February 1, 1979. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s fourteen year exile was finally coming to an end. From Neauphle-le-Château where he had spent only a few months after being kicked out of Najaf by Saddam Hussein (accounts differ on the Shah’s role in this) he had chartered an Air France 747 and was finally entering Iranian airspace. On board were a cadre of Western journalists, including Newsweek’s Elaine Sciolino, who wrote of this exchange between ABC’s Peter Jennings and Ayatollah Khomeini in her book, Persian Mirrors:

“Ayatollah, would you be so kind as to tell us how you feel about being back in Iran?”

“Hichi,” the ayatollah replied. “Nothing.”

“Hichi?” Ghotbzadeh asked him. Even he seemed incredulous at the response.

“Hich ehsasi nadaram,” the ayatollah said for emphasis. “I don’t feel a thing.”

While stoicism is characteristic of a mojtahed of his rank, this laconic reply has nonetheless been the subject of  debate and speculation to this day. (Unbeknownst to me at the drafting of this writing, someone thought of the same opening for their short piece. So, I’ll briefly add that Elaine Sciolino says Sadegh Ghotbzadeh, Khomeini’s aide and translator, innocently flirted with her).

A month earlier, after losing several close confidants and seeing the tide of history mounting against his crumbling regime’s edifice, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi announced the decision to name long time opposition National Front politician, Shapour Bakhtiar as Prime Minister and invited him to form a new government. It was a desperate concession of an autocratic monarch in failing health to salvage his dynasty.

Prime Minister Bakhtiar promised to disband SAVAK, relax martial law, and did lift restrictions on the press and free political prisoners and further promised to hold free elections and determine the future of the monarchy. On the 16th of January, Bakhtiar convinced the Shah to go on holiday. The Shah would never see Iran again; and with him, 2,500 years of royalty was banished. Yet all this was for naught. Too little, too late. And all was made moot by his most fateful mistake: relenting in allowing Khomeini’s plane to land at Mehrabad Airport. After arriving, Khomeini went to Behesht-e Zahra cemetery (sort of like a mix of Père-Lachaise and Arlington) to honor martyrs whom had lost their lives in confrontations with the Shah’s security forces. In a speech before a large crowd there, he vowed to “smash in the mouth of the Bakhtiar government.”

Four days later, Ayatollah Khomeini declared technocrat, Mehdi Bazargan, as the “true” Prime Minister of a provisional government. Of Bakhtiar, Khomeini said in a radio address, “Why do you talk of the Shah, Mossadegh, money? These have already passed. Islam is all that remains” (without any sense of irony that Bazargan was also an admirer and former public servant of Mossadegh). The demonstrators on the streets chanted to effect that Bakhtiar was a servant with no power. They were right. He had alienated both the most loyal military royalists and his erstwhile revolutionary comrades, whom had expelled him from the National Front as a traitor for dealing with the Shah.

To this day some in the Iranian diaspora bemoan President Carter for not supporting Bakhtiar more; but I have doubts there was anything to be done, and fear much of this is emotion (though understandable). On the 4th of January, General Robert “Dutch” Huyser had been dispatched to Tehran. National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski had advocated a coup (I know, right?!). In the weeks he was there, General Huyser concluded and reported back that with troops peeling off at nearly a 1,ooo a day to desertion and defection and the officer corps divided, no such military reassertion of power was practicable.

The evening of February 9, Bakhtiar decided to air the Peter Jenning’s interview to discredit Khomeini. It backfired. At Doshan Tappeh Air Base, southeast of Tehran, Homafars (Air Force cadets and technicians) rebelled. Word reached the Feda’iyan and Mojahedin guerrillas, whom helped fend off the Imperial Guards. After this routing, Tehran became a war zone and the next two days were spent opening up armories and prisons, and overtaking police stations and military bases in Tehran and provinces. There were over two-hundred casualties. At two p.m. General Abbas Gharabaghi declared the Army’s neutrality and they pulled back to their barracks. Around four hours later the national radio station was seized and the victory of the Revolution declared, “in sedaye enghelab-e mardom-e Iran ast” (this is the voice of the Revolution). It was 22 Bahman 1357, the day which would be in symbolism the “4th of July” of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

22 Bahman 1388. Thirty-one years later, this celebration would also occur eight months after protests first erupted in the wake of the contested reëlection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Since the Ashoura protests, the pressure and preparation had been mounting from the security forces and hardline politicians, with principlists issuing similar warnings to lesser and varying degrees; executions, rounding up and detaining opposition, etc. Much of this I outlined in my previous article and won’t go into much depth again here. Although Jason Shams did an excellent summation on the government’s gearing-up,

It tries to deny our existence in the provinces far from the cities, with oil dollars, Chinese tear gas, and Russian hackers helping make the point; telephones are tapped, activists imprisoned, a stroll down the street and we are faced with gangs of Basij and Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Iranians can watch MTV and pornography on satellite television, but the BBC and Voice of America have been jammed. The Internet has been reduced to a trickle, newspapers shut down.

Many in the diaspora were hyping this up to be the last stand. Even Reza Aslan miscalculated. I demur that I may have not made this clear, but I had my skepticism and worry and generally agreed in tone with Geneive Abdo’s prediction. Of all days on the Iranian calendar, the government was not about to be humiliated on this day of all politically charged days. The Greens also risked being too easily  branded counterrevolutionaries. In the weeks that have followed, it has been difficult for me to figure out just what transpired that day in confirmed protests in Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Mashhad and Ahvaz (see videos). Ali Arouzi, reporting for NBC, says he was transported straight from his bureau to Azadi Square for Ahmadinejad’s speech, not allowed to talk to even pro-Government supporters, and driven straight back. Other journalists gave the same account.

So what really happened? I still don’t know. I would agree with Scott Lucas at Enduring America though, that “The Regime Won Ugly“,

There was nothing hopeful in the rows of security forces who, having been prepared after the humiliations of Ashura, were not going to countenance another retreat. There was nothing of glory or Islamic value in the confrontations with Mehdi Karroubi (wounded, his son missing), Zahra Rahnavard (beaten), Mohammad Khatami and Mir Hossein Mousavi (forced into retreat), let alone the thousands of encounters in which chains, batons, and flying-squad detentions trumped hope and determination.

Muhammad Sahimi from Tehran Bureau, added his own positive spin,

First, the very fact that on the thirty-first anniversary of the Revolution, the hardliners had to saturate Tehran and other large cities with security forces just to prevent peaceful demonstrations by the opposition represents a significant victory for Green supporters. This is the day when the people are supposed to come out freely and celebrate the establishment of the political system that the hardliners claim they support, and yet there was an unofficial state of emergency, with tens of thousands of security forces patrolling the streets.

While I wouldn’t call it a “victory” for the Greens (maybe a tactical retreat, at best), this all, of course, make the Leveretts jump for joy. I and other Green sympathizers are often chided to go and join those in Iran. I shoot back that the armchair Basiji fan club have no place telling us that. I’ve been to pro-Green demonstrations here in the states. Maybe for them to show solidarity they could come at us with tear gas and crack a few of our skulls; or take pictures, track us down, and intimidate our friends and family?

As Mir Hossein Mousavi recently said in his first comments since 22 Bahman on February 28th, “this year’s rally was engineered” and,

The green movement missed a historic chance because the regime eclipsed its presence,” he said. “However, it was much more harmful to the regime than the movement because covering up the reality will never result in [the movement’s] elimination. I’m sure that this massive crackdown will deepen and broaden the movement.

Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mohammad Khatami were prevented from joining protests, or for only a brief time. Khatami’s brother, Mohammad Reza Khatami and his wife Zahra Eshraghi, the granddaughter of Ayatollah Khomeini, were detained then released after trying to join protests. Mehdi Karroubi’s car was again attacked and he is reported to have shed blood. Karroubi’s son, Ali, was allegedly beaten in a mosque after trying to protect his father, whose security detail never showed. His other son, Hossein Karroubi gave an interview expanding upon that here. Further, there was word of shots fired in Sadeghiyeh Square north of Azadi Square, where opposition was to meet, but whose numbers were disappointing.

IRIB, the official media organ of the Islamic Republic broadcast this helicopter footage. The original did not, of course, have that pro-government hip-hop, which struck me in similarity to this techno infused Mousavi campaign song. In any case, most rap is banned, especially under Ahmadinejad, so forgive me if I roll my eyes at that. State media also reported the day saw fifty million regime supporters demonstrate according to this live-blog. Iran’s population is approximately seventy million. If I were to define this day as celebrating the overthrow of the Shah or just enjoying a picnic with family and friends, well, that’s not hard to believe. I don’t think that was the expressed intent nor implication though.

From the Green sites now. A video with text commentary, from inside Azadi Square during Ahmadinejad’s speech. There are several significant things in it, including a man sitting on a picture of Supreme Leader Khamene’i and at the end, the Coat of Arms of the IRI, is cut out of a flag and on the ground. Most notably, this (zoom) satellite image went viral:

It was taken when Ahmadinejad was giving his speech, as seen on state television. Compare camera angle there with the picture above. Pro-government supporters contest that these are doctored (by the usual suspects: Hypocrites, Monarchists, Zionists and American Imperialists, of course). This rings hollow with me from those whom cite IRIB and post their own videos with Persian rap, though. A dose of skepticism is always healthy, on both sides. But having said that, IRIB and IRINN’s coverage was suspect most notably in one regard. No live sound. Instead, they played patriotic songs, and their “live” coverage was very canned. This was reported by more than one observer, but Pedestrian gives the most entertaining account (if I can even use the ‘e’ word regarding state propaganda).

Setting up loudspeakers to drown out any eghteshahgar, “attention seekers creating disturbance”, doesn’t match up with a secure government who brushes off the opposition as marginal elements, with decreasing numbers due to “radicalization” (which is admittedly a worry to keeping broad support on the streets, and not confined behind proverbial Persian Walls). Numerous accounts abound of security forces searching people for any green contraband or cell phones and rounding them up into alleys and whisked away. Truth is, there is no telling how many opposition supporters actually made it in and around Azadi Square, and any guesses one way or the other is mere speculation.

There is also the possibility, that given the five day weekend this year, that many more affluent went to Dizin (a ski resort) or the Caspian coast. Of course, there are class undertones in these assertions, but they are not altogether untrue. On the other side, were pictures such as these:

These are the infamous buses the government uses to bring in pro-Ahmadinejad and otherwise conservative supporters to regime rallies and events in Tehran from outlying villages. These supporters are what are pejoratively referred to as sandis. The term comes from a fruit drink handed out to regime supporters by Pasdars and others. The condescending implication here is sometimes that they are poor and are bribed to come to these events with a lunch and drink. Aside from the appeal of a free meal, I would say that’s the wrong way to look at it. This hospitality is common to the Middle East, and Iran is no exception! Except for the fact that while the so-called sandis get refreshments, anyone with green gets a beating (or worse).

Ahmadinejad’s ramp up to this day was full of talking about sanctions, nuclear rights and a failed rocket launch into space. Some speculate that this focus on issues that unify all Iranians could have had an impact in softening opposition. His speech, replete with a rocket centerpiece (paging Dr. Freud), had little of substance. Blame Israel, blame America, blame MeK, and cartoonish gholov (braggadocio), yada yada. He also declared Iran a “nuclear state” boasting they’d reached capability to enrich uranium to medical isotope levels of 20%. Funny thing though, they appear to be having trouble with this. Even Robert Gibbs said that,

“The Iranian nuclear program has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching.”

For once, when not complicit in manufacturing cable news hysteria and pandering to AIPAC & Co. hawks, the White House had a moment of honesty which was in line with such differing experts as David Albright, Flynt Leverett and Reza Aslan on PBS Newshour, during which Reza Aslan said,

But we have to under — we have to recognize that the statement that Iran is going to start enriching uranium at 20 percent, that it’s going to build 10 more enrichment plants in the next year, are, frankly, laughable. I mean, it took Iran years to build its one site in Natanz. It can barely keep that up and running.

So, this is not just for domestic consumption, but, more importantly, it’s designed to get a response from the West, because, if there’s one thing that all people in Iran, despite their politics or piety, whether in the Green Movement or the pro-government movement, agree on is Iran’s inalienable right to enrich uranium.

Of course, the cable news networks seized upon the “nuclear state” headline like addicts to a crack pipe. Rudi Bakhtiar, former CNN and FOX News anchor now with the Public Affairs Alliance of  Iranian Americans (and niece of Shapour Bakhtiar) being interviewed on CNN called out their coverage and said what I have said so many times. In so many words, she basically accused CNN and other networks of collaborating with Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad counts on this response, and instead of keeping the focus on the Green Movement and human rights, they take the bait every time, and muddle the message. I almost stood up and clapped when I saw her do this.

The “Green defeat” analyses have been endless. Juan Cole is included in those that were blunt about it. The government seems to have finally caught up to the calendar battle, and the asset of online social networking and SMS communication has become a liability through monitoring and phone tapping (though this has been overblown, as word still spreads like fire the old fashioned way from alley to alley). This includes exiles like former regime insider Mohsen Sazegara publishing detailed protest routes; and, Karroubi calling to meet at Sadheghiyeh Square and march towards Azadi Square. Security forces just had to close off such routes and again prevent the opposition from forming any large group. From here on, broadcasting rallying points and plans has to be reëxamined and alternatives found.

On the eve of 22 Bahman, amid sporadic Allah-o Akbars (view World Press Photo of 2009), Hashemi Rafsanjani leaked a letter on his personal website which he had sent leader Khamene’i before the June ‘09 election day. In it he warned of Ahmadinejad’s lies (most likely referencing presidential debates, which hearken back to the 2005 presidential election), and against potential election fraud. Before moving forward, I’d like to take a brief excursion back to over a dozen years ago.

On May 16, 1997, a week before election day, delivering his sermon at Tehran University Friday Prayers, Rafsanjani warned, “treachery is an unforgivable act, and I do not consider any sin greater than someone giving himself the right to rig the votes of the people.” Goaded by Rafsanjani, Khamene’i assured a free and fair poll. The following needs to be quoted in full, from Geneive Abdo and Jonothan Lyon’s 2003 book, Answering Only to God,

But Khatami and his aides were well aware that pressure was mounting steadily on President Rafsanjani and the leader to prevent him from winning a clear majority in the first round. They worried that a second round would allow plenty of time for dirty tricks, sabotage, or even a coup by hard-liners in the Revolutionary Guards and their volunteer auxiliary, the basij. If the establishment were ever tempted to defraud the voters, then this was surely the moment; the threat from Khatami to the social, political, and theological order that had settled over the country since the revolution appeared simply too great.

These Khatami aides telephoned Rafsanjani to ensure the integrity of the count on election day. His daughter, Faezeh, arrived at the Interior Ministry with a retinue of armed security to ensure no shenanigans (though this could be interpreted as one in itself, she can handle herself. Watch this recent verbal confrontation with Basijis where she is cornered). In elections, while counts are taken locally, a second counting is undertaken when they are collected at the Interior Ministry (which does not have to match up with the first form’s tally). Before this year’s count, there were allegations from officials in the ministry warning of the possibility of tampering and pointing to a supposed fatwa from Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, Ahmadinejad’s spiritual advisor and member of the Assembly of Experts, that rigging the vote was okay for the greater good of preserving the Islamic system (this would correspond to rumors that he is part of the Hojjatieh, an anti-democratic “C Street”, it might be put).

The Interior Ministry’s count is then validated by the Guardian Council. The Guardian Council is notoriously conservative. It is made up of six clerics, appointed by the Supreme Leader, and six jurists, nominated by the Head of the Judiciary, who is himself appointed by the Supreme Leader. Notice a pattern here? (It is also the Guardian Council which selects candidates in the first place.) To claim that their recount was impartial begs incredulity; quis custodiet ipso custodes? And, finally, the Supreme Leader can nullify the results. Mohsen Reza’i, then still Chief Commander of the Pasdaran had hinted in 1997 he was prepared to crush an uprising should Khamene’i have asserted this power.

This past election, as a candidate himself, Reza’i expressed initial doubt over the election results. An additional irony to all this is that I am not one of those convinced Ahmadinejad necessarily couldn’t have actually won. The institutional power and stacking of provincial power and influence in the Interior Ministry involved in administering elections did nothing to engender confidence though. Nor did the clumsy handling of election announcements. Any ‘Zionist instigation and sowing of doubt’ would frankly be redundant, and those claiming this is part of the imperialist MSM demonizing the IRI need to do their homework to disabuse themselves of this adolescent reductionism. Correcting all these institutional inequities in the system constitutionally have been core planks of the Reform platform since its inception, as the name would imply.

What now though? Questioning the election results are now regarded as a “sin” by Khamene’i and hardliners. Even conservative foes like MP Ali Motahari, opposed to Ahmadinejad have suggested Mousavi drop this issue and stop protests altogether, additional overtures of allying against Ahmedinejad and addressing compromised solutions to the problems, blaming both sides of stubbornness. This, of course, would remove leverage which Mousavi gets from the streets. Also to be taken into account is the eternal pragmatist, Rafsanjani, who in his recent praises of the Supreme Leader and condemnation of “sedition” cast a little worry, though one must consider the art of Persian riddle talk that I’ve mentioned before. It may be triangulating, hedging and deal making behind-the-scenes to be read here. It is widely assumed that Rafsanjani still covets the title of Supreme Leader for himself. Ousting Khamene’i via the powers invested to the Assembly of Experts, which Rafsanjani chairs, is not happening. Rafsanjani is playing his own game, where the opposition serves not only his more moderate positions, but perhaps more importantly, his own ambition. Mousavi is still safe, and Rafsanjani’s fingerprint can be assumed in that circumstance.

My humble advice would be to sideline the election issue, as Mousavi has done, and focus on the human rights and constitutional violations of the past eight months. There is plenty of material to work off of here, as outlined in this lengthy Iran Human Rights Documentation Center Report, “Violent Aftermath: The 2009 Election and Suppression of Dissent in Iran” (PDF). Just recently, this video from June 15th, thought to be leaked, came out capturing a Tehran University dormitory raid (one can only wonder what may come out in months and years to come). Regime defenders are more comfortable debating numbers and math, rather than blood. Even the now ubiquitous, “I didn’t vote for Ahmadinejad, but…” posters on the internet (taking a cue from arch-apologist and Leverett BFF, Tehran University professor, Dr. Mohammad Marandi) try to compare riot control tactics of the West and Iran, or Iran under the Shah. The crackdown isn’t as brutal as under the Shah, and therefore this isn’t a real movement (only they use the straw man of “revolution”), goes the line of reasoning. How facile! You think veterans of the ‘79 Revolution don’t know what affect a public massacre like Black Friday has?!  The riot comparisons can be interesting, though, and I take note of the valuable perspective. But stretched too far and ignoring the broader societal context can take it to levels ad absurdum. Kent State, Seattle 1999 and G20 crackdowns of free assembly are not to be celebrated, and the deflection employed by the IRI hardly lives up to their utopian boasting. What are they trying to say? That they’re Western-lite and still backwards in their repression? In addition, we’re not talking about sound cannons here, and the backdrop is of a much more authoritarian state apparatus. Patriot Act? eat your heart out. Freedom of Information Act? …Hold on, let me stop laughing. Sorry, but no, it’s not the same thing.

