Dictatorships and laws
So if you went on a hunger strike in the past because you did not respect the laws of a dictatorship, should you now say we ought to ignore hunger strikes and respect the laws of a dictatorship? Lula apparently believes so. He has even taken positive actions as president because of hunger strikes in Brazil, so clearly he sees the strategy as legitimate.
68 comments:
What will it take for people to accept that much of the Latin American left is undemocratic?
That's why all the cries about Honduras sound so false to anyone who follows the left in the region.
So if you went on a hunger strike in the past because you did not respect the laws of a dictatorship, should you now say we ought to ignore hunger strikes and respect the laws of a dictatorship? Lula apparently believes so.
Actually, Lula never said a word about whether or not we should ignore hunger strikes. What Lula did was affirm that one man's hunger strike is not the basis upon which the Brazilian government makes its decisions about its relations with Cuba.
Would a Chinese or Saudi hunger strike be the basis upon which the United States government makes decisions about its relations with those countries? No. Would Greg even bat an eye at a Chinese or Saudi hunger strike? No. There are untold number of hunger strikes in dictatorships that Greg will routinely ignore.
But somehow, if Brazil doesn't change its relations with Cuba on account of a hunger strike, Greg waxes moralistic about it.
It is simply amazing to see how easily Greg can be led around by the nose by out-and-out hypocrites whose only purpose is to selectively bash the Latin American left.
What will it take for people to accept that much of the Latin American left is undemocratic?
Something more than the occasional anecdotal bit of evidence. This, by the way, is not proof of Lula being undemocratic; just hypocritical.
What will it take you to actually use an identifiable name?
Justin is once again full of it here. The issue is the Cuban regime's imprisoning people for exercising their freedom of speech. The hunger strike is meant to represent their plight. Many dissidents are labeled prisoners of conscience by Amnesty International. These are not common criminals and they are exercising universal human rights. The hunger strike exposes the hypocrisy of Lula's government as it maintains friendly relations with the only totalitarian government in the region. Brazil chooses to look away, to excuse and to engage in self-delusions. This is part of their sovereign right as a nation but they can't expect to not be criticized for it when denouncing elections in Honduras. Lobo looks like Mandela compared to the tyrants in Havana.
As for Justin, he just carries water for leftist dictators. In three weeks since Orlando Zapata died, he hasn't seen fit to post a single story about it on his Latin American News Review. Wow isn't that "unique insight" into Latin American politics really great.
"Amnesty International laments Cuba’s outright rejection of recommendations to ensure respect for the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly. The organization shares the concerns, expressed during the review, about the prosecution of Cuban citizens for peacefully exercising their human rights as guaranteed under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which we note Cuba has signed and indicated its intention to ratify. Amnesty International also regrets that Cuba was unable to agree to release political prisoners and to repeal or amend legislation that criminalizes legitimate activities related to the exercise of freedom of expression, association and assembly, such as Law No. 88 or Article 91 of the Penal Code." Amnesty Internatonal
"According to information available to Amnesty International, at least 56 prisoners of conscience remain in detention, imprisoned solely for expressing their conscientiously held beliefs, among them:
Oscar Elías Biscet, a physician and President of the unofficial Lawton Foundation for Human Rights, arrested on 6 December 2002 and sentenced to 25 years in prison, and
Journalist Julio César Gálvez Rodríguez, arrested on 19 March 2003 and sentenced to 15 years in prison." Amnesty International, 11 July 2009
The issue is the Cuban regime's imprisoning people for exercising their freedom of speech.
No, actually, the issue here is the Brazilian President's position with regard to one man's hunger strike in Cuba. Lula's position is that a hunger strike is not the basis upon which the Brazilian government makes its decisions about its relations with Cuba.
Now, who are you to criticize Brazil for taking such a position? Do you take the United States government to task for not basing its relations with dictatorial governments on whether opponents of those governments are engaging in hunger strikes? If not, then what the hell are we talking about?
This is part of their sovereign right as a nation but they can't expect to not be criticized for it when denouncing elections in Honduras.
Two totally separate issues. Honduras was a member of the OAS and a signatory of its democratic charter. Cuba has not been part of the OAS since 1961.
For Honduras to violate the OAS' democratic charter in such egriegous fashion was a step backwards in Inter-American relations. Such a dangerous precedent poses the risk that the old economic elites of other Latin American societies will think that they too can sponsor coups whenever they don't think a president serves their interests. I don't think that's something that bodes well for democracy in Latin America.
Here are two Brazilian leftists that make sense, speak clearly and are not under the spell of the Caballo. Do you need a translation, profe?
