quote:

---

Venezuela's Chávez is the new driving force for a left-leaning region.

---

quote:

---

"Cuba is our ally in the war against poverty and illiteracy. We are thankful to them, and we can show it in any way we please."

They are showing it to the tune of more than $1 billion in annual oil shipments alone, says economist Carlos Granier of Cedice, a think tank based here. Chávez further bolsters the Cuban economy by purchasing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of products from Cuba's state-run industries and providing financing to purchase everything from Venezuelan chocolate to sardines to work boots. Hundreds more clinics are set to open in the coming months, while more than 1,000 Venezuelans will be sent to Cuba to study healthcare there.

---

I suppose Lybia is off that list now. Syria and Iran are still on it, so have at er Magoo.

Some people will always find the time to talk about capital punishment, and political repression in Cuba, whenever anyone dares to say something remotely positive. Just because a country fails in one area of human rights does not mean that it is flawed in every area.

Bad Fidel. Down.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

The arguement as to which is more important, rights or food, will always weigh in on the side of health in any economically marginal society.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

So there's no need to choose between, say, "feeding the poor" and respecting homosexuals, nor between "housing the homeless" and respecting homosexuals, etc.

quote:

---

Some people will always find the time to talk about capital punishment, and political repression in Cuba, whenever anyone dares to say something remotely positive.

---

Yup. Until Cuba sees fit to spend that $0.00, I'll keep mentioning it. Or, until they can give 10% of their population a very good reason for why they can't afford $0.00.

Now that you mention it, they could get rid of political repression too, if they didn't mind spending another $0.00, and for $0.00 they could also get rid of capital punishment. So what's that tally up to...?

$0.00
+$0.00
+$0.00
------
$0.00

quote:

---

Originally posted by Willowdale Wizard:
(grabbing pen, writing on hand) must remember, 1.4 billion people on $2 a day and less have no rights based on sexual orientation.

---

According to US citizineship and immigration, the official policy against Gay and Lesbian people in Cuba has improved substantially since the 80's, something wich can not be said about many countries in the world, and while people should certainly denounce repression, they should also applaud progress, as progress points to changing attitudes and a will to put them into practice.

quote:

---

The change in the law lessened the constant fear under which Cuban gays and lesbians had been living when homosexuals were automatically viewed as enemies of the state. But it was not until 1993, when the Cuban government permitted the production of Fresa y chocolate, "Strawberry and Chocolate"—an internationally acclaimed film critical of Communist homophobia—and stopped the forcible and perpetual quarantine of all people who were HIV-positive (a policy established in 1986), that Cuban gays and lesbians began to come out in significant numbers. (Marquis, 1995; Snow, 1998) Under the new policy, known HIV-positive patients whom the government considers "responsible" in their sexual behavior, evidently a majority thus far, have been allowed either to live at home or make weekend home visits, and work if they have jobs. (AP, 1998; IGLA, 1999) In the mid-1990s, more artists were emboldened to take up gay themes in theater and song, youths increasingly affected an androgynous look, public discussion of homosexuality increased—even on a few unprecedented occasions in the state-run media—and the government invited some international gay-rights groups to Cuba. (Marquis, 1995; Acosta, 1998)

---

quote:

---

One of my tests for democracy is being able to leave the country. I don't believe that Cuban citizens are free to leave.

---

One of the great mysteries of Communist Utopias. They're so freakin' awesome that if you try to leave, they shoot at you. Despite this, and the fact that Communism is freakin' awesome, people still try to leave.

In Capitalist countries, which are of course horrible hellholes the lot of them, you're free to leave and go live in a Communist Utopia, and yet very, very few do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
As I see it, the growing of food involves money, as does the building of houses and the printing of books, but respecting everyone's basic human rights would cost exactly $0.00.

So there's no need to choose between, say, "feeding the poor" and respecting homosexuals, nor between "housing the homeless" and respecting homosexuals, etc.

Yup. Until Cuba sees fit to spend that $0.00, I'll keep mentioning it. Or, until they can give 10% of their population a very good reason for why they can't afford $0.00.

Now that you mention it, they could get rid of political repression too, if they didn't mind spending another $0.00, and for $0.00 they could also get rid of capital punishment. So what's that tally up to...?

$0.00
+$0.00
+$0.00
------
$0.00

There's the bottom line.

---

Dead people have no rights. The reality is that in many societies throughout Latin America, young people whether gay or not starve to death, for instance in the slums Buenos Aries. According to the above report, if you read it carefully, it sounds like most state sponsored anti-gay repression take the form of anti-crime legislation, which is then used as tool for harrassing gay people, in more or less the same manner that local police authorities use anti-prostitution laws to unfairly target the gay community in MOST of the coutnries in the world.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
In Capitalist countries, which are of course horrible hellholes the lot of them, you're free to leave and go live in a Communist Utopia, and yet very, very few do.

---

quote:

---

So take your silly calculations and start putting countries like Mexico into Brazil into the negative number catergories. No food and disadvantaged rights.

---

I'm not excusing other countries' human rights abuses. But then again nobody consistently cheerleads for Mexico or Brazil here at babble.

If people are poor they are extremely vulenrable to abuse of their rights, whether or not those rights are enshrined in law. In fact, allowing for extreme poverty is a system which promotes rights abuse by negligence and sometimes by design.

For instance, gay street kids are exploited mercilessly in this country. This is a fact, even though they have superior rights theoretically. In many countries, poor gay youth are doubly persecuted under law, and casually because of economic vulnerability.

In other words, being poor and oppressed, is worse than just being oppressed.

Read the report above.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Just because a country fails in one area of human rights does not mean that it is flawed in every area.

---

Good Grief. 'One area'?

Iive been to Cuba twice and not for 8 years. So I admit it might have since become a paradise. I'd assume, however it's not.

'Fundamental freedom of speech' is not one area. It pervades every nook and cranny of society. There is no 'fear' as long as you tow the line. Sort of like being a non-Jew in Nazi Germany. No one is 'out to get you' and you aren't going to be round up and disappear BUT compliance will mean whether or not you can attend university, get a decent job, where you live, etc. 'Shut up' and be a good Cuban and you can live like a poor but contented cow.

On the positive side, I didn't see hungry people, scared people,...poverty,yes, (it's the norm) but not squalor. The most pervasive feeling was lethargy about life in general. Folks go about their daily lives without a heck of a lot of enthusiasm. Despite the blue skies and bright posters the country can be described by the colour 'gray'.

quote:

---

Originally posted by fossilnut:
I admit my total stay was about 14 days. Most of that spent at conferences at a univesity. I hardly spoke to anyone not associated with geology studies.

---

Good point.

Dear, when I said "one" area, I was speaking generally as means of an example. The example still holds if it is two areas.

I find it interesting, that we are always asked to compare Cuba to the situation here and in the US as opposed to Haiti. I mean... really?

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

If people are poor they are extremely vulenrable to abuse of their rights, whether or not those rights are enshrined in law.

---

So this is what's supposedly keeping Cuba from enshrining those rights in law?

Seriously. No more nonsense about economics. It would cost them $0.00 to enshrine gay rights in law. Certainly there may still be gay men and women in Cuba whose homosexuality will leave them vulnerable to abuses (as here in Canada), but for the rest? Why the hell not? I really can't see any excuse for it.

quote:

---

Right. People only want to immigrate from poor communist countries, never from poor capitalist countries like Hati, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Mexico.

---

I guess we don't hear as much about these immigrants since they're not shot for trying to leave.

I work with several Jamaican immigrants. They left when they wanted to, return for visits when they want to, and leave again when they want to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

So this is what's supposedly keeping Cuba from enshrining those rights in law?

---

But what of the fact that rights have substantially improved progressively. Can this be said for Nigeria? Or India.

The fact that rights have improved shows me intent. You want Cubans to overthrow age old social prejudices in one night?

I mean; pretty ferocious anti-gay legislation existed here not to long ago.

I mean; even here SSM, is not universally accepted, and police officers bust up gay parties using anti-prostitution legislation as a means of enforcing their private prejudices.

I mean; Are you sure that no cops in Sudbury paid extra special attention this weekend to some gay party.

