Iranian Election Continued (Part 2)

Nima Maleki on rabble's blog has definitely been clear that the killings and abuses of protesters are horrific.  this is where the focussed world of protests highlights problems.  they become very clear.

there are two more articles at asia times this morning, as i've been directed there by NM writing on Escobar, and also by babblers.

the first is a very interesting article by Shahir Shahidsaless, that includes some discussion of $ and the oil issue;

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF19Ak04.html

here's Escobar's item today, which includes a new helpful list of demands from the protesters ;

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF19Ak04.html

It seems that the protesters are working very hard to get an honest electoral process, non-violence, and changes to their constitution through (hopefully) a process that will ultimately realize their goals.  that is the door they want to keep open.

that is where the potential lies for something different than the current chains, or other chains.

An excellent discussion of the situation in Iran by Reza Fiyouzat can be found at:

http://revolutionaryflowerpot.blogspot.com/2009/06/cant-keep-good-people...

"The people may have taken to the streets under the excuse of the election and may have been encouraged by the rhetoric of the 'reformist' camp in favor of some breathing room in the suffocating political and cultural atmosphere imposed on them, but they have forced the debate further...the people in short have moved beyond Mousavi and the reformists, but are still willing to go along with the tactics formulated by reformist leaders; for the moment.

"Most likely a heavy hand is just around the corner, trying on some spiked gloves. For the time being though, hundreds of thousands of people in Iran are opting not to 'bite the bullet' and move on, but to make a movement  and even take bullets. A much more courageous stand that generates a lot more inspiration."

Huffpost has some great pictures up and is reporting that more than a million people are in the streets of Tehran protesting again today. There was a demonstration of mourning as well today for all of those killed while protesting, or while in their dorm rooms.

I think Catchfire's OP is totally off the mark. Yes, it is impossible to verify what is being posted on Twitter but that is the point. Foreign journalists are banned - although Robert Fisk is standing out in showing his courage and dedication to journalism. It is undeniable that the uncontrollable ways that the internet can be used have mattered a great deal in organizing these massive protests and telling the outside world what is going on. Independant reports like Fisk's are confirming a lot of it in terms of numbers, brutal violence by the government, etc.

I wonder if sanizadeh is joining in the protests and hope she/he (?) is able to provide more on-the-ground updates.

And, if the protests continue, the fascist thugs running that country will soon unleash violence.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Ghislaine, the point of the OP is that Twitter does nothing for Iranians, and everything for our benefit. Iranian protestors are being beaten, shot and killed, but if we tint our twitter profile green we're somehow taking part? Imagine the look on Iranian children's faces when they are told that a bunch of Canadian students with green avatars have changed their timezone to UTC +3:30 in solidarity. What comfort it must give them. If a million Iranians are marching in the street, how many do you think have iPhone with a twitter app installed and have the techno savvy to use IP proxies?

Here: Iranians, as always, can take care of themselves. They don't need a cheeky American startup retweeting the latest bullshit.

Wow, that is interesting Josh, as I heard on last night's news that he was softening and was having a meeting with dissident leader's on Saturday.

I agree cue!

What is 'fascism', Sven?

And, more importantly, how have you evaded the fascist thugocracy that runs babble such that you still have a tagline?

I guess I would call it an authoritarian theocracy. But you didn't answer my second, more pressing question.

No, it's not that they're banned--it was my understanding that the software no longer allows us to have one. Yet somehow yours remains. Weird.

Well, in a highly educated country with a young, affluent, tech savvy urban populace..............

I'm in suspense to see what ends up happening in Iran, but I would be thrilled if there was a mass storming of the Bastille and that pig Khamanei was torn to pieces in public - no I take that back, I oppose the death penalty. I'd like to see a secular revolution in Iran that is devoted to social justice and democratic freedoms and if all the mullahs were put on trial for crimes against humanity and put into solitary confinement for life - preferably with a TV that just endlessly shows gay pride marches from around the world.

Of course I don't expect that to happen, but its a fun fantasy - kinda like thinking that the Berlin Wall would be torn down or that there would be majority rule in South Africa.

I'm not sure it makes a whole helluva lot of difference if the presidential election in Iran was legit or not -- not when the real leaders of the country are unelected and unimpeachable theocrats.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

With pleasure. Just came back to Canada yesterday. I cannot claim I have all the information and updates you may need, as most tools of communication was largely shut down or slowed down there. So my information are limited to what I saw or heard from others.

