Iranian cleric says women cannot be president as 30 females try to have names added to the ballot

[bananas]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/10063187/Iranian-cleric-says-women-cannot-be-president-as-30-females-try-to-have-names-added-to-the-ballot.html

Iranian cleric says women cannot be president as 30 females try to have names added to the ballot

A member of Iran's constitutional watchdog group insists that women cannot be presidential candidates, a report said on Thursday, effectively killing the largely symbolic bids by about 30 women seeking to run in the June 14 election.


30 women put their names forward for the forthcoming election but none will be sanctioned
Photo: ALAMY

AP
12:50AM BST 17 May 2013

Even before the comments by Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, chances for a woman candidate in Iran's presidential election were considered nearly impossible.

Women also have registered as potential candidates in past presidential elections, but the group that vets hopefuls appears to follow interpretations of the constitution that suggest only a man may hold Iran's highest elected office. Women, however, are cleared to run for Iran's parliament and have served as lawmakers.

The semi-official Mehr news agency quotes Yazdi as saying the "law does not approve" of a woman in the presidency and a woman on the ballot is "not allowed."

The Guardian Council, where Yazdi is a member, vets all candidates for the presidency and parliament. A total of 686 people have registered to replace President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who cannot run for a third mandate because of term limits.

<snip>

[Ash_F]

1. Brave women. Keep up the pressure. /nt

[Skittles]

2. love those gals

symbolic but it means a lot

[MADem]

3. It's in their idiotic constitution that women can't be President.

There's no 'interpretation' involved.

And the ulema will make the decision on who is "allowed" to run. There will be no viable reformers on the ballot for ANY elective office.

Iran is a dictatorship. It is even more of a dictatorship today than it was under the Shah--and that wasn't a democracy, either.

[Ash_F]

4. Hmm? no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat#Execution_of_Operation_Ajax

As bad as things may be in Iran, it is nothing like what it was with the Shah. Nothing as extreme as that has happened post revolution.

But yes the political system is corrupt because it is very difficult for any reformists to become candidates. If they smell that the candidate would try to change things, they would lock them out

[MADem]

5. Well, having lived there before and after, I beg to differ with Wikipedia on that score.

Dozens--no, hundreds--of people were hanged by the neck until they were dead, dead, dead--without a trial, without any due process, simply for having worked for Shah or being related to people who worked in the government before the revolution.

Read about this monster, one of Ayatullah Khomeini's right hand guys--Shah never had anyone like this, not even at his worst: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sadegh_Khalkhali

There are people who mourned his death because they wanted to kill him themselves.

Today, in iran, gay people--even teenagers-- are hanged from drott cranes for the crime of being gay. Girls are hanged as "unchaste" for the crime of not being able to outrun their perverted uncle or weird raping neighbor.

Believe me, if you give one half of a crap about equality or the rights of women, you cannot believe that life is better for them under the ulema. And reformist candidates are stricken from the ballot as a matter of routine by the Guardians. They're just monsters.

[Ash_F]

6. While it is true that there are some Iranians who pine for the days of the Shah.

(Primarily ex-pats), there are plenty who don't. You may be in one faction, but don't expect me to discount the rest.

[MADem]

8. I am not talking about 'pining' for the days of the Shah.

He was no saint--I said as much.

However, if you do an empirical comparison between Iran then, and Iran now, the country was much better off under Shah. The population was not oppressed over issues of morality, more people were able to enjoy higher education, there was a social safety net, there were price controls so no one starved, there were social services that were managed by a bumbling but fair bureaucracy that are now left to the whim of the baseej and the masjids--it was a much gentler dictatorship -- and it was a dictatorship -- than this one, which has no regard for half the population whatsoever.

And it wasn't the shah who sent a generation of young people to die in a futile war with Iraq, left countless maimed, left a generation of widows and children without fathers....but whatever. Pretend it's all the same if you'd like. There's no comparison between the two.

[Ash_F]

7. A clarification

"Believe me, if you give one half of a crap about equality or the rights of women, you cannot believe that life is better for them under the ulema."

