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 [5]

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.

and then i read part of the context, about the currency fights and possible deals between the US and China;

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Business/KF18Cb04.html

and wonder with Canada's 'deals' with the US and possibly the EU, how we are going to navigate ourselves; 'none of the above' is my first choice- keep some independence.  cultivate our own garden.  and this means different things for different peoples and different sectors in this country. 

but i'm going off topic.

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."

Could use some of that action in this country. Then we could seperate out the "authoritarians" from the "democrats."

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.

supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, remained defiant today in the face of vote-rigging allegations as he condemned the protests that have rocked the country since last week's disputed elections.

Speaking at Friday prayers, Khamenei claimed that the high turnout at the elections showed how much the Iranian people supported the regime, and warned protesters to keep off the streets.

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

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

They reported on CBC Radio this morning that the Revolutionary Guard is surrounding Tehran.

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.

Well how would you have us take part? I believe in non-intervention and only supporting them with our voices. Changing one's twitter avatar green is obviously only symbolic, but we have no power whatsoever over their government - nor should we. There were protests in various cities across Canada as well. What does this do for the Iranians getting beaten and killed ? Nothing either - but it is symbolic support.

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 do you mean by "supporting them with our voices"?

IMO, the best way to "support" the opposition is with cash.

Yeah, okay.  So that may sound cynical.  But, if I were among those trying to overthrow the fascist thugocracy in Iran, "support" of "voices" from Canada wouldn't even hit my radar screen.

ETA: Isn't it somewhat akin to standing at the end of a dock watching someone drown saying, "I'm pullin' for ya!!" but actually doing nothing?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

What is 'fascism', Sven?

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

How would you classify an iron-fisted, unelected, unimpeachable theocracy?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

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

I didn't know anything happened to taglines here.  Has there been some ban of taglines that I'm not aware of?!?

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

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.

Oh, I know what's going on.  The software has a meter which assesses a babbler's political leanings.  Anyone who is right-of-center is permitted (nay, required) to have a tagline (so, lest there be any doubt, another babbler can immediately identify right-of-center babblers).

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

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

No. More like looking up from your beer when you hear a fight break out, and then not jumping in on one side or the other, even though you know nothing about what is going on, who said what to who, or why, like some people who are just itching for an excuse.

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.

The Stolen Elections Hoax

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22868.htm

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!!!

i read the speech of Khameini that NM had linked on his blog. it was an interesting speech and i don't think can be easily summarized.

there are obviously many dynamics going on, which are quite beyond our ability an ocean away as non-Iranians to fully grasp, in terms of nuance and language, esp. via English tweets.

NM also posted items indicating that Khameini may have got to power in questionable ways himself originally, but still there were questions which K. raised in his speech which have stuck with me.

1) do we know who actually killed the students in their dorm?  these were students not in the rally.  they were described by 'witnesses' as 'paramilitaries', but apparently paramilitaries took to wearing ski masks.  and some who beat up students in the rallies were dressed in plainclothes.  then there are the army members.  often we find out long after atrocities take place that different people actually committed them than was originally thought.  the beating up of the dorm students actually reminds of some of the protests i've been to.  in Quebec City, there were some who threw rocks but they were not arrested, rather allowed to continue their behaviour by police.  instead, bystanders were arrested.  put that together with the fact that in Montebello it was police who were dressed up as protesters doing aggression.  sometimes you don't really know who is who at events, and instigations of various kinds are set up, with targetted outcomes.  its often very difficult to know what is going on in front of your face at a protest, how much more difficult to assess something on the other side of the world.

this being separate from the behaviour of uniformed police on other occasions, but much has been made of the dorm attack.

2) K. was open in his speech to looking again at the election, but through legal means.  he just didn't think a precedent should be set with street fights determining outcomes.  he said several times that the turnout of 40 million people - 85% of the population - should be considered seriously.  he wondered how 'vote rigging' could occur, but seemed to imply that legal challenges and routes should be pursued if people want to re-examine the process. it is a question which babblers have looked at before- the role of street protest vs. legal challenges of elections.

anyway, i feel uncomfortable talking much about the situation at all because i'm not a member of the Iranian community. I'm not even remotely familiar with background on the people involved.

  i am glad that there is coverage here at rabble.

