PM condemns Iran’s “brute force”
Prime Minister Harper is right to condemn Iran’s “brute force” as that country’s leadership attempts to stop the current protests against what many feel were rigged election results.
In fact, the repression and violence we are seeing via cellphone recordings and videos is both scary and tragic — such as the heartless shooting and murder of a beautiful young woman named Neda, now a martyr and the face of a new revolution.
I say new revolution because that is the irony of this current struggle because it looks exactly like the same type of brutality I remember during the lead up to the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution. For a reminder about that time in Iran’s history, read here and here as well.
The reality is, however, that oppression is the same, whether it is by the Revolutionary Guard in a theocracy or the Savak secret police in a monarchy that acts like a dictatorship. Only the criteria for maintaining control are different (religious versus secular). Yet, we must keep in mind that the people of Iran have an Islamic Republic because they wanted one. There was a referendum on April 1st, 1979 with one possible outcome — yes or no. And, the Iranian people decided “yes.”
Yet, for all those currently living in Iran under the age of thirty, who personally never experienced the earlier pre-republic repression, now have access to the Internet. They know, for example, how their lives differ from lives in other countries — even democratic Islamic countries like Turkey.
As the PM stated today, and was reported by the Toronto Star:
“‘The reaction of the Iranian authorities to the demonstrations in Iran is wholly unacceptable.’”
“‘The regime has chosen to use brute force and intimidation in responding to peaceful opposition regarding legitimate and serious allegations of electoral fraud.’”
“The human rights such as freedom of assembly and freedom of expression, [are] being ignored, citing the arrest of protesters and the crackdown on journalists.“
So, one cannot help but ask: How will this “brute force” by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard help the people of Iran? If the current religious and secular leaders think it will – and they obviously do given the current crackdown – what does it say about their regime?
In other words, has the present-day Iranian government and security forces become just like those they replaced? If not, is there any way a compromise can be put forward?
After all, from what I have read, the current Iranian opposition leader, Mirhossein Mousavi, would not have changed the way the country was governed in any significant way, particularly regarding Iran’s nuclear program. However, what he said he would do was open dialogue with other nations, including the U.S. Unfortunately, we are told by the Iranian leadership that Mr. Mousavi was not elected president.
Although few believe the election results — particularly given the discrepancies in the electoral map in this article – only time will tell where this revolution is going and how many other beautiful and innocent young people are going to lose their lives for the freedom we in the west take for granted.
Update (1) : I have added a new post here about how the government of Iran is trying to silence Neda’s family (not having a public funeral, etc.) because they fear her power as the face of the new revolution.
Update (2): Here is a Reuters source showing the brainwashing has begun and has the blame — outwards instead of inwards — it’s all the Western democracies who are at fault. And, students are being targetted because they have computers and radios.
Update (3): Another source about targeting Neda’s family.
One good thing I am noticing is that it is getting hard to keep track of updates. Which means the western media are finally getting the full story out.
Popularity: 71% [?]
Male, retired and the rest is of little interest to anyone. The site keeps me busy and if it helps others to stay abreast of daily events then my time is well spent.
Anna Keightley Says:
We can note the PM’s response on Iranian violence citing ‘brute force’ is the most clearly defined yet among the internationals. Consistency and exerted pressures in the message is important right now. Some reports have pointed to daughters of Iranian clerics getting very vocal in their condemnation of the regime’s policies — these are middle-agers joining the predominantly younger generation of Iranians. Amazingly, Ahmedinejad has apparently issued the statement that Iran is among the freest nations on earth. The reality of the situation says different. With this event, whose doubting humanity itself is at a clear crossroads? Iran’s feeling the international pressure — Canada’s among them.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
CotM Says:
Anna — We really are at a crossroad. I just put an updated post and showed it as (1) on this entry. As our media in Canada stay obsessed with getting the Liberals back in power — and how soon that can happen — a people a world away need our support. Jack is right. Now, the gov’t of Iran is trying to silence Neda’s family from a public funeral — as if with YouTube they can. Here is my link.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 12:27 pm
Cunctator Says:
Does anyone believe that the Iranian leadership gives a hoot what Harper says? Will his condemnation make a whit of difference? I think that the Harper-ites have to realise how very little weight he carries in world counsels, not as an individual, but as PM of Canada. We just aren’t very important. So, what is behind his condemnation? Its all oriented to domestic politics, as is ever the case with this guy. He hopes that by playing the “rights card” he will pick up a few supporters on the centre-left, as well as any Iranian expats who might otherwise vote Liberal.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
CotM Says:
Cunctator — I beg to differ with you. PM Harper has a much higher profile than every PM since Mulroney. You may not like that fact but he is very well respected by International leaders.
