A month ago the BBC was proclaiming that the Iranian Islamic revolution was a good thing for women….the BBC is rather too keen on promoting Iran’s interests for some reason….the BBC sees its job as an effort to combat and counter those who characterise Iran as a malevolent force in the world which aims to destroy Israel, arms and funds a variety of militias and terrorist groups and has been a major opponent of British forces in Iraq and in Afghanistan.
But the BBC’s belief that everything is relative, there are no black and whites, no good and bad, means even Hitler would have had his spokesmen on the BBC during the war…and in Iran’s case the BBC likes to portray it as the victim of an aggressive America with enemies surrounding it intent in its destruction…much indeed as they portray Putin and his drive to rebuild the Soviet empire.
If as part of that drive to polish Iran’s reputation and image the BBC has to manage the truth then so be it….here it reports that Amnesty International has criticised Iran…Iran birth drive ‘turns women into baby-making machines’, but the report is remarkably short and very unlike the usual BBC analysis that goes into deatil about such cultural and social issues.
How different to this positive one about the wonders of Islamic feminism where we get much more information…How Iran’s feminist genie escaped telling us that ‘Iran’s 1979 revolution may have put an ayatollah in charge – but for women it had plenty of positive side-effects… in education, in the workplace, and even in the home, discovers Amy Guttman during a ride on the Tehran underground’.
‘Positive side effects’ such as these from the Amnesty report that the BBC has decided to omit from its report…..
Despite claims by Iran’s authorities, including statements by President Hasan Rouhani that men and women in Iran are treated equally, in reality this is far from the truth. Sexual violence and discrimination against women in Iran is rife and women in Iran are denied equal rights with respect to marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, travel, and even in their choice of clothing.
Iran’s Penal Code penalizes women and girls as early as nine years old who fail to cover their hair with a headscarf and comply with compulsory dress codes with imprisonment or a cash fine. These laws are regularly used by the police to harass and detain women in public for their appearance and clothing.
According to Iran’s existing Civil Code, a woman would not be entitled to spousal maintenance if she refuses to comply with the “duties of marriage”, which can include refusing to have sex with her husband or leaving the house without permission .
A woman’s testimony in court is valued at half that of a man in legal proceedings and reparations paid for killing or causing injury to a woman are half those payable for same harms to a man. The age of criminal responsibility for girls is just under nine years old but just under 15 years for a boy. Rape within marriage and domestic violence are not recognized as criminal offences. Engaging in lesbian sex is punishable by 100 lashes with a fourth time conviction resulting in the death penalty.
Early and forced marriages are common with 41,226 girls between the ages of 10 and 14 getting married, according to the 2013-2014 annual report by the National Organization for Civil Registration, and at least 201 girls under the age of 10. At some universities women are barred from studying certain subjects, ranging from engineering to English literature, as a result of quotas that seek to reverse advances made in the number and proportion of female university students. They also face restrictions on watching sports in public stadiums.
If they are examples of that ‘positive’ side effect of the Islamic Revolution life must have been really, really terrible before.
Most of the Wests foreign policy is determined by what Saudi Arabia, and it’s supporter want, after all he who pays the piper calls the tune.
Saudi doesn’t like Iran, so the West doesn’t like Iran. Odd that because the foreign policy of Iran is no worse (and probably better than) Saudi !
Saudi didn’t like Bashir Al Assad, and Syria, so the West didn’t like Bashir Al Assad and Syria, even though Syria was a far more tolerant and liberal country than either Saudi or Iran. (But Syria didn’t have any lovely money to buy Western policy with).
Saudi liked ISIS, as Whabist Islamists willing to fight against the heretic Yazidis and their tolerance of other religions they saw ISIS as Jihadis with a legitimate cause. – So we saw ISIS as a friends and began sending them help and the propaganda machine was switched to full power on their behalf. If Labour hadn’t stopped Camoron sending our troops there, we would be fighting next to ISIS.
Vladimir Putin seemed to know exactly what was going on, so Camoron must have done. The big difference is that Putin has enough oil money of his own and can’t be bought so Russian foreign policy is independent and in Russia’s interest.
When ISIS started getting more barbaric and Western citizens (some of them amazingly gullible and stupid) were murdered it became difficult for the Western government to retain the pretence that ISIS were a legitimate group.
They knew that ISIS were unlikely to ever be capable of taking on the Iranian military machine, despite Saudi & ISIS hatred of their Shia ‘heresy’.
