Iran's descent into fundamentalism continues...

[Darat]

(Thnaks to BPSCG for spotting this.)

http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=11fbf4a8-282a-4d18-954f-546709b1240f&k=32073

Human rights groups are raising alarms over a new law passed by the Iranian parliament that would require the country's Jews and Christians to wear coloured badges to identify them and other religious minorities as non-Muslims.

"This is reminiscent of the Holocaust," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "Iran is moving closer and closer to the ideology of the Nazis."

Iranian expatriates living in Canada yesterday confirmed reports that the Iranian parliament, called the Islamic Majlis, passed a law this week setting a dress code for all Iranians, requiring them to wear almost identical "standard Islamic garments."

The law, which must still be approved by Iran's "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect, also establishes special insignia to be worn by non-Muslims.

Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews would have to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth.

...snip...


Starting to make the Taliban look like moderates!

I doubt any international protest will alter this (as is speculated on in the article). Personally I think it is time to decide whether "we" (EU/China/Russia/USA) even engage with the current leadership.

However I suspect our concerns about oil will mean once again we ignore the inhumanity shown by the current Iranian leadership.

[BPSCG]

However I suspect our concerns about oil will mean once again we ignore the inhumanity shown by the current Iranian leadership.Well, their inhumanity shouldn't last more than a few more years. After all, there are only about 25,000 Jews in Iran, and having them wear yellow cloths should make them easy enough to round up and put into ghettos.

Then the Muslim Iranians can begin working on their final solution to the problem.

[Darat]

Well, their inhumanity shouldn't last more than a few more years. After all, there are only about 25,000 Jews in Iran, and having them wear yellow cloths should make them easy enough to round up and put into ghettos.

Then the Muslim Iranians can begin working on their final solution to the problem.

And the Christians and other religious groups; I wonder if they will discriminate against the non-Shi'ite Muslims as well?

[hh-dragon]

Actually, the Iranian Baha'is are the ones that have it the worst. They're considered a schismatic sect by the theocracy and can be sent directly to jail (and tortured) just for being Baha'i.

[Bandersnatch]

I saw this one on snopes, and tried to find other sources other than the Post. All I could find was referances to how a 2004 Dress Code would adversly effect women.

[Jon_in_london]

Actually, the Iranian Baha'is are the ones that have it the worst. They're considered a schismatic sect by the theocracy and can be sent directly to jail (and tortured) just for being Baha'i.

My washing machine is a schismatic

[The_Serpent]

Begs the question.. What do the Atheists wear?.. Nothing?

[hh-dragon]

Well, there is definitely one true fairly weird recent development in Iran... Ahmadinajad recently proclaimed that from now on, women would be allowed to attend soccer games in special stadium sections.... but then he had to back down and take it back.

There's another good reason why FIFA, with its laudatory accent on the world game promoting equality in every single sphere, should be disturbed by President Ahmadinejad, and not want him as a guest at the Mondial party. Bravely he had ordered the lifting of a blanket ban on Iranian women attending soccer matches, but recently succumbed tamely to the outrage that his instruction provoked among hard-line Shi'ite clerics. Now he's lined up again, this time with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's decision that the idea of women watching from a separate section in the stands "to improve soccer-watching manners and to promote a healthy atmosphere at games" (as Ahmadinejad had argued) is simply too progressive.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/717608.html

[rocketdodger]

Nations like Iran make me think of two deep questions:

1) Should powerful free nations always respect sovereignity?
2) Why did the CIA agree to stop assasination programs?

[Jocko]

Well, there is definitely one true fairly weird recent development in Iran... Ahmadinajad recently proclaimed that from now on, women would be allowed to attend soccer games in special stadium sections.... but then he had to back down and take it back.


That would be a great idea, assuming he was also intent on continuing to use the stadiums for soccer and not beheadings for showing too much elbow.

[Grammatron]

Nations like Iran make me think of two deep questions:

1) Should powerful free nations always respect sovereignity?
2) Why did the CIA agree to stop assasination programs?

#2: Poor results.

[Manny]

I saw this one on snopes, and tried to find other sources other than the Post. All I could find was referances to how a 2004 Dress Code would adversly effect women.UPI's got it. (http://www.upi.com/InternationalIntelligence/view.php?StoryID=20060519-105912-5198r)

The world will ignore this, too, just as it did the genocides in the USSR, China, Cambodia, Rwanda, Sudan, etc. I think they only thing which would make the world call something a genocide and to act before it's too late is if the guy doing it was an actual guy named Hitler1. Never again, except this one last time.



1: And he'd have to be a German of Austrian origin with a funny moustache, too, apparently. The Palestinians elected a guy named Hitler to their legislature and the world still isn't convinced they want to kill the Jews.

[BPSCG]

Begs the question.. What do the Atheists wear?.. Nothing?[Grammar Police]
"Begs the question" does not mean "raises the question."
"Begs the question" means to sidestep a question.
Example:
Q: "Did you rob the bank?"
A: "I've always believed in law and order."
[/Grammar Police]

[geni]

So do people have any alturnative ways to find out how many zoroastrians are living there?

[Jocko]

So do people have any alturnative ways to find out how many zoroastrians are living there?

Sure. Kill them all, pile them like cordwood, and have someone with a clipboard tick them off as they're bulldozed into mass graves. Sheesh, some people have no respect for efficiency.

[rocketdodger]

#2: Poor results.

Really? Wow I always thought it was some kind of an ethical thing, or maybe a gentleman's agreement between first world countries.

In any case WE SURE COULD USE SOME ASSASINS NOW

[Morrigan]

Didn't the Taliban do this a few years ago (pre-9/11)? I recall something about that. Of course, it was before all the world's attention was pointed on them due to the attacks, and hardly anyone cared.

Begs the question.. What do the Atheists wear?.. Nothing?
As far as I know, atheism is illegal.

[BPSCG]

I'm starting to think we should lay waste to this country even if they don't have nukes.

BTW, we've been treated to demonstrations with "Bush = Hitler" banners for about six years now. Has anyone from the unhinged left started demonstrating that "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" yet? Seems like a more apt comparison, for my money.

Or do people find Ahmadinejad too difficult to spell?

[Jocko]

I'm starting to think we should lay waste to this country even if they don't have nukes.

BTW, we've been treated to demonstrations with "Bush = Hitler" banners for about six years now. Has anyone from the unhinged left started demonstrating that "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" yet? Seems like a more apt comparison, for my money.

