In Diyala province on February 26, a local NGO hosted a debate intended to train citizens on how to question candidates. Candidates were given the opportunity to present their election programs to the public, and then faced questions from voters about their proposals and platform. Candidates from several lists and coalitions participated in the debate, and many citizens said they were eager for the opportunity to closely engage with the candidates. “This is a groundbreaking debate, and an important step for civil society,” one citizen told RFI after the debate. “Passionate, active discussion is good for civil society, and for unity in Iraq. It is good to have interaction between the candidates and the people, who can ask the candidates challenging questions about their proposals. This is essential for the building of democracy in Iraq.”

Other citizens took the opportunity to challenge the candidates to give specifics on how they planned to fulfill their campaign promises. A young man named Osama Ghazi said that he asked candidates how they intended to bring the services they had promised to Diyala province after they won the election. “I asked the candidates a question about how they intended to fulfill all of these promises in such a short time after they were seated in the next parliament, God willing,” he explained.

In another debate on February 28, heralded as “the first of its kind in Al-Basrah province,” candidates from a number of lists presented the details of their election platforms, followed by questions from the public, including few which embarrassed the candidates — a fact which led to the clear annoyance of some candidates.

Jassim Hamadi, a candidate for the list of Mithal al-Alusi, recalled varied reactions to the clarity of the speakers’ presentations: “You could really see the differences in the psychology of the individual candidates present. Some were eager to raise their hands to answer when the question was easy, but when the conversation jumped to a more challenging subject which they had not invited, those legislators seemed to want to be far away.”

A female citizen who attended the debate said that despite the tension and contentious exchanges, the debate served its intended purpose. “This was a good debate. There was a convergence of ideas, a convergence of programs, and we saw here a distinctive system which we have not seen previously,” she said. “I’m only sorry that there was such a limited time.”

Other citizens were less impressed. Abeer Ibrahim remained skeptical, saying that the candidates’ election platforms were nothing more than “mere slogans to win votes.”

In Irbil, a debate was hosted on March 3. “This debate was beneficial because it brought the candidates closer to the people. It allowed people to closely examine the campaign platforms of the candidates and ask them questions about it,” one female attendee said. When asked by RFI if she felt free to ask any question during the debate, she responded, “One hundred percent. We were not restricted from asking any specific question — though unfortunately we were limited to asking only five questions.”

“This was a solid, true step forward on the path towards democracy in Iraq. It was a good alternative to the violence, the destruction, the bombings which have afflicted so many Iraqi cities recently,” another Irbil resident told RFI.

The consequences of violating the sacraments of political correctness (PC) are direr in Philistine societies that have not adopted freedom of speech. When Dutch lawmaker Geert Wilders produced a 15 minute web film denouncing radical Islam, the Dutch “Openbaar Minsisterie” (“justice” department) indicted him for “hate speech.” He now faces over a year in prison if convicted.

Even worse for Wilders, he is not allowed to use “truth” as a defense. When he tried to call witnesses that would corroborate his views, the court refused, offering a chilling statement: “It is irrelevant whether Wilders’s witnesses might prove Wilders’s observations to be correct; what’s relevant is that his observations are illegal.” In other words, not only does Wilders not have the right to free expression, but he also lacks the right to defend himself in court.

Despite his “illegal observation,” Wilders will not roll over but is instead using his trial to shed light on Islamist terrorism and its attempts to suppress free speech in Europe and beyond. While most normal people would bow and ask for the court’s mercy, Wilders is defiant and ready to be a martyr in the war against PC.

Even though society has shown itself willing to stand up to PC when it gets out of hand, PC cannot be defeated unless our societal values themselves change. PC only holds water because we as a society decide it is a value we cannot do without.

Is the west prepared to allow acts like this to happen? Many of these canings are in public and can be for the most minor offenses. But of course this is small potatoes compared to one part of Sharia Law that should scare everyone in the West, the practice of honor killing. The UK, Germany and other countries need to ask themselves if they are prepared for the consequences of allowing their Islamic countries to virtually police themselves, I hope they find the idea to endangering to personal liberty to allow it to happen.

The politically accommodating solution is attractive (especially to a transactional president like Obama) but not always successful. Nixon bombed Vietcong to the peace table but South Vietnam fell a couple of years later. This is essentially Obama’ s strategy – weaken the Taliban and then negotiate. Obviously the situation in Afghanistan is different from Vietnam. The country is far more fragmented and a political reconciliation with the Taliban unavoidable given the growing unpopularity of the war. However, we must not forget about the commitment of freedom and democracy we made to the Afghan people. Rights of women are going to roll back and the country is likely to return to an increasingly autocratic/Islamist regime. Even if democracy is maintained, it will be marred by corruption and another civil war started by the loosers is not out of the question.

So whats the solution? You tell me.

As his trial opened, Wilders offered his opening statement, where he stressed the importance of liberty in society. Here are a few excerpts, but the entire speech can be found here.

“Our freedom in this country is the fruit of centuries. It is the result of a history that has no equal and has brought us to where we are today. I believe with all my heart and soul that the freedom is threatened in the Netherlands. That heritage, which generations could only dream of, is precisely this freedom which is no longer a given fact, no longer a matter self-evidence.”

“In this trial it of course is about the freedom of expression. But in this trial it is certainly also about finding the truth. The statements I have made, the comparisons I have drawn — are they true? As mentioned in the summons? Because if something is true, how can it be illegal?”

“The bloggers are among a bigger group of Egyptians that include politicians like Osama Ghazali Harb of the liberal Democratic Front Party, Kifaya leader George Ishaaq and Cairo university professor and opposition leader Mohamed Abul Ghar. Split in two separate groups, one en route to Naga Hammadi by train and the other by bus from Luxor, they were heading to the small town in order to meet Bishop Kirollos of the Naga Hammadi Diocese, in addition to the families of those who lost their lives in the violence a week earlier, not only in order to console them but also to show solidarity.”

The State department is currently concerned about the arrests, yet no further actions seem likely. President Obama has done quite a bit to repair the damaged relationship between Egypt and the United States. However, he cannot in good conscience allow democracy activists and advocates of religious freedom to be arbitrarily arrested in a country that is the second largest recipient of U.S. international assistance! Squeezing moderates is going to empower Islamists who offer an alternative to America and democracy.

This New York Times articles notes that many experts believe this victory is not a repudiation of the leftist government, considering the outgoing president enjoys 75 percent approval ratings. In addition, Piñera could not escape Pinochet’s legacy. The article also reports that several members of his coalition served in Pincochet’s Cabinet, and that several leftists in Chile were wary of this fact when voting.

As the Times reports, “‘This was one of the most difficult decisions the country has had in a long time,’ said Erica Tapia, 44. ‘Unfortunately, I voted for Frei out of fear of the right.’”

Nonetheless, Piñera has pledged not to appoint any former Pinochet Cabinet members to his new Cabinet. Piñera, who has also pledged to privatize several nationalized industries and create one million jobs, will hopefully be a bright spot in Latin American politics to counter the influence of socialists such as Hugo Chavez. Having a pro-American ally in previously-leftist Chile could potentially increase our favorability in South America.

Fortunately, international aid has poured into Haiti from the United States, the United Nations, and countries such as France. In fact, one sports retailer is sending t-shirts featring now-former University of Tennessee coach Lane Kiffin, who left Tennessee after one season to coach at the University of Southern California.

President Obama acted swiftly and sent troops and aid to Haiti. This is a good opportunity for the United States to show its benevolence to the rest of the world. Readers of this blog know that I rarely discuss President Obama without offering criticism, but I will defer to the President for now.

I will continue to update readers as more information becomes available. But for now please think of the victims and remember how fortunate we are.

American presence is vital to these countries’ security and to ours. I am not questioning that notion and I understand the desire to increase our presence in Yemen. Yet have we fully thought about all of the options. Do we need to increase our presence in any country to solve our problem? I know it won’t make much sense to most to do nothing and to suggest doing less seems blasphemous. It maybe that we need to do more, but are we sure that the answer isn’t doing less?

Other than the President’s decision to send more troops to Afghanistan, on security matters, the administration has been largely responsive, rather than proactive. Key initiatives have failed to get anywhere (Israel-Palestine, Guantanamo). So does the United States have a long-term strategic plan for dealing with Middle East rather than being responsive to a series of crises? If so, why hasn’t the President outlined this initiative? With President Bush, at least we were certain of his foreign policy mindset. With President Obama, nothing seems clear.