UCD a Cold House for Caleb Charles McCarry and U.S plans for Cuba.

by Arise Mon Apr 30, 2007 17:48

I was at this meeting and was impressed at the turn out of the protesters. It was actually the largest mobilisation on the left in UCD this year.

Some of the protesters took a strong line that he was not going to be allowed to speak.

I disagreed with this line. While I was there to voice my objections to the politics dept. of UCD hosting him and to disagree with US policy to Cuba, I did not feel that the action taken was approperiate.

Unfortunately I came under personal attack and was left very upset when I voiced my opinion on this.

Here is what I voiced
'While I disagree with UCD hosting him and I think that this man's opinion will be nothing but lies, we have to afford him the right to speak. Bottom line is that he is not a fascist, I agree with 'no platform for fascist's', but this man is not one. We can all have listen to his lies and scoff at them and then show him up by challenging him at the end.'

Next thing I know I'm coming under a tyrade of abuse from a member of the communist party. Pretty much saying that I'm an apologise for fascism.

As someone who has been active in preventing fascists from gaining platforms in the past, I was deeply offended by this. I was yelled at and practically square-up to. Over the years the left has come under abuse from the right saying that we prevent free speech. This is the first time I've been at a protest where we have. For that I'm ashamed.

If we are to disspell the lies and propaganda the US are spreading then we need to challenge them. How else are we to offer solidarity with Cuba.

by Squirrel Mon Apr 30, 2007 17:58

I was a protestor at this meeting and have to say I was embarrassed to be there. I wanted the guy to be allowed to speak so we could listen to the hypocrisy he spouts and challenge his points. There were very many there who had obviously well researched questions along these lines.

The act of shutting this meeting down has done nothing for the cause of the Cuban people. All it has done is push those possibly sympathetic people present into the arms of US propaganda.

The people who shouted everyone down in this meeting would only impose a dictatorship of their own kind given half a chance.

by Celia S Mon Apr 30, 2007 18:40

The act of shutting this meeting down potentially did more for the people of Cuba than asking this man questions ever would have. Certainly, listening to him/asking questions never had that potential, or anything like it.

Do you think he was ever really going to take on board anything you said?
Do you really think a member of the CIA gives a flying f**k what you think?
Was he going to change YOUR mind?

He was here primarily, amongst other things , to try and influence, as much as he could, as many members of the Politics Dept., UCD to (further?) promote the 'Cuba is a dictatorship' line.

What the disruption of this meeting showed him is that there is at least a respectable minority who are willing to face down imperialists. In particular, those imperialists in the advanced stages of preparations for the annexation of Cuba.

Affording him 'freedom of speech' is an affront to those millions of people in Latin America and beyond that people like Caleb McCarry sent, and still seek to send, to early graves. The dead can't speak.

Will you rue the day when the attack/counter-revolution happens in Cuba and you recall how you afforded a man involved in its planning 'freedom of speech'? Will you rue not having taken him to pieces?

Yes. Continue to try and 'defuse' those conflicts that might actually make you have to do something.

Others will choose not to.

I know I will only rue only the fact that they were merely stink bombs.

Someday he won't be so lucky.

CS

by Squirrel Mon Apr 30, 2007 19:48

Shutting down a small meeting like this was pathetic. You claim to be anti-imperialist but you act the same way they do. I never expected to change his mind just to show him up for what he is. That wasn't allowed to happen. Anyone with any preconceived notions about socialists or Cuba being anti democratic and dictatorial had the point proven to them today by that lot of communists.

Even though this meeting was shut down that guy Caleb was still able to speak to members of staff in the department so he still had all the influence you mentioned in that regard this action was a failure.

People like you with your catch cries of death to imperialists make me sick you'd replace their imperialism with a communist imperialism. Same shit to me. And today was a perfect opportunity for ya to bring about death to an imperialist with fuck all serious security and where were the "death to imperialists" brigade? sitting behind some keyboard somewhere thats where. Pathetic!

The only good thing to do today for the people of cuba would have been to have a dialogue among the staff and students that were there. Then they would have heard the facts of the matter and maybe learned something about cuba and the USA and then (shock horror) make their own minds up. But instead they all went away thinkin "jaysus what a bunch of looney lefties if thats what its like here it must be really bad in Cuba where that lot are in power".

People like you want to decide for everyone else what is right and wrong your not interested in letting people decide for themselves.

Nothing was achieved today at all.

by Elisa O'Donovan Mon Apr 30, 2007 19:50

"Things started to heat up when a CPI activist declared from the back "there will be no meeting here today". Another activist in the back row threw stink bombs. There was roaring and shouting as altercations broke out between some members of the UCD academic community and protestors. "We are here to develop or critical capacities" said one academic. There was discussion and debate amongst protestors as to the tactics that ought to be adapted, some insisting that they would like to question Caleb, others insisting he should never have been invited out to speak in the first place. "

As a UCD student the behaviour today really does not suprise me. Throwing stinkbombs and shouting just shows such really juvenile and pathetic behaviour by a bunch of people who as college students should now better .You can protest and show your disdain for Mr McCarry in a mature manner by allowing him to speak and then challenging him afterwards. Whatever your own views there was people their today who wanted to listen to what Mr McCarry had to say. This isnt the first time that freedom of speech has been stifled on UCD campus. Its not being stiffled by fascist right wing movements its being stifled by groups on campus such as labour,socialists and those whose very values stem from the freedom of speech. I hope they learn after this that you can protest without resorting to running the speakers of campus.You can challenge by allowing people to speak and then questioning them afterwards.

by Arise Mon Apr 30, 2007 20:06

‘Do you think he was ever really going to take on board anything you said?’

It wasn’t about him taking it on board, I’m not that naïve. It was about combating his lies and exposing them. Not for his benefit but for the benefit of those in the room who actually went along, uninformed about the Cuban situation.

‘Was he going to change YOUR mind?’

No. And must you decent into pettiness so quickly. You don’t know my politics or those who supported what I said.

‘He was here primarily, amongst other things , to try and influence, as much as he could, as many members of the Politics Dept., UCD to (further?) promote the 'Cuba is a dictatorship' line.’

I know, and thanks to some in the room he succeeded in that. Well done.

‘What the disruption of this meeting showed him is that there is at least a respectable minority who are willing to face down imperialists’

And again, basely comments directed at those who wished to here him speak. The assumption being there that as well as a group of us being apologists for fascism we are also complacent about imperialism. And you as an angry yelling man has all the answers, well all ye did to be honest is sour people away from hearing the truth and getting involved.

‘Affording him 'freedom of speech' is an affront to those millions of people in Latin America and beyond that people like Caleb McCarry sent, and still seek to send, to early graves. The dead can't speak.’

I can understand this, I really can. But honestly where do you draw the line? Who is and who isn’t allowed speak. He wasn’t inciting hatred that’s the bottom line. If we started shuting down his speeches then we may as well shut down McDowell speaking as he sends asylum seekers home to potentially lethal situations. WHERE IS THE LINE??? There needs to be one otherwise we are placing ourselves in huge danger, lets learn from the past shall we, liberties are at risk. I was yelled at for my point of view, if your version of a revolution comes about, am I to be shot!!!! Extreme I know but thats what happens.

‘Will you rue the day when the attack/counter-revolution happens in Cuba and you recall how you afforded a man involved in its planning 'freedom of speech'? Will you rue not having taken him to pieces?’

I’ll rue not getting an opportunity to tell him how I felt regardless of if he took it in or not. I’ll rue possibly being unable to get a few more people on side for this cause. If he was a fascist and insisted hatred, I’d not be happy with myself allowing him to speak because of its possible consequences but he was not. But the only consequence of today was loosing support for the cause.

‘ Continue to try and 'defuse' those conflicts that might actually make you have to do something.’

Your taking through your ass here.

‘Others will choose not to’.

Well done, you yelled at people, some of whom possibly agree with everything you have to say about the US policy in Cuba and lost support for the cause. (note the sarcasm)

‘I know I will only rue only the fact that they were merely stink bombs.
Someday he won't be so lucky.’

