France, Germany bar turbans, if USA & UK follow suit...

[Shasterkovich]

What is green?? Is it some sort of party?

If yes,

Please provide more information about them

For me it's a green day everyday thing (seriously - no kidding). I throw my support enthusiastically behind this party (a la Lalleshvari), if SikhAwareness members are interested. Awaiting your PM.

[Guest]

Can we get green party home page?? (website)

Perhaps we can sent them spirtual support and fiancial support on behalf of sikhwareness team

[Guest Javanmard]

akaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaal

[Shasterkovich]

HE HEYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY SHASTERKOVICH, WUHOOOOO

Your the first ever Singh I've met who also votes Green, fantastic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I hope you weren't being sarcastic.

Are you a deep ecology fan too by any chance?

One question. How does the Oedipus Complex tie in with Blair and Bush' salient islamophobia? I would have thought psychodynamics would let them off too easily. You credit them with too much my friend, both are evidently still in the anal stage!

JTSingh, I believe sincerely that the Green Party is the only political party that is capable of doing some good right now.

Bush and Blair's islamophobia is a deep-seated throwback to the days of the Crusades, and the pact with Napoleon as the Knights of Malta were expelled from Malta. Without a doubt, the real force behind the scenes is the Catholic Church, which has presented us with a drama of shadows to keep us amused, as a sort of smoke cloud to obscure their real intentions. Their real intentions are simply to "unite" the world UNDER them. No safeguards. No balance.

There is no Islamophobia on the part of the people at the controls. Islam simply has to be defeated in order to impose Western values and WESTERN RULE in the Arab world.

[Shasterkovich]

http://www.greenparty.org.uk/

A reassuring pool of sanity.

Something to discuss over some tea...??

[tSingh]

The spiritual side of the Green movement is referred to as Deep Ecology, which is built around discovering our 'ecological self' and had the support of people like the jain monk, Satish Kumar, the famous Fritjof Capra, and took inspiration from the likes of Schumacher.

For reading material get hold of;

Renaissance magazine

E.F. Schumacher 'Small is Beautiful'

Bill Devall 'Simple in means, rich in ends'

Alan Watts 'Nature, man and woman'

The last one is a tentative link but still worth a read

People concerned with mahasewa of jul thal, not just the dishes in the langar hall (no offence intended)

[Jamuka]

Jamuka, I'm sorry I won't comment on Dr Kelly. The Islamofascist label you have applied to Bush-Blair's enemies is not appropriate. Bush and Blair have simply gone on the offensive against the Islamic world, with the object of world dominion at the forefront of their minds.

How can Bush and Blair 'dominate' the world when they do not dominate their home countries? Your ability to protest and make a difference in the upcoming elections is proof of that, no? Do you think a citizen in Saudi Arabia have the same freedom that you have? As for the label 'Islamofascists', it is not a mere label it is the truth.

They will not stop at Afghanistan and Iraq. They will put pressure on Iran to "submit", and if Iran refuses it will be bombed into oblivion and McDonald's put in its place. Then they will go for Pakistan, then India, etc.

Do you honestly believe Iran is a responsible nation fit to be armed with nuclear capabilities? Do you realise that Iran is not a democracy and you've got a bunch of crazed Mullahs running it. I have no doubt in my mind that if they were armed with Nuclear warheads, they would first level Jerusalem. This will be then followed by attacks on the rest of the world until they are able to spread their ugly cult to every nook and corner of this world.

You've stated that I will be "amazed" at how popular Blair is with Asians outside the UK. Which Asians? The Pathans? Iraqis (OK, you may say Middle East but their genes are close enough)? Pakistanis? Chinese?

I was referring to Non Muslims in countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan....I did not conduct a poll but to the ones I have met, they believe Islamosation of the world is an imminent threat.

If you're referring to the sickly false pretense at obsequiousness that Blair spews out for Vajpayee and extremist Hindu cronies, think carefully about that. The only way that the BJP can stick to power is to provoke and inflame anti-Muslim sentiment all over the world.

And isn't that a good thing?

Blair realises this, and so he guarantees his support in any measure India takes against domestic separatists (i.e. Kashmir, Assam, Punjab, etc). Go to fco.gov.uk and find how Vajpayee's "perfect Hindi" is "much admired" by his "counterpart" Blair, and how there is "mutual admiration" between the 2 men. The reference to "perfect Hindi" is not accidental.

I don't know much about Indian politics but I know this, the Indian Union needs to be dismantled.

You mention the BBC. Go to news.bbc.co.uk and look at their report about Bush's speech yesterday about Israel-Palestine. Now get a transcript of the speech. You will see that the BBC is FIERCELY pro-Blair when it comes to the propaganda war against Islam. This is because in the UK we do not have democracy, and the BBC is a tax-collecting government agency promoting a government agenda within strict limits.

Maybe now it's changing it's 'tune' but during the war, they were definitely biased. The scandal involving David Kelly is proof of that. Why do you think the Beeb is undergoing change of management and it's charter is being reviewed? Check out www.bbcbias.org and www.bbcwatch.com. This is evidence that the Beeb is biased.There is a campaign being waged against this news channel and since you mention Israel, the Beeb is banned there. Their constant refusal to use the word 'terrorist' and blatant biased coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian issue is the cause of it.

The so-called "war on terror" is a war against Islam, led by Christianofascists.

If Islam falls and the Arab governments are replaced by the Bush-Blair alliance with puppet regimes controlled from Washington, what is now the war on Islam will become the war on all Eastern religions.

You don't think this cult is a threat to humanity? Switch on the tv and all you hear are how members of this cult are creating problems all over the world. You don't think it's more then a coincidence that the problems in China's Sinjiang province, Russias Chechnya, Indias Kasmir, the MILF in the Phillipines, Church bombings in Indonesia by the JI,bombings in Southern Thailand....all caused by members of this cult in the name of their cult? Do you want me to quote you verses from the Quran?

Why? Eastern religions underpin the Eastern character of Eastern countries. Destroy the Eastern character and replace with McDonald's (langar of the slobbery mensch) and Coke (suitable only for removing limescale from your kitchen sink), and you can replace their culture and value system with your own.

I'd rather have Coke and McDonalds rather then a cult being shoved down my throat. FYI, many Muslim nations have outrightly banned coke and McDonalds in their countries. At least you have the choice to either frequent McDonalds. This is not the case in the Muslim world.

Then replace their Constitution with one patterned after the Western world - a lot of very lofty but totally ignored "human" or civil rights. Install "democracy" (forbidding undesirables such as Islamists from taking part). Prepare for New World Order. Making you King of the Whole Wide World!!! Won't Mummy be proud?

What 'constitution' do you speak of? Show me one Muslim country that is a democracy. Even Malaysia and Indonesia that purpots to be a democracy are pseudo democracies at the most. FYI women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, every friday there is public beheading and stoning sessions conducted by the goverment. Under Saddams rule in Iraq, dissidends were fed alive to plastic shredding machines, millions of Kurds were gassed and ditto for the Shiite Iraqis. Saddams nickname 'Butcher of Baghdad' was not given in vain mind you. What 'human rights' do you speak of?

