Please do not think that I am being sarcastic or humorous.

Apart from Seamas Milne can you name any other ‘elements of the writer staff fully in bed with Irans terrorist regime’. The Guardian has produced a grand total of one pro-regime piece by its staff journalists and some apologists on CIF swiftly countered by opponents. I find the CiF stuff quite interesting as it revealed the debates and fault-lines amongst Iranians themselves. For two weeks the Guardian published on line a daily live blog updated throughout the day, which made no bones about where it stood in its opposition to the regime.

Regarding the ‘deafeaning silence from the left’ – the left is split on Iran, with the Galloway faction marginalised by far greater opposition from the left and women’s groups.

Serendipity – fair enough that you don’t read the Guardian. On the hand that doesn’t put you in a position to make statements about what it does and doesn’t publish, so best to give that one rest.

The OIC just came out standing behind Irans regime and denouncing any condemnation of the election farce.
This same OIC wanted the world to believe that they had a human rights agenda and wanted to impose their pythonesque version of the Declaration of Human rights on the world.

Now in light of their open stance on Iran backing women beaters, murderers and torturers of Muslims should have been better explored and exposed by the Guardian as well as the deafening silence from the Left when it comes to British / Western Muslim groups and women s groups.
I am not holding my breath if they will go the extra yard (not even mile) and expose this hypocrisy given that these same groups are lent credibility on the regular when the Guardian discusses Israel issues or various issues revolving around Muslims living in the West or the UK.

Actually it shows that we care very deeply that the vanguard newspaper of the left has become a platform for hate-speech and that being left wing does not have to be synonymous with the kind of hate that you expect of the far-right. I think that it would say very much more about us if we passively accepted such discourse.

Are you really denying the obsessive nature of the Guardian’s focus on the I/P conflict and the regular publishing of articles that deny Jewish self-determination as well as other anti-Jewish articles?

Are you not bothered by the fact that the Guardian went out of its way to produce an audio-visual production of Caryl Churchill’s play?