Cuba jailings draw anger - Topic for analysis and possible d

[ChiTown Lady]

While I am absolutely NOT a person who believes in the Imperialist Capitalist Global movement, I still have trepidation’s about the idea of jailing people souly for their political beliefs. And furthermore, this article did not indicate whether the parties jailed are specifically US Imperialist Capitalist, who are the beneficiaries of gross capital gain as such. It only specifies that they “may” have different political beliefs than the current Cuban government administration.

I too have different political and ideological believes, as wel as different standards than the government of the country of my birth – the USA, but I have not been jailed for these differing beliefs (as yet) – God forbid.

What do you all think of this development, as stated in this article? Be honest please.

I am not trying to be subversive to the cause of “the people” here….. I am truly trying to get a very real consensus of opinion on this particular issue.

Here is the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2925985.stm

Cuba jailings draw anger

Cuba's sentencing of more than 30 dissidents to lengthy prison terms has prompted international outrage.

A White House spokesman said the recent crackdown was proof that President Fidel Castro's government remained a "totalitarian blight" on the region.

The EU Commission also called for the immediate release of the dissidents, who were prosecuted for treason in closed courts and who have been handed down lengthy sentences.

On Wednesday, Luis Enrique Ferrer, a member of a Cuban reform group, received 28 years - the longest sentence so far.

Ferrer was a local co-ordinator for the Varela project, a petition campaign which seeks political reform on the communist-led island.

All the defendants were convicted of working with the US to undermine the government of President Castro.

'Stalinist tactics'

Others who received stiff sentences include opposition leader Hector Palacios, who received a 25-year sentence, while the poet and writer Raul Rivero was given a 20-year sentence, as was the economist Martha Beatriz Roque. Independent journalist Omar Rodriguez Saludes received 27 years.

Many of the group of 78 Cuban dissidents rounded up over the past three weeks are still waiting to hear their fate.

Human rights groups worldwide have condemned the trials, and the US State Department has accused the Cuban Government of using "Stalinist tactics".

The US House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill on Tuesday condemning the dissidents' arrests and the harsh sentencing of many of them.

"We are not going to reverse our policy of helping the dissidents," said national security spokesman Michael Anton.
President George W Bush was "deeply concerned" about President Castro's heavy-handed tactics, he added.

The German Government said the trial "flagrantly breached the most basic elements of the rule of law and human rights".

But neither the EU Commission nor Germany indicated that trade and co-operation agreements with Cuba were immediately under threat.

Their rebukes follow a strong protest from Canadian Foreign Minister Bill Graham to the Cuban ambassador in Ottawa on Monday.

'Charm offensive over'

BBC correspondent Stephen Gibbs in Havana said the sentences indicated the most serious crackdown on domestic opposition in the country since the 1960s.

And Brian Alexander, director of the Washington-based Cuba Policy Foundation which lobbies for an end to the US embargo on Cuba, said the crackdown suggested President Castro was no longer willing to tolerate challenges to his unstable rule.

"Castro's charm offensive with Europe and the US is over," he told BBC News Online.
"If this is the case, we can expect to see relations soured by harsher rhetoric and Castro demonstrating a lack of interest in multilateral ties."

Mr Alexander said it seemed a strange time to provoke American antagonism, given that - despite the current administration's dislike of the Cuban regime - the US Congress has been working to lift the embargo.


(Edited by ChiTown Lady at 4:35 am on April 11, 2003)

[Resorte]

I think Castro is doing the same thing that the US government is doing to the Cuban five. I don’t support any regime that prohibits freedom of speech whether in the name of the
Revolution or in the name of Capitalism. Hopefully I want to believe I would never be jail or “vanish” (Argentina style) for expressing my beliefs in this country.

(Edited by Resorte at 5:06 pm on April 11, 2003)

[redstar2000]

Here are some parallels to consider?

What would be the fate, do you imagine, of some former Confederates who began meeting with the English ambassador in 1876 and subsequently drew up and circulated a petition to restore chattel slavery in America?

