How did I miss this?

Marlon James on How To Make A Jamaican Music Video.It's hilarious.  Here's a taste.

Come to think of it, forget, the ghetto; you must shoot in the uberghetto. Remember that poor Jamaica is the real Jamaica. Forget high-rise buildings, Taino tribal grounds, the second oldest railroad track in the world, and the most fascinating network of underground caves in the Caribbean. You need bad roads, shit running down the side walks, zinc fences, tenements and gunmen, because this is the real Jamaica. Please have the locals stack 12 speakers together, 3 in a row and have the natives come out to wind their waists and slam dominoes on the table or your viewers will think that it’s Haiti. You must shoot in district of Waterhouse. This will be in your contract for Waterhouse is the music video ghetto of choice, probably because the quick to be violent blackies aren’t so violent there. But be sure to buy the men in mesh merinos a hot Guinness or you might not make it out of there alive. Remind yourself that if Alicia Keys can shoot there, you can too.Should you meet a gunman make sure to genuflect in the usual fashion. But feel free to pass off an offensive comment so that the Jamaican crew can never shoot in that place again. The nature of that comment is up to you but forgo the racial for Jamaican Negroes are not black. Make sure you have extra film left for the midnight dance so you can remark how bestial and sexual the natives can be while dancing. Listen as the Jamaican producer remarks that this is in keeping with our African culture, even though he or she will not do such things until after the wrap when they take you to Quad Nightclub where uptown people grind each other. Try a dance yourself but restrict it to hands, you don’t need to remind us that white people cannot dance for us to remember that we’re still safe. Because once you take our dances we’ll have nothing left! Don’t forget the smiling children.

If you read French

You'll find this blog entry as amusing as I did.(Not to worry, I'll translate to the best of my ability by the end of the day.)What it does is illustrate the attitude of many people on this side of the Atlantic — beyond the coasts of Africa, in fact — about "Africa" and its "problems". I include it because it's important to make a point. Just as Bahamians take offence when people confuse us with Barbadians or Bermudians or, God forbid, Jamaicans, citizens of the various countries in Africa take offence — even when it's reported as absurdity — people from the African continent do the same. And to be honest, there are more differences between various African cultures and nations than there are between any Caribbean or American country.Google-translated version here, courtesy, I do believe, of Rick Lowe.I can use the weekend to do a less stilted translation than the computer.

A different take on Guenter Grass

Ever since the revelation that Grass was a member of Germany's Waffen SS during his youth, the jury's been out on his sin. And the jury that I've been reading has been leaning in favour of convicting him of having committed the unforgivable. I've seen references throughout the media to the news, and they're overwhelmingly condemnatory; the conclusion has been that Grass is a hypocrite, that his reputation can never be redeemed.Enter Marlon James.

Far more sensible has been the reactions from the Mayor of Gdansk himself who said, “By his actions, he has already paid for the mistakes of his youth.” That’s the crucial thing to remember here. Grass was SIX when Hitler came to power. OF COURSE he would be a member of the SS, what greater ambition would a child growing up in the very shadow of Hitler have? Grass says he kept silent on his past because he was ashamed. I see nothing shocking in this. I’d be more horrified if he wasn’t so ashamed of his past that he tried to hide it. As for all the people who are calling for him to return his Nobel Prize and whatever honour he has gotten please, spare me. Knut Hamsun never regretted his Nazi sympathies and he still has his. I would think that a man who was in the elite SS going on to become the very conscience of his nation, would speak to the very best of humanity, not the worst. There’s no getting away from the contradiction of a man forcing a nation to confront truth when he could not confront his own. But that again brings us back to the ever-wise Winterson: the man needs forgiveness. Lord knows he has mine.

I have to confess that my own perspective is far closer to James' own than any of the others I've read. In part it's because I agree with him about what heroism is, and I don't make the mistake of confusing human beings with God. In part it's because I think — again like James — that sometimes it takes far more courage and conviction to take a stand against what one once was than to have condemned it for all of one's life. And in part it's because I believe that the process of forgiveness and atonement and redemption — as unpopular as those ideas are these days — is a complex one that never really ends. As recovering addicts know, one is never cured of an addiction; one is recovering as long as one lives. It's the old idea of temptation, which new translations have airbrushed out of the Lord's Prayer; the strength of human goodness can't really be measured until it's tested by the strength of human evil as well.Some other links:Austin Bay BlogBooks, InqThe Elegant VariationWhat I'm finding interesting is that some of the more forgiving perspectives are coming from people who live with fear, discrimination, hate and prejudice on a daily basis, rather than from people who don't. People of colour, from so-called "developing" nations, people whose cultures' existences depend on the decisions of one or two leaders of (mostly) irresponsibly superpowers, tend to be more forgiving of Grass than those people whose cultures shape the world.Perhaps it's because it's reassuring for us to realize that evil can change. And perhaps it's disconcerting for others to note that behind every good deed may lie a fatal flaw.We may be forgiving because we grew up with that knowledge.

