Just to point out the obvious, the US doesn't give a rat's ass about democracy. What matters is if country x follows the US orders or not. If they do, they're "moderate" (no matter what they actually are, thus Saudi-Arabia is a "moderate" despite being extremely repressive). If they do not, they get the Iran treatment (as a looong line of others have before Iraq and Iran). Israel have never wanted peace, and are unlikely to want it in the foreseeable future. They have always been on the lookout for more land, and are pursuing policies to achieve this. They're the only country in the world without recognized borders. I can go through some of the history, but I'm sure most readers are fully aware of it. Just to take one example though, Israel supported the establishment of Hamas, and indirectly helped it to power. It's the same story every time. When the Palestinians want to negotiate, Israel do something to block it. It never fails. It basically goes back to their strategy in the 1947-49 war. Israel wanted to keep up the fighting so they had an excuse to retaliate. That would of course keep the fighting going. So when things calmed down, they "retaliated" in brutal fashion, causing raids into Israel or other attacks. It still goes on today. I wish the Palestinians didn't retaliate in the form of rocket attacks. Then they would have an even clearer "moral high ground" than they do today. And it would be much harder for the propaganda "news" channels in the West to badmouth them. This strategy has reaped benefits for Israel through 60 years. Right now I don't see how a Palestinian state is to emerge. It's practically impossible to create an independent state now, due to Israeli settlement policy. Which of course is why they are expanding and creating settlements, and building a maze of walls all over "Palestine". Personally I doubt that Iran is supporting Hamas or Hezbollah in any substantial degree. But if we assume they do - what's the big deal? Hezbollah is the Palestinians' and Shias only defence in Lebanon, and Hamas seems to be the only party interested in the interests of Palestinians in "Palestine". Both grew due to Israeli terror (and PLO incompetence and corruption). I wonder what Orwell would think of today's society and discussions. Would he be happy because he was right, or would he be scared shitless because he was right? Pangaea Oslo, Norway

I very much agree with this, as I have recently read a little bit of African history. Every colonial empire was excused by a "civilizing mission". I actually partly agree that today's development industry is a continuation of this. Some projects are very good, but many are not. And often the result is a resource flow out of the poor countries and into rich ones, some way or another. For example, the "developing" world pay more on debts than they get in aid. And keep in mind a lot of these loans were given by rich countries to dictators. I honestly believe they should not be repaid, and am working towards achieving it. Generally, African history is written from a Western perspective, simply because it's Western historians who have written the books. Therefore they put African history into a Western understanding of it, and thus compare their history with developments in ours. Usually not very correct. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

By the way, an amusing story in today's NY Times on gay identity and how it was understood by an American President. Here's an excerpt:

Ike advises a stunned Kennedy that he had been told by an official at State that Laos is "a nation of homosexuals."

check this out too; very nice article + interview giving you a birds' eye view of the gay identity in india.

http://gaytoday.badpuppy.com/garchive/interview/050399in.htm

fredric, your point is well taken, and I agree completely. apropos jeffrey's query, i am acquainted with the gay scene in some of the "metros" of india (the metros are bombay/mumbai, calcutta, delhi, chennai/madras, bangalore, hydrabad et al.). now mumbai and bangalore have thriving gay scenes with gay bars and dance clubs. since laws do not explicitly protect sexual orientation, every now and then a new area cop finds the need to pay a visit. i have never heard of anyone being arrested (in mumbai) though. there is also a class element to it; most openly gay men i have met in mumbai and bangalore are pretty rich (generally upwardly mobile professionals) and hence by definition more protected, ceteris paribus (i guess this would be true in many other societies too). but generally speaking there is immense social pressure, even in these cities, to remain in the closet (so even if laws are enacted, expect change to be rather slow). i don't know much about the other cities, but delhi is extremely conservative and macho, so i would be surprised if harassment and intimidation is'nt the norm. madras is also very conservative, but not as macho; a south indian would know what i am talking about.

also check out this guy's work if you want to know more

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashok_Row_Kavi

http://www.rediff.com/news/2006/sep/27ark.htm

 

Pakistan's population is greater than that of Russia and Australia combined. It's landmass is also large and quite varying including some of the most forbidding territory on the planet. If it were a simple matter of picking up a person who may be harbored by a few fanatical local supporters--almost by definition a tiny handful, as otherwise the secret would out--then that does not mean that somehow the entire nation or government of Pakistan can be blamed for this occurrence.

Eric Rudolph, the homegrown Christian terrorist, stayed below the radar in North Carolina for several years with the help of local supporters. Hundreds of amateur sleuths, local, and federal law enforcement officials failed to apprehend him for close to five years. He was eventually picked up by a beat cop at a dumpster when his local sympathizers tired of him.

Let's not forget who and what brought Bin Laden and his Arab buddies there in the first place, either. Ahmed Rashid's definitive account of the Taliban--written before 2001, when they became radioactive but still managed to get $43 million in aid from Uncle Sam in the months before September--might jog the memory of those given to broad generalizations and partial to the gags of Colbert Report.

Pakistan--like Israel and India--never signed the NPT and cannot, thus, violate the terms of a treaty to which it isn't a signatory. There is plenty of wishful thinking and self-exculpatory hair-splitting going on about nuclear non-proliferation, but it's not coming from these countries.

Frederic,[ you may be aware of this] with same sex marriage, again religion is being used as an excuse for denial. In an Heterosexual marriage relationship, if one of the spouse die, the named survivor spouse can still collect the pension. at one point of time, government benefit from surplus if no survivor. Now if you were allowing gays and lesbian to marriage and to name a benefiter for the pension they paid for; it would represent a cash cow loss for the government. Gays face the same problem here in Canada.. ( David is a fabulous source of information, but I am also impressed by the writing skills and the info commentators such as you, sk, casten, yearwood etc provides.) War is a terrible thing , ant the neo-cons [ and the dems ] are by all means looking, discounting at ME people as if there were insects

Friends:

When the IAEA reached an important agreement with Tehran on August 21, the Chicago Tribune didn't even bother to report the fact, let alone editorialize favorably about it.  Yet, Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's Deputy Director General in charge of Nuclear Safeguards, called the agreement an "important step because, for the first time in a couple of years, we have been able to agree with the Iranians a working arrangement on how to resolve the outstanding issues that triggered all the Security Council procedures sometime ago."  Heinonen even expressed the hope that the so-called outstanding issues -- overwhelmingly the "issues" built-up out of allegations made by Washington and Washington's power to impose them upon the rest of the world -- might be resolved by the end of 2007.

