Iran, the Mecca of women's rights, now a member of UN women's rights panel

Gah. Now I'm forced to nod agreeingly with the Tories. Of course they don't actually give a shit about women's rights and just want to wag their finger at Muslims, but they're right in principle.

Of course, the UN is pretty much the definition of "strange bedfellows", so...

this could help women in Iran.

sorry, couldn't keep a straightface on that one. I wonder if the Iranian delegate will start beating on the women on the panel or just make them wear burkhas?

The Tories don't feel women have rights. What gave you that idea?

Doesn't every panel need a contrasting view point? Like, do women really need all these rights anyway??

Right, let's highlight the most ass-backwards comment we can from some random asshole and use that to illustrate the entire distortion.

The fact is, as far as Islamic countries go, Iran has a pretty consistent record of protecting women's right.

In comparing the 'deplorable' accounts listed in the Canadian letter against the first-hand accounts from people who have actually lived in Iran, I'm gonna have to go with the Iranians (who are overwhelmingly and consistently critical of the religious regime and Ahmadenijad, so it's not like it's an ideological thing).

Rather than reactionary hand-wringing, it might be useful here to consider the recent history in Iran. Before the Islamic revolution, Iran was one of the most progressive, cosmopolitan and gender-equal societies in the world. During the early 70's, women outnumbered men in Universities, long before that became the norm throughout most of the West.

Obviously, the Revolution changed all that, but as the recent protests and unrest have shown, the issue is not settled.

Affording Iranian women an opportunity to speak in such a global forum may help tap into that latent progressive element in the country at such a crucial juncture. Granted, the delegation may end up stacked with old men and angry Islamist women - but then again, maybe some real reformers will manage to find a way in. The country is not lacking for potential talent in that regard.

And so, in summation, I think Canada and the ICHC should quit their feet-stamping at the moment, and wait to see how the women in Iran react to this opportunity before condemning the whole damned venture.

Just thought I'd offer up my perspective on this issue:

1) Iran is no Saudi Arabia, and while obviously oppressed to some degree, women in Iran are making incredible strides, as the Green Movement has shown us

2) Iran wants to be respected on the world stage


So, I think perhaps that being on the panel might give some progressive voices inside Iran a chance to debate and be heard, and might also end up shaming them and helping to prevent some of the worse abuses. Sad to say, but treating women as second class citizens is nothing new, in any corner of the globe. Mistreating us when you have the spotlight that comes with being a member of the UN Womens Rights panel would hopefully be trickier for the thugs and zealots. It makes your country look even worse in the eyes of the world than they already do.

That's my take anyway. It can't hurt women, and could maybe help, for Iran to be on the panel. So why not?

In my humble opinion we can lament and discuss the situation of women in Iran all day long. And rightfully so.

However, I do think that this leads astray from the core of this given situation. First and foremost, the debate about universal human rights is a delicate and complicate one. Given we are talking about a body of the UN, I am not convinced that we should rush to use our view of human rights as an universally agreed upon world view. The sad truth for me is that there is evidently not a universal consensus what does constitute a human right, even less an universal one. So in abstract terms I´d argue that there is a valid reason why Iran, or other states we deem rogue or oppressive for that matter, are eligible for this body.

Furthermore, one should recall the way the seats in this body are elected and the proportion of regions that are required to be met. Forgive me to use the easy road and just link to their official page given the technical matter:

Given the bargain nature in these fields, it does not come to a very huge surprise that worriesome developments like this surface. After all, it is not like Iran is completely isolated from the rest of the world, given their economic power, their resources and their position as primus inter pares in the near east.

This is sort of off topic, but it's the only Iran thread I can find.

So, basically I just want to inquire if I am alone in my (strong) suspicions that those 20 something well educated "hikers" that just happened to "hike" into Iran were actually spies of one sort or another. They seem like exactly the kind of people who would get drafted into the intelligence services right out of school..

Sad they're captured and all that, but yeah, I was pretty sure they were spies from the first moment that I heard about the circumstances in which they were picked up.

20 of em? I thought it was a handful. Link?

Meant 20-something, as in age group. Sorry, not 20 hikers. There were three of em. If it HAD been 20, then I'd actually be more inclined to think it was a hiking group or perhaps a black ops squad or something. As it is, I think they're spies.

