2:03
|
[27 Jan 2014] israeli courts dismiss appeal against Jewish only road - English
Israeli courts have dismissed an appeal against building a Jewish-only settlement road in Jerusalem, al-Quds. Local residents are furious at the decision saying that it is against international law.
Israeli courts have dismissed an appeal against building a Jewish-only settlement road in Jerusalem, al-Quds. Local residents are furious at the decision saying that it is against international law.
2:50
|
2:43
|
1:25
|
41:52
|
2:32
|
51:34
|
49:04
|
[Comment with George Galloway] Britain unrest aftermath - 18Aug2011 - English
The unrest that swept England's streets over the last 10 days or so has stilled at least for the moment.
But the reverberations of that unrest are threatening the very fabric of Britain as a...
The unrest that swept England's streets over the last 10 days or so has stilled at least for the moment.
But the reverberations of that unrest are threatening the very fabric of Britain as a civilized country. Courts in England are meeting through the night. Condign punishment of a kind touching on the absurd is being handed out. In this edition of the show George talks about the aftermath of Britain unrest.
More...
Description:
The unrest that swept England's streets over the last 10 days or so has stilled at least for the moment.
But the reverberations of that unrest are threatening the very fabric of Britain as a civilized country. Courts in England are meeting through the night. Condign punishment of a kind touching on the absurd is being handed out. In this edition of the show George talks about the aftermath of Britain unrest.
24:17
|
[2] Leveson inquiry: British media & political class - Comment - 31 May 2012 - English
[31 May 2012] Leveson inquiry: British media & political class - Comment - English
Tony Blair arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice with a wave, but there were protests going on outside. Tony...
[31 May 2012] Leveson inquiry: British media & political class - Comment - English
Tony Blair arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice with a wave, but there were protests going on outside. Tony Blair's testimony at the Leveson inquiry was as measured and considered as ever. David Lawley-Wakelin, a documentary film-maker, who managed to get past security-coded doors to access the judges' corridor leading to courtroom 73 on May 28, pointed to the 59-year-old ex-Labour leader and shouted, "This man is a war criminal."
"This man should be arrested for war crimes. JP Morgan paid (Mr. Blair) off for the Iraq war. Three months after he invaded Iraq they held up the Iraq bank for $20 billion (£13bn)," said Lawley-Wakelin. "He was then paid $6 million (£4m) every year and still is from JP Morgan six months after he left office."
More...
Description:
[31 May 2012] Leveson inquiry: British media & political class - Comment - English
Tony Blair arrived at the Royal Courts of Justice with a wave, but there were protests going on outside. Tony Blair's testimony at the Leveson inquiry was as measured and considered as ever. David Lawley-Wakelin, a documentary film-maker, who managed to get past security-coded doors to access the judges' corridor leading to courtroom 73 on May 28, pointed to the 59-year-old ex-Labour leader and shouted, "This man is a war criminal."
"This man should be arrested for war crimes. JP Morgan paid (Mr. Blair) off for the Iraq war. Three months after he invaded Iraq they held up the Iraq bank for $20 billion (£13bn)," said Lawley-Wakelin. "He was then paid $6 million (£4m) every year and still is from JP Morgan six months after he left office."
5:33
|
An Israeli Lawyer Defending Palestinian Suicide Attackers?! - English
An Israeli Lawyer Defending Palestinian Suicide Attackers?! - English
Lea Tsemel is an Israeli lawyer whose clients have been exclusively Palestinian. Tsemel has rarely ever turned a case down and...
An Israeli Lawyer Defending Palestinian Suicide Attackers?! - English
Lea Tsemel is an Israeli lawyer whose clients have been exclusively Palestinian. Tsemel has rarely ever turned a case down and has defended men, women, and increasingly children who are tried in Israeli courts for alleged crimes ranging from stone throwing to attempted suicide bombings.
More...
Description:
An Israeli Lawyer Defending Palestinian Suicide Attackers?! - English
Lea Tsemel is an Israeli lawyer whose clients have been exclusively Palestinian. Tsemel has rarely ever turned a case down and has defended men, women, and increasingly children who are tried in Israeli courts for alleged crimes ranging from stone throwing to attempted suicide bombings.
1:19
|
58:06
|
68:18
|
61:51
|
Video Tags:
Ashra
E
Majalis,
4th
Majlis,
02
Muharram,
1440
Hijari,
13
September
2018,
Quran
and
Itrat,
Allama,
Syed
Mohammad,
Ali
Naqvi,
Kashmir
Courts,
Karachi
36:16
|
Vali Amr Muslimeen Imam Khamenei meeting with Academic Women - Farsi
TEHRAN, May 12 2013 -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said that the Islamic discourse on women should be strongly defended on the world stage.
The...
TEHRAN, May 12 2013 -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said that the Islamic discourse on women should be strongly defended on the world stage.
The Leader made the remarks in Tehran on Saturday during a meeting with hundreds of female professors, seminary teachers, and intellectuals.
Ayatollah Khamenei said that a strong front should be established and more efforts should be made to introduce and defend the Islamic principles in regard to women on the world stage.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Why should we be in a passive position in the face of the Western discourse despite the fact that the Islamic discourse on women is perfect and compelling?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A passive stance should never be adopted toward the Western discourse on women, but the Islamic discourse should be forcefully introduced,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he stated.
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Leader said that active and competent women and female scholars, writers, and thinkers should play a more significant role in defending the Islamic Revolution.
Supreme Leader\\\'s Speech to Outstanding Women
11/05/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on May 11, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with a group of outstanding women who are active in seminary and academic areas.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I sincerely thank the honorable ladies who organized this good and fruitful meeting. Today, I really benefited from the ladies\\\' statements and I thank God for the depth of issues, thoughts and efforts which can be seen in the speeches of outstanding women throughout our country. The issues which you discussed were mostly good. There were certain suggestions which, by Allah\\\'s favor, will be examined. By Allah\\\'s favor, I will follow up the part which is related to me.
There are many things to say about the issue of women and what is related to women. We suffer from a kind of backwardness in this regard which you ladies - the ones who delivered a speech - referred to. Backwardness in this area is not similar to backwardness in scientific areas, which we suffer from. When we say that we suffer from backwardness in this area, this means we have many outstanding points to make on the issue of women, the issue of gender and issues which are related to women - such as the issue of family, children, marriage, settling down, tranquility in the family environment and other such issues - but we have not managed to convey these points to the world and discuss them with the public opinion throughout the world. We mean backwardness from this point of view. This is while the world needs valuable, comprehensive and clear ideas and concepts in this regard. As a number of ladies pointed out, when we discuss these points in international arenas, they receive a good reception. Or as a number of ladies said, research findings in psychological and other areas confirm that Islamic rules are true on the issue of women.
Well, this is only part of the capabilities of Islamic philosophy on this sensitive issue. But we failed to define and show these capabilities in the right way. The same is true of many other areas which are related to reasoning and thinking. In many of these areas, we failed to truly convey the opinion of Islam to the world. When I say, \\\"We failed\\\", it should not be thought that the Islamic Republic is responsible for this due to the fact that what has been already done in this regard is because of the Islamic Republic, the name of the Revolution and Imam (r.a.), the influence of their ideas and other such things. Thankfully, these ideas were developed to some extent, but we should work more than this. In order to do this, we need certain things which I will speak about later on. In order to form a front which is ready to attack and which is immune from others\\\' attack and in order to take up an offensive position, we need to promote and convey these ideas and thoughts. We really need this.
In fact, our attack is launched for the sake of immunity and defense. Therefore, in my opinion, the more you work in order to make up for this backwardness, the more valuable it will be. It is necessary to do this. We should not hesitate and stop in treading the path of this movement which is an awakening movement related to the issues of women. We should not stop in the middle of the way. Despite the fact that we benefit from a perfect, valuable and convincing Islamic discourse, we have adopted a passive outlook in the face of the western discourse on the issue of women.
The western discourse on the issue of women has adopted a very calculated and political outlook. That is to say, the day when this idea and this discourse on women started to develop in the west, there was a careful calculation behind it. Of course, this is not based on fact and what I am saying is not based on precise information, but there are clear signs which support this interpretation. Since the beginning of Renaissance in the west and the emergence of industrialism and the development of new industries in the west, this discourse gradually achieved growth. And it reached its peak during our own times. Of course, this peak will be accompanied by decline and, by Allah\\\'s favor, disgrace and destruction.
The western discourse on the issue of women has different dimensions, but it has two distinct dimensions. One is that it wants to give women a masculine identity. That is to say, it wants to make women behave like men. This is an important dimension of this discourse. Another is that it wants to make women prepare the ground for men to indulge in pleasure, whether the pleasure of watching women or other kinds of pleasure which are beyond this. This is another dimension of the western discourse on the issue of women. The issue of feminism and other such things - which have become popular in the world today - are, in fact, the products of western discourse. These are the consequences of what western discourse has done.
They wanted to give women a masculine identity. That is to say, they were trying to make women do jobs which are more compatible with the physical and intellectual characteristics of men. They consider it as a source of honor and they would like to describe it as an advantage and a source of honor for women. We have adopted a passive outlook in the face of this. We have been deceived and we have unwillingly and unknowingly accepted this. As you see, today we are proud of having such and such a number of women in certain executive positions. What I am saying should not be misunderstood. I do not have any problems with the idea of giving women executive positions. That is to say, I do not forbid women from doing this and I do not deny this right. I do not think it is wrong. Our minister of health and vice presidents were female and women have positions in different sectors. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong is to be proud of this, to boast about this in the world and say, \\\"See, we have such and such a number of women in executive positions\\\". This is the same as being deceived and passive. This is not a source of honor.
Take the case of a lady who has certain qualifications, who has developed her capabilities and who is suitable for a specific position. She can be allowed to hold this position because it is not illegal, but if we are proud of having such and such a number of female officials in charge of executive affairs, this is wrong. If we feel proud of having a large number of intellectual and educated women, this is good and it is alright. If we say that we have a large number of women who are active in cultural and political areas, this is alright. If we say that we have a large number of mujahid women in different areas, who are ready to be martyred, this is good. If we say that we have a large number of women who are active in political and revolutionary arenas and who write and deliver speeches, this is good.
Being proud of these things is good, but being proud of having such and such a number of female ministers, MPs, deputies and managers in financial organizations, is wrong. This means adopting a passive outlook in the face of the enemies. Are we supposed to entrust women with masculine occupations? No, the position, identity and characteristics of women are very noble and respectable. This identity is, in certain ways, superior to men\\\'s identity. If we adopt a comprehensive outlook, we see that men and women have no differences. Certain privileges have been granted to women and certain other privileges have been granted to men and this is based on their natural characteristics which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on them. Allah the Exalted has given each gender certain characteristics. Each gender benefits from certain outstanding qualities. Therefore, they have no differences in terms of human qualities. They have no differences in terms of the privileges which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on humanity such as human rights, social rights, spiritual values and spiritual perfection. That is to say, a man can become Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and a woman can become Fatima Zahra (s.a.). A man can become Jesus (a.s.) and a woman can become Mary (s.a.). They are not different from each other. Therefore, it is the right outlook to know women - the way they are, as true women and true females - by taking their gender into consideration and we should see what values can help a female individual or the female community achieve growth and transcendence. This outlook is the right outlook. We should not have adopted a passive outlook in the face of western outlook but, unfortunately, we did.
As for the second dimension of western discourse - in which women are made to prepare the ground for men to indulge in pleasure - it struck defenseless Islamic countries like a flood with the purpose of helping men to easily indulge in sexual pleasure. And this was done by the west. It also struck our country. By pleasure, I do not mean spiritual, psychological and scientific pleasure. Two people may sit and enjoy speaking to one another or increasing each other\\\'s knowledge. But this is not the case in western pleasure. Fortunately, the Revolution came and it prevented this to a great extent. This should be prevented because this is a big danger and a big disaster. The issue of hijab is one of the preconditions for this. The way we should dress and the way men and women should interact are among the preconditions for this issue. These things should be done so that this great disaster - for both men and women - can be prevented.
Of course, this moral corruption humiliates women, while they are not aware of it. Today, this issue is thoroughly discussed in the world. I know and I have read in a number of texts, newspapers and books that western intellectuals have started to feel fear and distress because of this condition. They are right, but they have understood this late. The issue of encouraging people to indulge in lust - which is centered around women - is not something of little importance. Today, you can see that the situation is getting worse in the world with issues such as homosexuality and marriages between two people with the same gender. These are great, deep and dangerous abysses for western civilization and for those who are managing this civilization. This is an unusual precipice and it will completely annihilate them. And they are just in the middle of the path of destruction.
In my opinion, they will not be able to prevent this because their problems are far beyond these things. A few years ago - around seven, eight, ten years ago - I read in foreign newspapers that the Americans are trying to make a movie based on the books of such and such a novelist who writes about the family. They want to do this so that they can draw filmmaking, cinema and other such things to these issues. Well, they have done and are doing certain things, but these efforts are like thin streams against a great flood which has struck them because of what they themselves did. And it will continue to strike them. Of course, we enjoy a kind of immunity from this event which is because of hijab and other such things. But we should not underestimate this issue and we should regard it as very important. As a number of ladies pointed out in their speeches - and they are working on these issues - the issue of sexual attraction and the danger it has for women, men, society and the family should be taken very seriously.
Well, I said that Islam speaks about women in the real sense of the word. As I pointed out, we should promote this discourse by taking up an offensive position. We should not at all take up a defensive position. A number of ladies said that those who are members of a so-called women\\\'s convention or organizations affiliated with the United Nations threaten to issue a resolution against us if we do such and such a thing. Well, who cares? They can issue resolutions. The Islamic discourse on the issue of women should be promoted by taking an offensive position and behaving in a determined way. If they say, \\\"Why do you not give women the freedom to appear without hijab?\\\" we should answer, \\\"Why do you give them this harmful and threatening freedom in such a way?\\\" What is being pursued in the west regarding the issue of immodesty and lack of hijab makes one distressed. One wonders what they want to do and where they want to go.
