Two years in prison for wanting food

27 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2009-08-28 14:01

spazlmart

Getting drunk can get you into trouble. But, in free nations stating facts that amount to an embarassment to the government will not land you in prsion. This is not true in Cuba.

Quote:
He could have been an alcoholic lying on a street corner sleeping off his inebriation, like so many others in this city, but he also wanted to act. He jumped in front of a camera and cried for food which, along with yearning for change, has become the national obsession. His spontaneity, and the emphasis he gave to asking for “grub” has turned the brief video of Juan Carlos, alias Pánfilo or Dimwitted, into a “superhit” on the alternative information networks.

Quote:
In a society marked by punishments against those who express their opinions, neither fools nor children say what they think, only drunkards. Thus, I wasn’t surprised at the news that they found Pánfilo to be a criminal and charged him with “pre-criminal dangerousness” for which he was given two years in prison.

Pre-criminal dangerousness? What kind of Orwellian law is that? Didn't they make a movie about that where they arrest people before they even commit the crime? In Cuba, they like to make laws that are so vague that authorities can nail any Cuban the minute they do or say anything the regime does not like. Another one goes along the lines of “activities that endanger the Revolution. You get the idea.

http://www.desdecuba.com/generationy/?p=875#comments

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLLAh2yTqu0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fvideo.googl...

Fri, 2009-08-28 14:39

Snert

It's unpatriotic to criticize your country or its government. Once you allow it, where does it end? SEDITION, that's where!

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:05

Slumberjack

At least he had a trial and has an end in sight after two years. One of our own citizens could only dream of such luck, having been imprisoned without trial in an American run Cuban gulag for more than six years, with no end in sight. But yes, I do get an idea of what you're both on about.

Fri, 2009-08-28 15:33

G. Muffin

spazlmart wrote:
Pre-criminal dangerousness? What kind of Orwellian law is that? Didn't they make a movie about that where they arrest people before they even commit the crime?

Ah, yes, I believe you are referring to that cinematic triumph titled "Minority Report" starring one Tom Cruise.

BTW, the medical equivalent of "pre-criminal dangerousness" is the basis for involuntary commitment in mental health law. So we don't have to stray into fiction to find the notion of a "pre-crime."

Fri, 2009-08-28 16:16

Snert

If it's a "pre-crime" it's curious that it comes without a criminal penalty, though. No matter how much of a danger you may appear to present to yourself or others, you won't get two years in prison and a criminal record for it.

Anyway, Stephen Harper is a fool, and our current government is made up of wrongheaded idiots. We need a totally different government in Canada.

Just saying that because I can, and giving some thanks for that.

Fri, 2009-08-28 21:13

G. Muffin

Snert wrote:
If it's a "pre-crime" it's curious that it comes without a criminal penalty, though. No matter how much of a danger you may appear to present to yourself or others, you won't get two years in prison and a criminal record for it.

Not in prison, but you could certainly be incarcerated for two years or more. Sentencing is arbitrary and you could be legally subjected to forced drug injections and/or electroshock. And the Mental Health Act flag will remain on your medical records for life which has huge implications for future medical care, insurance, employment and travel. As I said, it's the medical equivalent of a criminal justice nightmare. I have no idea why this isn't considered a civil rights outrage.

Fri, 2009-08-28 21:36

kropotkin1951

In Canada they would have not arrested him for asking for food or pre-criminal dangerousness but for being a public disturbance and if he failed to stop making a disturbance in public they likely would have tasered him multiple times for good measure.

Causing disturbance, indecent exhibition, loitering, etc.