Or how about this one? The FBI learns that I have been having daily meetings with the Head of the Cuban Mission to the United Nations at her New York City residence...the topic under discussion being the "legal" overthrow of the U.S. Goverment. What happens to me?

The platform of the "dissidents" in Cuba -- it's in that petition they circulated -- includes "freedom of enterprise"...the restoration of capitalist slavery. What it would mean in practice is that the rich worms in Miami would return to Cuba, buy up everything in sight, and treat the Cuban working class like slaves again...as they did in the Batista era.

I completely support the actions of the Cuban Government in this matter.

As to what will happen, we can only speculate. But I suspect a "trade" is in the works. The U.S. presently holds prisoner five Cubans and one American "convicted" of "spying" on the U.S.---it would be logical for Cuba to "trade" the "dissidents" for those six people.

But I would urge the Cubans to kick out the asshole that is representing U.S. interests...it is not acceptable diplomatic behavior to act as he did.

:cool:

[Wolfie]

well i think the american so called "patriotism Act" is just as bad, you can be labeled as a terrorist for some really minor acts, and get ut on tria for treason!

[Pete]

It is the dictatorship of the proletariat.

[Lefty]

Maybe they just wanted to go to the U.S., or maybe they were just capitalists. I don't support the actions of the U.S. government or the Cuban government, and I don't see how anyone could. RS2000 makes an interesting arguement, but I still do not support sentencing anyone to 28 years in prison for, in essence, being a capitalist and aspiring to further their political agenda. In case you haven't noticed, that's what we are doing, and we haven't been arrested yet. I dunno. Consider me neutral.

[Resorte]

I agree with lefty

[Saint-Just]

The theory of class struggle is precisely a Marxist theory. If you do not believe that to win the class struggle you must in some from combat your class enemies you are not a Marxist. I would not want to be imprisoned for my political beliefs, however I am a socialist, and would still be a socialist if imprisoned for those beliefs. In additions, I believe that socialism cannot operate in any sense without the suppression of bourgeois thought. Those who commit crimes against socialism cannot be let free in a socialist society.

[Larissa]

Ch Mao is right. "Those who commit crimes against socialism cannot be let free in a socialist society." Nothing else needs to be added.

[Severian]

They were charged with being paid agents of a foreign country, which is a crime in most countries on earth. The U.S. has laws against this - the Foreign Agents Registration Act and election campaign laws - which are not generally considered among its more repressive laws, or the focus of much protest even by leftists. When Clinton and Gore were accused of taking campaign contributions from China, some people even called this treason.

The Miami 5 are an exception - in being the focus of protest, that is - but then, they weren't paid to subvert the U.S. government, but rather to give warning of terrorist acts by the groups they were infiltrating.

I don't know if all of these "dissidents" were in fact paid agents of the U.S., but the possibility shouldn't be dismissed out of hand either. The U.S. does subsidize political groups in many countries, that's no secret, often the money is openly appropriated by Congress and distributed through the National Endowment for Democracy. Cuba would seem more likely than most to be targeted for this kind of operation. And again, this kind of operation would be illegal in the U.S. if done by foreign countries.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Larissa on 6:52 pm on April 11, 2003
Ch Mao is right. "Those who commit crimes against socialism cannot be let free in a socialist society." Nothing else needs to be added.


The only people who should be locked up are people who think we should lock up those who disagree with the government.

[Severian]

Which would logicallly include you then, RedCeltic, since you advocate locking up people who disagree with the government on locking up people who...wait, I'm mixed up now.

Anyway, you get the idea.

Yeah, I'm being overly literal. Please excuse.

[BRIN]

After the constant terrorist attacks sponcerd by the us im not suprised Castro has started to crack down on anti communists.

The only thing i'm against is the prison system it should be more like stalins system the gulags but minus the low survival rate

[thursday night]

I completely and totally agree with the Cuban government’s decision to throw these worthless pieces of capitalist filth where they belong: in prison. The imperialists have for decades tried to create an illusion of a vast movement against socialism in Cuba, and they have failed. So when a distinct minority try to hijack airplanes and ferries it is only proper to eliminate these elements.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Severian on 3:16 am on April 12, 2003
Which would logicallly include you then, RedCeltic, since you advocate locking up people who disagree with the government on locking up people who...wait, I'm mixed up now.