One of the more interesting articles on riot tactics compares 2009 Iran with 1960’s America. This suits me just fine, as my contention is not to think of this movement as about sore losers, but the election as a spark for a long simmering civil rights struggle and shifting demographics of the Children of the Revolution, as Hamid Dabashi contends in his series of webcasts, “This Week in Green,” and as was written in an article by Ian Morrison, “An Iranian Civil Rights Movement?” which pivots to economic policy,

Aside from comparisons to the Civil Rights Movement, one finds in the discourse on Iran a great deal of squabbling about the class character of the Green Movement protesters and what that means for its future. Early on, Ahmadinejad sympathizers heaped scorn on the Green Movement, claiming that protesters were all from the affluent neighborhoods of northern Tehran. This account is parochial at best; while nobody has contested that people from northern Tehran participated in various demonstrations, the Green Movement has an amorphous and complex makeup that belies easy classification along the lines of this or that political allegiance, especially given the suffocating repression of the Iranian state. Calling the demonstrations “middle class,” as though this alone amounts to a “political analysis,” circumvents any consideration of the potential for working class and labor issues to be taken up by the movement over time.

Indeed, when discussing where the movement goes from here, everyone looking back to the years of 1978-1979, look to the crucial aspect which organized labor played through strikes. Ian Morrison previously did a piece entitled “Iran’s New Labor?“, an interview with trade unionist, Homayoun Pourzad, who described Ahmadinejad as “profoundly anti-Left and anti-working class.” Four labor organizations listed ten minimal demands before 22 Bahman with the reminder that,

A nationwide strike lead by workers at the National Oil Company, the vanguard of the Iranian working class, shut down oil pipelines, ultimately tearing the despotic regime asunder. Masses of people chanted, “Our oil workers! Our resolute leader!” Power fell to the people.

This is a not so subtle reminder of the Left’s crucial role in overthrowing the Shah. On February 19th, 600 workers at Bandar-e Abbas went on strike for a common complain: unpaid back wages. Other strikes can be found in Hamid Farokhnia’s “Ahmadinejad’s import mania” which has this passage full of symbolism,

Today, even women’s traditional attire like chador comes from abroad, all government agencies have been instructed to use imported food staples for employees’ meals, and many Chinese goods are cheaper in Iran than anywhere in the world outside China itself. No wonder domestic producers can no longer effectively compete with the flood of foreign goods.

Ahmadinejad is importing to offset inflation and benefits from an artificially high exchange rate for the rial. As such, the article points out only 9% of tea is domestically produced (Iranians take great pride in their tea), and over the past four years sugar production has been halved. Such hard numbers are hard to come by, though, to substantiate this, and economics generally makes my eyes glaze over. The article’s title of “import mania” though, is a reference to the same phenomenon of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi in the 60’s and 70’s. One should be aware of trying to draw too many conclusions in attempts to make comparisons for an agenda. It doesn’t make it untrue though. It would also explain what jumped off of my computer screen as a stretch when I read Reza Aslan’s review of 22 Bahman,

If the mullahs and the merchants begin joining forces with the protesters, even as the Revolutionary Guard becomes more entrenched in the political sphere, a civil war may be inescapable.

While I’d ask Reza to watch it with loaded talk of civil war (his track record is still pretty good though), he points to an article by Jamsheed K. Choksy about Ahmadinejad moving more from the clerics and doing triangulating of his own. Ahmadinejad is a maverick, and shrewd politician, whom has cultivated real appeal to a good segment of Iranians. From Choksy’s Newsweek article,

As a result, together with the IRGC and Basij (a volunteer paramilitary group that has attacked opposition protesters), Ahmadinejad and his ilk are turning to totalitarianism, rather than the fundamentalism of Shiite clerics, to suppress the steadily growing democratic aspirations of the Green Movement. Yet the mullahs have strong allies too, not only in the legislature, led by Ali Larijani (who hails from a family of well-known clerics), but even among the president’s own clan, whose members remain divided on abjuring theocracy.

I realize I’ll need to decode all this economic factionalism. Let me try to piece this together. As Nikki R. Keddie put it in Roots of Revolution,

Governmental favoring of nonbazaar trade and industry and various plans of “modernization” or dispersal of the bazaar … were partly designed to weaken the bazaar’s politico-economic cohesion.

That was during Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s reign. Now consider the following from Robert Baer’s The Devil We Know in light of Ahmadinejad’s “import mania”,

[T]he Revolutionary Guards are, in a sense, a state within a state. They own more than a hundred companies and control as much as $12 billion, possibly more, in assets.

Reza Aslan contends that it was part of the Obama Administration’s strategy, in targeting the Pasdaran (which may control as much as a third of Iran’s economy) in sanctions, to send a message to bazaaris (traditional merchant class). The bazaari-ulema (merchant-clerical) relationship is deep, their networks complex, and go back centuries. Along with the intellectual-professional class and labor on the Left they formed the indispensable Right flank that brought down the Shah. Clerics often come from the bazaari class, and mosques are often situated in or near bazaars at the heart of a city.

The bazaari-ulema constituency is most often associated with the principlist conservatives like Speaker of the Majles Ali Larijani or commercial pragmatists like Rafsanjani. The first general bazaar strike since the Revolution occurred in 2008 in response to a proposed tax by Ahmadinejad. Taken all together, Aslan’s view is a good angle to take on deciphering the purpose of these new sanctions. Because, other than appeasing AIPAC and hawks in both the Republican and Democratic parties who want to “be tough” on Iran for domestic consumption (even if only with empty and counterproductive measures), the sanctions will likely have minimal effect on an organization which operates significantly like a mafia; on the black market. However; even if words of Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey (whom Press TV always subtly has a prominent picture of) to the effect of helping ordinary businessmen over a “select group of insiders” never makes it past the filter of Iranian state media (unlike Secretary of State Clinton’s “military dictatorship” comment and Iran’s response), at least Obama’s policy team is sophisticated enough to get the internal dynamics of Iran when they’re not concurrently pursuing the same old failed Washington-Tel Aviv-Riyadh line. As Shirin Ebadi suggested, sanctions on Siemens Nokia Networks would also be appropriate, even if sanctioning a Finno-Germanic venture is less palatable to US lawmakers.

Of course, Newt Gingrich compares the policy of the Obama Administration to the appeasement of Hitler. If anyone is Neville Chamberlain, it is George W. Bush, who created the political vacuum with which Iran could implement the Lebanon model of proxies and utilize long established Shi’a political allies (many who were exiled in Iran under Saddam). The upcoming Iraqi elections will be a good measure of the level of their success in effectively annexing the chunks of the country in all but name. In any case, Newt, take it up with Iranian-Americans, who in a PAAIA poll conducted by Zogby International, approve for the most part of Obama’s tact.

My cautionary take in regard to the bazaari-ulema class is to see it through the prism of parliamentary factional maneuvering and not to put too much hope in a general strike, and certainly not in them joining the ranks of the Green Movement (at least not any time soon). Such is reminiscent of speculation that the Artesh (regular army) might step in in the height of the summer protests. To their credit, they have remained professional and neutral, honoring Khomeini’s injunction on the armed forces (unlike the Pasdaran).

In any case, aside from fundamental sociological factors, looking back upon the ‘79 Revolution, which 22 Bahman commemorated, as a blueprint for another revolution is specious. What the Green Movement represents, officially, is a simple aspiration for there to be respect of a plurality of opinion and civil society within the framework of the Islamic Republic. This is expounded by Mousavi in his most recent interview published on his personal site, Kaleme. While pointing out that bussing in supporters was done by the Shah among other repressive tactics, the headline was when Mousavi stated that “[t]his is the rule of a cult that has hijacked the concept of Iranianism and nationalism.” I would highly recommend reading the full translation.

He also echoed Karroubi’s request that dueling rallies be allowed (I even recall the suggestion that they could be held outside the city) and a referendum on the Guardian Council’s role in future elections. The translation cites Art. 54, but I believe it is Art. 59. This would mean going through Art. 177 to change Art. 99, if I am not mistaken. That requires going through Khamene’i, Ahmadinejad and the Expediency Council after which, a Council for Revision will be formed (which is required to consist of members of the Guardian Council itself, among representatives from every other key institution and branch of government) to discuss the proposal. Then, the Supreme Leader approves of the referendum, to be put to the people to vote on (how many problems could you count in that formula?). This was only done once before in 1989, at the behest of Khomeini, who tailored it to his successor who had neither the charisma, following, nor religious credentials he had. Members of that council included Karroubi and Mousavi. They are posturing here. They know full-well the hurdles and equilibrium of power is decidedly set against them. But, so do those whom identify with the Green Movement. Maybe the task here, with this specific goal, is to unify the movement in pressuring the Supreme Leader to entertain it or implicitly highlight the faults in the current system to the most ardent and apathetic alike and mobilize them around a coherent message.

As to the Supreme Leader jettisoning Ahmadinejad, in what was from the start of his first election, an awkward alliance, I would ask this: can he afford to do this without further risking the legitimacy of his own position? It would be tantamount to a concession and desperation mirroring Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi’s scapegoating of Prime Minister Hoveyda in 1977. It would be possible, I suppose, to hold Ahmadinejad in breach of Art. 113, stating that the president must be held to uphold and protect the constitution, and under Art. 130 “voluntarily” issue his resignation. But, since elections are “divine tests” of Allah’s will, and the Supreme Leader is Allah’s proxy on earth who already validated the election, how could he pull this off? And, more importantly, is the Supreme Leader really in complete control anymore? It goes to the core of the inherent contradictions of a Theocratic Republic, which is critiqued at length by Islamic scholars such as Mohsen Kadivar, and bemoaned with sad regret by the writers of the original draft constitution from the liberal Freedom Movement like Nasser Katouzian, whom had their work mangled and the exaltation of the position of Vali-ye Faghih enshrined beyond symbolic mediator and into a turbaned shah. I have a pet theory on why since Banisadr, no president has ever lost reëlection, but it’s more of the musing category, and I don’t really feel comfortable sharing it in this piece. There are also other perfectly reasonable explanations regarding state media and elections being personality-driven.

But, if the opposition’s goals seem doomed, then what does that leave us with? On CNN Newsroom, Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment and Trita Parsi of the National Iranian-American Council were interviewed by Don Lemon (for a humorous look at this pairing read this!). Trita Parsi made this point,

And the mere fact the game continues is in and of itself a defeat for the government because eight months, nine months after the fraud in elections this is still going on. Sometimes demonstrations are bigger, sometimes they’re smaller. But any sense of normalcy the government is yet to be able to find.

With all the talk of disappointment, or squabbling over the true size of the movement, perspective is lost. Even by the most conservative estimates, this is the largest social upheaval and challenge to the institutional establishment of the IRI in certainly twenty years; the length of Khamene’i’s tenure. Larger than the original 18 Tir student protests in 1999 or their commemoration in 2003. Comparisons to anti-war demonstrations starting in the spring of 1985 which intermittently continued until 1988 (when Mousavi was Prime Minister, by the way) as the Iran-Iraq war needlessly dragged on before Khomeini drank the “poison chalice” would be more tenuous. But it would validate Mohsen Kadivar who said in 2000 that, “if more Iranians are willing to suffer, the establishment will have to give in.” Except, in that case the suffering was more immediate and affected everyone. As I said, tenuous comparison, and hardly an analogous circumstance. Although, it sapped the original revolutionary zeal in the public which Ahmadinejad and his coterie of mid-ranking Pasdar allies pledged to restore in 2005.

For additional perspective, one only need look at Mousavi’s history itself, such as in this article from The New Republic by respected scholar of Iran, Abbas Milani; or this one from Tehran Bureau’s Muhammad Sahimi. Who would have thought that Mousavi; a soft-spoken regime insider selected by the Guardian Council to run, would have stood up to his old rival Khamene’i this long? And can they afford to arrest him? Apparently their current line, from an Assembly of Experts’ statement is that the “sedition” is crushed and are more successfully changing the subject yet again with the capture and “confession” of Jundallah leader, Abdolmalek Rigi (this is actually newsworthy, unlike most manufactured distractions). Jundallah is a Sunni Baluchi terrorist group, which has had support from America in the past. Figure out the implied message here. And yet, Mousavi will not be cowed.

In Mousavi’s Kaleme interview on the path forward, he was asked about the floated idea of using Cheharshanbeh Souri, a secular sublimation of the Zoroastrian Jashn-e Sadeh (links of which I included at the bottom of my last article “Keeping the Fire Burning“). It is an evening celebration like Guy Fawkes Night mixed with Halloween. Bonfires are made, and jumped over saying “sorki-ye to az man, zardi-ye man az to” to the fire (your red color is mine, my sallowness is yours). Any reader of the Golden Bough or with any knowledge of similar Indo-European practices will instantly recognize parallels here. In present day Iran, it is one of the few times the sexes can freely interact socially and includes a Persian version of trick-or-treating. It also involves fireworks and has developed a reputation as a night of mischief and tragedy, reminding me of scenes of Devil’s Night in The Crow. Blogger Pedestrian thought it a horrible idea, and Mousavi concurred,

The ritual on this day reminds us of the defeat of darkness by light. But the supporters of the Green Movement, while respecting such national and religious occasions, do not want them to be used to harass and hurt the people, especially since those who oppose the Green Movement may have planned to use the occasion to bring the Movement into disrepute.

However; the grand Iranian holiday which it precludes offers hope. While 22 Bahman commemorated a Revolution which occurred before approximately 70% of the population was even born; Nowrouz, the Persian New Year, will provide a test of the Green Movement’s creativity and vigor, and is more ideal in its timeless ancient symbolism than any revolutionary anniversary.

Robin Wright, interviewed by Council on Foreign Relations,

[There's] the graffiti that is showing up on walls and fences and buildings that berates the regime or calls for a new public demonstration; posters that go up in the dead of night with pictures of political detainees demanding their freedom; and shouts at the subway stations [and] in soccer matches that erupt spontaneously, shouting, “Death to the dictator,” or “Down with Khamenei.” These things are playing out on a daily basis. There is a lot of energy behind this movement, not just on the days that people turn out on the street. It is arguably the most vibrant and imaginative civil disobedience campaign anywhere in the world today.

With more creativity to be seen, hopefully, as in the “wall dialogues” mentioned above (1), (2), or as in the fluidity of Persian Rap:

Ghogha ft. Shahin Najafi -- Enghelab-e Tafakor

As always, my disclaimer. I am not an expert. I do my best to interpret current events in Iran, that is all. Corrections are welcome. And nothing is more appreciated than questions on anything Iran-related (even if you don’t make it through the whole article). To prove I don’t take myself too seriously:

Appendix: BBC’s helpful flow chart on the political system of the IRI to help you follow parts of this article.

The Southern Poverty Law Center counted 926 active hate groups in the U.S. in 2008—that’s a 54% rise since 2000.  And those are only groups, lone wolves—no one knows how many. Statistics from the Federal Bureau of Investigation report the incidence of hate crimes showed an eight percent increase between 2005 and 2006. Over 50 percent of these crimes were race-related, with the remaining incidents triggered by sexual orientation, religion and gender differences.

FBI counterterrorism expert John Perren said of “lone wolf” domestic terrorists, “It could be anyone. It could be the guy next door … on the Internet just building himself up with hate … to a boiling point and finally using what he’s learned.” Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 14, 2009

Who are these people who hate? What do they want? What do they believe? It’s hard to lump them all together, as they have different ideologies and display different characteristics, and they all have different objectives. The white supremacists want whites on top of the food chain, want a white Nordic world; the militias are paranoid about the New World Order, or the ZOG, or the federal government coming to put them in FEMA camps or some such takeover; the KKK wants Jews and African American banished from our shores forever, or dead; The Christianists want dominion over--and forced conversions of-- the entire planet, and they want gays killed or at least imprisoned. Some of these groups have imagined grievances; some just hate everyone who is not them.  But they all have one characteristic in common: Intolerance.

Intolerance is generally defined as the state of being unwilling or unable to endure the beliefs, perspectives, or practices of others. It also involves a lack of recognition for the fundamental rights and choices of others.

PSYCHOPATHOLOGY OF HATE

Are they really mentally disturbed, mentally impaired, downright crazy? Some are, but most are not. As far as hate crimes go, one would think individuals who commit these acts to be mentally unstable, however a study carried out by the University of California showed differently. Out of 550 hate crime criminals profiled, researchers found aggression and antisocial behavior to be prevalent, but no personality disorders. Perpetrators were described as typically “normal” with a high tendency towards destructiveness and violence.

Mary H. Guindon, PhD, Alan G. Green, PhD, and Fred J. Hanna, PhD from Johns Hopkins University say that there should be a new designation in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders for people who hate irrationally.

“It is our intention to explore the possibility of an intolerant personality disorder as a previously unrecognized and unacknowledged type of psychopathology that causes harm to people from many cultures and has been destructive in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, and disability. Antisocial, borderline, paranoid, and narcissistic personality disorders are examples of personality styles that are or can be harmful to others. The question is as follows: If intolerance of others in certain forms is indeed destructive and a source of pain and anxiety to its victims, should it not also be categorized as a mental disorder?”

They are part of a growing movement in the mental health community. They do not want to medicalize intolerance or to make it a disease.  But they and others believe it is important to name extreme intolerance as pathology.  They want to document and research the problem in order to develop treatments that can be part of the solution to profound social injustice concerns. Labeling intolerance as a personality disorder has the potential benefit to rehabilitate these people and lead to increased tolerance, which helps us all.

Whether feelings of hatred are rational or irrational, the logic system behind these feelings is distorted. Sigmund Freud classified all forms of behavioral expression as defense mechanisms used to protect one’s self-image. As such, hatred expressed inwardly or outwardly becomes a self-protective measure that works to maintain one’s sense of identity. Intolerance can also be viewed as a defense against change, acting as a form of self-protection. It is a sick defense mechanism.  Suspicion and distrust are perceived as necessary protection against a threat of harm.

The Johns Hopkins team lists these

Symptoms Of Intolerant Personality Disorder:

(a) holds a rigid set of beliefs that assert the intrinsic superiority due to race, religion, culture,or gender of the person’s own group ;

(b) lacks empathy for one or more particular populations, such as Latinos, African Americans, gays, lesbians, or women;

(c) exhibits interpersonal behavior that ranges from covert or overt antagonism and hostility to exploitation toward one or more specific or targeted populations;

(d) seeks to overtly or covertly block, deny, impede, or cancel the social, organizational, psychological, or financial advancement of someone of a group believed to be inferior;

(e) uses power or other means to inhibit or prevent free expression of contrary or intolerable ideas;

(f) has a sense of entitlement based on membership in a privileged group and believes that others should recognize his or her superiority without commensurate achievements or valid credentials;

(g) manifests a pervasive pattern of disregard for the human rights of members of particular populations; and

(h) shows lack of remorse as indicated by being callous or indifferent to having hurt, restricted, mistreated, or maligned members of selective populations.

