law would mean for the government acknowledging that the legal text is badly made and should never have existed. On the other hand, he warns that it is in the interest of the interim government to maintain a climate of fear and to make it appear that it is still persecuting, which it also does through arbitrary detentions, although in smaller numbers and of short duration. He stressed that not repealing the law is only "moderating" repression. "I also think the deputies perceive that if they repeal it, one extreme will win, or it will serve for someone to have a political victory and for them a defeat. I believe that in repeal we all win. True coexistence occurs when people can say what they think without it meaning that an official can say it is hate or that your opinion is punishable. For excesses or cases where crimes are actually committed, we have a Penal Code," added Serrano. What is expected from the dialogue The head of the opposition delegation that sits at the dialogue table with the interim government, Dinorah Figuera, has spoken out to demand the elimination of the law rebaptized as the Law for Democratic Coexistence, Peace, and Tolerance as a fundamental step to dismantle the State's repressive apparatus. So far it is unknown what influence the talks between the interim government and the 2015 Parliament could have on the fate of the legal instrument. Correa and Daniels hope the negotiations will influence its extinction, if not directly then through other avenues such as the new Supreme Court (TSJ). Serrano rules out that the repeal will come through the AN. "Personally, I believe that in the AN they will approve a reform and will not repeal it (...) In the public consultation, deputy Pedro Infante commented — I allow myself to paraphrase him — that there are two extremes: one that asks that the law remain as it is, and another that asks for repeal, and that for them, the reform is the middle point. I don't think a middle point is possible in this case, despite the decriminalization, because the law still has an inhibiting effect on the Venezuelan population," Serrano stressed. Correa emphasized that regardless of whether the issue is on the agenda of the negotiations, if progress is to be made in a dialogue and in the transition to democracy, Venezuelan society must be able to freely express criticism of the exercise of the different branches of Public Power, which implies that there be no subsequent consequences. The reform of the Law Against Hate retains broad powers of the Executive to sanction expressions and control the media. This #Nov11, in the National Assembly's public consultation, the SNTP demanded its total repeal. https://t.co/GlbmIon7PJ — SNTP (@sntpvenezuela) November 12, 2026 "This is one of the laws that generates fear, that reduces scrutiny of public affairs. I also think it is fundamental that laws be built to protect society as a whole and not just officials. Officials have rights and tools to respond, to reply. Incitement to hatred becomes a problem when the person can actually generate those violent acts, and context is very important. Everything else already has legal mechanisms to be punished," insisted the communicator. The consultation brought to light that programs on the State channel such as Cabello's Mazo Dando, with accusations and disqualifications against the political dissidence, are permitted without being considered by the government as promoting hate speech. "The negotiations can have an influence. If an independent Supreme Court is sought and it is constituted this year, that new Supreme Court could declare the nullity of the Law Against Hate; that would be possible and a consequence of the table. If the new Supreme Court fulfills its role, it would do that; it remains to be seen whether it is achieved," Daniels maintained. It is also planned that the special commission handling the reform will hear both from victims of the law's misapplication and from those whom Chavismo considers victims of opposition violence.