While pro-Castro Cubans recognized as Pablo Milanes finally begin open their eyes and have the intellectual courage and ethical integrity, to oppose the dictatorship of the Castro and company joining Communist intellectuals such as José Saramago, who abandoned his support for the "adventure" totalitarian after those shootings resonated the year 2003-which added to other murders committed by the regime in this half century of oppression against his people, we need leaders, activists and political sectors of the Uruguayan left remain complicit in the tyranny that have our sister island. Not everyone, of course, but the fact that the Political Bureau of the Frente Amplio has issued a statement supporting a dictatorship no less reprehensible, especially when you consider they are representative political voice of the entire electorate and its frontage ruling class. It is disturbing, definitely see a Democratic Party and the left (who has lived in the flesh what it means to a dictatorship, which means the state terrorism) to support a totalitarian government like Castro. In Cuba there is not only freedom of expression, no freedom of press, not only banned all political opposition as well as the possibility that their citizens can move freely and leave or enter their country whenever they want, not only prohibited to Internet access, not only are political prisoners, not only then not respect basic human rights and freedoms, but more than half a century ago that the top management is the same, without right to free elections and suppressing anyone who opposed the regime (including everything from shooting to processing without minimum guarantees).
By the way, you know what were the crimes that had established political prisoner Orlando Zapata (the "dissident", which is how it classifies those who resist the regime), before the Cuban dictatorship let him die? His main crime was classified as "contempt to the figure of Fidel Castro", adding to other figures "criminal" and "resistance", "public disorder" and "disrespect" from every single fact: to participate in meetings with opposition to the Castro dictatorship. And you know what was the conviction that the "revolutionary, socialist and humanist Fidel Zapata was applied for such" crimes "? A penalty of 36 years in prison. Were quite "benign" because others have been shot without compunction. Well, how someone can be so hypocritical to say that in Cuba, human rights are respected? Hard to believe that those who have been victims of political persecution and political prisoners and those who have been convicted, and condemned "those situations, are now complicit in the political persecution and repression in Cuba, they are intellectual accomplices of the political prisoners there in Cuba. How do you feel when you see these days the images of police beating women Cuban political prisoners? A terrible double standard still survives in many when talking about the "Cuban case" (in this respect, Cuba is always in "Picture This", we have the "Cuban case" as "eternal return" because that has put it there "revolution dictatorial" de Castro, presenting at all times as "alternative" to a "better world" and as the "cradle" of "anti-imperialism." constant is in the center of the storm because there's been putting decades Fidel and company, in its tragic "revolution", which in half a century has not improved or changed anything in the world but has left several dead in his country, prisoners and many lives lived without freedom and misery .)
tragicomic At this point it is critical to maintain that if the Cuban regime is "in favor" of the rule or reason that if there are poor people in the world because democracy is "liberal" does not work (or simply to serve the 'powerful the world ") and then it is okay to have a" viable alternative "based on a" healthy revolutionary dictatorship. " How can such dichotomies do not realize the obvious fallacy that falls? Should we expect to disappear "evil" countries "democratic and rich" and that there are no poor in the world to condemn the violation of human rights in Cuba? How much is the life of people with a dictatorship, is the ideological sign that this be? Do not care about the victims of the Cuban dictatorship because there is "bad" U.S. and because there are still inequalities in the world? Does what happens in Cuba is not serious because in the world there are other injustices? Think in those terms is to adhere to a perverse logic of false oppositions that dehumanizes us. For Indeed, in Cuba the same social inequalities exist in other societies, the poor themselves and the same privileged class in other societies, with the aggravating circumstance that there are also basic freedoms.
The world is clearly better in forms of democracy and freedom in societies where human rights are respected. Can you still believe you have to install dictatorships "revolutionary," if necessary "to solve the problems of social injustice suffered by the world or a particular society? Not appear that the path to a fairer, more equitable, than the dictatorships. For striving toward a better world, it seems necessary, on the contrary, have individuals, citizens, leaders, institutions and political parties that prioritize freedom and respect for the rights of others. There will be no better world while on behalf of any further justifying ideology of tyranny and subjugation of freedoms and human rights (the same that have already been enshrined as universal in 48 'of the last century).
