Ed Balls, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer (Labour Party, UK)
Ricky Gervais as Mark Bellison in "The Invention of Lying"
Ever since Tunisians successfully ousted their dictatorial and kleptocratic President Ben Ali after 23 years of his oppressive rule after just one month of protests in December 2010 and January 2011, people have been asking: “Why can Tunisians achieve what Iranians couldn’t in 2009?”
Not having been to Tunisia (but having been part of the protests in Iran in the summer of 2009) and believing that personal experience is a very underestimated research tool
"Please, feel free to copy us."
international politics, I am reluctant to compare the situation in two quite different countries. But the following are a few thoughts that come to mind:
But one rather embarrassing difference was clarified again these days by the figureheads of the opposition in Iran, Mir Hossein Musavi and Mehdi Karrubi, themselves:
If you are a dictator, that’s the kind of opposition you can live with: “Please Mr Dictator, can we protest a bit?” Do these gentlemen not know that Tunisians and Egyptians did not ask for permission, but have been defying curfews and bravely facing beatings and bullets? Asking a brutal, oppressive regime for permission to protest against it is already embarrassing enough, but then even asking for a guarantee of non-violence from the dictatorship that you wish to oust clearly displays the timidity which is one of the reasons why the Iranian protests crumbled. (In another post I point to an Iranian Nobel laureate as a further prominent example of this disheartenment.)
If there is one generalisable lesson from successful revolutions throughout history and around the world, it is this: Courage is a necessary ingredient. If you are not willing to risk anything, the dictator won’t need to budge.
To those of us who have been looking at Tunis and Cairo with the hope for a revival of the Green Movement in Iran: I am afraid we can stop holding our breath.
Ever since I spent 3 months on student exchange in Australia in 1992 and realised that I was not walking upside down, let alone falling off the earth, I have been very adamant against the use of “up” or “down” when describing locations on this planet. Without a reference point in space, there is no “up” or “down”.
Try to think of the world map as follows, for once:
Only too bad that even the publishers of this map cannot refrain from using the words “upside down”.
But this is not the only way in which maps over-emphasise the Northern hemisphere.
With merger control, governments and courts usually try to prevent companies from joining forces and forming a monopoly that would have negative effects for the market and for consumers. A court in Germany has now stopped a merger of a different kind:
The District Court of München (Munich) has stopped the merger of two right-wing parties. In December 2010, the “Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands” (NPD) and the “Deutsche Volksunion” (DVU) had signed an agreement to integrate each other into one new party. Far from posing a substantial threat to democracy though, this merger was rather a symbol of both parties’ dwindling popularity. They have consistently been fighting with the 5 % threshold that parties have to overcome in federal and most state elections in order to be represented in parliament.
Despite some election successes (the NPD is currently represented in the state parliament of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern), these and other right-wing parties have not played an important role in German politics. A major reason for this is lack of intelligent personnel. They are made up of dimwits and ludicrous wannabe-dictators.
"Wait, did anyone actually count the votes?"
The legal reason for the halt of the merger was not any concern about democracy or fear of a stronger right-wing alliance, but rather the typical infighting: Parts of the DVU had filed the lawsuit and ere able to convince the court that the internal poll that the DVU took among its members was not up to democratic standards and therefore has to be repeated.
So much for Aryan supremacy. This inability to follow even the easiest legal procedures might explain the NPD’s and the DVU’s admiration and striving for authoritarian leadership.
Die deutsche Bundesarbeitsministerin will Unternehmen zwingen, ihre Vorstände und Aufsichtsräte mindestens zu 30 % mit Frauen zu besetzen.
Dies führt zu offensichtlichen Fragen, die schon vielfach diskutiert wurden: Was wenn sich nicht genug Frauen bewerben? Was wenn diese Bewerberinnen nicht qualifiziert sind? Was wenn nicht genug Frauen in einem bestimmten Sektor oder einer bestimmten Firma arbeiten wollen? Reicht es nicht aus, Frauen und Männern gleiche Bildungschancen zu geben? Geht es den Gesetzgeber etwas an, wen ich in meinem eigenen Betrieb einstelle? Führen Quoten eventuell sogar dazu, daß Frauen die Motivation verlieren?