You may have more information in this regard but I also have a lot of information about what is being done on this issue. These things are done at different levels which range from higher levels to occupational levels, living conditions and other such things. In the Islamic discourse, respect towards women and the characteristics, dignity and delicacy of women should be highlighted. By delicacy, I do not only mean physical delicacy. As well as physical delicacy, I mean the delicacy of women\\\'s psychological and intellectual structure and also the delicacy of their responsibilities. It is only the delicate and gentle fingers of the mother which can separate the extremely thin nerve fibers of a child\\\'s nervous system from one another so that he will not have any emotional complexes or problems. Nobody else can do this. That is to say, nobody else except for a woman can do this. This is a feminine task. A number of tasks require such delicacy that one wonders how the divine will has bestowed such a great capability and such delicacy on women. I always say to my friends and relatives and to women that, contrary to the idea that has been established, women are the stronger gender. Women are stronger than men. Women can completely control and influence men with their wisdom and delicacy. We can see this in practice and we can prove it by reasoning. This is a reality.
Of course, there are a number of women who do not adopt wise measures and who, as a result, cannot do this. But if a woman is wise enough, she can tame a man. This is like the situation in which a person can bridle and ride on a wild lion. This does not mean that he is physically stronger than the lion. Rather, this means that he has managed to use his mental power. Women have this capability, but they should do this with delicacy and subtlety. When I say delicacy, I do not only mean physical delicacy. As well as physical delicacy, I mean delicacy in implementing thoughts and ideas, showing acumen and making decisions. These are capabilities which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on women. In my opinion, this should be the basis. This discourse should be improved and pursued.
The second point that I want to discuss is that, in my opinion, there are two issues regarding the current situation of women in our country which are more important than other issues. Or, let us say they are more crucial than other issues and they require more attention. One issue is the significance and the value of the home and the family. We should regard the home in which we live as important. One cannot imagine human beings without a home and without a place to live. Any human being needs a home and the family environment. The family is like the soul of the home. This should be regarded as important. This should be thought about in a careful way.
The second issue is that we should prevent women from being weakened and oppressed at different levels. We have women who are weak and deprived of many things. We also have women who are oppressed. This oppression should be prevented. It is necessary to pass important laws in this regard. There are essential behavioral rules which should be enforced. It is necessary to establish certain social conventions and customs so that women will not be oppressed in different areas such as - I have written them down - social, sexual, familial, cultural and intellectual areas. These kinds of oppression, which women may be faced with, range from individual and private issues - that is to say, sexual issues - to social issues, such as social interactions, and familial issues. I have written down certain points about familial issues.
Husbands, children, fathers and brothers should behave in a respectful way towards women. If women are regarded as respectable in the family environment, an important part of problems in our society will be solved. We should do something to encourage children to kiss their mother\\\'s hands. This is what Islam is after. We can see this behavior in deeply religious and moral families which have a close relationship with religious concepts. The children in a family should behave towards their mother in a respectful way. There is no contradiction between such a respectful behavior and the emotional and warm relationship between a mother and a child. There should be such respect and women should be respected in the family environment. This is the way to prevent oppression against women. Imagine that in a family and in a home, the man hurls all kinds of insults at his own wife, including behavioral and verbal insults and physical abuse. Unfortunately, there are certain places in our country in which there are still instances of physical abuse. This issue should not occur. Of course, this occurs many times in western countries. And this is not unexpected. Westerners, particularly European races, are wild. They have a neat appearance, they wear ties and they use perfume and other such things, but they still have the same wild nature and they still behave in the same wild way that they have always behaved throughout history. They easily kill people and they coldheartedly commit crimes. Therefore, it is not surprising if women are beaten in the home by the Europeans and by the Americans. But such a thing should not be even imagined in an Islamic environment although it unfortunately exists. Therefore, these are two fundamental issues. In my opinion, there is room for detailed planning in this regard.
Besides these two issues, there are other important issues such as the issue of marriage and liberating oneself from being single. Obstacles in the way of marriage should be removed. As the ladies in this meeting pointed out, certain things are being done in this regard and I really became happy to know that, thankfully, these issues are receiving attention. On the issue of hijab and social relationships, things should be carried out in a fundamental and serious way. You should pay attention to the issue of financial and legal support for oppressed women who are deprived of their rights. The lady from Razavi Khorasan province pointed out that the issue of courts of law - which was one of my worries - has been addressed by the legal system. I hope that this will be done in practice.
One of my anxieties and worries is that women may not be able to defend themselves in courts of law and such legal environments. They may not have the money to hire a competent lawyer, nor may they be able to defend themselves and their rights may be violated. This is one of the important issues. It should be followed up. The issue of women\\\'s employment, limitations for their employment, the kind of job that they should do and the way they should do it - that is to say, the delicacy and flexibility that I spoke about on the issue of women\\\'s employment - are things which should be addressed. However, the most crucial issues are the two issues that I discussed.
One of the issues which occupies my mind is that all the different activities which are done on the issue of women in our country - ranging from legal issues and issues related to Islamic jurisprudence to social, executive, emotional and all the other issues which are discussed about women - should be done in a systematic way. It should have a coherent structure.
Of course, a number of the reports which were presented to me or the points which were discussed in this meeting show that certain ideas have been developed in this regard. But, I believe that a comprehensive plan should be formulated in this regard. We should delineate the issues of women in a completely systemic way and we should give it a proper form. Moreover, there should be an outstanding and permanent center [for this matter] with competent personnel and with a long-term plan. I do not at all believe in short-term plans in this regard. After this, certain organizations and institutes should be formed to work for different parts of this prominent and permanent center. They should inform one another of what they are doing and there should be a suitable databank. Many things are being done by women in our country about which even ladies participating in this meeting may not be aware of. Well, thankfully, we have so many outstanding and knowledgeable women in different sections and with different outlooks. We should benefit from this large number of women.
Another point - I will make this the last point because it is noon and there is no time - is that active women in the camp of the Islamic Republic played an outstanding role immediately after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, during the early years after the Revolution and during the Sacred Defense Era. They showed their presence in an outstanding way. You should not let this outstanding presence of active women in the camp of the Revolution be undermined. Those who confront and oppose the Revolution try to benefit from competent women. The camp of the Revolution has far more competent, active and knowledgeable women who are authors, orators and scholars. It enjoys women who are ready to take action and who are interested in thinking, writing, delivering speeches and conveying their ideas and thoughts. They should not leave the arena of the Revolution and defending the Revolution. This is one point.
I will finish the last point by saying that the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) should play a completely fundamental role in promoting the things which I discussed and the issues which you raised. I believe and I recommend that the IRIB should definitely play a fundamental role in this regard. It can do this. In society, the IRIB can build the culture of respecting religious, active and mujahid women who wear hijab and who enjoy Islamic characteristics. Other people want the opposite to happen. Unfortunately, a number of the programs of the IRIB are in line with the goals of these people. The opposite should be done. That is to say, the IRIB should be completely at the service of this idea.
In any case, the conclusion that we can draw from all these things is that, thankfully, we have made certain achievements on the issue of women in the Islamic Republic, but these achievements do not meet the needs and the expectations of Islam and they are not compatible with the possibilities and resources that exist in Islam. We are backward in this regard. By Allah\\\'s favor, you ladies should make up for this backwardness in the best way possible.
I hope that Allah the Exalted will protect you and increase your achievements on a daily basis. And I hope that we can move towards what Islam wants in this regard on a daily basis.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\'s mercy and blessings
Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1784&Itemid=4
More...
Description:
TEHRAN, May 12 2013 -- Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has said that the Islamic discourse on women should be strongly defended on the world stage.
The Leader made the remarks in Tehran on Saturday during a meeting with hundreds of female professors, seminary teachers, and intellectuals.
Ayatollah Khamenei said that a strong front should be established and more efforts should be made to introduce and defend the Islamic principles in regard to women on the world stage.
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"Why should we be in a passive position in the face of the Western discourse despite the fact that the Islamic discourse on women is perfect and compelling?\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\"A passive stance should never be adopted toward the Western discourse on women, but the Islamic discourse should be forcefully introduced,\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\" he stated.
Elsewhere in his remarks, the Leader said that active and competent women and female scholars, writers, and thinkers should play a more significant role in defending the Islamic Revolution.
Supreme Leader\\\'s Speech to Outstanding Women
11/05/2013
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on May 11, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with a group of outstanding women who are active in seminary and academic areas.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I sincerely thank the honorable ladies who organized this good and fruitful meeting. Today, I really benefited from the ladies\\\' statements and I thank God for the depth of issues, thoughts and efforts which can be seen in the speeches of outstanding women throughout our country. The issues which you discussed were mostly good. There were certain suggestions which, by Allah\\\'s favor, will be examined. By Allah\\\'s favor, I will follow up the part which is related to me.
There are many things to say about the issue of women and what is related to women. We suffer from a kind of backwardness in this regard which you ladies - the ones who delivered a speech - referred to. Backwardness in this area is not similar to backwardness in scientific areas, which we suffer from. When we say that we suffer from backwardness in this area, this means we have many outstanding points to make on the issue of women, the issue of gender and issues which are related to women - such as the issue of family, children, marriage, settling down, tranquility in the family environment and other such issues - but we have not managed to convey these points to the world and discuss them with the public opinion throughout the world. We mean backwardness from this point of view. This is while the world needs valuable, comprehensive and clear ideas and concepts in this regard. As a number of ladies pointed out, when we discuss these points in international arenas, they receive a good reception. Or as a number of ladies said, research findings in psychological and other areas confirm that Islamic rules are true on the issue of women.
Well, this is only part of the capabilities of Islamic philosophy on this sensitive issue. But we failed to define and show these capabilities in the right way. The same is true of many other areas which are related to reasoning and thinking. In many of these areas, we failed to truly convey the opinion of Islam to the world. When I say, \\\"We failed\\\", it should not be thought that the Islamic Republic is responsible for this due to the fact that what has been already done in this regard is because of the Islamic Republic, the name of the Revolution and Imam (r.a.), the influence of their ideas and other such things. Thankfully, these ideas were developed to some extent, but we should work more than this. In order to do this, we need certain things which I will speak about later on. In order to form a front which is ready to attack and which is immune from others\\\' attack and in order to take up an offensive position, we need to promote and convey these ideas and thoughts. We really need this.
In fact, our attack is launched for the sake of immunity and defense. Therefore, in my opinion, the more you work in order to make up for this backwardness, the more valuable it will be. It is necessary to do this. We should not hesitate and stop in treading the path of this movement which is an awakening movement related to the issues of women. We should not stop in the middle of the way. Despite the fact that we benefit from a perfect, valuable and convincing Islamic discourse, we have adopted a passive outlook in the face of the western discourse on the issue of women.
The western discourse on the issue of women has adopted a very calculated and political outlook. That is to say, the day when this idea and this discourse on women started to develop in the west, there was a careful calculation behind it. Of course, this is not based on fact and what I am saying is not based on precise information, but there are clear signs which support this interpretation. Since the beginning of Renaissance in the west and the emergence of industrialism and the development of new industries in the west, this discourse gradually achieved growth. And it reached its peak during our own times. Of course, this peak will be accompanied by decline and, by Allah\\\'s favor, disgrace and destruction.
The western discourse on the issue of women has different dimensions, but it has two distinct dimensions. One is that it wants to give women a masculine identity. That is to say, it wants to make women behave like men. This is an important dimension of this discourse. Another is that it wants to make women prepare the ground for men to indulge in pleasure, whether the pleasure of watching women or other kinds of pleasure which are beyond this. This is another dimension of the western discourse on the issue of women. The issue of feminism and other such things - which have become popular in the world today - are, in fact, the products of western discourse. These are the consequences of what western discourse has done.
They wanted to give women a masculine identity. That is to say, they were trying to make women do jobs which are more compatible with the physical and intellectual characteristics of men. They consider it as a source of honor and they would like to describe it as an advantage and a source of honor for women. We have adopted a passive outlook in the face of this. We have been deceived and we have unwillingly and unknowingly accepted this. As you see, today we are proud of having such and such a number of women in certain executive positions. What I am saying should not be misunderstood. I do not have any problems with the idea of giving women executive positions. That is to say, I do not forbid women from doing this and I do not deny this right. I do not think it is wrong. Our minister of health and vice presidents were female and women have positions in different sectors. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong is to be proud of this, to boast about this in the world and say, \\\"See, we have such and such a number of women in executive positions\\\". This is the same as being deceived and passive. This is not a source of honor.
Take the case of a lady who has certain qualifications, who has developed her capabilities and who is suitable for a specific position. She can be allowed to hold this position because it is not illegal, but if we are proud of having such and such a number of female officials in charge of executive affairs, this is wrong. If we feel proud of having a large number of intellectual and educated women, this is good and it is alright. If we say that we have a large number of women who are active in cultural and political areas, this is alright. If we say that we have a large number of mujahid women in different areas, who are ready to be martyred, this is good. If we say that we have a large number of women who are active in political and revolutionary arenas and who write and deliver speeches, this is good.
Being proud of these things is good, but being proud of having such and such a number of female ministers, MPs, deputies and managers in financial organizations, is wrong. This means adopting a passive outlook in the face of the enemies. Are we supposed to entrust women with masculine occupations? No, the position, identity and characteristics of women are very noble and respectable. This identity is, in certain ways, superior to men\\\'s identity. If we adopt a comprehensive outlook, we see that men and women have no differences. Certain privileges have been granted to women and certain other privileges have been granted to men and this is based on their natural characteristics which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on them. Allah the Exalted has given each gender certain characteristics. Each gender benefits from certain outstanding qualities. Therefore, they have no differences in terms of human qualities. They have no differences in terms of the privileges which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on humanity such as human rights, social rights, spiritual values and spiritual perfection. That is to say, a man can become Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and a woman can become Fatima Zahra (s.a.). A man can become Jesus (a.s.) and a woman can become Mary (s.a.). They are not different from each other. Therefore, it is the right outlook to know women - the way they are, as true women and true females - by taking their gender into consideration and we should see what values can help a female individual or the female community achieve growth and transcendence. This outlook is the right outlook. We should not have adopted a passive outlook in the face of western outlook but, unfortunately, we did.