Based on your extensive counter intelligence and espionage experience?

We all saw Good Will Hunting, we know what's up.

Uh, the entire enterprise of the UN is built on the idea that there is, in fact, a consensus regarding whether or not there is a universal set of standards regarding how people ought to treat each other, hence the list of human rights being a part of the UN charter. The entire point of the UN is to allow the community at large to hash out conflicts over these standards and reign in members of the community that don't abide by them. Putting it out there that there's a legitimate debate about whether or not you can even have such standards is pretty much equivalent to calling into question the legitimacy of the UN's mission.

Dude, this subject was clearly covered in Chuck S01E07. Heck, those crazy hikers were probably drafted from Stanford!

Based on knowing people who got approached by the CIA and State Department upon graduating Yale

Those kids are friends of friends. They're not spies, they're just dumb.

Also, outside of spy movies, people aren't "recruited" into State or the CIA. You have to go to them and it's extremely selective. For State, for example, you have to take an exam, pass that exam in the top 15% of all people who take the test in your group, pass a phone interview after, then pass an in-person interview in DC. If you get through all that, then you get a job with State.

That was in "Chuck" too? I thought maybe it was inspired from "The Good Sheperd."

I have my doubts, but I'm willing to reconsider in the wake of the 'new shit that's come to light' (to paraphrase TBL)

Not true. I know someone who was in S+B and he's fluent in Persian. According to him, he was approached. He is a braggart*, but not a liar. He still might have had to take an exam, etc, but that doesn't mean they don't seek out individuals like that.

PS From what I understand he turned down the offer... although if he took it, that's just what he'd want me to think, right? That way when he turns up "hiking" in North Korea I can go online and say "I don't think he's a spy, just dumb".

*He is fond of bragging that his brother had relations with Jenna Bush when he was at Yale

Besides its similarity to The Good Shepherd, here's my problem with this story: because the previous administration basically did no diplomatic work and very little legitimate intelligence work for the better part of the last decade, both those agencies have been in the middle of one of the biggest recruiting drives in their history for the past two years. I went to Berkeley and was in the top 15% of my class and have friends with similar backgrounds at Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Brown, BYU, and Stanford. I have never, ever heard of anyone being directly courted by the Agency. I have a friend who is fluent in Korean and whose parents used to work for the Agency. He had to apply like everyone else and they only knew what his language skills were because he listed them in the application.

Fair enough. I took his word at face value. I still don't think he was lying, but it wouldn't be as big a shock as Andy Kauffman coming out of hiding if I were to discover this guy was telling a tale.

That does not really change my thought that the "hikers" might have been spies though. It doesn't matter how they were recruited or when for it to still be possible

Plus, isn't kind of suspect that someone would openly talk about being part of a secret fraternity, and also openly discuss being recruited into a secret job position with the CIA? I'm pretty sure the CIA isn't into blabbermouths.

He actually has never mentioned SB to me. I've heard that about him from other people

So, it's not only this guy breaking protocol but also everyone around him that knows he's in the organization? They're slipping.

No the people I've heard it from didn't go to Yale with him, just to his highschool. It's kind of a "through the grapevine" thing but I totally believe the Skull and Bones thing. The guy in question is kind of a jerk and it totally fits in with everything that I know about him. Plus, he's total legacy and like the third generation of his family to go to Yale

Either that or he's Matt Damon.

Haha, definitely not Matt Damon. Not anywhere near that handsome.

They sort of kick you out of the organization if there's reason to suspect that you've told anyone about your involvement in the organization. It's the entire reason you had two former members running for president in 2004 and it was never once brought up in an interview.

With secret organizations, a good rule of thumb to follow is that if a person claims to be in one or there are a lot of people who seem to have it on good word that he's in the organization, chances are he's not in it. If he's directly claiming to be in it, that's sort of a guarantee he's not in it. The "is he or isn't he" thing is the whole reason these things maintain interest.

Good points, Cuchulain. This guy in question is just slimy enough to be part of it, but like you say, it's impossible to know.

I can't tell, is that Bill Paxton in TRUE LIES? I'm assuming it is but my vision sucks my glasses are at my Dad's house. I guess it would make sense if it were. If it's he, it's not the best photo.