Ashtiani Has Confessed

Sakineh Ashtiani has confessed. Ashtiani is the Iranian woman who was sentenced to death by stoning for the crime of “adultery,” and whose cause was championed by people around the globe. Owing to public outcry, Iran’s mullahs, in their mercy, commuted her sentence to death by hanging. But this week, Ashtiani appeared on Iranian television, where she confessed to various charges, including being an accessory to the murder of her husband.

Ashtiani’s lawyer advises that she was tortured for two days before she appeared on television. This is not the first time Iranian authorities have broadcast a forced confession from someone they seek to condemn. And using history as a guide, fears are mounting that Ashtiani’s execution – by whatever method – could come at any time.

The mullahs’ move, it seems, is to paint Ashtiani as a murderer – indeed, it was an investigation of her husband’s death that started Ashtiani’s ordeal back in 2006 – and execute her, just as other countries, including the United States, do to killers in their midst. The absurdity of the regime’s ploy is twofold – first, that they would attempt it; second, that they would expect anyone to believe it.

Originally cleared of involvement in her husband’s death, that investigation uncovered Ashtiani’s apparent “adultery,” for which she received 99 lashes in front of her teenage son. A re-opening of the murder case led religious authorities to determine that penalty had been insufficient, and they decreed she should be stoned to death.

Now, exposed as the fanatical monsters they are, Iran’s leaders want to tack the murder charge back on, and do away with this inconvenient person. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Even Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva – a sometime ally of Iran and no snuggly-bear on human rights – has offered to give Ashtiani asylum in his country. Iran has declined. To sweeten the deal, I’ll even take her place. No doubt, Ashtiani is a far finer person than I am, and I have shattered any number of God’s laws in my time. Come and get me, mullahs, and I will confess to any crime you care to name – adultery, regicide, coveting my neighbour’s ass – if you’ll let Ashtiani go free.

But this isn’t about crime, or even a country. It is a perverse prescription for the entire planet. In the words of the founder of Iran’s Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini: "We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. For patriotism is another name for paganism. I say let this land burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant in the rest of the world."

Given their druthers, Iran’s rulers would murder Ashtiani, and me, and you who are reading along, in order to realize their vision. This poor woman is one of countless thousands caught up in a twisted experiment.

It bears mentioning that the Iranian people, 60 percent of whom are under age 30, are not on board with this madness. During and after their stolen elections of last year, the citizens of Iran did what they could to bring about change. It is to the shame of free nations that we did not do more to help them.

But here, in the person of Sakineh Ashtiani, we have another chance. Let us keep her hope alive.

theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Democrats Dread November

WASHINGTON, DC – Democrats are already nervous about November’s congressional elections. The bad news for them – and good news for America – is that their defeat may be even worse than they think.

In 1994, Democrats knew the midterm elections would be tough. First-year President Bill Clinton had reversed course from campaign promises and announced the largest middle-class tax hike in American history. He took on, and booted, divisive issues like gays in the military, and tasked his wife with constructing a schmozzle of a health-care package.

Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich’s Republicans offered the country a concise alternative in their ten-point “Contract with America.”

The result, when voters went to the polls that November, was more dramatic than people expected. Republicans captured both chambers of Congress in a nationwide sweep.

In 2010, indicators for the ruling Democrats are worse than they were 16 years ago. The generic ballot, which polls voters’ preferences of Republican or Democratic congressional candidates, was tied on Election Day in 1994, and the GOP only saw its first, slight, lead that autumn. Today, Republicans are ahead in the generic ballot by 6 points, according to the RealClearPolitics.com average, and have enjoyed leads since June of 2009.

Then, there are the issues. This Democratic Congress actually did pass health-care reform, in a monstrous piece of legislation that they did not read, and which a majority of Americans want to see repealed. Unemployment remains high as businesses groan under massive regulation and impending tax hikes. As federal debt surpasses the nation’s GDP, and trillion-dollar deficits are projected for the next decade, a newly engaged citizenry is taking a look at its elected leaders. They do not like what they see.

As the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi is the most powerful legislator on the planet. She is also ridiculous. One could spend a lifetime outlining the absurdity of Pelosi’s positions and statements on issues from the economy to health-care to immigration to the CIA. But a handier approach is to send folks to, say, YouTube, and invite them to watch a clip of the Speaker – just pick one at random – and suggest they make up their own minds. After watching Pelosi opine on any matter, ask yourself – would you trust this person to work an electric can-opener? Now consider that this is the top lawmaker of the world’s sole superpower.

Consider, also, that Pelosi became Speaker because House Democrats looked around and said, “Yep, she’s the best we’ve got” – and, from a group that includes Charlie Rangel, Maxine Waters, Barney Frank, et al., they may be right.