As for the second dimension of western discourse - in which women are made to prepare the ground for men to indulge in pleasure - it struck defenseless Islamic countries like a flood with the purpose of helping men to easily indulge in sexual pleasure. And this was done by the west. It also struck our country. By pleasure, I do not mean spiritual, psychological and scientific pleasure. Two people may sit and enjoy speaking to one another or increasing each other\\\'s knowledge. But this is not the case in western pleasure. Fortunately, the Revolution came and it prevented this to a great extent. This should be prevented because this is a big danger and a big disaster. The issue of hijab is one of the preconditions for this. The way we should dress and the way men and women should interact are among the preconditions for this issue. These things should be done so that this great disaster - for both men and women - can be prevented.
Of course, this moral corruption humiliates women, while they are not aware of it. Today, this issue is thoroughly discussed in the world. I know and I have read in a number of texts, newspapers and books that western intellectuals have started to feel fear and distress because of this condition. They are right, but they have understood this late. The issue of encouraging people to indulge in lust - which is centered around women - is not something of little importance. Today, you can see that the situation is getting worse in the world with issues such as homosexuality and marriages between two people with the same gender. These are great, deep and dangerous abysses for western civilization and for those who are managing this civilization. This is an unusual precipice and it will completely annihilate them. And they are just in the middle of the path of destruction.
In my opinion, they will not be able to prevent this because their problems are far beyond these things. A few years ago - around seven, eight, ten years ago - I read in foreign newspapers that the Americans are trying to make a movie based on the books of such and such a novelist who writes about the family. They want to do this so that they can draw filmmaking, cinema and other such things to these issues. Well, they have done and are doing certain things, but these efforts are like thin streams against a great flood which has struck them because of what they themselves did. And it will continue to strike them. Of course, we enjoy a kind of immunity from this event which is because of hijab and other such things. But we should not underestimate this issue and we should regard it as very important. As a number of ladies pointed out in their speeches - and they are working on these issues - the issue of sexual attraction and the danger it has for women, men, society and the family should be taken very seriously.
Well, I said that Islam speaks about women in the real sense of the word. As I pointed out, we should promote this discourse by taking up an offensive position. We should not at all take up a defensive position. A number of ladies said that those who are members of a so-called women\\\'s convention or organizations affiliated with the United Nations threaten to issue a resolution against us if we do such and such a thing. Well, who cares? They can issue resolutions. The Islamic discourse on the issue of women should be promoted by taking an offensive position and behaving in a determined way. If they say, \\\"Why do you not give women the freedom to appear without hijab?\\\" we should answer, \\\"Why do you give them this harmful and threatening freedom in such a way?\\\" What is being pursued in the west regarding the issue of immodesty and lack of hijab makes one distressed. One wonders what they want to do and where they want to go.
You may have more information in this regard but I also have a lot of information about what is being done on this issue. These things are done at different levels which range from higher levels to occupational levels, living conditions and other such things. In the Islamic discourse, respect towards women and the characteristics, dignity and delicacy of women should be highlighted. By delicacy, I do not only mean physical delicacy. As well as physical delicacy, I mean the delicacy of women\\\'s psychological and intellectual structure and also the delicacy of their responsibilities. It is only the delicate and gentle fingers of the mother which can separate the extremely thin nerve fibers of a child\\\'s nervous system from one another so that he will not have any emotional complexes or problems. Nobody else can do this. That is to say, nobody else except for a woman can do this. This is a feminine task. A number of tasks require such delicacy that one wonders how the divine will has bestowed such a great capability and such delicacy on women. I always say to my friends and relatives and to women that, contrary to the idea that has been established, women are the stronger gender. Women are stronger than men. Women can completely control and influence men with their wisdom and delicacy. We can see this in practice and we can prove it by reasoning. This is a reality.
Of course, there are a number of women who do not adopt wise measures and who, as a result, cannot do this. But if a woman is wise enough, she can tame a man. This is like the situation in which a person can bridle and ride on a wild lion. This does not mean that he is physically stronger than the lion. Rather, this means that he has managed to use his mental power. Women have this capability, but they should do this with delicacy and subtlety. When I say delicacy, I do not only mean physical delicacy. As well as physical delicacy, I mean delicacy in implementing thoughts and ideas, showing acumen and making decisions. These are capabilities which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on women. In my opinion, this should be the basis. This discourse should be improved and pursued.
The second point that I want to discuss is that, in my opinion, there are two issues regarding the current situation of women in our country which are more important than other issues. Or, let us say they are more crucial than other issues and they require more attention. One issue is the significance and the value of the home and the family. We should regard the home in which we live as important. One cannot imagine human beings without a home and without a place to live. Any human being needs a home and the family environment. The family is like the soul of the home. This should be regarded as important. This should be thought about in a careful way.
The second issue is that we should prevent women from being weakened and oppressed at different levels. We have women who are weak and deprived of many things. We also have women who are oppressed. This oppression should be prevented. It is necessary to pass important laws in this regard. There are essential behavioral rules which should be enforced. It is necessary to establish certain social conventions and customs so that women will not be oppressed in different areas such as - I have written them down - social, sexual, familial, cultural and intellectual areas. These kinds of oppression, which women may be faced with, range from individual and private issues - that is to say, sexual issues - to social issues, such as social interactions, and familial issues. I have written down certain points about familial issues.
Husbands, children, fathers and brothers should behave in a respectful way towards women. If women are regarded as respectable in the family environment, an important part of problems in our society will be solved. We should do something to encourage children to kiss their mother\\\'s hands. This is what Islam is after. We can see this behavior in deeply religious and moral families which have a close relationship with religious concepts. The children in a family should behave towards their mother in a respectful way. There is no contradiction between such a respectful behavior and the emotional and warm relationship between a mother and a child. There should be such respect and women should be respected in the family environment. This is the way to prevent oppression against women. Imagine that in a family and in a home, the man hurls all kinds of insults at his own wife, including behavioral and verbal insults and physical abuse. Unfortunately, there are certain places in our country in which there are still instances of physical abuse. This issue should not occur. Of course, this occurs many times in western countries. And this is not unexpected. Westerners, particularly European races, are wild. They have a neat appearance, they wear ties and they use perfume and other such things, but they still have the same wild nature and they still behave in the same wild way that they have always behaved throughout history. They easily kill people and they coldheartedly commit crimes. Therefore, it is not surprising if women are beaten in the home by the Europeans and by the Americans. But such a thing should not be even imagined in an Islamic environment although it unfortunately exists. Therefore, these are two fundamental issues. In my opinion, there is room for detailed planning in this regard.
Besides these two issues, there are other important issues such as the issue of marriage and liberating oneself from being single. Obstacles in the way of marriage should be removed. As the ladies in this meeting pointed out, certain things are being done in this regard and I really became happy to know that, thankfully, these issues are receiving attention. On the issue of hijab and social relationships, things should be carried out in a fundamental and serious way. You should pay attention to the issue of financial and legal support for oppressed women who are deprived of their rights. The lady from Razavi Khorasan province pointed out that the issue of courts of law - which was one of my worries - has been addressed by the legal system. I hope that this will be done in practice.
One of my anxieties and worries is that women may not be able to defend themselves in courts of law and such legal environments. They may not have the money to hire a competent lawyer, nor may they be able to defend themselves and their rights may be violated. This is one of the important issues. It should be followed up. The issue of women\\\'s employment, limitations for their employment, the kind of job that they should do and the way they should do it - that is to say, the delicacy and flexibility that I spoke about on the issue of women\\\'s employment - are things which should be addressed. However, the most crucial issues are the two issues that I discussed.
One of the issues which occupies my mind is that all the different activities which are done on the issue of women in our country - ranging from legal issues and issues related to Islamic jurisprudence to social, executive, emotional and all the other issues which are discussed about women - should be done in a systematic way. It should have a coherent structure.
Of course, a number of the reports which were presented to me or the points which were discussed in this meeting show that certain ideas have been developed in this regard. But, I believe that a comprehensive plan should be formulated in this regard. We should delineate the issues of women in a completely systemic way and we should give it a proper form. Moreover, there should be an outstanding and permanent center [for this matter] with competent personnel and with a long-term plan. I do not at all believe in short-term plans in this regard. After this, certain organizations and institutes should be formed to work for different parts of this prominent and permanent center. They should inform one another of what they are doing and there should be a suitable databank. Many things are being done by women in our country about which even ladies participating in this meeting may not be aware of. Well, thankfully, we have so many outstanding and knowledgeable women in different sections and with different outlooks. We should benefit from this large number of women.
Another point - I will make this the last point because it is noon and there is no time - is that active women in the camp of the Islamic Republic played an outstanding role immediately after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, during the early years after the Revolution and during the Sacred Defense Era. They showed their presence in an outstanding way. You should not let this outstanding presence of active women in the camp of the Revolution be undermined. Those who confront and oppose the Revolution try to benefit from competent women. The camp of the Revolution has far more competent, active and knowledgeable women who are authors, orators and scholars. It enjoys women who are ready to take action and who are interested in thinking, writing, delivering speeches and conveying their ideas and thoughts. They should not leave the arena of the Revolution and defending the Revolution. This is one point.
I will finish the last point by saying that the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) should play a completely fundamental role in promoting the things which I discussed and the issues which you raised. I believe and I recommend that the IRIB should definitely play a fundamental role in this regard. It can do this. In society, the IRIB can build the culture of respecting religious, active and mujahid women who wear hijab and who enjoy Islamic characteristics. Other people want the opposite to happen. Unfortunately, a number of the programs of the IRIB are in line with the goals of these people. The opposite should be done. That is to say, the IRIB should be completely at the service of this idea.
In any case, the conclusion that we can draw from all these things is that, thankfully, we have made certain achievements on the issue of women in the Islamic Republic, but these achievements do not meet the needs and the expectations of Islam and they are not compatible with the possibilities and resources that exist in Islam. We are backward in this regard. By Allah\\\'s favor, you ladies should make up for this backwardness in the best way possible.
I hope that Allah the Exalted will protect you and increase your achievements on a daily basis. And I hope that we can move towards what Islam wants in this regard on a daily basis.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\'s mercy and blessings
Source: http://english.khamenei.ir//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1784&Itemid=4
21:54
|
[11 May 13] Supreme Leader Speech to Outstanding Women - Full Speech by Sayed Ali Khamenei - [English]
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on May 11, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with a group of outstanding women who are...
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on May 11, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with a group of outstanding women who are active in seminary and academic areas.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I sincerely thank the honorable ladies who organized this good and fruitful meeting. Today, I really benefited from the ladies\\\\\\\' statements and I thank God for the depth of issues, thoughts and efforts which can be seen in the speeches of outstanding women throughout our country. The issues which you discussed were mostly good. There were certain suggestions which, by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, will be examined. By Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, I will follow up the part which is related to me.
There are many things to say about the issue of women and what is related to women. We suffer from a kind of backwardness in this regard which you ladies - the ones who delivered a speech - referred to. Backwardness in this area is not similar to backwardness in scientific areas, which we suffer from. When we say that we suffer from backwardness in this area, this means we have many outstanding points to make on the issue of women, the issue of gender and issues which are related to women - such as the issue of family, children, marriage, settling down, tranquility in the family environment and other such issues - but we have not managed to convey these points to the world and discuss them with the public opinion throughout the world. We mean backwardness from this point of view. This is while the world needs valuable, comprehensive and clear ideas and concepts in this regard. As a number of ladies pointed out, when we discuss these points in international arenas, they receive a good reception. Or as a number of ladies said, research findings in psychological and other areas confirm that Islamic rules are true on the issue of women.
Well, this is only part of the capabilities of Islamic philosophy on this sensitive issue. But we failed to define and show these capabilities in the right way. The same is true of many other areas which are related to reasoning and thinking. In many of these areas, we failed to truly convey the opinion of Islam to the world. When I say, \\\\\\\"We failed\\\\\\\", it should not be thought that the Islamic Republic is responsible for this due to the fact that what has been already done in this regard is because of the Islamic Republic, the name of the Revolution and Imam (r.a.), the influence of their ideas and other such things. Thankfully, these ideas were developed to some extent, but we should work more than this. In order to do this, we need certain things which I will speak about later on. In order to form a front which is ready to attack and which is immune from others\\\\\\\' attack and in order to take up an offensive position, we need to promote and convey these ideas and thoughts. We really need this.
In fact, our attack is launched for the sake of immunity and defense. Therefore, in my opinion, the more you work in order to make up for this backwardness, the more valuable it will be. It is necessary to do this. We should not hesitate and stop in treading the path of this movement which is an awakening movement related to the issues of women. We should not stop in the middle of the way. Despite the fact that we benefit from a perfect, valuable and convincing Islamic discourse, we have adopted a passive outlook in the face of the western discourse on the issue of women.
The western discourse on the issue of women has adopted a very calculated and political outlook. That is to say, the day when this idea and this discourse on women started to develop in the west, there was a careful calculation behind it. Of course, this is not based on fact and what I am saying is not based on precise information, but there are clear signs which support this interpretation. Since the beginning of Renaissance in the west and the emergence of industrialism and the development of new industries in the west, this discourse gradually achieved growth. And it reached its peak during our own times. Of course, this peak will be accompanied by decline and, by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, disgrace and destruction.
The western discourse on the issue of women has different dimensions, but it has two distinct dimensions. One is that it wants to give women a masculine identity. That is to say, it wants to make women behave like men. This is an important dimension of this discourse. Another is that it wants to make women prepare the ground for men to indulge in pleasure, whether the pleasure of watching women or other kinds of pleasure which are beyond this. This is another dimension of the western discourse on the issue of women. The issue of feminism and other such things - which have become popular in the world today - are, in fact, the products of western discourse. These are the consequences of what western discourse has done.