White Guilt & the Middle East

I was led to this article by my trawling through the blogosphere, and was reminded that Rick Lowe made a note of Shelby Steele's book White Guilt some time ago.Now I am familiar with Steele's work, having once been an avid subscriber to Harper's Magazine, and still having a fondness for that magazine, specially for its Index. And I admire Steele for being an African-American intellectual who doesn't parrot the party line.That doesn't mean I agree with him.In this article, he has a point. I would agree with him here, only I would substitute the word "bigot" for his word "anti-Semite":

The anti-Semite is always drawn to the hatred of Jews by his own unacknowledged inadequacy. As Sartre says in his great essay on the subject, the anti-Semite "is a man who is afraid. Not of Jews of course, but of himself." By hating Jews, he asserts that his own group represents the kind of human being that God truly wants. His group is God's archetype, the only authentic humanity, already complete and superior. No striving or self-reflection is necessary. If Jews are superior in some ways, it is only out of their alienated striving, their exile from God's grace. For the anti-Semite, hating and fighting Jews is both self-affirmation and a way of doing God's work.So the anti-Semite comes to a chilling place: He easily joins himself to evil in order to serve God.

But I would differ with him regarding the concept — implicit in his article — that white oppression is over, or that it is so incidental today as to be insignificant. I may be spouting liberal blahblah here, but I do not buy the argument that Israel is merely a defender of its territory. It's true that Palestine seems paralyzed by its victimhood, yes, much in the same way that African Americans and even some Bahamians use the idea of oppression to justify stagnation. But we cannot forget that Israel is the only nuclear power in the region, and that until this war, fought all battles with superior firepower. What is frightening to it is that for the first time in a generation its enemy appeared to be evenly matched with it.Further, I resist Steele's idea that this love of death is a particularly Muslim thing. Fundamentalist, perhaps; human, surely. The love of glory and honour in death being exhibited by today's suicide bombers is no different from the love of glory and death-for-God practised by white Europeans during the Crusades.What makes the difference now is the fact that the love of life comes from comfort and material wealth, and that, no matter what arguments are put forward, people who see them but don't share in them become desparate. I do not believe for one moment that Bin Laden wishes martyrdom upon himself. Rather, he is expert at turning the desperation of young men who have nothing — no identity, no homeland, no wealth, no future — into his very own weapon of mass destruction.We Bahamians should take heed. After all, there is not a huge difference between the plight of the Palestinian Arab or the young men who identify with him and the plight of the child of Haitian parentage growing up in today's Bahamas. White guilt is not the key here, though it may play some part in masking the real problem. At the bottom of this struggle is that good old Marxist bugaboo — class.

Some more on land — now Zimbabwe

From time to time, we hear reports about Mugabe and his misrule of Zimbabwe. Now know that I was at Pearson College with the first student from Zimbabwe, Zobo Chimurenga, and I watched him conduct his own flagraising ceremony — alone — on Zimbabwean Independence Day in February 1980. Mugabe was for us then a hero, a man who had led his people to victory in a war of liberation.Mugabe's no longer a hero.What has dominated the news, though, is what a tyrant he is. Like many great leaders, it's said, corruption and paranoia have overtaken him and have turned him into a dictator who is destroying the very country he created. Like Castro.I've often wondered what the other side of the story is. I had some idea; one of my favourite ethnographies during my MPhil studies at Cambridge was Guns and Rain. But Rosemary Ekosso gives yet another perspective — the point of view of a fellow African.Well worth the read. And follow her links, too.Here's a bit of what she has to say:Zimbabwe: White Lies, Black Victims

Despite their pious claims, Britain and the others are not angry because Mugabe is a corrupt dictator. They sponsor corrupt dictators when it suits them. They are not angry because ordinary Zimbabweans are suffering under Mugabe. They don’t care about ordinary Zimbabweans. They were quite happy to herd them into reserves when it suited them.No, what they care about is the expropriation of white farmers. They express indignation at Mugabe’s cronies acquiring the land. That is a bad thing, of course. I myself come from an area where government or government-affiliated bigwigs are buying up all the prime sea-front locations because they can afford them. But in the case of Zimbabwe only 0.3% of people settled on land have acquired it through undue influence or corruption. So 99.7% of Zimbabweans got their land fair and square.So we agree that Mugabe is doing a BAD THING. The bad thing is not, however, the fact that he has taken land that should go to poor landless Zimbabweans and given it to his friends. The bad thing is that he has taken the land from white people.

Land or people?

I found this article in Time more than interesting. It's discussing how Cuban-American exiles in Miami and other American interests that had their property confiscated during Castro's revolution have expectations of seeking reparations for what they have lost. And it's serious.I normally take the call for reparations from slavery sought by certain hard-line anti-colonial Caribbean and African intellectuals with a dash of salt — not because I don't think that we have a right to demand such reparations, but because I believe that we haven't a hope in hell of getting them awarded to us.Still, if Cuban-American exiles and the residue of the American corporations whose properties were nationalized half a century ago can consider demanding reparations from Cuba, then hell, I'll get behind the demand for reparations for slavery.After all, what's worth more — land or people?Cuba After Castro: Can Miami's Exiles Reclaim Their Stake?

For those who don't have a subscription, here's an excerpt:Castro, who turns 80 August 13 and is, say official communiques, recovering from major intestinal surgery, last week handed provisional power to his younger brother and defense minister, Raul Castro. At first, Miami's politically potent Cuban exiles exulted in the streets of Little Havana. But when the reality sunk in that Fidel is most likely still alive — and that his communist dictatorship may well endure under Raul even if he's not — it also reminded many Cuban-Americans that their once ardent hopes of reclaiming confiscated property could be, as one Pentagon analyst says, "a pipe dream." A report last month by the Bush Administration's Commission For Assistance to a Free Cuba warns, "No issue will be more fraught with difficulty and complexity" during the post-Castro transition — even if democracy is eventually restored on the island.That is no doubt just how the impish Fidel wanted it. His stunning and sometimes brutal expropriation campaign seized homes, businesses, farms and factories from tens of thousands of Cubans and scores of U.S. corporations, assets whose combined worth was $9 billion in 1960 and perhaps more than $50 billion today. ... When Fidel offered little if any restitution, the U.S. retaliated with an economic embargo against Cuba in 1962, which remains in place today.But 44 years later, as Cuban-Americans continue to clutch yellowing deeds and titles, the likelihood of ever recovering the actual properties has dimmed like a Havana brownout. ... Still, those exiles will clamor for some sort of compensation from a democratic transition government—payments the U.S., ironically, could end up bankrolling as a major aid donor.

