The Proletariat Congress

Nothing like petty diplomatic conflicts to keep the world going round.

Back in January of this year, during a raid on a consulate in Irbil, northern Iraq, the American forces seized 5 Iranian diplomats. American contends that the 5 men it arrested were not diplomats engaged in consular activities but rather supporters on the ongoing insurgency in Iraq.

Fast forward to late March; March 23rd. In the Persian Gulf; in Iraqi waters, according to the British, and in Iranian waters, according to Iran, 15 UK sailors and marines were captured at gun point on the the charge of having violated international law by straying into Iranian waters.

For a tense couple of weeks, we waited for the issue to resolve itself, and as time wore on, the Iranian military paraded the captured 15 British sailors and marines on television, as each supposedly confessed to having violated international law by straying into Iranian waters while searching for a wayward merchant vessel.

When the reminder of the American raid on the Iranian consulate came up, Iran denied having taken the British sailors and marines captive in response to the Americans’ unwillingness to release the 5 diplomat, whom both Iraq and Iran have declared to be diplomats, despite American insistence that the men were supporters of the insurgency.

This row reminds me of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, in which a group of militant university students seized the American embassy in Tehran and took the diplomats and staff hostage for 444 days (November 1979-March 1981). This attack, the hostage crisis, occurred at the end of the Carter administration. His administration’s failed attempt to free the hostages spelt political suicide and the end of his career, and it gave his successor, Regan a leg up in freeing the Americans. In the end, it wasn’t either presidency that really ended the crisis, but rather the actions of a man, Canadian ambassador to Iran, Ken Taylor, dubbed the ‘Canadian Caper‘. Taylor secured the freedom for six of the diplomats by issuing them with Canadian passports, allowing for them to leave.

Recently, during this newest row, Mr Taylor had spoken with CBC and during his interview suggested that Iran wasn’t going to harm the hostages as much as it wanted to stick it to the west just to make a point.

Articles published during the recent days also suggest the same thing, as it is apparent that the sailors and marines have said that their Iranian “hosts” didn’t mistreat them. This of course comes while they are in custody, but that may change when they are release. Or it may not…

However, in a strange, but welcomed twist of events, the Iranian government had decided in the end to release the 15 sailors and marines as a “gift” to the British for Easter, as Easter is also the time in which the prophet Muhammed has his birthday.

“On the occasion of the birthday of the great Prophet (Muhammad) … and for the occasion of the passing of Christ, I say the Islamic Republic government and the Iranian people — with all powers and legal right to put the soldiers on trial — forgave those 15,” Ahmadinejad said, referring to the Muslim Prophet’s birthday and the Easter season.
….
Ahmadinejad said he was sorry that the sailors and marines had been arrested, and he criticized Britain for sending Faye Turney, one of the 15 detainees, into the Gulf, pointing out that she is a woman with a child.

“How can you justify seeing a mother away from her home, her children? Why don’t they respect family values in the West?” he asked of the British government.

This doesn’t change the fact that Ahmadinejad did say in his speech that the Iranian government did have the right to try the British sailors and marines on the charge of trespassing into Iranian waters. He did however extend forgiveness to the 15 sailors and marines who are returning to Britain by the end of the week.

When the detainees were released, Ahmadinejad had been there to speak with the crew.

When has Bush ever given the time of day to anyone America has captured in his last six to seven years in office?

When has he ever thought of looking at the current climate of affairs and trying to rationalise how it came to this, or even contemplated releasing people who were innocents caught up in a witch hunt and arrest for breathing while Muslim?

No government, for for that matter, no one is perfect, but at least there are still world leaders who try and play by the rules of the game, even if they don’t admit when they’re wrong.

Iran to free sailors as ‘gift’ to British people
Ahmadinejad’s final flourish

Contrary to popular, Muslims do not support violence against ordinary civilians any more than Americans and others. While exceptions may exists throughout Islamic society, the majority of Muslims themselves do not condone violence and are more likely to be against it than their American counterparts.

Terror Free Tomorrow conducted a survey in December of 2006 to find out just who truly believed violence against civilians to be justifiable.

It found that a good 46% of Americans believed that any type of violence against civilians in any situation is never justifiable, while a shocking 24% would “often” or “sometimes” believe that violence against civilian populations is justified. One might say that this should be taken with a grain of salt, but, realistically, these numbers make sense, given the lack of total moral outrage in the general American public about the atrocities happening in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of their soldiers.

The same survey conducted in 2006, also asked respondents in predominantly Arab/Islamic nations for their feed back to get an idea of just how many people in these nations supported or condemned violence against civilians populations.

In the predominantly Islamic nations, violence against civilian populations was found to be “never justified”. 74% of Indonesians respondents, 86% of Pakistani respondents and 81% of Bengali respondents agreed that violence/terrorism against civilian populations are never justifiable.

The survey found that Muslims were equally as opposed to acts of terrorism as Americans, if not more so. Yet, it seems that the media would rather portray Muslims as maniacal gun-toting, bombing building lunatics hell bent on blowing up civilian populations. These are a very tiny minority, but in the eyes of the liberal media, this is what keeps viewers and not stories from the moderates who are the real majority of Muslims.

The same survey found that even those who were in support of violence, did view America favourably in some ways, namely if America had done something the person saw as a valuable contribution to their home nation.

So, tell me again, why we have the war on terror and exactly what is it going to achieve?

The myth of Muslim support for terror

We’re more than a few years into the 21st century, a time that once was predicted to be rampant with flying cars, robots that would do everything that humans used to, and space would be massively colonized. But, instead, we’re no really further ahead than we were many years ago. There have been numerous technological innovations since the industrial revolution that freed humanity from the shackles of mundane tasks, allowing us more free time.

This precious free time allowed for many nations in both the eastern and western hemispheres to push forward with new governments, abolishing feudal systems and antiquated monarchies whose powers have been reduced to mere symbolism. The old conditions sowed the seeds for revolution, allowing people to seize power and change their world.

The earliest revolutions occurred before the industrial revolution, sending shock waves through the British Empire and the French Empire.

Colonial America took up arms against its British overlord and allocated power to the people in the form of legislative and judicial power with the Declaration of Independence and the Emancipation Proclamation.

The embattled French peasantry rose up against Louis XVI in a event that would become known as the French Revolution, ending the legacy of the French monarchy, and establishing the first republic of France, heavily inspired by the American Revolution.

These events were the trademark symbols of the 18th century.

The 19th century, an era of conservative thinking, commonly called the Victorian era because of the immense influence that Queen Victoria of England wielded over the numerous English colonies, including and not limited to Upper and Lower Canada, later known as Eastern and Western Canada. The era brought in conservative thinking and ‘mannerisms’ that reflected the desires of the Queen.

The grip on power held by the British inflamed passions in the areas known as Upper and Lower Canada, sparking the rebellions of Upper and Lower Canada, eventually leading to the formation of the Dominion of Canada, under the British North Americas Act.

The common feature of all these revolutions was the desire for change. The desire for change, no matter what year doesn’t change. People have desires and they long for answers when things don’t appear right.

Fast forward to the 20th century, the hundred years in which the world change the most. A time when the world was turned upside down and all current ways of thinking were challenged.

1917 Russia, the proletarian grew irritated with the lack of action by the Romanovs, the last of the Russian Tsars. Under the guidance of Stalin, Lenin and Trotsky, the efforts to bring Marx’s communist theory to life gained momentum, and thus ended the reign of one of the most powerful monarchies in Europe. With the fall of Tsar brought in years of brutal dictatorial regimes, first under Stalin who created the notorious gulags, through to Khrushchev and Gorbachev; the fall of the Berlin Wall ending the Soviet reign of terror and sphere of influence.

Other notable revolutions that ended previous regimes that were either monarchies or oligarchies that landed in the hands of those who became corrupted with power were the Cuban Revolution and the Iranian Revolution (Islamic Revolution).

Another eerily common component of all the revolutions was that the changes were because the people wanted it and not because the external political interests wanted it to happen.

International political pressure has no say in the way something goes down because the people themselves have to want the change. Those who merely have a political interest have yet to realise that the seeds of revolution can only be planted when the desire exists. The seeds need fertile conditions in which to grow. Ousting unfavoured leaders doesn’t achieve the revolution desired. Nor does the potential death of a strong, charismatic leader ensure such changes either. The changes can only come when the heart changes.

Forcing democratic changes doesn’t happen because George Bush decides for it to happen. Putting a national leader on trial in a kangaroo court doesn’t sooth hard feelings and end vendettas. Executing a national leader due to political interests doesn’t instantly end secretariat violence, nor does sending in more troops accomplish anything more than souring over hard feelings.

Just because George Bush decides that Hussein isn’t the type of leader that Iraq needs doesn’t mean he knows what’s best for a country he knows squat about, other than what his generals tell him. Nor does he know what’s good for Cuba just because Castro is on the fritz.

Democracy arrives when the people are ready, not when George Bush decides that it’s time to bring democracy to the people. He can’t bring democracy overseas until he brings democracy to America, and America has never seen democracy before because it’s a republic, and a republic is not a democratic institution.

Has democracy arrived in Iraq? Does an election mean that the Iraqis have the prized western ‘democracy’ at their finger tips? Not really, as dictatorships have elections as well, even if these elections are simply for show, just like the 2000 Presidential Election.

Does Cuba have elections? Sure, but does that make them a democracy?

Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations have elections, but does that make them democracies? No.

Despite that, Bush still insists that voting is a key element of democracy, when elections and voting can happen in the absence of democracy, as America has proven time and time again in their elections.

Democracy means nothing when the people lack basic services like health and education as well as civil infrastructure.

The people of Iraq live in fear of the terrorists who were never a concern before the Americans came in, bragging how they would be welcomed as liberators. The Iraqis used to have healthcare and education, but now have ‘democracy’, daily terrorist attacks and military checkpoints governed by trigger-happy Americans with frayed nerves, ready to shoot anything that moves.

Cuba has one of the most revered healthcare systems in the world and a high-ranked education system. Venezuela thrives off a socialist style system where the poorest are given what they need.

The beacons of ‘democracy’ have shown no effort in giving the people what they need.

When was the last time American politicians listened to the people?

In the modern, westernised world, many immigrants have two choices, they can either integrate voluntarily into the society that they have chosen to be a part of, or they can be dragged kicking and screaming through forced assimilation. Some people are very good at the whole voluntary integration. The flip side is that there still exist many who refuse to integrate into the society as it exists and insist on turning the society they move to into one from whence they came.

The immigrants who come to a new nation, who bring their heritage while acknowledging the cultural differences and accepting it, are generally those who can make a new life for themselves easily. They hold their beliefs, but they act as members of the nation they are apart of.

This is what makes a nation a cultural mosaic; the cultures that are brought over are added to the patchwork of the nation and integrated into the fabric of the pre-existing society.

This applies no matter where a person moves when they choose to emigrate to another nation.

If a westerner goes to any Middle Eastern or Far East nation, ruled by religion, that westerner has no room to express his/her cultural identity. In Saudi Arabia, women are forced to cover, even if they are of another religion. Same with any other nation in that area.

But the west is ‘culturally’ sensitive, so we must accommodate every nutjob that comes here. We are ‘racists’ and ‘bigots’ if we speak out against what isn’t a normal aspect of our culture, such as the niqab and the burqa, two popular Islamic veils in high;y conservative areas that use a very literal interpretation of the Qu’ran that call for ‘modesty’.

Believers! Enter not the houses other than your own until you have introduced yourselves and wished peace to those in them. That is best for you that you may be heedful. If you find no one in the house, enter not until permission is given to you. If you are asked to go back, go back, for it is purer for you. Allah has knowledge of all which you do. It is no sin for you to enter non-residential places in which there is benefit for you. And Allah has knowledge of what you reveal and what you conceal. [O Prophet!] tell believing men to restrain their eyes and guard their private parts [if there are women present in these houses]. That is purer for them. And Allah is well aware of what you do. And tell the believing women to restrain their eyes and to guard their private parts and to display of their ornaments only those [which are worn on limbs] which are normally revealed and to draw their khumūr over their bosoms. They should not reveal their ornaments to anyone save their husbands or their fathers or their husbands’ fathers or their sons or their husbands’ sons or their brothers or their brothers’ sons or their sisters’ sons or other women of acquaintance or their slaves or the subservient male servants who are not attracted to women or children who have no awareness of the hidden aspects of women. They should [also] not stamp their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. Believers turn to Allah in repentance that you may prosper.
— Qur’an, 24:27-31

The western ‘world’ sees this as moderates do, which means dressing in simple clothing, nothing revealing, accompanied by, in the woman’s case, a hijab.

Also commonly accepted in the western world is that those who cover their face, such as with a ski mask, bandanna or a hoodie with a baseball cap are likely hiding something and are generally distrusted. Islamic veils are viewed the same way for some. They don’t object to the religious dress itself, but rather to the dress that obscures the face, placing those who wear the niqab or burqa on par with those who conceal their face for dubious reasons.

This has come under fire in various places throughout Europe, including in France, where the French government banned all religious symbols in public that can’t be concealed, England, where a teacher was handed down a ruling regarding her wearing of a veil in the classroom. Italy has a dated law from the 70s aimed to curb violence. Their law makes the covering of face in public illegal, and this dates before there was a notable Muslim population there.

While France made a blanket law governing all religious symbols, The Netherlands has come out in favour of banning the burqa and other face coverings. No one else has whined as much as the Islamic population. Potent symbols of western culture have come under fire, but, no one has whined about not being able to cover their faces other than Muslims. Even if it’s cold out.

Other forms of face coverings, such as veils, and crash helmets with visors that obscure the face, would also be covered by a ban.

A ban on covering the face vesus not being able to wear any symbol of one’s religion?

Dutch Muslim condemn burqa ban vs French scarf ban comes into force