But is it possible to speak of universally recognized human rights, enshrining past-for example, of particular ideological purposes? The gestures are always universal declarations of principles are philosophical propositions about those values \u200b\u200bwhich we believe we should be able to agree to live better. Seems to be recommended for any company to seek progress in terms of social justice to adhere to the principles stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. And to think in universal terms and non-exclusive particular, and on its implementation: not think that statement is fine for the U.S., but not to Cuba, for example. Thus, if in some parts of the world practice the stones to kill the infidel women, if you like to stone women, should condemn such a situation beyond the "respect" for cultural diversity and self-determination of peoples and not caring what sign is the government ideology concerned that permits such violations of human rights, because there are values \u200b\u200bthat are above that cultural or ideological diversity, universal values \u200b\u200bthat are always human constructions and not have to do with the "natural" or with "Platonic essences" - I believe are worth defending on behalf of all humanity (and no one feels a "white bourgeois West" who just wants to impose values \u200b\u200bon the rest of the world. Life and victims are more important than speeches, "justifying "death and the perpetrators). The best of man is exactly as it transcends collective self is given to some defend basic values \u200b\u200bconsidered. There is the greatness of gestures as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I invite you to think about what happens in Cuba to resume reading from such declaration.
Then the fact that Cuba has good levels of education, health and food does not justify anything about the continuing violation that the Castro regime on human rights causes. We can not keep throwing all the time "justification" of this kind, which are false opposition gross fallacies. For example, in U.S. there is a very good level in these items and yet cut its hawkish foreign policies have repeatedly violated human rights. For these sides of the world has heard from some people who lived during the dictatorship because there was barbaric crime and that economic shocks are not passed. So, beware believe that the achievements of some social indicators may have under a dictatorship justified its existence and defense. And freedom, well, not only be having a meal, to go to a doctor or be educated. And of course that people can choose if they want tyranny, but from there to applaud such a fact means the end of all forms of defense of freedom and critical exercise of resistance to injustice. How can we keep looking the other way and do not condemn anything what is happening in Cuba at the level of repression and violation of human rights, because "art" have good coverage and good school performance? Is that all values \u200b\u200bare relative to our ideological sympathy and then it's okay to do human rights "filters" and "justifications" as our ideological parameters? Is it to implement a blind eye depending on who commits the crime is "of mine" or "outsiders" in the blind dichotomy of "good" and "bad"? It seems that some rights are valid only when judging the "bad and powerful ", but are relieved to be met by Fidel Castro and company (by the way, I can hardly believe how some people is more important to Fidel Castro and his ideology, Fidel Castro and his" struggle "against" imperialism "that the average Cuban, that the type of meat and bone, that shot by the regime, that prisoners in Cuban jails for thinking differently, that lack of freedoms of an entire people that actually suffer from the dictatorship) .
left would be good old romantic myths leave his side and finally took the failure of the Cuban revolutionary company and its becoming a mere repressive authoritarianism. Capable to recommend and support the democratic life for the brother people of Cuba, respect for liberties and human rights and strongly condemns all practices contrary to these values. It is sad to see the degree of human indifference and alienation that achieve ideological right-thinking and supportive "buddy" when trying to show that the condemnation of the lack of freedom and authoritarianism prevailing in the case of Cuba is simply part of a speech "neoliberal" or "right." How long we'll keep playing down the idea of \u200b\u200bfreedom in the case of authoritarian governments who call themselves socialists? How long we will maintain the blindness to look the other way, and simply appeal to label as "liberal", "pro-imperialist" or "right" people to condemn the lack of freedom in countries like Cuba? How long, when challenged ourselves on the roads continues to take repressive Castro dictatorship, let's consider the "freedom" is a dirty word used by "neoliberal" to follow "dominated"? It is true that human rights are part of an ideology, like all discourse, as any review of the world, but the problem appears to be that the "ideology of the powerful" we want to impose a particular human rights discourse to condemn the "revolutionary experience" in Cuba but that since stores ideological humanist values \u200b\u200brelated to adhere to the idea that it is correct violating human rights in both happen to be "justifiable", or "minor issue "- compared to the" ultimate goal "of trying to reach the highest values \u200b\u200bthat lead to a better world to end imperialism, poverty and all forms of injustice (is curious, moreover, is still visible in Castro and company spokesman of such a task. For years they have given up all ideology and has been the only effective yet fervent speech to the masses you are trying to justify their stay in power and "necessary" crackdown on "dissidents")
will come a time when Cuba is free and people can live and free to decide their fate. That freedom should never be a problem of "different views policies", but a universal value that exceeds the governments and ideologies of time, because we should not judge whether or not someone restricts freedoms if it violates human rights or not as a rich country, poor, or more "related" or not our ideology.
not ever want to load my conscience with the accession to dictatorship of any kind, whether left, right, center, up or down. Many This generation still have the backpack laden with praise at the time what was happening behind the Iron Curtain. When Cuba finally regaining their freedom, when the Castro regime will finally be judged by history, not be a holiday for those who practiced various forms of commitment and complicity. The recent death of Orlando Zapata also theirs. To them, I wonder: how much complicity with the dictatorship in Cuba?
By the way, you know what were the crimes that had established political prisoner Orlando Zapata (the "dissident", which is how it classifies those who resist the regime), before the Cuban dictatorship let him die? His main crime was classified as "contempt to the figure of Fidel Castro", adding to other figures "criminal" and "resistance", "public disorder" and "disrespect" from every single fact: to participate in meetings with opposition to the Castro dictatorship. And you know what was the conviction that the "revolutionary, socialist and humanist Fidel Zapata was applied for such" crimes "? A penalty of 36 years in prison. Were quite "benign" because others have been shot without compunction. Well, how someone can be so hypocritical to say that in Cuba, human rights are respected? Hard to believe that those who have been victims of political persecution and political prisoners and those who have been convicted, and condemned "those situations, are now complicit in the political persecution and repression in Cuba, they are intellectual accomplices of the political prisoners there in Cuba. How do you feel when you see these days the images of police beating women Cuban political prisoners? A terrible double standard still survives in many when talking about the "Cuban case" (in this respect, Cuba is always in "Picture This", we have the "Cuban case" as "eternal return" because that has put it there "revolution dictatorial" de Castro, presenting at all times as "alternative" to a "better world" and as the "cradle" of "anti-imperialism." constant is in the center of the storm because there's been putting decades Fidel and company, in its tragic "revolution", which in half a century has not improved or changed anything in the world but has left several dead in his country, prisoners and many lives lived without freedom and misery .)
tragicomic At this point it is critical to maintain that if the Cuban regime is "in favor" of the rule or reason that if there are poor people in the world because democracy is "liberal" does not work (or simply to serve the 'powerful the world ") and then it is okay to have a" viable alternative "based on a" healthy revolutionary dictatorship. " How can such dichotomies do not realize the obvious fallacy that falls? Should we expect to disappear "evil" countries "democratic and rich" and that there are no poor in the world to condemn the violation of human rights in Cuba? How much is the life of people with a dictatorship, is the ideological sign that this be? Do not care about the victims of the Cuban dictatorship because there is "bad" U.S. and because there are still inequalities in the world? Does what happens in Cuba is not serious because in the world there are other injustices? Think in those terms is to adhere to a perverse logic of false oppositions that dehumanizes us. For Indeed, in Cuba the same social inequalities exist in other societies, the poor themselves and the same privileged class in other societies, with the aggravating circumstance that there are also basic freedoms.
The world is clearly better in forms of democracy and freedom in societies where human rights are respected. Can you still believe you have to install dictatorships "revolutionary," if necessary "to solve the problems of social injustice suffered by the world or a particular society? Not appear that the path to a fairer, more equitable, than the dictatorships. For striving toward a better world, it seems necessary, on the contrary, have individuals, citizens, leaders, institutions and political parties that prioritize freedom and respect for the rights of others. There will be no better world while on behalf of any further justifying ideology of tyranny and subjugation of freedoms and human rights (the same that have already been enshrined as universal in 48 'of the last century).
But is it possible to speak of universally recognized human rights, enshrining past-for example, of particular ideological purposes? The gestures are always universal declarations of principles are philosophical propositions about those values \u200b\u200bwhich we believe we should be able to agree to live better. Seems to be recommended for any company to seek progress in terms of social justice to adhere to the principles stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. And to think in universal terms and non-exclusive particular, and on its implementation: not think that statement is fine for the U.S., but not to Cuba, for example. Thus, if in some parts of the world practice the stones to kill the infidel women, if you like to stone women, should condemn such a situation beyond the "respect" for cultural diversity and self-determination of peoples and not caring what sign is the government ideology concerned that permits such violations of human rights, because there are values \u200b\u200bthat are above that cultural or ideological diversity, universal values \u200b\u200bthat are always human constructions and not have to do with the "natural" or with "Platonic essences" - I believe are worth defending on behalf of all humanity (and no one feels a "white bourgeois West" who just wants to impose values \u200b\u200bon the rest of the world. Life and victims are more important than speeches, "justifying "death and the perpetrators). The best of man is exactly as it transcends collective self is given to some defend basic values \u200b\u200bconsidered. There is the greatness of gestures as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I invite you to think about what happens in Cuba to resume reading from such declaration.