A few points:

1) Twitter: only used to send the information out, but it is not a common method of communication in Iran, and it is filtered any way. Those who access it probably use proxies. This is mostly a cell phone revolution rather than a twitter revolution. SMS service is then since a week ago. Cell phone and Internet system is slow, and the TV channels show old comedies or interview suporters of the regime.

2) I can only describe the situation in Iran as reminiscent of the 1979 Iranian revolution, with the same widespread support and means. Though whether it would have the same results, depends on the government reaction. Mousavi has balls; he was personally walking with people in most of the protests in Tehran, something Khatami never did ten years ago.  But this regime is no shah, and has the experience from 1979.

3) Protests are real large scale; had never seen anything like that since 1979. Protestors are very creative. In one protest in Tehran everyone was walking in absolute silence for an hour or so. I read some people question the grassroot nature of the protests and are looking for "organizations" behind it; no need for that. In Iran we are used to grassroot mobilization; the revolutionary regime trained us for it for 30 years, largely for their own rallies. Now it is used against themProtests are peaceful in Tehran, so if Stokholm is waiting for a Bastille attack he is going to be disappointed. We had a violent revolution 30 years ago; it did not get us anywhere. Now we are trying different methods. Most of the violence comes from small groups of paramilitary supporters of the government (e.g. attacks on Tehran, Isfahan and Shiraz Universities and some attacks on apartment buildings where people were chanting against the government); though the police tries to contain them.

4) One novel characteristic of the protests this time is that it is not limited to one city. There has been mass rallies in most big cities across the country. I am still looking for the 64% who supposedly voted for Ahmadinejad. Even in rural areas I went to (in Caspian sea region) I could not find much support for Ahmadinejad (except the poor neighborhoods of Tehran). I actually think his support comes more from poor religious urban areas than rural areas, farmers and villagers who have been hit hard by his economic mismanagement.

5) As you can imagine, I find reports by western news agencies as so simplistic that is almost unbearable. This is not about moderate vs. hardline, western-backed vs. western opposed, or even entirely about this specific election. The problem with vote has merely become a vehicle to channel the anger against this regime. This is about giving the regime one more chance to change itself, with leaders from within regime pushing for change. If this attempt fails, the next one may be a lot more violent.

And no, the US has no horse in this election. This is an entirely "made in Iran" movement. Where it leads, I don't know. But honestly once more I feel proud of the bravery and maturity of my people.

Thanks for the update, sanizadeh.  It's far more informative than all the blabbering and speculation in the traditional media.

Genocide, Gracie?  A ways to go until we get to that point.  Brutality and repression is more like it.

That is kind of the impression I get of the Basiji too. It's like someone found all the tough-guy teenagers and cranky older men, gave them police batons and told them to go have fun.

Anyway...something a bit more serious and something where we can do something to help. Various embassies in Tehran are now offering basic medical assistance and a safe place to recover for injured protesters since injured people going to hospitals are being disappeared. Canada is not using our embassy in this way yet. Another fine decision of Canada's New Government.

iranian woman are free to do as they please, just as I am free to express what I would like to see happen. You certainly don't hesitate to pontificate about what you think should happen in many countries outside of Canada.

So are you still a fan of Ayatollah Khamanei? Is he part of your pantheon of heros alongside Che Guevara and Trotsky?

There are no women in the religious police in Iran - its all thuggish sadistic men that are the Iranian equivalent of storm troopers in Nazi Germany. Their idea of a fun day is humiliating and beating up women (and then probably fucking each other)

You haven't answered my question about whether you are still a supporter of the ayatollah? Will you be crestfallen if the Iranian people rise up and depose the dictatorship and through all the mullahs in jail for crimes against humanity? Will you need a shoulder to cry on if and when that happens?

You really think these "when did you stop beating your wife interogations wash with anyone"?

I just don't happen to think it is my particular station in the world to tell Iranians how to live. You, someone with a very typical western elitist orientalist mindset, believe you can tell anyone how it is they should live, by devine right, in the light of our blessed superiority. I have consistently stood for one thing, and that is that the Iranian people have the right to self-determination, free of outside influence, that includes the rights of women to define their own struggle, in their own culture for their own rights, in terms they set for themselves.

You seem to think women will only be free in Iran when they are back to wearing gobs of lipstick and miniskirts.