Whatever, Till then continuing yelling and acting like a lunatic and blurring the already contentious line on allowing people the freedom of speech

by Arise Mon Apr 30, 2007 20:09

'Its not being stiffled by fascist right wing movements its being stifled by groups on campus such as labour,socialists and those whose very values stem from the freedom of speech.'

Listen there, now this is a perfect example why you should shut up till you know all the facts, no one there from UCD of which there were 'labour,socialists and those whose very values stem from the freedom of speech.'' objected to him speaking.

So GO AWAY ELISA.

by Paul Mon Apr 30, 2007 20:32

In all fairness who wanted to listen to this guy, engaging with him would have been a futile exercise. The left never won its struggles listening to conservatives, capitalist and imperialist.

by Biker Tue May 01, 2007 07:35

Those who are upset because this man was stopped from speaking in UCD yesterday should reflect on the fact that Cuba has been under economic blocade and subjected to military and diplomatic aggression from the United States for the last 48 years.

No Pasaran - They shall not pass!

by Jane - UCD Labour Tue May 01, 2007 09:42

Firstly, I'd like to restress to Elisa that despite her misinformed rantings, no current students of UCD were in favour of preventing him speaking, not least any "socialists, labour etc..."

I take exception to those on this thread who are insinuating that if we did want to hear him speak, then we don't care about the people of Cuba, or need to be "reminded" about the blockade. As someone who has travelled extensively in Cuba and has great respect for the Cuban people and (most aspects) of the Cuban system of governance, this could not be further from the truth.

Like Squirrel has already outlined, there were a good few people there who were undecided, or uninformed, about what is going on in Cuba. Letting him speak, and challenging him afterwards, would have given them a fair chance to make up their minds. Preventing him speaking only confirmed in their minds what they might have already suspected - that some on the left don't want to listen to what others have to say if it strays from their own beliefs. Immediately, they then had sympathy for him and his views, without any grounding other than the childish behaviour of some of those present.

This guy is an imperialist. He's a neo-liberal. He wants to change the way things are run in Cuba. But he's not a fascist. The "No Platform" policy is one of the most controversial held by the left. We have to be extremely careful where we use it, and that it is only used for those who clearly espouse fascist beliefs.

What tangible, real beneficial effect did stopping him speaking have for the people of Cuba? I can't think of one. But challenging him, as many people wanted to, and were prepared to do, might have enlightened those undecided students there about the horrifying situation imposed on Cuba by the U.S., and gone some way to tackling the barrage of misinformation, propoganda and media lies that surrounds that country.

Shame it was an opportunity missed.

by Observer Tue May 01, 2007 10:00

Perhaps you ought to reflect on the fact that Cuba has been ruled by a dictatorship for the past 48 years. Indeed I can see why the people who broke up a University meeting are infatuated by a regime that has denied free speech to its own people.

by Squirrel Tue May 01, 2007 11:48

To observer I think you can say the same thing of the USA where the illusion of democracy exists where you can be imprisoned without trial and you only get to choose between two people of the same class every 5 years. Worst of all they send the poorest and least educated to their deaths in battle without a vote on the issue.

At least in cuba everyone can read that gives them more freedom than most poor people in the USA

I do agree tho that those who shut this meeting down make me see how the communist russia's foul dictatorship came about. These authoritarian communists are no ally of the struggles for liberty and freedom.

by Blah Tue May 01, 2007 11:54

You've won....the right to vote....between a giant douche and a turd sandwich! Vote or die, bitch!

How is a two party state any better than a one party state?

by Elisa O'Donovan Tue May 01, 2007 14:02

"Firstly, I'd like to restress to Elisa that despite her misinformed rantings, no current students of UCD were in favour of preventing him speaking, not least any "socialists, labour etc..."

I apologise. You cant blame me for thinking it was so as in my five years in UCD I have seen many speakers ran of campus by these groups. There seems to a tenuous watershed area of who is and who is not allowed a platform to speak in UCD .

"there were a good few people there who were undecided, or uninformed, about what is going on in Cuba. Letting him speak, and challenging him afterwards, would have given them a fair chance to make up their minds. Preventing him speaking only confirmed in their minds what they might have already suspected - that some on the left don't want to listen to what others have to say if it strays from their own beliefs. Immediately, they then had sympathy for him and his views, without any grounding other than the childish behaviour of some of those present."

Well said and Its what I was trying to say last year about the ultrasound speakers not being allowed onto campus. Those who are not allowed speak ultimatly win sympathy and the silencers olny meet with disdain.

.

by Jane Tue May 01, 2007 14:06

Is that the Ultrasound talk on campus last year was organised by Youth Defence, a group with known fascist links and tendencies. These are the only type of people who should not be given a platform.

I still support the policy of no platform for fascists, but I don't think yesterday's events can fit into that category at all.

by Observer Tue May 01, 2007 14:37

The USA is a flawed society - as all human societies always have been and always will be. It does however have certain basic freedoms that are denied in Cuba. For example, we could not have this type of discussion in Cuba as internet access is highly controlled and censored. What kind of state feels the need to do this?

by T Tue May 01, 2007 14:44

Have you been to Cuba, and tried to use the internet there?

by Observer Tue May 01, 2007 14:49

As a tourist I have no problem accessing the internet (and lots of other things denied to Cubans). However, ordinary Cubans are severely restricted to the extent that a 2004 law confined use to state employees and people entitled to use official computers. State also claims the right, legally, to monitor internet use and deny access to individuals and to particular sites.

by SP Tue May 01, 2007 14:57

The US Proconsul for Cuba has an official US Congress approved budget of $80 million US dollars this year alone specifically earmarked for US PROPAGANDA against Cuba.

If a bunch of Irish demonstrators have prevented him getting value for his first class flight across the Atlantic and his cosy little (or not so little - who knows?) brown-envelope donation to the School of Politics and International Relations in UCD then it is a tiny dent in his global media reach.

With that kind of budget, Caleb McCarry could get front page coverage in any international newspaper he desires. With that kind of budget he can also ensure that the 50 international media circulated with this report will not dare to publish it.

McCarry, through the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, also has 8 US civil servants tracking Cuban government accounts for every US civil servant there is tracking Osama Bin Laden's funds. He uses them to, for example, prosecute American grannies who go on cycling holidays to Cuba. He is determined to press ahead with close to 100,000 outstanding prosecutions of American citizens who have holidayed in Cuba over the past 5 years. Some will be bankrupted in the process. Land of the Free? Yeh right.

And in answer to the question if any Cuban will benefit from McCarry being silenced - yes, they are already rejoicing in Cuba over this. Just as the Dunnes workers refusal to handle Apartheid fruit brought joy to the heart of black South Africa, Ireland is now the only European country that has registered disapproval for the Proconsul's presence.

If I, for one, could have intercepted his grubby little secret visit to Foreign Minister Dermot Ahern's office in the wee hours of yesterday, I would have. Secret meetings behind closed doors have lead to the European Union supporting the US Blockade of Cuba - a blockade that has cost Cuba $86 BILLION USD, impoverishing its people and preventing its achieving its full potential. The US Blockade is a policy of genocide as defined in the UN Genocide Convention because it targets a specific ethnic group and deliberately sought to starve them to death for a political end (re-colonisation) in the mid 1990s. They failed. More than that, Cubans remember what that felt like and won't forgive it lightly.

Now, in the indivisible panopy of human rights I'd put the right not to be starved to death slightly higher than the curtsey to listen to a highly paid torturer's clearly delusional opinions ... but liberals might be less clear.

by Simon McGuinness Tue May 01, 2007 15:32

The US Helms Burton Act of 1996 makes it illegal for any US company to provide internet access to Cuba. This law also applies to any European Company that connects to a US telecommunications network.

Irish tax exile, Dennis O'Brien runs the ESAT mobile phone company 30 miles from Cuba in Haiti and has a fibre optic superhighway which he'd willing hook Cuba up to. But he can't ... because every single US company in the world would cut him off instantly. Caleb McCarry would see to it - that's his job.

That's why Cubans have no reliable internet connection. No other reason.