Raúl Jungmann, del opositor Partido Popular Socialista, calificó de "desastrada" esa declaración y añadió que usar "la situación de los presos brasileños para defender la tiranía de Cuba no es más que cinismo".
El Colegio de Abogados acusó a Lula de "sesgo ideológico" a la hora de considerar los derechos humanos. El diputado Mauricio Rands, del oficialista Partido de los Trabajadores, dijo que Lula "se expresó mal o no fue comprendido, pues conoce la diferencia entre un preso político y un preso común".
Cuba is a member of the United Nations and is bound by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Another stupid relativistic comment, profe.
Justin is not a profe. he's one of those 'eternal' students.
Raúl Jungmann, del opositor Partido Popular Socialista, calificó de "desastrada" esa declaración y añadió que usar "la situación de los presos brasileños para defender la tiranía de Cuba no es más que cinismo".
I wonder, though. Most Latin American "justice" systems are not very good; I have my doubts that Brazil's is really that much more attentive to people's rights than Cuba's.
Setting all that aside, though, my personal view is that Lula should have just said that the hunger strike was an internal Cuban affair and that it wouldn't be a factor in determining Brazil's relations with Cuba. Such a position would be well within the norms of the international system, so Lula really doesn't need to be saying any more than that.
I agree that some of Lula's wording could open him up to the charge of "ideological bias," so he should have just stuck with the line that that's an internal affair and that it wouldn't influence Brazil's relations with Cuba.
Cuba is a member of the United Nations and is bound by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Once again, the difference between the Honduras coup and what happens in Cuba is that Honduras' coup represents a step backwards in the Inter-American system of law. What happens in Cuba has no such implications because it is not part of the Inter-American system of law and hasn't been so for almost 50 years.
That last comment is a perfect example of justifying Cuban repression. Cuba is the most militarized government in the hemisphere. It owns whole industries such as tourism and keeps a lid on domestic dissent. During Zapata's funeral they were deployed in large number to prevent people from giving their condolences. The funeral was ordered to be at 6am.
Why does focusing on inter-American law represent a justification of the Cuban repression? Because it ignores the elephant in the room. For months Zelaya's supporters decried the coup. It was vicious, violent and thuggish. In short it had an impact on the Honduran people.
Justin said, "I wonder, though. Most Latin American "justice" systems are not very good; I have my doubts that Brazil's is really that much more attentive to people's rights than Cuba's." The issue is not the conditions of prison nor the fairness of the justice system. It is that there is no earthly justification for placing government critics in jail. There is no proof that they committed any sort of crime. Amnesty describes them as "solely" prisoners of conscience. The prisoners in Sao Paolo have been tried and convicted of crimes under an imperfect but democratic system.
Lastly, Justin says since Cuba is not a OAS member, they set no precedents. Clearly locking up people for a difference of opinion and getting the material rewards from Brazil (investments), sends the wrong message about Latin American democracy. Cuba is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and imprisons people who insist that it be respected. Chavez, for example, is just fellow traveller on this issue. He excuses Cuba and learns from his mentor that good things happen to those who violate people's fundamental rights.
The European Union voted 509-30 to condemn the Cuban government's treatment of dissidents. The vote was supported by Populars, Socialists, Liberals and most of the Greens. The amendment offered by the communists (United Left) to treat Cuba as every other country, holding out for a dialogue, was rejected as it would distract from the position that was nearly unanimously held. The communists wanted to promote a policy that divided the deputies. The Spanish Socialists joined the vote to condemn Cuba's human rights practices despite their longstanding attempts to get the common position of 1996 reversed. Zapatero's government, Cuba's strongest intermediary in Europe, now recognizes that the common policy is held more strongly by member states. Cuba can't just have investments and seeming normalization without making progress on human rights.
Not surprisingly, the Cuban parliament blamed this all on the United States and the European media. Zapata was once again declared a common criminal and under the direction of the empire. Farinas, the political prisoner who is on day 12 of his hunger strike, has refused offers of exile to Spain and calls for dialogue to end his protest. He wants freedom for the 200 people who are unjustly imprisoned for exercising their human rights. While many dissidents are not happy with these tactics, they support the moral convictions of the prisoners. Something is changing in Cuba and one day Lula and others will realize it.
Clearly locking up people for a difference of opinion and getting the material rewards from Brazil (investments), sends the wrong message about Latin American democracy.
Not to OAS members it doesn't because the standards mutually agreed upon among OAS members are different. They are signatories of the democratic charter.
By the way, anonymous, do you shop at Wal-Mart? Do you wear Chinese-made clothing? If so, then who are you to be screaming about whether Brazil does business in Cuba or not?
