The US and Britain: The Attack of the Nanny State?

Two weeks ago, the US Senate approved legislation empowering the federal government with sweeping powers to oversee tobacco products. In essence, Uncle Sam will regulate matters such as the amount of nicotine in a cigarette, not to mention how the cigarette is packaged, signed, and marketed. After 50 years of warnings from the surgeon general, Big Tobacco has finally succumbed to a smoking President. Now, if only the National Rifle Association would fall at the feet of a President with a smoking gun, maybe we would get some sanity over the interpretation of the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms".

I have to declare an interest. Not only am I a reformed smoker – I was a 60-a-day man back in the 1970s, but I am also a trustee of a cancer charity. Therefore, you will not find me defending the rights of the tobacco industry or cigarette smokers. In fact, on a trip to Australia some ten years ago, I welcomed the typical Aussie frankness. The message on a packet of their cigs was to the point: “Smoking Kills”.

However, will Americans be asking a bigger question? Do they want a nanny state, where risk taking is minimized to cover obtuseness, as the government seeks to protect the citizen from everything that they, not the citizen, considers potentially dangerous? Will tobacco regulation be the thin end of the wedge?

In Britain, The Nanny State by Robert Huntington examined the almost obsessive nannying of the Tony Blair and, briefly, Gordon Brown Governments. Huntington writes scathingly about the chief proponents of the movement and argues that bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive, with its army of "five-a-day [fruit and vegetable] coordinators" and "smoking cessation officers", are merely a bunch of conmen who have seized a slice of the Treasury's cash reserves without doing anything productive in return. Huntington argues that nannying is ultimately dangerous, as freedoms are continually eroded while funds and resources are increasingly wasted.

One wonders whether the freedom issue over tobacco legislation might reach the Supreme Court and, if so, if the legislation be rejected towards the end of Obama’s first term. In the economic sphere, I have been astonished at the acceptance by mainstream America of the Federal Government’s takeover of the banking system, a move that is socialist from any viewpoint and attacks the norms of American business freedom and ideology. In the social sphere, will the Obama administration be tempted to make further inroads into American life on the basis of safety?

The proposed healthcare legislation will get a much harder ride in Congress than the new tobacco laws, where I am sure Republican objections to charges of nannying will find support in some Democrat ranks. And, fortunately for the US, separation of powers prevents the executive from ramming through unwelcome legislation. Nevertheless, Congressmen might look at the British experience before they decide to get carried away with petty regulations, passed in the fervour of “we know better than you.”

Video: Obama's Weekly Address "Washington Will Fight For Consumers!"

President Obama's latest weekly address was on new consumer protection legislation, which was described as important for the recovery of the economy as well as for action against those companies that have benefited through abuses of consumers' rights:



TRANSCRIPT:

As we continue to recover from an historic economic crisis, it is clear to everyone that one of its major causes was a breakdown in oversight that led to widespread abuses in the financial system. An epidemic of irresponsibility took hold from Wall Street to Washington to Main Street. And the consequences have been disastrous. Millions of Americans have seen their life savings erode; families have been devastated by job losses; businesses large and small have closed their doors.

In response, this week, my administration proposed a set of major reforms to the rules that govern our financial system; to attack the causes of this crisis and to prevent future crises from taking place; to ensure that our markets can work fairly and freely for businesses and consumers alike.

We are going to promote markets that work for those who play by the rules. We’re going to stand up for a system in which fair dealing and honest competition are the only way to win. We’re going to level the playing field for consumers. And we’re going to have the kinds of rules that encourage innovations that make our economy stronger – not those that allow insiders to exploit its weaknesses for their own gain.

And one of the most important proposals is a new oversight agency called the Consumer Financial Protection Agency. It’s charged with just one job: looking out for the interests of ordinary Americans in the financial system. This is essential, for this crisis may have started on Wall Street. But its impacts have been felt by ordinary Americans who rely on credit cards, home loans, and other financial instruments.

It is true that this crisis was caused in part by Americans who took on too much debt and took out loans they simply could not afford. But there are also millions of Americans who signed contracts they did not always understand offered by lenders who did not always tell the truth. Today, folks signing up for a mortgage, student loan, or credit card face a bewildering array of incomprehensible options. Companies compete not by offering better products, but more complicated ones – with more fine print and hidden terms. It’s no coincidence that the lack of strong consumer protections led to abuses against consumers; the lack of rules to stop deceptive lending practices led to abuses against borrowers.

This new agency will have the responsibility to change that. It will have the power to set tough new rules so that companies compete by offering innovative products that consumers actually want – and actually understand. Those ridiculous contracts – pages of fine print that no one can figure out – will be a thing of the past. You’ll be able to compare products – with descriptions in plain language – to see what is best for you. The most unfair practices will be banned. The rules will be enforced.

