Look, the point here is that we are looking at the larger scale aspects of "systems", and trying to determine their net effect in terms of real democracy and freedom from corruption. The ideological backdrop upon which much of the commentary on the situation in Iran is set up is based on a theoretical dichotomy between "systems" and the ideological root of those systems. This is most often posed by the formula: Islamic Authoritarianism v. Liberal Democracy. At stake is the idea that there is a fundamental ideological difference between the two that presents itself in the form of real democracy and freedom from corruption.

Even under Stalin, part of the process of the purge was occassionally putting state security personnel and even state prosecutors on trial for excesses committed in the name of the state, precisely for the purpose of displacing blame from the overall abuses committed by the system in total: "Mistakes were made, comrade."

We are not just comparing Canada v Iran. We are comparing the "systems" in total. One can find real differences that present themselves between the situation in the United States and Canada as well. But the question is, is there an underlying fundamental difference in the manner in which each ideology impacts the state of affairs on a day to day basis, when presented with simillar social stresses?

Carefully ignoring direct comparisons I made to other manifestations of "liberal democracy" in action, and relying on Canada as a model, does not in any way shape of form truly represent the potential for abuse of police powers, corruption and the demise of real democracy in "the west", as posed in alleged tangible differences between the manner in which the putative "Islamic Authoritarianism" operates in comparison to "Liberal Democracy" as they function on a day to day basis in relationship to dissent, and the manifestations of dissent in the form of public protest.

In fact, as we see in the Dudley George shooting, police officers are held to a lower standard of compliance to the law than the average citizen, when in fact the complete opposite should be true. Officers who kill people in the line of duty should not be excused for doing so but punished to the maximum by the law that they are sworn to uphold, especially since they wield inordinate powers, beyond those of the average citizen.

We can see that even when faced with public protest of dissenting opinions that are relatively benign in comparison to the large scale outburst of public outrage that took place in Iran, police forces here in the west, even in Canada, take an adversarial position against protest and routinely exceed the necessary forced required to maintain public order, and that official investigations of that excess amount to pro-forma adminstrative posturing without real teeth for conviction of offending police officials or the people they command.

Now, given these abuses of police power are routine, in situations where there are even small, and largely peaceful protests, we can easily extrapolate what kind of mayhem would ensue were protestors to take the kind of actions "en masse" as they did recently in Iran.

There is a reason that new police stations are designed like fortresses, like the new 52 division building on college, or the Hastings VPD precinct in downtown Vancouver.