Now almost seven weeks later, what does the otherwise silent Chicago Tribune do?  Its editorial voice takes its cues straight from the regime in Washington, and returns to the same demonization of Tehran where it left off prior to the agreement in late August.  (See below.)

All of the important lies come from Washington and its allies, friends.  The world cannot trust the Americans.  For copies of the IAEA - Tehran agreement, and the latest IAEA assessment on Iran, see: Understandings of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the IAEA on the Modalities of Resolution of the Outstanding Issues (INFCIRC/711), August 21, 2007 (begins on p. 3); "Head of IAEA Safeguards Welcomes Iran Workplan," IAEA News, August 30, 2007; and Implementation of the NPT Safeguards Agreement and relevant provisions of Security Council resolutions 1737 (2006) and 1747 (2007) in the Islamic Republic of Iran (GOV/2007/48), IAEA, August 30, 2007.)

Letters to the Chicago Tribune: ctc-tribletter@tribune.com .

Chicago Tribune (Perspective, Sect. 2, p. 6)
October 7, 2007
The gathering storm

Americans may be distracted by the war in Iraq, by the political campaign at home, by a thousand other daily events. It would be easy to miss the disparate signals that a storm is gathering over Iran.

Those include:

* In early September, Israel launched an airstrike deep in Syria, bombing what The Washington Post reported was a suspected Syrian nuclear site set up in apparent collaboration with North Korea. The Israelis aren't saying what, if anything, the air force hit. But the impression left is that the Israelis aren't going to rely solely on soft-talk diplomacy or international nuclear inspectors if they believe an adversary in the neighborhood is threatening to go nuclear. Read: Watch out, Iran.

* American leaders have warned again and again about Iran's escalating and lethal meddling in Iraq. On Friday, Iraq's national security adviser said Iran has significantly escalated its involvement in Iraq, supplying more sophisticated weaponry that is used against U.S. targets. Iran's actions are undercutting progress made by the U.S. troop surge. All of that lends more heft to the idea that the war in Iraq is being redefined as a conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

* The U.S. and some of its European allies recently were forced to delay a possible third round of UN economic sanctions against Iran because Russia and China wouldn't go along. The prospect of meaningful UN sanctions against Iran grows dimmer by the day. Russian and Chinese efforts to block tougher sanctions may hasten the military action they say they're trying to prevent.

* All the while, the Iranians have continued to boast about their progress in enriching uranium, a sure path to a nuclear bomb.

It's not hard to see how this plays out. Absent a diplomatic breakthrough, or military action, Iran eventually will gain the wherewithal to build a bomb. It could take two years. It could take five or more.

Or Tehran may stop just short of actually building a bomb. That may be enough for its strategic purposes. An Iran capable of building a bomb, whether it has or not, would dominate the region even more and set off an arms race in the Middle East, with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others clamoring to balance Iran's nuclear might. Meanwhile, Tehran's ability to aid terrorists and menace Israel without fear of serious repercussions would be significantly enhanced.

Much of the talk in the U.S. has been about what the Bush administration may do. Will the U.S. bomb Iran and could that really destroy its nuclear program? What kind of retaliation could America and its allies expect?

But American leaders may not determine the ultimate shape of events. The more critical question is: What will Israel do if Iran can't be stopped diplomatically? The Syrian strike isn't an answer, but it could be a clue.

"2007 is the year you determine whether diplomatic efforts will stop Iran," one Israeli source told Newsweek. "If by the end of the year that's not working, 2008 becomes the year you take action."

None of this suggests that an attack against Iran is -- or should be -- imminent.

But it is impossible to imagine Israel will turn a blind eye while Tehran builds nukes, one of which could obliterate much of the Jewish state. If diplomacy fails and Israel attacks pre-emptively, Iran is likely to retaliate, either directly or through its terrorist proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah.

Tehran can and probably would make more trouble for U.S. forces in Iraq. If that happens, or if an Israeli attack draws retaliation from others in the region, the U.S. could easily get drawn into a wider war not of its own making.

By the end of the year, if the North Koreans fulfill their promise to disable all of their nuclear facilities, Iran could be left in the uncomfortable position of being the world's only nuclear outlaw. That would be bad news for Tehran. North Korea and Iran have been fellow travelers, renegades tempting military intervention from nations that fear them as potential nuclear powers. With North Korea off the table, Iran would stand alone.

Would those who advocate military action against Iran be able to get international backing for it? Or would nations that feel threatened even bother to try?

The diplomats dealing with Iran seem to think time is on their side. That may turn out to be a grave mistake.

 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

These pictures remind me of a homophobic program of shocking blatancy that I picked up on the FM dial of my car radio in the middle of Texas (just south of Waco where David Koresh's compound used to be and where President Bush's ranch is now located) couple of months ago. City slickers should get out more often to places like Waco or Tyler (East Texas) to pick up vibes that are almost too unreal for the uninitiated.

I remember talking to a German woman some years ago who had moved to Alabama from Frankfurt because of her husband's job and how taken aback she was by the inversion of what passes for the liberal, open-minded American image overseas (esp. in VOA type propaganda saturated Western Europe).

FYI, interesting article and interview on how purportedly liberal values can be used as PR bludgeons to dehumanize the "Other" whose land/resources are coveted.

As Mahmood Mamdani put it in an essay that appeared earlier this year in the London Review of Books:

...every major intervention has been justified as humanitarian, a ‘civilising mission'. Nor was it mere idiosyncrasy that inspired the devotion with which many colonial officers and archivists recorded the details of barbarity among the colonised – sati, the ban on widow marriage or the practice of child marriage in India, or slavery and female genital mutilation in Africa. I am not suggesting that this was all invention. I mean only to point out that the chronicling of atrocities had a practical purpose: it provided the moral pretext for intervention. Now, as then, imperial interventions claim to have a dual purpose: on the one hand, to rescue minority victims of ongoing barbarities and, on the other, to quarantine majority perpetrators with the stated aim of civilising them.