Or do people find Ahmadinejad too difficult to spell?

I don't think it's a spelling issue so much as a general unwillingness to be named in a fatwah and taking up residence in Rushdie Estates for an undetermined amount of time. Funny how the evil, oppressive, invasive, toalitarian, fascist Bush regime has yet to inspire that kind of anxiety...

[aggle-rithm]

[Grammar Police]
"Begs the question" does not mean "raises the question."
"Begs the question" means to sidestep a question.
Example:
Q: "Did you rob the bank?"
A: "I've always believed in law and order."
[/Grammar Police]

The phrase is commonly misused (I've done it myself), so the "true" meaning may eventually change.

But don't worry, there will always be plenty of work for the Grammar Police! ;)

[aggle-rithm]

Really? Wow I always thought it was some kind of an ethical thing, or maybe a gentleman's agreement between first world countries.

In any case WE SURE COULD USE SOME ASSASINS NOW

I think they get around it by re-defining the word "assassination".

[bob_kark]

I think they get around it by re-defining the word "assassination".

We wouldn't assassinate the President of Iran, we would simply create a new employment opportunity within the Iranian government.

[Jocko]

We wouldn't assassinate the President of Iran, we would simply create a new employment opportunity within the Iranian government.

Yeah! What, are you against job creation? Fascist! :D

[Bandersnatch]

UPI's got it.


UPI apparently got it from the Post.


Iranian expatriates confirmed reports the Iranian parliament, or majlis, has approved a law that would require non-Muslims to adhere to a dress code which mandates they wear "standard Islamic garments," according to Canada's National Post.


It just seems unusual that no news organization picked up on this in 2004. In example, this (http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2334.cfm) site came out before the Post's, yet has no mention of the Christian and Jewish symbols. Then again, that could just mean the writer didn't have enough time to fully read the law...

[geni]

We wouldn't assassinate the President of Iran, we would simply create a new employment opportunity within the Iranian government.

And it would be filled. And little would change. Would killing GWB have much of a effect? I think not.

[Darat]

[Grammar Police]
"Begs the question" does not mean "raises the question."
"Begs the question" means to sidestep a question.
Example:
Q: "Did you rob the bank?"
A: "I've always believed in law and order."
[/Grammar Police]

Not any longer , a post I made a year or two ago when someone objected to its alternative usage:


Because it no longer has just one meaning.

The phrase "To beg the question" also (now) has a legitimate alternate usage of (according to Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable) “…The phrase is now commonly used to mean simply to raise the question, to invite the obvious question,...[/i]"

I posted about this a little while ago which begs the question: How many other people are unaware of what is now an alternate meaning of the phrase? ;)

It’s just an example of how English is an evolving language.




Sorry for the derail.

[rocketdodger]

And it would be filled. And little would change. Would killing GWB have much of a effect? I think not.

I have to disagree with you here geni. I understand what you are getting at, but I think you underestimate the influence individual leaders have on the stupidity of their nations. If someone killed off GWB it would certainly change alot. Not in our day to day lives (since nobody that matters gives a sh-- about politics), but certainly in the nation to nation political game.

[hh-dragon]

And it would be filled. And little would change.

Yep, especially since Ahmadinejad talks big but is relatively powerless, like his slightly less reactionary predecessor. The theocracy holds the real power... Ahmadinejhad can't even integrate a soccer match without their permission.

[Jimbo07]

We NEED corroborating sources.

Google hits are tending to reference the National Post article...

[bob_kark]

And it would be filled. And little would change. Would killing GWB have much of a effect? I think not.

I disagree, I think it would make things much worse. But, one can dream...

[Manny]

UPI apparently got it from the Post.Well, crap. And I even scanned the article to look for an "according to the Post..." My bad, and my apologies.

[senorpogo]

So this is reason #94,549,328 for Jews in Iran to get the heck out of there.

[headscratcher4]

Facinating. If true, completely abhorent. Possibly the spark for intervention.

But wait, we in the U.S. should remember that the regime that rule Iran today is a by-product of our intervention to save Iran back in the 1950.

Iran, working on building a functioning, multi-party democracy, had an elected parliment. That parliment elected a Prime Minister who nationalized the oil industy (ah, a Communist action if there ever was one, save for the fact that the Brits had a monoploy on oil production and refused for years any negotiation with the Iranians about the oil busines, shared profits, development of the country wages, etc. Indeed, the Iranians were essentially 2nd class citizens in their own country).

The young Shah, under pressure from the Brits, sacked the PM and the elected Parliment. The Parliment and the people rose-up and chased the Shah out of Iran. We sent in Kermit Roosevelt and the CIA who managed a military coup, brought the Shah back.

The Shah than spent the next 30 years kissing US butt, doing US bidding, oppressinghis own people and putting a thumb on the development of Democracy. As a result, the religious "sphere" grew into the only outlet for many protests and the opposition to the government, etc. Resulting, in we all know, of the Iranian revolution.

Now, of course, we lament the Iranian government, its abhorent tyranny, its fundumentalist nature and the lack of an active democracy in Iran.

Bush, proclaiming the need for building democracy in the Middle East rattles his saber and threatens Iran. Iran, never having had any acknowledgement from the US of its many and manifest grievences against US policies toward Iran, not only feels insulted, but understandably distrusts the US and all who stand by it (i've heard more than one Irani say: what is this thing about Democracy you in the US always talk about? We once had the beginings of a functioning democracy, but for the sake of oil, you overthrew it...).

Anyway, Iran is a disaster for its people and possibly for the world. It is a disaster that may indeed cause us to go to war (and, we may even be able at some point to justify a war). But, we should always remeber as we look at the disaster that is Iran, we (the US and Britain, prinicipally) played a major role in creating the conditions that now exist there. Iran today is, of course, a failure for which Iranians are ultimately resposible, but it is a failure that arises in great part from our own past mistakes and we have yet to fully acknowledge and deal with those mistakes.

Why should the Iranians listen to us? If the situation were reveresed, would you listen to Iran preach about what is right and correct international behavior? Heck, as little as thirty years ago, there was active, legal as well as passive discrimination against black people in this country -- and I think you will find from looking at newspapers of the period (especially southern newspapers) they were pretty dismissive of the USSR or Castro or whomever suggested that our lectures to the world on democracy rang a little hollow.

Anyway, and so, when someone says "let's assisnate..." or "maybe we ought to take them out even if they don't go nuclear..." it makes me wonder what Iran will look like in another 50 years.

