Islamic Republic of Iran - evil child murderers

I'm furious, absolutely livid and so should you be. You see, the tragic conflict of Israel and Hizbullah is across borders and gets a lot of coverage. Understandably so - but the tragedy within states is limited to what reports leak out, particularly those states where the media is under state control.

.

So this time I want you in New Zealand to do something, particularly those who protest against war, or for womens' rights or human rights. It is about time you went to 151 Te Anau Road, Hataitai, Wellington (the Iranian Embassy in NZ) and protested. You could organise a march from the city, around Oriental Bay, up to Roseneath to this address - you could burn an Iranian flag and you could make the Iranian Embassy staff see the sort of hatred usually dished out to the USA and Israel.

.
Go on you so called “peace activists”, go on feminists, who say you want to defend women’s rights. Go protest against a state OTHER than the US, UK or Israel committing atrocities – one that executes teenage girls.

.

The photo in the corner is one of many reasons why. It is of a girl who lived her life the way she wanted, like many do in the West. Certainly in ways that the Christian right would disapprove of, and maybe in ways that some feminists would say is wrong - but I think she simply lived.

.

Atefeh Rajabi was hanged in Neka, Iran on 15 August 2004. Her crime? She had sex with a married man. She had been convicted five times before of sex with unmarried men, and she received 100 lashes for that every single time. She was 16 by the time those convictions had been chalked up. The Iranian government claims she was 22 when executed, but her lawyer was convinced she was 16 – and her parents had even specifically produced her birth certificate proving that she was 16 (proving that she's not an adult) and the ruling clergy of the town of forged papers and insisted that in fact she was 22 and that that was enough reason to hang her. Her age though, is almost neither here nor there.

.

This is what happened when she was executed. You have to read it – just as you have to, once, see what happened in Auschwitz. It is the same evil:
.
“Witnesses report that she begged for her life as she was dragged kicking and screaming to the makeshift gallows. She shouted "repentance" over and over again – a gesture which, according to Islamic law, is supposed to grant the accused the right to an immediate stay of execution while an appeal is heard. Atefeh's cries were in vain. Haji Rezaie, the judge who presided over her trial, put the noose around her neck himself. He said he was pleased to do it. "Society has to be kept safe from acts against public morality," he insisted. He ordered that her body be left hanging from the crane for several hours so people could see what happened to teenagers who "committed acts incompatible with chastity".”
.
I’d put a bullet through Haji Rezaie’s head in a moment to stop him doing this to others. He is like a Nazi extermination camp commander - utterly without redemption. The married man received 75 lashes and was then freed - but these sorts of men run Iran.

.

There are plenty of Iranians who hate this, who hate their murderous Islamist slave state. This brilliant article by Siamack Baniameri at the time tells all about Atefeh Rajabi’s character – she wasn’t deterred by the thugs who told her what to do with her body, she was a rebellious teenager – and they killed her for it. This is the spirit of life that the Iranian regime denies, and which will spill up and overthrow them in due course. We should support efforts to broadcast alternative news and information, drop leaflets and support non-Islamist dissidents.

.

If that doesn’t shock you enough, how about the case of Leila M, who is condemned to death for “acts incompatible with chastity”, she was 19.
.
The Daily Telegraph continues:

.
“She was sold into prostitution at the age of eight by her parents. She recalls the experience of when her mother "first took me to a man's house" as "a horrible night. I cried a lot … but then my mum came the next day and took me home. She brought me chocolate and cheese curls."
Forced by beatings and threats to continue "visiting men" from that night onwards, she became pregnant and had twins when she was 14. She was punished with 100 lashes by the Iranian courts for giving birth to illegitimate children.”

.
What should the state do when it discovers this? Take care of the child, and imprison the parents for selling her, and the men for abusing her. Noooo, in Iran girls from 9 up are considered capable of committing crimes against chastity – so the evil scum (fine if they rape little girls) beat her.

.
how about Kaveh Habibi-Nejad, a 14-year-old boy was flogged for eating outdoors on Ramadan. He died from the injuries because the metal cable used to flog him hit his head.

.

Note of course that sentences for men involved in any crimes are far less, the men who rape children get little, and for some reason girls down to 9 are legally able to be executed, but boys need to be 14.

.

This is the state that many on the left think is fine to have nuclear weapons. Does the US government execute girls who have been forced into prostitution, does it execute girls who have sex with married men? Does any Western country? “No, but..” you say. No! There are no “buts”. This is unspeakably evil, reprehensible beyond words.

.

How about ordinary Iranians, what happens when they question this barbarity? Well..

.
“Mahbobeh Abbasgholizadeh, an Iranian academic, was arrested on November 1 after having queried some aspects of Iranian justice in a speech she made at a conference. She was held for a month before being released and charged with "acting against the security of the country". If she is convicted, it could mean an indefinite prison sentence. “

.

