START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

How Credible Is Human Rights Watch on Cuba?


World  (tags: Cuba, Latin America, revolution, egalitarianism, egalitarian, equality, HumanRights, humanrights, democracy, socialism, capitalism, corporations, HRW, Human Rights Watch, propaganda, dishonesty, lies, imperialism, U.S. imperialism, CIA, terrorism )

Simon
- 1591 days ago - links.org.au
"Human Rights Watch" gets most of its funds from US foundations, which are funded by huge US corporations. Those foundations often tie their contributions to particular projects. Most people on the "Human Rights Watch" board are bosses of corporations.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

David S. (55)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 4:40 am
I am concerned about political prisoners held in the United States, such as Leonard Peltier, or the civil activist lawyer Lynn Stewart, or Jeff Luer (though he recently was freed). Who speaks for them?
 

. (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 5:33 am
If HRW was the only human rights organization criticizing Cuba for human rights violations, its credibility would obviously be highly suspect.

But it isn't the only human rights organization criticizing Cuba. Not by a very long shot. Amnesty International, to name a well-known organization, is a serious critic. Among others.

And Cubans themselves can be among the most vocal critics - when they are safe from threat of reprisal by the Cuban government for their exercise of free speech.

However, it is the large number of refugees who provide the most impressive body of evidence. People who are willing to risk imprisonment in Cuba by giving up everything they have and risking their lives in flimsy craft to try and reach U.S. shores. Hardly the actions of those living in favorable conditions.

Cuba is not Nazi Germany. It is no hellhole of the first magnitude. But neither is it a place where human rights flourish. And it is a serious violator of those human rights. All in the name of maintaining 'revolutionary' values.
 

patricia lasek (317)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 5:46 am
Youcannot currently send a green star to Lindsey O. because you have sent one in the past week.
I sure tried though. I think every nation violates human rights in one way or another. Some are just more blatant about it.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 5:55 am
Thank you, Patricia.

And I agree with you, without question. There isn't a single culture on earth which doesn't violate its members' human/civil rights to some extent. A very notable example in the U.S. would be our government's violation of the civil rights of homosexuals.

But there are degrees. Degrees of both the initial violation of rights and degrees of punishment meted out to the violators and those who decry the violation. In the U.S., those who agitate for gay rights aren't being thrown in prison. In Cuba, those who exercise their right to free speech frequently, and famously, inhabit prison cells today.

Just as there are still some societal hurdles we women have to overcome in the U.S., although we have the same legal rights as any man (except for combat in the military, of course). But those remaining injustices pale in importance when we consider the enormous violations of rights being perpetrated against women in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and so many other places.
 

Jessie Cross (295)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 7:50 am
I wonder how credible anyone is on this issue. Where does impartiality start and where does it end? I am against ANY violent acts by ANY government or its police forces against its civilians - and that includes mine - the Italian government. We have had a number of people die in custody this year and the last and there just does not seem to be enough attention paid - unbelievable. In one case an Italian was beaten up and subsequently died - this was seen by an illegal immigrant being held who had the courage to speak out - well, he died , too! And little old me thought I could make a difference for some prisoners in Italian jails HA! I must be the biggest joke here.
 

Pastor Tim Redfern (599)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 10:00 am
Human Rights Watch, however, is not funded by the US government. Yet it gets most of its funds from a variety of US foundations, in turn funded by many of the biggest US corporations. These wealthy, private foundations often tie their contributions to particular projects. So for example HRW's Middle East reports often rely on and acknowledge grants from pro-Israel foundations. Other groups ask for a focus on women’s rights or HIV/AIDS issues. More than 90% of HRW’s US$100 million budget in 2009 was "restricted" in this way. In other words, HRW offers a privatised, wealthy, US-based selection of rights issues.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It would really be nice if Care2 afforded us the
possibility of seeing who has actually read the story before they post
a comment on it. I fear too many people see the headline, and proceed to
comment without actually clicking on "visit site".

There is no perfect nation, because this is not
a perfect world. But, if I had my druthers, I'd
much rather live in Cuba (or Venezuela) than in the
United States. Capitalism has driven me down to below
poverty-level, and, being disabled, as my beloved fiancee
and I are, no one in this country, least of all the government,
gives a cockeyed damn about us.......merely because we ARE
disabled. In a genuinely Socialist society, I know for a FACT
that Jill & I would be recieving better treatment than were getting
living in this fascist plutocratic police state.

Thank you, Simon, very much,
and I do hope more eople will take the 5 minutes
required to read the story before they comment off
the tops of their heads.
noted.

 

Pastor Tim Redfern (599)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 10:02 am
You cannot currently send a star to Simon because you have done so within the last week.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 11:00 am
Ah, Tim, Tim - you seem to think the contents of the news item would have meant a different comment? They wouldn't. For I had indeed read the story before I commented. And my comments stand. The criticisms leveled at Cuba are not unique to this organization. So unless Amnesty International and every other group and individual making those charges are also in the pocket of American corporations, I think we're just going to have to accept that what these groups say about Cuba is likely true.

And you don't like this 'fascist plutocratic police state' we lve in? Defect to Cuba, North Korea, et al. I'm sure that the thought of the great publicity of having someone actually WANTING to cross the border INTO those countries to live would be persuasive enough to have them offer you citizenship, with all the trimmings.

And you can, of course, do it. Since the U.S., unlike those nations, actually allows its citizens the freedom to leave whenever they choose. Wow - what a concept.....freedom. Sure is reason enough to leave these shores, isn't it?
 

patricia lasek (317)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 1:25 pm
I read the entire article before commenting. Not everyonyone jumps in without looking. America - where you can disagree with the goverment - Blessed Freedom! And, you can leave if you choose.
I too am disabled and live on a very low, fixed income. I will survive!
 

Anne T. (179)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 1:49 pm
Read and noted. :)
 

Simon Wood (207)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 7:45 pm
Lindsey O wrote:

"If HRW was the only human rights organization criticizing Cuba for human rights violations, its credibility would obviously be highly suspect."

The credibility of "Human Rights Watch" is highly suspect because "Human Rights Watch" gets most of its funds from US foundations, which are funded by huge US corporations. Those foundations often tie their contributions to particular projects. Most people on the "Human Rights Watch" board are bosses of corporations.

More than 90% of HRW’s US$100 million budget in 2009 was "restricted" in this way. In other words, HRW offers a privatised, wealthy, US-based selection of rights issues.

Those U.S. elites want to own Cuba's economy like they did before the 1959 revolution, and to reimpose the capitalist system (the capitalist class owning the economy, and exploiting the working class who work for them, which keeps power in the hands of the rich, and impoverishes the working class majority). Because of their agenda, they are not credible when they criticise Cuba.

If you want to talk about Amnesty International, then let's do that - but that is a separate issue, and whatever Amnesty International says, does not improve "Human Rights Watch" credibility.

Lindsey O has ignored the fact that "Human Rights Watch" ignores or hugely play down the human rights abuse by the regimes they prefer (such as the USA, Colombia, Honduras, Haiti, Mexico and Peru) - that is probably because the corporations are quite linked to that abuse: e.g. corporations like Cocacola hire death squads to kill labour unionists in Colombia and Haiti (etc.), corporations like United Fruit also hire death squads, sponsor coups and exploit peasants into poverty, suffering and poverty-related death (United Fruit is now called "Chiquita" to escape its crimi imperialist reputation, apparently), and U.S. mercenary and military corporations directly and indirectly rape, maim, traumatise and kill millions of people.


Lindsey O wrote: "And Cubans themselves can be among the most vocal critics - when they are safe from threat of reprisal by the Cuban government for their exercise of free speech."

Who? The elite supporters and beneficiaries of Cuba's old Batista dictatorship and its capitalist exploitation now want to own Cuba again, and they criticise the Cuban people's sharing out of the wealth that elite once hoarded??? So what???!!!

And some working class Cubans in the USA (who moved to the USA to escape the U.S. terrorism and U.S. embargo against Cuba) are fooled by their old Cuban exile elites and the U.S. capitalist media, to dislike the Cuban socialist system? So what???!!!

As for the immigration question, I will write about it in my next comment, because it can take some time to explain properly.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 7:46 pm
Now, onto some facts about immigration from Cuba to the USA:

The reason that people have left Cuba is mostly the same as the reason why people have left many countries in Latin America: to leave countries which the U.S.A. has impoverished, to go to the places where there is more wealth (e.g. to the USA, where much of Latin America's stolen wealth was and is taken to).

