Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
No Matter Who Is President of Iran, They Would Stone Me
Why didn’t I vote in the latest elections for the president of the country of my birth, Iran? Because no matter who is the president of Iran, they would stone me!
As an Iranian woman, I require big changes in order to convince myself that a change in president would mean an improvement of my basic rights as human being inside Iran.
I was among many Iranians who decided not to vote in the recent [s]election. We boycotted the sham election in my motherland and have not been surprised by the results publicized by the mainstream media, both in Iran and elsewhere. This puppet regime has never considered the people’s wishes and has always acted in the interests of the few who are in charge of the prison called Iran. Cheating, lying and hypocrisy are the specialities of the religious demagogues that maintain the farce that Iran is a democratic state.
Here are some simple facts that demonstrate that irrespective of who is president, I would be stoned to death in Iran:
- As a woman whose husband refused to divorce her when she escaped the country and came to Canada as a refugee, I am considered this man’s wife as long as I am alive. It does not matter if I lived separate from him for years, have divorced him in my new country and am in a relationship with a new man. Under Iranian laws and the Iranian constitution, which are based on strict interpretation of Islamic laws, I am considered his wife and am at risk of being stoned for “adultery” if I ever go back to Iran. In fact as a woman, I have no right to divorce my husband under the country’s laws while he has the privilege of marrying three more times without divorcing me. This is the case no matter who is the president of Iran; Ahamdinejad or Mousavi.
- As a journalist and filmmaker, I am called upon by the Islamic Republic of Iran to respect the red lines. These “red lines” include belief and respect for the Supreme Leader and the savagely unjust rules of traditional Islamic law in my country. I am expected not to write or demand equal rights. I am not allowed to make the underground films I have made about the plight of sex trade workers and other social diseases rampant within Iran, as I did secretly 12 years ago. In fact, I am not allowed to make any film without the permission and without censorship by Iran’s Minister of Culture. If I did openly do all these things in Iran, I would disappear, I would be tortured, I would be raped. I would be killed as have so many women journalists, filmmakers and activists in Iran. Among those killed include Zahra Kazemi, the Iranian-Canadian photo journalist, who was brutally tortured and murdered for attempting to photograph and publicize brutalities committed by the Iranian regime.
- I would be considered an infidel if I was born into a Muslim family and later converted to another religion or had I considered myself a non-believer who does not follow strict Islamic morality. My branding as an infidel would result in my public murder, probably by stoning. No matter who is the president of Iran.
- I would be lashed in public, raped in jail or even executed or stoned to death for selling my body in order to bring food to my family, as so many unfortunate Iranian women have been forced to do secretly including many single mothers who have no access to social assistance in a rich but deeply corrupted country like Iran. Even the simple crime of being in love, engaged in a relationship outside of marriage, or worse yet, giving birth to a human being out of Islamic wedlock is considered a crime against humanity! The product of such a union would be considered a bastard and would be taken away from me, and I would receive 100 lashes immediately after giving birth to my baby. No matter who is the president of Iran.
- No matter who is the president of Iran, I would be denied a university education, a government job and a say in politics and it would be as if I basically did not exist if I was a Baha’i. I would be considered half a Shia Muslim if I was Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian or even a Sunni Muslim by all levels of society, no matter who is the president of Iran.
- I would disappear and might be found dead if I were to keep writing and demanding my basic rights as a woman and an intellectual who has no say in politics (there was not even one female minister in the so-called “reformist cabinet” of Mohamad Khatami). This would be my fate had I continued to argue against and challenge the authorities to the fact that although Iran is one of the richest countries in the planet when it comes to resources, 70% of my people live in poverty because of corruption among the leaders and their generous contributions to external causes from fanatic Muslim Hezbollah in Lebanon to the communist government of Venezuela through which they build alliances around the world. Huge numbers of children go to sleep on empty stomachs. Little girls are forced to sell their bodies in the streets of Tehran, Dubai and even China just to survive. I would be jailed or disappeared no matter who is president of Iran.
- No matter who is the president of Iran, I would not be able to be a judge or even a witness in court as a woman. This is because according to Islamic Courts, two women are equal to one man. No matter how educated and aware, I still would be considered half of a man who might be at a demonstrably much lower level of education and qualification, no matter who is the president of Iran.