I don't disagree with this. But that does not mean that the country more dictatorial now. It is less dictatorial now but, unfortunately, the population in general is much more right wing, something social progressive ex-pats have a hard time coming to terms with.

[MADem]

9. Women had rights under Shah. They're treated like shit under the Guardian Council.

This isn't about "ex pats"--it's about how people are treated under this regime--specifically women and gays and ethnic/religious minorities (who are often persecuted under the current regime). If people are treated worse, then, by definition, the country is more dictatorial. Unless you have a different definition of the term?

Shah didn't send cranes around to the town to conduct public hangings without benefit of trial. And Evin Prison gets more of a workout today than it EVER did before 79.

The country IS more dictatorial now--you have to be blind not to see it.

Warning--disturbing images:

[John2]

10. Your premise is

correct but your logic is not. The Shah was overthrown by an Islamic Revolution. The people that won the Revolution wrote the Constitution. The freedom given to people only reflects what the Constitution allows under an Islamic Theocracy. The supreme authorities in Iran are the Mullahs just like the supreme authority in Saudi Arabia is the Monarchy.

They have been given freedoms but it has to reflect Islamic Law according to the Mullahs. That is what you have when you place religion over politics. It would be the same if many Americans got their wish and made Christianity the Supreme law of the land. Iran is a very good example to keep religion out of Politics. The elected President in Iran is below the religious authority because they set it up that way and you do not question the religious authority in Iran. The only way you can do so is to have another Revolution and win it. The Mullahs are very strong in Iran and the Armed Forces of Iran, including the infamous Revolutionary Guard answer to the supreme leader who is the High priest. It was symbolic only when those women place their names on the list as an expression of dissent. It really has more to do with their religious beliefs and what the presume to be the place of women in that religion. Have you ever heard of a woman as a Mullah or High priest? Ancient Israel was similar.

[MADem]

11. No they didn't.

The Constitution was written by the ulema, and approved by Khomeini, and voted in by his hand-picked people. No one has been "given" any "freedoms"--if you step out of line, some basiji will come crack your head, report your family, and you will be screwed. It's like the block captains in the USSR--rat finks on every corner. Freedoms? What a joke.

The people who overthrew the shah were not all in agreement about the nature of the government to follow. Many foolishly believed that the next stop was Democracy For All. Many thought Khomeini would serve as a "symbolic" or "interim" leader until the people could come to a determination of the sort of government they wanted. That lasted about five minutes and then the boom was lowered.

The Pasdaran--which wasn't an organized bunch back then, but more like the baseej, thugs with a purpose--wasted no time in delivering beat downs and worse to anyone who had ideas that didn't include Khomeini's interpretation of the law.

Your POV is naive.

[John2]

12. I'm not naive because

those who supported the Islamic revolution crushed the opposition in Iran. Whatever freedoms occurred after was allowed under that Islamic Revolution. If they saw any threat to their authority it was crushed or would be crushed. The only democratic processes they have in that country is subordinate to the religious authorities even in the Judicial branch which are controlled by the Mullahs. The best way for you to know this would be to study how the government of Iran works. I have studied it. All you have to know is that the supreme authority in Iran is not the secular branch but the religious authorities. The written constitution had to be approved by the religious authority. If Iran wanted to go to War, it has to be approved by the religious authorities. In fact your description of events is exactly what I said. The bottom line is the opposition was crushed and this is what you have left.

That is significant. Especially when you have the highest authority in Iran promising to back up Assad. He is the commander in chief and not the President. The Iranian President is very weak and can't do anything without the approval of the mullahs. When Saddam Hussein tried to take advantage of dissent in Iran, guess what happened. The mullahs were stronger than he thought in Iran. Over one million Iranians died in that War at the behest of the Mullahs. And you will be naive if you think they have not spreaded their influence to Iraq or Lebanon.

[MADem]

13. You plainly have serious gaps in your understanding of how the government works in Iran,

based on your comments here.

Of course the government isn't secular--that's why it's called an Islamic Republic. What you're not getting, though, is the thuggery and violence that followed the departure of the Shah and arrival of Khomeini. It was, in essence, a beat down. Power was consolidated, but there was NO CONSENT of the governed. That's what you aren't appreciating.