No... Mother Earth will reject the New World Order, because when variation proliferates, Darwinian selection ensures that only the most suitable system is allowed to survive into the future. Hence, as with all Empires, this new one will crumble and be replaced with comparative chaos. The Oedipus Complex prevents Bush and Blair from understanding this.

Mother Earth will prevail to the truth and right now, western secular rule is proven without a shadow of a doubt the best form of governance there is on this planet.

I do not have anything but criticism for Bush and Blair, who wish to enslave the entire world, and to put themselves at the head of a brutal and inhumane empire, "for the greater good".

'Enslave', 'Brutal', 'inhuman epire'...excuse me, are we talking about Bush and Blair or Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden? You don't think freeing millions under a cruel tyrants rule as good thing?

I damn all things done for my protection. I have God for my protection and that's enough for me. I don't want Blair to use the excuse that he is protecting me as he maims and kills tens of thousands of people all over the world. I want them to live as I do: in peace, with enough food to eat and with their basic needs met.

I'm sorry Shasterkovich, but you don't speak for me and the rest of the world who are very aware of Muslim ambition of world dominition. For those of us who are living outside of true democracies such as the UK and the US, the threat from these Islamofascists is very real. We don't share the same luxuries that you and millions others do. We don't have the protection of one of the worlds most powerful military on this planet.

BTW, what kind of life did Iraqi's had under Saddams rule? Do you honestly believe they had the same priveleges that you do?

Dear Canadian Jatti, yes I do keep abreast with world politics as I truly believe that one day, the members of this vile cult will wage a war against the civilized world. BTW, is the 'Sharia law' being implemented in Canada?

[Guest Javanmard]

How come Iran has more women in its parliament than any other Western country if it's such a horrible Islamic dictatorship ruled by crazy mullahs who eat Sikh babies for breakfast?

[Shasterkovich]

How can Bush and Blair 'dominate' the world when they do not dominate their home countries? Your ability to protest and make a difference in the upcoming elections is proof of that, no? Do you think a citizen in Saudi Arabia have the same freedom that you have? As for the label 'Islamofascists', it is not a mere label it is the truth.

My ability to protest is strictly irrelevant. Plus my protest in ineffective, when public opinion is being manipulated by the powers that be, who control the media and severely curtail the means I am allowed to use to express my dissatisfaction.

Freedom means different things to different people. Your type of "freedom" may well be unpalatable to me, especially if it means something like having the freedom to use violent force to annex someone else's land, quoting a 3000 year old land transfer document in Hebrew as justification for doing so.

Do you honestly believe Iran is a responsible nation fit to be armed with nuclear capabilities?

Yes.

Do you realise that Iran is not a democracy and you've got a bunch of crazed Mullahs running it.

You are referred to Lalleshvari's post about this. Until 9/11, the British government and the media held a STRONG line that Iran was by far the most progressive and liberal of the Arab countries, and that Khatami's administration was very forward-looking and to be encouraged. The position of Iranian women probably equates with women of northern India.

I have no doubt in my mind that if they were armed with Nuclear warheads, they would first level Jerusalem.

Why would they do that?

This will be then followed by attacks on the rest of the world until they are able to spread their ugly cult to every nook and corner of this world.

Speculation. Also, I believe that this statement shows a prejudiced and irrational distrust of Muslims that has reached the level of hatred.

I was referring to Non Muslims in countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Japan....I did not conduct a poll but to the ones I have met, they believe Islamosation of the world is an imminent threat.

They may well believe that, if they believe everything they see on TV and read in the papers. After all, these are the sources we obtain news from. The question is, is their belief rational?

I don't know much about Indian politics but I know this, the Indian Union needs to be dismantled.

Wrong. Dismantling leads to 1947-type situations. Devolution on the pattern of the UK may be the way forward. And it will only come about if India feels safe (i.e. it makes PEACE with Pakistan and is not threatened by internal violent insurgencies).

Maybe now it's changing it's 'tune' but during the war, they were definitely biased. The scandal involving David Kelly is proof of that. Why do you think the Beeb is undergoing change of management and it's charter is being reviewed? Check out www.bbcbias.org and www.bbcwatch.com. This is evidence that the Beeb is biased.There is a campaign being waged against this news channel and since you mention Israel, the Beeb is banned there. Their constant refusal to use the word 'terrorist' and blatant biased coverage of the Israeli/Palestinian issue is the cause of it.

So you're saying that if the BBC takes a side (the Israeli side to be specific), and complies with Israeli demands to call the PLO "terrorists", then it will NOT any longer be "blatantly biased"?

It does'nt make sense. Seems like you and other Islamophobes are trying to bully the BBC to present the Israeli side. All the BBC has to do is report the news accurately (i.e. "today the Israelis killed [x number of] Palestinians).

You don't think this cult is a threat to humanity? Switch on the tv and all you hear are how members of this cult are creating problems all over the world.

OK, tell me which TV channel to watch then, since according to you the BBC (with several UK mainland channels) is biased and gives inaccurate coverage.

Islam is a major world religion, not a cult.

You don't think it's more then a coincidence that the problems in China's Sinjiang province, Russias Chechnya, Indias Kasmir, the MILF in the Phillipines, Church bombings in Indonesia by the JI,bombings in Southern Thailand....all caused by members of this cult in the name of their cult? Do you want me to quote you verses from the Quran?

That would be an incredibly bigoted and short-sighted thing to do. It's a matter of the interpretation of the Koran, not the words themselves. Those who know the real (esoteric) meaning of the verses you are referring to are secretive.

I'd rather have Coke and McDonalds rather then a cult being shoved down my throat.

It seems to be more a case of you wanting to shove Coke and McD down "cultists'" throats, and taking away their culture and religion whether they like it or not.

FYI, many Muslim nations have outrightly banned coke and McDonalds in their countries. At least you have the choice to either frequent McDonalds. This is not the case in the Muslim world.

I don't care. I've never placed my right to frequent cholestrol-dealers' premises among my list of "Important Civil Rights Necessary For Freedom To Exist". What are you saying anyway? THERE IS SALAD!!! EAT SALAD!!!

Also, Muslim nations have moderated their restrictions on these worthless food and drink products. Nigeria, for instance, manages to accommodate different religious sentiments by having different restrictions and even different constitutional rights operating in different states (i.e. different rights for northern Muslim states than southern Christian states).

Seriously, the more important civil right at stake here is "freedom of religion". That means that if a man decides he wants to follow Islam, his right to practice his religion has to be protected from violent people who believe he is a dangerous cult-member. Also, it means that when his religious sentiment is offended by strong intrusions into his consciousness (such as soft porn and Big Macs), he has a right to be shielded from seeing those things if it distresses him.

It's not for you to blame him for having eyes to see a beautiful woman, or salivating over having a Big Mac or having a hot dog with a beautiful woman (close, I know).