They wanted to give women a masculine identity. That is to say, they were trying to make women do jobs which are more compatible with the physical and intellectual characteristics of men. They consider it as a source of honor and they would like to describe it as an advantage and a source of honor for women. We have adopted a passive outlook in the face of this. We have been deceived and we have unwillingly and unknowingly accepted this. As you see, today we are proud of having such and such a number of women in certain executive positions. What I am saying should not be misunderstood. I do not have any problems with the idea of giving women executive positions. That is to say, I do not forbid women from doing this and I do not deny this right. I do not think it is wrong. Our minister of health and vice presidents were female and women have positions in different sectors. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong is to be proud of this, to boast about this in the world and say, \\\\\\\"See, we have such and such a number of women in executive positions\\\\\\\". This is the same as being deceived and passive. This is not a source of honor.
Take the case of a lady who has certain qualifications, who has developed her capabilities and who is suitable for a specific position. She can be allowed to hold this position because it is not illegal, but if we are proud of having such and such a number of female officials in charge of executive affairs, this is wrong. If we feel proud of having a large number of intellectual and educated women, this is good and it is alright. If we say that we have a large number of women who are active in cultural and political areas, this is alright. If we say that we have a large number of mujahid women in different areas, who are ready to be martyred, this is good. If we say that we have a large number of women who are active in political and revolutionary arenas and who write and deliver speeches, this is good.
Being proud of these things is good, but being proud of having such and such a number of female ministers, MPs, deputies and managers in financial organizations, is wrong. This means adopting a passive outlook in the face of the enemies. Are we supposed to entrust women with masculine occupations? No, the position, identity and characteristics of women are very noble and respectable. This identity is, in certain ways, superior to men\\\\\\\'s identity. If we adopt a comprehensive outlook, we see that men and women have no differences. Certain privileges have been granted to women and certain other privileges have been granted to men and this is based on their natural characteristics which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on them. Allah the Exalted has given each gender certain characteristics. Each gender benefits from certain outstanding qualities. Therefore, they have no differences in terms of human qualities. They have no differences in terms of the privileges which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on humanity such as human rights, social rights, spiritual values and spiritual perfection. That is to say, a man can become Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and a woman can become Fatima Zahra (s.a.). A man can become Jesus (a.s.) and a woman can become Mary (s.a.). They are not different from each other. Therefore, it is the right outlook to know women - the way they are, as true women and true females - by taking their gender into consideration and we should see what values can help a female individual or the female community achieve growth and transcendence. This outlook is the right outlook. We should not have adopted a passive outlook in the face of western outlook but, unfortunately, we did.
As for the second dimension of western discourse - in which women are made to prepare the ground for men to indulge in pleasure - it struck defenseless Islamic countries like a flood with the purpose of helping men to easily indulge in sexual pleasure. And this was done by the west. It also struck our country. By pleasure, I do not mean spiritual, psychological and scientific pleasure. Two people may sit and enjoy speaking to one another or increasing each other\\\\\\\'s knowledge. But this is not the case in western pleasure. Fortunately, the Revolution came and it prevented this to a great extent. This should be prevented because this is a big danger and a big disaster. The issue of hijab is one of the preconditions for this. The way we should dress and the way men and women should interact are among the preconditions for this issue. These things should be done so that this great disaster - for both men and women - can be prevented.
Of course, this moral corruption humiliates women, while they are not aware of it. Today, this issue is thoroughly discussed in the world. I know and I have read in a number of texts, newspapers and books that western intellectuals have started to feel fear and distress because of this condition. They are right, but they have understood this late. The issue of encouraging people to indulge in lust - which is centered around women - is not something of little importance. Today, you can see that the situation is getting worse in the world with issues such as homosexuality and marriages between two people with the same gender. These are great, deep and dangerous abysses for western civilization and for those who are managing this civilization. This is an unusual precipice and it will completely annihilate them. And they are just in the middle of the path of destruction.
In my opinion, they will not be able to prevent this because their problems are far beyond these things. A few years ago - around seven, eight, ten years ago - I read in foreign newspapers that the Americans are trying to make a movie based on the books of such and such a novelist who writes about the family. They want to do this so that they can draw filmmaking, cinema and other such things to these issues. Well, they have done and are doing certain things, but these efforts are like thin streams against a great flood which has struck them because of what they themselves did. And it will continue to strike them. Of course, we enjoy a kind of immunity from this event which is because of hijab and other such things. But we should not underestimate this issue and we should regard it as very important. As a number of ladies pointed out in their speeches - and they are working on these issues - the issue of sexual attraction and the danger it has for women, men, society and the family should be taken very seriously.
Well, I said that Islam speaks about women in the real sense of the word. As I pointed out, we should promote this discourse by taking up an offensive position. We should not at all take up a defensive position. A number of ladies said that those who are members of a so-called women\\\\\\\'s convention or organizations affiliated with the United Nations threaten to issue a resolution against us if we do such and such a thing. Well, who cares? They can issue resolutions. The Islamic discourse on the issue of women should be promoted by taking an offensive position and behaving in a determined way. If they say, \\\\\\\"Why do you not give women the freedom to appear without hijab?\\\\\\\" we should answer, \\\\\\\"Why do you give them this harmful and threatening freedom in such a way?\\\\\\\" What is being pursued in the west regarding the issue of immodesty and lack of hijab makes one distressed. One wonders what they want to do and where they want to go.
You may have more information in this regard but I also have a lot of information about what is being done on this issue. These things are done at different levels which range from higher levels to occupational levels, living conditions and other such things. In the Islamic discourse, respect towards women and the characteristics, dignity and delicacy of women should be highlighted. By delicacy, I do not only mean physical delicacy. As well as physical delicacy, I mean the delicacy of women\\\\\\\'s psychological and intellectual structure and also the delicacy of their responsibilities. It is only the delicate and gentle fingers of the mother which can separate the extremely thin nerve fibers of a child\\\\\\\'s nervous system from one another so that he will not have any emotional complexes or problems. Nobody else can do this. That is to say, nobody else except for a woman can do this. This is a feminine task. A number of tasks require such delicacy that one wonders how the divine will has bestowed such a great capability and such delicacy on women. I always say to my friends and relatives and to women that, contrary to the idea that has been established, women are the stronger gender. Women are stronger than men. Women can completely control and influence men with their wisdom and delicacy. We can see this in practice and we can prove it by reasoning. This is a reality.
Of course, there are a number of women who do not adopt wise measures and who, as a result, cannot do this. But if a woman is wise enough, she can tame a man. This is like the situation in which a person can bridle and ride on a wild lion. This does not mean that he is physically stronger than the lion. Rather, this means that he has managed to use his mental power. Women have this capability, but they should do this with delicacy and subtlety. When I say delicacy, I do not only mean physical delicacy. As well as physical delicacy, I mean delicacy in implementing thoughts and ideas, showing acumen and making decisions. These are capabilities which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on women. In my opinion, this should be the basis. This discourse should be improved and pursued.
The second point that I want to discuss is that, in my opinion, there are two issues regarding the current situation of women in our country which are more important than other issues. Or, let us say they are more crucial than other issues and they require more attention. One issue is the significance and the value of the home and the family. We should regard the home in which we live as important. One cannot imagine human beings without a home and without a place to live. Any human being needs a home and the family environment. The family is like the soul of the home. This should be regarded as important. This should be thought about in a careful way.
The second issue is that we should prevent women from being weakened and oppressed at different levels. We have women who are weak and deprived of many things. We also have women who are oppressed. This oppression should be prevented. It is necessary to pass important laws in this regard. There are essential behavioral rules which should be enforced. It is necessary to establish certain social conventions and customs so that women will not be oppressed in different areas such as - I have written them down - social, sexual, familial, cultural and intellectual areas. These kinds of oppression, which women may be faced with, range from individual and private issues - that is to say, sexual issues - to social issues, such as social interactions, and familial issues. I have written down certain points about familial issues.
Husbands, children, fathers and brothers should behave in a respectful way towards women. If women are regarded as respectable in the family environment, an important part of problems in our society will be solved. We should do something to encourage children to kiss their mother\\\\\\\'s hands. This is what Islam is after. We can see this behavior in deeply religious and moral families which have a close relationship with religious concepts. The children in a family should behave towards their mother in a respectful way. There is no contradiction between such a respectful behavior and the emotional and warm relationship between a mother and a child. There should be such respect and women should be respected in the family environment. This is the way to prevent oppression against women. Imagine that in a family and in a home, the man hurls all kinds of insults at his own wife, including behavioral and verbal insults and physical abuse. Unfortunately, there are certain places in our country in which there are still instances of physical abuse. This issue should not occur. Of course, this occurs many times in western countries. And this is not unexpected. Westerners, particularly European races, are wild. They have a neat appearance, they wear ties and they use perfume and other such things, but they still have the same wild nature and they still behave in the same wild way that they have always behaved throughout history. They easily kill people and they coldheartedly commit crimes. Therefore, it is not surprising if women are beaten in the home by the Europeans and by the Americans. But such a thing should not be even imagined in an Islamic environment although it unfortunately exists. Therefore, these are two fundamental issues. In my opinion, there is room for detailed planning in this regard.
Besides these two issues, there are other important issues such as the issue of marriage and liberating oneself from being single. Obstacles in the way of marriage should be removed. As the ladies in this meeting pointed out, certain things are being done in this regard and I really became happy to know that, thankfully, these issues are receiving attention. On the issue of hijab and social relationships, things should be carried out in a fundamental and serious way. You should pay attention to the issue of financial and legal support for oppressed women who are deprived of their rights. The lady from Razavi Khorasan province pointed out that the issue of courts of law - which was one of my worries - has been addressed by the legal system. I hope that this will be done in practice.
One of my anxieties and worries is that women may not be able to defend themselves in courts of law and such legal environments. They may not have the money to hire a competent lawyer, nor may they be able to defend themselves and their rights may be violated. This is one of the important issues. It should be followed up. The issue of women\\\\\\\'s employment, limitations for their employment, the kind of job that they should do and the way they should do it - that is to say, the delicacy and flexibility that I spoke about on the issue of women\\\\\\\'s employment - are things which should be addressed. However, the most crucial issues are the two issues that I discussed.
One of the issues which occupies my mind is that all the different activities which are done on the issue of women in our country - ranging from legal issues and issues related to Islamic jurisprudence to social, executive, emotional and all the other issues which are discussed about women - should be done in a systematic way. It should have a coherent structure.
Of course, a number of the reports which were presented to me or the points which were discussed in this meeting show that certain ideas have been developed in this regard. But, I believe that a comprehensive plan should be formulated in this regard. We should delineate the issues of women in a completely systemic way and we should give it a proper form. Moreover, there should be an outstanding and permanent center [for this matter] with competent personnel and with a long-term plan. I do not at all believe in short-term plans in this regard. After this, certain organizations and institutes should be formed to work for different parts of this prominent and permanent center. They should inform one another of what they are doing and there should be a suitable databank. Many things are being done by women in our country about which even ladies participating in this meeting may not be aware of. Well, thankfully, we have so many outstanding and knowledgeable women in different sections and with different outlooks. We should benefit from this large number of women.
Another point - I will make this the last point because it is noon and there is no time - is that active women in the camp of the Islamic Republic played an outstanding role immediately after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, during the early years after the Revolution and during the Sacred Defense Era. They showed their presence in an outstanding way. You should not let this outstanding presence of active women in the camp of the Revolution be undermined. Those who confront and oppose the Revolution try to benefit from competent women. The camp of the Revolution has far more competent, active and knowledgeable women who are authors, orators and scholars. It enjoys women who are ready to take action and who are interested in thinking, writing, delivering speeches and conveying their ideas and thoughts. They should not leave the arena of the Revolution and defending the Revolution. This is one point.
I will finish the last point by saying that the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) should play a completely fundamental role in promoting the things which I discussed and the issues which you raised. I believe and I recommend that the IRIB should definitely play a fundamental role in this regard. It can do this. In society, the IRIB can build the culture of respecting religious, active and mujahid women who wear hijab and who enjoy Islamic characteristics. Other people want the opposite to happen. Unfortunately, a number of the programs of the IRIB are in line with the goals of these people. The opposite should be done. That is to say, the IRIB should be completely at the service of this idea.
In any case, the conclusion that we can draw from all these things is that, thankfully, we have made certain achievements on the issue of women in the Islamic Republic, but these achievements do not meet the needs and the expectations of Islam and they are not compatible with the possibilities and resources that exist in Islam. We are backward in this regard. By Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, you ladies should make up for this backwardness in the best way possible.
I hope that Allah the Exalted will protect you and increase your achievements on a daily basis. And I hope that we can move towards what Islam wants in this regard on a daily basis.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings
More...
Description:
The following is the full text of the speech delivered on May 11, 2013 by Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution, in a meeting with a group of outstanding women who are active in seminary and academic areas.
In the Name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful
I sincerely thank the honorable ladies who organized this good and fruitful meeting. Today, I really benefited from the ladies\\\\\\\' statements and I thank God for the depth of issues, thoughts and efforts which can be seen in the speeches of outstanding women throughout our country. The issues which you discussed were mostly good. There were certain suggestions which, by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, will be examined. By Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, I will follow up the part which is related to me.
There are many things to say about the issue of women and what is related to women. We suffer from a kind of backwardness in this regard which you ladies - the ones who delivered a speech - referred to. Backwardness in this area is not similar to backwardness in scientific areas, which we suffer from. When we say that we suffer from backwardness in this area, this means we have many outstanding points to make on the issue of women, the issue of gender and issues which are related to women - such as the issue of family, children, marriage, settling down, tranquility in the family environment and other such issues - but we have not managed to convey these points to the world and discuss them with the public opinion throughout the world. We mean backwardness from this point of view. This is while the world needs valuable, comprehensive and clear ideas and concepts in this regard. As a number of ladies pointed out, when we discuss these points in international arenas, they receive a good reception. Or as a number of ladies said, research findings in psychological and other areas confirm that Islamic rules are true on the issue of women.