- No matter who is the president of Iran, I would be lashed if I did not cover my head and body in public in compliance with the mandatory Islamic dress code. If I would be caught at a private family/friend/party or wedding taking place in mixed company, I would be punished for the crime of not being covered. Much worse would happen if I was caught drinking. It would not matter if I considered myself a non-believer of Islam who simply does not want to follow Islamic rules. I would be punished harshly, lashed, raped while in custody and even before going on trial. No matter who is the president of Iran.
- No matter who is the president of Iran, I would be killed if I was openly a homosexual. I would be denied all rights as a human being since homosexuality is considered one of greatest possible sins under the Iranian Islamic regime. I would be considered a criminal and be killed because “there are no homosexuals in Iran!’ That’s odd, because some of my closest friends in Iran say they are gay, but stay “in the closet” for fear of execution, No matter who is the president of Iran.
- No matter who is the president of Iran, Iranian activists living in exile, including myself and many others who are openly opposed to the regime for its cruel human rights violations, will not be able to enter the country. We would be caught at the airport by the regime’s police forces and forced to sign an apology letter for our actions against the regime. If we refused, we would be jailed without trial for wanting freedom for our fellow people. I would be denied of my basic rights as an opposition to the regime and would be called a “spy”, jailed, tortured, raped and executed. This would happen regardless of who was the president of Iran.
This is Iran. This is what it means to live under Ayotollah Khameini and his goons. No change is possible while Iran is controlled by autocratic, fundamentalist religious despots who determine the laws of the land. There has been no real election. Candidates are all hand-picked and cleared by a central religious committee. It is a farcical imitation of the free nomination/ election process that we have pictured in the free world. There is no possibility that a secular, pluralistic, freedom-loving democratic person who loves his or her country can become a candidate to run for president (or any other office) in Iran.
Twelve years ago, we went through the same process. Mohamad Khatami became the favourite of the western media, which called him a “reformist” who spoke beautifully about freedom of speech, civil rights and dialogue between cultures. But when he became president there was a crack down on a student uprising – a crackdown against the same students who voted for him. Many were killed, many disappeared, and many were tortured. Artists, authors and intellectuals disappeared and were found “mysteriously” murdered. The smooth-talking president Khatami, whom westerners loved, never tried to stop the violence and never showed sympathy to his supporters. Instead, he openly avowed that his responsibility was to respect the wishes of the supreme leader, Ayotollah Khameni, and to protect the security of the Islamic regime.
Now, the passionate and oppressed young generation of Iranians are going through exact same situation. They are supporting Khatami’s friend, Mousavi. It is sad that history repeats itself so quickly in my beloved country of birth. The people of Iran were fed up with poverty, injustice, corruption and international embarrassment with the knuckle-dragging, anti-Semitic, war-mongering cretin who was President Ahmadinejad. They chose to support a bad choice – Mousavi – rather than the worse choice, Ahmadinejad. However, when an election is really a selection, choice is an illusion. Mousavi is from the Islamic regime; he is inseparable from it, and all its abuses and cruelties.
The reality is that Iran has not had a democratic, free election for the past 30 years. Mr Mousavi, if elected, will not make any changes, not because he is powerless to do so (as Khatami’s supporters claimed during his presidency), but because he doesn’t believe in a democratic state as his background shows. He belongs to the fanatic dictatorial era of Ayotollah Khomeini and he believes in the same command-and-control system of government. We should not forget Khomeini’s statement in one of his speeches after the revolution about democracy. He said that “if all people of Iran say ‘yes” I would say no to something that I would believe is not right for the Islamic Nation”.
Let us not forget that Mousavi was Prime Minister of Iran in the 1980s when more than ten thousand political prisoners were executed after three-minute sham trials. He has been a part of the Iranian dictatorship system for the past 30 years. If he had not been, he would not be allowed to be a candidate in the first place. In fact in a free democratic state someone like Mousavi should have gone on trial before becoming a presidential candidate for his crimes against thousends of freedom-loving political prisoners who were killed during the time he was Iran's Prime Minister.
A quick look at Mousavi’s political biography reveals him to be a fanatic Khomeini supporter and a fanatic hard-liner similar to Ahmadinejad and others in control of the Islamic regime. His reign as Prime Minister was one of the darkest times in the history of Iran’s Islamic regime in terms of censorship and human rights violations. He is also backed up by the Rafsanjani mafia family, who have stolen oil money for their own family interests while 70% of the population lives in poverty. So ingrained as he is in a system of corruption and exploitation, that how could anyone believe that Mousavi genuinely wants reform?