In the case of Cuba, that impoverishment has happened this way:

(1) U.S. capitalists (owners of the main industries of Cuba - sugar and tobacco - plus owners of the electricity, telephone and tourism industries) exploited the people of Cuba, and took the wealth of Cuba to the USA until the socialist revolution;

(2) capital flight (rich Cubans took their wealth out of Cuba) in the early years of the revolution;

and... (3) on top of that, the U.S. government has maintained an economic blockade against Cuba for about 50 years, which has caused the people of tiny Cuba more than $80 billion economic damage already.

People immigrate from many parts of the Americas to other parts. This is especially the case for people from Mexico, from the countries of Central America, and from the countries of the Caribbean, immigrating to the USA.

Why do you single out Cuba to criticise Cuba? Perhaps because the capitalist media has tricked you with their pro-capitalist, anti-socialist propaganda.

The cause of large-scale immigration is the oppression, exploitation and impoverishment that the capitalist classes of the USA and Latin America do to the people of Latin America.

And the USA makes the people of Cuba suffer more than most countries suffer, by making that sadistic U.S.-imposed economic blockade against Cuba.

And the USA also encourages immigration from Cuba by giving Cuban people automatic citizenship. Working class people from most countries in Latin America can not get U.S. citizenship easily, and they must hide in the USA and work as illegal immigrants, without workers' rights or other human rights, so they suffer more exploitation and oppression than citizens do. E.g. they must work in the lowest-paid jobs, the most demeaning jobs, and bosses sexually harass them (or rape them, etc.), and bosses give them the most dangerous jobs, and if they have an injury, they don't get the workers' compensation that other workers get.

So the people from Cuba see the USA as much more welcoming, with the full citizenship rights that other people from Latin America who go to the USA don't enjoy.

However, the U.S. system is inhumane even to Cubans, because it encourages them to travel to the USA in dangerous ways, to avoid the Coast Guard - because if Cubans arrive on U.S. land, they get automatic citizenship - but if the Coast Guard catch them, then the Coast Guard arrest them and take them away from the USA. This inhumane law encourages Cubans to travel in more covert ways, e.g. on little unsafe rafts, instead of on safe boats... and it encourages them to avoid other boats - so if the Cubans have an emergency, they are far from other boats and cannot be saved.

So that is why people from Cuba have risked their lives to go to the USA. However, they don't "flee" Cuba. Cuba does not oppress them. The USA oppresses Cuba. They flee U.S.-imposed poverty, to go where the wealth of Latin America has been taken to: the belly of the beast, the heart of the empire - the USA.

Please get some information about Cuba from NON-capitalist sources, everyone.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 7:50 pm
Lindsey O wrote:

"Cuba is not Nazi Germany. It is no hellhole of the first magnitude. But neither is it a place where human rights flourish. And it is a serious violator of those human rights. All in the name of maintaining 'revolutionary' values."

You can CLAIM anything about anything, but if you don't give evidence for your claim, then it is just hot air. And in this case, you have not given evidence. The burden of proof is on the person who asserts the claim - and that means YOU, Lindsey O.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 9:11 pm
Lindsey O wrote: "There isn't a single culture on earth which doesn't violate its members' human/civil rights to some extent. A very notable example in the U.S. would be our government's violation of the civil rights of homosexuals."

And the U.S. could end much of the oppression, exploitation and impoverishment (i.e. human rights abuse) in the world by simply ending U.S. imperialism.

I mean by ending U.S. military attacks, invasions and occupations, which kill, maim, incarcerate and terrorise the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. (and which are done to install oppressive regimes to enable U.S. multinational corporations to exploit the Third World, and to enable the U.S. military to install military bases from which to threaten and dominate other countries).

I mean by closing the huge number of U.S. military bases, which prop up oppressive regimes to enable U.S. corporate plunder in dozens of countries.

I mean by ending U.S. military aid, arms sales and other support for oppressive regimes (such as the regimes that rule Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Thailand, Colombia, Peru, Mexico and Honduras).

I mean by ending U.S. training people to be torturers, death squads and other terrorists, in the new version of the School of the Americas, now called "W.H.I.S.C.".

I mean by ending U.S. kidnapping and out-sourced torture of people (the C.I.A.'s "Rendition" program), and toturing of people in U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, etc..

I mean by ending U.S. support for anti-democratic coups and other destructive C.I.A. activities, which are all about installing oppressive regimes to enable U.S. multinational corporations to exploit the Third World.

And I mean in general by ending U.S. economic exploitation of the Third World, which plunders hundreds of billions of dollars in net wealth from the Third World each year, and which is impoverishing the people of the Third World.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 4, 2010, 9:38 pm
But, Simon - one cannot provide information to you that you will consider credible if it does not accord with your own previously-held biases. As I recall recently in a discussion concerning Venezuela, information provided from Amnesty International was dismissed - according to you they were 'lazy' and only repeated what others were saying and you felt they had not done any firsthand work on the subject themselves. All because, of course, they criticized Chavez for his repression of the media in Venezuela - and for no other stated reason. So their opinion was worthless. And, of course, HRW was anti-socialist so THEIR opinion was worthless. In fact, anyone's opinion was worthless unless it stated that Chavez was a champion of the people in all respects.

One cannot offer proof to those who will never accept that proof unless it conforms to their worldview.

In any event, there is ample information concering the human rights violations of the Cuban government - as you certainly already know.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGAMR250032007
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/cuba/page.do?id=1011139
http://www.cpj.org/2009/02/attacks-on-the-press-in-2008-cuba.php
http://www.cubaverdad.net/
http://www.sigloxxi.org/ (Spanish language site)
http://www.hrw.org/en/americas/cuba
http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2007eng/Chap.4b.htm
http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Cuba83eng/chap.7.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/FramePage/Cuba+En?OpenDocument

And, of course, there is so much more out there. So this is just a small sampling.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 1:16 am
Lindsey, can't you give a guy time to respond, before you write more??? I still haven't finished replying to what you and Patricia wrote above!
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 1:27 am
Lindsey O wrote:

"But there are degrees. Degrees of both the initial violation of rights and degrees of punishment meted out to the violators and those who decry the violation. In the U.S., those who agitate for gay rights aren't being thrown in prison. In Cuba, those who exercise their right to free speech frequently, and famously, inhabit prison cells today."

That is a half truth. If you read the article, you would know this!!!

From the article:

'The recent report on Cuba (Different Castro, Same Cuba) is a similar attempt to pillory an entire social system on the basis of some anecdotes. As has been the case for some years, the major US focus on "human rights" in Cuba is on the few dozen people arrested and jailed for what HRW says was simply pursuing their basic rights. The Cuban government says most of these people were taking money from US programs designed to overthrow the Cuban social system. HRW ignores Cuba’s right to protect itself from Washington’s interventionist programs.'

And also from the article:

'The same Miami groups that sent money to these Cubans (but note, most of the US government money stays in Miami, provoking conflicts within these groups) had organised bombings of tourist hotels in Cuba in the late 1990s. Cuban authorities are unsurprisingly intolerant of this terrorism. The March 2003 arrests were provoked by Cuban fears that the Bush regime would mount an Iraq-style invasion, making use of these paid agents.'

That is not imprisonment for simple "free speech". In Cuba, people have the right to free speech, and don't get imprisoned for saying things. Those people were imprisoned for being paid agents of U.S. imperialist campaign to end the people's socialist system in Cuba, and to reimpose the oppressive, exploitative and impoverishing capitalist system on the people of Cuba. They are paid agents who participate in the U.S. campaign for the megarich Cuban exile and U.S. capitalist class to retake ownership of Cuba's economy from the people of Cuba, to then exploit the workers of Cuba.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 2:03 am
Lindsey O wrote: "And you don't like this 'fascist plutocratic police state' we lve in? Defect to Cuba, North Korea, et al. I'm sure that the thought of the great publicity of having someone actually WANTING to cross the border INTO those countries to live would be persuasive enough to have them offer you citizenship, with all the trimmings."

You don't know what you are talking about.

First of all, the only similarities between Cuba and North Korea are:

(1) that they both call themselves "socialist" (Socialism means "society owning and controlling the means of production, distribution and exchange". Cuba is genuinely socialist, but North Korea is not. In Cuba, the people have made a revolution, whereby they now manage their economy democratically; whereas in North Korea, there is little or no democracy, and a party oligarchy manages the economy);

...and (2) the fact that they are independent of first world imperialist control and exploitation - and therefore the capitalist ruling classes of the USA and other first world countries blockade their economies and wage propaganda wars and destabilisation campaigns against them, and threaten military invasion, the installation of U.S. puppet regimes, etc..

Cuba certainly does not simply let people immigrate in. Visitors can get a one month visa... but to LIVE there, is not so easy. When I was merely a student, I asked the Consul of Cuba in Sydney about immigration to Cuba, and they recommended me to finish my degree. They did not welcome me to simply immigrate to Cuba. I am not sure about now, since I have my degree. Maybe I could work there long-term now. Certainly, my friends from Australia have gone to live and work long-term in Venezuela.