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.

Khamenei could have delivered his speech in one of the two ways: 1) A harsh condemnation of the protests, and askingthe loyal paramilitary forces (Bassij) to pour into the streets and "save the country", as he did in 1999 against students protests. or 2) A middle of the ground speech to try to satisfy all sides. He did the latter.

One thing to note is that even though the constitution gives Khamenei ultimate power, he himself is an extremely weak character. He lacks the charisma and credentials (and bravery) of his predecessor Khomeini. His election in 1989 raised eyebrows. Iranian politics is also a web of complicated power centers. Iran is not a simple authoritarian society. Now on one hand Khamenei has to support his own loyal troops while at the same time keep Ahmadinejad's ambitions (whose supporters view him even above Khamenei) in check, and on the other hand try not to alienate other powerful figures who brought him to power in the first place. In addition to all that, he is trying to bring Mousavi back into this web of politics to avoid making him a popular grassroot leader that could topple him. So far Mousavi has not backed down. But we will see what will happen.

The protests may calm down for a day or two, then the ball will be in Mousavi's court. If he decide to push further and address deeper isues than the election, he can mobilize the people again but he will risk his own life. If he just settles down with the official "legal channels", he will join the other reformist politicians in the dustbin of history.

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

From what little information we can get a hold of - it sounds like Khamenei is committing genocide against the Iranian people today.

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

I'd like to see Iranian women throwing the veils that the religious thugs force them to wear into a bonfire. I read an interesting article recently about the religious police in Iran and the author noted that the men who are religious police are almost invariable very, very UGLY. Its like they found a bunch of losers and social rejects who could never get a date if their lives depended on it, gave them guns and said "here you go, now you can humiliate all the people who you normally feel inferior to"

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.

Typical of you to define how exactly Iranian women should express their rights Stockybaba. Personally, I would like Iranian women to do what they like. Can you say: "paternalistic"? Nice also that your political analysis then moves into subjective human aeshetics of who is ugly and who is not.

I am reminded of the scene in Arthur Koestler's "Arrival and Departure", where the German Nazi ambassdor in Spain meets an exiled communist at a diplomatic party and then comments: "All your women look like are rebelling against a society that refused to ask them to dance."

It's all well and fine for you to recommend that people rebel against the repressive aspects of their own social conditioning, culture and prohibitionist laws, but while you are at it maybe you could mind your own.

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?

What a bunch of Red Herrings. I have never said anything nice about Trotsky on this site ever. In fact, the record here would show that I have said repeatedly that I have seen no evidence that he would have been much different than Stalin, had he won the leadership struggle.

But that is you: preconceptions, assumptions, prejudice, stereotyped fantasies made out of whole cloth, ad hominem smears, wrapped up in pre-teen schoolyard philosophy.

But back on the theme you began. What about women in Iranian religious police. Are they ugly too? Should they also throw their veils into the bonfire, or would their unappealing visage be too much for your eyes?

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?

Well I'm not. But the Reaganauts were pretty cozy with the Ayatollah with negotiating a timely release of American hostages. Raygun and Maggie ok'd the sale of all manner of weapons to Saddam and the Ayatollah in the 1980s and passed proceeds to the Contras in waging a covert war on a tiny nation of peasants in Latin America then. 

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:

They can have any political setup they want so long as it prevents an outbreak of secular socialism or Pan-Arab nationalism in Iran and other countries where CIA hawks and Zbignewski have been the guiding hand for millions of people struggling for democracy.

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.

Women police breaking up women's rights demo in Tehran.

Now that we have established that you have absolutely no shame in dispensing your own ignorance and wildly prejudiced and inaccurate views on the world, and Iran, perhaps you will let people here continue with a serious discussion of the issues based on the facts, instead of using it as a forum for you wild SM prison sex fantasies.

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).?

Gee. You do have a brain. Actually we do know that their are women's auxilliary forces simillar to the male religious police, for exactly the reason you have outlined. Why? Because it is a fact.

But that is ok, ignorance is merely not knowing what you are talking about. What is amazing is that you pretend that you do.

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.