175. (1) Every one who

(a) not being in a dwelling-house, causes a disturbance in or near a public place,

(i) by fighting, screaming, shouting, swearing, singing or using insulting or obscene language,

(ii) by being drunk, or

(iii) by impeding or molesting other persons,

(b) openly exposes or exhibits an indecent exhibition in a public place,

(d) disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in a public place or who, not being an occupant of a dwelling-house comprised in a particular building or structure, disturbs the peace and quiet of the occupants of a dwelling-house comprised in the building or structure by discharging firearms or by other disorderly conduct in any part of a building or structure to which, at the time of such conduct, the occupants of two or more dwelling-houses comprised in the building or structure have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied,

is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Fri, 2009-08-28 21:39

kropotkin1951

Oh and the proof needed in Canada that a marginalized person is causing a disturbance:

Evidence of peace officer

(2) In the absence of other evidence, or by way of corroboration of other evidence, a summary conviction court may infer from the evidence of a peace officer relating to the conduct of a person or persons, whether ascertained or not, that a disturbance described in paragraph (1)(a) or (d) or an obstruction described in paragraph (1)(c) was caused or occurred.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 175; 1997, c. 18, s. 6.

Fri, 2009-08-28 21:42

kropotkin1951

Now don't get me wrong I think that no state should arrest people for speaking out against their government but if you want to compare Canada to other countries maybe you better look at our police state laws as well instead of presuming we live in a utopia where poor people who don't like the government can do anything they want to protest.

Sat, 2009-08-29 00:27

#10

Fidel

[url=http://feedingamerica.org/faces-of-hunger/hunger-101/hunger-and-poverty-... million hungry people in the land of plenty[/url] no excuses in the land of plenty. That's three times as many as live in Cuba who are hungry in America.

[url=http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/hung-j20.shtml]1 billion chronically hungry human beings around capitalist thirdworld[/url] up by half a billion from 25 years ago

[url=http://www.starvation.net/]15M to 20 Million sacrificed on altars of false capitalist gods of plenty, each and every year like clockwork[/url]

Sat, 2009-08-29 12:00

#11

A_J

kropotkin1951 wrote:
In Canada they would have not arrested him for asking for food or pre-criminal dangerousness but for being a public disturbance and if he failed to stop making a disturbance in public they likely would have tasered him multiple times for good measure.

Very unlikely that he would have been charged under s.175 - he might have been disorderly, but s.175 requires that you actually cause a disturbance beyond being a pest. And even if he had, worse case scenario would have been a night in the local lockup - not two years in prison.

Fidel wrote:
15M to 20 Million sacrificed on altars of false capitalist gods of plenty, each and every year like clockwork

Very good point Fidel, it's important to remember that nobody ever starved under communism.

Sat, 2009-08-29 20:02

#12

kropotkin1951

A_J wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:
In Canada they would have not arrested him for asking for food or pre-criminal dangerousness but for being a public disturbance and if he failed to stop making a disturbance in public they likely would have tasered him multiple times for good measure.

Very unlikely that he would have been charged under s.175 - he might have been disorderly, but s.175 requires that you actually cause a disturbance beyond being a pest. And even if he had, worse case scenario would have been a night in the local lockup - not two years in prison.

If he was a white person he would not likely be charged but if he was native then of course he would be charged and likely tasered and beaten up for his troubles. Mind you I guess it depends on who you piss off and how trigger happy they are because we know the RCMP are willing to play god with polish immigrants as well if they are disorderly. The reason I posted the next section was because it is increasingly clear in Canada that our police are being taught that they must be obeyed unconditionally and any attempt to argue or demand your rights will be met with violence.

But as for the mental health angle well they have already built the Olympic Detention Centre in Burnaby to clean up undesirables like the one in Cuba.

BURNABY CENTRE FOR MENTAL HEALTH AND ADDICTION

• The new provincial centre provides medical, nursing and psychiatric care as well as on-site addiction

counselling and rehabilitation.

• All clients will be medically stable and will be admitted either voluntarily and involuntarily.

Like I said I think they are both wrong but don't give me any shit that Canada would deal with a drunk marginalized person in a far more tolerant way. They will be sweeping the streets before February of all disorderly homeless people so that we can show the world what a truly wonderful place BC is. You should get out more it seems you are stuck in the 1980's and have not kept up with the new attitude of our police post Twin Towers.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Sat, 2009-08-29 20:19

#13

Fidel

A_J wrote:
Very good point Fidel, it's important to remember that nobody ever starved under communism.

