List of clean and clear Iranian government transgressions against morality?

July 3, 2009 2:00 PM

Iranian government's worst recent and verifiable transgressions?

I realize we mostly all agree a more democratic Iran is better than the pseudo-democratic, mostly theocratic system they have now, and thus we side with the pro-Mousavi protestors. But I am trying to find/put together a list of the Iranian government's worst transgressions in relation to the recent elections and resulting protests. (I have searched Mefi to no avail, and my Google-fu is not helping with clear answers as much as I thought it would - I am guessing partly because of the lack of reporters allowed - I find a lot relying too much on unverifiable sources like Twitter.)

So far, I have come up with (1)Restricting Twitters, (2) Restricting foreign reporters. There is, of course, the constant violence against protesters, but some protesters seem to be willing to get violent themselves, making murky the otherwise clear moral advantage they had. (Hoping more to find more clean and clear, irrefutable violations offensive to anyone's moral sensibilities.)

posted by GenTso to society & culture (5 comments total)

Restricting Twitters? The whole twitter escapade has likely been overblown by a website desperate for relevance. More effective is their shutdown of SMS messaging to curtail protests.

(1) Mousavi made very specific complaints, listed for example here. The incumbents stole the election. That's the big one.

(2) They used official and unofficial violence to suppress increasingly violent protest. Obama spoke out about this.

(3) and yes they censored reporters.
posted by gensubuser at 2:28 PM on July 3

Lots of good info here and here.
posted by torquemaniac at 2:51 PM on July 3

There's plenty of news and details about transgressions in the many, many postings here. There and at many other sites there are videos of basiji and uniformed militia firing on demonstrators who have not attacked them, bashing in parked cars for no reason, and committing other acts of violence and vandalism. The videos clearly show who is committing the act. I'm not talking about videos and pictures of beaten people, etc., when the image doesn't show who did the beating. These are images of militia caught in the act.
posted by PatoPata at 4:20 PM on July 3

The incumbents stole the election.

This isn't so cut-and-dry. There were clearly "irregularities" of all sorts, but it's far from clear that Mousavi would have won a free-and-fair election.
posted by mkultra at 6:33 PM on July 3

a more democratic Iran is better than the pseudo-democratic, mostly theocratic system they have now, and thus we side with the pro-Mousavi protestors

I think it's incorrect to believe that Mousavi and his supporters do not want a theocratic system. Like the allegations of stealing the election, it just isn't that cut-and-dry. Iran has a theocratic democracy. Both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi still want a theocratic democracy. We would like to believe this was a fight of theocracy versus democracy, but that's more a reflection of how we would like them to govern themselves, than a reflection of how they want to govern themselves.

Something to keep in mind when viewing videos and reading the tweets is that only about 30% of the Iranian population has internet access. The people who do have internet access are generally younger, wealthier, and live in urban areas -- and are more likely to be Mousavi supporters. Ahmadinejad resonated with the poorer rural people, as they felt he would do more to alleviate their poverty, keep Iran free of western non-Muslim influence, and so on. The people who live in cinder block houses and who have serious concerns about where their next meal is coming from are not taking photos on their cell phones and uploading images via their computers onto the internet.

When Iran prohibited media access, the effect was to give no outside publicized voice to the other 70% (of course, which assumes that media would go to the less populated, poorer areas of Iran for additional news coverage). Ahmadinejad supporters also had rallies; Mousavi protesters also engaged in violence and rioting; but with most images coming from Twitter and blogs, we did not see an even presentation of both sides.

With that in mind, when you look for transgressions balance that with the other side of the coin. For example, there was rioting in the streets with people setting fire to buildings, and destroying property. One way to look at this is, these are freedom fighters who are trying to have their voice heard. Another way to look at this is, these are people who are upset they lost the election and want to overthrow the existing government in order to have their way (even if it does not reflect the majority opinion). Another example: Were the police shooting people, or were the police were maintaining order?

As an American, I wish Mousavi was in power, because I think it would have been best for us. I'm not sure I would feel the same if I was a poor, rural Iranian. As an American, I was disappointed to see that masses of people feel their vote was not counted. As an Iranian, I might feel that the protesters were simply sore losers. If the protesters had gone about with passive resistance (a la Gandhi or Martin Luther King, Jr.), it would be easier for me as an outsider to know which side was unjustly injured and which side was aggressively maintaining power with the support of few and at the expense of most. As it is, though, it is very unclear: Every transgression of the existing power can be seen as an effort to maintain majority-rule and order in a time of minority dissent and violence.

I'm not arguing for one side or the other; I'm only saying that what you ask for, by necessity, requires an uneven look at the events. Unfortunately.
posted by Houstonian at 2:35 AM on July 4