Thanks, but with a council of mullahs making the final judgements I would think orthodox religious criteria, those more or less conservative, would also have come into play. To limit the time frame and keep things contemporary I'm concentrating on the later years and not the previous tumultuous period. Trying to keep it short and to the point.... /R -----Original Message----- From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of L. Mirza Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2006 6:52 AM To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: [NewPacifica] Re: Neither U.S. Aggression Nor Theocratic Repression Those candidates are screened for, citizenship, criminal activities, records or other acts that according to the constitution in Iran would bar them from holding office. I do believe here in the US there are restrictions such as a felony conviction, and proof of citizenship requirements. In the first years of the Islamic Revolution, three entire elected parliaments were bombed, killing 80% or more, and such bombings of shrines and places of religious gatherings as well as parliament, that have gone on since the beginning and continue even to this day, should not surprise anyone that candidtes are scrutinized for past activities. The vast majority appear to have been disqualified for, felony convictions, anti state activities, and belonging to groups that have used violence and unlawful acts as defined in the Iran constitution. I have a copy of the Iran constitution, that was given to me years ago, though I'm not sure where I've stored it. You can print out a copy on line I am sure. And the upper echelon of clerics in Iran actually are the MOST honorable. It is in the lower echelons, particularily in the villages and small towns where there is far more corruption and misuse of their position. --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think the problem has been upper echelon clerics > screen the electorial > candidates. /R > > -----Original Message----- > From: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On > Behalf Of L. Mirza > Sent: Monday, May 29, 2006 8:18 PM > To: NewPacifica@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [NewPacifica] Re: Neither U.S. > Aggression Nor Theocratic > Repression > > > That theocracy does not stop the Iran people from > either voting for the candidates of their choice and > from speaking freely. Every time I'm in Iran I get > an > ear full!!!! And not always very flattering things > about their own country. Now I've been around enough > in really repressive countries to know that if Iran > was a bad as the west tries to make it, then no one > would dare to be as publically vocal and critical as > they are in Iran. One only has to watch our > maintream > news and public affairs programming, such as 60 > Minutes, Nightline, 20 20 and PBS' Frontline, and so > on, when they do stories about Iran and see those > highly outspoken, sometimes to the outrageous > extremes > to see that having a public opinion in Iran does not > ususally get one in jail. If no one here thinks the > government of Iran doesn't watch American TV, and > see > those interviews, especially the ones of university > students, and candid comments in the streets, they > are > pretty stupid! Now Iran is not as "free" as it is > here > for some forms of expression, such as the press, but > when it comes to the entire region, Iran is > hands-down > the most liberal country when it comes to freedom of > expression and definately the most democratic. > > All I can say to Ed Pearl is that he is expressing > that exact type arrangence I hear on all sides of > the > policical sprectrum in the west. > > I know that Saudi Arabia, Iraq under saddam and > Jordan > have to be the three most repressive places when it > comes to expressions of opinion less than flattering > of their government. In all three places, where I > have > been and seem for myself, such criticism one hears > freely in Iran, could leave one quite dead in a > hurry! > > --- Terry Goodman <tiji@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > My in-line responses to several posts are below, > > after a lengthy but > > edited version of the post that started the > thread. > > > > On Thursday, May 25, Ed Pearl quoted the Campaign > > for Peace and Democracy: > > > > <snip> > > >> > > >> Although a full-scale invasion of Iran > is > > highly > > >> > > >> unlikely at the moment, there can be > > little doubt > > >> > > >> that the neoconservatives in the Bush > > >> > > >> administration have a grand strategy > that > > includes, > > >> > > >> eventually, "regime change" in Tehran as > a > > way > > >> > > >> of further enlarging U.S. imperial > power. > > > > <snip> > > >> > > >> We, on the other hand, care very much > > >> > > >> about the ability of the Iraqi and > Iranian > > people > > >> > > >> to control their own societies, about > > civil > > >> > > >> liberties and the rights of women, gays, > > workers, > > >> > > >> and ethnic minorities there. That is why > > we raise our > > >> > > >> voices against the current threats to > Iran > > and call > > >> > > >> for immediate withdrawal of all U.S. > > forces from > > >> > > >> Iraq. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> We too would like to see a regime change > > in > > >> > > >> Tehran, but one brought about by the > > Iranian people > > >> > > >> themselves, not by Washington. For 26 > > years Iran > > >> > > >> has been ruled by a repressive > theocracy. > > Behind > > >> > > >> the formal trappings of democracy, real > > power is held > > >> > > >> by an un-elected oligarchy of clerics; > all > > electoral > > >> > > >> candidates must receive their approval, > > and their authority > > >> > > >> is enforced by gangs of religious thugs. > > > > <snip> > > >> > > >> In recent years there has been growing > > resistance > > >> > > >> within Iranian society, particularly > from > > workers > > >> > > >> fighting privatization and unemployment > > and young > > >> > > >> people chafing against social and > > political repression. > > >> > > >> This resistance holds the promise of > > bringing > > >> > > >> grassroots democratic change to Iran. > > > > <snip> > > >> > > >> We therefore strongly oppose any effort > by > > Tehran > > >> > > >> to acquire nuclear weapons. But as long > > as a > > >> > > >> handful of nations arrogate to > themselves > > the exclusive > > >> > > >> right to possess nuclear weapons, the > > have-nots will > > >> > > >> always be able to point to the threat > > posed by the > > >> > > >> nuclear powers and will constantly seek > to > > acquire such > > >> > > >> weapons for themselves -- as North Korea > > has already > > >> > > >> done, withdrawing from the > > Non-Proliferation Treaty > > >> > > >> regime. > > > > <snip> > > >> > > >> We call for a new democratic U.S. > foreign > > policy > > >> > > >> that would deal with the threat posed to > > all of us by > > >> > > >> terrorist networks, and by weapons of > mass > > destruction, > > >> > > >> and promote real democracy in the Middle > > East and > > >> > > >> elsewhere, by: > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Renouncing the use of military > > intervention > > <snip> > > >> > > >> Ending U.S. support for authoritarian > and > > corrupt > > >> > > >> regimes, e.g. Saudi Arabia, the Gulf > > states and > > >> > > >> Egypt. > > <snip> > > >> > > >> Opposing all forms of terrorism > worldwide > > -- > > <snip> > > >> > > >> Supporting the right of national > > self-determination > > <snip> > > >> > > >> Taking unilateral steps toward > renouncing > > weapons > > >> > > >> of mass destruction, including nuclear > > weapons, > > <snip> > > >> > > >> Abandoning the effort to impose, through > > the IMF/World > > >> > > >> Bank or unilaterally, neoliberal > economic > > policies of > > >> > > >> privatization and austerity > > <snip> > > >> > > >> Initiating a major foreign aid program > > directed at popular > > >> > > >> rather than corporate needs. > > <snip> > > > > On May 25, 2006, Loraine Mirza wrote: > > > > >> > > >This is bullshit, big time. How dare > others > > who > > >> > > > do not live in Iran tell the Iranis what > > form of > > >> > > > government they should have. > > > > The CPD Statement does not tell Iranis what form > of > > government they > > should have. It supports the ability of the > Iranian > > people to control > > their own societies and describes the current > > government in Iran as a > > repressive theocracy that denies them that > ability. > > > > >> > > > I applaud the majority of the Irani > working > > class, and > > >> > > > working poor for their good judgement in > > chosing the > > >> > > > government. I wonder how many on that > list > > of signatories > > >> > > > has actually been in Iran, has actually > met > > thousands of those > > >> > > > "theocrats" label them. > > > > The CPD description of clerical veto power in Iran > > is accurate, and > > the choices available to Iranis is thereby > > circumscribed. > > > > >> > > > Sure like the pr! iviliged classes in > Cuba > > and > > >> > > > Venueseula, the wealthy Iranians don't > > support > > >> > > > the Islamic government. But the working > > class and > > >> > > > the poor know exactly what they want! In > > the elections > > >> > > > before this one they tried a so-called > > moderate (Khatamie) > > >> > > >and after being neglected, burned and > > watching > > >> > > > their society turn into greedy western > > style consumerism, > > >> > > >70% of the people of Iran came out and > > voted, and > > >> > > > the majority voted for the most religious > > of the candidates. > > > > There is no denying that the Irani majority wants > > religious > > government, but the "western" values of individual > > freedom and social > > justice need not conflict with this choice nor > lead > > to the greedy > > consumerism seen by many as their natural result > > under the strict > > limits of acceptable political dialogue. The CDP > > argues for a third > > way, in which such choices are made in an > > environment within which > > alternatives may be freely discussed because human > > and individual > > rights are protected rather than threatened by > > government. > > > > >> > > > You know the left/progressive > intelligencia > > is not > > >> > > > so superior as they claim. They just as > > ignorant > > >> > > > and prejudice and the neo-cons. > > > > It's a prejudice against tyranny and > > authoritarianism with a sound and > > intelligent basis in both history and political > > theory. > > > > On Thursday, May 25, 2006, Altaf Bhimji wrote: > > > > >> > > Yes, I agree totally with Loraine. I got > the > > same > > >> > > impression --- this is the same as the > > neo-con... you > > >> > > wish for "elections" but if people