Checks and Balances

I caught a bit of Issues of the Day yesterday, an interview with US Ambassador John Rood. One of the questions touched upon the American government's policy to effectively blacklist or quarantine countries whose governments do not fall within US expectations of proper conduct. The Ambassador seemed to support this activity, stating that all countries "do what's in their best interest" (true enough, as far as that goes) and that the US was only acting in its best interest.One of the greatest things about the US, however, is that its constitution and its government can help to save it from itself. The whole point about the structural balance of power inherent in the American system is so that no branch of government can get above itself. The problem with postcolonial countries is that our minds fit very well into caps of subordinance, and we tend to fall very quickly for the idea that we can't do anything about American abuse of power, especially when it takes place in the name of homeland security.This report from P.E.N. suggests otherwise, and is an illuminating example of one reason the US deserves to be a great country (hint: it's not because the US is the strongest country in the world). It also shows that part of its greatness is that there are limits to the US's ability to bully others, built in to its system.To wit:

PEN Freedom to Write and International Programs Director Larry Siems emphasized that Professor Ramadan’s ordeal is just one of many cases where international writers and scholars have been denied visas or turned back at the border, apparently for ideological reasons, including at least three instances in the last three months. “Today’s ruling makes very clear that our government is not allowed to pick and choose our nation’s international visitors based on their political views. We hope it has an immediate effect not only for Professor Ramadan but also for the many other writers and intellectuals from abroad who have been turned away or discouraged from visiting the United States.”

Instructive.

Sexual Selection

On Monday past, a group of people gathered at the College of The Bahamas to debate the topic of censorship, inspired by the controversy over Brokeback Mountain. Featured speakers were COB lecturers Michael Stevenson, Ian Strachan, and Canon Kirkley Sands, one-time chair of the Bahamas Plays and Films Control Board, as well as Patricia Glinton-Meicholas and myself.Although the discussion stayed mostly on topic, and didn't get bogged down in the whole homosexual red herring, the idea of the unnatural quality of homosexuality was raised.Well -- as anybody who has owned dogs can attest -- the homosexuality of animals is quite evident if one sits around and looks hard enough. I've seen enough female potcakes dry-humping one another not to have made that argument myself. And now, scientists who have studied the sexuality of animals have proven that the universal heterosexuality of nature are as much a construction of our own minds as anything else.The article is here.An excerpt:

Male big horn sheep live in what are often called "homosexual societies." They bond through genital licking and anal intercourse, which often ends in ejaculation. If a male sheep chooses to not have gay sex, it becomes a social outcast. Ironically, scientists call such straight-laced males "effeminate."Giraffes have all-male orgies. So do bottlenose dolphins, killer whales, gray whales, and West Indian manatees. Japanese macaques, on the other hand, are ardent lesbians; the females enthusiastically mount each other. Bonobos, one of our closest primate relatives, are similar, except that their lesbian sexual encounters occur every two hours. Male bonobos engage in "penis fencing," which leads, surprisingly enough, to ejaculation. They also give each other genital massages.As this list of activities suggests, having homosexual sex is the biological equivalent of apple pie: Everybody likes it. At last count, over 450 different vertebrate species could be beheaded in Saudi Arabia. You name it, there's a vertebrate out there that does it. Nevertheless, most biologists continue to regard homosexuality as a sexual outlier. According to evolutionary theory, being gay is little more than a maladaptive behavior.

And again:

Given the pervasive presence of homosexuality throughout the animal kingdom, same-sex partnering must be an adaptive trait that's been carefully preserved by natural selection. As Roughgarden points out, "a 'common genetic disease' is a contradiction in terms, and homosexuality is three to four orders of magnitude more common than true genetic diseases such as Huntington's disease."So how might homosexuality be good for us? Any concept of sexual selection that emphasizes the selfish propagation of genes and sperm won't be able to account for the abundance of non-heterosexual sex. All those gay penguins and persons will remain inexplicable. However, if one looks at homosexuality from the perspective of a community, one can begin to see why nature might foster a variety of sexual interactions.According to Roughgarden, gayness is a necessary side effect of getting along. Homosexuality evolved in tandem with vertebrate societies, in which a motley group of individuals has to either live together or die alone. In fact, Roughgarden even argues that homosexuality is a defining feature of advanced animal communities, which require communal bonds in order to function. "The more complex and sophisticated a social system is," she writes, "the more likely it is to have homosexuality intermixed with heterosexuality."

And again:

Of course, most humans don't see sex as a way of maintaining the social contract. Our lust doesn't seem logical, especially when that logic involves the abstruse calculations of game theory. Furthermore, it's strange for most people to think of themselves as naturally bisexual. Being gay or straight seems to be an intrinsic and implacable part of our identity. Roughgarden disagrees. "In our culture, we assume that there is a straight-gay binary, and that you are either one or the other. But if you look at vertebrates, that just isn't the case. You will almost never find animals or primates that are exclusively gay. Other human cultures show the same thing." Since Roughgarden believes that the hetero/homo distinction is a purely cultural creation, and not a fact of biology, she thinks it is only a matter of time before we return to the standard primate model. "I'm convinced that in 50 years, the gay-straight dichotomy will dissolve. I think it just takes too much social energy to preserve. All this campy, flamboyant behavior: It's just such hard work."All quotes courtesy of Seed Magazine.