Well, this is only part of the capabilities of Islamic philosophy on this sensitive issue. But we failed to define and show these capabilities in the right way. The same is true of many other areas which are related to reasoning and thinking. In many of these areas, we failed to truly convey the opinion of Islam to the world. When I say, \\\\\\\"We failed\\\\\\\", it should not be thought that the Islamic Republic is responsible for this due to the fact that what has been already done in this regard is because of the Islamic Republic, the name of the Revolution and Imam (r.a.), the influence of their ideas and other such things. Thankfully, these ideas were developed to some extent, but we should work more than this. In order to do this, we need certain things which I will speak about later on. In order to form a front which is ready to attack and which is immune from others\\\\\\\' attack and in order to take up an offensive position, we need to promote and convey these ideas and thoughts. We really need this.
In fact, our attack is launched for the sake of immunity and defense. Therefore, in my opinion, the more you work in order to make up for this backwardness, the more valuable it will be. It is necessary to do this. We should not hesitate and stop in treading the path of this movement which is an awakening movement related to the issues of women. We should not stop in the middle of the way. Despite the fact that we benefit from a perfect, valuable and convincing Islamic discourse, we have adopted a passive outlook in the face of the western discourse on the issue of women.
The western discourse on the issue of women has adopted a very calculated and political outlook. That is to say, the day when this idea and this discourse on women started to develop in the west, there was a careful calculation behind it. Of course, this is not based on fact and what I am saying is not based on precise information, but there are clear signs which support this interpretation. Since the beginning of Renaissance in the west and the emergence of industrialism and the development of new industries in the west, this discourse gradually achieved growth. And it reached its peak during our own times. Of course, this peak will be accompanied by decline and, by Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, disgrace and destruction.
The western discourse on the issue of women has different dimensions, but it has two distinct dimensions. One is that it wants to give women a masculine identity. That is to say, it wants to make women behave like men. This is an important dimension of this discourse. Another is that it wants to make women prepare the ground for men to indulge in pleasure, whether the pleasure of watching women or other kinds of pleasure which are beyond this. This is another dimension of the western discourse on the issue of women. The issue of feminism and other such things - which have become popular in the world today - are, in fact, the products of western discourse. These are the consequences of what western discourse has done.
They wanted to give women a masculine identity. That is to say, they were trying to make women do jobs which are more compatible with the physical and intellectual characteristics of men. They consider it as a source of honor and they would like to describe it as an advantage and a source of honor for women. We have adopted a passive outlook in the face of this. We have been deceived and we have unwillingly and unknowingly accepted this. As you see, today we are proud of having such and such a number of women in certain executive positions. What I am saying should not be misunderstood. I do not have any problems with the idea of giving women executive positions. That is to say, I do not forbid women from doing this and I do not deny this right. I do not think it is wrong. Our minister of health and vice presidents were female and women have positions in different sectors. In my opinion, there is nothing wrong with this. What is wrong is to be proud of this, to boast about this in the world and say, \\\\\\\"See, we have such and such a number of women in executive positions\\\\\\\". This is the same as being deceived and passive. This is not a source of honor.
Take the case of a lady who has certain qualifications, who has developed her capabilities and who is suitable for a specific position. She can be allowed to hold this position because it is not illegal, but if we are proud of having such and such a number of female officials in charge of executive affairs, this is wrong. If we feel proud of having a large number of intellectual and educated women, this is good and it is alright. If we say that we have a large number of women who are active in cultural and political areas, this is alright. If we say that we have a large number of mujahid women in different areas, who are ready to be martyred, this is good. If we say that we have a large number of women who are active in political and revolutionary arenas and who write and deliver speeches, this is good.
Being proud of these things is good, but being proud of having such and such a number of female ministers, MPs, deputies and managers in financial organizations, is wrong. This means adopting a passive outlook in the face of the enemies. Are we supposed to entrust women with masculine occupations? No, the position, identity and characteristics of women are very noble and respectable. This identity is, in certain ways, superior to men\\\\\\\'s identity. If we adopt a comprehensive outlook, we see that men and women have no differences. Certain privileges have been granted to women and certain other privileges have been granted to men and this is based on their natural characteristics which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on them. Allah the Exalted has given each gender certain characteristics. Each gender benefits from certain outstanding qualities. Therefore, they have no differences in terms of human qualities. They have no differences in terms of the privileges which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on humanity such as human rights, social rights, spiritual values and spiritual perfection. That is to say, a man can become Ali ibn Abi Talib (a.s.) and a woman can become Fatima Zahra (s.a.). A man can become Jesus (a.s.) and a woman can become Mary (s.a.). They are not different from each other. Therefore, it is the right outlook to know women - the way they are, as true women and true females - by taking their gender into consideration and we should see what values can help a female individual or the female community achieve growth and transcendence. This outlook is the right outlook. We should not have adopted a passive outlook in the face of western outlook but, unfortunately, we did.
As for the second dimension of western discourse - in which women are made to prepare the ground for men to indulge in pleasure - it struck defenseless Islamic countries like a flood with the purpose of helping men to easily indulge in sexual pleasure. And this was done by the west. It also struck our country. By pleasure, I do not mean spiritual, psychological and scientific pleasure. Two people may sit and enjoy speaking to one another or increasing each other\\\\\\\'s knowledge. But this is not the case in western pleasure. Fortunately, the Revolution came and it prevented this to a great extent. This should be prevented because this is a big danger and a big disaster. The issue of hijab is one of the preconditions for this. The way we should dress and the way men and women should interact are among the preconditions for this issue. These things should be done so that this great disaster - for both men and women - can be prevented.
Of course, this moral corruption humiliates women, while they are not aware of it. Today, this issue is thoroughly discussed in the world. I know and I have read in a number of texts, newspapers and books that western intellectuals have started to feel fear and distress because of this condition. They are right, but they have understood this late. The issue of encouraging people to indulge in lust - which is centered around women - is not something of little importance. Today, you can see that the situation is getting worse in the world with issues such as homosexuality and marriages between two people with the same gender. These are great, deep and dangerous abysses for western civilization and for those who are managing this civilization. This is an unusual precipice and it will completely annihilate them. And they are just in the middle of the path of destruction.
In my opinion, they will not be able to prevent this because their problems are far beyond these things. A few years ago - around seven, eight, ten years ago - I read in foreign newspapers that the Americans are trying to make a movie based on the books of such and such a novelist who writes about the family. They want to do this so that they can draw filmmaking, cinema and other such things to these issues. Well, they have done and are doing certain things, but these efforts are like thin streams against a great flood which has struck them because of what they themselves did. And it will continue to strike them. Of course, we enjoy a kind of immunity from this event which is because of hijab and other such things. But we should not underestimate this issue and we should regard it as very important. As a number of ladies pointed out in their speeches - and they are working on these issues - the issue of sexual attraction and the danger it has for women, men, society and the family should be taken very seriously.
Well, I said that Islam speaks about women in the real sense of the word. As I pointed out, we should promote this discourse by taking up an offensive position. We should not at all take up a defensive position. A number of ladies said that those who are members of a so-called women\\\\\\\'s convention or organizations affiliated with the United Nations threaten to issue a resolution against us if we do such and such a thing. Well, who cares? They can issue resolutions. The Islamic discourse on the issue of women should be promoted by taking an offensive position and behaving in a determined way. If they say, \\\\\\\"Why do you not give women the freedom to appear without hijab?\\\\\\\" we should answer, \\\\\\\"Why do you give them this harmful and threatening freedom in such a way?\\\\\\\" What is being pursued in the west regarding the issue of immodesty and lack of hijab makes one distressed. One wonders what they want to do and where they want to go.
You may have more information in this regard but I also have a lot of information about what is being done on this issue. These things are done at different levels which range from higher levels to occupational levels, living conditions and other such things. In the Islamic discourse, respect towards women and the characteristics, dignity and delicacy of women should be highlighted. By delicacy, I do not only mean physical delicacy. As well as physical delicacy, I mean the delicacy of women\\\\\\\'s psychological and intellectual structure and also the delicacy of their responsibilities. It is only the delicate and gentle fingers of the mother which can separate the extremely thin nerve fibers of a child\\\\\\\'s nervous system from one another so that he will not have any emotional complexes or problems. Nobody else can do this. That is to say, nobody else except for a woman can do this. This is a feminine task. A number of tasks require such delicacy that one wonders how the divine will has bestowed such a great capability and such delicacy on women. I always say to my friends and relatives and to women that, contrary to the idea that has been established, women are the stronger gender. Women are stronger than men. Women can completely control and influence men with their wisdom and delicacy. We can see this in practice and we can prove it by reasoning. This is a reality.
Of course, there are a number of women who do not adopt wise measures and who, as a result, cannot do this. But if a woman is wise enough, she can tame a man. This is like the situation in which a person can bridle and ride on a wild lion. This does not mean that he is physically stronger than the lion. Rather, this means that he has managed to use his mental power. Women have this capability, but they should do this with delicacy and subtlety. When I say delicacy, I do not only mean physical delicacy. As well as physical delicacy, I mean delicacy in implementing thoughts and ideas, showing acumen and making decisions. These are capabilities which Allah the Exalted has bestowed on women. In my opinion, this should be the basis. This discourse should be improved and pursued.
The second point that I want to discuss is that, in my opinion, there are two issues regarding the current situation of women in our country which are more important than other issues. Or, let us say they are more crucial than other issues and they require more attention. One issue is the significance and the value of the home and the family. We should regard the home in which we live as important. One cannot imagine human beings without a home and without a place to live. Any human being needs a home and the family environment. The family is like the soul of the home. This should be regarded as important. This should be thought about in a careful way.
The second issue is that we should prevent women from being weakened and oppressed at different levels. We have women who are weak and deprived of many things. We also have women who are oppressed. This oppression should be prevented. It is necessary to pass important laws in this regard. There are essential behavioral rules which should be enforced. It is necessary to establish certain social conventions and customs so that women will not be oppressed in different areas such as - I have written them down - social, sexual, familial, cultural and intellectual areas. These kinds of oppression, which women may be faced with, range from individual and private issues - that is to say, sexual issues - to social issues, such as social interactions, and familial issues. I have written down certain points about familial issues.
Husbands, children, fathers and brothers should behave in a respectful way towards women. If women are regarded as respectable in the family environment, an important part of problems in our society will be solved. We should do something to encourage children to kiss their mother\\\\\\\'s hands. This is what Islam is after. We can see this behavior in deeply religious and moral families which have a close relationship with religious concepts. The children in a family should behave towards their mother in a respectful way. There is no contradiction between such a respectful behavior and the emotional and warm relationship between a mother and a child. There should be such respect and women should be respected in the family environment. This is the way to prevent oppression against women. Imagine that in a family and in a home, the man hurls all kinds of insults at his own wife, including behavioral and verbal insults and physical abuse. Unfortunately, there are certain places in our country in which there are still instances of physical abuse. This issue should not occur. Of course, this occurs many times in western countries. And this is not unexpected. Westerners, particularly European races, are wild. They have a neat appearance, they wear ties and they use perfume and other such things, but they still have the same wild nature and they still behave in the same wild way that they have always behaved throughout history. They easily kill people and they coldheartedly commit crimes. Therefore, it is not surprising if women are beaten in the home by the Europeans and by the Americans. But such a thing should not be even imagined in an Islamic environment although it unfortunately exists. Therefore, these are two fundamental issues. In my opinion, there is room for detailed planning in this regard.
Besides these two issues, there are other important issues such as the issue of marriage and liberating oneself from being single. Obstacles in the way of marriage should be removed. As the ladies in this meeting pointed out, certain things are being done in this regard and I really became happy to know that, thankfully, these issues are receiving attention. On the issue of hijab and social relationships, things should be carried out in a fundamental and serious way. You should pay attention to the issue of financial and legal support for oppressed women who are deprived of their rights. The lady from Razavi Khorasan province pointed out that the issue of courts of law - which was one of my worries - has been addressed by the legal system. I hope that this will be done in practice.
One of my anxieties and worries is that women may not be able to defend themselves in courts of law and such legal environments. They may not have the money to hire a competent lawyer, nor may they be able to defend themselves and their rights may be violated. This is one of the important issues. It should be followed up. The issue of women\\\\\\\'s employment, limitations for their employment, the kind of job that they should do and the way they should do it - that is to say, the delicacy and flexibility that I spoke about on the issue of women\\\\\\\'s employment - are things which should be addressed. However, the most crucial issues are the two issues that I discussed.
One of the issues which occupies my mind is that all the different activities which are done on the issue of women in our country - ranging from legal issues and issues related to Islamic jurisprudence to social, executive, emotional and all the other issues which are discussed about women - should be done in a systematic way. It should have a coherent structure.
Of course, a number of the reports which were presented to me or the points which were discussed in this meeting show that certain ideas have been developed in this regard. But, I believe that a comprehensive plan should be formulated in this regard. We should delineate the issues of women in a completely systemic way and we should give it a proper form. Moreover, there should be an outstanding and permanent center [for this matter] with competent personnel and with a long-term plan. I do not at all believe in short-term plans in this regard. After this, certain organizations and institutes should be formed to work for different parts of this prominent and permanent center. They should inform one another of what they are doing and there should be a suitable databank. Many things are being done by women in our country about which even ladies participating in this meeting may not be aware of. Well, thankfully, we have so many outstanding and knowledgeable women in different sections and with different outlooks. We should benefit from this large number of women.
Another point - I will make this the last point because it is noon and there is no time - is that active women in the camp of the Islamic Republic played an outstanding role immediately after the victory of the Islamic Revolution, during the early years after the Revolution and during the Sacred Defense Era. They showed their presence in an outstanding way. You should not let this outstanding presence of active women in the camp of the Revolution be undermined. Those who confront and oppose the Revolution try to benefit from competent women. The camp of the Revolution has far more competent, active and knowledgeable women who are authors, orators and scholars. It enjoys women who are ready to take action and who are interested in thinking, writing, delivering speeches and conveying their ideas and thoughts. They should not leave the arena of the Revolution and defending the Revolution. This is one point.
