Countdown to CreepyFloyd intervention, decrying western media and our own ignorant misperceptions of the forward-thinking country of Iran, t-minus 5...4...3....
yeah, i just heard this on msnbc, pretty disturbing. labelling a group of people in that way is just the beginning...
Mendacity! Iran report of Holocaust-style badges questioned 2006-05-19 12:01:29 The National Post is sending shockwaves across the country this morning with a report that Iran's Parliament has passed a law requiring mandatory Holocaust style badges to identify Jews and Christians. But independent reporter Meir Javedanfar, an Israeli Middle East expert who was born and raised in Tehran, says the report is false. "It's absolutely factually incorrect," he told The New 940 Montreal. "Nowhere in the law is there any talk of Jews and Christians having to wear different colours. I've checked it with sources both inside Iran and outside." "The Iranian people would never stand for it. The Iranian government wouldn't be stupid enough to do it." Political commentator and 940 Montreal host Beryl Waysman says the report is true, that the law was passed two years ago. "Jews should wear yellow strips, Christians red strips, because according to the Iranian mullahs, if a Mulsim shakes hands with a non-Muslim he becomes unclean." The National Post cites Iranian expatriots living in Canada as its primary source on the story.
What, they aren't sure if there is such a law or not? Doesn't this seem like the sort of thing there would be no confusion about?
theres quite a few left in india that are descendants of people that left iran somwhere around the 8th century to avoid religious persecution
From what I've seen it looks like something similar to the gay marriage proposal that came out of the Senate Committee the other day - its not a law yet but is something that's passed through the system. Most reports say it won't ever make it to a law although one report said it was passed two years ago. I don't think that is accurate from what I've seen.
The resolution was passed, but I don't believe it went to a conference with the House (I guess that particular amount of ***-bashing was enough to generate the necessary popular support) so that a joint version could be passed for the president to sign so it can't go to the states for ratification.
I can't believe you guys started an entire thread based on speculation made by some rejectionist Iranian ex-patriates living in Canada. Now on a side note, since Iran is surrounded by US military forces who have threatened to attack it with nuclear weapons even, I can definitely see the Iranian government clamping down on its citizens in the name of national security. I don't think a rational person can argue that Iran's national security isn't threatened. Historically, when states face serious national security crises or perceive the situation as such, they take drastic actions. The US during WWII didn't really face a threat here in America, but it still threw Japanese and Japanese-Americans in concentration camps. Imagine what would happen here if hostile military forces had America surrounded or even if another terrorist attack would happen. This is the nature of the state, when people challenge its legitimacy (and the Iranian state is legitimate despite what some of you may think), the state reponds with strong measures. This is particularly important in Iran, because the people that have been using violence, terrorism, and threatening the state have usually been ethnic and religious minorities and fringe groups. Not to mention the countless violations of Iranian sovereignty by US military forces and the exiled terrorist organizations such as the MKO (based in Iraq), who are working for the US and conducting violence and terrorism inside Iran as well. Try looking at things from other people's perspectives.
First off, my bad for biting on this article which was sourced on Iranians in Canada, and making a smartass post to bait you. Secondly- I don't understand your point re: security. Are you saying that mandating markings on Christians and Jews within Iran is a move to improve national security? Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, because it seems kind of nuts. What would you say if the American govt proposed forcing all musilims in the country to wear an identifying mark, citing national security as justification? How would you feel about that?
What is this... a defense of something we are unsure ever happened? Why? I don't buy the reasons in your post. If you think anyone believes that what happened to Japanese-Americans here during WWII was anything less than a tragedy, you're crazy. Why use an instance of paranoia, thoroughly discredited for decades, as a defense for something you claim Iran didn't do? Keep D&D Civil.
I never said it was right, but this is how states react or overreact when their security is threatened or they feel like it's threatened. Since a legitimate state has a legal monopoly on violence within a given territory, it is in its inherent nature to harshly come down on those who challenge it or on those who are perceived to be challenging it, especially those who oppose it via violence. Thus, don't be suprised if Venezuela, Iran, or any country whose security is threatened takes harsh measures, emergency powers, and things of that sort in order to ensure the security of the state.
No problem at all...you get used to it after a while...hopefully my response to Deckard above will clarify the concerns you brought up. If not, please let me know and I will do my best to answer your questions.
This smells a little like a copout, CF. Yes, I agree that many states overreact to perceived threats. But what I want to know from you is, do you think it's okay? So far, in this thread, you seem to have no objection to the idea, the gist of your post is- 'hey, this is how states react.' There is no (as of yet) objection to the idea that Christians Jews be marked as such in Iran- your reaction seems so empathetic with the Iranian state- 'poor guys, they're being attacked so much, it's a shame.' Can the Iranian govt do anything that you would object to, or are you so firmly entrenched as a defender of Iran that you're not going to go there? Here in the USA, us liberals are very troubled by the measures taken by our administration in the name of security, there are a lot of us and we do make a stink about it. And are called unpatriotic America haters for it.
If it's true, it's absolutely deplorable and is a bad move on the part of the Iranian leadership (or whomever came up with this 'law'). Sadly, this seems to be the direction the country is heading in after Khatami left office...it's sad that that man was never given a fair chance, he was a good man.