Hee. Turns out fundamentalist Christians are in the same boat regarding the "nature" of sexuality as fundamentalist Darwinist evolutionists. Who'd'a thunk it?

It's been a while

since I visited Laila's blog, but I thought this post was pertinent to us here and now.Edwidge Danticat is a Haitian-American novelist, and considered one of the finest contemporary writers. What she has to say about the current American immigration policies should have resonance for us, because it is equally true of our ambivalence.When she writes

Should we desire in our midst a group of people only when they’re willing to do for less pay the work that our own citizens find too grueling, too demeaning, or too hazardous? The moral question aside, what does it say about our own societal structure that we cannot within our own borders make these jobs more appealing and more humane for our own citizens?The bottom line is we’d like our immigrants to be disposable, to work when we need them, then disappear when we don’t.

she's spot on.Laila's postThe Danticat article

Something to think about

While the media/church/politicians/whoever determines what governs people's opinions talk about homosexuals and same-sex unions, stepparents are being left behind, according to this article in Time.

While we closely monitor how gay rights are granted and taken away, we pay almost no attention to the fact that stepparents are in the same legal limbo. Despite being ubiquitous, step-relationships are rarely recognized by the law. In most states, stepparents are considered "legal strangers" even if they have cared for and supported a stepchild for years. They have almost no official responsibility and barely any rights.What kind of rights are they deprived of? Some are remarkably banal. For instance a stepparent can't sign a child's school report card or field-trip permission form. Others are significant. A stepfather can't include his stepdaughter on his family health insurance plan, for example. And she can't inherit from him when he dies.In the last few years, state family courts have tried to accommodate the stepparents and stepchildren who appear before them, without granting so much that it subtracts rights from a biological parent. In Colorado a stepparent can now sign the form that allows a minor to apply for a driver's license. And in Oregon, a stepparent can petition the courts for visitation of former stepchildren, if that marriage has ended. In Arkansas, it's even theoretically possible now for a stepparent to win custody over a biological parent. But in each state it's a different story, and many states are still in denial.So a stepmother can take a month off work to care for her sick stepson, thanks to the federal law on Family Leave. But if she has to take her stepson to the emergency room, state law might prevent her from authorizing medical treatment. And if her son ends up dying due to hospital negligence, she can't sue.

Where do stepparents stand here in The Bahamas?  Anybody know?

What Andrew Allen says about immigrant labour

is very interesting indeed.  I would not argue this point, nor have I ever done so, but it's worth a close look.  He has a point, and it's worth paying attention to it.

... Haitian labour actually retards our workforce and economy in a number of ways, none of which are good for the long-term development of The Bahamas ...The point at which a society undergoes genuine embourgeoisement (its labouring class, through movement up the skills/income ladder, is transformed into a recognizable middle class) is generally reckoned to be when its per capita income reaches $10,000.00 – a point which the Bahamas, with a PPP per capita income of $23,000.00 today, passed in about 1983.In an ordinary setting, given the increased spending power of Bahamian businesses and homeowners, as well as the increased opportunity for small business development, the use of unskilled Haitian peasant labour for landscaping, for instance, would long ago have been replaced by the more widespread use of landscaping companies.For not only can a landscape company (which benefits from economies of scale) compete well in price terms with a full time Haitian gardener who needs to be compensated, fed lunch and have his work permit paid for, but it can be held to a more consistent standard of service by the pressure of maintaining business goodwill.Yet as a matter more of culture than anything else, many Bahamian employers continue to opt for a form of labour that resembles slavery in every respect except cost-competitiveness. The supine Creole-speaking labourer being ordered about one’s lawn simply seems more in tune with the Bahamian idea of labour than the educated landscape specialist making his rounds.

The man has a point.