Maybe will get it right this time? History, however, is not looking good.

[Manny]

So this is reason #94,549,328 for Jews in Iran to get the heck out of there.But they were there first! It's not like the Persian Jews were hanging around in Park Slope and decided, "Brooklyn's great and all, but now that the Dodgers have gone west let's move to a majority Muslim theocracy." Jews moved to Iran in the first diaspora. They had been in Persia for over a thousand years before Mohammed had his visions and the Muslims invaded the place.

[geni]

But they were there first! It's not like the Persian Jews were hanging around in Park Slope and decided, "Brooklyn's great and all, but now that the Dodgers have gone west let's move to a majority Muslim theocracy." Jews moved to Iran in the first diaspora. They had been in Persia for over a thousand years before Mohammed had his visions and the Muslims invaded the place.

I think the zoroastrians where there first.

[senorpogo]

But they were there first! It's not like the Persian Jews were hanging around in Park Slope and decided, "Brooklyn's great and all, but now that the Dodgers have gone west let's move to a majority Muslim theocracy." Jews moved to Iran in the first diaspora. They had been in Persia for over a thousand years before Mohammed had his visions and the Muslims invaded the place.

You're definately right. I'm sure most of them have made Iran their homeland for many, many generations. Being forced to move because of safety concerns must be extremely difficult. It is ultimately unfair.

But if the current administration in the US had publicly stated their hate for my religious group/ethnicity, if I were surrounded by a majority of people who believed it their duty to convert or kill me, and if I were being forced to wear a scarlet letter so it would make it easier for them to find and kill me, I think - no matter how unfair it would be and no matter how much it would upset me - I'd be heading for Canada.

Is it unfair? Sure. Does it beat getting murdered? Oh yeah.

[UserGoogol]

Has anyone from the unhinged left started demonstrating that "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" yet? Seems like a more apt comparison, for my money.

What's the point of comparing someone who actually wants to kill Jews to Hitler? It's redundant.

[Chaos]

UPI apparently got it from the Post.



It just seems unusual that no news organization picked up on this in 2004. In example, this (http://www.worldpress.org/Mideast/2334.cfm) site came out before the Post's, yet has no mention of the Christian and Jewish symbols. Then again, that could just mean the writer didn't have enough time to fully read the law...

Just one time...

Iranian expatriates confirmed reports the Iranian parliament, or majlis, has approved a law that would require non-Muslims to adhere to a dress code which mandates they wear "standard Islamic garments," according to Canada's National Post.

Is this like when Iraqi expatriates confirmed that Iraq had WMD?

[senorpogo]

Heck, as little as thirty years ago, there was active, legal as well as passive discrimination against black people in this country -- and I think you will find from looking at newspapers of the period (especially southern newspapers) they were pretty dismissive of the USSR or Castro or whomever suggested that our lectures to the world on democracy rang a little hollow.


I don't get your point. Since my grandfather's generation enacted very poor foreign policy in regards to Iran and because the United States has a history of racial discrimination, we now must sit in silence and let Iran do whatever it wants?

[headscratcher4]

I don't get your point. Since my grandfather's generation enacted very poor foreign policy in regards to Iran and because the United States has a history of racial discrimination, we now must sit in silence and let Iran do whatever it wants?

No, sorry. I am not sure what the solution to the Iran situation is. I tried to indicate that above. We indeed may be forced into a military confrontation over the situation, we may have little choice.

My point is merely one of understanding the situation in its full context. Yes, your grandfather's generation made lousy policy choices with respect to Iran. They are polciy choices that we are not only still paying for today, they are, in many ways, at the heart of the current conflict with Iran.

You can not just say: that was than, this is now, I'm not responsible for then...

The Iranians, I fear, don't believe that...especially as we as a nation have never acknowleged our own role mucking about in their history, internal affairs, supporting the oppressive shah, etc.

There is no foundation for trust or conversation between our two countries because of those actions and their ramifications down through the past fifty years.

It limits our options. It seems to me that trying to deal with foriegn affairs with limited options is both sad and dangerous for all parties involved.

As to my stray point about the US. I guess I was trying to suggest that it might be a bit early for us to get on a high-horse about discrimination, etc. in another country, given our own history (recent history) is not quite as pristine as our rhetoric would have it be. Again, given our history, there is little reason for a country like Iran to listen to us -- other than for the threat of force. Again, I find that sad.

Anyway, Iran is the way it is because, in large messure, the actions of this country since the 1950s...it has been on-going and continual and ignores the basic point of conflict -- i.e. Iranian desire to have their many, real greviences at least acknowleged.

Again, I don't know what the solution is. It may be that fighting is necessary for our national security and our own best interest. However, these actions, like those in the 1950s, 60s and 70s will have profound consequences and it is worth thinking about those possible consequeces and we polish up our six-shooter and head out to the street for a high-noon showdown against the bad guys.

[El Greco]

If this is not accurate... then the amount of juicy details about colored ribbons makes it rather difficult to think it may have simply been a misunderstanding. Someone must have made it up...

[webfusion]

According to Meir Jawadnafar, an Israeli expert on the Iranian government, Tehran has not yet determined the nature of Muslim dress that will be required in the country. Therefore, he says, the claim that it was decided that Iran's Jews would be forced to wear yellow badges on their clothing is baseless. He said the Iranian government has no intention of forcing ethnic groups to wear specific colors.

from Ha'Aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/717902.html
Some Israeli commentators suggested the story still needed to be fully verified, pointing to the fact that the source of the story was Iranian exiles strongly opposed to the regime ruling their country.

I'm still a skeptic... let's wait and see how this develops.

[Beerina]

[Grammar Police]
"Begs the question" does not mean "raises the question."
"Begs the question" means to sidestep a question.
Example:
Q: "Did you rob the bank?"
A: "I've always believed in law and order."
[/Grammar Police]

Actually, it is related to a circular argument. Your use is secondary. His is tertiary, and "controversial". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beg_the_question#Modern_usage)

[Beerina]

Really? Wow I always thought it was some kind of an ethical thing, or maybe a gentleman's agreement between first world countries.

In any case WE SURE COULD USE SOME ASSASINS NOW

Ironically, assassinating their leader would generate less wrath and hatred against us than plowing through a few hundred thousand of their troops.

[Beerina]

I'm starting to think we should lay waste to this country even if they don't have nukes.