Anyway, you get the idea.

Yeah, I'm being overly literal. Please excuse.


I was being sarcastic... and... I would fight to my death to keep myself from living in the kind of opression you thugs believe in. People should ALWAYS have a right to free speach.

[Blasphemy]

supporting the imprisonment of the dissendets is just like supporting imprisonment of communist activists in a capitalist country. you are saying that a government must protect itself from those who wish to undermine it. well, didn't Lenin undermine the russian governmnet? didn't che and castro undermine the cuban regime? they all did. the dissendets are trying to do the same. the government must resist them, but not deprive them of their civil liberties. they must let them speak, they must let them act, while taking democratic measures to stop them. if these people manage to gain public support, then maybe it is a sign that socialism in cuba has failed. if they are outcasted by the cuban society, and i hope that this happens, it is a sign that socialism in cuba has prevailed.

[RedCeltic]

yes Blasphemy that's exactly what I'm saying.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 9:34 pm on April 12, 2003

Quote: from Severian on 3:16 am on April 12, 2003
Which would logicallly include you then, RedCeltic, since you advocate locking up people who disagree with the government on locking up people who...wait, I'm mixed up now.

Anyway, you get the idea.

Yeah, I'm being overly literal. Please excuse.


I was being sarcastic... and... I would fight to my death to keep myself from living in the kind of opression you thugs believe in. People should ALWAYS have a right to free speach.


Of course we'ed grant the people freedom of speech, unless they are to ACT against socialism or manifest against the system. In capitalism any man would be reppressed from acting upon their anti-capiatalistic beliefs, where in socialism, one cannot act against the socialism.

I don't know much of what goes on in Cuba, so I couldn't agree or disagree, but from I what I DO know, he seems to be doing rather well. Good luck to the Cuban people.

"Those who commit crimes against socialism cannot be let free in a socialist society."

(Edited by Victorcommie at 1:05 am on April 13, 2003)

[PunkRawker677]

Well, i think we're left with alot of room for interpertation here. We don't know wether these people are being imporinsed for their beliefs, or because they were being paid by a foreign country to "spy". If it was spying, i understand the need to imprison. If it was based on political beliefs, its completly uncalled for.

How can you people talk of freedom and equality, yet be so supportive of political opression. Isn't that on of the things we are fighting against? Or is it just a double standard? Another thing we are supposedly fighting against. Or maybe its just me who invisions freedom and socialism together.

[redstar2000]

Back in the early 1980s, there was a group of neo-Nazis who opened a "Rudolph Hess Bookstore" in a San Francisco neighborhood that included a substantial number of Jewish residents.

The people in that neighborhood did not go to the Board of Supervisors (city council) and ask for a new law against the Nazis. Nor did they picket the bookstore.

They burned it down. :cheesy:

What I have observed is that people may endorse "freedom of speech" in the abstract...until things get serious. Then things are different.

The capitalist class is "in favor" of "freedom of speech"...except for us. Being human, why exactly should we be any different in that regard?

I am for freedom of speech for the working class...including full access to the media and including even the harshest criticisms of fuck-ups by communists in positions of authority. Indeed, I think this is necessary to deepen the impact of the revolution and construct the communist society. Cuba could certainly improve in this regard.

But restore capitalism? Those bastards are lucky not to be towed to sea in an innertube and pointed in the direction of Miami!

:cool:

[Larissa]

I hope in the future "freedom of speech" may be applied to me. I've always thought I had the right to speak freely, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong somehow.

[RedCeltic]

Quote: from Larissa on 7:54 pm on April 12, 2003
I hope in the future "freedom of speech" may be applied to me. I've always thought I had the right to speak freely, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong somehow.

What are you talking about?

[Larissa]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 2:52 am on April 12, 2003
[quote]Quote: from Larissa on 6:52 pm on April 11, 2003
Ch Mao is right. "Those who commit crimes against socialism cannot be let free in a socialist society." Nothing else needs to be added.