A study carried out by the University of California on persons who committed hate crimes also revealed that the majority of the participants had a family history of violence and abuse. With this type of background, individuals are more prone to internalize feelings of self-hatred as a part of their overall self identity. As far as defense mechanisms go, one type in particular—projection—is attributed to the experience of hatred directed towards another.

Projection is a defense mechanism in which a person unconsciously directs feelings felt about oneself onto another person. This is a coping mechanism put in place to protect a person from harmful thoughts and feelings felt toward the self. The antagonistic feelings by someone towards the target of his hatred are, in effect, the same feelings he has with himself.

Understanding hate groups is essential for successful intervention strategies, which depend on an understanding of the hate process. According to FBI profilers, their observations show that hate groups go through seven stages in the hate process. Unless stopped, haters pass through these seven successive stages without skipping a stage. In the first four stages, haters vocalize their beliefs. In the last three stages, haters act on their beliefs. A transition period exists between vocalization and acting out. In this transition period, violence separates hard-core haters from rhetorical haters.

FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin/March 1, 2003

Stage 1: The Haters Gather

Irrational haters seldom hate alone. They feel compelled, almost driven, to entreat others to hate as they do. Peer validation bolsters a sense of self-worth and, at the same time, prevents introspection, which reveals personal insecurities. Further, individuals otherwise ineffective become empowered when they join groups, which also provide anonymity and diminished accountability.

Stage 2: The Hate Group Defines Itself

Hate groups form identities through symbols, rituals, and mythologies, which enhance the members’ status and, at the same time, degrade the object of their hate. For example, skinhead groups may adopt the swastika, the iron cross, the Confederate flag, and other supremacist symbols. Group-specific symbols or clothing often differentiate hate groups. Group rituals, such as hand signals and secret greetings, further fortify members. Hate groups, especially skinhead groups, usually incorporate some form of self-sacrifice, which allows haters to willingly jeopardize their well-being for the greater good of the cause. Giving one’s life to a cause provides the ultimate sense of value and worth to life. Skinheads often see themselves as soldiers in a race war.

Stage 3: The Hate Group Disparages the Target

Hate is the glue that binds haters to one another and to a common cause. By verbally debasing the object of their hate, haters enhance their self-image, as well as their group status. In skinhead groups, racist song lyrics and hate literature provide an environment wherein hate flourishes. In fact, researchers have found that the life span of aggressive impulses increases with ideation. In other words, the more often a person thinks about aggression, the greater the chance for aggressive behavior to occur. Thus, after constant verbal denigration, haters progress to the next more acrimonious stage.

Stage 4: The Hate Group Taunts the Target

Hate, by its nature, changes incrementally. Time cools the fire of hate, thus forcing the hater to look inward. To avoid introspection, haters use ever-increasing degrees of rhetoric and violence to maintain high levels of agitation. Taunts and offensive gestures serve this purpose. In this stage, skinheads typically shout racial slurs from moving cars or from afar. Nazi salutes and other hand signals often accompany racial epithets. Racist graffiti also begins to appear in areas where skinheads loiter. Most skinhead groups claim turf proximate to the neighborhoods in which they live. One study indicated that a majority of hate crimes occur when the hate target migrates through the hate group’s turf.

Stage 5: The Hate Group Attacks the Target Without Weapons

This stage is critical because it differentiates vocally abusive haters from physically abusive ones. In this stage, hate groups become more aggressive, prowling their turf seeking vulnerable targets. Violence coalesces hate groups and further isolates them from mainstream society. Skinheads, almost without exception, attack in groups and target single victims. Research has shown that bias crimes are twice as likely to cause injury and four times as likely to result in hospitalization as compared to nonbias crimes.

In addition to physical violence, the element of thrill seeking is introduced in Stage 5. Experts found that 60 percent of hate offenders were “thrill seekers.” They seek an adrenaline high. Each successive anger- provoking thought or action builds on residual adrenaline and triggers a more violent response than the one that originally initiated the sequence. Anger builds on anger. The adrenaline high combined with hate becomes a deadly combination. Hard-core skinheads keep themselves at a level where the slightest provocation triggers aggression.

Stage 6: The Hate Group Attacks the Target with Weapons

Several studies confirm that a large number of bias attacks involve weapons. Some attackers use firearms to commit hate crimes, but skinheads prefer weapons, such as broken bottles, baseball bats, blunt objects, screwdrivers, and belt buckles. These types of weapons require the attacker to be close to the victim, which further demonstrates the depth of personal anger. Attackers can discharge firearms at a distance, thus precluding personal contact. Close-in onslaughts require the assailants to see their victims eye-to-eye and to become bloodied during the assault. Hands- on violence allows skinheads to express their hate in a way a gun cannot. Personal contact empowers and fulfills a deep-seated need to have dominance over others.

Stage 7: The Hate Group Destroys the Target

The ultimate goal of haters is to destroy the object of their hate. Mastery over life and death imbues the hater with godlike power and omnipotence, which, in turn, facilitate further acts of violence. With this power comes a great sense of self-worth and value, the very qualities haters lack. However, in reality, hate physically and psychologically destroys both the hater and the hated.

Symbols, Rituals, and Mythology

Fully understanding hate groups involves identifying and defining their unique symbols rituals, and mythologies. Symbols give greater meaning to irrational hate. Haters use symbols for self- identification and to form common bonds with other group members. Additionally, they often swear allegiance to these symbols.

Symbols, however, are not enough to unify a group; therefore, more organized hate groups incorporate rituals, which serve two functions. First, they relieve individual group members from deep thought and self-examination. Second, rituals reinforce beliefs and fortify group unity.

The hate group’s experiences, beliefs, and use of symbols and rituals combine to create group mythologies. Mythologies unify disparate thoughts and act as filters through which group members interpret reality. Group mythologies can have profound effects on its members. A group with a powerful mythology results in one resistant to ideological challenges, and, therefore, it is more dangerous.

RECRUITMENT

Hate groups have always been interested in getting brighter people into its ranks.  They are looking for is its future leaders, its tacticians and strategists who can create a second revolution—as opposed to those who can just beat up a few people. The internet really helps them meet this goal. Their primary target is often teenagers. In their view, impressionable youth represents the only hope for the future of the “white race.”

Leaving aside the intergenerational, within-family recruitment, the young are being actively recruited in large numbers and through specific tactics. Many adolescents today find themselves alienated from their families. Occasionally this is because the family is brutal or alcoholic, but more often the alienation arises in a home where the parents possessed no other values than the pursuit of money; where the parents are psychologically absent. The fascist youth group in particular offers these alienated kids a substitute family, an environment of mutual concern, and a substitute set of values. For many young people, a fascist group may provide their first real exposure to commitment, to courage, to unity of thought and action, to the motivation of non-materialistic values. Like any good gang.

RECRUITMENT STRATEGIES

Hate groups concentrate their recruiting efforts primarily in high schools and, to some extent, in colleges and universities. They even offer scholarships.  And the Internet seems tailor-made for reaching disaffected young people: teenagers spend far more time on it than their parents do, and many teens consider the virtual world of the web their “home away from home.”

Hatemongers now target young people directly, through hate “music” and special web sites. Young people may be susceptible to online racist propaganda because they don’t have the experience or facts at hand to refute the lies and myths being fed to them.

Although the Internet is a relatively new way to reach young people, the techniques hatemongers use to attract them are still very traditional. Here are some of the strategies hate groups use to attract young people on the Internet:

Music

The rise of white power rock ‘n’ roll has been very important to the racist movement. It’s extremely violent in its rhetoric and lyrics. The songs call for murdering black people or creating a racial holy war or a whites-only revolution, and they’re increasingly being sold to teenagers and people in their early 20s. It’s a great strategy--music is a compelling way to influence young people. When kids surf the Net for music, they may chance on sites that sell hate music, or even offer it free for downloading. Such Web sites often also provide links to hate-promoting brochures, pamphlets, newsgroups, chat rooms or Web sites.

Every year in North America, more than 70,000 white power CDs are sold. Resistance Records (the largest North American distributor of hate music) gross more than $3 million in 2007. Resistance Records has a stable of a dozen high-quality Skinhead bands like a cute girl-band that takes up the mantle from the defunct groups Prussian Blue. Their products can be ordered directly over the Internet. Resistance Records, as well as such established organizations as Aryan Nations and the Christian Identity Posse Comitatus, hold Aryan concerts, Aryan Youth festivals, or annual Aryan Youth Congresses.

Another white power music broker, Byron Calvert, distributed 30,000 CDs in 2007. The campaign is dubbed “Project Schoolyard Volume II” and targets teenagers with a 25-song sampler that features tracks such as “White Power” and “Some Niggers Never Die.” “Remember,” he wrote, “we don’t just entertain racist kids, we create them.” The CDs are on sale for 30 cents each, but Calvert is including several free with each order from Tightrope, his Arkansas-based website that offers hate music and other racist merchandise.  He said he also uses multiple MySpace accounts that are not overtly racist to reach white students at schools where racially charged incidents have occurred.

Skinhead Girl Warrior (Les Vilains)

Militia : May 17 Patrol & training music video

“Let’s see out the Fuhrer’s dream/To break the back of the eternal jew/Rid the world of the evil we’ve seen/Make it safe for me and you.”
— From “Under the Hammer” by Brutal Attack

“When the battle is over and the victory is won/And the White man’s lands are owned by true white people/the traitors will all be gone.”
— From “White Warriors” by Skrewdriver

And there are a few thousand more music videos! If you thought such unabashedly bigoted music was available only from underground sources, you’d be as surprised as I was. At Apple’s iTunes website you can buy albums and songs from white supremacist groups. But iTunes it’s not the only mainstream music distributor selling racist and offensive tracks. Amazon.com also sells music from many of the same white supremacist bands.

Games

Another strategy used to attract young people is white-power versions of popular computer games. Teens may go online looking for the latest cool game, and may find the “hate version” instead.

For example, Resistance Records has produced Ethnic Cleansing —a computer game whose object is to kill “subhumans” such as Blacks and Latinos, and their “masters,” the Jews, who are portrayed as the personification of evil. Players can choose between dressing as KKK members or skinheads. Even very popular mainstream games, such as Resident Evil5 have definite racist overtones.

Books

Many sites have chat rooms and I’ve noticed members often ask about books that promote their ideology. Stormfront and the Nationalist Coalition, to name just two, offer books for teens.

Activities for kids

Some hate sites offer special sections for kids containing games and activities. For example, on the “Creativity for Kids” section of the neo-Nazi World Church of the Creator Web site, children can try their hands at crossword puzzles with racist content. The purpose of the children’s section is ”to help the young members of the white race understand our fight.” Of course, most hate groups home-school their kids, and the bigger sites, like Stormfront.com provide learning materials.

Re: Join the SCOOTS Reading Club…..Promoting Childhood Literacy!

Hail All!

I just wanted everyone to know that the program is a free program for children 2-18. The sponsorship portion is for those that don’t have children, but still want to contribute to early literacy, the love of reading, and family togetherness.

I highly encourage participation from all our children ages 2-18 years of age. It is free and when you meet the goals you have the ability to choose your prizes carefully selected with our Folkish children in mind!

What better satisfaction than to help a child to form a love for reading, or for those avid readers, what better way to get rewarded for a job well done! If you teach a child to read, he or she can truly do anything!

I look forward to hearing from everyone for this program!

__________________
For Faith, Folk, and Family
Lucy

(Stormfront chat room)

Cartoon spokescharacters

Some hate sites use cartoon-like or animated characters, similar to (or identical to) those used in children’s media to attract young audiences.  They don’t even have to invent new ones, as Disney and many other old cartoons provide many racist characters.

OTHER COMMON STRATEGIES

Racialism

White power and white supremacy sites typically deny that they are racist organizations. Instead, they focus on the need to protect white people from assimilation and/or direct threats from non-white groups.  They call this perspective “racialist” as opposed to racist.

The 14/88 Society is a good example of this dynamic. The site’s name combines two hate slogans popular in the white supremacy movement:

• 14 refers to the 14-word slogan: “We must secure the existence of our race and a future for white children”

• 88 represents HH (H being the eighth number in the alphabet), which stands for Heil Hitler

Overtly racist sites, like 14/88, are the easiest to identify because they conform to the mainstream image of the neo-Nazi skinhead hate group. However many hate sites attempt to conceal a racist agenda behind a more moderate message.

Pseudo-Science and Intellectualism

Many hate-mongers use pseudo-scientific intellectualized language and incorporate the work of university-based academics to make their views seem more credible. Canadian professor Phillip Rushton’s work on the different intellectual and physical abilities of different “races” is a case in point. In addition, the late Dr. William Pierce operated a publishing company that released a steady stream of neo-Nazi literature. Pierce’s fictionalized account of racialist revolution in The Turner Diaries is said to have inspired the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995.

Historical Revisionism

Holocaust denial is a frequently used strategy. Haters who “revise” history argue that the Holocaust either did not occur, or was less significant than the historical record indicates. And they are insidious. Let’s say your child is given a school assignment to write about Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Most likely, he or she will go to the internet and search for Martin Luther King. What they could easily find is pretty scary—and despicable. On one site I found this Discovery Channel movie trailer claiming that whites are the indigenous Ice Age North Americans.

ANTI GOVERNMENT SENTIMENTS AND RECRUITMENT

At a deeper level, recruitment into the neo-fascist movements is based on the on-going crisis of capitalism, especially in North America.

Worsening economic conditions, political instability, a perceived sense of injustice, or a struggle of groups for self-identity or power are among the conditions that may precipitate planned or spontaneous outbursts of violence by groups against individuals, other groups, or the state.

Research on genocide, group violence, and hate crimes have shown that such factors as economic problems, political conflict, or rapid and substantial social change interact with group characteristics such as the need to scapegoat or devalue other groups, the inclination to hinge a better future on identifying enemies who stand in the way, and a pattern of aggression.

Corporate downsizing, declining real wages, changing technology, increasing gap between the wealthy and everyone else, and the steady decline in manufacturing jobs replaced by lower paying, less secure jobs in the service sector, have all combined to leave the average American worker feeling vulnerable and betrayed. For rural Americans, economic uncertainty is compounded by threats to traditional rural industries like logging, mining, ranching, and farming. These are the conditions in which hate groups thrive.

NEXT—HATE IN AMERICA, Part 4:  What Can Be Done

The last month in Iran has been full of little clues and a few intrigues. I will try to pare them down. This update has been long coming, and before I become even more overwhelmed, I’ll try to do my best.

The beginning of the Gregorian year, January 1st, 2010, following the Ashura demonstrations, the most violent since summer, Mir Hossein Mousavi issued this statement. This included five primary conditions, giving structure and form to the Green Movement.

1. Accountability for the current Ahmadinejad administration. Real application of the checks and balances of the judiciary and majles as outlined in the Constitution.
2. New election laws, passed by the majles, to ensure lack of interference at all levels of government.
3. Release of all political prisoners.
4. A free media. Letting foreign press report, reopening banned newspapers and ceasing internet censorship and signal jamming.
5. Upholding the peoples right to demonstrate without fear.

As was predictable, Kayhan, the Iranian Pravda, says in a headline (Farsi) that it was written by the CIA and Mossad. Five noted expatriate reform intellectuals issued their own ten demands. I would not put too much importance upon this, though, and offer it merely for your perusal.

On taking stock of the movement the day after the statement, Muhammad Sahimi stresses this “is a Marathon, not a sprint.” That the trio of Mousavi, former President Khatami, and two time Majles Speaker Karroubi, are no longer merely symbolic leaders. Sahimi continued:

Up until recently, the jury was still out on whether the trio truly led the Green Movement. It was particularly unclear whether Mousavi was truly interested in fundamental changes, or even had what it took to stand up for anything. Two important points about Mousavi must be considered. … by all indications, he is recognized by most of the supporters of the Green Movement inside Iran, as well as the hardliners, as the symbol and the leader of the opposition.

The fact that even the reticent Khatami has stepped more into the fray and that Karroubi says that even the shah would not have transgressed Ashura by creating such crimes demonstrates that they are taking their stand, and not backing down half a year into the movement.

The increased pressures, threats and attacks on the offices of heir apparent to Montazeri’s mantle, Grand Ayatollah Sane’i, and Karroubi; in addition to, increasingly empty promises to arrest the three and a full-on crackdown, give all the evidence I need that this is not the meaningless movement the hardliners and their Western apologists here claim. Indeed, this was an interesting article by Borzou Daragahi on the opposition movement in the heartland from the Los Angeles Times and the spread of DVD’s with footage of demonstrations. I, of course, caution against reading such sources with too much confidence in their representative nature. The one fact that we are certain of is that press access is extremely restricted, so wherever one’s sympathies lie, hard information is hard to come by. That is why Iran has become such a contested debate among policy experts and online bloggers alike (*ahem*), with the last line of refuge among apologists often coming down to these polls. My response? I wouldn’t care if they were a few dozen. Even if I were to accept the polls, it is irrelevant to the issue of human rights. That, too, is apparently controversial to the woo-woo. I’ve had more than one scoff at Amnesty International as an organization which is apparently part of the Zionist NWO conspiracy.

On that note, perhaps the highest profile apologists: the Leveretts. In a New York Times op-ed on January 5, they called on Obama to proceed on course, and ignore the Green Movement. In this they also went out of their way to simplify history, distort information, peddle conservative Iranian propaganda and construct straw man after straw man in what seemed like spite for inconvenient internal developments which complicated their pet cause: détente. While I do not entirely disagree with their call to proceed on a vigorous diplomatic track with Iran or their goals of rapprochement regardless of government (Nixon, China and the Cultural Revolution are often brought up to support this view, and indeed, Sen. John Kerry’s request to visit Iran got little notice), I thought that their blithe dismissal of those risking harm for human rights (click here for a recent roundup) was petty and unneeded to make that case. And their construct of arguing against this as an overthrow of the Islamic Republic by the secular elite was unbecoming to experts of their caliber. They often fall into the mire of Western foreign policy debate rather than addressing the situation in Iran directly - though in their follow up to criticisms, they doubled down on their rationalizations and ostensible objectivity. Juan Cole read my mind when he wrote:

Being someone who has spent his life studying Iran, I am of course frustrated by what I see as significant flaws in the debate as conducted by policy thinkers in the NYT. But I have long since concluded that the New York – Washington – Tel Aviv discourse about the Middle East is not about the Middle East but about New York and Washington and Tel Aviv, and that it is virtually impenetrable because it is driven by powerful interests rather than a dispassionate consideration of facts on the ground, a sense of proportionality, and a textured knowledge of the target country (and I do mean target).