The Guardian Council and Supreme Leader approve everything. The Majlis is just window dressing. The Mayor of Teheran (aka The President) is the mouthpiece of the ulema--if he steps out of line, he gets frozen out. He can't order a sandwich, never mind the military.

And why in hell would you think I don't have an understanding of the role of Hizbullah in Beiruth and Damascus? That has nothing to do with anything, save the fact that the brutal dictatorship that is Iran wants to extend their influence to the Med?

But the point remains--it's not a democracy, it's not even a representative government. It's a BRUTAL dictatorship, and if you say a word against the regime, you'll be harmed, or killed. Make no mistake about that-- the people of Iran have NO SAY in how their government is run, or even who is "allowed" to stand for election. And of those powerless people, the women of the country and the religious and ethnic minorities are the most powerless of all.

[John2]

14. The only point

that we disagree on is your premise, that this beat down according to you was not part of the Revolution. It was part of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. They not only put down dissent but they also took American hostages as part of that Revolution. They also banned all treaties with the United States, whom they regarded as the Great Satan. What ever came afterwards was dictated by the Islamic Revolution including the written constitution in Iran. The Islamic Revolution had the authority to override any agreement because they were in charge period. The dissent during the last election was crushed also because they saw it as Foreign intervention. That is why all those people were arrested under their laws. And some were released also. The fact they could void international treaties and carry on a War with Iraq for eight long years, reveals they had complete control. There is no question who won the Revolution and who was in charge of Iran.` The Revolutionary Guard was built by them. They are part of Iran's Armed forces. They have a very large Army and millions of people in reserve. You can call them thugs but it is an army with a special police force.

[MADem]

17. The RG was not part of the Army in 1978, any more than the Baseej is part of the Army now.

I was being shot at by the RG in 1978 for daring to be in the wrong street at the wrong time, and they weren't wearing uniforms or being paid by the Persian treasury....but whatever. You know best! You can continue to believe that a vast majority of people "wanted" the government that is in place now, even though it's not true. A well placed minority was able to seize control because might makes right, not because everyday people thought what they were doing was a good idea.

[Ash_F]

15. Yeah you are not getting it.

Country is more socially conservative than it used to be. The average Iranian is further to the right than 50 years ago. Yes or no?

[MADem]

16. No. Not true at ALL. But "the country" is not "the leadership."

All those kids who marched in the streets, many of whom were murdered by the basiji, do not use "The Shah" as their reference point. They were not even born when he left.

The young people are not conservative--they want more than they are allowed to have. The leadership is backwards and intolerant--and in charge.

[Ash_F]

18. And that is where you are disconnected from reality due to wishful thinking.

First, accept it. Then you can begin to address it. Life in Iran is a reflection of where the society has been heading.

When people make comments like 'things were better under the Shah' they have no idea how badly they are damaging their own objective. All that has ever done is drive people even further into the arms of the current regime. That kind of talk undermines what these brave women are trying to do.

[MADem]

19. Don't be foolish. The one who is "disconnected from reality" here isn't me.

What a childish comment to make.

Stop reading into my words more than I am actually saying. You're the one with the "wishful thinking"--you want to characterize me, in simplistic and cartoonish fashion that suits your limited undertanding, with a false POV. Start by "accepting" that, conversing like an adult, and not ass-uming like you have done from the start.

And those "brave women" you're on about are on a fool's errand. They'd do better to dress in green and fill the streets. Their glass ceiling is the majlis, and there's a quota--and that's not changing. Further, the type of woman who is ABLE to get a seat in the majlis is the type who would sell out her sisters and support the status quo--the opposite of "brave." You do know that the GC picks all the candidates? Even the "opposition" ones? Even the "reformers?" It's a rigged game. And it's rigged in favor of a crew of despots.

There is extreme "buyer's remorse" with regard to this regime from those who remember 1979. That's NOT to say--as you continue, falsely, to insist is my view--that the preference was to retain the Constitutional Monarchy. That's not what I'm saying. Let me put it simply, since you like, and seem to understand, boldly drawn lines:

The people HAD gristly hamburger in 78.
They WANTED steak.
They GOT a shit sandwich.

The young have reasons of their own, much of that is to do with the internet. They know there's more out there, and they want it, and they know that the old men sitting in Qom are determined to ensure that they never have it.

So long as those old men have one hand on the Army, the other on the treasury, and a crew of spies down to the neighborhood and apartment building level, things will never change.

[Ash_F]

20. You might be more effective if you cut your posts down.

These women are not on a 'fool's errand' and neither were the Green protesters. That said, comments like the original one I responded to are extremely self-destructive to the reformist cause and should not be thrown around casually. Not only is it not true, but it is political self-sabotage.

Finally, factionalizing reformists because some were not 'reformy' enough is also self-sabotage. Disunity won't do Iranians any good.

[MADem]

21. Ah, now you don't like the length of my posts.

Well, I am not a fan of the revisionist content of yours, so I guess we're even, eh?

I didn't say the Green protesters were on a fool's errand, but there you go, yet again, trying to construct a fictional argument to put in my mouth for you to rebut.

You'd be better off not prejudging what people say, not telling them what you falsely assume that they mean, because again you have it wrong.

No one is "factionalizing" reformists, save the ulema. That point keeps whizzing over your head. No one--one more time--NO ONE--gets on the ballot without their imprimatur. It's why all the good candidates are left on the sidelines--they aren't even allowed to run the race.

[Ash_F]

22. You denigrate the female candidates

It is no wonder the conservatives won. No unity at all. Everybody wants it 100% percent their way or nothing.

"I didn't say the Green protesters were on a fool's errand, but there you go, yet again, trying to construct a fictional argument to put in my mouth for you to rebut. "
I didn't say you did. Read for comprehension.

[MADem]

23. You're making things up yet again.

I didn't "denigrate" the female candidates. I said that their approach would not be successful, and they'd have better luck calling attention to the injustice that is the Persian Ballot by demonstrating in the streets. That's a simple fact, not a "denigration." I also said that successful majlis candidates who are female are tools of the regime, and that's not a denigration either--it's a fact. You don't get far in politics in Iran if you don't kowtow to the ulema. That's how the system is rigged. That is how the theocratic elites maintain their grasp on power.

The one who isn't reading for comprehension here isn't me. You're just arguing, mindlessly (and then trying to back away from your own words which are quite plain, unless and until you edit or delete them), without regard for the actual situation on the ground.

You have an idea about life in Iran that isn't consonant with reality. The "conservatives" didn't "win." In order for anyone to actually "win" the rules must be fair for all--not rigged in advance to permit for only an "acceptable" outcome.

[Ash_F]

24. Another word salad

You said they were on a 'fool's errand'. That's denigration. See how I responded without ranting tangentially for three paragraphs?

You came into this thread with a statement that was both factually wrong and politically counterproductive. If you don't get it by now you won't get it.

[MADem]

25. When you can't rebut the point, you come up with a "pithy" insult.

If you are unable to comprehend the straightforward concepts I put forth, that's your problem.

Calling them a "word salad" because you're having trouble getting it is not my problem.

My statement was not "factually wrong" nor was it "politically counterproductive." What are you, the ersatz Persian Politburo?

What an entirely silly thing to say.

Take your own advice in your last sentence. If you're not very young, you sure sound like you are.

[Ash_F]

26. So.. 40 years of your strategy has gotten you what exactly?

Has your combative attitude toward the entire spectrum of Iranians, from the right all the we way to the left, been working for you? I realize you don't don't care about inflaming the right, but you should at least realize that you piss off moderates and even liberals with your 'at least the trains ran on time' type comments about the Shah.

[MADem]

27. What "strategy?" See, there you go again.

You have ideas in your head that are unrelated to my POV.

You're combative and acting like a real jerk, too. I am simply observing how things ARE. I am not a member of the Persian opposition, such as it is, though I wish them well. It's getting very hot in Iran now, but when the weather gets cooler, I hope we see more of them.

And if you think that all the shah did was make trains run on time you really don't understand the social and cultural changes that were FORCED on the population post-revolution (aside from the fact that the Shah never did much with the train system, at least not for passengers...). You would not know about the freedom women had to hold any job they happened to like, you never went to a disco or a swimming pool in Teheran where both sexes enjoyed swimming and sun, or ordered wine with your dinner in mixed, UNRELATED company, at a kebab house. All of this is impossible now.

Any time a nation constrains half their population with religious and moral excuses, that's just wrong. I have a problem with it. It's never acceptable.

Now, if people want to have a meal, a drink or a dance with unrelated people of the opposite sex, they have to do it at a secret "house party," and hope like hell the neighborhood baseej doesn't turn them in for moral turpitude. Those kinds of "crimes" are punished with jail time.

Try walking down the street with someone unrelated to you of the opposite gender and you risk a beating. And heaven help them if their dress is not 'acceptable' to the morality police:

[Ash_F]

28. Rings hollow.

Female candidates are part of the Iranian opposition, so your statement of support rings hollow in light of your previous posts. Iranians do not want a Monarchy and would not settle for one because 'life was better' under the last one. They want to be able to vote.

FYI the trains comment is in reference to Benito Mussolini, the fascist former leader of Italy, and is a common figure of expression in politics. It conveys, through absurd irony, that even if some things were better under a dictator, they still should not receive praise for it. For one, because they were not necessarily responsible for the better conditions. Secondly, because it does not excuse them from being a dictator. Both of these are relevant to the Shah thus it is better not to say anything nice about his reign.

Your superfluous descriptions of life in Iran do not add anything this conversation as you are not telling me anything I don't know, nor did I ever contend with that portion of your posts. I am trying to save you time when I say that you should cut your posts down to what is relevant to the conversation. Check your first post in this thread for the disagreement.

[MADem]

29. What rings hollow is your childish attempts to pick fights, replete with snark and empty commentary.

Your didactic attempts to "educate" me about Benito Mussolini ring hollow, too. What moron doesn't know that reference? Please. Spare me your silly little History Channel lessons, and spend more time hitting the books yourself.

My point, that flew completely over your head (and this is because you don't know this subject, and that becomes clearer with every post you make), is that Shah didn't make anything "run on time." If you knew anything about Iran, you'd know that Mexico only rents the mañana attitude, Persians OWN it. PROUDLY, too. Why do anything today if it can be put off until 'farda?'

You misunderstand the culture quite completely--and you're so doggone obtuse and certain that you don't even realize that your comments reveal how very much you don't know. I lived in that country, in city and village, for many years, I attended university there, and still have loved ones there.

And do stop telling me "how" I should post--it makes you look worse than you already do. You have added no substance to this thread, all you've done is derail it with petty complaints apropos of nothing. What would be "relevant to the conversation" would be your having a knowledge of the topic--and you don't.

Have a nice day, "professor."

[Ash_F]

30. You seem quite disheveled

No need to get so emotional. There was no real content in your last post as a result. My point about the trains comment is that the Shah deserves no credit for the gains in women's rights up to the revolution. He didn't have anything to do with it.

You and I probably want the same thing for Iran; one free from right wing extremism. I'm not so sure we want it exactly the same though. When the Shah was brought down, a lot of upper class Iranians lost a lot and that was painful for them. Most moved to the US or Europe. Too this day, many are still bitter. Very bitter, as we can see. But in the end, Shah's monarchy was just another form of right wing regime. That is an era gone past, and it is time to let it go. Iranians want democracy now.

Also these posts are not just for you. This is a public discussion forum.

[MADem]

31. You 'seem' to be wearing out your dictionary--"disheveled" you say?

Here, let me comb my hair and straighten my garments...since you 'seem' to think you can see me with your incredible powers of clairvoyance.



The one getting "emotional" here isn't me. If you weren't getting "emotional" you'd stop accusing others of silliness like being "disheveled" and "emotional."

Here's what I think--I think you don't read what people write. I want the Iranian people to have true self-determination. You think that the system they have now is one of their choosing. It's not. It's what shook out at the end, but it was forced on them.

