On the Occasion of Ahmadinejad at UN

Below, is part of a speech given in NYC on the occasion of the presence of the president of Iran. It was given by someone I know personally, who is a tireless worker to expose the hate and violence and totalitarian and genocidal motives of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Please click over to this site to read the whole thing:

Shabnam Assadollahi

Shabnam Assadollahi

September 22, 2011, Dag Hammarskjöld Plaza,

The Manhattan Park near the United Nations HQ

Dear friends,

It is an honour to have the privilege of addressing you today.  I would like to thank all the members of the Iran180 Coalition for inviting me to speak.

The United Nations under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees the freedom of thought, of conscience, of opinion and of expression to all people. Yet the Islamic Republic of Iran continually and consistently intimidates, arrests, tortures and executes innocent citizens who peacefully petition for their mandated rights. The basis of a democratic government’s authority is the will of the people. In denying the Iranian people their fundamental rights, the Islamic Republic of Iran usurps the will of the people.  Governance in Iran is undemocratic, it is a theocracy that not only causes pain and suffering of the people but is a danger to the world. Let us be clear, the Islamic Republic of Iran does NOT represent the people of Iran. Let the world hear this message clearly.

The UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has expressed “serious concern” about Iran’s human rights record:“…increased executions, amputations, arbitrary arrest and detention, unfair trials, and possible torture and ill-treatment of human rights activists, lawyers, journalists and opposition activists”

Added to this list of authoritative, the persecution of minorities, including Arabs, Armenians, Azeris, Balouchs, Christians, Jews, Kurds and Baha’is; Ban Ki-moon noted the continued execution of Kurds on various charges, including Moharebeh (being “enmity against God”). Although there are about four million Kurds in Iran, they are barred from teaching the Kurdish language in regional schools.

Under Iran’s present constitution, key members of the government, parliament, judiciary and military must be Shiites, leaving Sunnis, Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and others as second-class citizens, facing harsh treatment whenever they practise their faith openly.  Nobel Peace laureate Dr. Shirin Ebadi stated on Radio Hamseda in Ottawa in April, 2010: “Sunnis are not granted permits to build mosques in Tehran and every time they apply for (a) permit, the application gets rejected.”

According to the President of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadi Nejad, Iran is the freest country…

BUT this is the IRI Ahmadi Nejad is representing here today. Free to humiliate, free to imprison, free to torture, free to rape, free to execute…
This is the regime that Ahmadi Nejad is representing, a regime that its head of Human Rights Council shamelessly proclaims there is nothing more beautiful than stoning to death, cutting limbs and taking an eye out of socket! This is Sharia law at work.

About Eeyore

Canadian artist and counter-jihad and freedom of speech activist as well as devout Schrödinger's catholic

11 Replies to “On the Occasion of Ahmadinejad at UN”

  1. ‘The basis of a democratic government’s authority is the will of the people.’

    And the will of the people elected a National Socialist (Nazi) government in Germany in 1933.

    The will of the people is no basis for a proper government, especially when that will is informed by ignorance and delusion. The only basis for a proper government is the moral principle of individual rights (not ‘human rights’). And the only proper government is the government whose power is constitutionally limited to the protection of individual rights.

    Democracy in Iran at this time would at best replace a greater tyranny with a lesser one. What Iran (and Egypt and Libya and Syria, etc.) ultimately needs is not a democratic revolution but a philosophical one.

    http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2011-fall/ayn-rand-theory-rights.asp

  2. No nation is a just and ethical nation without a firm tradition in the rule of law, without the rule of law where all people are equal under the law all you get is tyranny, under the Islamic law some people are superior to others and the law is not equally enforced. This leads to the oppression we see in Iran. Unfortunately over the past several decades we have seen the left successfully push for special laws for special people, and push the idea that certain people aren’t suppose to be punished for their crimes.

    The declaration of Human Rights sounds fine but it means nothing when the organization that writes the declaration is controlled by nations that are run by dictators that either want to be able to steal from anyone they want, and to kill anyone who opposes them. This situation was brought about by the West refusing to stand up for the Western values and culture.