Failure to denounce as a operative principle of justice in order to establish disloyalty or political allieciance is a notable quality of Stalinism. I guess you and they don't really have much between you at all.

But to gratify your interest, I will answer it this way: If I were Iranian, I would probably prefer him over a regieme installed by people who know as little about Iran as you do.

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.

Its amazing how some people have to contort themselves to avoid saying ANYTHING critical about the fascist regime in Iran. Oh well, I guess if the shoe fits...

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.

perhaps there are links on the blog i've missed, but what are the women's groups in Iran saying about events?

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.

Pan-Arab nationalism wouldn't really work out too well in Iran seeing as most of its people aren't Arab.

It's kind of funny, Cueball thinks people here don't have a right to make suggestions on how other people in other countries should live their lives.  But, he does think he has the right to tell other people in this board what they can and can't say.

If Cueball is consistent with his own beliefs, he shouldn't be telling anybody anything.  

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. 

"The rules for "how women should look" in Canada are just as oppressive as the ones in Iran"

If you seriously think that - the you are simply NUTS - and on top of that its an insult to all the people in Iran who are in jail at the hands of a fascist dictatorship. We're not just talking about miniskirts and makeup - if you are wom an and take one step out your front door not wearing a veil etc.., you;'re very likely to get your skull cracked under a truncheon from the Iranian storm troopers. Meanwhile men aget to wear whatever they want. Its a common sight in Iran (and many other Muslim countries) to see a man in jeans and t-shirt walking with his wife warpped in a shroud barely able to see.

Women and men in Canada can dress however they want and the worse consequence is having someone whisper "he/she must have screwed up their mix and match today. To compare that to a giant concentration camp like Iran only trivializes the horrid oppression they have.

Of course the restrictions on dress are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of what Iranians have to endure in their fascist police state.

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.

Really? So in your experience as a prostitute, you would say that your working clothes do not increase the amount of physical abuse you are likely to experience from the hand or the police? They don't question you more? Ask for your ID, and so on and so forth.

I am suprised that you had not noticed that there are actually socially and legally enforced dress standards, even here. Your cultural bias is showing up as a great big bulge in your pants.

Heh.

I like the way you slip in the idea that women are weak willied if the bow to societal conventions for the sake of their own survival. Funny, we were just discussing how systemic prejudice results in privileged liberal minded do gooders blaming the victim because they don't have "the right stuff."

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???

Cueball is as big a moron as ever.  If only there were some kind of 'ignore' feature here.

"I like the way you slip in the idea that women are weak willied if the bow to societal conventions for the sake of their own survival"

I did not specifically state women, and I see people walking around wearing all sorts of different things, including women. As to 'legal restictions' (beyond some rules that people have to be dressed) and 'for the sake of their own survival', I have no idea what you are talking about.

On the one hand, I can't think of a better advert against the NDP than the babble message board, on the other hand, I'd like to think that all 37 NDP MPs would also be embarrased with comments like Cueball's and that they also would not want to be lumped in what his sort of nonsense.

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

That's all you got? Three posts, and not one quote, or arguement, or link or anything but cheap shots.

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)

I think he just hates people.

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.

Give me something rational and I'll make an argument for or against it.  I believe what you engaged in above is called a 'strawman' but I could be wrong on that.  It could also be referred to as 'the part for the whole fallacy' or probably any number of other logical fallacies.

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.

Again nothing but a cheap shot. Your job is to expose the logical falacy, not simply state its existance. All this is a an arguement from authority, dressed up as a high school jibe.

In the meantime, tell me more about women being weak willed if they chose to dress by the standards of societal norms?

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.

And by the YMCA.

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.

You make another personal insult to another member here, in leu of any rational argument I will send a complaint. Youve been allowed a double standard here too long.  I don't necessarily agree with Stockholm's particular comparison there, but its obvious hes trying to draw a more general comparison to make a broader point, which you are just as obviously trying to avoid.

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.

Adam T has been making alot of personal insult to Cueball. I should complain too ?

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.

