Britain's treatment of photographers makes undemocratic Cuba look angelic

bmattock

bmattock

Veteran
Local time
1:27 PM
Joined
Jul 29, 2003
Messages
10,654
Location
Detroit Area
View My Gallery
There's a great photo on the linked web page. Castro taking photos in the Soviet Union - I think with a Polaroid 110A.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ers-makes-undemocratic-Cuba-look-angelic.html


Britain's treatment of photographers makes undemocratic Cuba look angelic
The police in Cuba are more relaxed about photographers than British officers.
SIR – My son, a very keen amateur photographer, recently returned from a holiday in Cuba, a communist country. He took more than 2,500 pictures.

At no time was he approached by the police or any official telling him to stop (Letters, December 27).
Click to expand...
 
There are eight (8) references to photography including the Telegraph's quoted text in Bills original post!

Where people want to take this is not Bill's problem ... but I guess any reference to freedom of rights and Cuba/Castro in the one post is going to create a little angst for some! 😛
 
What's really amusing is that this is in the Torygraph, the party rag of the Conservatives (just as the Grauniad is the paper of the literate left). The Guradian has had problems with its photographers being nicked too. The British police certainly are getting it wrong on a fairly regular basis at the moment. In the Christmas issue of the British Journal of Photography there's an account of a photographer who was hassled by the police while shooting a WEDDING!

And Mukul, you no doubt remember Khushwant Singh's immortal comment that 90% of what appears in [Indian] newspapers is politics, and the remainder is pure rubbish. This is politics and photography, and, therefore, surely legitimate in a photo forum. Or would you rather have some more pure rubbish, e.g. another bokeh thread?

Perhaps it's a legitimate point, too, that in a hopelessly undemocratic regime, photography is less of a concern than in a free society. Apparently photography was pretty easy in pre-1989 Romania, too, or East Germany. Certainly I had no trouble in the Soviet Union.

And finally, while people may have reservations about Castro's Cuba, Batista's regime was unquestionably deeply vile. If the US government had looked beyond the label 'communist', and continued to trade with Cuba, Fidel might not have turned out so stridently anti-USA. And the standard of living of Cubans would almost certainly be a lot higher today.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Want to see what GB will look like in ten years ? Just play the beginning of Half-Life 2...😀

We are all gently falling in a securitary "democracy". Enjoy.

I remember fifteen years ago riding a bicycle near a railway station in the country, I was very happy this day, just exploring the little town. A police car went. They asked me what I was doing. I replied that I was riding a bicycle. Then I was hit by a Policeman, and sent to the police station for questioning. Why was I riding a bicycle near the railway station ? I was threatened to told the truth otherwise I could eventually be shoot my mistake, said the officer.

No doubt, I live in France...
 
As my ex co-worker teacher from the UK (and political science major) used to say when I asked him about the lack of personal freedom and individual rights in the UK, "Remember, we never had a revolution".

Cuba is so happy anybody visits their country and spends money, they'd just about let you do anything there.
 
Ade-oh said:
He wasn't a historian then, and I can't imagine he got a particularly good grade in political science either.
Click to expand...

Hey, but the last time there was a revolution was some hundred years before the first photography was taken. So it's not relevant in this context, is it 😉
 
Main troubles occurs when some real estate society are renting streets, like in the UK. Grosvernor, real estate society belonging to the Duc of Westminster, has rented to the town of Liverpool 34 streets for a period of...250 years ! What was public becomes private, including streets and parks. And taking pictures becomes forbiden unless you have authorization. And if you forget this, security guards will be there to remind you. 😀

Private town, not allowed to poors, journalists, is that not a brilliant idea ?🙄
 
Last edited:
Well, you could argue that the USA never had a revolution either. They had a rebellion against the legitimate government, and because they won, they were allowed to call it a revolution.

As far as I recall, George Washington's mother discouraged him from joining the Royal Navy. Consider the possibilities if she had failed. Admiral Sir George Washington might have had great sympathy with the rebellious colonials, but I suspect that a British fleet under his command would have made short work of the rebels. When rebelling, it does help to have a military genius of great moral probity and tremendous personal courage at your head.