Article 23

I've been thinking about yesterday's post. I've been puzzling over the 23rd Article of the Constitution, the Article on Freedom of Expression. I'm not entirely sure that it renders the actions of the Censorship Board necessarily unconstitutional. Rather, it creates a grey area, a kind of no-man's (or everyman's) land of potential possibility. After all, we're British in structure and philosophy, and the British don't believe in going around handing out freedom to everyone and anyone. Having lived in Canada and in Britain, I know very well that it's possible to legislate against hate literature, and that it's constitutional to do so in a way that it isn't in the USA; and we are far more likely to fit a British mould than an American one in this respect.So I went back and looked again. Here's what I worked out.The Constitution protects the freedom of expression of the Bahamian citizen. But it's not an absolute protection. There are some limitations, and they obtain in the following cases:to protect defenceto protect public safetyto protect public orderto protect public moralityto protect public health;andto protect the rights, reputations and freedom of others;to preserve confidential information;to maintain judicial authority and independence;to regulate communications, public exhibitions and public entertainment;to uphold restrictions placed on public officers or on members of the armed forces.Now from this interpretation, which I believe is quite clear, the curtailing of absolute freedom of expression is permissible under the Bahamian constitution. The curtailing of that freedom to "protect public morality" is one case in which the exception can be made, and so the banning of Brokeback Mountain would in all likelihood be quite constitutional.Except here's where it gets iffy. There's a caveat to all of this protection of the public, and it's this. If one can demonstrate that the practice of restricting expression is not reasonably justifiable in a democratic society, then the constitution will protect freedom of expression.It gets iffy because what is reasonably justifiable in a democratic society changes with time. The goalposts move. This idea makes reference to a global consensus on what is "democratic", and that changes. Forty years ago it was not undemocratic for the state to put its citizens to death for certain offences; today, however, the situation is considerably different, and it is considered undemocratic, even barbaric, to impose the death penalty indiscriminately. Twenty years ago it might have been fine (and was; remember Mapplethorpe) to challenge artwork that was considered indecent, homosexual, or otherwise offensive to public morality; but that is no longer the case. We are living in a world whose boundaries are not fixed, and unless we're prepared to change we're going to be surprised by the international response to our public actions.On an entirely different note, though:Constitution or no constitution, we have to think about the consequences -- and the absurdity -- of our actions in a world which is saturated with information. To me it makes very little sense to ban a movie whose only offence is featuring homosexual love while at the same time ignoring movies full of violence, heterosexual sex acts, oppression, and degradation of women. (And I'm not going to call for a more rigid ban of all of these things, either; that is the easy, and the lazy, response). It's hypocritical, especially as it demonizes a loving and consensual homosexual relationship while remaining silent on coercive behaviour closer to home.I saw a series of images today -- readily available on the internet -- of Bahamian teenagers posing pornographically. I saw a film today -- again available on the net -- of a Bahamian child, no more than ten (if that old), fondling and sucking a dildo while the hand of a full-grown male spread her genitals for the titillation of the video camera. Bahamians are not only consuming this material, they're making it, and they're doing so with complete impunity. While we ban award-winning movies featuring actors who are proud of their work and well-paid to do it, movies that might, god forbid, lead us to think beyond the boxes we have imposed upon ourselves, we condone by silence a native pornography industry that exploits the people it features, either by twisting their minds to believe that what they are doing is normal or desirable, or by forcing them to participate against their will.We never talk about sex. What we do with it, though, is legion.

Censorship and our constitution

  Perhaps I should call this our constitution, full stop.I had a conversation today in which one of the participants (I don't think I'm really at liberty to call names) raised the point that he found the media's preoccupation with the banning of Brokeback Mountain disproportionate. His concern was that there was a report earlier this year of lesbian gangs in Freeport who were allegedly pressuring young women to join their ranks, and no one raised their voices. He wasn't going to take sides on the Brokeback issue but he did think that we Bahamians were misguided in our focus.Now I happen to agree with him about the misplacing of priorities. I'm not sure what I think about the lesbian gangs, which I took to be just another piece of the sensationalism and disproportion that our press is fond of. If I did think about them, I'd probably think that what they did was their business. Of course, if there was coercion going on, that would be a different matter; but I'm not exercised by the lesbianness of the coercion particularly. I think we need to discuss the prevalence of forcible sexual relations everywhere in society. But that's another matter.What I wanted to talk about in this post is that the Bahamian Constitution, which, despite its being readily available online, and despite its being much maligned and misquoted, is really quite a democratic document, and rather at odds with the way in which we tend to behave. The preamble talks about an abiding respect for Christian values and the rule of law, but not even the preamble states we are a "nation founded on Christian principles". The principles to which it refers are "spiritual" ones, and we do recognize God. We just don't say which one we prefer, which is, I suppose pretty wise in this day and age.The thing is, all this banning and censorship is entirely unconstitutional, as my husband discovered and posted elsewhere. The relevant article is the 23rd, which reads (obliquely, as is the wont of legalese) as follows:

Protection of freedom of expression.23.-(1) Except with his consent, no person shall be hindered in the enjoyment of his freedom of expression, and for the purposes of this Article the said freedom includes freedom to hold opinions, to receive and impart ideas and information without interference, and freedom from interference with his correspondence.(2) Nothing contained in or done under the authority of any law shall be held to be inconsistent with or in contravention of this Article to the extent that the law in question makes provision-(a) which is reasonably required-(i) in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health; or(ii) for the purposes of protecting the rights, reputations and freedoms of other persons, preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, maintaining the authority and independence of the courts, or regulating telephony, telegraphy, posts, wireless broadcasting, television, public exhibitions or public entertainment; or(b) which imposes restrictions upon persons holding office under the Crown or upon members of a disciplined force,and except so far as that provision or, as the case may be, the thing done under the authority thereof is shown not to be reasonably justifiable in a democratic society.

Human Rights and the Intellectual

While we artists and intellectuals are fighting our own battles for recognition and respect at home, it's important to remember and recognize the central and crucial role that artists and intellectuals play and have played in the global battle for human rights. Even here in The Bahamas, several of our intellectuals and artists have been outspoken in this regard; of particular mention are poets Marion Bethel, Helen Klonaris, and Lynn Sweeting, playwright Ian Strachan, and writer-intellectual Patricia Glinton-Meicholas. Often the artist's stand has political significance -- and by that I don't mean party politics, but more fundamental politics, such as the ability or the need to provide social criticism where it's needed, regardless of personal party affiliation.I believe If we're called to be artists, we're not only called to make a living for ourselves, but we're also called to speak out to help to make the world a better place to live in for all.So I'm posting, for our information (and perhaps also to stir up some controversy and some thinking beyond the pocket) a petition being circulated by artists and intellectuals regarding the abuse of human rights in Guantanamo. It's not coincidental that it came from the Cuban Embassy; there are many reasons why Cuba wishes to have it circulated. But if nothing else, reading the list of signatories should make each of us think about our roles and responsibilities as artists and intellectuals to the country and the world in which we live.