Lindsey O wrote: "And you can, of course, do it. Since the U.S., unlike those nations, actually allows its citizens the freedom to leave whenever they choose. Wow - what a concept.....freedom. Sure is reason enough to leave these shores, isn't it?"

Actually, the USA does not allow its citizens to go to Cuba.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 2:30 am
Patricia L wrote: "I read the entire article before commenting. Not everyonyone jumps in without looking. America - where you can disagree with the goverment - Blessed Freedom! And, you can leave if you choose.
I too am disabled and live on a very low, fixed income. I will survive!"

In Cuba and Venezuela, you can disagree with the government, too.

In Cuba and Venezuela, you can leave if you choose, too. In the case of Cuba, there is a condition: as long as you have not been campaigning to overthrow the government and reimpose the pre-1959 U.S. neo-colonial regime, in which a Cuban and U.S. capitalist class owned and controlled the economy, and oppressed, exploited and impoverished the working class of Cuba. In fact the same is true of any country: you are not allowed to leave if you have broken the law. And the law in Cuba and Venezuela is more pro-working-class than the law in the USA.

The USA is not free! Look at the CIA torture rendition program, and the Patriot Act! And look at how the U.S. state treats the people of the Third World! (I wrote about that in a p[revious comment.)

There are many more human rights abuses in the USA's Guantanamo Bay torture prison than in the rest of Cuba!!! Not to mention the huge amount of other human rights abuses carried out by the U.S. government (especially its military) and U.S. multinational corporations. But the U.S. corporate-driven "Human Rights Watch" gives the USA a harmless slap on the wrist, while focussing on a biased negative analysis of Cuba, which ignores most of the evidence, and thus treats recipients of terrorist money and agents of the U.S. campaign for regime change and oppression as "political prisoners".
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 4:15 am
Ok, finally, after dealing with your above writings, I am am up to your new writings, Lindsey.

Lindsey O wrote:

"But, Simon - one cannot provide information to you that you will consider credible if it does not accord with your own previously-held biases."

That is totally untrue. That is a lie, a slander, a personal attack.

The credibility of evidence is an objective fact. Obviously "Human Rights Watch" is not a credible source of information, because, as I said in my summary of the article:

"Human Rights Watch" gets most of its funds from US foundations, which are funded by huge US corporations. Those foundations often tie their contributions to particular projects. Most people on the "Human Rights Watch" board are bosses of corporations.

And therefore "Human Rights Watch" enacts the agenda of the corporations: which is to regain ownership and control of the economy of Cuba, to exploit the working class of Cuba, as private corporations exploit the working class in every capitalist country.

Thus when "Human Rights Watch" makes negative claims about Cuba, they are exactly what we would expect from corporations that want to regain ownership and control of the economy of Cuba, to exploit the working class of Cuba, as private corporations exploit the working class in every capitalist country. Thus they are not trustworthy claims.

Lindsey O wrote: "As I recall recently in a discussion concerning Venezuela, information provided from Amnesty International was dismissed - according to you they were 'lazy' and only repeated what others were saying and you felt they had not done any firsthand work on the subject themselves."

Huh? I don't believe that I wrote such a thing. Can you show evidence that I wrote that???

Lindsey O wrote: "All because, of course, they criticized Chavez for his repression of the media in Venezuela - and for no other stated reason."

No. The democratically-elected government of Venezuela has not repressed the media. The fascists who want to be able to incite hatred, fascist violence and coups (to maximise capitalist class ownership and control of the economy,and maximise capitalist class exploitation of the working class) say such things. Their claims are not credible. Simply look at the freedom of the media in Venezuela, the free speech - including plenty of criticism of the Venezuelan government - that IS ALLOWED in the media, and you will see that the media there is not "repressed". The law (in Venezuela and most or all other countries, including the USA) simply prevents particular media broadcasting, such as calls for violence, and the showing of adult programs during childrens' viewing hours.

Lindsey wrote: "So their opinion was worthless."

I did not say that Amnesty International's opinion is worthless. But if they say that Venezuela's democratically elected government has "repressed the media" then that is a lie. But I have seen no evidence to prove that Amnesty International said that, anyway.

Lindsey O wrote: "And, of course, HRW was anti-socialist so THEIR opinion was worthless. In fact, anyone's opinion was worthless unless it stated that Chavez was a champion of the people in all respects."

No. "Human Rights Watch" is the voice of the capitalist class who fund it and manage it, and who want to reimpose maximum corporate exploitation of Cuba and Venezuela. THAT is why their negative claims about the egalitarian systems in Cuba and Venezuela lack credibility.

I myself criticise aspects of the revolutions that the people of Cuba and Venezuela are making. But I sure won't do it around YOU, because you would use it as ammunition to add to your lies about Cuba and Venezuela, which are used to promote an economic blockade, war, terrorism and other aggression against the people of Cuba and Venezuela and their democratic and egalitarian movements and the gains they have already made.

I welcome evidence which is credible. Pro-capitalist information sources are not credible, because capitalism itself is a fundamentally oppressive, exploitative system, where a handful of people own and control most of the economy and exploit everyone else (who must work for those owners of capital, in order to survive), a system which impoverishes billions of people, forcing 3 billion people to suffer on less than U.S.$2.50 per day, forcing 1.5 billion people to suffer a lack of clean water (thus risking debilitating and deadly diseases), forcing 1 billion people to suffer malnutrition, and causing the deaths of more than 11 million children each year, etc..

However, NON-capitalist information sources can be credible, as long as they are credible in other ways, such as getting their evidence from credible sources themselves (not simply believing what violent fascists and rich men's media claim).

Lindsey wrote: "One cannot offer proof to those who will never accept that proof unless it conforms to their worldview."

That might apply to prejudiced people, but it doesn't apply to me. I accept credible proof - and that is why I have changed my beliefs in the past, and contonue to do so when I get more credible evidence.

Don't turn this into a personal attack, or I will report you.

Let's keep this discussion on the level of ideas, instead of making your personal attacks against me.

Lindsey O wrote: "In any event, there is ample information concering the human rights violations of the Cuban government - as you certainly already know.

"http://www.amnestyusa.org/document.php?lang=e&id=ENGAMR250032007
http://www.amnestyusa.org/all-countries/cuba/page.do?id=1011139
http://www.cpj.org/2009/02/attacks-on-the-press-in-2008-cuba.php
http://www.cubaverdad.net/
http://www.sigloxxi.org/ (Spanish language site)
http://www.hrw.org/en/americas/cuba
http://www.cidh.oas.org/annualrep/2007eng/Chap.4b.htm
http://www.cidh.oas.org/countryrep/Cuba83eng/chap.7.htm
http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/FramePage/Cuba+En?OpenDocument

And, of course, there is so much more out there. So this is just a small sampling."

Everytime I have seen that type of information, it has ignored the whole evidence. It is only a partial truth. When you also get the whole truth, then these turn out not to be cases of human rights abuse.

E.g. the evidence that the people who were imprisoned were not simply exercising freedom of speech. They were taking money from anti-socialist terrorist organisations and from the U.S. government (with its terrible reputation for invading countries, supporting coups, supporting terrorism and oppressing, exploiting,impoverishing and killing huge numbers of people).

E.g. the Cuban media laws do not prevent freedom of the media. They enable the people of Cuba to democratically control all media in Cuba, instead of the capitalist norm of allowing a handful of people to project their voice to others and dominate public consciousness and promote their greedy agenda simply because they are rich enough to own media corporations.
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 4:42 am
An American cannot merely travel to Cuba in most cases, Simon, although some legally can indeed go there. But if he chooses to give up his citizenship, he may choose to live anywhere he pleases - including Cuba.

And of course the Cuban government is going to find reasons why they had a right to imprison people for exercising free speech. Why would you choose to believe what they say in that regard? It is truly amazing, Simon, how with your absolute distrust of what 'government' says - whether it is U.S., European, or other - you have such childlike and touching faith in what the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and the like have to say. As I mentioned before - you believe that which fits in with your personal worldview - and reject that which does not. Which, unfortunately, leaves no room for logic or truth. But it's nice and comfortable, isn't it?
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 4:49 am
And, Simon, you stated, "Huh? I don't believe that I wrote such a thing. Can you show evidence that I wrote that???"

Yes, indeed I can.

Your words: "Amnesty International is another organisation that has lazily copied the capitalist imperialist policyn and got its information from the capitalists in Venezuela...."