    Welcome to the world the left has created for us, and to the war that is going to be the end result of the lefts attempt to take over the world.

  3. ‘…without the rule of law where all people are equal under the law all you get is tyranny…’

    Wherever there exist unjust laws, whether all people are equal under those unjust laws or not, there exists tyranny. (But is it really possible for all to be equal under an unjust law?)

    The only proper (i.e., legitimate, moral and objective) laws are those laws that protect individual rights. But in order to fully understand this, one must hold a proper conception of rights, a conception whose origin can be traced all the way back to the observable facts of reality. A conception of rights that is not derived fully from the observable facts of reality is an arbitrary conception and as such can only be defended on arbitrary (non-objective) grounds, which would entail no defense at all. Ayn Rand was the first person to identify unequivocally the observable facts of reality that are the source of individual rights. In order for one to defend rights objectively (i.e., on the basis of fact) it is crucial that one has a full understanding of the factual source of rights. And it is this factual source which Craig Biddle lucidly derives in the essay to which I provided a link in my previous comment.

    Any law that does not protect individual rights must in some way limit the freedom of action of at least some of the people, which is to say that it must violate individual rights.

    ‘The declaration of Human Rights sounds fine…’

    Are you saying here that the concept of a Declaration of Human Rights is fine, or that the content of the Declaration of Human Rights as it currently stands is fine? If you are saying that the content is fine, then I hasten to disagree.

    As one example of the many internal incoherencies and contradictions within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights consider articles 17 and 25:

    Article 17
    (1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.
    (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

    Article 25
    (1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
    (2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

    Article 25 clearly violates Article 17(2).

    A proper (objective) definition of the right to property is this: the right to earn property and to keep, use or dispose of the products of one’s own efforts as one sees fit. Note that the right to property (like all rights) is a right to the freedom of action (action being the key word here). One has the right to take action to earn property; one does not have the ‘right’ to be provided with property. If someone has the ‘right’ to be provided with property (as Article 25 is saying), then, since property does not materialize out of thin air, someone else who has earned property (produced goods) must be forced to give up his earned property in order to fulfill this ‘right’ (which is a clear violation of Article 17(2)). A man ‘arbitrarily deprived of his property’ is a man enslaved.

    The reason why the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is so riddled with internal incoherencies and contradictions, and is therefore not fit for purpose, is because the conception of rights it embodies is arbitrary, i.e., it is not derived from the observable facts of reality.

    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

    See also the ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, which is part of the ‘International Bill of Human Rights’.

  4. The concept of universal human rights is good, the execution of writing them down went wrong when they started putting in “rights” the left invented to beat up the west. Look at the US Constitution and its brevity, any constitution or deceleration that is as long as the Human Rights Deceleration is flawed from the beginning. No document can list all rights, or be enforceable if it tries.

  5. The important thing to realize about rights is that they are objective, not arbitrary. Anyone can develop an arbitrary conception of rights, but there is only one objective, and therefore true, conception of rights. The Founding Fathers understood the true conception of rights but did not properly identify the source of rights – it was Ayn Rand who did this.

  6. If you read carefully the essay to which I provided a link, you will see that the proper conception of rights is derived inescapably from observable facts of reality, fundamental of which is man’s nature as a rational and volitional being.

  7. To grasp and integrate all of the concepts involved in the derivation of the factual source of rights does require concentration of thought and some reflection, but this is easily within the capability of most people.

    There will, however, always be some who will remain unconvinced no matter how compelling the evidence:

    http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/

  8. I see you are a true believer who refuses to let other people have their own beliefs, you need to calm down and accept that not everyone is going to believe like you, which doesn’t make them stupid or flat earthers.

  9. George & Richard =GeorgeRichard=Same Person= Amoral= Hunting, trapping , accusing , ill-hearted interrogation, Alqaida, Arrest or assassinate.

    Truth Revealed

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*