As for President Obama, Americans are not seeing the brilliant, moderate, outcome-oriented leader they willed him to be, but a hard-left ideologue who wouldn't know the answer to a doorbell if it weren't printed on his teleprompter.

To win the House, Republicans need to pick up 40 seats this November. In 1994, the GOP added 54 but, based on this climate, commentator Bill Kristol calls for Republicans to gain 60 seats or more.

The Senate will be tougher, but political consultant Dick Morris, who helped rescue Clinton’s presidency after the 1994 shellacking, says Republicans should win the 10 seats they need to control that chamber.

A lot can happen between now and November, but welcome change seems on the way.




theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Win This War

I wondered, in last week’s column, whether the war in Afghanistan is still a worthwhile enterprise, nine years on. As American and Canadian governments contemplate withdrawal in 2011, commentators far wiser than I – George Will comes to mind – have opined that it is time for allied forces to pull out. Indeed, I had begun to congratulate myself on my reasonableness and good intellectual company.

Then, I saw the cover of Time magazine. The photo and story are of a young Afghan woman named Aisha, who was apprehended and sentenced to mutilation by Taliban authorities for running away from her husband’s house. As writer Aryn Baker puts it: “Aisha's brother-in-law held her down while her husband pulled out a knife. First he sliced off her ears. Then he started on her nose.” Baker adds, “This didn't happen 10 years ago, when the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It happened last year.”

Afghan President Hamid Karzai and some U.S. policymakers have floated the idea of reconciliation with the Taliban, in hopes of achieving stability and peace. Personally, I prefer freedom and human dignity.

But even if a reconciliation were possible, would we want it?

Have we fought and sacrificed for nine years only to leave Aisha and millions like her to their fate? Afghanistan presents a challenge, in which we are already engaged, and in which the delineation between barbarity and civilization is plain to see. If we cannot see this through, in what way will Western nations, blessed beyond the comprehension of most of the world, stand against evil in our time? By recycling? Driving hybrid cars? Gimme a break.

But let us say we depart, giving a finger-wag to the grinning maniacs left in charge, admonishing, “Now, no terrorist acts! And keep the amputations and honour killings to a minimum. Okay? We’re really, really cereal!”

Would that achieve our humane and practical goals?

Either way, the strategic and humanitarian missions are not mutually exclusive. And to accomplish both, we must win this war.

Often, when the concept of total victory is put forward, people suddenly become military historians. “Ah,” they say, “even the Soviet Union couldn’t win in Afghanistan.” For those who missed the 20th century, there were any number of things the Soviets could not do, including, but not limited to, basic economics and intentional comedy. You’ll excuse me if I don’t use the regime that brought us the collective farm as the benchmark for what can and cannot be done.

Along these lines, accommodation with the Taliban should be akin to Ronald Reagan’s prescription for rapprochement with the USSR: “We win, they lose.”

When he was Canada’s Chief of Defence Staff, General Rick Hillier told me, “There is no such thing as a doorstop defence.” That is, no nation can be an oasis to itself and, as we have learned during this decade, darkness from elsewhere in the world comes to find us at home. Lest we forget, we went into Afghanistan to deprive Islamist terrorists of safe haven after they killed thousands of people in North America.

Not only do we have a human obligation to succeed in Afghanistan, but the strategic argument still obtains. As the poet Terence averred, “Nothing that is human is foreign to me.” For Aisha and the people of Afghanistan, let us remember that.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Where to from Here?

In last week’s column, I put out a call for proposals to solve the heretofore intractable Israel-Palestinian situation.

Readers did not disappoint. I have tremendous respect for those who take the time to read this space – like a true Irishman, I admire the wisdom of those who seek my opinion – but even I was surprised by the strength of the responses.

Some of the sagest suggestions began more or less like this: No matter your sentiments on this issue – whether you feel the creation of the State of Israel was fair or not, and whether you believe Israel has merely been defending itself against overwhelming odds or oppressing unfortunate people – both sides have suffered. Most important, the past is prologue and there’s no going back. So, we must stop being concerned with who was right or whom to blame, and focus on what to do next.

There are myriad challenges about which we could ask similar questions. The war in Afghanistan was a necessary undertaking when it began, but what is our best move today, nine years on? The invasion of Iraq may not have yielded WMD, but what steps can be taken now to help that recovering country, comprised of three distinct groups, develop into a secular Middle Eastern ally? Western nations may have mishandled Iran for decades, but what should be done as its despotic regime nears nuclear capability? This week, Canada announced, in conjunction with other countries, it would stiffen sanctions against the Iranian government. Was that the right thing to do? (Hint: Yes, it was.)