I mean; do you bring this up every single time someone mentions that Canada is not such a bad place to live, and a whole lot better than a lot of other places, and that people party on weekends, just like anywhere else.

I don't think so! Cuba must pass a litmus test of propriety, always superior to even our own, even when our greatest buddy, (and trading partner) operates a gulag of its own in Cuba.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

But what of the fact that rights have substantially improved progressively. Can this be said for Nigeria? Or India.

---

Nope. Do any babblers ceaselessly hold Nigeria or India up as shining examples to the Corrupt Capitalist West?

quote:

---

Cuba must pass a litmus test of propriety, always superior to even our own

---

Not at all. I ask nothing of them that I don't ask of Canada as well. But if they're supposed to be an example for us to follow then let them lead. Right now they're trailing. Beating India or Nigeria, but, uh, that's not exactly hard to do.

quote:

---

Google Machel to see what the West's response was.

---

Cuba sends thousands of foreign aid physicians(Cuban nationals with travel visas) to shithole Latin American countries all around Uncle Sam's back doorstep and Africa, too.

Magoo, why don't you travel to Dominican Rep. or Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador and ask the poor in those nations trading freely with Uncle Sam why they can't afford to leave the cane fields or barrios with open sewers running through ?. And yes, Magoo, don't forget that Cuba's infant mortality is now lower than that bastion of conservatism immediately to the south of us. And such a religious nation, too. But religious conservatives in the U.S. are completely silent about what amounts to planned and enforced infanticide in their own backyards.

The right to life is about as basic as it gets, don't you think, Magoo ?.

Haiti is undoubtedly the freest trading nation of the Caribbean, and just look at the chaos in that country. Whaaad-a shithole!. Ask them if they wanna leave, Magoo. About 98% of haitian's own maybe a change of rags to show for a life's work in the cane fields.

Perhaps if even Guatemala or Puerto Rico were to provide some kind of example that knuckling under to corporate America would bring widespread prosperity, then maybe people like Magoo could make a decent case against socialism in Cuba. But there isn't, and he does not.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Do you support gay rights, Magoo ?. Does the conservative party of Canada support gay rights ?.

---

I do, and they don't, but the important thing is that Canada does. Officially.

Why can't Cuba do the same? I certainly don't expect each and every Cuban citizen to suddenly become gay-positive, but the government? The government that governs gay men and women in Cuba? Yes, I think they could and should.

Can you give me any reasonable reason why they cannot? A reason other than pointing to some other country and saying "well they don't either"?

Certainly Haiti has it bad, in so many respects. But you don't hold Haiti up as an example for us to follow. Why do you hold Cuba up? Because they have good health care? Great, if you're straight. Free school? Great, if you're straight. Infant mortality? Great, if you're straight.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Nope. Do any babblers ceaselessly hold Nigeria or India up as shining examples to the Corrupt Capitalist West?

---

On no they don't, but you feed into the proganda model that would have many believe it is far worse than El Salvador, a country we just recently saved from the godless communist hoards. I might hold it up as an example for them.

I am sure that there are not a few poor gay people there who would gladly give up complete lack of social services, on top of police harrasment and social stigmatization, for just plain old police harrasment and social stimgatization.

And you still haven't added in casual removal of rights through economic exploitation into any of your calculus. Nor answered for the explotiation of poor gay youth in the inner cities of Canada.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

On no they don't, but you feed into the proganda model that would have many believe it is far worse than El Salvador, a country we just recently saved from the godless communist hoards. I might hold it up as an example for them.

---

At no point did I choose to compare Cuba with any other Central or South American or Carribean country. I'm sure Cuba is leaps and bounds ahead of El Salvador on many fronts, but that's not my point. My point is, if Cuba cannot grant full citizen status to all of its citizens then it's hardly an example that we should follow. El Salvadore, perhaps, but not Canada. And since its human rights abuses are by choice, and could be remedied for free any time they choose to, I'd prefer Cuba not be held up as the shining example for any country, unless a policy of locking up homosexuals would actually be an improvement for that country.

quote:

---

And you still haven't added in casual removal of rights through economic exploitation into any of your calculus.

---

I wasn't aware that there was an onus on me to do that. I'll I've said is that Cuba should respect the rights of homosexuals, officially and in law. I don't believe for a moment that such a law will eradicate 100% of a Cuban homosexual's troubles, but neither will NOT respecting the rights of homosexuals.

So why not give it a try, eh? What's there to lose?

quote:

---

Nor answered for the explotiation of poor gay youth in the inner cities of Canada.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Why do you hold Cuba up? Because they have good health care? Great, if you're straight. Free school? Great, if you're straight. Infant mortality? Great, if you're straight.

---

No, not decent health care for pregnant women just if they're black or white, rich or poor as it is in the United States. And we must compare Cuba's lower infant mortality with that of the U.S. because they're so critical of every other nation on the planet, especially Cuba.

quote:

---

Couldn't you find an example that respects human rights? Or, if human rights and Communism are incompatible, let's discuss it on that level. Why can't Cubans leave, Fidel?

---

How many Cuban physician's donate their skills around the world... and return to Cuba at some point, Magoo. I know you're not completely ignorant of that fact.

Better question: How many Canadian's living on less than say ...$10 000 a year can afford a Greyhound bus ticket to even the hicktown and backwater in Northern Ontario or Alberta ?. Apparently, 90% of American's don't own a passport.

How many of the roughly one third of American workers earning less than $10 bucks an hour can afford to leave the country ?.

Or take the family to Disney Land at least once in their lives ?

Why are one in two black males in NYC unemployed, Magoo?.

Why are coloured people over-represented in the US prison system, the largest prison state in the world ?.

What is the AIDS rate of infection around Latin America, Africa and the USA?. Compare with Cuba.

How many American's have the personal freedom to travel to Cuba, 90 miles off Florida's Keys without fear of reprisal from their government ?. Zero

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

The difficulty they see in the proposal submitted by Brazil is a question of international conjuncture and opportunity. That is to say, in front of the North American aggression against Afghanistan and Iraq, they believe it is not very advisable to present a proposal that would open a new flank for attacking forces, leading to a greater isolation of the Arab countries. Arab countries see the Brazilian proposal as a initiative consistent with the US attempt to isolate them, and for that reason will shut themselves and not even want to debate it. This seems to be the main preoccupation of the Cuban government regarding this debate. They think Brazil should choose another moment to present their proposal and believe it would be better postponing the debate until a better conjuncture.

---

In other words: the government of Cuba feels that human rights are all well and good, but vicious homophobic dictatorships should be supported as long as they resist US imperialism. This is about as morally bankrupt as the argument that "poor people don't have rights."

quote:

---

Why defend this one? Is it because gay rights simply don't matter, next to the glorious resistance to neo-imperialist globalization and the Great American Satan?

---

Bingo.

They refuse to say, looky here at El Salvador, why they've got child labour at the beck and call of corporate America or the kids can pick through garbage for a living. Or these good chaps in Honduras are doing their part by picking bananas and can't wait for the IMF's economic long run to kick-in. Political conservatives would like to say,

"Hey, look what you Cuban's might have if you just gave up the ghost on socialism, and live merrily ever after as is the case for Salvadoran's living in squalor and abject poverty."

If they could, they would. But they can't, and so they don't. Instead, these trolls read all they can about Cuba to find a crack in the armour of a country enduring a 45 year-long trade embargo by a gang of corporate-fascists to the North. They'd sooner see Cuba made into another shithole of a banana republic a la corporate America and the CIA. A place for gambing and CIA-sponsored drug runs to Miami. Well Ffffuck you's!.

Hey Magoo! Which country has the largest gulag population in the world, both in terms of per capita and more of its citizens than any other in the world ?. ha ha

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

At no point did I choose to compare Cuba with any other Central or South American or Carribean country. I'm sure Cuba is leaps and bounds ahead of El Salvador on many fronts, but that's not my point.

