Cuba TV: Dissident Faked Hunger Strike

Marta Beatriz Roque. Photo:infolatam.com

HAVANA TIMES — Cuban state TV accused the dissident Martha Beatriz Roque of “faking” her recent eight-day hunger strike held to demand the release of an imprisoned opposition member, reported DPA on Tuesday night.

The broadcast accused the international media of spreading “lies” and the US government of instigating Roque’s “feigned hunger strike.”

The accusation was the first information given by the Cuban media on the hunger strike that supposedly involved 29 dissidents and began on September 10.

The strike ended on September 18, after Roque learned that the authorities had told the family of the prisoner, Jorge Vázquez Chaviano, that he would soon be released.

Cuban TV said as many as 13 of hunger strikers were fakers.

“The strategy of the hunger strikes was used by Martha Beatriz to attract international media attention,” said the state television, which showed alleged evidence of how the dissident secretly received food through a window of her home in Havana.

Roque, a 67-year-old economist, was previously jailed in the “Black Spring” round up of 75 dissidents in 2003.

Activists Orlando Zapata (2010) and Wilman Villar (2012) died in separate hunger strikes in recent years on the island. Also the opponent Guillermo Fariñas, the European Parliament’s Sakharov Prize in 2010, has repeatedly resorted to hunger strikes in protests against the government, recalled DPA.

 


12 thoughts on “Cuba TV: Dissident Faked Hunger Strike

  • October 4, 2012 at 5:26 pm
    Permalink

    Yo, ‘Mariana’ you sound a lot like ‘Susan L’, a bit more clever, perhaps, but that’s easy to achieve.

    Your theme, in common with ‘Susan L’ is, if only “these aggressive comments” would stop, “polarized and therefore limited [in] mentality” comments, would “subsist”.

    Obviously both S & M – hmm, interesting initials – would like myself and other comments to go away. Ain’t going to happen ‘girls’. Give it up.

    ‘M’ writes, “There is no black & white truth in the Cuban situation” – or anywhere else in the world, ‘girl’. Were you a Playboy bunny?

    ‘M’ continues, “all attempts to reduce it to one of the extremes is nurturing the divisions and conflicts that keeps us in a permanent diaspora, inside as well as outside our country.”

    Diasporas are always external, outside the country they left. In effect, it is no longer their country.

    ‘M’ asks, “Please, be serious and be adults when thinking of something so delicate and complex as the Cuban society.” That goes without saying.

    ‘M’ also asks, “If you are not Cuban, be humble and keep silence. This is not your business at all.” I am always humble in the face of our common humanity. The commonality makes it imperative that silence is NOT appropriate.

    ‘M’ asks Cubans as well to “be humble too and try to see the truth behind the black and white discourses. ”

    ‘Humble’, of course, is synonymous with acquiescence. Where ‘M’ comes from is obvious.

  • October 4, 2012 at 1:25 pm
    Permalink

    It’s very sad to read all these agressive comments. As far as this polarized and therefore limited mentality subsists, our nation will continue to be in distress and suffering. There is no black & white truth in the Cuban situation and all attempts to reduce it to one of the extremes is nurturing the divisions and conflicts that keeps us in a permanent diaspora, inside as well as outside our country.
    Please, be serious and be adults when thinking of something so delicate and complex as the Cuban society. If you are not Cuban, be humble and keep silence. This is not your business at all. If you are Cuban, be humble too and try to see the truth behind the black and white discourses. Cuban reality has shown to be always greater than all limitations, hunger strikes (fake or real), and media fanfarre.

  • September 29, 2012 at 1:21 pm
    Permalink

    ‘Moses’, why does my bullshit detector meter go off the scale, shattering the glass when I read what you just wrote?

    You claim when you first visited Cuba you were “wide-eyed and hopeful”. Of what? Subverting the government? A few days ago you wrote in a comment to Grady, “As a capitalist, I must resist your desire to redistribute wealth to undeserving members of my society. I believe in a merit-based society with equal opportunity to succeed and fail. I believe that ´the poor will be with us always”.

    So why would you go to Cuba, “hopeful that Fidel had indeed found a better way”?

    You’ve also told us about the privileged life you lead – going out for $200 dinners, a frequenter of Havana’s exclusive Miramar section. Are we to assume somewhere along the line you struck it rich, perhaps living off the back of your “beautiful, smart, successful Cuban wife that you seem compelled to write about?” Just trying to make sense of the story you tell.

    You write, “In as much as I look Cuban and spoke a little Spanish, I was able to blend in immediately and live, as much as possible, as Cubans live.” Speaking “a little Spanish” definitely does not allow blending in. It marks you as ‘a gringo trying to speak a little Spanish’. And living “as Cubans live”, in Miramar?

    You write, “I learned about Cuban racism, nepotism, corruption, and political hypocrisy in very short order.” Not as a tourist you didn’t. I’ve been there. Where did you learn it from?

    You write, “I also witnessed foreigners who would visit the island full of socialist idealism only to return to their comfortable, shortage-free lives back home. Especially the ones [with] unlimited internet access” And unlimited toilet paper and toilet seats I betcha!

    Yeah, well that’s what all tourists do don’t they?

    Despite “all the crap I am still dealing with”, you write, “I still live in a country 1000% more free and with more opportunities to succeed at whatever I choose.”

    Well that’s certainly true if you are lucky enough to earn a good income – or if your wife is.

    And then you get into purple prose again, writing that Fidel “is an ego-maniacal despot who has held the Cuban people back for 53 years out of personal vanity.”

    And what should we call the 13 US presidents who have maintained a blockade against the Cuban people for those same 53 years – psychopathic power-hungry mass torturers of 11 million Cuban people?

    You write, “Why else would he give four hour speeches? Have you ever read transcripts of any of them? I know you haven’t, otherwise you wouldn’t have written that.

    You are obviously conditioned by the speeches delivered by your president where five minutes is way too long. You have ‘news bite’ presidents- presumably geared to the attention span of folks like you.

    You assure us your 20 plus trips to Cuba were motivated by love, and not espionage as seems the only other logical alternative explanation based on your ideology – for your “beautiful, smart, successful Cuban wife”.

    Unfortunately, as with Marta Beatriz Roque, what you write on this website reduces your credibility to negative values – she for taking money from US government sources, you for the very obvious propagandist role you have been playing on HT that you never acknowledge.

    Lots of luck in your goals, but no [Cuban] cigar.

  • September 29, 2012 at 12:01 pm
    Permalink

    You ask, “Why give these frauds a reason to fake anything?” Uh, it’s the CIA who’s given them a reason, remember?. The CIA PAID HER. Some people will fake anything for money, it seems, orgasms or hunger strikes.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *