The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

4 hours ago, peterms said:

Corbyn has criticised Iran on human rights more times than almost every other MP.

I know it doesn't fit the propaganda line.  Perhaps you should be a little more sceptical of the propaganda?

I know, absolutely scathing he's been. Here  he is in London, slagging them off for their intolerance.

 In fact, so scathing has he been that he kept going on their state telly and getting paid for it,  in order to, er, deny them, um, legitimacy,  satan USA....socialsim...er... man of principle innit, see.

But yeah, sign a motion....saintly.

[peterms]

28 minutes ago, blandy said:

I know, absolutely scathing he's been. Here  he is in London, slagging them off for their intolerance.

Is there anything in that clip you find objectionable?

Or is it just the fact of talking to them, whether at meetings or via their TV, that you think is worthy of criticism?

[Xann]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

I know, absolutely scathing he's been. Here  he is in London, slagging them off for their intolerance.

?

He's talking absolute sense there.

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, peterms said:

Is there anything in that clip you find objectionable?

The hypocrisy. The utter hypocrisy. again.

This man of principle, this campaigner for anti racism, tolerance and fairness, praising Iran for it's tolerance lack of religious bigotry and openness etc, while on the other hand you say signing parliamentary motions condemning it for the opposite of that.

The hypocrisy of him taking money (£5 grand a pop) for going on their state telly, mentioning nothing about intolerance (as far as records show), 

Quote

Labour party leader Jeremy Corbyn accepted up to £20,000 (about $27,000) for appearances on the Iranian state broadcast network Press TV — a channel that was banned in the UK for its part in filming the detention and torture of an Iranian journalist.

Corbyn was paid for appearances on Press TV five times between 2009 and 2012, according to his register of interests, available at this online House of Commons database.

Corbyn's final Press TV appearance was six months after the network had its broadcasting license revoked by Ofcom for airing a forced confession by Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari. Ofcom is the government's TV regulatory body which sets rules for UK broadcasters. Bahari told Business Insider that while he was detained by Iranian authorities he was tortured and threatened with execution before he agreed to read out a pre-agreed script on Iranian television, filmed by Press TV.

A spokesperson for Corbyn told Business Insider, "We don't comment on historical matters."

• SEE ALSO: The money Jeremy Corbyn received from Iran demands an explanation.

Corbyn is a progressive politician and a staunch defender of human rights. So his decision to appear on, and take money from, Press TV on multiple occasions is peculiar, even if he is not responsible for the network's output or its role in the Bahari episode. His appearances occurred when he was a rebellious backbencher with a much lower public profile.

Press TV is part of the Islamic Republic of Iran's tightly controlled broadcasting machinery. Its director is appointed by Iran's Supreme Leader — the state's chief religious and political authority — which means that its output is often biased in favour of strict establishment ideology.

During the period between the year of Corbyn's first appearance and his last, for example, Iran hanged at least 1,314 people,according to Amnesty International. It is a place where the rights of women, LGBT people, and religious and ethnic minorities are harshly curtailed. In 2011, the year of Corbyn's third appearance, three Iranian men were executed for homosexuality. An Amnesty International report released last year said that Sunni Muslims and Kurdish political prisoners have been executed for bringing "corruption" to the world.

People on fake gallows protest against the visit of Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif in Berlin, Germany, June 15, 2016. Sign reads: " Rohani - Zarif: 2500 executions in the Iraq". REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke. Hannibal Hanschke / Reuters

"Western politicians who appear on Press TV can be regarded as useful idiots."

In particular, the fact that Corbyn received a fee of up to £5,000 for an appearance on Press TV months after Ofcom found that the network uncritically aired a forced confession procured by torture seems to be totally at odds with his personal politics. It is not clear exactly how much Corbyn received in total as the register only notes four fees of up to £5,000 each.

Press TV also did not respond to requests for comment.

Business Insider asked Bahari how he feels about public figures who claim to be liberals appearing on Press TV. He said: "Many of these western politicians who appear on Press TV can be regarded as useful idiots."

"These are people who have a grudge against the US government or capitalism as a system, and as a result, they embrace whoever is against the American government. This means that sometimes they embrace regimes with atrocious human rights records like the one in Iran."

He added: "People who present programmes for Press TV and get paid for it should be really ashamed of themselves — especially if they call themselves liberals and people who are interested in human rights."

 

 

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, Xann said:

?

He's talking absolute sense there.

praising Iran's history of inclusivity, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings...!!!!

That's the same Iran, the Islamic state, that has the death penalty for conversion from Islam, persecutes Bahá'ís, has policies on women, homosexuals, ...etc. etc...which are not "tolerant" However, anti-semitism and holocaust denial is tolerated and seems de-rigeur. There's the whole Shia/Sunni issue...their treatment of prisoners generally - political imprisonment (Boris's victim, Zagari-Ratcliffe, for example).

[peterms]

11 minutes ago, blandy said:

praising Iran's history of inclusivity, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings...!!!!