---

Well that is my point, and also the primary thrust of this thread, which is about linkages being made between economically troubled Latin American countries, in order to make them less vulnerable to economic manipulation by other more powerful countries.

quote:

---

My point is, if Cuba cannot grant full citizen status to all of its citizens then it's hardly an example that we should follow. El Salvadore, perhaps, but not Canada. And since its human rights abuses are by choice, and could be remedied for free any time they choose to, I'd prefer Cuba not be held up as the shining example for any country, unless a policy of locking up homosexuals would actually be an improvement for that country.

---

And I would like you to read the material provided, because the whole tenor of your arguement is presented in a manner which completely ignores progress that has been made in this direction by the Cuban government, in favour of the highly simplistic propganda stygamtizations articulated in the manner of pro-American propogandists.

If you had bothered to read the report from the US Citizenship and Immigration Department (above) you would see even they grant that there has been near revolutionary change in the Cuban government position since the days when Fidel Castro was talking about Homosxuality as a "bourgiose perversion," in the 60's. In fact it appears, like in most countries in the world, attacks upon the gay community are made by local police authorities under the aupices of anti-crime legislation. A form of opression not completely eradicated even from very liberal and cosomopolitan place like Toronto -- I don't even want to know what goes on in Dawson City.

So it is a mis-characterization to say there is "a policy of locking up homosexuals," but that the police unfairly target them for other felonies because they are gay. My problem is that your characterization makes Cuba sound like Saudi Arabia.

And while you hector us with these solopsistic moral logic games that ignore what is actually being said and done in Cuba, by Cuban state officials, such as Eduardo Jimanez Garcia, of the Cuban National Institute for Sex Education who advocates "an amendment to the Cuban constitution to add homosexuality to the groups against which discrimination is expressly outlawed," as described here:

quote:

---

It would be wonderful to be able to spark meaningful, inter-group discussion on this subject, so that Cuban society could develop a healthier culture of sexuality, one that is fairer, that helps to erode old, erroneous beliefs and prejudices that emphasize sexual orientation.

Something like this would put the revolution even more in line with its humanistic ethic; the Cuban Revolution has been possible because of the participation of all men and women, of all Cubans who have identified with the conquests and dreams of that social project. Among all those who have participated there are also people of diverse sexual orientations. Thus, it would not be just for homosexuals to be denied respect because of some ancestral taboos. This is why I believe that we have much more work to do.

[SNIP]

I believe we are now poised at a very opportune moment in which people with a homosexual orientation can be better understood and integrated into different places of our society.

---

Is that Castro himself? No. But it means that people in positions of responsibility are pushing for a more liberal position on this issue, including ammending the consitituion to explicitly enshrine gay rights.

quote:

---

I wasn't aware that there was an onus on me to do that. I'll I've said is that Cuba should respect the rights of homosexuals, officially and in law. I don't believe for a moment that such a law will eradicate 100% of a Cuban homosexual's troubles, but neither will NOT respecting the rights of homosexuals.

---

You are not under any obligation of responding to any of my points. But why should I bother to engage you on your points, if you refuse to engage me on mine? What kind of conversation is that?

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Hey Magoo! Which country has the largest gulag population in the world, both in terms of per capita and more of its citizens than any other in the world ?. ha ha

---

Look! Out the window! Is that a flying turtle?

Nobody's contesting the fact that Cuba leads the area in many respects, both economic and with respect to human rights. But nobody cheerleads for El Salvador, nor suggests that we or their neighbours should be more like them.

Cuba, on the other hand, is often held up as a shining beacon of Communism. Something we're supposed to admire.

All I'm saying is that I think they'd be a hell of a lot more admirable if they'd support some basic human rights. As I've noted, this would cost nothing, so please don't tell me that Cuba can't afford it, and please especially don't tell me that they can't afford it because the mean old United States won't trade with them.

I can't see any reasonable reason why Cuban homosexuals shouldn't enjoy full human status.

I can't see any reason why a Cuban who wishes to emigrate from Cuba should not be free to do so.

And I can't see any good reason to keep "admiring" Cuba, when it cannot be bothered, at a cost of nothing, to implement some basic human rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Cuba, on the other hand, is often held up as a shining beacon of Communism. Something we're supposed to admire.

---

Compare Cuban life expectancy and child poverty with the former Eatern Block nations of the USSR. Average adult life expectancy has plummeted in Russia. Infant mortality has also dropped off. In Poland, the Gdansk shipyards are a ghost town, much like ColdWarVille, USA. Official unemployment figures in Poland hover around 20%, but many people would put it at around 50%. Billions of dollars leave the former republics in the form of natural resources, and the economies have nil next to nothing to show for it. Albania was once the heart of Soviet hig htechnology and science. Now, it's a haven for criminal gangs and corporate crooks.

Cuban socialism shines in direct comparison with the 15 year long experiment in Russian capitalism. And Cuban socialism certainly shines brighter than the failed 16 year Chilean experiment in fully deregulated economy. This is what people like me try to hammer home to people like you.

quote:

---

All I'm saying is that I think they'd be a hell of a lot more admirable if they'd support some basic human rights. .

---

Don't like the wording of "some" human rights in Cuba. Cuba does the Tango as far as human rights are concerned and compares extremely well with all of Latin America and better than Uncle Sam in several key regards.

Did you know that Canada is world reknowned for our abuse of native people?. So why haven't political conservatives righted a few human rights-wrongs in our very own backyard?. God knows they've had the time and opportunity to do so. Why so many native children living in poverty and dying prematurely, Magoo ?. Finland is one other Northern Latitudinal nation with indigenous people, and they aren't labelled like we are. What's the diff there you ask ?. It's strong tendencies toward socialism in Finland.

Spain should also recognize gays rights, don't you think ?. Perhaps Spanish mores are ingrained in all Spanish speaking people and has absolutely nothing to do with socialism in Cuba. And how about the rest of Latin America giving up on dated and somewhat oppressive Spanish colonial land laws for a change?. That would be nice, too.

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 24 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Your calculations do not factor in the relationship between economic deprivation and the casual (as opposed to enforced) removal of rights.

---

I'm referring to "official" or institutionalized rights, yes. I recognize that these rights, written on paper, do not constitute a guarantee that these rights will be applied in people's lives, but I know that without these rights written on paper, nothing whatsoever can.

As an analogy, every woman in Canada has the right to be free from abuse. That doesn't mean that women are never abused. But can you imagine if the law didn't even so much as try to ensure that right? Why would a cop enforce a right that wasn't? Why would a court support a right that wasn't?

quote:

---

If people are poor they are extremely vulenrable to abuse of their rights, whether or not those rights are enshrined in law. In fact, allowing for extreme poverty is a system which promotes rights abuse by negligence and sometimes by design.

---

And so it follows that the less poverty there is, the more likely are the citizens to enjoy their rights. I don't disagree. But this does absolutely nothing to explain why Cuba wouldn't enshrine gay rights in law. They're not in any way in opposition. Since when is it not possible to do two things at once?

quote:

---

For instance, gay street kids are exploited mercilessly in this country. This is a fact, even though they have superior rights theoretically. In many countries, poor gay youth are doubly persecuted under law, and casually because of economic vulnerability.

---

You don't think that enshrining their rights in law would help that?

You don't think that a government that views them, officially, as second-class citizens doesn't make the problem worse?

quote:

---

In other words, being poor and oppressed, is worse than just being oppressed.

---

Isn't that self-evident? Who's questioning that?

Read the report above.

ed'd to add: Ooops! I didn't write "Read the report above", above. I just forgot to quote it.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Magoo ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

At no point did I choose to compare Cuba with any other Central or South American or Carribean country. I'm sure Cuba is leaps and bounds ahead of El Salvador on many fronts, but that's not my point.

---

Well that is my point, and also the primary thrust of this thread, which is about linkages being made between economically troubled Latin American countries, in order to make them less vulnerable to economic manipulation by other more powerful countries.

quote:

---

My point is, if Cuba cannot grant full citizen status to all of its citizens then it's hardly an example that we should follow. El Salvadore, perhaps, but not Canada. And since its human rights abuses are by choice, and could be remedied for free any time they choose to, I'd prefer Cuba not be held up as the shining example for any country, unless a policy of locking up homosexuals would actually be an improvement for that country.