On the thread located at:

http://www.care2.com/news/member/860103097/1369182


 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 4:52 am
So obviously Amnesty International cannot be trusted either. Which human rights organizations CAN be trusted not to be lazy, capitalist-controlled, and unscrupulous, Simon?
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 5:55 am
Simon, I genuinely am not trying to 'attack' you personally. You may indeed be a thoroughly nice person - as a person. What I attack are the views you express on certain subjects and the mindset those views would appear to be part of. Because when you, for some reason, choose to accept the word of the Cuban government on whether or not they had a right to imprison Cubans, despite the evidence presented by so many Cubans and noted human rights organizations, and despite your own often-stated distrust of what governments say, you are indeed showing a real bias. When you accuse Amnesty International of 'laziness' and of being influenced by capitalism rather than doing honest work, when you disagree with their findings (but not when you do agree with their findings), you are showing a real bias. That you are not willing to accept what a government says if it doesn't agree with your preconceptions - but are willing to do so if it agrees with your own worldview. Our words are a window into our minds. And I genuinely believe you are so very enamored of socialism that it blinds you to many of the defects of various socialist governments.

Whereas I have very publicly criticized the government of the U.S., Israel, and other nations who I support in general. Because when the evidence shows they're wrong about something - they're wrong. And I don't have to view them through rose-colored glasses to support them overall.
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 7:12 am
Sorry, Simon. I almost forgot - you asked for proof that Amnesty International has criticized Venezuela for repressing its media. This is, of course, exactly what I had already provided in the previous thread - but I'm happy to provide it again:

"....threats to journalists, attacks on journalists (including two murders in the last year), criminal proceedings against social commentators, and the promulgation of legislation that will restrict the freedom of expression...."

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR53/003/2007/en/8ab84c31-d393-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/amr530032007en.pdf
 

Naoko I. (261)
Friday March 5, 2010, 9:23 am
Simon, I don't see any credible reasons that the sites and articles Lindsey mentioned are lies or ignoring evidence, except you claim so, based on your belief that all "pro-capitalism" medias or foundations are bullshit, which not everyone agrees, thus YOU should prove that they are not genuine, not otherwise.

And I don't think the Japanese government is able to imprison its citizens "because they take money from (or send money to) anti-democratic and almost terrorist North Korea" (and freely speak in favor of N. Korea). If Cuba or Venezuala can do the similar, I'm afraid their governments have such un-democratic powers, don't they?

Furthermore, if you can't criticise "aspects" of revolutions Cuba and Venezuala are making, around Lindsey or on this site, in fear of being them used unfavorably, YOU are repressed by yourself. Or by your shadow of yourself in the light of "your" socialism.

Just as Lindsey, I'm not attacking you personally. I appreciate your always bringing important issues regarding the US, Israel and other countries' opressive behaviors, or supporting Japan's (and the world's) effort to sending US militaries back home, etc. I've learned a lot from you. But sometimes I feel like to rebel.
 

. (0)
Friday March 5, 2010, 9:32 am
Nicely put, Naoko.

Judge each situation honestly on its own merits, in short. And when you do that, sometimes a socialist state will be shown to be lacking in some way. And sometimes a capitalist state will be shown to be equally lacking in some other way. Neither system in all their many variations, and no nation whatsoever, being perfect of course.
 

Naoko I. (261)
Friday March 5, 2010, 2:31 pm
Thanks Lindsey. I wish I could submit it (my comment) to my English teacher at the high school (LOL)
 

Pamylle G. (461)
Friday March 5, 2010, 3:53 pm
It's very simple: countries that insist on shared resources for their population to benefit from, and who resist privatization & so-called "free-trade" from the outside will be criticized disproportionately.

Hilary Clinton just chastised Venezuela (prepare for another oil war, folks) for supposed abuses, but seems to have fewer problems with Honduras, for example, whose elite overthrew a legitimate President, has little free speech, and has Worker's Rights activists assassinated on a frequent basis.

I didn't hear any criticism of Human Rights violations in the U.S. media when an estimated 650 Peruvian National Police and Special Forces officers attacked several thousand Awajun and Wambis indigenous people at their roadside blockade on the Fernando Belaunde Terry highway. The people with the guns who were hurt were seen as the victims, not the 40 protesters killed by police gunfire or the 150 are missing or being detained by police. In the background: big oil wanting a piece of the Amazon.

Bottom line: our country, alas, has always supported the most elite parties & repressive regimes for private American interests in South America. Our country will say or slant it whichever way for us to not question. It's a clear pattern of behavior, which I don't support as an American Citizen.

As far as the "freedom of the press" is concerned, I'm more worried about the implications of Rupert Murdoch & the like owning all too many media in this country, than I am about Cuba or Venezuela.
 

Dianne D. (453)
Friday March 5, 2010, 6:22 pm
Funded by American Corporations? That's a huge red flag right there. As we know, most corporations only look out for their own interests and those of their stockholders.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 8:36 pm
Lindsey O wrote: "An American cannot merely travel to Cuba in most cases, Simon, although some legally can indeed go there. But if he chooses to give up his citizenship, he may choose to live anywhere he pleases - including Cuba."

Apparently Lindsey refers to U.S. citizens, not people from elsewhere in America (America is a continent, and the USA does not have a monopoly claim on that word). However, as I said above, you are not allowed to leave the USA if you have broken the law. (And the law in Cuba and Venezuela is more pro-working-class than the law in the USA.)

AND, while Lindsey O wrote: "And you can, of course, do it. Since the U.S., unlike those nations, actually allows its citizens the freedom to leave whenever they choose. Wow - what a concept.....freedom. Sure is reason enough to leave these shores, isn't it?"

And my first response was CORRECT: the USA does not allow _its_citizens_ to go to Cuba.

Lindsey O wrote: "And of course the Cuban government is going to find reasons why they had a right to imprison people for exercising free speech."

Lindsey has ignored what I wrote above. As I said:

That is not imprisonment for simple "free speech". In Cuba, people have the right to free speech, and don't get imprisoned for saying things. Those people were imprisoned for being paid agents of U.S. imperialist campaign to end the people's socialist system in Cuba, and to reimpose the oppressive, exploitative and impoverishing capitalist system on the people of Cuba. They are paid agents who participate in the U.S. campaign for the megarich Cuban exile and U.S. capitalist class to retake ownership of Cuba's economy from the people of Cuba, to then exploit the workers of Cuba.

Linsey O wrote: "Why would you choose to believe what they say in that regard?"

Because the evidence is there if we choose to look at it (if you read the artickle, you would see the references), and because my friends who live in Cuba and my friends who visited Cuba, who have family in Cuba, and who write about Cuba, all support the socialist system that the people of Cuba have built, and because my friends share the same socialist goals as I do (in short, to share out the world's wealth and power equally amongst all people), and because the socialists in Cuba share those goals too - according to their words,and their actions, as described by non-capitalist journalists and authors - and even by some capitalist authors, such as Tad Szulc and Jon Lee Anderson!

Lindsey O wrote: "It is truly amazing, Simon, how with your absolute distrust of what 'government' says - whether it is U.S., European, or other - you have such childlike and touching faith in what the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, and the like have to say. As I mentioned before - you believe that which fits in with your personal worldview - and reject that which does not. Which, unfortunately, leaves no room for logic or truth. But it's nice and comfortable, isn't it?"

That is a personal attack against me. I will not respond to personal attacks. STICK TO THE TOPIC.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 8:44 pm
Lindsey O said that I wrote this:"Amnesty International is another organisation that has lazily copied the capitalist imperialist policyn and got its information from the capitalists in Venezuela"

And yes, I see that I wrote it here, in the comments section, at the web address that Lindsey supplied:

http://www.care2.com/news/member/860103097/1369182

Now that you have shown evidence, I see that it is true, I did write that. What of it?
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 9:17 pm
Lindsey O wrote: "So obviously Amnesty International cannot be trusted either. Which human rights organizations CAN be trusted not to be lazy, capitalist-controlled, and unscrupulous, Simon?"

I never said that "Amnesty International cannot be trusted". I said that "Amnesty International is another organisation that has lazily copied the capitalist imperialist policyn and got its information from the capitalists in Venezuela"

When Amnesty International does not copy capitalist imperialist policy and does notget its information from capitalists - e.g. perhaps when it focusses on certain other countries - then it is trustworthy.

It depends on how they get the information that they promote.

"Which human rights organizations CAN be trusted not to be lazy, capitalist-controlled, and unscrupulous"?

Let's be clear: I did NOT say that Amnesty International is "capitalist-controlled". I don't know who manages Amnesty International, nor do I know where Amnesty International gets its funds from.

As an ex-member, I do know that Amnesty International allows local groups to choose what they focus on - and thus they are profoundly influenced by whatever the members believe already - which usually means that they follow the capitalist ideology, because mosy members get their information from the capitalist education system and capitalist media.

