Provocation Disguised as a March

POSTCUBA

Cuba: Defenders of a Provocation Disguised as a March

By Marco Velázquez Cristo
Undated. Translated June 1, 2019.

Translated and edited by Walter Lippmann for CubaNews

The approval of the new Constitution by the great majority of the Cuban people generated much frustration in the feverish minds of Miami and of government officials of the country in which they reside. Their brutal media campaign, money sent and influences carried out, could not avoid the failure of their intentions to achieve a result contrary to what was obtained.

Faced with this fact, which is inserted in the midst of an intensification of the aggressiveness of the U.S. administration, mainly towards Venezuela and Cuba, whose revolutions they wish to destroy for well-known reasons, they have decided:

To carry out actions on the physical stage accompanied by media campaigns that position opinion matrices that create doubts about the implementation of what is established in the new Magna Carta. [These include] promoting the idea that the government swindled the people and that the rights contained therein will not be allowed to be exercised.

As part of this action, they invoke, among others, its Article 56 that establishes: “The rights of assembly, demonstration and association, for lawful and peaceful purposes, are recognized by the State provided that they are exercised with respect for public order and compliance with the requirements established by law. According to the “scholars” who play games with our enemies, this article was violated because the “march” of May 11 had a lawful purpose and respected public order.

Let’s analyze.

The efforts of notorious counter-revolutionary ringleaders to transform it into a political provocation stripped it of its true essence in the struggle against homophobia and transphobia. These known and opportunely-denounced intentions motivated its non-authorization, which deprived it of its licit [legal] character. I remind those who like academicism that the word licit is an adjective that refers to that which is authorized. Besides, what the mentioned elements wanted to do had nothing licit, as was later shown.

With regard to respect for public order: The mere fact of contravening what a member of the police has indicated to a person or group of persons constitutes a violation of public order. In addition, the street is a public good of infrastructure and its private use whatever its purpose requires an enabling title that must be granted by the public administration and lacked the march that.

In addition to not having the proper authorization [which they had] not planned to secure, which could have caused, as repeatedly explained by the authorities to the participants, interruptions and other inconveniences in traffic and even possible accidents on a road as important as Malecón.

The march of marras was, in reality, an attempt at a 0political provocation with divisive and destabilizing ends, orchestrated from the unscrupulous manipulation of the feelings of the members of the LGBTI community, as we denounced in the post “Cuba: March or chronicle of an announced provocation” where we stated:

“… the orientations coming from Miami are: to encourage the holding of public marches with apparently innocuous motives that leave the government without arguments to prohibit them or else doing so generates the rejection of the sectors of the population that are affected. Take advantage of those authorized to “denounce violations of human rights and democratic liberties.

The enemy put its media machine and its network of internal lackeys into action in a vain attempt to confuse public opinion, presenting this provocation as a genuine march of the LGBTI community.

To this were lent some who, without being part of the traditional counterrevolution, acted as this one, jumping exalted to the stage of the internet to dance an unbridled cancan against state institutions and their leaders, sharing the stage and singing in tune with the flower and cream of the internal and external mercenarism that rewarded them with their applause and the publication of their diatribes against what they say they want to preserve.

I am not referring to members of the LGBTI community, but to those who, despite the publication of videos, interviews with LGBTI activists, exposed arguments and demonstrated who were behind the march and the reasons why it was not authorized. They try to make all this invisible and insist on questioning the authorities and describing their actions as repression when it is evident that they did not exist.

Among these, there are those who, in order to sustain their criticisms, allude to similar ones made by public personalities who do not understand that, in Cuba, the validity of opinions is not measured by the sector of society from which they come, nor by the person who makes them. This is because the Constitution that they so like to invoke establishes that we all have equal rights and worth. We do not all practice adultery, nor do we consider anyone to possess a superior intelligence or above the rest of those who debate in the social media.

Others who reacted hysterically at first, now cautiously keep silent or nuance their approaches perhaps thinking it will save their honor. Someone in the networks expressed their hope that they would publicly rectify their conduct. This has not yet happened [and so] they are too arrogant to acknowledge their “mistake” or simply prefer to remain silent so as not to disdain what they consciously expressed knowing perfectly that it was not true.

These fools, whose egocentrism and vanity lead them to believe that they have the power to speak on behalf of the people are those who repent, even if they say the opposite of ever having shown themselves to be revolutionaries. Every day their discourse and interests move further away from that which they claim to defend.

People who, in contrast to them: They do not deny or repent of their work, they do not seek excuses to justify having erected it, they do not cease to create because they continue to believe in it, they do not contradict or practice political equilibrium, they continue to sing to their Revolution with pride and without fear of defeats that will never come.

In the conduct of those who claim to be paradigms of the struggle for the rights of the LGBTI community, there is much hypocrisy, opportunism and false concern for the destinies of the revolution.

The institution which has truly led the struggle against Homophobia and Transphobia and for the recognition of the rights of the people who make up the LGBTI community has been the National Center for Sex Education (CENESEX). Its main directors did not irresponsibly throw themselves at the networks to question the decision taken. They were informed, understood its need and supported it. They placed their trust in the institutions of the Revolution, not in the manipulative word of the enemy.

In my opinion, whoever agrees with the adversary, gives him credit, scandalizes in his favor, does not believe in state institutions, demerits its actions, forecasts an uncertain future for the Revolution, cannot be a revolutionary. All the more so if this type of behavior coincides with moments of danger for the homeland like the present ones.