The only people who should be locked up are people who think we should lock up those who disagree with the government.
Let's "abbreviate" - Those who commit crimes should be locked. We could set every criminal free, but I believe laws were meant to keep certain order and prevent chaos.



(Edited by Larissa at 11:16 pm on April 12, 2003)

[RedCeltic]

Soooooo.... leting people have freedom of speech means that the world will decent into chaos.. I see..

what nonsence.. .. I'd still like to know how your freedom of speech is being restricted.

[ChiTown Lady]

I’m glad I brought this to the board for debate. I’ve read a lot of arguments here both pro and con, and they have all been very interesting.

What Wofie had to say about the Patriot Act proposing to label people as Terrorists for very minor acts is very true. This is something that is of particular concern to me. There has even been Federal laws passed in the US in the past few months to not only jail people for being suspected of Terrorist activity, but to also put a freeze on ALL of their monetary assets. And this for being suspected not convicted of “so called Terrorist activity. I say “so called” because some there have been some in our country who have even been proposing to have protesting against the war labeled as a Terrorist Act. This is ridiculous, and would also be a blatant infringement on our freedom of speech, which is an unalienable right that we are supposed to have under the original constitution of this country. Now tell me how I am even to hire an attorney to fight for my freedom against such charges if ALL of my monetary assets have also been frozen as a result of this charge? This is bullshit plain and simple, and I don’t agree with any of it.

Back to the topic at hand:

Severian pointed out that they were charged with being paid agents of another country, and PunkRawker677 pointed out that: “We don't know wether these people are being imprisoned for their beliefs, or because they were being paid by a foreign country to "spy". If it was spying, i understand the need to imprison. If it was based on political beliefs, its completly uncalled for.”

I agree that if these imprisonments were based on the fact that they were paid agents of the US and if they were acting as official spies of another government for the purpose of acting against the current government, the arrests were warranted. However, the article that I read did not say that – did it? Maybe we don’t have all of the facts regarding this based on the article I read. I don’t know.

But if this was done simply because of the beliefs of these people, and based on what they have been publishing as saying (on their own), then I cannot agree with these arrests and more specifically the extremely long sentences that they have been given. If this was not a case of a foreign spy network having been broken there, but if this is instead being done to suppress the free thought and speech of the people then I can’t say that I am in agreement with it at all.

If we could be arrested for this act here, which soon may in fact be the case, I too may find myself in jail simply for speaking out against Capitalism in every place and to everyone I can think of speak against it. This would be my crime agaisnt the current regime and government in my country, and I don’t have any foreign backing, nor am I a foreign spy. This would not be the right thing to happen to me by being arrested for this, and it would not be right for those Cuban people – if this is the case there. But as I said before, I really don’t know all of the facts regarding those cases.

Can anyone here post any further OFFICIAL news regarding those cases, so that we can get a more accurate perspective on the “real deal” there?

[Severian]

Quote: from ChiTown Lady on 6:25 am on April 13, 2003
I agree that if these imprisonments were based on the fact that they were paid agents of the US and if they were acting as official spies of another government for the purpose of acting against the current government, the arrests were warranted. However, the article that I read did not say that – did it? Maybe we don’t have all of the facts regarding this based on the article I read. I don’t know.

Well, the BBC article said "All the defendants were convicted of working with the US to undermine the government of President Castro. " I'd seen a couple other articles in the capitalist media on this, with a few mentions of charges along the lines of payments by the U.S. government. Which, of course, is denying that it would do any such thing.

As with anything else, you gotta read between the lines in the big-business media. Whenever someone from an opposition group is Cuba is jailed, the media tend to dismiss out of hand whatever reason the Cuban government gives for this, barely even mentioning what the charge was.

Here's what the Cuban government has to say about it:
Granma article. (http://www.granma.cu/ingles/abril03/vier11/14felipe.html)

After some detailed accusations about the role of the U.S. Interest Section in Havana in directing and financing these groups, the article says:

"Those receiving such recompense for helping to implement that act, further tighten the blockade, and prevent businesspersons from other countries investing in Cuba by offering information to the government that has declared itself an enemy of Cuba, must be brought to trial, as specified in the Penal Code and in our own legislation against the Helms-Burton, similar to that promulgated in countries like Canada and Mexico to counteract this monstrosity," affirmed the minister.

