Maggie Alarcón

Archive for November 21st, 2011|Daily archive page

…el amor en tiempos de colera…

In Asamblea Nacional/National Assembly, CENESEX, Cuba, Culture, Education, Human Rights/Derechos Humanos, LGBT, Politics, Social Justice on November 21, 2011 at 1:18 pm

Por  Alain Darcout Rodríguez para CENESEX

Lisandra y Lisbet son una pareja de lesbianas de más de ocho años de relación estable, los sentimientos que las unen quedan fuera de toda duda, toda vez que decidieron celebrar públicamente su amor en una ceremonia que simulaba el ofrecimiento mutuo de sus votos, o más concretamente, unas nupcias simbólicas, (1) idea que fue apoyada inmediatamente por el grupo FENIX, red social que agrupa a las mujeres lesbianas, bisexuales y heterosexuales que deciden luchar por la diversidad sexual en Cienfuegos.

Pretendían con ello celebrar los avances que en el plano legislativo representa que las modificaciones al Código de Familia, donde finalmente se reconozca la unión legal entre personas del mismo sexo, este ya en manos del Ministerio de Justicia, casi listo para presentar el proyecto de ley ante el pleno de la Asamblea Nacional del Poder Popular, y también, la políticamente muy relevante mención que el Documento Base para la 1ra Conferencia Nacional del Partido Comunista de Cuba, hace de forma explícita a la necesidad de enfrentar los prejuicios […] ante [la] orientación sexual […] que puedan originar cualquier forma de discriminación o limitar el ejercicio de los derechos de las personas…

Pero sus deseos sufrieron un pertinaz desengaño, primero, aunque se cercioraron con autoridades jurídicas del territorio que podían realizar la representación varias instituciones se negaron a prestarle el servicio de alquiler del local a pesar de estar incluido dentro de su objeto social, y solo el Grupo Empresarial Palmares de Cienfuegos apoyó la iniciativa y extendió un contrato para dicha celebración; pero a pesar de que la pareja actuó de buena fe declarando sus intensiones a la gerencia, pocos minutos antes de iniciarse la actividad, altos funcionarios de Palmares se personaron en el lugar para delimitar algunas exigencias sobre su ejecución, las cuales no realizaron cuando se firmó el contrato y cobraron el dinero en cuestión.

Dichas exigencias, si bien algunas no dejaban de ser lógicas preocupaciones (canalizadas en el momento más inadecuado) como que ellos eran una entidad estatal y no podían consentir que se hablara de matrimonio, boda, o cualquier otro sinónimo, entre personas del mismo sexo, toda vez que no estaba aprobado por las leyes y no podían cometer una ilegalidad, de pronto, empezaron a extenderse sin límites las proscripciones y mutilaron el guión del espectáculo eliminando desde una simbólica Marcha Nupcial hasta una inofensiva Ave Maria, llegando al punto de prohibir la utilización de cualquier palabra que hiciera alusión a la naturaleza de la bella relación de pareja de Lisandra y Lisbet… total, que al final resultaron ser dos “amigas” (aunque vestidas de novias) celebrando el amor, sí, el abstracto amor del cual todos somos  depositarios y ninguna de las personas LGBT concretos hacedores (lamentablemente aun para muchos que no comprenden esta realidad).

Ante los cuestionamientos del que suscribe esta crónica, Coordinador de la Redes Sociales por la Diversidad en el territorio y Presidente de la Comisión Provincial de Educación Sexual, sencillamente respondieron que eran indicaciones que tenían sin aclarar de quien o donde estaban plasmadas, y más, personalmente me acotaron que incluso si las veían muy “echadas” una encima de la otra ellos tendrían que sacarlas, todo lo cual tuvo una serena pero enérgica respuesta basados en la legalidad y el más elemental respeto a los derechos humanos, a lo que replicaron con una petición que puede resumirse en que al final si se toma lo acontecido como tema (es decir, si trasciende) la soga se romperá por la parte más débil (ellos) pues los demás negarían tal indicación, revelando la doble moral evidente en el discurso de algunos decisores.

Pero lo contraproducente ocurrió más tarde cuando ante el despliegue de la bandera del arcoíris para realizarse unas fotos recibimos la orden de guardarla, o peor, cuando ante el beso inocente de otra pareja, un custodio señaló que podían ser expulsadas del lugar por ese hecho; y otra vez, ante los requerimientos acerca de la justificación de tal proceder, un funcionario de Palmares replicó sin más: yo me acojo al derecho de admisión.