Such policy debate is understandable, as this was the motivation that drove them to dispel such fanciful notions, often reverberating amongst the monarchist expat diaspora and neocons alike, that the régime is on its last legs. However; in this they misjudged and missed the mark. In the Jan. 1 demands of Mousavi, did they see a phantom call to annul the election? Since writing “Ahmadinejad Won. Get Over It” they themselves haven’t gotten over the fact that this moved beyond the election quite some time ago (though Karroubi did allude to “respecting the electorate”). And they shill fatalism of the Reformist’s eventual failure almost gleefully (which is in a sense okay, given the emotional connection Iranians have for Imam Hossein, or Rostam). The apologists online seem to be clinging to that argument desperately, as if it abridged the Constitutional rights of Iranian citizens to gather. Furthermore, they, along with the Leveretts, see it as a vast minority and dwindling, comparing those whom risk considerable violence to assemble with those whom are given the day off, fed, and handed banners. While many of these apologists try to deride the opposition as a “Tea Party Movement” for its inchoate message (as if anti-war marches during the Bush administration practiced message discipline) or as North Tehrani ‘Birthers’; a more apt comparison could be found in the upheavals of the Civil Rights Movement of 1960’s America. As Hooman Majd said in Foreign Policy:

What is evident is that if we consider Iran’s pro-democracy “green movement” not as a revolution but as a civil rights movement — as the leaders of the movement do — then a “win” must be measured over time. The movement’s aim is not for a sudden and complete overthrow of Iran’s political system. That may disappoint both extremes of the American and Iranian political spectrums, left and right, and especially U.S. neoconservatives hoping for regime change.

Their sin is that the Leveretts know better, and in their attempt at dispassionate analysis, they’ve overcompensated, downplaying the hardline response and Principlist maneuverings which is, in my mind, implicit evidence of a more than insignificant challenge to their political grip on power – though this is not imperiled so long as hardliners and conservatives hold all significant levers of power. I also take note of Flynt Leverett’s friend, Mohammad Marandi (video). Remind you of anything (video)? Other good responses were from Abbas Milani in The New Republic, Enduring America’s Scott Lucas and Tehran Bureau’s Muhammad Sahimi.

While articles like this from the Los Angeles Times with headlines hinting at a government threatened with collapse and the spin from pro-Reform sites such as Rah-e Sabz (Green Path) are to be kept in mind, as should individual first-hand accounts; the alternative is most often Iranian state propaganda – as papers and web sites contradicting the hardline position are methodically shut down and journalists thrown in jail. Last count, going up in past few days, is now 63 at this writing. So, forgive me if I have more faith in Western media (for all of its faults) and Reformist sites than even more reasonable Press TV (comparatively speaking in comparison with other state funded media) whom produced this “exposé” on Neda Agha-Soltan’s death being faked, and spawning a YouTube video or two reminiscent of Oliver Stone’s famous “back and to the left” scene and defended by the same Alex Jones types that believe the moon landing was a hoax. To fully nail home the link between Iranian hardliners and Western woo-woos, is this whopper of a headline: “Report: US weapon test aimed at Iran caused Haiti quake”.

Time and time again, what Hooman Majd describes as “schizophrenic” responses and one-trick pony attempts to control the message, later reports tend to contradict initial denial. This is true of the Kahrizak detention center affair. According to BBC:

Iranian MPs lifted a blanket of official denial on the country’s post-election upheaval today by blaming a ­senior regime insider for abuses that led to the deaths of at least three prisoners in a detention centre. …

Today’s report dismissed a claim from Mortazavi that the prisoners had died from meningitis and ­acknowledged that they had been assaulted.

But of course, the sacrificial lamb they pinned this on, Saeed Mortazavi, claimed he was on vacation when these abuses and deaths occurred. Was the “butcher of the press” also on vacation when Zahra Kazemi, the Canadian photojournalist, was raped and her skull fractured in 2003? As Human Rights Watch pointed out, he was already a serial offender. In fact, after he was found responsible for Kahrizak abuses, the Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister, Lawrence Cannon, called for her case to be revisited (since he, the accused, was put in charge of investigating the original case!) and her remains repatriated to Canada, per her family’s wishes.

By far the biggest source of intrigue this past month, was the bizarre assassination of particle physicist, Masoud Ali-Mohammadi on January 12th. State media immediately hailed him as a faithful supporter of the Revolution and institution of the velayat-e faghih, and reflexively pinned the blame on the US and Israel. Students of Ali-Mohammadi were then quick to point out that he had been a supporter of Mousavi. Am I saying that being true to the Islamic Republic and to Mousavi are mutually exclusive? No. That’s not what I’m saying.

Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour were hung on January 28th, having been sentenced in October for being members of the Anjoman Padeshahi-ye Iran (API, also known as Tondar, whom are a relatively obscure group with the aim of reestablishing the Pahlavi dynasty), for planning attacks on Ahmadinejad and apparently being connected with the 2008 Shiraz terrorist Mosque bombing (even though three others were already tried and executed for that). The AP’s Ali Akbar Dareini (in league with Zionists, mind you) reported:

The two men were arrested before the turmoil set off by claims that Ahmadinejad’s re-election was fraudulent. But Iran brought them to court in the same mass trial in an attempt to show that the political opposition is in league with violent armed groups in a foreign-backed plot to overthrow the Islamic system.

In addition; nine others have been sentenced to death for their role in the Ashura protests on December 27th. Five were confirmed by the MeK to be affiliated with them (though there’s debate whether they were part of a “militant wing” or not). The others were, predictably, tied to the API or unspecified monarchist groups in general. Along with these, seven Bahá’ís arrested (initially thought to be ten) on Ashura have been accused of spying for Israel. This probably has something to do with the seat of the Bahá’í faith being situated in Haifa. It also has a great deal to do with the century of persecution this “heretical” religion has faced in its home country of Iran. This past November, a conservative newspaper was even banned for featuring a photo of this famous temple in Delhi for an Indian tourism ad. Anyone familiar with India knows that this was nothing unusual.

So, the effort to contaminate Mousavi’s followers is indeed concerted, and this would appear to be one of those “schizophrenic” moves, as Hooman Majd has called them. Recently, the Iranian English daily, Tehran Times, claimed February 2nd, that VEVAK’s head, Heydar Moslehi, had found “clues”, but no one has been arrested. Given VEVAK’s track record with assassinations of intellectuals, this strikes me as ironic as placing Saeed Mortazavi in charge of the 2003 Zahra Kazemi inquiry. However; just because IRI propaganda is a one-trick pony, doesn’t mean it is always wrong. As Muhammad Sahimi pointed out in his own speculation (much recommended for a comprehensive overview of the case), Israel does have a self-declared program to assassinate nuclear scientists (might designate it with one of my favorite terms: ‘overt-covert’), as Mossad did in 2007, with Ardeshir Hassanpour. And, NCRI/MeK still has a presence within Iran, as evinced by their uncovering clandestine nuclear enrichment sites in the past few years. One problem: Ali-Mohammadi was not a nuclear scientist, as initially reported in Israeli and Western news. Former Mossad head, Shabtai Shavit, still active in the Israeli intelligence community, said he had no idea who Ali-Mohammadi was. That begs the question why I would believe an arch-spook; but the question remains: why? As Muhammad Sahimi crucially asked, “who benefits?” Given the hotbeds that universities are, it could have been a warning to intellectuals and students. It could have been botched intelligence (after all, why would one go to such lengths to carry out such an attack?). It could have been designed as a false-flag by either the IRI or Western interests. This type of event is the bread and butter of conspiracy theorists. And, of course, it elicits certitude from those who blame Israel for absolutely everything under the sun, as well as the bitterest (understandable as it can be) of the Iranian diaspora cursing the akhoond-ha (mollahs). I myself will admit to joining in with jokes on my theory that it was a yarmulke-wearing elven ET astride a flying unicorn which farts rainbows and can bend the time-space continuum with his magic shofar. Bottom line though – from all initial accounts this was a nice man. And if I were to interpret clues, it would be that while the modus operandi of a bomb was that of exile terrorist groups, the account of Ali Mohammadi’s funeral offers its own clues, as well. Try and rest in peace, doctor.

I would like to make one thing clear here. I do not support terrorism and assassination by anyone – especially of scientists and intellectuals. Whether it be the mojahedin, monarchists, Israel, or the IRI itself. Israeli “fatwas” upon scientists associated with the nuclear program should be held in moral contempt. If you guys really are responsible for any of these acts post-election, knock it the fuck off! You are not helping! If you believe violence is a legitimate tactic, read this essay and make your counter-argument.

And congratulations to you, Sarah Palin. Iranian state-media rejoiced at this:

Say he decided to declare war on Iran or decide to really come out and do whatever he could to support Israel–which I would like him to do.

You just made yourself not only a hardline collaborator with that gem, but proved yourself to truly be ‘fucking retarded’. (don’t worry, I claim the same satire immunity granted to Rush).

But, back to the Iranian domestic front. January 16th saw this statement, from Police Chief Ahmadi Moghaddam (statements such as this were hardly isolated, and Ayatollah Jannati’s was characteristically more fiery, forgive me for only offering one):

“These people should know where they are sending the SMS and e-mail as these systems are under control. They should not think using proxies will prevent their identification,” Mr Ahmadi Moghaddam said.

He warned that those who incited others to protest or issued appeals: “have committed a worse crime than those who come to the streets”.

And this is not limited to within Iran’s borders:

A worldwide movement that has relied heavily on Web sites such as Twitter and Facebook to express opposition to Iranian authorities has found they aren’t the only ones taking advantage of social networking and media coverage; Iranian government forces are apparently using those same tools to hold citizens accountable for their relatives’ actions outside the country.

Also beyond Iran’s boundaries (well, according to International Law, not technically), two diplomats have issued resignations of protest due to governmental violence (well, more like one and a half). Mohammad Reza Heydari, posted in Oslo, and former diplomat Abolfazl Eslami in Tokyo has gone public with some provocative statements on the mood of those in the Foreign Ministry, supposedly. This is why attacking embassies like the Swedish incident is shortsighted.

22 Bahman, anniversary of the Victory of the Islamic Revolution has been stepping up the last week or two. Opposition leaders are full of resolve and defying calls of conservatives and Supreme Leader not to continue their “sedition”. Following are some excerpts from the prime leaders.

Karroubi in late January issued this:

Although today they have shut down newspapers, filtered websites, imprisoned many of our dear friends, closed down the office of [reformist] parties including the Etemade Melli office and even my personal office, although they fired shots at my car, although some are threatening everyday and are insulting Mir Hossein Mousavi, me and the great nation of Iran in every way possible and take our words out of content, but I am firmly announcing that I never compromise over people’s rights and one of the main rights of this nation is their votes that they casted in the ballot boxes while trusting the authorities; and I will be with the people till the very end and will try for holding free elections and eliminating current obstacles.

Khatami’s February 1st statement, while mentioning the elections, drives home the point I am making against those whom willfully ignore, downplay, or rationalize the events transpiring since:

The freedom that we are talking about is the freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of expressing that opinion, and freedom of employing that opinion and people being asked to give their inputs about that opinion.

The requirement for freedom in its true meaning, which in short is the power of the people over their own destiny, is the freedom of speech and assembly. How could it be possible that there are parties but they don’t have any platform to express their views and cannot hold gatherings?

In a calm and civil environment, people should get a chance to come and then it would be clear what poeple’s tendencies are. And more important than this is the elections that should be free, healthy, and trustworthy.

On February 2nd, Mousavi’s interview with Kalemeh came out. This included 14 points. The election was not mentioned (I realize my earlier claim is muddled, given Khatami’s and Karroubi’s continued skepticism). This is a classic Reformist platform, only explicit in its criticism. Instead of posting it all, I would really, really recommend reading it here. If not that, BBC gives an abstract. In addition; Khatami has a more recent 22 Bahman statement (Reformist plank, largely).

Of course, Ahmadinejad & Co. tried desperately to change the subject. Whether it was its nuclear offer to send LEU abroad or later tantrum to enrich itself (I, by the way thought the West totally misplayed this, and should have put the onus on Ahmadinejad to back up his bluff in a fractious Iranian political climate). Whether it was a failed rocket launch into space or proposed prisoner swap for the three American hikers (sorry, SPIES!). Whether it was again threatening to cut ties with the British Museum over the Cyrus Cylinder after threatening it for weeks (the irony of this is beyond words), or stoning the Italian embassy in Tehran amidst orchestrated cries of “Death to Italy” (WTF?!). And summoning Canada’s charge d’affaires for this? Sentencing Khatami’s former deputy foreign minister to six years and executing proxy Greens, check! Even censoring images and video of the ‘79 Revolution itself? why not! Indeed, it’s as if they were trying to exhaust their full bag of tricks…

I will give credit to the MSM for not being completely distracted by the shiny ball tactic from Tehran to leave the slated demonstration completely uncovered. They do appear to have improved their learning curve. They have hysterically exaggerated the nuclear announcement as usual (Ahmadinejad has the MSM and American public at large so trained. He says “fetch” and we froth at the mouth and wag our tails obediently). Juan Cole says “oh noes!” to medical isotope levels of enrichment. I cannot believe I honestly caught a FOX news model saying this was close to the weapons grade level required. Oh wait, yes I can. But, the MSM still fails pathetically in connecting the two stories and taking into consideration the internal dynamics and intended geopolitical misdirection.

Today, the talk was also of sanctions aimed at the Pasdaran. This has been coming for some time. In my own mini-Rashomon entry I’ll treat the issue of sanctions:

• Wall Street Journal: “US Shifts Iran Focus to Support Opposition” (Jan. 9, 2010)
• Tehran Bureau (PBS): “New Sanctions Miss the Target” (Jan. 30, 2010)
• BBC News: “US expands Iran Guards sanctions” (Feb. 10, 2010)
• Press TV: “US blacklists Iranian commander, firms” (Feb. 10, 2010 – notice the picture of Stuart Levey)

Another aspect every sympathetic observer is still monitoring are trade unions and strikes (just one example) and arrests. I hope to have more on this at some time.

Before ending this update in preparation for 22 Bahman, some fun.

• Sexually suggestive logo made up of letters and how the show “24″ was part of the plot to elect Obama! (Pedestrian has some of the most original stuff – my tip o’ the hat)
• The color green in Iran’s flag was replaced with blue at Ahmadinejad speeches.
• Breaking news: Iranian turtle-astronauts defect to the west.

And, my final story, the subject of which was once an intellectual obsession of mine: “Iranians celebrate ancient Persian fire fest”

Thousands of Iranians gathered at dusk against a snowy mountain backdrop to light giant bonfires in an ancient mid-winter festival dating back to Iran’s pre-Islamic past that is drawing new interest from Muslims.

Saturday’s celebration was the first in which the dwindling remnants of Iran’s once plentiful Zoroastrian religious minority were joined by thousands of Muslims, reflecting a growing interest in the strict Islamic society for the country’s ancient traditions.

Video slide show worth watching for any interested in world religions (you just might recognize someone’s avatar in it).

Some music. And yes, this would be an example of the secular “Westoxified” upper middle-class. No a-ha moment here. I’ve also posted noheh videos. And any criticism to how out of touch I am with the “common Iranian on the street” I would say, so what? It isn’t only the élite that consume such Western-style music. And, why is it that the fundamentalists respond not solely with their own music, or their own ideas, but like the schoolyard bully outwitted, resort to bannings, force and intimidation? All should be free to express themselves. That is my conviction.

Hypernova – Viva La Resistance

My apologies for being late with this update, as well as all mistakes herein. For the umpteenth time, I am very adamant pointing out I am not a professional, and I know it. I was getting a little burned out and slacked off the past month in following Iran. I hope to be more prompt with the Revolution Day demonstrations. But, as with demonstrations before, this will take a few days, as that is how long it takes for information, videos and analyses to come out.

WHAT IS HATE SPEECH?

Hate speech is the kind of speech used to denigrate an individual or a group of people because of something about them, such as their race, ethnicity, gender, age, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ideology, social class, or physical appearance. Speech is considered written or oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting (such as burning a cross).
Some people have trouble defining hate speech. Does it matter whether the speech occurs in a face-to-face encounter, in an online diatribe, in a novel, in a newscast, during a classroom presentation, or as part of a political candidate’s campaign? Can hate speech be defined as a list of words (fag, nigger, kike, retard, fatso, gimp), or does the context of those words count (rap music, Lenny Bruce, a scholarly paper)?  Which is more important in determining hate speech, the intent of the speaker (Rahm Emanuel saying the Democrats are “fucking retarded,”  or the reaction of the audience (Sarah Palin, because of her Down’s Syndrome child)?

The following might be considered hate speech:

In Maryland, at a town hall hosted by Democratic Sen. Ben Cardina, a man held a sign “Death to Obama” and “Death to Michelle and her two stupid kids.”  The man was detained and turned over to the U.S. Secret Service for questioning. It is illegal to threaten the life of a president.

A couple of weeks before last November’s election, a man in West Hollywood, Calif., had a display outside his home of a mannequin dressed to look like Sarah Palin hanging by a noose around her neck. A likeness of John McCain appeared to be emerging from a fake fire.

A liberal radio talk show host, Mike Malloy, said on the air: “I have good news to report: Glenn Beck appears closer to suicide. I’m hoping that he does it on camera. Suicide is rampant in his family, and given his alcoholism and his tendencies toward self-destruction, I am only hoping that when Glenn Beck does put a gun to his head and pulls the trigger that it will be on television, because somebody will capture it on YouTube and it will be the most popular video for months.”

Is this hate speech?

The Two Minutes Hate: August 12, 2009

I am certain this is:

Tempe pastor reiterates wish for President Obama s death Phoenix Arizona

Before a truck bomb took out the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, these people might have been dismissed as cranks. Now, after the deaths of George Tiller and Stephen Johns (the Holocaust Museum guard), it feels as if we should take action.

THE FIRST AMENDMENT

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

The federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment from restricting speech. Unique among courts in the world, the Supreme Court has extended broad protection in the area of hate speech—abusive, insulting, intimidating, and harassing speech that at the least fosters hatred and discrimination and at its worst promotes violence and killing. The First Amendment is not, of course, absolute; private institutions, including universities and employers, are not subject to the First Amendment, which restricts only government activities.

There is obviously a direct a direct link between freedom of speech and a vibrant democracy. Justice Louis Brandeis wrote that “freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth.” I ask, is that correct? Is the national debate bolstered when, for example, hate speech is mainstreamed? Or are the real issues pushed to the backburner while we debate nonsense, like whether or not our President is an American citizen?

Americans vigorously dispute the application of the First Amendment. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, in his famous Abrams v. United States (1919) dissenting opinion, had a shocking opening line: “Persecution for the expression of opinions seems to me perfectly logical.” What could Holmes have been thinking?

Perhaps Holmes was saying that all of us have within us a kind of censorship-impulse. Governments are especially prone to censor. As Holmes went on: “If you have no doubt of your premises or your power and want a certain result with all your heart you naturally express your wishes in law and sweep away all opposition.” Censorship is a kind of social instinct. As caring and responsible citizens of society, we are likely to want many results with all our hearts. We want safety, we want freedom from fear, we want order, civility, racial and religious tolerance, we want the best world for our children. We want these things with all our hearts, and when others express opinions that seem to threaten these hopes, we want to enact laws that forbid them to express it.  It is only logical to want to prevent opposition to what we know is good. But that’s the crux of freedom of speech: Who are “we” and how do we “know what is good,” really?

Most people believe in the right to free speech, but debate whether it should cover flag-burning, hard-core rap and heavy-metal lyrics, tobacco advertising, hate speech, kiddie porn, nude dancing, and religious symbols on government property. Many would agree to limiting some forms of free expression.

