Hammer & Broom

Three International Organizations Condenm Repressive Measures Against Trade Leaders Mahmoud Salehi

2008-03-24T09:35:00.003-04:00

INTERNATIONAL TRADE UNION CONFEDERATION (ITUC)
INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT WORKERS’ FEDERATION (ITF)
AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

ITUC Online
051/190308
Iran: Amnesty International and international trade union bodies condemn repressive measures meted out against trade union leader Mahmoud Salehi

Brussels, 18 March 2008 (ITUC OnLine): Amnesty International, the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) and the International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF) are calling on the Iranian authorities to immediately and unconditionally release Mahmoud Salehi, the former leader of the Saqez Bakers’ Union, who was imprisoned in 2007 for the pursuit of legitimate trade union activities.

Mahmoud Salehi, who has serious long term medical concerns, is now on a total hunger strike and there are serious fears for his safety. He went on hunger strike after he was summoned to appear for questioning by Branch 4 of the Sanandaj Courts on 17 March 2008 when, after a prolonged wait, new charges were issued against him.

He has reportedly been accused of ‘communicating with those outside prison for the purposes of issuing messages of solidarity’ for other individual prisoners on hunger strike and students facing arrest. The new charges appear intended to justify Mahmoud Salehi’s continued detention beyond his scheduled 23 March 2008 release date, when he will have completed a one year prison sentence.

Amnesty International, the ITUC and the ITF are concerned that the new charge may have been brought against Mahmoud Salehi in response to the international mobilisation on 6 March 2008 by trade unions and Amnesty International members around the world to demand his release and that of his fellow trade unionist, Mansour Osanloo.

Mahmoud Salehi, former President of the Bakery Workers' Association of the city of Saqez, was arrested after a peaceful demonstration to celebrate May Day 2004. He was imprisoned on charges of ‘acting against national security’ after his final appeal hearing on 11 March 2007, and he began a one year sentence, with another three years’ suspended, on 9 April 2007.

Mahmoud Salehi is a prisoner of conscience and has long-term medical needs. A May 2007 request by his doctor that he be accorded specialist treatment outside the prison has been ignored. He suffers from chronic kidney disease, as a result of which he requires dialysis. He is also said to suffer from a heart disorder. In December 2007 it was reported that he had grave intestinal edema or swelling that may be connected with his renal disease. His health continues to be at serious risk, and he is reported to regularly experience fainting episodes in prison as a result of blood pressure problems.

Guy Ryder, General Secretary of the ITUC said ”It is deplorable that Mahmoud Salehi should have been imprisoned for participating in a May Day rally – a show of worker solidarity that should be a cause of celebration rather than repression.”

Amnesty International, the ITUC and the ITF are calling on the Iranian authorities to release both Mahmoud Salehi and Mansour Osanlu immediately and unconditionally and to ensure that Mahmoud Salehi has immediate access to specialist medical treatment that he needs.

David Cockroft, ITF concluded “It seems that the Iranian authorities want to silence Salehi ahead of this year’s May Day rallies. Though they may be able to keep him in jail, they will not silence the voices of hundreds of thousands of human rights activists and trade unionists who are demanding respect for fundamental labour rights in Iran. The three organisations will continue to work tirelessly alongside the independent Iranian trade union movement to seek respect for human rights for working people in Iran,” David Cockroft, ITF added.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

In November 2005 Mahmoud Salehi was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment and three years' internal exile in the city of Ghorveh, Kordestan. At his trial, the prosecutor reportedly cited his trade union activities as evidence against him, and referred to a meeting he had held with officials from the then-International Confederation of Free Trade Unions (ICFTU) – a predecessor organisation of the International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC) - in April 2004, shortly before the May Day demonstrations. His conviction was overturned on appeal, but after a retrial he was sentenced on 11 November 2006 to four years’ imprisonment for "conspiring to commit crimes against national security". He was free until the appeal hearing on 11 March 2007, when his sentence was reduced to a three-year suspended prison sentence and one year’s imprisonment, which commenced with his imprisonment on 9 April 2007.

Amnesty International is working together with the ITUC and the ITF to seek the release of Mahmoud Salehi and fellow jailed trade unionist Mansour Osanlu, leader of the Tehran bus workers’ union, and to promote labour rights in Iran.

The ITUC represents 168 million workers in 155 countries and territories and has 311 national affiliates.

For more information, please contact the ITUC Press Department on +32 2 224 0204 or +32 476 621 018

No Common Ground With the Right Wing: An Open Letter To Azar Majadi and Homa Arjomand

2008-03-10T22:39:00.004-04:00

Dear Azar and Homa,

We write this letter to you as friends and political comrades. We are great admirers of your long-term work and dedication to the struggle for women's freedom and equality. For the past several years, the signers of this letter have been promoting your work and the work of WPI members in various ways. We have done radio programs on WBAI Community Radio in NYC, a station that reaches three states and is heard worldwide on the web. We have written articles, published your writings, organized solidarity demonstrations, hosted speakers, raised money, produced and circulated leaflets and facilitated an email list for people interested in supporting and learning more about women's and workers movements in the Middle East.

It is because of our admiration for your work and our own commitment to secular socialist movements in the Middle East that we write you this letter expressing our shock and deep dismay about your decision to be featured in the right-wing neo-conservative magazine Front Page. Front Page is a rabidly racist and anti-feminist oracle of the right-wing neo-conservatives in the United States. Its agenda is the polar opposite of socialists and feminists. In fact, those behind it are some of the fiercest opponents of left movements. To name one of many examples, they have an organized campaign to destroy WomenŐs Studies departments throughout the country and systematically target any and all university professors who espouse a left of center point of view. The ONLY reason they are interested in the issue of women's rights in the Middle East is justify their position of US domination over the Middle East and Israeli domination over the people of Palestine.

By appearing in the pages of their magazine, you are wittingly or unwittingly, finding common ground with a right-wing agenda. You are allowing your work and your name to be used, out of context, to support an agenda that serves the interests of patriarchal capital and the ruling elites. Finally, you are blurring the line between the left and the right that will have terrible repercussions for all who seek to support and show solidarity with women's and workers' struggles in the Middle East.

We, in the US, have worked very hard to show the differences between our secular left positions and those of the neo-conservatives. There is real confusion about this, not just on the part of Islamist apologists, but among the general masses of progressive people. When progressives hear the anti-Islamic rhetoric of Middle Eastern leftists, especially in the absence of any condemnation of the US war, it sounds very much like the rants of new-conservatives.

These interviews will not only add to this confusion, they will actually bear out the accusation--that we frequently run into-- that you are promoting a right-wing agenda. Many people in the US are still unfamiliar with your work. Now that these interviews have been published, if someone were to do an online search of Azar or Homa in an attempt to learn more about the women's rights struggle in Iran, the first thing they will link to is Homa and Azar on the cover of Front Page magazine! This association with the right will have many negative repercussions. It will damage your credibility as leftists; it will make it much more difficult for us to build support for the workers and women's movements inside Iran, and it may even damage our own credibility as leftists who have closely aligned ourselves with your work.

If your intent was to debate neo-conservatives: we very much wish that you had. But neither of the interviews come off as debates. Homa doesn"t express a single word of disagreement with her interviewer nor bring the reader's attention to any of the differences between the right-wing politics of Front Page and her own as a leftist. A reader unfamiliar with her work can only assume that she shares the same politics as the magazine. Even a reader who knows her work, might very well interpret this article as her conscious shift to the right.

And while Azar states her disagreements with some of the interviewers's outrageous claims, she is continually cut off, patronized as "my friend" and told what she is and isn't supposed to be talking about. The interviewer gets the last word on every point, including the final point in which he makes a despicable defense of the US bombs dropped on Japan and denies Azar the opportunity to respond. If this were a "debate" Azar would not be continually cut-off while the interviewer is allowed to go on ad-nauseum. If it were a debate, it would take place on neutral ground with both sides agreeing on the points to be discussed. If it were truly a debate, it would not end with the interviewer stating, "Aside from some of our disagreements here today, we stand together against radical Islam and for a free Iran." These disturbing final words point to the real intent of the interview, which is not a debate, but an effort to seek common ground.
Even the use of the word "we" is jarring here. We? We, the left and the right? What common agenda do we have? What does it mean to have a "free Iran?" Are we talking about socialism or capitalism? And what about radical Zionism? Or the fact that Israel itself is a religious state? Or the multitude of other areas of disagreement never mentioned here, such as the rights of immigrants to exist and to be free of the racist hatred spewed at them by neo-conservative bigots? The overall effect of this interview is not a confrontation of two people with polar opposite politics, but two people who politely agree to disagree on some issues, while agreeing on others.

Far from confronting the right, these interviews add legitimacy to their cause while undermining our own. We are all for challenging, confronting and debating the right. But such a confrontation must be done on our terms, not theirs, or at the very least on neutral ground. It must clearly state the fundamental difference between leftists and neo-conservatives, and take into account the limited knowledge most Americans have of secular left movements in the Middle East. In short, it must be a chance to promote our agenda, not theirs!

We doubt you would find it acceptable if US leftists decided to appear in a publication of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in which they were interviewed about their opposition to the US government. Would you not denounce such an action as seeking common ground with Islamists and bolstering the legitimacy of the Islamic regime? Would you not dismiss the Islamic Republic's claim to be "anti-imperialist" as a political ploy and hypocrisy? Appearing in Front Page is not very different; it is a well-oiled political organ of the right, serving and promoting the interests of the Bush regime. It's designed to whip up hatred of oppressed and marginalized groups and viciously smear any progressive movement that seeks to defend them. Their claim to be defenders of women's rights is utterly bogus and hypocritical. Women's rights activists have an obligation to expose and condemn their hypocrisy on this issue.

Once again, let us say that we have the highest regard for your brave and important work. Because of this, we urge you not to let it be used and twisted by a right-wing oracle like Front Page. We urge you not to promote and circulate these interviews on your website or through your list-serves. Although the damage is already done, it is not too late to challenge the editors of Front Page to a real debate, in which the sides are clearly drawn and all the issues are on the table. This would allow you not only to promote your work, and reach a wider audience, but at the same time, expose the neo-conservative's right-wing agenda as just as harmful to the women and workers of the world as political Islam.

Yours in struggle,

Jennifer Fasulo: (former) founder & member of Solidarity with Organization of WomenŐs Freedom in Iraq (SOWFI)
Fran Luck: Executive Producer of Joy of Resistance: Multi-Cultural Feminist Radio, WBAI; (former) founder & member of SOWFI
Allison Guttu: Feminist Organizer; (former) member of SOWFI
Bill Weinberg: Editor of World War 4 Report & Executive Producer of Moorish Orthodox Radio Crusade: Anarchism for the Global City, WBAI radio

Joy of Resistance, Multicultural Feminism at WBAI on Women's Movement in Iran

2007-03-22T13:35:00.000-04:00

March 22, 11:00 am
Joy of Resistance, Multicultural Feminism @ WBAI
99.5 FM in NYC LISTEN ONLINE
www.wbai.org

Supporting the Iranian people's struggle against the Clerical State in Iran, while being against the US Imperialist designs on that country--THE THIRD WAY

In Iran today there is a powerful women's --and people's resistance movement --that is fighting the Islamic State. This past International Women's Day, thousands were in the streets in cities across Iran demonstrating against the regime. This movement is feminist AND anti-imperialist; and it is reaching out for solidarity. But many on the U.S. Left won't recognize it because they think that supporting it will give aid to a U.S. govenment planning to invade Iran. For these Leftists, just as for their brothers on the Right, women's rights are easily jettisoned when they "complicate" national conflicts.

On March 22, at 11:00 am, join the Joy of Resistance, Multicultural Feminist Radio @ WBAi as we speak with two Iranian women who are fighting for the rights of women in Iran. One is Mina Ahadi, Chairperson of the Committee to Stop Stoning and the Committee Against Executions in Iran. She will be interviewed by Priya Reddy. The other is Nazanin Rafshin Jam, who was recently instrumental in freeing Nazanin Fetahi, a teenager who was slated to be executed by the Iranian regime for fighting back against--and killing--a man who was trying to rape her.

We will look at the courageous struggle of activists in Iran and find out about the "Third Way", a position that supports the fight against a fundamentalist State while at the same time condemning the US threats and war-mongering by George Bush and company.

We'll be playing original music of resistance that this movement is generating, have a report on IWD demonstrations in Iran, a report from NOW-New Jersey by Maretta Short and our usual International Feminist News Wrap-Up.

Joy of Resistance: 4th Thursday of every month: Cutting edge feminism you won't want to miss!

A Report on March 8th Celebrations in Iran

2007-03-10T22:50:00.000-05:00

A Historic March 8th in Iran
Security forces attacked International Women’s Day gatherings
A report by Organization of Women's Liberation in Iran

People in Iran welcomed 8th March this year by organising many events well ahead of the actual day in different cities all over the country. It culminated in major gatherings on Thursday, international women’s day. People were passionate about the day, had prepared manifestos, resolutions and banners demanding equality, condemning gender apartheid and women’s oppression. As usual the Islamic regime tried everything to halt and prevent these events. Despite massive paramilitary and secret police presence, many pickets and gatherings took place.

Tehran
Several thousand people gathered around Tehran University by 4 pm Tehran’s time to start an 8 March rally which was called by 8 March organising committee, endorsed by OWL. However, this gathering was prevented from commencing by the security forces. Islamic Republic had decided to stop any 8 March event to take place. The presence of massive force by Tehran University and in and around Daneshjoo Park, where the rally was to end, and also by Vali-e -asr square, a close by busy shopping area prevented any meetings to take place. Any person who tried to shout slogans was attacked and taken away. Eye witnesses have reported to OWL’s 8 March headquarters that around 25 people were arrested by Tehran University and Vali-e-asr square.

Some of the demonstrators then decided to move to another location. Around 6 pm there was report of a large gathering in Mohseni square north of Tehran. The security forces attacked that gathering, as well.

Another 8 March meeting was organised to take place by the Parliament around 2 pm. Around 200 people tried to attend this meeting who were attacked by the security forces, few people were arrested. The organisers managed to read their resolution. The crowd had gathered to demand the release of women activists who were arrested Sunday 4 March.

Tehran University, March 8, 2007
About 1000-1500 people gathered at the university to protest against gender segregation and apartheid, dictatorship and police state. People chanted “socialism rise”. A few people made speeches about women’s demands and read a resolution clarifying these demands. Pictures of Mansoor Hekmat, the leader of Worker-communist movement were held high and the participants ended the ceremony by singing the “International” song.

About 3000 people gathered in “Vali-Asr square”. They were prohibited from starting the 8th March celebration by the secret services that had a massive presence in the crowd. The participants were waiting to find an opportunity to read their resolution but were stopped.

Allameh University, March 4, 2007
More than 700 people gathered to oppose the new dress code introduced to female students at the university. The students chanted slogans condemning the fascist method of controlling the university. A woman student said “we will not let you to turn the university into your reactionary and fascist arena”. A male student said “this new more restricted dress code is not just against females it is against us and all humanity too”. The main protest was against limitations of individual freedoms.

While singing protest songs, the students marched out. The slogans chanted were “No to reaction”, “they want to cloth us in black again”. Paramilitary forces were in the crowd all the time and filmed the event. Some tension occurred.

Cinema and Theatre Faculty, March 5, 2007
Students gathered at this faculty to protest against limitations imposed on them regarding their dress code during registration. Despite the conditions put on female students that unless they observe the new more restricted dress code, they would not be registered, the students managed to resist it. They wore their usual clothing to university.

Sharif University, March 4, 2007
The event at this university was loud and full of banners. The protestors sang progressive songs and held banners saying “Freedom, Equality” “Women’s freedom is the freedom of society”, “women are the main victims of war, poverty and violence”, “No to gender apartheid”, “we defend teachers’ and workers’ struggle” and “Students’ movement in unity with women’s and workers’ movement”.

Speeches were made by female and male students about the danger of war and the importance of uniting with other social movements for a free and equal society. The ceremony took place despite the pressure by the police. The secret police in the crowd tried to interrupt the speeches but they were isolated. One of the organisers said to them that they can not turn the clock back to the 1980’s when hundred thousands were executed.

A manifesto in defence of women’s rights was read at the end and 150 years of international struggle for women’s rights and freedom and liberation was celebrated.

Esfahan, March 8, 2007
Two events took place in the city of Esfahan. One in “Boostan Park” and the other in the main library. Women took their veils off for a few minutes to demonstrate their hatred of Islamic rules. They read out their resolution demanding freedom of clothing and condemning gender apartheid.

Sanandaj, March 8, 2007
Historically, Sanandaj is known as the red city because of its progressive and radical movement. Every year people organise 8th March seminars. This year, the police and the secret police attacked the ceremony and arrested many people. A gathering in the main city centre was attacked by the Islamic guards, some people were arrested and a few injured. The names of those arrested are: Asoo Saleh, Peyman Nemati, Akoo Kord-Nasab, Sooran Hoseini, Voorya Tdayon, Parviz Poorrezaee, Fateme Zamani, Soraya Mohamadi, Sima Alikhani, and Salah Zamani.

It was reported to OWL’s 8 March headquarter that all arrested yesterday, except Peyman Nemati and Salah Zamani were released today.

Kamyaran, March 8, 2007
In this city too, the presence of police was evident. Tens of people celebrated the day, gathered by the grave of those women who were either victims of honour killing or had committed suicide and read out their resolution in defence of women’s rights.

Sagez, March 8, 2007
This is another city in Kurdistan where many people celebrated the International Women’s Day. Women made speeches about their situation and the need to change it. A struggle for women’s rights and abolition of gender apartheid was the main theme of all ceremonies.

Tafrash University, March 6, 2007
A gathering was held at Electrical engineering faculty where many students took part. A female student talked about the limitations facing women in society especially at university. The assembly issued a statement demanding the following: “Freedom of society is measured by the freedom of women”, “we will continue 8th March tradition until all discrimination is abolished”, “I am a human before being a woman”, and “freedom and equality”.

Teachers’ strike and workers’ demonstration in Iran
International Women’s Day in Iran this year was held at a time when the whole society is going through many changes and upheavals. Teachers’ strike for better wages and working conditions was one of the main changes which helped the women’s movement and other social movements.

On Monday 5th March, about 100,000 teachers went on strike. On 8th March 10000 teachers staged a picket outside the Parliament building in Tehran demanding justice and better wages. All along the regime has refused to meet their demands. On 8th March, many students and the women’s movement showed their solidarity with the teachers. Many 8 march leaflets were distributed among the demonstrators. There were talks among the demonstrators to join the 8 March demonstration by Tehran University.

On Monday 5 March, several thousand factory workers also joined the teachers to demand their unpaid wages. Many workers’ committees have issued 8 March messages to commemorate International Women’s Day.

Once again we are witnessing the intensity of social movements in opposition to the regime and for better world for all.

8th March this year in Iran marked a new wave of progressive and passionate desire for radical change, against poverty, inequality, against gender apartheid. It shouted clearly “NO to women’s Oppression!”

Women’s liberation movement entered a new phase. 8 March began a new chapter in women’s liberation movement in Iran. A clear NO to Islamic restrictions, the veil and gender apartheid was wide spread. The call for abolition of all discriminatory laws against women and for freedom and equality was heard in all gatherings. Women’s liberation movement in Iran became stronger and more mature. This fact sent shivers down the Islamic Republic’s spine. The effect of this movement will not be confined to Iran, it will affect the whole region under the rule of Islam.

This year the whole society was affected by 8 March events. A whole week of ceremonies and meetings in commemoration of 8 March, the demonstrations, the live TV programmes broadcast on satellite TV, which have millions viewers in Iran, Many web logs which started their 8 march preparation from several months ago, posting 8 March manifestos, slogans, posters, video clips and women’s news added to this vibrant 8 march mood in the country. Universities around the country staged a clear commitment to women’s rights and freedom.

Islamic Republic reaction itself is enough to show the scale, intensity and spread of women’s liberation movement and its preparation for a large and vibrant 8 March.

Organisation for Women’s Liberation is proud to announce that it worked very hard for 8 march events in Iran and played an influential role in both organising and reporting it.

We reproduce here one of the main 8 march resolutions:

To all participants in 8th March 2007, International Women’s Day gatherings

Today we have gathered to protest against gender apartheid and violation of women’s rights in Iran; and to defend the struggle of women’s freedom movement for its rights.

We celebrate 8th March at a time when, tens of events and celebrations have already taken place all over the country during the past few days. These events have reflected the demands of women’s movement for liberation.

8th March Resolution read by organisers of the 8th March rallies in Iran
United and in unison, we, women and freedom loving people declare: No to women’s oppression!
We protest against gender apartheid which has become institutionalized in Iran; and demand the abolition of all anti women laws
We support the struggle of people for equal rights between men and women
We condemn any compulsory dress code
We demand the immediate banning of capital punishment and stoning
We strongly condemn any humiliation and violence against women
We condemn domestic and state violence
We demand the immediate release of women political prisoners
We support the teachers’ and workers’ struggle
We demand the immediate stop to the arrest and deportation of all Afghan residents and declare that all immigrants in Iran must enjoy equal civil rights.
We strongly believe and declare NO to economic sanctions; NO to war; NO to nuclear bombs; Long live freedom, equality and welfare for all

We urge all organisations and supporters of women’s and human rights to translate our resolution and show to the world that these are women’s demands in Iran. Tell the world that we are denied the most basic human rights in our own society.

March 8th Celebration in Iranian Universities

2007-03-10T11:38:00.000-05:00

" Stoning is barbarism"

"End gender based quota in the unversities!"

March 8th poster: "End execution!"

Human Rights Organizations Condemn Islamic Regime for Suppressing Women's Protest

2007-03-10T11:14:00.000-05:00

"Are you enjoying March 8th in the solitary confinement?"

Please click on the links below

http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/women-080307-feature-eng

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2007/03/07/iran15452.htm

Iranian Students Celebrate IWD

2007-03-09T10:20:00.000-05:00

" The freedom of any society is measured by the freedom of women"
"End mandatory veiling!"
"Students, unite against discrimination!"

"Another world is possible"

Iranian Students Celebrate March 8, 2007 International Women's Day

2007-03-09T09:40:00.000-05:00

"End gender discrimination"
"Freedom and equality"
"Emancipation of women is the emancipation of society"
"Women's movement is in solidarity with workers' movement"

Response from Venezuela to Chavez Critique/ Fasulo Rebuts

2007-02-04T10:10:00.000-05:00

The following is an email exchange between Matilda Corral of Caracas, Venezuela and Jennifer Fasulo regarding Falulo's article, Chavez's Shameful Embrace of Ahmadinejad. Corral sent her response to Women's Enews where a revised version of the article appeared.

Mahmood Ketabchi

On Chavez from Caracas, Venezuela
by Matilda Corral
Sept. 29, 2006

To the editor,

Jennifer Fasulo's critique of the Venezuela's record on women's rights under President Hugo Chávez raises several important issues worthy of debate, not the least of which is the proper response we should have to President Chávez's warm relationship to Iran's President Amadinejad. However, the piece contains one serious error and fails to fully recognize the accomplishments of the Bolivarian Revolution in relation to women's issues.

Fasulo is wrong to say that President Chávez has a strong anti-abortion stance and initially advocated for making abortion unconstitutional. During the 1999 deliberations on the Constitution President Chávez initially supported but ultimately backed away from a constitutional right to abortion. The lack of a provision in the Venezuelan Constitution for legal abortion is an obvious void in what otherwise is a groundbreaking document. Criticism may be warranted on this issue, but keep in mind that Chavez also resisted pressure from the Catholic Church to make abortion unconstitutional.

However, a full appreciation of Chávez's record should acknowledge the following impressive accomplishments as well:

• During President Chávez's administration a woman (Adina Bastidas)served for the first time as vice-president. Current, Tibisay Lucena serves as president of the National Electoral Council.

• The language of the new constitution is consciously gender neutral(e.g., "venezolanos y venezolanas"), something the president himself triesto practice in public speeches. This doesn't seem like such a big issue for English speakers, but by having to constantly say "ellos y ellas" instead ofjust "they" really raises the equality of women up again and again.

• The constitution has several progressive clauses on women's rights. For example, article 88 "guarantees the equity and equitable treatment ofmen and women in the exercise of the right to work. The state recognizeswork at home at an economic activity that creates added value and produces social welfare and wealth."

• Although some women's organizations have rightly criticized the government for failing to adequately respond to issues of violence against women, the Chávez government has established a National Institute for Women (Inamujer) that promotes education about abuse and also social and economicinclusion of women. Several other new laws, available at the Inamujer website, promote gender equality. A development bank for women (Banmujer) is an important part of this effort.

• The great majority of participants in the Misiones (social programs for education, culture, new cooperatives) are women. Likewise, those working to organize the "consejos comunales" in their communities are mostly women. For the first time, many women are getting out of their homes in the barrios, participating, organizing, leading and getting involved.

We welcome debate over Venezuela's record in regard to women's rights, but we hope that accomplishments as well as shortcomings will be taken intoaccount.

Sincerely,

Matilda Corral
Actress and Theater Directress
Caracas, Venezuela

************************************************************************************
Jennifer Fasulo responds:
October 04, 2006

Dear Ms. Corral,

I believe I did recognize the merits as well as short-comings of Hugo Chavez's presidency. ("He has pushed economic initiatives for women and has recognized the financial contribution of women's unpaid labor in the home. Recently, he initiated an signed a bill that would compensate women for their unpaid housework, something that socialist feminist have been fighting for several decades.")

I think it's accurate to say that Chavez takes a strong anti-abortion stance when he has repeatedly made public statements to this effect (referring to himself as a " 'pro-life' Catholic," stating his "abhorrence" for abortion and his agreement with Canon Law that those who practice abortion should be ex-communicated, etc) If he privately feels differently than I hope he will remand the statements he's made to the contrary and take some public action. Venezuela's lack of provision for legal abortion is more than a void-- it's a major cause of death for young women ages 15 to 19. 200-to-300 deaths by botched abortions per year are registered in Venezuela. When women are demanding reproductive rights and justice world-wide, including in many Latin American countries, I see no reason why in revolutionary Venezuela, Chavez should be given a free pass on this issue from feminists and leftists around the world.

I am not anti-Chavez-- I have been a supporter of the Bolivarian revolution. I have closely followed its gains and victories, and reported favorably on its pro-feminist initiatives for international feminist news. But frankly, Chavez's public lauding of Ahmadinejad was completely appalling to me and has caused me to call into question his commitment to women and revolutionary politics. I would like to know why so few others are outraged by this. Have we so little solidarity with the women's rights struggle in Iran? Where is our support for the women who have tirelessly and fearless fought the Islamic Republic's persecution of them for 27 years? On International women's day, Iranian women once again set an example for the women of the world-- turning out by the thousands to demonstrate for their rights, despite prohibitions and threats from the Islamic Republic. Whose side was Chavez on when Ahmadinejad and his religious police ruthlessly beat the women protesters, including an 80 year old feminist poet? What does he think of his friend Ahmadinejad's brutal suppression of the transit workers strike in Tehran this past December-- the arrest and illegal detention of not only hundreds of bus workers, but their wives and children as well! Is he really unaware of the tens of thousands of communists and radicals who have been jailed and executed by the theocratic regime that he calls "heroic'?

Venezuela has so much more to gain from uniting with the vital women's and workers' movements in Iran than with the virulently right-wing forces that oppose them. I can't make that point any more clear. I wrote the article because I believe that Chavez should be confronted on this-- I think it's up to all feminists and leftists of conscience to demand that he get on the right side of the fight in Iran.

Yours in Struggle,

Jennifer

Below are links to sources documenting some of the Islamic Regime's recent repression of women and workers in Iran.

"I want to live!" Open Letter from Kobra Rahmanpour
http://www.azadizan.com/english/archive/2006/09/0913_1_kobra-nameh.htm

July 11, Worldwide Anniversary Day Against Stoning.
Six women on the verge of being stoned in Iran
http://www.azadizan.com/english/archive/2006/07/0723_1_11july.htm

Iran's Brutal Assault Yesterday on Women Celebrating International Women's Day
http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2006/03/irans_brutal_as.html

Iran: Amnesty International Calls for Release of Bus Workers
http://www.kargaran.org/international%20labor%20solidarity/vahed/amnesti-kampaine.htm

Iran: Release Workers Arrested for a Strike
Hundreds Detained for Planning Protest
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/01/31/iran12581.htm

Even children are not spared! Interview with Mahdiye Salimi, 12 year old daughter of union member who was beaten and arrested.
http://www.kargaran.org/international%20labor%20solidarity/vahed/mahdyeh.htm

False Front: The Left and the "Anti-Imperialist" Right

2006-11-07T20:39:00.000-05:00

False Front: The Left and the “Anti-Imperialist” Right

By Bromma

July 2005

As popular resistance to globalization and Western imperialism strengthens around the globe, something disastrous is happening: Leadership of the opposition is swinging steadily from the Left to the radical Right.