Me pregunto entonces si no es una ilegalidad precisamente que una entidad pretenda establecer normas internas que contravengan las propias leyes del país, porque en Cuba desde las modificaciones al Código Penal a fines de los años 90, la homosexualidad dejó de ser penada por la ley; entonces, como entender que una pareja del mismo sexo pueda expresarse su afecto mutuo, incluso con un beso, delante de un agente del orden (PNR) quien no puede detenerlos por eso pues no violan ley alguna y si puedan los custodios de una entidad de Palmares expulsarlos de un centro recreativo por la misma razón (¿?)

¿A que leyes se acoge Palmares cuando, según su sacrosanto derecho de admisión, pueden expulsar a una pareja del mismo sexo que este bailando “muy juntas” o tengan alguna muestra “inadecuada” de afectos o pueden negarle la entrada a una pareja del mismo sexo (sobre todo hombres, con las mujeres aplican una mirada discrecional, en mi apreciación personal) porque la entrada es por parejas “normales” o pueden negarle la entrada a un trasgénero cualquiera solo por vestir acorde a su identidad sexual?(2).

¿Se rige Palmares por regulaciones legales propias? ¿Ignoran que en nuestro país, como política de estado, se desarrollan históricas jornadas por la libre y responsable orientación sexual e identidad de género desde hace 5 años; se batalla por conquistar toda la justicia social posible, por cambiar todo lo que deba ser cambiado, lo cual tendrá expresión jurídica y tiene ya concreción política expresa? ¿No han discutido aun el Documento Base del PCC para su 1ra Conferencia Nacional?… ¿hasta cuando  tendremos que soportar humillaciones como estas?

Al final, estas libres interpretaciones acerca de la igualdad de derechos consagrados en la Constitución de la República, solo confirman la necesidad de proteger jurídicamente de forma expresa y positiva los derechos de las minorías sexuales.

(1)       Las parejas del mismo sexo no disfrutan las garantías jurídicas que pueda ofrecerles el Estado, entre otras muchas, por ejemplo, sobre el patrimonio construido conjuntamente, pues aun no existe ninguna legislación al respecto en Cuba.

(2)       En verdad, estas disposiciones discriminatorias ocurren en la mayoría de los centros recreativos, estableciéndose, cuando más, días específicos destinados para esta población o solo lugares determinados, política que continúa segregando y no favorece la inte

Against the Privatization of Education and Everything Else…

In Education, General, History, Human Rights/Derechos Humanos, Occupy Wall Street, Politics, Social Justice, US on November 21, 2011 at 12:57 pm

 

 

18 November 2011

Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi

Linda P.B. Katehi,

I am a junior faculty member at UC Davis. I am an Assistant Professor in the Department of English, and I teach in the Program in Critical Theory and in Science & Technology Studies. I have a strong record of research, teaching, and service. I am currently a Board Member of the Davis Faculty Association. I have also taken an active role in supporting the student movement to defend public education on our campus and throughout the UC system. In a word: I am the sort of young faculty member, like many of my colleagues, this campus needs. I am an asset to the University of California at Davis.

You are not.

I write to you and to my colleagues for three reasons:

1) to express my outrage at the police brutality which occurred against students engaged in peaceful protest on the UC Davis campus today

2) to hold you accountable for this police brutality

3) to demand your immediate resignation

Today you ordered police onto our campus to clear student protesters from the quad. These were protesters who participated in a rally speaking out against tuition increases and police brutality on UC campuses on Tuesday—a rally that I organized, and which was endorsed by the Davis Faculty Association. These students attended that rally in response to a call for solidarity from students and faculty who were bludgeoned with batons, hospitalized, and arrested at UC Berkeley last week. In the highest tradition of non-violent civil disobedience, those protesters had linked arms and held their ground in defense of tents they set up beside Sproul Hall. In a gesture of solidarity with those students and faculty, and in solidarity with the national Occupy movement, students at UC Davis set up tents on the main quad. When you ordered police outfitted with riot helmets, brandishing batons and teargas guns to remove their tents today, those students sat down on the ground in a circle and linked arms to protect them.

What happened next?

