Davos, bis and worse

OK, one more on Davos and then I stop, but there is no way I cannot reiterate how anything can be said and not be challenged, I really wonder what the point is.

Or is it perhaps the Open Forum? Because, I must admit that when Mr. Mottaki and Mr. Hashemi Shajareh had to face Mr. Khalilzad, things were quite different, although the latter go some heat for it afterwards, it seems.

But lo and behold, it was truly painful to hear yet another time Ayatollah Hadavi:

" I suggest it, if the is a group of expertise in human rights, they come and they evaluate the human rights situation in Iran and in the United States and give a neutral report about the situation and you can say the human rights situation in Iran is worse than the human rights in the United States, I would like you to do this, because some of the Americans have done it before and they say that the human rights situation in the United States is worse than the human rights situation in Iran. I am not saying so, a Jewish professor in the United States said it in 2004."

The name of that famous professor will remain forever unknown... and, of course, we will completely overlook all of the UN human rights reports made by experts...

Unanswered in Davos

Mr. Khatami was once more invited to Davos for the World Economic Forum. This time he spoke at the Open Forum.

He has certainly succeeded in establishing himself as one of the darlings of the West and a kind of moderate Muslim cleric that can be talked to.

However, the most painful of all is to hear him make statements such as (I changed a little the words of the translator to make it more accurate):

"But if the intervention of religion in political life would mean to limit life, or if religion would not appreciate the human values, or would like to take away from men freedom which is one of the greatest benedictions of God, that kind of religion and interference would be a loss and the society would never accept it."

or "In the Islamic revolution people demanded freedom, independence and progress based on religion. And this is why an Islamic Republic was established. An Islamic Republic means a democratic government, where women are free, there is freedom of thought, the elections would establish the power, etc. and because people are Muslim the religious values should be present, but these religious values should not contradict these basis."

or "I don't think that in Iran anyone is prosecuted because of his religious beliefs, and if he is, this is wrong."

and that no one can (or wishes to) ask him: Mr. Khatami, you were President of Iran for 8 years, how come these lofty statements were nowhere to be implemented then?