That's the same Iran, the Islamic state, that has the death penalty for conversion from Islam, persecutes Bahá'ís, has policies on women, homosexuals, ...etc. etc...which are not "tolerant" However, anti-semitism and holocaust denial is tolerated and seems de-rigeur. There's the whole Shia/Sunni issue...their treatment of prisoners generally - political imprisonment (Boris's victim, Zagari-Ratcliffe, for example).

It's a mixed picture, isn't it?  Alongside the multiple human rights failings which Corbyn has criticised (but whose criticism you discount), there is constitutional protection for Jews and Christians - as long as they don't try to convert Muslims.

Do you think it's wrong to recognise that both things can coexist?  Should we believe only the bad things, and clap our hands to our ears if someone recognises something positive?  That doesn't seem like your approach to other subjects.

[Xann]

25 minutes ago, blandy said:

... praising Iran's history of inclusivity, tolerance and acceptance of different faiths, traditions and ethnic groupings...

... and cussing Western history of Empire building and land grabs in distant regions.

He's acknowledging that we aren't the paragons of virtue we like to think we are, and Iran isn't entirely a nest of snakes.

This is how you start to come to an accord.

[tonyh29]

50 minutes ago, blandy said:

The hypocrisy. The utter hypocrisy. again.

This man of principle, this campaigner for anti racism, tolerance and fairness, praising Iran for it's tolerance lack of religious bigotry and openness etc, while on the other hand you say signing parliamentary motions condemning it for the opposite of that.

The hypocrisy of him taking money (£5 grand a pop) for going on their state telly, mentioning nothing about intolerance (as far as records show), 

 

 

Ah yes but he was only taking the money because he believes you can only bring about Peace by taking money from Iran

[blandy]

19 minutes ago, peterms said:

It's a mixed picture, isn't it?  Alongside the multiple human rights failings which Corbyn has criticised (but whose criticism you discount), there is constitutional protection for Jews and Christians - as long as they don't try to convert Muslims.

Do you think it's wrong to recognise that both things can coexist?  Should we believe only the bad things, and clap our hands to our ears if someone recognises something positive?  That doesn't seem like your approach to other subjects.

"Mixed" is one way of describing it. As you say, a state with multiple and severe, human rights issues and one that has been the subject of some (token - as in they have no impact on anything ) parliamentary motions from some parliamentarians, including Jezza. Then after condemning them, he takes a paid role on their media in which he fails to challenge any of these human rights violations (as far as the records show), while staying silent, on air, while anti-semitic tripe is aired (though looking uncomfortable). I can't think of many clearer examples of hypocrisy, failing to live up to your words or slippery double standards.

[blandy]

10 minutes ago, Xann said:

He's acknowledging that we aren't the paragons of virtue we like to think we are, and Iran isn't entirely a nest of snakes.

This is how you start to come to an accord.

Well kind of. If only....

When in the presence of Iranians in the UK, or in Iran on Press TV he praises Iran and slates the West, turning a deaf ear and blind eye to all sorts of things you'd perhaps anticipat a fearless crusader for peace and tolerance to maybe not ignore. Pockets wedge.

Comes back to UK, does a spot of anti-semitism to keep his hand in, says little about Iran, signs the occasional, low profile parliamentary "this house notes that Iran is a bit naughty..." motion.

High principles my arse.

Imagine it was, I dunno, Jacob-Rees-Mogg , taking money off Israel TV, where he says nothing about the depravations faced by Palestinians, sits there while some bell comes out with rampant Islamophobic tripe, praises Israel;s tolerance towards its Arab and Muslim neighbours and then came back to the UK and signed a motion "this house notes that Israel did a bad thing.."

You'd rightly call him all sorts of hypocrit and laugh at claims of "only trying to come to accord..."

 

 

 

[peterms]

42 minutes ago, blandy said:

"Mixed" is one way of describing it. As you say, a state with multiple and severe, human rights issues and one that has been the subject of some (token - as in they have no impact on anything ) parliamentary motions from some parliamentarians, including Jezza. Then after condemning them, he takes a paid role on their media in which he fails to challenge any of these human rights violations (as far as the records show), while staying silent, on air, while anti-semitic tripe is aired (though looking uncomfortable). I can't think of many clearer examples of hypocrisy, failing to live up to your words or slippery double standards.

I think the greater hypocrisy is all the people who take part in the co-ordinated campaign against Corbyn, who has criticised Iran on human rights, while themselves remaining silent on things like US torture camps, Israeli mass murder of civilians, and Saudi slaughter.  If they could criticise such things, then perhaps their attacks on Corbyn would seem a little less hypocritical than they are.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

there is constitutional protection for Jews and Christians - as long as they don't try to convert Muslims.

 

You seriously need to have a word with yourself for not seeing that as a method of persecution.

It's the get out clause to beat them all. One quick shout of religious rape and you're stoned to death.

I think this particular defence of St Jezza of Tehran is particularly transparent. 

There aren't many states on this planet I despise more than Israel but Iran would be one of them. 