Some argue that these changes – and the many others we’ve called for – go too far. And I welcome a debate about how we can make sure our regulations work for businesses and consumers. But what I will not accept – what I will vigorously oppose – are those who do not argue in good faith. Those who would defend the status quo at any cost. Those who put their narrow interests ahead of the interests of ordinary Americans. We’ve already begun to see special interests mobilizing against change.

That’s not surprising. That’s Washington.

For these are interests that have benefited from a system which allowed ordinary Americans to be exploited. These interests argue against reform even as millions of people are facing the consequences of this crisis in their own lives. These interests defend business-as-usual even though we know that it was business-as-usual that allowed this crisis to take place.

Well, the American people did not send me to Washington to give in to the special interests; the American people sent me to Washington to stand up for their interests. And while I’m not spoiling for a fight, I’m ready for one. The most important thing we can do to put this era of irresponsibility in the past is to take responsibility now. That is why my administration will accept no less than real and lasting change to the way business is done – on Wall Street and in Washington. We will do what is necessary to end this crisis – and we will do what it takes to prevent this kind of crisis from ever happening again.

Thank you.

Video and Transcript: US Ambassador on "Fragile" Iraq

Yesterday, as we were focused on events in Iran, news came through of the deadliest attack in Iraq this year, with 80 people dying in a suicide truck bombing in Kirkuk.

That incident may put into perspective the appearance on the US Ambassador to Iraq, Christopher R. Hill, in Washington two days earlier. Hill confirmed the interests of Iran and Syria in Iraq while striking a delicate balance: the two countries contributed to Iraq’s insecurity, but dialogue with them was important to an Iraqi future.

Meanwhile, thanks to the engagement policy of the US, Hill said, the dialogue among different factions in Iraq had played a significant role in the overall downward trend of violence. Hill added, though, “But I don’t want to sound Pollyannish about that because these are trends that are fragile and ones that need to be nurtured every day.”



AMBASSADOR HILL: It’s a pleasure to be here and not talking about North Korea. (Laughter.) That was a preemptive strike. But I’m back for a few days of consultations and some personal travel, and I will be getting back to Baghdad next week.

Obviously, this is an important month because we’re getting to the – one of the major milestones of the security agreement that is the out-of-the-city milestone where our combat forces will be out of the remaining urban areas in Iraq. It’s an important moment because some – because as we go forward with the security agreement, we will also be moving ahead on something called the Strategic Framework Agreement, and this is an agreement which will really govern our relationship for, we hope, decades to come, that will involve our educational exchanges, economic relations, various political exchanges, things that we work on internationally.

So we want to make this Strategic Framework Agreement really the essence of the relationship, and to get to that we need to get through the remaining elements of the security agreement, and certainly the one dealing with – the provision dealing with our combat forces out of the urban areas is obviously a key element of it.

(Inaudible) – Libby.

QUESTION: I have a question about Iran, actually. Your predecessor met with the Iranians several times about issues specifically related to Iraq. What do you anticipate your role being with the Iranians as far as your post now in Iraq?

AMBASSADOR HILL: It’s hard to say. Frankly, the issue hasn’t come up as of now. I’ve only been there a couple of months. Iran has a great interest in Iraq. We certainly feel their interest in Iraq. They’re a historical neighbor of Iraq and obviously those two countries will have a relationship going forward. And as I said at my confirmation hearing, I think it would be best if Iran did all it could do to respect the sovereignty of its neighbor.

QUESTION: Has there been a change in Iranian activity in the last few days following the elections and the tension –

AMBASSADOR HILL: With respect to Iraq?

QUESTION: Yeah.

AMBASSADOR HILL: Not to my knowledge.

QUESTION: Is Syria being more helpful in terms of Iraq? Have you noticed a change?

AMBASSADOR HILL: I think, you know, obviously it’s – this is – Syria’s relationship with Iraq has gone through some ups and downs in recent years. Obviously, we are interested in Syria and Iraq having a better relationship. We are – we have addressed that issue with the Iraqis and we will continue to do so and see if we can be helpful. And as the Iraqi Prime Minister said to me, we’ll try to coordinate what we’re doing with Syria. But making Iraq have a better relationship with its neighbors is a key element of what we’re trying to do in that country.

QUESTION: Have you noticed fewer foreign fighters, though, crossing over from Syria?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, I can’t really gauge it in a matter of days or weeks. I think we have to take a broader view of what that is.

QUESTION: About the CENTCOM visit to Syria –

AMBASSADOR HILL: I’m sorry?

QUESTION: About the CENTCOM visit –

AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. I’m not in a position to discuss the CENTCOM visit --

QUESTION: But your impression?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, again, I don’t want to – I’m not here to talk about Syria relations – we have other people to do that – except insofar as it relates to Iraq. And certainly, the Iraqis have welcomed our interest in a dialogue with Syria and have expressed an interest in making sure that we’re coordinated, and we are.

QUESTION: Can I ask you about the renewed violence over the last couple of months in Iran? It definitely seems a concerted effort --

QUESTION: Iraq.

