Hypocrisy at its best.

This week, Gil has decided to complain about a "false" news media story, implying that it was rightwingers responsible for having the story about Iranian badge-wearers appear in the news media. (Anyone seen that Iraq Civil War?)

Note: Iraq less violent than some U.S. cities.

Ironically, Newsmax picked up on this very story.

View Canadian Paper: Iran 'Badge' Story Erroneous dated May 25, 2006.

An interesting excerpt:

Douglas Kelly, editor-in-chief of the National Post, ran a lengthy column on page 2 Wednesday explaining that the story was based on a column by Amir Taheri, an Iranian author and journalist, and two expatriate Iranians living in Canada.

So not only did this story come from Canada -- it came from Iranians.

I like how Gil artfully dodges this point by stating "The Financial Times subsequently reported that the story was “drawn from” a column in the same paper by Amir Taheri, a former Iranian newspaper editor who wrote for the Wall Street Journal, New York Times and other publications before joining Benador Associates, a public relations firm that has represented, among others, Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Michael Ledeen and Charles Krauthammer — some of the best-known, most hawkish “neoconservatives” around."

Nice deception there with the word "former", too. Is he a "former" Iranian? If he was born there, I think not. He's still Iranian. And he was born there.

The way it's worded, one might think the newspaper was merely Iranian.

Taheri's original article.

An interesting follow-up here by Chris Wattie.

It notes: "The Simon Wiesenthal Centre and Iranian expatriates living in Canada had confirmed that the order had been passed, although it still had to be approved by Iran’s “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenehi before being put into effect."

Sam Kermanian, of the U.S.-based Iranian-American Jewish Federation, said in an interview from Los Angeles that he had contacted members of the Jewish community in Iran — including the lone Jewish member of the Iranian parliament — and they denied any such measure was in place.

Mr. Kermanian said the subject of “what to do with religious minorities” came up during debates leading up to the passing of the dress code law.

“It is possible that some ideas might have been thrown around,” he said. “But to the best of my knowledge the final version of the law does not demand any identifying marks by the religious minority groups.”

Ali Reza Nourizadeh, an Iranian commentator on political affairs in London, suggested that the requirements for badges or insignia for religious minorities was part of a “secondary motion” introduced in parliament, addressing the changes specific to the attire of people of various religious backgrounds.

Also, Amir Taheri posted a follow-up standing by his original story.

Regarding the dress code story it seems that my column was used as the basis for a number of reports that somehow jumped the gun.

As far as my article is concerned I stand by it.

The law has been passed by the Islamic Majlis and will now be submitted to the Council of Guardians. A committee has been appointed to work out the modalities of implementation. Many ideas are being discussed with regard to implementation,
including special markers, known as zonnars, for followers of Judaism, Christianity and Zoroastrianism, the only faiths other than Islam that are recognized as such. The zonnar was in use throughout the Muslim world until the early 20th century and marked out the dhimmis, or protected religious minorities. ( In Iran it was formally abolished in 1908). I have been informed of the ideas under discussion thanks to my sources in Tehran, including three members of the Majlis who had tried to block the bill since it was first drafted in 2004.

This blogger admits that what Taheri stated is technically correct. His story is accurate. He feels, though, that we've been "deceived". (However, the "lie" was in the minds of those who misinterpretated plain English.)

The irony is that this guy will not take responsibility for misreading the article. He blames it on a "rightwing conspiracy". Give me a break. If anyone is to blame for "false" stories - it's the media itself. So much for personal responsibility (even though he admits "Ms von Maltzan underlined this distinction in her first comment to me, and I did not fully register its importance.")

Hardy har har. Get real.

For more details, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Iranian_sumptuary_law