Right-wing forces around the world are gearing up to fight against capitalism’s new world order. Every day on the streets of Baghdad, of Mosul, of Tikrit, of Fallujah, of Samarra, of Basra, there is living, dying proof that rightists are in the vanguard of the fight against the Anglo-American occupation of Iraq. It is the same in Afghanistan. Indeed, as Western capital struggles to penetrate and control the so-called Islamic world, clerical fascist and other hard-core reactionary trends have spearheaded opposition in country after country. This right wing “anti-imperialism” isn’t confined to the Moslem-inhabited countries, either. Militant rebellious political movements on the Right are gathering strength everywhere, including North America. Often these trends are more radical, better rooted in popular culture and better armed than the current Left.

One would think that the Left would be galvanized by this phenomenon of right-wing “anti-imperialism”; would be bending every effort to understand it and combat its poisonous influence. In fact, the Left, with few exceptions, is doing its best to ignore it.

It’s not like we haven’t been warned. The catastrophe in Iraq is hardly the first time that the Left has witnessed powerful right-wing influence over anti-imperialist movements.

In the late 1970s and early 1980s, Left anti-imperialists fighting the Shah of Iran and his U.S. sponsors embraced a united front with radical right-wing Islamist fundamentalists. Most Iranian leftists (and their Western supporters) were convinced that anti-imperialist popular sentiment would “naturally” benefit the Left; they were sure that patriarchal fundamentalism would be quickly isolated and out-maneuvered after the revolution.

So when Iranian women struggled for their human rights, leftists criticized them for being “divisive.” It was alleged that women’s demands would weaken the anti-imperialist united front against America and its agents. Azar Majedi, an Iranian activist, recalls:

Women who had never before worn a Hejab [the Islamic head cover for women], put it on voluntarily for the sake of ‘society and revolution’....One common slogan in the demonstrations [was], ‘Sister, your Hejab is more potent than our guns.’

The sacrifice of women’s rights in order to appease the fundamentalists played a major role the violent decimation of the Iranian Left.

And again, in the 1980s, when Afghans were struggling to expel the Soviet invaders, many leftists around the world downplayed the difference between freedom fighters and right-wing fundamentalist criminals. Most of the Left (Soviet apologists excepted, of course) heartily endorsed any and all “popular resistance” to the Soviet imperialists, turning a blind eye to the actual program and practice of the rising Islamist reactionary groups. Afghan women’s criticisms of the fascist mujihedeen fell on deaf ears. After all, the jihadis were fighting for “national liberation”—that seemed, within the dominant Left paradigm, to trump everything.

Meanwhile, Afghan women’s organizations, and the secular resistance generally, were viciously attacked from two sides: the Soviets and the Islamist hard Right. It was the radical Right which ended up dominating that “anti-imperialist” war in Afghanistan. Today they dominate the armed resistance to U.S. intervention. The result is a shattered nation, endlessly brutalized within shifting combinations of imperialist genocide and clerical fascist terror.

Years after the Soviet defeat, some of the Western Left still clung to bizarre illusions about the political potential of the reactionary mujehedin. An Afghan revolutionary complained to the Journal of the Centre for Women and Socialism in 2001:

When Ahmad Shah Masood [the charismatic military leader of the Northern Alliance] was visiting France we heard that even 'left' organisations have supported him. A journal of [the] communist party of Italy had pictured him as the unique leader of Afghanistan and had suggested that Osama Bin laden and other terrorists should instead of blowing trade centres, use their ability to lead a revolution against ‘America's Imperialism’ ...Such organisations insist that they are leading the movements for freedom and justice. These kinds of attitudes make other left organisations unreal…in the eyes of people.

And now, there is the war in Iraq. Most of the Left was wildly euphoric about the early resistance in Iraq and the outpouring of mass global anti-war sentiment. Triumphal statements about the emergence of a new movement for social justice were the common currency of left-wing discourse. Larry Wing of “War Times” exulted that, “Most important of all, and underlying all the other developments, is the emergence of a new superpower: the world's people. As one we rose up on Feb. 15 to smite the empire. Antiwar sentiment is so great in most countries that even most reactionary leaders dare not cross us.” Tom Hayden, not to be outdone, proclaimed, “There is rising a new movement in the world. It is bigger than the movement of the 1960s.” “A global anti-war movement unlike anything that has existed for three decades — that is, since the close of the Vietnam War,” trumpeted International A.N.S.W.E.R. According to the Freedom Road Socialist Organization, “The issue of the war and Bush military policy is beginning to coalesce an incredibly wide range of social forces: anti-globalization, anti-capitalists, labor, national movements, students, greens, liberals, anarchists, etc., etc. This movement is beginning to reflect, in embryonic form, the coalition of social forces that can ultimately transform society.”

Yes, but transform it in what direction?

Can it really be that leftists didn’t notice the actual politics of the forces leading the armed struggle against the Western imperialists in Iraq? Has the Left somehow missed the virulent global opposition to the Iraq war that comes from the Right? Can it be unaware that the “incredibly wide range of social forces” opposing the Bush and Blair regimes’ war includes millions of right-wing political Islamists, Baath Party torturers, reactionary Japanese nationalists, Hindu fascists, dozens of right-wing dictators, former heads of the CIA and NSA, the Pope, capitalists in every country, conservative Republicans, antisemitic Russian nationalists, Pat Buchanan, the hard right British National Party, generals and admirals, David Duke, and most neo-nazi organizations worldwide?

For some time after the anglo-american invasion, it was difficult to find mention—let alone serious analysis—of the role of right-wing religious fundamentalism, antisemitism, fascism and reactionary populism among the global forces opposing the invasion and occupation. In fact, the Left usually spoke and acted as if there were one big progressive anti-intervention coalition on the rise. There seemed to be an assumption that the Left was the natural vanguard of these forces. This assumption was—is—as false as it is dangerous.

With the passage of time and events in Iraq, this delusional attitude has become less and less rational. But that hasn’t provoked any self-criticism. Most of the Left still tries to downplay or evade the whole uncomfortable issue of right-wing anti-imperialism, hoping it will go away by itself. In fact some leftists have adopted an even more reprehensible course: They have decided to participate in an open alliance with the fundamentalists. These “super” anti-imperialists demand “unconditional support” for the “resistance,” and consider anyone uncomfortable with this formula to be liberal and chauvinist.

It’s as if the tragedies in Iran and Afghanistan had never happened. Once again, the Left is pushing women’s freedom to the sidelines, supposedly in the name of anti-imperialism. Once again, “politics” is being twisted into a struggle between imperialist men and “anti-imperialist” men—even if those “anti-imperialist” men enslave women.

It’s now glaringly obvious that right-wing Islamist fundamentalism has become a major actor in world politics; that fact puts the pathological denial among leftists into stark relief. But we should be clear that Islamist radicalism is only one version of the right-wing “anti-imperialism” in motion today. It might be most accurate to say that right-wing Islamist insurgency is the leading edge of a worldwide phenomenon. Right wing populism, with fascist elements contending for vanguard leadership, is coming to life in country after country. Including much closer to home than Iraq.

Militant right-wing “anti imperialism” is growing in the U.S. White supremacists and fascists like Louis Beam, Matt Hale and Tom Metzger hate the neo-cons and Bush; they despise globalization’s New World Order. Therefore they study Left-led movements, coopt their language and even try to attract the activists working within them. They reason that, as Beam writes, “The New American Patriot will be neither left nor right, just a freeman fighting for liberty...The new politics of America is liberty from the NWO [New World Order] Police State and nothing more.”

Many neo-fascists and Christian fundamentalists loudly “support” Palestinian struggle against Israel, and Left activists in the solidarity movement find that they are forced to weed antisemites out of web forums and events. Organizers against the Patriot Acts are consciously building a coalition between the Left and Right. “Third Position” neo-fascists in Europe and North America actively petition Leftists and progressives to a join in a common platform opposing U.S. interventionism and hegemony in the world. Today, just as in Mussolini and Hitler’s time, many fascists claim a “spiritual kinship” to the natural world and claim to “defend” it. (“Ecology is for Aryans too,” says Tom Metzger.) Criticisms of the New World Order and its negative effects on the domestic social contract in the metropolis now crop up everywhere on the Right; they sometimes sound indistinguishable from Left anti-globalization arguments.

Remarkably, some of the hard Right’s leadership is even moderating its public positions on race in order to pave the way for potential “anti-capitalist” alliances with non-white movements. Perhaps the races should be separate, they say, but we should all unite against the common enemy—global capital. James Porazzo, head of the neo-nazi skinhead group the American Front, argues for a program of “White autonomy, Black autonomy, Brown autonomy and death to the current twisted system. The only other obvious route would be an eventual winner take all race war: I don’t think anyone with any sense would want that.”

While the fascists are less developed in the U.S. than in Europe and other parts of the world, they are steadily growing in influence and organization. Their “anti-imperialist” views resonate widely within the ranks of militia members, Christian fundamentalists and ordinary conservatives, many of who are openly rebelling against the program of Bush and the neoconservatives—not just in Iraq but also on a range of domestic and international issues.

Judging by the reaction of leftists in U.S. antiwar movement, this is a good thing. Today, as rightists swell the ranks of anti-interventionists, they are being quietly tolerated, and frequently welcomed, by leftists. “What unites us is greater than anything that divides us,” says a leader of UFPJ. Anti-war speeches by Robert Byrd and writings by anti-war Christian fundamentalists appear on IndyMedia and other left-wing web sites. The Nation recently ran an entire article based on the pandering premise that Ronald Reagan, since he was a “true conservative,” would surely have pulled out of Iraq by now.

Left descriptions of the Iraqi resistance soft-pedal the right-wing forces that pervade it. Photos of huge all-male demonstrations in Muslim-populated countries are printed without comment; antisemitic slogans shouted at mass protests in Iraq and around the world are quietly edited out. Iraqi women’s fears about the possibility of a clerical fascist take-over of the country, widely reported in the mainstream press, are muted in the Left’s writings. Could it be that the Left is preparing to repeat, on a larger and larger scale, the mistakes made in Iran and Afghanistan?

It’s important to examine why there is a mass-based “anti-imperialist” right wing uprising in the world at this historical juncture and what that implies for the Left practically. Such an investigation may provide a window into the class changes enforced by the latest incarnation of global capitalism. It may also afford us perspective on the weaknesses of the post-WWII wave of revolutionary world struggle, weaknesses that allowed capitalism to surmount that movement’s powerful challenge. And finally, we may see hints of where we can look for the emergence of a new Left, able to survive and grow on the terrain of a transformed capitalist order.

A Right-Wing Class Struggle

For many years the international Left has been accustomed to thinking of the hard Right as an appendage of the ruling capitalists. To some extent, this is a conditioned reflex arising out of the realities of the post-WWII period. During this optimistic era of anti-colonial liberation and socialist revolution, anti-imperialism was virtually “owned” by the Left, whose forces were the ones challenging capital’s control over the Third World (and defending social contracts in the metropolis). The radical Right, whose international leadership was discredited and smashed in the world war, seemed to rely on patriotic flag-waving support for Western imperialists, racist frothing at the mouth, and kooky fringe politics. However, instrumentalist views of the extreme Right as a “tool of the ruling class” have never been particularly accurate, and are at any rate being rendered increasingly irrelevant by events in our time.

It’s crucial to remember that the fascist politics espoused by Hitler and Mussolini was much more than a stratagem of the bourgeoisie. In fact, prewar fascism was a mass revolutionary movement of the far Right, spun in freedom-fighting, anti-bourgeois terms. Rooted in class grievances and class ambitions, it was both populist and insurrectionary in practice. The radical Right worldwide is now adopting a similar rebellious spirit. This occurs in the context of massive global change, which is fundamentally transforming the capitalist system.

Part of what defines this change on the political level is that the wave of Left-led anti-colonial struggle in the world has largely exhausted its momentum, giving way to neo-colonialism and warlordism in case after case. The national liberation struggles of the 1950s, 60s and 70s shook world capitalism to its core. But capitalism has survived and metastasized, altering the dynamics of class struggle irreversibly in the process.

Once Left-led national liberation movements exerted an irresistible magnetic attraction on hundreds of millions of people; now we see huge reactionary mass movements gaining momentum using similar “anti-imperialist” rhetoric. This is a consequence of the onset of capitalist neo-globalization, which is shuffling the deck of world classes, causing despair and outrage among not only the most oppressed but also among middle classes desperate to protect ways of life, turf and privileges. Therefore a new social base—not just for right wing populism but also for fascist and other radical right-wing discontent—expands daily.

Neo-globalization has led to splits in the Right worldwide. Most fundamentally, it has caused a split between those who continue to cast their lot with transnational corporate capital (for instance, the neo-conservatives in the U.S.), and others, including most of the fascist Right, who see the new world order as a mortal enemy of their way of life—a threat, in fact, to the very existence of the classes out of which they emerge. Despite the ascendancy of a neo-conservative group in the current U.S. regime, the rebellious trend is the more dynamic side of this divide, growing in popularity and organization in many countries as it hones its “anti-imperialist” and “anti-corporate” message. Increasingly the international Right is positioning itself as the defender of the “little man” against an impersonal capitalist system (often seen as run by Jews) which is violating previously-sacrosanct national social contracts, caste systems, privileges and divisions of turf. It appears likely that the “blame game” sure to follow the neoconservative failures in the Middle East and the hollowing out of the U.S. economy will further energize the more rebellious tendencies.

Recipe for Rebellion

The place where the dramatic changes in class politics wrought by globalization are most sharply posed right now is in the so-called Islamic world—the very place where neo-globalization is most urgently projected by Western imperialism.

We know that capitalism must expand to survive, and Western imperialism, with its stagnant home economies, must penetrate the Moslem-inhabited countries in a whole new way to expand. On one obvious level, Western capital needs to continue to control the oil and other traditional resources in this part of the world. And from a geo-strategic point of view, whichever particular capitalists control the Middle East and Central Asia will have a tremendous advantage over their capitalist rivals, including rapidly emerging powers like China. This makes the race for penetration particularly pressurized.

But these imperatives explain only part of imperialism’s compulsion to expand—the part most familiar to the Left, since it is carried over from an earlier paradigm. On a deeper level, modern capitalism pushes to destroy and re-organize entire social structures in its drive for a new and different sort of economic expansion.

Capitalist neo-globalization seeks to enlarge and transform its presence in Muslim-populated regions, as elsewhere in the world, by means of extension, intensification and recombination. That is, it extends hungrily into all the remaining unexploited territories in the world, from the remotest regions of Central Asia to the Lacandon rain forest. In addition, it intensifies its commodification of all aspects of existence, including air, water, the airwaves, ideas, plant and animal species and human genetic material. (This is what Indian leftist Vandana Shiva calls “the new enclosure of the commons.”) It fosters and creates new “needs,” searching at an accelerated pace for ways to target, market and enhance consumption.

Finally, it “samples” and recombines formerly fixed economic and social elements—agriculture and manufacturing, labor forces, consumer markets, privileges, old and new classes, races, genders and nationalities. Thriving on fluidity, mobility and, significantly, on chaos, the new imperialism breaks down old borders, social formations and cultures, builds new ones, then breaks them down again.

In its drive to extend, intensify and recombine, neo-globalization promotes new technologies, especially biological and information technologies that allow capitalism to exploit human and natural resources faster, farther, more thoroughly and more flexibly. A central focus of neo globalization (as it has been for each stage of capitalism) is a dramatic reconfiguration of the means of controlling the proletariat, and especially proletarian women, whose exploitation is the foundation of the entire system. This is transforming traditional family and gender relations.

From the point of view of many classes in the Muslim-inhabited countries, the arrival of Western-led neo-globalization is an unmitigated disaster. Most of the Left is acutely aware of the savage impact of IMF-World Bank loansharking, commodity agriculture and hit-and run manufacturing on the poorest sectors of the colonial world. This pauperization leads to a tremendous rise in de-classed and desperately immiserated populations which constitute tinder-boxes for warlordism, ethnic conflict and radical populism of various sorts.

But we should also consider what Western globalization means for diverse middle classes, some of which comprise large populations and occupy significant niches in the national, regional and local capitalist economies of the “Islamic world.” For instance, the encroachment of globally integrated factory farming destroys the class position of even prosperous farmers in the Muslim countries. The new reach and thoroughness of global commodity markets undermines established ways of life for merchants, small bankers and regional or national manufacturers. Global homogenization of trade wipes out whole classes based on local or regional trading, transport and smuggling. (This is very much at issue in Afghanistan, which sits on top of one of the world’s most profitable smuggling routes.)

Local functionaries, clan leaders, intellectuals and professionals leading middle-class lives within existing national and local societies are well aware that they risk class demotion or extinction as global culture and centralized global authority moves onto their turf. Military officers, accustomed to influence and privilege, face an unpalatable choice between ceding power to a higher authority with its own agenda, or being replaced completely. Established religious leaders, who currently control dense networks of social, cultural and economic influence, realize that neo-globalization could eliminate or seriously weaken their position in society.

This is a pattern emerging in every part of the world: Many classes, including middle classes, are recognizing the new fragility of their economic and social status as the neo-globalization juggernaut advances.

Of course, some classes are actually benefiting, or hoping to benefit, from the changes. For example, some Indian middle classes which have caught a wave of cutting edge information technology and are riding it to a new standard of living. But overall, the pressure is downward on existing middle classes, since the whole former basis for social contracts between nationally based capitalists and “their” middle classes is disappearing.

During this time of transition, as the deck of classes is shuffled, old patterns of metropolitan privilege still provide some advantages. People with access to these privileges still do have a leg up in the competition for middle-class life within the new imperial order.

But this is likely to be a relative and temporary advantage, unlike what existed a generation ago. There’s not a whole lot of security of privilege today—in safety, in standard of living, in employment. One day you are a subsidized white settler in “Rhodesia,” the next day your farm is occupied by Africans, and you are planning your escape from Zimbabwe. One day you are sitting in a café in Belgrade sipping cappuccino, the next day NATO bombs are falling and you have no running water or electricity. One day you are a hot-shot systems designer in New York who can practically name his own salary, the next day your unemployment insurance is running out and you are reading about how well things are going in Bangalore. All this is excellent from the point of view of the giant corporations and finance capitalists. Global capital is shaking off the constraints of the old social order. Classes are being transformed and recycled at an accelerated pace; today’s social contract will likely end up in tomorrow’s dumpster.

At the end of the last capitalist era, middle classes had more options. Sometimes they supported the existing capitalist order (which, after all, had established roles for them). Other times they supported or allied with proletarian struggles that seemed to advance their class interests beyond the existing order. Today, many middle classes feel completely trapped. The former capitalist order is falling apart, and so is the former proletarian struggle. Global change is impacting their way of life, but they have virtually no political control over it. Therefore many middle-class populations are worried, angry, frustrated and nostalgic.

This is especially true in parts of the colonial world that are culturally and politically isolated from the centers of modern imperialist power—places like the Muslim-populated countries. Already angry about generations of old-style colonialism, discrimination and racist disrespect emanating from the Christian West, many middle classes in the Middle East and Central Asia now clearly recognize that they have little or no access to the levers and portals of the new global economy; that their social and economic functions are being treated as mere pawns and obstacles within Western-led globalization.

The middle classes endangered by neo-globalization are not all going quietly. And despite the hopes and expectations of the Left, some of them are linking up with desperate and de-classed populations of the poor—refugees, guerrillas looking for another war, the chronically unemployed, street gangs, etc.—in an alliance of reactionary anger against global capital. Frequently welded together by an ideology of cultural superiority and a traditionalist mythology, these political movements reflect a powerful yearning to turn back the clock to a time when their classes had leverage and hopeful futures.

But although they often fetishize the past, the forces of the rebellious Right are not just some exotic “traditional” holdovers from an earlier time. In fact the rebellious Right’s various trends embody very up-to-date attempts to defeat, influence or get a piece of the action within the new world order by struggling against the current leadership and agenda of world capital. This reflects an entirely correct understanding that only those who are prepared to fight will be able to survive and carve out space for themselves in the new capitalist landscape.

Men Against Neo-Globalization

Above all, various classes of men (worldwide, not just in Muslim-majority areas) have a special hatred of neo-globalization because it challenges their traditional ownership and control over women.

One of advancing neo-globalization’s key characteristics is that it accelerates the breakdown of traditional patriarchal family structures, in which individual men directly supervise and control women and benefit privately from their labor. Familiar forms of male dominance over women are being gradually replaced with post-modern systems of oppression that cut ordinary men out of the parasitic loop. For many men of the dispossessed classes, this is the ultimate loss, the ultimate insult.

Just as it did during earlier waves of genocide and colonialism, Western imperialism postures today as the world “protector” of women’s rights. And we are in fact witnessing the elevation of some women within the new capitalist order as a means of controlling the rest more effectively. This is part of the new style social contract that capitalists want and actively promote. Butch Lee puts it with characteristic bluntness:

Right now “post-feminist” women in the capitalist metropolis think life is just getting better and better. Hillary, women’s pro sports, flying jets over the Third World bombing away, and business opportunities, too. Who woulda imagined? It couldn’t be whiter for us. I think we are like those newly-enfranchised German women in the liberal Weimar Republic days during 1919-1933. Sleep walking on the edge of the precipice. For patriarchal capitalism is always dangerous to us. Deadly dangerous.”

—(The Military Strategy of Women and Children, 2003.)

Needless to say, neo-globalization has nothing to do with “liberating” the masses of women. Quite the opposite.

Modern capitalism demands that more and more women and children be marshaled in concentrated, efficient commodity production and transnational service industries. It gathers them into large flexible labor pools directly tied to the world economy. Where this process is already well underway—for instance in the maquiladoras along the U.S.-Mexico border or the brothels of Bangkok or the burgeoning transnational domestic worker industry—it is revolutionizing gender relations: ripping young women out of traditional rural patriarchy and concentrating them into communities of women organized around their new work. Women’s lives are in many cases disciplined directly by the employer, who may control not just the workplace but also housing and access to health care, education, childcare and entertainment.

Simultaneously, neo-globalization creates significant sectors of unemployed, de-classed and often women-less men. Male street terror and warlordism feeding on this conveniently growing reservoir of outcast men plays a significant role in repressing women’s attempts at self-organization. This is a post-modern horror fitting to the current incarnation of imperialism on steroids.

The radical Right internationally is characterized by a united front of men of various threatened classes trying to protect or augment their role—their share of power—within capitalist patriarchy. From the perspective of many of these men, it’s better to die than to lose ownership of “their” women.

Broad support for the Right arises among men who live in traditional family settings and who feel endangered by the encroaching changes in capitalism. But the rebellious Right, and especially its rising fascist vanguard, is also populated by men who have basically already lost that battle. Within the warlord armies of the hard Right are whole populations of women-less men, such as the mujihedeen flowing out of the madrassas of Pakistan. Because of the chaos and radical reorganization of post-modern society, these men have little prospect of becoming the patriarchs of traditional, stable families. Many have hardly any “normal” contact with women at all. Instead, they have become outlaws in search of male power, dreaming of warrior empires where they can take whatever they want by force, especially women. At times, this fascistic fantasy becomes reality: post-modern world politics offers them chances to rule neighborhoods, whole cities (as in Iraq), or countries (like Afghanistan and Iran). There are endless opportunities to dominate, rape and terrorize women on a local scale.

The struggle around globalization currently raging between the rebellious Right and Western imperialism pivots around which men get to control women, and how. It’s no coincidence that gender figures so prominently in the unfolding of the dramatic confrontations in Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and elsewhere in the Muslim world. It will probably play a central role in every struggle over neo- globalization to come.

The approaching tidal wave should alert us. In country after country, right wing men are re-enslaving women as a subhuman class....This is the largest mass political movement in the world by far.

(Butch Lee, The Military Strategy of Women and Children, 2003.)

In the U.S., Too

Neo-globalization impacts classes in various ways depending on concrete factors; it affects the colonial world differently from the metropolis. Yet there are class shifts generating rebellious right-wing trends almost everywhere. For example, U.S. society is undergoing a hollowing-out process involving the downsizing of its middle classes, including its bloated labor aristocracies. This has produced a large and sometimes militant resentment on the Right.

The New Deal is definitely off: global capital doesn’t need it any more, and the Left can’t do anything to get it back. The social, economic and political functions once usefully provided to imperialism by subsidized middle-class white populations are being gradually exported around the world. In place of an American New Deal, there is now a new, more flexible “distributed” multicultural web of middle classes being raised up in internationally to administer empire, develop and implement technology, organize production, enforce social stratification and soak up consumer goods.

This upsets millions of white people in the U.S. whose special way of life was supposedly guaranteed by the old social contract. It also upsets some non-white Americans, who see their chance for a piece of the American Dream evaporating along with the Dream itself. Many Americans understand neo-globalization as nothing less than betrayal by their own national capitalists, and they are prepared to fight to bring back some version of their old way of life.

One theme latent in the right-wing critique is that the older, “nation-based” capitalism was somehow healthier, freer and more caring than the new world order. From the standpoint of oppressed classes and peoples this is absurd. Nothing is ever likely to surpass the atrocities perpetrated in North America and around the world by “old style” U.S.-based capitalism. But among the millions of Americans who see their privileges dissipating, the real issue is that the capitalists used to be more loyal—loyal to their home societies generally, and to white middle-class American men specifically.

This feeling of betrayal constitutes an opportunity for the North American Left to discuss politics on a very concrete level with a lot of people. But as we have seen, this type of social discontent also constitutes a major opening for the populist Right, including the fascist right.

This danger is very much evident in current mass politics. What most of the people marching in U.S. anti-war demonstrations are most disturbed about is not the suffering of the Iraqi people. (How many demonstrated against the hundreds of thousands of deaths, mostly child deaths, caused by pre-war sanctions in Iraq?) Rather, their protest is aimed at trying to halt the relentless undermining
of middle-class life in the metropolis, which the Bush regime’s costly and “reckless” international policy seems calculated to accelerate.

A letter from Garth Talbott, a disenchanted soldier serving in Iraq, expresses this growing sentiment in a particularly honest way:

Didn't we secure the oil fields? Aren't we a capitalist country anymore? Can't we sidestep OPEC now? Can't we at least, somewhere in the midst of deception, half truths and outright lies, catch an honest break?

If we're going to fight for a cause that isn't known, get fired on by our own weapons, and get screwed out of our benefits, then at least for God's sake give us something concrete to say we fought for—even if it's as trivial as being able to fill our gas tanks for 98 cents a gallon.

(Chico News and Review 10/29/03)

The North American hard Right’s message of entitlement and anti-globalization is very much in tune with this sentiment. The rebellious white Right demands a return to the “good” old days, to the “natural” order of things—including stable colonial privilege and a familiar gender hierarchy.

We got a taste of how this looks in the fascist David Duke’s notorious column praising antiwar protester Cindy Sheehan:

Cindy Sheehan has a lot to be angry about. Her son was betrayed and his life lost by government officials who treasonably created and continue a war for Israel and the Jewish supremacist agenda rather than that of the United States.

We stand with Cindy Sheehan and the memory of her son which should spur all truly patriotic Americans to demand an end to this war for Israel, this war against America, the Iraq War.

It is not Iraq’s borders that need protecting, it is the American border with Mexico!

Support our troops…bring them home!

Thankfully, Sheehan repudiated Duke’s ugly brew of antiwar anti-Semitism and anti-immigrant venom. But we’d be naive to think that every “Gold Star” mother will do the same. Duke’s argument is deeply rooted in American culture.

Since the “premature fascism” of the Oklahoma City bombing, the American militia movement and the anti-government fundamentalism that spawned Timothy McVeigh has been regrouping, and some of it is professionalizing and going deeper underground. But it certainly hasn’t lost influence in America. On the contrary, its basic precepts have steadily migrated into the broader Right and mainstream conservatism. The evident failure of the neocon’s war on Iraq is accelerating this process rapidly.

A right-wing anti-war viewpoint has been adopted by widely read pundits like Pat Buchanan, Paul Craig Roberts and Charley Reese. It’s also been taken up by many right-wing libertarians, who see U.S. overseas adventurism as a Big Government assault on a free and sacred way of life at home. And many forward-thinking conservative politicians with their fingers on the pulse of middle-class discontent are also experimenting with this line of argument.

Here is part of the March 8, 2003 anti-war resignation letter of Jack Walters, chairman of the Boone County, Missouri Republican Central Committee—which is less inspiring than it is chilling:

What we are about to do in the Middle East is abhorrent to me. It is made doubly so since this is a contrived and fraudulently justified war with hidden objectives. The coming mass slaughter of innocents, the harm our own troops are being placed in, and the potential for wars on several fronts have brought home to me the sobering realization that by remaining Boone County Republican Chairman, I would be giving tacit approval to this imminent war, and tacit approval to the belligerent and reckless language coming from the White House. The safety and integrity of our country outweighs politics....I am resigning because I cannot support the Republican position on this war. I only sought the position of Chairman originally in the hope that I could recruit God-fearing, thinking, pro-life believers in our Constitution to stand for office.