---

And I would like you to read the material provided, because the whole tenor of your arguement is presented in a manner which completely ignores progress that has been made in this direction by the Cuban government, in favour of the highly simplistic propganda stygamtizations articulated in the manner of pro-American propogandists.

If you had bothered to read the report from the US Citizenship and Immigration Department (above) you would see even they grant that there has been near revolutionary change in the Cuban government position since the days when Fidel Castro was talking about Homosxuality as a "bourgiose perversion," in the 60's. In fact it appears, like in most countries in the world, attacks upon the gay community are made by local police authorities under the aupices of anti-crime legislation. A form of opression not completely eradicated even from very liberal and cosomopolitan place like Toronto -- I don't even want to know what goes on in Dawson City.

So it is a mis-characterization to say there is "a policy of locking up homosexuals," but that the police unfairly target them for other felonies because they are gay. My problem is that your characterization makes Cuba sound like Saudi Arabia.

And while you hector us with these solopsistic moral logic games that ignore what is actually being said and done in Cuba, by Cuban state officials, such as Eduardo Jimanez Garcia, of the Cuban National Institute for Sex Education who advocates "an amendment to the Cuban constitution to add homosexuality to the groups against which discrimination is expressly outlawed," as described here:

quote:

---

It would be wonderful to be able to spark meaningful, inter-group discussion on this subject, so that Cuban society could develop a healthier culture of sexuality, one that is fairer, that helps to erode old, erroneous beliefs and prejudices that emphasize sexual orientation.

Something like this would put the revolution even more in line with its humanistic ethic; the Cuban Revolution has been possible because of the participation of all men and women, of all Cubans who have identified with the conquests and dreams of that social project. Among all those who have participated there are also people of diverse sexual orientations. Thus, it would not be just for homosexuals to be denied respect because of some ancestral taboos. This is why I believe that we have much more work to do.

[SNIP]

I believe we are now poised at a very opportune moment in which people with a homosexual orientation can be better understood and integrated into different places of our society.

---

Is that Castro himself? No. But it means that people in positions of responsibility are pushing for a more liberal position on this issue, including ammending the consitituion to explicitly enshrine gay rights.

quote:

---

I wasn't aware that there was an onus on me to do that. I'll I've said is that Cuba should respect the rights of homosexuals, officially and in law. I don't believe for a moment that such a law will eradicate 100% of a Cuban homosexual's troubles, but neither will NOT respecting the rights of homosexuals.

---

You are not under any obligation of responding to any of my points. But why should I bother to engage you on your points, if you refuse to engage me on mine? What kind of conversation is that?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Right. People only want to immigrate from poor communist countries, never from poor capitalist countries like Hati, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Mexico. All those people who I meet from those countries are all 3d holographic mirages projetected from Cuban spy satelites, as part of Fidel's plot to floridate our water.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by swallow:
It would be great if Jiminez Garcia could come up with a better answer to why gay people in Cuba are not organizing more. He flails about with issues of integration and segregation, when the most likely answer is that it's not so long since people were locked up for being gay, and without legal protections, the present "tolerance" could be over-turned in a second by the whim of one man. I'd be hesitant to organize too, in those conditions.

---

Sure, but I have read quite a bit of stuff on this, and my impression is that the official harrassment of gay people in Cuba, is more or less the kind that gay people experience in most Latin American countries, which is essentially local auhtorities using crime legislation as a means to unfairly target parties, clubs and other meeting places. I am fairly sure that this probably a whole lot better than how it is in Pakistan, India, and Saudi Arabia.

In the latter case of course gay men are whipped by court order for being gay.

I highly doubt that in any of those countries you will find state officials actually talking about ammending the constitution to expressly protect the rights of gay people.

In my view, the reason why Garcia struggles with the issues of gay people organizing, is that if he were to be completely frank, he would have to admit the state frowns upon any extra-govenrmental organizing at all, and such restrictions are not something exclusive to gay people. The reason for this is that extra-governmental organizations happen to become key locus points for anti-government organizing of all kinds, including movements wich directly attack the state of Cuba. Some of those dissident persons manipulate just causes of liberation as focal points toward far less legitimate ends, and use means such as blowing up airliners and hotels.

But he is calling for an dialogue internal to the party structure.

There is a problem here, no doubt, but Cuba is an very vulnerable position, and there are very large and powerful forces that seek explicitly to overturn even what are the best results of the Cuban revolution, such as high literacy, education, and health care. As we have seen over the last few years, the right has no compunction in using "just causes," such as feminism, the maintenance of international law ( ) as a means of justifying unjust acts in the name of causes many of us hold dearly.

[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

That being said, little Cuba's story is honoured and celebrated around the world as a classical David-vs-Goliath tale. The fact that Castro has repeatedly gained standing ovations in his international speeches reflects how he continues to dare to say things no one else has the guts to say, but nonetheless thinks.

I thought they called for a intervention only under the auspices of the UN, offered to send Doctors, but opposed a unilateral intervention of NATO.

Deployment of international peace force to East Timor exceptional

quote:

---

SEPTEMBER 20 — Regarding the situation in East Timor, Cuba considers as something exceptional, in this case, the deployment of an international peace force, under the strict direction of the United Nations, and without hegemonic pretensions of regional powers or groups of extra-regional powers.

At the same time declaring its willingness, if these conditions and requisites are met, of participating in the said peace force with a medical services unit for the attention of military personnel and the civilian population.

---

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

But he is calling for an dialogue internal to the party structure.

There is a problem here, no doubt, but Cuba is an very vulnerable position, and there are very large and powerful forces that seek explicitly to overturn even what are the best results of the Cuban revolution, such as high literacy, education, and health care. As we have seen over the last few years, the right has no compunction in using "just causes," such as feminism, the maintenance of international law ( ) as a means of justifying unjust acts in the name of causes many of us hold dearly.

---

You've hit the nail on the head here. There is a great deal of dialogue and debate going on in Cuba...just that its confined within party structures.

And yes they've acknowledged mistakes that have been made in the past. Some years ago I had some discussions with Cuban Health Ministry folks around the early treatment of HIV-AIDS patients.

They quite openly said that they made mistakes when HIV-AIDS first appeared. They were just beginning to understand the disease (everyone around the world was trying to figure it out) and they made the incorrect assumption that most HIV-AIDS patients were going to die prematurely within a very short period of time.

They wanted to make sure that patients received treatment and yes adopted some measures that were seen as on the draconian side. However all of that had gone by the way by the 1990's.

As for organizing outside of state/party structures yes the Cuban government is on the paranoic side. But then you'd be paranoid too if your big bad neighbour to the north kept picking on you.

This is the comment i was responding to: "Cuba stands heads above almost everyone else in the solidarity it has extended and the sacrifices its has made in standing up for peace and justice."

quote:

---

Why is this such a hard thing for Castro's partisans to admit?

---

Because it's a big zero-sum game, and criticizing Cuba, no matter how appropriate (or even necessary) the criticism means helping ol' Uncle Sam.

Simplistic, and ideologically rigid, but popular nonetheless.

quote:

---

Originally posted by swallow:
Cuba is not evil evil evil for its votes at the UN Human Rights Commission & elsewhere in favour of a genocidal occupation. And i certainly don't need lessons on how Canada's policy also amounted to complicity in genocide. But (and here's the point): there are people who insist Cuba is a beacon of All Good Things.

---

I provided a link to source explaining Cuba's position on East Timor, which you summarize as being in "favour of a genocidal occupation." I am by no means an expert on this particular area of international relations, but it seems to me that there is an element of reasoned arguement in Cuba's position that you are not expressing.

In this case, it seems that Cuba is insisting that any form of intervention must be organized through the UN, not through any alliance of self appointed police. Perhaps it is the case that Cuba thinks it is more important to protect the principal authority of the UN as international Peace Keeper, rather than help enshrine the principal that NATO or any other alliance, has the authority to intervene here and elsewhere, on its own volition, for reasons that it alone may determine.

Given Cuba's rocky relationship with the most powerful member of the NATO (especially now, in light of NATO's role in the demise of Yugoslavia, and the bombing of Serbia, not to mention its stopgap role in Afghanistan, where it fills in for US troops in Iraq) it would seem that Cuba's position may be somewhat self-serving but not entirely gratuitous.

