RUTHFULLY YOURS

It would seem that sanctions should be enforced and the Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) placed on the U.S. list of Designated Foreign Terrorist Organizations — to show that the U.S. stands for human rights, protects the innocent and tries to save the lives of those sentenced to death by Iran’s corrupt government.

Bills to sanction Iran that are being presented in Canada or other Western countries are, in fact, receiving scant attention. Canada has been talking about reopening its Iranian embassy, and pro-Iran advocates, such as the Iranian Canadian Congress, are pushing back against legislation that condemns Iran.

Would any modern Western country really wish to appear to be on the side of this barbaric regime, or in any way to assist it?

A subtle, but dangerous force is spreading throughout the West. It has been seeping into the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, the Middle East, the United States, South America and much of Europe.

Who are they?

They are pro-Iran regime advocates. They appear to be Westerners, but pursue a unique agenda. Under the guise of being average Western citizens, they have been infiltrating the social, political, economic and religious sectors of most Western societies.

These are not my words. They came directly out of the mouth of Iran’s Minister of Intelligence, Mahmoud Alavi. In a rare, recent interview on Iran’s state media, he stated that many Westerners with a dual citizenship “have a lobby group for the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

“We should not accuse them and say things that discourage them about the ancestral homeland, this is not good, and losing this capital is not good for the regime… It is wrong to say that all dual nationals are traitors, spies, or foreign agents; many of these dual nationals love Iran, and are a capital for Iran.

“Many who live in Canada, London, or the United States [are devoted] to the [Islamic] revolution and the supreme leader … In those places some attend religious ceremonies. [Those people] love the [Islamic] Revolution.”

Emmanuel Macron’s victory in the first round of the French presidential elections sparked a rally in financial markets and relief across the rest of the European Union. The nightmare scenario of a runoff between the far left and far right that had kept mainstream European politicians awake at night over the previous week was averted. Instead, polls now give Mr. Macron, an independent, pro-European, social and economic liberal, a 20-point lead over his far-right opponent Marine Le Pen in the second round on May 7, a huge gap to overcome in just two weeks.

All the signs suggest that France is on course to stem the anti-EU populist tide that threatened to bring political and economic chaos to the continent.

And yet even on the cusp of Mr. Macron’s expected victory, a new narrative has emerged. It is said that Mr. Macron is an inexperienced empty suit, whose manifesto was short on detailed plans; that he is a creature of the French establishment, a continuity candidate for the failed presidency of François Hollande. Others predict that his victory will be pyrrhic, that he won’t secure a majority in parliamentary elections next month, that he will be left playing an ornamental role at the head of a French state dominated by his opponents. Some argue that even if he secures a majority, France is fundamentally unreformable—and that his failure will open the door to Ms. Le Pen in 2022.

These are legitimate concerns, but some perspective is needed.

First, Mr. Macron is hardly a complete novice. His rise has certainly been meteoric and no doubt came as a shock to those who only tuned into French politics in the past few months. But in reality, he was already well established as one of the most interesting figures on the French political scene.

Even as a staffer for Mr. Hollande, he showed a rare ability to lead the political agenda, driving the internal resistance to his boss’s disastrous early experiment with high taxes and helping to engineer the U-turn in 2014 when Mr. Hollande belatedly embraced a more free-market agenda.

A large explosion rocked the area near Damascus International Airport early Thursday, in what official Syrian state media said was an Israeli missile strike.

Israel neither confirmed nor denied it was behind the attack, in keeping with official government policy. But Israel’s transport and intelligence minister Yisrael Katz told Israel’s Army Radio on Thursday that the incident was “entirely consistent with our policy of preventing smuggling of weapons to Hezbollah.”

Citing an unnamed military source, Syria’s state news agency, SANA, said the target of the Israeli attack was a military position southwest of the airport and that the blast caused “some material damage.”

The U.K.-based opposition monitoring group Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said the explosion was heard across the capital Damascus and its suburbs. It said the target of the blasts could have been warehouses close to the airport that belong to Hezbollah.