For these and many other reasons, I did not choose to vote and instead boycotted the election, along with many other Iranians. But this time, many Iranians who boycotted the vote in the last election voted in this one because of their profound disgust with Ahmadinejad. I sympathise with them, but I believe that there exists no better option for the people of Iran than to entirely overthrow the Islamic regime that oppresses the country of my birth. I strongly support my people’s movement against the ever-present dictatorship and violence infecting my country. I will scream, along with my compatriots, ”Down with dictators!” “Down with murderers!” “Down with the brutal oppression that is the Islamic regime and all of its toxic, self-serving alliances.”
Long live freedom in Iran!
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...


170 Comments so far
Show AllWhat's scary is that stories like this one can then be used by the empire to justify regime change under the guise of spreading "democracy".
Given that the regime of Saddam Hussein was one of the more secular in the region and that women under his rule had far more freedoms then in countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia and given the fact that the USA toppled said regime to put in place one that wished to form an Islamic State under Shariac law.....
Most people with a lick of sense would not fall for such.
Would they?
[The US] is not aiming for “regime change” along the lines of Iraq. Certain lessons have been learned from the Bush administration’s debacle, most critically that disbanding the military and the security forces in a country targeted for US domination is a fatal mistake. These are the forces upon which imperialism must rely for imposing policies that will spell intensified oppression for the majority of the population and for suppressing any genuine revolutionary movement of the masses.
What Washington wants is to effect a change in personnel at the top of the Iranian regime that would bring about a change in policy favoring US geo-strategic interests in Iran and the surrounding region. In Mousavi and those backing him, the Obama administration sees the possibility of shifting Tehran toward more open collaboration in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while promoting “free market” economic policies that would open up the country for exploitation by US-based oil conglomerates and other transnationals. -wsws.org
"In Mousavi and those backing him, the Obama administration sees the possibility of shifting Tehran toward more open collaboration in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, while promoting “free market” economic policies that would open up the country for exploitation by US-based oil conglomerates and other transnationals"
Just because wsws.org says it does not make it true.
And Iran, when Ahmadinejad was president, DID cooperate in Iraq and Afghanistan.
So what exactly are you saying? The US isn't pushing to influence events in Iran to further it's own imperialist designs and hegemony in the region? Perhaps the US should just mind it's own business seeing as we've had not one, but two stolen presidential elections in a row ourselves. Boy, that's stretch isn't it? Pots calling kettles black?
"i'm so bored with the USA"
At least give props to the creators of that great song, The Clash. I fear too many here would not get the reference solely from reading it.
Thanks NateW. I for one didn't know it was a song and thought it was literal statement.
I'm so bored with the u...s...a...
Yankee soldier
He wanna shoot some skag
He met it in cambodia
But now he cant afford a bag
Yankee dollar talk
To the dictators of the world
In fact its giving orders
An they cant afford to miss a word
Im so bored with the u...s...a...
But what can I do?
Yankee detectives
Are always on the tv
cos killers in america
Work seven days a week
Never mind the stars and stripes
Lets print the watergate tapes
Ill salute the new wave
And I hope nobody escapes
Im so bored with the u...s...a...
But what can I do?
Move up starsky
For the c.i.a.
Suck on kojak
For the usa
Ric Tailcap,
May I suggest you and others here whom are not familiar with The Clash acquaint yourself with them. A partial listing of their songs that habituates of this site might enjoy:
"All the Young Punks (and Contracts)"
"Clampdown"
"White Riot"
"Career Opportunities"
"Safe European Home"
"Guns of Brixton"
There are many more to enjoy...and if you like the spirit of the Clash, check out the Dead Kennedys, Crass, Discharge, Rise Against, Pennywise, Bad Religion, D.O.A., among others.
Thanks NateW. Other than Rock the Casbah and London Calling I'm not that acquainted with The Clash. Of the other bands, I have heard of a couple of them and would like to check out those I haven't. Appreciate it.
My apologies. I am a great fan of the Clash and sort of assumed it would be like quoting a line from a beatles song in htat everyone would get it.
My bad
No, I'm not saying that the US isn't meddling in Iran.
I am disagreeing with the idea that Mousavi is necessarily going to be cooperative. It is possible for the world to be more than just a simplistic manichean dichotomy.
Then I agree with you. Both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are defenders of their establishment. But Mousavi may be more open to "reforms" such as pursuing a free market agenda. Hence, more open to US exploitation.