elect > > someone > > >> > > you don't like... well then you go about > > wishing > > >> > > for "regime change" --- How is that really > , > > when it > > >> > > comes down to it, any different than the > > neo-con > > >> > > imperialists? > > <snip> > > > > The difference is clearly stated "We too would > like > > to see a regime > > change in Tehran, but one brought about by the > > Iranian people > > themselves, not by Washington." This supports the > > concept of > > anti-imperialist self-determination, which the CPD > > statement argues is > > impossible under a repressive regime, even if > > democratically elected. > > > > On May 26, 2006, Richard Sierra wrote: > > > > >> > The new left opposes Bush (christian > > conservative) > > >> > and the aligned Iraqi gov (islamic > > conservative) and > > >> > they don't adhere to the Pres's form of > > imperial > > >> > democracy nor do they support christian Law > > (Old Testament) > > >> > and, finally, they don't approve of islamic > > Sharia. State > > >> > legal systems and movements based on the Law > > and > > >> > Sharia are traditional and patriarchal. > > > > Neither Christianity nor Islam need be > conservative > > or fundamentalist. > > It is the conservative fundamentalism of Sharia as > > typically > > implemented that the new left finds itself > opposing, > > rather than > > Sharia itself. If the clerics interpreting the > > Koran under Sharia > > were progressive libertarian anarchists intent on > > limiting government > > interference in private matters, and if Sharia was > a > > structure of > > civil law separate from the criminal law and used > > primarily for the > > resolution of disputes, there would be little > > problem, especially if > > submission to its dictates was voluntary. > > > > >> > The new left everywhere and whatever its form > > is > > >> > anti-patriarchalism and its many > > manifestations. > > <snip> > > > > Oh, I don't know about that. It's perhaps > generally > > true of the > > feminist new left, but not all of the new left is > or > > has been > > consciously feminist and most new left thinkers > > still treat children > > as property or chattel -- the primary evidence of > > patriarchy or > > matriarchy, in my view. > > > > Altaf Bhimji <altafb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > >> > this so-called "new left" however does wish > for > > >> > regime changes in areas of the world that it > > knows > > >> > nothing about - and as such is reactionary, > > imperialist, > > >> > and patriarchical (sure... it does not > > advocate > > >> > military intervention, but it ends up feeding > > the beast > > >> > that it supposedly opposes ) ... because it > > does not > > >> > believe in self-determination --- or the > > notion that > > >> > people may decide to live in ways other than > > the > > >> > "new-left" ideology. And if a people do chose > a > > form > > >> > of govt other than "new-left", the new-left > > will attribute > > >> > that to "theocratic repression" or just plain > > >> > backwardness of people (who then need to be > > >> > "educated" on the virtues of the "new left"). > > > > I have no idea what "new left" Altaf is describing > > above. To the > > little extent that it was concerned with > > geopolitics, the 1960's new > > left generally opposed imperialism and supported > > national liberation > > struggles, as in Algeria, Vietnam, and Latin > > America. There was a > > Maoist influence in the new left, but it was not > > dominant; and where > > ideological "re-education" was imposed by > > governments, that was > > generally by communists, who have a distinctly > > different general > > philosophy more closely allied with old left than > > new. New left > > thinking is generally anti-authoritarian and > > pro-liberty, yet Altaf > > implies the opposite. > > > > >> --- Richard <rsierra7@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > >> > > >> > The multicultural left isn't the new left. > In > > the > > >> > Sixties the then new left > > >> > strongly supported the Kashmiri muslims and > > LEFT > > >> > muslims everywhere > > >> > including Indonesia, South Yemen, and Israel. > > /R > > > > This statement somewhat implies a monolithic > > uniformity in > > geopolitical perspective that is not at all > > characteristic of the new > > left, which is more about liberty, culture, and > > counter-culture than > > about religions or nation-states and their > > alignments. Anarchists and > > radical libertarian socialists among Hindus, > > Muslims, Budhists, > > Atheists, or Christians can all find "support" in > > the new left, for > > the little that support may be worth. > > > > Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left > > > > On Saturday, May 27, 2006, Loraine Mirza wrote: > > > > <snip> > > >> if you go back into archives you can hear for > > >> yourself the Ravi Shankar, John Lenon, and > > >> Joan Biaz concerts to raise money for > Bangladesh. > > > > >> (Even when there was no Bangladesh, BTW) > > > > There was a Bangladesh at the time of the > concerts, > > but it was not yet > > an independent country. > > > > "The people of the then East Pakistan declared > > independence on 26th > > March, 1971 and won a nine-month long war of > > independence and became > > independent on 16th December, 1971." > > > > Ref: http://www.citechco.net/bangladesh/history/ > > > > "The Concert For Bangladesh was the event