As for the various ad hoc unofficial militias. There are most definitely women who have simillar unofficial volunteer "militia" who act to enfore the religious prohibition of the country. And indeed even official police forces:

I believe in CHOICE. If some women in Iran want to dress that that rather scary looking phalanx in the picture above - all the more power to them. But if other women CHOOSE to wear lipstick and mini-skirts - that is their choice as well. All I want is for people to have the freedom to dress as they please.

Right now, we have no way of knowing what Iranian women want because they don't live in a democracy and their civil rights are drastically curtailed. We don't know much about what men in Iran want either for the same reason.

and I'm sorry call it "western superiority" if you want but I find various laws in Iran to be evil crimes against humanity - period - these include death penalties for homosexuality, death penalties for adultery, restrictions on attire, having fascist police pistol whipping and humiliating people for whatever reason they want. We can't just throw up our hands at every loathsome crime against huminity in the world by saying "who am I to judge their culture". If we took that attitude we could say that we had no right to criticise Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge since maybe killing one third of the population of his own country was just an innocent manifestation of Khmer culture the we simply don't understand.

I am not Iranian and I don't live in Iran, but I am a citizen of the planet earth and so are the people of Iran and I have as much right to express an OPINION about what's going on there as anyone else.

we don't know if these are regular police as opposed to "religious" police. I suspect that there is some sort of women's auxilary to the regular police to deal with the fact that men aren't allowed to touch women so someone has to deal with female criminals. Anyways, its not exactloy news that some women can be fascist enablers as well. If the Nazis could have Ilse Koch - then I guess the mullahs probably have some sadistic women who do a share of the dirty work as well.

So are you still a supporter of the Ayatollah (or maybe we should call him the "Shah" since he's every bit as despotic).?

I see you're going to great length to avoid stating whether you support the Ayatollah. I guess I will take the non-response as a YES.

Okay, youve outed me. I am a secret admirer of the Ayatollah and all the US meddling that's occurred in that country's political affairs since Mossadegh. And Clintonites and pragmatic centrists like myself were secret supporters of Izetbegovic-Fedayeen-CIA's radicalization of Bosnia in the 90's. Charade I am I am.

I agree. The women are free in Iran. They could wear lipstick and jeans if they wanted to, just like the women in Afghanistan did for a while in the 1960's to the 80's before the totally fabulous CIA-Saudi makeover of that country.

Iran does not have a special "religious" police like Saudi. There was a special "Komite" force that was merged into regular police in late 80s. The regular police now handles all issues including veils and lipsticks etc.

BTW it seems several different groups are being confused with each other here. The tough, burly guys you see in most pictures from past week are the anti-riot squad. Those guys are especially hired and trained for that purpose. Bassij is a volunteer force whose members are mostly young local men and teenagers and are associated with local neighborhood mosque. It has a loose hierarchy and is mostly local. Then there are special paramilitary groups who do not officially operate as part of revolutionary guards or bassij, but do the dirty works when called upon. They are probably in the range of a few hundreds in Tehran and motivated by religious or revolutionary zeal, connected to specific hardline figures behind the scene and operate based on their orders. This last group is alleged to have been responsible for attacks on university dorms in 1999 and last week.

I fail to grasp this obsession with makeup and veils. The rules for "how women should look" in Canada are just as oppressive as the ones in Iran, I suspect. It's just that in one case they're imposed legally and in the other they're imposed socially and economically. Miniskirts and makeup are not freedom! (Let me parenthetically note that one of the first things many "formerly communist" countries did was hold beauty contests. Right. Rejoicing in their "freedom". I don't call that freedom.) In any case, "how women dress" is not what is fundamentally important here. 

Thanks for your comments, sanizadeh. 

Really? Are you at risk of getting beaten up or imprisoned if you dress in a way others don't like?
I acknowledge there can be workplace restrictions and societal pressures, but, as for me, as much as possible I wear what I feel comfortable in.  It's up to you to not be a weak willed person that bows to silly societal pressures.  You have that opportunity here, in Iran you don't.  If you don't think that is a major difference... 

Go back to bed Cueball, your brain is still there.

Your comparing what SOME prostitutes in Canada MIGHT experience from SOME police, MAYBE - to ironclad LAWS in Iran that restrict every aspect of daily life for 100% of women - including the certainty of being beaten a tortured for being caught in public without a veil. What next? are you going to tell us that because Robert Dzeikanski was tasered, Canada's record on human rights is no different from Cambodia under Pol Pot???