Israel has repeatedly said that it will act to interdict Iranian-supplied weapons transfers in Syria bound for Hezbollah in Lebanon. Syrian state TV said Thursday that there are military bases surrounding the airport used for fighting “terrorists”—a term the regime uses to refer to much of the Syrian opposition.

Iran and Hezbollah have played a major role in maintaining the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in power, as it fights an array of antigovernment and militant groups, including Islamic State.

The comments by Mr. Katz, the Israeli minister, came after Syrian and Lebanese media accused Israeli warplanes of carrying out an airstrike on the airport.

* The full version was posted on April 25, 2017, in English, on About Hungary, and the original Hungarian, A Baloldal Sírásója, on Látószög.http://campaign.r20.constantcontact.com/render?m=1101941066390&ca=db7af234-2239-45d6-ae7a-6167894243ce

George Soros, his global Open Society Foundations and the hundreds of other organizations also funded by him are noisily and sometimes violently demonstrating against policies and governments who fail to accede to his agenda. There are lawsuits and Congressional investigations into his activities in the United States. In Hungary, the government is passing new laws to curtail his foundations and his Central European University’s operations.

To balance Soros’s version of what’s taking place in Hungary, read excerpts* from an article written by Dr. Mária Schmidt, the director general of the House of Terror Museum, and the XXI Century Institute, in Budapest:

“When George Soros appeared in Hungary in 1984, the Soviet rule still appeared solid and indestructible. Six years later, in 1990, when the Communists were toppled by God’s grace, Soros had already recruited a broad circle of supporters and proposed to take over Hungary’s complete sovereign debt and, in exchange, asked for Hungary’s industry, that is, the bulk of the country’s national wealth. His offer was turned down by JózsefAntall, our first, democratically elected prime minister.

The pundits, who had by that time been promoted to positions of moral authority by Soros, launched a sweeping media campaign urging the government to repay the substantial debt accumulated by the communists and not even think of requesting a debt waiver or even rescheduling. Meanwhile, keeping debt servicing in mind, those same pundits wanted and urged Hungary to be the only country in the region where no re-privatisation took place. That is, they opposed the idea of returning nationalized property to the original owners. Instead, they favored privatization, a process already launched by communist comrades. That position created a common ground for the former democratic opposition, i.e. SZDSZ and those former comrades who had been the beneficiaries of wild privatization. This is how the fullest and fastest privatization possible became one of the main demands of the post-communist camp. It is an established fact by now that privatization in this wild form, just as in its later incarnations, meant the bargain sale of public wealth.

One doesn’t expect too much from the latest iterations of Western feminist thought, least of all thought itself, and the defence of the male-imposed burka and hijab makes the point. With “friends” like that, perhaps it’s time for lawmakers to protect Muslim women from misogynist coercion.
The new citizenship test for intending migrants will probably be window dressing. Clearly it is aimed at Muslims, which is entirely appropriate. They are the ones who have problems fitting in; wherever they go in the West. But asking people to commit to certain values and eschew others is close to worthless, unless combined with a lie-detector test. And I doubt the ABC would agree to that, if you get my meaning.

Maybe it’s time to reconsider something tangible like dress standards. My club has them and they work well. You always have the choice of staying out. It’s a question of how the matter is approached.

To be clear, within the confines of prevailing standards of decency, people should have the freedom to dress as they wish in purely public places. But the key phrase is ‘as they wish’. Our values are not consistent with any group of women being forced to wear what they would not freely choose to wear. The intolerant cannot be tolerated when it bears down on a vulnerable group of our fellow citizens.

In this case it is plain that the face of intolerance puts many women in unattractive clothing they would not freely choose to wear. We know this by applying self-reflection. We personally, would find it intolerable to dress from head to toe in black serge (or in any other colour) when walking on a hot Australian summer’s day. We also know this from looking at pictures of the way women chose to dress in Egypt, or in Afghanistan, or in Iran in earlier times when free of Islamic religious strictures. Empathy and common observation tells the tale. (editor: the picture below is of Cairo University students in 1978. Not a hijab to be seen.)

cairo university 1978

It is an affront to our value of gender equality to acquiesce to a particular group of women being forced, pressured or cajoled into wearing dowdy coveralls. We owe it to Muslim women in Australia to do something about it.