You also seem to think that all the wealthy have left Iran--again, that's totally false. Go to Tajrish and see how "poor" people are up there. Go to the high-end indoor shopping mall (the one the baseej avoid, because people with lots of money can purchase their own reality--it's like a little oasis of sanity married with conspicuous consumption, tucked inside a world of Thou-Shalt-Not Batshit Crazy) and examine all the "deprivation." There's more Gucci, Pucci, Prada, Armani, Versace, Manolo Blahnik and plastic surgery happening up that way than there is in Los Angeles.

The issue isn't wealth, and "rich people," the issue is that the people live in a dictatorship run by assholes in robes. The middle class, such as it is, is under constant threat. They are bullied by the baseej, and live in a constant state of uncertainty and paranoia. The bazaaris regret, en masse, that they supported this regime, which screwed them, overtaxed them, and screwed their business model to boot. The poor, as always, get poorer.

Meet the new boss, worse than the old boss.

You should take your own advice--these posts aren't just for YOU either. And you don't have the lay of the land -- so you're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.

[Ash_F]

32. Quoting Mitt Romney?

Really now?

"You think that the system they have now is one of their choosing. It's not. It's what shook out at the end, but it was forced on them."

Yes and no. There are varying degrees of democracy. The Shah instigated a military coup with the help of the CIA to depose a democratically elected president. A president who was not a right winger by the way. If democracy had been allowed to flourish, women's rights would have progressed even further.

The United States system is not fully democratic today either. It especially wasn't after its revolution, with slavery and without women's suffrage, but that doesn't mean it was more of a dictatorship than King George.

Just because it wasn't perfect, didn't mean the US should have gone back to Monarchy. Just because it was less despotic, didn't mean it did not need progressive change. However, the people who won those changes never did it by going around spouting "THINGS SURE WERE BETTER WITH KING GEORGE" in every single discussion about bringing change. Which is basically what I see from a lot of Iranian Ex-pats. I promise you these 30 women do not want that kind of help.




PS - Look more into the usage of the term disheveled. But your last post was to most coherent one yet, so thumbs up.

[MADem]

33. Now you're going about as low as you can manage--first you use personal insults, and then you

call me "Mitt Romney" (is that supposed to make me cry or something? How the hell old ARE you? 15, 16? That's how you are coming across, like a spoiled teen)--and all because you can't argue from a place of facts and logic.

No one is claiming that the US system is fully democratic--no one is even talking about USA. So why are you bringing that up? That's not the subject, here, and comparison is not at all apt. You're on the wrong side of the world, now!

Perhaps you need an atlas to go with your dictionary.

FWIW, it's to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands... We're not a democracy, we wouldn't have an electoral college and elections managed by individual states were that the case.

Trying out the old "But....but....this one is worse!!! That one wasn't as good, EITHER!!!" arguments are the mark of a failure to debate the actual topic. Stop distracting. We aren't talking about America here--we are talking about Iran.

A country you do not understand.

And who, save you, is launching a "go back to monarchy" straw man? You're the only one crying about that in this conversation--not me. But it's pretty obvious at this stage that you have serious trouble with the written word--you have managed to misrepresent everything I have said, thus far--in a rather disruptive and uncivil way--deliberately, it would seem. I wonder why that is?

And I know what "disheveled" means--it's how romance novels describe people after an active night in bed. If you use it in other ways, why, aren't you just so "clever" and "unique?" Perhaps you'll do better in your high school English class than you're doing in Contemporary Persian History.

None of your posts have been either polite or coherent--you've been rude, obtuse, and wrong, to say nothing of sarcastic, childish and boorish...but that's all you seem to have. You certainly don't have a command of the facts, and you persist in using personal snark and horseshit straw men to distract from your failure to understand the issues on the ground in Iran.

Have a nice day. Thumbs up, indeed....right back at you.

[Ash_F]

34. "But....but....this one is worse!!!"

That was your very first post in this thread.

Also:
"And I know what "disheveled" means--it's how romance novels describe people after an active night in bed."
^^^

[MADem]

35. You read what you want to read. And your understanding of the country is

nonexistent. I never claimed to support Shah, but you persisted in approaching me from that paradigm, because you have a simplistic, bifurcated POV of what happens in Persia.