I think one should at least consider what Cuba has to say about the reasons for actions like this before condemning them.

Sometimes these measures against these opposition groups are regrettable (even if debatably necessary because of the under-siege-by-the-most-powerful-empire-in-history-90-miles-away factor). For one thing they inevitably must have some intimidating effect on all Cubans, and working people need the confidence to freely discuss how to move the revolution forward. "Against the revolution, nothing" can sometimes put a cramp in "Within the revolution, everything" because drawing that line is unavoidably a judgement call.

But at the same time, these groups aren't hugely large, influential, and significant, and what happens to them doesn't erase the reality of the considerably workers' democracy that does exist in Cuba, through the Communist Party - which has more difference within it than there is between the Democrats and Republicans - the unions, the farmers', students' and women's organizations, etc.

And, incidentally, people who've been to Cuba have told me that there are people on the street who oppose the revolutionary government and aren't afraid to say so publicly. It seems that they don't have any fear that the police will drag them from their homes in the middle of the night just for saying that.

I saw something with Dan Rather in Cuba that was similar - in that case the guy wasn't even afraid to appear on TV saying there was no freedom in Cuba. Then some other people came up and disagreed with him.

[RedCeltic]

Martin Luther King Jr. Was partly funded by the Soviet Union. So was several groups in the United States that were never locked up.

I suppose if this is ok, than it's ok for the Govt. Of Argentina to lock Larrissa up for 23 years for her plans. After all.. "We have to have laws."

[Sabocat]

The U$' track record for supporting counter-revolution and subversion is legendary. Fidel should not only have jailed these people but thrown out the U$ "Special Interests" envoy.

In my opinion the "free speech" agenda was just a nice convenient way for these subversives to hide the real agenda...Capitalism. It's a nice easy way for the U$ to condemn Castro and the jailings. By hiding behind the free speech mask, and getting popular opinion on the U$ side.

How many years should Fidel allow the U$ terrorize and plot against Cuba? I think he's shown more than reasonable restraint. I am however, most concerned that Cuba will be put into the "axis of evil". It would be just like Rummy and GW to rally support in the U$ to "liberate" the oppressed in Cuba.

...Or am I just being overly cynical? :confused:

[sc4r]

Several people (notably Severian) have already pointed out that irrespective of any argument about free speech that is not why these people were convicted. They were in essence convicted of being sabateurs in the pay of a hostile foreign power. It has not been at all infrequent for these people to be mixed up in active terrorism, either funding it, organising it or actually carrying it out.

They were tried by a court for this and found guilty. The only possible objection is not one of principle but one of fact (were thay actually guilty of the crimes they were accused of).

The truth is that 'free speech' does not exist anywhere on earth, and probably never will because to speak is to encourage actions and there are certain actions that any society simply does not want encouraged.

We could measure the 'liberalness' of any society by the number of ways and the extent to which they control speech, and frankly by this measure Cuba would in its circumstances not come out all that badly. It is permanently on the edge of disaster simply because of the overt hostility of the US (note the US does not see 'free trade' which is supposedly stands for as being a principle it wont give up in a second if it wants to) and even so does not imprison people who encourage destruction of its values unless they actually show signs (like getting paid by miami or the US) of being a bit more than just independent speakers.

Anyone who does not see that 'free speech' can destroy a fledgling socialist society should look over at venezuela. 'Free speech' there was used by a few malcontent capitalists to organise mass disobedience of heavily democratic mandates by a favoured few and effectively plunge the place into chaos.

Gree speech sounds nice and pretty. WE should seek to maximise it as we should seek to maximise all freedoms. But nobody should be foolish enough to think that 'Free speech' is any less part of a balance than anything else. When you grant one freedom you nearly always subtract another. Is it more important to have very free speech than to have freedom from capitalist slavery ? I think not and I think Cuba sets the balance pretty well.

The simple fact is that Cuba is being heavily criticised for protecting itself from large unpleasant neighbours. This is not how it is phrased but this is what it is.