Much what Walters says could have been written by a leftist. It was posted, in fact, on the left-wing IndyMedia web site as a positive example of growing antiwar sentiment. But Walters’ criticism is from the Right, not the Left. He hopes to “restore” America to its Christian fundamentalist, patriarchal roots.

The U.S. Left has been reticent about challenging this kind of mass politics directly. (This is not too surprising for the white Left, which has historically been notoriously susceptible to the lure of right wing populism.) Leftists want to agitate about the “domestic costs” of the war, and “support” young people trapped in the U.S. military, but we don’t know how to distinguish our appeals from what the Right’s. On some level the Left is aware, at least intellectually, that right-wing populist movements, often led by fascists, are a growing power overseas. But we don’t know what to do about that. And we don’t want to think that it could happen here, despite the fact that “betrayed” privilege has always been the mother’s milk of the radical right.

This confusion is evident in recent U.S. protests against globalization. Appeals for solidarity with the Third World mix freely with protectionism and defense of privilege. Trying to cut through the fog, J. Sakai writes about the class character of the anti-WTO coalition that demonstrated in Seattle. (This protest was widely hailed because of the participation of longshoremen and other unions, which gave it a special seal of approval among leftists.)

The average West Coast longshoreman earns about $60,000-80,000 a year. It's not unusual for highly-skilled longshoremen or clerks who push overtime to hit $125,000-150,000 per year. With income guarantees and a full benefits package. This is the kind of income that lawyers, accountants, corporate middle managers, and successful small businessmen make. And union longshoremen have the vacation homes, boats, multiple cars, stock portfolios or rental properties that are common for the u.s. middle classes....

It is the old middle classes of the imperialist center that are in motion here politically [in the anti-WTO movement]. Commercial family farmers; small retailers; the labor aristocracy of highly-paid craftsmen and unionized industrial workers; that stratum of intellectuals (more than a few of them liberal or "socialist") tied tit-to-mouth to the old welfare state. Plus the marginalized white lumpen-petitbourgeoisie, bitter at their social exile from paradise.

These are middle classes whose privileged but also precarious existence is bound up with successful national imperialism, and who look for security towards their old national economy and the insular national culture of the "good old days". In a word, who deep down consider themselves rightfully part of the capitalist winners, not the oppressed "losers". (Don't forget that Tim McVeigh tried to be a career Army officer, while his comrade-in-arms Terry Nichols was a failed farm owner).

(“Aryan Politics and Fighting the W.T.O.,” 2002.)

That’s why Patrick Buchanan felt comfortable speaking from the steps of the Teamster building during the large anti-globalization demonstration in Washington D.C. That’s also why neo-fascist leaders heaped praise on the Seattle protests for their militant opposition to the new world order.

Since the Left is in denial about right wing populism’s significance, we tend to accommodate it in all kinds of united fronts. We seem to operate on the unexamined assumption that any enemy of globalizing capitalism is good, that all oppositional roads lead to the Left. In fact, when rightists oppose U.S. imperialism, the Left often interprets this as a sort of validation; a sign of how correct we were all along. (“If even a conservative like Robert Byrd can see that the war is wrong, then we must really be on the verge of great things.”)

As we see with the demand for “unconditional support” for the Iraqi “resistance,” some U.S. leftists have decided to go further and adopt parts of the Right’s program. This has happened in a variety of political arenas. Some (supposedly left-wing) environmentalists have agitated against immigrants and turned their backs on people with AIDS. Unabomber Ted Kaczynski is considered a role model in certain anarchist circles. Some “race traitor” theorists have glorified the right-wing militia movement, and written sympathetically about Timothy McVeigh. Workers World Party and other leftists (including influential intellectuals like Michael Parenti) have campaigned in support of the genocidal warlord Slobodan Milosevic as well as the despotic North Korean regime.

Both Manuel Noriega and Saddam Hussein have been the subject of mendacious “rehabilitation” campaigns cobbled together by leftists who think that anybody who is attacked by the U.S. must be progressive. (One of the most disturbing examples of this is the attempt to argue that Baathist fascism in Iraq was a positive force for women.)

The corrupt merger of Left and Right is more advanced in Europe and other parts of the world than it is in the U.S. Yet the bulk of the Left here habitually treats right wing populism with kid gloves, avoiding anything that seems “sectarian,” especially in public. Furthermore, North American leftists display an amazing capacity for rationalizing away practices of patriarchal authoritarianism, violence against women, state repression, forced conscription of children, drug-gangsterism, and macho posturing on the part of any world force that declares itself to be “anti-imperialist.” This isn’t an encouraging sign for the future.

Historically, when right wing populism is strong, it is perfectly normal to have crossover between Left and Right. Mussolini was originally a militant leader of the Italian socialists. The Nazis recruited among political leftists and within what had originally been left-leaning subcultures. In East Germany, rebellious anarchists and rebellious neo-nazi skinheads switched sides regularly. Former Soviet “communists” are now Russian fascists. Today, with the Right already leading powerful mass movements in the world, with fascists and other hard-core rightists in the metropolis infiltrating struggles formerly “owned” by the Left, with the violent Right here becoming more sophisticated and better organized, with the ground already prepared by widespread right-wing populism, we ignore right-wing “anti-imperialism” at our peril.

Why So Unprepared?

Why is so much of the Left, here and internationally, so completely unprepared to confront the danger posed by the rebellious Right today? Why are people who claim to stand for human liberation so tolerant of right wing populism, even after seeing the atrocities, the corpses, the enslavement of women, the shattered countries vulnerable to imperial plunder that have resulted from Left-Right “unity” in other places?

There are many answers, on many levels. For instance, we can understand how leftists who are heavily invested in an older anti-imperialist paradigm can get stuck in it. Having invested so much in that model, they are reluctant to cut it loose, even when it is rendered obsolete by world events. (This has happened to leftists at other nodal points in history.)

We can also understand that criticizing right-wing Islamist fundamentalism while the fundamentalists are fighting imperialism turns on a lot of caution lights. For generations, anti colonial movements have been forced to jealously guard their independence from those “supporters,” especially in the imperialist metropolis, who want to influence or control struggles of oppressed peoples for their own opportunistic purposes.

But to understand why leftists conciliate the anti-imperialist Right is not to excuse them for doing so. To put it plainly: The Left as a whole is betraying women; in the process it is betraying the proletariat. And the fundamental reason for this is that the Left is male dominated.

With the benefit of hindsight, it seems incredible that so many anti-imperialists actually believed that we could defeat the most powerful capitalists in the world without women’s full leadership and power in Left movements. Although the post-WWII anti-colonial struggles provided dramatic openings for women’s emancipation (which women certainly tried to take advantage of), the breakthrough to women-centered politics never took place. And after recent decades of defeat and back-pedaling, male leaders and male politics are firmly in control in the international Left. Not only are the most popular anti-imperialist “heroes” men, but many of them are partriarchal authoritarians.

Today, while the radical Right and the imperialists battle it out over ownership of women, the Left still acts as if it’s perfectly normal for men to represent women’s interests in the fight against imperialism. By default, the Left debates world events in terms of imperialism versus anti-imperialist men. This plays completely into the Right’s hands.

When embattled Iraqi women argue that patriarchal fundamentalism and imperialism must be fought simultaneously, they are basically ignored. As anti-imperialist women were in Iran when they resisted gender apartheid. As Afghan women are when they insist that imperialism and fundamentalism are equal dangers. Never mind that in much of Iraq, women can’t even leave their houses because of terrorism—from “anti imperialist” right-wing men as well as from the imperialists and their thugs.

Whoever questions the prevalence of this “see no evil” male attitude would do well to review the leaflets and documents of prominent North American Left groups opposing U.S. policy in Iraq. Early in the occupation, most of these groups refused to even mention the significant threat clerical fascism posed to Iraqi women and society. Instead, they typically labored to make Western imperialism the sole enemy while praising a (studiously undifferentiated) Iraqi “resistance” for fighting back. As this position has become more and more untenable, Left publications have started talking about the “violence” Iraqi women and secular forces face and throwing in an occasional mention about right-wing fundamentalism, always taking care to blame everything on Western imperialism. It’s particularly instructive to contrast the direct, uncompromising anti-fundamentalist public stands of leading Iraqi women’s rights activists with the carefully-diluted quotes that filter down in the Left press here.

What is even more amazing is that there is a steady stream of leftists interviewing, touring with and having photo opportunities with secular Iraqi militants—while ignoring how those militants analyze events in Iraq.

One of the most sought-after groups for solidarity tours and interviews is the Organization of Women’s Freedom in Iraq (OWFI), founded in June 2003. OWFI is leading valiant organizing efforts by anti-occupation/anti-fundamentalist women in the war zone. Some of their activities include organizing neighborhood councils to combat violence against women, running a women’s shelter in Baghdad, holding street rallies demanding women’s rights, and publishing a newspaper called “Al Mousawat” (“Equality”).

But OWFI does not agree with the politics of the Western antiwar movement. They explicitly criticize “those who justify Islamic terrorism with the familiar 1970's religious-nationalist and Third World-ist ‘anti-imperialism.’” OWFI opposes “political Islam” generally. An OWFI leader, Nadia Mahmood, says that Iraqi women are “caught between two programs”—the program of the Anglo-American invaders, and the program of reactionary Islamist forces (each of which she calls “terrorists”). She and other leading OWFI cadre insist on the need to fight both dangers simultaneously, and they disagree sharply with Iraqi Left forces that try to make deals with one reactionary force against the other.

The OWFI activists, supposedly a source of inspiration for the Western Left, see the Islamist armed “resistance” as a second “pole of terrorism” which is destroying their country from one side while Western imperialism destroys it from the other. They say this at every opportunity: It is their political line, which is shared by leading militants in the secular Iraqi trade unions, by organizers in the Union of the Unemployed, etc. Where is this analysis in Western leftists’ “report-backs” on their meetings with the Iraqi militants? Is it given careful attention as part of the antiwar movement’s solidarity rhetoric? Has it become an important issue of debate on the Left? No way.

In fact, when SOWFI, a multiracial committee of women in solidarity with OWFI, was formed in the New York area, Islamists on radio station WBAI smeared them as “racist”. This “progressive” station then completely refused to let SOWFI respond. The rest of the Left did its best to ignore the whole thing.

It should be obvious that when the Left takes this blinkered, male-centric stance towards right-wing anti-imperialist struggles, inside or outside the metropolis, we are objectively entering into a united front with the Right. And we are doing so on conditions wholly advantageous to the hard Right, which has no compunction at all about enforcing its will on women—or on leftists, for that matter. Left-wing anti-imperialism will have to do better than this to survive on imperialism’s new terrain.

As for the arguments about “respecting other cultures” in their attitudes towards women, we have heard them before in Iran and Afghanistan, and they have proven their mendacity and hypocrisy. They are excuses that men make for other men (even if some women go along with them). The Left in the imperial metropolis isn’t doing any favors for the women of Iraq, or those living in any fascist-infested part of the world, by ignoring the dangers they face from the fundamentalist Right, or by tolerating right-wing “anti imperialism” in our own movements. In reality, this is a particularly ugly form of metropolitan opportunism, which siphons whatever small support we have to offer away from those who need and deserve it most and funnels it to one of their deadliest oppressors. There can be no serious Left argument that oppressing, enslaving or physically attacking women is any sort of cultural “right.” Nor is their any legitimate claim to “self-determination” for slavemasters.

It’s time to acknowledge a prominent feature of the neo-colonial landscape: Rightists and reactionaries of all sorts increasingly adopt the language and forms of anti-colonial and anti-imperialist struggle in order to seek legitimacy, protect their turf and eliminate opposition. And if we can’t talk about the difference between a fascist gang and a liberation struggle, how are we to accomplish anything?

Both Anti-Imperialist and Anti-Fascist

It is in the colonial world, of course, not the metropolis, that the question of how to relate to right-wing “anti-imperialists” has the most immediate consequence and is most explosive, and that is where it is being posed most sharply for leftists.

Crucially, there are parts of the international Left that have survived and evolved in the free-fire zones of the war between Western imperialism and the fundamentalist Right, and which are determined to fight both evils at the same time.

As we have seen, OWFI and other Iraqi activists are taking up this two-front struggle, against overwhelming odds. Iranian leftists are also regrouping and organizing to overthrow the right wing Islamic fundamentalist regime in their country. Needless to say, they have little sympathy for the old “Left-Right united front against imperialism.” The Iranian regime is deeply unpopular, and has been confronted with widespread protests in recent years. Many of these have been led by young women; veil-burning is one of the characteristic protest activities. As Ali Javadi, an Iranian activist told Against the Current, “In some sense, the current revolution in Iran could be a female revolution and, in fact, has all the signs of being one.”

Perhaps the most familiar example (at least in the West) of a Third World Left initiative that fights both imperialism and right-wing religious fundamentalism is the Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan. For decades, this organization has resisted not only Soviet and U.S. attacks, but also, simultaneously, the clerical fascists. Today they continue to organize—aboveground where possible and underground where necessary. Through a remarkable effort, they have pulled together schools and literacy programs, survival industries for women, hospitals and clinics and wave after wave of agitation for women’s rights and against the enemies of their people. They persist in their dangerous work in spite of the fact that they get relatively insignificant support from the male-dominated international Left.

RAWA has openly stated that opposing imperialism without also opposing fundamentalism is doomed.

We believe that any and all manifestation of deference and submissiveness on the part of certain social and political groupings and individuals and literary circles vis-à-vis the fundamentalists is abject cowardice, and assert that perpetrators of such cowardice are bound to ultimately reveal themselves as accomplices in treason with fundamentalist traitors. We shall therefore struggle unrelentingly to expose all such collaborators.

The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA) hereby reiterates that only decisive and uncompromising struggle against fundamentalism is the key to the solution of the Afghan conundrum and the cessation of foreign interference in our country. We call upon all pro-freedom and pro-democracy Afghan organizations and individuals to wake up to the burden of the great sorrow of our people, to cast despair overboard, to consider any and all deals and compromises with the fundamentalist hangmen as high treason and to rally to mobilize the masses for the formation of a broad anti-fundamentalist front geared to exposing and ejecting religious fascists and establishing a society based on democratic values in Afghanistan.

(“On the 6th Black Anniversary of the Swarming of Fundamentalist Criminals Into Kabul,” 4/98)

What’s particularly notable in RAWA’s understanding of imperialism is how they link imperialist interference in their country to the warlordism and fascism of right wing men. This isn’t abstract theory for them, but a lived reality.

It is well known that the Western imperialists helped create, arm and organize the reactionary warlords of Afghanistan in order to weaken their Soviet rival. It was fine with Western capital that these men destroyed much of the country and enslaved its women. In fact, it was fine with them when one of these vicious groupings, the Taliban, took over Afghanistan completely. Fine, that is, as long as they played by Western capital’s rules.

But the Taliban, like the rest of the rebellious Right, had its own independent reactionary program. When they pursued their independent agenda too far, and it became a threat to Western interests, the imperialists slammed them down (destroying even more of the country in the process). This new war against their own former client led them to fund and sponsor an alternate group of clerical fascists and warlords, the Northern Alliance. These criminals, who now run most of Afghanistan, include some of the worst slavemasters, acid-throwers and torturers in the country.

Amazingly, the Taliban, despite having its gangster “anti-imperialism” seriously weakened, still has the ability to negotiate with Western imperialism while simultaneously engaged in armed struggle against it. They are living proof that the religious fascists of Afghanistan will do anything at all to maximize their turf and power. Despite their anti-imperialist rhetoric, they are determined players within the current world capitalist matrix. And the imperialists understand perfectly—it’s just normal male politics. If a suitable deal can be struck, fine. If not, then “bring it on!”

RAWA realized starting in the 1970s that it is a deadly mistake for freedom-loving women to permit fascistic men to pretend that they are fighting for national freedom. During the war against the Soviet Union, RAWA made every attempt to build a secular, democratic liberation struggle, refusing to moderate their anti-fundamentalist stance. They actually had little choice: fundamentalist men were attacking and murdering RAWA activists because they stood for women’s rights. Despite their best efforts, the secular resistance was marginalized and crushed.

RAWA argues that the clerical fascists have done nothing but weaken Afghanistan as a nation, leaving the country open to continued imperialist interference. Militant as RAWA is in their opposition to both Soviet and U.S. imperialism, they have never viewed the fundamentalist warlords as part of a united front for national liberation, but rather as a murderous enemy.

There are two ways to look at RAWA’s hard-earned analysis. One way is to argue that they are “putting the cart before the horse.” RAWA’s desire to bring forward the battle against religious fascism is understandable, we might say, but misguided. “Sophisticated” leftists know that the fundamentalists be attacked only after imperialism is defeated. That, in fact, is exactly what most of the Western Left is used to saying. But don’t we already know where that road leads?

The other way to look at RAWA’s analysis, and practice, is to treat it as a breakthrough in left-wing anti-imperialism, and as an opening to a new women-centered politics. Maybe RAWA’s experience confronting the sharp edge of contemporary neo-colonialism is something we should learn from.

Maybe we can’t postpone the fight against fundamentalism and right-wing populism until “after” we defeat imperialism. Maybe the Left will never defeat the current incarnation of imperialism until we learn how to destroy clerical fascism and its agenda for the enslavement of women. Maybe it’s time to address the fact that a growing populist Right, led by an armed and dangerous fascist vanguard, is working to hijack anti-imperialism and anti-Western struggle away from the Left. (And doing a rather good job of it so far.) Maybe we should really listen to the women of RAWA, and to the other anti-fascist Left forces being forged in the world’s battle zones.

In Europe and North America, some leftists—mostly women—are listening. Even though most of the metropolitan Left doesn’t treat it as a priority, feminists and others on the Left are supporting organizations like RAWA and OWFI. Some are also struggling to develop a new politics of anti-imperialism that explicitly repudiates male domination. Radical thinkers like Marie Mies (Patriarchy and Accumulation on a World Scale: Women in the International Division of Labor), Christina Thurmer-Rohr (Vagabonding: Feminist Theory Cut Loose) and Butch Lee (Night-Vision: Illuminating War and Class on the Neo-Colonial Terrain, with Red Rover; Jailbreak out of History: the Re-Biography of Harriet Tubman) have tried to advance and modernize women-centered revolutionary politics in the metropolis.

Meanwhile, day by day and in full view of the world, the beat goes on in Iraq. Imperialist war criminals slaughter “anti-imperialist” Baath Party cadres, domestic and international Islamic fascists and local warlords, with absolutely no heed for civilian “collateral damage.” For their own part, reactionary “resistance” fighters, virtually all men devoted to brutal patriarchy, blow up whole city blocks—also with no consideration for civilians who get in the way. Iraqi women, largely pushed off the streets and, increasingly, under the veil, wonder which side will win, and what their fate will be, one way or the other. The small, heroic groups of militants who try to represent women’s own interests in Iraq do their organizing under the most extreme pressures and terrorist threats from both sides.

If there were a strong international Left today, perhaps we would take advantage of the contradiction between the two reactionary camps of modern world capitalism that are at war today. Wouldn’t it be good to let the imperialists and the fascists hammer each other while we built something radical and women-centered and survivable? Perhaps that’s actually starting to happen, on a small scale, where women have decided that they’ve had enough of being fought over by greedy vicious men. Perhaps RAWA is such a start, or OWFI. But this kind of politics certainly isn’t a major force in the world yet. And it definitely isn’t high on the agenda of the international Left or, for that matter, of the anti-war movements in the metropolis.

We live in the early days of a new capitalist era. Today, the Left is weak, the insurgent hard Right is stronger, and the imperialists are strongest. That’s the world balance of forces, whether we like it or not. At the heart of all the contradictions among these three forces is a contest over the fate of the proletariat, especially proletarian women. These women do not yet have a strong, independent, armed, organized presence capable of confronting global oppression on their own terms. That is precisely why the Left is weak: for better or worse, proletarian women’s future is the Left’s future.

The objective conditions for a radical new wave of freedom struggle are growing steadily as the old secrets of patriarchy are forced out of the closet; as class differences between men and women become more obvious; as millions of women are gathered into the heart of a reconfigured proletariat. If and when these women in their hundreds of millions break through the male blockade, entering the world political struggle not as part of somebody else’s agenda but acting directly on their own behalf, they will become the main force of a new international Left, one that will strike fear among fascists and imperialists alike. Isn’t it time that the Western Left started figuring out realistic ways to advance that process, instead of living in perilous denial and grasping at false male dreams of glory?

--Bromma

(Acknowledgement: This article reflects a lot of discussion among activists. It is based substantially on hard work and hard thinking by many others. In particular, it has been strongly influenced by the theoretical insights of Butch Lee and J. Sakai.)

Mass Resistance Is the Other Side of Large Scale Oppression in Iran

2006-11-06T22:35:00.000-05:00

Mass Resistance is the Other Side of Large Scale Oppression:
The Reality of the Women’s Liberation Movement in Iran

A speech by Azar Majedi*, given at the International women’s right conference in Dusseldurf, Germany 12-14 October, 2006

In describing women’s conditions in a particular country, one either refers to laws governing that country or statistics which measure women’s status. In this manner, one either exposes the extent of the oppression women suffer or admires their achievements. In regards to women living under the rule of Islam, the situation is pure discrimination and oppression, subjugation and state violence. If women are considered second class citizens in many countries, in countries stricken by political Islam, they are not even considered as citizens. They are only extensions of men. In fact, according to Islam, the concept of citizenry is non-existent. There is a relationship between God and the religious hierarchy and a collective of right-less, conscious-less men, with women as their slaves. As a matter of fact, this is true of any other religion. However, this is beside the point of today’s discussion.

You have heard a great deal about women under Islam, Islam a la Taliban, in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, Somalia, Sudan, and in Iran under the Islamic Republic. The downtrodden situation of women, the sheer discrimination, gender apartheid, Islamic veil, forced marriages, officially recognized pedophilia, (setting the legal age of marriage at 9 for girls), honour killing, polygamy, stoning women to death for engaging in sex outside marriage, encouraging men to hit their wives for punishment. The list is long.

If once the issue of Islam and women was an unknown topic, nowadays, thanks to the rise of political Islam, Islamic states in Iran, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq, it has become a well-known topic. I am sure that you all have heard about the non-existence of women’s rights in Islam. However, some think it is not Islam’s fault, they blame the patriarchy. They maintain that it is not Islam, but patriarchal interpretations of Islam that is responsible for the conditions of women in countries under the rule of Islam. In other words, it is the ruling men’s fault not the ruling Islam. We will not get into the debate that Islam, as with all other religions, is the direct product of a patriarchal era. It could not have escaped being permeated by patriarchic values and outlooks. However, we must state one undeniable fact: which is that millions of women are violated daily by Islamic laws, customs, values and states. We must deal in an effective manner with this violation.

I am here on behalf of the Organization for Women’s Liberation. I am here to familiarize you with realities of Iranian society. You have heard about Iran. I do not mean the oil, or the nuclear project. I do not mean the mullahs or the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. I mean about the situation of women. Today, I want to talk to you about women’s resistance, rather than women’s oppression. You have heard long tales about women’s oppression. I would like to tell you that there is a mass resistance movement against this systematic oppression, this official misogynistic ideology. I would like to share the encouraging news with you that Iran is the birthplace of a very important historic moment in international women’s liberation, a movement more significant than the Suffrage movements, or as vast as the women’s liberation movement in the Soviet Union from 1917 to 1930, or in the West during the 1960s and 1970s. This movement has great potential. If it materializes, it is capable of not only liberating women in Iran, but also opening up the door to freedom to all women of the Middle East. We must recognise this fact. I am here to ask for your solidarity and support.

The situation in Iran is different from that of Afghanistan, Iraq or the Sudan. There is mass discontent in these countries; there is resistance, but there is a lack of a mass movement in defense of women’s rights. Such a movement exists in Iran.

In Iran there has never existed a secular state or the separation of religion from the state and education. The laws have always been religious laws. There has always been a dictatorship. The efforts to reform the family law in favour of women during the 1960s were very meager and not very effective. During the 1979 revolution, a women’s right movement was born. This was not a mass movement, but rather was formed by left and intellectual women. I am from that generation. My struggle for women’s rights and for freedom and equality predates that period.

After the Islamic Republic came to power, they attacked women full-force. In 1979, we organised several March 8 celebrations in Tehran. The society was free from monarchist dictatorship, and we, the women’s rights activists, were celebrating March 8 for the first time. On the same day, Khomeini ordered women to wear the veil. A large demonstration took to the streets in protest to this reactionary order and demanded women’s equality. The protest continued for almost a week, meetings, and a sit-in were organize. Finally the government gave in to women’s demands. A year later women employees were ordered to observe the veil at work, some women protested, hundreds lost their jobs. The first phase of the women’s movement was short-lived. It put up a brave resistance, but it was silenced after two years.

Women’s resistance continued in individualistic fashion, against the veil, gender apartheid and obligatory dress code. Many women have been imprisoned, tortured, flogged, or stoned to death. This brutal oppression was not able to obliterate the spirit of resistance. The new generation reignited this movement on a mass scale and has pushed it forward. Fighting against the Islamic veil and apartheid is one of the main battlegrounds.

When I hear the apologists of the Islamic movement or the defenders of cultural relativism (which, thanks to our relentless struggle has become a marginal tendency) say: “the Islamic veil and apartheid is their culture,” I get furious and want to laugh at the same time. If this is “their culture” then it is supposed that they practice it voluntarily. Why then has this massive means of oppression become necessary? Why are all these special forces formed to deal with cultural disobedience, non-observance of the veil and gender apartheid? I would like to ask-- are these people a bunch of masochists-- who like to practice their culture by being tortured, imprisoned and stoned? What rubbish! The thousands of women who have been tortured, stoned and executed, are the symbol of a vast movement against the Islamic laws, gender apartheid and veil.

I believe there is a straightforward equation: a complex and sophisticated oppressive system only demonstrates that there is a vast and complex resistance to be suppressed. When there are more than one hundred thousand political executions, this bitter and tragic fact reveals that the society does not accept the existing order and wants change.

In Iran, there is a special police force to deal with women, those who protest, those who do not observe the veil and those who challenge the dress code with fashion innovation. This special force was used to crush a demonstration to protest against women’s condition that took place in Tehran in July. Despite all the laws governing dress code and observing the veil, despite prison sentences, fines and flogging, women in Iran ridicule the veil and in their demonstrations have also burned it. The new generation cannot be silenced, cannot be forced back home. This is the resistance I am talking about.

In Iran, there is a vast secular movement for a free and egalitarian society. The women’s liberation movement is one of the main components of this general movement. The de facto status of women is much higher than their official and legal status. In the eyes of the dominant ideology and legislation, women’s status is half of that of men. A woman is the man’s slave. She cannot travel or work without her “master’s” permission, does not have divorce or child custody rights, cannot become a judge or a president. But women in Iran could not be subdued or made to accept this status and image. They want to be whole persons, independent and equal.

I would like to mention a statistical figure: around 66% of entering university students are female. This is in a country where you need to pass difficult entry exams. The competition to get into college is very high. You also have to take into consideration the state’s efforts to push women into the home. Is this statistic accidental? No. This is a trend. Every year this figure has risen, from 30% to 66%. The parliament tried to pass laws to reverse this trend, to prevent women from getting into the university in these high numbers. The representatives of the Islamic parliament argued that this is very detrimental to Islam and the institution of the family. They were alarmed by these statistics. I become overjoyed. This shows a resilient determination on the part of the new generation of women in Iran. This brings hope and shows that women’s liberation in Iran is alive and kicking.

March 8th, International Women’s Day, has become an established tradition in Iran. In the past few years, March 8th has been celebrated in different cities and in different ways throughout Iran. The first time was in 1979 after the collapse of the monarchist regime. This was the birth of a women’s right movement which was silenced after 2 years There was an interruption for several years. In year 2000 a large and open meeting is organized in University of Sharif in Tehran in commemoration of 8 March. The news about small gatherings in different cities have also been spread..

The Islamic Republic tried a propaganda tactic-- it named the birthday of Mohammad’s daughter as the national women’s day. The specialty of this regime has been to suppress movements not only by brutal force, but by means of demagogic propaganda. It crushed the 1979 revolution by calling its state a revolutionary state, its brutal forces the revolutionary guards, and the revolution itself, an Islamic revolution. It disarmed the left by taking over the so-called anti-imperialist movement, by manipulating the anti-American sentiment and taking Americans hostage at the American Embassy. Attempting to substitute the Prophet’s daughter’s birthday for international women’s day was a similar tactic. However, this tactic only worked for a few years. Then it was forced to assign a women’s week. This did not work either. Last year, it was forced to admit defeat and a faction of the regime recognized March 8 as women’s day. March 8th now is an established tradition in Iran. Last year there were many different rallies and meetings organised to commemorate March 8. Some of them, including the one in Tehran, were suppressed. Three months later there was a large protest organised in Tehran to demand reforms in favour of women, several thousand took part. This was also crushed by the wecurity forces and the new special women’s force. Many were arrested and beaten up. A couple of months later a movement was initiated to collect 1 million signatures for changing the laws in women’s favour. The women’s liberation movement is not going to give up or be silenced. The Islamists try to crush it and it rises again even stronger. It seems that all efforts to suppress it, only make it stronger and more resilient.