Perhaps you have other information about Cuba's position on this issue that supports your view that it is in "favour of a genocidal occupation," I would love to see the sources that support your view.

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Speaking of which, you have yet to respond to the statement of Jiminez Garcia, and the relative improvement of the situation of gay people in Cuba over the last 10 years.

---

Relative improvement is relatively good of course, though I'd allow any homosexual in Havana to tell me it's not nearly enough. Until he's a full human with full human rights then the improvement is like "civil unions", as far as I'm concerned. Better than nothing, sure.

As for Garcia, he sounds optimistic, but other than that I'm not sure what I should be responding to. He seems to agree that homosexuals are Cubans too. But he didn't answer the question of why they're being actively discriminated against.

Thanks for the response, on the other issues.

quote:

---

As for Garcia, he sounds optimistic, but other than that I'm not sure what I should be responding to. He seems to agree that homosexuals are Cubans too. But he didn't answer the question of why they're being actively discriminated against.

---

He is saying that descrimination should end. He is pormoting the idea that the rights of gay people should be enshrined in the consitution -- probably taking his cue from South Africa.

This is interesting in itself. For it shows that the attitudes of the left internationally are opening space in Cuban society for a more egalitarian social policy. In a sense it means that your comments are more positive than you intend as they add vigour to the international movement that helps create political room for manouver among the more progressive elements of the Cuban government.

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

I've often asked friends of Cuba folks why Castro's government had an internaitonal foreign policy of voting with Suharto, against East Timor. East Timorese activists often expressed genuine surprise to see Cuba line up with Indonesia. And yet it did.

Cuba's opposition to the East Timorese cause was no greater than that of several other countries, but it nevertheless amounted to objective obstruction of what East Timorese activists were attempting to achieve, even as massacres continued. The international community was complicit in genocide, and Cuba's government was one of those complicit.

Cuba is not a bastian of freedom, that is for sure, but Cuba is a little country that stood up against the giant force of the US, and despite the terrible economic hardships the country has experienced, Cuba is still going strong, and continuing to improve. Also, it is interesting to note that Castro himself is quite the intellectual.

None of this excuses the old 'coconut island' stuuf against gays and lesbians, clearly, but they are progressing, and much faster than the US is regressing. Frankly, that says a lot. As an aside, I personally know of many gay couples who travel to Cuba. They love it.

[ 26 May 2005: Message edited by: Stargazer ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by swallow:
Cuba voted on the side of Indonesia on a series of anodyne resolutions on East Timor at the UN Commission on Human Rights. Throughout the 1990s, as East Timorese activists started to make progress internationally, they faced the consistent opposition of the Cuban government, which chose to ally itself in the UN system with Indonesia, Iraq, Sudan and others. In 1999, to cap it off, the Cuban government initially opposed a peacekeeping force during the final bloodbath, only giving in (after the fact) in the terse linked news release.

I've often asked friends of Cuba folks why Castro's government had an internaitonal foreign policy of voting with Suharto, against East Timor. East Timorese activists often expressed genuine surprise to see Cuba line up with Indonesia. And yet it did.

---

I am quite prepared to believe this, but I was hoping for some reference material, such as statements from the Cuban government or even an regerenced article describing what you are saying.

The position about the UN is consistent with material I have read regarding Cuba's position on the first Gulf war, but I have not followed other stories closely.

[ 27 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

[ 27 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Deployment of international peace force to East Timor exceptional

Reprinted from CubaWeb, Web service of the Agencia de Información Nacional

SEPTEMBER 20 — Regarding the situation in East Timor, Cuba considers as something exceptional, in this case, the deployment of an international peace force, under the strict direction of the United Nations, and without hegemonic pretensions of regional powers or groups of extra-regional powers.

At the same time declaring its willingness, if these conditions and requisites are met, of participating in the said peace force with a medical services unit for the attention of military personnel and the civilian population.

Once that force ends its mission, Cuba will be equally in disposition of sending medical brigades in sufficient number to continue providing its services to the Timorese population as long as it be necessary.

Meanwhile, Cuba considers that the results of the August 30 referendum should be respected so that the Timorese people may have access to its independence, based upon respect to its will as a national identity with its own culture and interests.

---

Apparently this was from about 1999 (site last updated).

A bit tough to follow, I believe it was a translation from Spanish to another language (Timorese?) and then to English.

quote:

---

PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
315 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-689-7215 * Fax: 212-689-9073

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. President:

We wish you all the very best in your presidency, Sir.

We have been following with concern the serious events that are causing losses of life and flows of refugees in East Timor. Cuba believes that measures should be taken, with all due urgency, to end the violence, leading to the full implementation of the 5 May Tripartite Agreements. We were pleased to hear the statements made by the Government of Indonesia reiterating its decision and full resolve to honour those Agreements.

Through the popular consultation held on 30 August, the people of East Timor exercised their right to self-determination, and the international community expects the Agreements to be fully implemented and all parties to act effectively and in good faith. The people of East Timor came out clearly in favour of independence, and they should get it.

Neither threatening language nor unilateral sanctions are the way to restore the climate of peace that is essential for the implementation of the Agreements. Cuba firmly rejects, and will always reject, any unilateral intervention or military action by any country or group of countries.

We have confidence in the ability of the Government of Indonesia to restore peace and order in East Timor, acting with all of its strength and authority under martial law.

Any international action would require due authorization and direct mandate from the United Nations, fully in accordance with the purposes and principles of the Charter, and would most definitely require the explicit consent of the Government of Indonesia, which is responsible for taking all measures to guarantee order and security in East Timor.

We must recall that it was the Government of Indonesia that launched the initiative leading to the 5 May Agreements and the popular consultation, in which 98.6 per cent of registered voters participated freely. The ballot was recognized as democratic and successful.

We await with interest the report of the Security Council ambassadorial mission which travelled to Jakarta and East Timor and continues to make tremendous and valuable efforts. The report will be an indispensable element for any analysis of the situation.

The United Nations must urgently provide the necessary humanitarian assistance, with the support of the Government of Indonesia so as to ensure that it is effective and to provide for the security of the personnel providing such assistance.

For now, at least, we are reassured by several press reports that seem to indicate that caution is prevailing and that this time the new doctrine of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) will not be invoked, that East Timor is not being placed within the so-called Euro-Atlantic periphery, that there is no talk of global threats and that no one is even thinking of repeating the criminal mistake of trying to resolve humanitarian problems with bombs and missiles. Humanity must not let the economic crisis in South-East Asia drag us into a war.

Thank you very much

---

quote:

---

PERMANENT MISSION OF THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA TO THE UNITED NATIONS
315 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10016
Tel: 212-689-7215 * Fax: 212-689-9073

Mr. President:

We are deeply honoured that the Foreign Minister of Singapore is presiding over this important meeting.

Today is an historic day for East Timor and for the United Nations. It is above all a time to rejoice as East Timor celebrates its first day of independence.

Cuba has expressed its wish to establish diplomatic relations with East Timor and to develop lasting bonds of friendship and cooperation with that country.

We are particularly pleased at the fact that, on its very first day as an independent State, East Timor has formally requested admission as the 190th State Member of the United Nations. We are certain that this request will enjoy the full support of all.

Many difficult challenges lie ahead for the newly independent State. That is why it will continue to need the careful attention, assistance and cooperation of the international community, including the United Nations.

The United Nations must remain in East Timor for as long as is necessary — no more and no less. The planning that has been done for the United Nations presence in East Timor over the next two years is prudent and timely. The Secretary-General could not have made a better choice than that of Ambassador Kamalesh Sharma to head the United Nations Mission of Support in East Timor, which is formally established as of today. Aware of his skills and dedication, we are convinced that Ambassador Sharma will successfully fulfil his new responsibility.

The Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, of which Cuba is a founding member, had the situation of East Timor on its agenda for many years. We are gratified that the efforts of the Committee are recognized in the presidential statement to be adopted by the Security Council today.