How does it become a-okay to do oodles of business in one dictatorship and not in another?
All this ridiculous bashing of Brazil's business relations with Cuba is really the height of hypocrisy.
You sound like a 12 year old who finds himself losing an argument and continues the argument anyway. It may pain you that the Cuban government treats its citizens so badly on such fundamental matters, but to acknowledge it, would destroy your self-image. Better to use throwaway lines about my shopping habits. How about considering that the world is not perfect. Hypocrisy abounds in politics and diplomacy. Nevertheless, despite what happens elsewhere, the people of Cuba deserve the right of free expression. The government of Cuba has it within its means to allow people to peacefully gather and discuss their own ideas for their country.
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines." Ralph Waldo Emerson
It may pain you that the Cuban government treats its citizens so badly on such fundamental matters, but to acknowledge it, would destroy your self-image.
What in the hell are you talking about? Everybody here has already acknowledged that Cuba does not operate according to conventional democratic norms. That's NOT what's at issue here.
What's at issue is whether you are in any position to be lecturing Brazil about doing business in Cuba. Clearly you are not. Anyone who cares about the question of human rights doesn't employ gross double standards in a completely cavalier manner. In a world characterized by political and economic competition, having a basic modicum of ethics requires that people use basic STANDARDS of assessment. You cannot say that it is a-okay for U.S. corporations to lobby for the prohibition of independent trade unions in China and then turn right around and say Brazil can't invest in Cuba. Hypocrisy and the politicization of "human rights" are the road to the erosion of any basic ethical standard. If you want to see human rights flourish, then you should stop all the hypocritical politicization of the issue, which has nothing to do with human rights and everything to do with the ulterior motives of the U.S. foreign policy establishment.
You sound like a 12 year old who finds himself losing an argument and continues the argument anyway.
I'll let others be the judge of who sounds like a 12-year-old debater.
What in the hell are you talking about? Everybody here has already acknowledged that Cuba does not operate according to conventional democratic norms. That's NOT what's at issue here.
LOL "conventional democratic norms" ROTFL
funniest statement ever! or at least in the top 10.
What? is it somehow an "unconventional democracy"?
You might want to admit that some places have "conventional" "norms" that are dare we say dictatorial? That whole thing of 50 year 1-party rule, the full trappings of a police state, totalitarian ideology as state religion. Add up enough of those "norms", and you have a " conventional" full-blown dictatorship.
Or, will you trot out some lame line about how Cuba practices some sort of popular democracy or democratic egalitarianism? redistributionist democracy?.....revolutionary democracy? Make some variation of the old worn-out cliches, which seems to be your style.
You might want to admit that some places have "conventional" "norms" that are dare we say dictatorial?
I would call the Cuban system authoritarian. What's at issue here, though, is whether Americans are in any position to tell Brazil that it shouldn't invest in Cuba. I think it's pretty clear by now that to bash Brazil on this score is so incredibly hypocritical as to be obscene.
And, in any case, it's a losing proposition for you folks. When the United States starts bashing Lula, that will just further unite the Latin American left.
I suggest we use the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) as the standard. I support independent (and democratic) labor unions in every state, whenever and everywhere. Last time I checked the board was dedicated to Latin American politics not Chinese textiles. I still think Cuban citizens have a fundamental right to discuss their country's affairs without facing imprisonment. Someday, I have confidence you and Lula will come around to this view too.
For a textbook case on the blatant politicization of "human rights," it's useful to reread this statement from anonymous.
That last comment is a perfect example of justifying Cuban repression. Cuba is the most militarized government in the hemisphere. It owns whole industries...
Cuba is indeed repressive in a number of ways, but whether or not it "owns whole industries" is an entirely separate matter. Western European democracies have owned "whole industries" too, but nobody ever accused them of abusing "human rights" on account of that fact.
If you wanna talk human rights, please leave your ideology at the door.
This is something more than authoritarianism. When a govt. refuses people who want to leave the country their basic rights, we call it imprisonment.
Yes, but when European governments own hotels, they charge market rates and pay the employees market wages. In Cuba the military charges foreign tourists $1-200 a night and gives the maid $20 a month in a worthless currency. That is wage slavery and theft.
I support independent (and democratic) labor unions in every state, whenever and everywhere.
Oh really? Can you point me to one case in which you've previously decried U.S. corporations for lobbying the Chinese government to maintain its prohibition on independent trade unions?
You're lying through your teeth, anonymous. You don't like the left, so you selectively bash it for the kinds of things that don't really bother you at all when non-leftists do them.