How Corbyn can actually defend taking money off their state TV to say nice things about them is absolutely reprehensible

[blandy]

14 minutes ago, peterms said:

I think the greater hypocrisy is all the people who take part in the co-ordinated campaign against Corbyn, who has criticised Iran on human rights, while themselves remaining silent on things like US torture camps, Israeli mass murder of civilians, and Saudi slaughter.  If they could criticise such things, then perhaps their attacks on Corbyn would seem a little less hypocritical than they are.

Yeah. And vice versa, I suppose. Hypocrisy everywhere.

[peterms]

Be careful what you wish for.  Here's a view from something called "Christian Patriot Daily", whatever that is.

Quote

...Christian converts are accused of engaging in anti-government and anti-Iranian activities simply for becoming Christians. House churches are forbidden and it is against the law to preach the Gospel in Farsi, Iran’s official language.

Christmas is often a particularly trying time for house churches in the country as believers gathering in large numbers to celebrate Christ’s birth are raided, arrested and threatened. Members of a house church in the city of Dezful have stated that the authorities who raided their gathering in late 2017 not only confiscated Bibles and other Christian materials but also threatened to beat house church members to death or force them out of the country.

At the same time, there is more freedom of religion in Iran than in a number of other Muslim countries. Open Doors has ranked Iran as being the eighth most repressive regime in the world, behind Islamic countries such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia. President Hassan Rouhani is in fact a moderate Islamic president, especially when compared to conservative Muslim presidential possibilities.

While some Christians in Western nations are calling for the overthrow of this democratically elected government, many Christians in Iran are naturally wary of what such a happening would entail. Revolutions in the Middle East and Northern Africa have rarely resulted in increased freedom of religion for Christians and other minorities.

Coptic Christians in Libya who enjoyed freedom of religion under former president Qaddafi are now rounded up, imprisoned and tortured. Iraq offered freedom of religion and had a thriving Christian population under Saddam Hussein; now the country is ranked by Open Doors as being even more repressive than Iran. Bashar Assad in Syria did persecute Christians to some extent but the situation has worsened exponentially since ISIS and other radial Muslims took control of various parts of the country...

 

[chrisp65]

That video, I listened to it right through. It was a dull reading of bland facts. Did I miss something?

It was posted by 'habib' with a link to 'Stand for Peace' an organisation that ceased when its lone remaining director (Sam Westrop) was successfully sued for libel for falsely claiming someone was a terrorist. 

Sam Westrop I've just googled too. Ultra right wing pro Israeli legalise the settlements absolute tube. 

[bickster]

5 hours ago, peterms said:

Be careful what you wish for.  Here's a view from something called "Christian Patriot Daily", whatever that is.

 

Is that the “A few countries are worse so Iran are ok” defence? C'mon

[peterms]

12 hours ago, bickster said:

Is that the “A few countries are worse so Iran are ok” defence? C'mon

No.

I'm explaining that I see Corbyn's position as including both frequent and longstanding criticism of Iran on human rights grounds, while also recognising that in comparison with other countries in the region, and in particular countries which have been the subject of western "regime change", there is some degree of religious freedom - which was the thrust of the comment he made in the video Blandy linked.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

No.

... there is some degree of religious freedom - which was the thrust of the comment he made in the video Blandy linked.

Is there Shiite, a friend of mine from Uni days hasn’t been allowed back since the very early 80’s because he was being educated here when the revolution took place and he’s an atheist. Hasn’t seen parts of his family for the best part of 40 years

Under Iranian law the hypothetically “free” Jew only has to play music slightly too loud and piss off his neighbour, they complain to whichever religious zealot they feel like and that’s it, game over. That is not any shape of religious freedom. To claim otherwise is ludicrous 

[peterms]

15 minutes ago, bickster said:

Under Iranian law the hypothetically “free” Jew only has to play music slightly too loud and piss off his neighbour, they complain to whichever religious zealot they feel like and that’s it, game over. That is not any shape of religious freedom. To claim otherwise is ludicrous 

Rouhani has recognised the need for change with regard to minority rights.  We should be encouraging that, strongly.

Instead, we are standing by as the US drives them back into a bunker, with the eventual aim of regime change - which, as the examples of Iraq and Libya amply demonstrate, will lead to a far worse situation.  Placing the country under siege and trying to break the economy will obviously not lead to improvements in civil liberties.

Please don't present this, or Corbyn's approach, as a denial that there are severe problems in Iran in respect of human rights.  It is not what Corbyn has said, though it is what his more dishonest critics try to pretend.

It's truly bizarre that having criticised Iran more than most, he can be presented as some kind of lapdog for them.  This at the same time that his critics have never a word of criticism for the worst excesses of other states. 

 

[HanoiVillan]

I'm no lover of the Iranian government, or of Corbyn being paid for appearances on Press TV, and it would be much better if he knocked it on the head immediately. 

I have to say, though, that I must have missed all the endless condemnation of the Saudi, Emirati and Bahraini governments from his critics, who obviously have a spotless record in calling out middle eastern human rights abuses.