Cuba has one uplink to a satellite in the Caribbean owned by the Russians. Its slow, old and unreliable. It also costs a fortune to operate and has about the same total capacity as my Eircom broadband-at-home package. But there is hope - Venezuela has started work on a 400 mile fibre optic cable to Cuba which will come on stream in about 3 years - that's if the USA doesn't bomb it before then.

These are the facts guys.

by redjade Tue May 01, 2007 15:58

thanks simon, its almost as if there were no US embrago,
castro's gang would allow an http://www.indymedia.cu!

quote''This may indeed explain the slowness of the Cuban Internet and the endless lines outside Internet cafes. But in no way does it justify the system of control and surveillance that has been put in place by the authorities. In a country where the media are under the government’s thumb, preventing independent reports and information from circulating online has naturally become a priority.

An investigation carried out by Reporters Without Borders revealed that the Cuban government uses several mechanisms to ensure that the Internet is not used in a “counter-revolutionary” fashion. Firstly, the government has more or less banned private Internet connections. To visit websites or check their e-mail, Cubans have to use public access points such as Internet cafes, universities and “Youth computing centers” where it is easier to monitor their activity. Then, the Cuban police has installed software on all computers in Internet cafes and big hotels that triggers an alert message when “subversive” key-words are noticed.

The regime also ensures that there is no Internet access for its political opponents and independent journalists, for whom reaching news media abroad is an ordeal. The government also counts on self-censorship. In Cuba, you can get a 20-year prison sentence for writing a few “counter-revolutionary” articles for foreign websites, and a five-year one just for connecting with the Internet in an illegal manner. Few people dare to defy the state censorship and take such a risk."/end quote

more at
Reporters Without Borders
http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20999

by Jane Tue May 01, 2007 16:37

Oh yes, I'm SUCH a 'liberal' when it comes to Cuba. Please.

It's nothing to do with 'courtesy' for that guy. I have no interest in being courteous to him. My interest is in spreading awareness about the Cuban situation in terms of all the things done by the U.S. that you have so eloquently outlined, so that the bullshit media lies (mainly propogated by the U.S.) can be countered and ultimately, that situation changed.

I don't see how yesterday helps that. All it did was push those unconvinced people that attended closer to believing those lies, and further from our cause (which, despite our obvious differences on this issue, is obviously a common one). Or do you think they walked away thinking "Well done to those people, I had hoped to find out myself about the Cuban people's plight but I guess it's best to leave it to them to make up my mind for me. Viva Castro!"

There were plenty of people there who are well informed enough on the situation in Cuba to be able to successfully challenge and discredit McCarry's bile and convince those unconvinced. Like I said, opportunity missed to spread the truth about Cuba and undermine the lies of the U.S.

Like I said, I support the policy of no platform when it comes to fascism. I also support Cuba and have many Cuban friends. However, I don't support things which I think ultimately cast supporters of the country and the country itself in a negative and inaccurate light.

by Simon McGuinness Tue May 01, 2007 17:19

Reporters without Borders is a front operation run by a guy called Menard who , strangely stopped working for the CIA just before he set it up. You make the link.

Check them out and you'll see. Circles Robinson a US journalist who lives in Havana has written extensivly on them. A good Counterpunch article exposing RSF is linked below

by Simon McGuinness Tue May 01, 2007 17:28

Jane,

I didn't get to ask my question either even though my arm was raised for several minutes. I was never going to be called to ask Caleb McCarry a question. Pity - I could have nailed him, but the moderator was NEVER going to let that happen.

This wasn't going to be an exchange of views. This was set up as a lecture backed up by propaganda in support of terrorism. You were there to listen.

Can you (or anyone) tell me the name of the chair person and her position within the college?

Also, if you could find out how much the Proconsul gave the faculty to facilitate his appearance it would be real interesting.

Thanks.

by Jane Tue May 01, 2007 17:36

From what I understand, the invitations detailed a short informal talk FOLLOWED by a question and answer session. As he didn't get to make the talk at all, it's not unsurprising that they didn't get to the Q&A part either.

I don't know who she was but some other posters might be able to elaborate.

by Michael Corleone Tue May 01, 2007 17:51

No doubt these organisations are run by former CIA personnel.

http://web.amnesty.org/report2006/cub-summary-eng#3

by redjade Tue May 01, 2007 17:52

Simon, does the CIA force the Castro regime to do this too?

Quote from Reporters Without Borders (above) 'In Cuba, you can get a 20-year prison sentence for writing a few “counter-revolutionary” articles for foreign websites, and a five-year one just for connecting with the Internet in an illegal manner. Few people dare to defy the state censorship and take such a risk.'

Why is it always so difficult for a Fidelista to admit civil and human rights abuses do occur in Cuba? Human rights means rights for all humans.

by Simon McGuinness Tue May 01, 2007 18:26

Michael,

Neither Amnesty nor HRW have ever been to Cuba. Both rely on "reports" by organisations like the US State Dept and RSF for their information.

Thankfully both are rethinking their previous policies in relation to reliance on unconfirmed reports and are, since the end of the cold war, beginning to thaw out themselves. HRW was itself set up originally by the US government as a HR monitor for the Soviet Bloc. The collapse of communism took it completely by surprise and they took some time to react. It didn't look at any other country until relatively recently and when it started to look at the USA its reports were damning. Its funding suffered though.

Amnesty regards 2006 as the worst year for global HR in the last half century and cites the war in Iraq as the cause. Cuba was the only country to vote against the Invasion of Iraq at the UN Security Council.

Amnesty now accepts that its focus on civil and political rights is inadequate and it must adopt the UN Convention as the definition of HR law to be applied. This requires it to assess Economic, Social and Cultural rights as well. It has little to fault Cuba on in this regard.

Interestingly it has yet to accept that there is a 5 decades long undeclared terrorist war going on against Cuba, which means it has failed to grasp the need for Cuba's anti-terrorist laws. Its embrace of the Miami Five case has begun to open doors that were previously closed and I am hopeful that they will see the Cuban anti-terrorist legal framework as constitutional, necessary and commensurate with the threat. Don't forget that more people have been killed in terrorist attacks in Cuba in the last 5 decades than were killed on all sides of the "troubles" in Northern Ireland in the same period.

That's the context. And that's what Caleb McCarry and his associates call "progress towards regime change". Presumably when they have killed all remaining Cubans they will have attained their goal of bring freedom to Cuba. Way to go!

by Ali H. Tue May 01, 2007 18:32

the place is called Guantanamo. The abusers Americans.

by zuni Tue May 01, 2007 19:55

The people who shut him up did themselves no credit - better to haVE A DISCUSSION & EXPOSE the wrongs of the blockade, etc.

by Richard Lanigan Tue May 01, 2007 20:46

I was not at the meeting yesterday but it is a clear example of why the left have achieved so little in European politics. McCarry got exactly what he wanted because he knows he can not justify his position intellectually, so a few yobs justified it for him and he did not have to say a word. Sixty year old men with stink bombs just about says it all.

I have been to Cuba many times working in a Poli Clinic and it is quiet extraordinary the health and education service they provide for a poor developing country. Yes there are issues of individual freedom, however historically any sovereign country that has been under threat has always rounded up those who would provide sustenance to the enemy. I dont like thepolicy however when you look at the US sponsored terrorist activity that has been going on there for forty seven years you can hardly blame them.

No not every Cuban has internet access, these are poor people, very few Cubans have telephones in their homes. What they do have are children that can read and write and kindness and warmth that you will not find the like of anywhere else in the world. All Cubans know someone with internet access and while it is hard for Castrophobes to believe your average Cuban is not planning the over throw of the government or looking to get into contact with people who are.

What on earth was achieved by stopping McCarry speak. If only someone could have asked him who will replace the thousands of Cuban doctors and teachers working in third world countries, more in fact than the entire World Health Organisation combined, when McCarry takes over. Will the US government fund the147 US citizens who have been given scholarships by the Cuban government to study medicine in Havana, provided when they return home they work in the inner citys they came from.

