Saturday, June 22, 2013

Follow the Anti-NeoCon neo-resistance on facebook

Canada has got a group of not-so-talented NeoCons running it these days. They provided an exemplar model of hypocrisy. To debunk a few of their myths, vis a vis "The Iranian Crisis", a collection of related links, and mini-analyses are presented on this page:

We are Ashamed of Harper's Foreign Policy

Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Exposing Canada's hypocrisy in calling the Iranian election 'meaningless'

This is a letter to PM steven Harper and his righthand man in foreign affairs, John Baird.

Mr John Baird & PM Steven Harper

 In response to the momentous victory of the Iranian people in another historical election held on June 14 2013, you have shed crocodile tears for our "freedom" and have followed to call our election "effectively meaningless".

 Sir, what is effectively meaningless is that you speak of "freedom", "human rights" and "due electoral process". Your government is proving to be the most despotic and deceptive government that Canada has ever experienced.

When democratic process becomes too arduous, Mr Harper is known to resort to passive aggressive behaviors manifested in the form of proroguing the parliament (twice) and running away when the heat on the senate scandals became too roasting. This, is "effectively" like running the country with a supreme leader. In fact, we hear you have been recently losing members of caucus who have been vocally critical of how dictatorial you expect them to "represent _their_ constituents"!

These are a few quick examples of your hypocrisy:

Your government, boasts of human right defense and pretends to champion freedom of religious practice globally, while cozying up to Christians behind closed doors.. The Star describes your duplicity on religious freedoms as follows:
The government protests that its sympathies are not selective. It throws in references to other beleaguered minorities — the Falun Gong, Tibetans and Uighurs in China, the Shiites being massacred in Pakistan, etc. 
But its word won’t be taken seriously unless it tells us what it thinks of the following: 
The Rohinga Muslim minority in Myanmar, suffering a systematic pogrom about which even Nobel Laureaute Aung San Suu Kyi has been shamefully silent; the Muslim minority of 175 million in India, whose plight is being addressed by the government of India itself; Kurdish and other minorities persecuted in Iran; the Shiite minority in Saudi Arabia, whose rights are routinely put down by force; and Hindu and Sikh minorities in Malaysia and Indonesia, who are barely tolerated; The Shiites of Lebanon, who constitute a plurality but are systematically denied proportionate electoral and other representation; the Shiite majority in Bahrain, persecuted for decades by a Sunni monarch who has brutally crushed their pro-democracy demands; and Syria’s Sunni Muslim majority discriminated against by the ruling minority Alawite sect of the dictator Bashar Assad.
How about election fraud? 

Let us recall the robocall scandals, the automated calls, which warned listeners that the changes would "destroy Saskatchewan values" and pit rural folk against urban dwellers — all without identifying that the caller was the Conservative party. I heard that the courts have recently ruled your party had committed fraud and that the opposition parties are asking accountability, although it seems to be out of the spotlight which is now on your senate corruption scandal? it seems the Iranian government is not the only corrupt one on this planet!

In fact, that the conservative party committed widespread election fraud is now a world-wide topic Some are calling the results of the election nulled, disowning Harper as Prime Minister! Some other are calling your Canada a police state. Does it mean you have to resign? If such protesters flooded the streets, would you boycot Toronto and the riot police that brutalize protesters like in the G-20 summit?

And, how do you think Iranians feel about the "meaning" of a government that has gained power (53% of seats) but only 39% of the votes. Yes sir, 61% of Canadians DID NOT vote for your government.