And, you would hope the PM said nothing to the Iranian ambassador instead. Then, you could trash him for not saying anything.
As most Conservatives know, our PM is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 1:07 pm
beentheredonethat Says:
Somebody has to lead Cunctator…if everybody just sits on their hands nothing gets said. PMSH is leading and the world will take note, and that includes both the Iranian leaders and the innocent oppressed Iranian people.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
beentheredonethat Says:
Now is not the time for the world, especially the free world, to remain quiet. Hiding under a rock hoping for the best but expecting the worst. PMSH leads while Obama…well, just continues being Obama and doing what he does best, voting present.
“Reagan didn’t play footsies with dictators. He knew human nature. He knew evil. He knew who was wrong. He knew the dictators were bad regardless of whether we were nice. Not condemning them wouldn’t make them behave better.”
http://no-libs.com/index.php?/2009062096943/poland-and-iran-reagan-and-obama.html
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
Anna Keightley Says:
Cunctator, the PM’s statement as Sandy reflected it was balanced, forthright and Canada’s voice IS heard around this globe. The U.S. media outlets a few months back PROBED Harper’s assessment of the worldwide economic downturn. He’s forthright and if it garners sensible people’s approval come vote time, so much the better.
the girl was a music/philosophy student with her music instructor there along with her father. Now, the development in Sandy’s link is that her burial is being quashed. The cruelty quotient is despicable. The sharpshooter targeted her centre chest which exploded like a turkey shoot. Pressure must be stepped up on this regime. Canada’s opinion and statements carry weight, especially from Stephen Harper, who sees straight and right and we, Canadians can speak up and will be heard. Iran’s mostly young people, like Neda, we can hear them AND respond. To do otherwise, reduces humanity overall. What part of ‘brute force’ don’t you understand, or any Canadian from whatever political spectrum? There’s consensus here, in other words.
We need to reread the yellow press article by Sandy and the recent one by the judge speaking to what journalistic integrity looks like. Right now, according to reports a host of journalists are being held captive by the Iranian regime, so domestic journalists, safe in their respective countries COULD USE THEIR FREEDOMS to give us the reports right and straight and without bias. We’ve been demanding the truth for a while now. Now is the time for the blessedly free ones to deliver and explain why they\re shilling for the Liberals. We can recall Ignatieff during the Heznollah/Israeli war in his stumbling statement to the effect, he wasn’t losing any sleep over it. How interested in citizens’ real happenings and dangers is that?? This is not about just saying for the votes. This is real time and real life tragedies — tragedies that need never exist in the first place.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 2:15 pm
Cunctator Says:
I am always amazed when people say that this PM is well-respected internationally. Can anyone point to evidence that shows this to be true? I think that you would be hard-pressed to find a single issue where Canadian policy, as defined by Harper’s government, defined the international agenda. One has influence as a reflection of power — we have very little power and therefore very little influence.
Also, in this particular instance, let’s be clear — Harper was not the first to condemn what is happening in Iran. French president Sarkozy took a hard-line position over a week ago. Now, compared with Obama, it is true that Harper was out in front. But that is not a man I would want to be compared with. Foreign policy for Harper is all about domestic politics — nothing else matters to him. He knows elections in Canada are never won or lost as a result of foreign policy, unless it is looking tough (real easy when no one abroad cares) and standing up to the US (and appealing to the Libs’ pot of Canadian nationalists).
Harper is no better or worse than Chretien or Turner or Trudeau or Mulroney: they are all examples of self-serving leaders who like to cloak self-interest in appeals to high-sounding phrases in the hope of gaining the support of the easily duped or unaware. Conservatives really need to use their critical faculties when listening to the guy. He is not the Messiah.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 4:37 pm
CotM Says:
Well Cunctator, you asked for a single piece of evidence. We can start with this International Human Right Awards.
As others have said as well, the U.S and foreign media love to have him on as a guest.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 4:55 pm
CotM Says:
Here is a google page with a few of said foreign interviews.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 4:57 pm
Sandy Says:
Cunctator — No one is saying Mr. Harper is the messiah. That is just silly. He is a politician who is governing this country. We respect him. That is all. No more and no less. And, if you take a close look at those google sources I gave you, you’ll note that the negative ones are courtesy of the Canadian mainstream media. Which explains why you and so many others have a negative view of our PM. In other words, you have to step outside of our borders to see how others look at his abilities.
But, one last point if I may: Let me remind you, this post is NOT about Mr. Harper. It is about Neda and the people of Iran — particularly the young. That is far more important than haggling over who said what about our PM.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Cynapse Says:
No, Sandy, it’s about exploiting international conflict for local gain. Those most vocal about the plight of the Iranian people are the same ones encouraging Israel to nuke them when they become a threat to the local hegemony. Similarly, when PM Harper barks his dismay you all clap like seals and when Obama does the same he’s “indecisive” for not instantly mounting a military coup.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Sandy Says:
Well, Cynapse, I can only speak for myself.
I have never said anything negative about Obama. In fact, I have written on CoTM about his goals for education which are laudable — assuming he can get the teachers’ unions to agree.
And, sorry, but I do care about the Iranian people. I went to university in the early to mid 1970’s with two Iranians, who eventually fought in the first revolution (on the side of the Islamic Revolution), even though they both came from affluent families. In any event, they became very close friends.
I don’t know what happened to them, but this situation is very real to me — because it is possible it is their grandchildren who are protesting.
And, I don’t think it is right to simply lump all conservatives as fanatics. But, then again, you are a self-described “cynic.”
Lucky for Jack, Joanne and I, you are not so inclined when it comes to managing our websites!
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 5:24 pm
Cynapse Says:
Well I will cop to drawing a line of best fit (implying it may not match you 100%. probably not even 90%). Most of the people in “this camp” couldn’t wait to nuke Iran before they figured out a way to exploit this internal conflict.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Cunctator Says:
I am not sure I understand — are you claiming that because Harper is asked for interviews by the foreign press he is an internationally respected figure, implying great influence? You have to be kidding. I am sure that I could google Ahmadinnejad and find a similar list of interested parties. The sign of international influence is when other countries adopt your positions as their own, or take your positions into account when deciding their own policies. I cannot think of any issue in which the Cdn position, as voiced by Harper, has changed the position of any other government’s policy.
Harper’s condemnation of the Iranian violence — about which I am largely unmoved — is purely self-serving. If he cared so much about human rights, he would not cozy up to the Chinese government whose record is about as bad as Iran’s. That’s the Iran, by the way, that your friends helped create by supporting a revolution that erected an Islamist/jihadist state. (Unlike other recolutions – e.g., Russia’s — the people actually asked for a Sharia-based society — astonishing. So, in that sense the violence is a consequence of that support for what is truly a barbaric regime.)
In any event, most of what Harper says about foreign policy is all about domestic political positioning. It’s pathetic, I agree, and quite embarrassing that a G8 country should be so politically immature that it cannot voice a grand strategy, but there you have it.
Posted on June 23rd, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Lee Says:
So tell me cunctator,-
What do you think about the repression of the demonstrators in Iran?
And by the way, you would do well to read some foreign press when our Prime Minister is away at a conference or some other function.
Canadian Press corps do not report on any of this unless they can find something negative.
Posted on June 24th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Brian S Says:
Is anti-conservative still the only policy position that the opposition can come up with? So tell us cunctator (unless you are still putting off having to make such a tough decision) who your choice for PM would have been? Who exactly is this beacon of light that you cast your vote for, and whose grand strategy would have undoubtedly rocketed Canada into a respected position of unmatched relevance on the world stage?
Posted on June 24th, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Jack#39;s Newswatch » Blog Archive » Sandy#39;s Update on Iran election … | Barack Obama News Says:
[...] Original post [...]
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 9:28 pm
Cunctator Says:
Interesting questions. I appear to have gored a sacred ox of the Harper-ites on this blog. We used to complain that only the Liberals and the NDP had such “dedicated” followers. Conservatives used to pride themselves on being a too sophisticated to be over-awed by a leader.
In any case, I don’t think Harper is any better than the previous Liberal PMs and certainly no better than Dion would have been. But, there is a key difference. Harper promised to be different. As soon as he got in, however, he showed he would not be. He allowed himself to be captured by the senior bureaucrats, most of whom are strongly pro-Liberal and want to keep things the way they have been for much of the past half-century. Harper allowed this to happen because he is more interested in retaining power than anything else. Lord Acton would seem to be correct.
We have serious national security problems to confront and sadly PMSH is not the man to deal with them. If you think I am wrong, what would you say to a PM who appoints as his National Security Advisor a woman with absolutely no experience in national security affairs? Well, Harper did just that only last year. What about a chief of Border Services with no background in policing, but by all accounts a very good accountant? Why are such individuals being elevated into such positions? The answers lie in the nature of the Canadian bureaucracy and the fact that PMSH doesn’t care about such matters. And so, foreign policy becomes hostage to his domestic political concerns — and that’s not a whole lot different from the Libs who used immigration policies to build core ethnic groups of supporters.
As to what is going on in Iran — well, its history unfolding. The regime is behaving in a bloody-minded way. That is hardly surprising – it is after all a hardline theocratic tyranny. The leading defeated candidate is also no Western moderate, but a hardline Islamist who helped establish the current jihadist regime. All I can think is that the more the violence continues in Tehran, and preoccupies the attention of the Iranian regime, the less time it has to advance its malevolent goals abroad. But, at the same time, I am not sure that I want the demonstrators to win either. Perhaps we could somehow support both sides against each other.
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Brian S Says:
No, the answers lie in the fact that PM Harper only has a minority in Parliament, while the Liberals still have a stranglehold on the Senate, and since the Liberal bureaucracy sabotaged Mulroney at every turn, Harper has little choice but to put up with them until such time as the Conservatives are ever in a position of some strength.
As for international affairs, for as long as the UN exists in its present form its bureaucrats will continue to suck all of the oxygen out from the world stage. Why hasn’t the UN ever insisted on open, transparent and monitored elections for Iran, or for any member nation for that matter? The UN has no problem at all providing a soapbox for Iran’s mad mullahs to air their grievances through their evil sock puppet Ahmadinnerjacket, but the UN has never held any such place at the table for anyone as insignificant to its backroom dealings as the Iranian people. Iran believes that it needs a nuclear weapon to become a player on the world stage, but Canada has chosen not to arm itself in such a way despite having had the components and technology for almost as long as the US has, and therefore if we have remained irrelevant it is largely by choice.
Posted on June 25th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
Cunctator Says:
Brian, I think the minority government argument is an excuse, not an explanation. It bespeaks an absence of concern – a ‘who the hell cares” attitude toward foreign policy. He did not need to agree to the appointments, but he did, and he could have taken very different approaches to the bureacracy, but he has decided to embrace it. To act differently might, in PMSH’s mind, have led to bad press and a drop in the polls. Everything for this PM is about domestic politics, and the national interest is, at best, a secondary concern.
As to the UN, it is not the problem. It is not the UN that is stifling the development of a more mature discourse on international affairs here in Canada. It is our own leadership. Again, Harper promised a very different approach in the run-up to the last election. Sadly, as on so many issues, Harper’s record is one of wasted promise. Only in Canada, where we have long suffered from a poverty of leadership, would such a PM be regarded as a real leader.
Posted on June 26th, 2009 at 7:10 am
Sandy Says:
Cunctator – I have not responded to any of your recent comments because you don’t listen. What Brian S. said is right on. You have your own agenda and that is anti-conservative, anti-Harper and no matter what we would say you would have an opposite response. And, our responses have nothing to do with being conservative supporters. I have read Brian S.’s comments when he has been very critical of some policy or other. Neither he nor I are rah, rah uncritical partisans.
No, the differences here are of ideology, on all sides. Parallel thinking. When I taught sociology in university, I used to give my students an issue and ask them to argue from the point of view of the three main paradigms. They were always amazed at how different the points of view are. Liberals like to think they don’t have an ideology, a specific world view, but obviously they do.
But, anyone who would say the fact that this current government being minority makes no difference, is completely wrong no matter what the partisan position taken.
So, it’s unfortunately time for me to turn the comments off on this post because, as I said previously, you are using this post to trash Mr. Harper instead of what this post is all about — the situation in Iran. It is a shame you chose to change the channel given such a dire situation.
In fact, when commenters do that deliberately, they are usually called trolls. I won’t go that far, but something is fishy that is for sure.
Posted on June 26th, 2009 at 8:16 am