New Fashion Statement in Iran

[halplm]

We can't show those people anything. What they see and hear is controlled more ruthlessly than anything else.

Maybe they don't want what they have, but they know nothing else.

[The Watcher]

We can't show those people anything. What they see and hear is controlled more ruthlessly than anything else.

Maybe they don't want what they have, but they know nothing else.

I disagree. The huge popular current fad with Iranian women is plastic surgery to correct ethnic "large noses." They want to emmulate the west, and very much are concerned with "Western" standards of beauty. There currently is also a crackdown on women's health clubs, which allow the women to engage in basically a huge social network which is otherwise forbidden to them. That is where they go to show off their workout regimens, be able to swim, exchange beauty tips (very important in Persian culture), and otherwise be "Western." The women cannot show their bodies or hair off in public, so sometimes they even go to extremes - dying their hair wild colors and letting the bangs show, or wearing non-corrective contact lenses to change their eye color. The most popular fashions tend to be those from Italy - fancy shoes, short skirts, expensive lingerie. Granted, then they need to be covered up with additional Italian imports for long coats and head covering scarves to fit in with the prevailing "dresscodes."

As much as the controlling dictatorship ruling counsel and "President" state to the contrary, Iran very much wants to be part of the modern world. It is only the power/religious elite that is holding the country hostage for the most part.

[vison]

TheWatcher, that was a good post and it holds many interesting ideas.

However.

I live near a large Ismaili Muslim community. The Ismailis are not fundamentalists such as those Muslims running Iran. They are gentle and relatively open-minded.

There has not been one word of condemnation of these atrocious ideas in the Ismaili press. This was pointed out in our city paper recently.

Muslims in Canada are absolutely free to speak out, as are Muslims in the US or Great Britain or France or Scandanavia, and they say nothing.

That silence is telling.

[vison]

We can't show those people anything. What they see and hear is controlled more ruthlessly than anything else.

Maybe they don't want what they have, but they know nothing else.

I disagree. The huge popular current fad with Iranian women is plastic surgery to correct ethnic "large noses." They want to emmulate the west, and very much are concerned with "Western" standards of beauty. There currently is also a crackdown on women's health clubs, which allow the women to engage in basically a huge social network which is otherwise forbidden to them. That is where they go to show off their workout regimens, be able to swim, exchange beauty tips (very important in Persian culture), and otherwise be "Western." The women cannot show their bodies or hair off in public, so sometimes they even go to extremes - dying their hair wild colors and letting the bangs show, or wearing non-corrective contact lenses to change their eye color. The most popular fashions tend to be those from Italy - fancy shoes, short skirts, expensive lingerie. Granted, then they need to be covered up with additional Italian imports for long coats and head covering scarves to fit in with the prevailing "dresscodes."

As much as the controlling dictatorship ruling counsel and "President" state to the contrary, Iran very much wants to be part of the modern world. It is only the power/religious elite that is holding the country hostage for the most part.

Muslim women have always had their social lives only with other women. There is nothing new in this, nor in their desire to be fashionable. Anyone who has ever visited a Moslem home for a women's party would be absolutely astonished by the clothes, the makeup and the hair, etc. These women can wear what they like at home with their husbands and sisters and mothers, etc. It is only in public that they must cover up.

[The Watcher]

Well, maybe in my own ignorance, are the women then happy with the status quo?

I have only known a few Muslims in my own sheltered life, to be honest, there are very few about here that "speak out" as well. We have a huge Sikh community, vast ones made up of Indian immigrants and Xmong and all sorts of other ethnic elements - even Pakistanis, but none of them are ardent spokespeople for their backgrounds and various religions, if you catch my drift. Is it an attempt to assimilate for the most part? I think so.

I cannot offer anymore, for it seems to me that the answers here are not only on the Islamic world to address, but the West as well. We need to stop identifying zealotry with religion, and in the cases of silence, then, we need to find out why the silence is the usual response. Is it silent agreement with the objectionable Middle Eastern government actions that are being demonstrated, or a fear of not being enough of a part of the system in other countries that makes them fearful of speaking up, or cultural norms to begin with? While I do not see condemnation being proferred, I also do not see consensus. So, are they guilty by silence? I am not advocating any position, I truly do not know.

edit for clarity and typos

[Whistler]

Whatever the majority of Muslims may think, it seems to me obvious that unity with the faithful is a higher priority than conscience, if conscience leads to alliance with the unbelievers against the believers.

I do not doubt that most are "good" people as we popularly use the term. But what good is their goodness, if they say and do nothing? It's medicine kept in the bottle as disease destroys the body.

[The Watcher]

Whatever the majority of Muslims may think, it seems to me obvious that unity with the faithful is a higher priority than conscience, if conscience leads to alliance with the unbelievers against the believers.

I do not doubt that most are "good" people as we popularly use the term. But what good is their goodness, if they say and do nothing? It's medicine kept in the bottle as disease destroys the body.

Fine, I see your point, but that then is lumping all Muslims into a category which equates with Iran's dictates somehow being absolutes, which are then contrary to Saudi Arabia (for example) because Iran and SA as governments subscribe to different forms of Islam and even sharia law....

And, not trying to knock anyone's feather out here, but the story about Iran actually intending on passing this legislation seems to be spurious at best. I cannot find one reliable news source stating this, and not even the sensationalist press is even carrying the story. Maybe it is of itself a "worst case scenario" being played upon the media in the form of canada.com and their own conclusions?

I am not condoning anything here, but let us be fair. Whatever this is at the present time is at best a "maybe" outcome.

[Dave_LF]

Drudge has dropped the headline now (he had it up before). Sounds like it is probably a hoax.

[The Watcher]

Drudge has dropped the headline now (he had it up before). Sounds like it is probably a hoax.

Oh, then it makes perfect sense.

Whatever.

eta:

This whole story seems to be a fabrication. It seemed to be one when I could not find anyone even reporting it.

Again, I state whatever. For all of the weird angles that I see purported here, I would think that most of them have some basis in fact.

This particular situation is nothing but media made hoopla. So, I guess the shoe fits the other foot.

So quick are we to believe the worst of anything that does not agree with our own particular stance without ever trying to see it in the opposite lens.

I find the people here quite fallable, if that is any consolation. We are all fallable.

Makes notes.

[nerdanel]

Okay, many news sources are beginning to carry the following piece. This is taken from Forbes' copy of the AP story, available here.

It appears that the Canadian source is the only one that covered the religious portion of the story, and no one has yet been able to gain confirmation.

So, since it appears that Iran is concerning itself with oppressing women and gay people, rather than the non-Islamic religious, the West can go back to its merry ignorance/complacency. After all, Iranian women can drive, vote, and run for office. Why stress if they need a male "guardian's" (?!?!?!?!) permission to work or travel, their role in the judiciary is limited, and their testimony is worth half as much as men's? They should be thankful for the liberalism that allows them to have...driver's licenses! And as for gay people? Why, Iran is merely adhering to traditional values (really traditional - like all the way back to Biblical times "traditional")...by, you know, executing those who don't comply with traditional values. Nothing to see here, folks.

Iranian Lawmakers Debate Women's Clothing
By TAREK AL-ISSAWI , 05.19.2006, 06:02 PM

Iran's conservative-dominated parliament is debating a draft law that would discourage women from wearing Western clothing, increase taxes on imported clothes and fund an advertising campaign to encourage citizens to wear Islamic-style garments.

A draft received preliminary approval Sunday and lawmakers debated it this week, but the parliament has not passed the bill. If adopted, the measure would require approval by the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog.

The measure has provoked concern outside Iran after a Canadian newspaper reported it included provisions that would require Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and other non-Muslims to wear a patch of colored cloth on the front of their garments.

The National Post, quoting "Iranian expatriates living in Canada," said the law would require "Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews...to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth."

In Tehran, legislator Emad Afroogh, who sponsored the bill and chairs the parliament's cultural committee, told The Associated Press on Friday there was no truth to the Canadian newspaper report.

"It's a sheer lie. The rumors about this are worthless," he said.

Afroogh said the bill seeks only to make women dress more conservatively and avoid Western fashions.

"The bill is not related to minorities. It is only about clothing," he said. "Please tell them (in the West) to check the details of the bill. There is no mention of religious minorities and their clothing in the bill," he said.

Iranian Jewish lawmaker Morris Motamed told the AP: "Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament. Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here."

At Iran's mission to the United Nations, a diplomat, speaking anonymously because he was not allowed to make official statements, called the report "completely false."

"We reject that. It is not true. The minorities in Iran are completely free and are represented in the Iranian parliament," the diplomat said.

According to the bill, a joint committee of the parliament and Cabinet ministers will decide on the tax increase on imported clothes and other details.

"Promotion of Western and spontaneous styles has become a cultural problem in major cities. It needs national attention," Mahmoud Hosseini, spokesman of the cultural committee in the Majlis, or parliament, has said in comments broadcast live on state radio.

According to existing law, women must cover from head to toe, but many young women, buoyed by social freedoms granted to them during the 1997-2005 rule of former President Mohammad Khatami, ignore the law.

Since conservatives regained control of Iran's most powerful institutions, there have been increasing calls to implement strict Islamic laws that were largely ignored in the past.

Iran's Islamic law imposes tight restrictions on women. They need a male guardian's permission to work or travel. They are not allowed to become judges, and a man's court testimony is considered twice as important as a woman's.

Despite such restrictions, Iranian women have more rights than their counterparts in Saudi Arabia and some other conservative Muslim countries. They can drive, vote and run for office.

The State Department said Friday it was concerned about the reports on a special clothing rule for Iranian minorities.

Spokesman Sean McCormack said such a measure would be "despicable" and carry "clear echoes of Germany under Hitler."

McCormack said he could not comment further because the precise nature of the proposal was unclear.

[The Watcher]

Okay, many news sources are beginning to carry the following piece. This is taken from Forbes' copy of the AP story, available here.

It appears that the Canadian source is the only one that covered the religious portion of the story, and no one has yet been able to gain confirmation.

So, since it appears that Iran is concerning itself with oppressing women and gay people, rather than the non-Islamic religious, the West can go back to its merry ignorance/complacency. After all, Iranian women can drive, vote, and run for office. Why stress if they need a male "guardian's" (?!?!?!?!) permission to work or travel, their role in the judiciary is limited, and their testimony is worth half as much as men's? They should be thankful for the liberalism that allows them to have...driver's licenses! And as for gay people? Why, Iran is merely adhering to traditional values (really traditional - like all the way back to Biblical times "traditional")...by, you know, executing those who don't comply with traditional values. Nothing to see here, folks.

Iranian Lawmakers Debate Women's Clothing
By TAREK AL-ISSAWI , 05.19.2006, 06:02 PM

Iran's conservative-dominated parliament is debating a draft law that would discourage women from wearing Western clothing, increase taxes on imported clothes and fund an advertising campaign to encourage citizens to wear Islamic-style garments.

A draft received preliminary approval Sunday and lawmakers debated it this week, but the parliament has not passed the bill. If adopted, the measure would require approval by the Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog.

The measure has provoked concern outside Iran after a Canadian newspaper reported it included provisions that would require Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and other non-Muslims to wear a patch of colored cloth on the front of their garments.

The National Post, quoting "Iranian expatriates living in Canada," said the law would require "Iran's roughly 25,000 Jews...to sew a yellow strip of cloth on the front of their clothes, while Christians would wear red badges and Zoroastrians would be forced to wear blue cloth."

In Tehran, legislator Emad Afroogh, who sponsored the bill and chairs the parliament's cultural committee, told The Associated Press on Friday there was no truth to the Canadian newspaper report.

"It's a sheer lie. The rumors about this are worthless," he said.

Afroogh said the bill seeks only to make women dress more conservatively and avoid Western fashions.

"The bill is not related to minorities. It is only about clothing," he said. "Please tell them (in the West) to check the details of the bill. There is no mention of religious minorities and their clothing in the bill," he said.

Iranian Jewish lawmaker Morris Motamed told the AP: "Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament. Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here."

At Iran's mission to the United Nations, a diplomat, speaking anonymously because he was not allowed to make official statements, called the report "completely false."

"We reject that. It is not true. The minorities in Iran are completely free and are represented in the Iranian parliament," the diplomat said.

According to the bill, a joint committee of the parliament and Cabinet ministers will decide on the tax increase on imported clothes and other details.

"Promotion of Western and spontaneous styles has become a cultural problem in major cities. It needs national attention," Mahmoud Hosseini, spokesman of the cultural committee in the Majlis, or parliament, has said in comments broadcast live on state radio.

According to existing law, women must cover from head to toe, but many young women, buoyed by social freedoms granted to them during the 1997-2005 rule of former President Mohammad Khatami, ignore the law.

Since conservatives regained control of Iran's most powerful institutions, there have been increasing calls to implement strict Islamic laws that were largely ignored in the past.

Iran's Islamic law imposes tight restrictions on women. They need a male guardian's permission to work or travel. They are not allowed to become judges, and a man's court testimony is considered twice as important as a woman's.

Despite such restrictions, Iranian women have more rights than their counterparts in Saudi Arabia and some other conservative Muslim countries. They can drive, vote and run for office.

The State Department said Friday it was concerned about the reports on a special clothing rule for Iranian minorities.

Spokesman Sean McCormack said such a measure would be "despicable" and carry "clear echoes of Germany under Hitler."

McCormack said he could not comment further because the precise nature of the proposal was unclear.

You are going to have a tough time being a lawyer. Reading into things what you want to see is not truth, no matter what we all suspect. Supposition is called such because of the dangers it leads one into.

You need proof. I am not stating your position is wrong, but you are going about it the wrong way.

[nerdanel]

Okay, I'm a bit confused about what you're trying to say.

1. I'm not even sure what I want to see. None of it is good. What I really would like to see is that all the forms of discrimination alleged to be happening in Iran are false. I'm pretty certain I can't read any news report to say that, so I don't have a particular investment in reading any given one of them a certain way.

2. If you are saying that I am too hastily dismissing the Canadian account that Iran is attempting to persecute religious minorities - I didn't mean to do so. The two people who posted before me (one of whom was you) were calling the report "probably a hoax" and "spurious at best" - so I was merely posting an article from a legitimate source to substantiate your thoughts. I qualified my post with the words "appears" and "no one has been able to gain confirmation" - not saying it was a definite thing.

3. If you mean I was too quick to jump to the conclusion that people are (relatively) indifferent to the persecution of gays and women under Islamic law...I feel that the past few years and the insufficient international attention that their plights have received speak for themselves. However, I can produce sources if you would like.

So, I'm really confused as to exactly what your point is, but I will say this: it is very difficult to judge someone's proficiency in their profession based on a short, seven-line (admittedly reactionary) post on a messageboard. And even if you nonetheless trust your judgment, it does not facilitate messageboard discussion to post such a comment, as it puts the target of your comment on the defensive. But rest assured that I am perfectly capable of avoiding supposition in real life - at school and at work. I wasn't aware that my posts online needed to match the same standard of analysis as my work submitted to a professor or employer. Certainly many others in this community and elsewhere online do not make "professional-quality" posts, and yet this is the first time I have seen you make such a statement to anyone. In future, if you feel that a post of mine is too hastily dismissing a legitimate concern (which, again, was unintentional, and I'm sorry if it came across that way - if I'm understanding your point correctly) - please state that, without making insulting statements about my likelihood of career success, or generalizing from my posts online to my RL proficiency.

[Whistler]

Interesting.

Drudge is of course a muckraker who often breaks sensational material without proper verification. However, the overwhelming portion of his site consists of links to supposedly more responsible sources. I still have no reason to question the validity of this particular source, though I'll admit I haven't heard of it before.

I am not remotely impressed by denials from Iran and intend to ignore them. I'll judge based upon their actions alone.

And nel, I doubt that anybody is less disgusted with the already-proven abuses in Iran, and throughout the Islamic world, than they would be with these proposals. Certainly I am not, though perhaps you won't believe that.

[The Watcher]

Okay, I'm a bit confused about what you're trying to say.

1. I'm not even sure what I want to see. None of it is good. What I really would like to see is that all the forms of discrimination alleged to be happening in Iran are false. I'm pretty certain I can't read any news report to say that, so I don't have a particular investment in reading any given one of them a certain way.

2. If you are saying that I am too hastily dismissing the Canadian account that Iran is attempting to persecute religious minorities - I didn't mean to do so. The two people who posted before me (one of whom was you) were calling the report "probably a hoax" and "spurious at best" - so I was merely posting an article from a legitimate source to substantiate your thoughts. I qualified my post with the words "appears" and "no one has been able to gain confirmation" - not saying it was a definite thing.

3. If you mean I was too quick to jump to the conclusion that people are (relatively) indifferent to the persecution of gays and women under Islamic law...I feel that the past few years and the insufficient international attention that their plights have received speak for themselves. However, I can produce sources if you would like.

So, I'm really confused as to exactly what your point is, but I will say this: it is very difficult to judge someone's proficiency in their profession based on a short, seven-line (admittedly reactionary) post on a messageboard. And even if you nonetheless trust your judgment, it does not facilitate messageboard discussion to post such a comment, as it puts the target of your comment on the defensive. But rest assured that I am perfectly capable of avoiding supposition in real life - at school and at work. I wasn't aware that my posts online needed to match the same standard of analysis as my work submitted to a professor or employer. Certainly many others in this community and elsewhere online do not make "professional-quality" posts, and yet this is the first time I have seen you make such a statement to anyone. In future, if you feel that a post of mine is too hastily dismissing a legitimate concern (which, again, was unintentional, and I'm sorry if it came across that way - if I'm understanding your point correctly) - please state that, without making insulting statements about my likelihood of career success, or generalizing from my posts online to my RL proficiency.

nerdanel -

I am not disparaging your beliefs, your integrity, nor your desire to set things straight. I also do not doubt your abililty to call up evidence and past situations which would lead to your position.

What I am saying is that to take a position, especially in human affairs of all sorts requires more than just instances of grievious harm committed before - in this case, Iran specifically.

Whistler cited a story, it has mostly been shown to be a non-event as of yet. My comments were more concerned about this "story" and not about what you already have found to be true in past instances. Believe me, I am on your side, and Whistler's and everyone else who hates dictatorship and theocracy. All I was trying to suggest is that jumping onto the bandwagon before the fact only harms the position that can be taken after the fact. If we condemn Iran for something that they have not even passed into law yet and get all up in arms about it, we are ourselves playing the zealot field, in reverse. We are condemning before the fact.

I do not know if that made any sense at all to you, but I guess it goes into the whole concept of guilty by what action?

I hate to say in a case like Iran that I would be siding for them, but how can someone or some entity be judged guilty before the fact? I am not stating what already has happened (in the case of Iran) is not judgeworthy, it certainly is. That is not what Whistler posted. This was a case of something that they MAY do, and the outcome is certainly not conclusive from what I can find.

Does that make any sense at all?

for my poor way of explaining things. Thoughts and suggestions are certainly harmful, but they do jnot carry the same weight as actual actions. When it is acted upon, unfortunately, that is when there is justification to act against it. I cannot subscribe to the theory of acting against someone/some entity before the fact, it makes us no better than them for supposedlty being able to second guess their motives. In other words, we cannot play God.

[nerdanel]

TW,

I'm just trying to understand the basis for your remarks directed at me. I understand well your point that we should seek to understand exactly what it is that Iran is doing before trying to crucify anyone. In fact, if you go back and look at my posts in this thread, I tried to use guarded language with regard to what they have not yet done, for instance: "...I share everyone here's outrage at what is likely to be done to that country's religious minorities..." (emphasis added). And then, I posted a story supporting your reminder that we do not know exactly what the Iranian parliament is doing.

My words of condemnation were almost entirely reserved what Iran has already done - its long history of discrimination against women and gays. On that, their track record speaks for itself; I do not have to judge them guilty before the fact.

So it would seem, from your clarification, that we are on the same page. Thus, I'm afraid I don't understand why your post (#30 in this thread) was directed at me. If you wouldn't mind clarifying what you meant by that post in particular, that would mean a lot to me. The one basis I can see for your post (#30) is that it reads as though I'm jumping to the conclusion that Iran is not in fact planning to oppress religious minorities in the fashion the canada.com article alleged. If so, then I agree that I may have overstated what we currently know, in order to make the point near and dear to my heart, that there is insufficient international outrage against the oppression of two groups of Iranians whom I care very much about. I agree that that was overreaching (although I did indicate that the status of the religious discrimination component of the legislation was unknown), and I assure you that I wouldn't do such a thing in a professional capacity. But then, your clarifying post to me suggests that that WASN'T your concern, so I'm confused about what I wrote to trigger your remarks to me.

Whistler,

I have no reason to doubt you, if you say your disgust with the already-proven abuses is the same as with this possible assault on the rights of religious minorities.

Particularly in the area of women's rights, however, the West seems suddenly prone to "cultural sensitivity" rather than taking a stand against Islamic subjugation of women. That is a general assertion, and perhaps we need a new thread to discuss it fully. My most recent concern regards Iraq's interim Constitution, the U.S. stance, and "men and women being equal insofar as it does not conflict with Islamic law." If I go further into that, we will need a thread split, though.

[Dave_LF]

Drudge is of course a muckraker who often breaks sensation material without proper verification. However, the overwhelming portion of his site consists of links to supposedly more responsible sources. I still have no reason to question the validity of this particular source, though I'll admit I haven't heard of it before.

His MO is to post sensational headlines (in large font) the second he hears a rumor; usually it turn out to be true (or at least hyped-up truth), but once in a while a big BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!! item just quietly disappears a few hours later and never comes back. Lack of evidence is not something that concerns him, so when this happens I usually assume he's discovered the story was spurious.

The whole thing just sounds too "good" to be true. Cartoon supervillian-ish.

[Whistler]

I do think a thread on that subject is a good idea, nel.

We say that we have certain values, yet one of those values is to respect the right of others to thumb their noses at those values. So what does that say about the values we had (or thought we had) to begin with? At what point do cultural and religious values have less value than people whom they may devalue?

It's a (much) larger form of the Catch-22 presented by the old flag-burning question, in which the rights represented by the flag include (or do not include) the right to destroy the symbol that represents those rights.

My head hurts.

[The Watcher]

My words of condemnation were almost entirely reserved what Iran has already done - its long history of discrimination against women and gays. On that, their track record speaks for itself; I do not have to judge them guilty before the fact.

So it would seem, from your clarification, that we are on the same page. Thus, I'm afraid I don't understand why your post (#30 in this thread) was directed at me. If you wouldn't mind clarifying what you meant by that post in particular, that would mean a lot to me. The one basis I can see for your post (#30) is that it reads as though I'm jumping to the conclusion that Iran is not in fact planning to oppress religious minorities in the fashion the canada.com article alleged. If so, then I agree that I may have overstated what we currently know, in order to make the point near and dear to my heart, that there is insufficient international outrage against the oppression of two groups of Iranians whom I care very much about. I agree that that was overreaching (although I did indicate that the status of the religious discrimination component of the legislation was unknown), and I assure you that I wouldn't do such a thing in a professional capacity. But then, your clarifying post to me suggests that that WASN'T your concern, so I'm confused about what I wrote to trigger your remarks to me.

nerdanel -

While I am entirely on your side here, to say the least, all I WAS attempting to do was to state that condemnation cannot be based on intention.

While it might correctly be observed that current Iranian law is most terrible in terms of how certain "crimes" are treated, and I am not arguing that fact, it is another thing all together to then state (not by you of course, but by the article originally cited) that Iran is going to implement a dress code that identifies one by religious practice and professed belief.

The second set of criteria do not hold up, and that was what I was commenting on. However despicable one finds the current Iranian regime, it cannot be condemned before the facts. I am being quite specific here, and if my prior posts did not make that clear, I apologize.

[Túrin Turambar]

Iran denies the report

[Hachimitsu]

Uh I looked up the orignal article, and looked up information on the author, Amir Taheri. He was born in Iran and partially educated in Iran.

http://www.benadorassociates.com/taheri.php

Link to the whole article

Going to try and look up info in this association he is with.


Wikipedia on Benador Associates

Benador Associates is a public relations firm and speaker's bureau that promotes expert writers and speakers focusing primarily on U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, particularly those from a neoconservative point of view.

Benador Associates describes its areas of specialization as "media applied to politics, conflict resolution, the dialogue of civilisations, foreign policy, national security, anti-terrorism, defense of human rights and freedom of religion, among others."

The CEO and founder of the firm, Eleana Benador, is a Peruvian-born linguist-turned-publicist whose client list of prominent and influential neoconservatives includes Richard Perle, the former chairman of the Defense Policy Board; former CIA director James Woolsey; Daily News columnist A.M. Rosenthal; American Enterprise Institute resident scholar Michael Ledeen; National Review contributing editor Frank Gaffney Jr.; former Washington Times editor in chief Arnaud de Borchgrave; former Secretary of State Alexander Haig Jr.; and Iraqi dissident Kanan Makiya, a Brandeis professor who advocated the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Linky

I should also point out that the National Post is viewed by many people as a pro consertive paper.