The maintenance of harmonious relations between East Timor and its neighbours will be of great importance to the stability and prosperity of the region. In that respect, we wish to recognize the role played by Indonesia in the peace process and its support of the United Nations work in East Timor.

We note with satisfaction the full readiness of both parties to resolve pending issues and to build a relationship of partnership, cooperation and friendship.

Speaking before the Security Council on 26 April, both President Xanana Gusmão and Chief Minister Alkatiri emphasized the need for international support in several areas of great importance to East Timor.

In concrete response to those appeals, Cuba is opening the necessary contacts with the Government of East Timor in order to offer assistance in various areas. The Cuban delegation attending the proclamation of independence ceremonies will submit to the East Timorese authorities a number of concrete proposals for bilateral assistance and cooperation.

In conclusion, I wish on behalf of my country, the greatest of success to the entire Government and people of East Timor and to assure them that they can always count on Cuba’s support and solidarity.

Thank you very much

---

You have to realize that for Indonesians, East Timor was the last vestige of colonialism on its shores, i.e., the Portuguese Empire. Its record was extremely brutal in countries like Angola and Mozambique whose independence struggles Cuba actively supported. Even though Suharto by that time had now drifted into the American orbit (Wolfowitz was ambassador to Indonesia during the 80s!) active intervention in its internal affairs violated one of the main principles of NAM, hence the unease at intervening despite the horrific repression.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
Cuba's position has be looked through the the position of the non-aligned movement in general. It was probably only following the lead of many nations of the Third World who were at risk of breaking up in the years following decolonization. If you look at Cuba's position on Tibet or Kashmir or any number of seccessionist movements in Africa or the former Soviet Union, I think you'll find the same problem. (Interesting side note, Iraq sided with India over Kashmir, going against all other Islamic countries who sided with Pakistan).

---

All of that is interesting, and I suspected that there would be some relation to Cuba's position in the non-alinged movement, but it would be nice to see some documentation.

Perhaps Swallow can explain why Cuba's position was as she described it. Cuba's position on the world stage has always been pretty good, in my view: principled when it can be, but pragmatic at all times.

I think we all recognize Cuba's pragmatism, and I wonder, what possible reason Cuba would have for favouring "a genocidal occupation," by aligning it self with Indonesia in this case. Swallow?

I have trouble believing that such an alignment would be completely gratuitous.

[ 27 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

They have to apply for a special permit and they are allowed to travel where they wish.

---

Are you saying they can go on a little vacation and return, or are you saying they're free to emigrate?

If they're free to emigrate, why have so many of them chosen to emigrate in leaky boats under cover of darkness? Why would a Cuban gunboat ram such a leaky boat full of emigres, if Cubans are allowed to leave?

Magoo I find it ironic, you want to talk about boats being rammed, in a rather negligent effort of policing, but always find time to excuse the near daily killing of Palestinians by Israelis, by telling us time and time again that it is the Palestinian "hot-heads" who start things off. You never offer such excuses for the Cuban government I notice, even though its airliners have been blown up and its hotels bombed.

When summed up the amount of bad ink that Cuba gets (even here!) is enourmous in comparison to the relative weight of its sins.

I have been to Havana, and I really don't want to see the US do to it what they just did to Baghdad. This constant feeding of the anti-cuba crusade from the left is really distressing.

quote:

---

When summed up the amount of bad ink that Cuba gets (even here!) is enourmous in comparison to the relative weight of its sins.

---

And my point all along has been to note the disproportionate amount of good ink it gets, despite jailing homosexuals with AIDS, and murdering anyone who tries to leave.

And your best answer(s) to this are:

1. Look at those other awful countries! Don't look at Cuba! Someone else is even worse!

2. They're trying. They mean well. Don't they deserve an "E" for effort?

3. It's all the United States' fault. If the U.S. is against you the proper response is to jail homosexuals and murder anyone who wants to live elsewhere.

As a conlcusion I am saying that it you are trying to participate in a propaganda campaign that dove-tails very nicely with a very agressive policy of the United States of America, which includes very much the potential of a very destructive and brutal war in which a large number of the people, whose rights you say you are interested, in may be killed, you are doing a great job!

None of that excuses human rights violations by Cuban suthorities, on any number of issues. But there is also an element of responsible commentary and criticism, which is proportional to the problems, when compared to other very much more serious crimes that are being committed globaly by any number of countries and Cuba is very far down on the list of chronic rights abusers.

[ 27 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

You have to realize that for Indonesians, East Timor was the last vestige of colonialism on its shores, i.e., the Portuguese Empire. Its record was extremely brutal in countries like Angola and Mozambique whose independence struggles Cuba actively supported. Even though Suharto by that time had now drifted into the American orbit (Wolfowitz was ambassador to Indonesia during the 80s!) active intervention in its internal affairs violated one of the main principles of NAM, hence the unease at intervening despite the horrific repression.

---

Indonesia did not invade a Portuguese colony, though. It waited until ten days after East Timor declared independence, and then invaded, imposing a colonial occupation of its own. Nor did Suharto "drift" into the American orbit. His regime came to power with US help, and used death lists supplied by the US embassy to hunt down and kill suspected "Communists." He was in the American orbit from day one.

Look: Cuba sided with Indonesia, against East Timor, on watered-down resolutions at the UN Human Rights Commission throughout the 1990s. It voted against resolutions pushed by the Timorese in 1993 and again in 1997 (linked above), and in intervening years helped to make sure there was no resolution. For this lengthy period, it objectively acted as an ally of the Indonesian occupation. The period of support for Indonesia started around the time when television footage of massacres in East Timor screened around the world, raising the profile of East Timor in the West.

Then in 1999, again at the Human Rights Commission, Cuba voted against any form of UN investigation of the crimes against humanity committed in East Timor. I believe Cuba's roile on the Commisison has been entirely negative: it has teamed up with a block of dictatorships to oppose virtually all country-specific resolutions on human rights.

Jose Ramos Horta, spokesperson for the Timroese resistance movement, wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald in October 1999 that while more than 50 countries criticized the bloodbath carried out by Indonesian soldiers and their militas in September 1999, only four countries (Cuba, Sudan, Iraq and Libya) defended Indonesia. That linked Cuban statement says among other things: "We have confidence in the ability of the Government of Indonesia to restore peace and order in East Timor, acting with all of its strength and authority under martial law." This following confirmed reports that the army was the source of murders. Had the Indoneisan army been left alone to deal with the situation under martial law, thousands more Timroeswe would have been murdered. You might compare the Cuban line to US statements about their full confidence in the ability of the government of El Salvador to prevent death squad killings. Laughable, if it wasn't so tragic.

The only explanation that i can think of for Cuba's policy is that Timorese activists had, after years of effort by themselves and US activists like Noam Chomsky, won the voting support of the US (while they continued to work for an end to US economic complicity with Suharto's dictatorship). Cuba decided to vote in opposition to the US on all things. That may be a defensinble position from the viewpoint of Cuban national interests, but it gives the lie to claims of "solidarity" since Cuba's solidarity was with a government which was committing genocide.

edit to add:

quote:

---

When summed up the amount of bad ink that Cuba gets (even here!) is enourmous in comparison to the relative weight of its sins.

---

You think? What actually continues to surprise me is that many on the left continue to justify actions by Cuba's government they would not justify for any other government. And no, i don't mean you.

[ 27 May 2005: Message edited by: swallow ]

quote:

---

BUENOS AIRES — Hugo Chavez stood dockside as 900 dairy cows plodded onto a ship bound for Venezuela. Then the Venezuelan president raced across the Argentine capital for the opening of a gas station, where leftists mobbed him like a celebrity, chanting his name and releasing balloons.

You'd think Chavez was running for something, more than 5,000 kilometres from home.

And in a way, he is.

Across Latin America, the fiery Chavez is courting a growing bloc of moderate leftist presidents, doling out oil deals and — to Washington's dismay — urging less dependence on the United States and greater unity among Latin American nations.

---

[ 27 May 2005: Message edited by: DrConway ]

quote:

---

As a conlcusion I am saying that it you are trying to participate in a propaganda campaign that dove-tails very nicely with a very agressive policy of the United States of America, which includes very much the potential of a very destructive and brutal war in which a large number of the people, whose rights you say you are interested, in may be killed, you are doing a great job!