As someone to the left of Ghengis Khan I've always thought that those laws were rather backwards and restrictive but they hardly compare to being arrested and possibly beaten for showing your face or ankles.  There is such a thing as degrees.  As well as living in at least a semi-democracy where bad laws can be reversed if theres enough popular support.  And better laws not simply overwritten by guys who claim to enforce the will of God, and have the jackboots to back it up.

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.

"Iranian women have the right to determine the manner of their own liberation"

I think we all agree with that - but they have no opportunity to do so when the religious thugs that rule Iran regularly torture women for the slightest infraction of the Ayatollahs dress code. Right now Iranian women have NO right to determine the manner of their own liberation because they live in just about the most male dominated fascist society on the planet.

If its "western cultural bias" to say that I object to women being beaten to death for wearing the wrong clothes or for "adulterers" (sic.) or gays to be stoned to death in public as they are in Iran and several other countries - then I'm guilty as charged and proud of it!!

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. 

Its not about the thread so much as your continuous lack of respect to others, particularly when youve backed yourself into another ideological corner by refusing to accept more than a black and white either/or world view.  Iran has more in common with Pol Pot's regime than ours does, how's that, to much for you?  

Make another gratuitous insult and I'll complain, until then you can make as many dumb arguments as you like.

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

I don't get Cueball..you don't seriously think we have it better in Canada? Homosexuals are not hang to death like they are in Iran , at least

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

It is!! I'd rather be ruled by good queen Bess than by the Ayatollah any day of the week. She actually strikes me as quite a nice person.

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.

the strange thing is there is also a rural, poor versus upperclass urban divide...

the poor people living in rural area might like some of the government policies, and the social programs, even if the dictatorship is brtual..remind me of the Clinton/Obama primary divide back in 2008

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.

Oh an arguement. And it took you how many cheap shots to get there? I will answer your question (3)

3) However they choose to do so.

In fact, many Muslim women express their dissent against western influence, western imperial impositions by voluntarily wearing traditional muslim clothing that identify them with their culture. In fact, many women in Turkey expressely wear the very same clothing that Stockholm is denigrating to directly challenge the authority of the state, which is prejudiced against them because they would wear Hijab.

The obsession that westeners have with Muslim clothing is very revealing, in how it objectifies women through their physical appearance, as if the only thing that really matters is that they be allowed to wear makeup, and look like western women, as if they might not have anything more serious to worry about, but lipstick and mini-skirts.

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.

1.No, I didn't ask how they could dissent againt 'western imperial impositions', I asked how they could dissent against their government.

2.And who are you to decided what women should and shouldn't decide is serious to worry about?  It seems you're the one trying to impose your standards on other people.  All Stockholm, Eric Redburn and I (and presumably millions of other people) want is that women in Iran be the ones to able to decide what is and isn't important to them.

Good stuff, after only a few posts we've determined who the imperialist is: it's Cueball.

Now, I agree with Stockholm.  We should all just go and ignore everything Cueball says.

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.

I didn't decide anything. I just pointed out the fact that the key point upon which Stockholm wants this rebellion to be expressed is by asserting western cultural norms. Norms which are entirely defined by cultural biases. I did not in fact suggest anything be done by Iranians, I suggested that "we", meaning "you, I and Stockholm" as part of the western cultural millieu check our cultural biases at the door, before entering into the tricky world of Iranian politics.

My comment was not about Iranian women, so much as a reflection on ourselves.

So you are right, I do think I have more of a right to tell people on this board what to think and say, because I am directly a participant in this community, and this society, which we all hail from as culture and country, which we share, more than I think I have the right to determine what people in a community and a society should do from the confines of my very limited understanding of the internal workings of that society.

I do know that Stockholm actually was pontificating about what women in Iran should do, without even a rudimentary knowledge of the facts of how the society works, outside of some really pastiche stereotypes. For example he did not know that there are women officials who enforce the religious cultural norms of the society, and that not all such people are "ugly" guys who can not get a date.

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.

Just as long as you complain Erik that is ok. The main thing is that the thread should be flagged, so the full breadth of Stockholm's sexist and racist stereotyped prison sex fantasies can be read by the moderators.

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.

Dictatorship is dictatorship, tryanny is tryanny.  This 'western cultural bias' bull is nothing other than an attempt by dictators to suggest that the people living (mostly unwillingly) under them are less interested in democracy than people 'in the west'.  