And I also know that they allow human rights abusers, such as Australia's attorney general Philip Ruddock (who abused refugees'human rights terribly), in the early 2000s, to publicly donate money to Amnesty International and to wear Amnesty International symbols in public, which makes the actions of those human rights abusers appear to be not human rights abuse at all.

Those are the reasons why I left Amnesty International.

Which human rights organisations can be trusted to ALWAYS be honest? Are any human rights NGOs always honest? I don't know. But I do know that we, the people of the socialist movement, are dedicated to human rights.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 9:20 pm
*I meant to write "As an ex-member, I do know that Amnesty International allows local groups to choose what they focus on - and thus they are profoundly influenced by whatever the members believe already - which usually means that they follow the capitalist ideology, because most members get their information from the capitalist education system and capitalist media. "
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 9:46 pm
Lindsey O. wrote: "Simon, I genuinely am not trying to 'attack' you personally."

You wrote criticisms of ME, not of my ideas. THAT is a PERSONAL ATTACK. Stick to THE TOPIC.

Lindsey O. wrote: "You may indeed be a thoroughly nice person - as a person. What I attack are the views you express on certain subjects and the mindset those views would appear to be part of."

When you attack my mindset, that is A PERSONAL ATTACK!!!

Lindsey O wrote: "Because when you, for some reason, choose to accept the word of the Cuban government on whether or not they had a right to imprison Cubans, despite the evidence presented by so many Cubans and noted human rights organizations, and despite your own often-stated distrust of what governments say, you are indeed showing a real bias."

What Lindsey O wrote is both untrue AND a personal attack. STICK TO THE TOPIC, LINDSEY O.

Lindsey O wrote: "When you accuse Amnesty International of 'laziness' and of being influenced by capitalism rather than doing honest work, when you disagree with their findings (but not when you do agree with their findings), you are showing a real bias."

What Lindsey wrote is both untrue AND a personal attack. STICK TO THE TOPIC, LINDSEY.

Lindsey O wrote: "That you are not willing to accept what a government says if it doesn't agree with your preconceptions - but are willing to do so if it agrees with your own worldview. Our words are a window into our minds. And I genuinely believe you are so very enamored of socialism that it blinds you to many of the defects of various socialist governments."

What Lindsey wrote is both untrue AND a personal attack. STICK TO THE TOPIC, LINDSEY.

Lindsey O wrote: "Whereas I have very publicly criticized the government of the U.S., Israel, and other nations who I support in general. Because when the evidence shows they're wrong about something - they're wrong. And I don't have to view them through rose-colored glasses to support them overall."

There is no absolute "right" or "wrong". Each person who believes in "right" or "wrong" has their own very detailed and specific ideas about what is "right" or "wrong". But moral judgements are subjective and cannot be proven. They are merely personal likes and dislikes that people mistakenly believe are "absolute truths", "facts outside themselves".

However, we can prove FACTS, such as "what is the level of poverty, health care, etc., by U.N. standards, in Cuba?" ... "What is the structure of the political system and its media in Cuba?" ... "What happened in the court cases of the people imprisoned in Cuba?" Etc..
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 10:05 pm
Lindsey O wrote: "Sorry, Simon. I almost forgot - you asked for proof that Amnesty International has criticized Venezuela for repressing its media. This is, of course, exactly what I had already provided in the previous thread - but I'm happy to provide it again:

"....threats to journalists, attacks on journalists (including two murders in the last year), criminal proceedings against social commentators, and the promulgation of legislation that will restrict the freedom of expression...."

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR53/003/2007/en/8ab84c31-d393-11dd-a329-2f46302a8cc6/amr530032007en.pdf "

I have posted dozens of news articles about Venezuela, so I don't know what "the previous thread" means, unless you give me the link to the thread. Also, it is very demanding and annoying to give me a thread to look at which is thousands of words long. I refuse to trawl through all of that, merely to find one particular piece of information.

So, yeah, the considerate way is to give us the information again, as you did above, so that we know what you are referring to. So, er, thanks for that. : P

Ok, anyway, I will respond to those accusations against the people's democratically-elected government of Venezuela. Hey! I already responded to this rubbish in that thread that you are referring to! And in the very same comment which you quoted from! For goodness' sakes! Show some respect and READ HAT I WROTE!!!

Here it is AGAIN:

Lindsey, I don't know what you mean. If you mean that Human Rights Watch says that Israel commits human rights abuses, then it is correct. It could do that, and also make propaganda against Venezuela's government. Human Rights Watch is a capitalist institution, after all, so who would expect it to say the positive truth about socialism?

If Human Rights Watch focuses on criticising human rights abuses by Palestinian people, and ignores the much larger human rights abuse by Israel against the people of Palestine, then Human Rights Watch is carrying out standard U.S. imperialist policy.

Amnesty International is another organisation that has lazily copied the capitalist imperialist policyn and got its information from the capitalists in Venezuela.

While it is true that there have been threats and attacks on journalists, they are:

(1) not threatened or attacked by the government

...(2) often by fascists and other reactionaries who are AGAINST the increased democracy and egalitarianism in Venezuela...

...(3) often in reaction to when capitalist media outlets blatantly lie, say or show racist things, gave support for the 2002 coup, and/or promote violence against the government and against the poor majority (and their popular grass-roots movements) who support the government...

...and (4) such threats and violence happen much less in Venezuela and much more in capitalist countries (such as Mexico and Colombia) which are criticsed much less than Venezuela is, by capitalist governments, corporations, the capitalist media, and Human Rights Watch (and maybe Amnesty International, too).

Lindsey O wrote: "And are all the other news sources who report on Venezuelan media censorship also lying?"

The capitalist media is constantly lying - it is producing a media product to further the profit-taking agenda of its corporate advertisers, and its shareholders. The capitalist media's priority agenda is maximum profits - truth comes second to that, and in the capitalist media, lies, distortion, deception, and other pro-capitalist, anti-socialist propaganda almost always replaces the truth.

 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 10:12 pm
If you want the truth about Venezuela, you can find it in NON-capitalist information sources, e.g.:

http://www.chomsky.info

http://www.commondreams.org

http://www.countercurrents.org

http://www.counterpunch.org

http://www.granma.cu/ingles

http://www.greenleft.org.au

http://www.indymedia.org

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

http://www.themilitant.com

http://motherjones.com

http://www.johnpilger.com

http://socialistworker.org

http://www.truthout.org

http://www.venezuelanalysis.com

http://www.wsws.org

http://www.zmag.org

: )
 

Retno Dewi (7)
Friday March 5, 2010, 10:25 pm
from what I know that mostly US corporation only looking for their own benefit,,and they did not care much about Human Rights,,if the HRW was founded by US corporation its because for they own interest.
and they act as a wise by founded HRW.what a shame?
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 11:32 pm
Naoko wrote: "Simon, I don't see any credible reasons that the sites and articles Lindsey mentioned are lies or ignoring evidence, except you claim so, based on your belief that all "pro-capitalism" medias or foundations are bullshit, which not everyone agrees, thus YOU should prove that they are not genuine, not otherwise."

I already proved it. You ignored what I wrote, Naoko. In short, capitalism is a system in which the owners of capital oppress, exploit and impoverish everyone else.

In capitalism, the USA and other first world countries engage in military attacks, invasions and occupations, which kill, maim, incarcerate and terrorise the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. (and which are done to install oppressive regimes to enable the first world's multinational corporations to exploit the Third World, and to enable the U.S. military to install military bases from which to threaten and dominate other countries).

In capitalism, the USA imposes a hundreds of military bases on the people of the Third World, to prop up oppressive regimes to enable first world corporate plunder in dozens of countries.

In capitalism, first world countries, especially the USA,give military aid, arms sales and other support for oppressive regimes (such as the regimes that rule Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Thailand, Colombia, Peru, Mexico and Honduras).

In capitalism, first world countries train people to be torturers, death squads and other terrorists, e.g. in the new version of the School of the Americas, now called "W.H.I.S.C.".

In capitalism, the U.S.A. kidnaps and out-sources torture of people (the C.I.A.'s "Rendition" program), and tortures people in U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, etc..

In capitalism, first world countries support anti-democratic coups and nage in other destructive C.I.A. activities, which are all about installing oppressive regimes to enable the first world's multinational corporations to exploit the workers of the Third World, and steal their natural resources.

And in capitalism, first world countries economically exploit the Third World, currently plundering U.S.$500 billion in net wealth from the Third World each year - part of the imperialist system which has been impoverishing the people of the Third World for centuries.

Naoko wrote: "And I don't think the Japanese government is able to imprison its citizens "because they take money from (or send money to) anti-democratic and almost terrorist North Korea" (and freely speak in favor of N. Korea)."

