@Mike: I partially recognized from your post that that was where you were coming from because it’s basically where I’m coming from. I actually first argued that a wholesale replacement of the commissions could include a hiring bonus not only for people with a disability but even for groups with lower employment levels. On second thought that would create racial divisions and resentment in a way that the Commissions don’t – they may be ineffective but treat people more individually than that. It’s a somewhat frustrating place to be because the reason I say don’t get rid of the tribunals but replace them is exactly the reason you say they are necessary for where we are at. I would agree with retaining the commissions if I thought they were effective, it’s because I think they are counterproductive that I want them replaced with something that actually has a positive effect and still sends the message for everyone to feel like they’re going to get a reasonably fair shake as a part of mainstream society.

This is a total straw man argument. This happens ALL the time, mostly because it’s not the same person doing the hiring and firing. Or the same department or there’s a change in policy or they suddenly realized [insert_minority_here] actually smells bad in the evenings.

While I essentially agree with your point that society has no obligation to ensure equal rates of employment between minority and majority groups, and that to make any such law is tyrannical, it does not obviate the truth that these things actually do happen.

The issue is not, in particular, whether or not the Human Rights Commissions provide a direct mechanism to fixing real and perceived social injustice, but rather, the fact they––at the very least––provide an acknowledgement for those who feel they are in such a position.

This is important, because in the goal to achieve broader acceptance of liberty and a society which seeks the ideals of individual self-sufficiency, we must ingrain a sense of equality which permeates from the political, the legal, and most importantly, the cultural aspects of society.

On the surface this seems counter-intuitive. Therefore, I’ll give you a practical example of what I’m saying:

Take a population of say 1,000,000 people living in a country we’ll call Happyland. In Happyland, 250,000 people are orange skinned, 200,000 are purple skinned, and 550,000 people are grey skinned.

Let’s also assume for the sake of argument that up until recent history, the people with orange and purple skin had no political rights. And as such, there is a large amount of cultural ghettoization and isolation within the orange and purple communities. Although the grey skinned majority has extended equal rights, the massive economic disparity continues.

Now imagine that about 20% of the grey skinned people are socially progressive and seek more socialist solutions to these problems. And the balance of the grey skins are of largely conservative views.

The problem you start to immediately face is that you exist in a situation where the cultural acceptance of a fend-for-yourself politics is completely unpalatable. The oranges and purples, not able to comprehend a world in which they can fend for themselves, will almost universally reject such politics. And the political divisions between the politically conservative and balance of the population will manifest themselves in further class and racial divisions.

You are walking down a path where the underlying cultural problems are literally preventing the acceptance of such liberal views.

It’s a serious practical problem that can’t just be moralized away.

PS – thanks again for the kind words re: my blog!

There is nothing a priori wrong with the “my country is right” attitude. It’s been turned into a taboo by liberal discourse, but if you think about it: nations as nations have viewed their relationships with each other on the basis of “my country is right” for far longer than they have in terms of an “international community of human beings” or other similar liberal categories.

As for Mossadeq: for most of my life I had bought into the simplistic tale of a popular nationalist PM being overthrown by the CIA and MI6 and the will of the Iranian people thus being subverted by foreign powers. And in some ways, I still view the coup as a painful event in my country’s history. But after reading Afkhami’s book and seeking a few other sources, I’ve come to a more nuanced position on the whole affair. I won’t expound on it here since I’ve stated it in my most recent post which you mentioned.

And you’re right. The ‘79 Revolution had broader support than just among the fundamentalists. Readical leftists of all stripes were also a major force. But, if you read the firsthand accounts of a lot of the surviving left revolutionaries (most were executed on masse by the regime in the 80s), you’ll see that they were incredibly naive. Most had had the opportunity to study abroad — at the Shah’s expense! — and had been seduced by the romanticism of the New Left. The fundamentalists were much more serious about what they were about to do. As for the vast majority of everyday Iranians: most either approvingly watched from the sidelines or joined in because the revolutionaries simply lied: they exaggerated claims about the corruption of the royal family and the brutality of the SAVAK and they made absurd promises such as delivering 350 tomans to every family, every morning, etc. etc.

I haven’t read “We Are Iran” but mean to. As someone born after the revolution, I have tremendous hope for what the Iranian youth can achieve. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.

Anywho, I’m glad to hear of your interest in my blog – I will certainly add yours to my blogroll!

I looked at your blog before when I saw someone clicked the link to it and I put it in my “to blog about” list – where I usually forget things, but now I’ll remember : ) I was going to ask about your perspective on the coup of Mossadeq because I almost mentioned it in this post – I was going to say that the revolutionaries were justifiably angry about it – but I just read your very interesting post about the book about the Shah.

I have a book of excerpts from Iranian blogs called “We Are Iran” and the author talked about Mossadeq as democratically elected and overthrown by the CIA, as well as arguing that the revolution was made up of many elements besides the fundamentalists and they had no real claim to take control as they did. Particularily interesting to me was how hopeful they were about a Iran’s future because of the demand for change by the well educated generation who grew up under the Ayatollahs.

So I very much agree with your characterization of the source of left bigotry.

Thanks a lot for including this one in the awards. It’s really nice that this post gets to be read by more people.