title > for > > two benefit > > concerts held on the afternoon and evening of > August > > 1, 1971, playing > > to a total of 40,000 people at Madison Square > Garden > > in New York." > > > > Ref: > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concert_for_Bangladesh > > > > See also: > > > http://www.banglamusic.com/news/patriotic/libaration_war_and_song_of_banglad > esh_12122002.html > > > > > > Richard Sierra wrote: > > > > >> > > Regrets to those objecting to the LAAMN > > post's content but > > >> > > there was never any possibility of an > > American secular new left > > >> > > supporting religious governments whether > > christian, j! ewish, islamic > > >> > > or whatnot. The separation of > > church/temple/mosque and state principle > > >> > > forestalls any such support. /R > > > > Yes, but the American secular new left's lack of > > support for religious > > government is not necessarily direct opposition. > > The left can simply > > oppose religion-inspired suppression of rights > > without condemning > > religious governments. This allows for populist > > internal reform and > > the expansion of human rights even under a > > government which has > > institutionalized religion.. > > > > On Friday, May 26, 2006, Loraine Mirza wrote: > > > > >> > Well then the secular left should stop being > so > > >> > arragent and trying to impose their > philosophy > > on > > >> > others. What is the difference between them > and > > >> > bush's regime change policy? > > > > The threat to impose regime change by force from a > > separate nation is > > quite different than support for reform from > within. > > > > >> > They want secular then they live > > >> > here and work on the areas needed of change > and > > >> > correction here and not call for "regime" > > change in > > >> > countries they do not live or vote in or try > to > > >> > interfer in those countries. > > > > These activities are not mutually exclusive. > There > > is an > > international declaration of human rights which > all > > peoples can > > support, domestically and internationally. > > > > >> > Iran, BTW, IS a > > >> > DEMOCRACY! They have had elections > > >> > since the Islamic revolution, including two, > > not > > >> > just one vote, on the type of government they > > wanted; a > > >> > secular or religious. They have term limits > as > > well > > >> > for the President, who can only serve for two > > terms, > > >> > then has to wait it out two terms before > > running > > >> > again. Even their constitution was put to a > > >> > referendom before being finally adopted. I've > > been in Iran > > >> > during the Iran and Iraq war when people > dodged > > misiles > > >> > being dropped on them in order to get to the > > poles and > > >> > votes. 83% of qualified voters turned out > > during > > >> > the elections during the Iraq imposed and > U.S. > > >> > sponsored war. That was more than impressive, > > but amazing, > > >> > when we see here, hardly 25-30% registered > > voters, not > > >> > just qualified voters, turn-out in many > > elections. > > > > The CPD statement acknowledges "the formal > trappings > > of democracy." > > > > >> > It is indeed NOT thercratic oppression when > the > > >> > popular votes decide the form of government > is > > to > > >> > be from a religious perspective. > > > > It is theocratic oppression when clerics can > > disqualify electoral > > candidates and where religion is used as the basis > > to veto popular > > laws seeking an expansion of individual liberties. > > It is theocratic > > oppression where a religious government suppresses > > free expression and > > basic human rights on the basis of scriptural > > interpretation. We're > > seeing more of that here in the U.S., despite our > > constitutional > > guarantees, and it is only ideological consistency > > to object to > > tyranny both here and abroad. Democracy and > liberty > > are different > > sorts of things -- neither one guarantees or is a > > prerequisite for the > > other. Absolute democracy is tyranny of the mob > and > > human rights > > abuses can occur under every form of government. > > > > --Terry Goodman, KPFK Delegate > > > > > > > Loraine > = = = = = = = = = = = > Read "Internment Camps of Bangladesh," by Loraine > Mirza > Published by Crescent International Newspapers, Inc. > 300 Steelcase Road West, Unit 8, Markham, Ontario, > Canada L3R 2W2 > "The story of a long-suffering people told with > compassion and sensitivity. > All who care for justice must read this book. > Loraine Mirza, an American > Muslim print and broadcast journalist, has written > this remarkable account > of the 'Stranded Pakistanis,' trapped in internment > camps in Bangladesh > since 1972." (Zafar Bangash, Director of Institute > of Contemporary Islamic > Thought.) > For more information: > e-mail: haq_for_u@xxxxxxxxxxx > info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > crescent@xxxxxxxxxxxx > crescent.uk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Visit web sites: > www.statelesspeopleinbangladesh.net > www.strandedpakistanis.com > www.OBATHelpers.org > www.muslimedia.com > www.ihrc.org > - ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Home is just a click away. Make Yahoo! your home page now. http://us.click.yahoo.com/DHchtC/3FxNAA/yQLSAA/xYTolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewPacifica/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/