---

Dear Sir/MadamPlease, see below and enclosed, a text of an international call by intellectuals from all over the world, including Nobel Laureates José Saramago, Portugal; Nadine Gordimer, Sudáfrica; Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Argentina; Rigoberta Menchú, Guatemala; Wole Soyinka, Nigeria.Also, it includes Danielle Mitterrand, France; Actors Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover, United States.Should you like to join them, please, feel free to let us know or write to the following e-mail addresses: :www.derechos-humanos.comwww.derechos-humanos.infowww.droits-humains.infowww.hhrr.info derechoshumanos@derechos-humanos.comBest regardsEmbassy of Cuba. The Bahamas

---

Cease hypocrisy on the issue of Human RightsThe 62nd Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights will begin next March 20th in Geneva, coinciding with the broadcasting of new footage of US military torturing Iraqi prisoners.The United States and its EU allies have successively prevented this Commission from condemning the massive and systematic violations of human rights promoted in the name of the so called war against terrorism.The EU governments have refused to admit the testimonies and evidences submitted by citizens of their countries, who have been victims of several forms of torture at Guantánamo navy base. They have also allowed the flight of CIA aircrafts carrying prisoners to illegal detention centers in Europe and elsewhere.We the undersigned call upon intellectuals, artists, social activists, and men and women of goodwill everywhere to join our claims: the Commission on Human Rights or the Council that will substitute it, must demand the immediate closing of the arbitrary detention centers created by the United States as well as the ceasing of all these deliberate violations of human dignity.SIGNED BY:José Saramago, Portugal; Harold Pinter, Reino Unido; Nadine Gordimer, Sudáfrica; Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Argentina; Rigoberta Menchú, Guatemala; Wole Soyinka, Nigeria; Dario Fo, Italia; Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Irlanda del Norte; Danielle Mitterrand, Francia; Harry Belafonte, EEUU; Oscar Niemeyer, Brasil; Danny Glover, EEUU; Gerard Depardieu, Francia; Gianni Vattimo, Italia; Ignacio Ramonet, España-Francia; Alice Walker, EEUU; Manu Chao, Francia-España; Tariq Ali, Pakistán; Eduardo Galeano, Uruguay; Pierre Richard, Francia; Ettore Scola, Italia; Mario Benedetti, Uruguay; Naomi Klein, Canadá; Frei Betto, Brasil; Pablo González Casanova, México; Roberto Fernández Retamar, Cuba; Alfonso Sastre, España; Samir Amin, Egipto; Walter Salles, Brasil; Howard Zinn, EEUU; Armand Mattelart, Bélgica-Francia; Joaquín Sabina, España; Leonardo Boff, Brasil; Francois Houtart, Bélgica; José Luis Sampedro, España; Jorge Sanjinés, Bolivia; Fernando Pino Solanas, Argentina; Silvio Rodríguez, Cuba; Adolfo Sánchez Vázquez, España-México; Gianni Miná, Italia; Fernando Morais, Brasil; Ernesto Cardenal, Nicaragua; William Blum, EEUU; Blanca Chancosa Sánchez, Ecuador; Ramsey Clark, EEUU; Istvan Meszaros, Hungría; Pablo Milanés, Cuba; Rosa Regás, España; Giulio Girardi, Italia; Pedro Guerra, España; Alicia Alonso, Cuba; Almudena Grandes, España; James Petras, EEUU; Luis Eduardo Aute, España; Luis Sepúlveda, Chile; Isaac Rosa, España; Volodia Teitelboim, Chile; María Rojo, México; Daniel Viglietti, Uruguay; Atilio Borón, Argentina; Boaventura de Sousa, Portugal; Ramon Chao, España; Alan Woods, Reino Unido; Nora Cortiñas, Argentina; Saul Landau, EEUU; Martin Almada, Paraguay; Belén Gopegui, España; Laura Restrepo, Colombia; Miguel Bonasso, Argentina; James Cockcroft, EEUU; Maribel Permuy, España; Javier Couso, España; Lucius Walker, EEUU; Eva Forest, España; Keith Ellis, Jamaica-Canadá; Joao Pedro Stedile, Brasil; Roy Brown, Puerto Rico; Emir Sader, Brasil; Stella Calloni, Argentina; Rafael Cancel Miranda, Puerto Rico; Miguel Urbano, Portugal; Arturo Andrés Roig, Argentina; Michele Mattelart, Francia; Francisco de Oliveira, Brasil; Jorge Enrique Adoum, Ecuador; Víctor Flores Olea, México; Susan George, EEUU-Francia; Piero Gleijeses, Italia-EEUU; Michael Avery, EEUU; Salim Lamrani, Francia; Juan Bañuelos, México; Luis García Montero, España; Georges Labica, Francia; Hanan Awwad, Palestina; Fernando Savater, España; Michel Collon, Bélgica; Tato Pavlovsky, Argentina; Setsuko Ono, EEUU; Andrés Sorel, España; Cintio Vitier, Cuba; Edmundo Aray, Venezuela; Eric Nepomuceno, Brasil; Frank Fernández, Cuba; Carlos Piera, España; Leo Brower, Cuba; Aldo M. Etchegoyen, Argentina; Theotonio dos Santos, Brasil; Carmen Bohorquez, Venezuela; Julie Belafonte, EEUU; Noé Jitrik, Argentina; Tununa Mercado, Argentina; Jean Marie Binoche; Francia; Luisa Valenzuela, Argentina; Paul Estrade, Francia; Sergent García, Francia-España; Abelardo Castillo, Argentina; Sylvia Iparraguirre, Argentina; Jacky Henin, Francia; Luciana Castellina, Italia, Beth Carvallo, Brasil, Liliana Hecker, Argentina; Nicole Borvo; Francia; Daniel Ortega Saavedra, Nicaragua; Tomás Borge Martínez, Nicaragua; Rodrigo Borja, Ecuador; Pascual Serrano, España; Carlos Martí, Cuba; Claude Couffon, Francia; Raúl Suárez, Cuba; Mark C. Rosenzweig, EEUU; Marilia Guimaraes, Brasil; Beverly Keene, EEUU-Argentina; Gilberto López y Rivas, México; Juan Mari Brás, Puerto Rico; Francisco Fernández Buey, España; Marjorie Cohn, EEUU; Luis Antonio de Villena, España; Jordan Flaherty, EEUU; Medea Benjamín, EEUU; Ann Sparanese, EEUU; Hildebrando Pérez, Perú; Hernando Calvo Ospina, Colombia-Francia; James Early, EEUU; Manuel Cabieses, Chile; Richard Gott, Reino Unido; Héctor Díaz Polanco, Rep. Dominicana-México; Consuelo Sánchez, México; Luis Alegre Zahonero, España; Carlos Fernández Liria, España; Osvaldo Martínez, Cuba; Ana Esther Ceceña, México; Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, Nicaragua; Carlo Frabetti, Italia-España; Manuel Talens, España; Santiago Alba Rico, España; Amaury Pérez Vidal, Cuba; Danny Rivera, Puerto Rico; Fernando Butazzoni, Uruguay; Julio Gambina, Argentina; Julia Uceda, España; Sara González, Cuba; Tunai, Brasil; Ismael Clark Arxer, Cuba; Fernando Marías, España; Ana Pellicer, España; Nancy Morejón, Cuba; David Raby, Reino Unido; Gennaro Carotenuto, Italia; Raúl Pérez Torres, Ecuador; Jorge Beinstein, Argentina; Jane Franklin, EEUU; Wim Dierckxsens, Costa Rica; Alejandro Moreano, Ecuador; Federico Álvarez, México; Boris Kagarlitsky, Rusia; José Luiz Del Roio, Brasil; Remy Herrera, Francia; Francisco Jarauta, España; Luciano Vasapollo, Italia; Irene Amador, España; Eduardo Torres Cuevas, Cuba; Jorge Riechmann, España; Alessandra Riccio, Italia; Javier Corcuera, Perú; Antonio Maira, España; Fabio Marcelli, Italia; Julio García Espinosa, Cuba; José Steinsleger, Argentina-México; Hans-Otto Dill, Alemania; Douglas Valentine, EEUU; Luciano Alzaga, Argentina; Constantino Bértolo, España; John Pateman, EEUU; Domenico Jervolino, Italia; Francisco Villa, Chile; Santiago Feliú, Cuba; Peter Bohmer, EEUU; Graziella Pogolotti, Cuba; Faride Zeran, Chile; Sergio Trabucco, Chile; Lisandro Otero, Cuba; Juan Madrid, España; Sara Rosemberg, Argentina; Carilda Oliver Labra, Cuba; Alfons Cervera, España; Arnel Medina Cuenca, Cuba; Manuel Rodríguez Rivero, España; Fina García Marruz, Cuba; Joseph E. Mulligan, EEUU; Miguel Barnet, Cuba; Jordi Gracia, España; Ricardo Antunes, Brasil; Rosario Murillo, Nicaragua; Pablo Armando Fernández, Cuba; Carlos Fazio, Argentina; Angel Augier, Cuba; Arturo Corcuera, Perú; Pilar del Río, España; César López, Cuba; Vicente Romano, España; Antón Arrufat, Cuba; Néstor Kohan, Argentina; Gloria Berrocal, España; Javier Maqua, España; Abelardo Estorino, Cuba; Aldo Díaz Lacayo, Nicaragua; Ambrosio Fornet, Cuba; Carlos Varea, España; Jaime Sarusky, Cuba; Alfredo Vera, Ecuador; Beinusz Szmukler, Argentina; Reynaldo González, Cuba; Juan Carlos Mestre, España; Senel Paz, Cuba; Miguel Alvarez Gándara, México; Roberto Fabelo, Cuba; Quintín Cabrera, Uruguay; Vicente Feliú, Cuba; Jordi Doce, España; Ana María Navales, España; Rebeca Chávez, Cuba; Andrés Neuman, España; Eduardo Roca, Cuba; Enrique Falcón, España; Vanessa Ramos, Puerto Rico; Isabel Pérez Montalbán, España; Roberto Verrier, Cuba; José Viñals, España; Martha Viñals, España; Manuel Rico, España; Harold Gratmages, Cuba; Emilio Torné, España; Leticia Spiller, Brasil; Dionisio Cañas, España; Paula Casals, María del Carmen Barcia, Cuba; Reino Unido; Andrés Gómez, Cuba; Marcela Cornejo