BTW, we've been treated to demonstrations with "Bush = Hitler" banners for about six years now. Has anyone from the unhinged left started demonstrating that "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" yet? Seems like a more apt comparison, for my money.

Or do people find Ahmadinejad too difficult to spell?

It's interesting to see someone who is akin to Hitler, not in hyperbole.

...and very sad, too.

[Polaris]

I don't get your point. Since my grandfather's generation enacted very poor foreign policy in regards to Iran and because the United States has a history of racial discrimination, we now must sit in silence and let Iran do whatever it wants?

That seems to be the dominent theme - and it sounds suspiciously like the moving of goalposts that occurs every time Muslims are called on their most recent atrocity. "Why don't you talk about the Crusades? Or Tim McVeigh? Or that murdering Bush? Or those 500 million Iraqi babies starved to death by the Great Satan?" (You get the point).

So if I am to understand Headscratch4 correctly, the Iranian Revolution and the subsequent Islamic Republic of Iran was created because of blowback from a CIA-sponsored bloodless coup in 1953 (this part is factually correct). Therefore, Iranians have to suffer, Iranian minorities have to suffer, and the US is allowed to do nothing, because having one more thing to blame on us is more important than actually preventing Islamic radicals from committing yet another atrocity with the blessing of the left?

[Polaris]

I'm starting to think we should lay waste to this country even if they don't have nukes.

BTW, we've been treated to demonstrations with "Bush = Hitler" banners for about six years now. Has anyone from the unhinged left started demonstrating that "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" yet? Seems like a more apt comparison, for my money.

Or do people find Ahmadinejad too difficult to spell?

Have you ever spoken to any Iranians? I highly recommend it. (You might not want to repeat your opening sentence though.)

[pipelineaudio]

That seems to be the dominent theme - and it sounds suspiciously like the moving of goalposts that occurs every time Muslims are called on their most recent atrocity.

This is the famous Tu Quoque logical fallacy defense of the ulema

Without tu quoque (you too), the typical CAIR defenses fall to pieces

this is usually prefaced with "...but the jooooooooooooooos"

[a_unique_person]

According to Meir Jawadnafar, an Israeli expert on the Iranian government, Tehran has not yet determined the nature of Muslim dress that will be required in the country. Therefore, he says, the claim that it was decided that Iran's Jews would be forced to wear yellow badges on their clothing is baseless. He said the Iranian government has no intention of forcing ethnic groups to wear specific colors.
from Ha'Aretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/717902.html
Some Israeli commentators suggested the story still needed to be fully verified, pointing to the fact that the source of the story was Iranian exiles strongly opposed to the regime ruling their country.

I'm still a skeptic... let's wait and see how this develops.

I agree. As an 'apologist', I am just asking for what sceptics should ask for, proof. If it is true, it is a serious problem, but lets convict them for being guilty based on evidence.

[webfusion]

Debka (http://www.debka.com) reports that their sources in Iran have obtained an actual copy of the proposed regulations regarding dress --
The Iranian draft law which raised a world uproar was obtained Friday night, May 19, by DEBKAfile, and proved to contain no clause on a Yellow Star for Jews or special dress for non-Muslim minorities in its 13-clause text.

The Debka report confirms, however, that during the writing of the regulations, speakers in the majlis debate proposed that non-Muslim minorities be made to wear distinctive clothes, yellow being the preferred color for Jews.
The legal wrangling continues, and there is still opportunity for changes to be made to the clauses.
"At the end of the majlis debate, the final draft will be put to the vote;
with or without the proposed discriminatory clauses remains to be seen."


ETA -- the article linked by Darat in the OP is no longer available!

====================================
Some people have suggested in internet chats and forums that all jews in every nation wear the yellow star for the next week, to embarrass the Iranians into backing away from the very idea.
I am sure that after the end of Shabbat (Sabbath) on Saturday night, more will be heard about this... right now, jews worldwide are offline in observance of the sabbath.

[FireGarden]

The Debka report confirms, however, that during the writing of the regulations, speakers in the majlis debate proposed that non-Muslim minorities be made to wear distinctive clothes, yellow being the preferred color for Jews.
That's not the original claim though, unless the speaker in question was Ahmadinajad.



CBS says the Iranian embassy has denied it, so too has Iran's press officer to the UN
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/05/19/publiceye/entry1637037.shtml

Other sites say that the topic was summer clothing for women.

This one says the plans were not discussed in parliament.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060519-1456-iran-dresscode.html

Iranian Jewish lawmaker Morris Motamed told the AP: “Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament. Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here.”

This one even says that CanWest itself is admiting the story is false. (I can't check that, their homepage won't open -- maybe because my browser is set to not run active scripts.) But the original link in the OP says "This story is no longer available." Is that a retraction?

http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=4709&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

Canada's National Post broke a sensational story; a story so big, the flagship of the CanWest Global media monolith denied it's nationwide dailies, keeping the scoop to themselves.

Today, the Post reported Iran has signed into law a provision requiring Iranian Jews and Christians wear identifying badges declaring their religious affiliation. Below the 18 point high headline, a picture of a man and woman, circa Hitler's Germany, each sporting the infamous Yellow Star of David stitched to their overcoats.

It's a stunning development, one that should shock the world, and finally convince all of Iran's despotism. But of course, the National Post story is a complete fabrication; a fact Canwest itself is now "reporting."

El Greco
If this is not accurate... then the amount of juicy details about colored ribbons makes it rather difficult to think it may have simply been a misunderstanding. Someone must have made it up...

Iraqi ex-pats swore blind that Iraq had WMDs.

If the story is false, then how many will see the retraction? It's been all over the web in nearly every political blog.

I would like to know if CanWest has made a retraction. "no longer available," doesn't count!

[Darat]

Well that will teach me - I suspect "confirmation bias" e.g. I expect the worse from the Iranian government so when it was something that was in line with my expectations I was less critical and sketpical then I should have been.

Thanks to the people who were actually skeptical about the report and went to the effort to try and get to the bottom of the story.

[Polaris]

The Iranians I talk to (ones who live in Iran) say the story's not true.

[varwoche]

But wait, we in the U.S. should remember that the regime that rule Iran today is a by-product of our intervention to save Iran back in the 1950. And even more recently, Iran was on a path towards moderation/democracy. Then came the famous axis of evil speech followed by the invasion of Iraq followed by the mullahs re-asserting power.

[Elind]

Oh cool. About time someone pointed out the real reasons Iran is headed where it is. Are you going to mention something about winning hearts and minds soon? Please?