Then the fact that Cuba has good levels of education, health and food does not justify anything about the continuing violation that the Castro regime on human rights causes. We can not keep throwing all the time "justification" of this kind, which are false opposition gross fallacies. For example, in U.S. there is a very good level in these items and yet cut its hawkish foreign policies have repeatedly violated human rights. For these sides of the world has heard from some people who lived during the dictatorship because there was barbaric crime and that economic shocks are not passed. So, beware believe that the achievements of some social indicators may have under a dictatorship justified its existence and defense. And freedom, well, not only be having a meal, to go to a doctor or be educated. And of course that people can choose if they want tyranny, but from there to applaud such a fact means the end of all forms of defense of freedom and critical exercise of resistance to injustice. How can we keep looking the other way and do not condemn anything what is happening in Cuba at the level of repression and violation of human rights, because "art" have good coverage and good school performance? Is that all values \u200b\u200bare relative to our ideological sympathy and then it's okay to do human rights "filters" and "justifications" as our ideological parameters? Is it to implement a blind eye depending on who commits the crime is "of mine" or "outsiders" in the blind dichotomy of "good" and "bad"? It seems that some rights are valid only when judging the "bad and powerful ", but are relieved to be met by Fidel Castro and company (by the way, I can hardly believe how some people is more important to Fidel Castro and his ideology, Fidel Castro and his" struggle "against" imperialism "that the average Cuban, that the type of meat and bone, that shot by the regime, that prisoners in Cuban jails for thinking differently, that lack of freedoms of an entire people that actually suffer from the dictatorship) .
left would be good old romantic myths leave his side and finally took the failure of the Cuban revolutionary company and its becoming a mere repressive authoritarianism. Capable to recommend and support the democratic life for the brother people of Cuba, respect for liberties and human rights and strongly condemns all practices contrary to these values. It is sad to see the degree of human indifference and alienation that achieve ideological right-thinking and supportive "buddy" when trying to show that the condemnation of the lack of freedom and authoritarianism prevailing in the case of Cuba is simply part of a speech "neoliberal" or "right." How long we'll keep playing down the idea of \u200b\u200bfreedom in the case of authoritarian governments who call themselves socialists? How long we will maintain the blindness to look the other way, and simply appeal to label as "liberal", "pro-imperialist" or "right" people to condemn the lack of freedom in countries like Cuba? How long, when challenged ourselves on the roads continues to take repressive Castro dictatorship, let's consider the "freedom" is a dirty word used by "neoliberal" to follow "dominated"? It is true that human rights are part of an ideology, like all discourse, as any review of the world, but the problem appears to be that the "ideology of the powerful" we want to impose a particular human rights discourse to condemn the "revolutionary experience" in Cuba but that since stores ideological humanist values \u200b\u200brelated to adhere to the idea that it is correct violating human rights in both happen to be "justifiable", or "minor issue "- compared to the" ultimate goal "of trying to reach the highest values \u200b\u200bthat lead to a better world to end imperialism, poverty and all forms of injustice (is curious, moreover, is still visible in Castro and company spokesman of such a task. For years they have given up all ideology and has been the only effective yet fervent speech to the masses you are trying to justify their stay in power and "necessary" crackdown on "dissidents")
will come a time when Cuba is free and people can live and free to decide their fate. That freedom should never be a problem of "different views policies", but a universal value that exceeds the governments and ideologies of time, because we should not judge whether or not someone restricts freedoms if it violates human rights or not as a rich country, poor, or more "related" or not our ideology.
not ever want to load my conscience with the accession to dictatorship of any kind, whether left, right, center, up or down. Many This generation still have the backpack laden with praise at the time what was happening behind the Iron Curtain. When Cuba finally regaining their freedom, when the Castro regime will finally be judged by history, not be a holiday for those who practiced various forms of commitment and complicity. The recent death of Orlando Zapata also theirs. To them, I wonder: how much complicity with the dictatorship in Cuba?
0 comments:
Post a Comment