In Cuba the military charges foreign tourists $1-200 a night and gives the maid $20 a month in a worthless currency. That is wage slavery and theft.
Oh, I see. So now you're concerned about the exploitation of hotel workers, I guess.
How many hotel workers in, say, Guatemala, Mexico or Honduras have ready access to basic health care (as they do in Cuba)?
By some crazy coincidence, the only hotel worker's plight that you seem to feign concern about is the Cuban one. Imagine that.
Here's another view of Cuba's "authoritarianism" from another well known US govt. lackey,""A medio siglo de la Revolución, Cuba sigue siendo una nación dependiente", escribió en un artículo reciente, en el que calificó al régimen cubano de "una dictadura sofocante, sin prensa, opinión, disidencia o asociación libres".
Carlos Fuentes
Justin, I have belonged to a union. I know what I support and do not support. The topic here is Latin American politics.
Justin, I have belonged to a union.
So has Dick Cheney. So has Ronald Reagan. So what if you've belonged to a union?
The fact of the matter is that you lie. You don't like the Left, so you selectively bash it for the kinds of things that don't really bother you at all when non-leftists do them. And then you turn around and disingenously try to dress up your selective indignation as some sort of principle.
Your antics epitomize everything that is wrong with how our dominant culture views the outside world.
"Follow the money!"-- Why not let the maids see if they want to change jobs? Or emigrate? For God's sake, the Cuban govt. won't even let you move from one region to another w/o a government pass. In an economic system that is created to control people rather than produce goods and services, you have doctors and architects who work as bellboys and taxi drivers. The people of Cuba are screwed if they do not have access to real currencies. The monthly food rations like the free medical care are illusory. If you want real or fresh food, you can't use your ration card. "We pretend to work, they pretend to pay us." is the mantra. Ironic that prostitution flourishes after a revolution dedicated to creating a "new man." 50 years of failed economic policies and the government is still afraid of peasants owning a plot of land and producing food to sell at market prices. Selfish peasants! People depend more on remittances and their relationship with foreign tourists than they did in the 1950s. Today the largest source of food imports is corporate US farms. It is not socialism. It is not communism. It is a kleptocracy.
I propose a simple experiment. Let 100 maids in Varadero choose to continue in their jobs and remain in Cuba or emigrate to Cancun for the same job. Except for the handful who have sick elderly parents, the results would be overwhelmingly to emigrate. Unlike you who would judge them as stupid for leaving, leaving behind all the free government benefits, I would respect their choice.
>
I would call the Cuban system authoritarian. What's at issue here, though, is whether Americans are in any position to tell Brazil that it shouldn't invest in Cuba. I think it's pretty clear by now that to bash Brazil on this score is so incredibly hypocritical as to be obscene.<:>
No, this has squat to do with "Americans" telling Brazil -government, president, petrobras - anything about its relations with Cuba.
This is about a lame-duck leader of an emerging power with cred in the region. Its specifically about him getting called out by a few activists in a nasty tropical Albania. And its about Lula not manning up and doing the right thing, at a period in time when he could afford to do it. This was not about telling another country to change its de-facto government, or to change its laws to protect Brazilian companies investments. It was only about letting some dude out of jail. And maybe even telling those old fossils to quit doing stupid and evil shit. they are the real disgraces.
No, this has squat to do with "Americans" telling Brazil -government, president, petrobras - anything about its relations with Cuba.
Uh, yes it is about North Americans attempting to tell Brazil which countries it should or shouldn't do busines with. If you don't recognize that that's what this thread is about, you haven't been reading it very closely.
Typical hard-left evasions and half-truths Delacour.
This thread is about Lula's
"deference to the island's communist government over political prisoners and hunger strikes for human rights." to quote the article linked in the post.
You were the one hijacking the thread trying to make it about some US action/criticism, which it is not.
Para que entendas mejor, te lo pongo en terminos simples (como tu ideologia):
LULA, LULA, LULA...not USA, USA, USA,
You were the one hijacking the thread trying to make it about some US action/criticism, which it is not.
No, the real issue here is that you are incapable of putting things into any sort of perspective.
The bottom line is that we live in a world where states compete for power and resources. It is a ruthless game, in which the Great Powers and their corporations will stop at nothing to make themselves a lot of money and to preserve their own power.
So when developing countries seek to get in on the competition, they don't have the luxury of picking and choosing who their friends are. If a country like Brazil wants to get in on the gig, it befriends those who are willing to do business with it. To insist that Brazil be especially selective about who it does business with is to try to shut Brazil out of the game altogether.