[a_unique_person]

Oh cool. About time someone pointed out the real reasons Iran is headed where it is. Are you going to mention something about winning hearts and minds soon? Please?

Are you talking about 'winning hearts and minds' or just being a good global citizen?

[Elind]

I was, obviously, being sarcastic about pie-in-the-sky knee-jerk posts about what-is-really-wrong-in-the-world-today, or yestersday or tomorrow. BTW, where did you get the global-citizen label? Is this something that you think applies selectively? I have this funny feeling that the followers of what's-his-name in Iran think it applies to them; with a god's approval.

As an aside, just what is the time in Australia right now?

[Skeptic]

I'm starting to think we should lay waste to this country even if they don't have nukes.

BTW, we've been treated to demonstrations with "Bush = Hitler" banners for about six years now. Has anyone from the unhinged left started demonstrating that "Ahmadinejad = Hitler" yet? Seems like a more apt comparison, for my money.


But if you go out with a protest sign saying "Bush-Hitler" or "The USA is a Theoratic Dictatorship", you know in advance nothing will happen to you. So you can convince yourself you're "speaking truth to power" and are a "brave dissident" without any personal risk.

(It's 2006; where are the detention camps for all "dissidents" and "non-Christians" that ANSWER & co. had been promising us Bush is "planning" for years now? Are the jails full of brave librarians who let kids borrow atheist books, the sure result of the "Patriot Act"?)

If you say something bad about the religion of peace, however, some of its more unhinged believers might find out where you live and blow up your house. That usually stops the "brave fighters for truth" in their tracks.

[Skeptic]

And even more recently, Iran was on a path towards moderation/democracy. Then came the famous axis of evil speech followed by the invasion of Iraq followed by the mullahs re-asserting power.

Hooray, the "root cause" for the latest disgusting, mideaval, violent Islamist behavior had been discovered (again)--and it's the evil Bush / USA / jews (again).

Surprise, surpise, surprise.

Weird logic, though, isn't it? "How DARE Bush says we're evil! Let's put yellow stars on the jews--that'll show 'im!". A bit like "How DARE that feminist say I'm a chauvinist pig! I'm going to go out and rape some bitches! That'll show her!"

I mean, aren't they simply proving that Bush was 100% correct?

[UserGoogol]

Even if he was, what difference would that make? The value of an act is the value of the consequences which follow from it. If calling Iran evil led to Iran becoming even more evil, then calling Iran evil was a bad move, even if he was factually correct in saying it.

I think the problem is that people (on both sides of the political spectrum) are too focused on the concept of blame. Causality is far too complex a concept for it to be possible to just distribute blame as if it was some sort of finite quantity. Life is a hugely chaotic system, and everything effects everything else. The question is not whether something caused something else, but rather to what degree each component of the system influenced the thing and what sort of actions can be made to prevent or encourage similar things from happening in the future.

With a murder, for instance, we might like to say that the murderer is to blame for the death. But that's of course just a simplification, as all the actions of the murderer were influenced by a bunch of other people. Some people (and strawmen) would like to stop there and say that "society" is to blame, but of course that's a gross oversimplification as well, because their actions were themselves influenced by a bunch of other events. The problem with looking for a "root cause" is that there is no root; it goes all the way back.

And in this situation, sure, Iranian politicans played more of a role in bringing Iranian politics to the state it's currently in than Bush himself, but there's not much we can directly do about what Iranian politicians do. American politicians, on the other hand, are more reachable.

Sometimes people are crazy and decide that they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth. But sadly, crazies are not the sort of people to listen to reason, so trying to effect the situation from that part of the causal chain is a bit impractical, to say the least.

[FireGarden]

Weird logic, though, isn't it? "How DARE Bush says we're evil! Let's put yellow stars on the jews--that'll show 'im!".

You have evidence the story was anything other than a fabrication?

Even the Jerusalem Post has published a correction:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1145961380165&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The 13-article bill, which received preliminary approval a week ago, makes no mention of requiring special attire for religious minorities.

And nobody in this thread was making the argument you mock. Nobody in this thread tried to apologise away badges for religious minorities.

[peptoabysmal]

But wait, we in the U.S. should remember that the regime that rule Iran today is a by-product of our intervention to save Iran back in the 1950.
If the experiment goes bad, you throw it in the autoclave and move on to the next one.

[a_unique_person]

If the experiment goes bad, you throw it in the autoclave and move on to the next one.

It wasn't an experiment, it was a country with real, live people living in it. If the US had admitted it's responsibility, apologised and opened up diplomatic relations again, it might never have got to this stage.

[a_unique_person]

Hooray, the "root cause" for the latest disgusting, mideaval, violent Islamist behavior had been discovered (again)--and it's the evil Bush / USA / jews (again).

Surprise, surpise, surprise.

Weird logic, though, isn't it? "How DARE Bush says we're evil! Let's put yellow stars on the jews--that'll show 'im!". A bit like "How DARE that feminist say I'm a chauvinist pig! I'm going to go out and rape some bitches! That'll show her!"

I mean, aren't they simply proving that Bush was 100% correct?

perhaps you could point out to me where Varwoche mentioned Jews?

[a_unique_person]

I was, obviously, being sarcastic about pie-in-the-sky knee-jerk posts about what-is-really-wrong-in-the-world-today, or yestersday or tomorrow. BTW, where did you get the global-citizen label? Is this something that you think applies selectively? I have this funny feeling that the followers of what's-his-name in Iran think it applies to them; with a god's approval.

As an aside, just what is the time in Australia right now?

There are a lot of things wrong with the world today, many of them having little to do with the USA. However, if the topic is about something the US had a huge influence in, then the US may get named. If the US did not have it's finger in so many pies, it might not get burned so often.

[webfusion]

Although much comment is being made on the report of the Canadian National Post being false, there are indeed elements that are worth considering as truthful --- the new Iranian dress-code regulations are not finalized as law, and revisions and additions to the various clauses are indeed still possible.


1. The idea of religious demarcation had only arisen in discussing a law defining Iranian dress code. The National Post quoted an Iranian commentator who said the idea of external identification of non-Muslim minorities was only raised as a secondary motion.

2. 'The purpose for the law was to prevent Muslims from becoming najis "unclean" by accidentally shaking the hands of non-Muslims in public.'