To find the future you want, you must put aside the past. Learn from it, certainly, but don’t allow your judgment to be clouded by injustices. In this way, forgiveness can be highly practical. It is difficult, nonetheless.

But on the Israel-Palestinian matter, let us give one another substantial credit and assume we can take a purely objective, forward-looking stance. Now what?

Several readers took issue with the premise of my original question – “What should Israel do?” – pointing out that the plight of the Palestinian people is not solely a responsibility of the Jewish State. Their Arab neighbours can also take steps to help.

As columnist Khaled Abu Toameh recently observed, “Not only are Palestinians living in Lebanon denied the right to own property, but they also do not qualify for health care, and are banned by law from working in a large number of jobs,” adding, “Ironically, it is much easier for a Palestinian to acquire American and Canadian citizenship than a passport of an Arab country.”

So if we want to help the Palestinian people – and as a matter of human decency, all good folks share that goal – perhaps the best approach is to spread the pressure. That is, rather than focus solely on, say, Israeli checkpoints and Jerusalem building projects, we might also find the dialing codes for Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria, ring them up and ask, “Could you find a path to citizenship for the Palestinians in your midst?”

We might add, “We’d love your help in achieving a peaceful Palestinian state and, in the meantime, would you please drop any restrictions on them working as journalists, pharmacists, physicians, what-have-you, so they can earn a living?”

It’s not perfect or complete, but it’s a way forward.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

Always, Always Israel

For some people, it’s always about Israel.

Over the past few weeks, I and other columnists have written about Sakineh Ashtiani, a woman sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for the crime of “adultery.” The good news is, folks from all walks of life and political persuasions have rallied to Ms. Ashtiani’s cause. The strange news is, some still suppose Israel is the problem.

You can extrapolate the Ashtiani case to any number of issues – the growing danger of Iran, the cruelty of Sharia law, the misogyny of Islamic regimes – but even if you spend a paragraph, as I did last week, pointing out that Israel is irrelevant to the topic, that’s still the part that gets people animated.

Every public opinion engenders some measure of response, and there are those who perceive hypocrisy whenever one injustice is given press, rather than another. They’ll complain, “I notice you didn’t write about the expulsion of the Acadians” or “the theft of the Elgin Marbles” or whatever. But as a reliable tangent and an object of anger, the Jewish state stands alone.

And I don’t just mean anonymous ravings by people who post opinions online. I’m a sanguine sort, but even I don’t expect to read surpassing wisdom from “ChunkyLover54” on some Internet comment thread.

Awhile back, I was invited to speak at an educational institution, which posted the transcript of my remarks on its website. The speech was not about the Middle East, but one member of the school’s community, on poring through the canon of my columns, discovered that I had, from time to time, written positive things about Israel. He demanded that a disclaimer and link to an Arab advocacy group be posted under my comments.

After a business partner and I went our separate ways, he opted to punctuate our relationship by sending me a hand-written screed about “the Arabs” – a topic we had never discussed and on which I was unaware he held any view – stating that he had harbored anger with me for years because of public statements I made in support of Israel.

One of the most affable journalists I know (to the extent that’s any kind of distinction) finds it impossible to discuss current affairs for any length of time without making reference to my “twisted defense of Israel.”

Look – I’m just a Presbyterian. Why should these people care what I think about the Jewish state? The answer is, they don’t care about my opinion, but their anger is so strong that it blinds them to anything else. And Israel, as with politics in general, becomes the focal point for their other frustrations.

But you know what? Let’s use that energy. Herewith, I put out a call for proposals.

In Israel and the Palestinian territories, you have millions of people in a small space that most of them consider holy, and home. Without forfeiting your spot at the grown-ups’ table by ranting like a nut, tell us what Israel should do.

Would you then turn to the plight of Ashtiani? Or do you imagine that solving the Israel-Palestinian situation would somehow civilize the entire Middle East, eliminating the region’s many problems with human rights? I might disagree with you on that but, if you’ve got a great idea, let’s give it a try.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

One Person Matters

Last week, I wrote about Sakineh Ashtiani, a woman who has been imprisoned, beaten, and sentenced to death by stoning in Iran for the crime of “adultery.” Recently, Iranian authorities announced they probably won’t stone Ms. Ashtiani after all. That’s tepid progress, inasmuch as she may yet be hanged and at least 15 other people await stoning deaths in that nation.

Mine is one of many voices calling for Ashtiani’s release, and I am encouraged that her supporters include folks from various countries, cultures and backgrounds, spanning the political spectrum from right to left. I am fascinated, however, by those who insist on staying in the middle.