So, please, just spare us the hypocrisy. That's all I ask.
I recognize Brazil's freedom to decide its own foreign policy with regard to Cuba. I detest the result. Lula should know better as a former prisoner of a dictatorship that outside help is needed.
I recognize Brazil's freedom to decide its own foreign policy with regard to Cuba. I detest the result.
But you don't "detest the result" on principle.
As has become clear in the course of this discussion, you don't "detest the result" when, say, U.S. corporations lobby for the prohibition of independent trade unions in China.
You don't "detest the result" when, say, a U.S.-backed Colombian military murders thousands of civilians and then dresses them up as guerrillas to make it look as if they were killed in combat.
You only "detest the result" when it serves your agenda of selectively bashing the Left.
Spare us the hypocrisy.
The Cuban dissidents wrote to Lula specifically. They recognized his role as a democratic leader and as someone whose country was trying to exercise hemispheric leadership. The appealed to him as someone who had influence with the Cuban government and who had been a dissident himself. Their agenda was to get the 23 prisoners in the worst health released. They promised they were not seeking the overthrow of the Cuban government but wanted a humanitarian gesture for their colleagues who were sick. In response they got a cynical and cold rebuff comparing prisoners of conscience to common criminals in Sao Paolo. Lula is being called on it by the Brazilian people, including members of his own party, the press, and others around the world. He was understandably in a difficult place when asked while standing next to Raul Castro on the same day Zapata died, but he failed the most basic test of supporting human rights. The official reaction of the Cuban and Brazilian governments of blaming the US--the embargo, the empire, Guantanamo, etc... is rather pathetic. Contrary to what Justin has argued, Lula was a victim of rapacious capitalist practices that force Brazil to rebuild the port of Mariel, to invest in Cuba etc... these are conscious choices Brazil makes. It is not a victim. It will have to live with the consequences.
What might have been different if Lula had said, " The Cuban government is concerned about the well-being of prisoners too and we shall discuss it." Would Raul have cancelled the investments? Kicked him out of the country?
Notice, anonymous, that you can't even bring yourself to address the issue of whether you "detest" Brazil's relations with Cuba on principle.
There's a reason for that.
Keep on defending the indefensible...I think soon you'll be as welcome in Cuba as Russians are in the Czech Republic these days. I agree Lula was in a tough spot but he put himself there. What the hell did he expect, that dissidents aren't going to ask for a hearing? He certainly is not a victim as you laughably posit.
Keep on defending the indefensible...I think soon you'll be as welcome in Cuba as Russians are in the Czech Republic these days. I agree Lula was in a tough spot but he put himself there. What the hell did he expect, that dissidents aren't going to ask for a hearing? He certainly is not a victim as you laughably posit.
He certainly is not a victim as you laughably posit.
In this episode, Lula has become the target of a whole hell of a lot of hypocrisy from people like you and Boli-Nica. And the fact of the matter is that you can't even bring yourselves to deny the point.
Justin, Is it really that hard for you to admit that Cuba is violating the rights of its citizens to gather peacefully and discuss the future of their own country?
Justin, Is it really that hard for you to admit that Cuba is violating the rights of its citizens to gather peacefully and discuss the future of their own country? Lula I can understand better than you. He has interests to protect. You seem to do it out of ideological ennui.
Justin, Is it really that hard for you to admit that Cuba is violating the rights of its citizens to gather peacefully and discuss the future of their own country?
Don't be an idiot. That Cuba engages in such forms of political repression is not under debate. What is at issue is whether you are engaging in the utmost hypocrisy when you suggest that Brazil's relations with Cuba should come under attack on account of Cuba's breaches of democratic norms.
This is total hypocrisy. You don't hold the United States to the same standard for its business dealings with China, Saudi Arabia or any number of other authoritarian states, so you have no business going after Brazil on this score.
"Don't be an idiot. That Cuba engages in such forms of political repression is not under debate. What is at issue is whether you are engaging in the utmost hypocrisy when you suggest that Brazil's relations with Cuba should come under attack on account of Cuba's breaches of democratic norms."
You call me an idiot and total hypocrite and yet you say Cuba has committed "breaches of democratic norms." ROTFLMAO
You are a master of euphemism and weasel words. George Orwell would have a field day with you. Do you mean that Cuba normally upholds democratic norms but had some slippage? Kind of like a wet fart?
George Orwell would have a field day with you.
I think George Orwell would have a field day with you, seeing as your double standards are so glaring.
Justin, you are arguing 'human rights' and 'democracy' with people that cheered the human rights abuses and the repression of the people of Honduras.