So there, another slave state. By the way, it is a death sentence if you convert to another religion from Islam too.

.

But no, big bad USA. Moral relativists can protest, but protest against the system that allows them to protest

.

Or maybe the executions of gay men will upset you enough?

.

Expect the UN to care? Well given that Iranian Prosecutor General Saaed Mortazavi is its delegate to the Human Rights Council, you must be joking. This is Iran's repulsive document supporting its candidacy for the Council, it wasn't elected to be on the Council, but it attends the meetings. Human Rights Watch reports:

.

"General Iranian-Canadian photojournalist Zahra Kazemi died in June 2003 while in the custody of judiciary and security agents led by Mortazavi. Lawyers representing Kazemi’s family have alleged that her body showed signs of torture, including blows to her head, and that Mortazavi participated directly in her interrogation. "

.

I guess the UN would have let Nazis stand for election on the Council too. Nevertheless, China and Saudi Arabia are on it. All members in the Western Europe and Other States group should boycott the Council while such vile regimes remain on it.

.

So I dare you to protest, fight back and declare openly and repeatedly what you think of Iran's atrocities against its own citizens. I fucking dare you, then you wont be anti-American moral relativist scum, the type that sits in your cozy Western house, hating the society that sees you living in comfort, while remaining silent about a pre-modern state of utter barbarity. I dare Helen Clark to make a statement in Parliament, but no… nothing beats being diplomatic when teenage girls get hanged! I bet the Embassy in Tehran did nothing, the MFAT profile on Iran is sterile.

.
However you wont will you? You’ll be upset about Israel and go on about war, but you’ll sit back and do nothing about the murderous Iranian regime. You’ve give me every excuse under the sun about why you, as a feminist, liberal or whatever nomenclature you have, wont burn the Iranian flag, but happily cheer when the US flag is burnt. You’ll simply prove that this is either a game, and only by being anti-American can you and your mates get a party protest going and feel good about yourselves, or your so called beliefs are hiding your true nature. You’re happy to have children beaten and executed by a regime, because it is opposing the USA.

Clark's anti-Israeli comment and is Hone Harawira anti-semitic?

Stuff reports that Helen Clark couldn't wait to deplore the tragic Israeli attack on the UN peacekeeping post, but Keith Locke quite rightly has pointed out "I'm a little concerned that the prime minister on one hand says that Hizbollah should stop its attack, yet she only asks Israel to cease its disproportionate violence." She also said "Government statements have been very carefully balanced to condemn violence on both sides. Two wrongs never make a right and we would like a ceasefire now". Oh, so that means if you are attacked, then sue for peace - when Germany attacked Poland, Britain should just have said "no Mr Hitler we'll negotiate". THIS is the defence policy of this government "two wrongs never make a right"!
.
Don Brash has called for peace and correctly said "Tragically, there appears little prospect of lasting peace in the Middle East until all parties recognise the right of Israel to exist." Indeed, something Hizbullah, Hamas, the Palestinian government, Syria and Iran don't accept.
.
Peter Brown from Winston First endorses Clark's comments "100 %". Gee the brainbox handle was being cranked quickly for that one. I thought Whingers First would approve of foreigners killing each other if it reduced the risk that they may immigrate.
.
Rodney Hide refreshingly said "I ask New Zealanders, and this Parliament, to consider what would be New Zealand's response if we had to confront a neighbour right on our borders who had committed such atrocities, and whether we would stand idly by and talk about a proportionate response". Yes exactly.
.
However, Hone Harawira said, in Maori "The violence perpetrated by the Jews must stop".
.
Pardon me? For starters, Hizbullah started this tit for tat. He doesn't mention the terrorists at all, you'd think Hizbullah was sitting back taking it and had done nothing to provoke this. More disturbingly is his view that it isn't Israel, but it is "perpetrated by the Jews". "The Jews" live around the world, quite a few live in New Zealand. This is the sort of sneering collective accusation language that you'd see in Nazi Germany in the 1930s - one sided - not even denying that Hizbullah is to blame, but as if Hizbullah is doing nothing, as if Lebanon is just some peaceful country with no foreign backed terrorists attacking Israel. Blanking out one side's culpability completely.
.
So what does Harawira think of "the Jews"? and is this a surprise, given he is an MP from an avowedly racist party?

Greens talk bollocks on transport (again)

Green MP Russel Norman claims that the government is subsidising the country’s trade deficit because he claims road transport is subsidised ahead of other modes. His theory is that rail is always more fuel efficient than road, so by definition the more road freight the more money spent on fuel, hence a greater trade deficit.

.

Now first it is wrong, as it ignores whether the road freight is generating exports that would not have otherwise occurred. It totally ignores the output of transport (facilitating trade in both directions), and Russel has no figures to argue this either way.

.