These are the positive aspects of women’s resistance. Unfortunately, there is a dark and sad dimension to it as well. The number of suicides and setting fire to oneself has increased considerably among women, especially among young women. Women in Iran have always lived under discrimination. Forced marriages, extensive restrictions on their lives, being placed in servitude status vis a vis the men has always been the fact of life for the majority of women in Iran. It seems that at one time they accepted this as a divine and natural law, and resigned themselves to it. However, in the past decade, we are witnessing a significant rise in women’s suicide. This is a protest. The new generation has different expectations and aspirations. Women are not resigned to their “fate.” They want to take their fate into their own hands. When a woman cannot protest collectively, when she cannot direct her anger and disapproval against the state, she directs it against herself. These self-inflicting harms are a means of protest.

It is our duty, it is the responsibility of women’s right activists to transform this method of self-inflicting hurt into a positive resistance. We must change this desperation into hope for change.

Another negative fact is the high number of girls who escape the restrictions and violence in the home in search of freedom and end up in streets. They become homeless, unprotected, and victims of prostitution. They are abused and exploited. Many of these girls wear male clothing, hoping to be freer and less harassed. However, there is no escape. The life of these girls is a telling story of brutality, exploitation and cruelty.

In my opinion, the last two factors are new sociological phenomena in a society that is undergoing profound social, cultural, political and economic changes. Analysis of this situation points us to a massive and deep rooted social resistance against the ruling order, dominant ideology and culture, against the ancient and antiquated values of Islam.

And last but not least, we should mention the diverse cultural and NGO organizations which fight for women’s rights. These organizations must adapt themselves to the suppressive state and laws, but we are witnessing the birth of many different organizations, festivals, and solidarity camps. These are the bright and hopeful aspects of women’s resistance.

My friends, there is a mass resistance movement in Iran against sexual discrimination and for gender equality. This movement needs your solidarity and support. If we succeed in freeing women from oppression and misogynistic laws and values, this will open up a door to all women living in the Middle East and countries under the rule of Islam. We must launch a vast international movement against discrimination, violence and systematic oppression, against gender apartheid and Islamic veil. The Organisation for Women’s Liberation calls upon you to join this movement. We have drawn a resolution against gender apartheid, I ask you to support it. Show your support by applauding and sign our petition. Thank you.

************************************************************

This speech was interrupted many times by audience applause. The resolution was endorsed by heavy applause and hundreds signed the petition during the conference.

*Azar Majedi is a veteran women’s rights activist from Iran. She is also the editor of Medusa a Journal of Women and Socialism, , a broadcaster in New Channel, a satellite TV broadcasting into Iran, Middle East and Europe in Farsi and English, and a leader in the Worker Communist Party of Iran.

Chavez's Shameful Embrace of Ahmadinejad

2006-09-22T18:55:00.000-04:00

Chavez’s Shameful Embrace of Iranian President Ahmadinejad:
Show Solidarity with the Women and People of Iran , not their Oppressors!

by Jennifer Fasulo
j4fasulo@yahoo.com

Hugo Chavez, one of the key important figures in the left populist movements spreading throughout Latin America, has publicly lauded and embraced Iranian president Ahmadinejad. See “Two anti-US nations heap praise upon each other.” http://qevjf.ucg.net/2006/WORLD/americas/09/17/venezuela.iran.ap/

It is moments like this, when feminists and any activists who care about women's liberation, are reminded of just how little women’s lives matter in the world of patriarchal nationalist politics.

One expects Chavez to condemn all US war-mongering and threats against Iran . We can applaud as he uses the public stage to denounce Bush as a criminal who is out to dominate and destroy the world. But there is no excuse for declaring solidarity with a misogynist theocrat like Ahmadinejad.

By embracing Ahmadinejad, Chavez is adding steam to the growing and dangerous alliance between left-wing and right-wing anti-imperialism. In this equation, the only thing that matters is one’s opposition to US imperialism. Women’s rights, worker’s rights, student’s rights-- the things that are supposed to matter to socialists and progressives-- be damned.

Apparently, Chavez, appears not to have noticed that the Iranian government has created one of the most brutal and misogynist regimes in modern history—turning Iran into a country where gender apartheid and sexist hatred of women has been enshrined in law, where women are still TODAY stoned to death for the “crime” of adultery, buried up to their necks and pelted in the face and head with stones until they die, where women have no right to divorce or child custody, are legally forced to veil under threat of physical beating or imprisonment, can’t travel without the permission of a husband or father, where their testimony in a court of law is considered half that of a man, and where political dissent of any kind, for women and men, is punishable by imprisonment, often torture and death. This is the government that Chavez compares to his own as a “heroic nation,” one which he deems, “revolutionary.”

Chavez’s lack of concern for women’s rights under Islamic governments is reflective of the male left generally. The issue is not on the radar screen. If it's raised at all, it's often dismissed or excused as an issue of "culture." This insidious use of the word “culture” implies that women are brutally subjected not through force and violence, but because they or their “culture” wants it that way, and therefore it’s okay and nothing to get upset about. This argument, aside from insulting the human spirit, which never passively accepts subjugation, is also profoundly ignorant of the actual conditions and historical facts in Iran . Any cursory investigation of Iranian society will show that the Iranian people are a people in utter revolt against their despotic rulers, with women leading the way. For 27 years women have resisted and defied the Islamic regime’s persecution of them, often at great risk to their lives. Along with an inspiring women’s movement, there are strong, secular workers and student movements, all of them opposing not only the Islamic regime, but also the US threats of military attacks and sanctions on Iran .

How can Chavez, who considers himself a socialist and a defender of the downtrodden, align himself with the leader of such a reactionary regime, rather than the inspiring socialist and feminist movements which are fighting against it? It is a terrible political choice that he need not make. Chavez can and should renounce his solidarity with Ahmadinejad and place it with the people of Iran where it belongs. He should be standing, not by the side of the executioner, but by the side of the unjustly accused and condemned, like 17 year old Nazanine Fatehi who awaits execution for the crime of defending herself and her niece from a gang of rapists. Or Kobra Rahmanpour who also awaits execution and writes in a public letter, “I have suffered enough… Please help me! I don’t want to die. But right now I am more like a lifeless body who has forgot happiness and laughter in the scare from the execution rope… My only hope lies in people and my fellow humans.” (see the International Committee Against Executions, for the full story at http://www.adpi.net/) How must Kobra, and Nazanine feel to see Chavez throw his arms around their excecutioner?

Chavez’s stance needs to be condemned by all progressive forces within the international community. One group that has already issued such a condemnation is the Worker Communist Party of Iran (WPI). In a statement issued on September 14, they write, “We see the attempts by right-wing pro-America forces to overthrow Chavez and we value every bit of positive reform by the Chavez government in the interest of deprived and hungry people, but defending the murderous and terrorist leaders of the Islamic Republic, rolling out the carpet for them under the guise of anti-imperialism is nothing but throwing dust in the eyes of the people and covering up the brutal reality of the Islamic regime.” The WPI goes on to challenge the very notion that the Islamic Republic is an anti-imperialist force. “We must make it clear to Chavez and Castro that the Islamic current, without the support of the US government and western powers, could not have come to power—and without their help could not have stayed in power.”

In these bleak times, many on the left see Chavez as the great hope for the world and are loathe to call into question his commitment to revolutionary politics. Chavez does deserve credit for the things he’s done to improve the lives of poor people and curb the abuses of capitalism in Venezuela . Many feminists have also praised his economic initiatives for women and willingness to recognize the contribution of women’s unpaid labor in the home. Recently, he passed a historic bill which would compensate women for their unpaid housework, something that socialist feminists have been fighting for decades. Yet these facts must also be balanced by other disquieting aspects of Chavez’s politics. He has frequently been criticized for his authoritarian leadership, including by the Venezuelan women who are pushing him to make good on his promises. In a manner disturbingly close to Bush and Ahmadinejad, he likes to claim that he has “god on his side.” After the recall election in which Chavez triumphed over efforts by the opposition to unseat him, he declared, “God has spoken.” And while some feminists have praised him as a champion of women’s rights, others have pointed to his strong anti-abortion stance. He even attempted to create an anti-abortion amendment to the Venezuelan constitution, but strong resistance forced him to back off it . Among feminists, the issue of paying women for housework is also not clear cut. There has long been a debate within feminist circles as to whether this will have a liberating effect (raising women out of poverty) or whether it will further institutionalize women in the role of domestic servitude. All of these issues deserve to be reconsidered in light of Chavez’s alliance with an anti-feminist fundamentalist like Ahmadinejad.

We have to ask ourselves, what hope does Chavez represent, especially for women, if he’s willing to align himself with a government that treats women like sub-humans? What hope do we have if we can't distinguish between revolutionary movements and the forces which seek to destroy them? Precisely because things are so bleak right now and the forces of reaction and religious bigotry are on the rise around the world, we must not tolerate leftist alliances that seek to legitimize them. We must not allow the undermining of the women’s liberation movement in Iran that is tirelessly fighting to save women’s lives and break the chains of their legal imprisonment, nor the progressive revolutionary movements that are charting a third course between US domination and right-wing opposition to it. These are the movements that represent the true hope for the ideals of justice, equality and human liberation. Now, more than ever, we must stand up and defend them.

Global Unions Launch UN Complaint Over Iranian Repression

2006-07-26T09:51:00.000-04:00

25 July 2006

Global union the ITF and international union body the ICFTU today made a formal complaint against Iran to the ILO (International Labour Organization) following the continued use of terror tactics against one of the ITF’s member unions there.

The union bodies today submitted a dossier detailing coninuing repression against the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company (Sherkat-e Vahed) that is not just contrary to all norms of justice and human rights but is in direct contravention of the very principles to which the Islamic Republic of Iran signed up when it joined the ILO.

Since it was set up as an independent trade union in 2005 the Syndicate, which is affiliated to the ITF, has been subjected to an ongoing campaign of harassment, arrests and physical attacks. These include the continuing detention of the union’s President Mansoor Osanloo.

To read the full article please click on the link below:

http://www.itfglobal.org/press-area/index.cfm/pressdetail/878

The Joy of Resistance at WBAI Covers the Showdown Between Religious Right and Feminists in Missisippi

2006-07-24T18:54:00.000-04:00

By Jennifer Fasulo
July 23, 2006

This Thursday, July 27 at 11am, tune in to The Joy of Resistance, Multi-cultural Feminist Radio to hear an important report about the showdown between the Religious Right and Feminists in Mississippi.

The religious-fascist group “Operation Save America”(OSA), formerly Operation Rescue, descended on Jackson Mississippi for a week of protest activities designed to shut down the last remaining abortion clinic in the state. In response, local feminist groups, such as the Jackson Area National Organization for Women, along with hundreds of feminists and progressives from around the country united to oppose and denounce the Religious Right’s ongoing anti-woman and anti-freedom agenda. According to media reports, Feminists and their supporters outnumbered the religious fanatics by 4 to 1. According to Michelle Colon, President of the Jackson area chapter of the National Organization of Women, not only did “Operation Save America” fail in their goals to shut down the clinic, but their presence helped galvanize local residents and instigate an exciting new grassroots effort, particularly by women of color, to defend women’s rights.

Listen to interviews with Michelle Colon, Jackson NOW president and Betty Maloney of Radical Women in NYC recount the successful week’s activities.

Residents of NY, NJ and CT can hear report on Thursday July 27, at 11am on WBAI 99.5 FM.

Those out of range can listen online by going to www.wbai.org and clicking on live streaming.

After the 27th, it can also be heard by going to the same link, clicking on archives and scrolling down and clicking on the date and time of show.

More Picture: Jackson, MS, Women's Rights Activists Confront Christian Fascists

2006-07-24T18:46:00.000-04:00

Pictures: Jackson, MS, Battle for Freedom and Equality for Women

2006-07-24T12:24:00.000-04:00

Cartoon: Islamic Femal Police Suppress Women Protesters.

2006-06-15T17:11:00.000-04:00

Translation:
"Womens Rights" (Sign)
"Your sister is a [b]...*, mother [f]...!!*" (first line, top right)
"I will show you what women's freedom means!!" (second line, top right)
"*Unfortunately we cannot mention these words." (bottom right)

Human Rights Watch Condemns Assault on Women's Protest in Tehran

2006-06-15T16:55:00.000-04:00

Iran: Police Assault Women’s Rights Demonstrators

(New York, June 15, 2006) – Iran must investigate the police beating of hundreds of women’s rights activists during a peaceful demonstration in Tehran on Monday, Human Rights Watch said today. The organization called on the government to release those detained after the police attack on protestors.

Eyewitnesses told Human Rights Watch that police and intelligence agents lined Haft Tir Square in downtown Tehran hours before the start of the planned demonstration on June 12. As the demonstrators assembled, the security forces immediately started to beat them with batons, sprayed them with pepper gas, marked the demonstrators with color spray, and took scores into custody.

“The Iranian government has again shown its utter contempt for basic freedoms like the right to peaceful assembly,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, director of Middle East and North Africa division at Human Rights Watch. “The authorities should free those arrested at once and find out who’s behind the police violence.”

On Tuesday, Jamal Karimirad, a spokesman for the Judiciary, confirmed that security forces arrested 70 people, 42 women and 28 men, to prevent the demonstration from taking place. He said the Judiciary is charging the detainees with “participation in an illegal assembly.”

An eyewitness told Human Rights Watch that, for what is thought to be the first time, the government transported policewomen to the demonstration to arrest female demonstrators while policemen dealt with male protestors.

“Female police officers ruthlessly beat demonstrators with their batons and took many into police vans for detention,” this witness said. “Bystanders were shocked at how harshly the police reacted to demonstrators.”

Full text at: http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/06/15/iran13548.htm

Women's Protest Brutally Attacked by the Iranian Security Forces

2006-06-15T00:26:00.000-04:00

Women's Protest Brutally Attacked by Iranian Security Forces
by Mahmood Ketabchi
06/14/2006
mekchi@msn.com

Thousands of women and male supporters came together on June 12 in Haft Tir Square in Tehran, Iran to protest against anti-women Islamic laws and gender apartheid. A similar rally was held last year on June 12, where participants declared their determination to follow up their just struggle for equality and women's liberation.

Ever since the Islamic Republic, with its barbarous acts, has imposed its ominous rule on Iranian society, women have occupied the center stage of struggle for freedom and equality. Despite twenty seven years of suppression and the imposition of medieval Islamic laws designed to make women subhuman, women have refused to stay silent. They have resisted the Islamic brutality by any means they could. They have fought for their freedom, that is, the freedom of the entire society.

In Monday's action, women protesters demanded the abrogation of Islamic Sharia laws. According to Islamic laws: 1) men are allowed to have four wives at the same time and as many “temporary wives” as they want, 2) the right to divorce is for men only, 3) women are deprived of child custody, 4) in inheritance, brothers are awarded twice as much as their sisters, 5) women are legally deprived of certain jobs such as being a judge, 6) women's testimony in court only counts for half that of a man, 7) financial punishment for killing a woman is half what it is considered for a man, 8) girls as young as 9 years old can be forced into marriage, 9) women cannot travel outside of the country without the permission of their husband, 10) women must observe Islamic dress codes and are segregated from men, etc.

Several days before the protest, many women's rights activists were harassed by the Islamic regime and summoned by the security forces. They were told that they had to call off the protest, but women refused and vowed to go head with their plan.

As usual, the government controlled media and heavily censored press provided no coverage of women's plan to hold a rally. However, organizers used their independent resources to put together and publicize their event. People came from all over Tehran to show their support for women's rights and indignation toward the Islamic misogynist laws. They brought signs and posters to announce their demands.

Like other women's protests this year, the rally in haft Tir Square became the target of brutal suppression. Islamic security forces, including female police,occupied the location of the protest, hours before it was to begin. They also patrolled the adjacent streets to prevent people from going to the rally. Despite the show of intimidation and force by the police, many people gathered in the square, held up their signs and posters, raised their fists and chanted “we are women, we are human beings, but we have no rights!” Female police, draped in dark veils from head to toe, carried batons and along with other security forces and plain clothed Islamic hooligans attacked and beat up the women protesters. Many protesters were injured. Blood was seen in many parts of the square. Approximately a hundred people were arrested and driven to unknown locations. As the police attacked and savagely beat up protesters, they verbally abused women and insulted them with filthy sexist slurs. They also called the protesters “agents of foreigners and imperialism;” the customary manner in which the Islamic regime attempts to suppress every form of dissent by using such labels. But with utter determination, women continued their protest and were able to walked around the square. Police attacked the rally with pepper gas and dispersed the crowed. As people were forced out of the square, they continued chanting their demands and condemning the police violence and brutality.

Since International Women's Day in March, this was the second largest women's protest in Tehran. On March 8, hundreds of women celebrated by protesting against the Islamic regime and anti-women laws in Iran. That demonstration was also suppressed by the security forces, an act that brought international condemnation against the Islamic government.

The Islamic regime is being encircled by mass protests of workers, students, unemployed youth, and women. The specter of mass rebellion and revolution has always hovered over the the Islamic government in Iran since it came to power in 1979. That is why the Islamic security forces try to crush any protest that can potentially trigger the unstoppable roller-coaster of rebellion.

The masses of people in Iran are lusting for freedom and equality. They have fought and will continue to fight the barbaric Islamic regime to build a better world.

Translation for posters: "The Association to Defend Women" (top right), "We Want Laws Based on Human Rights - The Association to Defend Children's Rights" (top left), and "We Want the Right to Divorce, the Right to Testimony [in court], and All Other Suppressed Rights" (bottom).

Click here to see the pictures of the rally.

Pictures from Women Protest in Tehran on June 12

2006-06-13T23:24:00.000-04:00

"Work, Housing, and Freedom." Association to Defend Women and Children's Rights in Iran

Click here to read the report about the rally.

Students at Ferdosi University in Mashhad, Iran Support Student Protests in Tehran

2006-06-03T20:43:00.000-04:00

"Students will die but will not accept to be despised"
"No to detentions and arrests"

" To obtain freedom, we will lose nothing but our chains"

"Why are military personnel in the university?"

"Diciplinary Committee, an imposed 'juctice' "

"Why are military personnel in the university?"

"Long live freedom-loving students in Tehran"

More than 500 students assembled in Ferdosi University in Mashhad to show their solidarity with recent massive student protests in Tehran. In a statement, they declared their support for students' demand in Tehran and strongly condemned the voilent and brutal assualt on student protesters. The statement also said, "There is an increasing threat of war against the Islamic Republic, a war that puts the security and the well-being of our people in great danger. As a result of this war, the economic, social, and civil structures of our society will be in complete risk of collapse, and the society can be embroiled in internal and external wars. In such circumstances, the students in Tehran have posed to the society a different alternative, that is, to struggle to determine the destiny of our country by our own hands, a struggle that has declared freedom and equality as its goals.”

Rape as Cost of Entry for Female Immigrants

2006-05-18T00:30:00.000-04:00

Women's debate show exposes rape
as cost of entry for female immigrants
by Jennifer L Pozner
May 13th, 2006
Posted by Mahmood Ketabchi
From WIMN

As I write this, I'm watching an important segment on "To The Contrary," PBS's weekly women's political and current affairs debateshow, on the underreported issue of sexual assault as an exceptionallyregular aspect of border crossing for women immigrants.

According to T.O.C. host Bonnie Erbe:

"New studies by the United Nations Development Fund for Women showsexual abuse on the rise among women illegally crossing the U.S.border from Mexico. Rape is so common it's viewed as the price ofadmission to America. Some even take birth control before crossing toavoid pregnancy… So-called 'border bandits' prey on those crossing theU.S. Mexican border illegally. Women are more vulnerable because theirpercentages have risen among illegal immigrants. They're also leavingbehind more children in Mexico and Central American countries. If caught and returned, they're often physically abused again in the Mexican border towns where U.S. agents leave them."

To give viewers a deeper understanding of the impact of immigration on undocumented women, Erbe interviewed Marijke Velzeboer-Salcedo, chief, Latin America and the Caribbean section of the U.N. Development Fund for Women, who explained that:

"Between 60 % 70% of women do experience some abuse, of the womenwho cross the border alone (because some of the women do cross the border with their husbands or their families). But many of the women do go alone and we know that among the Mexican non documented
immigrants, 45% are women. And in Guatemala it's 35% and it's rising."

With some exceptions, much immigration coverage in recent months hasfocused on male activists leading protests, undocumented men workingas day laborers, male DJs at Spanish-language radio stations informinglisteners about the importance of attending immigration
demonstrations, and the like. But as this To The Contrary segment illustrates, there are serious reasons why women's perspectives are needed in immigration coverage–and serious ways to frame immigration as specifically relevant to women.

Erbe's opening question to her panelists was a simple query that should be — but hasn't been — a staple in most media coverage of immigration:

"So, what are their [women's] lives like at home that they're willing to try to cross illegally, so many of them die, and now we find 60 to 70% of them are sexually abused and they're taking birth control before they cross the border knowing that they're likely to be raped?"

It's an important question, one posed far too rarely in the recent spate of corporate media coverage of immigration. Unfortunately, the panelists (a Democratic pundit, a Democratic Congresswoman, aRepublican pundit and a spokeswoman from the right-wing anti-feminist Independent Women's Forum) didn't answer it as fully as they should have, steering the debate away from the motivations of women immigrants and toward border patrol and enforcement issues.

Let's hope more mainstream and independent news coverage further explores the stark realities faced by female immigrants in their home countries, in the transition process, and in the United States. When you see stories like this that frame immigration as the women's issue it is, send a thank-you to the station or publication responsible for broadening the debate (you can reach To The Contrary at mailto:atttcviewers@yahoo.com). We'd love you to CC WIMN on your letters: info@wimnonline.org.

Likewise, when immigration coverage leaves women out of the picture,WIMN encourages you to send a letter to the editor asking the newsoutlet to delve deeper. Let media know that women's perspectives canonly expand and strengthen reporting and commentary on immigrationissues–and that no reporting that leaves women out of this story can be complete or wholly accurate. Again, feel free to copy WIMN on your letters.

(Postscript: The T.O.C. segment is not yet archived on the show's website, but I'll check in a day or two and post an update when theydo update their site with information on today's roundtable.)

Iranian Auto Workers Sacked for Strike Action

2006-05-18T00:07:00.000-04:00

Tens of Workers Sacked for Participating in a Strike
Statement by a group of Iran Khodro (Auto) Workers
Translated by Workers Left Unity Iran

Tens of workers who staged a short strike in March 2006, have been sacked by Iran Khodro factory in Iran . Following this a number of protests took place in many sections of the plant with workers shouting : “stop the sackings”, “workers should be allowed to return to their work”, “strike is the absolute right of the workers” . A group of workers in this plant published the following statement:

Fellow workers, friends,

The management of Iran Khodro proved once more that it only knows the language of aggression and sackings in defence of capital and capitalism. They proved yet again that they recognise no law but the law of the jungle and that they have no respect for human rights and international Legislation.
Friends, fellow workers,

We became aware that over the last few weeks, tens of our colleagues were sacked by the management and the deputy human resource manager for supporting the strike of 8th of March 2006 (in support of better payments for record annual production). We workers of Iran Khodro while condemning this announce:The right to strike is an absolute right of workers, a right recognised throughout the world, today no one is sacked or arrested for going on strike. The right to strike is the only weapon of the workforce in confronting the management’s injustices.

When management chooses such methods to respond to workers who have worked non stop for four months, at times in consecutive night shifts , often working 11 hours without a break, with no weekends and no days off , to increase the factory production to record level and then they are not even paid the right wage for it, one can say this management doesn’t want to engage in any dialogue, it accepts no workers organisations and recognises no worker representative. Under such circumstance, do workers have any option but to strike?

The management was responsible for this strike and it must respond to workers demands.Now that a strike has taken place instead of responding to the demands, managers have sacked groups of workers who went on strike. We demand an immediate end to the sackings and an end to the police atmosphere created in the factory.We call for the immediate, unconditional reinstatement of fellow workers sacked in recent weeks and we call on international workers organisation to support our call for the release of arrested workers.

Long live workers solidarity

A group of workers from Iran Khodro - 24 Ordibehesht 1385 ( May 2006)

************************************************************************************
Iran Khodro is the largest vehicle manufacturer in the Middle East, producing over 110,000 units a year. It produces passenger cars, minibuses and buses, vans and trucks. It was formed in 1962 and currently employs around 30,000 workers.

Calls for Jihad against The Da Vinci Code

2006-05-12T00:50:00.000-04:00

The Catholic Church Calls for Jihad
against The Da Vinci Code
By Mahmood Ketabchi
mekchi@msn.com
May 10, 2006

Following their Islamist brethren who launched a world wide reactionary campaign against the cartoons of Muhammad, the Catholic Church has declared their own “Holy War” against the film The Da Vinci Code. Cardinal Francis Arinze, a leading cleric in the Vatican establishment stated, "Those who blaspheme Christ and get away with it are exploiting the Christian readiness to forgive and to love even those who insult us. There are some other religions which if you insult their founder they will not be just talking. They will make it painfully clear to you.”

The Da Vinci Code, a book written by Dan Brown, suggests that Jesus after all was not “pure,” “saintly,” and “holy” as the Catholic Church and the entire Christian establishment believes. The main theme of the book is that Jesus happened to have a sex life, that is, he married Mary Magdalene, a prostitute, who bore him a child. It charges that for centuries the Church has conspired to conceal Jesus's marital relation with Mary Magdalene. The book has sold more than 40 million copies world wide in 44 languages. The movie version of the book is to premiere in Cannes Festival in France and will hit the theater for pubic viewing on May 19.

Cardinal Arinze urged Christians not to sit aside, but to do something to defend their beliefs against the “lies” and “Blasphemies” disseminated by The Da Vinci Code. He also declared, "This is one of the fundamental human rights: that we should be respected, our religious beliefs respected, and our founder Jesus Christ respected.” But why should anyone respect Cardinal Arinze's religious beliefs or admire Jesus if the person is critical of religion, religious establishments, and religious laws and regulations ?

The Christian establishment, and for that matter any other religion, has the right to believe in whatever they want. They have the right to disseminate their beliefs. That is their human right, and no one should prevent them from exercising those rights. However, at the same time, no one should be required or obligated to respect those ideas. Freedom from religion, freethinking, blasphemy, heresy, mockery of religion and religious figures, and atheism are human rights too. In my opinion, the latter rights are even more important than the religious rights. They must be particularly observed and protected because first, we live in a time when religious sectarianism and bloodshed is on the rise, and second, secularism and freethinking is increasingly under attack by the religious establishments and/or governments.

Equating religious freedom with respect for religion and religious figures is an attempt to silence the critiques of religions It is a reactionary campaign to outlaw blasphemy, heresy, and atheism. Those behind the campaign want to suppress freedom of expression and the press. In fact, the Islamist movement and governments in Islamic dominated countries are currently working hard to change the United Nation's human rights charter to prohibit anti-religious propaganda and consider it a human rights violation. If such a proposal is approved, for example, women and women's groups who challenge the Islamic tradition of polygamy could easily be considered heretics for refusing the words of god, or The Da Vinci Code author Dan Brown could be put on trail for suggesting that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene and had a child.

Last month, another top Vatican cleric, Archbishop Angelo Amato attacked The Da Vinci Code and called for a boycott of the film. He directed Christians to launch organized protests similar to the ones that opposed the screening of The Last Temptation of Christ in 1988. He called the book "stridently anti-Christian ... full of calumnies, offenses and historical and theological errors regarding Jesus, the Gospels and the Church." Urging Christians to protest, he referred to the Islamists reactions to the cartoons of Muhammad and said the “lies” and “errors” directed at the founder of Christianity, Jesus, should not go “unpunished.” Emulating political Islam and invoking the Islamists' brutal assault against freedom as an example for Christians to defend their faith is a shameful attempt by Vatican to intimidate people. In addition, it can only serve to get Christian fanatics in a race with Islamists to prove their thuggery, and it shows the common thread of intolerance and authoritarianism shared by all religious industries despite their differences.

As the Vatican steps up its campaign against The Da Vinci Code, in the US , Christian zealots are getting ready to launch a protest campaign. The American Society for the Defense of Tradition, Family, and Property (TFP), a name that says much about the reactionary character of the group, has promised more than 1000 vigils at the theaters which show the movie. Robert Ritchie, a top leader of the group, said, "Wrapped in Gnostic heresy, The Da Vinci Code is a broadside attack against the Divinity of Christ, the Papacy, and the hierarchical structure of the Catholic Church. Together with the so-called gospel of Judas, The Da Vinci Code is outright blasphemy. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the highest ideal of moral perfection; any detraction from this moral perfection takes on a defamatory character, since it lowers and denies His unique and most excellent position as God-man."