"and i say this as a person who is well acquainted with the gay scene in some indian cities"

 When you put a statement out there like that, you really should develop it.  With that quick aside you (in my view) give us  a rare oppurtunity to recieve actual "on the ground" information on a topic that we have been mostly quoting from research papers and statistics.  Please let us know a little about the reality of a homosexual in these countries.

*Jeffrey Rohde* jeffrocksteady@gmail.com

one small mistake; i think the law was established after 1857 (and not in the 1840s like i say ablve).

by the way, not to disagree with anything said here, but section 877 of the penal code of india was originally enacted by the british in around 1845 to promote "victorian morality" (they were disturbed by some indian sexual practices), and has remained in the books since. rest assured that the code is almost never enforced (in terms of the eventual punishment), but acts as an excuse to harass, intimidate, and extort. its a bit problematic to equate this with cases in iran (and i say this as a person who is well acquainted with the gay scene in some indian cities).

Jeffrey Rohde:

Two great finds:

"How Not To Win Friends and Influence People," Zia Mian, ZNet, October 4, 2007
Homosexual Rights Around the World (Homepage), as maintained by Bill Meyers

Should the Washington regime ever turn on Islamabad and New Delhi, rest assured: We will start reading about how these respective regimes repress their citizens just for reading Habermas, Foucault, Nabokov, and Hustler Magazine.  And the "cosmopolitans" and "internationalsts" who live in places such as New York City or London or Paris or Berlin or Brussels and who then decry these regimes will be considered courageous.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA  

Thanks for the nice words. I don't confuse state sponsored repression with non-state repression. There are both in the West, as well as in Iran and other Islamic countries. To my knowledge homosexuality isn't banned in Norwegian (or US?) law, but there is still repression against them. As mentioned in the above comment, homosexuals are not allowed to marry each other. We have other kinds of repression/unfair rules as well. We haven't separated state and church, for example. That is done in the US in theory, but obviously not in practice. That means muslims, atheists (like myself) and other faith systems in effect gets indoctrinated in Christianity. It actually says in our Constitution that Christianity has to be the state religion (or something like that). There has been a discussion lately to change it, but nothing has been done, and most likely nothing will be done either. Another point, whether repression is state-sponsored or not isn't important. If you're a victim you're repressed either way. Bush may have a diverse cabinet in the form of Blacks and Hispanics, but their values certainly aren't diverse. Ethnicity isn't really the important factor. Would be nice with at least one person in the administration to the left of the extreme right for example. Gonzales and Rice are hardly good representatives of the opinion in the Black and Hispanic populations. Not Bush or Cheney for the White either, for that matter. Which brings us to one of the biggest problems in US politics. The so-called representatives of the people, aren't representative representatives of the people (hope that made sense). They mostly come from the far right, even though the US people generally are from the centre-left (especially so in the skewed US definition of left-right). To get back to your point though. There is more state repression in Iran compared to most western states (do keep in mind the Patriot Act and other very repressive laws though). This isn't very strange though. Religion has a strong role in Iran. If Christianity still had a strong role in the state in the West, we would have seen the same here too. The Church are still vehemently opposed to homosexuals, even to have homosexuals within the Church. Witches were burnt without evidence (obviously), and "non-believers" were killed. It's not Islam that is the problem, but religion. And more specifically, people who take advantage of the insane parts of the Bible and Quran. We have them both in the West and in the Near-East. The difference is that they still have a strong position in the Near-East, while they to a larger degree have lost power within the state in the West. There are a lot of reason for this, and I can't really get into them here in proper fashion. I'll say this though, it is naturally easier for people with extremist views to get to power when their people are under suffering under occupation or neo-colonialism. That is one important reason, but there are others as well. What we can safely say though (take a look at the articles further up the comment-page), is that the West isn't vehemently opposed to Iran because it represses its own people or are on the path towards nuclear energy (or even if it was nuclear weapons). 1. Other states in the region repress its people much more brutally than Iran does. 2. Other states in the region have a lesser degree of democracy than Iran does. 3. Other states in the region have nuclear energy, and even nuclear weapons. The US are close allies with such states, and there are no threats or demands for them to "modernize" (this is a euphemism for "Westernize"/"Americanize"). So we can safely say the above reasons are moot. We have to look at the strategic US aims for the region. As a Norwegian oil consultant said yesterday before a showing of Syriana, "Iran is the only obstacle to complete US control of the Middle East." That is why the US are targeting them. I'll argue Hezbollah, Hamas and Syria are also such obstacles, but they are obviously much smaller than Iran. Which is why the prime focus is on Iran instead of the others. If the US are able to "take out" Iran, the others will be dealt with later. Israel failed to "take out" Hezbollah in 2006, but they will be back. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

Kind of busy at work today but I thought I'd throw this into the fray. Both of the quotations below come from a znet article posted today.

Read it and feel the full smack hypocrisy.

Check ya later...Jeffrey Rohde

How Not to Win Friends and Influence People - Zia Mian

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=32&ItemID=13961

"Since September 11, 2001, the United States has given over $10 billion to Pakistan to buy or reward General Musharraf's support for its newest war, the "war on terror." Pakistan has spent over $1.5 billion of this amount on buying new weapons. To understand the scale of this aid, consider Pakistan's total military budget in 2006, estimated at about $4.5 billion. The United States is now giving Pakistan aid to pay for the new deal for F-16s, bombs, and missiles. It is likely to win few friends." "India may spend some $40 billion on weapons purchases over the next five years. High on the list is a contract for 126 jet fighters, with a possible price tag of over $10 billion. A State Department official announced the government will try to help win the order for a U.S. company. U.S. arms manufacturers are already lining up. Richard G. Kirkland, Lockheed Martin's president for South Asia, has claimed that "India is our top market" when it come to "potential for growth." The President of Raytheon Asia, Walter F. Doran, claims India may be "one of our largest, if not our largest, growth partner over the next decade or so."

