--- The Messenger.
Ms. Ebadi pushed for the need to promote human rights and democracy
alongside economic development. Without singling out any specific
countries for criticism, she made it clear that financial aid to
countries she described as "undemocratic," only helps prop up
repressive regimes. "In countries that are undemocratic, where their
governments are undemocratic, and where all the administrative,
political and economic power of the society lies in the hands of one
person or a special group or elites of a country, the granting of loans
means assisting dictators and opposing people who are already
oppressed," said Ms. Ebadi. "In other words, to say it more clearly, if
undemocratic countries receive loans and credits, they are strengthened
to become more negligent of the rights of their people." She added that
the people living under a bad government will also harbor anger for
nations or international institutions that are seen as having helped
that regime. "The palaces of tyrants will one day fall, and it is then
that the people, the oppressed people, who will, with hatred and
grudge, look at the countries that supported that and the institutions
that provided loans to that former system and consider them as the
reason for this, as an accomplice to the crime that occurred and as a
reason for their misfortune." Ms. Ebadi also said she believes freedom
is the most important human possession. She added, though, that anger
is the enemy of intellect -- and that people who are angry could resort
to means that threaten world security.
Instapundit says
this "sounds good to him." And I suppose it does. After all, you have
the first Islamic Female Nobel Peace Prize winner declaring that
democracy is indeed a good thing and that the IMF should stop rewarding
countries that don't practice it. However, the quickie bio on Ms. Ebadi
seems to neglect a few things. According to a October 16, 2003Economist article (subscription required)...
- {...}she
did not follow colleagues to overseas refuge after the revolution, but
stayed on as an advocate, fighting cases of political murder,
repression and domestic violence. A defender of Islam, she wrote
learnedly about women's and children's rights under Islamic law. She
lost most of her high-profile cases, but survived. Overnight, she has
become a celebrity.
So, while she's "fighting the good fight" she's still basically the
Iranian female equivalent of a losing Alan Dershowitz. Or a Jacques
Verges.
- {...) Rather than the flexible jurisprudence to which Shia
Islam lends itself, and which Ms Ebadi champions, Iran's Islamic
Republic has promoted what Farideh Gheirat, a leading women's lawyer,
calls a “bone-dry versionâ€. Lawmakers and judges reinstated
polygamy, made it virtually impossible for women to divorce without
their husband's consent, and condemned adulteresses to be stoned to
death. The intrusion that offends foreigners the most, the compulsory
head covering, is a minor irritant.
She's apparently for democracy for other countries, but for her own
legal system she still prefers Shia Islam jurisprudence. Which we all
know is just so fair and unbiased toward women---something she works to remedy, yes, yet she still thinks that Islamic jurisprudence can work. How?
- {...}Iranian
women, even many who are indifferent to her causes, are intensely proud
of Ms Ebadi's achievement. But do not expect her to become a role
model. Despite a dash of radicalism—she goes bare-headed outside
Iran—she remains wedded to the cautious reformism that is espoused by
Mr Khatami and his supporters. And that, many believe, has failed. A
small but growing number of women are coming to reject the legal
superstructure to which Ms Ebadi is committed.. Ebadi is not the
best messenger, it seems, to be preaching about rewarding those
countries who have democratic governments, when it doesn't seem as if
she wants it in her homeland. Whether for political expediency or her
religious beliefs, she has thrown her lot in with the noble repressors
in her own country---those who try, but never seem to get any reform
enacted. And the Nobel Committee rewarded her for her half-measures.
So, really, is she the best and most qualified person to be lecturing
anyone about the virutes of democracy?