American TFP is among the right wing and reactionary Christian groups known for their rabidly homophobic and misogynist crusades. They are among the same groups of people who are pushing for defense of marriage amendments and anti abortion bills. Therefore, it comes as no surprise that these same religious thugs get fired up and initiate a campaign of intimidation against a movie that challenges their superstitions and taboos.

As for the self-proclaimed moral righteousness of the Church, one can only contrast this with decades of child molesting by priests and active collusion by the Catholic hierarchy to cover up the rape and brutality committed against children. They get outraged at the mere suggestion that their founder Jesus entered into a “holy matrimony” and had children, yet no outrage was expressed when their priests raped children and their Church allowed it happen. What shameful hypocrites!!!

Pictures: Afghan Woman MP In New Haven,CT

2006-05-12T00:40:00.000-04:00

Afghani Woman MP, Malalai Joya, Attacked in the Parliament

2006-05-10T18:54:00.000-04:00

The following news story is a reprint from Timesonline. Malalai Joya had a speaking tour across the US in March 2006. On March 23, she spoke in New Haven at Yale University. I went to the meeting. More than 200 people participated in the event. She spoke very strongly against the Islamist warlords and the US government that put them in place. She also exposed former Taliban spokesman and foreign ministry official Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi who is now a special non-degree student at Yale.

Malalai Joya told the audience that the US and Afghani government have stopped funding for her security. She said she carries a gun in self-defense and sometimes has a private bodyguard. Considering that she has lots of enemies who are continuously threatening her life and have made several attempts to kill her, Malalai Joya's life is in serious danger. However, she said no matter what happens to her, she would continue to fight for her people and women's rights in Afghanistan. She is an extremely fearless and brave women.

To learn more about Malalai Joya, please visit the following websites:

* Defend Malalai Joya
* The Afghan Women's Mission

To see pictures from the event in New Heaven please click here.

Woman MP is attacked in a blow for democracy
By Tim Albone in Kabul
From Timeonline

BOTTLES were thrown, insults traded and chairs knocked over in the bedlam. This was no bar-room brawl, however. It was the scene in the Afghan parliament on Sunday when a woman MP dared to stand up to a male colleague. Malalai Joya, 28, interrupted a former warlord as he praised the holy warriors — or Mujahidin — of Afghanistan during a debate to mark the anniversary of their defeat of communism.

She declared that there were “two types of Mujahidin — one who were really Mujahidin, the second who killed tens of thousands of innocent people and who are criminals”.

This was a step too far for the parliament’s Islamic extremists and former warlords, who are still getting the hang of democracy. They leapt from their seats and rushed towards her. They hurled abuse and water bottles. Punches were thrown. Even women MPs joined in.

Moderate MPs had to form a protective ring around Mrs Joya as she was hurried from the chamber. “My supporters heard one MP tell someone to wait by the door and knife me as I walked out,” she said.

Omid Yakmanish, a television cameraman, was hit as he filmed the uproar, and dropped his camera. He said: “The MP (Al-haj Khyal Mohammad Husaini, from Ghazni) said in an interview, ‘I have the right to beat people up if I want to’.”

The session was adjourned.

Mrs Joya told The Times yesterday: “There are two problems for these people: firstly, that I am a woman and, secondly, that I believe in democracy. They don’t believe in democracy. They don’t believe in women’s rights.”

She went on: “I have lots of threats. I have had people call me to threaten me, and in Kabul have to stay in a different house every night. I don’t feel safe. I’m never scared because I tell the truth and I believe in the truth and in democracy. They can kill me but they cannot kill my voice.”

The episode was another embarrassment for the Western nations who invaded Afghanistan to overthrow the Taleban regime and install democracy.

It comes shortly after a man named Abdul Rahman was arrested for converting to Christianity and threatened with the death penalty. Mr Rahman was spared only because of international outrage, but he had to be given asylum in Italy.

Qasim Ackajhar, a spokesman for the Kabul-based Freedom of Speech Association, lamented that the violence had “damaged the dignity of Afghanistan and the dignity of the parliament”.

But Mrs Joya’s opponents showed little remorse yesterday. Parwin Durranai, a woman MP for the nomadic Kuchi people, who charged at her, said: “I am not regretful. She spoke against 90 per cent of Afghanistan’s people. She is rude in the way she speaks.”

Haji Niyaz Mohammad Amiri, one of the male MPs accused of trying to attack Mrs Joya, told The Times: “I didn’t hit her or try to hit her. That was some of the brave female MPs.”

Mrs Joya caused a similiar outburst at a Loya Jirga — a traditional gathering — in 2003 by insisting that former warlords guilty of atrocities deserved punishment.

An Uplifting May Day Rally in NYC

2006-05-06T19:03:00.000-04:00

Out of the Kitchens and into the Streets: an Uplifting May Day Rally in NYC
by Jennifer Fasulo
May 1, 2006

The May Day Immigrant and Workers’ Rights Demonstration in NYC was a beautiful sight to behold. Thousands of protesters were jam packed into every inch of Union Square, happily jostling about under the brilliant May Day sun. There was a palpable feeling of pride and excitement in the air that I haven’t felt at a protest in a long time. Perhaps this was due to the fact that this was not your usual protest crowd.

Unlike the anti-war demos, which are usually predominantly white and more reflective of the liberal wing of middle-class America, this demonstration was mostly people of color, and decidedly working-class. And while traditional labor events are often male-dominated, this march was full of women, as well as many youth and children. The large presence of young people also contributed to the high energy and radical spirit of the crowd, with young women and men leading spirited chants in Spanish, “Buuuush, escucha! Estamos en la lucha!” (Bush listen! We are in the struggle!)

Some of the most profound sentiments were expressed by children who embody the dire situation of undocumented immigrants. One young girl held her hand made sign high above her head, “I born here. I’m US Citizen. I need my Parents here. They work so hard to have be Born here.” You knew that people were out in the streets because their lives depended on it. As I marched alongside immigrant workers, I had the sense that these are precisely the people you do not see during most political events because they are the ones slaving away in the kitchens of restaurants across NYC, in construction sites, or in private homes as domestics. This feeling was reinforced by one banner carried by two men in chef clothes which read, “ We Break Our Back For You… And We Get Paid A Kick In The Butt!”

It was thrilling to see so many workers in the streets, and the inescapable radicalism which comes from such a gathering, despite efforts to dilute it. For example, the Catholic church, many politicians, even some in the labor establishment, discouraged people from boycotting work and school in order to attend mass protests. But people ignored the admonitions and did it anyway. Sympathetic politicians talk in muted terms about “a path toward citizenship” while march placards loudly proclaimed, “Amnesty for all Immigrants” “Equal Rights for All Workers!” and “Ningun Ser Humano Es Ilegal!” (No Human Being is Illegal!)

Latinos made up a clear majority of the protesters, although there were also Filipinos, Korean, Haitian, and African immigrants present. The fact that it was mostly Latinos indicates that there is still much work to be done in bridging immigrant communities as well as the divide between Blacks and Latinos in NYC. Nonetheless, the spirited march went a long way toward reviving the radical tradition of May Day, the true Labor Day, long celebrated by workers around the world, yet neglected here in the US.

With parallel demonstrations in cities throughout the country, and millions staying out of work and school to attend, it was the closest thing we’ve had to a general strike in the US. This begs the question: where were the unions? By my estimation, there were hardly any official union banners or representatives to be counted among the crowd. This is a sad statement about the labor establishment in this country, but it shouldn’t come as any surprise. Rather it should make perfectly clear that if we are going to have a upsurge of labor it will come the from workers themselves, and new forms of labor organizations, not the status quo bureaucratic unions and their establishment leaders.

View the pictures here.

May Day Celebration in NYC: No Human Being Is Illegal

2006-05-06T18:52:00.000-04:00

More May Day Celebration in Iran

2006-05-04T18:39:00.000-04:00

Aggressors, keep your hands off workers' rights and the rights of other toiling masses

We workers demand the immediate release of Osanloo, representative of the bus workers unionWe workers demand that our right to strike to be recognized

Pictures from May Day celebration by auto, steel, and bus workers near Tehran

Workers take control of the government sponsored May Day rally In Tehran, Iran

2006-05-04T00:13:00.000-04:00

Textile workers from of Kashan:
We have not received our salaries for the last 14 months

Temporary contract must be abrogated

No to firing workers

Students, workers, and retirees from Mashhad

Students and workers from Mashhad: Job security is our right

Labor minister, shame, shame

Freedom and Equality is Our Human Right!
A report on May Day celebration in Tehran, Iran
by Mahmood Ketanchi

May 04, 2006

As many Iranian workers prepared to celebrate May 1st, International Labor Day, House of Labor, a pro Islamic government organization, called for a labor rally in front of the former US Embassy in Tehran. According to different sources, 8,000 to 10,000 workers participated in the rally. In addition to workers from Tehran, many came with buses from from various cities and provinces, such as, Ghazvin, Qom, Ghilan, Kashan, Hamadan, Karaj, Damghan, Mashhad, etc.

The organizers of the rally attempted in vain to turn the May Day gathering into a show of support for the Islamic regime and Iran's nuclear program. Even though the rally was carefully orchestrated to benefit the Islamic regime and provide it with some propaganda , participating workers from the very start took control of the event.

Alireza Mahjoob and Ali Rabii, the leaders of the House of Labor, praised Iran's nuclear achievements and policies of the government. In their speech, they also condemned the cartoons of Muhammad as a western conspiracy against Islam. However, many participants became very angry at the speeches. They said they came to the rally to speak about their conditions and plights, but instead they were being lectured about Iran's nuclear achievements.

The protesting workers called the speakers “traitors” and “government men.” They chanted “workers representative must come from amid the workers.” The noise and the chanting was so loud that no one could hear the speakers.

Some workers complained that they were forced to come to the rally and others said that the organizers of the rally made workers promise that they would not violate the plans for the rally. They also complained that the House of Labor tried to hand pick workers for the rally.

As tension grew among the participants, several thousand workers broke away from the rally and began to march towards Tehran University. But security forces intervened; they surrounded workers and threatened them with violence and arrest. Under police pressure, protesting workers were forced disperse.

The chants of the workers included:

Bread, housing, and freedom are our rights!
Salary increase above inflation!
Freedom and Equality are our rights!
Capitalist government, shame, shame!
Look at France, think about our lives!
Let go of nuclear power, think of our lives!
worker, student, and teachers, unity, unity!
Strike and organization are our rights!
Political prisoners must be freed!
Labor minster, resign, resign!

When some workers were arrested by the security forces, other workers booed them and chanted “security forces, shame, shame.” As a result everyone was released.

It is important to point out that last year, the House of Labor tried to turn May Day celebration into a presidential campaign for Hashami Rafsanjani, one the top mullahs in Iran. But workers disrupted the rally and prevented Rafsanjani from coming to the event.

May 1st in Iran: No War, No Bomb, but Jobs!

2006-05-03T14:18:00.000-04:00

"Student Movement Stands in Solidairy with Worker's Movement"

May Day rallies in Tehran and Sanandaj attacked; at least 17 arrested
Monday, May 01, 2006
From WPI Briefing

The May Day rallies in Tehran and Sanandaj have come under attack by the Iranian security forces. At least 17 demonstrators, among them members of the executive board of Tehran bus workers’ union, have been arrested.

In the rally in Tehran, called by the bus workers’ union and held outside the bus company’s headquarters, 13 people were detained. They include the following eight union activists and five as yet unnamed students: Ebrahim Madadi, Mahomoud Houzhabri, Yaghoub Salimi, Abbas Najand Koudaki, Gholamreza Gholamhosseini, Gholamreza Mirzaee, Hassan Dehghan and Gholamreza Khani.

In the rally in the city of Sanandaj four people were arrested, one of whom was later released: Hossein Ghaderi (later released), Farshid Beheshti Zad, Hiresh Naghshbandi and Aram Zamani. Also, two of those arrested in raids in Sanandaj ahead of the May Day rally, namely, Mohammad Javid and Zahed Javid, are still in detention.

Around two hundred demonstrators defied some 2,000 members of the security forces in the rally in Tehran, which began from around 11 in the morning, local time. According to eye witness accounts, at around 1 o’clock, the security forces, which included members of the Special Guard, as well as plain clothes vigilantes on motor bikes, started attacking the demonstrators. They used batons to beat people up, dragging them on the tarmac. One bus driver had his fingers broken, and a woman demonstrator was severely beaten. The demonstrators booed the security forces, shouting ‘shame, shame’! The slogans shouted at the demo, and written on placards, included:

Our hero Ossanlou must be released!
Union is our certain right!
Strike, demonstration is our certain right!
No war, no bomb, but jobs!
Greetings on international workers’ day!
Workers’ House must be disbanded! (reference to the government-sponsored institution)
Students support workers’ right to independent labour organisations!
Workers, students, unite, unite!

In Sanandaj, despite the home raids and arrests from several days before May Day, a large rally was held, before it was attacked by the security forces.

The Worker-communist Party of Iran calls on all international labour and human rights organisations and individuals to condemn these outrageous attacks on workers exercising their basic right of protest and assembly, demanding that the Islamic Republic of Iran immediately and unconditionally release Mansoor Ossanlou, the imprisoned head of the Syndicate of Workers of Tehran and Suburbs Bus Company, and all those detained in the May Day rallies.

For more information, contact the International Labour Solidarity Committee of the Worker-communist party of Iran. Co-ordinator: Shahla Daneshfar (shahla_daneshfar@yahoo.com). Public Relations: Bahram Soroush (b.soroush@ukonline.co.uk). www.kargaran.org.

More Pictures From NYC Anti War March

2006-04-30T22:50:00.000-04:00

Pictures: April 29, 2006 Anti War Demonstration in NYC

2006-04-30T22:41:00.000-04:00

Immigration Bills: They Are All No Good

2006-04-25T10:56:00.000-04:00

Update on the Immigration Bills: They're All No Good
Revolution #043, April 16, 2006

Millions of immigrants have defiantly taken to the streets in recent weeks, demanding to be treated as human beings. Thousands of children of immigrants have walked out of high schools and more marches are planned. Protesters have targeted the fascist Sensenbrenner bill (HR4437), which would make it a felony—punishable by criminal prosecution to be or help an undocumented immigrant.

The U.S. House of Representatives has already passed the Sensenbrenner bill (HR4437). The other body of the Congress, the Senate, has been debating their own version of an immigration bill. After much debate and backroom maneuvering, the Senate, Thursday, failed to agree on a bill. When the Senate does pass a bill, a conference committee will negotiate how to handle differences between the two versions. The final version is voted on again in both houses and becomes law when signed by the President.

There are divisions among the rulers—whose economy depends to a large extent on superexploited immigrant labor, and who fear immigrants as well (see “Welcome the Immigrants”). But these divisions being debated out are NOT over what is in the interests of the people—but what is in the strategic interests of the ruling class.

In the Senate, a bill pushed by Senator Specter has been portrayed in the media as pro-immigrant. But it's not. The Specter bill would seriously increase repression of immigrants in some unprecedented ways, as outlined in last week’s issue of Revolution, (issue #42).
A “compromise” on the Specter bill, which came closest to uniting the Senate, would divide immigrants into three categories. The first category is immigrants who have lived in the country at least five years—about 7 million people. The plan is that these immigrants could apply for citizenship after a very repressive process—without any real guarantees of getting it. The process, taking six to eight years, would require learning English and passing a civics test (evoking the literacy tests used in the south to keep poor Blacks from voting). It would impose fines of $2,000 plus payment of back taxes, proof of continual employment for six years, and background checks. These checks include a criminal background check, which presents a “Catch 22”—an impossible situation—since immigrants are often forced to live outside the law in order to survive. While it is being presented as a way millions of immigrants could “gain citizenship,” in actuality it is a very highly repressive and selective process.

The second category is for those who have lived in the U.S. for two to five years—about three million immigrants. These immigrants would be forced to leave the country, then report to an American port of entry to be classified as temporary workers or refused entry. They would not be guaranteed citizenship and would have to leave after six years of being exploited as temporary workers. And the third category, about a million immigrants in the country less than two years, would be forced out. They could try to sign up to be exploited without a guarantee of getting a temporary work visa. Just think about what it would mean if literally millions of immigrants were forced to leave the country by law and what that would look like.

The failure of the Senate to pass any bill so far is a result of both infighting among the capitalists, and also the courageous protests of immigrants. Part of the strategy behind this “compromise” was to deal with and divide up millions of immigrants who have actively taken to the streets. The Senate bills were not, as some have claimed, a “step in the right direction.” What direction were these bills going? Where immigrants will be tracked down and categorized? Pitting older immigrants against newer immigrants? Forcing them to turn themselves in to the authorities—where the best outcome is tightened control, repression and more systematic exploitation? And this “compromise” was added to the already dangerously repressive proposals in the Specter bill—increased immigrant jails, unprecedented legal detention of immigrants, an apartheid-like work system—and militarizing the border—leading to even more death among those forced to cross by the workings of this global capitalist-imperialist system.

No to Nuclear Weapons! No to Nuclear Hypocrisy!

2006-04-23T21:17:00.000-04:00

In the first version of this article, there was a mistake in the first sentence in paragraph nine.
It should read as:
"Although Iran has been a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it has worked secretly for about two decades to revive and develop Iran's nuclear industry that began during the Shah's regime."

No to Nuclear Weapons!
No to Nuclear Hypocrisy!
By Mahmood Ketabchi
April 23, 2006
mekchi@msn.com

After more than two years of haggling with the Islamic regime of Iran over its nuclear program, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), under pressure from the European powers and particularly the US government, referred Iran to the UN Security Council. In its last meeting, the Security Council issued a statement requiring Iran to stop all nuclear activities within 30 days.

In response to the US threat and mounting pressure by the UN Security Council, the Iranian Islamic regime has been flexing its muscles and threatening the US and world with dire consequences. In response to a reporter who asked what Iran would do in case of a US attack, an Iranian official declared, “Let the ball roll.” Defying the UN call to suspend uranium enriching activity, Iran demonstrated its “military might.” It announced that it had fired a new missile that could carry multiple warheads and evade radar systems, and a few days later said it had test-fired what it described as a sonar-evading underwater missile. Later, it declared that it has been able to enrich uranium and further announced that Iran is preparing to move nuclear activity to a large scale industrial level.

In its conflict with Iran, the Bush administration is increasing its war-mongering rhetoric and war preparations in a way that is disturbingly reminiscent of the US pre-invasion policies and practices towards Iraq. As the US government pushes to end Iran's nuclear activity, the Bush administration is shamelessly threatening Iran with a nuclear attack. It is no surprise, yet it only demonstrates the kind of world that America has in store for us. Although an invasion of Iran, similar to Iraq, seems implausible, the US government is working frantically to impose economic sanctions and/or launch a military assault on Iran.

The US threats toward Iran have little to do with Iran's nuclear program. Iran's nuclear activity is only an excuse to increase hostility with Iran and prepare the ground for possible military attacks on Iran. In fact, before Iran's secret nuclear program was revealed, the right wing reactionary warmongers, who direct the US government's foreign policies, already had envisioned an attack on Iran. These are the same people who relentlessly pushed to launch a war against the people of Iraq. The war on Iraq was merely a step towards broader changes in the Middle East. Not only Iraq, but also Iran, Syria, and even to some extent the Saudi regime have been on the hit list. The US government has a strategic plan to consolidate its control over the Middle East and enforce its role as the world's only superpower. The New World Order that the US wants to create is characterized by its indisputable domination over the world. It is a fantasy being contemplated by a cold-blooded and ruthless gang in Washington who want to bring the whole world under their thumb. (To read more about the US goals in the Middle East, please refer to my article, Goals and Strategy Behind the War on Iraq)

The US government's opposition to the Islamic regime of Iran has more to do with the fact that Iran has turned into a serious headache for the US government. Political Islam, with the Islamic regime of Iran forming its backbone, wants to consolidate itself as a regional power in the Middle East vis a vis the US government's effort to consolidate its control over the Middle East and shape and build a New World Order.

During the cold war, the Soviet Union as an international superpower struck some sort of balance with the US government in the Middle East. As a result, certain segments of the Middle Eastern bourgeoisie under the guise of nationalism, and with Soviet protection behind them, were able to limit US intrusion in their area of influence. This balance fell apart with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Islam as political movement filled that void and became a battle cry for a section of the Middle Eastern bourgeoisie that had no intention of letting the US government get a free ride.

Political Islam was nurtured by the US government and the western powers during the Cold War era in their effort to fight communism and progressive movements of all kinds. However, over the last two decades, Islamism has increasingly became a voice of opposition to the US and the west. Political Islam must not be confused with the aspirations of the masses of people for freedom, equality, and a better world. It is not a “movement of the oppressed” as pro Islamist leftists and liberals believe. It is a brutal and reactionary movement of the bourgeoisie in Islamic ridden countries. Political Islam has brought great misery, destruction, mass killing, sectarian wars, gender apartheid, and utter rightlessness for the masses of people.

In a world that is characterized by growing militarism and intense rivalry among international and regional powers, joining the world's “nuclear club” has become the secret to gaining “respectability” and “acknowledgment.” The Islamic regime's effort to develop a nuclear industry should be viewed in this context. To consolidate the Islamic regime in Iran and bolster political Islam as a regional and international power, the Islamic regime in Iran has a clear reason to gain nuclear weapons. A nuclear program to “produce electricity” is only a facade put up by Islamic regime to weaponize Political Islam with a nuclear bomb.

Although Iran has been a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, it has worked secretly for about two decades, dating back to the Shah's regime, to revive and develop Iran's nuclear industry. When Iran's secret nuclear program was exposed by the Mujahedeen, an Iranian opposition force, it agreed, under international pressure, to suspend nuclear activity, allow broad and snap inspections, and negotiate with Britain, France, and Germany, for a solution . That agreement did not stop the Islamic regime from continuing its nuclear development in secret, as it was later revealed by Hassan Rowhani, former secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran. Rowhani headed talks with the European Union 3 -- Britain, France, and Germany.

Since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his cabinet, mainly made of military personnel and security agents, replaced Khatami's so called “reformist” faction, the Islamic regime has started to pursue an open confrontation policy with the US and the west. The quagmire that the US government has created in Iraq bodes well for the Islamic regime. Believing that the US is in a weak position, the Islamic regime has become more aggressive and openly defiant. They believe that while the US is in deep trouble in Iraq, it is the best time to exact maximum concessions from the US and the west.

Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons. Yet, it is outright hypocrisy and quite ridiculous for the US government to tell other countries that they should not develop nuclear weapons while it owns enough nuclear weapons to destroy the whole world and has repeatedly threatened other countries with nuclear assault. Moreover, the US government lacks any moral authority to claim concern over nuclear weapons proliferation when it was the first and the last government to use nuclear weapons. The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki led to the horrific death of hundreds of thousands of people and the total destruction of both cities. After more than 60 years, the US government has yet to acknowledge that it committed a brutal crime against humanity. It is quite preposterous for a government that is so cruel, thoughtless, and smug to speak of Iran’s nuclear threat to the world.

Opposition to Iran’s effort to gain nuclear weapons should be placed within an international framework of ridding humanity from nuclear weapons all together. The five nuclear giants (the US, Russia, France, England, and China) who occupy the five permanent seats in the UN Security Council and have the audacity to act as the arbitrators for world peace and human life have enough nuclear weapons to destroy the entire world several times over. They have made these weapons not just for deterrence as they want us to believe. They are made to be used. They will use them when and where they see fit.

It is a bogus argument that some nuclear powers can be “responsible” and trusted with our lives, and some others are “irresponsible” and cannot. This assertion is only an effort to maintain the dominance of the world’s largest military and destructive powers. No responsible human being and no responsible country need nuclear weapons. If the world’s largest nuclear weapon holders had any respect for human life, they would begin to get rid of their own weapons first and have everybody else do the same. But they will never do it, unless the progressive humanity comes forward in full force and compels them to.

While there is no justification for any one country to develop nuclear weapons, nuclear weapons proliferation will continue to be a great threat for humanity as long as the US government and other powerful nations hold fast to their nuclear arsenals. The US policy of warmongering, bullying, and continually threatening nuclear assault to subdue recalcitrant governments will only encourage and inflame nationalist sentiments and provide others the opportunity to justify their effort to gain and develop nuclear weapons. The US government is in no position to tell others what they have to do. This government has no credibility. No one could ever take the US government’s concern over Iran’s nuclear program as sincere and out of respect and value for human life and world peace. In fact, with its immense power across the world, a power that has been indiscriminately and repeatedly unleashed, the US government is a major source of suffering and misery for many people across the world.

It's important to oppose US bullying and hypocrisy, but at the same time, no one should support the efforts by Iranian regime to obtain nuclear weapons. Weapons of Mass Destruction, particularly nuclear weapons, are an example of the kind of brutal “ingenuity” that only capitalism could invent. Nuclear weapons continue to be one of the most important concerns for humanity. Even the nuclear industry for civilian use has come to pose a great danger to human life. Health and safety concerns over the nuclear industry has brought about world wide opposition . As a result of massive protest movements across the world, many countries with nuclear industries were forced to slow down their nuclear program, place it under moratorium, or scale it down.

Despite world wide concern over the nuclear industry, particularly nuclear weapons, some pro Islamists on the American left argue that “Iranians have a right to develop any means of self-defense against their former oppressors.” Developing nuclear weapons for “self -defense” is just a shameful excuse for all reactionary bourgeoisie and brutal regimes who want to consolidate their control and rule over the masses of people. Moreover, it is shallow and stupid to argue for the rights of governments to brutalize and massacre people. Supporting Iran's right to arm itself with nuclear weapons is a regressive and reactionary position that undermines the efforts by peace-loving humanity to rid the world of nuclear weapons. A position such as this must be confronted head on. The world does not need another country with a nuclear arsenal. The Islamic regime of Iran must be stopped from weaponizing the Islamist movement with a nuclear bomb, a movement that is determined to crush every trace of human decency and dignity.

Progressive humanity does not need killing machines that are made with the sole purpose of massacring civilians and destroying vital societal infrastructures that maintain human life. Nuclear weapons must go, period. There is no “good” nuclear bomb and no “responsible” nuclear power. As people across the world continue to fight the US occupation of Iraq and gear up to confront the US warmongering threats and economic sanctions against Iran, they must simultaneously call to rid humanity of nuclear weapons.

The US Goals Behind the Iraq War

2006-04-09T15:35:00.000-04:00

I wrote the following article before the US government attack on Iraq. Since in this article, I talked about the US goals and stragey in the Middle East and brought up issues that are relevant to the current US government's warmongering towatds Iran, I decided to post it here. At the time, a short version of this article was printed in "Worker's Democracy," a publication of Workers Democracy Network.

Goals and Strategy Behind the War on Iraq
And the US Anti-war Movement
By Mahmood Ketabchi
October 6, 2002

The war against Iraq is not anything new. To be precise, it started in 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. Since then, Iraq has been under siege. The United States and British forces have used every opportunity to bomb Iraq, under the guise of protecting the “no-fly zone” in northern and southern Iraq. The US government has committed its political, economic, and military support to configure a pro-American regime in Iraq to replace Saddam Hussein’s government.

The most brutal war against Iraq, however, has been an economic war. The economic sanctions, authorized by the UN and led by the US, has brought massive suffering and misery for the Iraqi people, resulting in the death of more than one million Iraqis, over half of them children. The genocidal economic sanctions turned the Iraqi issue into the second Palestinian question in the minds of the people of the region. It became living evidence of US and Western terrorism in the Middle East. The plan to destabilize the Iraqi regime failed miserably and furthermore helped perpetuate the reactionary Iraqi government.

A new all-out war against Iraq has been on the US government’s agenda for a long time. By now, after many months of “debate” and behind-the-scene war preparation, it should be transparent that the US government wants nothing short of an all-out war, the military invasion of Iraq, and the removal of Saddam Hussein from power. The US officials are knocking on every possible door to push the situation towards a war and make it seemingly inevitable.

The Bush administration claims that their coming war is about “freedom,” “world security,” “the war on terrorism,” “dismantling Iraq’s weapon of mass destruction,” and “enforcing UN resolutions.” The public relation demagogy displayed by Bush and his henchmen is utterly baseless and so ridiculous that even some of the most hawkish elements among the US elite, those with a long history of warmongering and interventionist policy, do not find sufficient evidence to justify an attack on Iraq.

In addition, the US government has no moral authority to claim that it is concerned with human life, freedom, or disarmament. This public relations campaign is shameless. It is a belligerent display of lies, hypocrisy, selective morality, and contempt for Americans as well as world public opinion. US war propaganda is by and large an all out ideological war to impose US jingoism and a war plan on the world. Bush and his administration will use all their might to bully and silence the world into submission and resignation, while marginalizing any serious effort or movement by peace and freedom-loving people to oppose this US war campaign.