Naoko, you have created a "strawman" argument, pretending that I said that. I did not say that they "only receive money from the USA". I said that those people were imprisoned for being paid agents of U.S. imperialist campaign to end the people's socialist system in Cuba, and to reimpose the oppressive, exploitative and impoverishing capitalist system on the people of Cuba. They are paid agents who participate in the U.S. campaign for the megarich Cuban exile and U.S. capitalist class to retake ownership of Cuba's economy from the people of Cuba, to then exploit the workers of Cuba.

I don't know about Japan, but I do know that the USA, Australia, and most other countries have laws against people receiving money from foreign governments or terrorist organisations that have engaged in other aggression against them (threatening invasion, having a program for regime change, funding terrorist actions), for "activist" campaigns to overthrow their government.

This is a separate issue from merely receiving money FROM THE CITIZENS OF A COUNTRY. Alot of people in Cuba receive money from their family members who live in the USA. That is QUITE LEGAL under Cuban law!!!

Naoko wrote: "If Cuba or Venezuala can do the similar, I'm afraid their governments have such un-democratic powers, don't they?"

What is UNDEMOCRATIC is when a foreign country's government or terrorist organisations give money to the people in a country to wage a campaign of destabilisation and to impose an oppressive regime is a puppet of the foreign country, and that enforces an exploitative elite-owned and elite-contrlolled economic system and information system upon the people.

Venezuela still hasn't made very strict laws about that, so the U.S. government has been able to interfere hugely in Venezuelan politics, e.g. giving U.S.$50 million to organisations (such as those who participated in the 2002 military-business coup, which the people of Venezuela reversed in 47 hours), to overthrow the democratic and egalitarian government of Venezuela, and reimpose extreme capitalism on the people of Venezuela. The laws in the USA are stricter abotu preventing foreign governments from interfering in U.S. politics.

Naoko wrote: 'Furthermore, if you can't criticise "aspects" of revolutions Cuba and Venezuala are making, around Lindsey or on this site, in fear of being them used unfavorably, YOU are repressed by yourself. Or by your shadow of yourself in the light of "your" socialism.'

I CAN criticise aspects of the revolutions that the people of Cuba and Venezuela are making. I don't "repress myself". I FREELY CHOOSE not to say those things, so I don't help the supporters of the oppressive, exploitative capitalist system. I already receive too many lies against the people of Cuba and Venezuela!!! I refuse to give extra work, extra problems and extra danger to the people of Cuba and Venezuela and myself, by making attacks against the people of Cuba and Venezuela, as you want me to do!!!

My criticisms of Cuba and Venezuela are not criticisms of socialism. They don't harm the IDEA of socialism. They are criticisms of mistakes that people have made in Cuba and Venezuela, which have slowed the approach to socialism.

Naoko wrote: "Just as Lindsey, I'm not attacking you personally."

Lindsey made personal attacks against me. DON'T LIE and DON'T DENY LINDSEY'S ATTACKS AGAINST ME by saying that Lindsey didn't do that!!!

"I appreciate your always bringing important issues regarding the US, Israel and other countries' opressive behaviors, or supporting Japan's (and the world's) effort to sending US militaries back home, etc. I've learned a lot from you. But sometimes I feel like to rebel."

You aren't rebelling against me. I have no authority over you, so "rebellion" by you against me is impossible - only CONFLICT BETWEEN EQUALS is possible between us.

But, Naoko, it IS true to say that your writings are supporting the DOMINANT system of the world: capitalism, perpetuating its oppression, exploitation and impoverishment. It is us SOCIALISTS who are the rebels. We are the ones who are trying to end capitalism, by sharing out the world's wealth and power amongst everyone.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 11:36 pm
It's great to see you here, Re : )

Thankyou for what you wrote against corporate deception and corporate abuses : )
 

Simon Wood (207)
Friday March 5, 2010, 11:51 pm
I really appreciate everyone here who wrote supportive comments, comments that challenge the extremely unequal, aggressive, oppresive, exploitative system that we live in: capitalism.

Thankyou Pamylle G. and Dianne D., and David S., Pastor Tim, Elfmagic and Retno : )
 

. (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 1:14 am
Simon, you state that someone who has 'broken the law' cannot leave the country. False. A convicted felon may indeed obtain a passport in the normal way unless part of his probation requirements prohibit him from leaving the country (of course, the country he/she wishes to go to may not allow the entry of those who have been convicted of certain crimes, but that has nothing to do with the U.S. regulations). Or if he owes child support and refuses to pay it his passport, like his driver's license, may be revoked. Of course, if he is merely under indictment, then likely he will be under reasonable travel restrictions, of course, since the court doesn't want him fleeing the country prior to trial.

http://www.vippassports.com/reasons_for_passport_denial.htm
http://www.ehow.com/how_5003099_obtain-passport-convicted-felons.html
 

Naoko I. (261)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 1:18 am
What I mean by "credible" is what EXCEPT that the sites and articles are "funded by corporates in capitalist countries", because for me, unlike most of those who put "supportive" comments here, the latter is not the same as, or doesn't directly lead to the conclusion that they are lies. That's all. As the very perception of "capitalism" ="lie," which I don't agree, is the theme of this thread, there's no use of trying to have discussion here.

And I didn't or don't want you to criticise Cuban revolution, of to make attacks on that of Venezuela, Simon. Did I write as such? You said that you wouldn't because if you did, someone like me would use it wrongly. And I thought that if you refrain from expressing your criticism because you think it may harm what you believe is right, you are not free as you claim. Well but that was not the case it seems.

The thinking that there're only absolute right and absolute wrong, is not mine, and I may object such thinking, but if you say it is a personal attack, it may be so to you, and I don't care. And I don't care so much like you about exact wording, either.
 

. (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 1:24 am
You're right, Naoko. It really isn't much use trying to have a discussion with someone who refuses to look at each issue individually - and merely uses generalized, diffuse indictments of capitalism as an argument. So I shall put my l'il Pigasus to bed on this thread.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 4:04 am
Lindsey O wrote: "Simon, you state that someone who has 'broken the law' cannot leave the country. False."

Oh, REALLLLLY??? So when someone breaks the law, the police just let them walk straight past the border guards, onto an aeroplane, etc., without arresting them???

When you break the law in the USA, the police arrest you and won't let you leave - in the USA, same as Cuba, Venezuela, and every other country.

Lindsey O wrote: "convicted felon may indeed obtain a passport in the normal way unless part of his probation requirements prohibit him from leaving the country (of course, the country he/she wishes to go to may not allow the entry of those who have been convicted of certain crimes, but that has nothing to do with the U.S. regulations)."

Wow! Even when citizens of the USA are not wanted by police, probation requirements can still prevent them from getting a passport!

I would have thought that the U.S. government is signatory to agreements not to send criminals to countries that don't want them. The Cuban government has certainly made an agreement with the USA to control immigration to the USA, according to a quota, and that is for people REGARDLESS of criminal records!!!

Lindsey O wrote: "Or if he owes child support and refuses to pay it his passport, like his driver's license, may be revoked. Of course, if he is merely under indictment, then likely he will be under reasonable travel restrictions, of course, since the court doesn't want him fleeing the country prior to trial.

http://www.vippassports.com/reasons_for_passport_denial.htm
http://www.ehow.com/how_5003099_obtain-passport-convicted-felons.html "

Those are the type of things I was talking about. As I said, U.S. citizens aren't free to leave, regardless of circumstances. It depends on whether they are wanted by police, etc. - same with Cuba and Venezuela. You have proved the claim I made. Thanks. : P
 

. (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 4:27 am
No, Simon, I have not proven your claim. Because your statement was a blanket one. That 'people' who had 'broken the law' could not leave the country. Without a qualifier, 'people' means 'all people'. Which is, of course, untrue. Since convicted felons (the only people who have, in fact, been proven to have broken the law) can indeed, in the vast majority of cases, leave the country. (Surely you don't consider people who have not yet been convicted to have 'broken the law', do you, since they are innocent until proven guilty?)

Therefore your claim is false.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 4:40 am
Naoko wrote: "What I mean by "credible" is what EXCEPT that the sites and articles are "funded by corporates in capitalist countries", because for me, unlike most of those who put "supportive" comments here, the latter is not the same as, or doesn't directly lead to the conclusion that they are lies. That's all. As the very perception of "capitalism" ="lie," which I don't agree, is the theme of this thread, there's no use of trying to have discussion here."

The very nature and institutional basis of corporations is to serve their owners (shareholders) and NO-ONE ELSE. To think otherwise is a pro-corporation assumption without any evidence. I recommend the documentary "The Corporation", for more information about THAT.

Also, I recommend the documentary "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media", which focusses specifically on exposing the reality of the capitalist media, as a propaganda machine for private corporations, the capitalist class who owns them, and the capitalist system that they control.