No answer then, just a stink bomb.Very clever.
Dr Richard Lanigan

by Steven J Tue May 01, 2007 22:03

Or whoever it was that threw the stinkbomb and contributed to breaking up the meeting. All you achieved was to convince anyone there who was uncommitted that the left can't win a straight-up debate on Cuba and have no respect for free-speech. I'm not saying I think that but people who mighn't know much about the left or about Cuba could easily leave with that impression. Even if, as Simon McGuinness said, it was in no way a proper debate because the moderater vetted out questions from people who looked like lefties, there were more constructive tactics than throwing stink bombs, particularly if protestors were in the majority in that hall.

by PaddyK Wed May 02, 2007 00:54

Free speech does not apply in the case of propaganda. There is no reason why a society should accept a mass propaganda mission in it's educational institutions on the basis of free speech. If you stand on the corner of a street and preach for the liquidation of a people or their society through funding and supporting a coup or a civil war, you get arrested and questioned, or at least you should.

Let these cannibals go stand on the corners and preach poison; a good public outing might end that type of arrogance. Lets see the posters for that:

"HELP DESTROY CUBAN CIVIL SOCIETY, a talk by some American Geezer outside Abrakebabra on O Connell Bridge."

This pleb's position is to efficiently accommodate the disposal of another sovereign countries institutions of authority. Truth is, UCD is protecting the guy while he spills his incitement on Ireland's students.
Anyone here, who seeks to leave the spread of democracy in the hands of the Americans, should look to Iraq where a truly ruthless despot reigned over Mesopotamian civil culture with US Approval until it was time for change. Then Nihilist destruction.
If this US roadshow for Imperialism were here to discuss the liquidation of our corrupt Dail Eireann or the manipulation of the upcoming pointless election or the assassination of Palestinian government and "regime change" I don’t think anyone would be sitting in the hallowed halls of UCD to accommodate the fundamentalist ranting of a war mongering propagandist.

Stink bombs? I spectate on whether he will be so fortunate elsewhere. He should go to Venezuela to test his chosen area of expertise.

Bye Bye, American Geezer.

by Observer Wed May 02, 2007 08:48

Redjade is correct. The Cuban laws suppressing internet use are domestic and have nothing to do with any US embargo. Cuba is NOT a one party repressive regime that suppresses individual freedoms - including those of gays which is conveniently ignored by most of the left - because of the US embargo. It has been that way for 40 years and was economically a mess even with massive subventions from the USSR.

I am opposed to the embargo and beleive that it would in fact help to free Cuba from the Castroists. I certainly do not wish to see Cuba revert to what it was in the 1950s but to pose the choice as being either a country run by gangsters or a country run by Stalinist thugs is a bit simplistic. Maybe the Cuban people should be let decide - by both the CP and the US - in an election?

by PaddyK Wed May 02, 2007 09:56

Redjade might be correct, but you are missing the main point in this thread.

This is not about whether Cuban Authorities are good for Modern Cuba or not it is about whether American Authority is good for Cuba or not. This emissary for international terror was run out of UCD in the same way that Wolfowitz or Cheney or Bush should be run out of UCD if they came to preach about the liquidation of Iraqi Society. In the same way the Israeli Ambassador was run out of Galway when he came to try and validate the liquidation of the Palestinians.
Some people here have said that they wanted to learn about the problems of Cuba by listening to what the US Geezer had to preach but I wonder would those people invite a paedophile over to their house in order to learn about child molestation.

Or would they more appropriately invite an expert on the issue, a victim of the crime or a parent of a victim.

In the same philosophy I would say that if an emissary for the Cuban Government or Cuban Society at large comes to speak of Cuba then we should listen, reason and debate in order to learn.
If you want to learn about American doctrine on regime change look to Iraq, Afghanistan or bloody South American history.

Get it?

by G Wed May 02, 2007 10:10

The removal of the US embargo would be a good step to opening up Cuba to the rest of the civilised world.
The US embargo simply isolated the Castro regime even more and drove them into the arms of the Soviets.
Just as the years of economic sanctions did nothing to remove Saddam Hussein - it merely made it more inevitable that whether Saddam was removed by invasion or internal revolution that Iraq was going to descend into civil war.

I fear the same will happen if there is a US invasion or a violent domestic revolution by the Cuban people.

Better that the sanctions are removed first to allow the country to recover economically - as much a any socialist state run economy can recover of course!

The totalitarian regime would soon collapse as the hidden moderates (you can be sure there are decent people lying low at various levels of government waiting for the end of the Castro regime so they can get some real work done) who wish to open up the country even more both socially and economically.

Cuba will not, as extremists claim, inevitably fall into the American sphere of influence - rather it can grow its own economy and poltical system like any other independent country.

Cuba should have a democratic system that at the very least pretends to be answerable to the people and laws that protect the individual rights of its citizens - with individual rights and freedoms the Cuban people can only prosper.

Cuba is a beautiful country - it can once again become the playground of the Carribean and the Cuban people can make a living from the massive tourist influx before expanding their economy into other industries.

by SP Wed May 02, 2007 10:44

hey dude - what would you do if the whole of ireland had no option but to use your broadband connection? eh?

bet youd let the medical researchers have first call on it followed by necessary educational use followed by embasies around the globe followed by police and military and then, when all the rest were gone home for the night, youd let sean bloggs download his porn - but only if there was any bandwith left. and you'd stop the corrupt or the nieve from downloading videos for hours on end whilst life and death decisions wait on the file to transfer from outer space.

yeh sure - no - youd just rent it out to the highest bidder by the secomd and become a greasy millionaire.

or maybe you'd prefer if the monopoly supply of the connection was sold off for a song (and a brown envelope or a house extension) by a corrupt politician to someone like Dennis O'Brien and he could charge literally what ever he wanted? that'dbe the irish solution.

you might call what the cubans have had to do censorship - if you are so inclined - i call it rationing out a very limited resource, vital for the survival of any country.

name another country that is surviving on one dodgey sputnik satilite uplink to the internet - not even the poorest african country has to rely ona satelite uplink for access to the worlds most important network - if i was cuban id be well pissed with uncle sam

me - if i have to have a monopoly supplier because the good ol usa determines that that is the best way for me to get a taste of their freedom - then i'm gonna want a monopoly supplier i can trust to establish priorities in the use of the internet and ensure that Sean Bloggs - or uncle sam's little lackey - doesnt fcuk it up for everyone else

by Cogsy (M-L) - Anti-Imperialista Wed May 02, 2007 11:04

Its obvious the only path leading to a 'restoration of democracy' in Cuba is either assasination, coup or full scale invasion. Castro, like his comrade Chavez in Venezuela, has already accounted for future coups and possible invasions and he has popular support among the Cuban people. If any of these scenarios were to happen, the only way the gangsters could enforce and consolidate their rule would be through brute force and terror in scenes redolent of Chile, when Pinochet attempted to crush the workers' movement.

UCD academia's invitation to Caleb McCarry was a calculated attempt to provoke both defenders and supporters of Cuba who would rightly want to express their indignation at McCarry spewing his anti-communist filth. They have no regard for Cuban sovereignty. Whilst I fully sympathise with the actions of those who tried to shut down the meeting, I think their efforts played into the hands of those on the right who falsely and absurdly claim that the left is trampling free speech, when in fact it is people like McCarry who want to deprive the Cuban people this sacrosanct right and of self-determination. As a former UCD socialist activist, I'm not surprised at all at the self-perpetuating smugness of some the current batch of UCD activists criticising the action.

by Simon McGuinness Wed May 02, 2007 12:38

As I remember it I think your remarks were made directly to a protestor and without the permission of the chair. This is not exactly a role model of civilised behaviour itself. Perhaps you had indicated that you wanted to speak and were ignored by the chair - I don't know.

I remember only one person being given permission to speak and that was Caleb McCarry. I think that was the main factor in provoking the demonstrators. You may not have understood the implications of the chairs opening remarks in the same way as those who reacted angrily did. Perhaps you didn't hear them fully?

The ground rules she tried to establish were very short of the minimum criteria necessary to allow for an exchange of views. This may be the norm in UCD where some paternalistic lecturers may seek to impart their presumed superior knowledge to presumed ignorant under graduates intent on receiving it.

It is not the norm in other universities where those proposing radical thoughts (like terrorism is good for democracy) have to be able to back up their views with fact and reason in the face od sustained reasoned argument. The more radical their thoughts, the harder they have to work to convince their opponents of their bona fides.