[url=http://publicmb.wordpress.com/2007/06/15/liberating-the-mind-from-orthod... discussing murderous ideologies and economist Amartya Sen's estimates[/url]

100 million in democratic capitalist India alone between 1947 and 1979. Every eight years that thirdworld capitalist country alone produces as many skeletons as communist China did in all its years of shame, from 1958-61. If the number of skeletons in capitalism's closet was to be calculated, the numbers would be truly breathtaking. Capitalism is a monstrous ideology

Mon, 2009-08-31 10:19

#14

Snert

Quote:
but if you want to compare Canada to other countries maybe you better look at our police state laws as well instead of presuming we live in a utopia where poor people who don't like the government can do anything they want to protest.

Well, here in Canada we're certainly allowed to say "I'm hungry" without ending up in the gulag. And just look what I said about our government upthread, and yet I'm still at liberty.

Communist sure are babies when it comes to even the tiniest criticisms, though, eh? Do they have really low self-esteem? Or else why do they get out the state police as soon as anyone says something even a tiny bit negative? Are they not confident that their Worker's Paradise is actually a paradise??

Mon, 2009-08-31 12:40

#15

Slumberjack

Snert wrote:

Well, here in Canada we're certainly allowed to say "I'm hungry" without ending up in the gulag. And just look what I said about our government upthread, and yet I'm still at liberty.

Those who wind up on the wrong side of anti-panhandling by-laws would beg to differ. Yes you're at liberty, just as others who are placed under security certificates are, within the restrictions provided for by ankle bracelets and protective house arrest of course, if they're lucky enough to have bail money laying about.

Mon, 2009-08-31 13:30

#16

Snert

So there are lots of panhandlers who've fallen afoul of these anti-panhandling laws and ended up in prison for two years? Really?

And there are also Canadians whose simple dissent with the current government has resulted in house arrest? Really?

How about some links for those ridiculous claims? And while you're at it, any explanation for how I could boldly say:

Quote:
Anyway, Stephen Harper is a fool, and our current government is made up of wrongheaded idiots. We need a totally different government in Canada.

... without rabble being subpoenaed for my identity, and me being hauled off under a security certificate? Is it maybe because regardless of your foolish attempt to try to dig up some kind of equivalency, we simply don't imprison people for speaking their mind like this in Canada? Is that really so hard to admit?

You can speak freely: Castro can't hear you and I won't turn you in.

Mon, 2009-08-31 17:16

#17

kropotkin1951

http://www.firstnations.de/indian_land/ecological_stewards-harriet_nahanee.htm

Tell it to this brave woman. Oops sorry she died for her commitment. If you think a drunken homeless person could interrupt a camera shoot in Burnaby without being arrested you know nothing of the real world that marginalized people live in.

So how does Cuba's incarceration rate compare to the US or Canada's do you even know. Our polish immigrant did not face a two year prison sentence he was summarily punished in a manner that caused his death. Got any pictures of Cuban police with the taser cattle prod? Stand on a street corner in Canada and proclaim you want to have an Islamic republic not our FPTP electoral system and see how long it is before you get arrested or rendered to a foreign country to be tortured.

Mon, 2009-08-31 17:25

#18

Snert

Are your fingers sore? I mean from all that finger pointing.

Again I say: it's OK to criticize Cuba. We're not in Cuba, the Castros can't hear you, and I promise not to rat you out. You don't have to be afraid!

Mon, 2009-08-31 17:56

#19

kropotkin1951

If you want to complain about Cuba I don't care if on the other hand you want to compare it too Canada then I will point out that Canada has become a police state for marginalized people. You are likely never going to expreinece it but that does not mean it is not the current situationin our country.

"Getting drunk can get you into trouble. But, in free nations stating facts that amount to an embarassment to the government will not land you in prsion."