I will finish the last point by saying that the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) should play a completely fundamental role in promoting the things which I discussed and the issues which you raised. I believe and I recommend that the IRIB should definitely play a fundamental role in this regard. It can do this. In society, the IRIB can build the culture of respecting religious, active and mujahid women who wear hijab and who enjoy Islamic characteristics. Other people want the opposite to happen. Unfortunately, a number of the programs of the IRIB are in line with the goals of these people. The opposite should be done. That is to say, the IRIB should be completely at the service of this idea.
In any case, the conclusion that we can draw from all these things is that, thankfully, we have made certain achievements on the issue of women in the Islamic Republic, but these achievements do not meet the needs and the expectations of Islam and they are not compatible with the possibilities and resources that exist in Islam. We are backward in this regard. By Allah\\\\\\\'s favor, you ladies should make up for this backwardness in the best way possible.
I hope that Allah the Exalted will protect you and increase your achievements on a daily basis. And I hope that we can move towards what Islam wants in this regard on a daily basis.
Greetings be upon you and Allah\\\\\\\'s mercy and blessings
Terrorism Against Shia Muslims In D.I.Khan Pakistan-English Text with Urdu Tarana(viewer discretion
Documentry made by Shaheed Foundation
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE
Dera Ismail Khan- one of the southern District of North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, has become the slaughterhouse for...
Documentry made by Shaheed Foundation
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE
Dera Ismail Khan- one of the southern District of North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, has become the slaughterhouse for the Shia community. The banned Sipah-e-Sahaba has indiscriminately killed dozens of innocent Shias including women and children. This also includes precious persons like Doctors, engineers, Professors, Businessmen in this Economically deprived District. So for 84 innocent people have embraced martyrdom. The irony of the fate is that none of the murderers of 84 innocent people have been brought to justice. Although the Police is well aware of the barbaric killers belonging to banned terrorist group Speha-e-Sahaba, yet there is a fear to take action against the terrorists who come in the day light openly & kill innocent civilians. The terrorists also threat the Judges and witnesses thereby influencing the fair trial. Due to fear of terrorists and failure of law enforcing agencies to bring the terrorists to justice in the past, the families of the murdered people even scare to lodge the FIR against the terrorists.
NOTE:
NONE OF THE 84 INNOCENT PEOPLE’S MURDERER IS CAPTURED AND BROUGHT TO JUSTICE BY LAW ENFORCING AGENCIES. RATHER THE TERRORISTS WHO CONFESSED BEFORE THE COURTS WERE SET FREE.
Syed Rajab Ali Zaidi Superintendent of Police (SP) was
killed along with his son Muazam
28, on 21 Dec 2003 on D.I.K-Darya Khan
road as he was coming back to his home.
So far Police has failed to unearth the
culprits involved in the heinous killing
of SP and his son.
Inspector Ghulam Qanbar of Special Branch
was killed on 13 Sep 2001 in D.I.K. He was
targeted because he captured a deadly
dangerous terrorist Murtaza Mawia with 5
lack money on his head a few months
before his martyerdom.
Advocate Khursheed Anwar – Centeral General Secretary Tehreek-e-Jafria Pakistan was martyred on 28 Sep 1999 along with his daughter Umme Lila 18 and guard Hassan on New Chongi D.I.K. He was the General Secretary of Tahreek-e-Jafria Pakistan. The accused were set free as a result of patch up between the family of advocate and the terrorists.
Umme Lila 18, daughter of Advocate Khursheed Anwar embraced martyrdom along with his father as she was mourning his father’s death. The terrorist turned back and killed her. She was a brilliant student studying in F.Sc.
Advocate Syed Afeef Abbas Shah was killed on 30 Dec 2004 in District Bar D.i.K at about 1:30 PM. He was targeted as he contesting the case of 5 innocent people who became the victim of the terrorists in 1999 while they were sleeping. The murderers could not be apprehended by the law enforcing agencies.
Syed Bashir Husssain Kazmi – a retired Tehsildar was martyred on 25 May 2008 along with his brother Kifayat Hussain and two young nephews. The terrorist also killed a policeman at the spot as he tried to capture them. The other Youngman of the same family named Mazhar Abbas was martyred earlier in the this month (May 2008). Doctor Abdul Ali Bangash – a famous Sargon Doctor was assassinated in 1998 in District Headquarter hospital D.I.K in the light of a bright day while he was on his duty. The murderer on foot ran away from the scene with out any problem and police once again failed to trace the perpetrators and the master minds of this heinous crime.
Doctor Ghulam Shabir an MBBS doctor was killed in his clinic on 2 Feb 2000. The culprits once again could not be brought to the justice by those who were responsible to bring them to the justice to create an example, so that nobody else could dare to kill the precious people of Pakistan.
Allama Kazim Aseer Jarvi who belonged to village Jara D.I.K was killed along with his son on 28 March 92 while he was coming back to his home from Lahore. His young son Amar 14 who witnessed the killing of his father and brother later died of this psychological shock.
Allama Allaha Nawaz Murtazvi was killed in February 1994 while he was coming from D.I.K to his village Haji mora to lead a Jumma prayerSyed Hassan Ali Kazmi a renowned Shia leader and Politician was killed on 7June 2001 in Mohallah Eisab Zai D.I.K. He contested the 1988 election and secured 20,000 votes. He is known as an icon of Shia-Sunni unity since he tried all his life for sectarian harmony.Liaqat Ali Imrani a well known social activist and local Journalist was killed in 2006.
Maqbool Hussain a senior journalist (as quoted by BBC) was killed in D.I.K in October 2006
Fayyaz Hussain of Pakistan Army (DSG) became the victim of terrorists along with other 4 persons in Sardary Wala.
Hawaldar Abdur Rasheed (Retd) was one of the victims of this incident in which terrorists opened fire on armless people.
Iftikhar Hussain of Pak Army (DSG) was also amongst the 5 victims along with Sami 13 and a young child Arif hussain who was 8 years old.
Hassan Ali an employee in Police was killed on 28 Sep 1999 while he was on his duty as a guard with Advocate Khursheed Anwar. He was 28.
Qamar Abbas an other Police employee was killed while he was on his duty in a procession of SSP on Eid Milad. He was killed as his name ‘Abbs’ was prominent on his name plate.
Hawaldar Rabnawaz (Police) from Ahle Sunnet sect embraced martyrdom when he tried to capture the terrorist who were fleeing after killing Inspector Qambar on 13 Sep 2001.
Professor Nizakat Ali Imrani
Professor Nizakat Imrani 44, was the Chairman of Commerce & Business Depart of Gomal University who became the victim of barbaric terrorists on 23 Dec 2006 as he was coming back to home after attending the Annual Convocation of the University. He was ranked amongst the most brilliant Professors of Gomal University.
A few months earlier his elder brother Liaqat Imrani- a well known social activist and local journalist, was killed.
On 25 May 2008, 5 innocent Shia belonging to same family and a policeman were killed in the light of a bright day.
FUTURE THREAT
The cause of Shia sufferings in D.I.Khan is Talibanization. The Talibans and other militants trained from Afghanistan belonging to D.I.K and tribal area have ran away from Afghanistan and Tribal area to D.I.Khan & have succeeded to make it a stronghold for themselves. They are not only targeting Shias but also carrying bomb blasts in Video center, Cinemas and Govt: Officials. The recent history of D.I.K has quiet clearly shown it. More prominent innocent Shia personalities are the ‘would be target’ of the sectarian militants
The present activities of the terrorists and the growing influence of Talibanization in the vicinity of this sensitive District poses a great threat to the innocent citizens of Pakistan, especially to Shias.
Conclusion
The present radical trend in a sensitive District like D.I.Khan is a great threat to enlightened, moderate and progressive forces in the country. In the context of D.I.Khan following measures should be taken.
Provincial government should be instructed to use iron hand against the terrorists to insure that the innocent people’s slaughtered is stopped and their life and property is safeguarded.
A free and fair Commission should be constituted to investigate the elements perpetrating terrorism in D.I.Khan.
CONCLUSION CONT….
Community should get united and raise their voice against this brutality.
So come forward
Raise your voice against this cruelty and do what you can
Contribute in whatever way you can
Take action before the fire reaches your home.
More...
Description:
Documentry made by Shaheed Foundation
A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE ISSUE
Dera Ismail Khan- one of the southern District of North West Frontier Province of Pakistan, has become the slaughterhouse for the Shia community. The banned Sipah-e-Sahaba has indiscriminately killed dozens of innocent Shias including women and children. This also includes precious persons like Doctors, engineers, Professors, Businessmen in this Economically deprived District. So for 84 innocent people have embraced martyrdom. The irony of the fate is that none of the murderers of 84 innocent people have been brought to justice. Although the Police is well aware of the barbaric killers belonging to banned terrorist group Speha-e-Sahaba, yet there is a fear to take action against the terrorists who come in the day light openly & kill innocent civilians. The terrorists also threat the Judges and witnesses thereby influencing the fair trial. Due to fear of terrorists and failure of law enforcing agencies to bring the terrorists to justice in the past, the families of the murdered people even scare to lodge the FIR against the terrorists.
NOTE:
NONE OF THE 84 INNOCENT PEOPLE’S MURDERER IS CAPTURED AND BROUGHT TO JUSTICE BY LAW ENFORCING AGENCIES. RATHER THE TERRORISTS WHO CONFESSED BEFORE THE COURTS WERE SET FREE.
Syed Rajab Ali Zaidi Superintendent of Police (SP) was
killed along with his son Muazam
28, on 21 Dec 2003 on D.I.K-Darya Khan
road as he was coming back to his home.
So far Police has failed to unearth the
culprits involved in the heinous killing
of SP and his son.
Inspector Ghulam Qanbar of Special Branch
was killed on 13 Sep 2001 in D.I.K. He was
targeted because he captured a deadly
dangerous terrorist Murtaza Mawia with 5
lack money on his head a few months
before his martyerdom.
Advocate Khursheed Anwar – Centeral General Secretary Tehreek-e-Jafria Pakistan was martyred on 28 Sep 1999 along with his daughter Umme Lila 18 and guard Hassan on New Chongi D.I.K. He was the General Secretary of Tahreek-e-Jafria Pakistan. The accused were set free as a result of patch up between the family of advocate and the terrorists.
Umme Lila 18, daughter of Advocate Khursheed Anwar embraced martyrdom along with his father as she was mourning his father’s death. The terrorist turned back and killed her. She was a brilliant student studying in F.Sc.
Advocate Syed Afeef Abbas Shah was killed on 30 Dec 2004 in District Bar D.i.K at about 1:30 PM. He was targeted as he contesting the case of 5 innocent people who became the victim of the terrorists in 1999 while they were sleeping. The murderers could not be apprehended by the law enforcing agencies.
Syed Bashir Husssain Kazmi – a retired Tehsildar was martyred on 25 May 2008 along with his brother Kifayat Hussain and two young nephews. The terrorist also killed a policeman at the spot as he tried to capture them. The other Youngman of the same family named Mazhar Abbas was martyred earlier in the this month (May 2008). Doctor Abdul Ali Bangash – a famous Sargon Doctor was assassinated in 1998 in District Headquarter hospital D.I.K in the light of a bright day while he was on his duty. The murderer on foot ran away from the scene with out any problem and police once again failed to trace the perpetrators and the master minds of this heinous crime.
Doctor Ghulam Shabir an MBBS doctor was killed in his clinic on 2 Feb 2000. The culprits once again could not be brought to the justice by those who were responsible to bring them to the justice to create an example, so that nobody else could dare to kill the precious people of Pakistan.
Allama Kazim Aseer Jarvi who belonged to village Jara D.I.K was killed along with his son on 28 March 92 while he was coming back to his home from Lahore. His young son Amar 14 who witnessed the killing of his father and brother later died of this psychological shock.
Allama Allaha Nawaz Murtazvi was killed in February 1994 while he was coming from D.I.K to his village Haji mora to lead a Jumma prayerSyed Hassan Ali Kazmi a renowned Shia leader and Politician was killed on 7June 2001 in Mohallah Eisab Zai D.I.K. He contested the 1988 election and secured 20,000 votes. He is known as an icon of Shia-Sunni unity since he tried all his life for sectarian harmony.Liaqat Ali Imrani a well known social activist and local Journalist was killed in 2006.
Maqbool Hussain a senior journalist (as quoted by BBC) was killed in D.I.K in October 2006
Fayyaz Hussain of Pakistan Army (DSG) became the victim of terrorists along with other 4 persons in Sardary Wala.
Hawaldar Abdur Rasheed (Retd) was one of the victims of this incident in which terrorists opened fire on armless people.
Iftikhar Hussain of Pak Army (DSG) was also amongst the 5 victims along with Sami 13 and a young child Arif hussain who was 8 years old.
Hassan Ali an employee in Police was killed on 28 Sep 1999 while he was on his duty as a guard with Advocate Khursheed Anwar. He was 28.
Qamar Abbas an other Police employee was killed while he was on his duty in a procession of SSP on Eid Milad. He was killed as his name ‘Abbs’ was prominent on his name plate.
Hawaldar Rabnawaz (Police) from Ahle Sunnet sect embraced martyrdom when he tried to capture the terrorist who were fleeing after killing Inspector Qambar on 13 Sep 2001.
Professor Nizakat Ali Imrani
Professor Nizakat Imrani 44, was the Chairman of Commerce & Business Depart of Gomal University who became the victim of barbaric terrorists on 23 Dec 2006 as he was coming back to home after attending the Annual Convocation of the University. He was ranked amongst the most brilliant Professors of Gomal University.
A few months earlier his elder brother Liaqat Imrani- a well known social activist and local journalist, was killed.
On 25 May 2008, 5 innocent Shia belonging to same family and a policeman were killed in the light of a bright day.
FUTURE THREAT
The cause of Shia sufferings in D.I.Khan is Talibanization. The Talibans and other militants trained from Afghanistan belonging to D.I.K and tribal area have ran away from Afghanistan and Tribal area to D.I.Khan & have succeeded to make it a stronghold for themselves. They are not only targeting Shias but also carrying bomb blasts in Video center, Cinemas and Govt: Officials. The recent history of D.I.K has quiet clearly shown it. More prominent innocent Shia personalities are the ‘would be target’ of the sectarian militants
The present activities of the terrorists and the growing influence of Talibanization in the vicinity of this sensitive District poses a great threat to the innocent citizens of Pakistan, especially to Shias.
Conclusion
The present radical trend in a sensitive District like D.I.Khan is a great threat to enlightened, moderate and progressive forces in the country. In the context of D.I.Khan following measures should be taken.
Provincial government should be instructed to use iron hand against the terrorists to insure that the innocent people’s slaughtered is stopped and their life and property is safeguarded.
A free and fair Commission should be constituted to investigate the elements perpetrating terrorism in D.I.Khan.
CONCLUSION CONT….
Community should get united and raise their voice against this brutality.
So come forward
Raise your voice against this cruelty and do what you can
Contribute in whatever way you can
Take action before the fire reaches your home.
President Ahmadinejad Interview Sept 08 with Democracy Now - Part 1 - English
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez,...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
President Ahmadinejad was interviewed recently in New York by Democracy Now
More...
Description:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
President Ahmadinejad was interviewed recently in New York by Democracy Now
President Ahmadinejad Interview Sept 08 with Democracy Now - Part 2 - English
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez,...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
More...
Description:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
President Ahmadinejad Interview Sept 08 with Democracy Now - Part 3 - English
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez,...
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
More...
Description:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the Threat of US Attack and International Criticism of Iran’s Human Rights Record
In part one of an interview with Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad talks about the threat of a US attack on Iran and responds to international criticism of Iran’s human rights record. We also get reaction from CUNY Professor Ervand Abrahamian, an Iran expert and author of several books on Iran.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad addressed the United Nations General Assembly this week, while the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA, is meeting in Vienna to discuss Iran’s alleged nuclear program. An IAEA report earlier this month criticized Iran for failing to fully respond to questions about its nuclear activities.
The European Union told the IAEA Wednesday that it believes Iran is moving closer to being able to arm a nuclear warhead. Iran could face a fourth set of Security Council sanctions over its nuclear activities, but this week Russia has refused to meet with the US on this issue.
The Iranian president refuted the IAEA’s charges in his speech to the General Assembly and accused the agency of succumbing to political pressure. He also welcomed talks with the United States if it cuts back threats to use military force against Iran.
AMY GOODMAN: As with every visit of the Iranian president to New York, some groups protested outside the United Nations. But this year, President Ahmadinejad also met with a large delegation of American peace activists concerned with the escalating possibility of war with Iran.
Well, yesterday, just before their meeting, Juan Gonzalez and I sat down with the Iranian president at his hotel, blocks from the UN, for a wide-ranging discussion about US-Iran relations, Iran’s nuclear program, threat of war with the US, the Israel-Palestine conflict, human rights in Iran and much more.
Today, part one of our interview with the Iranian president.
AMY GOODMAN: Welcome to Democracy Now!, President Ahmadinejad. You’ve come to the United States. What is your message to people in the United States and to the world community at the UN?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] In the name of God, the compassion of the Merciful, the president started by reciting verses from the Holy Quran in Arabic.
Hello. Hello to the people of America. The message from the nation and people of Iran is one of peace, tranquility and brotherhood. We believe that viable peace and security can happen when it is based on justice and piety and purity. Otherwise, no peace will occur.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Mr. President, you’re faced now in Iran with American soldiers in Iraq to your west, with American soldiers and NATO troops to your east in Afghanistan, and with Blackwater, the notorious military contractor, training the military in Azerbaijan, another neighbor of yours. What is the effect on your country of this enormous presence of American forces around Iran and the impact of these wars on your own population?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] It’s quite natural that when there are wars around your borders, it brings about negative repercussions for the entire region. These days, insecurity cannot be bordered; it just extends beyond boundaries. In the past two years, we had several cases of bomb explosions in southern towns in Iran carried out by people who were supervised by the occupying forces in our neighborhood. And in Afghanistan, following the presence of NATO troops, the production of illicit drugs has multiplied. It’s natural that it basically places pressure on Iran, including costly ones in order to fight the flow of illicit drugs.
We believe the people in the region are able to establish security themselves, on their own, so there is no need for foreigners and external forces, because these external forces have not helped the security of the region.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see them as a threat to you?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, it’s natural that when there is insecurity, it threatens everyone.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to turn for a moment to your domestic policies and law enforcement in your country. Human Rights Watch, which has often criticized the legal system in the United States, says that, under your presidency, there has been a great expansion in the scope and the number of individuals and activities persecuted by the government. They say that you’ve jailed teachers who are fighting for wages and better pensions, students and activists working for reform, and other labor leaders, like Mansour Ossanlou from the bus workers’ union. What is your response to these criticisms of your policies?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] I think that the human rights situation in Iran is relatively a good one, when compared to the United States and other countries. Of course, when we look at the ideals that are dear to us, we understand that we still need to do a lot, because we seek divine and religious ideals and revolutionary ones. But when we compare ourselves with some European countries and the United States, we feel we’re in a much better place.
A large part of the information that these groups receive come from criticisms coming from groups that oppose the government. If you look at it, we have elections in Iran every year. And the propaganda is always around, too. But they’re not always true. Groups accuse one another.
But within the region and compared to the United States, we have the smallest number of prisoners, because in Iran, in general, there is not so much inclination to imprison people. We’re actually looking at our existing laws right now to see how we can eliminate most prisons around the country. So, you can see that people in Iran like each other. They live coexistently and like the government, too. This news is more important to these groups, not so much for the Iranian people. You have to remember, we have over 70 million people in our country, and we have laws. Some people might violate it, and then, according to the law, the judiciary takes charge. And this happens everywhere. What really matters is that in the end there are the least amount of such violations of the law in Iran, the least number.
So, I think the interpretation of these events is a wrong one. The relationship between the people and the government in Iran is actually a very close one. And criticizing the government is absolutely free for all. That’s exactly why everyone says what they want. There’s really no restrictions. It doesn’t necessarily mean that everything you hear is always true. And the government doesn’t really respond to it, either. It’s just free.
JUAN GONZALEZ: Let me ask you in particular about the question of the execution of juveniles. My understanding is that Iran is one of only five or six nations in the world that still execute juveniles convicted of capital offenses and that you—by far, you execute the most. I think twenty-six of the last thirty-two juveniles executed in the world were executed in Iran. How is this a reflection of the—of a state guided by religious principles, to execute young people?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Firstly, nobody is executed under the age of eighteen in Iran. This is the first point. And then, please pay attention to the fact that the legal age in Iran is different from yours. It’s not eighteen and doesn’t have to be eighteen everywhere. So, it’s different in different countries. I’ll ask you, if a person who happens to be seventeen years old and nine months kills one of your relatives, will you just overlook that?
AMY GOODMAN: We’ll continue our interview with Iranian President Ahmadinejad after break.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our interview with the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
JUAN GONZALEZ: I’d like to ask you, recently the Bush administration agreed to provide Israel with many new bunker buster bombs that people speculate might be used against Iran. Your reaction to this decision by the Bush administration? And do you—and there have been numerous reports in the American press of the Bush administration seeking to finance a secret war against Iran right now.
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, we actually think that the US administration and some other governments have equipped the Zionist regime with the nuclear warhead for those bombs, too. So, what are we to tell the American administration, a government that seeks a solution to all problems through war? Their logic is one of war. In the past twenty years, Americans’ military expenditures have multiplied. So I think the problem should be resolved somewhere else, meaning the people of America themselves must decide about their future. Do they like new wars to be waged in their names that kill nations or have their money spent on warfare? So I think that’s where the problem can be addressed.
AMY GOODMAN: The investigative reporter Seymour Hersh said the Bush administration held a meeting in Vice President Cheney’s office to discuss ways to provoke a war with Iran. Hersh said it was considered possibly a meeting to stage an incident, that it would appear that Iranian boats had attacked US forces in the Straits of Hormuz. Do you have any evidence of this?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Well, you have to pay attention to find that a lot of this kind of stuff is published out there. There’s no need for us to react to it.
Of course, Mr. Bush is very interested to start a new war. But he confronts two big barriers. One is the incapability in terms of maneuverability and operationally. Iran is a very big country, a very powerful country, very much capable of defending itself. The second barrier is the United States itself. We think there are enough wise people in this country to prevent the unreasonable actions by the administration. Even among the military commanders here, there are many people with wisdom who will stop a new war. I think the beginning or the starting a new war will mark the beginning of the end of the United States of America. Many people can understand that.
But I also think that Mr. Bush’s administration is coming to an end. Mr. Bush still has one other chance to make up for the mistakes he did in the past. He has no time to add to those list of mistakes. He can only make up for them. And that’s a very good opportunity to have. So, I would advise him to take advantage of this opportunity, so that at least while you’re in power, you do a couple—few good acts, as well. It’s better than to end one’s work with a report card of failures and of abhorrent acts. We’re willing to help him in doing good. We’ll be very happy.
AMY GOODMAN: And your nuclear program?
PRESIDENT MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD: [translated] Our time seems to be over, but our nuclear program is peaceful. It’s very transparent for everyone to see.
Your media is a progressive one. Let me just say a sentence here.
I think that the time for the atomic bomb has reached an end. Don’t you feel that yourself? What will determine the future is culture, it’s the power of thought. Was the atomic bomb able to save the former Soviet Union from collapsing? Was it able to give victory to the Zionist regime of confronting the Palestinians? Was it able to resolve America’s or US problems in Iraq and Afghanistan? Naturally, its usage has come to an end.
It’s very wrong to spend people’s money building new atomic bombs. This money should be spent on creating welfare, prosperity, health, education, employment, and as aid that should be distributed among others’ countries, to destroy the reasons for war and for insecurity and terrorism. Rest assured, whoever who seeks to have atomic bombs more and more is just politically backward. And those who have these arsenals and are busy making new generations of those bombs are even more backward.
I think a disloyalty has occurred to the human community. Atomic energy power is a clean one. It’s a renewable one, and it is a positive [inaudible]. Up to this day, we’ve identified at least sixteen positive applications from it. We’re already aware that the extent to which we have used fossil fuels has imbalanced the climate of the world, brought about a lot of pollution, as well as a lot of diseases, as a result. So what’s wrong with all countries having peaceful nuclear power and enjoying the benefits of this energy? It’s actually a power that is constructively environmental. All those nuclear powers have come and said, well, having nuclear energy is the equivalent of having an atomic bomb pretty much—just a big lie.
AMY GOODMAN: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Tomorrow, part two of our conversation. But right now, we’re joined by Ervand Abrahamian. He’s an Iran expert, CUNY Distinguished Professor of History at Baruch College, City University of New York, author of a number of books, most recently, A History of Modern Iran.
Welcome to Democracy Now! Can you talk about both what the Iranian president said here and his overall trip? Was it a different message this year?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: No, it’s very much the same complacency, that, you know, everything’s fine. There may be some problems in Iran and in foreign relations, but overall, Iran is confident and is—basically the mantra of the administration in Iran is that no one in their right senses would think of attacking Iran. And I think the Iranian government’s whole policy is based on that. I wish I was as confident as Ahmadinejad is.
JUAN GONZALEZ: And his dismissing of the situation, the human rights situation, in Iran, basically ascribing any arrests to some lawbreakers? Your sense of what is the human rights situation right there?
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Well, I mean, he basically changed the question and talked about, you know, the probably two million prisoners in America, which is of course true, but it certainly changes the topic of the discussion.
Now, in Iran, you can be imprisoned for the talking of abolishing capital punishment. In fact, that’s considered blasphemy, and academics have been charged with capital offense for actually questioning capital punishment. So, he doesn’t really want to address those issues. And there have been major purges in the university recently, and of course the plight of the newspapers is very dramatic. I mean, mass newspapers have been closed down. Editors have been brought before courts, and so on. So, I would find that the human rights situation—I would agree with the Human Rights Watch, that things are bad.
But I would like to stress that human rights organizations in Iran don’t want that issue involved with the US-Iran relations, because every time the US steps in and tries to champion a question of human rights, I think that backfires in Iran, because most Iranians know the history of US involvement in Iran, and they feel it’s hypocrisy when the Bush administration talks about human rights. So they would like to distance themselves. And Shirin Ebadi, of course, the Nobel Peace Prize, has made it quite clear that she doesn’t want this championing by the United States of the human rights issue.
AMY GOODMAN: Big protest outside. The Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Israel Project, UJ Federation of New York, United Jewish Communities protested. They invited Hillary Clinton. She was going to speak. But they invited—then they invited Governor Palin, and so then Clinton pulled out, so they had had to disinvite Palin. And then you had the peace movement inside, meeting with Ahmadinejad.
ERVAND ABRAHAMIAN: Yes, I think—I mean, the demonstrations outside are basically pushing for some sort of air strikes on the premise that Iran is an imminent threat and trying to build up that sort of pressure on the administration. And clearly, I think the Obama administration would not want to do that, but they would probably have a fair good hearing in the—if there was a McCain administration.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, we’re going to leave it there. Part two of our conversation tomorrow. We talk about the Israel-Palestine issue, we talk about the treatment of gay men and lesbians in Iran, and we talk about how the Iraq war has affected Iran with the Iranian president
69:10
|
Dennis Edney, courageous Canadian lawyer on Omar Khadr- English
Dennis Edney, the courageous Canadian lawyer who is representing Omar Khadr, made an impassioned plea to Muslims to realize their responsibility and bring an end to the injustices being inflicted...
Dennis Edney, the courageous Canadian lawyer who is representing Omar Khadr, made an impassioned plea to Muslims to realize their responsibility and bring an end to the injustices being inflicted on this Canadian youth. Omar, now 22 years old, was only 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan in a firefight on July 27, 2002 in the village of Faridkhel in eastern Afghanistan.
In his detailed explanation of Omar Khadr's case, Dennis Edney had the audience spell-bound as he took them step by step through the false allegations made against Omar. He also narrated in chilling detail of the torture to which Omar was subjected and he explained how much difficulty he had faced in trying to make Omar talk to him when he first visited him because he had been so traumatized after the torture he suffered. Omar finally opened up when, as Dennis Edney explained, he showed him the photo of his young son who was then about 9 years old. The son was dressed in hockey clothes and Omar took the
photograph in his hand and played with it for a while, clearly identifying with the youth.
Edney said he realized at that time that although Omar had grown old physically, his mental age was still frozen at 15 because he was so traumatized.
He also narrated the legal challenges he (Edney) faced in trying to convince the courts in Canada, the Canadian government and others including Muslims that great wrongs are being done to Omar and that unless Muslims stand up to defend his rights, they would also suffer as a consequence.
Dennis Edney was very emphatic that Muslims in Canada and indeed in the West in
general had done nothing wrong. They are being victimized because of the brutal policies pursued by George Bush and his phoney war on terror. They need scapegoats and since Muslims are weak, they are therefore, being exploited and humiliated.
He explained that the Military Tribunals in Guantanamo Bay were a sham and designed specifically to convict all those brought before it. These tribunals were not designed to evaluate the evidence because whenever what the US government said did not fit the conviction, it simply changed the evidence.
Edney also pointed out that the designation of any individual as an "enemy combatant" was meant to deprive that person of the rights granted under the Geneva Conventions. These, he said, were meant to protect prisoners of war. They cannot be charged in a military court or anywhere else. In war, people from each side fight and kill or get killed. These are the rules of warfare. The US cannot unilaterally change these rules.
Dennis Edney was very clear that Omar's case was a political case and that Muslims and others had to become much more active in contacting their elected officials, writing to them constantly to intervene in the case.
He said that the Canadian government was so tightly aligned ideologically with the necons in Washington that it was prepared to sacrifice the rights of its own citizens. He said that Omar is the only Western citizen still in Guantanamo Bay. He also made another point: that Guantanamo Bay is meant for Muslims only. If a white American commits a
crime, he is tried in an American court of law, not sent to Guantanamo Bay.
At times, he appeared quite emotional about what injustice had been inflicted on Omar and urged everyone present to not go home and forget about it.
When he finished he received a standing ovation. People were visibly moved by his presentation and many of them surrounded him after ward to talk to him and asked questions.
He certainly had a big impact on the audience and moved them to become much more active.
More...
Description:
Dennis Edney, the courageous Canadian lawyer who is representing Omar Khadr, made an impassioned plea to Muslims to realize their responsibility and bring an end to the injustices being inflicted on this Canadian youth. Omar, now 22 years old, was only 15 when he was captured in Afghanistan in a firefight on July 27, 2002 in the village of Faridkhel in eastern Afghanistan.
In his detailed explanation of Omar Khadr's case, Dennis Edney had the audience spell-bound as he took them step by step through the false allegations made against Omar. He also narrated in chilling detail of the torture to which Omar was subjected and he explained how much difficulty he had faced in trying to make Omar talk to him when he first visited him because he had been so traumatized after the torture he suffered. Omar finally opened up when, as Dennis Edney explained, he showed him the photo of his young son who was then about 9 years old. The son was dressed in hockey clothes and Omar took the
photograph in his hand and played with it for a while, clearly identifying with the youth.
Edney said he realized at that time that although Omar had grown old physically, his mental age was still frozen at 15 because he was so traumatized.
He also narrated the legal challenges he (Edney) faced in trying to convince the courts in Canada, the Canadian government and others including Muslims that great wrongs are being done to Omar and that unless Muslims stand up to defend his rights, they would also suffer as a consequence.
Dennis Edney was very emphatic that Muslims in Canada and indeed in the West in
general had done nothing wrong. They are being victimized because of the brutal policies pursued by George Bush and his phoney war on terror. They need scapegoats and since Muslims are weak, they are therefore, being exploited and humiliated.
He explained that the Military Tribunals in Guantanamo Bay were a sham and designed specifically to convict all those brought before it. These tribunals were not designed to evaluate the evidence because whenever what the US government said did not fit the conviction, it simply changed the evidence.
Edney also pointed out that the designation of any individual as an "enemy combatant" was meant to deprive that person of the rights granted under the Geneva Conventions. These, he said, were meant to protect prisoners of war. They cannot be charged in a military court or anywhere else. In war, people from each side fight and kill or get killed. These are the rules of warfare. The US cannot unilaterally change these rules.
Dennis Edney was very clear that Omar's case was a political case and that Muslims and others had to become much more active in contacting their elected officials, writing to them constantly to intervene in the case.
He said that the Canadian government was so tightly aligned ideologically with the necons in Washington that it was prepared to sacrifice the rights of its own citizens. He said that Omar is the only Western citizen still in Guantanamo Bay. He also made another point: that Guantanamo Bay is meant for Muslims only. If a white American commits a
crime, he is tried in an American court of law, not sent to Guantanamo Bay.
At times, he appeared quite emotional about what injustice had been inflicted on Omar and urged everyone present to not go home and forget about it.
When he finished he received a standing ovation. People were visibly moved by his presentation and many of them surrounded him after ward to talk to him and asked questions.
He certainly had a big impact on the audience and moved them to become much more active.
4:18
|
US Court Convicts Dr. Afia Siddiquie of Pakistan - 04Feb10 - English
Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui has been found guilty of trying to kill US military personnel and FBI agents in Afghanistan two years ago.
Siddiqui has vehemently denied all charges...
Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui has been found guilty of trying to kill US military personnel and FBI agents in Afghanistan two years ago.
Siddiqui has vehemently denied all charges against her during the trial, calling them 'ridiculous' and insisting that she was framed, jailed and tortured by US agents in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Siddiqui was accused of grabbing a US warrant officer's M-4 rifle in a police station in Ghazni province in 2008 and firing two shots at FBI agents and military personnel while being interrogated for her alleged possession of documents detailing a 'terrorist' plan.
In March 2003, Siddiqui vanished in Karachi, Pakistan with her three children. It was reported in local newspapers that she had been taken into custody on terrorism charges.
Many political activists believe she was Prisoner 650 of the notorious US detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan, where they say she was tortured for five years until the US authorities claimed in an announcement that they had found her in Afghanistan.
Recorded February 04, 2010 at 0800GMT
More...
Description:
Pakistani neuroscientist Aafia Siddiqui has been found guilty of trying to kill US military personnel and FBI agents in Afghanistan two years ago.
Siddiqui has vehemently denied all charges against her during the trial, calling them 'ridiculous' and insisting that she was framed, jailed and tortured by US agents in Pakistan and Afghanistan.
Siddiqui was accused of grabbing a US warrant officer's M-4 rifle in a police station in Ghazni province in 2008 and firing two shots at FBI agents and military personnel while being interrogated for her alleged possession of documents detailing a 'terrorist' plan.
In March 2003, Siddiqui vanished in Karachi, Pakistan with her three children. It was reported in local newspapers that she had been taken into custody on terrorism charges.
Many political activists believe she was Prisoner 650 of the notorious US detention facility in Bagram, Afghanistan, where they say she was tortured for five years until the US authorities claimed in an announcement that they had found her in Afghanistan.
Recorded February 04, 2010 at 0800GMT
3:01
|
British Gaza Protestors Get Heavy Prison Sentences - Detailed Report - English
Detailed report on the heavy prison sentences handed down to a number of the protesters against the Gaza War by British courts. The protesters were demonstrating outside the Israeli Embassy in...
Detailed report on the heavy prison sentences handed down to a number of the protesters against the Gaza War by British courts. The protesters were demonstrating outside the Israeli Embassy in January 2009 against the Israeli Onslaught on Gaza, they were implicated in minor scuffles with police which has now led to their incarceration. Recorded February 13, 2010 at 1030GMT
More...
Description:
Detailed report on the heavy prison sentences handed down to a number of the protesters against the Gaza War by British courts. The protesters were demonstrating outside the Israeli Embassy in January 2009 against the Israeli Onslaught on Gaza, they were implicated in minor scuffles with police which has now led to their incarceration. Recorded February 13, 2010 at 1030GMT
6:08
|
2:54
|
[EUROPEAN AWAKENING] Occupy London protesters take over Swiss bank building - 18 Nov 2011 - English
It started last month with one encampment outside Saint Paul's Cathedral. Next came the expansion to Finsbury Square, a smaller but similarly active protest camp.
Now, Occupy London have...
It started last month with one encampment outside Saint Paul's Cathedral. Next came the expansion to Finsbury Square, a smaller but similarly active protest camp.
Now, Occupy London have unveiled their latest base, and this time they mean business.
At four storeys high and taking up almost half a street, this is the third of the Occupy London movement's locations, coming complete with a fully functional conference room and a five hundred seat auditorium. More significantly, this building is owned by the Swiss bank UBS, who themselves are no strangers to controversy.
In two thousand and seven, they were accused of heavily profiting from a controversial mortgage scheme in which thousands of British pensioners lost a total of around one billion pounds. They bought the troubled mortgages from another bank. At the time they said that it was an “entirely usual” transaction.
It was bailed out by the Swiss government just one year later. This building is one of its assets, and it's worth over fifty four million pounds.
Occupy London want to hold educational workshops and community events here. They've named their new space “The bank of ideas”, this concept was explained to us by one occupier.
After weeks of being told that their protest was going nowhere, those within the Occupy movement are seeing this as proof that they aren't giving up any time soon. They plan on hosting a conference of worldwide occupy movements inside.
Officially the building is now a 'legal squat', meaning that police are powerless to remove the activists from the building without first consulting the courts.
The City of London has already started legal action against the Saint Pauls cathedral protest camp. Although this is a private building and in a different part of London, its owners are likely to start taking steps to launch their own case against the protesters.
UBS bank today said that they were taking “appropriate action”. In the meantime, Occupy London is likely to squeeze as many events as it can into their limited occupancy time to take full advantage of their new found space.
More...
Description:
It started last month with one encampment outside Saint Paul's Cathedral. Next came the expansion to Finsbury Square, a smaller but similarly active protest camp.
Now, Occupy London have unveiled their latest base, and this time they mean business.
At four storeys high and taking up almost half a street, this is the third of the Occupy London movement's locations, coming complete with a fully functional conference room and a five hundred seat auditorium. More significantly, this building is owned by the Swiss bank UBS, who themselves are no strangers to controversy.
In two thousand and seven, they were accused of heavily profiting from a controversial mortgage scheme in which thousands of British pensioners lost a total of around one billion pounds. They bought the troubled mortgages from another bank. At the time they said that it was an “entirely usual” transaction.
It was bailed out by the Swiss government just one year later. This building is one of its assets, and it's worth over fifty four million pounds.
Occupy London want to hold educational workshops and community events here. They've named their new space “The bank of ideas”, this concept was explained to us by one occupier.
After weeks of being told that their protest was going nowhere, those within the Occupy movement are seeing this as proof that they aren't giving up any time soon. They plan on hosting a conference of worldwide occupy movements inside.
Officially the building is now a 'legal squat', meaning that police are powerless to remove the activists from the building without first consulting the courts.
The City of London has already started legal action against the Saint Pauls cathedral protest camp. Although this is a private building and in a different part of London, its owners are likely to start taking steps to launch their own case against the protesters.
UBS bank today said that they were taking “appropriate action”. In the meantime, Occupy London is likely to squeeze as many events as it can into their limited occupancy time to take full advantage of their new found space.
44:55
|
1:26
|
BLAIR is a WAR CRIMINAL! Video of man yelling at Leveson Inquiry - English
A protester burst in on former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as he testified at a UK inquiry into media ethics at London's Royal Courts of Justice on Monday. The protester gained entrance to...
A protester burst in on former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as he testified at a UK inquiry into media ethics at London's Royal Courts of Justice on Monday. The protester gained entrance to the court through a secure corridor and shouted "This man should be arrested for war crimes!" before being removed by security. Blair addressed the man's accusations before continuing his testimony to Lord Justice Brian Leveson's inquiry.
More...
Description:
A protester burst in on former British Prime Minister Tony Blair as he testified at a UK inquiry into media ethics at London's Royal Courts of Justice on Monday. The protester gained entrance to the court through a secure corridor and shouted "This man should be arrested for war crimes!" before being removed by security. Blair addressed the man's accusations before continuing his testimony to Lord Justice Brian Leveson's inquiry.
2:20
|
23 July 2011 - Day of Martyrdom, Shaheed Advocate Mukhtar Abbas Bukhari - Urdu
First anniversary of martyrdom of Mukhtar Abbas Bukhari son of Nazar Hasnain Bukhari, 58, is being observed today.
He was martyred in Karachi on July 23, 2011. His targeted murder was a...
First anniversary of martyrdom of Mukhtar Abbas Bukhari son of Nazar Hasnain Bukhari, 58, is being observed today.
He was martyred in Karachi on July 23, 2011. His targeted murder was a punishment for his legal services because he defended the oppressed Shia Muslims who were denied justice. He was targeted after he left his office near City Courts premises for his house. He left behind a widow and 5 children.
He was backbone of legal defence of innocent Shias who were implicated in false cases but he was not provided enough security. He was an institution in himself. He alone stood like an iron wall against the enemies of justice. He left no wealth behind that proved that he had sacrificed everything for the cause of justice.
Shia Muslims miss him. His family misses him.
More...
Description:
First anniversary of martyrdom of Mukhtar Abbas Bukhari son of Nazar Hasnain Bukhari, 58, is being observed today.
He was martyred in Karachi on July 23, 2011. His targeted murder was a punishment for his legal services because he defended the oppressed Shia Muslims who were denied justice. He was targeted after he left his office near City Courts premises for his house. He left behind a widow and 5 children.
He was backbone of legal defence of innocent Shias who were implicated in false cases but he was not provided enough security. He was an institution in himself. He alone stood like an iron wall against the enemies of justice. He left no wealth behind that proved that he had sacrificed everything for the cause of justice.
Shia Muslims miss him. His family misses him.