Now you want to talk about Cambodia? Pffft. You are ridiculous.

Riiight, there's no difference between a degree of social conformity, which sells makeup and clothes, and conformity backed up by state officials who can have you arrested for wearing makeup or showing your ankles in public.

Would you like to go out to Iran and live there Rosa?  Of course not, and neither would Cueball or Sanizadeh. 

(BTW, miniskirts have been out of fashion for at least thirty five years, another difference between fashion and state imposed laws)

the worst someone could say if a woman reveals "too much" is that "she is a slut" or a "whore" or so on and on. She would also be more likely to receive unwanted sexual advances.

But there are generally more freedom for women in Canada, in terms of how we choose to dress , that much is obvious.

Women have been arrested for not wearing a top in a public place. Rightly, this was recently rejected in an Ontario court. But not because a woman has a right to wear whatever she wants and go topless if she wants, but because the act itself could not be deemed to be "obscene". The deinition of "obscenity", is entirely culturally defined, and in no way an objective standard.

Breastfeeding was oconsidered too obscene by facebook not long ago. Even in Canada, i speak for myself, i would pay attention to what i wear. I think dressing conservative gain me more respect, whereas if i dress up with  make up and wear more revealing clothes, some men see that as a signal that they can get away with doing things that they otherwise wouldn't.

And obviously, the older women get, the less acceptable it is for us to not cover up ourselves.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.  You seemed to be arguing to Stockholm above that there is no 'objective standard', that because of culture differences people in one place have no business judging what people in other places do, now you're complaining about the lack of objective standards.

So, in short your article boils down to "because women in Ontario weren't allowed to go topless for the reason that I thought they should have, nobody anywhere has a right to comment on what goes on in Iran, even if women are getting beaten up and tortured for not adhering to very strict standards of dress'.

I think, given then complete lack of logic in your above posts that I've distilled the essense of them about as well as could be done.

Right. But in your ignorance you call me a moron.

What I asserted was that Iranian women have the right to determine the manner of their own liberation, and that Stockholm's suggestion was chock full of so much western cultural bias that it would make Kipling red in the face to say it.

Please send as many complaints as you can. I would love to have the moderators take a look at this thread. They should add a "flag as stupid" button as well.

Iran is bad for gays and women, no doubt about it. Iran is deadly for homosexuals. shame on their leaders, i have no problem saying that.

1.Stockholm exposed the logical fallacy.

2.So, you knew that your argument was logically flawed and you chose to write the post anyway?  I believe that is known as trolling.It actually wouldn't suprise me if your some freeper right winger who just comes here to try and troll, it would explain the lack of thought put into your posts.

3.Could you please tell me how Iranian women are supposed to express this right?

4.If women are comfortable here choosing the current fashions to wear, then they are not being weak willed for wearing them. It was Rossal who said they felt they were under pressure to wear certain clothes/styles, and I said that it's up to people in those situations to resist that pressure, again recognizing that there are limits.  To take that and say "there is no difference between here and Iran" is ridiculous and demonstrably false merely by walking down the street and seeing the multiple clothing styles that differenet people (including women) wear. 

Our laws are invoked in the name of the Queen. That is just soooo much better.

If you'd simply stop posting there'd be no need to do that.

Forget about reasoning with "Cueball", you'll never get him to admit that there is anything bad about the fascist regime in Iran. Its a waste of oxygen to try.

I am usually pretty leftist, so i can identify with alot of what Cueball said, but I definately feel horrible for the reformists in Iran, even if they are supported by the U.S , at the same time, I am not an NDP partisan and i enjoy some rants by Cueball.

You stepped in with insults right off the bat. If anyone should be complaining it should be me. Not only that you continued with insults and contributed nothing but trolling posts to the thread continuously, up until post 4. You requested the existance of an "ignore feature" if you don't like what I post you could show enough of that famous will you were bragging about having, the kind that allows you to dress unconventionally at will, and simply not read what I post.

Bah humbug, yes, in my desire to post a witty response, wherein it is necessarily to keep the response short, I overlooked that my comment was so vague it could have referred to more than one thing.

I meant, if you'd stop posting there'd be no need for a 'flag as stupid' option.  You can complain all you like.

As to your other point.  I see we agree (I don't know if that is good or bad).  I will simply ignore you from now on, and I suggest everybody else here do the same.

