The Reassurance of Politicians: Evicting Protesters from Britain's Parliament Square (Hari)

Johann Hari writes for The Independent of London:

At the edge of Parliament Square, Winston Churchill squints –-- hunched and impervious and marble –-- over the gothic heart of British democracy. Usually, his only company is the smoggy traffic and snapping tourists. But, for the past three months, he has been joined by another symbol, and another style of democracy.

In May, a smattering of tents was set up on this diesel-tinted green by citizens protesting against the war in Afghanistan. When I first saw them they were a mixture of students and activists and professors, voicing the conviction of 70 per cent of British people that the war is unwinnable and should end. One of them, Maria Gallasetgui, said: "We have a responsibility to stand up to what they're doing. It's immoral." She added: "We support the troops, that's why we want to bring them home. They" –-- she pointed to Parliament –-- "are the ones sending them to die."

They held up signs with pictures of maimed Afghan children, and waved them at the MPs as they walked to work. The MPs invariably looked down and away and they hurried through Parliament's iron gates.

These protesters are needed: despite the clear will of the British and American people, the war is being escalated, with an increase in slaughtered civilians of 23 per cent in the past year.

As I looked out over this rag-tag of tents and posters, I realised that they didn't only express the will of the people here – they were expressing the will of the people we are invading and bombing. The International Council on Security and Development just conducted an opinion poll of ordinary Afghans in Kandahar and Helmand, the places where these MPs have sent a surge of troops. Some 70 per cent of them stand with the tents and camp-fires, saying the military operation is harming them and should stop.

So just a few metres from where the Prime Minister lives, people sat on an open green barbecuing food and sharing drinks and calling for that Prime Minister to be indicted for war crimes. They had daily meetings where they shared out the responsibilities, while every 15 minutes, Big Ben bonged.

In that first month, I saw a group of Chinese tourists staring at the camp in disbelief.

"This would never be allowed in China," one of them said to me. "Not anywhere. Never mind at the centre of power. This is what democracy really means."

As the months went on, the tent city developed and mutated each time I visited. More protesters arrived, with a more eclectic range of grievances. A man appeared announcing he was starving himself because the courts wouldn't let him see his children: he hasn't eaten for more than 20 days.

Read what happened next....

Iran Interview: Detained US Hiker's Mother "I Wish I Could Hear Her Voice""

In Rah-e-Sabz, Masih Alinejad interviews Nora Shourd, whose daughter Sarah was one of three US citizens detained by Iranian authorities last summer when they allegedly hiked across the Iraq-Iran border. Translation by Farzaneh Abdavinejad:

Q- Mrs. Shourd, who told you about Sarah and her friends' arrest, and how did you feel when you heard that Iran had arrested your daughter?

A- I went for a walk next to Oakland River [in California] when I heard the news. I was too shocked to understand what I needed to do at that moment. When I heard she was arrested in Iran, the only thing I could think about, was to go to the first travel agency and get a ticket to Iran. I had to go and rescue my child. Each mother knows how shocking this news can be, especially when another country is keeping your child under arrest.

I had a terrible day that I will never forget. The only thought I had on my mind, was going to Iran, yet it was not possible. I was worried.

Q- In Iran they usually do not tell the families where the prisoner is kept and what the charge is. When did you understand what Sarah and her friends' charge was and where they were being kept?

A- After we called everywhere, we realised that they were kept in Tehran, yet it was not really clear what crime they had committed. When we met the children in Tehran, Shane [Bauer], who is Sarah's boyfriend and my future son-inlaw, told us that when the Iranians arrested them, they were not in Iranian territory at all.

Q- Before I ask you about your trip to Iran, would you please describe your feelings before you were allowed to go and meet your daughter?

A- I thought it would be natural that they would allow me at least to speak to my daughter, but they did not for ten months. After ten months I had a very short phone conversation with Sara. That was tough, so tough. I had decided to write to her everyday, I mean there was not even one day when I did not write to her.

Q- But the prisoners in Iran are not permitted access to the internet.

A- That is why I sent all the e-mails to the Swiss Embassy in Tehran and asked them to send my letters to my daughter.

Q- Can I ask you what you wrote about to your daughter, and if they ever gave her your letters?

A- Out of 351 letters I had written, only 60 of them were given to her. I, as a mother, wrote to her about anything that happened to me. I wrote to her so many times that people and her friends had not forgotten her. I even wrote that many of the Iranians we met in the US showed their sympathy and sadness about our daughter's imprisonment.

I was so bored of writing the "You will be free soon" sentence. I was really tired of saying that "soon" word, and I gradually tried to write to my daughter about daily matters. I told her that every time when I go to take a walk next to the river, my mind is full of her memories. That was her right to know that her mother had not forgotten her, all the time she was being kept in a cell.

Q- Was she ever able to reply to any of your letters?

A- Sarah told she replied to my letters, but nobody sent them to me. Then the other children [fellow detainees Shane Bauer and Joshua Fattal] also told me that they write a lot to their families, but we just got nothing.

Q- Now, if you wish to tell us about your trip in last April to Iran, I would like to ask you how it developed and if you got the chance to meet any of the Iranian authorities?

A- All of the visits were organised by the Iranian Foreign Ministry, and we did want to meet Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Larijani, the head of the judiciary in Iran, but they did not give us this opportunity. The only ones we were allowed to meet, were two of the interrogators.

Q- Why did you want to meet Ahmadinejad?

A- I think he is the only one who has the power to release our children at the moment. Ahmadinejad had said that he would give the greatest possible mitigation for our children. Mr. Ahmadinejad surely has children and he definitely knows how we are suffering. He had promised that our children would have the Islamic mercy in the Islamic Republic of Iran's prisons, but it has been a year and we have not seen any mercy yet.

Q- You mentioned that everything for your trip was organised by the Iranian foreign ministry. Did you get to see [Foreign Minister] Mottaki who had described the American hikers' situation as a very good one?

A- Both Mr. Mottaki and Mr. Larjani told us that our children's condition is very good in prison, but the reality is something else that what they claimed. After all, we did not succeed in telling them in person how our children's situation was different....I mean since they were arrested, not even one of them has been interrogated and they have had no trials.

Q- During all this year that your daughter is in solitary confinement, have you followed her case, asking her lawyer?

A- Yes, we asked Mr. Shafiee, the lawyer that is chosen by Iranian authorities, but we never got any responses. My daughter has begged them to let her have at least one cellmate in order not to feel so lonely. It is very difficult to be in a cell for one year and, depending on [the reading of the] Convention of Human Rights, solitary confinement can be torture. The only excuse they give is that nobody knows how to speak in English, so they can not be Sarah's companions, but everybody knows that there are many Iranian students in prison at the moment who are able to speak in English. My daughter, told them that if they let her out of the cell, it would be possible to talk to the others using body language and gestures.

US Politics: How Governors and Redistricting Could Shape Obama's Fate (Haddigan)

Lee Haddigan writes for EA:

November's Congressional elections will have an important effect on the immediate future of US politics. They will determine, by the number of Republican gains in Washington, which policies President Obama can hope to implement in the final two years of his first term. Alongside these elections, however, another set of contests may help decide the course of the Federal Government beyond 2012. An unprecedent 37 races for State Governor will take place in the states, and the outcome of these will shape a process which could shift the balance of power in Washington: "redistricting".

US Politics: Why is Obama’s Popularity Dipping?

Redistricting is a complex subject that differs from state to state over time. At its heart, however, is this battle as defined by Nick Ayers, the Republican Governors Association's executive director: “The association and its Democratic counterpart will be engaged in ‘a $100 million-plus chess match' for control of the foundation of American politics for the next 10 years.’" Ayers believes that control of the state political machinery, for which a Republican Governor is essential, could see his party gain 15 to 26 members in the 435-seat House of Representatives.

Under the Constitution, seats in the House of Representatives, the "lower" house of the US Congress, are shared out to each state according to its total population. The number of seats in the House never varies from 435, so as the number of people living in each state changes so does their representation. In simple numbers: if the population of the US as counted by the ten-yearly census is 435 million, and a state has a population of 10 million, that state will get 10 members in the House. If ten years later population remains at 435 million, but our imaginary state’s population has declined to 9 million, then that state will now only have nine members. This is known as reapportionment.

Because it now has nine representatives the state must redraw the boundaries of the former 10 congressional voting areas, in effect creating nine new voting districts. This is where the real fun for an observer, or controversy for the participants, begins. It can lead, and often does, to the political or racial "gerrymandering" of a district.

Gerrymandering refers to the practice where boundaries are drawn to give a particular party or ethnic group an advantage at the next elections. In 1812 Governor Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts signed into law a redistricting proposal that helped Jeffersonian Republicans. A Federalist opponent allegedly looked at a map of the new districts, and commenting on the physical appearance of one of them stated: "Salamander! Call it a Gerrymander."

This cartoon-map first appeared in the Boston Gazette of 26 March 1812:



Again in simple numbers, if our state of ten million voters has 6 million Republican voters, and 4 million Democrat supporters, then that state should return 6 Republican and 4 Democrat Representatives. If, however, you draw the boundaries for each district of one million people so it is composed of 600,000 Republicans and 400,000k Democrats, then the state will have 10 Republican members of the House and no Democrats.

The same procedure can be used to limit the impact of minority ethnic votes in a state. For instance, if in a southwestern state Hispanic voters are concentrated in an urban area, their influence can be diluted by redistricting. A congressional district with one million Hispanic voters can be redrawn amongst four districts which each absorb 250,000 urban Hispanic voters into a larger area of white suburbanites.The formerly ethnic majority becomes a minority.

This process of racial gerrymandering is illegal under the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965. Before the Act, states in the South drew their boundaries so black majorities were effectively nullified. The VRA declared that this racial gerrymandering violated the 14th Amendment equal practice provision and set new regulations for redistricting that protected the idea of "one person, one vote".

Now states must divide their districts into as equal a number of voters as possible, and they must respect the right of ethnic minorities to gain representation in the House of Representatives equal to their numerical strength in the state. In theory, a state with a 10% black minority should draw its boundaries so black voters can be represented in one of ten seats. This principle is protected in the VRA by the requirement that states with a discriminatory history apply to the Department of Justice for a "preclearance" of any proposed redistricting.
.
The illegality of partisan gerrymandering, however, is not as certain. In 2003 Tom DeLay, then Republican majority leader of the House of Representatives, helped push through the Texas legislature a redistricting plan that favored his party. As a result, and after much scandal, the Congressional elections of 2004 in Texas returned 21 Republican members to the House vs. 11 Democrats, compared to 15 Republicans v. 17 Democrats in 2002.

The Supreme Court reviewed the redistricting and invalidated one of the districts for violating the VRA, requiring a new set of boundaries to be mapped in Texas. But on the question of the unconstitutionality of partisan gerrymanderin,g the Court adopted a confusing and inconclusive opinion.

This sets the stage for this year's gubernatorial elections and the redistricting plans that will be implemented in time for the 2012 elections. Each state has different requirements for the drawing of new boundaries that begins when the 2010 census figures are made available to them by 1 April 2011. In most states the Governor, as the leading political figure, plays a pivotal role in determining how the state is redistricted. (For those interested in how their state redistricts the Rose Institute in California publis has recentlyhed a report with the latest information on all 50 states.) Available at

Despite efforts by many organizations to take the redistricting process out of political hands, little will have changed by 2011. The next decade will see changes in the House directly resulting from redistricting and reapportionment; the outcome will indicate which party was most effective in gerrymandering the states they controlled.

The gubernatorial races this fall also have a significance beyond the redistricting wars. Traditionally, the election contests allow ambitious politicians the chance to present their credentials for a possible Presidential run. With no consensus on the Right as to who will oppose President Obama in 2012, the opportunity is there for a governor to challenge the current frontrunners --- Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney --- for the Republican nomination.

The immediate political interest in this particular cycle of gubernatorial elections will be provided by how much and how fa, Democratic candidates are prepared to distance themselves from the administration in Washington. Voters are angry that the stimulus package has not brought significant increases in jobs in their states, and Democratic governors will answer these concerns by calling for greater funding for employment assistance from a reluctant Congress. One sign of how far discontent with President Obama’s agenda has infiltrated the Democratic Party will be revealed by the extent to which governors and candidates criticise the federal administration’s record on jobs.

A governor is interested primarily in pleasing the voters of his state (or, more accurately in the current political climate, of placating them), not the party bosses in Washington. And those bosses will be worried for their prospects come 2012 if a significant number of Democrat governors lose their posts. President Obama’s first two years in office have seen historical changes in health care and banking reform. But his chances for re-election rest on how the nation rates his effectiveness in dealing with the Great Recession.

Quite simply, if Obama retains the support of all those who voted for him in 2008 then he wins in 2012, and if he loses their backing he loses in 2012. And the first indication of how Democrat voters view the success or failure of his stimulus package will come in the gubernatorial elections.

*For those interested in the campaign to end political control of redistricting see the website of the film Gerrymandering
for a list of organizations involved.

The Latest from Iran (22 July): Confusing Regime

2125 GMT: Today's All-is-Well Alert. Iran's police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam has declared that there is no smuggling of gas and oil across Iran's borders.

Then again, maybe all is not well: despite there being no smuggling, Ahmadi-Moghaddam has said the budget for border defence is inadequate.

2115 GMT: Religious Difficulties. Mohammad Nasser Saghaie Biriya, the President's religious advisor has resigned, allegedly because of divisions over the enforcement of hijab.

Saghaie Biriya is a disciple of Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, who has been seen as Ahmadinejad's religious mentor.

NEW Iran Analysis: The Supreme Leader & the Disappearing Fatwa (Verde)
Iran Media Follow-Up: War, War, War. Blah, Blah, Blah. No Facts. More War. Blah.
Iran Special: Khamenei’s “I Am the Rule of the Prophet” Fatwa — Strength or Weakness? (Verd
The Latest from Iran (21 July): Khamenei Rattled?

2100 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Detained student activist Arsalan Abadi has been sentenced to six years in prison by an appellate court. Abadi, arrested during the Ashura protests on 27 December, had originally been given a nine-year term.

2055 GMT: Regime v. Rafsanjani. Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami has tried to put former President Hashemi Rafsanjani in his place, saying that his position is still the same as it was on 19 June last year, when the Supreme Leader tried to close off debate over the result of the Presidential election. Khatami said Rafsanjani's s future depends on Ayatollah Khamenei's decisions and the elections for the head of Expediency Council, the position Rafsanjani currently holds.

1945 GMT: Prohibiting Remembrance. Back from a break to catch up with this news from Wednesday....

The National Front of Iran has announced that security forces pressured the organisation into cancelling its public events. The head of the National Front was that any gathering in 7th Tir Square and boarding the bus to travel to Baboyeh Cemetery is prohibited.

On 21 July 1953, demonstrators protested the dismissal of the nationalist Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh, and were killed inby security forces of the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. The victims were laid to rest in Baboyeh.

1310 GMT: Scattering the Students. Rah-e-Sabz reports that Tehran University's dormitories will be evacuated this summer, with students distributed across the city.

1245 GMT: Economy Watch. Reformist MP Mohammad Reza Khabbaz has declared that excessive imports will break the back of domestic production.

1000 GMT: (Refuting the) Rumour of the Day. MP Qodratollah Alikhani identifying the mis-information put out by Javan, the newspaper linked to the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, dismisses its latest tale that Green leaders met in a hotel sauna.

0954 GMT: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Film Expert. The Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance has announced that a High Council for Cinema, led by the President, has been established.

An EA correspondent ponders, "What would be the titles of the films considered by this Council?"

0945 GMT: Education Corner. The licence of the Islamic Association at the University of Kashan has been revoked by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education.

Meanwhile, the Ministry of Education is reportedly sending religious missonaries to 3000 girls' schools in Tehran.
0855 GMT: Sanctions. MP Mohsen Nariman has challenged the Government's official line: "Claiming that sanctions have no effects is political propaganda."

0810 GMT: Staying on Point. Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani is continuing to ensure that his credentials on foreign policy are not in question, saying on Wednesday that the Iran-Brazil-Turkey declaration on a uranium swap is the only solution to the nuclear issue and adding that sanctions are sure to result in failure.
0805 GMT: Getting the Right Clerics in Place. According to Rooz Online, Seyed Reza Taghavi, the head of policy for Friday Prayers, has said 60 Friday Prayer clerics will be "retired" this summer.

0705 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Journalist Azam Visemeh after her release from detention yesterday:



0700 GMT: In the Bazaar. Nejat Bahrami, writing for insideIRAN, analyses, "Bazaari Criticism of Ahmadinejad Bursts into the Open":

Another factor that can bring the bazaar and the opposition closer to each other is the role of the government. Mistakes made by the government and their impact should never be underestimated. Continuation of failed economic policies by the Ahmadinejad administration and further pressure on Iran by the international community can further intensify the economic crisis in Iran and alienate some parts of this important, influential group of merchants.

0655 GMT: Sanctions Watch. Two overviews of interest this morning....

Shayan Ghajar writes in insideIRAN, "Sanctions Open Iran to Russian, Chinese Firms", while Ardalan Sayami's analysis in Rooz Online is that "Sanctions Turn the Government to the Private Sector".

0635 GMT: A Clue on the Fatwa? Personally, I believe that the first audience for the Supreme Leader's supposed fatwa on Tuesday was the senior clerics of Qom, some of whom have been unsettled throughout the post-election crisis and many of whom were roused to anger by the June attacks on Seyed Hassan Khomeini and on the houses of Grand Ayatollah Sane'i and the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. (Using this line of reasoning, a possible reason for the "disappearance" of the fatwa is that it was not received well by those clerics.)

Support for this interpretation comes in Rah-e-Sabz, which posts a provocative account of Ayatollah Khamenei's recent journey to Qom and his meetings with the clerics.

0605 GMT: Perhaps the most spirited response to our coverage since Tuesday of the Supreme Leader's alleged fatwa --- "I am the Rule of the Prophet" --- has come from a reader who say, "Nothing new, he has simply reiterated the meaning of the velayat-e-faqih [clerical supremacy] as originally articulated by the late Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini....It is not always good to murky the water as you like doing here."

With respect, I beg to differ. While the content of Ayatollah Khameini's declaration has its precendents, it has not taken on the form of a fatwa, at least not under this Supreme Leader. And, as always, the distinction lays in timing, context, and developments: Why now? To what end? And what has happened to the fatwa, which has "disappeared" from many Iranian state outlets?

Mr Verde takes another look in an analysis.

Meanwhile....

Mousavi's Latest

Almost lost in the confusion over the Supreme Leader's statement --- did he or didn't he? --- was Mir Hossein Mousavi's intervention in a meeting with professors.

Mousavi, unwittingly intersecting with the presentation of and uncertainty over Khamenei's words, condemned “fabrication” and “distortion” of truth by the Government and stressed that “systematic lies” are the signs of the “decline” of a system. He said the media of the Green Movement should make every effort to “unravel” these lies and counter the “ominous phenomenon": “We must provide our people with a truthful analysis of every situation that the government represents through lies; even though our possibilities are not as much as the authoritarian government.”

Mousavi also spoke about the recent bombings in southeastern Iran, declaring that the problems of the ethnic groups in the border regions must be a priority and maintaining that terrorism can only be confronted through “development coupled with justice".

Power Crisis

Tabnak reports that electricity prices for farmers will increase 10-fold.

Britain & the US: Scott Lucas on the Prime Minister's Trip to Washington

I chatted with BBC Radio Wales today about Prime Minister David Cameron's talks in the US this week. Asked if the visit was significant, my answer? "Not much."

[This conversation took place before Cameron's gaffe this afternoon in which he said that Britain was the "junior partner" in the World War II fight against the Germans "in 1940".]

The discussion starts about the 1:49:30 mark.