The proconsul's bona fides and the bona fides of the cabal that gave him a rigged public platform were the only thing clearly in doubt in that room. I am afraid that debate in the real world is a two-way process, not the "spew-and-absorb" charade which was offered to participants - and summarily rejected.

This is particularly so when one has an American talking about Cuba where he was perhaps the only person in the room who had never even been there on holiday. I know I have much to impart to improve his hopelessly and deliberately distorted understanding of Cuba and I doubt that I was alone in that, but I was denied the opportunity to enlighten him by the format established.

I'd happily take him on in any fair debate, confident in my ability to show up his co-conspiracy in murder, biowarfare, terrorism, deception and corruption. But that was no fair debate.

Nor was it ever meant to be.

The anger you perceived was and is the righteous anger of people who have seen their friends tortured and killed by McCarry and similar apologists for the reign of terror unleashed on Latin America since 1954, a reign of terror that one country - and one country alone - managed to defend itself against, at considerable human and financial cost.

They are people who know children that have undergone operations without anaesthetic or who have died of treatable illnesses because McCarry and his ‘crusaders for democracy’ deny them access to medicines or medical devices, the patents for which happen to be owned by American corporations.

The eight Irish Gardai who protected McCarry would have been better served arresting him and charging him with "directing terrorism", an offence punishable by up to 40 years in prison in Ireland. I personally have listened to the pain of the many victims of his government's terrorist operatives and would be happy to bring the survivors to Ireland to testify before our own Special Criminal Court. But for that to happen Ireland would need a government with a spine.

Still, I hope to live long enough to see a future prosecution of McCarry and his ilk before the International Criminal Court in The Hague on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.

His rightful place is behind bars, not in a university classroom protected by an academic cabal giddy on thoughts of his promised largess.

by Niall O'Neill Wed May 02, 2007 12:57

In a democratic society, all views should be allowed to be expressed. Cuba is not a democracy. it is a dictatorship. Shame on you apologists for repression and dictatorship who applaud Cuba's inhumane regime. No person who supports Castro is in any way a socialist, they are supporters of fascist repression. You people make me sick. You blacken the name of all of us who support democracy, the rights of the oppressed and the inalienable right to free expression.

by redjade Wed May 02, 2007 13:31

The true reason for the US Embargo is, today, not some grand conspiracy by Uncle Sam to destroy 'socialism' nor is it an attempt by the Bushies to crush a 'threat of a good example.'

Truth is, the politics of the US needs Castro's Cuba. Its mostly about winning Florida's 27 Electoral Votes in US presidential elections. And if Castro's regime disappears tomorrow so will those 27 Electoral Votes disappear for the US Republican Party.

Otherwise, the embargo would soon be ended and America's bombing of Cuba with Big Macs™ would begin! I assume that's what these Fidelistas really want by ending the US embargo, right? Unfettered access to the Cuban economy by McDonald's, no?

It can also be easily argued that the Castro Regime needs the US embargo to justify its own existence and to explain away its own failures.

As for SP's thought that Castro 'rations' TCP/IP bits and bytes for the sake of Cuba's healthcare system - whew! struggling for an explanation of censorship and authoritarian rule aint ya comrade!? - I think Fidel's buddy in Caracas could manage to help out in some small way, no? All that Oil Cash he's giving out to Argentina and others, couldn't a bit of that help out some Cuban Libraries with Internet access?

The Cuban Libraries that still have librarians not in jail for lending out the wrong books, of course.

Also missing from this discussion is the simple fact that Cuba is a signatory to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - as is the United States.

If the United States should be condemned for violating the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (among other Human Rights agreements and treaties) - and it should be for what it is doing in Guantanamo Cuba - then the same logic should be applied for the rest of the Cuban island.

Human Rights are rights for all humans, no? Or, is Human Rights only something we 'Leftists' use to score political points against ol' Uncle Sam? If that is the case, then the pro-Castro position is no different from George Bush and Alberto R. Gonzales'.

'Do as we say, not as we do' (but from a 'Leftist' point of view)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights
good enough for gulag of Guantanamo but not in the gulags of Havana?
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

btw, i do know Cuba was never the worst Human Rights violator of the Américas, but it does violate Human Rights - and no one should be afraid to say that. I think the Marxoid political correctness on this site can, at times, be quite stifling. Thank you Alan Greenspan for an open debate allowed by the free flow and unrationed TCP/IP of the capitalist world!

and, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why there is no http://www.indymedia.cu

by Tomi Kuhanen - Finnish-Cuban Friendship Association Wed May 02, 2007 13:46

I send you this piece of information from the website of the U.S. Embassy in Finland. McCarry visited Finland September 2006. He gave an interview to YLE (Finnish Broadcasting Company) News and to the main newspaper Helsingin Sanomat.

At the university, the "discussion and question and answer session with professors and students" included only two carefully selected students. Others - including students who are actually studying and researching Cuba - were not invited and were not allowed to meet Mr McCarry.

*****
Cuba Transition Coordinator Caleb McCarry Visited Finland

The Department of State?s Cuba Transition Coordinator Caleb McCarry
visited Helsinki September 29 for meetings with MFA officials and
journalists. Meeting with the MFA's Directors for both Latin America
and Human Rights, McCarry stressed that the upcoming months are likely
to be a time of great change in Cuba, and that the U.S. and Europe
must be prepared to work jointly to foster a true democratic
transition as opportunities present themselves. He emphasized that
change in Cuba must be led by the Cuban people themselves. McCarry
held an on-the-record session with print journalists, gave a
television interview, and engaged in a discussion and question and
answer session with professors and students from Helsinki University's
Latin American Studies Department.

by Observer Wed May 02, 2007 16:57

Some things you would not be allowed to do if you were living in Cuba:

(a) use the internet unless you have official permission
(b) criticise the Government
(c) vote to remove the Government
(d) hold protests against the Government
(e) hold any sort of protests such as the one described above
(f) publish your own newspaper, book or internet site
(g) leave
(h) form an opposition group

and I could go on and on.

You do have all those rights here. Which begs the question, why do you prefer Cuba to Ireland, or indeed any "bourgeois" democracy?

by Nil O'Nobhead Wed May 02, 2007 17:33

"In a democratic society, all views should be allowed to be expressed."

By your yardstick then Ireland is not democratic because it does not offer a platform to Paedophiles.

Germany is not democratic because it bans neo-Nazi groups.

etc. etc.

by SP Wed May 02, 2007 20:21

do i really sound like a sucker?

if only you were an observer - instead of a consumer and distributor of mis information - youd know that none of the things you list are banned in Cuba -

my guess is that you are either
1- an ingnorant american
2- an infromed american who gets his infromation from the US media
3- a professional

why not send me a full list of your rantings and i'll see if anyof them areworthy of reply

right now i have no time for wankrs - nobody with an internet connection can be that ignorant about anything, especially cuba

dont waste my time, punk.

by Simon McGuinness Wed May 02, 2007 23:27

Thanks for that information Tomi.

Isn’t it interesting that precisely the same format was used in 2006 in Finland where 2 (clearly a coincidence) "students" were planted in the audience to ask McCarry soft questions?

A lesson, perhaps, for anyone who harboured any illusion that the purpose of the meeting was educational.

My very inadequate mobile phone footage of the crucial moment is available on YouTube at:

by Squirrel Thu May 03, 2007 02:09

Simon your ignorance and Authoritarianism knows no bounds. You would even try to deny me the right to debate anonymously on this forum.

You’ve totally missed the point of the event as it was advertised. Indeed a debate was not advertised at all so your bullshit about what is expected in other universities is incomprehensible. I have to say even if it was supposed to be a fair debate I doubt you would have let him speak for you let no one speak that day who disagreed with you. You shouted them all down --- some debater.

Cogsy you agree with what most of us "current batch of ucd activists" are talking about on this thread when you say “I think their efforts played into the hands of those on the right who falsely and absurdly claim that the left is trampling free speech” then you call us smug. The only ones who were smug were the ones who got there own way. How can we be smug when we felt the day was a disaster? Your smugness knows no bounds Cogsy and it’s no surprise to hear you defending fellow Authoritarians you’re as authoritarian as they come.

