Cuba Libre?

In 1998, five Cuban men who have come to be known as the Cuban Five were arrested in America and in June 2001, were falsely convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage and other related crimes against the United States. They are currently serving four life sentences and seventy five years collectively. The American justice system has continually failed these men and their families, in Cuba they are national heroes and across the world they are ardently supported.

The five men; Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Ramón Labañino, Fernando González, and René González, were sent by the Cuban government to Miami, the hub of the anti-Cuban terrorist movement, in the early 1990s to infiltrate anti-Castro groups in order to prevent criminal acts against Cuba. These organisations such as Commandos F4, Alpha 66 and Brothers to the Rescue act with full protection of the American government and over the last four decades have taken in excess of three thousand Cuban lives. When the Five had gathered enough evidence against these groups, particularly Brothers to the Rescue who René González had been dropping practice bombs in Miami with, they presented their findings to the FBI. The FBI took action, not against the terrorists, but against the Five.

In November 2000, after being held illegally and in solitary confinement for seventeen months, the Five began a seven month trial in Miami. Robert Pastor, a professor of international relations at American University claimed that, “Holding a trial for five Cuban intelligence agents in Miami is about as fair as a trial for an Israeli intelligence agent in Tehran”. A media frenzy surrounded the trial with newspapers screaming of Spies Among Us and labelling the five men as 'bent on destroying the United States'. Despite the ubiquitous community prejudice against Fidel Castro and the Cuban government, a change of venue was denied five times by the judge. Miami did not even have the appearance of justice and it was very much a case of 'sentence first-verdict afterwards'.

The Five were convicted on the 8th June 2001 on twenty five different counts. Gerardo Hernández was also convicted of conspiracy to commit murder due to his supposed involvement in the shoot-down of the Brothers to the Rescue aircraft in 1996 despite the prosecution attempting to withdraw this charge due to lack of evidence. Speaking to the BBC in 2007 Hernández stated, 'they needed to blame somebody, and they chose me'. The Five maintain their innocence, claiming that they had no intention to harm the U.S. or it's citizens. The Five have not been convicted of espionage but 'conspiracy to commit espionage' as there is no proof to support the claim that American military or political secrets were transmitted and no evidence that American national security was ever threatened.


It is not only the Five who have suffered at the hands of an unjust system, but their families also bear the unmerited retribution. Regular contact has been denied and in the extreme case, the wife of René González has never been granted a visa to see her husband. Olga Salanueva was deported back to Cuba a few weeks after Mr. González's arrest, it has been over ten years since they last saw each other. Due to Olga not being allowed to set foot on American territory her youngest daughter Ivette, who was only a baby when her father was arrested, was also denied access until last year.

On the 13th October 2009 Antonio Guerrero was re-sentenced to 262 months in prison, originally he was serving life plus ten years. Nevertheless, prosecutors and Mr. Guerrero’s lawyers had asked for the sentence to be reduced to 240 months. The New York Times reported how Leonard Weinglass, Mr. Guerrero’s lawyer made a statement saying, 'It was odd. You have a man who was on a military base but who didn’t take a single classified document and no one testified that he injured U.S. national security, but the judge still rejects the prosecutors’ request to lighten the sentence.' The sentences of Ramón Labañino and Fernando González are also set to change at a later date. Although these changes are positive, they are hardly radical and are a mere continuation of the injustice served upon these men. Furthermore, the men have reason to be wary of decisions made in their favour as they have been retracted in the past. In 2005 a panel of three judges ordered a retrial outside of Miami and decreed that the sentences should be overturned. Speaking at the time, Gerardo Hernández's lawyer Paul McKenna remarked, 'He is presumed innocent. All his convictions are vacated. They don’t mean anything anymore'. A year later this decision was abjured when a new panel voted ten to two to deny the Five a new trial.

