Take a look at my personal intro in the right bar of this blog. Read over the third paragraph: "...I lived most of my life muzzled down by a communist dictatorship, ergo, I refuse to be censored again. And yes, I am a very opinionated young lady..."
Now, throw in the mix the latest news on how Obama and his administration just backed up in the UN a resolution that limits free speech.
Think I am hallucinating?
The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs.
The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
Disturbing elements; such a weird coincidence!
They remind me of a another whole set of disturbing elements, included in the articles 52 and 53 of Cuba's Constitution regarding freedom of speech.
Apparently, they both follow the spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights but in real life, there is not such a thing like freedom of speech in communist Cuba, where the PCC has the absolute control over every thing and every body - literally.
Castro's constitutional lingo is purportedly designed to - as well as this UN resolution signed by Obama and his cronies - misguide the law, condition your freedom of speech to their own interests (Law 88 in Cuba, for example) and slap your objective freedom if you dare to speak differently.
Go ahead and take a look at what have happened to those who dared do criticize or report independently from the party line. 20 years in jail, anyone?
You don't need independent observers to see human rights violations in Cuba; just take a detailed and calm look at the wording of the Constitution and right there you will find all the answers.
Same thing with this so called "resolution"; they give you the constitutional article with one hand, and then, they gladly muzzle you down with your special duties and responsibilities.
There you have, your beta male dog, belly up, exposing his throat and toting yours - I'd bet without your consent - one more time.
(Is anybody actually keeping the record on how many time Obama has tugged his tail between his legs in order to reach consensus and/or apologize or anything along those lines?)
Therefore, if in the near future you notice a dramatic change in the wording of the paragraph above mentioned, you would have a clue of what's really going on with this highly opinionated Cubanita.