the Brazilian government criticized Iran

Paul Vannuchi, Minister of Human Rights, classifies Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a dictator and shows that tuning with Iran is not unanimity within the government




In a rare display of irritation of the Brazilian government with Iran, the Minister of Human Rights, Paulo Vannuchi, has heavily criticized President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, showing that the recent "harmony" between Brazil and Iran is no unanimity in Brasilia. Vannuchi elevated the tone and called Ahmadinejad a "dictator," but defended the Brazilian foreign policy, saying it is not contradictory to open dialogue with governments that flagrantly violate human rights.

Vannuchi made the remarks on Monday (16), at the opening of the 1st International Seminar on Human Rights Education, organized by the Methodist University in Sao Bernardo do Campo, São Paulo. The minister said that the Brazilian government continues to negotiate with Iran for the Iranian Sakineh Ashtiani, arrested and sentenced to death by stoning in your country, be sent to Brazil as political asylees or refugees.

Sakineh Ashtiani, 43, was convicted on charges of having sex with two men after he had become a widow. The punishment was death by stoning. According to the Iranian authorities Sakineh also was convicted of murdering her husband, a fact denied by his lawyer.

The case has drawn international attention and the Brazilian government officially proposed that the woman was sent to Brazil. On Sunday (15), Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said there was no need for such action and that legal authorities of the country also are contrary to heed the request of Brazil.

"The Lula government is pressing Tehran diplomatically to allow it to come to Brazil. And if that dictator [Ahmadinejad] has a minimum of common sense, should allow her to come live in Brazil and be saved," said minister, for whom Brazil is the only country that can negotiate with Iran after President Lula and the Turkish government had brokered the talks between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Iran's nuclear program.

For Vannuchi, respect international human rights should override even the respect for differences and cultural precepts. "The relationship between human rights and cultural precepts is a delicate relationship that needs to be talked very calmly," he said. "The idea that the cultural precept has to be maintained would lead to tolerating infanticide, for example, and we can not accept this, as we can not accept the amputation of clitoris promoted by Islamic countries. You have to question and discuss it, but not with tanks but with the dialogue by pressing [so do see] that you can not convict someone of stoning, "the minister said.

Vannuchi also defended the Brazilian government's foreign policy, arguing that the greater proximity with the governments of Iran, Venezuela and Cuba - accused of violating human rights - do not represent any contradiction in the field of human rights.

"We condemn the violations of human rights, whether in Iran, either in Gaza or [at the U.S. naval base of] Guantánamo, but we think the violation of human rights in some countries must lead the United States or the UN [ United Nations] to invade them militarily, because no single event that has proven that military intervention will help, "said Vannuchi.

Cuba is a theme of "controversial"
Specifically on Cuba Vannuchi said the situation is "controversial" because although the country has a political system that "moves away much of the values of the Lula government," also has "social advances than any other American country has." "Moreover, since 1960 Cuba has not had a moment's respite. Therefore, the Cuban situation has to be discussed here. What can not be, for us, are prisoners of conscience. And the Brazilian government is discrete pressures in this direction . There are problems but the Cuban regime and those we disagree, "he said.

Nietzsche and the critique of Christianity and the Socratic

All opposition to Christianity and Nietzsche's Socratic is fighting to give the idea that life has meaning. For him, both the Socratic dialectic rationalism as the Christian kindness drugs are harmful to humans, since focus weakness. Nietzsche believes that among the infinite possibilities of setting sense of the world (and of Christianity and Socratism are victorious), the monster of a good man, the idea of doing good man, is a task of extreme weakness, the man for wanting to confine not only in goodness but also in seriousness, in rationalism. For him, one can not confine the man or the morals or logic.


In this sense, in its view, Socrates is a remedy for a crisis in ancient Greece, which could not be tragic at the time. Thus, truth in Socrates has a sense of ethics - is the expression of the soul than that man can attain. Socrates represents an important moment in the culture of awareness that Nietzsche seeks to destroy.
As for Jesus Christ, to Nietzsche, he was an anarchist religion and its function was to disturb the law, insult her. The crime of Jesus was, therefore, just to oppose the law, the dominant reason. Thus, his sin was political and not religious. Christ chose to place faith above the law, so he was killed. Nietzsche radicalized this idea in his critique of Christianity, and by extension, the gregarious morality.
In his interpretation of the psychology of Christianity provides the moral differences between the master and slave morality, to show how was the inversion of aristocratic values, and began, in morals, the uprising of slaves, who gave birth to Christianity, he sees not as a dogmatic, a divine revelation, but a value system anchored in the sense of revenge:

Everything on earth was done against the "noble", the "powerful", "Lords", the "rulers" can not compare with what they did the "Jews." The Jews took revenge of their conquerors through a radical change of moral values, ie with a "revenge essentially spiritual." Only a people of priests could obrar so. The Jews, with a formidable logic, shot by land to the equation of aristocratic values "good," "noble," "powerful," "beautiful," "happy", "beloved of God." And with the hate derisively said, "Only the bastards are good, the poor, the powerless, small, are good, the suffering, the needy, the sick, are the pious, are blessed by God only they belong to the bliss, instead, you who are noble and powerful, you will be for all eternity the evil, the cruel, greedy, insatiable, the godless, the damned, the damned, the damned ... "All know who was who collected the Jewish heritage of these findings ... And remember here what elsewhere (Beyond Good and Evil, fl. 195) said: What began with the Jews' emancipation of the slaves of morality, "this emancipation which already has twenty centuries of history and that today we lost sight of for having triumphed completely (NIETZSCHE, 1985, p. 9).

Nietzsche sees Christianity as a doctrine that proposes a force that does not relate to another, or proposing the victory of weakness, the victory of the weak. Thus the Jews became the force (you) in wickedness, and weakness (slave) in goodness. The masking of the wickedness of the slave is striking because just look at the cross symbol to see the presence of cruelty in exalted Christian kindness. The cross is the symbol of a religion that celebrates the human sacrifice by offering to the gods, but only that of a more cruel still, Jesus, God himself, is sacrificed for the salvation of all men. For Nietzsche, one sees clearly the cruelty of Christianity. This is because, concealment and distortion of the force of the slave:
Christianity, with its morality of love of neighbor, humility and obedience mean for Nietzsche, in general, a victory of slave morality, with the result that strong natures, who remain, are forced to do all sorts of concessions , deceptions, distortions and indirect positions, in order to exercise its power. The third chapter, which describes the genesis and embodiments of the aesthetic ideals, is an example for the masking strength in a religious humility (Safranski, 2001, p. 277).
Master and slave would be in a balanced order? No, for Nietzsche, who believes that each one is located in a different perspective, because while the slave is reactive, you are active. The slave depends on you (which is the act itself), the individual who has autonomy. This dependency is not, however, a dialectical question, because no matter what you have to slave to exercise its power; matter his strength; mind being able to exercise the landlord, his power as a matter sir, that is, par excellence, a creator of values, it is important that he is strong and knows how to use his strength. Already weak men do not realize their own strength, she smothers the. Hence, they have to live limited by their weak condition.

Lined on the theory that were weak and in need of protection called the strong evil which threatened them, when in fact they were themselves, from the perspective of the strong, the bad, to vulgar and inferior (Safranski, 2001 , p. 275), Nietzsche recognizes the slave as one who has to deny the other to affirm the opposition: I'm not good to be bad. In his view, the slave creates the opponent (sir), inventing a place for evil, to gain dignity, to be good. Therefore, when the weak heads to the strong, the active, the creator, he is providing the strong build up as strong, and providing yourself, create yourself as weak, characterizing what Nietzsche (1985, p. 17) believes to "require the weakness that manifests itself as a force":
As the mob distinguishes between the radius and its brightness, as an action radius of the subject, so plebeian moral distinction between the strength and impact strength, as if behind the strong man had neutral substratum that was "free" to express or not strength. But there is no such substratum, there is a being behind the act, the act is everything. What the mob does is to deploy a phenomenon in effect and cause (NIETZSCHE, 1985, p. 17).

Putting on a reactive approach instead of saying yes, the slave says no to another, because it has no power to flow. You already have an aura that just says yes:



The slave rebellion in morality began when the hatred started to produce values, the hatred that had to be content with an imaginary revenge. While all noble morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of itself, slave morality opposes a 'no' to everything that is not yours, that no is its creative act. This total change of view is the very hatred: the morality of slaves ever needed of external stimuli into action, your action is a reaction. The opposite happens in the noble morality: it operates and grows spontaneously and is not seeking its antipode but to assert itself with greater joy [...] (NIETZSCHE, 1985, p. 11).

The fundamental strategy of Nietzsche is this: if we evaluate Christian values like love, for example, we see that the man behind him is weak because, inconsistently, it is a sentiment that embodies the hatred, because they originate in suffering the revolt of the weak against the strong field:
On the trunk of revenge and hatred - and this is what happened - the Jewish hatred, hatred deeper and more sublime than the world has ever known, creator of the ideal of hatred, hatred transmuter values, hatred not like on Earth, came out of the trunk of this hate something unique, a "new love", the deepest and most sublime form of love. But do not believe that love has developed on this trunk (only one that could evolve) as the antithesis of this hatred and revenge. Rather, the love left this hatred as a triumphant crown, but that in the new field of purity, light and sublime, pursues the same purposes as hatred: victory, conquest, seduction. This Jesus of Nazareth, the incarnate gospel of love, this "Saviour", which featured the poor, the sick and the sinners bliss and victory, was not it precisely the seduction at its most irresistible seduction that, a rodeo, he would lead the humans to adapt Jewish values? The people of Israel, to smite the Savior, his apparent opponent, not hurt the true object of your hate sublime? (Nietzsche, 1985, p. 9-10).
For Nietzsche, this character has emotional revenge: the cure for suffering is more suffering, it is fault injection. Nietzsche suggests that Jewish revenge is the subtlety of presenting strategic, it is the vengeance that exposes the cross and preach the love:

What thing more seductive than this symbol of "holy cross," this horrible paradox of a "crucified God," this insane cruelty of a God who was crucified himself "the salvation" of mankind? ... At least one thing is certain: is that, with his revenge and transformation of values, Israel triumphed sub ad sign of all the noblest ideals (NIETZSCHE, 1985, p. 10).
Thus, the meaning of Christian love is sewn with the death of Christ, that is, love is meaningless without Christ's death. The act of killing Christ is the revenge of the Jews. Thus, Nietzsche sees revenge in the love of Christians. That is, behind what we most revere has dirt, behind the purity, has pain, but blood, is regret, is sorrow, is evil, has only negative thing, which may also vary in meaning, but will always be negative therefore always anchored in the concept of good and love. Judaism in Christian love is the potentiation of revenge:

It was not the black magic hides a truly grand politics of revenge Previsora, subterranean, slowly and calculator, which put Israel on the cross to the face of the world, a true instrument of his vengeance, as if this instrument was his mortal enemy in order to the whole world, ie Israel's enemies have less qualms about biting the hook more ominous and dangerous? (Nietzsche, 1985, p. 10).
At the core of the critique of Christianity, criticism of asceticism becomes a major aspect of Nietzsche's work. To formulate it, what interests him is the interpretation of priestly asceticism, whose influence, in its view, was fatal to philosophy. For Nietzsche, where the philosophy began was so unselfish of practical things, which had support in the priestly experience. Thus, the brand of asceticism in philosophy is the cult of the absolute ideal of beauty. Already the brand of asceticism in religion is the attempt to justify an absolute meaning of life.

In view of these philosophical and religious influences, Western culture is characterized by a search of the ideal, which means a condemnation of the real, ie, the strangeness of the body, pleasure, life. Thus, the action of the priest spiritualizing in spreading a culture of the ideal serves to preserve a life that degenerates, which is low, and suitable for men who need support to live with its mild nature, and therefore will need suffer to achieve a cure for the salvation of the soul. This weakness is not just the body. Therefore, Nietzsche believes that the church gives a hospice cruel treatment to their patients - a treatment where pain is injected to treat pain, as spiritual therapy that does not cure the patient, but only helps to make life bearable and even interesting:

'The ascetic ideal has its origin in the instinct of a prophylactic life degenerates', and by all means looking the way to save, it is a struggle for existence, is the indication of a partial physiological exhaustion, against which strong instincts do the rest of life, with always new tricks. The ascetic ideal is one of these devices, it is therefore just the opposite of what their fans think, in and through it, life against death, life saving the life (Nietzsche, 1985, p. 83).
What becomes a duty, obligation to care for others, rather, is what Nietzsche's sort of sickening. And care for others as something is enslaving the task of the priest. By living according to the other, the weak, the priest embodies the desire of the other. So he lives and exercises power, realizing his ideal of herself reflected in another. According to Nietzsche (1985, p. 81): "'The triumph is in the last agony': the ascetic ideal has always fought under this flag, the symbol of the agony he found his purest light, its salvation, its final victory. Crux, nux, lux are the same thing for him ... ".
The condition of strength of the priest, on the one hand, it can be considered strong, because it creates culture and governing the flock, but on the other hand, undeniably, it has to be considered weak because it takes care of the weak. For Nietzsche, no one cares for the weak strong. You (the fort) is a satyr and not have time to care for slaves (weak).

Thus, Nietzsche distinguishes the noble priest, concluded that the priest is powerless in relation to freedom to exercise the power of power, by assuming that power by relating it to the feeling of revenge. Such a distinction of values is extended to the plan of vengeance, as for Nietzsche, as the vengeance of the nobles and warriors (you) is not an emotional revenge, and yes, practice, revenge is the Revenge of the priestly dogmas, that is, a moral vengeance.
As said, the Christian priest is a healer who prescribes the cure of souls. Nietzsche complains that, because, being "good" Christian built on the "evil", the function of the priest is just create evil, pointing out the bad and evil invented precisely to highlight the good. So then, the good man cultivates despises weakness and strength, transforming power in evil - this is the Christian strategy valuation of weakness. And within that strategy, as evidenced Safranzki, Christianity gave three advantages to the underprivileged:

Gave the human being "an absolute value, in contrast to its small size and randomness in the torrent of becoming and passing (12.211)"; second, evil and suffering have become tolerable to the extent that they were assigned a direction, and third, the belief in creation, the world was perceived as being transferred by the spirit, so naturally at a disadvantage, "if he despised as a human being and take sides against life (12.211)". The Christian interpretation of life stifled the cruelty of nature and encouraged and preserved for the life of desperate people who might have otherwise. In short, she "protected the foiled nihilism (12.215)" (SAFRANZKI, 2001, p. 271).

According Safranzki (2001, p. 271), Nietzsche refers to the creative power of values of Christianity with a strong admiration, but thanked him for it, because "the consideration for the weak, the moral of compensation, in their eyes, prevents development and evolution of a superior humanity, "since the will power to shape the party's moral side of the weak, leads to degeneration and generalized flushing.

sexist societies

The Iranian Sakineh Mohamadi Ashtiani, 43, is on death row. United Arab Emirates, one of 14 years was sentenced to six months in prison. The Iranian also Ghorbanzadeh Mariam, 25, and Azar Bagheri, 19, saw the death blow softly in the ear, but managed to escape. Sakineh should not suffer the same fate - anytime, she can be stoned to death, hanged or shot dead by the government of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The future of Brazil, in turn, is uncertain. The minor is accused of "consensual sex" with a Pakistani man of 28 years and have agreed to meet with him through text messages considered "erotic".




The recent cases of barbaric punishments of Islam against women rekindle a contentious issue: the independence and dignity of women within the Muslim religion. According to data from U.S. intelligence agency (CIA), 55 nations have the most religious Muslim. In countries where Sharia law - law that dictates the rules of Islam - is followed strictly, the traditions are strongly contrary to the freedom of women. They are seen, then constantly watched by their husbands, sons, neighbors and police. "Armed militias were patrolling the behavior of women in the streets. A trace of makeup and they came, relentless," said Azar Nafisi, author of Reading Lolita in Tehran, told.

But all this is just a small needle in a haystack tangle of radical interpretations in which live the Muslim religion. The result of religious fanaticism of these people is serious and almost always ends in a series of barbaric acts, as you can check below:


Sudan - In December 2001, Abok Alfa Akoka, 18, was accused of adultery by her husband. The young woman was pregnant, did not speak Arabic and defended herself saying she had been raped. Although the Sharia does not apply to non-Muslim women without evidence, Abok was sentenced to 75 lashes.

Yemen - At 13, Elham So bled to death a few days after their wedding. The Muslim girl had been tied up and forced to have sex with her husband of 23 years. Linkage of the girl was arranged by his brother, who wanted to marry the sister of the groom and avoid paying the dowry.

Bangladesh - In October 2008, Aisha Duhulow, 13, was sentenced to death by stoning for alleged fornication after being raped by a gang. Under local laws, the lowest rape are punished with corporal punishment simply for taking part in a sexual act. While he was stoned, Aisha cried and screamed for mercy. When his family tried to intervene, the Islamic militia opened fire, killing a baby.

Somalia - In one of the main squares of the city, 50 men stoned to death a Muslim Aisha Ibrahim Dhuhulow in 2008. Accused of adultery, she was buried up to his neck and was unable to protect his face. According to media reports said at the time, Aisha had confessed the crime and asked to be judged according to Sharia law.

Nigeria - In 2002, Safiya Hussaini, 33, was convicted of adultery to death by stoning. The penalty, however, was postponed until her daughter a year no longer need milk. Safiya then appealed the decision. The judge, however, rejected all the defense evidence and was adamant: "The company was harmed by the act. It is dangerous that teach other women to do the same. "Safiya was even stoned.

United Arab Emirates - The single Kartini Binti Karim, a citizen of Indonesia, worked as a maid when her pregnancy was discovered in 2000. She and an Indian were convicted of fornication, but the man fled before he could be arrested. Kartini was dismissed without the right to a translator, lawyer or contact the embassy of his country. After being sentenced to death by stoning, Indonesia managed to appeal. The penalty was reduced to one year's imprisonment and subsequent deportation.

Brazil and Iran: worlds apart

The two terms of Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva meet various landmarks of the great achievements unfortunate gaffes on foreign policy. There are moments involving the relationship between Brazil and the rest of South America, the rise alongside Russia, India and China, the decisive Brazilian action within the WTO (World Trade Organization), obtained with respect to the United States, the growing influence in Africa, the consolidation of Brazil as a natural candidate for permanent membership of UN Security Council and the political dialogue and trade with authoritarian regimes. Brazilian analysts tend to give more prominence to positive or negative points depending on their ideological vision on how Brazil should behave toward the world. But in spite of so many prominent roles, the Brazilian foreign policy recent runs the risk of being marked by controversy with a nation that approach a few years ago had little relevance for Brazil: the ayatollahs of Iran, oil, nuclear and stoning of adulterous women.




On Monday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has rejected a formal offer of asylum given by Lula Sakineh Ashtiani, originally ordered stoned to death for allegedly committing adultery. Ahmadinejad said the judiciary of the country did not agree with the idea. The decision is not surprising: a spokesman for the regime in Tehran had shown surprise at the suggestion of the Brazilian president, saying he was "emotional" and was misinformed about the case. This reaction had already indicated the deep ocean that separates President Lula of the Iranian regime, much as the head of the Brazilian government insists on calling his colleague Ahmadinejad a "friend."

In suggesting that the president of Iran Ashtiani was sent to Brazil, Lula has demonstrated ignorance about the country of the ayatollahs. Ahmadinejad may be the most visible figure out the Iranian nation today, but the real power rests with the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. In addition, the president governs only because the Guardian Council, responsible for ensuring compliance to Islamic laws of the country permits. The entity, controlled by Khamenei rejects bills passed by Parliament, the Presidency disapproves applications and controls many other areas of national public life. Contrary to what Lula says, Ahmadinejad is not your friend, but only one aspect of the installed power in Tehran. He is interested in connecting with their country emerging forces that might undo part of Western hostility against Iran, but there's nothing friendly about it. And even if "friend" of Lula, would do nothing against a decision of Justice of his country, especially in a matter of respect for the principles of radical Shiite Islamic law.



The agreement reached with Iran this year by Brazil and Turkey, involving uranium enrichment outside Iran, there was an accident or an adventure. It was a relative achievement praised by many foreign analysts, especially in Europe. The governments of Brazil and Turkish diplomatic spotted a gap left by the West and met. The context is clear: the lack of solution to the conflict between Israel and Palestinians, a diplomatic failure of the United States has increased the influence of Iran, Syria, Turkey and now the Middle East. Brazil, State political, economic and cultural development of the West, appeared as a new actor in the area, after accumulating respect. But that does not make Ahmadinejad a "friend" of President Lula, nor empowers the Brazilian president to interfere in the internal affairs of the country based on an alleged personal relationship.

If convicted, the institutional form of government to government, the adoption of cruel and inhuman treatment of women in Iran, demanding that the regime, not Ahmadinejad, to suspend the sentence given to Sakineh Ashtiani, Lula could disturb the structure of Iranian politics. It would be even more respected in Tehran for it. A sensitive case involving the adoption of Islamic law (Sharia) can not be solved in a conversation with friends, and Ahmadinejad is no friend of Lula. He will not go to one of his barbecues, not to deport a St. Paul woman sentenced for a crime which is serious in his country. He is a servant of the conservative wing of the Iranian revolutionary forces, loyal to Ali Khamenei, who in recent years smothered the reformists. This is a complex political game born in the 1979 Islamic revolution and has already hung for the progressive side, but today follows a path of much less tolerance. Nothing that the "emotive" Lula can change from night to day.