Aber mir stellt sich immer eine ganz andere Frage wenn ich die Forderung nach Quoten in Vorständen und Parlamenten höre: Wenn man Gleichbehandlung durch Quoten durchsetzen möchte, warum dann nicht in ALLEN Berufen? Warum keine Quoten für Frauen in Schlachthöfen, bei der Müllabfuhr und der Infanterie? Warum nicht in Bergwerken und auf Fischkuttern?
Solange ich diese Forderungen nicht mit dem gleichen Nachdruck vorgetragen vernehme, weiß ich daß es den Feministinnen nicht um Gleichberechtigung geht. Es geht ihnen um eine Überholspur für ihre eigene Karriere.
(For the English version of this article: https://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/quotas-for-women-why-only-in-boardrooms/)
I regularly receive e-mails with legal questions, even though I am on a sabbatical from lawyering and have only limited time available due to my studies of Philosophy and Development & Economics. No problem with that; if the person sounds nice and they have an interesting legal problem, I am not disinclined to help – time permitting.
Last week I received an e-mail from someone in the Philippines who not only reminded me 3 or 4 times after I didn’t reply immediately (never a strategy to endear yourself to me), but who displayed a disturbing level of greed and a misguided sense of entitlement:
My German father is paying child support until now (I’m 21 years old) as I am still in college. After graduation, I will enroll in a Review school yet to prepare for the board exam. I live a and study in phils. I would be lucky to get an apprenticeship related to my job after I graduate as my aim is to be employed abroad. I would probably be self-sufficient and can stand on my own in 3 years time.
So he wants to receive “child” support until he will turn 24. He goes on to explain that his father has now retired and he would like to garnish the retirement pay.
But then comes the second question:
Another question, is it true that I can claim Lump Sum Inheritance even if my dad is still alive? If so, how is the amount determined? Most importantly, how is this process done?
I was speechless. This child really just sees his father as (1) a provider of income and (2) as standing in the way between him and greater riches.
And of course the answer to the second question is “No”: Without someone’s death, there is no role for inheritance law. (“Ohne Sterben kein Erben” as we rhyme in German.) This is quite logical, as there is no guarantee that any money or property will be left when the father dies. Also, the child might well die before the father’s demise – maybe from too much greed.
Another reason not to have children.
From the advertising campaign “Lottery of Life” by the charity “Save the Children”:
If you think that your wealth, your health, your education and your prospects in life are something that you have earned yourself, think again.
Links:
Unfortunately a record of the abhorrent kind:
Have cranes already been classified as "dual use" goods?
In the first 2 weeks of this year alone, Iran has already executed 47 people. And that is the official number. As the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran points out, this means that one person is executed every 8 hours.
After 179 reported executions in 2010, it looks like the Islamic Republic of Iran is seriously set on becoming the number one state murderer (in per capita terms).
Most executions in Iran are carried out by hanging.
The film “The King’s Speech” depicts the speech problem of King George VI (reign 1936-1952) and how he struggled to overcome his stammering with the help of Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue. Now if you think that this is a bit of a narrow subject and that you are not too interested in the details of British royal history, allow me to proleptically warn you that you might miss one of the best films of this year.
The films begins with a public speech by Prince Albert (as was his name before he became King George VI) which is severely marred by his strong stammering. This opening scene already provides a taste of the very visible pain that this speech impediment causes to the Prince and to his (ever supportive) wife. The portrayal of King George VI as a very likeable person is aided by the contrast of the rest of the Royal Family who are unsupportive to mean, cold-hearted to selfish.
His wife finds the Australian speech therapist Lionel Logue, who doesn’t think much of protocol and is not burdened by any sense of unnecessary respect: “Then your hubby should pop by”, he tells the Prince’s wife. The future king and the therapist get off to a rocky start, but over time develop a relationship of trust and mutual respect. The king visibly enjoys the friendship of “the first commoner I ever really got to know”, while Mr Logue tries to hide the honour he feels for being entrusted with the task of brushing up the speech of the head of state. Their witty and at times sharp exchanges provide the film with a good tempo and add a perfectly dosed amount of humour into this drama. Just one example: After the first war-time speech, King George VI tells his therapist (and by now friend) that he doesn’t know “how I will ever be able to thank you for your help.” To which Mr Logue suggests “How about knighthood?”
“Who invented this bloody radio?”
When watching a film, I am usually more interested in the story, in the dialogues, the scenery, even the music, than in the actors. But in “King’s Speech” the acting by Colin Firth as King George VI is phenomenal. When he is stammering, you can see the pain in his face in every scene, as if he was really affected by this impediment. This is one movie where superb and outstanding acting opens the viewer up to a story that he might not otherwise be too interested in, and even the most die-hard republican (like myself) will find himself rooting for the king in no time. Geoffrey Rush (of “Munich” fame) is also impressive as the speech therapist.
Politics or even history are not the main focus of this film, but if one is inclined to, one can see a sort of juxtaposition between King George VI and Adolf Hitler. The king and his family, one of them the current monarch Queen Elizabeth II as an adorable girl, are watching the news when part of a speech by Mr Hitler is broadcast but not translated. His daughters ask the king “What is he saying?” to which the king – with a slight hint of admiration – replies “I don’t know, but he seems to be saying it rather well.” – This reflects the belief (which I hear quite often from non-German speakers) that Mr Hitler was a great orator. Understanding German, I have to say that I do not share this impression at all. To me, these speeches sound rather ridiculous, pathetic and like that of a yob. – A more interesting aspect to me was the juxtaposition between radio, which in the British Empire was portrayed as the up-and-coming tool for politicians to connect to their people, whereas the Nazis were already trying to utilise moving images, most famously through Leni Riefenstahl’s films.
The former King Edward VIII visiting a friend.
On the history leading up to World War II, the film can be accused of being a bit distortive of historical reality: King Edward VIII, King George VI’s older brother who abdicated less than one year into his reign to get married to an American divorcee, is shown as a selfish and unappealing character. However, the films makes no mentioning of the Duke of Windsor’s (as the title of King Edward VIII was after his abdication) visit to Nazi-Germany in 1937, during which he and his wife met with Adolf Hitler, and of his sympathies for Germany which he expressed after the Nazis’ rise to power. – The other figure who gets off the hook too easily is Winston Churchill who in the film supports George VI against his brother. In reality, Mr Churchill was a vocal supporter of King Edward VIII during the abdication crisis; not one of Mr Churchill’s finest hours.
The Iranian lawyer and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Shirin Ebadi has interpreted the harsh sentences imposed by the Iranian government on fellow lawyers in Iran as a “sign of fear” on behalf of the regime.
That may well be so, although I don’t think that Iran’s rulers have much to fear domestically after the protests of 2009 have fizzled out. And if this brutal regime will ever be brought down, it certainly won’t happen in courtrooms. The role of lawyers in dictatorships is limited to being tolerated in order to maintain an illusion of some resemblance of a legal system, while the judiciary is in fact just another tool of state power and oppression. (When I was interned at Evin prison in Tehran in summer of 2009 and charged with “conspiracy against the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran”, I didn’t get to see a lawyer for the whole week of my detention.)
Fear does play a role though. But possibly more so on Ms Ebadi’s part: When millions of Iranians took to the streets in summer of 2009 to protest against the rigged elections and for political reforms, Ms Ebadi preferred to remain in her exile in London. She, the only Iranian to ever win a Nobel Prize, did not consider it worthwhile to put her personal support behind the protests that were sweeping Iran at that time.
Would it have been dangerous for her to return to Iran? Possibly. But it was also dangerous for anyone else in Iran who took to the streets for protests. Millions had that courage. The Nobel laureate did not. But her presence would have led to even more international attention. Even for a brutal regime, there is a difference between shooting and killing student protesters and arresting hundreds on the one hand, and arresting or even harming the only Nobel laureate the country has ever had on the other hand. – Having seen thousands who took that risk without any of the protection that such fame and publicity bestow, and having taken that risk myself, I respectfully suggest that it would have been worthwhile for Ms Ebadi to step forward at that crucial time.
“Street protests? No thanks, I already have a Nobel Prize.”
But even in her chosen exile in London, Ms Ebadi has been painfully invisible: I have helped to organise a few events against the institutions of the Iranian government here in London, and I have participated in and attended many more. Ms Ebadi never showed up. – This a criticism that can be extended to many Iranians living in exile; but then most of these at least don’t pretend to be human rights activists.
Returning to the subject of fear, Ms Ebadi is quoted as saying: “Any person who pursues human rights in Iran must live with fear from birth to death, but I have learned to overcome my fear.” – It must be terribly fearsome to have to live in London and enjoy personal and political freedom, while in Iran thousands haven been imprisoned for political dissent and 47 prisoners were executed in the first 2 weeks of 2011 alone.
The Nobel Prize comes with an award of 10 million Swedish Krona.
The Happy Hermit 