Lila Ghobady did a good job of pointing out that the rights of Iranians will be trampled no matter which one wins. Therefore, opposition to Mousavi doesn't mean support for Ahmadinejad.
Exactly Ric ----- Iran is too friendly with Russia and China to be allowed sovereignty by the USA.
This piece is a long overdue on this site; as quite a few habituates here need to be reminded that evil is not an exclusively American province. In fact, in some ways, Iran is quite worse, especially if one is female or not a Shia.
NateW
Well stated and oh so true.
NateW, we have responsibility to reign in our own pasty white evil first. Besides, it is US petro-imperialism+ that fuels most of the Islamic radicalism - the evidence is glaring.
Now THIS piece I absolutely 100 percent agree with.
From my understanding of Islam and as limited as that is, Shariac law has very little to do with the religion itself.
Shariac law is all about the master and the slave.
Bill Riley would love to here you say this. Perhaps Rush has some intern positions available.
Another clown who posts without without an ability to think.
The Commentary I made is based upon a series of Interviews I linked to long ago my an Islamic Professor who traced the history of the Shariah.
He pointed out that most of its laws evolved from old Tribal laws and had little to do with the Koran.
As example he used the real historical example of a group of Clerics of the Koran meeting some years after the death of Muhammed where when one was asked where a certain law to be included was written (People used to follow The Prophet around and write down all that he said) the response was "A Goat ate it".
He pointed out how the code was created at the behest of a Caliph long after the death Of Muhammed. In that code are restrictions againts rape and murder with caveats "These laws shall not apply to a Countries rulers".
The evolution of the Shariah is very much like that of The Council of Nicea where men took over interperting what Islam or Christianity intended by placing their own interpetations on what Jesus or the Prophet in fact said, leaving out what might have contradicted their teachings.
In short you of the great wit, A Rush or a O"reilly would have little use for me as it my belief that Christianity as it practiced today has as little to do with Jesus Christ as Islam has to do with the prophet.
Good post, I learned some important things.
Sioux Rose
GW NORTH: Well said.
I'm amazed at the way almost everyone has glossed over what the young woman is really saying: that until WOMEN have the same rights as men in an Iranian society where religious bias (as GW North explained its deviatiom from actual Scripture) dramatically impedes and reduces female rights, significant ones, it does not matter who the elected figurehead is.
The subject of homosexuality in Iran is only peripherally related to what the young filmmaker was trying to say about HER experience, and the experiences of persons she knows. It's almost funny the way some in this forum presume that their arm chair perspectives trump the ACTUAL experience of a woman living in, and having direct evidence of the quality of life for females in the nation she felt compelled to leave in order to express herself as a FULL person.
In this thread many contributors have gone off on their own tangents. It's a truly odd one.
Oh Sioux, take a look at the other Iran posts on Common Dreams. Truly an amazing tor of the bizarre. For a while I thought I'd slipped through the Twilight Zone into another dimension. Fortunatly, the phenomenon is not going unnoticed by others.
A lot of people in these comments still do take Counterpunch.org seriously, but after this, maybe even they will be seen as buying into the grand conspiracy. Perhaps the CIA tagged them with it's green pantone as well. But they should still drop by Alexander Cockburn's site and take a look at Al Giordano's "What the Left Should be Learning From Iran." Al is the publisher of Narco News at www.narconews.com, and if you think he's easily duped or some sort of government shill, then you are so completely played out.
LINK http://tinyurl.com/another-reality-check
Here's the highlights reel:
SNIP:
"Virtually identical to those neoconservatives on the right are some on the left who do not celebrate that the Iranian regime teeters. What do they have in common? It is a nostalgia for the Cold War and an inability to break out of its dualist mode of thought: one in which the world is divided between two ideological poles (the dinosaur left and the neocon right disagree only on which pole is “good” and which is “evil” but the rest of their analyses line up seamlessly together)."
SNIP:
"Belief in a bipolar world in which “good” countries ally against “evil” ones internalizes the bipolar cycle of mania and depression among its adherents. It disregards what those of us on the left ought to understand better than most: that global capitalism has made the nation-state a secondary player on the world stage. One of the reasons that George W. Bush’s “war on terror” did not last as a new operating principle for the planet is that it did not snugly fit with such Cold War thinking: when the opposing force is not itself a nation state, there’s no longer a clear dualism. Nation states have a very difficult time when they choose to battle with amorphous networks that do not themselves have flags or capital cities. The same flailing that occurred from Bush’s corner in his inept attempt to deal with Al Qaida is inverted today. The Iranian state is in a similar spasm in trying to deal with an amorphous nonviolent network of communications and resistance by its own citizens."