It could be said that this is yet another conflict between communists and capitalists, a prolongation of feelings from the 1959 Revolution that America has yet to accept. However, it goes beyond that, it is a denial of basic human rights on the part of the American government recognised by communists and capitalists alike. It is injustice and prejudice of the highest order. For a country that prides itself in being a leader in democratic rule, its failings to provide a fair trial and just retribution are inexcusable. There is an extreme hypocrisy evident in the fact that Washington and its 'war on terror' have incarcerated the Five for what is essentially the equivalent of trying to find Osama bin Laden in Pakistan.

Over the world protests and vigils have been held in support of the Five and eight Nobel Prize winners, including Desmond Tutu, have campaigned for the immediate release of the men. There are support groups for the Cuban Five active in twenty seven countries, including America. When Gerardo Hernández spoke of the international support he said, 'as long as one person remains struggling outside, we will continue resisting until there is justice.' The struggle continues and if justice prevails the Cuban hope, 'volverán', - 'they will return' - will be accomplished.

Teacher's block

Growing up my one of my favourite novels was Michael Morpurgo's The Butterfly Lion, a beautiful story of a human-animal friendship that every child craves. One of Morpurgo's beliefs is that in order for the reader to turn the page they must believe in what they are reading, suspend their disbelief and lose themselves in a fictional world. For this to happen he too must believe in his own story.

In Morpurgo's latest article for the Guardian he exposed himself as a failed academic, gaining a string of bad grades including a third class degree but asserted the belief that he was a great teacher.
I cannot help but agree with Morpurgo that it is not the exam results we churn out year after year that denote our true intelligence, but 'it is aptitude, the ability to enthuse, to communicate, to motivate, that is far more important'.

If one is talented enough to communicate well, be it to children or adults, they have an invaluable gift. In a world of technology we have lost the ability to communicate. We have conversations without speaking, the internet has invalidated the need for discussion, society is dominated by wi-fi and its followers. Teachers can no longer communicate with their students in a way that truely inspires because they, unlike Morpurgo, have no reason to believe in what they say.

In an age when exam results are of utmost importance the emphasis is no longer on the gaining of knowledge but the short-term-high-success-rate memorising of information. How can teachers be truely inspired when they are aware of the fact that they can easily be replaced by the textbook/wikipedia combination.

I am not saying that this is true of all teachers, every now and then there is someone who can truely captivate and animate a class. In my experience however, these are the people who are not afraid to stray from the set expectations, and they usually have their own criticisms of the system they are a part of.

Could this be magic?

On the 21st January 1793, Louis XVI of France fell victim to the wrath of the revolutionary mob and the infamous guillotine. On the anniversary of his death I question the purpose of the British monarchy and whether their duties could be undertaken by a body more representative of the British people. The official website of the British monarchy states, 'As Head of State, The Monarch undertakes constitutional and representational duties which have developed over one thousand years of history. In addition to these State duties, The Monarch has a less formal role as 'Head of Nation'. The Sovereign acts as a focus for national identity, unity and pride; gives a sense of stability and continuity; officially recognises success and excellence; and supports the ideal of voluntary service.'

These wonderings of mine come at a time when Prince William is down under 'Saving the monarchy in style' according to the Guardian who are holding a poll on whether William is 'magic enough' to keep republicanism at bay. So far 55.2% of voters believe in the magic.

William is obviously a nice man, informal, friendly and according to one Australian tabloid, a bit of a 'hoodlum'. However, he is a product of a stagnant and undemocratic tradition, a symbol of the former great British Empire still felt in 16 Commonwealth realms. When looked at in this light, and when reflecting on the duties of the monarchy which are somewhat trivial, nice is not quite enough. I laugh out loud at the fact that somehow in a time of global recession old Liz has enabled us to feel 'stable' Today our national identity is confused and divided between those who embrace Britain as a multi cultural society and those who clasp on to the belief in 'Britain for the British'. We can no longer define our culture through one institution, we are a multi faceted and modern society and our pride comes not from our sovereign but from our writers, artists, architecture, music, democracy and football teams. These divisions are shown through the deterioration of the British identity itself, one that the monarchy cannot save.

However, the process of making Britain a republican nation would not be simple. Turning up at Buckingham Palace with a pitchfork and a list of grievances might not have the same effect as it did three hundred years ago although, you could always try Clarence House. The placing of the royal duties in the hands of an elected leader may also not turn out so well, the current discontent with every political party going proves that. Queen Elizabeth II is the fortieth monarch since William the Conqueror obtained the crown of England so who better to represent Britain than a family practiced in doing so for a thousand years? But history and the lack of a desirable alternative does not validate a hereditary regime in a democratic society, despite the monarchy's purely ostensible power.

Famously, on July 14th 1789, Louis XVI recorded the word 'rien' in his diary, in reference to the day's hunt. His failure to acknowledge the popular revolt surrounding him arguably (although that's another discussion) led to his death. Perhaps though, William IS acknowledging the need for change? He did after all wear trainers in New Zealand.

I've got sunshine on a cloudy day

Reflections on summer 2009, Turkey

The naked truth?

In the aftermath of UCL graduate Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab's failed bomb plot on Christmas Day 2009 there has been much debate on the value and suitability of full body scanners in UK airports.
It has been argued that these scanners, which would display an image of a naked human person to the observer, are not only inappropriate due to their infringement upon our privacy and freedom but for their ineffectiveness.

Experts argue that the use of sniffer dogs would produce a higher success rate than the 50 - 60% efficacious scanners. Perhaps more potently, the scanning process will slow down the transition between check in and the oh so luxurious world of Duty Free...

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) claim that the scanners would breach privacy rules stated in the Human Rights Act. They lay emphasis upon the privacy of the disabled, elderly and pre-op transsexuals. Yes, this exposure will be embarassing for anyone with a self conscious nature but I cannot help feeling slightly offended by the EHRC's remarks. Does this mean that a disabled person should feel more self conscious than someone without a disability when revealing their naked body? Or in a society rife with ageism should it be presumed that the elderly would be too ashamed to go through this process?

I might just mention at this point that with the use of an algorithm the image of the naked body could be turned into an animated figure with anything suspect being highlighted on the image.

It was Bob Dylan who sang the words, 'but even the President of the United States sometimes must have to stand naked' and now I think, this is true.

A rather more cheery note...

Today I have been listening to Shelley Short, check out Mockingbird. She reminds me of Martha Wainwright.

Why no aid?

It's not until you reach the Opinion section of The Times, page 22 to be precise, that someone finally makes a bold statement as to why aid is not reaching the Haitian people fast enough. The Guardian claims it is 'outbreaks of looting and violence that have slowed distribution of supplies' and the Telegraph has a fantastic video of so called 'peace keepers' carrying truncheons looking positively terrified of a few (calm but hungry) Haitian men. However Linda Polman, a freelance Dutch journalist sets the record straight, the Americans and other aid workers are too scared to help. Her article, 'Fear of the poor is hampering Haiti rescue' provides a stark reality and certainly a more believable one as to why all the aid is 'stuck at the airport'.
The article can be found here:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6991697.ece

Perhaps the most ironic thing in all of this is that Bill Clinton himself has just arrived to 'help' Haiti. It was Mr. Clinton who, in 1994, launched Operation Restore Freedom during which U.S. troops invaded Haiti in the hope of restoring liberties that never even existed. The Americans reinstated the despotic and brutal (he promised to burn his opponents alive in 1990) Jean-Bertrand Aristide to power. He was ousted in 2004 and has since been living in exile in South Africa. He has recently been quoted saying he would like to return to help with the aid effort, perhaps himself and Bill could launch Operation Restore...

When Germany sieged Paris in 1871 it aimed to starve the people into surrender. The middle class ate the more domesticated rats, the working class got the sewer rats and when they were all gone the people took it upon themselves to dig up corpses for food. So on that note, let's just remind ourselves that these are merely hungry people, not inherently violent savages.

If you care to read Polman's article then this picture is for you, a sign errected in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina.