Just read this from the BBC about Iran’s dilemma over whether to stone women to death, or not:
The Iranian authorities like to portray an image of a country and a system misperceived and misrepresented in the West.
It is an image that plays well with some western liberals, who buy the argument that criticism of Iran’s human rights record amounts to hypocritical double standards, or perhaps part of a wider campaign to "soften up" western public opinion in preparation for some future military action.
Hence the dilemma for the Iranian government about how to defend the practice of stoning – a punishment that offends those same western sympathisers.
Hmm. Sure must be tricky for the Iranians mulling (mullah-ing?) over that one. I can just see the policy submission going to the President:
Problem
If we stone adulterous women to death as they richly deserve, some Western Liberals may feel offended. How to proceed?
Recommendation
That we hang them instead and present that as a bold step towards modernisation – why take risks with the possible disappointment of Western Liberals?
Media Angles
CNN and BBC concur.
Cost Implications
Modest, stones are free but rope in the quantities needed is affordable.
Looks like the regime liked the idea:
It would seem from these latest events that she probably faces imminent execution, though most likely by hanging rather than stoning.
If that is the case then it will be seen as evidence of Iran taking itself one more step into international isolation.
It will also be a clear warning to western human rights campaigners and the media that pressure on Iran can sometimes be productive, and sometimes deeply counter-productive.
Yup. It sure was.
Had it not been for all that nasty ‘pressure’ she could have been stoned nicely away from the world’s attention.
Our dilemma is simple. Do we abolish the BBC in its current form now, or later?