Many influential American thinkers have often argued that robust protection of freedom of speech, including speech advocating crime and revolution, actually works to make the country more stable, increasing rather than decreasing our ability to maintain law and order. Does that hold true even if a percentage of citizens want to see minority populations disenfranchised; even if they want to see their brand of Christianity become the national religion; even if they government programs labeled fascist? Freedom of speech allows a tiny but vocal group of people to use the megaphone of the media to spread lies, fear, and hate too.

Perhaps if a society as wide-open and pluralistic as America is not to explode from festering tensions and conflicts, there must be valves through which citizens with discontent may blow off steam.

Probably the most celebrated attempt at an explanation to the value of free speech is the “marketplace of ideas” metaphor, a notion most famously associated with Justice Holmes’ great dissent in Abrams, in which he argued that “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” The marketplace of ideas metaphor does not assure that truth will emerge from the free trade in ideas, but merely says that free trade in ideas is the best test of truth. Is that true? And doesn’t Holmes make certain assumptions about Americans? For example, doesn’t he presume an educated populace, one taught critical thinking skills?

The connection of freedom of speech to self-governance and the appeal of the marketplace of ideas metaphor still, however, does not tell it all. Freedom of speech has value on a more personal and individual level. Freedom of speech is part of the human personality, a value intimately intertwined with human autonomy and dignity. In the words of Justice Thurgood Marshall in the 1974 “The First Amendment serves not only the needs of the polity but also those of the human spirit — a spirit that demands self-expression.”

Many Americans embrace freedom of speech for the same reasons they embrace other aspects of individualism. The U.S. Supreme Court has often understood the First Amendment in a way that defies the logical impulse to censor. In scores of decisions, the Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment in a manner that to most of the world seems positively radical. Those decisions are numerous and cover a vast and various terrain, but consider some highlights. Americans have the right to:

Desecrate the national flag as a symbol of protest.

Burn the cross as an expression of racial bigotry and hatred.

Espouse the violent overthrow of the government as long as it is mere abstract advocacy and not an immediate incitement to violence.

Traffic in sexually explicit erotica as long as it does not meet a rigorous definition of “hard core” obscenity.

Defame public officials and public figures with falsehoods provided they are not published with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard for the truth.

Disseminate information invading personal privacy if the revelation is deemed “newsworthy.”

Engage in countless other forms of expression that would be outlawed in many nations but are regarded as constitutionally protected here.

And infamously, now, corporations have the right to make political contributions to increase the influence of money on the political process.

“In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one’s legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment,” Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called “The Exceptional First Amendment. But in the United States,” Schauer continued, “all such speech remains constitutionally protected.”

Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France. By contrast, U.S. courts would not stop the American Nazi Party from marching in Skokie, Illinois, in 1977, though the march was deeply distressing to the many Holocaust survivors there.

SUPREME COURT CASES RELATED TO HATE SPEECH

According to opinions in Supreme Court cases, there are four main characteristics that make hate speech a legal offense: Incitement to imminent lawless action, true threats, a clear and present danger, and fighting words. There are other areas of speech not protected by the first amendment too—obscenity, libel and slander, and conflict with other governmental interests (like gag orders during trials and certain speech during war).

Incitement to imminent lawless action

In Brandenburg v Ohio (1969), the justices upheld the right of the Ku Klux Klan to call publicly for the expulsion of African Americans and Jews from the United States, even though the speech in question intimated using violence. The justices held that unless the speech was intended to cause violence and had a high likelihood of producing such a result imminently it was protected by the First Amendment. The Brandenburg test has proven nearly impossible to meet.

True threats

The Supreme Court explained the definition of true threats in Virginia v. Black (2003) — in which it upheld most of a Virginia cross-burning statute — this way:

“True threats’ encompass those statements where the speaker means to communicate a serious expression of an intent to commit an act of unlawful violence to a particular individual or group of individuals. The speaker need not actually intend to carry out the threat. Rather, a prohibition on true threats protect(s) individuals from the fear of violence and from the disruption that fear engenders, in addition to protecting people from the possibility that the threatened violence will occur.”

In Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of Life Activists (2002), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held that some vigorous anti-abortion speech — including a Web site that listed the names and addresses of abortion providers who should be tried for “crimes against humanity” — could qualify as a true threat. The 9th Circuit emphasized that “the names of abortion providers who have been murdered because of their activities are lined through in black, while names of those who have been wounded are highlighted in grey.”

Even in the speech-restrictive world of the military, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled in United States v. Wilcox (2008) that a member of the military could not be punished for posting racially offensive and hateful remarks he made over the Internet about white supremacy.

A Clear and Present Danger

In 1919, the Supreme Court was first requested to strike down a law violating the Free Speech Clause. The case involved Charles Schenck, who had, during WWI published leaflets challenging the conscription system. The Supreme Court unanimously upheld Schenck’s conviction for violating the Espionage Act. Justice Holmes, writing for the Court, wrote that “the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.”

The “clear and present danger” test of Schenck was extended in 1919, again by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes. The case involved a speech made by Eugene V. Debs, a political activist. Debs had not spoken any words that posed a “clear and present danger” but a speech in which he denounced militarism was nonetheless found to be sufficient grounds for his conviction. Justice Holmes suggested that the speech had a “natural tendency” to stop the draft. Can you imagine this precedent holding up today? I can’t, given the amount of anti-government talk I hear in the media daily.

Freedom of speech was also influenced by anti-communism during the Cold War. In 1940, the Congress made it illegal to advocate “the propriety of overthrowing or destroying any government in the United States by force and violence.” Even though there was no immediate danger posed by the Communist Party’s ideas, the Court allowed the Congress to restrict the Communist Party’s speech.

These cases have never been explicitly overruled by the Court, but subsequent decisions have greatly narrowed its place within First Amendment laws. Now only speech explicitly inciting the forcible overthrow of the government remains punishable.

Fighting Words

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, (1942) that intimidating speech directed at a specific individual in a face-to-face confrontation amounts to “fighting words,” and that the person engaging in such speech can be punished if “by their very utterance [the words] inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.” Say a white student stops a black student on campus and utters a racial slur. In that one-on-one confrontation, which could easily come to blows, the offending student could be disciplined under the “fighting words” doctrine for racial harassment.

Over the past 50 years, however, the Court hasn’t found the “fighting words” doctrine applicable in any of the hate speech cases that have come before it, since the incidents involved didn’t meet the narrow criteria stated above.

Libel and Slander

You do not have a constitutional right to tell lies that damage or defame the reputation of a person or organization. This is a highly inconsistent ruling, as I can provide several examples where president Obama was the object of both lies and slander. Obama is a racist, a fascist, a socialist. Perhaps the President has decided it is not worth it to put these statements to the test. Of course, it is very difficult to prove that the defamer knew his or her facts were lies.

Nonverbal Symbols

Symbols of hate are constitutionally protected if they’re worn or displayed before a general audience in a public place, say, in a march or at a rally in a public park. But the First Amendment doesn’t protect the use of nonverbal symbols to encroach upon, or desecrate, private property, such as burning a cross on someone’s lawn or spray-painting a swastika on the wall of a synagogue or dorm.

In recent decades, American courts have held that public hate speech, such as the Nazi march in Skokie, must be protected under the First Amendment because there is no principled way to distinguish that speech from other forms of political expression. I would argue that this form of speech invades its targets’ rights to personal security, personality, citizenship, and equality. The crucial question then becomes whether this form of speech should be protected anyway because of its political character. The answer to this question turns on our conception of political speech. After looking at the leading theory in this area -- Justice Holmes’s vision of the marketplace of ideas -- I argue that political speech is best understood as discourse among individuals or groups who recognize one another as equals and free, as well as members of the community. By denying recognition to its targets, political hate speech violates the fundamental ground rules that should govern political debate. I believe that this form of speech should not receive constitutional protection. Interpreting the First Amendment in this way would not only allow American law to reconcile the competing demands of free speech and human dignity; it would also approach  political hate speech in the same way that many other liberal democratic nations and the international community does.

It once seemed easier to ignore the haters among us. They held furtive meetings in out-of-the-way places, wrote racist screeds in the guise of bad novels, and when they appeared in public, they wore hoods to hide their faces. Now, they apply for admission to the bar, stand for elected office, appear on radio and television talk shows, and increasingly take their message to the mainstream by using the Internet.

America, we like to feel, has room for everyone. It is a place of tolerance, equality, and justice. Hate is an affront to that vision, and the lengthening list of hate crimes should haunt our national conscience and make us search for a remedy. I am struggling with Freedom of Speech.

Next-- Part 3: The Psychology of Hate Groups and How They Recruit

Choice under new attack from Operation Rescue, led by Troy Newman, the president of the organization.

Operation Rescue has launched a new anti-choice campaign by offering $10,000 reward for the arrest and conviction of OB/GYN doctors that perform abortions.

Operation Rescue has begun an advertising blitz on the radio, over the Internet and by mailings for the latest campaign against choice.

“We have never found an abortion clinic that completely follows the law,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “Specifically, we are looking for information about fraud, including billing fraud, Medicaid fraud, overbilling, double-billing, and things of that nature that defraud the public. We have seen a number of abortionists charged with these kinds of crimes over the years.”
“We are also looking into other violations that directly endanger the lives of women, including sex crimes, the concealment of child sex abuse, unlicensed workers, improper handling of controlled substances, chemical impairment, illegal abortions, falsification of medical records, and other abuses,” said Newman.

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/1277112809.html

With the conservative SCOTUS, women must never take for granted their right to choose.

Anti-Choice groups have been working steadfastly in overturning Roe vs Wade and those of us who believe in choice must counteract those who wish to force their will on women.

On a side note, CBS is also running a second anti-choice Tebow ad four times during the Super Bowl pre-game show.

I am not against CBS running the deceptive, anti-choice ads, but I am concerned that CBS continues to deny left-wing ads, including two pro-choice ads to counter the Tebow ads.

And it is very disturbing that CBS actually worked with Focus on the Family on their anti-choice Tebow ad, which is something that they’ve never done with other advertisers.

This week, Dana Goldstein of the Daily Beast reported that CBS executives collaborated with Focus on the Family on making the ad fit for airing, giving the group guidance that other advertisers don’t receive. Yesterday, Planned Parenthood posted a pro-choice response ad featuring former college and professional football player Sean James and Olympic gold medalist Al Joyner.

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/02/05/focus-pregame/

We must remain vigilant in tracking those who wish to take away the control that women have over their own bodies.

(with apologies to Salvador Dali)

I am bothered by movies, such as “Saw” and “Hostel”, that, to me, serve no purpose other than to depict the extremes of human pain and cruelty. I confess to having never watched a film from either of those series, nor have I watched a Hannibal Lector movie, or a Chucky, Freddy Krueger or Jason movie (which, I imagine, at this point seem almost quaint in their depictions of cruelty), so it is not only what is depicted on the screen, which I haven’t even seen, that disturbs me. It is the very fact that such movies exist, and that they pull in audiences. To me, they are a depraved sub-genre of moviemaking that elevates torture to their prime, even sole, raison d’etre (indeed, they have been dubbed “torture porn” and “gorno” by critics), and that bothers me. Are people really entertained by all that blood and gore? And if that is not the right word, what IS the experience that they crave, as they settle their butts into aisle seats? As to the people who make such films, why on earth do they spend precious hours of their lives depicting demoralizing, black spectacles of the last things that any of us would wish to experience, or even wish upon our worst enemies? Oh, believe me, I know the obvious answer to my question (they DO make money after all, and frankly, how hard can they be to make? We all know what we don’t wish to experience; all one has to do is pick up a camera and film that!), but is even money worth the de-humanizing that I feel must go on in the process of creating such films?

 I am not arguing against the presence of violence in films. Indeed, some of my personal favorites, such as “The Godfather” and “Goodfellas”, contain numerous scenes that are not for the squeamish. If push came to shove, I could probably even be called upon to defend Wes Craven’s notorious, ultra-violent 70’s sleeper, “Last House on the Left” ( which took its plot from Bergman’s “The Virgin Spring” and borrowed heavily from Kubrick’s “A Clockwork Orange”). One might well ask, what’s the difference? Well, in the case of LHOTL, this was an amateurish film by a freshman director, depicting amateurish villains who epitomize the dumb, self absorbed, amoral, societal outcasts we can easily imagine committing the atrocious crimes we see onscreen (and read about in the papers). They are not the incarnations of sadism one finds in slick gorno movies, creatures right out of our nightmares who are intelligent and irredeemably evil, sparing no expense to devise the most ingenious and horrific methods by which to dispense with their victims, for no other purpose than the pleasure that they get from doing so. To arrive at an understanding of the villains of the gorno movies, to place them in any sort of context, we need to go back to a French nobleman from the Age of Enlightenment whose writing was so over the top that he provides the very name for the “ism” that is out and out cruelty toward another living being.

 Sade’s “libertines” (one should not refer to them as  “villains”, when to him they were heroes) were precisely the kind of monsters we see in todays horror movies. Smarter and more powerful than their victims, they operated without restraint, and with no other purpose than to inflict pain. In Sade’s stories, the only way to escape victimhood was to allow yourself to become corrupted by your torturers, to become just as merciless and sadistic as them. These were the only triumphs he would allow in his nightmarish fables, that some would “liberate” themselves from any moral or empathetic impulses, which he insisted came from society, the real “villain” he himself was at war with. One can read Sade’s stories and accept them as he intended, as all-out assaults on society and civilization, on anything that limited individuals from behaving exactly as they themselves chose to. But that would naturally lead one to ask, if people could do anything they wanted to, why would they do that? Looking deeper, I believe that one can find a more pathological motivation, one which is readily on display in today’s torture porn movies as well; a deep seated hatred of the human body.

 Oh, Sade loathed bodies!  He wanted them sliced, diced, beaten, pulled apart, you name it. The one thing he didn’t want was for them to keep their original, native form, to be allowed to go on about their ways in peace. To him, an intact body was a challenge, perhaps even an affront, to his aesthetic. He treated them with nothing but the utmost disdain. And yet, it is telling that for all the descriptions of cruelty he filled page after feverish page with, he was particularly vicious toward the parts of the body that give birth to and nurture other bodies. Although there is no question that his writings and ideas have spiced up the sex lives of numerous couples throughout the years (and hey, whatever gets you through the night…), in the works themselves sex was anything but a life affirming, life celebrating activity. Genitalia, breasts, pregnant women, and fetuses are mercilessly tortured and destroyed by Sade’s libertines. The family itself is attacked viciously. In his stories, fathers rape their daughters, and corrupted daughters do unspeakable things to their mothers. The very reality of biological life seems to infuriate him.

 What’s going on here? In the face of such depravity, one naturally searches for answers. Even if the knowledge goes nowhere toward ending man’s inhumanity to man, we strive to somehow make sense of things so dark and twisted they seem to defy explanation, for the sake of our own sanity if nothing else. My belief is that we see in Sade’s writing a psychological phenomenon that has its roots in the very nature of our sentience. It is the mind’s hatred of the body, because it can suffer, and take the mind along with it as it does so. 

 It is hard to imagine anything more painful than being eaten alive from the hind legs forward, and yet this is a fate that befalls thousands of our fellow creatures, in forests and savannas, every day. The vast majority of human beings will come to far more benign ends, but the important distinction is that we are well aware of what could happen to us, if we are not careful, or just plain unlucky. The fact is that, unlike animals, we can think about things happening to us that are every bit as frightening and unwelcome as the things that are shown in the torture movies. It is with our minds that we think about them, but it is our bodies that we imagine experiencing the suffering. We are the only species that has a distinct separation, a schism even, between mind and body. We can actually live lives, of a kind, outside our bodies. No other creature can. We can daydream, create stories, make songs, paint pictures, have sexual fantasies, relive memories vividly, conceptualize, invent, etc. We can easily imagine a life involving no body at all! Indeed, we have created science fiction stories where our minds are placed inside computers, thereby living eternal, pain-free lives. People who are stricken with cancer or other long term, debilitating and painful illnesses frequently describe themselves as “prisoners” in their bodies. What I am positing is that there is an element of human consciousness that chronically feels this way. Sade was expressing this, first and foremost, I believe, though he himself was perhaps unaware of it and presumedly would have denied it. It is ironic that he, due to his atrocious behavior as well as his writing (which outraged the Emperor Napolean), spent much of his life as a prisoner, in jails and mental asylums, creating through his mind an outward experience of the very thoughts that drove his writing. 

 The mind is frightened by the amount of pain, seemingly limitless, that the body it is merged with can experience. Although our central nervous system has evolved the sensation of pain to keep us from burning or bleeding or freezing to death, this impeccable biological system renders us horrendously vulnerable. So averse to its demise is our body that it keeps pain sensations active even as we lie helpless, and crushed, under the rubble of an earthquake, or trapped inside a burning room, on the off chance that we will somehow manage to get ourselves out of our predicament. Isn’t it plausible that our minds, aware of the stubbornness of the body, and its survival-at-any-cost imperative, would develop resentment against it? Why can’t we shut the pain mechanism down when we want to (apparently some yogis have developed this very ability, but it takes years of rigorous training)? When there is no hope of escape? Every king, dictator, Grand Inquisitor and mafioso throughout history has exploited this “flaw” in the body’s design. In fact, it is impossible to imagine the worst forms of government even existing without it, as such regimes are propped up by the fear they induce in the common folk. All of that suffering, down through the ages; no wonder the mind is pissed!

 And so, the mind acts this out, through the mediums that it has developed, the “art” that is Sade’s writing and today’s gorno movies. Each time the mind, represented by Sade’s libertines or Hannibal Lector, or any of the demonic, merciless,ingenious psychopaths who fill our screens as well as our nightmares, gleefully tortures to death somebody else’s body, it has its revenge, momentarily. That’s the experience viewers are after, I feel. Though I am disturbed by such movies, and by the large following they have, I ultimately see them as merely symptomatic, and don’t expect them to go away. They, or some similar manifestation, will be with us so long as we have the ability to contemplate, and fear, our fate.

While the subject of hate is complex, hate itself can be divided into two general categories: rational and irrational. Unjust acts inspire rational hate. Who but the most spiritual or the most philosophic of us could argue that hatred of someone who had maliciously harmed us or our loved ones is irrational? Hatred of a person based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or national origin constitutes irrational hate. When I talk about hate, I am talking about the irrational kind. Most definitions of hate focus on the ways in which hate-mongers see entire groups of people as the “Other.” For example, Tolerance.org argues that “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

According to the southern Poverty Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League ( SPLC and the ADL) a hate group is any organized body whose beliefs and actions are rooted in enmity towards an entire class of people based on ethnicity, perceived race, sexual orientation, religion or other inherent characteristic. I want to add to this anti-government and conspiracy theorists.

As I wrote in my introduction to Hate In America, I often try to comfort myself by looking at history when I think things have never been worse. I have found that hate in America is as traditional as apple pie—the same as in any country, but because we are a nation of immigrants we have very conflicted attitudes. In some ways it is might be considered fair to consider the United States of America as this country’s original hate group. And it started even before the War of Independence was won.

