Category: TRANSLATORS

I do not consider it a profitable time investment to participate in a debate between a journalist from the Cuban press monopoly and an individual whose essential principle of existence is based on religious faith. Obviously, it is a matter among “the faithful”

That Manichaeism is reflected in the invalidation of the opponent’s arguments, assuming his own faith as valid from presuppositions that do not allow argument, although he aims to expose “scientifically proven” points. As far as is known, no scientific discovery can invalidate the indisputable and elementary right that a woman must have when deciding any matter regarding her motherhood.

As for his manipulation of the subject, it is obvious when, in an absurd comparison, he places in a same “rational” plane what he calls “the abortionist logic” with the murder of an “inconvenient” old man. Or when he argues that proof that sexuality “is not only for pleasure”, but that new beings materialize from it. It is the preaching of a man whose holy ministry demands celibacy, but who presents himself as an expert in sexual matters.

Almost all Catholic morality is based on principles as retrograde as those that still defend virginity (feminine, of course) as a symbol of virtue and purity in many regions, that assume that sex is a merely reproductive function or that qualifies relationships between people of the same gender as sinful and diabolical.

In light of this, we could ask why no representative of that Church spoke with the same passion in defense of life when, in 2003, three men who had committed no blood crime were summarily convicted and shot in Cuba for the attempted abduction of a boat. Or why, with the same force, they did not demand it of the Cuban government on the terrible night of the sinking of the tugboat 13 de marzo, when dozens of innocent people were murdered, among them, over 10 children. Does an embryo have a greater right to life than one of those men, women and children who died then? At what point does human life begin or cease to be sacred and who establishes those limits?

It is clear that, on this level, the Catholic Church has demonstrated not only a fairly accommodative moral, but a highly questionable piety

 So, the essential issue here is abortion and the struggle for its “decriminalization”. It is known that — with the exception of Mexico, Cuba and Uruguay — the countries in this region do not allow for the voluntary interruption of pregnancy and only authorize it in certain circumstances. In addition, three countries — El Salvador, the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua — absolutely prohibit it.

In the case of Cuba, the practice of abortion has been carried out, in some cases, since 1936. In fact, several generations of Cuban women have (incorrectly) considered induced abortion as a right, “free of charge and in a safe manner”, included among the services provided by the health system within the first three months of pregnancy, or later, in cases of congenital malformations of the fetus or of risk to the woman’s life.

However, the truth is that there is no actual abortion law to date in Cuba, which is why its practice ultimately depends more on the political will or on the permissiveness of the country’s authorities than on recognition of a woman’s right to decide about her own body and about her motherhood. In other words, abortion is spoken of as a “social achievement”, but the fact is that it does not constitute a legal achievement. 

Until there is a law ratifying it, the decriminalization of abortion in Cuba cannot be considered a true and total female victory, as is often proclaimed from the political power

This nullifies any guarantee for Cuban women. Why? Let’s say that the Cuban State had an interest in raising the birth rate and, consequently, ordered specialized health centers to reduce the practice of abortions or the so-called “menstrual regulation”, a less invasive procedure performed in the first six to eight weeks of pregnancy and that does not require the use of anesthesia. In such a case, the issue would depend on the vagaries of demography and State will and not on a true legal guarantee for decision-making by each woman.

For that reason, and until there is a law that ratifies it, the decriminalization of abortion in Cuba cannot be considered a true and total female victory, as is often proclaimed by the political power. It is actually a mirage that has been reinforced in practice with the use and abuse of abortion — almost as if it were a contraceptive method- in the absence of a legal framework that supports it, but also without having made the necessary emphasis on sexual education from an early age to promote both the perception of the risks of abortion and its indiscriminate use, as well as the importance of responsible and conscious motherhood (and fatherhood).

As an additional evil, there has been a lack of a broad social debate to sensitize and involve everyone which would allow us to begin to overcome machismo and sexist conceptions deeply rooted in the national culture, such as the custom of attributing the responsibility for the use of contraceptives to women, as well as assuming the greater part in the education and upbringing of children, even if, to be able to do so, she has to renounce to her own personal and professional ambitions. This is one additional way of subjecting female rights to the masculine will, and a fact that shows that the “decriminalization of abortion ” alone is not the solution to the problem but only a first step. 

And it is in this sense that the open letter of priest Wilfredo Leiter acquires its real value, because it warns us that the demons of the sanctimonious and misogynist Inquisition have not died.

 Such voids, the legal and the debate spaces in Cuba, have propitiated that, while on the surface there seems to be a social consensus around this issue, deep down there are strong currents of prejudice and atavistic concepts that in the future — not necessarily in a distant one — could endanger what is already urgently recognized as a feminine right.

And it is in this sense that the open letter of the priest Wilfredo Leiter acquires its real value, because it warns us that the demons of the sanctimonious and misogynist Inquisition have not died. If with the “presents” obtained by the grace of the political power Cuban women view the battle as having been won, they will certainly will have lost the war.

*Translator’s note: Manichaeism: religious or philosophical dualism system with Christian, Gnostic, and pagan elements. founded in Persia in the 3rd century, based on a supposed primeval conflict between light and darkness.