 How about freedom of press? 
We hear you have begun your conservative assault on Canada's broadcasting corporation. The Globe and Mail: The federal government is taking a harder line on collective bargaining, giving itself sweeping new powers to steer independent Crown corporations on their negotiations with employees over wages and benefits. The main targets are the CBC, Canada Post and Via Rail. The union representing employees at the CBC warns the new powers are a “ridiculous” infringement on the independence of the CBC. of course this is your media policy (see source):
In an effort to maintain “message control”, Prime Minister Harper has made changes to how the government deals with the media.[2] Harper’s media policy has not been well received by journalists or opposition Members of Parliament. Besides the changes in media relations, there is also the belief that Mr. Harper holds a long-standing dislike of the press.[3] New Democrat MP Charlie Angus criticized Mr. Harper’s media relations strategy. He stated: "Harper ran on a campaign of open and accountable government…[a]nd the first thing we see him doing is putting plywood up over all his windows and barring access to the doors. My question is, why? What is Harper afraid of?''[4] The press in Ottawa believe that they are not being given sufficient access to the Prime Minister and his cabinet ministers. Journalists complain that their calls are not returned, that they are given copies of speeches only when they are days old, and that cabinet meetings are held in secret allowing ministers to avoid the press who wish to meet with them after the meetings and ask questions about their portfolios.[5] The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) sought to manage press conferences by compiling a list of journalists who wish to ask questions and then selecting from that list.[6] Journalists walked out of a press conference to protest the new measures. Outside of Ottawa, the government banned the media from attending the repatriation of dead soldiers returning to Canadian military bases from Afghanistan.[7] 
Human rights?

Harper, you champion the human rights of the Iranian prisoners, but continue to support TORTURE in Gunatanamo bay? And then refuse to take back a Canadian born Arab boy by delaying his trial? Of course, your racism justifies arab-Canadians suffering torture in Syria, and then you obstruct compensating them irrespective of the UN's recommendations.

And how about the Canadian aboriginal right? I hear they go on hunger strike to have you respect their rights? 

They say, it takes a liar to know a liar! the fact that you and Mr Netanyahu are so disenchanted by the vanishing of your like, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, speaks volumes of how insincere you are.

Mr Baird, you did non consult the Iranian community whether they wanted to vote in Canada. effectively you STOLE the votes of Iranian-Canadians, on advice from two lobbies, who ironically work together, in Canada and in the US, towards neo-conservative goals. To call the results of an election that has brought 36 million Iranians to the ballot box (a population larger than Canada's) "meaningless", is meaningless. Even if all these 36 million have voted for the Iranian supreme leader (which at least 18 million of them have not) DEMOCRACY commands you to accept their vote.

Mr Harper, how do you differ from Iran's supreme leader in the rigidity of your judgement and conduct?

Saturday, June 15, 2013

IRAN, Congratulations!

Someone said last night:

"When all around you are in chaos and you are able to maintain a sense of order, you have won. My respect to the people of Iran, no matter who wins."

Vote distribution indicates no rigging

Unlike the last election, after which 45 million votes were counted in a few hours; this time the tally is tickling in very slowly.

Amusingly, the News Agency taht I refered to as False or Farce News last time, has been behaving in a very measured way in the past few days. From over a million votes announced, 47% have gone to the reformist, 13% to the independents (Rezayee & Gharazy) and 39% to the three shades of the conservatives: Ghalibaf (the protofascist but popular mayor of Tehran promoting safety and power first economy next) has 18%; Jalili (the fascist, who talks as if abstract jiberish, has crazier followers and makes me wonder how exactly he has been negotiation with lady Ashton ) has 14% and Velayati (the mellow John-Hopkins educated pediatrician turned minister of foreign affairs for god know how long) the rest.

Some reformists are already claiming victory. Some others, impatient with the announcement, are getting into a pouting mode that Rohani (the reformist) must come out a winner in the first round with over 60%. Iranian presidency needs over 50% of total votes, it is likely there will be a second stage of election between the 1st and the 2nd--without any rigging. It is also not unlikely that Rohani would win the first round, but within a 5% margine

I argue that if the "regime" wanted to rig the vote, and if there was a will to engineer results and "appoint" a conservative, then Khamenei would have twisted the three conservatives to coalition. The conservatives did not coalesce. Au contraire, the went at each other, spelling each other's beans, like opposing politicians do!

The fact that there was no united conservative front makes me suspect that Khamenei himself has voted for Rohani. He did present himself, during the debate, as the more capable one.

Curiously, after casting his vote, after making sure that he did not give a hoot about what the west thought about due process in Iranian election, the "supreme leader" stated that no one, not even his family knew who his favorite candidate was. He then insisted that people's vote was entrusted to them and that the ministry on interior had to guard people's vote in good faith.