Now Iran has moved their forces into Iraq and are fighting ISIS in a much more effective way than the US ever did, bombing raids by Sunni countries have been half hearted at best.
If Iran does decide to push North to wipe out the Sunni ISIS group, then they might just clear out Syria too, which would take them to the borders of Israel. If they don’t then it is likely they will reshape Iraq in the way which suits them.
Either which way, the Saudis and friends have badly miscalculated in their dealing with ISIS, playing into their enemies hands and with their Western puppets unable to mobilise their militaries because of widespread public opposition. The only option now is to play nice to Iran and try to keep their influence in that region to a minimum.
Presumably, you’re a tinfoil tycoon.
Iran sponsors (that means “pays for”) terrorism around the world. That includes the sunni terrorists of hamas and the shia ones of hezbollah. If you think Iran can be trusted with nuclear weapons, or if you can’t spot the Russian connivance with Iran over its development of nuclear technology, then it’s a bit rich for you to call anyone else a moron.
The Assad regime is brutal. It’s a regime that uses heavy artillery to suppress protest. People in Britain get hung up over the “Peterloo Massacre” and “Bloody Sunday”, but the Assad regime has killed people on a far greater scale. High explosive and shrapnel aren’t “tolerant” and they aren’t “liberal”. The fact that the alternatives, including the Iranians, are in no way better doesn’t reflect well on Assad. As Netanyahu said, “The enemy of my enemy is still my enemy.”
“Now Iran has moved their forces into Iraq…”
Well, I don’t know where you have been for the last decade, but Iran’s forces have been in Iraq for all of that time. Their presence cost the lives of many British, American and other allied soldiers, along with huge numbers of Iraqi civilians.
The fact is that civilisation loses, if either isis, or Iran, is victorious. Neither has any sympathy for people who are even slightly out of step with its mediaeval ideology. As an example, isis has been bulldozing archaeological sites and destroying museums, but Iran’s dictator issued an edict, a few years ago, to the effect that the history of Iran, as “taught” in schools, should omit anything before the age of Mo’. Their mentality is identical.
Their hatred of the civilised world is identical, too.
let me take issue with a few of your points.
Saudi is also sponsoring terror and worse by attempting to spread wahabist Islam to Salafis who are more peaceable.
Forget Russian involvement with Irans nuclear program and look to Pakistan. a ‘gentleman’ called A Q Khan who has sold (or attempted to) nuclear Bomb technology to North Korea & Gadhafi’s Libya.
Syria was until the West started stirring things up with the Arab Spring, a relatively peaceful place. Christians and Jews lived alongside Muslims and Yazidis, that’s a tolerance not found in Saudi !
As for Iran in Iraq, before it was more covert, now its full scale military involvement.
I think you’ve entirely missed the point of my post which was about the potential bribery and corruption of Western leaders.
Since I wrote the piece Prince Turki Al Faisal has announced that negotiations will have to be made with Assad, and lo & behold John Kerry has announced the same.
It isn’t a matter of what’s the best outcome, it’s a matter of what is the best outcome for the Sunni Islamic countries who are buying influence.
The Assad regime tolerated other sects principally because the Assads are associated, nominally, at least, with the minority Alawite sect, so obviously had nothing to gain from championing either their sect, or anyone else’s. There was also the fact that Assad senior was a secularist Baathite. Then there was the perfectly plausible theory, entirely justified from his appearance, that he was half-French, anyway. France was the occupying power in Syria, in 1930.
The west didn’t provoke or support the originally peaceful uprising in Syria, just as Obama resolutely ignored democracy protests in your beloved Iran, back in 2009. Syria was a protege of both Iran and your other true love, Russia, so nobody was in any hurry to intervene militarily.
The West’s contribution to the rise of isis comes from two sources. Firstly, the Obama administration is riddled with influence from the muslim brotherhood, which inclines Washington to the sunnis. Secondly, Obama abandoned Iraq, for purely domestic reasons, to be able to claim victory. In doing so, he left a blatantly corrupt shia regime in charge in Baghdad, a regime which commanded no support in either Arab sunni areas, or in Kurdish ones.
Despite the MB colonisation of Washington, Obama has also been bending over backwards to appease Iran, to the extent that your friends in the mullocracy will have nuclear-tipped ICBMs, probably just before the end of your lifetime.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2995140/Did-Cage-director-train-Jihadi-John-MoS-uncovers-new-evidence-links-apologists-ISIS-butcher-desert-weapons-camp.html