Nobel winner bites the feed hand
Hi. I've been lurking for some time and have finally found something that bugs me and seems suitable to post here. I hope you will all agree.
It seems that human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi of Iran has chosen to use her brief hour upon the stage (after having won the Nobel Peace Prize) to attack the US for human rights abuses. Hello?
I don't know what sort of human rights law she studied, but it seems to me that she doesn't know very much about the history of it. Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights, but Ms Ebadi would be in no position to discuss it.
What say you?
It seems that human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi of Iran has chosen to use her brief hour upon the stage (after having won the Nobel Peace Prize) to attack the US for human rights abuses. Hello?
I don't know what sort of human rights law she studied, but it seems to me that she doesn't know very much about the history of it. Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights, but Ms Ebadi would be in no position to discuss it.
What say you?
Comments
[url=http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2003/12/11/2003079153[/url]
Originally posted by GregInMex
Hi. I've been lurking for some time and have finally found something that bugs me and seems suitable to post here. I hope you will all agree.
It seems that human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi of Iran has chosen to use her brief hour upon the stage (after having won the Nobel Peace Prize) to attack the US for human rights abuses. Hello?
I don't know what sort of human rights law she studied, but it seems to me that she doesn't know very much about the history of it. Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights, but Ms Ebadi would be in no position to discuss it.
What say you?
Having a hard time trying to find somewhere in Mex to wave that flag?
First off, jeez. I swear. This is like when Michael Moore "blasted" Bush at the Oscars and everyone told him he shouldn't have spoken out. She can say whatever she wants.
Second, are you DENSE? One of the most fundamental of those rights you're busy praising is the freedom to speak out against things you think are wrong. It's not like the Nobel is the exclusive province of the US, anyway. You would be wise to look into the kinds of human rights abuses she went through (being stripped of her judgeship, for one) in Iran, and what abuses this war on terrah is distracting us from (and what nasty bedfellows we've made because of it) before you go chiding her like an impetuous schoolchild.
Cheers
Scott
PS
Sorry if you, in fact, are an impetuous schoolchild.
PPS
Welcome to AI!
First of all: of course she should have the right to say whatever she likes, but she's the dense one if she doesn't realize that the greatest defender of her right is the country she is gratutiously attacking.
Secondly: that Iran is an awful place for someone who values freedom is no surprise to me. The US government (you know, the one that is protecting you right now!) has been saying that for years. In fact, you may recall a little speech someone gave a while back in which Iran was mentioned (hint, the speech involved your buddy Saddam, who is now no longer a problem).
Thirdly: I stopped being a schoolchild back at Fort Jackson, but I guess you wouldn't know anything about that.
Thanks for the welcome, though.
Originally posted by GregInMex
I had hardly expected the tone, Scott, but I guess I should have.
Why, because all of us liberals are "shrill"? Whatever.
First of all: of course she should have the right to say whatever she likes, but she's the dense one if she doesn't realize that the greatest defender of her right is the country she is gratutiously attacking.
And we've done SUCH a good job of defending her human rights back at home, haven't we? Or the rights of women in Saudi Arabia?
Secondly: that Iran is an awful place for someone who values freedom is no surprise to me. The US government (you know, the one that is protecting you right now!) has been saying that for years. In fact, you may recall a little speech someone gave a while back in which Iran was mentioned (hint, the speech involved your buddy Saddam, who is now no longer a problem).
You're right. The US has been saying Iran is a bad place to live--at least since we back Saddam in his war against them. Nevermind that they were our allies through the 1970s.
As for that speech by someone.... Just because Bush opens his mouth and says, you know, words in some semblance of coherent English doesn't make what he says true. Nonetheless...on this little "Axis of Evil" (to which I greatly prefer the draft version of "Axis of Hatred"...they changed it to make it more Biblical), I'm just glad that so many of the really nasty places were mentioned. Both Saudi Arabia and China enjoy their places on that list. Oh wait. They're not on it. Maybe she was right after all....
And man am I glad that SH is out of the picture and not masterminding any kind of organized resistance to the US occpation of Iraq. Boy. That would mean, what, a few attacks a week?
Thirdly: I stopped being a schoolchild back at Fort Jackson, but I guess you wouldn't know anything about that.
Whatever.
Thanks for the welcome, though.
You're welcome.
Cheers
Scott
But in her defense, the clerics were watching. Doesn't she still travel back and forth to Iran? Maybe she wanted to ensure that she still could, and figured that she could be more effective at promoting reform without a fatwah aimed her way. So I accept that there may have been ulterior motives for the content of her speech. But I still don't like how the Nobels are becoming a forum for anti-US propaganda (cf the comments from the prize committee about Annan's prize being intended as a slap to Bush).
There are many, and I am one, who will grant that Saudi and China should be called out. You may have noticed that Bush is doing that (not as fast as I'd like, but he is).
Since Bush took the oval office from Clinton he has pulled most US troops out of Saudi and put pressure on them. Clinton? Never did that.
I would also note that Bush didn't have the ChiCom government raising money for him.
But I'm getting out of order:
I don't think all liberals are shrill (Christopher Hitchens isn't, for one), but you are.
The lawyer under discussion (the point of this thread) has been fighting the Wahabbists. Same enemy as the US. You want to bring the Shah into this? Whatever. And who was in charge back then? Jimmy Carter.
And if what's happening in Iraq is a case of Saddam's masterminding, then perhaps you liberals were right all along: the guy is useless. I guess we should have just let him continue filling those mass graves with people like our Nobel winner friend.
Consistency: look it up, buddy.
Originally posted by GregInMex
It seems that human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi of Iran has chosen to use her brief hour upon the stage (after having won the Nobel Peace Prize) to attack the US for human rights abuses. Hello?
What kind of attitude is this of your part?
Just because she comes from some oppressive country she does not have the right to point at the shortcomings of the west? Because she is at odds with her government she has to endorse all our shit? Because we defend liberty and freedom but only as long as we are not criticized?
Maybe instead of trying to gag her, you should point out which of her statements are wrong. Or else concede she has the same right as every free person: to disagree. Even if it is with both sides.
FWIW the Nobel peace prize is a Norvegian prize, the US has nothing to do with it.
Do we know that there are problems in Cuba?
Do we know that there are problems in China?
Do we know that there are problems in Turkey?
Yes yes yes and yes
Do we know that there are problems in US?
Many doesn´t and buy the official version. So if you had the chance to talk to the world would you tell it the sky is blue and water is wet or that all matter is nothing but strings vibrating?
To say "Hey its only because the clerkery is watching is patronizing. "But I mean it!". "Yes we know you have to say that ***blink blink***"
Originally posted by Towel
[..] criticise the US for holding prisoners at Guantanamo Bay. Clearly, after all, the most important abuse of civil rights in the entire world today. Far more important, to her as well as to us, than anything going on in her native land. If she hadn't opened our eyes to it, how would we ever have known?
[..] But I still don't like how the Nobels are becoming a forum for anti-US propaganda[..]
Whatever eyes she tried to open, she failed at least in one case.
But it is good to know that a peace Nobel price winner criticizing the US is automatically anti-american. I guess, she is anti-islamic and anti-iranian for dissenting with her government too.
Originally posted by GregInMex
Consistency: look it up, buddy.
Consistency has nothing to do with making the enemy of your enemy your friend. Its sticking to principles and calling it out wherever you find it even among those supporting you.
Originally posted by Towel
But I still don't like how the Nobels are becoming a forum for anti-US propaganda.
They gave the peace prize to an american president last year.
Originally posted by midwinter
First off, jeez. I swear. This is like when Michael Moore "blasted" Bush at the Oscars and everyone told him he shouldn't have spoken out. She can say whatever she wants.
Michael Moore's speech was inappropriate for the event no matter which side you may fall on. The Academy Awards ceremony is a celebration of filmmaking. It is not a political forum, especially one that destroys a festive mood. As for the Nobel Prize ceremonies, I find that a far less inappropriate platform for accusatory politics than the Oscars.
Originally posted by GregInMex
Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights, but Ms Ebadi would be in no position to discuss it.
I'm waiting to find out why the concept of human rights are so uniquely American, and what in particular the US has done to aid Iranian women (apart from, of course, installing the Shah as ruler with the help of a CIA led coup d'etat and then supporting him through 20 years of death squads and torture, until in the 70's the machine-gunning of crowds of protesters, led to more protest, and more machine-gunnings in a vicious circle until finally his corrupt regime was toppled by a fundamentally religious revolution that reacted strongly against foreign meddling (unsurprisingly). Of course then the US swapped sides and started helping Saddam to gas them with weapons of mass destruction).
I don't understand your title : why does she bite the feed hand. US has nothing to do with the nobel prices, it's a swedish thing, with swedish fund (the nobel fondation).
The only quote avalaible from your link is this one :
Democracy should not be used as a pretext to attack other countries,
It's an interesting sentance, who merit debate.
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I'm waiting to find out why the concept of human rights are so uniquely American, and what in particular the US has done to aid Iranian women (apart from, of course, installing the Shah as ruler with the help of a CIA led coup d'etat and then supporting him through 20 years of death squads and torture, until in the 70's the machine-gunning of crowds of protesters, led to more protest, and more machine-gunnings in a vicious circle until finally his corrupt regime was toppled by a fundamentally religious revolution that reacted strongly against foreign meddling (unsurprisingly). Of course then the US swapped sides and started helping Saddam to gas them with weapons of mass destruction).
Let me try the logic. Since the Shah was a friend of US and a enemy of the current Iranian system Ebadi must be friends with US.
Something like this:
Friends: (Ebadi, US and Shah) <=> Foe: Iran.
Yeah I am quite sure thats the logic GregInMex is proposing.
Originally posted by GregInMex
Were it not for the US, not only would there be no such concept as human rights, but Ms Ebadi would be in no position to discuss it.
Is the same US that was founded on the genocide of Native Americans and built by slaves, which fought a civil war over emancipation and which finally allowed ALL Black people to vote in ALL parts of the country in THE SECOND HALF OF THE 20TH CENTURY?
Or a different US?
I think the answer is that the easiest accusation against any Iranian reformer is "you're a tool of the US," and so it becomes important that they prove they're not. More evidence that we ought to stay away and nix the Axis of Evil speeches, IMO.
Originally posted by BRussell
I think the answer is that the easiest accusation against any Iranian reformer is "you're a tool of the US," and so it becomes important that they prove they're not.
Or she is seriously concerned the US is about to attack and conquer Iran and does not wish to add fuel to this fire.
Personally I believe she is talking about this specific issue, because she is tries to help transform Iran into a democratic state. She believes in democracy. What do you think bugs her more, the knowledge that theocracies disregard human rights or seing the self-proclaimed democratic poster child erect a Gulag? You expect much more from a democratic nation than from a regime.
Furthermore, she is a lawyer and was even judge. I have no doubt that depriving defendants a fair trial does not go easy with her.
She has written a documentation about the history and state of human rights in Iraq (read this, GregInMex?). You expect someone like this to turn a blind eye?
And she did not unlaterally blast the US, but did talk about her country as well:
"If only the Nobel Peace Prize they have given me was a golden key which could open the prison doors," she said. "All I can do is voice my demands and hope to get a response."