"'Sickened by the silence': Western progressives accused of staying mute about Iran protests"

[George-ananda]

Do you support criticizing the Iranian government because they are "enemies of the U.S." or because they're oppressive regardless of their stance about the U.S.?

Both. I think their oppressive backwardness is why they are so anti-west (especially America) even into this new century. I do not know any progressive thinking country with that level of anti-Americanism.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Why would EU and Canada be leftists?
Protests inside Iran (or Hong Kong or Spain) are their internal matter. Why should foreign nations stick their big noses in there? Unless there are serious international consequences of events inside a country, why should countries meddle in each other's domestic affairs? That's the right neo-con policy of US.

That's a different (albeit relevant) subject, but as the article noted, some of the governments that are now staying silent or restrained showed clear support for "Arab Spring" protests. Aside from that double standard, I don't think countries should always stay out of other countries' internal matters. I think diplomacy is highly valuable, but maintaining diplomacy doesn't have to entail moral apathy toward the internal affairs of other countries when relations with questionable regimes are inevitably going to come up in any case.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Possibly the same thing I feel. I am just not sure I understand what is going on in Iran well enough to have a clear opinion.

All I have to go on is Western media, which is notoriously bad about accurate reportage from Iran. Since I have zero influence anyway,. I am inclined to let the dust settle before drawing conclusions.
Similarly, I wouldn't expect many Iranians to understand the 2009 Teaparty demonstrations and grasp the distinction between them and the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations. You just need to know too much about the political landscape of the USA when they happened. I didn't understand the landscape over there, and largely misunderstood the Arab Spring demonstrations. I try to be careful not to overestimate my grasp of foreign cultures.
Tom

Fair enough. I'm assuming governments can (and should) have a firm grasp on the circumstances outside their own borders, though. It's not like commenting on something like this and opposing (or supporting, for that matter) it would be setting a precedent for, say, European governments, after all.

 

[Enoch07]

I'm very sorry to hear that your friend got rejected but also glad that he managed to find home elsewhere. May I ask what reason(s) they gave for rejecting him? I totally understand if you choose not to answer that.

I am not sure to be honest. He inquired and they said no, is all I know.

 

[Debater Slayer]

Both. I think their oppressive backwardness is why they are so anti-west (especially America) even into this new century. I do not know any progressive thinking country with that level of anti-Americanism.

Being so strongly anti-Western does seem to be a good indication of backward beliefs for some people, and I'd say the Iranian government partially falls into that category. I say "partially" because it seems to me that there are also valid reasons for them to oppose the U.S., such as the recent travel ban.

 

[sayak83]

That's a different (albeit relevant) subject, but as the article noted, some of the governments that are now staying silent or restrained showed clear support for "Arab Spring" protests. Aside from that double standard, I don't think countries should always stay out of other countries' internal matters. I think diplomacy is highly valuable, but maintaining diplomacy doesn't have to entail moral apathy toward the internal affairs of other countries when relations with questionable regimes are inevitably going to come up in any case.

They supported them when it appeared that the protests would change the governments of those countries (as it did). You need to cultivate good political relationships with the new group that's coming to power.

 

[columbus]

It's not like commenting on something like this and opposing (or supporting, for that matter) it would be setting a precedent for, say, European governments, after all.

No.
But wouldn't it make it easier for Iranian hardliners to paint the demonstraters as "tools of the Great Satan" and clamp down?
Tom

 

[Debater Slayer]

They supported them when it appeared that the protests would change the governments of those countries (as it did). You need to cultivate good political relationships with the new group that's coming to power.

So you need to support human rights and also stay silent about their being violated on demand? That seems politically convenient, but if so, I certainly wouldn't hail any politician who did that as some champion of freedom or human rights, as some have done for Justin Trudeau, for instance.

 

[Debater Slayer]

No.
But wouldn't it make it easier for Iranian hardliners to paint the demonstraters as "tools of the Great Satan" and clamp down?
Tom

I doubt painting them as such or not would change the Iranian government's reaction to them; they're already violently clamping down on the protesters anyway.

 

[sayak83]

So you need to support human rights and also stay silent about their being violated on demand? That seems politically convenient, but if so, I certainly wouldn't hail any politician who did that as some champion of freedom or human rights, as some have done for Justin Trudeau, for instance.

I believe nations should promote their own self interest in international sphere. There is no world government with a constitution or anything, just a shifting alliance of various power blocks. So it's basically a "state of nature", might is right system. Within this context, there is no rational policy other than self-interest for various states.

Internally its different of course. Inside a nation, principles matter as we have a state, constitution, courts, police, rule of law etc. None of this exists in the international sphere as of yet.

Does anybody really think US is not pursuing its own agenda by trying to focus on Iran Protest?
Russia berates US for UN meeting on Iran

 

[columbus]

I doubt painting them as such or not would change the Iranian government's reaction to them; they're already violently clamping down on the protesters anyway.