3. As mentioned by DEBKA, there are indeed members of the Iranian Parliament who would like to see the colored patches, and the Supreme Islamic Leader, Ali Khameni, apparently has the ultimate say-so.

4. Polaris "talks to Iranians" (in Iran), and of course, since the citizens of that democratic and open society have access to a free press and independent media, they must be assumed to be fully informed about the true intentions of the Islamic mullahs (NOT!).

It is worth keeping an eye on the story in future, and not dismiss it as "outrageously false" ------

[a_unique_person]

No one said "outrageously", IIRC. Just pointing out the evidence.

[webfusion]

The Iranians are the ones saying that it's an outrageous lie. It's their standard-form denial.

::::::: the National Post quoted the spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa, who said of the original report, "These kinds of slanderous accusations are part of a smear campaign against Iran by vested interests that need to be denounced at every step." ::::::::


and


::::::: The report was described by Iran's local state media as a failed "campaign lead by a Zionist newspaper.'' ::::::::

Yes, it is accurate to say that I have not personally seen the exact word "outrageous" being quoted, but that is the general attitude about the story coming from Iran. They are "outraged" at having been accused of coming up with the Yellow Badge idea, yet, in the details I have read, this story has some elements of truth, and AFAIK, there was indeed mention of the colored badges concept during debates in the majlis (Parliament).

[varwoche]

Hooray, the "root cause" for the latest disgusting, mideaval, violent Islamist behavior had been discovered (again)--and it's the evil Bush / USA / jews (again). In the construction of this ridiculous strawman, who exactly are you quoting here? (bolding added)

[FireGarden]

Well that will teach me - I suspect "confirmation bias"

We're all prone to that kind of thing. I respect you for admitting your error.

Although much comment is being made on the report of the Canadian National Post being false, there are indeed elements that are worth considering as truthful --- the new Iranian dress-code regulations are not finalized as law, and revisions and additions to the various clauses are indeed still possible.

Are you actually hoping they'll pass such a law? Even the newspaper that ran the original claim has pulled the story. Have they given an explanation for their error?

The National Post quoted an Iranian commentator who said the idea of external identification of non-Muslim minorities was only raised as a secondary motion.

And they quote which sources?
I already quoted above:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060519-1456-iran-dresscode.html

Iranian Jewish lawmaker Morris Motamed told the AP: “Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament. Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here.”

According to this source, he was present in parliament at the time:
http://www.sundaytimes.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,19196947%255E1702,00.html

MPs representing Iran's Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian minorities sit on all parliamentary committees, particularly the cultural one, he said

And he also reckons "It is a lie, and the people who invented it wanted to make political gain"

2. 'The purpose for the law was to prevent Muslims from becoming najis "unclean" by accidentally shaking the hands of non-Muslims in public.'

The purpose of the law was:

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/world/20060519-1456-iran-dresscode.html

Iran's conservative-dominated parliament is debating a draft law that would discourage women from wearing Western clothing, increase taxes on imported clothes and fund an advertising campaign to encourage citizens to wear Islamic-style garments.

3. As mentioned by DEBKA, there are indeed members of the Iranian Parliament who would like to see the colored patches, and the Supreme Islamic Leader, Ali Khameni, apparently has the ultimate say-so.

Which members of the Iranian parliament?

Polaris "talks to Iranians" (in Iran), and of course, since the citizens of that democratic and open society have access to a free press and independent media, they must be assumed to be fully informed about the true intentions of the Islamic mullahs (NOT!).

And even when the law gets passed it will be passed in secret and enforced in secret so that no-one (not even the Iranian Jewish lawmaker quoted above) will know about it! You read it here first!



This story seems to have been an outright lie. Too different to actual events, and loaded with too much detail to be a misunderstanding.

[Elind]

In the construction of this ridiculous strawman, who exactly are you quoting here? (bolding added)

:confused: What exactly did you mean previously then?

Since you like to find cause and effect after the fact, may I suggest you stick it to the French instead. If they hadn't been so tolerant of fundamental religious bigots they might have kicked out Khomeni instead of giving him sanctuary to run his revolution and, who knows, the fundies might never have taken over.

[varwoche]

:confused: What exactly did you mean previously then? Did I refer to "root cause"? Did I blame "jews" "again", as Skeptic's post indicates. No, of course not.

I do find fault with US foriegn policy however. Normally I'd be inclined to expand, but seeing as I've received my semi-annual reminder as to why it is that I avoid threads related to the middle east, I'll leave it at that.

[webfusion]

FireGarden: You have evidence the story was anything other than a fabrication? This story seems to have been an outright lie.

It was.
The National Post , and laid the blame for the story in the lap of veteran journalist and Iran analyst Amir Taheri.

Here are the people who made various statements, leading to the information I presented in my recent post:

1. Ali Reza Nourizadeh, an Iranian commentator on political affairs in London, suggested that the requirements for badges or insignia for religious minorities was part of a “secondary motion” introduced in parliament, addressing the changes specific to the attire of people of various religious backgrounds.

"That account could not be confirmed," writes Chris Wattie, in the May 19th retraction in the National Post.
LINK TO RETRACTION HERE:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=6626a0fa-99de-4f1e-aebe-bb91af82abb3 (]retracted the article[/url)

2. Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said the subject of “what to do with religious minorities” came up during debates leading up to the passing of the dress code law.

3. Meir Javdanfar, an Israeli expert on Iran and the Middle East who was born and raised in Tehran, offered his own statement:
Mr. Javdanfar said that not all clauses of the law had been passed through the parliament and said the requirement that Jews, Christians and Zoroastrians wear special insignia might be part of an older version of the Islamic dress law.

4. Rabbi Marvin Hier, the dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre in Los Angeles, acknowledged that he did not have independent confirmation of the requirement for Jews to wear badges, but said he still believes it was passed.
“We know that the national uniform law was passed and that certain colours were selected for Jews and other minorities,” he said. “[But] if the Iranian government is going to pass such a law then they are not likely to be forthcoming about what they are doing.”


Indeed.



ETA: [url]http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/718220.html
Meanwhile, Iranian students have started a new campaign, called ---
"The Fund for Demolishing Israel"

For a minor laugh, in the article, near the bottom, is this quote: (obviosusly a typo)
In April, Iran said it would give the Palestinian Authority US$50 in aid.

[FireGarden]

But when Ali Reza Nourizadeh (whose account could not be confirmed) suggests the dress code was mentioned in a “secondary motion", and Sam Kermanian says it was raised in the debate leading up to the vote -- aren't they claiming different things? "Secondary motion" is definitely parliamentary; "Debate leading up to" could be talk in the street.