QUESTION: -- by the Sunni extremists to go after the Shia. They’ve been quiet so far – the Shia – not retaliating, but there is a huge concern that there would be – if there was like a major bombing like Najaf or something that there would be a huge renewed sectarian round of violence.

AMBASSADOR HILL: I think if you look at overall levels of violence in Iraq, you’ll see an overall trending downward. And this trending downward includes some of the events that took place in recent weeks. I must say, as someone who is new there and when I see a couple of rockets hit the green zone, those are a couple of rockets too many for my taste. But people who have had the benefit of more time there always tell me it’s nothing compared to last year. So when you see the aggregate numbers put together by the U.S. military, you see there is an overall trending down.

Now, the real question is whether some of these attacks – in one case, an attack on an Iranian tourist, actually – whether these attacks on obvious Shiite populations are ones that are going to be reciprocated. And certainly, you’ve seen some attacks on Sunnis. Whether it’s concerted or not, it’s obviously, in our view, an attempt to stimulate tensions. And we’re pleased to say that it has not had a desired effect.

The overall level of violence is – continues to be low. We don’t see any recreation of militia groups. There are still militia groups out there, but there’s certainly no growth in that pattern. Whether we continue to have this – these positive trends I think is hard to say, except that we work very hard to make sure that there is dialogue among the various political interlocutors in the country. We continue to do what we can to help people get together.

That is a country that’s gone through six years of very, very painful violence, where everybody has lost a loved one. And one never wants to predict when people are sick of this sort of thing, but since arriving there in the last couple of months, I do believe that people are trying to work their way through a political process.

QUESTION: But you don’t see – I mean, the violence is down, but the last kind of – couple of years of violence seemed to be more evidence from the insurgency and from al-Qaida-type – you know, al-Qaida in Iraq things. You don’t see a renewed level of sectarian tensions that gives you pause that there might be a --

AMBASSADOR HILL: No, I mean – no, we don’t, actually. What we do see are an anticipation of parliamentary elections which are now expected to be in January. We do see a lot of jockeying for political positions. We see Shiite parties reaching out to have a Sunni partner and to have a Kurdish partner. These sorts of things are actually healthy. So in general, what we see is a tendency to want to work with a political – within the political system. But I don’t want to sound Pollyannish about that because these are trends that are fragile and ones that need to be nurtured every day.

QUESTION: Can I ask you – your predecessor talked about this a lot, whether the violence in Iraq goes to the gains that you’ve seen over the past year are irreversible or not. And he would describe it as fragile, but reversible. Do you share that assessment? Do you think we’ve kind of gone over the hump on that?

And then on Mosul, where a lot of the more recent violence has been taking place, do you still think that U.S. troops will be able to pull out of Mosul on the 30th without any problems?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, what I know is that we’re going to comply fully with our obligations under the security agreement. I think – we signed that agreement and we will absolutely comply fully with it, and that means pulling all combat forces out of the – out of the cities. And I think what’s important to understand is that in most cities in Iraq, our combat forces are already out of the city, so this is not some brand new model that we’re not sure how it’s going to work. But to some extent, we’ve left the best for last – that is Baghdad and Mosul.

I was up in Mosul a few weeks ago. And to be sure, it’s a city that has a lot of tension in it. To be sure, there are various groups, whether it’s the Kurdish population there or the Sunni or – and I want to emphasize this as well – Christian groups that are – that have concerns about what life will be like in the future.

Again, I think the way forward is through political dialogue. I met with members of the provincial council. I met with the Kurdish delegation that is continuing to boycott the provincial council. I met with the governor. I met with some others. And I think we just have to keep doing that. I mean, whether this is irreversible, I think to some extent, will depend on the people themselves, whether they’re prepared to continue to work at this. I have no doubt that Iraq is a better place for the fact there’s less violence, and I think that’s an insight most Iraqis get or have every day.

QUESTION: Does the U.S. have any contingency plan in case the violence escalates after withdrawal?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, again, I don’t want to discuss contingency plans. I’m not in charge of contingency plans with respect to security. What I am involved in is to make sure that we are complying with the security agreement. This is something that we want to do and must do, and it’s something that’s expected of us.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Egypt has just appointed an ambassador. Have you had any indications that Saudi Arabia might be ready to do this?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Not yet. Obviously, this step by the Egyptians to send an ambassador is most welcome, and look forward to being there to welcome him or her. I think it’s – we really want to see Iraq reattach to its neighbors, as my comments earlier on Syria would suggest. And so we believe it’s in everyone’s interest to be present in Iraq, present diplomatically. We believe it’s in everyone’s interest, whether they’re interested for economic purposes or for regional stability, and anyone with an interest in regional stability, anyone with an interest in Iraq’s sovereignty and development as a healthy democratic state should be there.

QUESTION: Do you have a sense of what’s holding the Saudis back or --

AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I don’t. You’ll have to ask someone who lives and works on Saudi Arabia.

Yeah.

QUESTION: (Inaudible) on President Obama, did he ask King Abdullah to send the --

AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I’m not in a position to comment on what went on between the President and President Abdullah -- King Abdullah.

QUESTION: Can you – I don’t know whether you’ve been to Kirkuk or not. This – any resolution or any advancement of the problem of solving Kirkuk, and also the oil revenue sharing?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. I think there has been some – there’s a lot of discussion within Iraq on oil revenue sharing, and – not so much revenue sharing, but overall exploitation of oil. I know the government in Baghdad has had renewed and, I think, positive discussions with the Kurdish regional authority on this matter. I think you saw some fruits of this just a few weeks ago when oil from Kurdish areas was exported out through the main pipeline and where the revenue sharing went according to the UN formula of 17 percent.

I know that the Iraqi Government is working very hard to see what can be done to boost oil production, and they are in touch directly with international oil companies on this. There has been a lot of discussion about where the so-called hydrocarbons law is. And if you ask various political leaders in Iraq, you get different answers as to the potential for getting this law through the parliament. Right now, I must say the discussion in the parliament is very much geared to getting an election law through so that parliamentary elections can take place as scheduled on January 16th.

Yeah.

QUESTION: As we sit here now, how many U.S. troops are left in the cities, and specifically how many in Baghdad?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I would ask that you direct that question to the Pentagon. There are roughly 135,000 U.S. troops in the country, but as for their particular deployment, I’d direct that to the Pentagon.

Yeah.

QUESTION: Sorry. Ambassador, could I just make sure I got that straight? When you were asked about the Syrian fighters coming into Iraq, have you actually seen a diminishing of that number, or is it not yet clear?

AMBASSADOR HILL: I think it’s too soon to gauge the numbers, except to assure you that we track this issue very closely. And compared to, say, a year ago, there is a substantial – there are fewer such people coming over. Now whether there are fewer coming over because they understand the consequence of unlawful crossing of the border is greater now than it might have been in the past, that’s hard to say. But the specific question had to do with the recent discussions with Syrian authorities and whether there’s a change of a flow at this point. And I think in that case, it’s a little too soon to say.

QUESTION: But that was just last weekend, right?

AMBASSADOR HILL: The discussions with Syria were just last week, yeah. So it’s obviously a little early to talk about it.

Yes, ma’am, and then I’ll go to you.

QUESTION: Thank you, sir. Recently, there’s been some discussion with Turkey that this might be the year that the PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party) may give up arms and move into the political circle, or just give up violence, and U.S. is putting pressure on the Kurdish authorities as well as the central government. Can you clarify what is going on? Are you involved in the talks? Are you --

AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I’m not in a position to discuss the – that process that you’re describing. I mean, this is really for our people who deal with Turkey. I will say that with respect to Iraq, Turkey is very active. Turkey has a number of economic projects underway in Iraq. They’ve been very much bolstering their relationship with Iraq.

And I know, having talked to Turkish visitors from Ankara, there’s a great deal of interest not only in the northern part of Iraq, but also in bolstering their relations with the Shiite part of the southern part of Iraq. So I see a Turkey that is increasingly interested in having a good relationship with Iraq, and we very much welcome this process.

Yeah.

QUESTION: President Obama’s speech in Cairo has produced a lot of new, renewed hopes for the Arabs of the region and for America in there – its policies in there. Today, can you reiterate for us and for the Arab audience that you are looking forward for the day when America leaves Iraq as one country, united and sovereign – I mean, united or not like what Vice President Biden in the past has looked for, a division of Iraq and into three – to three parts?

AMBASSADOR HILL: We are very interested in having a long-term and successful relationship with Iraq, and as our President laid out in a speech, we’re interested in a long-term and positive relationship with the entire region.

With respect to our relationship with Iraq, we understand – those of us who work on the issue understand that to have a long-term and successful relationship with Iraq, we have to be very respectful of Iraqi sovereignty. And so that is one of the real foundation points of that relationship. It’s reflected in the security agreement. It’s reflected in the strategic framework agreement which governs the non-security areas. So we are very respectful of Iraqi sovereignty. We’re very respectful of Iraqi territorial integrity, and respectful of Iraqi unity. And that’s been our policy and it’ll continue to be our policy. We will work very hard with Iraqi authorities – not to tell them what to do, but to express our views and to listen to their views. And I think it’s been especially – be important for a new ambassador to do a lot more listening than he does talking, and that’ll continue to be my role.

QUESTION: Thank you.

QUESTION: Iraq’s foreign ministry has requested the U.S. support move in the United Nations to get Iraq out from under Chapter 7, the UN Charter, and restore full sovereignty with no limitations remain from the past dictatorship and so forth. What’s the U.S. position on going ahead with that?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, the U.S., as you know, and the Security Council – there’s some, I think, eight or ten Security Council resolutions that deal with the so-called Chapter 7 issue. According to Article 25 of the security agreement, the one that deals with this issue of U.S. troops out of the cities, there’s an article, Article 25, that deals with the U.S. committing ourselves to assisting Iraq to get off Chapter 7. If you look at the Article 27, it refers specifically to our view that Iraq is no longer a regional threat to peace and security in the region. And on that basis, it’s our desire to help them get off Article 7.

Obviously, this also involves helping Iraq, as I mentioned before, work to have a better relationship with its neighbors. And we would like to see an Iraq-Kuwait relationship that continues to improve, and we will continue to be engaged in that.

QUESTION: Well, is the U.S. going to take any steps to actually do that in the Security Council?

AMBASSADOR HILL: We are working with – as we look to these reviews, we’re obviously in touch with our partners and we will see what steps we will take. Again, I don’t want to be stepping on the role that our people in New York play, Ambassador Rice and others. But we are – obviously, this is a time when we need to look at the review of the situation and make sure that we are complying with Article 25 of the security – of our security agreement with Iraq, but also working with our partners in the UN Security Council and also working with the UN Secretariat on this.

Yeah.

QUESTION: The Iraqi Government says that it’s forming a committee to assess some of its prisons in allegations of overcrowding and prisoner abuses. Being that there will be some prisoners being transferred from U.S. troops to Iraqi prisons, could you tell me what involvement the United States has, if any, in the assessment of Iraqi prisons in regards to some of these allegations?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. We have – first of all, we have made a commitment, and this is also part of our security agreement, to transfer detainees from U.S. custody to Iraqi custody. We are working very closely with the Iraqi prison authorities both in terms of training and helping them with the refurbishment of prison facilities. Indeed, we just opened up a new facility, or a newly renovated facility, just last Saturday. In addition, I met with the minister of justice on Sunday about the issue of the status of the prisons and of their capacity to not only to receive prisoners but also to have a judicial system that has throughput, that is, gets the prisoners out with a – through a legal process to determine guilt or innocence. So this is a very key element of what we call rule of law initiatives at the embassy, and we are very much engaged on it.

And the rule of law initiative, where we have a number of personnel from the Justice Department, actually several hundred personnel from the Justice Department, including some 21 professional lawyers there, and it was for that reason that just the other day, or just two days ago, I met with Attorney General Eric Holder to really thank him for all the work that the Justice Department has been doing precisely on this issue.

QUESTION: Would any member of the United States personnel be a member of that committee or it’s a cooperation?

AMBASSADOR HILL: It’s cooperation.

QUESTION: Okay.

QUESTION: One more question on Iran. Do you still have concerns about the Iranians supplying parts for IEDs and contributing negatively to the security environment in Iran? We heard a lot about that in the last administration. What’s the –

AMBASSADOR HILL: Yeah. I think, obviously the security situation in Iraq could benefit from less trans-border shipments of various weaponry or explosives, and I think that goes for Iran as well.

QUESTION: What’s the level of current trans-border shipments?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Again, I don’t want to characterize the level of it. I’d ask you to direct that to the Pentagon.

MR. CROWLEY: Just an indication of what we were talking about earlier, Chris’s next activity on his schedule is a phone call with Secretary Clinton, so we’ve got time for one more question.

QUESTION: On –

AMBASSADOR HILL: And I don’t know if Kim Jong-il is – (laughter).

QUESTION: We can talk about that at the next briefing. On corruption, I mean, that was also a big issue in the last administration. And now Maliki seems to have cracked down on corruption so much so that people believe – a lot of people inside Iraq are fearing that he’s using it as a kind of political intimidation. What is your (inaudible) on this situation?

AMBASSADOR HILL: Well, I think a lot of countries in Iraq’s state of economic development have so-called capacity problems. And one element of capacity problems is a corruption problem. I think it’s healthy that Iraqis are talking about this and trying to address it.

To the extent that there’s concern about it being abused, I think that goes to the question of whether there are proper procedures in terms of what they’re doing in law and order, whether indictments are well-founded, whether there’s an effort to make sure that warrants are properly executed, et cetera. I think it continues to be something that we watch very closely and are in very close contact with the Iraqi authorities about.

QUESTION: Thank you very much.

Sunday Special Video: Obama the Super-Hero

We reported yesterday that President Barack Obama is actually Osama bin Laden. We would like to apologise for our error: He in fact has come to save the world.

Try JibJab Sendables® eCards today!

The Latest from Iran (20 June): From Rally to Street Fighting

NEW Video and Transcipt: The Moment of Truth?  Mousavi's Speech at Saturday’s Protests
NEW Iran: EA’s Chris Emery in The Guardian on Khamenei and Mousavi
Iran: An Iranian Live-Blogs the Supreme Leader’s Speech
Twittering Iran: What the “New Media” Means for Politics, Protest, and Democracy
The Latest from Iran (19 June): Speeches and Rallies

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

2350 GMT: An Iranian activist claims, based on this posting in Farsi, that the Assembly of Experts' letter backing the Supreme Leader was issued a day before his Friday address. That would be more evidence of a systematic effort to rally the clerics behind Ayatollah Khamenei, rebuffing Hashemi Rafsanjani.

2152 GMT: CNN, based on Iranian hospital sources, is reporting at least 19 people died in today's violence. The unconfirmed death toll is as high as 150.

2150 GMT: More from the activist who was at today's marches (see 2110 GMT): "All routes to Azady square were blocked & if anyone stopped walking or walking slow [security forces] hit him/her brutally. There was no safe path, people were walking in cycles between all variety of security forces. I think they made fun of people, don't go here, go this way, not that way & for no apparent reason suddenly attacking random people. We tried our best using all known shortcuts for reaching Azady SQ where Mousavi was, but ended up in face to face with IRG [Republican Guard]. They weren't just the ordinary police or motorcycle riot guard, they were soldiers holding MP5 supported by reinforced military cars. We didn't realize for a moment they started shooting at people, the gun's sound was like a toy gun, not loud & the soliders were smiling. I was going to tell Masood they are using fake guns for scaring people! until people started screaming in agony. We ran as fast as we could in the opposite direction, at the same time Basiji bastards started to hit fleeing people. I think I saw 2 or 3 people lying on the ground in blood & IRG started to move them, probably hide them."

2140 GMT: We've posted the English translation of this afternoon's speech by Mir Hossein Mousavi.

2110 GMT: One of the most prominent activists on Twitter has returned from today's marches with this report, "It was a nightmare, I can barely breath & my face is burning, Masood got shot in the arm & Shayan's brother is missing. I don't know where to start with, first they attack our peaecful memorial gathering in front of the university with water gun.The university's doors were closed, we couldn't run everywhere! & then they start shooting tear gas at us. they were so many! riot police, normal police, intel, IRG [Republican Guard], Basij! I managed to scape, but they captured so many people."

2105 GMT: An Iranian activist asks on Twitter, "Why are Rafsanjani and Khatami so silent?" Indeed, apart from Ayatollah Montazeri with his general letter this morning, has any "establishment" figure come out alongside Mousavi with the demonstrators today?

2055 GMT: Twitter sources say that this Mehr News page (in Farsi) summarises the support of the Assembly of Experts for the Supreme Leader's Friday statement. This in turn indicates that the initial attempt of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani to mobilise the Assembly against the election outcome has fizzled out.

2050 GMT: Latest reported arrest is of Mohsen Mirdamadi, the head of the pro-reform Islamic Iran Participation Front.

2005 GMT: Reported arrests throughout the day in Iran, including editors, Mousavi campaign workers, and journalists. The latest reported detainee is Jila Bani Yaghoub, journalist and women's rights activist.

1915 GMT: A few hours ago, we posted a video of a woman "badly injured" by a gunshot in today's demonstrations. The footage is so graphic that we have moved to the "jump page" after the More... tag.

I have just read more information on The New York Times blog about the incident. The woman was a bystander watching events; according to a doctor who witnessed the event, a paramilitary Basiji deliberately fired at her chest. She died within moments of the shooting.

1905 GMT: Tehran Bureau reports, "Hospital close to the scene in Tehran: 30-40 dead thus far as of 11pm and 200 injured. Police taking names of incoming injured."

1900 GMT: Press TV continuing to lead with "police usedbatons, water cannons, and tear gas on protesters", over images of a burning bus in the centre of a Tehran boulevard. It adds, "Reports say clashes are continuing" and "several people have been injured".

Press TV continues to declare " a terrorist attack" at Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum although casualty figures have been revised downward to the dead assailant and three injured. No supporting footage is provided.

1835 GMT: President Obama has just released this statement on Iran:

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.

1810 GMT: Tehran Bureau reports, "WHOLE city is shaking with very loud screams from rooftops. Their loud voices calling only for God is filled with fear, hatred, and hope." Lara Satrakian of ABC News: ""People are very angry…they are screaming like a banshee…this ain't aloha [sic] akbar anymore."

"Explosive" shouting also reported in Mashaad.

1755 GMT: Reports of loud shouts of "God is Great" from Tehran rooftops.

Reports of clashes with paramilitary Basiji at Haft Hooz Square. Further claims that demonstrators set fire to a mosque in Tehran and also set alight a bus and several motorcycles.

1745 GMT: The UK's Sky News is currently showing footage of protesters in Tehran seemingly being kicked and beaten. They are streaming a small amount of footage on their frontpage. You may also be able to see the footage by clicking 'Video News Headlines' or 'Watch Sky News Live' in the right-hand bar of their main story.

1725 GMT: The English translation of a  letter purportedly from Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, the designated successor Ayatollah Khomeini before falling out of favour in 1998, has been posted: "A legitimate state must respect all points of view. It may not oppress critical views. I fear that this will lead to the loss of people’s faith in Islam."

1720 GMT: Reports that IRIB 1 [Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting] now broadcasting "confessions" from detained protesters.

Also reports that people are blocking streets in east Tehran and setting fires.

1650 GMT: Claims now of fighting in Tehran, Shiraz, Rasht, Tabriz, Ahwaz, and Isfahan.

1645 GMT: We've posted a video which purports to be of Mir Hossein Mousavi addressing a rally in Jeyhoon Street in Tehran this afternoon. If verified, this could be footage of a key point in the development of this crisis.

1600 GMT: Mir Hossein Mousavi's Facebook page has been updated three times in Farsi in the last hour. We're seeking a translation.

1543 GMT: Claims that, in his speech, Mousavi declared the Presidential election "null and void". Claims also that he cast shame upon the Government and declared that he is ready for martyrdom.

1540 GMT: Eyewitness reports, via The New York Times blog, confirm fighting in Shiraz.

1530 GMT: Reports that Mir Hossein Mousavi is now addressing a crowd in Jeyhoon Street, beginning his speech, "We all go back to God."

1525 GMT: Reports of heavy fighting in Khosh St. and claims of shot protester as security forces dispersed people in Khargar Street. Claims that many people are trapped in Azadi Square.

Also reports of fighting in a 2nd city, Shiraz.

1520 GMT: CNN, whose reporters in Tehran are not allow to broadcast without permission of Iranian officials, are going to great lengths to cast scepticism on Press TV's report of the bombing at Ayatollah Khomeini's mosque. At the same time, to offer some coverage, they are playing portions of Press TV English's broadcast.

1505 GMT: Tehran Bureau reports clashes across Tehran, including Vali-e Asr Street, and gunfire and sirens around Tohid Square. It also reports protesters gathering at Vanak Square in north Tehran. There are unverified reports of one demonstrator killed at the crossing of Vali-e Asr Street and Enqelhab Square, and 20 injured protesters transferred to Loghman Hospital in 30 minutes.

There are reports that Mousavi supporters set fire to an Ahmadinejad headquarters.

Tehran Bureau: "The city is boiling over. It's a mess."

1500 GMT: Press TV's hourly lead: "Police have used batons and water cannons to disperse protestors in central Tehran who gathered to hold an illegal rally. Reports say sporadic clashes are continuing....Two helicopters have been seen hovering over the area....Police say a week of protests in the capital have injured 400 forces and done a great deal of damage to public property."

In what is likely to be a significant line, Press TV also emphasized that the Assembly of Combatant Clerics (associated with former President Khatami) had called off the rally after the Ministry of Interior refused a permit. And the station is repeating the morning statement of police commanders that Mir Hossein Mousavi will be responsible for any violence.

Press TV says three people, including the bomber, and eight were injured in the "terrorist" attack on Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum in southern Tehran.

1450 GMT: We've posted latest video of the clashes in Azadi Square and off Engelab Square, including BBC footage of shooting, fires, and clashes.

1430 GMT: We're back with the following. The bombing at Ayatollah Khomeini's shrine was reportedly caused by a suicide bomber.

Eyewitnesses reported about 20,000 riot police surround Enqelab Square, armed with rifles, water cannon, and tear gas. Dozens of people were reportedly beaten to force them to leave the square, with security forces reportedly beating passing motorcyclists and even those just passing by. Some demonstrators took refuge in Tehran University.

1325 GMT: We're off to check out some reports. Back just after 1400 GMT.

1317 GMT: Press TV reporting two blasts at Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum, with two hurt (Fars News says one dead). Reports that police have closed off Tehran University.

1310 GMT: Twitter report: "In Khosh Street police is attacking people with batons & pepper spray trying to disperse people, shots can be heard around Azadi [Square]."

1300 GMT: Reports of security forces trying to prevent people assembling, chasing them into alleys and allegedly using batons. Demonstrators reportedly trapped between Behboodi and Enqelab Squares.

Reports of gunshots being fired into the air, possibly as warnings. Also reports of tear gas and water cannon being used.

1240 GMT: First pictures coming through from today's march: riot police around square (left).

1230 GMT: Associated Press reports entrance to Revolution (Enqelab) Square blocked by fire engines, with riot police surrounding Tehran University.

1213 GMT: Classic state-run double-speak on Press TV's website. It is still not mentioning today's march. Instead, its story is of the National Security Council warning Mir Hossein Mousavi "against 'the consequences' of backing street rallies". The picture? A very large rally.

1203 GMT: Unconfirmed report "from usually reliable source" to The Guardian of London that Mousavi walking with 10,000 supporters from his party office.

1200 GMT: Witness reports (albeit from before 1130 GMT) that riot police cutting off access to gathering point for march.

1150 GMT: First reports of clashes, with beating of demonstrators near Azadi Square.

1133 GMT: First reports of the march: large numbers gathering, no action by police. Cellphones in area reportedly disconnected.

1107 GMT: Al Jazeera English and Twitter sources report heavy presence of riot police on both sides of Enqelab Square.

1103 GMT: It's On! This message was posted 20 minutes ago on the Facebook page of Mir Hossein Mousavi: "The CRUCIAL Demonstration on Saturday 16:00 in Tehran and all around the world, please spread this message around."

1100 GMT: From one of the most useful Iranian sources on Twitter: "To Western Media: Stop sharing false information given to you by Iranian state television. The demonstration will GO ON. It is NOT canceled."

1045 GMT: As we wait for developments, some interesting thoughts from Gary Sick, one of the foremost US experts on Iran, on the Supreme Leader's address, Mousavi's position, and President Obama's strategy on his blog.

1030 GMT: One hour to the scheduled start of the march. Still awaiting statement by Mir Hossein Moussavi. Reuters reports the statement of Mehdi Karroubi's Etemad-e Melli party, "Because permission was not obtained, the rally today has been cancelled."

1000 GMT: Press TV English interviews Dr Seyed Mohammad Marandi of Tehran University (and a past contributor to Enduring America) about "reports here and there of protests today in Tehran": "Wouldn't this be some kind of defiance of the Supreme Leader's call for calm and peace?"

Marandi replies about "one of the things important things the Leader said yesterday and what most people believe": "It's very hard to imagine vote-rigging where 11 million votes have been manipulated....It's virtually impossible to do that." He criticises Mousavi and Karroubi for their absence from this morning's Guardian Council meeting. "All sides should calm down a bit....Shopowners and ordinary people on the streets want calm. Demonstrations on the part of any candidate...[are] irresponsible."

0930 GMT: Al Jazeera reports that Guardian Council, after its meeting with campaigns this morning, says it will conduct a random recount of "up to 10 percent" of ballot boxes from last Friday.

0907 GMT: Events moving fast. Questions now as pro-Mousavi website (text in Farsi) has announces the withdrawal of support from the Assocation of Combatant Clerics for the rally.

(It should be noted that withdrawals of support also happened on Monday, but in end Mousavi --- who had supposedly backed away from the protest --- appeared at gathering of hundreds of thousands.)

0903 GMT: Al Jazeera English reports from Iran state media that main reformist cleric body, the Association of Combatant Clerics, which includes former President Khatami, say they do not sanction this afternoon's rally.

News agencies are reporting an "important" statement from Mir Hossein Mousavi soon. Al Jazeera also passes on reports that Parliamentary committees are meeting with former President Hashemi Rafsanjani to ask him to take a "greater role" in resolving the crisis.

0900 GMT: A clue to the day? Press TV English reports that Mohsen Rezaie attended this morning's meeting with the Guardian Council but Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi did not appear.

0850 GMT: Juan Cole has posted his analysis of the Supreme Leader's Friday address: "The real question is whether this is 1963, when the shah managed to put down a rebellion led by Ruhollah Khomeini, or whether it is 1978-79, when he failed to do so. The answer lies in the depth of support for the protests among the population, and in the stance of the various armed forces toward the latter."

0830 GMT: Reuters, via Iran's Fars News Agency, quotes an Iranian police commander that his forces will deal firmly with "illegal" rallies "beginning today".

0800 GMT: An aide to Mehdi Karroubi has told Agence France Presse that the rally will go ahead.

0705 GMT: There is an intriguing story on Press TV's English website, indicating both that the "inaccuracies" in last Friday's vote may be far greater than the outside figure of "1 million" in "mistakes" cited by the Supreme Leader yesterday and that challenges to the system are coming from candidates across the board, not just Mir Hossein Mousavi.

Presidential challenger Mohsen Rezaei is claiming that he received 3.5 to 7 million votes in last Friday's elections (official returns gave him less than 700,000). A spokesman of the Guardian Council "cautioned" Rezaei against "agitating public opinion".

0700 GMT: Press TV English is making no reference to today's march. Instead, it is still focusing on the Supreme Leader's address from almost 24 hours ago and saying that the National Security Council is "holding Mousavi responsible" for any violence from "unauthorised protest rallies".

The NSC also said that "a network" of agitators responsible to "foreign powers" has been carrying out violence.

0655 GMT: Meanwhile, we are waiting to hear the outcome of a meeting that could have a significant influence on developments. The Guardian Council is seeing representatives of all four Presidential campaigns about the 646 official complaints over the election. On Tuesday, when the Council agreed to hold at least a partial recount, it said the process would take 7 to 10 days.

Morning Update 0630 GMT (1100 Tehran): Five hours before the scheduled start of today's major rally, in Enqelab Square in Tehran, and there are still conflicting stories as to whether it will go ahead. Reuters is still quoting "an ally" of Mousavi who spoke to them yesterday, "Mousavi has no plans to hold a rally tomorrow (Saturday) or the day after tomorrow."

However, Twitter sources inside Iran who have proven reliable continue to publicise the march, quoting former President Mohammad Khatami. Khatami's Facebook page continues to carry the announcement, posted last night, that the demonstration will take place, with Khatami and Presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi in attendance.

My guess, following the excellent analysis of Chris Emery yesterday, is that the march proceeds.