I don't want to jump the gun, but I suspect Iran's next president will be its former Nuclear negotiator, a doctor of Law, and the former head of the High National Security Council ... Rowhani is not a reformist, but he was endorsed by all who stand on the "opposition" side of the fence.

This is to be a win-win election. Khamenei has already got to show the world that > 75% of Iranians DO want to express themselves through the existing system (but he also acknowledged the NEED FOR CHANGE.) This will give Iran power at the 5+1 negotiation table; it will also disarm the aggressors who were ready to go "liberate" the "great oppressed Iranians" a la Argo!

The reformists won too, because they demonstrated the resolve of their unity, the steadiness of their resolve, and their maturity to put aside all difference and work towards a common goal. According to citizen reports, this election was held without controversy.  In all polls, n Iran and abroad, I heard stories of HOPE and positive attitude. It is obvious that Ahmadinejad is going to be slapped with all blame for the past ... the outgoing little man voted in silence today, but uncharacteristically late, towards the ending hours of election. I wondered if he was forced to vote, but I suspect he will not be invited to dinner with Khamenei anytime soon ...

An Era of political theater (Ahmadinejad's grotesque/macabre) has ended, and I wonder what Netanyahu is going to cook now to hype Iran's "imminent threat"!

P.S. Some facebook comment: "When all around you are in chaos and you are able to maintain a sense of order, you have won. My respect to the people of Iran, no matter who wins." 

Friday, June 14, 2013

Something's puzzling me

What puzzles me is that despite the growing momentum of the reformist-endorsed candidate Hasan Rowhani, making him a serious contender to the supposedly supreme-leader-picked Ghalibaf and Jalili (who is paid attention to by no one other than CNN and his fanatics), they have not coalesced!

Instead, the head of the Baseej and other goons are making threats that they will not let the "fake" president get elected. And by "fake" they mean someone who is not "TRUELY MOLTEN" in the commands of the supreme leader!

The ministry of interior announced adding 5000 ballot boxes (from 125,000 to 130,000).

I can imagine two scenarios:

a) the hardliners have been caught by surprise, and they do not have a unified strategy of how to deal with the huge "green" supported rally behind Rohani. To cheat? To beat?

b) that Hashemi and Khatami HAD guarantees from the supreme leader that Rohani should go forward, under the supreme leaders nuclear-rights auspices.

A high voter turn out, Khamenei insists, will give him the bargaining chip needed to force the International bullies to drop their carrots and sticks approach, accept Iran's right to nuclear technology, and move forward! The nuclear program IS Khamenei's red line; he will not waiver!

If Rohani wins, both the supreme leader AND the Iranian people will win; demonstrating a rare case of "unity" and compromise in both sides.

Netanyahu may not be sleeping so sound tonight ...

Thursday, June 13, 2013

The Atlantic: How Pressure from the Iranian public is reforming the regime

This is one of the best articles I have seen on Iran's upcoming election.

Still, one wonders why, against the memory of failure in 2009, partisans of the reform movement would be willing to mount another run at the presidency. It may be the case that participation in presidential politics has become for many young Iranians a rite of passage, a chance to succeed where others could not. If nothing else, elections provide a regular, if infrequent, opportunity for catharsis.
It is not lost on Rouhani's supporters (nor on Rouhani himself) that some 34 years after the revolution and the consolidation of clerical authority in Iran, voters are turning to the sole cleric on the ballot for change. That Rouhani, a regime stalwart, the close companion of Khomeini, and the former head of Iran's National Security Council today embodies the leading edge of reform speaks to the peculiarities of Iran's democracy. The righteousness of the revolution is at stake, as it always is, during these elections. Iran seeks not only to stand against the United States, but to prove that its version of democracy, Islamic democracy, is the true version. Whether or not this impulse is sincere, the aspiration leaves the regime exposed to reinterpretations of what it means to be righteous, democratic, and Islamic. The creation of new narratives like Rouhani's occurs because of pressure from the Iranian public. The hustle for votes means finding and accepting new ideas into the old folds of ideology. Outside of another revolution, which is unlikely to occur, this is a considerable accomplishment.

Read more ...

Wednesday, June 5, 2013

The hot market of election debate!