There's a limit to the amount of filth someone can tolerate. You will appreciate that a simple man from the village, who is trying to be a Muslim, will need to be eased into things he is not yet ready to deal with. Throwing people into the deep end without a life jacket will result in about 1 in 10 learning to swim instantly (and surviving) and the rest drowning to death.

What 'constitution' do you speak of?

Every nation-state defines itself, its structure and processes by a constitution, whether written or unwritten. Pakistan is an example of a Muslim country with a written Constitution that merges Islamic rights perfectly with some secular Western rights too.

Show me one Muslim country that is a democracy.

That point is only relevant if you hold the arguable belief that democracy is the only valid form of government. Furthermore, there are many different definitions of democracy. My interpretation of a "democracy" may differ from yours. Some East European definitions of democracy are simply fascism (the traditional fascism - the one that's the real troublemaker).

Anyway, what's so good about democracy at its most basic level? Is'nt it just giving voice and legitimacy to the aims and aspirations (prejudices and pettiness) of the mob (i.e. the greater number)? What about the Koranic principle (which is true) that the majority of people are very foolish? Do you want to make temporal power a "reward" bestowed by the mob on their favourite orator? Making an actor the king? Or make the "greater good for the greater number" your mantra as you boil religionists alive?

Even Malaysia and Indonesia that purpots to be a democracy are pseudo democracies at the most. FYI women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia, every friday there is public beheading and stoning sessions conducted by the goverment. Under Saddams rule in Iraq, dissidends were fed alive to plastic shredding machines, millions of Kurds were gassed and ditto for the Shiite Iraqis. Saddams nickname 'Butcher of Baghdad' was not given in vain mind you. What 'human rights' do you speak of?

I do not believe your account of dissidents being shredded alive. I have not seen the evidence. It's mere hearsay, which you have been spoon-fed by your locality's little Goebbels.

You are quite right to say that there are no human rights. There is only power.

The civil rights of the Western world are simply a propaganda tool. They were used initially in the propaganda war against socialism, and now they are being used in the propaganda war against Islam.

If there are any human rights in America, what about the human rights of the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay? Or who-knows-where else in Britain and America?

What about emergency powers legislation in Britain AND the States that strips from citizens even their most basic rights of habeas corpus? Or having access to a lawyer? Or a public trial? What about the N. Ireland law stating that it is an offence to be a terrorist, and that any person whom a police constable testifies is a terrorist (without giving any reason for his belief) will suffice as evidence to convict a person of being a terrorist?

Mother Earth will prevail to the truth and right now, western secular rule is proven without a shadow of a doubt the best form of governance there is on this planet.

I don't believe it. Where is this proof? All there is to the Western world is wealth built up through invasion, plunder and slavery. Also, wealth that remains in the hands of the elite 10% always.

'Enslave', 'Brutal', 'inhuman epire'...excuse me, are we talking about Bush and Blair or Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden? You don't think freeing millions under a cruel tyrants rule as good thing?

Hold on a minute. Have you forgotten that Bin Laden is basically a CIA man who has gone renegade? Or how Saddam was built up and supported by the US and the UK (who sold him the alleged weapons of mass destruction) in order to use him against Ayatollah Komeini of Iran? Why did they do it? Because of irrational fear, a desire to interfere and cause trouble (sow the seed of division among Arabs). To restore themselves at the head of the new British Empire (the States being Britain's golden child). Ultimately, to steal the oil.

I'm sorry Shasterkovich, but you don't speak for me and the rest of the world who are very aware of Muslim ambition of world dominition.

Most of the world are very much aware of Bush's dominance, and his desire to crush all resistance to building his American Reich. Plus, the UK population is mostly against the war in Iraq (both the start and the continuation). Also, they see the war on terror for what it really is: the war on Islam, part 5.

For those of us who are living outside of true democracies such as the UK and the US, the threat from these Islamofascists is very real.

The UK is not a true democracy. The West Lothian Question needs to be resolved once and for all. Devolution is necessary for N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Proportional representation needs to be put in place, so that a few people in one constituency can no longer have the same clout as many people in another constituency. Need a 2nd chamber elected directly by the people (not the govt. of the day). Need to abolish Royal Assent. Need to fully legalise cannabis.

I would ask you kindly to stop using the term "Islamofascists". Islam is a doctrine, based on a religion. Fascism is a doctrine, based on a political dogma. They are not the same.

We don't share the same luxuries that you and millions others do. We don't have the protection of one of the worlds most powerful military on this planet.

What country are you in?

BTW, what kind of life did Iraqi's had under Saddams rule? Do you honestly believe they had the same priveleges that you do?

Please don't misquote me or imply that I have said things that I have not. I have never said that I supported Saddam Hussein's regime. I have only stated the truth: the US and the UK supported Saddam Hussein. The truth is that ff I was in government, I would not have supplied money and munitions to a brutal dictator, or have turned a blind eye to his human rights abuses. I would have tackled his abuses by dialogue and discussion, and offered rewards for reform. Not by ignoring them until the cancer had become too far advanced to deal with using herbs.

[Guest Javanmard]

Shasterkovitch's post made my day!!! Nice to see that there is someone out here with critical thinking. May I add that the only True King is Maharaj and that by dfinition any temporal ruler, system or government is bound to be corrupt. This does not mean one shouldn't vote but just be aware that this Kal Jug and that temporal power corrupts always. btw as far as I know the UK don't have a constitution!!! The choice of political parties compared to continental Europe is very very limited!!!! The average level of education if Iranians is by FAR superior to anyone living in the UK or the USA!

No system is perfect and representational democracy is far from being the perfect system that some people believe it is !!!

[Morpheous]

btw as far as I know the UK don't have a constitution!!!

The Uk does not have a WRITTEN constitution. The justification for this is 'flexibility' to allow 'changes in society'. The Lord Chancellor(selected by the Prime Minister) has judicial powers too, this shows that he has an Executive role aswell as a Judicial one!? This is allowed because its a 'tradition of the Uk unwritten constitution'. In this students view, its an abuse of an unwritten constitution. How the hell can a Cabinet Member be the head of the House of Lords?! How can an individual with a political role have enormous Judicial Power too!? How can he act objectively in the House of Lords aswell as act subjectively when debating in the House of Commons?!

The average level of education if Iranians is by FAR superior to anyone living in the UK or the USA!

Yes, my friend from Iran(who now studies dentistry at QMW) told me they did the equivalent 9 A levels whereas we(UK) on average do only 3!

Gurfateh

Harpreet

[Shasterkovich]

The Uk does not have a WRITTEN constitution. The justification for this is 'flexibility' to allow 'changes in society'. The Lord Chancellor(selected by the Prime Minister) has judicial powers too, this shows that he has an Executive role aswell as a Judicial one!? This is allowed because its a 'tradition of the Uk unwritten constitution'. In this students view, its an abuse of an unwritten constitution. How the hell can a Cabinet Member be the head of the House of Lords?! How can an individual with a political role have enormous Judicial Power too!? How can he act objectively in the House of Lords aswell as act subjectively when debating in the House of Commons?!

A very typical student perspective, and the "correct" answer providing just enough detail and analysis to pass the exam. However, if you step outside this box you may conclude (as I do) that Dicey's "balance of powers" principle does not hold true. In reality, all power is concentrated in the executive. The judiciary may only intervene in certain very limited circumstances (ultra vires/irrational/unreasonable).

Taking this reality on board, you can see that the "problem" of the position of the Lord Chancellor is merely a red herring on a wool sack eating ermine.

I disagree with your reason for the UK not having a written constitution - it was never planned. All of the reasons were cooked up by Whiggish commentators trying to maintain the status quo and the position of the middle classes by inferring some kind of stability or certainty, without having the temerity to demand a written Constitution a la USA. The so-called "unwritten constitution" is just a set of customs and traditions that came about when people had had enough of the stupidity of kings, with a few attempts at written codes on the way (Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Treaty of Rome, Maastricht, ECHR, etc).

On Lalleshvari's point about the Iranians, I concur absolutely. From the perspective of personal experience, I wish to add that apart from being very intelligent and well-educated, in my assessment the Iranians are above all a people with a very fine national character. I have spoken to several knowledgable Iranians about Iran and the rest of the world. From my interactions with them, my assessment has been that they are sane and rational and trustworthy. And their knowledge extends to matters of religion (including Sikhism).

Oh, and I've yet to meet even one Iranian Islamist, even though the Iranians are nominally Muslims. The Iranians are not extremists or any kind of threat.

What's more, they are very close to (or the same as in many instances) the northern Indian people genetically.

[Guest Javanmard]

Interesting how people in the UK are being fooled into thinking that they live in Paradise and that Europe is this huge big devil. I mean look at the ridiculous house prices here. First of all it's too expensive and secondly the quality of the houses compared to those you can find on the continent is just stupid!!!! I mean you find houses here that cost 200.000£ and that are practically nothing but cardboard (I am exagerating of course although...). Health service the same. So many people now cross the channel to go to France and in matters of education I won't even go there!

[Jamuka]

How come Iran has more women in its parliament than any other Western country if it's such a horrible Islamic dictatorship ruled by crazy mullahs who eat Sikh babies for breakfast?

Dear Lalleshwari, don't let your ego get the better of you. Believe it or not, not all of us will be right all the time which is why we have discourses. You are obviously extremely ignorant to the rights of Iranian women. Have the left gone this far? We are doomed then! Anyway, please read the following and educate yourself.

Women in Iran want equality, respect and the right to participate in all social, political and economic activities. They want to live their lives productively and with dignity. Throughout the 20th Century Iranian women have organized and fought for human and political rights, from the Constitutional Revolution at the turn of the century to the democratic movement that overthrew the Shah of Iran. (1)

Iranian women were strong participants in the 1979 revolution, but fundamentalists, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, seized control after the revolution. Once in power, the fundamentalists betrayed the work and humanity of women by implementing a crushing system of gender apartheid. Fundamentalists built their theocracy on the premise that women are physically, intellectually and morally inferior to men, which eclipses the possibility of equal participation in any area of social or political activity. Biological determinism prescribes women’s roles and duties to be child bearing and care taking, and providing comfort and satisfaction to husbands.

Men were granted the power to make all family decisions, including the movement of women and custody of the children. "Your wife, who is your possession, is in fact, your slave," is the mullah’s legal view of women’s status. (2) The misogyny of the mullahs made women the embodiment of sexual seduction and vice. To protect the sexual morality of society, women had to be covered and banned from engaging in "immodest" activity. (3)

Based on these woman-hating principles, Khomeini and his followers crafted laws and policies that are still in effect. The hejab, or dress code, is mandatory in all public places for all women. Women must cover their hair and body except for their face and hands and they must not use cosmetics. Punishments range from a verbal reprimand to 74 lashes with a whip to imprisonment for one month to a year. Stoning to death is a legal form of punishment for sexual misconduct. Women are banned from pursuing higher education in 91 of 169 fields of study and must be taught in segregated classrooms. A woman may work with her husband’s permission, although many occupations are forbidden to women.

The legal age at which girls can be married is 9 years (formerly 18 years). Polygamy is legal, with men permitted to have four wives and unlimited number of temporary wives. Women are not permitted to travel or acquire a passport without their husband’s written permission. A woman is not permitted to be in the company of a man who is not her husband or a male relative. Public activities are segregated. Women are not allowed to engage in sports in which they may be seen by men; or permitted to watch men’s sports in which men’s legs are not fully covered.

Although these laws were implemented with great brutality, women have always resisted. Recently in Iran there have been signs that women are increasingly rejecting subordinate lives ruled by the mullahs. Women have campaigned for inheritance rights equal to men’s, and for more rights to custody of their children. Women keep modifying or enhancing their public dress in ways that press the limits of the hejab. More publications by or about women are appearing. Women are demanding they be allowed to participate in and view sports events. Many Iranian women want change.

Some analysts have said that the election of Mohammed Khatami to the position of President was due to the votes of women. Khatami’s strongest distinction seems to be that he was not the hard-line government’s favorite candidate. His election was no doubt a vote against the hard-liners. His upset election has garnered him the label of "moderate," and raised expectations of people inside and outside of Iran. (4)

Khatami has been in office one year now. Is he a moderate? Has the status of women markedly improved in Iran since his election?

There is a widely held view that Khatami supports the rights of women, but his statements and appointments don’t validate that view. Prior to his election Khatami said, "One of the West’s most serious mistakes was the emancipation of women, which led to the disintegration of families. Staying at home does not mean marginalization. Being a housewife does not prevent a woman from having a role in the destiny of her people. We should not think that social activity means working outside the home. Housekeeping is among one of the most important jobs." (5)

Under Khatami’s leadership the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution decided not to sign the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the most important international agreement on the rights of women. (6) An international study comparing workforce conditions for women around the world ranked Iran 108th out of 110. (7) In urban areas women make-up only 9.5 percent of the workforce, and in rural areas the percent is 8.8 percent. (8) Even Khatami’s advisor on women’s affairs acknowledged that there is discrimination in employment and promotion against women in government offices: "Some officials are of the opinion that men have more of a role in running the family, so they favor the men."(9)

Khatami has not called for an end to the most savage and sadistic punishment in the world – death by stoning. This form of torturous killing was initiated by fundamentalists when they came to power after the Islamic Revolution. Law specifies the size of the stones and the method of burying a person to be stoned. The purpose is to inflict great pain and suffering before death occurs. Since Khatami has been president at least seven people have been stoned to death in public, four of them women. (10)

Khatami’s advisor on women’s affairs, Zahra Shoja’l, says she is an advocate of women’s rights, but all within a fundamentalist defined Islamic context. She defends the restrictive and symbolically oppressive hejab, calling the chador "the superior national dress of the women of Iran." (11)

Khatami’s highly publicized woman appointment is Massoumeh Ebtekar, Vice-President for Environmental Protection. She has a long association with the fundamentalists: after the Islamic Revolution in 1979 she was spokesperson for the hostage takers who captured the U.S. embassy in Tehran. She does not favor loosening restrictions on women that would give them more personal freedom or stop the most barbaric institutionalized violence against women. She supports the law that requires women to get their husband’s permission to travel. She justifies this law by saying, "Man is responsible for the financial affairs and safety of the family. Thus, a woman needs her husband’s permission to make a trip. Otherwise problems will arise and lead to quarrels between them." (12) She also defends stoning women to death by saying, "One should take psychological and legal affairs of the society into consideration as well. If the regular rules of family are broken, it would result in many complicated and grave consequences for all of the society." (13)

Since Khatami was not the hard-line mullahs' favored candidate for presidency, his election has created factions within the Iranian government. A power struggle has ensued, but this is not an ideological fight between those loyal to religious fundamentalists and proponents of secular democracy. All sides, including Khatami, are committed to a theocracy based on velayat-e-fahiq – the absolute supremacy of the mullahs.

After 1979, the measure of the success of the Islamic Revolution was the depth of the suppression of women’s rights and activities. Now, nineteen years later, battles among factions within Iranian government are played out over women’s rights, hejab and segregation.

Draconian laws and discrimination are not things of the past. Women’s public clothing continues to obsess the mullahs. In the last year, the Martyr Ghodusi Judicial Center, a main branch of the judiciary, issued a stricter hejab, or dress code. The new guidelines call for prison terms from three months to one year or fines and up to 74 lashes with a whip for wearing "modish outfits, such as suits and skirt without a long overcoat on top." The regulations ban any mini or short-sleeved overcoat, and the wearing of any "depraved, showy and glittery object on hats, necklaces, earring, belts, bracelets, glasses, headbands, rings, neckscarfs and ties." (14)

Women continue to be arrested for improper veiling. In November, an Agence France Presse correspondent in Tehran witnessed approximately ten young women being arrested and placed into a patrol car for improper veiling or wearing clothing that did not conform to Islamic regulations. The women were wearing colorful headscarves and light make-up. (15) In June Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told senior official that it was time "to crack down on wanton behavior by women." (16) By mid-August 1,800 women and men had been arrested for "mal-veiling and lewd conduct." Most of the women were wearing makeup or in the company of young males who were not related to them. Women who fail to conform to the strict dress code are boarded on minibuses and taken to a center for fighting "social corruption." (17)

Under fundamentalist’s interpretation of Islamic texts, women are banned from being judges because they are not considered capable of making important decisions. One of the claims of moderation in Iran is the appointment of women as judges, but in actuality no women are allowed this rank. Judiciary Chief Yazdi recently made the issue clear in his Friday prayers sermon: "The women judges I mentioned hold positions in the judiciary, they receive salaries, they attend trials, they provide counsel, but they do not preside over trials and or issue verdicts." (18)

In the past year, women’s groups campaigned for a bill that would give women the same inheritance rights as men, but, Parliament overwhelmingly rejected the bill saying the proposal was contrary to Islamic law, which stipulates that a woman’s share may only be one half that of a man’s. (19)

Women made a small gain by getting Parliament to pass a law that granted women some custody rights to children after a divorce, but only if the father was determined to be a drug addict, an alcoholic or "morally corrupt." (20)

New laws strengthening gender apartheid and repression of women are not a thing of the past. During the last year Parliament and other religious leaders proposed a number of new laws or policies that will adversely effect the health, education, and well being of women and girl children in Iran.

Temporary marriage, in which a man can marry a woman for a limited period of time, even one hour, in exchange for money, is permitted in Iran. Earlier this year, Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi, a prominent religious leader called for a revival of this practice so clerical officials could have religious sanctioned sexual relationships with women. This practice is an approved form of sexual exploitation of women, and allows the regime to have an official network of prostitution. (21)

In April, Parliament approved a new law requiring hospitals to segregate by sex all health care services. This will compromise the health care for women and girls because there are not enough trained women physicians and health care professionals to meet the needs of all the women and girls in Iran. (22)

Another new law approved by Parliament imposes more restrictions on the photographs of women that can be published in newspapers and magazines. (23) The Iranian state television announced on August 1 a decision by the Justice Department in Tehran to shut down a newspaper and put its proprietor on trial. One of the charges leveled against the publication, Khaneh, was that it had published "obscene" photographs of women playing football. (24)

Parliamentary deputies submitted a plan to make girls' schools a "no-male zone," which will require all teachers and staff to be women. (25) This requirement will make education for girls even more inaccessible and difficult. Official statistics recently released reveal that 90 percent of girls in rural districts drop-out of school. (26)

More ominously, the Parliament also approved a law prohibiting the discussion of women’s issues or rights outside the interpretation of Shari’a (Islamic law) established by the ruling mullahs. (27) In a further effort to repress all discussion of women’s rights, in mid-August, the Parliament passed a bill prohibiting the publication of material in the media that defended women’s rights in a way that would create conflict between the genders. Advocates of women’s rights are subject to imprisonment and lashing for violations. (28)

In early July 1998, Mohsen Saidzadeh, a cleric, was arrested after writing articles that opposed these bills. He said that laws that deprive women of their rights are based on incorrect interpretations of the Koran. So freedom to criticize the government position on the rights of women does not exist even for fellow mullahs. (29)

In some Western writings Khatami is said to have given new freedoms to the press, but the experience of publishers is contrary to that claim. In February, the newspaper Jameah started to publish articles critical of the government, color photographs of smiling women harvesting wheat, and an interview with a former prisoner. By June a court revoked their license. (30) Also, police filed charges against Zanan, a monthly women’s magazine, for "insulting" the police force by publishing an article on the problems women face with the authorities on Iranian beaches, which are segregated by sex. (31)

Although Khatami is the President of Iran, he is not the Supreme Spiritual Leader, the most powerful position in Iran. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, controls the armed forces, the police, the security and intelligence services, radio and television, and the judicial system. The velayat-e-fahiq is a serious impediment to any reforms that may benefit women or society at large. Ayatollah Khamenei’s opinion of women and their place in society is the same as his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini’s - women should be wives and mothers. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has publicly stated: "The real value of a woman is measured by how much she makes the family environment for her husband and children like a paradise." (32) In July 1997 Ayatollah Khamenei said that the idea of women’s equal participation in society was "negative, primitive and childish." (33)

There is no moderation in Iran. Both the U.N. Special Rapportuer and the U.S. State Department found that there was no improvement in human rights in Iran since Khatami took office. The Iranian government engaged in summary executions, extrajudicial killings, disappearances and widespread use of torture. (34) The hard-line mullahs will not lift the severe restrictions on women; in fact, they favor stronger gender apartheid. Khatami, although not aligned with the hard-liners, does not support the empowerment and emancipation of women from the velayat-e-fahiq or supreme rule of the mullahs. If the women in Iran want the rights and freedoms they deserve they will have to look elsewhere for change.

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/khatami.htm

And here is another case for you. Read it and weep if you really care.

Women in Iran Deem Rape Laws Unfair

Run Date: 12/21/03

By Shadi Sadr

WeNews correspondent

In Iran, a woman awaits a new execution date for killing the man she says tried to rape her. There, if a woman is raped, she can be charged with adultery. If a woman kills her attacker, she can be charged with murder. Both are punishable by death.

TEHRAN, Iran (WOMENSENEWS)--One week after Afsaneh Nowrouzi learned that her execution had temporarily been stayed by a Supreme Court decree, she eagerly anticipated a visit with her husband to celebrate the news. Convicted for killing the head of security police on an Iranian island in the Persian Gulf, the 34-year-old mother of two has spent the last six years in a desolate prison in southern Iran, despite her claim the man attempted to rape her.

Nowrouzi's husband Mostafa Jahangiri was told he could have a private meeting with his wife. But after traveling to the Persian Gulf port city of Bandar Abbas, where Nowrouzi is being held at the notorious Bandar Abbas prison, Jahangiri was turned away by prison authorities.

Upset by the news, Nowrouzi hit her head repeatedly on the wall of her cell. A prison guard sprayed her with tear gas to subdue her, infecting her eyes for almost a week.

Nowrouzi's execution date--most likely by hanging--was set for mid-October. But after widespread protests by the Iranian press, female members of parliament and international human rights organizations, the date was temporarily delayed earlier in the month by Ayatollah Hashemi Shahroudi, the head of the judiciary, which is the highest court in Iran.

Nowrouzi's attorney has filed an appeal with the Supreme Court for a new trial. Her stay of execution has turned a spotlight on the complicated national law, which gives women almost no recourse against rapists.

In Iran, if a woman is raped, she is considered an adulteress and faces death by stoning. But if a woman fights off a sexual predator and kills him, she can then be tried for murder and face death by hanging.

If a man is proven to have raped a woman, his punishment is execution by hanging. But in almost all cases, the man is set free because judges traditionally look for signs in the behavior and clothing of the woman in order to explain away the act of rape. A Persian-language proverb goes like this: "It is the tree that hosts the worm," meaning rape is caused by women and their suggestive behavior.

The penal code, which is based on Iranian interpretations of Islamic law, states that if a woman injures or kills a rapist in self-defense, she will not be prosecuted. But proving self-defense is very difficult. The woman must demonstrate that her defense was equal to the danger she faced. Additionally, she must prove inflicting harm was her the last resort in escaping rape. According to press reports, in the last year one woman successfully argued self-defense while being tried for murdering an alleged rapist.

The Iranian government does not publish prison records, and there are no official statistics about the number of women who have been sentenced to death by stoning for rape. In 2002, the press reported four cases, but it is generally believed the number is higher.

New Start Becomes Death Sentence

In 1997, Nowrouzi moved with her family to Kish Island, Iran's tourist spot and free trade zone in the Persian Gulf located about 180 miles from Bandar Abbas. Her husband Jahangiri hoped his friend Behzad Moghaddam, who held the highest position within the security police in the island, could help him find a job. The family stayed at Moghaddam's house.

Shortly after their arrival, Moghaddam arranged for Nowrouzi's husband to carry some merchandise to Tehran. Many Iranians make a living by buying imported electronic goods and home appliances from the island's duty-free shops and selling them at higher prices on the mainland. According to trial testimony obtained by Women's eNews, Nowrouzi says that after her husband departed, Moghaddam attempted to rape her.

"When I went upstairs, I saw Moghaddam naked. He pulled me into the room and threw himself on top of me," she testified. "As the children heard noises and walked up the stairs, he gave up his intention." Nowrouzi says she could not sleep that night and, as a precaution, hid a knife under her pillow.

In her testimony, Nowrouzi says she wore a skirt and blouse, as well as a pair of pants underneath her skirt. She says she covered her hair with a headdress and also wrapped her veil around her waist, a common practice by traditional women to cover their legs.

She says the next day after finishing a shower, she again found a naked Moghaddam lying on the bed waiting for her. "I showed him the knife and told him if he attacked me, I would strike him," Nowrouzi said.

Nowrouzi says Moghaddam grabbed her, and in defense, she stabbed him in his chest, torso and face with the knife. According to the local coroner's office, Moghaddam sustained 34 stab wounds.

Nowrouzi fled the house and took her children to Tehran to join her husband. When Moghaddam didn't report to work, local police became concerned and went to his house the next morning, where they discovered his body. Nowrouzi was arrested in Tehran several days later.

When asked by the judge why she stayed in the house after Moghaddam's first rape attempt, Nowrouzi responded, "At 10 o'clock in the evening where would I go? I didn't know any place. My husband was absent. I didn't have any money."

Nowrouzi also admitted Moghaddam caught her stealing some of his jewelry to buy food for her children. She says Moghaddam told her he would report the theft unless she submitted to his advances. "When he attacked me, I first warned him that I would report him," Nowrouzi said. "He replied to me 'I am the head of police in Kish; nobody would believe you.'"

Torture, Confessions

During her three-year pretrial investigation, Nowrouzi made several contradictory confessions. She says that at first, investigators tried to convince her that her real motive in killing Moghaddam was stealing his money. "They beat me so much that two times I confessed against my husband so they would leave me alone," she testified at her trial in 2000.

Police also theorized that she and the victim had an affair. "They were beating me with cable wire from morning until noon and again at night," Nowrouzi said.

Under Iranian law, obtaining confessions from suspects and defendants under torture is illegal. But few defendants are ever able to prove they were tortured during detainment. For example, this year, Iranian-Canadian photographer Zahra Kazemi died while being interrogated. But a recent special commission that investigated the charges ruled that Kazemi accidentally hit her head while in custody.

Judge Mortazavi did not believe Nowrouzi's confessions were obtained under torture and rejected her self-defense argument. "This woman is presumptuous and opportunistic," he wrote in his verdict convicting her of murder.

Now, Nowrouzi waits for news of her appeal. If the Supreme Court decides to overturn her conviction, she will face a new trial in another court.

'What Should a Woman Do?'

Golku, a student in her 20s, says all women in Iran feel trapped by the lack of legal protection they have against rape. "Which of us does not put a knife in our purse, when we leave our house? All of us contemplate about how to defend ourselves, if we feel unsafe in a situation," she writes in her public Web log, an increasingly popular means for young women in Iran to talk freely and anonymously about social and political issues.

In an open letter last August, journalist Fereshteh Ghazi, who writes for the Tehran-based daily Etemad newspaper, told the presidents of the executive, legislative and judiciary branches of the Islamic government that women who face rape have almost no recourse under Iranian law.

"What should a woman do, if she found herself in Afsaneh Nowrouzi's situation?" she asked in her letter.

Sahar Sajjadi, a medical student and member of the Tehran-based Women's Cultural Center, says women have no control over their own bodies. "In this country, we cannot discuss this simple concept that no means no," she said.

Shadi Sadr is an independent journalist residing in Iran, who covers women's issues. She is also editor in chief of the Web site Women in Iran.

http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn...context/archive

My ability to protest is strictly irrelevant.

What nonsense. Of course it is relevant! FYI, try protesting in countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran and see how fast your dead body is buried in an unmarked burial site in the dessert.

Plus my protest in ineffective, when public opinion is being manipulated by the powers that be, who control the media and severely curtail the means I am allowed to use to express my dissatisfaction.

This is merely your opinion and just because the majority do not agree with your point does not justify any stupid conspiracy theories you may harbour. In almost all 3rd world countries the media are mere govermental mouthpieces.

Freedom means different things to different people. Your type of "freedom" may well be unpalatable to me, especially if it means something like having the freedom to use violent force to annex someone else's land, quoting a 3000 year old land transfer document in Hebrew as justification for doing so.

'Some else's land'....You make judgement calls despite not knowing the facts. Anyway, that is another story. Is your idea of freedom againts any form of violence? If thats the case let me assure you my friend, the 'freedom' that you currently enjoy was achieved through 'violent' means in the 2nd world war otherwise you would probably be German speaking today under harsh Nazi rule.

You are referred to Lalleshvari's post about this. Until 9/11, the British government and the media held a STRONG line that Iran was by far the most progressive and liberal of the Arab countries, and that Khatami's administration was very forward-looking and to be encouraged. The position of Iranian women probably equates with women of northern Indi

Are you joking? Are Northern Indian women forced to don the Hejab and need permission to travel alone? What do you mean by 'most progressive'? Is it by any chance marriagble age changed from 9 to say 12 that you mean more progressive? Please refer to the articles I have provided to know more about 'womens rights' in Iran.

Why would they do that?

You ask that despite repeated threats from the Mullahs to the Jews?? Should we wait for a strike before we can be confirmed they will actually use it?

Speculation. Also, I believe that this statement shows a prejudiced and irrational distrust of Muslims that has reached the level of hatred.

No my friend, it is not speculation. I really wish I could say that but unfortunately it's not. Prejudiced? Really? Was Churchill prejudiced when he kept warning Europe of the impending doom with the rise of Hitler? What I say is not based on prejudice but firsthand experience, something you would probably not understand.

They may well believe that, if they believe everything they see on TV and read in the papers. After all, these are the sources we obtain news from. The question is, is their belief rational?

"See on tv"....HA HA HA HA HA HA!!! Please forgive me for laughing dude but why do they have to watch 'tv' when it is happening rigth under their noses? Havent you heard of the on going church bombings in Indonesia? Havent you heard of Jemaah Islamiah and Abu Bakar Bashir? Did you not hear of Bali bombing and more recently the Jakarta bombings? What about Mahathirs speech at the OIC summit requesting Muslims around the globe to 'arm themselves to the teeth'? What about 4 Muslims in Malaysia renouncing Islam and subsequent to that are in jail. They have yet to be released. Havent you heard of the MILF and the beheading of tourists. What about the recent bombings by Muslim separatists in Southern Thailand? FYI Singapore too have banned the Hejab, go figure.

Here is a few links so you may educate yourself to what is happening in the East.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/...donesia.cleric/

http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/...h.Rg0m_DNI.html

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=3656

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/7DC...BFD9387AA5F.htm

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/FAD/sea.htm

Wrong. Dismantling leads to 1947-type situations. Devolution on the pattern of the UK may be the way forward. And it will only come about if India feels safe (i.e. it makes PEACE with Pakistan and is not threatened by internal violent insurgencies).

I see 'peace at any cost', even at the cost of Operation Blue,1984 Delhi Massacre, thousands of Naga separatists being killed and Tamil Nadu separtism given a crusshing blow, Kashmir.... Peace at any cost , eh? I'm sorry but I don't agree. A far more powerful Union like the Soviet was dismantled peacefully and the same can be done for the Indian Union.

So you're saying that if the BBC takes a side (the Israeli side to be specific), and complies with Israeli demands to call the PLO "terrorists", then it will NOT any longer be "blatantly biased"?

No, nobody is asking what you stated. We are requesting the Beeb to be fair. If a Hamas terrorist is killed, please use the word 'terrorist' instead of 'guerilla'. Is that too much to ask? I have actually seen actuall footages where BBC journalist tried inducing a Palestinian to cry at the wall which is currently built. This is too much and downright dishonest. Despite what are our convictions, truth should be reported truthfully with no hidden agenda.

It does'nt make sense. Seems like you and other Islamophobes are trying to bully the BBC to present the Israeli side. All the BBC has to do is report the news accurately (i.e. "today the Israelis killed [x number of] Palestinians).

What? What about the recent sacking of that show host (forgot his name) who made a statement that angered the Muslims in the UK?

OK, tell me which TV channel to watch then, since according to you the BBC (with several UK mainland channels) is biased and gives inaccurate coverage.

I usually get my news via the internet. I find it far more accurate then any news channel.

Islam is a major world religion, not a cult.

Wrong, Islam is a cult. If a Muslim were to renounce Islam in a Muslim country, he or she will be punished with death. Read the Quran and see the source of hate in it. It is a cult.

That would be an incredibly bigoted and short-sighted thing to do. It's a matter of the interpretation of the Koran, not the words themselves. Those who know the real (esoteric) meaning of the verses you are referring to are secretive.

Bigoted? How am I a bigot, can you please enlighten me?

Short sighted? No, like I said earlier, I talk not just with knowledge but with first hand experience so you cannot claim it is 'short sighted'. There is nothing to 'interpret' when it is clearly written "kill the disbeliever" or "make him pay a jizya(tax) for his life".

It seems to be more a case of you wanting to shove Coke and McD down "cultists'" throats, and taking away their culture and religion whether they like it or not.

I really don't care for Coke or McDonalds but I do care if I have the choice to Coke and McDonalds and not some dumb Islamofascist telling me it's againt Islam and should be banned. Please try to understand that.

I don't care. I've never placed my right to frequent cholestrol-dealers' premises among my list of "Important Civil Rights Necessary For Freedom To Exist". What are you saying anyway? THERE IS SALAD!!! EAT SALAD!!!

Same answer above.

Also, Muslim nations have moderated their restrictions on these worthless food and drink products. Nigeria, for instance, manages to accommodate different religious sentiments by having different restrictions and even different constitutional rights operating in different states (i.e. different rights for northern Muslim states than southern Christian states).

Yes but why must it always be an issue with Muslims? Why can't someone have the choice instead of some Mullah theocrat making the decision for the rest of the population?

Seriously, the more important civil right at stake here is "freedom of religion". That means that if a man decides he wants to follow Islam, his right to practice his religion has to be protected from violent people who believe he is a dangerous cult-member. Also, it means that when his religious sentiment is offended by strong intrusions into his consciousness (such as soft porn and Big Macs), he has a right to be shielded from seeing those things if it distresses him.

Freedom of religion does not mean the freedom to shove ones belief down the throats of others.

There's a limit to the amount of filth someone can tolerate. You will appreciate that a simple man from the village, who is trying to be a Muslim, will need to be eased into things he is not yet ready to deal with. Throwing people into the deep end without a life jacket will result in about 1 in 10 learning to swim instantly (and surviving) and the rest drowning to death.

Shastekovich, I supect your ignorance is far more deeper then what I though it to be. I have seen with my own eyes a convert brought up in a secular environment embrace Islam acting far more intolerant then a Muslim who was brought in a village in a Muslim country.

Every nation-state defines itself, its structure and processes by a constitution, whether written or unwritten. Pakistan is an example of a Muslim country with a written Constitution that merges Islamic rights perfectly with some secular Western rights too.

Oh yeah, please show me the constitution of Iraq under Saddams rule.

That point is only relevant if you hold the arguable belief that democracy is the only valid form of government. Furthermore, there are many different definitions of democracy. My interpretation of a "democracy" may differ from yours. Some East European definitions of democracy are simply fascism (the traditional fascism - the one that's the real troublemaker).

I guess some people see black and white and some people see gray.

Anyway, what's so good about democracy at its most basic level? Is'nt it just giving voice and legitimacy to the aims and aspirations (prejudices and pettiness) of the mob (i.e. the greater number)? What about the Koranic principle (which is true) that the majority of people are very foolish? Do you want to make temporal power a "reward" bestowed by the mob on their favourite orator? Making an actor the king? Or make the "greater good for the greater number" your mantra as you boil religionists alive?

Dear Shashterkovich, I've lived in the U.S for 5 years and have experienced firsthand what a true democracy is. I know reside in a 3rd world country with semi dictatorship at it's helm. I hope I don't offend by you saying this, but you are downright ungrateful. You are taking your freedom for granted.

I do not believe your account of dissidents being shredded alive. I have not seen the evidence. It's mere hearsay, which you have been spoon-fed by your locality's little Goebbels.

I see, see no evil thus it must not exist. Good logic.

The civil rights of the Western world are simply a propaganda tool. They were used initially in the propaganda war against socialism, and now they are being used in the propaganda war against Islam.

Complete nonsense. If I havent lived in the US I would probably agree with you.

If there are any human rights in America, what about the human rights of the prisoners being held in Guantanamo Bay? Or who-knows-where else in Britain and America?

My dear Shasterkovich, had the US lost the war there woudn't been any 'Guantanamo bay' for them. It would have ended with a bullets in their heads.

What about emergency powers legislation in Britain AND the States that strips from citizens even their most basic rights of habeas corpus? Or having access to a lawyer? Or a public trial? What about the N. Ireland law stating that it is an offence to be a terrorist, and that any person whom a police constable testifies is a terrorist (without giving any reason for his belief) will suffice as evidence to convict a person of being a terrorist?

I am lost for words.

I don't believe it. Where is this proof? All there is to the Western world is wealth built up through invasion, plunder and slavery. Also, wealth that remains in the hands of the elite 10% always.

I see, while you enjoy the freedom to either frequent the local McDonalds or not, Gopi the low caste in India is starving in the streets and the likes of 'Gangu Brahmins' live a life of merryment.

Hold on a minute. Have you forgotten that Bin Laden is basically a CIA man who has gone renegade? Or how Saddam was built up and supported by the US and the UK (who sold him the alleged weapons of mass destruction) in order to use him against Ayatollah Komeini of Iran? Why did they do it? Because of irrational fear, a desire to interfere and cause trouble (sow the seed of division among Arabs). To restore themselves at the head of the new British Empire (the States being Britain's golden child). Ultimately, to steal the oil.

Same old mumbo jumbo leftist spit out while Islamofascists are spreading their vile cult around the globe. FYI, everybody prospered with these 'puppet regimes' including you when you're able to pump gas into your car. The threat from Iran to invade Iraq and Kuwai followed by Saudi Arabia was no joke. Everybody kept mum when the US put up these puppet regimes and go ask yourself why.

Most of the world are very much aware of Bush's dominance, and his desire to crush all resistance to building his American Reich. Plus, the UK population is mostly against the war in Iraq (both the start and the continuation). Also, they see the war on terror for what it really is: the war on Islam, part 5.

I very much doubt what you say. The last opinion poll conducted by Guardian revealed that more then 60% of UK's population supported the war.

The UK is not a true democracy. The West Lothian Question needs to be resolved once and for all. Devolution is necessary for N. Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Proportional representation needs to be put in place, so that a few people in one constituency can no longer have the same clout as many people in another constituency. Need a 2nd chamber elected directly by the people (not the govt. of the day). Need to abolish Royal Assent. Need to fully legalise cannabis.

Good lord, I really hope the right wins in the upcoming elections!

I would ask you kindly to stop using the term "Islamofascists". Islam is a doctrine, based on a religion. Fascism is a doctrine, based on a political dogma. They are not the same.

No offense but I will do no such thing. I will starting a thread soon exposing what this cult is all about and you may cross swords with me then. Prove me wrong and I will stop using the word.

What country are you in?

Lets say I live with a sizable Muslim population, the type that supported Osama when 9/11 happened.

May you always have the choice to say no to McDonalds and not vice versa.

[Guest Javanmard]

Jamuka wrote:

Are you joking? Are Northern Indian women forced to don the Hejab and need permission to travel alone?

You're right! !

Moderator's Note: Edited rest of the message due to your slandering

[sikh_fauge]

Good point singh. Havent read the rest..whats this dicussion then?

[giani_g]

Damn shame I found this topic too late.

Well anyway by western secular standards Jamuka is right about the lack of freedom and how Bush and Blair are fighting for what is right.

However has anyone noticed how democratic countries become more liberal over time for example look at how progressively trashy western society has become over the last 100 years, even India is catching up look at how sleazely Bollywood films are getting.

My friend who has been to Iran says it isn't as bad as everyone's making out, its just that you cannot break Islamic law like drinking, porno or thieving. Also any religion is allowed there just as long as you're not Ba'hai or breaking Islamic law. Well that's what I've heard anyway. Anyway there is supposed to be a flourishing Sikh community over there so it can't be that bad.

Also a Sikh friend of mine from Bahrain says its a much better country (overall health, education etc) than the UK and there are more biggots over here than there.

I use to really hate Islam (not because of my pro Indian friends) but because I always thought that freedom of expression and democracy was what we should all aim for but look at the cost, liberals, nightclubs, cheap booze, tacky repetitive music, the need to buy the logos rather than the clothes and the dumbing down of society.

That is when I realised that all these Muslim countries arn't anti democracy, they're just pro religion and anti sleaze but unfortuanately also anti Israel which is why they take a lot of heat from Western countries.

I'm glad that Bush liberated the Iraqi's from secular Saddam now because its pretty inevitable that the Shiite are going to take over and make another theocracy in the Middle East.

Put it this way would it be easier to raise a Sikh in this "ideal" consumer fashion world or in "oppressive" and "evil" Iran.

[giani_g]

woops wrong window! can admin remove post?

[Lion King]

If the turban ban goes ahead and other countries follow - i'm sure it will only mean more people will end up keeping their kes, this is the effect 1984 had on people, nothing to worry about.