Do you have to ask my permission?  Go ahead if you feel its warranted, I'm just letting certain people here know that rules of order or conduct should apply to everyone.

Cueball can still make some good points when he not playing games, but its not an easy situation to take sides is it?  When some insist that one side must be blameless because the other side is so bad I get irritated after awhile too, this kind of crap has been going on for years here, beginning with Kosovo.  I think most people, if properly informed, can find some sensible ground between accepting reactionary repression without protest or accepting that the USAF should "bomb them back to the stone age"...for the sake of the women and children.

Why don't you take your meta-converastion about me to PM, so that it does not really appear as a series of off topic trolling passive-agressive personal attacks.

After all these years Stockholm, I'm afriad I have to concur. Shouldn't matter much either, but the problem is that this POV now dominates this board to the exclusion of others, mostly because of the persistence and game playing, and it drives out any more interesting issues or angles to discuss.  Ones which could unearth more useful responses to these standoffs from the broader left-of-Harper.  Also driven out alot of the more nuanced voices here.

Many of us have put up with "off topic trolling passive aggressive personal attacks" (and often ACTIVE aggressive personal attacks) from you for a long time. Now all of a sudden you're getting a taste of your own medicine and you don't like it. Tough.

Meanwhile riots continue to rage in Iran against the fascist dictatorship. DXoes anyone have anything to say about that?

Please don't lecture me bout "personal attacks", I was just responding to someone else and filling them in on the background here, going back years.  There is such a thing as time in regards to understanding the context of conflicts.  I even offered you a half way compliment, which is about all I can do if youre never willing to admit theres something seriously wrong with the Iranian regime, even IF the Yankees are using this situation for their own political ends.  Let others say their bit and get on with it then this kind of never ending "debate" doesn't need to arise here every other day.

Oh, the unelected Mullahs represent "their" own cultural "norm" which must be respected, even if other Iranians, possibly the majority, have to be beaten or jailed to have it imposed on them?  Relativistic bunk.  Iran is no more naturally patriarchal or dictatorial than we are.  Its a matter of hierarchy imposed by force or propaganda, as it was under the Pahlevi Shah.  Its the same battle were still fighting here, with slightly subtler ground rules that fortunately allow us a bit more freedom to express dissent.  No thanks to our own fundies and technocrats.   Fortunately theres more than two choices allowed.

It is a reaction to what you and a few others have been arguing for years and continue on here.  If you want to make it more honest and forthright, then just tell us all now, do you or do you not agree that the Iranian Regime under the Ayatollahs represent an even more restrictive form of government than our own?  Which in no way admits any necessity for "the West" to invade them or nuke them or whatever.  Simple question from one of those who's seen this argument here hundreds of times before, to no good end, but one which could end these diversions right now.

Yes yes, but in respect to the many capabilities of the women of Iran, how are they supposed to "rebel" if the government has all the weapons and troops and judges and control the means of mass communication?  That has become a bit of an easy trope on the post-Chomsky left, IMV.  Most rebellions need some outside help starting out, if that is what this is and if of course we could support it without other malevelant interests taking over.  That I think could be a valid arena for debate on the left.  Anyhow, I have to go for now, I have other things to attend to.

The situation in Iran is a very difficult one. On the one hand we have an agressive United States, virtually surrounding the country. On the other Russia, slowly building up its influence with the current regieme. At the same time we have a fairly repressive regieme, set against a desire of many people to see more freedom in the society. It is very hard to tell what the best course is there, and instability could very easily be exploited by either of the two major powers that are vying for control.

How women's rights fit into that equation is very difficult to measure, but at this point in time I suspect that the codified religious cultural prohibitions about clothing are not central to women who are seeking solutions to the complex political problems of the country. I can entirely imagine that some kind of symbolic demonstration against those prohibitions might be somthing that Iranian women might feel appropriate at some point in time, but I think everyone is treading carefully, and focussed on gaining greater control over the political aparatus, before moving on to dealing with side issues like whether or not women should be requred to wear scraves on their head, or not.

That is my sense of it, frankly.

Globe and Mail Letter

Ok onemore, just sos you don't say I'm being onesided or ignoring your arguments and therefore can be dismissed as "culturally biased". Yes, he is laying it on abit thick there but then that's Stockholm's usual delicate way with words isn't it?  It doesn't change the overriding issue raised by others ghere or make others anger at what's happening there any less justified.  Complain if you want too, but you (and others) can still answer the questions that have been raised here regardless.