While some Iranians have gotten into a passive-aggressive state with regards to participation in the upcoming election, the debate amongst the 8 candidates is running vigorously.
My wonderful country has no diplomatic ties with Iran, and they have not been collaborating with Iran on facilitating participation in the election for the dual-citizen Iranians who wished to vote (this democratic government, while preaching righteousness over its democratic opposition to the anti-democratic Iran, would not mind to ship back or strip away citizenships from dual citizens.) Therefore, I cannot vote, even if I wanted to!

Thank you democratic nations that decide what version of democracy Iranians ought to practice!!!

Monday, June 3, 2013

If I could vote in Iran's election ...

Hold your horses:

Why can I NOT vote? Well because my country has decided to have no diplomatic relations with Iran! So, effectively, the democracy has decided for me to not participate in Iran's so-called non-democratic election!

But if I COULD vote, I would vote conservative! Not for one of those reformer-masked people; but for an old conservative: Like Velayati (or EVEN Mohsen Rezai!)

"Have you gone mad", you think?


My vote will have a very simple and pragmatic reason: these three have been before our eyes for as long as we remember them. Ineffective, and benign. And that is what I like about them. The other two conservatives, the Tehran mayor (Ghalibaf) and the Nuke negotiator (Jalili) who seem to be the hopefuls by design are just too mercurial and mysterious, respectively. The greenish Iranians feel they have to throw their support behind Aaref and Rowhani to fence off the imminent threat from these potential lunatics; and also because of the ideological loyalty they feel to Khatami's 'wave'; or Mousavi/Karoubi's cause. But I think they are wasting an important opportunity.

To vote for the "opposition", which is at the point reduced to Aref and Rohani who will be coalescing sooner or later is to lose a great opportunity to further split the "Right".

Imagine either of these gentlemen get elected (I don't believe they will because the majority of their base is BOYCOTTING). What executive power will they have under the ring of the supreme leader who is adamant to insist on Iran's "entitlement to peaceful nuclear technology"? And would this election not further radicalize, polarize and thus reinforce the conservative camp?

In the past 8 years, we have been observing the major damage these various conservative factions have been doing to their crooked structure. So, why give them a support pole by electing an  opposition against them?!

See, it is simple law of physics.
When your car is sliding in snow, you should never turn the wheel in the opposite direction.
When trying to extract a metallic object from a strong magnet, the dumbest idea is to to move it fast, and in the opposite direction.

I would vote for a conservative because judging from the reformer-Khatami's era, I have little faith that the 5+1 is sincere about the wish to resolve Iran's nuclear issue. They demand total submission and surrended, only to screw Iran after. And Iran under no government will succumb to that. In fact, all candidates, even those disqualified have insisted they will NOT accept the EU/Us bullying attitude. Yes it is a good "explanation" for the facile minds of the population who seeks 'pinky and rosy peaceful solutions' for the complexities of the world. But currently, Iran is providing a perfect boogeyman to advance a lot of militarism and cold war expenditure, so why would the war-based economies of the world lose such perfect justification for their militarist R&D expenditure?

I would vote for a conservative because the previous right-winger has so badly messed up that it is disservice to anyone to be left this elephantine chore of cleaning up.

I would also vote conservative (accepting ahead of time that this election is not to be won by a reformist) in order to eliminate any potential of unrest, protest, and post-election "cheating" discourse.

I think the country's under economically DARK clouds. It is time to vote strategically. And strategy might command to keep a united front, keep calm and vote for a banal, but benign right-winger; like Velayati. This is not a time to play our theater for the world; this is the time to regroup, and reflect. With Hashemi's blow out, the best bet is to choose someone from the Iran-Iraq war-era: Velayati (minister of foreign affairs from 1981-1997) and Rezayee were in the thick of it all. Bloomberg seems to agree with me on Velayati!

P.S. When expressing my reasoning to my husband he said: 'It's good you cannot vote, otherwise you will have been voting for a man from "the first ring of oppression", whose hands are dipped in blood of all those dissidents assassinated abroad, when he was a foreign minister." (In a 2005 interview with the conservative newspaper Baztab, Velayati stated that those assassinations were harmful to Iran's foreign policy--but he has always maintained that Iran had no role in them.)