Private corporations and the capitalist class who owns them, dominate the governments of capitalist countries. How? By controlling mainstream information sources (the corporate media that they own and fund by advertising in it), by funding political parties, and by the economic power to damage economies (e.g. by moving factories from one country to another). For more information on corporate funding of political parties, I recommend the section of Michael Moore's Awful Truth TV series, called "the People's Pimp".

Thus, the capitalist class, corporations and capitalist governments all have an agenda that is against any form of politics/economics that threatens their wealth and power, such as the movement to share out wealth and power equally amongst everyone - i.e. SOCIALISM.

And the evidence shows that the capitalist media lies constantly, to promote their agenda. As I said above: The capitalist media is constantly lying - it is producing a media product to further the profit-taking agenda of its corporate advertisers, and its shareholders. The capitalist media's priority agenda is maximum profits - truth comes second to that, and in the capitalist media, lies, distortion, deception, and other pro-capitalist, anti-socialist propaganda almost always replaces the truth.

For evidence on that, I recommend the documentary that I mentioned above: "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media". It gives case studies to prove this claim - and almost any book or article by Noam Chomsky gives examples of media lies and deceptions. You can read alot of Noam Chomsky's books and articles here:

http://www.chomsky.info

Naoko wrote: "And I didn't or don't want you to criticise Cuban revolution, of to make attacks on that of Venezuela, Simon. Did I write as such? You said that you wouldn't because if you did, someone like me would use it wrongly. And I thought that if you refrain from expressing your criticism because you think it may harm what you believe is right, you are not free as you claim. Well but that was not the case it seems."

I don't believe that anything is "right" or "wrong. As I wrote above, in response to Lindsey's comments:

There is no absolute "right" or "wrong". Each person who believes in "right" or "wrong" has their own very detailed and specific ideas about what is "right" or "wrong". But moral judgements are subjective and cannot be proven. They are merely personal likes and dislikes that people mistakenly believe are "absolute truths", "facts outside themselves".

However, we can prove FACTS, such as "what is the level of poverty, health care, etc., by U.N. standards, in Cuba?" ... "What is the structure of the political system and its media in Cuba?" ... "What happened in the court cases of the people imprisoned in Cuba?" Etc..

And my priority is to help the people of Cuba and Venezuela, and everywhere in the Third World, to end the first world's capitalist and imperialist oppression, exploitation and impoverishment of them.

So I will not help your arguments which help capitalism and imperialism to gain support for yet ANOTHER Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan and Haiti style invasion and occupation, or yet ANOTHER U.S.-supported terrorist war against a people, like the one they made against the people of Nicaragua, or yet ANOTHER coup and installation of a brutal regime, like the U.S. capitalist class and government did in Honduras. If you want to build the arguments for those anti-human actions, you can find the evidence yourself!!!

Naoko wrote: "The thinking that there're only absolute right and absolute wrong, is not mine, and I may object such thinking, but if you say it is a personal attack, it may be so to you, and I don't care. And I don't care so much like you about exact wording, either."

A personal attack is a matter of FACT, not morality!!! If you focus on saying negative things about the PERSON who you are communicating to (instead of saying negative things about an IDEA), then you are making a PERSONAL ATTACK. There is no "opinion" about it. It is an OBJECTIVELY DEFINEABLE TERM!!!
 

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 4:44 am
LIndsey wrote: "No, Simon, I have not proven your claim. Because your statement was a blanket one. That 'people' who had 'broken the law' could not leave the country. Without a qualifier, 'people' means 'all people'. Which is, of course, untrue. Since convicted felons (the only people who have, in fact, been proven to have broken the law) can indeed, in the vast majority of cases, leave the country. (Surely you don't consider people who have not yet been convicted to have 'broken the law', do you, since they are innocent until proven guilty?)

Therefore your claim is false."

Therefore the claim that you have supported against Cuba is false too.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 4:50 am
I meant people who are wanted by the police. Not everyone is allowed to get a passport - this is true of most or all countries. THAT was my point.

And in the USA, the "Patriot Act" is even stricter about such things than most countries are.
 

. (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 4:54 am
Silly Wabbit - using your little argument, then your own claims against capitalism and capitalist nations are also false.....

And, of course, you are correct in that not everyone who wants a passport can get one in any nation. But in the U.S., the overwhelming majority of people will get a passport when they request one. Even most people accused of a crime are not restricted in terms of their ability to travel since the judiciary does not normally pull a person's passport when the person is bound over for trial.
 

Pastor Tim Redfern (599)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 6:28 am
Lindsey,
the operative words in my post above were and are
"disabled" and "below the poverty line".
If it were not for these two unchangeable facts of mine and
Jill's lives, we'd leave this country.

North Korea would not let us in, and besides,
my Korean is (shall we say) a little bit rusty.
Cuba and Venezuela woud be nice, but our first
choice would be Mexico. Really, though, any chance to
escape the prison that the United States has become would be
quite nice indeed. It would also give me the opportunity to spread the
Gospel of my Lord Jesus Christ to an audience more receptive that
of the people of the United States, who have been so filled with
the crap of people like James Dobson, Jerry Falwell, John Hagee,
Sarah Palin, etc., etc., ad naseum.

Anyway, Lindsey, I'd like to thank you so much for your post,
and your reply to me. It always puts a smile on my face when folks
like you give me the old saw of "If you hate this country so much,
why don't you leave it?!". It makes me nostalgic for the 1960's. :-)
Thanks again, and Peace be upon you.
 

. (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 6:35 am
You're very welcome, Tim. And I am all too morbidly aware of what you say - here in Alabama we not only have to deal with the long-distance effects of Dobson, the late Rev. Falwell, and the like - we also have to deal with our revered Judge Roy Moore (of "Roy's Rock" fame). From the point of view of freedom of expression, Alabama lies in the pits of hell.....
 

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 7:04 am
"Lindsey O" wrote: "Silly Wabbit - using your little argument, then your own claims against capitalism and capitalist nations are also false..... "

Watch it, whoever you are. DON'T PROVOKE ME. Your arrogant words serve no purpose other than trying to make me feel abused and angry - your words are DESTRUCTIVE.

As for Lindsey's argument, it does not make sense. My argument: ("I meant people who are wanted by the police. Not everyone is allowed to get a passport - this is true of most or all countries. THAT was my point.

And in the USA, the "Patriot Act" is even stricter about such things than most countries are")

Does not prove that what I said about capitalism, e.g. does not disprove the following arguments:

n short, capitalism is a system in which the owners of capital oppress, exploit and impoverish everyone else.

In capitalism, the USA and other first world countries engage in military attacks, invasions and occupations, which kill, maim, incarcerate and terrorise the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, etc. (and which are done to install oppressive regimes to enable the first world's multinational corporations to exploit the Third World, and to enable the U.S. military to install military bases from which to threaten and dominate other countries).

In capitalism, the USA imposes a hundreds of military bases on the people of the Third World, to prop up oppressive regimes to enable first world corporate plunder in dozens of countries.

In capitalism, first world countries, especially the USA,give military aid, arms sales and other support for oppressive regimes (such as the regimes that rule Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Thailand, Colombia, Peru, Mexico and Honduras).

In capitalism, first world countries train people to be torturers, death squads and other terrorists, e.g. in the new version of the School of the Americas, now called "W.H.I.S.C.".

In capitalism, the U.S.A. kidnaps and out-sources torture of people (the C.I.A.'s "Rendition" program), and tortures people in U.S. military bases in Afghanistan, etc..

In capitalism, first world countries support anti-democratic coups and nage in other destructive C.I.A. activities, which are all about installing oppressive regimes to enable the first world's multinational corporations to exploit the workers of the Third World, and steal their natural resources.

And in capitalism, first world countries economically exploit the Third World, currently plundering U.S.$500 billion in net wealth from the Third World each year - part of the imperialist system which has been impoverishing the people of the Third World for centuries.



 

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 7:06 am
Ooops, I got so angry that I made a mistake.You have WASTed our time AND SPACE BY TRYING TO PROVOKE ANGER, LINDSEY O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

Simon Wood (207)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 7:11 am
eVERYTHING i SAID ABOVE ABOUT CAPITALISM IS TRUE, AND NOTHING I HAVE SAID HAS DISPROVED THAT. THAT IS MY POINT.

NOW QUIT HARASSING ME - GO WRITE ON YOUR OWN OR OTHER PEOPLE';S NEWS ARTICLES, AND ONLY COME BACK HERE WHEN YOU CAN TREAT ME WITH CONSIDERATION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 

. (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 7:12 am
"Whoever you are?" :-)
 

. (0)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 7:18 am
And you're correct, Retno. Corporations are indeed looking out for their own interests (i.e., their owners' interests). Just as each individual is, at all times, acting in ways he believes will best benefit his own interests. Since, of course, our own 'interests' involve a multiplicity of things, including such things as our own sense of personal satisfaction, sense of personal honor, and the like. Humans will always act out of self-interest, although many people are either too blind or too dishonest to admit it.
 