Racism against Native Americans

During the colonial and independent periods there were many conflicts with the indigenous Americans in order to take their resources. Through wars, massacres and forced displacement and the imposition of treaties, land was taken and numerous hardships imposed. After the creation of the United States, the idea of Indian removal gained momentum. The doctrine of “Manifest Destiny” included stereotyped perceptions of all Native Americans as “merciless Indian savages.” Racial rhetoric increased during the era of Manifest Destiny. In a policy formulated largely by President George Washington’s Secretary of War, Henry Knox, the U.S. government sought to encourage Native Americans to sell their vast tribal lands and become “civilized”, which meant (among other things) for Native Americans to abandon their cultures of hunting and become farmers, and for their society to reorganize and give up clans or tribes.

There are too many incidences and dates to cite, but I have tried to list the main examples of systematic racism.

1776—Thomas Jefferson inserted this sentence into the Declaration of Independence (referring to grievances against King George III): “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

1803 –Louisiana Purchase; Lewis and Clark expedition. One goal: gather information about the Native American tribes to be used against them.

1830– Indian Removal Act passed by Congress; legalized removal of all Indians east of Mississippi to lands west of the river. “Trail of Tears” in which Native Americans suffered from exposure, disease, and starvation while en route to their destinations, and many died, including 4,000 of the 15,000 relocated Cherokee.

1837 –Smallpox epidemic on the Plains. Many historians claim that blankets infested with the disease given to Native Americans.

1862– Minnesota Uprising of Sioux; 38 hanged at Mankato.

1870– First Ghost Dance Movement, Prayer to prevent immigration.

1876 –Battle of Little Big Horn (Custer).

1877– Chief Joseph and the Nez Perce War.

1890 –Wounded Knee on the Pine Ridge. Ghost Dance. Last major bloodshed involving Indians and the U.S. Government.

Racism Against African Americans

1641 – Slavery legalized in Massachusetts colony.

1790– 20 percent of the overall population in the thirteen colonies was of African descent. The legalized practice of enslaving blacks occurred in every colony. Slaves were used as a labor force in agricultural production, shipyards, docks, and as domestic servants. In both regions, only the wealthiest Americans owned slaves. Poor whites recognized that slavery devalued their own labor. The social rift along color lines soon became ingrained in every aspect of colonial American culture.

1857—The Supreme Court issues the Dred Scott decision, which decreed a slave was his master’s property and African Americans were not citizens.

1883 – A number of cases are addressed under this Supreme Court decision. Decided that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (the last federal civil rights legislation until the Civil Rights Act of 1957) was unconstitutional. Allowed private sector segregation.

1896 –Plessy v. Ferguson. The Supreme Court decided that “separate but equal” facilities satisfy Fourteenth Amendment guarantees, thus giving legal sanction to Jim Crow segregation laws.

The 20^th century was nadir of American race relations and saw a hardening of institutionalized racism and legal discrimination against African Americans.    Poll  taxes, acts of terror by groups such as the KKK were not unusual. The first half of this century saw racism in the United States worse than at any period before or since. All expressions of white supremacy increased, including anti-black violence, lynching and race riots.

1908 –Race Riot in Springfield Illinois leads to the creation of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

1913 –Federal segregation. The Wilson administration began government-wide segregation of work places, rest rooms and lunch rooms.

1919–Whites riot against blacks in Washington, DC. The white mob – whose actions were triggered in large part by weeks of sensational newspaper accounts of alleged sex crimes by a “Negro fiend” – unleashed a wave of violence that swept over the city for four days. The Washington riot was one of more than 20 that took place that summer in different states.

Meanwhile, the Ku Klux Klan was being revived in Maryland and Virginia, as racial hatred burst forth with the resurgence of lynching of black men and women around the country – 28 public lynchings in the first six months of 1919 alone, including seven black WW II veterans killed while still wearing their Army uniforms.

1921–The deadliest racial confrontation begin in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The exact number of people killed in the riot, which destroyed a 30-square-block area was never determined. Some historians, citing survivors’ accounts, have put the figure as high as 300.

Racism against Asian-Americans

The first wave of Chinese came here at the beginning of the 19^th century to work as laborers on the transcontinental railroad. While industrial employers were eager to get this new and cheap labor, the ordinary white public was stirred to anger by the presence of this “yellow peril.” Political parties and unions rallied against the immigration of yet another “inferior race”. Newspapers condemned the policies of employers, and even church leaders denounced the entrance of these aliens into what was regarded as a land for whites only.

1882 — Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act, which prohibited immigration from China for the next ten years. This law was then extended in 1892. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the only US law ever to prevent immigration on the basis of race. These laws not only prevented new immigration but also brought additional suffering as they prevented the reunion of the families of thousands of Chinese men already living in the U.S. that had left China without their wives and children.

The Chinese were often subject to harder labor on the transcontinental railroad and often performed the more dangerous tasks such as using dynamite to make pathways through the mountains.  The San Francisco Vigilance Movement promoted mob violence against Chinese immigrants. My husband, who is Chinese and has family that has lived in San Francisco for generations, tells that the Chinese were blamed for the earthquake in 1906.

During World War II, the United States created internment camps for Japanese citizens in fear that they would be used as spies for the Japanese.

Racism against Latin Americans

1830s –The United States first came into conflict with Mexico as the westward spread of Anglo settlements and of slavery brought significant numbers  of new settlers into the region known as Tejas (modern-day Texas), then part of Mexico.

1848–After the Mexican-American War, the treaty promised that the landowners in this newly won area would enjoy protection of their property as if they were citizens of the United States. Many former citizens of Mexico lost their land in lawsuits or as a result of legislation passed after the treaty.

1851– California Land Act enacted, which had the effect of dispossessing Californio owners ruined by the cost of maintaining litigation over land titles for years.

1943–The Zoot Suit Riots were incidents of racial violence against Latinos in Los Angeles. Repeated confrontations over many months between small groups and individuals culminated into several days of non-stop rioting. Large mobs of servicemen would enter civilian quarters looking to attack Mexican American kids, some of whom were wearing zoot suits, a distinctive exaggerated fashion popular among that group.  The disturbances continued and were even assisted by the local police for several days before military commanders declared downtown Los Angeles and Mexican American neighborhoods off-limits to servicemen

1960’s –Mexican-American workers formed unions of their own and joined integrated unions. The most significant union struggle involving Mexican-Americans was the United Farm Workers’ long strike and boycott aimed at grape growers in the San Joaquin and Coachella Valleys.

Anti-Semitism

1800s and early 1900s– hundreds of thousands of Eastern European Jews were escaping the pogroms, and largely arrived at Ellis Island in New York, as my family did. It is thought that as soon as they left the boat, they were subject to racism from the port authorities. (The derogatory term ‘kike’ was adopted when referring to Jews because they often could not write English letters so they may have signed their immigration papers with circles – or kikel in Yiddish.)

1910– Southern Jewish communities were attacked by the KKK, which often used ‘The Jewish Banker’ in their propaganda.

1915– Texas-born, New York Jew Leo Frank was lynched by the newly re-formed Klan, after being falsely convicted of rape and sentenced to life imprisonment.

1924—National Origins Quota Act passed.  Growing anti-immigration feelings in the United States at this time resulted in the quota, which severely restricted immigration from Eastern Europe. It remained in effect until 1965.

In the years before and during World War II the United States Congress, the Roosevelt Administration, and public opinion expressed concern about the fate of Jews in Europe but consistently refused to permit large-scale immigration of Jewish refugees. The United States accepted only 21,000 refugees from Europe accepting far fewer Jews per capita than many of the neutral European countries and fewer in absolute terms than Switzerland.

U.S. opposition to immigration in general in the late 1930s was motivated by the grave economic pressures, the high unemployment rate, and social frustration and disillusionment. The U.S. refusal to support specifically Jewish immigration, however, stemmed from something else, namely anti-Semitism, which had increased in the late 1930s and continued to rise in the 1940s. It was an important ingredient in America’s negative response to Jewish refugees. About 100,000 German Jews did arrive in the 1930s, escaping Hitler’s persecution.

1939–The SS St. Louis sailed from Germany in May carrying 936 Jewish refugees. On 4 June it was also refused permission to unload on orders of President Roosevelt as the ship waited between Florida and Cuba.

Jewish lobbying for intervention in Europe drew opposition from the isolationists/nativists, amongst who was Father Charles Coughlin, a well known radio priest, who was a renowned anti-Semite, believing that Jews were leading America into the war. He preached in weekly, overtly anti-Semitic sermons and, from 1936, began publication of a newspaper, Social Justice, in which he printed anti-Semitic accusations such as The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, as did Henry Ford in his Dearborn, Michigan newspaper.

Anti-European immigrant racism

Several European immigrant groups have been subject to discrimination either on the basis of their immigrant status (“nativism”) or on the basis of their ethnicities.

In the 19th century, this was particularly anti-Irish racism, which was partly anti-Catholic, partly anti-Irish as an ethnicity or race (notably accused of drunkenness), an example being the Philadelphia Nativist Riots.

The 20th century saw racism against Italian Americans and Polish Americans partly from anti-Catholic sentiment, and partly from Nordicism, which considered Southern Europeans and Eastern Europeans inferior. Nordicism lead to the reduction in Southern European and Eastern European immigrants in the Immigration Act of 1924

Racism against Middle Easterners and Muslims

Racism against Middle Eastern Americans arose in the 1970’s following the Iranian Revolution and the taking of Americans during the Hostage Crisis. Following the 9/11 attacks, discrimination and violence has markedly increased against Arab Americans and many other religious and cultural groups.

Iraqis were demonized which led to hatred towards Arabs and Iranians living in the United States. There have been attacks against Arabs not only on the basis of their religion but also on the basis of their ethnicity and even their clothing.  In addition, non-Arabs who are mistaken for Arabs because of perceived “similarities in appearance” have been collateral victims of anti-Arabism.

Iranians as well as South Asians of different ethnic/religious backgrounds (Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs) have been stereotyped as “Arabs”. Ann Coulter called Iranians “ragheads” and Brent Scowcroft  called the Iranian people “rug merchants.”

Homophobic Discrimination

In covering a history of homophobic discrimination, it gives a clearer picture to list the laws that reduced discrimination, rather than to only list laws that were anti-gay. The reason for this is that until the 20^th century in America, gays were mainly in the closet. They had the ability to hide their sexuality for the most part. And they had to—the entire society saw them as deviants. Because of that ability (and necessity) to hide themselves, there was very little institutional homophobia; it was only after the gay community formed and gays dared to congregate that they became hate targets on a larger scale. When reading about these laws that were written for gays, it is good to remember that before they were enacted, they had no legal protections. One more point about the anti-gay groups: Almost all of them are Christian religious organizations, but I hesitate to label them all as hate groups, although some clearly are.

1958– the Supreme Court established a precedent that a homosexual publication was not intrinsically “obscene” and thus protected by the First Amendment.

1967, the Supreme Court upheld the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 which among other things banned homosexuals, as constitutional. This ban remained in effect until 1991.

1969—Stonewall riots in New York. On June 27, the police raided a gay bar, which was a common practice at the time. This type of raid, which was often conducted during city elections, had a new development as some of the patrons in the bar began actively resisting the police arrests. For the first time a large group of LGBT Americans who had previously had little or no involvement with the organized gay rights movement rioted for three days against police harassment and brutality. These new activists were not polite or respectable but rather angry activists that confronted the police, taking their cues from other civil rights movements of the 60’s. This was the beginning of the Gay Liberation movement.

1977– the Supreme Court refused to hear the case of a high school teacher fired for being gay. While this is not an official judgment on the merit of the case, it did uphold a lower court’s ruling that becoming a “known homosexual” automatically impaired his efficiency as a teacher which used various methods to support this claim: 1. Defined homosexuality based on the New Catholic Encyclopedia which deemed the act as implicitly immoral; 2. An “immoral” person could not be trusted to instruct students as his presence would be inherently disruptive.

1985– the Supreme Court let stand an appellate ruling ordering the university to provide official recognition of a student organization for homosexual students. The case set a national precedent by removing legal restrictions against gay rights groups on college campuses.

1986– the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that homosexual sex was not protected under the right to privacy.

1996–the Supreme Court ruled against an amendment to the Colorado state constitution that would have prevented any city, town or county in the state from taking any legislative, executive, or judicial action to protect homosexual citizens from discrimination.

1998– President Clinton’s Executive Order  prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation for federal employees.

2000– the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America had a First Amendment right to exclude people from its organization on the basis of sexual orientation.

2003– the United States Supreme Court ruled in Lawrence v. Texas that laws against sodomy cannot be directed at homosexuals alone, and furthermore, that intimate consensual sexual conduct is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Owing to the United States’ federal system and the variety of attitudes toward LGBT rights, the status of LGBT civil rights in the U.S. is at present a patchwork. At the federal level, there is no recognition of same-sex unions and no laws forbidding employment discrimination against LGBT persons. Some states have enacted such laws, however. States in the Deep South still support homosexuality being completely illegal, and overwhelmingly oppose marriage-like rights or same-sex marriage.

State courts also produced a patchwork of court opinions regarding the rights of LGBT citizens to marry, which has prompted calls for a Federal Marriage Amendment, along with state amendments to ensure that courts would not change the civil definition of marriage. As of 2007, the legal options available to same-sex couples depends on what state they reside in.

Hate crime laws (also known as bias crimes laws) protect against crimes motivated by feelings of enmity or animus against a protected class. On April 29, 2009, the House of Representatives passed H.R.1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, which would expand the definition of hate crimes in federal law to include gender, sexual orientation, gender-identity, and disability. The legislation would also remove the prerequisite that victims of hate crimes be engaging in a federally protected activity (Matthew Sheppard Act).

Currently, in the United States there is no federal law against housing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.

From Wikipedia: “As the movement for same-sex marriage has developed, many national and/or international organizations have opposed that movement. Those organizations include the American Family Association, the Christian Coalition, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Moral Majority, NARTH, the national Republican Party, the Roman Catholic Church, the The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons), the Southern Baptist Convention, Alliance for Marriage, Alliance Defense Fund, Liberty Counsel, and the National Organization for Marriage.”  It’s worth a read to see how these groups have embedded themselves into the political discourse. One I’d like to add is the Westboro Baptist Church, infamous for their preaching that “God Hates Fags.”

Other Hate Groups

Militias, white supremacists, tax-protestors, Identity Christians, and Patriots often intertwine ideologically and it is hard to unravel these groups.

The Militia movement is a paramilitary movement with roots from the Survivalist movement, tax-protester movement and other movements in the United States. It inherited paramilitary traditions of earlier groups, especially the conspiratorial, far-right antigovernment “Posse Comitatus” which took its moniker  from the government Act of the same name. The formation of today’s militias was influenced by the historical precedent of existing paramilitary movements such as the Posse Comatitus. The County Rule (posse comitatus literally means the power of the county) movement and the militias share an ideological kinship, revolving around the idea that the county is the supreme level of government and the sheriff the highest elected official. Posse comitatus refers to the authority of county sheriffs to conscript able-bodied males to keep the peace or arrest felons. The power still exists in states that have not repealed it by statute.

1878–Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of U.S. troops for civil duties like domestic law enforcement short a declaration of martial law. The Act provides two exceptions: those expressly authorized by the Constitution; and those Congress expressly authorizes. For instance, Congress expressly authorized the Coast Guard to carry out drug law enforcement duties during peacetime.

1970s– Richard Butler, a neo-Nazi from California carrying out a self-described war against the “Zionist Occupational Government,” or ZOG, relocated to the Idaho panhandle to establish his Aryan Nations compound. He saw the Pacific Northwest, with its relatively low minority population, as the region where God’s kingdom could be established. Butler also believed that a racially pure nation needs an army.  .

1990s. The militia movement grew following controversial standoffs with the federal government. The militia movement claims that militia groups are sanctioned by law but uncontrolled by government; in fact, they are designed to oppose a tyrannical government. Adherents believe that behind the “tyranny” is a left-wing, globalist conspiracy known as the New World Order.

1991 –Publication of Pat Robertson’s book, “The New World Order.” Members of the Christian right who subscribe to the conspiratorial world view presented in Robertson’s book are part of the  far-right milieu home to a variety of movements, including Identity Christians, Constitutionalists, tax protesters, and white supremacists.

The militias have close ties to the older and more broadly based Patriot movement, from which they emerged, and which supplies their worldview. According to Chip Berlet, an analyst at Political Research Associates in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who has been tracking the far right for over two decades, this movement consists of loosely-linked organizations and individuals who perceive a global conspiracy in which key political and economic events are manipulated by a small group of elite insiders. On one flank of the Patriot movement are white supremacists and anti-Semites, who believe that the world is controlled by a cabal of Jewish bankers.

At the other end of this relatively narrow spectrum is the John Birch Society, which has repeatedly repudiated anti-Semitism, but has its own paranoia. For the Birchers, it is not the Rothschilds but such institutions as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, and the U.N. which secretly call the shots.  Berlet estimates that as many as five million Americans consider themselves Patriots.

1991—End of the cold war. While the Patriot movement has long existed on the margins of U.S. society, it has grown markedly in recent years.  Three factors have sparked that growth. One is the end of the Cold War. With the collapse of the Soviet empire, their search for enemies turned toward the federal government, long an object of simmering resentment. The other factors are economic and social. While the Patriot movement provides a pool of potential recruits for the militias, it in turn draws its members from a large and growing number of U.S. citizens who oppose the federal government.  This predominantly white, male, and middle- and working-class sector has been buffeted by global economic restructuring, with its attendant job losses, declining real wages and social dislocations. While under economic stress, this sector has also seen its traditional privileges and status challenged by 1960s-style social movements, such as feminism, minority rights, and environmentalism.

1992– Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Two events inflamed Patriot passions and precipitated the formation of new  militias. The first was the FBI’s confrontation with white supremacist Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, in which federal agents killed Weaver’s son and wife.

1993—Waco, Texas. The second was the federal government’s destruction of David Koresh and his followers at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco. Key promoters of the militia movement repeatedly invoke Ruby Ridge and Waco as spurs to the formation of militias to defend the citizenry against a hostile federal government.

1993 –Passage of the Brady Bill (imposing a waiting period and background checks for the purchase of a handgun).

1994 –Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (banning the sale of certain types of assault rifles). To the Patriot movement, these laws are the federal government’s first step in disarming the citizenry, to be followed by the much dreaded United Nations invasion and the imposition of the New World Order.  But while raising apocalyptic fears among Patriots, gun control legislation also angered more mainstream gun owners. Some have become newly receptive to conspiracy theorists and militia recruiters, who justify taking such a radical step with the Second Amendment: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Right-wing organizers have long used the amendment to justify the creation of armed formations. The Ku Klux Klan began as a militia movement, and the militia idea has continued to circulate in white supremacist circles.

It has also spread within the Christian right.

Christian Patriot Movement

The Christian Patriot movement is a movement of political commentators and activists. Their interpretations of history and law aver that the federal government has turned against the ideas of liberty and individual rights behind the American revolution and America’s Christian heritage.

In the early 1990s, the Coalition on Revival, an influential national Christian right networking organization, circulated a 24-plank action plan. It advocated the formation of “a countywide `well-regulated militia’ according to the U.S. Constitution under the control of the county sheriff and Board of Supervisors.” (Sheriff Joe Arpaio ?)

