ERE'S the scenario. You're a peace-loving character, and you're in a big city. You're walking. It's a hot day and you're thirsty. You spot a saloon and, with a sigh of relief, you start to push open the door. Suddenly, a big man . . . I mean a huge, scarred, tough-looking gorilla with a couple of pistol-shaped bulges under his shirt . . . bends down, sticks his face in yours and growls: "I don't want you going in that bar. Get outta here."

What do you think might be a reasonable course of action in this situation? You think it would be good to tell him he's a damn bully and should get out of your face because he's got no right to tell you what to do? Or do you think it would be good to say, "Yes, Sir, I'm going right now," and see if you can't make Carl Lewis look like he forgot to buy Wheaties this month? Most sane people would go for the running, I think.

Not too long ago the US Consul General said the United States feels Bermuda is "sticking a finger in its eye" by breaking its promise to keep its interest in Cuba strictly cultural. Although it really isn't altogether sane to react by telling him where to go, that's precisely what Bermuda's Government did. The fact that Bermuda has the right to do anything it wants with Cuba may be technically correct, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the outcome of a fight between a trim heavyweight champion and a weakling who'd have to be wearing lead underwear to weigh in at 97 pounds.

That's the cold reality of our situation.

And anyone who starts with some plaint that we've been victimised by arrogant American aggression needs to understand that we aren't exactly in the right with Cuba ? the ethics of the situation are running hard against us.

It was fashionable back in the '60s to think that Cuba was an idealistic little country that was thumbing its nose at imperialistic capitalism, and to cheer it on. Those posters of Ch? Guevara, in a black beret, looking up and into the distance with smouldering, revolutionary eyes, were on every college kid's bedroom wall in those days.

But since then, a rather less attractive reality about Cuba has come into focus.

"The first thing I hope we can all agree on is that no one should have any illusions about the character of the Cuban government. No one should romanticise any aspect of this cruel system, or make any excuses for Fidel Castro's abuses. The crackdown on dissent in Cuba is not the fault of the United States, or the fault of the US embargo, or the fault of the Cuban-American community. The responsibility lies with Fidel Castro, period." That's not some imperialist lackey talking . . . that's Tom Malinowski, Washington Advocacy Director for Human Rights Watch.

A recent Cuban law is specifically "intended to prevent human rights monitoring by restricting the flow of information out of Cuba. The Cuban authorities must do away with illegitimate curbs on freedom of expression and information, and must bring their legislation into line with international human rights standards once and for all." That's Amnesty International.

"Are you tempted by Cuba for your holidays, by its dreamy beaches and its frenetic rhythms? Watch out! Except in picture postcards, the Cuban sun doesn't shine for everyone. The Castro regime arrested some 80 journalists, dissidents and human rights activists in March 2003 and gave them long prison sentences. For daring to talk about democracy in their country, some of them are going to spend up to 28 years in prison . . . Wise up to where you're going!" That's Reporters Sans Fronti?res, the European journalists' organisation modelled on M?dicins Sans Fronti?res.

A United Nations envoy, asked by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to look into alleged human rights abuses, has published a scathing report on Cuba's treatment of political dissidents in prison, adding credence to the alarming reports on their condition made to the Western press by their relatives.

The US State Department published its own report on Cuba recently. It didn't pull any punches.

"Cuba is a totalitarian state controlled by Fidel Castro, who is chief of state with the titles of president, head of government, first secretary of the Communist Party, and commander in chief of the armed forces. Castro exercises control over all aspects of life through the Communist Party and its affiliated mass organisations, the government bureaucracy headed by the Council of State, and the state security apparatus. In March, Castro declared his intent to remain in power for life. The Communist Party is the only legal political entity, and Castro personally chooses the membership of the Politburo, the select group that heads the party. There are no contested elections for the 609-member National Assembly of People's Power (ANPP), which meets twice a year for a few days to rubber stamp decisions and policies previously decided by the governing Council of State, which Castro heads. The Communist Party controls all government positions, including judicial offices. The judiciary is completely subordinate to the government and to the Communist Party . . .

"Members of the security forces and prison officials continued to beat and abuse detainees and prisoners, including human rights activists. The government failed to prosecute or sanction adequately members of the security forces and prison guards who committed abuses. Prison conditions remained harsh and life threatening, and the government restricted medical care to some prisoners as a method of control. Prisoners died in jail due to lack of medical care.

"The authorities routinely continued to harass, threaten, arbitrarily arrest, detain, imprison, and defame human rights advocates and members of independent professional associations, including journalists, economists, doctors, and lawyers, often with the goal of coercing them into leaving the country. The government used internal and external exile against such persons. The government denied political dissidents and human rights advocates due process and subjected them to unfair trials. The government infringed on citizens' privacy rights.

"The government denied citizens the freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and association and closely monitored domestic and international journalists through physical and electronic surveillance. It limited the distribution of foreign publications and news, restricted access to the Internet, and maintained strict censorship of news and information to the public. The government restricted some religious activities but permitted others. The government limited the entry of religious workers to the country. The government maintained tight restrictions on freedom of movement, including foreign travel and did not allow some citizens to leave the country. The government was sharply and publicly antagonistic to all criticism of its human rights practices and discouraged foreign contacts with human rights activists.

"Violence against women, especially domestic violence, and child prostitution were problems. Racial discrimination was a problem. The government severely restricted worker rights, including the right to form independent unions."

The Cuban government's look-the-other-way attitude about prostitution, including child prostitution, is one of the big reasons Cuba's tourism is doing so well. It is now the hottest sex tourism destination in the world, with both men and women (why so surprised?) drawn there by some of the cheapest and most enthusiastic sex in the world.

A March, 2003, Global Policy Forum study said: "Women and girls flock to densely populated Havana in search of sexual employment in hotels, bars, restaurants and on the streets. Sex tourists flock to Havana and other cities in search of a form of escapism that is cheap, safe and exotic. In Cuba, foreign men can command Cuban women and girls with the same ease used to order cocktails." That'd keep you going back for more, wouldn't it? I mean, if that was the sort of thing you were interested in.

The Progressive Labour Party is fond of criticising the United Bermuda Party for its slowness to condemn the South African apartheid regime, years ago, despite the PLP's very public prodding at the time. It would be interesting to hear one of the party's spokesmen or women talk about the similarities between the regimes of present-day Cuba and apartheid South Africa. I think he or she might get really embarrassed, really quickly. But that's a fantasy.

Right here, right now, with that tough-looking gorilla's face an inch away from ours, there can't be much doubt in the minds of reasonable people that the PLP Government's behaviour on Cuba is quite breathtakingly careless of our future. It is also a fine example of the ethical myopia that is rapidly becoming their political trademark.