By Yaimi Ravelo on October 24, 2021 from Havana
US protest against the police murder of George Floyd, photo: Crush Rush
In Articles 19 and 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, on freedom of expression, we are told that it “guarantees as a whole the right to assemble publicly or privately to express, promote, pursue and defend common interests.” Remember that phrase “common interests.”
One indented paragraph further down in this Universal Declaration, Article 21, rightly emphasizes:
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.
2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public services in his country.
3. The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.
It is claimed that the United States and the European Union are the main guarantors of vigilance, observing that the rest of the nations of the world adhere to the letter to these postulates without taking into account the Right to Sovereignty and Independence of each one of the countries of the planet.
Now, how real is the commitment of the United States and the countries of the European Union to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights regarding freedom of expression?
– Are permits needed to march or demonstrate in those countries? Yes, they are.
– Can a march or demonstration be denied in countries such as the United States or another European Union country? Yes, they can be denied.
Let us begin a brief analysis with the country promoting the “defense” of Human Rights. The Rights of Protesters in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution emphasizes the “right to demonstrate, describing the restrictions on peaceful free speech that the government may impose.”
The American people must adhere to laws and regulations dictated by their government, which are not questioned by any other country in the world, in order to hold a “peaceful” protest or march.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)a protector of freedom of rights in the United States themselves try to ensure that citizens do not violate the requirements of their statutes, for which they have a manual called “The Rights of Demonstrators.”
The Rights of Demonstrators in the United States
The aforementioned instruction booklet for potential marchers in the U.S. begins with the question: What to do during an encounter with the police?
Yes, that question assumes that an encounter with the police is inevitable. There is no peaceful language in this manual for marchers. It constantly reminds them that a police confrontation and violence is most likely. And yes, we are talking about the country of “freedoms,” the guarantor of free speech rights in the rest of the world.
The manual states: “You do not have to answer a police officer’s questions, but you must show your driver’s license and car registration if you are asked to stop your car. If you are on foot and a police officer has reason to believe that you are engaged in unlawful activity and asks for your identification, you must show your identification or identify yourself, otherwise you may be arrested.”
Wasn’t it legal to express yourself? Does that say you have to obey the police? They can arrest you? Well obviously, the police in every country of the world watch over public order, public tranquility and the enforcement of laws.
The following instructions from The Rights of Demonstrators in the United States make it very clear that if you want to participate in a march, you must adhere to the rules imposed by the law or the response by police forces could be severe.
– You are under no obligation to consent to a search or search of your person, property or papers. The police can search your clothes if they suspect you are carrying a concealed weapon. Do not resist, but make it clear that you do not consent to any other searches.
– Keep your hands where the police can see them. Do not run and do not touch an officer. Do not resist even if you believe you are innocent.
They make it clear beyond any doubt to BEWARE of the police. Do you know how many cases of police violence are recorded in the United States?
An article published in EuroNews by Reuters, dated October 1, 2021, highlights the following:
“More than half of all deaths involving police violence in the United States between 1980 and 2018 were not included as such in the government’s main database, according to a study by University of Washington researchers published in The Lancet.
The U.S. National Vital Statistics System recorded that police violence played a role in 13,700 deaths during that period, the study’s authors said. By examining three nongovernmental open-source databases, they estimated the true total to be about 30,800.
The databases they examined were Fatal Encounters, Mapping Police Violence and The Counted.
The burden of fatal police violence is an urgent public health crisis in the United States, said the study published Thursday in The Lancet, a leading British medical journal.
It added that deaths at the hands of police disproportionately impact people of certain races and ethnicities, pointing to systemic racism in policing.
Protests erupted last year in the U.S. following the death of George Floyd, a Black man who died after an officer pressed a knee to his neck for more than 8 minutes, and other incidents in which Black men and women were killed by police.”
And this is from the mainstream American press.
We begin this analysis by highlighting the phrase ‘common interests’ and two key questions: Do you need permits in other countries to march? Can you be denied?
The prestigious First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution says: yes.
Limitations on Speech
“The First Constitutional Amendment does not protect forms of speech that involve breaking established laws, such as trespassing, contempt, or interfering with the lawful order of a police officer. Although provocative speakers cannot be punished for simply rioting, the speaker can be arrested for agitation if he or she promotes acts of violence or specifically incites people to commit unlawful acts. Treacherous statements about public officials, as well as obscene expressions, also do not enjoy protection.”