(It is at this point that I find myself on unsteady ground. Do Christian dominionists belong in this category? Do right-wing churches? It’s a quivery line, but I want to present only those groups delineated as hate groups by the SPLA and The ADL, even though I personally feel that Christian radicalism, like radical Islam, contains threads that can be categorized as hate. But in general, I will leave religious hate for another discussion.)

———————————————

Obviously, I have left out scores of examples of institutional racism and discrimination in the United States, and I hope you will see this as a limitation of space, and not as insensitivity. I also left out many specific groups that I will address when discussing the rise of hate on the internet.

We like to think that we have made progress, that we are different from the unenlightened people of an earlier age, and most of us are. But hardly all of us. We can make allowances for Thomas Jefferson the slave owner and anti- American Indian Founding Father—after all, he was from a different time.  Most people have changed and evolved. We can see by looking at the history of hate in America how far we have come. And we can see by the rise of hate in the media and on the internet how far we still need to go. The roots of bigotry and hatred run deep in our national experience, but while I think we need to stay vigilant, I came away from this exercise more encouraged than despondent.

(Next—Part 2: Hate Speech and the First Amendment)

 “Throughout the history of the human race, even up till the present moment, one of the most potent forces which men use to rally oppressed peoples together, in their drive towards freedom and emancipation from their oppressors, is religion. Men who have successfully led their enslaved peoples from bondage and servitude to freedom; have at one point or the other, mobilized their people with a rallying cry and an appeal to a deity, which had its origins in the subconscious of their people; for deliverance from slavery, servitude and oppression.”

From: Dutty Boukman – Samba Boukman by Edrys Erisnor

http://www.articlebiz.com/article/143351-1-dutty-boukman-samba-boukman/

“Pact With Devil”

“The god, who created the earth, who created the sun that gives us light. The god who holds up the ocean; who makes the thunder roar. Our god who has ears to hear. You who are hidden in the clouds; who watches us from where you are. You see all that the whites have made us suffer. The white man’s god asks him to commit crimes. But the god within us wants to do good. Our god, who is so good, so just, He orders us to revenge our wrongs. It’s He who will direct our arms and bring us to victory. It’s He who will assist us. We all should throw away the image of the white men’s god who is so pitiless. Listen to the voice for liberty that speaks in all our hearts.” 

 These are the famous words of  the slave Dutty Buckman, a high priest of vodou and leader of the Maroon slaves, during a religious ceremony at  Bois Caiman on August 22,1791… This ceremony included an animal sacrifice of a pig… This was the beginnings of the Haitian Slave Revolt for Freedom… 

  After watching Pat Robertson’s “Pact With the Devil” video I decided to learn more about it… I was unaware of Dutty Buckman as in “school” I was taught about  General Toussaint L’Ouverture when we studied the Haitian Slave Revolt…  I don’t believe it would be a far stretch to say that  there was no way a young man in Oklahoma going to school in the 60’s was ever going to be taught that an  African Voodoo Priest  conducted a Voodoo Ceremony to the God “Ojun“  and that was the spark the led to the only successful Slave Revolt in recorded history… 

   ”Drums, Zombies and Dolls” 

When most of us think about Voodoo we conjure up secretive Nocturnal Rituals of  rhythmic dancers around flames of fire soon to become possessed with trances from the gods… We can picture the Drums fashioned from human skin calling out to the Zombies to do the evil bidding of the Priestess who when paid the right sum will gladly provide you with a love charm, mojo bag or the dreaded Voodoo Doll…(maybe even a monkey paw claw)

   In fact Voodoo is an ancient religion that may have ties to Judaism… I am still learning all I can about Voodoo and am providing several informative links… To understand Voodoo is to understand Haiti…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/A1019666

  http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43a/index-faa.html

http://www.wehaitians.com/haitian%20voodoo.html

http://www.wehaitians.com/main.html

“Preventing The Next Disaster”

 Soon the world be taking on the task of re-building a nation that has historically been one of the poorest, if not the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere… A nation founded by Africans enslaved in a faraway land that once Freedom was realized once again became an enslaved population by a class system based on skin color  and kept enslaved by lack of Education…    Haiti is our neighbor, Haiti is our Sister, Haiti deserves our best efforts to allow the dreams of those longing to be free to see that the generations that followed them have Freedom…

http://news.aol.com/article/why-haiti-keeps-getting-hammered-by/855207

“Why is Haiti So Poor”

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/haiti/misctopic/leftover/whypoor.htm

“Hunger and Rage”

http://www.photoshelter.com/gallery-slideshow/G0000KvhMnD3qR3o/

Courtesy of  KQuark : HaitiAction.net is more topical to the issues that Haiti faces in our time…  http://www.haitiaction.net/

 U.S. Department Of State

http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/1982.htm

http://www.travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1134.html

Preface

I recently wrote an article about the upcoming trial of Scott Roeder. There have been numerous responses to the article, and many have been both thoughtful and passionate. I began to write this as a responses to some of those posts in the hopes of offering both explanation and food for thought. The post became so lengthy that I felt it deserved to become an article of its own.

I ask that everyone who reads it keep in mind that this is not directed at any one person, nor is it intended as a rebuttal of some sort to anything that has been posted. I respect everyone’s view and found myself agreeing very strongly with many things that were said. This article is intended to share my own very deep and personal feelings about not only the trial but also the idea of justice as it applies to both civil and criminal law.

I pray that none should look upon this as directed at himself or herself. Indeed, the only person who should feel any uneasiness about sharing these words is the author of them. However, we are adults, and I’m confident that I can offer these words without the danger of creating undue conflict. At least that is my hope.

Let me offer a very grim example to explain my view upon what Sedgwick County Judge Warren Wilbert has done. If any of you have seen those really creepy Saw movies you will know that the guy known as “Jigsaw” places people in life or death situations as a means of actually teaching them lessons about the value of their lives and/or the wrongs they have committed against others while living their lives. The films show people who find themselves forced to face their personal flaws in very gruesome and darkly ironical ways.

Now let’s take the idea of Jigsaw and pretend that he got caught while he was alive (in the film series he actually dies despite people continuing the “work” in his absence). If Jigsaw were brought before a judge and tried to use a “necessity defense” it would most certainly be denied – rightly so. Let’s examine how and why.

Jigsaw could claim that these people were doing things they shouldn’t be, and it was his honest belief that he needed to teach these people lessons, and thereby his actions are legally defensible as necessary since they are for the betterment of humanity. The law does not recognize such beliefs. The judge would have to tell Jigsaw and his legal defense team that his actions are not defensible as necessary because the laws of the United States do not take his beliefs into account; beliefs are irrelevant in the eyes of the court. The fact would be that Jigsaw kidnapped people, held them against their will, and placed them in horrible situations that forced them to commit acts that are nothing short of inhuman. That’s the view the law takes.

Forgive this rather twisted example, but I wanted to use an extreme to illustrate the idea at work here: belief plays no part in the way the law works. Sometimes this can have undesired effects; think predatory lending and repossessions. Sometimes those who were unaware that they were doing something wrong find themselves to be a victim too; think about tax laws, and I’m sure you can easily imagine an example. Sometimes people are truly innocent of the intent to commit a criminal act and do so unknowingly or unwillingly, and often in such situations the defendant’s mental competency and stability are examined very closely; the examples of this are endless. Still, at the end of the day justice is suppose to be blind, and the ramifications of that fact are legion.

We all know people who are victims of our flawed legal system. The people we know might even include ourselves. The system is far from perfect. There are people who truly need help in this world. I’m not just talking about those who are not-guilty by reason of insanity either. Think of the drunk driver who has a serious problem with alcohol. Think of the gang member who grew up knowing nothing but violence and destitution, and thereby learned that if they are to survive they must take what they need by force. The list of examples goes on and on. There are always two sides to every story.

Nevertheless, the law is clear on this matter. Scott Roeder took the life of a man who did nothing wrong. The procedures that Dr. Tiller performed are legal. One may not agree with them, and that is certainly their privilege, but the law does not view the actions of Dr. Tiller as illegal. Indeed, he was even taken into courts of law to see if he was in fact guilty of breaking laws, but Tiller was never found guilty of any wrong-doing. That is the viewpoint of the law.

Judge Wilbert has now allowed for the idea of belief to be introduced in this trial. The reality is that it should have no place in this matter. If Roeder had taken the life of someone who was guilty of committing crimes (a mafia hitman for example) then the idea of necessity could apply. However, in this situation the “crimes” of Dr. Tiller exist only within the mind of Scott Roeder. Judge Wilbert’s decision is a mistake for that reason. Let’s go back to the original example where we used the character from the Saw movie series. Do you think Judge Wilbert would have allowed for Jigsaw’s belief in his “work” to be a permissible point for an attorney to bring up? The public outrage would be unimaginable!

As for myself personally, I am a liberal first and foremost regardless of all else. I do not automatically condemn the joyrider, the tax evader, the deadbeat dad, the drug dealer, the shoplifter, or even Scott Roeder. Let me reiterate: there are always two sides to every story. That is the very reason we have courts and court-appointed attorneys.

Do not misunderstand my meaning. Those who are guilty of breaking laws must be held to account for their actions, but our legal system needs to be about more than justice for the victim. Rehabilitation needs to be more than just a word that we use because it sounds good. People who break the law (knowingly or otherwise) will continue to do so unless we help them become better people. Justice needs to be about more than satisfying public outrage over the actions of another.

In the Middle Ages people were publicly tortured and executed. I often wonder if films like Saw aren’t designed to feed some disgusting desire within people who secretly want to see such things to this very day. I’m sure that the countless beheadings (40,00 according to some estimates) during the French Revolution appeased that very blood-lust. It certainly seemed to please the mob who looked on with cold-hearted taunts and jeers.

When we think of the French Revolution we are often reminded of Marie Antionette’s words “let them eat cake” despite this being an entirely fictional quote. Let me tell you who I think about when I reflect upon those dark and blood days.

Madame du Barry was a mistress of Louis XV. She was found guilty of treason and condemned to die. The accounts of her moments before death haunt me whenever I hear mention of the French Revolution or debates about the death penalty.

As she was being taken to the guillotine, she continually collapsed in fear and cried out. “You are going to hurt me! Why?!” She screamed hysterically. She begged the crowd for mercy and pleaded for someone to save her. There were those who were so visibly moved that for the first time the executioner almost became hesitant. Madame du Barry’s last words were directed to that executioner: “One moment more, Mr. executioner, I beg you!” Her body now lays in the Madeleine cemetery. It is the final resting place of Louis XVI, Marie-Antoinette and many, many other victims of the French Revolution.

What was her crime? Being a courtesan who had close ties to the royal family.

As one who was not alive during those days of terror, my own ears didn’t hear the pleas of that poor, poor woman. Nevertheless, my mind still rings with the echo of those words, and my heart breaks at the thought of that moment before Madame du Barry was forever silenced.

In the years before the French Revolution many, many people were suffering. That cannot be denied. As a liberal I find that to be an outrage too. Yet, I cannot help but find the way their desperation drove them to commit heinous acts in the name of justice to be tragic in the extreme.

How many of us feel a certain satisfaction when people are publicly shamed or humiliated out of a sense of justice?

I am very angry with Judge Wilbert, but I can imagine he feels he’s doing the right thing in some way. Although, I do feel very strongly that he is not. I’m extremely angry with Scott Roeder, but I sincerely hope that if he is indeed in need of treatment for mental illness – as has been said by his brother – that he does get help. It is obvious that he desperately needs it. Indeed, I can say without any intention of humor or irony that many who protest outside of abortion clinics may also need help. This is one reason I hold people like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly in such low regard. They have whipped people into such a frenzy of anger and paranoia that even Maximilien Robespierre himself would have been envious.

May the late George Tiller rest in peace, and may his family find comfort and a solemn peace of their own. May this trial bring closure for all parties involved. May justice be served, but may that justice be meted out in a way that promotes the betterment of society rather than its detriment.

NEW JERSEY – The state Senate denied marriage equality to all its citizens. The marriage equality bill failed to pass in a 20-14 decision despite Democrats holding the majority. Senators James Beach (D-Camden), Paul Sarlo (D-Bergen) and Steve Sweeney (D-Gloucester) abstained and 2 other senators did not attend the state Senate session; Senator Diane Allen (R-Burlington) was one of those not attending, but her absence was due to her fight against cancer. The vote came after an hour and a half of public debate.

There was a good deal of uncertainty about the outcome of this bill. New Jersey Senate President Richard Codey (D) made clear that the state Senate did not have the votes to pass this bill, but supporters insisted that the vote take place today because Governor Jon Corzine (D) agreed he would sign the bill into law should it pass the Senate before the end of his term.

“Most assuredly, this is an issue of civil rights and civil liberties, the foundation of our state and federal constitutions,” the governor said. “Denying any group of people a fundamental human right because of who they are, or whom they love, is wrong, plain and simple.”

Corzine was defeated in his bid for reelection by Chris Christie (R). Christie is an opponent of this bill and will assume the office of Governor on January 19th.

The state Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers must extend marital rights to same-sex couples, and Governor Corzine signed a civil union bill into law in 2006. However, this has failed to extend full marriage equality to the LGBT community.

In 2008 a panel evaluated the differences between civil unions and actual marriage as per the dictates of the civil union law. The panel’s findings showed that while civil unions provided some of the benefits that married couples enjoy, it did not fully provide all the benefits and protections that married couples enjoy under New Jersey state law.

The Senate Judiciary Committee approved a marriage equality bill by a 7-6 vote on the 8th of December. The bill was then delayed due to uncertainty regarding its passing the state Senate. The reasons for that delay became self-evident during today’s voting in the Senate.

Senator Ray Lesniak (D-Union), a strong supporter and sponsor of the bill, was driven to tears as a result of this outcome. Senator Lesniak has said that local religious organizations have actually written him in support of this bill.

Interestingly, the religious institutions that have contacted Lesniak to express their support of the bill are citing religious freedom as a reason for their support. They’ve said that state law has no right to dictate the parameters of marriage and thereby choosing by omission for whom congregations can and cannot hold official wedding ceremonies. “Government is wrong to interfere with religious beliefs,” Senator Lesniak said.

Garden State Equality Chairman Steven Goldstein has made clear that the fight for marriage equality is not over, and that the issue would once again be taken before the courts in New Jersey.

The Conference Board Research Group has released the results of their survey regarding job satisfaction and the results show that 45% of Americans are content with their jobs. The lowest rate of job satisfaction since the study began over twenty-two years ago.
The study concludes that workers dissatisfaction with their jobs are for several reasons, and three of them are:
1.) fewer workers consider their jobs interesting
2.) incomes have not kept up with inflation
3.) The soaring cost of health insurance has eaten into workers’ take-home pay.

Americans’ job satisfaction falls to record low

This article provoked thoughts about the corporation that I worked for and retired from 14 years ago.
I’ve calculated the average salary from figures recorded from 2000 – 2009.

Salary Survey for Job: Mechanical Engineer

An engineer that obtained a Bachelor of Science Degree in Mechanical Engineering has an average salary of $50,740.00 within the first four years of employment.

Last year, the corporation asked employees to take a 10% cut in wages –

$50,740.00 – $5,074.00 = $45,666.00 annual salary

The corporation also demanded employees take 2 days off per month without pay, two weeks off during the summer without pay and starting January 1st, 2010 – the first week of January off without pay.
That works out to 39 days annually without pay.

Engineering is rarely a 40-hour per week job.
Overtime is common and 55-hour weeks are the norm.
For this discussion, we’ll ignore the fact that due to drastic cutbacks in employees, the remaining engineers are putting in 60+ hour weeks.
To keep it simple, we’ll stick with the 55-hour week.

39 days x 8 hours = 312 hours off without pay annually

Normally, employers calculate the hour paid per year, including paid vacation and holidays at 2,080 hours for a 40-hour week.
Since engineers’ average 55-hour weeks without overtime pay, the annual hours increase to 2,640 hours.

$45,666 /2640 = $17.30 per hour

According to the PayScale site above, the median salary for a Home Depot Retail Assistant Manager is $51,000 annually, and a college degree is not a requirement.

Four years at a university studying calculus, logarithms, science, physics, statistical analysis, and Strength of Materials for a job that pays less and is more stressful than an assistant manager at a hardware store.

Is it any wonder employees are not satisfied?

This morning my partner’s mom came to our room to ask me about something. She told me that my would-be brother-in-law just got an email that says the White House refused to let any ornaments on the tree that were Christian, but would allow ornaments with Muslim themes. Do the wingers not let up even on Christmas Day?

Here’s a little background: My partner’s family is primarily made up of wingers, and I don’t mean the moderate sort either. These people are real racist, anti-semetic, homophobic, hardcore, Rush Limbaugh listening, FOX News watching, tea bagger apologists. I’d like to point out that there are a small handful who are not, but for the most part they are the very people I have derided on many a blog site. Needless to say, when we’re all under the same roof for the holidays things can get tense.

Dwayne, one of my sweetie’s older brothers, is especially bad about these things. Dwayne has never been to college, works two jobs, doesn’t watch the news unless it’s FOX, gets nearly all of his opinions from Rush Limbaugh everyday, and literally lives in his parent’s basemen. Yet, he will naturally speak out against unions and health care reform. On Mother’s Day his words caused me to drop a hot pan when I was in the kitchen. He asked, “what’s next? The government’s gonna take care of our pets?”

He knows well what kind of person I am, and we have exchanged words to be sure. Usually he storms off, but when he gets going and starts losing an argument he defaults to making personal comments. He and I don’t even speak to each other if it can be avoided.

My partner’s mother is a nice woman. Jan is hardworking, disciplined, and very outspoken. She was brought up to vote Democrat in fact. Although, her politics would put her to the right of me. However, I did convince her to vote for Obama in 2008.  We live in Kansas, and thus that one vote wasn’t in a swing state. Yet, I am a firm believer that voting is the responsible thing to do no matter where you are.

Well her mom was in the other room talking to Dwayne. It was noisy given the way Dwayne likes to raise his voice in anger about this or that. My sweetie was sleeping in so I closed the door and stayed in our room until she was ready to get up.

I heard a soft tap on the door. I opened it a bit. In a soft whispering noise the woman I call “mom” despite not being my mother-in-law in the legal sense asked me if I knew about an email Dwayne was talking about. In a quiet moment of explanation I felt all the joy of the season leave me for a brief moment.

I brought her over to my computer and showed her where this has been debunked. I even showed her the White House tree. I noted that there was a Christmas party, and one would think if there were Muslim ornaments upon the tree all those reporters would have seen it. I even showed her the ornaments that were sent out to be decorated that had been shown in closeups of the tree. Her response is one I’ve become used to hearing. “I didn’t think it was true, but I just had to ask. Would you print that out so I can hang it on our fridge? I just want to be able to show it’s not true.”

She went back out into the living room and told Dwayne what she had been shown. He then began with something else. This time something that strikes an even stronger chord with me. “Black people are the only ones who bitch. There was no black man that gave presents to kids. There was no black man who ever did that for anybody. The Arabs don’t bitch. The orientals don’t bitch! The Hispanics don’t bitch! It’s just the black people that bitch!” That sent a fire of anger through my body. Years ago I vowed that I would never remain silent in the face of prejudice, and I’ll hold to that vow even on Christmas Day. I stormed out in my robe ready for the battle.