The Jewish MP (one of Kermanian's sources) claims to have been at the parliamentary discussion and is quoted (in other newspapers) saying “Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament." So if Kermanian has other sources, are they talking about discussion in parliament?

Meir Javdanfar is perhaps trying to explain away the confusion without calling it lies.

If Rabbi Marvin Hier has no independent confirmation then he has nothing to support his claim. And if such a law gets passed, then they are going to have to tell people eventually! Otherwise how will people know what colours to wear?

And I like the way the retraction apologises for the error: "Yeah, we have no real evidence that Iran is doing this -- other than it's the sort of thing they would do. Hey, even the Prime Minister said so."

It seems to me they made the journalistic error of jumping for joy when they heard the news, and then printing the story before their feet returned to Earth.

Put this newspaper on your bogus list. At best, they are amateurs.

[Skeptic]

It's certainly good news if this is not true.

Still, I don't know why one should put the newspaper on the "bogus" list--it seems to have quickly apologized and retracted the error.

Newspapers aren't "bogus" if they make errors (though that's a question of frequency and severity), but if they deliberately make error and do not correct them.

BTW, Iran was, unfortunately, the first place in the world where jews were required to wear distinctive dressing, but that was back in the 9th century, which can hardly be judged by today's standards.

Such distintive clothing is bad enough, but most of the horror if it today has to do with the fact that the Nazis used it as a prelimenary for total extermination. The 9th-century Iranian ruler didn't have similar ideas.

[FireGarden]

Still, I don't know why one should put the newspaper on the "bogus" list--it seems to have quickly apologized and retracted the error.

It's a matter of comparison.
When CBS heard the news, they specifically put up a page saying they had heard it but weren't going to run with it until they could confirm it. That, to me, is professional.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2006/05/19/publiceye/entry1637037.shtml

"It's potentially an explosive story but we won't touch it until we have some sort of concrete confirmation, and we haven't come close to that," says Dan Collins, senior producer for CBSNews.com

I don't know if you've heard about Piers Morgan, who was the editor of the paper that printed the mocked up pictures of British troops abusing Iraqis. The specific story was a lie (apparently by British troops, last I heard), and Morgan fell for it because he was in a rush to print.

Even though genuine photos/videos exist of genuine mistreatment of Iraqis by British troops, I still regard Morgan as a bad journalist because of that incident.

He went to print without independent verification.


ETA CBS quote
ETA2 Just realised, one of the local went with it. link above: "The story has run on WCBS 880 local radio news here in New York, however. "

It was a local paper in Canada, also, as I understand it.

[Ralph]

[QUOTE=webfusion;1651810

2. 'The purpose for the law was to prevent Muslims from becoming najis "unclean" by accidentally shaking the hands of non-Muslims in public.'

[/QUOTE]





Hey--what about lepers !! Shouldn't they have their own colored badge?

I'm sure it was just an oversight on someone's part.

[Polaris]

Hooray, the "root cause" for the latest disgusting, mideaval, violent Islamist behavior had been discovered (again)--and it's the evil Bush / USA / jews (again).

Surprise, surpise, surprise.

Weird logic, though, isn't it? "How DARE Bush says we're evil! Let's put yellow stars on the jews--that'll show 'im!". A bit like "How DARE that feminist say I'm a chauvinist pig! I'm going to go out and rape some bitches! That'll show her!"

I mean, aren't they simply proving that Bush was 100% correct?

Sort of like "How dare the Danes say we're violent, barbaric thugs! Let's go burn down buildings and threaten terrorism and beheadings if they say so again!"

Or "How dare the US foist a murderous dictator on we peaceful Iranians?! Let's hold a revolution and replace him with a shariah-based Islamic state to teach them a lesson!"

[Nova Land]

If this is not accurate... then the amount of juicy details about colored ribbons makes it rather difficult to think it may have simply been a misunderstanding. Someone must have made it up...
You raise an important question. And the Firedoglake site (which I have begun checking out periodically, because it has the best and most informative analysis I've been able to find about the Fitzgerald investigation into the outing of CIA agent Valerie (Plame) Wilson) has an interesting entry today addressing the question.

Who Started the Iranian Badge Story? (http://www.firedoglake.com/2006/05/22/who-started-the-iranian-badge-story/)

After reading about it early last Friday, I spoke with Aaron Breitbart, a senior researcher of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who was eager to confirm it, using words like "throwback" to the Nazi era, "very true" and "very scary," as well as offering that the dean and founder of the Center, Rabbi Marvin Hier, had been on the phone for "four hours" confirming the story...

Reporting that the Simon Weisenthal Center confirmed Taheri’s story made it around the web and beyond... Because when an organization like that confirms something as alarming as the Iranian government passing a law to identify Jews and non-Muslims, it rightly causes four alarm Holocaust revisited hysteria. That was the intention.

After the story was thoroughly debunked, I put in another call to Breitbart late on Friday, then called back again today. I wanted to get a comment from him about the discrediting of the story and see if I could ascertain why the Simon Wiesenthal Center would unabashedly back such an outrageous falsehood...

... [W]ho got the Simon Wiesenthal Center to stick their necks out on this bogus Iranian badge story, risking their very reputation and funding credibility, and who had what to gain by doing so? ...
The blog entry contains a link to the press release from Amir Teheri (http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19508), in which Teheri writes:

Regarding the dress code story it seems that my column was used as the basis for a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun.

As far as my article is concerned I stand by it...
Yikes!

Teheri goes on to give an explanation for his actions which further lowers my opinion of him, and concludes by stating:

... I raised the issue not as a news story, because news of the new law was already several days old, but as an opinion column to alert the outside world to this most disturbing development.
A tag at the end of the press release notes that: "Iranian author and journalist Amir Taheri is a member of Benador Associates." There was a diary about Teheri several days ago at DailyKos which briefly explored who he is and what Benador Associates is.

The Iranian "badge" story: Neo-con propaganda? (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/19/16425/0620), by paleo, May 19, 2006

Google the name Amir Taheri and you will find that his writings are published by National Review, the New York Post, the Jerusalem Post and the Weekly Standard. But more significant is that he has been sponsored by Benador Associates, http://www.benadorassociates.com/ an erstwhile public relations firm whose founder, Eleana Benador has major right-wing connections:

"Eleana Benador has been instrumental in helping to publicize key neoconservative figures in recent years, with her company Benador Associates serving as a principal neoconservative marketing agency..." There's as much speculation as fact in these blog entries, but it is good to see people beginning to pursue this question.