SNIP:
"Here’s how some leftists mirror neocon thought: Iran serves as a kind of place-marker, psychologically, for the former Soviet system. Because Washington is in opposition to it, Iran must therefore be considered a “good” government, worthy of solidarity. As some disgraced members of the left argued in the last century in defense Mexico’s single-party rule under the PRI, others today argue that if the Iranian state offers social programs and even if it only somewhat resists global capitalism then therefore its violent and authoritarian actions can somehow be justified, forgiven or denied."
LINK http://tinyurl.com/another-reality-check
Some one should tell the Afghans that Bush's war on terror does not exist any longer, oh thats right Obama changed the name to some other BS so it does not exist any longer.
Sticks, rocks, Arson and bombing shrines do not meet most definitions of non violent resistance, but OK it is part of the fantasy reform revolution so what the heck.
Couldn't actually bring yourself to respond to Al Giordano's point, eh?
Good point, drew3000. I keep offering Chomsky's support for Milosevic and Serbia's aggresive hegemony in the Balkans as an illustration of intellectual lasyness on the left. Chomsky's either blind with his almost Stalinistic ideology, or he's sold to Seth. Either way, he's not an anarchist he claims to be.
Sioux Rose
DREW: Thanks for the anotated articles. Intersting, all. A lot to take in. I don't rule out U.S. intervention, of course; but am not educated enough about the region to sponsor a position, other than relating to the writer's experience as a female in a patriarchal theocratic state and what THAT means in terms of secular elections and the supposed opportunities these extend to citizens.
If you think Iranian men are getting any more of a free pass in Iran, guess again. It may look like a little more but if you're an Iranian guy, you better be filthy rich or well connected. The same could be said of Iranian women. The same could also be said of those who are same sex regardless of their gender. The men in Iran deserve just as much sympathy as women.
In very many ways that is true. It once more the use of Religion by a Countries elite to dominate the masses.
There was a REASON the Roman Catholic Church believed a population that was educated and could read and write was dangerous . It was to maintain power via ignorance of the masses.
It the same with The Shariah.
MEN make laws and rulings and CLAIM It divinely inspired thus any that question the same are in Sin or Infidels.
Now the problem with the Men of Iran, is that while they are certainly kept subject via this "Divine law" , they participate in their own subjugation by their treatment of women.
Its akin to keeping the slave pacified by allowing him to own slaves.
At least here's someone who understands this a lot better. Thank you for acknowledging the sharia law. I find the leftists pretty cool on most issues but sometimes in their zeal to overcome the tyranny of the rightwing Christian Taliban and Israeli zionists, they'll resort to siding with the fundies ruining it for the Muslim community by even accepting Sharia laws. It's time to overcome the gender divide in both the West and the East. HAPPY FATHER'S DAY !
Right. You're understanding of Islam is about nil.
Then point out where I am wrong seeing you are the resident expert.
The prophet did not write the Koran. It was written after his death. Just as Jesus did not write the bible.
Ghobady's is a sobering declaration, one that would astound many Americans cheering on the protesters. But the question remains: why would there be such an uproar about the fairness of an election that was a sham to start with because of how the candidates were chosen?
I would like to know the reaction to Ghobady's piece by people who've been out on the streets for Mousavi. What better way to understand what's really going on? If the protesters don't categorically reject each of the insults Ghobady lists, what hope is there for Iran? For humanity?
God supposedly built the universe in six stages or six days. Iranians are no better than God. So as soon as they found a crack of infighting in the wall of the governing body, they used it to their advantage. That is all. If succeded they will have at least five more hurdles to overcome. Ms.Lili's concerns may have to wait in the back burner for a while. She should have voted in the first struggle unless she thinks she is better than God.
"why would there be such an uproar about the fairness of an election that was a sham to start with because of how the candidates were chosen?"
Because these are not demonstrations about the fundamental structure of government, the constitution of the Islamic Republic as it stands now but a rather more limited power struggle and class conflict.
Of course Constitutional conflicts stand in the background. People like Khatami and Rafsanjani do have in mind that, according to the theoretical writings of Khomeini, a freely elected Parliament should be the ultimate arbiter of all civil and religious affairs and that the Supreme leader and Council of Guardians were meant as temporary measures to defend against the antagonisms an imposituions of imperial powers.
