New Media

Someday, we will find a way. Someday… Someday, the darkness fades away.

Release all political prisoners in Iran. Freedom for Iran.

I am firmly in solidarity with Iranians and others around the world protesting the regime’s failure to provide democracy and basic human rights. Heck, if you live in a democracy, there is no other moral position to take. Human rights and the longing for genuine freedom are universal. I am pleased to see that the protests in Vancouver and other cities around the world are still very much alive.

But for some months now, reports of protests inside and outside Iran have consistently shown two types of messages amongst demonstrators. The first type is familiar and inspiring, but the second gives me the chills. I see Iranian protesters potentially falling into the trap that Canadian Tamil protesters recently found themselves in, of believing that the worthiness of their cause permits the use of bloody rhetoric.

From a CTV News story today, here’s what I’m talking about in terms of the two types of messages with very distinct implications:

* “We are here to show our solidarity with the people of Iran and to urge the Iranian government to respect human rights” – Tom van den Brand, a spokesman for Amnesty International in Amsterdam.

* “Death to the Islamic regime!” – group of anonymous protesters.

Some of my friends will probably say I’m just being squishy, or that unity of the protest movement is too important to quibble about semantics. But I feel the words you choose to protest with are not a minor, inconsequential thing. When a state still holds a monopoly on violence and all you have is your voice, your message defines you. How the democratic revolution finally comes to Iran will depend in part on the words the movement chooses to engage its supporters.

For decades, we’ve heard “Death to America”, “Death to Israel”, “Death to…” whatever, from mass gatherings of furious Iranians. (I can’t recall a mob chanting “Death to Canada”. When that happens, I suppose that means we’ve hit the big leagues). It’s not just in Iran, but the Islamic Republic is practically synonymous with massive rallies incorporating these frightening modern versions of the Two Minutes Hate.

I’ve attended and observed plenty of protests in Canada. Typical slogans at protests include “This is what democracy sounds like!”, “Justice for the (INSERT-NAME-OF-PERSECUTED-GROUP)”, “Freedom for the (INSERT-NAME-OF-PERSECUTED-GROUP)!”, or “Hell no, we won’t go!”. Chanting “death” to anything is pretty much beyond the pale, because we recognize the obvious danger that such words are incitement to violence. That’s not only illegal, but it’s also a practice, if it were to become mainstream, that could lead to violent acts. The proof of this ranges from violent hate crimes by racist thugs to acts of genocide, like in Rwanda. And let’s face it: there are no problems in Canada that would require demonstrators to commit acts of violence against fellow citizens or the state to get what they want. We’re lucky that way.

So here’s a problem. I’m not convinced that the Iranian regime will fall to a democratic movement without bloodshed, as has happened most recently in parts of Eastern Europe. The ruling thugs have shown a clear willingness to deploy axe-and-gun-wielding militias against their own people. And they have to be mindful that during and after the last big Iranian revolution, tens of thousands of the ruling classes were tortured or killed. With that kind of precedent, even if the regime’s leaders and apparatchiks were of a mind to allow a transition to democracy, simple survival instinct will have them maintain the status quo at any cost.

So if there is going to be a democratic revolution in Iran, people may have to die. When the protesters’ chant, “Death to the Islamic regime”, they know that a “regime” doesn’t really die – the people who run the regime do. Such chants may be very pragmatic preparation to steel Iranians’ minds for coming violence.

I understand that decades of chanting “death” to anything is ingrained in the culture of political protest in Iran or other countries in a way that we just don’t get here. But these words don’t just offend “decadent” Western sensibilities: I suspect that they have already sapped a significant amount of goodwill towards the Iranian protesters.

It’s not enough for the protesters to want democracy. The words they use to motivate their own democratic revolutionaries will help determine the kind of society that comes after the regime is swept away. There needs to be a culture of basic respect for human life, to the obvious minimum standard that you don’t shout “death” to anything. Let the Iranian regime issue the death threats. This movement needs to be better than that.

Iranians chanting “Death to the Dictator”

Iranian rally shouting “Death to America”

The better to get them out of the way when the Olympics come to town.

The Vancouver Sun’s Jeff Lee sums up what’s happening:

What’s the point of issuing tickets with fines of up to $350 to people who have no financial means to pay, or if they did would mean they miss next month’s rent? And why would Vancouver police officers go on such a blitz, issuing homeless people with citations for everything from bicycling without a helmet to jaywalking?

But why assume this is accidental or coincidental when the timing of it points to a strategy?

It’s a very simple strategy and it will probably work. Blitz the downtown eastside, giving homeless people $350 tickets for jaywalking or other minor infractions, which they can’t possibly pay. Continue doing this for a few more month. A week or two before the Olympics begin, start jailing everyone for failing to pay their tickets.

It’s legal. It’s practical. And it will ensure that the tens of thousands of tourists coming to Vancouver for the Olympics will never see what residents and visitors to the Downtown Eastside see the rest of the year.

Do you think this is just a theory or is it really happening? Leave a comment.