These crack-heads don't give a rat's ass about 'democracy'--as long as they get their cut of the loot stolen by the empire and the oligarchies that the empire supports.
Yeah, compare 'human rights' in Cuba with places like Central America and Mexico. Human rights have a socio-economic component, but these crack-heads take the side of the empire, oligarchy, and the wealthy elites when it comes to any measure or struggle in which the aim is to compell elites to share more of the wealth.
You are arguing with people that have an especial hatered for authentic democracy, where wealth
isn't always the determining factor in who governs and who works for slave wages.,
Squalid little butt-boys, cheerleaders for imperialist violence and genocidal mass murder (Iraq, Vietnam, etc.)
There is no debate that accomplishes anything with these gusanos. I met a few of the same types in Guatemala, Mexico, and Honduras. They are so imbued with hypocrisy and cynism that they have to be roundly condemned and exposed.
But the fact that these crack-heads so vociferously supported the brutal repression in Honduras that is especially reprobate and sick.
Lastly, Cuba has to be judged in the full context: i.e., the persistent attacks, even terrorism, coming from the US. As these contexts are missing in most Latin American and US capitalist media, it is nothing more than capitalist propaganda pretending to 'inform'.
Welcome back, Slave Revolt!
Well, here's the thing about Guillermo Farinyas. He is well educated and well respected in Santa Clara. He is not rich. He is not a party member. He is a principled Afro-Cuban citizen. He is dying because people like you defend tyranny. Here is what he said about Lula.
Mr Farinas told Brazilian newspaper Folha de Sao Paulo that President Lula's comments showed "his commitment to the tyranny of Castro and his contempt for political prisoners and their families".
"A majority of the Cuban people feel betrayed by a president who was once a political prisoner."
Critics also came from within Brazil.
The Brazilian Bar Association (OAB) said Lula's comments aimed to trivialise hunger strikes, which were a symbol of resistance to authoritarian regimes.
"It would be better for the Brazilian government to concern itself with the dreadful prison conditions in which (dissidents) are held," said the association's president, Ophir Cavalcante.
Coming from you, being called a squalid butt boy, gusano and a crackhead is a badge of honor. (The homophobic allusion parallels well given the Castro Bros. historic treatment of homosexuals.) Yours, anonymous.
Justin, you are arguing 'human rights' and 'democracy' with people that cheered the human rights abuses and the repression of the people of Honduras.
That's exactly the problem. At least Greg occasionally tries to be consistent when he recognizes human rights abuses under both rightist and leftist regimes. Boli-Nica and anonymous, on the other hand, will jump to the defense of right-wing regimes that commit daily abuses and then turn right around and scream bloody murder the minute Lula doesn't denounce abuses in Cuba.
After a while, the level of hypocrisy becomes a little sickening.
Cuba has to be judged in the full context: i.e., the persistent attacks, even terrorism, coming from the US. As these contexts are missing in most Latin American and US capitalist media,
DING, DING, DING, WE HAVE A WINNER!!
(of a loser argument)
SR makes the point that Delacour wants to make without really saying so. And its the same tired, bogus arguments and justifications that the fossils in the Latin American idiot (and even non-idiot) have been making for decades.
It is disgusting. Cuba isn't a miserable collectivist nightmare ruled by nasty evil old men because of the US.
Its rulers chose to back the wrong side of the Cold War and at one point even told the Kremlin to nuke us. A country that exiled about a tenth of its population, imprisoned tenths of thousands and murdered a bunch of people. A government that bankrupted one of the richest countries in the hemisphere with socialist stupidity. That acted as sepoys for the Marxist-Leninist fossils in Kremlin. Or that formented and instigated fellow travellers all over the continent, actively provoking military brutality that followed.
Those that hero-worship Fidel,have some sort of Marxist-revolutionary fetish, or are so blinded by knee-jerk anti-Americanism that they don't see just how evil and stupid Cuba's ruiers are, are plain f#%ked in the head
"Why have they brought us to this point? How can they close all the paths of dialog, debate, healthy dissent and necessary criticism? When this kind of protest, a protest of empty stomachs, happens in a country we have to question whether they have left citizens any other way to show their lack of consent. Fariñas knows they will never give him one minute on the radio, that his voice cannot rise up, without penalty, in a public place. Refusing to eat was the way he found to show the desperation and despair of living under a system that gags and masks his most important “conquests.” Yoani Sanchez
"The tragic death of Orlando Zapata Tamayo is a terrible illustration of the despair facing prisoners of conscience who see no hope of being freed from their unfair and prolonged incarceration," said Gerardo Ducos, Amnesty International's Caribbean researcher. "A full investigation must be carried out to establish whether ill-treatment may have played a part in his death."
