Wednesday, January 04, 2017
In Defense of Cuba Dave
David Strecker or, as he is commonly known as, “Cuba Dave” is a 65 year old man from Florida who became known for his blog and youtube videos covering the sex tourism scene in places like Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic. As well as chronicling his own exploits Cuba Dave became the go to source for tips, pointers and How Tos for both novice and experienced “Hobbyists” (clients). It all came crashing down for Cuba Dave in September 2015 when he was arrested in Costa Rica under a new and untested (until him) 2012 law passed to combat (among other things) “human trafficking.” Nevermind that actual prostitution in Costa Rica is legal, Cuba Dave was dragooned under this law in a country notorious for high levels of corruption and judicial malfeasance. Not uncommon for third world countries. Below is my response to a comment (appearing below and also found here: http://www.ticotimes.net/2016/11/16/cuba-dave-verdict#comments-100140) in defense of Cuba Dave. Anyone wanting to learn more or donate to Cuba Dave’s defence can go here: http://www.cubadave.com/ .
KEN MORRIS NOVEMBER 17, 2016
Well, you can smoke cigarettes, just can’t advertise smoking. You can also have sex with your spouse, just can’t post photos of the two of you going at it on billboards. I truly don’t understand the argument of those who fail to see a distinction between a legal act and the illegal promotion of that act. IMO, that distinction is pretty clear.
My guess is that Strecker wasn’t aware of the law against promoting sex tourism, either that or failed to see the distinction between engaging in it and promoting it. Maybe, who knows, as the first guy snagged by the new law, he should have been cut some slack. Five years sounds harsh to me. However, he may whittle that down on appeal or get out sooner for “good behavior.” I think most convicts do.
But I was and remain for his conviction. Again, while there is some fuzziness to the case (and much of it would seem to turn on details we don’t know) I think that a line does exist between engaging in an activity and illegally promoting it. I also think Strecker crossed that line, and yes did harm.
However, this is the first I’ve heard of Rehab being behind his arrest, and I sure wish that at minimum the US Embassy would stop funding that outfit. In the name of fighting human trafficking, they really devote most of their efforts to fighting the gringos who hire prostitutes, and Rehab often uses illegal means. They’re a real loose cannon. I also don’t think they understand prostitution.
But as for Dave, I hope he gets out way before his five years are up. Without knowing all the facts of the case, I also suspect that he’s already been punished plenty. But I do think he’s guilty of a reasonable law and merited conviction.
JOHNNIE Q, JANUARY 03, 2017
I get what you're saying Ken But let's run this thought experiment. Now let's look at soda pop. It is legal to produce and consume but you cannot advertise it legally. Hugh, that's absurd. Precisely! I think the legalization of an act presupposes it is going to be talked about, written about and watched. While we can all agree that harm can come to a society from certain acts, once something is legal disseminating information about it is par for the course. Which is what Dave was up to. The legality of an an act cannot help but be bound up by its dissemination. They are co-joined twins.
Then there's the aspect of free speech. In Dave's case we have the rather curious (and no doubt unintended) side effect of a judiciary concluding you can engage in acts normally considered immoral but you cannot talk about it. Again, Hugh? So let me get this straight, what Dave did is worse than the actual acts of prostitution occurring daily in the country? In his own words the prosecutor noted: “Although prostitution isn’t a crime here, it often coincides with psychological and physical violence,” . . . “Women are treated like sexual and commercial objects, used as instruments for unhealthy pleasure.” Yeah, then the question becomes why is it legal to begin with? By running Cuba Dave up a pole you have the curious effect of making speech worse than the actual undesirable acts. One has to wonder how the precedent set in Cuba Dave's case will facilitate attacks on speech deemed by the State as "harmful psychologically and inducing physical violence" when of course we are talking about speech clamoring for an unresponsive government to address legitimate grievances or speech simply deemed threatening to one or another faction of the small elite dominating government.
Also, the government’s case is mixing apples and oranges. Because prostitution is legal in that country, the MORAL basis for Dave prosecution falls away. So, all you are left with is legality. However, you cannot prosecute Dave through legal means based on a moral foundation. It is simply contradictory. The moral high ground was lost once legalization was passed. Unless you want to, again, maintain the bizarre contention that the acts are less harmful than Dave bragging about it. Curious morality if you ask me. You don't want to be known as a den of prostitution, ahhh then how about not being one; hellooooo! Cuba did it. Prostitution was big in Cuba during the Batista years but was virtually wiped out once Castro came to power. Could it be because instead of making excuses the Castro Regime, for whatever faults it had, decided to raise the cultural/social level of its people rather than blaming others.
Moreover, using this 2012 law as their vehicle (untested until Dave came along) is oh so shaky. Dave did not do any trafficking and he did not personally profit from anything. If the government cares so much about the harmful effects on the country by acts of prostitution it would be far more effective de-legalizing it AND, again AND, giving these women all the support and guidance necessary to get them into decent employment with dignity. Why do I have the sneaky suspicion that is the last thing the government would do? Could all the money that would no longer be going to corrupt officials have anything to do with it? Hmmmmm, I guess it is much easier to scapegoat a 65 year old foreigner who in reality never harmed anybody for YOUR societal choices.