 

The following can be found at http://www.actwin.com/eatonohio/gay/world.htm

It lists basically every country's laws regarding sodomy.

If opression of homosexuals in Iran is a driving force for any desire to attack them, then I would have to say…watch out India and Pakistan…yeah, right!

PAKISTAN
LAWS: 1. Homosexual activity is illegal, punishable with life in prison, and
corporal punishment of 100 lashes, while Islamic law, which also
can be enforced legally, calls for up to 100 lashes or death by
stoning.

INDIA
LAWS: 1. Male homosexual sex is forbidden by law, punishable with a maximum
sentence of life in prison.
COURT:1. On 9-2-04 the Delhi High Court dismissed a legal challenge to
Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, India's sodomy law. The
Court claimed that the validity of the sodomy law could not be
challenged by anyone "not affected by it." The case was filed by
two prominent Indian organizations that represent the interests
of men who have sex with men, the Naz Foundation International
and the National AIDS Control Organization. According to the
Court, since no sodomy charge had been filed against the groups,
they lacked standing to challenge the law. Section 377 punishes
acts of sodomy, buggery and bestiality. Although it criminalizes
these acts committed by anyone, the law is commonly used to target,
harass and punish lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons.
2. In December 2004 a judge in the city of Amritsar dismissed a case
against a lesbian couple saying there was no law that prevented
the women from living together. Homosexuality is illegal in India,
but lesbians are not specifically mentioned in the law the judge
noted. The two women, one 18, the other 25, say they were married
in a Hindu ceremony, but did not provide proof of the wedding,
according to Indian media reports. The women claimed their marriage
was performed according to Hindu rites, but police said they did
not believe Hindu priests would knowingly have allowed a same-sex
marriage. The couple was detained by police following a complaint
by the father of one of the women who told officers that his
neighbors had shunned the family after his daughter's sexuality was
known. The family of the other woman reportedly supports the couple.
Gay activists in India have tried with no avail for several years to
have the country's sodomy law overturned.
3. On 11-10-06 the Supreme Court dismissed a legal challenge to Section
377 of the Indian Penal Code, India's sodomy law, saying the law is
needed to deal with persons with perverse sexuality.

Friends:

Here is another exhibit in the Americans at their finest:

"Sex and the Single Issue Movement," Michael Bronski, Z Magazine, October, 2007 

Imagine how wet the Reading Lolita in Tehran - clique would become, were the story that Michael Bronski recounts from the Land of the Open Letter Signers to have occurred in one of the Tehran airport washrooms, and involved one of Iran's leading political or clerical figures? 

How many members of this clique do you think would have endorsed a statement condemning sexual repression (and the like) inside the Persian dungeon?

For a very good counterweight:

"Hands off Iran: Why Iranian women don't need rescuing by the US," Deepa Kumar, ZNet, October 3, 2007  

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Pangea, at least you do not try to defend Iran, and much of what you say makes sense, but you confuse state sponsored repression (most of the muslim world towards non-muslims, women, gays, etc.) in their countries, vs. non-state sponsored discrimination in most of the western world. Yes, blacks and hispanics face discrimination by people in the US (like most minorities in most of Europe, Roma, muslims, etc), but it is not STATE sanctioned with laws on the books. Again, not 100% in the US and Europe, but the best in history as far as STATE sponsored discrimination. We can hate Bush, but frankly he has the most diverse cabinet in history. Women, black, hispanic. At least on this point, credit where credit is due. This is an important distinction. I am sure in Norway most discrimination against minorities are from citizens NOT STATE sponsored.

btw, interesting take on Darfur which doesn't fit the overarching "genocide" narrative, so favored by NGOs and media organs headquartered in places like Manhattan (Nicholas Kristof's busybody prose, anyone?). Wonder if the presentation would have been as low-key had the 10 UN peacekeepers been from countries that are members of the "international community".

 

 

Ajit:

You know, Ajit, one that I will never grow tired of?

The Emperor's New Suit

Not even Chomsky & Herman combined could have laid out the critique of power and ideology -- and human nature -- with any greater clarity.

Truly one for the ages.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA 

I can't help but see another factor at work in the "oppression debate." The "I'm not personally oppressed, so there isn't any oppression in the USA." Almost always spoken by someone with a healthy bank account, though certainly not a requirement. This also reflects those studies of incarceration rates...us poor folk just can't catch a break. Jeffrey Rohde (why are the captcha words on this site so freakin'long?? Most others are a few letters or numbers, nothing like "215th Unexampled" geez...even captcha is keeping me down...sigh)

Jeffrey Rohde:

Great suff. 

Clearly, these images depict a people about whom the Secretary-General of the United Nations ought to be warned.   Perhaps by an open letter drafted along these lines (which I'm simply adapting from the two closing paragraph's of Akbar Ganji's Open Letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon):

Your Excellency,

    In your capacity as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, we expect you to reprimand the American government -- in keeping with your legal duties -- for its extensive violations of the Charter of the United Nations, the Nuremberg principles, the Geneva Conventions, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and other international covenants and treaties.  We hope that with Your Excellency's immediate intervention, all of the victims of America's wars of aggression, who are facing more dangerous and deplorable conditions with every passing day, will soon be rescued from the violence they face.
    The people of this world are entitled to freedom, democracy and human rights.  But they are asking themselves whether the UN Security Council is only decisive and effective when it comes to the suspension of the enrichment of uranium by weak states such as Iran, and whether the lives of the victims of the American state are unimportant as far as the Security Council is concerned.  
    We hope that the United Nations and all the forums that defend democracy, human rights, and peace above all will be unflinching in their support for our quest for these human goods.  We therefore ask you and all of the world's intellectuals and proponents of peace, liberty, and democracy to condemn the wars and the human-rights violations of the American state.

Yours sincerely,
_______________ .

This Open Letter is endorsed by:
_______________ .

 

<example> Religious Oppression <example>

 Wait!  These don't look like muslims to me!  Oh my...can it be...are we oppressive like Iran!?!