Orlando Zapata Tamayo was arrested in March 2003 and in May 2004 he was sentenced to three years in prison for "disrespect", "public disorder" and "resistance".
He was subsequently tried several times on further charges of "disobedience" and "disorder in a penal establishment", the last time in May 2009, and was serving a total sentence of 36 years at the time of his death.
"Faced with a prolonged prison sentence, the fact that Orlando Zapata Tamayo felt he had no other avenue available to him but to starve himself in protest is a terrible indictment of the continuing repression of political dissidents in Cuba," said Gerardo Ducos
"The death of Orlando Zapata also underlines the urgent need for Cuba to invite international human rights experts to visit the country to verify respect for human rights, in particular obligations in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights."
Orlando Zapata Tamayo was one of 55 prisoners of conscience who have been adopted by Amnesty International in Cuba."
If Amnesty International gets it, European and Brazilian socialists get it, what is the matter with Justin? Slave Revolt? Lula? They are blinded by either their loyalty to the Castro Bros. 51 year old regime or their cynical view of human rights.
"THE STUBBORNNESS, INTRANSIGENCE, CRUELTY, INSENSITIVITY IN FRONT OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY OF THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT FACED WITH THE PROBLEM OF IRISH PATRIOTS ON HUNGER STRIKES UNTIL THE DEATH, REMIND US OF TORQUEMADA AND THE BARBARITY OF THE INQUISITION IN THE MIDDLE AGES. THE TYRANTS TREMBLE BEFORE MEN WHO ARE CAPABLE OF DYING FOR THEIR IDEAS, AFTER 60 DAYS OF HUNGER STRIKE!
NEXT TO THIS EXAMPLE, WHAT WERE THE THREE DAYS OF CHRIST ON THE CALVARY, FOR CENTURIES A SYMBOL OF HUMAN SACRIFICE?IT IS TIME TO PUT AN END, THROUGH DENUNCIATION AND PRESSURE FROM THE WORLD COMMUNITY, TO THIS REPUGNANT ATROCITY."
FIDEL CASTRO - 08-18-1981
PLAQUE ON THE WALL OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE INTER-PARLIAMENTARY UNION
Boli-Nica:
What is clear from your last diatribe is that you are an ultra-rightist zealot who couldn't be trusted to defend people's human rights if thousands of lives depended on it. Idealogues like yourself are not in the business of defending human rights. The day that your side of the political spectrum is willing to recognize human rights abuses wherever they exist will be the day that we can begin to have a fruitful discussion about human rights abuses (including those in Cuba). But, until such time, don't expect people who actually care about basic questions of ethics to take your hypocrisy seriously.
As long as you and anonymous are in the business of using human rights abuses in Cuba as a thinly disguised means of justifying human rights abuses in places like Honduras and Colombia, you have no business posing as defenders of human rights.
Essentially throughout all these 50+ posts Justin fails to condemn Cuba's mistreatment of prisoners of conscience. He rationalizes Lula's poor judgment and defends the indefensible. He decided the issue is me. No, I am not important here. (That is why I stay anonymous.) It is the substance of the argument that matters not who makes it. If Stalin had argued 2 = 2 = 4, he would have been right. This constant changing the subject from Chinese textiles to Honduras to Colombia is just a distraction from Cuba and Brazil. The charge of hypocrisy is just a "shoot the messenger" strategy. Pretty weak performance for someone who believes he is an expert in Latin American politics.
The charge of hypocrisy is just a "shoot the messenger" strategy.
No, actually, the intent behind one's words matters quite a lot. As long as the intent is to use human rights abuses in Cuba as a justification for more human rights abuses in places like Honduras and Colombia, your harangues will serve no righteous purpose whatsoever.
And notice that you can't even bring yourself to deny the charge of hypocrisy.
As you don't know me, my politics, my actions or my beliefs, you don't know my "intent." This is a ridiculous proposition from a "little statesman" to paraphrase Emerson.
In the meantime, answer the questions of this topic. Why shouldn't Cubans be able to meet peacefully and discuss their own future? Why do you and Lula think that they don't deserve the same fundamental rights as people everywhere?
The best you can do is admit it was an unfortunate formulation by Lula and re-attack everyone who disagrees as a yankee imperialist.. You describe Cuba's govt. with weasel words and euphemisms. The story is not going away, Justin.
Why shouldn't Cubans be able to meet peacefully and discuss their own future?
The question presupposes a position that I do not hold. Cubans should be able to meet peacefully and discuss their own future in the same way that Hondurans should have been able to meet peacefully and discuss their own future (instead of having had to live under the curfew of a repressive coup government).