Here, do a little homework:

http://www.dw.de/iranian-perspectives/a-16823475
http://www.dw.de/power-struggle-in-iran-escalates/a-16830875
http://www.dw.de/irans-bloggers-criticize-public-hangings/a-16817365

[Ash_F]

36. Again with the links....

"I never claimed to support Shah"

Really? Because you sure did expend a lot of energy to tell us how great things were before his fall. Do you think he deserved credit for any of it?

[MADem]

37. I shouldn't bother because you don't read them.

You don't understand Iran, either.

Maybe you SHOULD start reading them--who knows...you just might LEARN something.

[Ash_F]

38. OK, I went ahead and read them

It is not really news to me, except for the DP protests. I am glad to see pictures of Iranians protesting the death penalty. I wish more Americans would speak out against it.

But you know what?

"The blogger Amir Hadi Anwari also called for more restraint. He said Iranian society had a responsibility. "So long as there are people who climb trees to have a better view of a public hanging and who record them with their phones, it is hard to imagine an end to the death penalty. Those who are calling for an abolishment of executions in Iran have no idea about the realities of Iranian society."

That just proves my point that there are a lot of hard right Iranians. That is my contention with you. You seem to think these people don't exist, or that they are not a significant part of the problem. The right-wing clerics do not hold on to power with magic powers. They have power because too many people follow them.

I agree with Amir. Iranian society has responsibility to change. So does the US, actually. Do you believe in the death penalty?

[MADem]

39. Those are the poor who live in the south of the city.

They are beset by fear. They are unemployed and have the time to attend one of these events--a few rial on the bus and you're up in the park.

Just because people show up at an execution doesn't mean they support it. If the imam tells you to go, you go, particularly if you have a mother who is getting a widows allowance or some other family member who is getting some sort of public aid. You do what you're told. Also, when you have nothing in life, seeing someone who is worse off than you are (and getting hanged pretty much sucks) acts, in a perverse way, as a morale booster. "At least I'm not THAT guy!"

Of course, to say this sort of thing, and to attach your name to it, you're crossing a red line. Your family and friends could be punished for your words--and believe me, it happens. Evin is busy these days. It will be busier next month, I am sure.

Of course, since the internet is slowed to a crawl, who has the opportunity to say much of anything? It is impossible to skype or even send pictures lately. The regime doesn't want people twittering and demonstrating this time around. They've taken steps to try and stop all that. I wish those Anonymous people would hack the shit out of the government and take the brakes off--it would serve them right.

Many of these people behaving enthusiastically up in the trees are the same poor, subsistence-level folks who eagerly followed the bazaaris into the mess we see now--and those bazaaris? They were used, abused and discarded. They went from being a force for change in the political system, to being a bunch of pissed off people who have been duped, who are watched, who are not trusted by the regime (after they handed the regime a great deal of "people power&quot and who resent their lot in life now. They thought they had something to cry about before; Khomeini and his successors gave them plenty to really cry about. They are taxed mercilessly now (they weren't before). But what can they do? Give you the fake smile, and never, ever let you know what they really think. Why? You might turn them in.

I have always opposed the death penalty--I've said it often enough on these forums. It is a common punishment in that part of the world, it has been for centuries, but I do not care for it. I don't think it serves as a deterrent and I further think it is perversely un-Islamic (the circular phrase in the Qu'ran about any Muslim who intentionally murders another Muslim shall be put to death comes to mind--keep that up, and everyone will be dead). It is being used "con brio" in Iran nowadays--they'll execute anyone, even children. And they do it brutally, with long, drawn out public hangings that people are forced to attend (a particular feature of this regime, the mandatory attendance by all in the village--to get the point across), and stonings--it's beyond the pale. You can go to YOUTUBE, just plug in Iran executions-- and see images of these events--and if you look at the pictures of the crowd, there's not a lot of cheering. There is a somber attitude, and fear.

As a continuation to the OP, here is more from a front runner regarding the whole "woman" thing re: the sham-election, here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1253381

This guy was "allowed" to run by the Guardians.

[treestar]

40. this thread has been an interesting read

Thanks for your input, having lived there.