[Nova Land]

Josh Marshall's TalkingPointMemo.com has also been doing some good entries on this topic, and provides links to a pair of good articles at Jim Henley's Unqualifed Offerings (http://highclearing.com/) site.

Anatomy of a Smear (http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2006/05/22/5132)

Or, How a Bill Becomes Propaganda.

The last maneuver in producing “fake but accurate” journalism-like activities is the smoothest of all: claim that the story was true at one point, but your reportage forced the foe to retreat. If it’s not strictly factual now, that’s only because the enemy reversed course and covered their tracks...
Taheri-ng It Up AGAIN! (http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2006/05/22/5131)

Amir Taheri “clarifies” his column of Friday:

As far as my article is concerned I stand by it...

Notice that nowhere in any of Taheri’s articles, the National Post column, the New York Post version or the Benador Associates “clarification,” does Taheri avow that he has obtained a copy of the bill...Henley goes on to do a good job of tearing apart Taheri's attempt to justify his actions. I was not familiar with Henley's site before, but am tempted to visit there again some day to see what else he writes.

[FireGarden]

One of Nova's links leads here:
A Vote of Thanks Is Expressed By Iranian Jews (http://www.nysun.com/article/33126)


I can't say it better:
Anatomy of a Smear (http://highclearing.com/index.php/archives/2006/05/22/5132)

Which brings us to Eli Lake’s story today in the New York Sun: “A Vote of Thanks Is Expressed By Iranian Jews.” The headline works best if you don’t read the article. It’s supposed to catch the momentary attention of the casual newsreader. A few days ago she read something about Iran dressing the Jews (and the Zoroastrians and the Christians, but they don’t make sexy propaganda objects) in funny clothes. Then, she saw something about how maybe that wasn’t really true. Now the Sun headline flashes by in an RSS feed list or from a newsvendor in the subway station, and she thinks, “I get it. It was true, but Iran backed off under pressure.”

The NYSun article claims the issue was discussed -- Reuters disagrees:

Reuters Article (http://in.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-05-21T190011Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-250326-1.xml&archived=False)

A copy of the bill obtained by Reuters contained no such references. Reuters correspondents who followed the dress code session in parliament as it was broadcast on state radio heard no discussion of proscriptions for religious minorities.

The headline says Iranian Jews are grateful. Oh I suppose when their MP says, "Our enemies seek to create tension among the religious minorities with such news and to exploit the situation to their benefit," he's expressing gratitude.

But the headline is correct, because "Mr. Kermanian, who is the secretary-general of the Iranian American Jewish Federation in Los Angeles," has expressed thanks. And there must be a few others.

[Nova Land]

Taylor Marsh has a good follow-up (http://www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=24079), in which she talks to Aaron Breitbart of the Simon Wiesenthal Center to try to determine how and why the Wiesenthal Center lent its support to what turned out to be a made-up story. Breitbart is the person Marsh had talked with on Friday and at that time he had confirmed the story about a law to require Jews to wear yellow strips of cloth. Marsh was less than impressed by what Breitbart had to say in her follow-up phone call with him:

First, he said he doesn't know John Turley-Ewart... Breitbart also said he wasn't aware that Taheri was a member of Benador Associates... Taheri's association with Benador Associates is a critical part of this yarn and it is my assessment that it is simply not credible that the Center didn't know his affiliation with Benador.

Breitbart gave quite a lot of weight today to the fact that Iranian "counselor officials" had not denied Taheri's story... Breitbart then offered that this story was "floated about" but that as far as proving it, "certainly not" ...

This is not the tone, nor the content of what Mr. Breitbart told me on Friday, when he used words to say the story was "absolutely true," a "throwback" to the bad old days of Hitler, and that it was "very true" and "very scary." He went further on Friday to say that Rabbi Hier, the dean and founder to the Simon Wiesenthal Center, had talked to experts in Iran who've confirmed his worst fears, ending with the coup de grace: "It's on Drudge" ...

[Nova Land]

There's also a good follow-up by Larry Cohler-Esses, editor-at-large of The Jewish Week. In a story titled "Yellow Journalism" (http://thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12511) (and subtitled Anatomy of a hoax: False story alleging special yellow insignia for Iranian Jews spurred by Wiesenthal Center's flawed confirmation), Esses writes:

Throughout the news cycle, the credibility of Jewish groups supporting the charges -- or simply reacting with immediate expressions of outrage to the reports -- played an important role in keeping the story going.

In an interview with The Jewish Week, The Wiesenthal Center's Rabbi Cooper denied he had ever confirmed to the National Post the allegations about mandated dress for religious minorities.

"We were shown an advance copy of the Taheri story," he said. "We were asked for our reaction. I checked with some of my sources in the Middle East. We heard from our sources, yes, a bill was passed last month about a national dress code. Number two, Mr. Taheri over the last 30 years has taken on the Iranians and is a serious journalist. He is not prone to reckless accusations."

Asked about Turley-Ewart's insistence that Cooper had, indeed, confirmed the story about yellow stripes for Jews and red stripes for Christians -- and their e-mail exchange focusing on this point specifically -- Cooper declined to elaborate.

[FireGarden]

Has anybody cleared up who Taheri's source was?

There is some hoo-ha about Mostafa Pourhardani
NYPost reprint of Taheri's article (http://www.nypost.com/commentary/68850.htm)

"Iranians have always worn trousers," says Mostafa Pourhardani, minister of Islamic orientation.

Who doesn't seem to exist. As Nova's link says:

'Yellow' Journalism (http://thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=12511)

But, as first pointed out in a comment on the Just Adventure Forum Web site, Iran's government has no ministry by that name. It does have a Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. But its minister is Mohammad Hossein Saffar Harandi. Google searches for the name "Mostafa Pourhardani" in English and Persian turn up only hits stemming from Taheri's article.

[Polaris]

Amir Taheri has posted a response to the controversy - he stands by the story.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/article/19511

I have spoken to Iranians who actually live in Iran, and have been assured there's nothing to the story. I suspect Taheri is guilty of wanting to believe something more than wanting to check the facts first. This is unfortunate, as he's one of the few investigative journalists who I believe "gets it" with regard to the true danger Islam poses to Western civilization, particularly in Europe.