And before anyone comes back AGAIN with a list of reasons of justification for shuttin that meeting down … I believe that guy Caleb should be imprisoned along with the whole bunch neo cons trying to run the world who are responsible for more deaths and suffering than anyone. But he wasn't goin to be imprisoned at that meeting so what was the best outcome for the day in terms of Cuban people ? To quote an earlier post from one of the other self-perpetuating smug people on board this thread

“It's nothing to do with 'courtesy' for that guy. I have no interest in being courteous to him. My interest is in spreading awareness about the Cuban situation in terms of all the things done by the U.S. that you have so eloquently outlined, so that the bullshit media lies (mainly propogated by the U.S.) can be countered and ultimately, that situation changed.I don't see how yesterday helps that. All it did was push those unconvinced people that attended closer to believing those lies, and further from our cause (which, despite our obvious differences on this issue, is obviously a common one). Or do you think they walked away thinking "Well done to those people, I had hoped to find out myself about the Cuban people's plight but I guess it's best to leave it to them to make up my mind for me. Viva Castro!"

So come on any of you-- give a reasoned argument as to how your actions helped to inform any new people on Cuba’s plight, helped to bring any new people on board this campaign or helped in anyway with the public image of Cuba.. I'll tell you NONE

by Observer Thu May 03, 2007 08:57

NONE of the things I list are premitted by the Cuban state. If you think they are I suggest that you are

(a) completely ignorant of Cuba
(b) totally naive and taken in by Cuban propaganda
(c) 14

BTW, I am Irish and have been in Cuba. I have no brief or sympathy on the issue whatsoever for the US and I oppose the embargo. You, however, appear to fall into the manichean fallacy that if you oppose Castro's dictatorship then you are automatically a CIA agent! That is the way secret policemen think.

by Glab Thu May 03, 2007 10:26

"An eagle eyed activist reportedly witnessed the handing over of Caleb from the care of the Gardai to the care of the US marines."

What a load of bollox. He was brought back to his car and handed over to a 70-year old driver.

by Simon McGuinness Thu May 03, 2007 10:29

Far from shouting anyone down, I actually said fewer words during the meeting than even Caleb McCarry, as the chair refused to recognise me. I didn't utter a single word untill after the meeting when I politely asked Mr McCarry if he would take a leaflet on the case of the Miami Five. He did. He may even read it.

by holidaymaker Thu May 03, 2007 14:01

gleb,

i know the ways of state security services are hard to fathom but personally i think it unlikely that if the gardai felt the need to wear bullet proof vests (as per photo at top of article), that the US state department would consider any ordinary 70 year old limo driver to be up to the task of protecting such a high value target...

by Glab Thu May 03, 2007 14:51

All gardaí in Dublin are now issued with stab vests. The rollout follows a successful pilot scheme. You'll rarely see a garda without one these days. I know what I saw.

by Cogsy (M-L) Thu May 03, 2007 15:47 darrencogavin at hotmail dot com

So divergent opinions on tactics have rendered an otherwise hugely successful mobilisation against neo-con Caleb McCarry a “disaster”? Are you for real? Perhaps the disruption didn’t just play into the hands of the right, but also self-serving liberals and leftists keen to prove their ‘democratic’ credentials to the college authorities, a right-wing student media and a generally conservative student body.

In reality you are lining up alongside these forces denouncing the “authoritarians”. I’m sure that many of these “authoritarians”, as you put it, are CPI old-timers who remember their comrades being slaughtered in Chile in 1973. I personally think their action was misguided but I think it was courageous. As is the norm now in UCD, whenever protestors remonstrate with a public figure, the Gardai come rushing in and are physically aggressive. At least Caleb McCarry knew he was in hostile territory and not in some L&H debating forum.

I want to address just one other point raised on this thread. Some UCD students have referred to the ‘No Platform’ position in relation to fascists speaking on campus. I’m glad to hear it and I agree in this case it wasn’t applicable to Caleb McCarry. But when Justin Barret spoke in UCD a few years ago, why didn’t any UCD activist (some of whom are posting on this thread) enforce that position? Instead activists from outside the college had to intervene. So please stop the nauseating posturing too.

by Ex UCD libertarian left Thu May 03, 2007 17:01

This is an embarrassment, whatever went wrong in UCD.

The self declared UCD left has mutated into an authoritarian sub-cultural clique.

It has nobody to blame for its failings except itself.

The left (for want of a better term) was successful in UCD when it was open to all those willing to engage in democratic debate and action. The attempt was to build a diverse student movement that included anyone with progressive politics. Once people were engaged, politicisation occurred itself and it organically grew into a framework for direction.

It mutated the moment it started to define itself against itself, that is, when people wanted to prove how left they were and defined themselves against the authoritarian left.

To build a democratic movement ought to be based upon the ability to be self reflexive- critical and open to critical debate.

To stop this moran speaking and to treat him like he was a racist, bigoted fascist is absolutely absurd.

I hope for the day when the current circle of self declared lefties move on out of UCD and allow for new, mature, socially engaged, progressive, rational open minded democrats to take centre stage.

Until this happens, all the so called 'left' do is give the rest of us a bad name.

Anyone who stopped this idiot speaking is an embarrassment to the rest of us. Grow up.

by UCD student Thu May 03, 2007 17:19

Paul said:

"The left never won its struggles listening to conservatives, capitalist and imperialist"

and it certainly wont win its battles by being anti- democratic, juvenile and closed minded.

i walked away disgusted after 5mins and i certainly wont get involved in anything ever again.

all this pathethic action did was alienate more people and convince most ordinary students in UCD that the left are a crowd of immature children unable to engage in democratic discussion.

by Squirrel Thu May 03, 2007 18:12

"Perhaps the disruption didn’t just play into the hands of the right, but also self-serving liberals and leftists keen to prove their ‘democratic’ credentials to the college authorities, a right-wing student media and a generally conservative student body." Yeah right .... we were all queuing up for that meeting hoping that some old time cpi members would come along so we could ingratiate ourselves with the establishment. Are you for real. No 1 my rep with college authorities is too far gone now to be saved, no2 the last student paper was out weeks ago and 3 no ordinary student is even going to hear about this incident and 4 how can credentials be proved by anonymous posting??? Bizarre comment indeed.

As for the no platform for fascists issue the only way that works is if you ask unions clubs societies and community groups in control of venues to vote in a policy of not inviting fascists to speak. If you come along after the fact and violently break up the meeting it plays right into the fascists hands. Example Justin Barret stopped from speaking to a few hundred students next day because of that action is given a platform on radio one with an estimated audience of at least half a million people. Great success yay!!

by Ex UCD pseudoantidiestablishmentarian left Thu May 03, 2007 19:40

Are you capable of reading? This whole thread is about left-wingers in UCD criticising people who aren't in the college for breaking up the meeting and shouting them down when they disagreed. Your whole tirade is completely irrelevant and it makes you wonder, who in god's name are you and where do you pluck these ridiculous, half-baked arguments from?

by EL Thu May 03, 2007 22:04

Where on earth do you get your information from, because I have never read such rubbish . I would like to deal with all the US Propaganda you seem intent on spouting but lets just deal with one for now , the right to vote. I have been to Cuba many times and witnessed the elections for myself in 1997. In fact we could learn a lot from these elections as while we in the West pay lip service to democracy being ‘of the people by the people and for the people the Cubans actually practice it. There are 38,000 municipalities in Cuba similar to County Councils here . Each one represents approximately 3,000 residents of the 11 million citizens of Cuba. In order to get elected you would live in the area. No candidate is allowed to spend money on campaigns .They can put up an A4 piece of paper with their photograph and CV in the local post office. It is open to everyone and because you can’t spend money every one is coming off an equal playing field. Compare this to the US system where you would need hundreds of millions of dollars before even considering putting yourself forward for election.

Once the 38,000 members of the municipalities have been elected the peoples National Assembly is voted in. This contains about 700 members and is equivalent to Dail Eireann. The National Assembley is nominated from the pool of 38,000 which has already been voted in by the people.