Talk about a guy who can’t take a joke. It is now against the law to make a joke about Pakistani President Asif Zardari in an email, blog or text message. We may laugh about this in Canada, but due to Canadian law, we’re not so far from this kind of stupidity and infringement on freedom of speech as you might think.

Getting back to Pakistan’s new law for the moment, violations can get you a 14-year stint in the clink. Since I don’t live in Pakistan and have no plans to visit, I figure it’s safe for me to at least repeat my favorite zinger first reported in the Digital Journal:

“Robber: “Give me all your money!” Zardari: “Don’t you know who I am? I am Asif Ali Zardari.” Robber: “OK. Give me all my money!”

Seriously, a country that six weeks ago looked to be on the verge of being hijacked by the Taliban and remains a hotbed of terrorism and violence doesn’t have better priorities for police resources?

But Canadians can’t get smug over this. Fact is, we’ve got our own gag laws already in place when it comes to poking fun at our political leaders. Canadian defamation legislation hasn’t changed that much since, well, before Confederation. That’s why there are no Canadian versions of John Stewart or Stephen Colbert. Rebecca Addelman explained in the Walrus in The Last Laugh:

When This Hour Has 22 Minutes comedian Mary Walsh told Preston Manning that his speech was “more edifying in the original German,” the Reform Party threatened to sue. Had they followed through, it would have been up to Walsh and her producers to prove what they implied was true—that Preston Manning was a fascist. Of course, we all know it was a joke and not all jokes are true. But when a joke damages someone’s reputation, then it’s no longer funny—it’s libellous.

Since TV producers are generally working with smaller budgets than their American counterparts, even the hint of a lawsuit is to be avoided at all costs. So the script writers for Canadian comedies take the easy road: self-censorship.

Pakistan’s new law would be beyond the pale here, so we can laugh at it. But as is often the case, the joke just isn’t as funny in Canada.

You want to help inform Canadian students about what Islam is really about and create the leaders of the future, so you bring in “the shrewdest Hamas propagandist in the English-speaking world”. What could possibly go wrong?

An Islamic history and culture course at Toronto’s Ryerson University launches this week, July 24-27. This is the chosen vehicle for the Al-Fauz Institute for Islamic Thought’s endeavors to educate Muslim youth about Islamic values and provide context for the “issues experienced in the daily lives of Muslims in the pluralistic Canadian society”. But intrepid investigative journalist Terry Glavin has the scoop in the National Post on why the person delivering these lectures, Azzam Tamimi, seems particularly ill-suited to this organization’s stated mission:

Tamimi has loudly renounced democracy, explicitly praises suicide bombers, and he’s said he’d even be happy to blow himself up in Israel: “It’s the straight way to pleasing my God and I would do it if I had the opportunity.” Tamimi distinguishes good Muslims from their adversaries this way: “We love death. They love life.”

Tamimi recently proclaimed: “I don’t believe in democracy anymore,” and it was at an anti-Israel rally in Dublin only three months ago that Tamimi declared: “With regard to their attitudes to liberation, I say ‘Long Live the Taliban’.”

And we’re just getting started. An excerpt from MEMRI’s report on Tamimi in regard to September 11 and the Taliban Regime:

In an interview with the Spanish daily La Vanguardia titled ‘I Admire the Taliban, They Are Courageous’ in late 2001, Al-Tamimi claimed that the September 11 attacks brought joy to the Arab world. He begins by assuring the interviewer that “everyone” in the Arab world cheered upon seeing the Twin Towers fall. “Excuse me,” says the interviewer, “did you understand my question?” Al-Tamimi: “In the Arab and Muslim countries, everyone jumped for joy. That’s what you asked me, isn’t it?”

Not interested in international relations? Here are Tamimi’s ideas on attaining domestic bliss, spoken at a Cambridge University event, as captured in the MEMRI report:

Dr. Al-Tamimi firstly said that beating was the last in a series of three steps that husbands could use to ‘discipline’ errant wives (a ripple of concern swept the audience at this point), so to concentrate on beating alone was to miss that. But Dr. Al-Tamimi also said that he was regularly surprised why this verse was such a concern to Westerners since he knew of many Arab women who regularly asked their husbands to beat them…

This is the guy that Al-Fauz want to help them to “prepare Muslim advisors and scholars to serve the needs of their communities and generations to come” — here in Canada?

Surely there are more suitable candidates out there somewhere. Perhaps someone who isn’t pulling for the Taliban while our troops are going toe-to-toe with these thugs on the battlefield? Could be a good start.

But that’s the thing: The Al-Fauz Institute knew who Tamimi was when they hired him for this gig. This gives us some pretty clear insight into the kind of values they hold and would like to instill in Canadian society.

I’m guessing the history course at Ryerson won’t actually teach anything all that contentious. The curriculum covers topics like Islamic history, language studies and “personal development”. They’re not going to teach how to make a bomb and blow yourself up in Tel Aviv (or Toronto, for that matter). But that doesn’t matter.

This is just a first point of contact. Many students in this course may be incorporated in Tamimi and the Al-Fauz Institute’s network for a long time after these first lectures. What other lessons do they have in store? Who’s their next guest lecturer: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Look for more of this from the “leaders of the future”: