Ahmadinejad's Columbia Moment

All it took was one slip.

One awkward, unscripted moment after a silky-smooth speech and the mystique Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spent more than a half hour crafting for hundreds of scholars and students Monday at Columbia University evaporated into pitiful ether.

Who can take the president of Iran seriously when he looks squarely at an audience at one of the leading universities in the world and insists there are no homosexuals in his country?

"In Iran, we do not have this phenomenon," he said, speaking through an interpreter on a university-wide simulcast. "I don't know who has told you we have it."

That odd declaration came in response to an audience question about the rights of women and the public hanging of two gay teenagers there a few years ago.

At first, it looked like Ahmadinejad would filibuster the question with a lengthy recitation of the rights Iranian women enjoy. Eventually, he moved into a rambling, train-wreck of a diatribe about drug dealers, hostage takers and metaphorical doctors whose mission is to halt the spread of infectious microbes through a society.

Pressed for an answer to the original question, his reply was simply comical. "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country," he said.

Poof, it was over.

The burst of laughter inside Lerner auditorium quickly morphed to boos, hisses and cat calls. In the Pulitzer World Room at Columbia Journalism School, a similar, more-muffled response showed anxiety easing among roughly 100 aspiring journalists and faculty members gathered for the event.

Professional colleagues with different perceptions of Ahmadinejad had come -- most with open minds -- to hear what he had to say. Lurking quietly was the possibility he might offer something that could divide old friends.

With one crazy statement, his credibility was gone. In an instant, we were together in a world of truth and reality. He was alone on stage.

Earlier, he had rhetorically slipped past questions about the "extinction of Israel" with a cleaver call for free elections in Palestine and the assurance that "We love all nations. We are friends with the Jewish people."

He had turned allegations that he denies the Holocaust back on his inquisitors, embracing some aspects of the accepted history and calling for further research into others.

"We must allow researchers and scholars to investigate into anything... Why do you want to stop the progress of science and research?" he asked. "I am not saying that it (the Holocaust) didn't happen at all. This is not the judgment I am passing here."

Eventually, he repeated longstanding assertions that the International Atomic Energy Agency has verified that Iran's activities are solely for peaceful programs. "We do not believe in nuclear weapons, period," he said. "It goes against the whole grain of humanity."

By that point, however, the damage was done. The unscripted slip about the nonexistence of gay men and lesbians in his country allowed most of us to disengage.

Much has been written about whether Columbia acted appropriately allowing him to speak on campus.

As an adjunct professor of journalism, I agreed with the administration: Allow him to speak with the condition that he spends at least the same amount of time answering questions from faculty and students that he does in his unilateral remarks.

As a former reporter, I wanted to see how he would explain on the record in America the controversial statements our president and corporate American media have attributed to him.

Columbia President Lee Bollinger spoke wisely during his opening remarks when he reminded the audience "it is a critical premise of freedom of speech that we do not honor the dishonorable when we open our public forums to their voices. To hold otherwise would make vigorous debate impossible."

He also spoke compassionately to professors, students and alumni, adding "to those among us who experience hurt and pain as a result of this day, I say on behalf of all of us that we are sorry and wish to do what we can to alleviate it."

In another time, I might not have needed to hear Ahmadinejad myself.

Unfortunately, The New York Times and four broadcast networks lost so much credibility during the run-up to the present war that I still doubt their commitment to stand "without fear or favor" against warmongers who challenge their patriotism.

Worse, President Bush and his administration have lied to us so much about the immoral war we are in now that nothing they say about the Middle East is believable.

So, I heard this man for myself. The market place of ideas worked.

In one unscripted moment, it became crystal clear that Ahmadinejad is either dangerously removed from reality or he is a lying despot who will tell the world anything he wants it to believe about his country.

The frightening thing is the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Comments

[Norge]

I find it remarkable that he fielded the question about homosexuals considering the country where he is president as well as he did. He did not use his religions'moral ethics to attack sexual deviance in the country he had been invited to speak. His dignity and poise in the onslaught showed remarkable disipline though he knew he was speaking to children.

In some cultures it is considered extremely uncouth to discuss or use such terms relating to sexual activity in public places.

Years ago in America even the word Homosexual when used in a public place
raised eyebrows and opened ears for the posibility of a community castration and a sunday hanging with a picnic.

It was a word almost banned from the vocabulary
of American english as was the book Cancer Ward.

Cultural evolutions require years, many many years. Exactly as America has gone through these pasts several decades and is still in the evolving process of growth.

Time.

[rroy]

It is indeed disapointing to witness the arrogance and unwillingness to even attempt to understand cultural differences of other peoples and nations by so many of us.

It seems we Americans are so imbedded with our own often unfounded "superiority"that we see no reason to try to understand another point of view,especially that of a different culture.

I watched President Ahmadinejad's speach at the U.N.and found many of his comments very valid,especially those referring to Palestine Israeli situation.

It was also quite obvious that,as it has often been pointed out,he must also stress the religious manifestations of his position,since the real people in power are the secular leaders of his country.This has been true of Iran and other countries for many centuries,and is also true to a very large extent in the U.S.This is very evident in the power and influence of the American Christian Right!

Add to this the fact that his comments with it's inherent cultural nuances were almost instantaniously uttered by a translater.

To instantainiously place a commic or insulting interpretation on the comments on a foreign leader and disregard these circumstances is indeed shortsighted!

[Romeover]

Ahmadinejad denies that Iran has homosexuals because his country is selectively blind to that issue; they cannot believe that Iranians could diverge so far from what they consider righteous behaviour, so they deny all evidence to the contrary.

It reminds me how George Bush, Condi Rice, and a host of American officials deny that America tortures prisoners.

America does not torture. Iran has no homosexuals. God is great.

[dobberdoss]

We are all entitled to the odd crazy statement but how many is BUSH up to now?

1001, 1002, 1003 and i am being conservative!

[kevinabt]

He did include the qualifier "like in your country." Which means he wasn't saying that there were NO homosexuals, just that the situation was not like it is in the US.

It is clear to me that his words have once again been twisted in order to demonize him.

[wars4profit]

Every time the Pentagon wants to attack another country, it goes through the same drill.

1) Military build up around targeted country
2) Monopoly media demonizes president of targeted country
3) Government officials and pundits compare targeted country's president to Hitler
4) The bombs start falling

The excuses for attacking other countries seem to get weaker every time. Iraq was attacked ostensibly for non-existent WMDs. Now are we supposed to accept a catastrophic war on Iran because the Iranian president may have said there are no gays there?

All decent people must stopping accepting the Pentagon's wars of aggression. (You know in your heart it's about oil and not gays.)
.

[reformislam]

Muslims Against Sharia condemn, in the strongest possible terms, the decision of Columbia University to provide a speaking venue for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Apparently letting Akbar Rafsanjani speak at the National Cathedral was not the height of American Dhimmitude, because providing a venue for the world's foremost anti-Semite, whose proclaimed goal is the destruction of the USA and Israel, definitely takes the cake. What is surprising is that we don't hear any complaints from Columbia alumni who should be ashamed of their silence.

More on the subject: http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=38223
Why Does Columbia host Ahmadinejad?

[leftcoastindy]

I didn't read all the comments, but in southern baptist churches, the pastor/minister would tell you there is no gay problem / gays in his church. They live in a very restricted world. You are denied feelings and desires that don't fit doctrine.

Is there maybe any religious repression happening in Iran?

[hughbetcha]

I spent 10 years living in the Middle East, mostly in Cairo but I traveled throughout the entire region. And one thing was constant - the Arabs always denied they had homosexuals despite the fact that most young Arab men, sexually repressed as they were, would eagerly would jump another man given the chance. Same with AIDS, they didn't have any because there were no homosexuals. Libya put five foreigners on death row for allegedly infecting children with AIDS rather than admit they had it in their country. So, trust me, our Iranian friend meant exactly what he said and there was no nuance behind it. He's a dumbass.

[JackMonroe]

Look, let's be open minded. The fact is President Ahmadinejad is a foreigner. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, but, like our own president, you know, just as soon as he deviates from script things start getting whacky. For Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia is like being sober on a blind date: things just ain't going to work out as planned. We're talking about a guy who's only experience with a homosexual was doing the two-step in a stall at the international airport in Idaho. Ahmadinejad thought it was just one more all male Persian dance until things got out of hand and now he hates America. I think if he wants to blame someone it should be Craig...

[persiangal]

Let's face it, the guy (ahmadinutjob), is an idiot and a moron. He is an embarassment to Iran and it's people. I for one, cringe at the sight of him babbling his idiotic ideas....


An embarassed Persian woman

[kybo88]

I happen to be Jewish and after reading some of these comments I seriously believe if Hitler was alive and speaking at Columbia University some of you people would be defending his comments about killing off the jews just because George W. bush doesn't like him. Just because someone is the enemy of your enemy doesn't mean that person is your friend.

[CharliePfromHB]

I haqve four words:

Solar, Renewable, Nuclear Energy.

Then we'd have the power position that could result in a rational discussion. Everyone's position is seen through a veil of dirty fuel.

Oh yes, also a fifth related word especially for the Middle East....De­salination­.

[babylonandon]

You forgot one...geothermal.

[marko77]

The orthodox of all religions think that homosexualtiy is offensive to God. It's a basic fundamentalist premise. Ahamdinejad is a religious zealot who, I'm sure, believes this falsehood 100%.

He's either taking denial to the greatest of heights (depths, really) or he'll deal with homosexuals in his own way: having his fundamentalist goons beat them sensless or kill them in jail or in the public square.

He must be doing the latter. He's a moral idiot and I'm sure he's carefully thought out just what to do to homosexuals in Iran.

Also, forget the crap about his words being "lost in translation." What he said is clear enough, and from what a previous poster stated, he speaks French and English. Why not cut the crap and simply speak in English while visiting America?

[FlowerGirl]

When he said Iran had no homosexual problem, he answered exactly as any American president would have before Bill Clinton. I'm not sure how GWB would have answered, but Clinton would have been embarassed and might have claimed that we no longer had such a problem. (Don't ask, don't tell.)
So now where does that leave us? Since this is identified as the one shiming moment the anti-Iran warmongers can come up with, he must have done a brilliant job the rest of the time -- like when he spoke of inquiring into things to determine the truth, rather than trying to declare it without seeing the facts; or like trying to resolve problems through dialog and a quest for justice.
But the Bomb Iran squad has a problem. So they latch onto this one issue.
Not having a homosexual problem myself, I see no reason to go to war about it, but if you are queer, perhaps you see differently. I respect your views, but couldn't we have a civilized discussion before we start killing each other?
In any case, if this is the reason we go to war, let's recognize that we would also have gone to war against any America of the past. Were those old Americas so evil?