The attack on Iraq is simply another step toward further regional domination. Saddam’s leadership in Iraq provides a convenient target in this process. The Bush administration is not publicly discussing a broader plan for the Middle East. However, some high US officials hinted that a regime change in Iraq will lead to further changes in the region. Even though the US government is by and large secretive about their ultimate regional plans, many think-tank “neo-conservative” organizations and individuals, blending Zionism, racism, and a lust for war with the pretense of democracy, are pushing for a frontal assault - not only against Iraq but also other countries, including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Syria. These right-wing organizations and individuals, often with close ties to the Bush administration, advocate regional action in the Middle East. They say that the US is facing a regional challenge, and that it must respond accordingly.

US Regional Problems and Failures

Indeed, the US government does have a regional problem that has gotten worse after the invasion of Afghanistan. By attacking Iraq, the US will dig itself even deeper into the ground. The Bush administration is infuriated with the US Arab allies who have undermined the US policy regarding Iraq since the Gulf war. The Arab regimes, by and large, have refused to recognize Israel and have not given their support to Washington to break down the Palestinians’ resistance. Arab leaders, in one way or another, have lent their support to various Islamic terrorist organizations. The “war on terrorism” has not brought the purported outcome; many Al Qaeda leaders remain free, and other Islamic terrorist organizations are still active and committing bloody murderous activities. Fascist Islamic militias, whom Reagan once called “freedom fighters,” and whom the US government and Western powers helped create to fight communism, have now become a headache for their creators. Many Arab leaders opposed the US war on Afghanistan. Afghanistan is in such a state of chaos and instability that US army personnel even must act as the bodyguard for their puppet, Hamid Karzai. Moreover, the US’s continuous bloody attacks on Afghan civilians have brought increasing resentment toward the US, and fomented a guerrilla warfare style resistance to the continued US military presence in Afghanistan.

The political future of Iran stands in the balance, with the US having very little control over it. A political change in Iran will undoubtedly send a ripple effect throughout the region as it did after the 1979 revolution. The Islamic regime in Iran will go, and it is simply a matter of time. Khatami and his faction have long since ceased to be an alternative to conservatives in Iran, for they are part and parcel of the Islamic criminal and fascist regime. The revolutionizing process of the masses started long ago, for they see that the Islamic regime is not reformable. The masses of people in Iran are increasingly moving toward radicalization. Socialism, this time around, is even stronger than it was in the1979 revolution, and will be present on the current political scene. The “threat” of the left and socialism in Iran cannot be ignored. The prospect of a political chaos, internal strife, and the possibility of a revolutionary change in Iran and the victory of socialism, even though small, is making the US government quite uneasy.

In addition, in an increasingly globalized world it is questionable as to how long reactionary Arab regimes can survive and cling to their closed and stagnant political systems. These regimes, often with the sword of Islam in their hands, are tyrannical, corrupt, and misogynist. Popular dissatisfaction against the Arab regimes is on the rise. The US and Western governments have propped up these despotic regimes. Without the US, these regimes would hardly have a chance to stand. Their existence during the Cold War served the US government and Western powers. These regimes suppressed progressive movements and kept oil flowing steadily at an affordable price in exchange for US protection. Whether these regimes are still useful for the US and the Western powers after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, is now in doubt.

An economy dominated by state monopolies in oil-producing countries of the region is not exactly the type of “liberalized” economy Bush and his “free-market” thieves would like to see. Oil is at heart of the economy in oil-producing countries. For example, Saudi Arabia depends on oil and oil derivatives, which account for 90-95% of Saudi export earnings, 75% of the budget, and about 35-40% of GDP. Moreover, these countries, led by Saudi Arabia, have decisive control over oil reserves, production, and supply. Revenue from oil, and dominance over the oil market, not only has helped the survival of these tyrannical regimes, but also has made it possible for them to hold a strong position in relation to the US and western governments. Moreover, considering the US and Western reliance on oil, long term political uncertainty in the Middle East and Gulf region adds to the US government’s uneasiness about what they call “oil and global security.”

US Goals and Strategy beyond Iraq

The refusal of Arab states to get in line with the US war plan indicates their distrust of Washington. This refusal is not due to any affection for Saddam Hussein. Many did fight along the US government against Iraq in the 1991 Gulf war. Many Arab leaders would like to see him gone. But a regime change in Iraq through a US military invasion of Iraq will have larger implications. In addition to fear from their own citizens and reaction in the streets, Arab leaders see a “regime change” in Iraq through a US military invasion as a possible first step towards an overhaul of the region, and the eventual change or collapse of despotic and reactionary ruling dynasties that have enjoyed tight and unquestionable control over their societies.

Indeed the far-right neo-conservatives who set the agenda for the US foreign policy say that when Saddam is defeated and replaced, US enemies and unreliable allies will either have to put their house in order or prepare for collapse. Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia are specifically the three countries they have in mind. If these regimes are forced in line, others, they hope, will easily follow suit. Over the past year, relations between the US government and Saudi Arabia have become strained. Those who pushed and made their war plan on Iraq official US policy are arguing that Saudi Arabia must be considered an enemy of the US not an ally, because it encourages and finances terrorism. The same warmongers also suggested that if the Saudis refuse to support the “war against terrorism,” the US will be compelled to freeze Saudi assets and occupy their oilfields, a proposition that made the Saudi government furious.

Iran is already on the US hit list. An invasion of Iraq will put the US government in a stronger position to exert pressure on Iran and have greater influence in shaping the political future of the country. US troops are stationed to the east of Iran in Afghanistan, to the south in the Gulf region, and to the northwest in Turkey. An invasion of Iraq would mean that the US would have its military troops to the west of Iran as well. In other words, Iran will be encircled by the US army from the west, east and south. That is a lot of pressure from a hostile army that considers Iran part of an “axis of evil.” If the pressure on Iran does not create what the US is hoping for, then a regime change and/or a military attack on Iran will be officially added to the agenda.

Gaining control over oil reserves, oil production, and oil supplies is an important part of the American strategy in the Middle East and the Gulf regions. Pursuing its “free market” policy and the further globalization of capital, the US government, particularly considering Bush administration’s immense interest in the oil industry, wants to break the monopoly over the oil market controlled by Arab countries and led by Saudi Arabia. Breaking Arab control over the oil market would open doors for international capital to have an immediate control over oil production, supply, and market.

Diversifying the major sources of oil production seems to be the first important step towards such a strategy. Iraq, after Saudi Arabia, has the second largest oil reserve, amounting to approximately 300 billion barrels. If Iraq were to produce oil at the rate of its oil reserves, it would mean that Saudi Arabia would lose its domination over the world’s oil market. Since the power of oil-producing countries is tied to their control over the oil market, undermining their power over oil is a potential threat to their regimes. In addition, controlling the oil market will put the US in a stronger position in relation to Europe, Japan, and Russia. The US government, unabashedly behaving like a common thief, is already using Arab oil in the hopes of luring other nations to join or support the US war effort in the Gulf. Oil companies are rushing to hold talks with Iraqi opposition groups for possible future contracts.

Breaking Palestinian resistance against the Israeli occupation is another goal of the US government. Israel has been openly and forcefully pushing for the US attack on Iraq. Also, in the US, among the advocates and proponents of war on Iraq, are Zionist and fascist Jewish organizations and individuals. They hope that an attack on Iraq will make it possible for Israel to accomplish its long-dreamt genocidal policy to cleanse Palestinian territories and force Palestinians out of their homeland. If this Zionist nightmare fails, a victorious Bush after invading Iraq in addition to pressuring Arab states to get closer to Israel and recognize the Israeli government, will try to break up Palestinian resistance, possibly force Arafat out of office, and find a “reformed” leader that will succumb to pressure and accept a South African style Bantustan under the guise of a Palestinian State or some sort of a transitional government. The “peace” that the US is looking for is to come at the expense of Palestinians and the defeat of the Arab population, a peace that will give Israel a privileged and superior status in the region. Nonetheless, there will always be an endless potential for further conflicts and instability.

Looking at the US strategy in the region, the “20-year war” that Bush, Cheney and company have talked about, if not underestimated, is real. Every new step will drag the US government deeper into regional problems and conflicts. The US government wants to bring the region more in line with US policies, reign in on political Islam and Islamic terrorism, settle the Arab-Israeli conflict at the expense of the Arab population with a privileged status for Israel, push tyrannical, stagnant, and corrupt regimes, foes as well as allies, to adopt themselves to post Cold-War exigencies of international capital, forcefully promote privatization of the economy, break up OPEC control over oil, and enhance the ability of oil companies and other multinational corporations to have more direct and immediate control over resources and the economy of the region. But make no mistake about it, these changes, as envisioned by the US government, are not to come through “democracy” but by setting up brutal and despotic regimes that will work hand in hand with the US government. The US strategy is to be realized through continuous threat of violence and US military power. These goals are to be accomplished through war, mass murder, massive destruction, inflicting immense pain, suffering, and misery on the people of the region.

An Attack on Iraq, a Crime against Humanity

Iraq is mainly a modern urban society, very different than Afghanistan. The war on Iraq as envisioned by Bush will bring massive destruction to Iraqi society. Tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of people will perish, and enormous misery will befall the Iraqi people who have not yet recovered from the destruction of 1991 war and who still suffer under US-imposed genocidal sanctions. As in the1991 war, the US will bomb schools, hospitals, water and electric plants, roads, bridges, communication and transportation networks, and factories to force Iraq into capitulation. But this time, Bush is after Saddam who promises to fight tooth and nail with the intention of prolonging the war as much as possible.

If the Iraqi army or a significant section of it puts up resistance and fights in and around the cities (especially Baghdad), only a massive bombardment leading to the complete destruction of these cities and massive loss of life could bring a quick victory for the US. In a life-and-death struggle, Saddam may well choose to use biological and chemical weapon (if he has any) against the US Army and/or its mercenary forces. Then what will the US do? It is quite probable that it will use nuclear weapons in retaliation, as they threatened to do in the 1991 war. Also, it is probable that Israel may be drawn into the war as result of an Iraqi attack on Israeli cities. A US-Israeli war on Iraq will unleash fury in Arab societies that may lead to a regional conflict with unpredictable implications.

An invasion of Iraq will probably last for years to come, especially if it leads to a crushing military defeat of Iraqi forces and breaks up Saddam Hussein’s vast governmental bureaucracy, both of which made Iraq governable under Saddam’s brutal capitalist regime. There is no quick fix to fill the vacuum. The opposition groups do not have the capacity to govern the country without a US military presence. These groups include ex-army generals with a long history of crimes; reactionary and nationalist Kurdish parties; corrupt and despotic politicians; fascist Islamic organizations with close ties to Iran; and various reactionary tribal leaders, none of whom have so much as a trace of progressive history. Indeed, replacing a bunch of criminals with other criminals who would bend to the will of the US is exactly the type of “democracy” Bush has in mind for Iraq, just like the one engineered in Afghanistan. Empowering these groups could unleash a wave of tribal wars, nationalism and national hatred, a new rise in Islamic fascism, ethnic cleansing, and genocide.

The fall of the Soviet “Evil Empire” did not make the world any safer, as Reagan once promised. The world which the US is creating is more dangerous than ever. The US war plan on Iraq symbolizes the “New World Order” it has embarked upon to create after the downfall of the Soviet block. This war is intended to enable the US government to maintain and reinforce its unilateral superpower hegemony and military domination of the entire world. This war plan sends a message to the world that no one should ever dream of challenging or questioning US superiority, because the US government is prepared to unleash its murderous power upon anyone whom it feels to be a threat, with or without evidence of a threat. Its demonstrated cruelty and barbarism, its repeated threats and use of unbridled violence abroad and against its own people, and its demonstrated and unprecedented capacity for destruction and mass murder, all show that the US government, possessing the most powerful armory of weapons of mass destruction in human history, is the most serious terrorist menace on earth.

The US government is on the verge of a criminal adventure. Those in and around the Bush administration who are dragging America into this bloody war with the full intention to go after other countries as well, are no different than Saddam and his cohorts in their brutality. They are cold-blooded and dangerous criminals who fantasize of dominating the world and keeping it under their thumb.

Fight the War, Fight for Socialism

This war, with or without the United Nation’s sanction, with or without Congress’s approval, is a crime against humanity. Bush and his administration must be stopped. Only the peace and freedom-loving people of the world can stop this insane, murderous, and heartless adventure. Governments and ruling elites will not risk their relations with the US and their interests to defy this war. Many are actually hoping to reap some benefit from it. Bush and his cronies have stuck their necks out so far on this war that a defeat for their war plan might well be a major blow to his disgraced and reactionary administration.

In addition, defeating Bush’s war plan may be an important impetus to scrutinize all US unbridled and insane militarism and challenge the tight control which the military industrial complex has over our society. For so long as the US government continues to maintain and develop its massive stockpile of killing machines and its murderous military power, so long as they are able to undermine and ignore the well-being of human beings in the interests of militarism, there will always be found yet another reason to inflame war and destroy human life. The vast killing apparatus that the US government has developed needs justification for its existence. Thus, we are confronted with a cycle of war, insecurity, brutality, and military build-up. Insanity feeds more insanity. Our struggle against the US war on Iraq must be a struggle against US capitalism and militarism. Our movement must cast aside bourgeoisie constitutionalism and legality and populist tendencies. It must be a struggle for worker-socialism.

Yet we have to be prepared for this war. Bush and his administration and their warmongering henchmen are hoping that once the war begins, the anti-war movement will lose its momentum. This is a serious concern that we should not ignore. Much of the opposition against the war coming from liberal patriots will fade away. The anti-war movement needs a more aggressive and energetic effort to keep up the momentum against the war. In order to become a powerful and effective force, the anti-war movement must be a movement of workers, poor people, immigrants and communities of color. This movement must be tied our ongoing struggle to create a better world for people here and around the world. In addition, we must bring the war home for people to see the crimes and murderous insanity of the US Government. The US government can only run this war so long as it keeps its people uninformed and ignorant about the extent of the crime and destruction it intends to create. Just as before, only US generals will describe the war and set the agenda for public consumption. The mainstream media and bootlicker journalism will follow suit. The massive network of communication developed by anti-war and progressive forces must be consolidated and mobilized. It will be harder than during the 1991 war for the government to keep people ignorant. We must bring the truth about the war home. We must confront the warmakers with the nightmare ramifications of their actions.

While we fight against the war, we also must fight for freedom, equality and a better life for the people of the region. We must respond to the warmongers’ gimmick democracy, with our persistent struggle for freedom and our opposition to tyrannical regimes in the region. We must not, and should not, under the guise of anti-imperialism, romanticize reactionary, nationalist, medieval, Islamic or fascist tendencies. That would be counterproductive for the anti-war movement if it becomes identified with these inhumane forces. It will only dull its cutting edge, and weaken its message of justice and humanity. Thus, it must truly and deeply distance itself from the forces of brutality that happen to be in conflict with the US government. The struggle against the war must be explicitly a struggle for freedom, equality, human dignity, and integrity. Saddam’s regime and other reactionary and brutal governments in the region must go, but it must be done by the power of people. It is only the progressive forces, workers, and socialists that can build a truly open and free society, bring equality, and guarantee a humane life for the people of the region.

Timid nationalist, passive, and isolationist policies of non-interference must be cast aside. The attitude of, “It is not my business” also must be criticized. This kind of attitude is only a projection of nationalism onto other people, not to mention that it fails to recognize we are living in a globalized world and there’s no turning back. The world will never change without a visionary perspective and active intervention to bring those necessary changes. The anti-war movement should reach out and align itself with socialist, progressive and freedom-seeking people of the region and support their struggle against oppression, despotism, exploitation, and the US war insanity. The lack of truly revolutionary and socialist alternatives has helped to embolden the warmongering adventurers. If there were a visible horizon of revolutionary socialist change, these criminal warmongers would have thought twice before placing so much of humanity in harm’s way. Capitalism was born and maintained through sweat and blood. Only hope for freedom, equality, human integrity, and socialism can put an end to this capitalist insanity. Only a call for socialism can prevent people from being pushed towards the barbarism, of which the war on Iraq is just one more example.

Amnesty or Freedom of Movement for Workers

2006-04-07T09:49:00.000-04:00

Freedom of Movement, a Working Class
Alternative to the Immigration Problem
by Mahmood Ketabchi
mekchi@msn.com
April 7, 2006

As Republican and Democrats in Washington have been debating what sort of anti immigration bill they can pass, millions of immigrant workers, student, and progressive forces all across the country have come out in protest. Their voice was clear; the sea of people who poured into streets condemned the racist and xenophobic immigration measures that the government plans to impose on the society. The protesters demanded human rights and equality for millions of undocumented immigrant workers who with their blood and sweat have worked to build this country.

While right-wing republicans and their fascist allies want to turn millions of immigrant into criminals and erect a 700-mile wall on the border with Mexico among many other draconian and sickening racist measures, a so called “bipartisan” group of Republican and Democrats are pushing another reactionary legislation that will make millions of undocumented immigrants into second class workers to be ruthlessly exploited by US capitalist who need cheep and under sieged labor.

The level of discussion in the Congress over the immigration bill is so degraded that it only shows the deep seated hatred and contempt that Washington politicians have against immigrants. The debate over the immigration bill has been so openly racist that even Bush noticed and advised his racist colleagues to watch their mouths while referring to immigrants.
The right-wing and racist campaign to criminalize current and future undocumented immigrants, as well as humanitarian and progressive groups who help them, is a “shock and awe” tactic to intimidate the public and immigrant rights groups and push the Democrats as far to the right as they can possibly go. These reactionary lunatics who hold a powerful position in Washington, as a matter of political maneuvering, always end up with the most abhorrent policies. Many people can still remember Newt Gingrich's “Contract with America” where he proposed taking kids away from their poor families and placing them in orphanages. These right-wingers know they have very little chance to push through all their outrageous policies as they would love to, but by lowering the level of the debate they exact the maximum concession. The “Contact with America” although not fully realized, led to the most sweeping anti welfare legislation in 1996 that basically laid the foundation to dismantle a social program that provided a bare minimum of relief for poor women and children.

Now as the immigration bill is being discussed, right-wing politicians such as Sensenbrenner, Tom Tancredo, Bill Frist, Dana Rohrbacher, etc are taking the most intimidating and thuggish posture as they possibly can. As usual, Democrats are aligning themselves more and more with the Republicans and have come up with a disgraceful “guest worker” or rather “Bracero” program that will legalize and institutionalize millions of immigrant workers in a sort of 21 century indentured servitude.

Although some immigrant rights groups and labor unions are picking the “guest worker program” to fend off the criminalization of undocumented workers, progressive forces by and large, together with millions of other people, are opposing both anti immigration bills being discussed at the Congress. This opposition basically revolves around a third alternative that calls for amnesty for all current undocumented workers.

But what about those who will come in to the US in the future? In the next 10 or 20 years, we will have millions of other undocumented workers crossing the border in search of jobs and joining their families and relatives. What about the thousands of people who will perish and die as the US government and the fascist vigilantly groups force immigrants to take greater risks to their lives in crossing the border? What about all the families who will be deprived of having their loved ones with them here in the US?

The movement of labor is an unstoppable trend that has become a fact of life in a globalized capitalist economy. Workers from across the border will come to the US, and it is their inalienable right to come and work here just like everyone else who lives and has a job here. Capital since long ago has lost its national character. Capital has no borders and it increasingly flows freely from one place to another. It goes wherever greater exploitation and higher profit is obtainable. This course cannot be reversed as nationalists and protectionists dream of. It can only be confronted on a global level. Free movement of workers is a crucial step towards developing a global strategy to confront capitalist exploitation.

While capital moves freely around the globe, workers are tied to their national borders as modern slaves who were tied to their owners or as serfs who were confined to a piece of land. Capital supposedly freed workers from dependence and bondage to feudal lords and allowed them to work for whoever they desire in order to sell his labor power at a better price. But in todays globalized world, workers are forcefully deprived of their basic right to move freely in search of a job that pays higher wages and provides better benefits. In a global battle between capital and labor, the restriction of workers from free movement has put them everywhere at a great disadvantage. As Mexican workers in Mexico are forced to sell their labor power at lower prices, American workers lose their jobs, work for lower wages, lose their bargaining power, see their unions shattered, and take greater risks any time time they confront their employers and the government. The current system is set up to divide workers and push them to compete against one another in a race to the bottom. This is a race to a life of rightlessness and misery.

We need a different solution. Amnesty for all the undocumented worker is a great idea, but it does not resolve the underlying problem of undocumented and other workers in the US. In 1986, about 3 million undocumented workers were given amnesty. Twenty years later, we are faced with the same problem; this time even bigger. We now have about 12 million workers who work day in day out in fear and inhuman conditions that is harmful to themselves and all other workers. This vicious cycle must end.

We need a solution that will enhance working class solidarity in the long run, place workers at a higher ground where they can fight capital with full force, and enable them to lift their living standards up to a level that is worthy of all human beings. We must openly and clearly oppose nationalism, xenophobia, and nativism, for they are all shameful sentiments that divide workers and weaken their movement. This solution cannot and should not be articulated based on the level of discussion being conducted in Washington. The ruling class is always far far away from the masses of people and their needs, desires, and sense of justice. The immigrant and worker's rights movement should build a movement around demands such as:

Providing an immediate general amnesty to all undocumented immigrants;
Opposing all militarization of the borders, shutting down all immigration detention centers, and prosecuting fascist militia gangs who target immigrants crossing the Mexican border;
Defending workers right and providing equal protection to all workers;
Allowing free movement of labor among the US, Mexico, and Canada;
Issuing permanent residency and citizenship upon request by anyone for reasons such as, humanitarian, family reunification, and work; and
Opposing all temporary work permissions.

These demands are expressions of freedom and human rights for workers. At the same time, that they will help lift the general standard of living for workers in the US, Mexico, and Canada, they will also help close the gap between poor and high paid workers. Also, overtime they will reduce the pressure off workers to move around in search of job, and they will balance out the spread of population across the three countries.

To build a movement around these demands is long over due. There will never be a “prefect” and “appropriate” timing to raise these demands as the banner of worker's movement. We can only create them. The opportunity to build a powerful movement does exist as immigrants have come forward in astonishing and unprecedented number that surprised friends and foes. Millions of workers marched across the country and 10s of thousands of kids walked out of their schools and poured into the street to protest against the hideous immigration bills being discussed in the Washington halls of power.

A new buzz is around that there is a sleeping giant that might be waking up. It is a powerful force that has the potential to move the country into a new humane direction. But, it can only do so if it has a clear radical demand, lucidity of thought about its future direction, and the ability to understand its Herculean power. To the extent that this movement is able to move to the left and separate itself from half-hearted friends who only want to ride on its back for their petty class interests, it will have the ability to be present on the scene for a longer time and make the greatest impact in charting a new direction for worker's movement.

The potential to build a powerful movement around the demands mentioned above does exit. It is only the question of vision and willingness to push this movement forward and to a new level. Which side are we on? That is the challenge we are facing.

AFL-CIO and the Immigration Debate

2006-04-06T16:15:00.000-04:00

As the immigration debate has heated up over the last few weeks, I thought it might be a good idea to post the following article I wrote in 2002 which appeared in “Workers Democracy,” a publication of Workers Democracy Network.

Freedom of Movement, Not Just Amnesty
by Mahmood Ketabchi
January 20, 2002

Among the many resolutions passed at AFL-CIO convention, the resolution on immigration is supposedly an indication of visionary policy of the Sweeney administration. The resolution renews AFL-CIO call, first announced in February 2000, for: a) “legalization of the undocumented workers,” b) “full protection of workplace rights,” c) “reform, not expansion, of guest worker programs,” and d) “repeal and replacement of the sanctions/I-9 immigration enforcement scheme” that requires the employers verify work permission.

Even though we are to believe that current AFL-CIO position on immigration is a groundbreaking policy, it is not significantly much different from the one held by previous labor leadership, Kirklane-Donghue. AFL-CIO was a major proponent of 1986 immigration law that legalized millions of undocumented workers in the US. The only significant difference this time around is that AFL-CIO has reversed its position regarding the legal requirement that the employers verify the eligibility of people to work in the US. In part, labor leadership previously hoped that the requirement to verify work permission would deter what they called “illegal entry” to the US. Nonetheless immigrants continued to come to the US and many of them worked without work permission, with the only difference that the requirement pushed by AFL-CIO made undocumented workers extremely vulnerable and exploitable.

Even though a general amnesty for all undocumented immigrants is an urgent and immediate demand, in no way it would solve the problem faced by workers. Granted such demand is met, in a decade or so there will be millions of other immigrants living in US without any documentation and many other will be kept out of the US forcibly. There will be no end to this cycle of inhumanity, violence, brutal exploitation, and union busting. Immigration barriers only intensify competition among workers and create a downward pressure to the bottom. Workers need a different and real solution to their problem. They need immigration barriers removed and thrown away.

If capital can move freely in the world in search of higher profit, workers too must have the right to move to wherever they can sell their labor power to the highest not the lowest bidder. Freedom of movement must be regarded as a fundamental right for worker and people around the world. Freedom of movement can empower workers, strengthen their solidarity, and increase their living standards. Working class and struggle for better life cannot be defined on the national basis. Only an international perspective can make workers a real and serious social force to reckon with. Failure to understand and promote the freedom of movement for workers only indicates the deeply rooted national prejudice in labor establishment.

Moreover, the resolution is silent about 1996 illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act which labor supported many of its provisions that targeted illegal entry to the US. The Act authorized doubling the size of Border Patrol by 2001 and increased significantly the funding to investigate employer sanction violations, false documentation and finding visa overstayers. It toughened the punishment against undocumented immigrants apprehended by the INS and mandated an aggressive enforcement of immigration laws. Moreover, it provided an increase in INS detention facilities to 9,000 beds by the end of 1997.

As result of this Act, and increasing number of people each year die at the border and many more are detained and brutally treated by border patrols and fascist vigilante groups and thousands are incarcerated by INS for immigrations violations and live in inhumane conditions in US prisons and jails across the country- many remain incarcerated for years. It is not quite clear why the AFL-CIO resolution on immigration did not condemn the callous treatment and imprisonment of many immigrants who entry the country illegally. Is it simply negligence, or labor officialdom still thinks they are necessary to deter illegal immigration to the US?

AFL-CIO position on temporary workers is even more problematic. They oppose temporary workers programs not because temporary status is harmful for the working class bad but because temporary workers take US workers jobs away from them. While labor attacks "corporate efforts to pit worker against worker," it resorts to the same divisive argument in opposing temporary workers program. Arguing against temporary immigration from a nativist view is nothing but inciting anti-immigrant sentiment and feeding into racist hysteria that immigrants steal the U.S. jobs. In addition, AFL-CIO has consistently demanded that current annual limit of 140,000 permanent job related visas be reduced to 90,000 presenting the same argument that US job must be protected against foreign workers. Defending immigration barriers is a short sighted and narrow-minded policy that expends one group of worker in the interests of another group. Even though the US official labor movement has set aside its openly racist immigration policy, it has steadfastly stuck with its original nationalism and xenophobic view of non-white immigrants workers.

“US workers” and “foreign workers” is a reactionary, racist, and divisive dichotomy that breaks down working class solidarity. According to this view, American workers come first; they are the first class and privileged workers who have the first claim to everything that is nice and to all the goodies. Their lives are more important than that of non-Americans. They have more rights to a better life than other people do. Then, there is the second class and underdog foreigners who must, in the best situation, wait at the end of the line to pick the crumbs that are thrown at them. They are the non-deserving workers and human beings born in foreign soil. Their lives are expandable for it does not worth a whole lot. They have lived in poverty and are used to a brutal life so they’d better learn to live with it rather than coming to the US.

To build strong labor solidarity among workers around the world and enhance our living standard, we workers should oppose nationalism and all its derivatives for they are shameful sentiments that separate us from our common human character. As workers, labor activists and leaders we must build a movement around following demands:

Defending worker’s rights and granting equal protection for all U.S. citizens and residents irrespective of their nationality.
Free movement of labor, similar to the one in European Union, among United States, Canada, and Mexico.
An immediate general amnesty for all undocumented workers in the U.S.
Opposing all kinds of temporary residency.
Issuing permanent residency and citizenship for all those who want to come to the U.S. for reasons such as, humanitarian, family reunification, and work.
Repeal 1996 Immigration Act and free all immigrants held in INS detention center for violating immigration laws such as, working without permission, illegal entry, and etc.

These demands do not remove national boundaries, but they would greatly enhance our freedom of movement and our power to confront capital for a better future. We are not slave who were bought and sold. We are not serfs who were bound to land. We are workers and we must be free to move and live wherever we can make a better living. Freedom of movement is a human right that we workers should fight for.

