Human Rights advocacy is a laudable activity. Advocates automatically occupy the high moral ground in pursuit of their goals – and this of course reflects on their status. But as with everything we must examine their underlying motives before we accept at face value the posturing of every Tom, Dick and Harry who jumps on the bandwagon of human rights. Above all, we must examine the person before we listen to their inviolable message.
In reaction to the ‘World Day Against the Death Penalty (October 10), notorious cult leader Maryam Rajavi will use the occasion to announce to a specially assembled audience that she is against the death penalty.
That will be news indeed to the thousands of former members and indeed the current members of the notorious terrorist Mojahedin Khalq cult which she leads. Maryam Rajavi’s MEK has not only killed over 12,000 Iranians and 25,000 Iraqis as part of its violent regime change agenda, but inside the group, Rajavi has been personally responsible for the extra-judicial murder and torture of countless members behind the closed doors of the cult.
So, what could be behind this dramatic volte-face? Has Rajavi really undergone a unique transformation of belief and if so, is she sincerely contrite for all the deaths she is personally responsible for within the Mojahedin Khalq? Does she regret her past? Will she now apologise to the thousands of former members of her organisation who are victims of heinous human rights abuses for which she and her husband are culpable?
For various reasons this is impossible. Not least because as the leader of a mind control cult such an admission of guilt would undermine the whole foundation of her organisation and throw the remaining vulnerable brainwashed members onto the path of a mental breakdown.
Or is this, as we have every reason to believe, a politically motivated fake stance brought about by panic and despair, just as once the MEK’s manufactured nuclear intelligence bought them artificial status brought about by opportunism. Since July, the negotiated Iran nuclear agreement has irrevocably changed the political landscape. The MEK are no longer needed or wanted beyond backing up the efforts of a few regime change pundits clinging to the past.
And of course, Maryam Rajavi is acutely aware of the fate of her benefactor Saddam Hussein. When he was no longer needed, his former allies handed him over to the Iraqi people for judgement and punishment. He was, as we all know, hanged.
So, Maryam’s Rajavi’s sudden and specific and uncharacteristic condemnation of the death penalty should be judged in this context. Her underlying message to her sponsors is, ‘who could hang a saint?’