Limitations on Actions
“Demonstrators who engage in acts of civil disobedience, i.e., peaceful, but unlawful, activities as a form of protest, do not enjoy First Amendment protections. If you endanger others in the course of a protest, you are subject to arrest. A protest that impedes vehicular or pedestrian traffic is illegal without a permit. You do not have the right to obstruct entry to a building or to physically harass anyone. As a general rule, free speech acts may not take place on private property, including outdoor malls, without the consent of the property owner. You do not have the right to remain on private property after the property owner has asked you to leave.”
This is not coming from the media, it is written into U.S. law, the march must be lawful and with a permit granted by the local government to the protesters. If denied, it is considered unlawful. There is nothing to interpret. They make it very clear.
What they do not make clear is that the police feel entitled in these types of illegal demonstrations in the United States to brutalize or even take the lives of many of the demonstrators, actions promoted in most of the homicides by racism, xenophobia, homophobia and even fascism.
The Ten Commandants of basic rights of demonstrators in Spain
Let’s focus on another country that frequently shows a visible concern for the rights of expression of the population of its former colony.
1. “The right of demonstration and assembly does not require governmental authorization, but it does require prior notice when it is expected that more than 20 people will gather. If it is not communicated, the police may prevent it from taking place. In any case, in situations of risk that may arise in the event that the demonstration or meeting is not authorized, the decisions taken in response to police requirements must be collective and not individual. It is very convenient that we all respect the decisions taken in the unitary spaces and preparatory assemblies.”
So, according to Spanish law, if more than 20 people gather, they should ask for permission. Oh… and the police can prevent it from taking place. Don’t forget, because if you don’t take into account this detail, the following can happen:
2. “The police can ask for your identification and you must show an ID. Although the police must have a legal reason (disturbance of public order, acts that cause damage, etc…) you should not refuse. If you refuse, you may be taken to a police station. After your identification, your ID card must be returned to you.”
If you thought you were looking at an article of a Cuban law, you’re wrong. It is in the Kingdom of Spain. A country that also monitors human rights in other nations in violation of international rights and laws.
The rights of the majority in Cuba
On October 12, 2021, a news headline that traveled around the world was that the Governments and Municipalities of several provinces of Cuba did not recognize the demonstrations proposed by some Cuban citizens against the “current regime” as lawful.
One of the grounds for determining that these marches were not legal is that such marches do not represent the common interests of the majority of the population in Cuba. The new Constitution of the Republic of Cuba came into force in 2019 through a referendum approved by more than 86 percent of Cubans.
For the sake of contrasting data, figures and sources, I searched for news about deaths in Cuba due to police repression. Not one. No news about mothers asking for the appearance alive of their sons or daughters. Not a single one. Some police officer killed a man for being Black? Not one. Massacres? No. Shooting into a crowd of demonstrators, leaving a number of dead? Not one.
Not one news story that Cubans want these things for their country, Cubans want peace. They do not want violent streets. Cubans by nature are cheerful and supportive. On this November 15th, the children of Cuba will march to their schools.
Does the U.S. Government support illegal marches in Cuba?
On October 12th, when the Cuban government publicly acknowledged that the demonstration promoted by a group of Cuban citizens was considered illegal, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio immediately published a tweet in support of opposition marches such as those of July 11th.
A day in which public order, peace and tranquility of the country were disrupted. The powerful country, “vanguard” of freedom of speech, makes it very clear in its First Constitutional Amendment. And I quote again:
… “The First Constitutional Amendment does not protect forms of speech that involve breaking established laws, such as trespassing, contempt or interfering with the lawful order of a police officer.”
… “Demonstrators who engage in acts of civil disobedience, i.e., peaceful, but unlawful, activities as a form of protest, do not enjoy First Amendment protections. If you endanger others in the course of a protest, you are subject to arrest.”
However, they encourage Cubans to break the laws of their country, to roll out the worn-out media formula with violent headlines inciting benevolent intervention to save Cubans from the repressive “dictatorship.”
On the afternoon of October 22nd, the EFE news agency published the latest threat — up to now — registered by the U.S. government:
“The United States warned this Friday that it will respond, possibly with sanctions, if the “fundamental rights” of the Cuban people are “violated” or the promoters of the civic opposition march called for November 15th in Cuba are prosecuted.
This was stated in an interview with EFE by Juan González, the main advisor for Latin America to U.S. President Joe Biden, after the Cuban Prosecutor’s Office threatened to charge the organizers of that opposition march with violations if they carry it out.”
In the face of such political hypocrisy, the rest of the nations on the planet would have every reason to ask the United Nations to sanction the U.S. government in order to protect the human rights of the noble American people.
Source: Resumen Latinoamericano – Cuba