Zamorano, Chile; Anthony Arnove, EEUU; Diana Balboa, Cuba; Edgar Queipo, Venezuela; Albert Kasanda, República del Congo; Yamandú Acosta, Uruguay; Raly Barrionuevo, Argentina; Pablo Guayasamín, Ecuador; Isabel Monal, Cuba; Verenice Guayasamín, Ecuador; Jaime Losada Badia, España; Alicia Hermida, España; Alfonso Bauer, Guatemala; Handel Guayasamín, Ecuador; Cecilia Conde, Brasil; Salvador Bueno, Cuba; Mano Melo, Brasil; Jorge Ibarra, Cuba; Al Campbell, EEUU, Juan Carlos Rodríguez, España; José Villa Soberón, Cuba; Angeles Mora, España; Eloy Arroz, México; Mario Andrés Solano, Costa Rica; Jose Luis Toledo Santander, Cuba; Jitendra Sharma, India; Cléa Carpi da Rocha, Brasil; João Luiz Duboc Pinaud, Brasil; Daniel Cirera, Francia, Gilson Cantarino, Brasil, Francisco Pérez Guzmán, Cuba; Chiara Varese, Perú; Gloria la Riva, EEUU; José Loyola Fernández, Cuba; Richard Becker, EEUU; Brian Becker, EEUU; Carlos Alberto Cremata, Cuba; Claudia Korol, Argentina; Gilberto Maringoni, Brasil; Elizabeth A. Bowman, EEUU; Bob Stone, EEUU; Vicente Battista, Argentina; Carles Furriols i Solà, España; Isabel-Clara Simó, España; Yaki Yaskvloski, Argentina; José Ramón Artigas, Cuba; José Paulo Gascão, Portugal; Fernando Key Domínguez, Venezuela; Simone Contiero, Italia; Carlos Martínez, España; Antonia García Bueno, España; Zoila Lapique, Cuba; Tom Twiss, EEUU; Paloma Valverde, España; María Ángeles Maeso, España; Estrella Rey, Cuba; Luis Felipe Comendador, España; Julio Fernández Bulté, Cuba; Luciano Feria Hurtado, España; Paco Puche, España; Matías Bosch, República Dominicana; Pablo Escribano Ibáñez, España; Miguel Veyrat, España; Olga Miranda Bravo, Cuba; Virgilio Tortosa, España; Jesús Aguado, España; Rodolfo Dávalos Fernández, Cuba; Manuel Moya, España; Emilio Pedro Gómez, España; Lara Gallut, España; José Corredor Matheos, España; José Giménez, España; Abraham Toro, Venezuela; Luzmila Marcano, Venezuela, Carlos Padrón, Cuba; Judith Valencia, Venezuela; Mario Sáenz, EEUU; Ligia Machado, Colombia; Raúl Fornet-Betancourt, Alemania; Gustavo Fernández Colón, Venezuela; Hector Arenas, Colombia; Antonio Scocozza, Italia; Elsa Liliana Tovar, Venezuela; Vladimir Lazo García, Venezuela; Pierre Mouterde, Canadá; Estela Fernández Nadal, Argentina; Fernando Asián, Venezuela; Justo Soto Castellanos, Colombia; Francisco Berdichevsky Linares, Argentina; Mauricio Langon, Uruguay; César de Vicente Hernando, España; Roberto Loya, España; Rafael José Díaz, España; Rosa Lentini, España; Ricardo Cano Gaviria, España; Salustiano Martín, España; Francisco Gálvez, España; Oscar Carpintero, España; Alberto R. Torices, España; Giovanni Parapini, Italia; José Luis Sagüés, España; Concepción Martínez, España; Olga Lucas, España; Antonio Orihuela, España; Clara Sanchos, España; Iván Zaldua, España; Jordi Dauder, España; David Méndez, España; Enrique Gracia, España; Ramón Souto, España; Blanca Viñas, España; José María Parreño, España; Armando Fernández Steinko, España; José Luis Pacheco, Venezuela; Belén Artuñedo, España; Nacho Fernández, España; Rosa Grau, España; Consuelo Triviño, España; David Ortiz-Alburquerque, República Dominicana; Nilo Batista, Brasil; Carmen Vargas, Brasil; Carlos Henrique Botkay, Brasil; Clarissa Matheus, Brasil; Ulisses Guimarães, Brasil; Vivaldo Franco, Brasil; Clarissa Mantuano, Brasil; Heloisa Branca, Brasil; Eduardo Ebendinger, Brasil; Marcello Guimaraes, Brasil; Célia Ravero, Brasil; Lavinia Borges, Brasil; Teodoro Buarque de Holanda, Brasil; Felinto Procopio Minerin, Brasil; José Ibraim, Brasil; Ecatherina Brasileiro, Brasil; Silvio Tendler, Brasil; Ana Rosa Tendler, Brasil; Teo Lima, Brasil; José Braga, Brasil; Fábio Basilone, Brasil; Denise Fraga, Brasil; Carlos Eduardo Ibraim, Brasil; Michelle Victer, Brasil; Violeta Cabello, España; Alejandro Moreno, España; Claufe Rodrigues, Brasil; Ledo Ivo, Brasil; Monica Montone, Brasil; Terezinha Lameira, Brasil; Jesus Chediak, Brasil; Pedro Amaral, Brasil; Maria Laura Laskshim, Brasil; Waldir Leite, Brasil; Walter Guiadazo, Brasil; Marcellus Franco, Brasil; João Grilo, Brasil; Sérgio Saboya, Brasil; Geraldo Moreira, Brasil; Ivair Itagiba, Brasil; Emilio Mira y Lopez, Brasil; José Luis Rodríguez García, España; Daniel Salgado, España; Olga Matara Peñarrocha, España