To say, however, that Brazil's government is supposed to denounce a business partner is pure hypocrisy. That's not a standard that we apply to our own government when we have close business relations with authoritarian governments, so it's not a standard that I'm going to apply to Brazil either.
As for criticisms emerging from global civil society, I sympathisize with principled criticisms of Cuba's human rights record, but I do not sympathize with a selective focus upon Cuba that reflects ulterior motives. Hypocrisy and selective indignation are the roads to oblivion. Hypocrisy is the means by which people like yourself will justify human rights abuses against those with whom you disagree in the name of defending the human rights of those whose politics you agree with. Hypocrisy leads to the breakdown of basic standards rather than to the construction of a set of standards to which political actors can be held.
As you don't know me, my politics, my actions or my beliefs, you don't know my "intent."
Actually, I do know that your intent is to bash the Left (rather than to defend human rights). And once again, you can't even bring yourself to deny the point.
If this weren't the case, then you wouldn't laud long-time human rights abusers such as Alvaro Uribe (which I've seen you do here). If you were genuinely concerned about human rights abuses, you wouldn't spout apologetics for Honduras' coup government.
"The question presupposes a position that I do not hold. Cubans should be able to meet peacefully and discuss their own future in the same way that Hondurans should have been able to meet peacefully and discuss their own future (instead of having had to live under the curfew of a repressive coup government)."
Glad to hear it. We agree. Too bad Lula won't speak up for the same outcome though.
"Actually, I do know that your intent is to bash the Left (rather than to defend human rights). And once again, you can't even bring yourself to deny the point. "
Correct, I don't feel it is necessary to defend myself against charges of hypocrisy from you. I am not the substantive issue. The Bros. Castro and their relationship with Lula is the issue.
"If this weren't the case, then you wouldn't laud long-time human rights abusers such as Alvaro Uribe (which I've seen you do here)."
Ironic you should choose Uribe. I don't think the topic here is Uribe, but one might note Colombians are voting today and choosing from over 2,500 legislative candidates, including ex-FARC rebels, ex-paramilitaries and a diverse group of parties and ideologies. This would be a huge improvement if something remotely similar would take place in Cuba.
Good day, profe.
I don't feel it is necessary to defend myself against charges of hypocrisy from you.
You run from the issue because you know you have no defense against the charge that your hypocrisy is glaring.
I don't think the topic here is Uribe, but one might note Colombians are voting today and choosing from over 2,500 legislative candidates, including ex-FARC rebels, ex-paramilitaries and a diverse group of parties and ideologies.
Yes, there are competitive elections, but that's only one dimension of the broader issue. The fact remains that Colombia kills more journalists, trade unionists and human right activists than any other country in the hemisphere and that Alvaro Uribe is personally implicated in endangering the lives of critical Colombian journalists. That's not to mention the macabre spectacle of a military that is under investigation for killing thousands of civilians and then dressing them up as guerrillas to make them appear as if they were battle kills.
These facts will not come under your radar because a recognition of them would not serve your broader political agenda, which has nothing to do with human rights.
Makes me wanna hollar, and throw up both my hands.
This ain't liv'in!
well kids, we've learned a lot here
-its cool for Lula to compare a political-prisoner dude on a hunger strike to common criminals in Sao Paulo. Hey, who said he had to diplomatically stay silent on the issue? he has to "keep it real" by show3ing love to the Castro brothers.
- That when anyone talks ill about the Castro brothers and the island, you have to furiously bring up the US role...because thats what its about.
- That it is way uncool to say anything bad about Fidel and the system in the island. Because Fidel...well...he rocks. And Castro talks a lot about how he has helped the poor in Cuba, and stand up to the nasty gringosz. 50 years of slogans nmakes it right.
Perhaps one day Boli-Nica will learn to debate honestly and proficiently by squarely addressing people's points rather than erecting strawmen arguments as a diversionary tactic.
Unfortunately, that day has not arrived yet.
Today was the third day of protests by the damas en blanco. They have been subjected to government orchestrated "acts of repudiation." Today the women were detained by state police forces after receiving beatings from the crowd. The women are asking for the release of their husbands, sons and friends who are in jail because they dared to speak up and exercise their right of free speech.
Pablo Milanes the founder of nueva trova and a musical icon in Cuba said the following about Guillermo Farinya's hunger strike: Hay que condenar desde el punto de vista humano. Esas cosas no se hacen. Las ideas se discuten y se combaten, no se encarcelan." How much more complex can you make it?
Post a Comment