Thoreau has a credible theory on how the individual of conscience should regard bad law .... there is in this case a beautifully righteous symmetry to breaking at the same time both the embargo and Castro's prohibition of freedom of expression, don't you think ..... here's a great Thoreau page, his Desobediencia Civil - eserver.org
... and in english -
'[3] Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or
shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we
have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men
generally, under such a government as this, think that they
ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter
them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would
be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government
itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it
worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for
reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why
does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not
encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults,
and do better than it would have them?'
eserver.org
There's such a wonderful even-handedness in defying the hardliners on both sides .... maybe Jorge Castañeda could be persuaded to lead a tourist group of say twelve or fifteen thousands of the Rest of Us, for a start ... it's true that many cubanos are 'happy and prosperous' in many ways on most days, but they do not enjoy near the freedom of expression we do, and i have reason to believe, through personal contact over the years with both resident and emigrant cubanos, that this prohibition goes against their nature .... since at the end of the day, you have to admit they're human beings too, eh
Freedom of speech is the central right ... if you were ever offered a choice of only one right, take that one ... because with it, you can go a long long ways to getting others |