In fact why don’t you do yourself a favour and buy ‘Democracy in Cuba’ currently available at Ocean Press/Amazon and written by a Canadian which devotes 250 pages to the Cuban Election process.

by Election schmection Fri May 04, 2007 07:44

EL, is it possible for someone other than Castro to be elected President of Cuba?

by Presente! Fri May 04, 2007 09:15

1. For 100% sure this little dreck was under armed guard at all times

2. He was never in any physical danger, nor was there any reason to fear for his safety (sanity is a different thing!)

3. "A staff member annouced the meeting postponed" - yes, but the decision to quit was all McCarry's - no way would UCD Staff dream of slamming the door shut on the nose of the 'highly esteemed' guest

4. Any political operator with the courage of their convictions (or just actual balls/ovaries) would have easily stayed and brazened it out, under some hostile commentary

5. Therefore, the whole debate above about freedom of speech is beside the point, which is that these gutless wonders of US imperialist chickenhawkery cannot even win an argument, never mind a war

6. This risible idiot McCarry should pack his shit and disappear into well-deserved oblivion back down whichever hole he crawled out of

7. I fully support the right of this filth to speak freely, and the right of his opponents to drown out his pathetic noises

8. Well done to everybody who contributed to this 'challenge action' - McCarry failed the test - I see long-term unemployment looming up on his C.V. ";0)

by Observer Fri May 04, 2007 09:45

SImilar charades were mounted in all the former socialist states to obscure the fact that they were one party - indeed oftern one person - dictatorships. The fact is that it is IMPOSSIB LE to vote to remove CP control of any aspect of Cuban society. And no amount of circus tricks changes that.

by sp Fri May 04, 2007 09:52

yes sure ... just as soon as someone better comes along they'll be elected president of cuba.

you can't blame Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz for being the towering figure of the 20th century - or the cuban people for recognising that fact

by Simon McGuinness Fri May 04, 2007 11:01

"The Terrorist We Caught But Won’t Prosecute

Most Americans have probably never heard of [Luis Posada] Carriles, but everyone should know the real case against him, because it shows the double standard of the Bush Administration in its so-called commitment to fight terrorism.
[..]
You would think that capturing a man with a record like this would have the Administration calling a news conference to declare their success in the war on terror with a long-sought terrorist in custody. Not so. Instead, the Administration is busy trying to get a court to bar Posada from testifying about what he did for the CIA.
[..]
The U.S. is holding a person convicted of major terrorist acts in other countries, but he is going to be prosecuted for an immigration infraction. That’s like bringing Osama bin Laden to trial for a traffic ticket.

The moral compass of the Bush Administration is just spinning round and round over the treatment of Posada Carriles. Next week it is going to stop on a new direction: H, for Hypocrisy."

Those are the words of US REPUBLICAN Congressman, Jim McDermott, castigating Bush's so called War on Terrorism as it applies to terrorism against Cuba.

That's the hypocrisy that Caleb McCarry was her to promote.
The hypocrisy that SPIRe were happy to facilitate.
The hypocrisy that Bush expects Ireland to support.
That's why his bag-man was in UCD on Monday last.

Polls show that the vast majority of patriotic Americans are embarrassed by Bush's policy against Cuba. We have a duty to support their efforts to change the Bush regime’s policy of aggression, not to support it. There is a plurality of views as to how this should be done; everyone has to choose their own way. All non-violent methods are valid.

by AH Fri May 04, 2007 11:40

For the record the UCD security staff decided to call off the meeting because they knew it wouldn't be allowed to go ahead. They informed the gardai of this and they entered the room to escort out McCarry. I was right beside them when they had this discussion.

by Cogsy (M-L) Fri May 04, 2007 13:32

All this hue and cry over a stink bomb? There have been precedents in the past of attempting to prevent public figures from speaking on campus. Many of the contributers to this thread, now shaking their fists in idignation at the CP, have in the past tried to prevent Noel Dempsey ( http://snipurl.com/1javz ), Mary Harney ( http://snipurl.com/1jaw1 ), Michael McDowell ( http://snipurl.com/1jb6d ) and an Taoiseach Bertie Ahern ( http://snipurl.com/1jawd ) from spouting their bullshit in UCD. Over the past few years sexist posters have been torn down too. Does this not contravene the liberals' sacred writ of "freedom of expression"? Is your head an irony free zone?

This is not an issue of freedom of speech, but on whether or not a repulsive figure such as McCarry is welcome on our campus. The actions against FF and PD ministers cited above were intended to register our disgust at government policy on education or to show solidarity with asylum seekers and victims of imperialist aggression. More often than not they didn't have popular support from the student body. The right-wing did their best to make political capital from these incidents by claiming the left were trampling on free speech and now we unfortunately have sections of the left wanting to share space with the right on the moral high-ground.

On the Justin Barrett debacle, I think the comrades from AFA were completely within their rights to enforce the 'no platform' position. I regret I couldn't directly assist them but I was studying abroad at the time. They won't like me using the word 'vanguard', BUT they have been at the vanguard in preventing fascist cretins from organising in this country. Squirrel points to the negative media coverage the Justin Barrett incident got. Its probably true that if everyone waved their flags at Barrett like they did at McCarry, then they would have saved the UCD left from a storm of media and political attacks. But thank fuck revolutionary socialists and anarchists don't kowtow to the capitalist media who are the worst deceivers and professional misleaders of the working class.

I also think its naive and mistaken to call on the college authorities to police "free speech" because it could bolster their repressive power and enable them to use such codes to victimise student protestors. It should be at the discretion of socialist and anti-fascist activists on whether the principle should be enforced. And we should be also mindful of the 'no platform' position being adopted by stuent unions and societies who have subsequently used it against leftists. Sections of the NUS in Britain for example want to enforce 'no platform' against leftists who criticise Zionist aggression and the occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. It should also be noted too that a left UCDSU president shamefully launched an inquiry into union members who supported, but didn't participate in, the action against Barrett. He tamely capitulated to calls for an inquiry by reactionary elements in the union. What did you think of that Squirrel?

This will probably be my last contribution to this thread. I can't say that I've taken much from it but I have learned something about the comrades in the CPI - there's still life left in the old dogs!

by Dr Bill - Fringe leftist bookclub (Penny Apples Faction) / Renault Ire Fri May 04, 2007 13:40

Well well, it’s been a coupla years now since Dr Bill was booted off de UCDSU n’all’n’anyways. Look what happened to dat? Didn’t last long after the entrepreneurial spirits were killed off by de spineless bureaucrats. Typical of this country. On one of my many trips to visit the Renault works in France, I got talkin to this Sarko fella. I sez, “I’m the Sarko one, not you”, but he didn’t get it. Anyways, he was sayin how he wants to smash the Renault unions for me. Good man sez Dr Bill. And would you ever smash de bleedin idiots who booted me out of the UCD online community while you’re at it. I don’t think he followed me on that one either.

So while I’ve been buzzin around in me helicopter makin a killin, I gather that things have gone to the wall back in UCD? I remember a day when UCD Labour Youth stood up and enforced the no platform policy – the day was when a real fascist called Justin Barret visited Belfield. Up they all stood, and down they marched, and whisked him away. All the hard men in the audience were taken aback by the direct action tactics of the Pat Upton branch (dis being de day before Micheal O’Rioardan joined the Mullingar Accord), led as dey were by the militant Looney and Cantillon. One fella who looked older than the sprightly Dr Bill whispered in me ear “bill, it would remind you of the courageous youngsters who marched off to Spain in the 30s”. It would dat, sez I. It would dat.

And dey don’t back down when faced with an evil authorartian either. Dere courage, indefatigability, and smugness knows no bounds. For it is de autonimistas in Labour Youth who know dat dey are Socialist and Democratic, what wit Big Pat promisin a big progressive tax overhaul, and acceptin motions left right and centre at conference, no matter how critical. Indeed, I hears dat the young ones in UCD gave Noel Carrillio an earful of high minded criticism about de atuthorartians in Cuba and all dat at the local conference. He said afterward dat he hadn’t been so totally humiliated since he went for a swim with Chairman Mao back in de glory days.