Ok, I understand that.
But I can't help remembering that the reason that the hardliners are in power now is because the USA toppled their democracy and installed a puppet Shah. The only people with the power to get rid of Pahlavi were the hardliner Revolutionary Guard. And we helped them consolidate control by launching an invasion force from Iraq.

I vote for the USA to shut up and sit down!
Tom

 

[Spiderman]

An excellent article about the hypocrisy of some leftists and the two-faced approach they are taking toward human rights in Iran.

I found these two parts especially of note:



Furthermore:



It appears that Mr. Trudeau is pro-LGBT rights—but doesn't mind associating with one of the most homophobic and oppressive regimes in the world in addition to staying silent about its current human rights abuses.

The regressive left are showing their true colors in circumstances like these.

You are very thoughtful!

 

[Stanyon]

It makes one more than a little skeptical of politicians when someone like Trudeau, who was in tears while talking about LGBT rights not long ago, is now being so restrained toward a regime as blatantly homophobic as Iran's. Either he's being a hypocrite or he doesn't really care about LGBT rights as much as he claims to be, and in both cases he doesn't come out as exactly a beacon of reason and compassion.

I'd say the key word in your post is "politician", he may be confused because on one hand he wanted to appease and exploit the PC angle in his country yet cannot bring himself to criticize an Islamic ruled country for fear of violating PC protocol which seems to include not criticizing Islam.
Whatever is going on in Iran, I hope the U.S. stays the hell out of it.

 

[YmirGF]

I'd say the key word in your post is "politician", he may be confused because on one hand he wanted to appease and exploit the PC angle in his country yet cannot bring himself to criticize an Islamic ruled country for fear of violating PC protocol which seems to include not criticizing Islam.
Whatever is going on in Iran, I hope the U.S. stays the hell out of it.

Yes, that is an aspect I've been chewing on in several over-lapping areas for the last little while. My only answer is that "progressives" are deeply afraid of rocking the boat, getting called out and then losing their "progressive" stature. From my own research on this phenomena "progressives" are extremely intolerant of anyone who goes against the current groupthink.

 

[Lyndon]

maybe its because every time the West has supported anti government protesters in Muslim countries it has gone horribly bad. Why weren't there major calls for the overthrow of the US government when we had major protesters all over the country??

 

[sun rise]

That still doesn't address the OP, though. What do you think justifies the inconsistent approach taken by some governments toward the protests and human rights abuses in Iran?

There is some concern and I share it that being too vocal will embolden the hardliners to crack down even more given that they're blaming everyone but themselves.

I think the regime there is as ready to wipe out the opposition as they were during the Green Revolution a few years ago. Then all the vocal support in the world did no good.

In fact, I don't know of any uprising in the past few years where words did much good at all except get some people hopeful that action would follow the words which did not happen.

 

[sun rise]

Yes, that is an aspect I've been chewing on in several over-lapping areas for the last little while. My only answer is that "progressives" are deeply afraid of rocking the boat, getting called out and then losing their "progressive" stature. From my own research on this phenomena "progressives" are extremely intolerant of anyone who goes against the current groupthink.

Given the groupthink of the right where morals were tossed out the window when the groper in chief was elected and lying became endemic, the real groupthink is on the right.

 

[YmirGF]

Given the groupthink of the right where morals were tossed out the window when the groper in chief was elected and lying became endemic, the real groupthink is on the right.

*sigh*

 

[Stevicus]

It appears that Mr. Trudeau is pro-LGBT rights—but doesn't mind associating with one of the most homophobic and oppressive regimes in the world in addition to staying silent about its current human rights abuses.

The regressive left are showing their true colors in circumstances like these.

I've noticed such inconsistencies in the West's position regarding attitudes towards various regimes and their opposition around the world. We talk about "freedom" and "human rights" in some cases, but not in others. How they manage to pick and choose which regimes to condemn and which ones to support is a game I've never really understood.

Freedom House (Freedom in the World 2017) delineates which nations are free, partly-free, and not free, and by that standard, less than 50% of the world's countries are actually "free" by our standards.

By all rights, any country that's not green on this map should have their government condemned by the US - and we should probably break off diplomatic relations with such countries until their governments shape up and become "free." That would include most of Africa and Asia, as well as Mexico. That is, if our government was being truthful about their supposed support of "freedom" and "democracy" around the world. Since they don't, then that's proof positive that our government is lying about its geopolitical aspirations and justifications for our military and foreign policies.

 

[Lyndon]

I imagine if you're a conservative Shiite Muslim, you're just as free in Iran as a Conservative Christian is in the USA. America's not really that "free", we don't have universal healthcare, we don't have free education, heck, even Libya under Quadafi had that. I'd be surprised if Iran had as big a homeless problem as the "free" USA!! Muslims are very generous to the poor, moreso than Christians or US government.