Now that the moment is over I’m left with my thoughts about what just happened. I’m left wondering how this could even occur. How can someone be so angry against President Obama and against African-Americans that he can’t let go of his hate even today? How can someone be so racially insensitive and ignorant that they can’t even restrain themselves from using words that have long since been looked upon as rude on a day when children are unwrapping presents and experiencing the magical wonder of this day? How can someone be so filled with right wing fury that he can’t even show a little respect for the fact that his lesbian sister and her lover are sleeping in the next room?

30 Azar 1388 -- December 21, 2009. The epicenter of the clerical establishment of Iran, the city of Qom, about a hundred miles southwest of the capital, was shaken by demonstrators mourning for the recently deceased Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri. In the words of Shirin Ebadi, “the father of human rights” in Iran.

Born in 1922, in the town of Najafabad, near Isfahan, Montazeri was jailed by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi numerous times, tortured by SAVAK and a confidant of exiled Ayatollah Khomeini. It was he who was prominent in devising the theory of guardianship of the jurist (or Velayat-e Faghih) and drawing it into the second draft of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. He was chosen as heir apparent by the “Imam” (Khomeini’s affectionate title) until a falling out between the two.

After harsh criticisms of the 1988 Massacres of political dissidents (real and imagined) and Khomeini’s fatwa against author Salman Rushdie, Montazeri sardonically chided Khomeini with, “people in the world are getting the idea that our business in Iran is just murdering people.” Statements such as this, in addition to machinations of Hashemi Rafsanjani and Ahmad Khomeini (Ruhollah Khomeini’s son) in the background for succession, threw Montazeri out of favor and made him a pariah within the IRI oligarchy. However; it also proved an indelible break that he and many other originally radical ideologues were making with their original vision. Montazeri would later contend that Khomeini twisted his theory (which, believe me, isn’t far-fetched, Khomeini was great at borrowing and twisting ideas for his own gain, one only need compare Ali Shariati’s philosophy to his). In one of Montazeri’s last statements,

“The goal (of the revolution) was not simply to change the names and slogans but keep the same oppression and abuses practiced by the previous regime. Everyone knows I am a defender of theocratic government, although not in the current form. The difference lies in the fact that I intended for the people to choose the jurist and supervise his work… I now feel ashamed of the tyranny conducted under this banner. What we see now is the government of a military guardianship, not the guardian of Islamic scholars.”

He said that his theory was for the clerics to perform more as guides, and that he never meant for a hierarchy, but for them to issue opinions by consensus (the difference between limited and absolute clerical rule). To demonstrate what an influential force Montazeri was, this has been the backbone of the Reformist plank, i.e., amending the Constitution per Article 177 to redefine the position of Faghih. This was last done prior to Khomeini’s death from cancer. Knowing his new replacement lacked the genuine following, charisma and religious credentials, Khomeini had revisions drawn up and put to a referendum. Today, the demands are of the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council’s powers to be curtailed, if not the latter being outright abolished, along the with the corrupt, vestigial and impotent Expediency Council. Positions on all these modifications to the system vary, but there is general agreement (based on simple logic and bitter experience throughout the Khatami presidency) that for there ever to be actual reform within the Islamic Republic, those undemocratic institutions that repeatedly block progress need to first be done away with.

Faced with disillusionment brought on by a battered nation from Khomeini’s prolonged crisis of the Iran-Iraq War, men and women like Montazeri were finally given time to reflect upon the realities which the warped path of the Revolution had actually wrought. They realized that they had seriously fallen short of their aspirations for a more humane, and just nation when their pre-Revolutionary ideals met with the actual task of governing. (This was one of the deficits of the broader revolution, according to scholar Nikki R. Keddie. Many were so wrapped up in overthrowing the shah, not many had any idea what to do after Mohammad Reza Pahlavi finally abdicated the Peacock Throne — not many — except for Khomeini who had been developing his theory for decades and was more than happy to return from France and bear that ‘burden’). This pause at long last, after ten years of continued crisis after crisis, along with the death of Khomeini would allow for a reevaluation of the direction the Islamic Republic would take. It would first lead to a new Pragmatist faction, led by Rafsanjani under the mantle of his presidency in the early 1990’s, and in turn blossom in the the Reform movement under Khatami’s presidency in the late 1990’s and early 2000’s. Montazeri was a spiritual guide in the background, giving these more liberal attitudes and moderation added weight and legitimacy. You could see his imprimatur stamped all over it. Since his death the core elite of the IRI have been dealing with the Legacy of Khomeini and interpreting his words across the political spectrum to fit their respective agendas (compare with the American Founding Fathers in this regard). But there have in fact been two competing legacies.

During the latter part of this time of maturation, from 1997-2003, Montazeri was put under house arrest (freed finally under Khatami’s plea to Supreme Leader Khamene’i) and has endured continued monitoring, threats, attacks, and a concerted campaign from the hardline media dismissing him as a “simple minded cleric” and instigating a political move to strip him of his robe. But, the fact remained, that among the collegiate fraternity of clerics; even those whom disagree vehemently (as is Shi’i tradition -- with its emphasis on ijtihad), politicians and extremist firebrand clerics had no authority to do this (though the clergy was greatly purged of “turbaned deceivers”, as Khomeini called them, in the early 1980’s). Until his death this weekend he remained the highest ranking marja’ in Iran, with only Grand Ayatollah Seyyid Ali Hosseini Sistani of Najaf, Iraq, outranking him in the Shi’i world.

His death, announced by his son Ahmad, of course spurred a few conspiracy theories. However; I don’t buy into them for reasons which will become clear later. It also appeared to be more of an initial reaction which has subsided. Despite being a thorn in the side of the leadership for decades, he was still set to be buried at the Fatemah shrine in Qom, the second holiest Shi’i shrine in Iran and thus a major pilgrimage site (charter pilgrimage bus tours often go from the Imam Reza shrine to this one). On Sunday, security forces were locking down Qom, shutting down communications, forbidding foreign media (those familiar with my past articles should be familiar with this drill by now),  in preparation for the intensified throngs, which already begin to burgeon during Moharram.

Mehdi Karoubi and Mir-Hossein Mousavi called for people to observe a public day of mourning, and come they did, as if they had to be directed, from major cities such as Tehran, Isfahan, and Shiraz and elsewhere. Anywhere from numbers in the tens of thousands (even corroborated by Ayandeh, which is associated with Mohsen Reza’i) to hundreds of thousands showed up and clashed with government loyalists who also came. Tear gas, shots fired (again, you know the drill). Of course, Kayhan (the IRI “Pravda”) reported that only 5,000 showed, and all newspapers in the country were forbidden from showing Montazeri’s picture on the front page. When mention was made of him, or his funeral, his titles were omitted and demonstrations were not mentioned. In contrast, BBC Persian’s wall-to-wall coverage of Montazeri got through IRI jamming attempts periodically, which were stepped up Sunday and particularly during the airing of Montazeri segments by IRI government monitors Monday (The New York Times reports; however, that they had to suspend broadcasts). Not only this, but even the sanctity of bast in Imam Hassan mosque was violated by security forces to prevent protesters from congregating there, another one of the ironies of the Islamic Republic, considering it was the sophisticated network of mosques in which Khomeini’s revolution was kept alive. It was the one place even the shah dared not transgress.

In Najafabad, hundreds of hamshahris (a Farsi term for fellow townsmen) proud of their hometown cleric, went out to the streets. Two buses were reported burned (I have yet to figure out the significance, if any, in this recurrent act, as bus drivers are historically Reform and have been active risking stiff reprisals for periodic strikes. It is probably more emotionally driven and I wish they’d knock it off, if it isn’t merely propaganda to smear them).

After protests, upon returning to Tehran, Mousavi’s car was repeatedly harrased and cut off by Basijis on motorbikes who even smashed the rear windows. If this is true, it would clarify and reverse any suspicions I had of his containment at his office the past two demonstrations being cynically choreographed. Similarly, the Montazeri’s home was put under heavy security (which for the Montazeri family, has pretty much been the status quo situation for a long time anyhow) and Basiji’s shouting pro-government slogans, and though they had a public funeral service, it was cut short by a couple hundred Basijis disrupting it and tearing up funeral banners (ironically, it is the conservative camp complaining of his death being “politicized” and calling pro-reformists “hypocrites” -- a politically charged word akin to ‘traitor’, if they did indeed use monafeqin). They decided to cancel the ceremony planned in the Fatemah mosque that evening, because the city of Qom had turned to “martial law” after mourners dispersed.

However; it is generally thought to have gone without major incident. The usual arrests and injuries here and there (I don’t mean to sound so jaded and callous; I hope they are alright and it is only a brief detainment) but the police also helped protect the crowd from the Basijis, again, according to Ayandeh. When Khamene’i was set to speak though, boos rang out (video) along with the ever familiar “Death to Dictator”. Other chants, apart from the usual, included, but were not limited to: “Dictator, this is your last message: The people of Iran are rising!”, “Oppressed Montazeri, you are with God now”, “Dictator, dictator, Montazeri is alive”, “Montazeri, you who spoke the truth! Your path will be followed”, “Innocent Montazeri, your path will be continued even if the dictator should rain bullets on our heads” and “Innocent Montazeri, Congratulations on your freedom!” (For more on the use of the movement’s clever use of Revolutionary slogans, here’s a BBC piece) I might also explain here that the shrine is named after Fatemah Ma’soumeh (sister of Imam Reza), the latter cognomen meaning ‘innocent’. In contrast Khamene’i would issue this passive-aggressive swipe, as reported by AFP,

“He was an accomplished theologian and a prominent teacher who spent a large part of his life for Imam’s (Khomeini’s) cause,” Khamenei said in a statement carried by state television’s website. He also asked divine forgiveness for Montazeri over a “difficult ordeal” that the late cleric had undergone, alluding to his fallout with Khomeini.

The White House issued its condolences through National Security Council spokesman Michael Hammer, “Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who seek to exercise the universal rights and freedoms that he so consistently advocated.”

Montazeri’s other son Saeed said Sunday that, “I think one of the main reasons [for his death] was his grief for the post-election events which troubled my father a lot”. Indeed, these came even in the form of a fatwa, denouncing Ahmadinejad’s election as illegitimate and the violent crackdown, saying in late August that the the government was neither Islamic nor a republic, and at the end of November saying the Basij were “in the path of Satan”. In reference to students tearing up Khomeini’s picture during Student Day on December 4th, he remarked,

“The late Ayatollah Imam Khomeini was a very important man. But, he was not ma’soom [sinless] and had erred many times. He himself never claimed to be ma’soom. Therefore, there is no need to make an issue of this [tearing and burning his poster].”

For his part, Hassan Khomeini, grandson of Ayatollah Khomeini said that “[he] spent many years of his honorable life on the path of advancing the high goals of Islam and the Islamic revolution”. The Khomeini progeny are a prime example of Montazeri’s call to return to the original promise and opportunity provided by the Revolution of their namesake. Just as their grandfather was the figurehead for one popular uprising, so has Montazeri been the patron of another.

Shirin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (though the hardware went ‘missing’ for a bit) had this moving reflection,

“I call you father because I learned from you how to defend the oppressed without using violence against the oppressor. I learned from you that being silent is helping the oppressor. Father, I learned much from you, although I never [got the chance to] show my appreciation for being your child and student. Father, forgive us.”

Grand Ayatollah Ali Hossein Montazeri’s legacy will be that he gave up the chance for power out of conscience, was not afraid to speak against power, no matter what threats came his way. It is true, he was not liberal by Western standards, and although he spoke out for the rights of religious minorities, even the unrecognized Bahá’ís, he still adhered to the fundamentalist Shi’i view of najas (non-Muslims being ritually impure); but said they may make themselves “pure through chaste, Muslim-like, behavior.” This, compared to Khomeini and hard-line clerics today, makes him downright progressive in comparison. For more on religious discrimination in Iran, this is an excellent article (though I will warn you it’s National Review). If we are to be concerned about political dissidents and the plight of women, we should show the same for religious minorities. (Here’s an essay on the same subject by Marina Nemat [PDF], while I’m on the topic). His courage has inspired those like another dissident cleric, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Kazememeyni Boroujerdi, who is still imprisoned after three years for advocating the separation of mosque and state, Grand Ayatollah Sane’i (who is the closest a Reformist cleric can come to filling the spiritual aspect of the giant vacuum Montazeri will leave, in my view), men like Mehdi Karoubi, and most importantly the Green Movement itself. From earlier this month in one of his last statements, this is what he had this to say of it,

This movement is the accurate reflection and representation of the justified demands of the majority that have surfaced over many years. While it has faced a violent reaction and vehement hostility from the hardliner faction of the state, its domestic and foreign achievements are undeniable. Inside Iran, this movement has succeeded in institutionalizing a tolerant culture for demanding the rights of a large number of people, which were ignored during the election [process] and the events that followed. In addition, this movement has also prevailed in exposing the violent nature of the radical and the oppressive. Of course, to achieve this, it has paid a high price, which shows that the people will not be swayed until they attain the rights they are entitled to. Death, intimidation, threats, detainments, arrests, illegal and non-religious trials, heavy and unjust convictions for political activists and freedom seekers, as well as false and misleading propaganda – none of this has influenced the people’s will and determination. Outside Iran, the movement has succeeded in drawing international attention – especially that of developed societies and human rights organizations – to the oppression it faces as well as its rightful demands. From a political [perspective], [the movement] has presented the real power of nationhood to the world.

The continuance of the calendar demonstrations were already set for Ashura, before his passing. And this comes on the heels of the Revolutionary Court announcing it will try 12 prison officials for the deaths of three protesters (I can’t help but wonder if this will be like the post 18 Tir trials when all but one security officers were acquitted, the one left, sentenced for disobeying orders to beat protesters -- not 100% on the details here though, I’m woefully behind on transferring a stack of book notes to my computer). I had been planning on an article for that. So, this will by far be one of my worst articles to date, rushed as I was by this unforeseeable event. Needless to say, I shall be getting into more into what happens with the vacuum he’s left, the powerful symbolism of Moharram, remark more on the status of the Green Movement (which, by the way, have been guaranteed they won’t be reprimanded for carrying the green banners by Police commander Azizollah Rajabzadeh, according to Farda -- I will get into this later!), and hopefully have a more coherently crafted piece. I will but mention this: Montazeri’s death, happened to fall the week before Ashura. As some may recall, the Shi’i mourning cycle occurs on the third, seventh, and the big one (arba’een) on the fortieth days after passing. As Shirin Sadeghi notes,

In a bizarre twist of fate, Montazeri’s death coincides with the most important date on the Shiite calendar: Ashura. His haftom (literally: seventh day of passing — a significant date of mourning for Shiites) will fall exactly on the holy day of Ashura when Iranians are encouraged by the government to parade into the streets to recognize their fallen martyrs.

The symbolism just got a whole lot deeper. This is why I don’t buy the conspiracy theory. The intelligence services have been sloppy at times, but I could not think of worse premeditated timing (I promised I’d get back to it!) to assassinate him. I think they also hearkened back to the conspiracy theories surrounding Ayatollah Taleghani’s death in 1979 (part of reading Iran is being aware of its culturally historical references). Remarking more soberly on the implications of Montazeri’s death whilst noting that he may be more powerful in death as a martyr to galvanizing the movement, Juan Cole made this brilliant analogy to the other effect,

The regime will breathe a sigh of relief, since Montazeri helped craft the doctrine of the guardianship of the Jurisprudent, which the current government interprets as clerical dictatorship. But Montazeri maintains that that outcome was never Khomeini’s intent. It is sort of as though there was a living disciple of Jesus around who insisted that he never intended the pope to be infallible. Montazeri was a powerful living witness to an alternative form of Shiite government, one with a human face. The hardliners such as Khamenei and Ahmadinejad will be delighted to have that voice silenced.

Other Iran News Updates

These are what I had been planning to get out of the way the week before Ashura. So, instead of remarking much on them, I’ll sort of just knock ‘em off one-by-one.

• Iran Losing Clout in the Arab World. Even Hassan Nasrallah was getting a little unsettled by the violent oppression.
• A study abstract which claims Ahmadinejad losing support in rural areas.
• The government tried to shame a male student by dressing him in a maghna’eh and chador. In response, men from around the country dressed up in hejab and posted their pictures in the comments sections of pro-government news sites.
• A recommended interview with Karim Sadjadpour, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, on the efficacy of sanctions.
• Amnesty International calls for probe into human rights abuses [heartwrenching video of a raped young woman who escaped to Turkey]. Here’s a release from the Amnesty International site on the abuses.
• The jihad on makeup! (to paraphrase Mary Matalin)
• On the whole Iraqi well hooplah, heralded by Huffy as an impending war, see Juan Cole, and for some (much needed) historical perspective, go here. Bloomberg also had some relevant insights. Also, I was trying to say this during the hikers thing (who are promised a “speedy trial” in most recent news). GPS doesn’t help a damn bit when both countries have different ideas where the border is.
• Remember the hacked Predator drones? Iran may have had a hand in it. And they may have hacked Twitter too!
• While I’m on the subject of IRI mischief, Houthi rebels in Yemen (Exporting the Revolution redux and screwing with the Saudis again). No wonder they got disinvited from the GCC -- that, and Bahrain and the UAE weren’t too amused by the yacht incident, I imagine. Oh wait, no, I’m pretty certain. It really doesn’t take an analyst at a thinktank to figure these things out sometimes.
• Awesome op-ed by Richard Cohen on why Obama is doing the right thing with Iran. Mehdi Karoubi, in an interview published this morning, bolsters this. Admiral Mullen’s recent comments slightly complicate this, but it was still far more measured than we might have seen under the Bush administration. If this is part of the concerted case being built to invade Iran à la Iraq, I still fail to see it. But that’s another topic altogether for me to thoughtfully dismantle.

Well, that’s it. My bookmarks get pretty full after a short while, and I only selected a few. The above section was to be among my content in my preview of the upcoming Ashura demonstrations. So, until next week, to get everyone in the Shi’i holiday mood --

A final mention of thanks. Some of these links would not be possible but for my fellow IRI apologist slayers at HP. If you happen to cross upon this, you know who you are.

* * *

“Independence is being free of foreign intervention and freedom is giving people the freedom to express their opinions. Not being put in prison for every protest one utters.”

- Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri (1922-2009)

As an LGBT member this is something very important to me. I’m thrilled by this.

From Think Progress: Marriage equality is now legal in the nation’s capital.

This morning at the All Souls Unitarian church in Washington, DC, approximately 150 activists and same-sex couples congregated to witness marriage equality become law in the nation’s capital. “I say to the world: An era of struggle ends for thousands in Washington, D.C.,” said Mayor Adrian Fenty (D), who also invoked his biracial upbringing and noted that it was illegal for his parents to get married 40 years agobecause they were an interracial couple. Several other officials spoke, including David Catania (I), the council member who sponsored the bill. When Fenty signed the bill, he held it over his head and the room erupted in cheers. Watch some highlights from the event:

You can read the entire story at this link