However, his main use of figures is to cite two reports to support this, unfortunately both have figures that are slightly dated, and one of the reports he has used very selectively indeed.
.
For starters he claims that “road freight transport is the most energy intensive mode of transport consuming four times as much energy for each tonne of freight per kilometre compared to rail; and nine times as much energy as coastal shipping (according to a 2000 Energy Efficiency and Conservation Authority report).”. Well, the “four times” figure was a comparison made in 1981 (and truck efficiency has increased more than rail efficiency). Railways ran a test comparing a train with a truck moving the same weight of goods between Auckland and Wellington - this was part of its justification for the government continuing to cover its mounting annual losses and to argue against deregulation of freight transport (at the time trucks were legally prohibited from hauling most goods greater than 150km). Since then technology has moved on, particularly for road transport. When comparing long haul bulk/containerised freight today, road uses about 2.5 times more energy than rail. However, note the proviso – long haul bulk/containerised freight. Most freight trips are short to medium, and involve less than wagon loads of freight. Rail is generally no more efficient for trips of less than 150kms (i.e. Auckland to Tauranga, Wellington to Wanganui), and certainly never efficient for moving less than wagon load (a wagon being a modern one which has the capacity of a large truck not the old little 4-wheel ones) of freight.

.
Secondly he claims “a 2005 Ministry of Transport study showed that truck users pay only 56% of the costs they impose on society while rail freight users pay 82%”. Now this study covered data for the 2001 year, since then the government has committed $200 million to subsidise rail infrastructure for freight. However, more importantly Norman hasn’t burrowed down to see what these so called “costs” are.
.
Strictly financial costs (costs that government actually pays directly – roads, police, administration) see trucks producing a surplus of $45.6 million (from Road User Charges, although this is reinvested in upgrading the road network). Beyond that though, the costs Russel is concerned about are monetised costs for air pollution, accidents, climate change and noise. Now air pollution is largely a factor of particulates, and the amount of sulphur in diesel (which is the source of most particulates) has been reduced by two-thirds since the study (as the Marsden Point refinery is getting upgraded). It is about to be reduced by another 90%, so in fact this is changing. The figures for air pollution should be different now and about to be even more different.

.

It is also not a monetised cost – the cost is from health expenses, which are notoriously difficult to attribute to “trucks”. The accident costs are largely born by the private sector (damage to property, time etc), and the ACC no fault system that we have for personal injury by accident means that it is difficult to attribute costs to those who actually cause the accidents. Most trucks are not involved in serious accidents. The climate change cost is only relevant in terms of meeting Kyoto Protocol obligations, so is not a cost independent of government decisions, and noise – well that is factored into property prices. What is ignored are positive externalities, like increases in commercial land value for truck access, and the spinoffs for business in having transport for inputs and outputs of production. Never mind, no other sector covers any of these either.

.
So this simple comparison is not so simple at all.
.
Russel ignores other parts of the report that don’t suit his “world view”. One is the detailed case studies into long haul freight, which actually looked at the marginal cost of shifting freight between rail and road on three routes. Table 3.6 of the main report indicates that moving freight between Auckland and Wellington, the marginal cost of rail is HIGHER on environmental grounds than road. It is the same between Napier and Gisborne, but a quarter between Kinleith and Tauranga. Kinleith to Tauranga by rail is, of course, through a tunnel, whereas the road is over the Kaimai ranges. The results, in other words are not so black and white.
.
What other results he wont like from the same study are:
.
1. Rail passengers pay only 35% of the total cost of providing Auckland suburban passenger train services. In Wellington it is 56%. (page 57 of the report)

2. The roads that recover the least of their operating costs are rural local roads (page 50). Urban state highways recover the most (hardly a surprise that the busiest roads generate the most revenue). Railways aren’t going to be an alternative for lightly trafficked rural local roads. The problem with local roads is that they are rates funded, which carries its own inequities.

3. The environmental impact of buses in cities is around 18.2 times that of cars. This means a bus should ideally be replacing 18 cars, to break even with cars on pollution. (page 64)

4. For trucks “Current charges (mainly RUC) are in most cases greater than the level of marginal provider/external costs (principally accident externalities and marginal road wear).” (page 107)

5. For freight comparisons between road and rail “For the primarily rural movements analysed, the environmental impact costs are similar in magnitude by the two modes.” (page 107)

6. On Auckland and Wellington passenger trains and buses “If charges were to be set to cover only the marginal costs in both periods, then peak charges (fares) would broadly double, while off-peak fares would reduce by half or more.” (page 106)
.
The Greens are good at selectively using facts. I have just done the same, and there are some important points about transport in the report, but it does not simply say "trains good trucks bad". The study needs updating, as subsidies for rail have increased markedly, and charges for road use (and money for roads) have also increased (while a major source of pollution has been reduced). Now there are problems with road transport, for starters ratepayers shouldn’t be paying for local roads – that should come from road users. In addition, congestion in cities should be managed by charging being higher at peak times and lower at other times - but that requires replacing fuel tax with electronic tolling.