Don’t worry sez I, dose kids in UCD are always lightin up de old arsenic. Take some time in me country retreat, and I’ll join ye later, knowin as I did dat dose Cubans need new cars and me being a smug salesman and all dat. Dey just hate anythin dat comes from de top down sez I, like My Whippys whipped ices, de little acts of random kindness dat permeate Renault Ireland, or organisin a no platform policy by committee agreement.

by EL Fri May 04, 2007 13:41

Oh, yes, and you are the expert when it comes to Cuban elections? You said Cubans were banned form voting for their government. Duhhh! Now you are saying that because almost no one votes for the opposition that its because Cubans are somehow forced to vote for the communist party. Which is it?

The simple fact is The Cuban Communist party is not an electoral party. It does not nominate or support candidates for office nor does it make laws or select the head of state. These roles are played by the National Assemble which is elected by the people and for which membership of the Communist Party is not required.

by Simon McGuinness Fri May 04, 2007 14:01

Moderate Opposition Rejects US "Transition" Coordinator for Cuba [EFE - July 30, 2005]

A moderate Cuban opposition group today condemned Washington's decision to name a "coordinator for transition" in Cuba, saying it constituted an "attack" against the island's sovereignty, according to EFE News.

"The naming of a coordinator for transition in Cuba is an attack on our national sovereignty, shows an ignorance of our capacity to determine our own destiny, and violates international law," states a communiqué by Manuel Cuesta Morúa, spokesman of the social-democratic organization "Arco
Progresista" (Progressive Arc).
[..]
"The United States government is committing an error and giving offense to the majority of Cubans," the communiqué continues, and adds that Arco Progresista "soundly rejects this inappropriate and insulting proposal."
[..]
Arco Progresista demanded that Washington "not intervene" in Cuban affairs and asked for the international community to support his call.

In addition Elizardo Sánchez, leader of the Cuban Commission for Human Rights and National Reconciliation, characterized the appointment of McCarry "counter-productive and difficult to accept."

The U.S. decision, Sánchez told EFE, will "worsen relations between Washington and Havana and will serve the Cuban government by enabling it to continue to raise the spectre of foreign intervention in Cuban affairs."
[..]

Original Spanish from EFE News (Spain)
Source:
IBLNews - July 30, 2005; http://iblnews.com/story.php?id=1732

English translation by New York Transfer News:

by Ex UCD libertarian left Fri May 04, 2007 15:05

apologies for not reading the thread properly,

i thought it was the 'UCD left' who took the authoritiarian approach of not letting this idiot speak and treating him like a facist

It thus appears that it was a few idiots in the CP etc, and not the wider group of 'lefties in UCD.

Anyone who defines themselves as 'left' and then think it is acceptable to treat somone they disagree with as a facist and refuse him the right to speak is a fuckin tool and an embarssment to those of us who equate the essence of being 'left' with being a 'democrat'.

by sp Fri May 04, 2007 16:09

insnt "libertarian left" an oxymoron? but I guess you realised that ... eventually. or maybe you are ex UCD as opposed to ex libertarian left?

what are you today? or did you just give up and become ..... a pluralist?

must be hard for you to understand anyone who holds true to a principal for 50 years - esp in the face of the most powerfull military empire in history. chalk and cheese really

by Libertarianism Fri May 04, 2007 17:02

Isn’t the SP and Democracy an oxymoron?

Or isn’t SP, Cuba, democracy& the left an oxymoron?

Doesnt uncritically holding onto certain principles after 50 years = an unwillingness to change?

Isnt being open to change a good thing?

Doesn’t the unwillingness to change = conservatism?

Doesn’t pluralism = diversity?

Isn’t this a good thing that leads to an acceptance of difference?

Doesn’t the attempt to unify, simplify and live by a strict code = Dogmatism?

Does'nt this attempt to unify difference into a unitary position lead to more problems than not?

Doesn’t dogmatism lead itself to authoritarianism?

Doesn’t authoritarianism lead itself to totalitarianism?

Isn’t this what we will ultimately get with the authoritarian left?

Isnt this why most people now opt to join libertarian left wing organisations?

Isnt this why the fastest growing left wing organisation in Dublin is libertarian?

by Rayo Fri May 04, 2007 18:27

The left has capitulated enough and it is about time they take a stand. It's a conflict of ideology and we are getting a whipping. Too much liberalism and pseudo democracy. The right would have no qualms silencing other views, sure who owns the corporate media? Who controls the education curriculum , where our childern learn their ideas? Who makes our laws?

If Ireland elected a socialists government on May 24th do you really think McCarry and the Bush government would be so respectful of our views. Who was behind the short lived coup to oust Chavez?

It's about time the left gots it's hands dirty and fought for an alternative society, a bit more education and organistaion in our communities and some direct action against the agenst of neo-liberalism and imperialism.

Fascists, imperialists, capitalists, rascists, they deserve no respect their ideas are disfunctional and destructive, and have laid enough misery through out the world.

by sp Fri May 04, 2007 22:52

dont you ever have a tincy weenie bit of doubt that the americans might be wrong about cuban democracy like they were wrong about WMDs - and for the same reasons?

cuba would not have survived peak oil without a functioning active and resilient system of participative democracy - other so called democracies will crumble into anarchy long before they get anywhere near that point. do you really believe that 96% of the 95% of registered cuban voters who vote every 3 years for their government get it wrong all the time

tell me - what's the libertarian solution to controlling greenhouse gas emissions? or providing healthcare to 30% of Americans and 40% of the earth's population who dont have any? are there any examples of a sustainable libertarian society anywhere?

by Squirrel Sat May 05, 2007 12:53

Once again you have failed to read and understand what I and others have repeated over and over on this thread... We are not concerned with courtesy to Mr McCarry or his right to free speech we are concerned with what was the best thing to do on the day. And as explained already I feel the cause of the Cuban people and the left in general on that occasion was better served letting everyone speak.

As for the inquiry into the Justin Barrett incident there was no capitulation to any of the union members on that issue. Fergal Scully defended the union very well during that time. In fact members of both the extreme right and extreme left both staged a walk out of council over dissatisfaction with that issue. Not for the first time yis have something in common.

As far as I can remember the instigation of the inquiry took the heat off the staff and officers in the union and allowed that issue to fade out of the public eye without any negative consequences for any member or staff of UCD students union. And there definitely was a threat of negative consequences. The inquiry also vindicated the role of any member of UCDSU in that incident. Job well done by Mr Scully on that one.

by John Q Sat May 05, 2007 14:34

I am a UCD student and would like to distance myself from those who tuned up to the meeting to protest against Mr McCarry. I witnessed everything that happened in that room. It was appalling and uncivilised to pursue such obstructionist tactics. Shout and chant as you will but the use of stink bombs and other paraphenalia is unacceptable. For those of you (and you know who you are) all that you achieved was to vandalise my college and turn many of the students who attended against your causes. I went along to engage in constructive discussion but was harassed by cries of 'Free the Miami 5.' It hppocritical to preach about free speech when you engage in this sort of protest. Ignorant tactics of that nature are akin to a toddler throwing a temper tantrum because he does not have his way. Stink bombs are things that a character such as 'Dennis the Menace' would use.

by sp Sat May 05, 2007 19:17

appalling and uncivilised are perfect descriptions for McCarry's government's framing and jailing of five innocent Cubans who engaged in peaceful surveillance of known terrorists planning a terrorist campaign against innocent civilians and have found themselves facing 75 years in prison for their efforts. even a united nations committee determined that they are illegally imprisoned.

they were not defending anyone against stink bombs but against real bombs that have killed real people - 3,500 of them so far, including real toddlers who will never get to hear of dennis the menace.

i didn't hear you condemning that - did i miss something?

mccarry and his kind will need to feel a lot more heat than he experienced in ucd before they will contemplate allowing the miami five a fair trail, as the united nations demands.

you may be comfortable defending the rights of the spin doctors of rogue superstates who frame people for seeking to protect innocent human life against terrorists -

you may be comfortable denying others the right to protest peacefully in a just cause -

you may be comfortable with your utter failure to condemn political support for international terrorism -

i'm not.