Kit B. (277)
Saturday March 6, 2010, 9:40 am
Simon. Simon, Simon...to be provoked is an element of debate, to lash out in anger is NOT an element of debate. Simply because your points are again proven to be factually inadequate and often simply false, does not give you to the right to tell others where they may post a comment on any open submission. Most important, I have read the article - such as it is - and in each of the comments and I see no evidence that anyone is attempting to upset or attack you personally in any way. They are, however free to attack the fallacy of the statements within the article of your submission. By reading and commenting on your submission people are treating you with consideration, otherwise they would ignore you completely.

I would suggest you understand that to address falsehoods contained in any submission is not a direct attack on any one other then the the author or the premise of the article. That you have decided this is personal is unfortunate, but one of the "side-effects" of posting any article. People may agree or disagree - it's called free speech.
 

Simon Wood (207)
Wednesday March 10, 2010, 8:04 am
Kit, I did not say that the writings about IDEAS were personal attacks. I said that the personal attacks (negative writings about ME) were personal attacks.

What I wrote and the articles and other evidence that I posted was factually adequate for any thinking person. The most you have done is said that my points are "factually inadequate", without actually addressing what I wrote. ANd anytime anyone wrote something related to what I write, they did not actually address the points that I made.They avoided my points and used the logical fallacies that the capitalist media uses. So the actual points I made have triumphed.

Therefore, equality, democracy, human rights and the truth have triumphed.

However, some people have not listened. Some people prefer to bully - as the USA does to Cuba, and as you and Lindsey do to me by commenting against every news article I post (that I post for humanity and against the greedy elites and their self-serving propaganda).

If enough people continue to believe your lies, then a U.S.-led invasion of Cuba or Venezuela, etc., is inevitable - and the deaths and blood will be on your hands. I hope if that happens, that you volunteer for the front lines, because that is where all honest pro-imperialists would be.

I know that when my girlfriend Retno and I go to Cuba and Venezuela, I will be killing as many U.S. invasion troops as I can, to kick them out. I hope to see you there. ; ) And no, she doesn't like you Lindsey or Kit, or other people who have bullied me or written in favour of imperialism and capitalism. : P
 

. (0)
Wednesday March 10, 2010, 8:19 am
"......as you and Lindsey do to me by commenting against every news article I post...."

Sorry, Simon - check again. I'm afraid that's a very substantial untruth on your part.
 

Pastor Tim Redfern (599)
Wednesday March 10, 2010, 4:35 pm
Kit:
"Factually inadequate and often simply false."
This must be a matter of opinion, because,
speaking for myself, I've been reading Simon's posts
for a long time now, and I've never found anything
that was factually inadequate or simply false.
But, perhaps they ARE, if they are viewed thru the lenses
pf a lifetime of Captilaist, Amero-centrist propaganda.
But please, Kit, don't think I'm accusing you of taking this
attitude.....I'm not. I'm just saying that maybe if..................
 

Retno Dewi (7)
Wednesday March 10, 2010, 11:10 pm
thanks Lindsey I just saying from what I know. well,,I just want to say a bit about what you wrote above that including personal attack to Simon, I think if we stick to the topic that we discuss here in this website we could avoid personal attacks, and we could analysis together about the IDEA, about falseness or trueness,,and not attacking each other personality.. its just like you were bullying Simon with no avidence, and you were being judgemental to judge Simon's idea.

 

Simon Wood (207)
Wednesday March 10, 2010, 11:41 pm
Thanks, Re and Pastor Tim : )
 

. (0)
Thursday March 11, 2010, 2:28 am
"Fuck off Lindsay the liar"? How nicely you put that, Simon.

I'm afraid, Simon, that the truth of my statement is very easily checkable by anyone who chooses to click on your avatar that's right beside the photo at the top of this news item. It takes anyone to a page where they can click on the link to see all of the stories you have submitted - and for each story one may see exactly who has commented - and who hasn't. And there are page after page of stories - many, many of which contain zero comments from me or Kit. You appear to have a false sense of importance if you believe that Kit and I (or anyone else) follows you around to every story you submit just for the pleasure of submitting negative comments. Which is exactly what you said.

I prefer not being lied about even over such a ridiculous issue. Or falsely called a liar - when the lie is, of course, on the other side.

Oh, and BTW - I won't be reporting you to Care2 for that little dilly of a comment. Since I prefer to promote free speech here on the forum. And greatly prefer to allow others to judge the speaker's character through said speaker's own words.

:-)
 

. (0)
Thursday March 11, 2010, 2:29 am
And, BTW - I would appreciate no one else reporting Simon to Care2 for that remark, either. I greatly prefer for the comment to remain public.
 

. (0)
Thursday March 11, 2010, 3:32 am
And, since I prefer to back up my statements with actual facts:

In the past 101 days, Simon, you have posted 50 news items. Of those, I have commented on four.

4 out of 50. And that's only for the past 101 days, of course.

http://www.care2.com/news/member/860103097?sort=submitted&page=4

Now, Simon - please explain to me how that constitutes commenting "against EVERY news article I post..."

'nuff said! Back to the subject at hand.



 

patricia lasek (317)
Thursday March 11, 2010, 4:22 am
Bravo Lindsey!
 

Elizabeth Schauki (13)
Thursday March 11, 2010, 5:14 am
There may be some problems with the conflict of interest Human Rights Watch has and I will take that into account when I see them talk about any country in the future. But I don't think I've seen yet any reason not to trust what Amnesty International says about Cuba so I don't understand why what they say can't be accepted in good faith. I think that Amnesty at least tries to be fair in what I've seen them say in the past. I hope that America can stop the embargo on Cuba since I think that will be a very good way of letting those people experience better freedoms and learn more about democracy firsthand rather than only getting in so many cases one side of the story. I think communism won't last much longer there if the Cuban government would just stop keeping people from traveling where they want to go and seeing what they want to see. And it isn't right for the American government to try and force an embargo against Cuba and I think that is causing more problems and not helping to solve the problems.

I don't agree that words like Simon's shouldn't be reported since sometimes things go over what should be allowed and there are children on this forum but since Lindsay asked for them not to be reported I won't. But I don't see that she was lying like Simon kept saying since she proved what she said was true.
 

Kit B. (277)
Thursday March 11, 2010, 11:13 am
So sorry gang but the ideas of Karl Marx though spinning a marvelous and intoxicating story have yet to be realized in any society. To date the most benevolent is Chavez, though shutting down an opposition television station for not running all 6 hours of his latest speech does not bode well for the future. In Venezuela and only because of oil money, the balance of equity has changed, and the poorest have climbed to a far more fair state of existence. Now, if all countries save those dependant on oil for revenue change their current status and use alternative fuels - what then will happen to our benevolent Mr. Chavez or others similar to him? I am not that supportive of the so-called "free-market" system, it is neither free nor a market and as Adam Smith himself wrote about his concept of capitalism, 'that it could only work under the strictest of government guidelines and regulations' which to date is true of all economic systems. The problem is not in the system or concept but that humans are consistently the corrupting influence. Cuba on the other hand - has far too many human rights violations to even begin that discussion. To blame the US for all of these problems, demonstrates a complete lack of history and an inability to make complete or cognizant historical references. The communism - socialist - capitalist experiments have all been tried and all failed for reasons that certainly any fool any ascertain. What is need is a new and fresh approach, one that utilizes the need for the exchange of money - and yet acknowledges that when corporations are allowed to take over then people lose.


Simon you are often wrong because you do not discussed but TELL, and few want to be told much of anything and I don't know many that enjoy a discourse where they are called names, this is something you rely on far too often. That some agree with your very utterance says that are (for whatever silly reason) depending on you and your obvious lack of experience to carry the discussion. If you really want to kill people that disagree with you then you will fit in well in Cuba, Chavez however, has no room for your need for violence. If you and friends really wanted to travel to these various countries then you would - you rely on frivolous excuses rather then getting off your backside and getting to where you claim you want to go - this is true for each of you that use money as an excuse to stay in the US - who is giving you money and health assistance. What a bunch of phonies!

I and I know Lindsey (as she never reports anyone) have not reported your breach of conduct Simon, but from your own words on many other submissions - you make a habit of reporting people for "not giving you proper respect" I wonder if you can use that language in a debate just how much respect you deserve.
 

. (0)
Friday March 12, 2010, 3:48 am
How very expectedly quiet it suddenly got in here. :-)
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.