If that's truly the case, then hold a genuinely free and fair election and the Mullahs should have no trouble getting reelected. 

"For example he did not know that there are women officials who enforce the religious cultural norms of the society, and that not all such people are "ugly" guys who can not get a date."

1.Is it the 'religious cultural norms' or is it the religious fanaticism or a bunch of thugs who happen to hold power?

2.So, that makes you more of an expert on Iran? and a better judge of who can and can't comment on the country?

3.So, that makes it alright to enforce that, that it's women enforcing the laws on other women?

As I said, this 'cultural differences' stuff is bullshit by the power elite to try and silence outsiders. The lust for power, the desire to rule over other people, corruption... are the same the world over.

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.

"the key point upon which Stockholm wants this rebellion to be expressed is by asserting western cultural norms. Norms which are entirely defined by cultural biases."

That's right. My "cultural bias" says that it is wrong to execute people for criticizing their government, wrong to regulate what people are allowed to wear, wrong to execute people for the kind of sex they want to have or who they want to have it with etc.... Yes, I'm am biased, biased, biased, biased in those regards and I only wish more people had the same cultural bias that I have - then the world would be a better place.

If you want to simply dismiss every criticism of totalitarians regimes as being "culturally biased", then that means that there is no right and wrong, and that none of us should ever express an opinion again about anything. Next time "Cueball" goe son one of his vendettas against Israel - I'll just dismiss everything he says as being "culturally biased" and then there will be nothing more to discuss.

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.

Asserting that there is no "western cultural bias" is merely to assert its hegemony, as the presumed norm, in this case to say that for a country to assert their own norms is tyrrany, and our own liberation.

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?

Which posts of mine were "off-topic" and solely ad hominem. Erik wants to discuss what he thinks is my position on Kosovo even. Adam T thinks calling me a moron, is worthy of a post, You continue to rant and wail.

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.

I was asking that if you are going to discuss "me", my views, my behaviour and so on and so forth, in a manner which is totally off topic, and not based on anything I have said in this thread about Iran (which is the thread topic) in the third person (what makes it passive agressive by the way) that you do it by PM. Why waste the thread with your personal opinions about my behaviour and so on and so forth, when you aren't even talking to me, or about anything I have said here, post it to PM, or Rabble Reactions or something.

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.

Where did I say it had to be respected? I said that it was up to the women of Iran to decide the nature of their own rebellion, noting that it was awefully interesting that Stockholm thought it would just grand if they were to do so by doing something that would clearly assert western cultural norms.

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.

I mean really what could be more openly ignorant racist and sexist stereotyping, than this beauty :

It is not even close to factual. Not to mention a little weird.

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.

Not much here, anyway.  Wouldn't want to make any moral judgments about the fascist thugocrats running Iran because they are, after all, struggling against a hegemonic West -- and that is all that matters to too many people.

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

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.

Unfortunately, Erik, some people have such an extreme self-loathing of the West that even the most ugly theocratic fascists are above criticism -- because, no matter what they do, the West is indisputably worse.  Therefore, criticism of the unelected religious thugs in Iran is clearly unwarranted -- and unacceptable (and, frankly, speech that probably shouldn't even be allowed!!)... 

_______________________________________

Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!

Globe and Mail Letter

It comes to a point where one has said their peice (presented their argument or their rebuttal) - and then they start repeating themselves.  When I start repeating myself, I start to find myself boring.  Hopefully I find myself boring before others do.

I've been watching the footage and the men and women of Iran seem to be protesting together in mix crowds.

I think that this is about something more than a rigged election - that the rigged election may have made Iran's version of the Quiet Revolution more visible.  There has been a difference between the official version of Iran and the unofficial version of Iran for a long time.

Iran's Young Rebels

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2009/06/060709_4.html

We can't judge this by what we think of the guy who "won" the rigged election or the one who officially came in second. It could have been the other way around. The protests are more about Iranians wanting to choose their own way - and risking their own lives in the process. The one thing it isn't about is what we may want for them. Our role is as witnesses and in standing up against violent government reaction to peaceful protests whereever those protests take place.

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.