That opening statement of yours is so naive that I had to respond. If you are not marginalized in Cananda you have the right to protest until a corporation goes to court and gets a judge to say you have to stop. That is the law. As for drunks causing disturbances in Canada currently our police taser first and ask questions later. Drunks disturbing tourists or a movie shoot in BC will be dealt with immediately there is no ways the police would ignore them. If they were determined to be suffereing from a mental illness they would be admitted to a mediacl prison and held till they were no longer a threat to themselves or others. In BC we have just built a fancy new prison to clean up the streets so noone will disturb the IOC elite. That is my point. So tell me why haven't you posted anything on this site about the US treatment of its citizens or the treatment of aboriginal people in Canada by our police forces. I would think that one would complain about there own governement first before pilloring someone elses system.

You claim to have ther right to get drunk and disturb tourists and people shooting movies, I'll tell you what drink you face of and go out and be rude and obnoxious at one of Cnanda's premier tourist spots and have it recorde and posted on YOUTUB to show how great Cnandea is in the same situation. I am sure you aren't afraid so go ahead prove your point to the same thing in Canada and see what happens.

Tue, 2009-09-01 00:00

#20

Snert

Why do any of us need to go and test this, when every day there are people drunk on the street in Canada? Walk around in Toronto for an hour or two and you'll sure to be approached by drunk people, people who want food, or both at once.

All we need now is your evidence that all, or most, or even ANY of them are sentenced to two years in prison for it.

Tue, 2009-09-01 00:12

#21

Fidel

Oh Christ, there have been native Canadians taken for joyrides by the RCMP and dumped off at city limits without shoes or winter coats. And some of them died of exposure. There are native Canadians living in thirdworld conditions right here in Northern Ontariariario and other provinces. No need to condemn some Caribbean island nation enduring economic warfare waged from the mainland since the 1950's when we have the goods right here in bananada

Tue, 2009-09-01 08:04

#22

Maysie

Snert, you've been borderline trolling in this thread and you need to stop it. This is a warning. The next will be to advise you to stay out of this thread. I find your faux-provocateur schtick tiresome to say the least.

And I will humbly suggest that any of us who have a roof over our heads / access to a computer on a regular basis need to, again humbly, STFU regarding what life is like as a homeless person.

Toronto passed anti-panhandling laws a few years ago. Folks are now fined ($200 tickets I believe) for all the "crimes" that kropotkin listed above. But more than the possibility of being fined is the threat of being fined. Step one of state control over the marginalized.

The next step is that once a person has a ticket or two or a dozen, presumably that person won't be all that thrilled to have an interaction with the police. Something that is always a low-to-medium-to-high level fear. More state control.

If arrested on some other "charge", then yes, that person will be imprisoned. For the very least, unpaid fines. See how that works? Systemic oppressive hegemony is so neat and tidy isn't it? Nobody will hear about it (it happens every frikking day in Toronto), so nobody will be able to lobby for the person's release, as well as changing the fucking law in the first place. It might not be two years in prison, but there is an equivalent argument to make.

And, um, there's a reason the Western media loves such stories from Cuba. Try to think outside the corporate media's spin why doncha. You might like it.

Tue, 2009-09-01 08:43

#23

Unionist

Great - thanks for putting that whole thread in perspective, Maysie. I could foresee any number of tangents that were likely to lead to fisticuffs.

Tue, 2009-09-01 09:12

#24

Snert

Quote:
It might not be two years in prison, but there is an equivalent argument to make.

And evidently that's the only argument anyone is ALLOWED to make.

I'll close the door on my way out.

Tue, 2009-09-01 11:39

#25

Maysie

Bu-bye then.

Shall we return to the topic, or are there better threads to talk about the criminalization of the marginalized poor?

Tue, 2009-09-01 11:52

#26

remind

Thaks maysie, for your insight and words.

Tue, 2009-09-01 21:27

#27

Fidel

[url=http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSL124395]Amnesty urges Obama to lift Cuba sanctions[/url]

Imagine that Newfoundland or PEI could buy and import food and medicine from the mainland, but at premium prices. Then imagine that neither of those two islands are allowed to sell anything they produce or grow to mainland Canada.

[url=http://www.cafb-acba.ca/main2.cfm?id=10718629-B6A7-8AA0-6D9B9CE378DE06DA]Learn more about the problem of hunger in naturally wealthy Canada[/url]