First this nice little report on how women are repressed in Iran, where bloggers are warned not to report on such repressions. Let's not forget that Ahmadinejerk is one of Chavez favorite people and that Venezuelan chavista women hold a very strange silence on such matters. They already wear an intellectual veil, in my opinion.
But the next article from the WSJ is even better AFTER reading the above one. In there the career of Ayaan Hirsi Ali is widely covered and I am allowing myself to pick up a few gems (some of them could be applied alsmost "as is" to chavismo):
Ms. Hirsi Ali says, "we learned Theo's killer had access to education, he had learned the language, he had taken welfare. He made it very clear he knew what democracy meant, he knew what liberalism was, and he consciously rejected it. . . . He said, 'I have an alternative framework. It's Islam. It's the Quran.' "We need agitators, don't we? Real ones, that is, not the fake ones who only seek power and personal gain like Chavez and Ahmadinejerk.
Ms. Hirsi Ali has since decamped for America--in effect a political refugee from Western Europe--
Many liberals loathe her for disrupting an imagined "diversity" consensus: It is absurd, she argues, to pretend that cultures are all equal, or all equally desirable. But conservatives, and others, might be reasonably unnerved by her dim view of religion.
And yet contemporary democracies, she says, accommodate the incitement of such behavior: "The multiculturalism theology, like all theologies, is cruel, is wrongheaded, and is unarguable because it is an utter dogmatism. . . . Minorities are exempted from the obligations of the rest of society, so they don't improve. . . . With this theory you limit them, you freeze their culture, you keep them in place."