Translated by Norma Whiting

____________________

The 14ymedio team is committed to serious journalism that reflects the reality of deep Cuba. Thank you for joining us on this long road. We invite you to continue supporting us, but this time by becoming a member of 14ymedio. Together we can continue to transform journalism in Cuba.

As expected, an autocratic legal empire is maintained which makes it impossible for the governed, in their capacity as citizens, to regulate, modify or suppress the outrages of power. This legal anomaly will remain camouflaged under terms previously demonized because it corresponds to the liberal principles of the “decadent capitalist society” that will now be made sacred even from the very preamble of the Law of Laws. This is demonstrated by the introduction of the “new” concept of a democratic, independent and sovereign socialist State of Law, declared in article 1, chapter I (Fundamental Principles of the Nation)

This article reaffirms the congenital malformation that characterizes the current Constitution by establishing that Cuba “has as its essential objectives the enjoyment of political freedom, equity, justice and social equality” rights that, nevertheless, are abolished by the obligatory nature and irreversibility of socialism as a political system, endorsed in Article 3, which does not recognize the multiparty system, and by the greater power that Article 5 grants to the Communist Party, whose attributions are incontestable.

Later on, Article 39 insists that “the Cuban State guarantees the enjoyment and inalienable, indivisible and interdependent exercise of human rights to the people, in accordance with the progressive principle and without discrimination,” when in fact the Constitution project — though it penalizes discrimination on the grounds of gender, race and religious beliefs — ratifies, without disguise, the existing political ideas that differ from those set by the Power.

This is reinforced by Article 224, which declares that “the pronouncements about the irrevocability of socialism and the political and social system established in article 3 will not be able to be reformed at all.”

Another detail of article 39 is this gem that masks another subtle legal trap: “The rights and duties recognized in this Constitution are interpreted in accordance with international human rights treaties ratified by Cuba,” but it just so happens that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights are among the main international human rights treaties in existence, none of which has been ratified by Cuba.

While Title IV (Rights, Duties and Guarantees) dedicates the entire chapter III to Social, Economic and Cultural Rights, Civil and Political Rights do not receive an equal treatment. This corresponds, undoubtedly, to the fact that this is an absolutely private plot of the Communist Party. The recognition of private property, a term that is hardly mentioned to indicate that it is one of the five “forms of property” recognized in Article 21, is one of the new developments that have been privileged with the attention of the international information media in recent weeks. At this point we should make mention of the undeniable talent of the dictatorship for creating suspense, dazzling the foreign press and introducing false expectations of democratic changes that, in reality, only reinforce the omnipotent power of the ruling caste.

Types of property allowed in the project are: the socialist, in which the sagacious State acts as owner “representing and in the benefit of all the people” the cooperative, as conceived by the State-Party-Government itself; the mixed, which combines two or more forms of property; that of the political, mass and social organizations, which constitutes a true unknown and undoubtedly a heavy burden for the public treasury; the private one, which “is exercised over certain means of production” and, finally, the personal, which “is exercised over goods that, without constituting means of production, help in fulfilling the material and spiritual needs of the owner”, which, expressed in such ambiguous terms, could include at the same level both housing and automobile, as well as the TV set or the deodorant used by anyone. This is how deep the changes are.

Of course, threats to any manifestation of dissidence are ever-present, permeating the spirit of a constitutional reform “forged by the people to give continuity to the Revolution and socialism”. The text is even more explicit when it asserts that “citizens have the right to combat, by all means, (…) anyone who attempts to overthrow the political, social and economic order established by this Constitution.” Among that which must be “combatted” is “the cyberwar” (Article 16), as a sort of reproachful little finger that points to independent and alternative journalism and that, in the end, constitutes an unacceptable recognition of the advancement of these methods of communication, hand in hand with information technology sneaking into Cuba, in spite of controls and State censorship.

The profusion of articles about the project, the diversity and complexity of the issues and the pedestrian mode of their writing prevent a complete analysis all at once. Undoubtedly, each paragraph is worthy of comments that cannot be addressed in a space as limited as an opinion column.

If this time anything can be made to coincide with the masters of the plantation, authors of the legalistic monster, it is the fragment of a statement that reads as follows: “We Cubans must be aware of the commitment that the new Constitution of the Republic implies for present and future generations.” It could probably be the truest words of the whole project. Because, although of the “popular consultation” surprises cannot be expected, Cubans will have the opportunity to say NO at the polls and assert their rejection of a dictatorship that, since before learning to protect itself with legalistic tricks, had stripped the Cubans of their dignity and of their rights. It is now trying to snatch the last hopes from us, but it wouldn’t necessarily have to be “more of the same.” Acquiescence or rebellion: that is the real issue, and it is not to be decided by the Government, but by the vote. Will we go for it?

Translated by Norma Whiting

____________________________

The 14ymedio team is committed to serious journalism that reflects the reality of deep Cuba. Thank you for joining us on this long road. We invite you to continue supporting us, but this time by becoming a member of 14ymedio. Together we can continue to transform journalism in Cuba.