For example, I participated in a BBC radio program about Ashtiani and the brutality of the Iranian regime. Bafflegab was thick on the ground, and at one point the host mused that Iran’s death penalty for homosexuals is a moral judgment akin to the United States banning gay marriage.

Equating two obviously unequal situations is not clever or nuanced. It is idiotic and irresponsible. Similarly, asking the insipid modern question, “Who are we to decide?” only serves to evince moral vacuity but, if you must pose the query, let me help you with the answer.

You are a human being, born with the capacity to determine right from wrong. Further, if you are reading this column, chances are you have the magnificent good fortune to live in a part of the world that allows freedom of thought and expression. If you grew up in Western society during the last generation or so, you have likely been browbeaten into believing there is no absolute right and wrong and even if there were, you have no business deciding which is which, since your ancestors probably owned slaves or didn’t recycle.

There is evil in the world, uncomfortable as that is for people who yearn to reduce any situation to a contest of two extremes, placing themselves in the serene center.

Certainly, there are issues where the line between right and wrong seems blurry, but bashing people’s brains out with rocks should not be one of them. If it is, though, on what other topics would you demur to pass judgment? Child slavery?

The logical extension of this approach is that folks become open-minded imbeciles, incapable of making a decision.

Or, people want to make a case like Ashtiani’s about something else. Let’s suppose, for example, you strongly disagree with the State of Israel and consider their treatment of Palestinians to be criminal. That does not mean everything happening in the world, or even the Middle East, pertains to that issue. Ashtiani’s predicament has nothing to do with Jerusalem settlements, and even if a peaceful two-state solution were achieved in Gaza and the West Bank today, she could still be killed tomorrow.

One person matters. It is easier to love mankind than to love your neighbor, as author Eric Hoffer opined, but if you remember that each person is the most important in the world to someone, it becomes less difficult.

As you read this, Ms. Ashtiani is sitting in a cell, not knowing if she is about to die. You have the privilege to be as philosophical as you like, but if you care about what’s right, this woman’s fate really ought to be enough.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.

A Way of Life

Every Monday, for 15 minutes, a young man speaks to his mother through prison glass. She is Sakine Mohammedie Ashtiani, and since 2006 she has been tormented by the government of Iran for “adultery.”

Ashtiani was originally condemned to 99 lashes, a sentence which was carried out in front of her 17-year-old son. Now, after re-examining her case, Iranian authorities have decided she should also be stoned to death.

To be clear, these maniacs want to throw rocks at this woman’s head until her brains are dashed out.

Treating people like this is evil. Regimes that do such things must be exposed, rattled and, at times, replaced. And in countries fortunate enough not to be subject to such brutality, we ought to recalibrate our priorities from cozy concerns like reality shows and “climate change” to the plight of our fellow human beings.

This struggle is cultural, psychological, military, and economic. Most of all, it is a test of wills. Do we have the strength to call evil by its name and resist, or will we fumble about and find reasons not to until it’s too late? Iran is only the most prominent and dangerous among the entities that oppose us, and Ashtiani’s story is one of heartbreaking thousands, chronicled by Amnesty International and others.

An opportunity existed, after the uprising that followed Iran’s stolen elections last year, for good people of the world to show their support. There was one guy in particular who could have made a difference with a single speech. Unfortunately, Barack Obama demurred.

To understand the value that a few words from the American president can have to folks who are under repression, consider former Soviet political prisoner Natan Sharansky’s reaction to Ronald Reagan’s 1987 “Tear down this wall” address in Berlin: “That was the moment that really marked the end for them, and the beginning for us.”

On an individual basis, Western nations, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, have been hopeless at protecting their citizens when they are imprisoned or unjustly treated in basket-case countries. The closest thing to a victory on this front came when Bill Clinton flew to North Korea last August to rescue two American women from the clutches of Kim Jong-il. The former president even posed for a forced photo-op in a room so hideously decorated that sanctions should be suspended until the regime has time to buy something tasteful.

So if free nations cannot protect their own people abroad, what can they possibly do for Ashtiani? And what could anyone reading this column do to help her? Perhaps, provide profile for her cause.

I’d like to see her on more t-shirts than Che Guevara. If a fraction of the energy evinced by those who showed up at the G20 in Toronto to protest the evils of “globalization” (or whatever) were instead directed toward, say, not hitting women with rocks until they die, we’d be getting somewhere. Or, if the zeal of feminists who demand the freedom to abort a child right up until he goes to his first hockey practice were pointed toward sparing their sisters from state-sanctioned death by blunt-force trauma, their help would be invaluable.

We enjoy a way of life in this part of the world. We owe our support to those who do not.



theo@halfgreat.com

Theo Caldwell is the author of Finn the half-Great.