Censorship at NYC Indymedia

2006-04-02T16:57:00.000-04:00

Censorship at NYC Indymedia
by Mahmood Ketabchi
mekchi@msn.com
April 02, 2006

The cartoons of Muhammad created much discussion and debate within the progressive movement. I wrote two articles regarding the cartoon crisis and posted both of them on the NYC Indymedia. On March 1st, I posted my second article "US Left Nationalists Join the Islamists against Freedom." In this article, I criticized the section of the US left which supported the Islamists' campaign against freedom of speech and the right to blasphemy. The article generated some pro and con debate among people who read the article. Two days later, to my astonishment, I noticed that the article was removed from the website. I emailed the moderator of the website and inquired why they took my article off the site. In response to my question, I received an email from NYC Indymedia. I was told that my article "is being held until the list moderator can review it for approval." It stated that the reason it was being held was because it was a "Post by non-member to a member-only list." Further, I was notified that "Either the message will get posted to the list, or you will receive notification of the Moderator's decision."
On the one hand, I was pleased to see that I did get a response to my email, on the other hand I found the reply to be contradictory and somehow disturbing. It did not make any sense to me. If only members can post articles why is there a need for approval anyway? So, I emailed them back and expressed my concern and asked how I can become a member. I waited for a response, but I got none. I checked the NYC Indymedia website just to see if they re-posted my article, and I could not find it. Thus, I emailed them again and asked if the moderator made any decision regarding my article. For the second time, they ignored my email.

I decided to look at NYC Indymedia policy guideline regarding open publishing, and I found nothing that would prohibit me from publishing my article. It was pretty clear to me that the people who run the NYC Indymedia removed my article because they found its content to be disagreeable. I brought up my concern with a few friends. They were also surprised that I was told only members could post article on the NYC Indymedia website. As I listened to them, my conclusion about censorship by NYC Indymedia was confirmed. Why else would they take cut my article from their website?

It is quite bizzare to see how a discussion about free speech was censored by a website that claims to stand up for freedom of speech!! NYC Indymedia has a motto that says "Free Media for Free People." What sort of freedom is it when they censor a voice that defends unconditional freedom of speech and is critical of people who choose to side with political Islam, a brutal and barbaric right-wing movement that is ready to crush any dissenting voice that stands firm in defense of freedom.

The independent media movement came about and flourished as a radical grassroots response to censorship by mainstream and corporate media that succumbs to the US government control. But, is NYC Indymedia still truly committed to freedom of speech? I strongly doubt that. At least, that has not been my experience. How many other people have the same experience as mine I do not know.

I withhold further judgment about the NYC Indymedia because I am not familiar with the politics of the people who run the organization. However, I emphatically express my dismay and condemnation at this censorship of my article. This example of censorship at NYC Indymedia is a cause for concern for anyone who truly supports the idea of free media as a vehicle for expressing dissenting opinion.

Pensacola Christian College, Where Religious Oppression Rules

2006-03-29T22:15:00.000-05:00

Pensacola Christian College,
Where “Optical Intercourse” Can Get You into Trouble!!
by Mahmood Ketabchi
mekchi@msn.com
March 29, 2006

I don’t know if you have heard of the term “optical intercourse;” I have to admit that I have not heard of it before myself. “Optical intercourse” is a term that refers to two people staring at each other intently, that is, in a sexual way. It is among many offenses that are prohibited by stringent rules which control student lives particularly male and female relationship at Pensacola Christian College in Florida.

Other rules include:

1. All physical contact between male and female students are forbidden. This rule also applies to hand shaking.
2. Members of opposite sex have to use separate elevators and escalators.
3. Female and male students cannot go to the same beach.
4. They cannot socialize with each other without the presence of a chaperon.
5. Movies, even G-rated ones, are forbidden.
6. Students can only listen to classical music or music that has been approved by the college.
7. Access to TV, Internet, email, and library is strictly limited and controlled.
8. No student opposition is tolerated.

These rules and many other unwritten regulations are strictly and often capriciously enforced.

Students who break these rules or are perceived as having broken them face four types of punishments including:

1. Being “Socialed,” that is, they will be barred from speaking with a student of the opposite sex for two weeks,
2. Being “Campused,” which means students are prohibited to leave the college or speak to other students for two weeks.
3. Being “Shadoweded,” that is, students will be watched at all times by an agent of the college for several days. Plus, they are not allowed to speak to anyone but the agent who is responsible for the student being punished.
4. Being expelled from college.

Pensacola Christian College has been around for more that 30 years. It started as a Bible study college with 100 students, and now has nearly 5000 students.

The founder of the college, Mr. Horton, also established a Christian book publishing company called A Beta Book which is considered to be the largest publisher of Christian books in the world. It sells books to more than10,000 Christian schools across the country. It has also gained a large share of the home-schooling market. For many years, A Beta Books portrayed itself as a non-profit organization and evaded paying tax on their revenue. Finally, the IRS forced them to pay $50 million in back taxes.

The college prides itself in being the “most Fundamentalist” college in the country. What is interesting is that Pensacola Christian College is not an accredited college, and the college administrators are not forthcoming about it.

As I learned about this school, I thought of countries where Islamists regimes rule. As a person coming from Iran, I can see a lot of similarities. Pensacola College is a sort of Talebanite Christian fiefdom. It is a kind of life style that every right wing religious fascist would love to see spread and enforced across the world.

Right wing Muslims, Christians, and Jews, although they dislike each other, in many ways share similar values and principles. For example, they share the following:

1. Regulations and laws that governs every aspect of human life
2. Obsession with sex and sexuality especially female sexuality
3. Gender apartheid
4. Cruelty and zero tolerance for opposition and dissent
5. Deception and lies.

Religion and religious industries are by their very nature oppressive and brutal. The belief that there exists an omnipotent and omnipresent god is nothing but anti human and tyrannical.

I do not know of any other institution in the country that can do what the Pensacola Christian College does and get away with it. Although religion and religious institutions enjoy special privileges and receive the kind of legal protection that no one else can dream of, right wing religious demagogues keep complaining that they are being unfairly treated and discriminated against. They have vast resources including numerous schools, colleges, and universities all across the country to push their religion and indoctrination without obstacles, yet they are adamant about infecting public education with their prayer, and bogus theories of “intelligent design,” abstinence, etc.

Religion is like a killer narcotic that needs to be regulated. It can make people sick and/or kill. Religious industry is a medieval institution that must be swept away. It is a notorious industry with a long history of brutality and human right abuses. Today, when religious sectarianism of all sorts is on the rise, it is more important than ever to push religion out of public life into a private sphere.

In particular, religion must be separated from education both public and private. This is especially true for minors who are the primary victims of religious indoctrination and proselytizing. Children are protected in different ways. Although poorly enforced, there are many legal protections for children. We protect them from child pornography. They are protected from employer exploitation. We protect them from sexual abuse, etc. They are even protected against certain advertising and commercials. Here in the US, the tobacco industry is heavily regulated and prevented from targeting young kids.

The same should apply to religious industry. Kids need to grow in an open and free environment that enables them to develop an investigative mind of their own. They need to learn the skills to enquire and challenge what they are being taught so that they can approach the world around themselves consciously. Ideological and religious indoctrinations deprive children from developing a free and critical approach to the world. Religious superstitions, taboos, dogmas, and sectarianism are dangerous poisons shoved into children’s throat. It is hammered in their minds from early age that they belong to a particular and preferred religious sect. Organized religion produces a culture of meekness, fear, insecurity, obedience, sycophancy, and conformity. It shapes and moulds children not to become free human beings, but people who can be controlled, manipulated, and subjected to oppressors and authoritarians. Religious indoctrination aimed at children must be prohibited. That is a basic requirement for a truly free society.

To read a full report about the Pensacola Christian college, please refer to Chronicle of Higher Education, March 24, 2006, Volume LII, Number 29.

International Women's Day Report

2006-03-27T21:38:00.001-05:00

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY ROUND-UP March 8, 2006

Report compiled by Jennifer Fasulo j4fasulo@yahoo.com A version of this report can be heard on the Joy of Resistance Feminist Multi-Cultural Radio by visiting http://www.wbai.org/, & clicking on the archives for March 23 at 11am.

All around the world on March 8, women took to the streets for International Working Women’s Day, showing unequivocally that women’s liberation and women’s rights are universal. The March 8th day of protest dates back to the radical socialist movements of the early 20th century. However, it was not celebrated in the US for many decades due to US anti-communism. It wasn’t until the 1970’s that the celebration was revived by the Women’s Liberation Movement.

This year’s demonstrations emphasized equality and reproductive freedom, ending violence against women, particularly state sponsored and religious violence, as well as the sexist affects of poverty, exploitation and war. Demonstrations took place in every continent and women’s day events occurred in almost every country in the world. Many of the most powerful demonstrations could be seen in countries ruled by Islamic governments where misogyny and sexism are enshrined in law. Women of the Middle East and Asia set an example of feminist militancy for the world’s women to follow. Iranian women and their male supporters braved police assaults and arrests in order to demand their rights. Turkish women, savagely beaten in last year’s March 8 protest, returned in ever larger numbers, declaring, “we will not be silenced.” Mukhtar Mai, the Bangladeshi woman who was gang-raped by order of a village council, led thousand in a march against the kind of violence she was subjected to.

The United States, on the other hand, was notable for its lack of large scale protest, especially as Roe Vs Wade hangs in the balance. The South Dakota law banning abortion, even in the case of rape or incest, is designed to overturn Roe V Wade in the increasingly right-wing supreme court. It is just the most recent attack on women’s rights and freedom coming from the right-wing religious movement in our own backyard. While the US left remained more or less silent for March 8, the right-wing, led by George and Laura Bush, once again capitalized on the opportunity to co-opt women’s rights by holding an International Women’s Day event in the White House. Bush continues to use the rhetoric of promoting women’s rights to justify the public and foreign policies that are in fact undermining and destroying women’s rights world-wide.

The following report chronicles just some of the highlights of March 8 demonstrations around the world.

BRAZIL

One of the largest demonstrations took place in Brazil where some ten thousand women, including representatives of 80 different organizations, marched to demand the decriminalization of abortion and end to violence against women. Women of all ages and races joined in the lively and colorful march. Brazil's Women's Health Network estimates that one million illegal abortions are performed each year, and are the fourth major cause of death in Brazilian women.

The Brazil march initiated a world tour for a Women’s Global Charter for Equal Rights that will go to 53 countries and end in Africa in October.

In other areas of Brazil, women protested in front of the Presidential Palace demanding the right to collect retirement funds for homemakers and 500 women of the Landless Rural Workers' Movement occupied the Toca de la Raposa ranch, to demand an agrarian reform which will include property rights for all women.
Women of the Landless Rural Workers Movement

PAKISTAN & BANGLADESH

"Women demand freedom! Women demand their rights!” chanted 5000 women and their male supporters in a demonstration in Multan Pakistan. Protesters decried rape and honor killings and demanded repeal of the Hudood Ordinance, a law based on Islamic Sharia which legalizes religious practices and is highly discriminatory against women.

Among leaders of the rally was Mukhtar Mai, a woman who was gang-raped in 2002 on orders by a council of villagers near Multan as punishment for her brother's alleged affair with a woman from a higher caste family. Mai has emerged as a powerful symbol of women fighting back against victimization.

"I have dedicated my life to women's rights. Wherever a woman is oppressed, I will go there and fight for her rights," Mai told reporters at the rally.

Women also marched by the thousands in cities in Bangladesh, pressing similar demands and denouncing acid attacks against women. Acid attacks are when men throw acid in women’s faces because the women refuse their advances or otherwise are perceived as not adhering to religious or cultural norms. Men in Dhaka held their own rally in solidarity with the women and added their condemnation of acid attacks which have permanently disfigured an estimated 2000 women in the past 5 years in Dhaka.

INDIA

4000 women sex workers, transgender and sexual minorities staged a protest march in the capital of India. They demanded their right to be treated as other workers and opposed amendments of the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act (ITPA) which empower police harassment and deny them of their means of survival. Representatives from 16 states, including sex workers organizations, women’s and AIDS organizations came together for the march. The march began at the Bharat Scouts and Guides camp and ended at Jantar Mantar. National Aids Control Organization (NACO) director Sujatha said, ''With the community of women taking control over their life, I see this massive celebration as a positive sign,'' she said. Participants sought recognition of their work in reducing HIV/AIDS. National Aids Council member Smarjit Jana said’ We are not against laws to check trafficking but the government's sole focus has been on pulling people out of sex work, while ignoring the very factor that pushes individuals and communities in the business,'' she added. A representative of the transgendered demonstrators, Ashodaya Mahila Samanwaya said 'Hijras' faced the worst oppression. ''We are criminalized by both the laws - ITPA and Section 377 IPC. We are not recognized as having a gender. She added. ''We are in this profession not just out of choice but by default... We can only do this work or beg. If this amendment comes into force, our only option is death... “

IRAN

International Women's Day was celebrated in several cities in Iran, despite government crack-down on opposition. In Tehran, a thousand women activists and other human rights defenders gathered under the banner: “March 8, A Day of Women’s Liberation.” The peaceful gathering was attacked and women were assaulted by anti riot forces, soldiers and police. Ms. Simin Behbehani, a well-known feminist poet, who is elderly and partially blind was also beaten with a baton and then kicked repeatedly by security guards, amidst objection by women protesters. Protesters chanted slogans and held signs reading, “Violence Against Women is Violence Against Humanity” and “Long Live March 8!”

Other large celebrations were held in Sanandaj where participants condemned the Islamic Republic’s atrocities against women, demanded equal rights for women and condemned the US government’s military threats against Iran. A 4 day march was held in Europe organized by the Campaign for the Abolition of All Misogynist, Gender-Based Legislation & Islamic Punitive Laws in Iran. A caravan of Iranian women and their supporters traveled from Frankfurt Germany to the Hague Netherlands, holding rallies outside the Iranian embassies. A skit was performed in which a mullah (Islamic cleric) led a veiled woman by a chain into the public square. The veiled woman then rose up, threw off her veil and together with other women, broke her chain and used it to chain the mullah. This was met by cries of jubilation from the audience. Solidarity rallies with the European march were held in Berkeley and NYC.

Other Iranians in exile also held protests in many cities around the world, as they do every year, including a conference against honor killings in Germany that was attended by several hundred women and organized by the Organization of Women’s Liberation in Iran.

EGYPT

16/03/2006: In Egypt, the Egyption Center for Women’s Rights planned a celebration to raise awareness about Egyptian women’s Rights and announce new draft legislation to increase women’s political participation. It was to be attended by 800 women and 25 women’s and development NGOs. Hours before the event was to take place, it was cancelled by the Ministry of Education, which cited the event as a “security threat.” The Center for Women’s Rights decried the decision and called for an investigation of the reasons for the cancellation.

PALESTINE

Women in Ramallah marched from Al Manara (the city centre) to the Palestinian Presidential compound. But the march was challenged by a counter demonstration of Hamas supporters, who want to annul Women's Day, under the pretext that it is a “Western phenomenon,” and therefore alien to Palestinian culture and traditions. Margo Sabella, a member of MIFTAH, a secular pro-Palestinian organization responded, “The Palestinian women's movement can be traced back at least to the early 20th Century, and is unquestionably part of the universal women's movement which must be encouraged in order for humanity to truly achieve justice, liberty, freedom, and equality for all.”

Every year on 8 March, Palestinian women commemorate International Women's Day, despite the enormous obstacles of living under the Israeli Occupation. By law, the Palestinian constitution provides for equal rights between women and men, but in practice women experience widespread discrimination in the public and private areas. Furthermore, as Hamas takes the helm, many are concerned that whatever basic rights Palestinian women have will be taken away and reformulated according to religious practices and values.

NEW ORLEANS, USA

In New Orleans, a mock funeral demonstration and rally was organized by the Global Women’s Strike for Peace to highlight the ravages of racism and sexism in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Protesters went into the streets for a “Second Line” march – a traditional New Orleans funeral celebration . They honored those who died in New Orleans and gave tribute to the mobilization of survivors, which was being led primarily by women. Elders led the “Second Line” march, carrying a banner that read “From New Orleans to Haiti to Iraq to LA: Mothers, Daughters, Sisters, Wives: Fighting for Our Loved Ones’ Lives” in English and Spanish.

March organizer, Margaret Prescod, asked, “Why are women the poorer sex? Why is it largely women who do the clean-up work after disasters like Katrina? And why doesn’t anyone know this?” For hope, Prescod pointed to the Global South, where the Venezuelan revolution is paying women for housework after years of women activists pushing this demand.

Global Women’s Strike events also took place in Guyana, India, Uganda, Kenya, Mexico, Peru, Ireland and the UK.

PHILLIPINES

Women in the Phillipines also risked arrests and police intimidation when thousands of women marched in cities throughout the country. Many of the rallies focused on opposition to the current president Gloria Arroyo for her attacks on women’s rights and civil rights generally. "We're certainly not celebrating her. We're repudiating her on International Women's Day. You cannot celebrate the struggle to liberate women without denouncing this particular woman," said Carol Araullo, chair of the militant Bagong Alyansang Makabayan (Bayan).
Women activists criticized Arroyo for her lack of commitment to women’s rights, pointing out that she has put women’s lives and health at risk by denying support for reproductive health and family planning services. They also charged her with contributing to the feminization of migration and poverty and not giving sufficient funding to the National Commission on the Role of Filipino Women. “We want a government that truly respects, protects and promotes women’s human rights,” declared the Women’s Groups Statement, “Oust Arroyo!”
One demonstration at the border of Quezon City also raised issues of violence against women and child pornography. The police forced the dispersal of the crowd, using violence and arresting two of the march leaders. Jean Enriquez of the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women-Asia Pacific, said the dispersal was an "insult" to the women who had no plan of violence in staging the protest action. She said the violence clearly originated with the police.

TURKEY

Women took to the streets in Istanbul and Ankara Turkey, despite brutal assaults by police in last year’s March 8 demonstration. Last year when women gathered in Istanbul for a peaceful celebration, the police attacked them, beating them with batons, and spraying them with pepper spray. Women, young and old, were dragged on the streets, kicked and beaten until they fell. When a film of the beatings was shown in Europe it caused an uproar. According to Mehmet Bayram of the Middle East Radio Project, this year, “The female police tried handing flowers to their ‘sisters.’ But many people rejected this gesture.”

Women marched, sand and chanted slogans, “We Won’t Be Silenced” Long live Women’s Solidarity”, “Free daycare, Free Healthcare”, and “We won’t be somebody else’s honor” referring to the honor killings of women that has swept the country. Many demonstrations were organized by the Peoples Houses Organization, a militant community and worker association organizing among the poorest neighborhoods in Turkey.

In a report to the press, Ilknur Birol a member of the Peoples Houses Organization, declared, “We the women, hard-working laborers of society; we are celebrating March 8th with all the women of the world to take control of our lives from the claws of poverty and exploitation. We join to take back our lives from the quiet corners of workshops, from our houses that have turned into jails, and from the street corners that we were pushed into. We are struggling against the system that pushes us to more poverty everyday, that feminized poverty; We are struggling for a system where honor killings or women’s suicides do not exist, where we can send our kids to free schools and pre-schools, where we are not subject to any aggression from fathers, husbands or the state, where we are not the cheapest workers in the factories, free workers in the fields, forced workers at homes!”

SOURCES:

Brazil
Inter Press Service News Agency
Women’s Health/OBGYN News, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/
The World Revolution, http://www.worldrevolution.org/article/1780

Pakistan & Bangladesh
Dawn the Internet Edition http://DAWN.com
Human Rights First

Phillipines
ISIS International, http://www.isiswomen.org/index.php
Martsa ng Kababaihan. (2006, March 8). Unity statement: A womans place is in the struggle, womens groups statement on the occasion of International Womens Day (IWD) 2006.
Philippine Daily Inquirer, March 9 2006
San Francisco Bay Area Independent Media Center sfbay@indymedia.org

India
Bureau Report Zeenews.com International Edition, India Edition /

Iran, Egypt & Palestine
Women Living Under Mulsim Laws, wluml@wluml.org
Organization of Women’s Liberation in Iran http://www.azadizan.com
Worker Communist Party of Iran, http://www.wpiran.org
Human Rights Watch Worldwide, http://hrw.org/
MIFTAH The Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of Global Democracy and Democracy, http://www.miftah.org/

New Orleans
Global Women’s Strike for Peace, http://www.globalwomenstrike.net/

Turkey
Mehmet Baryam of Middle East Radio Project
Labornet Turkey, http://www.sendika.org/english/
Journee de la femme, http://permanent.nouvelobs.com/

Afghan Convert: Fight for Freedom or Crusade for Christianity

2006-03-25T00:40:00.000-05:00

Saving the Life of Abdul Rahman,
Fight for Freedom or Crusade for Christianity
by Mahmood Ketabchi
mekchi@msn.com
March 24, 2006

The case of Abdul Rahman, a 41 year old Afghani man, who converted to Christianity, is getting a lot of international attention and media coverage. Mr. Rahman, who used to be a Muslim, is being tried for apostasy. Under Islamic Sharia Law that dominates the Afgahni Constitution and judiciary, Mr. Rahman faces the death penalty. An Afghan cleric has compared him to “a germ” and urged that he be killed.

What is quite bizarre is that an institution designed to defend the human rights of Afghani people, the government-sponsored Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission has also called for Rahman to be punished. Only in a US made democracy such an oddity can occur.

The US government and western powers that have built what they call an “Afghani democracy” have expressed their grave concern over the fate of Mr. Rahman and are pressuring the government of Hamid Karzai to drop the case against him. As a result of the international pressure, the Afghani convert might be saved from execution on the basis of “insanity.” The prosecutor Sarinwal Zamari said questions have been raised about his “mental fitness.” "We think he could be mad. He is not a normal person. He doesn't talk like a normal person," Zamari said.

Mr. Rahman’s life might very well be saved, not because it is his choice to switch from one religion to another, but because he is an insane man for converting from Islam to Christianity. In other words, only mad people go from Islam to Christianity!!!

Mr. Rahman’s religious freedom has to be respected. As he said, he is not an insane person, and he made a choice to become a Christian. Nonetheless, it is questionable to see how the US and the western governments are raising such a great commotion over Mr. Rahman’s religious rights. This is an outright hypocrisy. It looks like more of a crusade for Christianity than a sincere concern with freedom. The Islamic government of Afghanistan is committing crimes on a daily basis against the Afghani people and in particular against women.

For Example, just a few months ago, a women’s magazine was shutdown by the government and its editor sentenced to two years in prison. Why didn’t George Bush, this great fighter for democracy, call Hamid Karzai and express his concern over the women’s publication and the fate of the editor? Why don’t we see these hypocrites get so excited and all hyped up about the dire situation of women in Afghanistan, a country in which women are considered subhuman and Islamic gender apartheid rules? Not only don’t they get upset—they actually hail the great “progress” that women are supposedly making there!

What a great democracy the US and the western governments have built in Afghanistan! They cannot do any better. The world can’t wait to see Bush regime gone and his democracies replaced with societies where respect for human life, freedom, and equality becomes the number one priority.

March 8 Celebration in Sanandaj, Iran: A Resolution for Freedom and Against War

2006-03-15T22:11:00.000-05:00

More than 600 women and men celebrated March 8, International Women's Day in Sanandaj, Iran. The following resolution was passed by the participants.

The Resolution Passed by the March 8,
International Women’s Day in Sanandaj, Iran

This Resolution was read and approved article by article by the participants in the March 8 event in Sanandaj, Iran.

March 8 is day of struggle for freedom and equality.

It is a day that the self-evident principle of equality among human beings in all social spheres is highlighted.

We, the participants in the March 8 rally in Sanandaj, reject divisions among people based on gender, religious, and class discrimination and believe that all forms of oppression and discrimination originate from economic inequality; we declare the following demands:

1. People’s rights must be equal in all social, political, and economic spheres;
2. All laws based on gender apartheid must be abrogated;
3. Health coverage, education, housing, and jobs are a right, not a privilege for a particular minority;
4. Execution and stoning must be abrogated;
5. Full social welfare for single mothers and homemakers and classification of housework as a hard and unbearable work;
6. Street women, runaway girls, and homeless people need the full support of the government;
7. Forced marriage, temporary marriage, and polygamy must be prohibited;
8. We demand guarantees and legal protection for women from all sorts of violence and honor killing;
9. We demand freedom of thought, expression, press, organization, and assembly;
10. We demand freedom for all political and labor activists who are imprisoned; and
11. We want world peace and condemn all warmongering by the US government and its allies, including military attack on Iran.

March 8 in Esfehan, Iran: Full Equal Rights for Women and Men

2006-03-15T22:01:00.000-05:00

Posters for March 8, International Women's Day

2006-03-15T21:46:00.000-05:00

March 8, Great Walk From Germany to Netherlands for Women's Rights in Iran

2006-03-11T15:25:00.000-05:00

Organized by:
karzar zanan

March 8 in London

2006-03-11T15:22:00.000-05:00

Organized by:
Worker communist Party of Iran

March 8 in Cologn, Germany: International Conference Against Honor Killing and Political Islam

2006-03-10T11:46:00.000-05:00

Organized by:
The Organization of Women's Liberation of Iran

March 8 in Dalas TX, No to Islamic Violence Against Women and No to War

2006-03-10T11:33:00.000-05:00

Organized by:
Worker communist Party of Iran

March 8 in Sweden, Against Gender Apartheid and War

2006-03-09T20:48:00.000-05:00

Organized by:
Worker communist Party of Iran and Organization of Women's Liberation of Iran

Women in Sanandaj, Iran Celebrate March 8 in Defense of Their Rights

2006-03-09T11:11:00.000-05:00

March 8 in Tehran, Women Oppose Gender Apartheid

2006-03-09T10:59:00.000-05:00

The Iranian Security forces together with Islamic street hooligans attacked women's rally in Tehran, brutally beat up and arrested many women.

Women's Rights in Iran, Solidarity March and Rally in NYC

2006-03-09T00:23:00.000-05:00

Organized by
IWDSOLIDARITY2006NYC

Towards a Fantastic March 8 Celebration!

2006-03-07T01:35:00.000-05:00

On the Occasion of 8th March, International Women's Day
The Organization of Women's Liberation In Iran
28-Feb-2006

March is a day of equality of women and men. It is a day when, once again, the progressive section of the society organise a struggle against discrimination and lack of women's rights in the world. 8th March is a reminder of the suppressive and unequal position of women every where. It is also a reminder of the protests against the inhumane situation of women. The Organisation for Women's Liberation is at the forefront of this struggle and movement for unconditional and complete freedom of women and men in Iran .

We are celebrating 8th March at a time when the women's liberation movement has become one of the strongest, main and determining elements of the future changes in Iran . It has become clear that these changes will not culminate without women's liberation and equality. Women's demands have occupied a special place in the society's demands for freedom and equality.

The movement for women's liberation is, at present time, the flagship of No to Inequality, No to Discrimination, No to Sexual Apartheid, No to the Veil, and is the flagship of defence of Women's Rights against Cultural Relativism, defence of Secularism and struggle against Political Islam. With its clear platform of action this movement is being organised and led. The progressive movement for women's liberation has, through its activities and influence in many protests, succeeded to push back and defeat the Islamic regime's attacks against women. The presence of radical women's movement is an undeniable reality in Iran. The political changes in Iran are a reflection of the organisation and struggle which are taking shape within the women's movement on the eve of International Women's Day. Women's movement in Iran is going to, once again, to demonstrate to the world its protest against this medieval regime.Women and men!

The measure of society's freedom is freedom of women. To achieve freedom, we must overthrow the medieval Islamic rule. So long as this regime is ruling, women and the society will not be free. The struggle for women's freedom is part of the general struggle for freedom, equality and welfare.

The Organisation for Women's Liberation urges all to gather round the following demands:

NO to the Veil!
No to Sexual Apartheid!
No to Suppression!
Long Live Freedom, Equality of women and men!
Long Live Secularism!

These are the demands of the movement for women's liberation at every conference, demonstration and gatherings. Towards a fantastic 8th March celebration!

http://www.azadizan.com/

Great Walk Against Anti Women Laws in Iran's Islamic Republic

2006-03-07T00:49:00.000-05:00

Call to Join the Great Walk Against Anti-Women Punitive Laws in Iran's Islamic
Republic on March 8th 2006!

If you are against death by stoning!

If you are against forced veiling!

If you are against prosecution and imprisonment of women!

If you are against lashing a woman’s body!

If you are against any form of patriarchy!

If you are against all the medieval laws of Iran’s Islamic Republic of Iran imposing inequality against women!

Join the great walk against anti women laws in Iran’s Islamic Republic on March 8th 2006!
For over 25 years one of the most anti women governments of the world has ruled Iran. A government whose fundamental existence is based upon oppressive laws securing domination of women.

For over 25 years Iranian women have struggled and resisted against poverty and injustice in the political, cultural and economical aspects of life . Women have endured being lashed, stoned to death , jailed, tortured and executed, but they have not surrendered to the medieval laws of Iran’s Islamic Republic.

March 8th 2006 is a time to show, once more our solidarity with the relentless struggles of Iranian women. We should make this day, a day for expressing exciting and magnificent exhibitions of solidarity against the anti- woman system of Iran’s Islamic Republic.
We, the women of the "Campaign for the abolition of all Legislation confirming inequality and imposing Islamic punishment on Iranian Women", will observe International women’s day, by organising a great walk from Germany to Holland.

This rally is the right place for :

Any woman, who feels brutalised by hearing news that her sisters are stoned to death in Iran.

Any woman, who has felt the bitterness of punishment by lashing simply for defending the right to choose her own clothes.

Any woman, who refuses to surrender to inferiority and inequality.

Any woman, who fights for the right to control her own body.

Any woman, who is struggling for the right to determine her own destiny.

Any woman who believes in a woman’s right to divorce, the right to travel, the right of choice, the right of custody and all other basic human rights.

Any woman, who is not willing to submit to the medieval laws of the Islamic Republic.

Any woman who wants to abolish the interference of religion in all aspects of political and social life, in particular when it concerns women’s lives.

In this rally, there is a place for all freedom loving women and men, all political and progressive and revolutionary forces, who want equality between men and women in every aspects of life, a place for all those who oppose gender discrimination in any form.

Freedom loving men and women!

Your active participation in this walk will resonate the voice of the just struggles of Iranian women. We want this voice to be heard throughout the world, and we want to mobilise the International women’s movement against world Imperialism, the main protector of male chauvinism in every corner of this world.

Let us play our role in burying this medieval regime, by joining in solidarity with the struggles of Iranian people.

Let us pay our respect to the needs and demands of Iranian women whose struggles have become the shining example of these struggles. No doubt the degree of progress and freedom in any society is measured by the rights and liberty of women in that society.

http://www.karzar-zanan.com/

March 8: Solidarity with Iranian Women

2006-03-06T13:46:00.000-05:00

By iwdsolidairty2006nyc

New York City:
Wed, March 8th, 2006
March: 5:00 PM Starts at 83rd and Roosevelt Ave.(7 train to 82st St.)
Rally: 6:30 PM 73th Street and Broadway(7, E, F, R, G trains to 74th St/ Roosevelt)

Stand in unity and solidarity with the "Great Walk Against Anti Women Laws in Iran's Islamic Republic" in Europe!

In New York on International Women's Day, March 8, we will bring together a multinational gathering of women, men and young people in solidarity with the Great Walk in Europe.

A future of Islamic Fundamentalism vs. the Bush regime's "McCrusades" is a brutal disaster for the world's women and people, and we cannot and will not accept it. Support those risking their lives to oppose barbaric Islamic fundamentalist laws and practices against women -- be part of bringing forward movements of women and people the world over to reject both deadly and crushing ruling orders, instead fighting for relations of equality between women and men, and against domination and plunder of the world's nations and countries by a handful of imperialist powers.

To those who still wonder whether George Bush and his regime can deliver some kind of liberation to the women and people of the Middle East or any corner of the globe -- as one of the Great Walk statements says: "The American government has declared that it seeks to liberate the women of the Middle East from the yoke of Islamic fundamentalism. This is a ridiculous claim that makes a mockery of real liberation and is an insult to the women of the Middle East. The march of events in Afghanistan and Iraq should have helped those who were taken in by these self-styled liberators of Middle Eastern women to realize how badly they were fooled. If anyone still believes that George Bush and his ilk are liberators of women, please talk to American women fighting to prevent him from taking away their right to abortion as well as against the efforts of the Christian fascists to dominate every aspect of the lives of women in the U.S. What George Bush is taking away from the women in the USA he will not deliver to women in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan or any other country."

Join with us in supporting the Great Walk in Europe. As their material states: "In this rally there is a place for all freedom-loving women and men, all political and progressive and revolutionary forces, who want equality between men and women in every aspect of life, a place for all those who oppose gender discrimination in any form." And: "Celebrate 8 March 2006 with us and help us to build the independent ranks of women against U.S. imperialism as well as the reactionary states governing these countries."

US Left Nationalism and the Cartoon Controversy

2006-03-05T14:12:00.000-05:00

Cartoon Controversy:
US Left Nationalists* Join the Islamists Against Freedom
By Mahmood Ketabchi
mekchi@msn.com
03/01/2006

As the world witnessed the Islamists reactionary campaign to impose their taboo on the progressive humanity, the US left nationalist, as expected, supported the Islamists. They talked of “Denmark’s Racist Cartoons,” praised the Islamists’ protests, and tried to sell us the Islamist campaign as a “fight against racism, xenophobia, colonialism, and imperialism.” They told the whole world that the “Muslims are right to be angry” and justified their savagery and hooliganism. They told us that the freedom of press and right to blasphemy was irrelevant and portray it as an imperialist conspiracy against Muslims. They called for protest in solidarity with the Islamist currents. They rushed and fell all over each other to raise hue and cry against “Islam bashing,” “the attack on the Muslim world,” and “insults against Prophet Muhammad.” They ignorantly conflated attack on religion with attack on people of color and claimed that it was racist xenophobic to attack on Islam. They tried to tell us that there is a great confrontation between imperialism and the Islamic forces.

The Rise of Xenophobia and Racism in Europe

The Cartoons of Muhammad by themselves only depict a political movement that lives by terror. However, the publication of cartoons of Muhammad by the right wing press, to the extent that they stereotyped and demonized people in Islamic ridden countries as terrorists and criminal Islamists, was indeed a racist act. The right wing press by lumping together people who live in Islamic stricken countries as “Muslims,” draws no distinction between the political Islamic movement as a dreadful, grim, and sectarian current and the masses of people who are being brutally oppressed by them. It is an affront to humanity to mix up and conflate the people of Middle East with brutal Islamists and nationalists regimes and bands of barbaric and sectarian religious and ethnic militias. The people in the Middle East are first and foremost a direct victim of these reactionary regimes and hostage to the sectarian gangs.

Additionally, the publication of the caricatures of Muhammad was motivated by anti-immigrant and xenophobic policy. Since the downfall of Soviet Union, European governments have increasingly resorted to anti-immigrant measures. Discrimination, humiliation, and contempt against immigrants of color have increasingly become a daily practice. The rise of anti-foreigner rhetoric by European officials has inflamed xenophobia and racist violence against immigrants, particularly those from Islamic stricken countries. Such policy has helped the rise of skinhead and Nazi gangs as well as right wing and racist parliamentarian parties that are rather closeted fascists. Anti-immigrant policies and xenophobic sentiments have also provided more ammunition to right-wing Islamist hate groups who pose themselves as victims of western attacks on Muslims and the Islamic way of life.

Islamists Angry at Blasphemy and Freedom not Racism

The international protests mounted by the Islamist currents had nothing to do with confronting racism and xenophobia. In fact, the fascist Mullahs and their followers in Denmark who jumped on the publication of cartoon to further their religious agenda play no role in the struggle for immigrant rights in Denmark. They simply found the cartoons as cause celebre enabling them to put themselves at the center of the international arena and show their brutality and savagery. They hoped they would intimidate the world into submission and impose their superstition and religious taboos.

The Islamist campaign against the cartoons turned into religious hysteria, sectarian fervor, and became a calculated and brutal assault on freedom of expression and the right to blasphemy. In a typical fashion, they called for the killing of the cartoonists, issued Fatwa to murder and behead anyone who insults Islam, attacked and in many cases burned some European embassies, assaulted European humanitarian organizations, threatened the lives of European citizen, promised Europe with a special 9/11, and finally instigated sectarian tensions in Lebanon and Nigeria that led to death of more than 100 people. While the Islamist have pulled out their swords to amputate freedom of expression and the right to blasphemy, the leftist apologists keep beating on an empty drum to convince people that the Islamists are fighting racism. Such a characterization of the Islamists campaign is only intended to create legitimacy and credibility for political Islam, a movement in which the left nationalist current in the US finds an ally against imperialism.

This is not the first time the Islamists have tried to intimidate the public in their own countries and across the world. For those of us who have dealt first hand with Political Islam, and similarly for all civilized and progressive humanity, the Islamist attack on freedom of press and expression does not come as surprise.

Is it a fight against racism when with utmost cruelty and barbarism, they crush any dissenting voice? Are they fighting racism when they rule by a rein of terror wherever they dominate the political climate? How is it a fight against racism when they kill and murder any communist, socialist, and freethinker they can get their hands on? Is racism vanquished when Islamic hooligans with the blessing of their mullahs and ayatollahs beat up woman who dare to defy their strict Islamic code of dress and public conduct, slash their face with razor, pour acid on them, or pin their chador or head scarf to their head? Are they fighting racism and colonialism when they attack workers’ movement, arrest, torture and kill working class leaders? Are they fighting racism when for them listening to Madonna is a crime, drinking beer carries a prison sentence and whippings, dancing becomes sinful and punishable, holding hands between boys and girls leads to arrest and beating, etc? Is it a fight against racism when Islamists in their own countries shut every mouth, tie every hand, and break every pen that dares to criticize and question their religion, religious leaders, their taboos, and superstition?

Have we forgotten that seventeen years ago in 1989, Ayatollah Khomeini on the grounds of blasphemy, issued a Fatwa for the murder of Salman Rushdie for his book The Satanic Verses? Don’t we remember that Islamists mounted a widespread protest throughout the world intimidating and threatening to kill anyone who had something to do with the book, an event that forced Rushdie to go into hiding for years and led to the killing of two people who were involved in the publication and translation of the book? Is the protest against cartoons of Muhammad any different than the protest against Rushdie’s book? No, neither one has anything to do with fighting racism. They were simply two examples of the assault on freedom and the effort to intimidate world public opinion into submission. These are the real questions that people need to ask these false Marxists? What do the have to say about them? How many examples do we need to provide them so that they may wake up and stop jumping on the Islamist bandwagon?

Hue and Cry about “Islam Bashing”

It is quite ridiculous to see how apologists for Islamists conflate criticizing religion with racism. That attempt is only intended to silence dissenting voices against Islam. According to them if you attack Islam you are racist. Racism and anti religiosity are two separate things. Racism is a direct assault on human being. Islam just like every other religion is an ideology.

An attack on Islam is not an attack on people; it is a criticism of an ideology. Only when people are stereotyped, discriminated, targeted, and demonized based on their religion, we are dealing with racism. Portraying Middle Easterners as Islamists, terrorists, dangerous, and violent is nothing but racism. Attacking people and fighting the brutality of political Islam are two different things that must be distinguished. Otherwise, no one is allowed to criticize any religion at all, and if they do, they will be labeled as racist, anti-Semitic, or Islamophobic. What the Islamists and their supporters are trying to do is very similar to that of the right-wing and reactionary Jews who intimidate their critics by calling them anti-Semites.

Moreover, how can we refrain from attacking Islam? As late Mansoor Hekmat, founder of the Worker communist movement indicated, Islam today is the banner of a political movement. The bourgeoisie in the Islamic stricken countries with the help of the US and the west have chosen to take Islam as their guiding ideology to fight communism, freedom, equality, and any trace of human decency in order to consolidate their capitalist and exploitative system. They have picked up the teachings of Islam as their ideals. They are the ones who have turned it into their political platform. They want to establish their Islamic and Muhammadian system wherever they can. They are the ones who identify their whole life with this religion. The Koran is their book and together with the traditions of Muhammad it constitutes their way of life. They devise laws based on the teachings of Muhammad. They kill communists and gays, stone to death any woman they consider “adulterous,” and rape teenage girls as young as nine years old, because their prophet has prescribed it. What are we supposed to do? Ignore their crimes and the ideology that propels them to barbarity? We cannot deal with them without dealing with that ugly banner they have in their hands. They want to take Islam as their banner, and at the same time they demand that no one in the world attack it. Well, in the world of politics it does not work that day. Once you take a theory or an ideology or whatever else as your guiding principles, then you should expect people to take it apart from the left or right. They think since their ideas and practices are derived from Islam, no one can oppose them. No, religion is not above criticism, especially when it becomes a political banner to kill freedom.

It is quite bizarre and ridiculous to see these self-proclaimed Marxists and communists turn into unabashed defenders of Islam and the prophet Muhammad. Their literature is full of praise for Islam. They show so much concern about “Islam bashing.” They get so hysterical if they see anyone attack Muhammad. If one removes their name from their articles, it would seem as if some intellectual Islamists, those who hide their machetes, have authored them. It is truly a sad commentary about the state of the left in the US that it has by and large placed itself on the side of a movement whose arms are soaked in blood. Why are they so concerned about Islam and Muhammad? They claim they are communists, and so they might want to promote communism and socialism, defend women, gay and children’s rights. They may want to consider defending workers and communists and freethinkers and progressive people who are fighting for freedom and a better life. Why not support freethinking? Let the Islamists worry about their religion and their god. They have enough oil money, guns, knives, machetes, and other resources to fend of for themselves. Marxists have their own agenda, that is, socialism.

Racist Stereotype of People in the Middle East as Muslims

Left nationalists like to call anyone who criticizes Islam racist. Yet, they are no different from the right wingers and the bourgeoisie press when they lump together hundreds of millions of people as Muslims and call them the “Muslim world.” Referring to people from the Middle East as Muslims has become a common language used by Islamists, the US government, western powers, the bourgeoisie media apparatus, and many leftist/liberal groups and individuals. Every news story and analysis about the Middle East reinforces this image and stereotype of Middle Easterners. In their mind, people in Middle East are closely identified with their religious and ethnic sects and categorized as Muslim, Coptics, Assyrians, Jews, Sunnis, Shiites, Yazidis, Kurds, Arabs, etc. The concept of citizenry finds no place in their dictionary when they speak of Middle Easterners.

While they speak of “Muslim” or “Muslim world,” the left nationalists do not refers to Americans as “Christian.” I do not see them speak of “Christian world” when countries with majority Christian population are referred to. As it goes, Middle Easterners are Muslims, but the “great and superior American nation” enjoys the benefit of being politically, socially and economically diverse people. Why is it that they utilize medieval standards to describe people who come from Middle East and call them Muslim but avoid using the same sort of language and characterization for Americans and Europeans? Such characterization is double standard and outright racist.

People living in the Middle East do not fit in that narrow and racist characterization that blurs the line between oppressed and oppressors. They confront the same sort of enemies we face here in the US. There is a fight between capital and labor, communist and capitalists, feminists and misogynism, gays and homophobes, freedom and oppression, freethinkers and religious brutality, equality and exploitation, etc. Attempts to make Middle Easterners look inferior in their social and political agenda for social change, positions that deny their daily suffering at the hand of their rulers and undermine their movements and endeavor for a life free from oppression, exploitation, and brutality is quite disturbing and shameful.

Dividing people along religious and ethnic lines pushes back progressive political and social agendas and propels the reactionary, bloody and dreadful forces of religion and ethnocentrism. As progressive humanity is forced back from the political scene, a bunch of criminal gangs, each wearing a sectarian hat, emerge and become the “leaders” of such and such a group of people and fight for the right of such and such a group of people. We saw the consequences of this trend in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq. Genocide, massacres of innocent people, and crimes against humanity are the outcomes. This is a part of the US government’s New World Order. Why are the left nationalists following such a line? How are they going to explain to people on what grounds they lump together hundreds of millions of people as Muslims, deny their progressive struggle for a better life, and doom them to a life of utter repression and savage tyranny?

The Myth of Imperialism vs Islam and Islamists

In response to Islamists protests against the publication of cartoons, the US and European governments ironically, more or less similar to the leftist apologists for the Islamists, raced against one another in condemning the cartoon as offensive and insulting to Islam. They sympathized with Islamists, expressed their sorrow, and apologized profusely. The US position regarding the cartoons of Muhammad exposes the fallacy that the US government and the Islamists are in an antagonistic relationship. Finding themselves on the same side with US over the cartoons, apologists for political Islam defensively attempted to differentiate their position from that of the US government. They criticized the US officials for condemning violent protests over cartoons while ignoring the atrocities committed against the Iraqi and Palestinian people. They pointed to the hypocrisy in how the US government and the media speak of press freedom in reference to the cartoons while engaging in other forms of censorship. This criticism is quite justified. But it is more of an attempt that is only intended to help these apologists escape from taking a clear position on the issue of press freedom and criminal threats and assaults on people. Yes, the US government and the media are hypocrites, but it does not mean that press freedom is not worth defending and that criminal violence and threat to kill and murder people should not be condemned.

Depicting an image that the US government and western powers are standing face to face against the Islamists is nothing but a lie and pure charlatanism devised by the Islamists and those who are their apologists. Anyone with the slight decency and any respect for facts should know by now that the US and European governments propped up the Islamists movement in an effort to fight communism and freedom. There is undeniably a tremendous amount of documentation and writings that leave no doubt that in many countries the US brought Islam from the margin of the society into prominence to protect capitalism and exploitation across the world.

Iraq is the latest example. How many people in the world knew who criminal thugs like Chalabi, Alawi, al Sadr, al Hakim, al Sistani, al Jaafari, etc were? How is it that they have become such known figures in the world? How have they turned into the powerful figures they are today? Is there any doubt that the US government under Clinton intensified its effort to bring together Iraqi reactionary religious sects, ethnocentric groups, and paid agents of the CIA to overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime? It was the US government with the assistance of bourgeoisie press that molded and promoted them as “leaders” and “power brokers” in Iraqi society. They put them at the center of the Iraqi political scene so that they could tell the world that Iraqi people are with the US and to justify their invasion and occupation of Iraq. Yes, the US government unleashed Islam and Islamic militia and hooligans as a deadly force that has turned Iraq into a hell hole.

The US government does not necessarily have any objection to seeing Islam and Islamists gain political power as long as they maintain a working relationship with the US government and do not create any major obstacles for it. The US government wants to tame political Islam and bring it under its control and put it to work. That is why they try to promote “moderate Islam” while attacking “fundamentalists” and “terrorist” Islamic forces which are in an open war with the west over control and exploitation of the masses of people in Islamic dominated countries. “Moderate Islam” for the US government has nothing to do with freedom, human rights, and respect for the dignity of people’s lives; it only refers to Islamic forces and regimes that can ally themselves with the US government.

Worker communism and Cartoon Controversy

We must confront racism and xenophobia. In fact Worker communism and in particular the Worker communist Party of Iran (WPIran) and International Federation of Iranian Refugees have been a leading force and an ardent defender of immigrant rights particularly in Europe. Racist characterizations that lump together millions of people as Muslim and “the Muslim world” must be opposed because it undermines victims of Islamic brutality in the struggle for freedom, equality and a better life. Yet, the hue and cry over the Cartoons by the Islamists has nothing to do with opposing racism, defending immigrant’s rights, fighting for equality, or improving the quality of life for immigrants. The protests were designed to silence and intimidate the world into submission and consolidate Islamist political position vis-a-vis the US and the western governments. Attacking press freedom and the right to blasphemy formed the core of their campaign. The US left, by and large has stood on the side of the Islamists and declared that freedom was an irrelevant issue.

As opposed to the left nationalist current, Worker communism is a maximalist movement when it comes to freedom. That is how Marxism and communism were always known until late 1920s. This changed when the great Bolshevik revolution in the Soviet Union degenerated into a nationalist effort to build a “great industrial power” on the back of soviet workers and led to an oppressive state capitalist system. Worker communism emphasizes and fights for unconditional freedom. Any limits on freedom designed to silence dissenting voice, no matter how “offensive” it maybe, can only lead to further restrictions on people’s ability to express themselves. Only exploiters, oppressors, and reactionary forces can benefit from a type of “freedom” that comes with “ifs” and “buts.” Workers and progressive forces are always beneficiaries of freedom in its most possible expanded form.

The Populist and nationalist left gets upset about any attack on Islam and always defends it in one way or another. This same current views Islamist movement as its ally in the struggle against the US government. Worker communism sees no responsibility upon itself to defend Islam, prophet Muhammad or any other religion or their ideas and teachings. It distinguishes Islam as a faith and spiritual belief from Islam as a political movement. While it defends freedom of worship and religious belief, worker communism emphasizes freedom from religion and right to heresy and blasphemy. For Worker communism, Islam as a political current is an extremely barbaric and inhumane movement that must be beaten back and driven out of political scene. The rise of Islam everywhere has led to utter rightlessness, brutality, misery, and massacres. It is a political movement that is extremely prone to sectarian bloodshed, genocide, the destruction of civil norms, and the disintegration of societal functions and structures. In addition, Worker communism calls for the complete and unconditional separation of religion from the state and education. It believes in a strictly secular state where religion and god have no place whatsoever. It advocates that religion should be pushed out of social and political life into a private, individual, and spiritual undertaking. Religion should remain in the house of prayers where it belongs.

*********************************

*Left Nationalism is a reference to populist left current. Its opposition to imperialism derives from an isolationist and protectionist position. For this left, imperialism is a foreign policy issue and devoid of class meaning. It highlights struggle against the US government and the western powers at the expense of the class struggle of workers across the globe. It calls on working class in the “third world” to join hands with their exploiters and oppressors to fight imperialism.

*********************************
For further reading on the issue of cartoon, please refer to my article below:
“Defend freedom of Press and the right to blasphemy”

2006-03-05T13:21:00.000-05:00

Deerfield, MA

Cartoon Crisis: Defend Freedom of Press

2006-02-09T12:20:00.000-05:00

Defend Freedom of Press and the Right to Blasphemy
By Mahmood Ketabchi
mekchi@msn.com
February 9, 2006

The publication of cartoons of Muhammad by several European newspapers has given the political Islamists an opportunity to launch a brutal international assault against freedom of press and the right to blasphemy. Islamist demonstrators attacked and burned a few European embassies, launched sectarian attacks on people from other religions, and threatened the lives of European citizens. In the streets of London, they called for murder and beheading of the cartoonists and anyone who insults Islam and threatened a special 9/11 massacre for Europeans. It went so far that a demonstrator in front of the Danish Embassy in London wore suicide bomber's gear. The US and European governments declared their regrets over the cartoons and apologized to the Islamists. Even the Pope, representing the catholic establishment, pitched in his two cents condemning the cartoon, maybe out of fear that someone might draw caricatures of church's collusion with pedophilic catholic priests raping little children. The apologies only added more fuel to the Islamist's rage and outcry, for they saw it as justification for their actions.

It is naive to believe that these protests were “spontaneous movements of Muslims against Islamophobia” as some Islamists and their western apologists would like to tell us. This assault has been in the making for a few months. In September a right-wing Danish newspaper publishes 12 drawings of Muhammad. Islamist groups in Denmark began a campaign against the caricatures of Muhammad. Then, despotic and reactionary Arab regimes, friends or foes of the west, in solidarity with their brethren in Denmark, mounted a diplomatic pressure on Denmark. In fact in December the issue was discussed at the Organization of Islamic Conference (made up of 57 “Islamic countries”) that later condemned the cartoons as an “act of blasphemy.” In January, Copenhagen prosecutor refused to press charges against the paper. After all efforts to silence the Danish press failed, the Islamist attack dogs were unleashed to commence a violent protest to teach the west a lesson. Professional Islamist hooligans and paid agents of authoritarian and fascist nationalist and Islamist governments and organizations for the most part formed the core of these protests. As the Islamists and the nationalist forces find themselves in a growing conflict with the US and western governments, the cartoons of Muhammad gave them a chance to try to gain advantage over the European and the US government in order to reinforce their position internationally and specifically in the Middle East.

The fascist mobs who are asking the world to hold their prophet in reverence and are expressing outrage at the mocking of Muhammad are the same people who waste no time to impose their rein of terror and barbarity when they come to power or gain any significant political strength. They do not hesitate to spit on and trample upon every bit of human decency and values. They are the same currents who commit daily crimes against humanity. They are the same criminal club and knife-wielding crowd , resembling brown shirt fascists, who beat up protesters and progressive forces that dare to stand up for freedom, equality, and human dignity. They are the same misogynists who brutalize women and regard them as subhumans, the same homophobics who kill and maim those who do not fit their man-fuck-woman only life style, the same anti worker forces who suppress any independent workers protests and organizations, the same people for whom child molesting is a law of god- the list of atrocities has no end. Islamism is not a “protest movement of oppressed nations;” it is an offshoot of the US and western governments' campaign against communism, freedom, human decency, and a better world in collusion with the nationalist bourgeoisie in Islamic stricken countries.

The Islamist campaign to impose their taboos and intimidate the world into submission must be confronted head on. It is an attempt to spread their message of hate and brutality across the world. Since long ago, when Ronald Regan called Afghani Islamic criminals “freedom fighters,” Islamist regimes and forces, with the knowledge and clear understanding of the western powers and the US government and oil money behind them, have started a quiet but concerted effort to spread their Islamist propaganda machinery across the world (including Europe), build political power, and shape Islamist hate groups that are now being instrumentalized to their advantage. Benefiting from “multiculturalism” and “moral relativism” in the west, they have sought to create and maintain Islamist ghettos and implement their oppressive and reactionary practices. Islamism is a dreadful and grim political movement. The recent uproar over the cartoons only helps highlight the challenges political Islam pose to progressive humanity. The western powers and the US government, as they have demonstrated repeatedly, have no intention to confront this movement. In fact, they have no problem to work hand in hand with the Islamists as long as their cooperation can be secured. They are concerned with their capitalist economic and political interests and domination over the world not anyone's freedom.

Islamism must be defeated in a political arena. First and foremost, the Islamist's call to limit and suppress freedom of expression must be strongly opposed. Religion and for that matter Islam should not be above criticism. No religion, no god, and no prophet should hold any special privilege. Islamists are free to praise their prophet as long as and as much as they want. However, that is the limit. To demand that the freethinkers must succumb to their taboos is outrageous and preposterous. Islamists should not be allowed to impose their ignorance, taboos, and superstitions on humanity. The right to blasphemy, to question and protest against god, to criticize religious beliefs, to mock religious personalities is not just equally as important as freedom of worship and religious beliefs but is rather more essential given the rise of sectarian religious tendencies in the world. Religion as an oppressive industry continues to be a human malaise and catastrophe. It does nothing but propagate ignorance, superstitions, human bondage and submission, bloody conflicts, sectarian wars, and genocides. Freedom from religion is an important safeguard for human liberation and dignity. Requesting respect for “religious sensitivities” as an argument to curb freedom of expression is as preposterous and dangerous as the attempts to silence freethinkers. Freedom has no boundaries and the religious sectarians and fundamentalist fanatics should get used to it. Putting limits on freedom under the pretext of “respect for religion,” “emergency situation,” national interest,” “security,” “war,” etc can only give brutal forces the opportunity to suppress people.

Moreover, separation of religion and the state must be vigorously enforced. Religion and for that matter Islam should be pushed out of public life into mosques, churches, and synagogues where they belong. Reactionary and brutal religious practices that undermine and denigrate human life have to be prohibited. Religious bigotry and discriminatory practices must be outlawed. Children need to be protected from religious proselytizing and industry. Religious teachings should be banned from education, public or private. Children rights and women rights should be expanded and strongly implemented. No public money, not even a cent should go to religious institutions. Tax laws should be equally applicable to all properties and revenues belonging to religious institutions. To fight religious movements it is inseparable that we fight against bigotry, racism, xenophobia, and anti immigrant policies, and ghetoization of immigrant communities, all of which feed into Islamist movement. Islamism grows in a swamp; that swamp must be dried up.
Freedom from religion and the right to blasphemy must be of particular importance for progressive forces, socialist, and communists in the US. Bush calls himself a “Born Again Christian.” Some of his followers believe god chose him to become president of the United States. He is a man who believes his “War on Terrorism” is his “Holy Mission.” Bush's ascendancy to power became possible to a large extent due to the growing power of Christian religious bigots who are dreaming of their own apocalyptic Christendom. These reactionary forces, with their vast resources, as well as public money at their disposal through “Faith Based Initiatives,” and with their president in office, are chipping away slowly but steadily at our freedom, particularly woman rights under the guise of “religious sanctities.” These are the same people who unleashed criminals who bombed abortion clinics, murdered physicians, and assaulted women seeking abortions, all in defense of “sanctity of life.” These messengers of hate have enough taboos and “sanctities” that can create a hellish life if enforced upon the society. To the extent that the power of religion and religious movements grows, freedom and human dignity becomes its inevitable casualty. Stopping Islamists from imposing their taboos on us is inseparable from our struggle to prevent the Christian bigots from forcing their sanctities on the society.

It is similarly crucial that we defend freedom of press and expression. This is a hard won achievement for humanity that is under a brutal assault by the Islamists. Succumbing to Islamist's demands will be a dangerous precedent. Not only will it allow them to come up with other outrageous demands, it will also create an fertile ground for all other reactionary forces to make the same argument that such and such “sanctity” or “interest” is in jeopardy, and therefore demand their own limits on press freedom.

It is no secret that the US mainstream media are by and large in the pocket of the US government. We know that without their help, for example, the Iraq war could not have happened. They deliberately refused to publish information that challenged the lies about Iraq Weapon of Mass Destruction. We know that under the pretext of “national security,” they withhold crucial information from people, or only reveal a a very insignificant part of it. As the Isalmists mount an attack on freedom of press, the US media once again has shown their cowardliness by refusing to take an stand in defense of freedom of expression. It is a no-brainer that fighting for press freedom, here in this country, is of significant importance and that includes beating back the Islamists who want to impose their taboos on the world.