Leaders like Khatami are trying desperately to keep the hope that someday the necessary transformation to the ideal state can be made alive in the minds and hearts of young people, although this change is not an immediate objective.
Wow. An actual protest voter in the commondreams edop.
The Iranians may be many things but they are not stupid. The mob on the streets do realize that the US and the west are not interested in freedom and democracy for the Iranian people. They also know the US government and the american public by and large do not wish the Iranian people well. Just look at the company the US keeps in west-Asia (Egypt, Jordan, Morroco, Israel) . They also know that the Shah's son has been in the employ of the CIA for nearly 30 years and they are waiting for an opportune moment to bring him in and put a new Shah in place. May be this is the moment or maybe not.
"there are no homosexuals in Iran!"
-- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
Well, this reflects a certain point of view, that homsexual behavior is not an inescapably innate characteristic based on DNA codes or whatever but rather an experiential development or strictly a matter of choice. This is the classical view, say that of the ancient Egyptians, Greeks and Romans... though these folks had a greater toleration for the choices made; "homosexual" is a recent conceptual development which some believe has not been all help and no drawback.
Even though there are convincing arguments against the hypothesis that homosexuality is genetically determined, this should not undercut our support for the freedom of individuals to do what they want in such matters. In fact, the degree to which DNA is used to defend homosexuality somewhat indicates the hesitation some people feel in justifying their own behavior.
Good red herring. Throwing in the genetics vs choice false argument.
Whether it is choice, or genetics, or whatever, it is freaking clear what the term homosexual means. If someone chooses to worship a certain religion, such as oh, Islam, are you going to argue that no Muslims exist because is choice? Or are you going to argue that no believers in the Bahai religion exist in Iran, because it is choice?
State whom you mean by "some". By "some" do you mean the religious right, hmm? Do you mean some on the left, who believe that LGBT and feminist issues, are a "distraction"? Or some on the left who believe that LGBTs are "degenerates"? The anti-imperialist left allied with the religious right. Grand irony indeed.
And define "recent".
Those of us who support full and equal rights for the GLBT community should not be jeering and ridiculing people. Many progressive Iranians may have been embarrassed by President Ahmadinejad’s comments, but on my side, I was embarrassed by the viciousness and obnoxiousness of the American people.
In several work situations, I have met religious (Christian) fundamentalists who do not support GLBT rights. I never ridiculed these people, nor indulged in smug superiority, laughing at them with my coworkers. I talked to them, and in some cases, they opened up some space in their view for GLBT equality. In two cases, the progress has been amazing.
Ahmadinejad did not flatly state that there “are no gay people” in Iran. He said they do not have them like we do in America. Does he mean they don’t have a gay political movement? Was the translation bad? Or does he truly believe there are no GLBT among the 60 million residents of Iran? Instead of braying like donkeys, we could have politely asked what he meant, and certainly could have respectfully challenged him, especially if he really was being literal. That is how progress is made.
Joining the Neocons in ridicule and crocodile tears over the “Iranian people” and their rights does not advance peace. See where that brand of “concern” for human rights got us in Iraq and Afghanistan? Roll up your sleeves and support GLBT rights in America and elsewhere through dialogue and mutual respect. If Americans are so morally superior and sophisticated, then why don’t we act like it?
Thank you Manatee !! We certainly do not need any more death to Muslim homosexual haters Propaganda.
We already have a bomb them out of their Burqas war.
http://i.abcnews.com/US/story?id=3642673&page=1
"When asked about the death penalty Iran imposed on homosexuals, Ahmadinejad discussed the death sentence for drug smugglers. When pushed by moderator and acting dean of the School of International and Public Affairs John Coatsworth, the Iranian president said: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who has told you we have that.""
http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hATGOzv6YSmgeMY1zdYbdpyrG2cw
"NEW YORK (AFP) — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad skirted a question about the treatment of homosexuals in Iran on Monday, saying in a speech at a top US university that there were no gays in Iran.
"In Iran we don't have homosexuals like in your country," Ahmadinejad said to howls and boos among the Columbia University audience.
"In Iran we do not have this phenomenon, I don't know who has told you that we have it," he said.
Ahmadinejad was challenged during his appearance on Amnesty International figures that suggested that 200 people had been executed in Iran so far this year, among them homosexuals.