---

Oh good lord. This is by far the best "shush" I've heard all week.

If I keep criticizing Cuba, I'm in bed with the U.S. government.

Why would Uncle Sam need to kill Cubans if Cuba is more than happy to do it for them? Why waste a good U.S. gunboat if Cuba is willing to dispatch one of their own to murder 41 people for the crime of wanting to live somewhere else?

And by pointing this out, I have potential blood on my hands? And by trying to whitewash over it, you don't?

Why not just admit you're backing a loser? I promise I won't accuse you of being a U.S. sympathizer if you do. And I won't tell the U.S. that you're now "supporting them". But why not just have the testicular fortitude to say "Progressive countries don't jail homosexuals or murder immigrants", and quit defending them until they stop doing so? I'm sure it tears you up in side to imagine abandoning poor little Cuba until it starts respecting human rights, but deep down you know it's the right thing. You just have to work past this silly idea that criticizing Cuba means working for the U.S.

At the same time, Cuba and other countries should be pressuring Canada to do the same thing. The Arar case is simply one example of horrific abuses done with the complicity of our government. Do you then discount every action made by the government of Canada? Do you roundly dismiss Canada as unworthy of support? We are part of a military occupation in Afghanistan which is an absolute failure militarily, politically, and economically.

You are right, criticism of Cuba does not equal support for America; nor does support for certain Cuban economic policies equal support for certain social policies - hell, support for certain economic policies does not equal support for certain other economic policies, and the same goes for social policies.

Cueball has demonstrated to you that Gay and Lesbian rights are on the agenda in Cuba. There is widespread bigotry against Gays and Lesbians in Cuba, and that does need to be addressed; well, there is damn near half of our elected representatives and near that citizens of Canada that are against Gay Marriage. We have elected representatives who talk of a "homosexual conspiracy", who refer to homosexuals as "an offence to the Lord". Here. Model country Canada. Our modern, open, democratic, free country has only recently ruled on the subject of Gay Marriage, and has not yet passed such legislation in Parliament.

So feel free to critisize Cuba - but quit making the mistake you accuse others off: With us or against us. It doesn't work on either side of the equation.

quote:

---

Cueball has demonstrated to you that Gay and Lesbian rights are on the agenda in Cuba.

---

I'll keep my fingers crossed.

quote:

---

Here. Model country Canada.

---

When it comes to being a model of not imprisoning homosexuals we're as good as most.

I know we're not perfect, and I rail just as loudly at that. But I also see a world of difference between a country where gay marriage is still only quasi-legal, and a country where homosexuals are jailed for committing no crime whatsoever.

And what about emigrants (tip o' the hat to S.G.)? Why can't they leave?

What kind of government murders its citizens when they try to leave??? How can anyone hold such a government up as a positive example of anything?

If anyone at rabble were naive enough to suggest that Israel leads the world in, say, adult literacy, and so we should admire them, how long do you think it would be before someone came along and felt it necessary to point out that this same country also shoots children who throw rocks?

I'm just doing the same, but with Cuba. Holding up Israel as a positive example was just an imaginary mental exercise; nobody here really does that, but plenty of so-called "progressives" seem to feel the need to do that with Cuba.

quote:

---

Supporting Cuba does not equal disdain for Gay and Lesbian Rights.

---

quote:

---

In the same way that supporting Israel does not equal disdain for Palestinian rights. (or does it?)

---

You bring up I/P in this conversation, I am sure, because of my long-standing support for, and activism on behalf of, the cause of Palestinian self-determination.

I want to make some points very clear:

"Support for Israel" does not equal disdain for Palestinian rights, if we are talking in general terms. Of course not. Some of the fiercest critics of the occupation are Israeli, and stand firmly committed to Israel. I was arrested with an Israeli man, who continues his activism against the occupation in Israel and the Occupied Territories. I am very proud of him, and all Israelis who stand up against the abuse of Palestinians, the theft of their land, the demolition of their homes, the destruction of their crops, the arrest and detainement of their people without charge or cause, the extra-judicial murder of their citizens, and on and on and on.

Now, to bring the analogy to a more precise one: If "support for Israel" is in fact intended to mean support for settlement, land confistication, and the general gamut of processes that entail the occupation of Palestinian land, then yes it is anti-Palestinian; In the case of Cuba, if "support for Cuba" is in fact intended to support a policy of discrimination against Gays and Lesbians, then it is indeed anti-Homosexual.

quote:

---

You bring up I/P in this conversation, I am sure, because of my long-standing support for, and activism on behalf of, the cause of Palestinian self-determination.

---

Well, not actually. I assume that for the most part, most babblers aren't too keen on Israel, a notable few notwithstanding. At one time I thought Israel deserved the benefit of the doubt, but at this point I don't think there's any doubt. So Israel is never going to successfully be held up as a positive example on babble. Not in the forseeable future, at any rate.

And that's solely because of its human rights policies and practices. Otherwise, Israel has a good thing going in many ways. But whenever it's (naively, by trolls) held up for approval as "the only democracy in the Middle East", for example, the glory is short lived. Having a good system of government is nice, but it doesn't override the policy of shooting kids. Having a highly literate population, having a relatively good record on women's rights and gay rights, and even having a relatively good human rights record Palestine notwithstanding, doesn't cut it either.

Now, I think Oliver Stone's a bit of a nut. But in his documentary "Commandante" he grills Castro about G&L rights, POW torture in Viet Nam, anti-Black racism in Cuba, and a number of other issues. This is good, healthy stuff. I can only sit back and wonder why the same is not done in Honduras, Colombia, El Salvador, etc. Gay rights are not even on the agenda in these countries; could it be that they are not singled out because they are clients of the US? To say that a double standard is applied to Cuba, as it clearly is, is not to suggest that the issues there are not real.

quote:

---

But who here is "eager" to overlook human rights in Cuba?

---

Anyone holding them up as a positive example.

Why do I say this? Well, imagine holding the United States up as a positive example of humanitarian aid (if I'm not mistaken, they give away more money than any other country on earth).

Do you think most babblers would say "That's awesome"? Or do you think they'd segue directly into U.S. human rights abuses?

What if a babbler held up Israel as a shining example of Democracy? Would most babblers be liable to say "That's great! Go Israel!", or would they segue directly into Israeli human rights abuses?

Now try Cuba.

Why is it that the left just loves Cuba to death? Why is it that you can praise Cuba all you want, without any worry that the left is going to segue into their human rights abuses?

I don't know how you can argue this one. Other countries get called on their human rights abuses, and those abuses trump any economic or social achievements. But it's the other way around for Cuba. We hear plenty about their economic and social acheivements, and only when pressed do we get the lip service about human rights.

Why is it backwards like that? That's my question.

quote:

---

Are you saying they can go on a little vacation and return, or are you saying they're free to emigrate?

---

quote:

---

I don't know how you can argue this one. Other countries get called on their human rights abuses, and those abuses trump any economic or social achievements. But it's the other way around for Cuba. We hear plenty about their economic and social acheivements, and only when pressed do we get the lip service about human rights.

Why is it backwards like that? That's my question.

---

Its quite simple.

There are other countries that violate human rights to a much greater extent than Cuba. But in the "mainstream" press, particularly in the U.S. mainstream press little or no attention is paid to these countries because their governments are loyal servants of the American Empire.

On the other hand, the Cuban government has consistently disobeyed the American Empire. So consequently every single human rights violation, whether real or imagined is given full coverage in the mainstream press.

I'll give you another example that Noam Chomsky examined in his book "Manufacturing Consent".

Father Jerzy Popieluszko was murdered by members of the Polish Police in 1984. Archbishop Oscar Romero was assasinated by Salvadorean death squads in 1980.

Back in the 1980's the Popieluszko murder was given full blown front page coverage in the U.S. media. The members of the police force who carried out this crime were eventually caught, tried, convicted and sent to prison by the Polish authorities.

However in the case of Oscar Romero, there was very little mainstream media coverage of this event. There was never any serious investigation of the crime, no one was ever charged let alone convicted. There was never really any expectation that anyone would be punished for carrying out the assasination.