.

However, it is simply false to claim road freight is subsidised more than rail freight – and that shifting freight to rail through subsidies will automatically be cheaper for the country and better for the environment. Sometimes rail is cheaper and cleaner than road, usually in the cases when it is most widely used - sometimes road is. It is a not a banal contest which says "wheels on steel good, wheels on bitumen bad" - although sometimes you have to wonder if that is what drives Green thinking on transport.
.

Draw your own conclusions if you dare, from the full main report of Surface Transport Costs and Charges study.

Blair urges people to take more responsibility

According to the Daily Telegraph, one of Tony Blair's advisors said:

.

"It is really important that you should take more exercise, it is really important you should worry about children's obesity, but we are not the ones who should make you do it."

.

In short, he is saying the government can give people information, but it is up to them as to what they do. In essence he has acknowledged that Nanny State wont work and that the problems with the NHS are due to a lack of personal responsibility. Blair himself said:

.

"It has got to be about prevention as much as it is about cure," he said. "This is important because going forward we can't afford the health care costs if we don't take some of the responsibility as individuals for our health care."

.

Indeed, Tony. A start would be to shift national insurance contributions to being personal ones, and varying them on risk, or allowing people to shift them to private providers. He wont do that though. What he might do is deregulate medicine a trifle:

.

"Mr Blair said barriers between the NHS and the private and the independent sectors needed to be broken down and more use made of the expertise available in pharmacies. Richard Baker, the Boots chief executive, has urged ministers to let doctors and consultants practise in his stores. Mr Blair praised the company for helping people lead healthy lives."

.

Heaven help the NZ Labour Party advocating such a thing.

Greens want Nanny State to nanny your kids

So the Greens support Cindy "Stalin" Kiro's grand plan to plan and monitor all children from birth till....

.

Essentially it means "Checks would be done during the first two years of a child's life, when children went to school, during their adolescent years, and in the "youth transition period" when teenagers left high school to take up jobs or enter further education. " You're paying for these checks, and would I be right in guessing that when it comes to actually checking those kids in "at risk" areas, that there wont be the staff willing to go around Kaikohe, Wairoa or Flaxmere? Far easier to check all those middle class kids in Takapuna, Karori and Invercargill isn't it?

.

A grand big nanny-state plan that has as its basic premise that parents generally don't know what is good for their kids. Now I believe that, by and large, they do. Some don't, some are so appalling at it that they should never have custody of children again. However, just because there are cases of nearly useless parents and guardians neglecting and abusing their kids, doesn't mean that Nanny Cindy should be keeping her eye on what you're doing.

.

I pointed this out before when she commented on the Kahui case. So what IS a solution? I suggest a targeted response. Let's remember that most kids turn out ok, most don't get murdered, raped or become hardened criminals. Let's also remember that the fault of those kids who are neglected and abused is not YOU, or ME, or the state, it is the parents! You see in post-modern world, we don't blame anyone for bashing their kids to death. You don't dare deprive parents of their biological children - it offends too many to say that, but in cases you should. So a few steps:

.

1. Include in sentencing for serious violent or sexual crimes the denial of future custody of current or future children if there is reason to believe the offender could, on the balance of probabilities, pose a risk to a child.

2. Deny any parents convicted of physically or sexually abusing their own children custody or the right to be alone with their own children, until the children are adults.

3. Deny any person who has a serious violent or sexual conviction welfare benefits of any kind, including state housing.

4. Have the right to use adoption and fostering to permanently or temporarily remove children from parents who repeatedly put them in danger from adults who are past offenders. It is one thing for a single parent to hook up with someone who she didn't think was abusive and boot him out/charge him if he is caught abusing - another thing to remain in the relationship knowing the kids are getting harmed. If you can't protect your kids then you lose the right to have them.

.

The failure is NOT families not getting the support they need - it is families failing the kids. People are to blame - they are to blame for hurting children, for neglecting them and for failing to be good parents. These are people you make us pay for, that sit on their arses and beat up their kids or ignore them. They are human scum - they are the cause of so much of what is wrong with society, the kids who turn out bad, the unemployable, the people that others fears, that vandalise, steal and hurt others. There are few of them, but they should not ever have children - they shouldn't breed. They don't abuse because they are poor - poverty does not make you punch a child in the stomach - it is a complete lack of any empathy, concern or willingness to be a parent, or a civilised human being.

.

Stop this nanny stating about - call scum scum - it is what most people think they are, because most people don't need their kids monitored.

.

The glee at which the planners find new ways to plan your childrens' lives is insipid and vile, and Lindsay Mitchell rightly points out that there may be an issue with inflating child abuse figures.