Without any provocation whatsoever, other than the bodies of these students sitting where they were on the ground, with their arms linked, police pepper-sprayed students. Students remained on the ground, now writhing in pain, with their arms linked.

What happened next?

Police used batons to try to push the students apart. Those they could separate, they arrested, kneeling on their bodies and pushing their heads into the ground. Those they could not separate, they pepper-sprayed directly in the face, holding these students as they did so. When students covered their eyes with their clothing, police forced open their mouths and pepper-sprayed down their throats. Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood.

This is what happened. You are responsible for it.

You are responsible for it because this is what happens when UC Chancellors order police onto our campuses to disperse peaceful protesters through the use of force: students get hurt. Faculty get hurt. One of the most inspiring things (inspiring for those of us who care about students who assert their rights to free speech and peaceful assembly) about the demonstration in Berkeley on November 9 is that UC Berkeley faculty stood together with students, their arms linked together. Associate Professor of English Celeste Langan was grabbed by her hair, thrown on the ground, and arrested. Associate Professor Geoffrey O’Brien was injured by baton blows. Professor Robert Hass, former Poet Laureate of the United States, National Book Award and Pulitzer Prize winner, was also struck with a baton. These faculty stood together with students in solidarity, and they too were beaten and arrested by the police. In writing this letter, I stand together with those faculty and with the students they supported.

One week after this happened at UC Berkeley, you ordered police to clear tents from the quad at UC Davis. When students responded in the same way—linking arms and holding their ground—police also responded in the same way: with violent force. The fact is: the administration of UC campuses systematically uses police brutality to terrorize students and faculty, to crush political dissent on our campuses, and to suppress free speech and peaceful assembly. Many people know this. Many more people are learning it very quickly.

You are responsible for the police violence directed against students on the UC Davis quad on November 18, 2011. As I said, I am writing to hold you responsible and to demand your immediate resignation on these grounds.

On Wednesday November 16, you issued a letter by email to the campus community. In this letter, you discussed a hate crime which occurred at UC Davis on Sunday November 13. In this letter, you express concern about the safety of our students. You write, “it is particularly disturbing that such an act of intolerance should occur at a time when the campus community is working to create a safe and inviting space for all our students.” You write, “while these are turbulent economic times, as a campus community, we must all be committed to a safe, welcoming environment that advances our efforts to diversity and excellence at UC Davis.”

I will leave it to my colleagues and every reader of this letter to decide what poses a greater threat to “a safe and inviting space for all our students” or “a safe, welcoming environment” at UC Davis: 1) Setting up tents on the quad in solidarity with faculty and students brutalized by police at UC Berkeley? or 2) Sending in riot police to disperse students with batons, pepper-spray, and tear-gas guns, while those students sit peacefully on the ground with their arms linked? Is this what you have in mind when you refer to creating “a safe and inviting space?” Is this what you have in mind when you express commitment to “a safe, welcoming environment?”

I am writing to tell you in no uncertain terms that there must be space for protest on our campus. There must be space for political dissent on our campus. There must be space for civil disobedience on our campus. There must be space for students to assert their right to decide on the form of their protest, their dissent, and their civil disobedience—including the simple act of setting up tents in solidarity with other students who have done so. There must be space for protest and dissent, especially, when the object of protest and dissent is police brutality itself. You may not order police to forcefully disperse student protesters peacefully protesting police brutality. You may not do so. It is not an option available to you as the Chancellor of a UC campus. That is why I am calling for your immediate resignation.

Your words express concern for the safety of our students. Your actions express no concern whatsoever for the safety of our students. I deduce from this discrepancy that you are not, in fact, concerned about the safety of our students. Your actions directly threaten the safety of our students. And I want you to know that this is clear. It is clear to anyone who reads your campus emails concerning our “Principles of Community” and who also takes the time to inform themselves about your actions. You should bear in mind that when you send emails to the UC Davis community, you address a body of faculty and students who are well trained to see through rhetoric that evinces care for students while implicitly threatening them. I see through your rhetoric very clearly. You also write to a campus community that knows how to speak truth to power. That is what I am doing.

I call for your resignation because you are unfit to do your job. You are unfit to ensure the safety of students at UC Davis. In fact: you are the primary threat to the safety of students at UC Davis. As such, I call upon you to resign immediately.

Sincerely,

Nathan Brown
Assistant Professor
Department of English
Program in Critical Theory
University of California at Davis