"Don't you have capital punishment in the United States? You do too. In Iran there is capital punishment," he said."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"In several work situations, I have met religious (Christian) fundamentalists who do not support GLBT rights. I never ridiculed these people, nor indulged in smug superiority, laughing at them with my coworkers. I talked to them, and in some cases, they opened up some space in their view for GLBT equality. In two cases, the progress has been amazing."
In Iran, homosexuals and bisexuals are hanged.
"Joining the Neocons in ridicule and crocodile tears over the “Iranian people” and their rights does not advance peace. See where that brand of “concern” for human rights got us in Iraq and Afghanistan?"
Joining right wing conservatives in other countries, just because they happen to oppose conservatives in the US, does not advance peace either.
"Roll up your sleeves and support GLBT rights in America and elsewhere through dialogue and mutual respect. If Americans are so morally superior and sophisticated, then why don’t we act like it?"
Just because I am not going to make apologias for Ahmadinejad just because he is someone that US neocons love to hate, doesn't mean that I believe that Americans are morally superior, or that the US should start a war with Iran.
It is difficult to have dialogue and mutual respect if the other side's "dialogue" is hanging or beatings.
Judging from the tone of your posts, I would definitely expect you to reject the notion of "respectful dialogue," where you actually listen and consider the other person's point.
So let's throw out "respectful dialogue" and declare you the winner. Let's just accept your arguments for a minute about the depravity of Islam and Iranian leaders. Now what? What is it you think we should do about Iran, Qatar, and the UAE? How do you propose advancing human rights (including GLBT rights) in Iran and elsewhere?
Let's hear your SOLUTION to the problems we are debating.
"
So let's throw out "respectful dialogue" and declare you the winner. Let's just accept your arguments for a minute about the depravity of Islam and Iranian leaders. Now what? What is it you think we should do about Iran, Qatar, and the UAE? How do you propose advancing human rights (including GLBT rights) in Iran and elsewhere?"
Point out to me where I argued about the depravity of Islam in general. Sorry to disappoint you, but I do not believe that Islam is depraved.
Just because I refuse to make apologias for the extremists like Khamenei, for the Wahhabists, does not mean that I am not aware of moderate Muslims, even feminist Muslims, who use the Quran to argue from a feminist viewpoint. Just because I refuse to follow the anti-imperalist leftist line does not mean that I'm not aware of Muslims who argue that governments do not have a right to behave in various autocratic manners, and who base those arguments on Islam. There are Muslim scholars who disagree with the Khomeinei / Khamenei idea of Vilayat e Faqih, the idea of theocracy. There are Iranian Muslim scholars who disagree with the theocracy, for various reasons. There are Muslim scholars who have made various arguments as to how Islam would coexist in modern societies. There is more to Islam than just the views of Khamenei, or the Wahhabists.
So now what? That was the question.
Great comment. Thanks
And this possible misquote, some say he said there is no homosexual problem in Iran,is related to what?
Overturning a possible fair demcratic election?
Destabilizing Iran?
Invading Iran?
Evangelicals will tell there is no such thing as a born homosexual also.
"And this possible misquote, some say he said there is no homosexual problem in Iran,is related to what?"
OK. Let's accept your argument that there is no homosexual problem in Iran. In that case, why is Iran executing homosexuals? Why the hangings? Or is that the solution to the problem?
What is it related to? It is related to this article. It is related to that Iran has hanged gay people.
You have repeatedly asked people to google Mousavi executions. Well then, google Ahmadinejad gays.
Indeed, evangelicals will tell there is no such a thing as a born homosexual. So, the left is now aligning itself with the right wing evangelicals?
Rfloh your reading comprehension skills are poor As evident by your replies to my and manatees posts.
If someone corrects a mistranslation it does not mean they are embracing the statement that has been mistranslated.
I have googled Ahamadinejad gays, no specific reports of gay hangings, no dates no statistics. That said I am sure gays have died under Ahamadinejad but I would bet not in the tens of thousands as those executed by Mousavi.
But no one I know is defending Ahmadinejad they are opposing the destabilization created by the Imperialists.
The Evangelical reference was just that a reference exposing how close to home the exact same ideology is( I can understand how that sentence confused you, sorry).
Read Deepa's Posts above and learn the clear truth.
The point is not to use Burkas , Gay Rights, or non existent WMD's to support the deaths of 100,000 's for obviously differrent reasons.