Nah, just our children.

 ta-ta... Jeffrey Rohde

I have to say it.

Religion.

We've moved into the realm of ethics and morality whether we like it or not. What we in the US see as oppression is totally muddled by our ignorance of the religious mindset and differences between religious groups in the Middle East. The majority of Americans are Christians (Protestant x-tians), we have to be willing to admit that this has a lot to do with how we look at the internal structure of these other cultures. People in the Middle East take religion MUCH more serious than we do in the US. These things we call oppression are inherent to their religious values. In addition, they don't want church and state removed from each other.

If the separation between church and state had not been implemented in the US, it would look (and act) much different than it does now. In fact it would look a lot like many of the "oppressive" state run theocracies we see in the Middle East. What is right and wrong always passes through the religious prism, our view of morality in the West is shaped by Christian ideals, and because of this we will always look and judge the religions of different cultures by the yard stick of our religion.

To talk about destroying oppressive regimes in other parts of the world is to talk about taking away aspects of their religious identify, values and beliefs. Do you think Christians in the US would stop their actions against homosexuals and people seeking reproductive freedom because some other country said what they are doing is oppressive to those groups?

 

*Jeffrey Rohde*

Kelvin et al.:

Your third paragraph (Thu, 2007-10-04 08:23) raises a topic of insatiable curiosity to me:

"Probation and Parole in the United States, 2005," Lauren E. Glaze and Thomas P. Bonczar, Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, November, 2006
"Prison and Jail Inmates at Midyear 2006," William J. Sabol et al., Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, June, 2007

Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration by Race and Ethnicity, Marc Mauer and Ryan S. King, Sentencing Project, July, 2007.  (Also see the accompanying News Release.  And the "Racial Disparity" webpage maintained by the Sentencing Project.)   

The findings?  The United States of America incarcerates blacks at a rate 5.6 times greater than it does whites. 

The moral imperative?  Clearly, any historical regime that deprives so high a percentage of its citizens of their liberty, and does so along such racially-conscious lines, deserves to be wiped off the map of the world.

And as Iran does not suffer from the exact same problem, do you suppose that Iranians are taking to the streets of Tehran to protest these failures in the USA?

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

To the Eternally Vigilant Among Us:

How about if we adopt, as our criterion for measuring oppression -- and therefore for identifying the historical regimes that deserve our opprobrium -- all socially sanctioned customs whereby women are impelled to wear something other than themselves when they appear in public spaces?

  

 

 

 

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

First I will criticise unnamed people on this blog. It seems we are suffering from a "the enemy of our enemy is our friend"-syndrome. I'm not an expert on Iran, and won't pretend to be one. However, it is well-known that it is a fairly repressive regime. It's not the worst in the world, but clearly there is more freedom in the US than in Iran. Women don't have a lot of rights (as in most Islamic countries), and civil rights don't have a great standing. We should recognize that, but also remember that claims from the US/West originate from a geopolitical viewpoint, not a moral one. Thus, they are likely to be exaggerations or even outright lies. And as we know, civil rights in the West have taken a nosedive since the post-9/11 dictats from various countries' regimes, particularly so in the US. Much can be criticized in the US as well. Homosexuals don't exactly have a lot of rights in the US either, so the US are in no position to lecture Iran on this issue. Not Norway (my country) either, as homosexuals are not even allowed to marry - let alone all the other various forms of oppression/mistreatment (lesser chance of jobs, getting dirty looks etc etc). Obviously not as bad as getting killed (though there are also that in the West, called "hate-crime"), but the United States isn't exactly a heaven for homosexuals either. I wanted to throw up a quote from an old American intellectual about war, but I can't find it right now. I'm sure you've heard about it. Chomsky sometimes uses it. It goes something like this: "War is the ultimate evil, because all other evils follow in its path". Surely not an accurate quote, but that's the gist of it. For this reason, one could obviously argue that the US is a much worse oppressor than Iran. We can be quite sure Iran have not murdered more than a million homosexuals, women and criminals in the last 4 years. As mentioned by David, Iran have not invaded other countries since the Islamic Revolution. They have however been invaded once, and threatened heavily lately. Invaded by Iraq (with US support) in 1980, and threatened by invasion almost on a daily basis recently by the West, with the US in the lead. We should also keep in mind that the US and its clients already surround Iran. Take a look at a map. Locate Iran. Then locate Saudi-Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Iraq, Pakistan, India, Afghanistan. I'm sure I have forgotten some too. Then try to put yourself in an Iranian's shoes. You are literally surrounded in all directions and are getting threats from the only superpower in the world that they want to attack you. Wouldn't you be a bit worried? Iran is a repressive regime. Let there be no doubt about that. But so is also the US regime, and many other regimes around the world. To take a recent event. Do you think Iran is more or less repressive than Burma? North-Korea? Saudi-Arabia? Syria? Israel? As Chomsky eloquently have said, "compared with Saudi-Arabia, Iran looks like a democratic heaven" (paraphrased from memory). And do keep in mind Saudi-Arabia is the US' most important ally in the region, behind Israel. You won't hear a peep from the US about repression in S-A, or demands of democracy. They know they would lose control of the oil, which is at the heart of all US actions and policies in the region. Which brings us back to the real reason the US is threatening to invade Iran. Let's try to lift the head a little bit and get an overview. What is most repressive? To repress a whole region (the Middle East) or to repress parts of your own country's population (ie homosexuals)? Do keep in mind though, that the US/West partly also does the latter, though not as badly. And do keep in mind the US is still oppressing its black and Hispanic populations, although less now than in the 60s. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

SGTR Said, 

Ajit, yes Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO are only fighting for their land - that's why all of there charters call for the killing of Jews and the complete distruction of Israel. Yes, all they want is their land, which is precisely why they didn't care about their land when they were ruled by Jordan and Egypt and why no one is complaining about Syria's influence in Lebanon. Oh, that probably also explains why there is no nationalization movement in Jordan where over 60% of the Palestinian popluation lives! Just because you have an Arab sounding name doesn't mean you need to be biggot.

    Your ignorance is amusing. So you are worried about Hamas  charter calling for killing of jews and alleged destruction of Israel. But look at Israel, they actually are doing the same to Palestinians.

No one is complaining about Syria's meddling in Lebanon? What the fuck are you talking about. The fact is not many in Lebanon likes Syria. And even in Syria nobody likes the regime. It is a very corrupt and very repressive regime run by Security Forces. And sooner or later it would be overthrown by it's own people. They don't need you. First try to learn something about the region before talking like an expert. You can have a great career in TV. Know nothings like you are in great demand.

            And finally learn to spell the word  bigot. And Ajit is not an Arab sounding name. Neither am I an Arab.

  

see what happen SGTR when you don't take your meds? you, again come up with more non-sense. David did not try to compare the oprpessiveness of the US; I did, and personally I think it would be an insult to Iran to even compare to your shit regime in the US. Of course the US is more oppressive, it is the country that does the threatening and begins wars; its supported dictators to the detriment of democracy. SGTR there is nothing more oppressive than war. Also should the US start the bombing, you'll kill more homosexuals than the Muslim regime in Iran! Your regime SGTR is run by lunatics and these lunatics are bending over to oil and military corporations. The US is the source of the problem in the middle east; you should just stay home and shake off the lunacy of yours.

David, you have absolutely reached a new low by attempting to compare Iranian domestic policy with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and inferring the U.S. is as oppressive as Iran. As Carla once asked Diana on "Cheers," What color is the sky in your world?

Ajit, yes Hezbollah, Hamas, and the PLO are only fighting for their land - that's why all of there charters call for the killing of Jews and the complete distruction of Israel. Yes, all they want is their land, which is precisely why they didn't care about their land when they were ruled by Jordan and Egypt and why no one is complaining about Syria's influence in Lebanon. Oh, that probably also explains why there is no nationalization movement in Jordan where over 60% of the Palestinian popluation lives! Just because you have an Arab sounding name doesn't mean you need to be biggot.

Hi David- This for Anonymouses again. We could line up Saudi Arabia as one of the most repressive, apparently women don't even have the right to drive a car and the truth is that many of these women would take it as an insult just to have to drive car. a Lot of them are really educated, yet again they would take it as an insult if they had to work.. In Iran apparently women have the right to work, but many of them don't want too work at all. In Koweit an non-muslim women have absolutely no right, killing a non-muslim women is not prosecuted. That is repressive. Also Kuwait is under a dictactorship. In the US if a country does not sell oil to Britain or the US, this country becomes candidate for bombing, invasion and destruction; this look the most repressive of all. I wonder is there is such thing as free health care in Iran and in Iraq.. anonymous, i just checked, there is basic free health care in Iran, you dont have such thing IN THE US in 2007! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Iran In Saudi Arabia it has also free health care , actually it has no army but it has health care.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Saudi_Arabia I don't know anonymous, when you can brag having health care for your homosexuals and women , then may be you should be allowed to talk about human rights..

Big deal anonymous.. You would start a war, transform Iran into another parking lot because YOU FEEL like putting your hand on a man's leg. The first human right there is Anonymous is the right not to be murdered and at the very least not to be taken than less of a person when countless of innocent civilians are bombed and shots and then later being labeled accidental casualities.. Of course there are homosexuals in Iran, they just don't show it publicly. As far as women's rights are concerned. women may have to wear veils in public, however in their home, they are free to walk and have sex the same way as our women do. You may find this disrespectful but here in our free world, women are sold for sex by pimp, pornagraphy is everywhere, there is exploitation of women and sex in general; On this account above, you can see that in n lots of ways, Iranians treat their women way more respectuously than our culture does with the prostitution of women. There is no such thing in Iran. Again, bombing Iran or trying to overtrow its government won't help women's cause in Iran, just look at what happened to Afghanistan and Iraq. women got it worst since the illegal war imposed by the Brits and the US.. They got it worst because their right under Islam is still same and on top of being murdered , raped, displaced, they have lost the right to normal life on top of having lost family members.. so you can see why I don't give a damn about signatories US soldiers whom loose their life in Iraq and Afghanistan. US soldiers should not be part of illegal wars and the only US soldier that are heroes in my opinion are the one who desert this butchery. Also internal politics and cultures of Iran and even its trades or to whom it decide to sell oil are the affairs of Iranians not the affairs of the United States i.e its not your fucking business. ( sorry for repeating myself)

Anonymous:

But you need to tell me what features of the Iranian regime and more generally of life within Iran -- a country of some 65 million different people -- make it "one of the most repressive regimes in the world"? 

Draw up a short list. 

For example, over the course of the past five years, has the Iranian legal system and customary practices led to the execution of more homosexuals, drug traffickers, dissidents, and women who engage in sexual relations outside of marriage to their husbands than the Washington regime has killed unarmed women and children inside Afghanistan and Iraq?  Roughly the same number?  Fewer?

Exactly what does it mean to say one regime ranks among the "most repressive" in the world?

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Very well put Jeffrey! I very much agree with you. I'll repeat what I wrote in a different blog post. The US now pins everything that goes wrong on Iran and Ahmadinejad. They always like to have an enemy number one they can blame everything on. In the 50s and 60s (especially around the Suez crisis), the West pinned everything on Nasser. "We" even blamed the attack on Egypt and Suez on Nasser! Can you believe that? For those not in the know, Britan, France and Israel knocked their heads together in a plot to oust Nasser and get control of the Suez Canal. All three attacked Egypt within days. It ended up as a total disaster for the "axis", and Nasser had absolutely nothing to do with it. I've yet to see any convincing evidence Iran are "meddling" in Iraqi affairs. The whole claim is so stupid I find it hard to believe the media can utter it without falling to the floor laughing. Who are "meddling" in Iraqi affairs? I can think of quite a few Western countries........ There is no such thing as a free media in the West. It's utter bullshit. There are mountain ranges of evidence to back this up. Just to take one small example. Today there was a report about North Korea closing down its nuclear weapons programme. Great. But that's all they said. Not drawing any lines to all the other nuclear powers that won't even allow inspections. When will the US close down its nuclear programme? When will they allow inspectors? When will the "free media" report on this? I'm getting so disillusioned with the media, I can barely watch the news a few times a week, nor read newspapers. Sure, you're able to find some decent info, but you normally have to read between the lines to get anything useful from the articles or reports. They will never, okay rarely, outright say it. But to get back to Iran. Sure, Iran has a horrible regime, and I'd love to see a more democratic and progressive leadership in place. But we have to keep in mind we are the reason there is not democracy in Iran. When they nationalised oil, we ripped their democracy apart. Then we are shocked when our dictator is thrown out. With all the atrocities and crimes we have committed in the Middle East, we should be happy bombs aren't going off every day in our capitals. Colonialism was supposed to end in the 60s and 70s. But that is an illusion. We are still the colonial masters of the Middle East. Pangaea Oslo, Norway

I was just reading "Greenspan's Dark Legacy Unmasked" by Stephen Lendman on Znet top and thought of this blog topic on reading this line: "Greenspan's Background and Tenure as Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan grew up in New York, got his B.A. and M.A. in economics from New York University and later was awarded a Ph.D. in economics from Columbia without completing a dissertation the degree usually requires. In a highly unusual move, Columbia made an exception in his case." My conclusion is that Greenspan is in good company with the Shah and Pervez Musharraf! I might see if I can find out if Bollinger ever had Greenspan speak, and if so how he was introduced.

I love how Ahmad's comments denying the existence of homosexuals (I'm sure you all heard this doozy of a line), and the well documented repression of homosexuals in Iran is ignored by the Iran lovers / US & (and what really gets the juices flowing) Israel haters. Why? Because you can bend over backwards justifying all of Iran's actions, but this one simply has no defense. (Wait, can we blame this one on Israel also? hmmm....the Israel Lobby did not create homosexuals. Me and my Jewish friends are going to get together and work on this one tonight, after we decide which foreign currency to take down next month.)

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal (gasp!) yesterday about this topic. It makes sense to condemn the war in Iraq (Bush's personal vendetta, although glad to see Saddam go) and a possible war in Iraq -- I mostly agree on these points. But to defend one of the most repressive regimes in the world is also wrong. From executions of minors to homosexuals to no freedom of anything (forget about supporting entities that specifically target civilians, i.e Hamas and Hezbollah), it get's harder and harder to defend. Why not move to Iran, you'd probably get the welcome mat?

SGTR said,  

Take the blinders off. The last time Hezzbolah struck. The last time Hamas struck. The last time Al Qaeda struck. The last time an Iranian produced land mine was used in Iraq or Afghanistan. The list certainly goes on.

   It is not Hezzbolah. It is spelled Hezbollah. And for your kind information, It is fighting against Israeli occupation of their lands, Israeli invasion of Lebanon, Israeli kidnapping of Lebanese civilians( some of them in Israeli prisons for decades with no end in sight).

 Hamas is also fighting against Israeli Occupation of their lands. The International Law(ever heard of that? SGTR) recognizes the right of people to resist occupation.

  The same thing about Iranian landmines in Afghanistan or Iraq. I must add the Western warmongers have not presented conclusive evidence for it. 

 

And finally, your pathetic attempt to link Al Qaeda to Iran. You sir, Are an Idiot.

 

Bollinger would never dare to talk like that to Saudi King or Jordan's Hashemite joker. The fragrance of endowment is too much for him in such situations. Free speech takes a back seat to endowment.

    I would say Bollinger is the perfect example of a Totalitarian Intellectual. He makes sure his priorities are perfectly in line with the State. If Iran made peace with US in the next two years and suppose Ahmadinejad comes to Columbia then Bollinger will give a fawning , respectful address.

    He is not alone in this. Almost all mainstream intellectuals are like this. They can't distinguish between themselves and the State. You had Max Frankel who when asked about his newspaper's coverage NYT in Vietnam war, responded "We represent the Establishment. When the establishment changes, We too change" or words to that effect.  A perfect epitaph on  servants of Power aka  Mainstream Intellectuals.

When was the last time Iran was involved in an act of aggression? Take the blinders off. The last time Hezzbolah struck. The last time Hamas struck. The last time Al Qaeda struck. The last time an Iranian produced land mine was used in Iraq or Afghanistan. The list certainly goes on. As someone who is a dissident of sorts, actively writes on Znet, and enjoys life on the Southside of Chicago (Hyde Park?), David, it is beyond reproach for you to try to equate the oppression of Iran, Iraq, or the muslim nation as a whole to life in the U.S., Canada, or Europe.

Frederic:

Elsewhere, you've asked (Tue, 2007-10-02 21:25): "What CAN Iran/Ahmadinejad be criticized for, fairly?"

One of the problems that we face in the United States is that disinformation is a near rule rather than an exception.  Witness how Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was handled by Columbia University's President and Dean of its School of International and Public Affairs.  And then, in turn, how this was handled by the U.S. news media.

"Ahmadinejad's Columbia Speech Stirs Protest," Victoria Cavaliere, Voice of America, September 24, 2007 
"Fiery give and take for Iran's president Ahmadinejad draws protest," Farah Stockman, Boston Globe, September 25, 2007
"A campus buzzes with protest and political debate," Karen W. Arenson, New York Times - IHT, September 25, 2007
"Ahmadinejad, at Columbia, Parries and Puzzles," Helene Cooper, New York Times-IHT, September 25, 2007
"Columbia's Conceit," Bret Stephens, Wall Street Journal, September 25, 2007
"Ahmadinejad's Day One in New York: A Hostile Reception, a Rambling Talk," Anthony Faiola and Robin Wright, Washington Post, September 25, 2007
"Charlie Rose interviews President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran," The Charlie Rose Show, PBS, September 24, 2006 (as posted by the International Herald Tribune)

Instead, let me reproduce here several paragraphs from an open letter drafted by the Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji and submitted late last month to the UN Secretary-General -- in what follows, Ganji's "you" refers to Ban Ki-moon:

Domestically, a despotic state has -- through constant and organised repression -- imprisoned them in a life-and-death situation....
…………
[A]lthough the 1979 revolution of Iran was a popular revolution, it did not lead to the formation of a democratic system that protects human rights.

The Islamic Republic is a fundamentalist state that does not afford official recognition to the private sphere. It represses civil society and violates human rights. Thousands of political prisoners were executed during the first decade after the revolution without fair trials or due process of the law, and dozens of dissidents and activists were assassinated during the second decade. Independent newspapers are constantly being banned and journalists are sent to prison. All news websites are filtered and books are either refused publication permits or are slashed with the blade of censorship before publication.

Women are totally deprived of equality with men and, when they demand equal rights, they are accused of acting against national security, subjected to various types of intimidation and have to endure various penalties, including long prison terms.

In the first decade of the 21st century, stoning (the worst form of torture leading to death) is one of the sentences that Iranians face on the basis of existing laws. A number of Iranian teachers, who took part in peaceful civil protests over their pay and conditions, have been dismissed from their jobs and some have even been sent into internal exile in far-flung regions or jailed.

Iranian workers are deprived of the right to establish independent unions. Workers who ask to be allowed to form unions in order to struggle for their corporate rights are beaten and imprisoned. Iranian university students have paid the highest costs in recent years in defence of liberty, human rights and democracy. Security organisations prevent young people who are critical of the official state orthodoxy from gaining admission into university, and those who do make it through the rigorous ideological and political vetting process have no right to engage in peaceful protest against government policies.

If students' activities displease the governing elites, they are summarily expelled from university and in many instances jailed. The Islamic Republic has also been expelling dissident professors from universities for about a quarter of a century. In the meantime, in the Islamic Republic's prisons, opponents are forced to confess to crimes that they have not committed and to express remorse. These confessions, which have been extracted by force, are then broadcast on the state media in a manner reminiscent of Stalinist show-trials.

There are no fair, competitive elections in Iran; instead, elections are stage- managed and rigged. And even people who find their way into parliament and into the executive branch of government have no powers or resources to alter the status quo. All the legal and extra-legal powers are in the hands of Iran's supreme leader, who rules like a despotic sultan.

Are you aware that in Iran political dissidents, human-rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners are legally deprived of "the right to life"? On the basis of Article 226 of the Islamic penal law, and note 2 of paragraph E of section B of Article 295 of the same law, any person can unilaterally decide that another human being has forfeited the right to life (mahduroldam) and kill them in the name of performing one's religious duty to rid society of vice. Over the past few decades, many dissidents and activists have been killed on the basis of this article and the killers have been acquitted in court. In such circumstances, no dissident or activist has a right to life in Iran, because, on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence and the laws of the Islamic Republic, the definition of those who have forfeited the right to life is very broad.

Are you aware that, in Iran, writers are lawfully banned from writing? On the basis of note 2 of paragraph 8 of Article 9 of the press law, writers who are convicted of "propaganda against the ruling system" are deprived for life of "the right to all press activity". In recent years, many writers and journalists have been convicted of propaganda against the ruling system. The court's verdicts make it clear that any criticism of state bodies is deemed to be propaganda against the ruling system.

These are points worth discussing.  Though as they do not directly address laws, norms, and actions for which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad himself can be held responsible, they still provide a very poor answer to your question.

One question that I'd ask, every time I hear remarks about the vileness of life in Iran, is this: Mutatis mutandis, how much of it applies to life in the United States?  To life in Canda?  Throughout the European Union's member states?

A second question I'd ask is something to this effect: When was the last time Iran committed the crime of aggression against another country?  Does Tehran's military encircle the globe?  Does Tehran employ the threat or use of force "diplomatically" to get what it wants from other states?And so on.

David Peterson
Chicago, USA

Friends:

In Lee C. Bollinger's September 19 "Statement About President Ahmadinejad's Scheduled Appearance," Bollinger previewed six "sharp challenges" that he promised to raise with Ahmadinejad when intoducing him on September 24:

- the Iranian president's denial of the Holocaust;
- his public call for the destruction of the State of Israel;
- his reported support for international terrorism that targets innocent civilians and American troops;
- Iran's pursuit of nuclear ambitions in opposition to international sanction;
- his government's widely documented suppression of civil society and particularly of women's rights; and
- his government's imprisoning of journalists and scholars, including one of Columbia's own alumni, Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh (see President Bollinger's statement on Dr. Kian Tajbakhsh's release).

Mutatis mutandis, how many of these kinds of challenges could Bollinger -- or any honest person -- raise with the leaderships of the regimes in Islamabad, Tel Aviv -- and, last but not least, Washington? 

And in comparative terms, how much greater or lesser weight do you think this interrogator would have to give to each of these six challenges when raising them with these three regimes?

David Peterson
Chicago, USA 

David, it's simple: Musharraf is our "ally". A friend of mine in my freshman year, he's now actually a student in Columbia, put it best when he told me, "My university president is a douche-bag."

Listen X32Y, every country supports fighting, whatever way you decide to describe the way the fighting is done is moot. Really, anyone who uses the phrase "supports terrorism" obviously has no idea what they are talking about. The word "terror" is nothing but a valuation, it can be used to describe the same situation from any angle you are looking at it. The people fighting against you are always the terrorists, and you and your allies are the counter/anti terrorists. There is no content to the word, just a way to describe what side you are on. Now that we know you have picked a side and defend it in this manner, we can disregard your comments because they are vacuous...go join a seminary, they are always looking for uneducated side takers to spew rhetoric.

What I think David is pointing out is obvious. Bollinger is a fool. A side taking, anti-Iranian (or whomever is demonized by the US currently) who can provide us with nothing but Ad Hominum arguments. His attacks on the President of Iran show the third grade playground attitude that is endemic throughout the "intellectual class."

Blah...I'm still reeling from the number of times I saw the word "evil" used in description of Ahmadinejad. This is disrespect of the highest order, and in the poorest taste.

Evil and terrorism are worthless words, suitable for only people who have already chosen the side they think will benefit them most, instead of benefiting the world as a whole.

Until next time...

Jeffrey Rohde

David, are you trying to say that the President of Iran who currently supports terrorism and the President of Pakistan who currently fighs terrorism are somehow equal in a political sense? What are you upset about?