Idealists who see 'free speech' as a 'right' are simply betraying their naiveity about how real things actually work and about the nature of balance. Everything has a positive and a negative effect, the trick is to strike the right balance.

Viva Fidel; death to imperialists; Education to idealists.

[Pete]

Martin Luther King Jr. Was partly funded by the Soviet Union. So was several groups in the United States that were never locked up.

But they did assissinate him, and Malcom X.

[redstar2000]

Red Celtic, I was not aware that Martin Luther King, Jr. was "on the payroll" of the old Soviet Union.

Can you suggest a link for that information?

:cool:

[RedCeltic]

hehehe... I shouldn't have said that as it's only someting I heard and most likely right wing propaganda so ignore it.

In a way I suppose it is justifide, if you believe in overbearing governments and all. I personally do not, and question all govt.

[Larissa]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 10:49 am on April 13, 2003
Martin Luther King Jr. Was partly funded by the Soviet Union. So was several groups in the United States that were never locked up.

I suppose if this is ok, than it's ok for the Govt. Of Argentina to lock Larrissa up for 23 years for her plans. After all.. "We have to have laws."
I think they will.

[Larissa]

Quote: from RedCeltic on 11:08 pm on April 12, 2003

Quote: from Larissa on 7:54 pm on April 12, 2003
I hope in the future "freedom of speech" may be applied to me. I've always thought I had the right to speak freely, but I'm beginning to think I was wrong somehow.

What are you talking about?
It's my own paranoia, don't worry about it. It's what we call the "post-dictatorship effect" in Argentinians. Good you never had to live under a military pseudonazi dictatorship being a lefty. I don't wish that to anyone.

[RedCeltic]

[qutoe]It's my own paranoia, don't worry about it. It's what we call the "post-dictatorship effect" in Argentinians. Good you never had to live under a military pseudonazi dictatorship being a lefty. I don't wish that to anyone.[/quote]

I'm happy I don't live in a left or right wing dictatorship, but that's not here or there.

I thought you were saying that your speech was being restricted because I don't agree with you.

[thursday night]

It is upsetting to him to see so many people speaking against this grand decision to punish these filthy people. In Cuba there is freedom of speech, I have seen it with my own eyes during my trip there, but it is freedom of speech for the working-class; not the minority bourgeoisie. The capitalists and the ultra-leftists try to make it look as if these counterrevolutionaries are the oppressed men and women who live under some tyrannical despot ‘Stalinist’ dictator, but nothing can be further from the truth. These malcontents terrorists and terrorist supporters, they have hijacked airplanes and ferries, they have bombed hotels and used armed violence (among many other often deadly atrocities) against the People, the Party and the State. Why should they be allowed this idealistic idiocy of ‘freedom of speech?’

[RedCeltic]

Some info. from Amnesty International!

Around 80 people have been detained in a wave of recent mass arrests in Cuba. At least 33 dissidents have been sentenced to terms ranging from 14 to 27 years after manifestly unfair trials conducted in haste and secrecy. In a further worrying development, prosecutors have reportedly called for the death penalty against activist José Daniel Ferrer, regional coordinator in Santiago de Cuba province for the Movimiento Cristiano Liberación, (Christian Liberation Movement).

Amnesty International fears that many of those arrested may be prisoners of conscience, detained for the non-violent exercise of their rights to freedom of expression, assembly and association. They include journalists, owners of private libraries and pro-democracy members of illegal opposition parties, including promoters of the Proyecto Varela, a petition for a referendum on fundamental freedoms.

Urgent pressure is needed on the Cuban authorities so that those imprisoned solely for the peaceful exercise of fundamental freedoms are immediately and unconditionally released; that anyone allegedly implicated in a recognized criminal offence receives a fair trial, with full due process guarantees; and that the death penalty should not be imposed under any circumstances.


http://web.amnesty.org/pages/cub-040403-action-eng

Also Check out:::

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-cub/index

http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAM...open&of=ENG-CUB (http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGAMR250092003?open&of=ENG-CUB)

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engamr250082003

[RedCeltic]

These malcontents terrorists and terrorist supporters, they have hijacked airplanes and ferries, they have bombed hotels and used armed violence (among many other often deadly atrocities) against the People, the Party and the State.

If these individuals are responsible for terrorist acts, than why had they not been held up on those charges, and why is it that you are the first to mention that they are terrorists? I don't recall reading that they blew anything up or killed anyone.


Why should they be allowed this idealistic idiocy of ‘freedom of speech?’

I see, so human rights are important to fight for only within capitalist nations, when it comes to socialism human rights just gets int he way. What you are supporting is a Reverse McCarthyism... It's McCarthyism with a left wing slant.

Info on McCarthyism

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s...recker-age.html (http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schrecker-age.html)

http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/mccarthy/mccarthy.htm

": I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
~~~Voltaire


It's also quite bullshit to call the people arrested bourgeoisie... and saying only the worker has speech in cuba... well.. it's a workers state.. there is no capitalism.. and no bourgeoisie class. So you are saying that there is no free speech for the worker (who is everyone) if he doesn't agree with the govt.

[thursday night]

What are human rights? We as Marxist-Leninists define it as the freedom from exploitation, the freedom from lack of medical treatment, the freedom from illiteracy, the freedom from discrimination based on ethnic background, the freedom from life under a tyrannical ruler and so forth. And it seems that the United Nations agrees with us.

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms
Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.
Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.
Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.*


A few selections from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, articles which Cuba excels in and has won numerous awards in. As for your tidbits from Amnesty International (an liberal organization mostly comprised of upper-class youth who squeal at the site of blood) I believe them entirely, and I think that the socialist government of Cuba has perhaps not gone far enough in detaining these scoundrels.

As to terrorism, it is indeed true that those who were punished for their crimes against the People, the Party and the State were terrorists or supporters of terrorism.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/Art...-1//?query=Cuba (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20030412/UREPOM_4-1//?query=Cuba)

http://granma.cu/ingles/abril03/sabado5/14casti-i.html

[RedCeltic]

Interesting that you left out articles 5 - 22 and I know why when the one most relevent to this topic is #19


Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

http://www.hrweb.org/legal/udhr.html

[redstar2000]

Ah yes, plenty of "headlines" about "terrible Cuba"...and how many about this one?

http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/top...m=11&topic=3444 (http://www.che-lives.com/cgi/community/topic.pl?forum=11&topic=3444)

"Freedom of speech" has a tough life in this old world.

:cool:

[thursday night]

You see, RedCeltic, Cuba is not in violation of the article you stated. In fact, it is not in direct violation of any of these Articles of the United Nation Declaration of Human Rights. If it was, then how was it possible for the socialist state to win so many awards for excellence in Human Rights?

[RedCeltic]

You'll have to forgive me as I didn't bring big enough boots to wade through your bullshit.

The "Human Rights Awards" that you are talking about were given by Lybia and Syria... roflamo!!!

That's like the "George W. Bush award" for democratic elections... !!

[thursday night]

I also ask how Libya and Syria are not deserving of these awards. They are both victims of imperialism, and Libya has demonstrated that liberation can come in the form of socialism to Arab peoples.

Anyways, it seems to me that not only have you retorted to personal insults but also pointless obscene language (not to mention your inability to spell ‘Libya.’)

[RedCeltic]

No, I wasn't insulting you.. and I use the word "Shit" any way I want. I'll use whatever word I want thank you very FUCKING much! You don't own me.. :)

Getting some fake award doesn't show anything.. that is what I said is bullshit.


You will also be interested to note that in 1948, Guss Hall (President of Communist Party USA 1959 - 1987 ) was captured, and imprissoned for 8 years for conspiracy to overthrow the American government by force and by violence.

This was considered to be a serious violation of Freedom of Speech against the communists.




"We are convinced that freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice, and that Socialism without freedom is slavery ..." ~~~Bakunin.

[Lefty]

I agree with RC completely. Everybody has a right to free speech. I will again point out that if the U.S. had laws like Cuba's (Anti-government speech as a crime) then almost EVERYONE on this board would be screwed.

[Larissa]

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/abril03/sab12/roque.html