In fact billions of dollars in military aide continued to flow to the Salvadorean government by the Reagan/Bush administration despite not only this crime, but the rape and murder of a group of U.S. nuns who were working with the poor and the murder of a U.S. labour union official.

When a regime is an "official enemy" of the U.S. government, they will suffer a barrage of criticism in the mainstream press for human rights violations.

If a regime is a friend of the empire, their human rights violations, no matter how horrendous will largely be ignored in the mainstream media (again particularly the mainstream U.S. media).

Cuba's real "crime" in the eyes of the various American Emperors is not their human rights violations, its their failure to obey orders.

They've attempted to re-orient their society towards serving ordinary folks rather than the transnationals. They've succeeded wonderfully in some things and failed miserably in others. But its that independence from the empire that is their "crime" and the threat that this "dangerous" idea of independence from empire might spread to other parts of Latin America.

Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is being attacked for supposed human rights violations. The U.S. even tried to overthrow him. Why? He's disobedient...and even more dangerous to the U.S. powerbrokers, he's sitting on a really big pile of oil.

[ 27 May 2005: Message edited by: radiorahim ]

quote:

---

If they're free to emigrate, why have so many of them chosen to emigrate in leaky boats under cover of darkness?

---

Because the U.S. prefers illegal emigration to legal emigration. There is a process where the U.S. is supposed to allow a certain number of Cubans into the U.S. each year. Sorry, but I've forgotten the exact number.

However the problem is that the U.S. government consistently underfulfills this "quota" every year. They much prefer Cubans arriving in leaky boats...it looks a whole lot better on TV and serves their propaganda purposes. Also they've had a policy such that if a Cuban makes it to dry land, they're automatically allowed in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:

Anyone holding them up as a positive example.

Why do I say this? Well, imagine holding the United States up as a positive example of humanitarian aid (if I'm not mistaken, they give away more money than any other country on earth).

---

I think that of the US foreign aid going to Israel, about 80 percent of it goes to US corporations in in that country, or in the form of bulldozers and other "agricultural" assistance.(ya, right).

It's true that the US gives away the largest dollar amounts in foreign aid, but how much of it is in the form of military aid ?. And for every $1 dollar in US foreign aid to the poorest nations in Africa, socialist Norway gives $4 USDN.

quote:

---

Do you think most babblers would say "That's awesome"? Or do you think they'd segue directly into U.S. human rights abuses?

---

Yes we would, and for good reason because we tend to be better informed than most. Since Horoshima and Nagasaki, the US military industrial complex has bombed 21 countries and murdered millions of human beings. How many are more democratic for it?. Or were they simply exercises in warfiteering for the sake of a corporate resource grab?. They've propped up no less than 35 brutal dictatorships, and usually with CIA involvement. In fact, of 12 major wars in Africa, the CIA has been deeply involved in 11 of them.

quote:

---

What if a babbler held up Israel as a shining example of Democracy? Would most babblers be liable to say "That's great! Go Israel!", or would they segue directly into Israeli human rights abuses?

---

Nelson Mandela(a socialist) and Bishop Tutu have already described it as Israeli Apartheid.

quote:

---

Now try Cuba.

Why is it that the left just loves Cuba to death? Why is it that you can praise Cuba all you want, without any worry that the left is going to segue into their human rights abuses?

---

Why don't you provide us with some a fair and balanced critique of Uncle Sam's experiments in Latin American democracy for a direct comparison, Magoo. Operation Condor?. Funny guy.

quote:

---

I don't know how you can argue this one. Other countries get called on their human rights abuses, and those abuses trump any economic or social achievements. But it's the other way around for Cuba. We hear plenty about their economic and social acheivements, and only when pressed do we get the lip service about human rights. Why is it backwards like that? That's my question..

---

Nobody mentions what a 45 year-long embargo might do for patriotism or quality of life in the Dominican Republic, Haiti or Puerto Rico. I mean, those places are shithole-supremes even with American aid.

How many people want to flee capitalist countries like Mexico, Nigeria, Poland, El Salvador, Philippines, South Korea, Macedonia, and others too many to list and never treated as grounds for questioning the free market system ?.

How many articles in the TorStar or Gob and Mail
do you read describing the literacy rates in Cuba, or the free medical education for Cuban's and poor American students who can't afford the handful of mainly white medical colleges in the States ?.

How many "left wing" columnists or CBC news reporters trumpet what is the lowest infant mortality rate in the western hemisphere in Cuba, Canada's socialized medicine excluded ?.

How many people do you know who can tell you which island nation has produced a meningitis drug vaccine and distributed by Glaxo Wellcome. And if cold war mentalities ever give way to common sense revolution in conservative America, the Cuban drug could save anywhere from 200 - 300 American children's lives every year.

Who's excited about a Cuban cancer drug being tested in Canada and will compete directly with Wall Street and Martha Stewart's pick, IM Clone and their latest drug discovery, Erbatux ?.

But you can read about it here, Magoo. We lefties think someone has to give Cuba credit if no one else will ?.

And we know that the States, that last bastion of conservatism holed-up down there and having to resort to stealing elections, is wide open for criticism from around the world. But I haven't read much about your own political opinions other than a dart here and a jab there. Come clean for once. Lay it all on the line, and don't be shy.

quote:

---

Friendly Dictators often rise to power through bloody CIA-backed coups and rule by terror and torture. Their troops may receive training or advice from the CIA and other U.S. agencies. "Anti-communism" is their common battle cry and a common excuse for political repression. They are linked internationally through extreme right-wing groups such as the World Anti-Communist League (see card 17). Strong Nazi affiliations are typical - some have been known to dress in Nazi paraphemalia and quote from Mein Kampf, while others offer sanctuary for actual Nazi war criminals.

Friendly Dictators usually grow rich, while their countries' economies go down the drain. U.S. tax dollars and U.S. backed loans have made billionaires of some; others are international drug dealers who also collect CIA paychecks. Rarely are they called to account for their crimes.

---

Meet the Friendly Dictators

"Yes I Can" - just for our friend, Magoo

[ 29 May 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Magoo's singular, prejudicial and histrionic attack upon Cuba -- from the left -- only serves the right wing agenda, not those whose rights he would have us believe he is protecting. Couched in the very same moralizing language and arguements, as could pass the lips of brainiac Bush supporters they are a truly awesome example of mindless red-baiting.

Magoo likes to forget that they would have Cuban homosexuals not only living in poverty and persecuted by the local police but also without access to health care. No doubt those who would try and escape the capitalitst free-market paradise Magoo is endorsing, will be refused immigration to Florida, just like Haitians and poor Mexicans, when they no longer have any propoganda value.

[ 29 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Magoo's singular, prejudicial and histrionic attack upon Cuba -- from the left -- only serves the right wing agenda

---

Actually, I maintain that's it's Cuba's actions, not my criticism of them, that serves the right wing agenda.

Without me, the human rights violations would still exist, and the right would still point to them.

Without the human rights violations, the right, and I, wouldn't have anything to say about it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rand McNally:
If I were not terribly busy, I would like to participate in this debate. I had a very similar one with members of my family just last week. I took a position similar to Mr. Magoo's; and for the most part agree with his position, especially his warning to not fall in to an 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' mentality. We should be able to condemn abuse regardless of where it takes place. Cuba's treatment of dissidents is something that should be condemned by those that support freedom of expression and association.

---

I completely and totally agree, however, this debate is not characterized by fair criticism. This is not about the "enemy of my enemy is my friend," arguement but gratuitous and ideologically motivate arguementation.

I mean a certain amount of thread drift is understandable, but constantly harping on a specific human rights issues, which are in no way related to the original thread topic strikes me as malicious slagging after the fourth or fifth time the specific issues is raised, in exactly the same form. This is especially true given that most of those respondents, me included, recognized the valid basis of those criticism if not necessarilly to the degree demanded.

It is pretty clear to me that Magoo's ideological fixation on Cuba is equal opposite of the romantic over-glorification that he says he is responding to.

[ 30 May 2005: Message edited by: Cueball ]