Cheers,

R.
 
Le tribunal de grande instance de Paris lui a donné tort, estimant que le cliché en cause, "exempt de toute légende ou commentaire", ne révèle "rien de son intimité", que "la présence d'un animal de compagnie" ou "ses goûts vestimentaires" constituent autant d'"indications anodines". Le juge réaffirme un principe établi par la Cour de cassation en 2003 : le droit à l'image "n'est pas absolu et doit se concilier avec la liberté d'expression" garantie par la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen et par la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme. En l'espèce, qualifiant M. Banier de "photographe de renom", le juge dit que le droit à l'image doit "céder devant le droit à l'information".

For those who don't read French, this reference from www.inha.fr/IMG/pdf/9-article-michel-guerrin.pdf - Wanadoo (Le Monde, 6 juin 2007) points out that the right to control of the personal image in France is nothing like as absolute as a lot of people think. The 'lui' is someone complaining that her image was published in a book by Luc Delahaye called 'L'Autre'. I know of no more recent French case law on the subject. If the link doesn't work (I had to copy it manually) try a search engine.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Let's talk about revolution, it happens always the same way :

Poors are annoying. They are always hungry. They finally will have just one option to express themselves : violence.

And for us, whom are quietly drinking bourbon and discussing on RFF about buying a M9 or M8, we will not understand why we are hanged on a rope, after spending a life to vote for respectable political which never gave a tribute to these poor people...

When angry crowd will have grown up sufficiently, I think we will have far less troubles about deciding which camera to choose...😛
 
Roger Hicks said:
Le tribunal de grande instance de Paris lui a donné tort, estimant que le cliché en cause, "exempt de toute légende ou commentaire", ne révèle "rien de son intimité", que "la présence d'un animal de compagnie" ou "ses goûts vestimentaires" constituent autant d'"indications anodines". Le juge réaffirme un principe établi par la Cour de
cassation en 2003 : le droit à l'image "n'est pas absolu et doit se concilier avec la liberté d'expression" garantie par la Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen et par la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme. En l'espèce, qualifiant M. Banier de "photographe de renom", le juge dit que le droit à l'image doit "céder devant
le droit à l'information".

For those who don't read French, this reference from www.inha.fr/IMG/pdf/9-article-michel-guerrin.pdf - Wanadoo points out that the right to control of the personal image in France is nothing like as absolute as a lot of people think. I know of no more recent case law on the subject. If the link doesn't work (I had to copy it manually) try a search engine.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know this article. But here we are under the Vigipirate law (since september 2001). Try to take a picture in the subway when the rambos are at your side, or try to take a picture of a nuclear power plant, or a railway station from the inside... I have experienced this, and was forced to give my film...:bang: National security, they said. It is sure Al Qaida uses 1955 Rolleiflex to prepare bomb attacks...🙄
 
Last edited:
Mael said:
Let's talk about revolution, it happens always the same way :

Poors are annoying. They are always hungry. They finally will have just one option to express themselves : violence.

And for us, whom are quietly drinking bourbon and discussing on RFF about buying a M9 or M8, we will not understand why we are hanged on a rope, after spending a life to vote for respectable political which never gave a tribute to these poor people...

When angry crowd will have grown up sufficiently, I think we will have far less troubles about deciding which camera to choose...😛
Click to expand...

If someone took my whisky away and gave me bourbon instead, I would start a revolution too 😉
 
I am glad that here in Germany we still have real public space where our rights are not restricted. They allowed photography in railway stations a few years ago. Even now this is no problem. Only on private ground (like in a mall) where they have those private wannabe sheriffs, it may be problematic.
 
Ade-oh said:
He wasn't a historian then, and I can't imagine he got a particularly good grade in political science either.
Click to expand...


Really? I took a History Of England course in college too and don't remember any revolutions either. Maybe you refresh our failing memories. Our conversation began w/ the stories last year of the MOPs gorging themselves at the public trough...acts which inexcusably weren't against the law. At least when our congressmen do it, they can get caught and sent to prison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom