Saturday, December 27, 2008

A message back to Ahmadinejad

I’m moving rapidly into rant mode. I agree with the post on the ToUChstone blog that it was an absolute disgrace that so-called “President” Ahmadinejad of Iran was invited to give the Channel 4 alternative Christmas message.

So Channel 4 wants someone controversial? So next year we will have someone from the Paedophile Exchange or the BNP to give the message?

Ahmadinejad is a President of a regime that does beat up, wrongly imprison and even torture trade unionists. He also presides over the judicial murder of kids for being gay and the stoning to death of women who have been raped. Iran is the cradle of civilisation for crying out loud, so how on earth has such a moron come to power who can’t even string an argument together in his own language? This holocaust denier dipstick even wants to have nuclear weapons?

Come, friendly bombs and fall on Ahmadinejad and his works. Please...the earth will exhale.

20 comments:

Charlie Marks said...

They always say they want nuclear *power* rather than *weapons*.

Was very disappointed that there was not a right to reply, perhaps by Peter Tatchell on gay rights, a TU speaker on workers rights, and perhaps someone from HOPI on the theocracy, all asking "how can we have human values without valuing LGBT people, trade unionists, and popular sovereignty?"

Me, I was more annoyed that the Queen's speech was still on! With such a backward thing as an unelected head of state giving a speech on TV, it's sad the alternative wasn't a speaker from the campaign group Republic.

Anonymous said...

Ken was regularly giving people with equally extreme views a podium in London when he was Mayor. What's the difference?

Frank Partisan said...

At best its a victory for free speech in the UK. That's all I can say that was good about the speech.

I found this blog at Dave O's.

ian said...

Dont rise to the bait John. Its just the middle class trendies at channel 4 trying to be contraversial (have I spelt that right, I have a hangover)

Personnally I would have preferred Richard Dawkins or Tony Benn to have done the christmas message.

HPY

Ian

Anonymous said...

John
I guess you are aware that his name is Ahmadinejad - and you are being ironic here.

I am no fan of the Iranian president. But I was struck by your final quip 'Come, friendly bombs and fall on Ahmadinejeba and his works' which is a reference of course to John Betjeman's calls for Lufwaffe bombs to fall on Slough.

Betjeman's was a humorous and ironic response to the Blitz and his opinion of Slough, making light of the dire predicament of Britain in World War II - from the victim's point of view (which is what makes it ironic and funny and human).

I know you were aiming to be humorous , but I felt your parody of Betjeman lacked both irony and humour, especially as our own country might well be involved in any military assault on Iran. And in any such assault it would not be President Ahmadinejad who would suffer, but the poor Iranian people.

The Iraq and Afghanistan wars (both of which I think you support?) have gone so spectacularly badly from the West's perspective that the Iranians will likely be spared a full scale invasion. But savage aerial bombardment is a distinct possibility.

As to whether President Ahmadinejad ought to have been given time on TV - I am sure the British public are capable of forming their own opinions of his talk (which I missed). But, as Churchill said, 'jaw jaw is better than war war.'

Season's greetings,
Adrian

Anonymous said...

Do me a favour...a speech by Peter Tatchell? Is that the best you can aspire to? What about the unelected Prime Minister that we have?

Neil Williams said...

I've got no time for the dictator Mugabe (and the sooner democracy is restored by THE PEOPLE of Zimbabwe the better) but if we are going to show pictures how about this one to balance things just a teeny weeny bit?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/00683/mugabe-2213974-404_683136c.jpg

John Gray said...

Hi All
Thanks for the comments and apologies for the delay in responding. Too much Turkey and not enough blogging.

Hi Charlie
They say they don’t murder children either! Yes, they should have an anti-establishment figure respond not someone who is from a different planet.

Anon – Ken did invite some people he perhaps shouldn’t have – but I don’t think that City Hall at its best compares as a platform to national TV.

Hi Renegade Eye
True but it wasn’t about free speech, it was as Ian mentioned – middle class trendies

Hi Ian
Yep – Dawkins would have been good.

Hi Adrian
Thanks for the correction – I’ve updated the post. Actually I didn’t deliberately misspell his name, it would have been appropriate but I was in rant mode so I just didn’t check it properly (a Freudian slip?). I certainly wasn’t intending to be humorous. Maybe ironic with the Benjamin misquotation. Check out the actual video on YouTube. I don’t think anyone has every seriously suggested that Iran will be “invaded” by Britain or even the Americans? An airstrike is a possibility. The good news today I heard on Radio 4 “look ahead” that it was predicted that this murderer and tyrant will hopefully be kicked out during elections in Iran later this year.

Hi Anon
And your point is...?

Hi Neil
Very true – but before the fall....Mugabe could have been a great and honoured leader of his country. Now, no matter what, he will be remembered as another murderer and tyrant.

Charlie Marks said...

John, there's evidence that Iran executes children. There's no evidence that their nuclear power programme is in fact about producing a nuclear bomb.

I think the sudden change of opinion from the West re Mugabe has more to do with land reforms that tyranny. I don't remember much complaint during the 80s! The agreement to leave the economy untouched for a decade after independence was offered up as an example for South Africa, believe it or not...

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
Iran actually claims not to execute children only rapists and adulteresses. Even if we know differently. So their claims that they are only pursuing nuclear programmes for “peaceful purposes” should be given less credence than the similar false Indian, Israeli, North Korean and Pakistan government’s claims before they developed a nuclear capability. What makes you think that Iran is somehow different than the rest of those who lie on behalf of their country?

There was huge criticism of Mugabe in the 1980’s over the Matabeleland massacres. The West is damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

Blimey Charlie, what evidence (“the agreement”) have you whatsoever that Zimbabwe was deliberately allowed to rot in order to scare white South Africans!

This is moonshine Charlie and not at all up to your normal standards! (Says I)

Charlie Marks said...

That picture of Mugabe with the Queen was taken in the nineties - after Matabeleland massacres...

John, perhaps you're not familiar with the history of Zimbabwe since independence.

When Zimbabwe became independent it was on the condition that there would be a ten year period in which the land, the banks, the mines, the factories, etc. would not be touched by the government. Then there would be assistance from the former colonial power in implementing land reforms. For various reasons, this didn't happen has arranged.

With apartheid coming to an end in South Africa, many Western commentators expressed the hope that the ANC would act like Zanu-PF and leave the economy untouched.

So you see, no moonshine about scaring white South Africans! I must write more clearly in future.

The opposite might be true, in fact. Zimbabwe is an example to the ANC of what will be done (sanctions, refusal of credit, etc.) if they ever attempt to implement the Freedom Charter.

On Iran's nuclear power programme - does the IAEA claim it's a bomb-making programme? This is what I meant by evidence - we can independently verify the child-killing. The US and Israel can offer none in favour of the claim Iran seeks a bomb. We can't independently verify claims Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon, so why are we talking about it?

We've no evidence that Iran is planning a merger with Iraq in a dastardly plot to confuse George Bush. Shall I mention this at every opportunity?

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
No I must admit that I am not over familiar with Zimbabwe history. There is of course a ...but...coming up here. I don’t believe for a moment (and you do not provide any evidence) that Zimbabwe was deliberately destroyed in order to make an example to the ANC. Elements of the Black Zimbabwe elite have ruined the country due to their greed, incompetence, corruption and down right thievery. It took several hundred of years for Britain to bring about a relatively stable, free and representative democracy. So perhaps we shouldn’t be too sniffy that Zimbabwe has not achieved this in a few decades. But the responsibility for this now bankrupt and staving state lies largely (not solely) in the hands of the dictatorship that has run it since independence.

With regard to Iran, hopefully Jaw, Jaw will work and something will be sorted. I agree that evidence is mixed at the moment. But I really don’t understand why anyone doesn’t believe that Iran would not develop a nuclear bomb capability if it could. Israel is their “mortal” enemy and has such weapons I have no doubt that Iran will want them in exactly the same way that Pakistan felt driven to develop theirs after India successfully tested a device.

Like night follows day.

Charlie Marks said...

John, it was not until Zimbabwe broke from the IMF and implemented land reform that sanctions were imposed and credit denied.

The model of land reform considered acceptable is "willing-buyer, willing-seller" which means that the best land stays under minority control. Also is the policy of companies operating in the country having to have majority black share-ownership.

Obviously not an example multinational companies would want the rest of Africa to adopt! But it is for these reasons that Mugabe remains popular in Africa.

The neoliberal MDC, backed by the West, would reverse land reform, privatise state-owned assets. For sure, if it took power the sanctions would come to an end, and credit would again become available, but the policies it would implement would be as unpopular as when Zanu-PF implemented them in the 80s and 90s...

I don't believe we can ignore the economic motive in the use of sanctions when there are many similarly corrupt and dictatorial governments in Africa that do not get any media attention or face any international pressure in the form of sanctions.

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
Mugabe and his thugs were killing farmers, ruining the economy and seizing land for the elite. Slow but steady progress towards land reform was being made beforehand. My understanding is that much of Africa is ashamed of Mugabe. You are right about the hypocrisy of the West about all the over similarly corrupt and dictatorial governments in Africa that nothing is done about. Thankfully over Zimbabwe things are different. I wish we took similar action against the rest of the rotten lot.

Charlie Marks said...

"My understanding is that much of Africa is ashamed of Mugabe." Perhaps, but not on the question of land reform. The purpose of which is to return to the majority land which has been unjustly acquired in the past - in what was Rhodesia under colonial rule. However corruptly this has taken place, there are many African countries in which the pattern of land ownership has not changed substantially since colonial rule.

The policy of compulsory purchasing was a more effective way of redistributing land than the "willing-seller, willing-buyer" approach, to which Zanu-PF held for twelve years after independence. The Tory government of Major then the Labour government of Blair refused to assist with large scale reform of land ownership so it went ahead. The US government explicitly states what it's problem with the Zimbabwean government is that it doesn't respect the free market in land ownership.

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
"The policy of compulsory purchasing was a more effective way of redistributing land than the "willing-seller, willing-buyer" approach”

No, this was clearly not a more effective way of redistributing land. It has helped destroy the farms and the country. It did not work. At best it was naive of Mugabe to think otherwise. At worse (and sadly the truth I think) it was just a squalid land grab for his supporters. No principles involved at all.

Charlie Marks said...

In terms of sustaining or increasing productivity - it hasn't worked. In terms of redistributing land it worked Those given land are unable to get credit from the private banks to invest in farming. Existing trading relations are disrupted by the break-up of big farms. Far better, perhaps, would have been to expropriate the farms as enterprises - along with the private banks (Barclays still operates there, you know...)

As for printing money instead of nationalising the banks - it's good to see that New Labour is not so foolish as to try quantitative easing, which doesn't have a good track record with regards inflation...

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie
Politically it hasn’t worked! We can argue until the cows come home (pardon the sad pun) about whether or not economically this might have worked. I happen to think not. But the pictures of mobs ransacking farms and abusing farmers (or worse) sacred off any reputable investors. Barclay’s apparently wanted to pull out of the country years ago but were persuaded to stay by NGO’s who pleaded that they could not operate without access to an international bank.

Charlie Marks said...

Reputable investors... Now there's a phrase.

As for Barclays - is this the same bank that refused to cease its operations in apartheid South Africa? Pull the other one, John!

John Gray said...

Hi Charlie

I will double check but I think I am right about Barclays