Yanelys Nunez Leyva
HAVANA TIMES — When I read the “as a results” and the “considerings” of the ruling issued by the Old Havana Municipal Popular Court, with relation to my case – I was kicked out of my job at the Revolucion y Cultura magazine in July 2016 – I can’t help but feel a little sad, annoyed.
I don’t think I really need to defend again the noble character which I believe the art project the Cuban Museum of Dissidence has, I’ve written a lot about that already on this website.
I would like to discuss some of the passages in this verdict document which was officially delivered to a neighbor in my building and which will be filed as: File No.138 in 2016.
Firstly, the defendant engaged in some mistakes when presenting her position before the judges.
According to what has been documented in the ruling, they stated that “information about the very confidential conversation I had had that same day had already been circulating on the internet as early as May 23rd which I had posted where I hadn’t used very uplifting terms to describe the institution and had lied, as the only thing that happened that day was that they asked me to resign…”.
However, I’m curious about one thing: since when has ordering an employee to resign been a confidential matter?
On the other hand, it’s good for me to repeat this phrase to you because not only had they proposed that I resign, but they warned me that if I didn’t agree, they would apply a non-trustworthy resolution against me which would separate me from my job in the same way.
In the same “As a result…”, the administration goes on to confirm that “I went on the [Museum of Dissidence] website behind the magazine administration’s back.”
Since when has consulting an artist’s website, who has taken part in two group exhibitions at the magazine, who has a solo exhibition coming up this same year, and whose work has been promoted by R&C magazine on four different occasions on its pages, become something opposite to my job as a cultural promoter?
Further on in the document, I believe there is another contradiction in what has been drawn up. According to this “Considering”, the interview I gave to cubanet where the Cuban Museum of Dissidence was being promoted, wasn’t exactly the conduct that sparked the corrective measure.
At this point, I would like to clarify that this was what had been made clear during my public hearing or at least that’s what I believed. If it really wasn’t like that, what was the reason behind me being urged to leave my job just a few days after this text came to light?
Oh well, now one thing is super clear: I’m not being punished for being a “dissident” so no hate speeches will be made against me, nor will my name do the rounds in other cultural institutions so I won’t be hired.
The other interesting thing here is the subject of which digital magazines you can look at. It’s like a children’s game. The Information Security Policy can be found on the internet but the list of websites I can look at, as a cultural promoter, hasn’t been drawn up. However, I’m told that I broke said policy because I was reading things with a political focus when my work is cultural. Who made these analyses? Who can access Havana Times and Cubanet, comrades at the Ministry of Interior, because of National Security?
Where are the articles that praised the exhibitions at the magazine’s Espacio Abierto gallery which I curated? Did anybody remember them when I was being investigated before making a decision?
And to finish off, I was reprimanded for using “inappropriate words” to discredit officials publicly on the internet. Is a “lack of lucidity” the correct way to speak about somebody who insults you and abuses their power? I don’t think so, I can think of some better ones yet.