Iran: 150,000 woman detained for breaking veil code

[democratic]

Source: ADNKronos

Tehran, 26 April (AKI) - Some 150,000 women have been detained in Iran for violating strict new Islamic dress code rules, the country's top police officer has announced. "During the first four days we have picked up 150,000 women who were not properly veiled, but many of them were released after they signed an admission of guilt and a formal apology," General Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam told journalists. An unspecified number of the women taken into custody were also forced to undergo psychological counseling, Moghaddam said.

Some prominent politicians have criticised the government and the security forces for the way the matter has been handled.
“Certain methods produce undesired results," said Ayatollah Seyyed Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi. “Dragging women and girls to police stations for having some hair out of place, not only won't serve to bring morality to the country, but will have very negative effects on it," he added.

Justice minister Gholam Hossein Elham has apparently tried to minimise the incident by blaming the poice for being over zealous in enforcing the dress code. “The government issued no specific orders on how to carry out the campaign," he said.
However, 203 legislators in Iran's Majlis parliament in a letter addressed to Moghaddam, expressed their support for the way police acted.

Read more: http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Security&loid=8.0.408604684&par=0

---

[MADem]

1. Ugh--I just wanna smack the shit out of that smartass Morality Cop

They've RUINED a great city and they are keeping down half of a dynamic population.

American women like to joke about the "fashion police" but how many of them could conceive of STANDING TRIAL for what they wear? It's not cultural, the frigging chador (they were rare in Teheran and Esfahan in the Shah days) it is a way that the authoritarian government controls the population, by creating a climate of FEAR.

They aren't just going after women, either--they're nailing guys for dressing in un-Islamic fashion as well. No tight low riding jeans, no skimpy tee shirts for the lads, either...and woe unto you if you have an American Idol hairstyle--you've no choice but to shave (not closely) once a week, and sport a haircut that looks like you cut it with garden shears and then combed your hair with the leg of a chair.



This is such UTTER bullshit.

[democratic]

2. Yup

Here is an arrest of some guys for wearing t-shirts.

[rinsd]

16. Is it me or does that pic look like he is checking her out?

[superconnected]

17. I believe that is a man the police are looking at.

He's in violation for wearing a tee shirt.

[rinsd]

22. No, the photo in the OP.

[Dutch]

74. It kinda looks like that in both...

[Marie26]

30. Why are they cracking down now?

This seems like a new policy.

[MADem]

81. I think it is to create false "tension"--just like BushCo plays the "fear" card here with us

The Midget Mayor sends out the Morality Cops, they start roughing up women in scanty hijab and lads baring their arms in tight fitting tee shirts, and then the Supreme Leader (who 'hired' the midget mayor, in essence--he made sure he got on the ballot and won the Presidency) sends out another Grand Ayatullah to put forward a different view.

It's a good cop/bad cop, game--something for everyone to discuss. You get the rightwingers saying "Goddamn kids, what's the matter with kids today!!!" And the kids saying "The conservative adults just don't get it" -- It's like "Bye, Bye Birdie" or "Footloose" for an Islamic country.

Why bother? To distract from the real woes, that's why. With this manufactured issue, you see, all eyes are on the DEBATE about dress, and not on things like the shitty infrastructure, the fact that goods don't have reliable supply lines, that essential services, like electricity and water and so forth, aren't good like they were in the Shah days, that the streets are crumbling, that the government is just being ground down and no one is doing shit to fix it. It's benign neglect in lots of ways, and a real problem, but they've got to distract from it however they can.

[CJCRANE]

3. It was "300 arrested"

a few days ago...now it's "150,000 detained"...seems to be a big jump.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2820551

[MADem]

8. Detained, I believe, refers to the number of women stopped and challenged over their dress

Many were given a lecture and ordered to sign a statement saying what naughty girls they were and that they wouldn't do it again.

Imagine how something like that would go over in America?

How long would this sort of shit be tolerated over here?

http://jadi.civiblog.org/blog/Wearchadorandbefree

[struggle4progress]

66. More Feminist Activists Sentenced to Jail, Police Crackdown on Women in Public

feminist wire | daily newsbriefs
April 27, 2007

Of the 11 women's rights activists who have been summoned by Iran's Revolutionary Court in the past week, six have now been sentenced to serve jail time. All six women faced charges for participating in a public demonstration against Iran's discriminatory laws against women last June. On April 11, Azadeh Forghani was handed a suspended sentence of two years for "acting against national security by participating in an illegal gathering," Human Rights Watch reports. One week later, Fariba Davoudi Mohajer, a journalist, and Sussan Tahmasebi, a board member for the Iranian Civil Society Organizations Training and Research Center, received jail sentences of four years and two years, respectively. Most recently, Nusheen Ahmadi Khorasani, Shahla Entersari, and Parvin Ardalan were sentenced on Tuesday to three years in prison, with 30 months suspended, for "collusion and assembly to endanger the national security," Human Rights Watch reports.

Human Rights Watch has called on the head of Iran's Judiciary, Ayatollah Mahmud Hashemi Shahrudi, to immediately overturn these convictions and to end the persecution of those who are working for human and civil rights. "The Iranian Judiciary is using national security laws to imprison women's rights activists for peacefully protesting against legally sanctioned discrimination," Sarah Leah Whitson, the Middle East director at Human Rights Watch, said. "Instead of persecuting women's rights activists, Iran's government should scrap laws that discriminate against women." ~snip~

Also in Iran, police have launched a crackdown against women who are not dressed conservatively enough. Arrests were made of women who wore tightly fitting clothes and who did not cover all of their hair with a veil. A police spokesperson told the Associated Press that 278 women have been arrested; all but 47 have been released after pledging to not appear "inadequately dressed in public" again. The AP also reports that another 3,548 women received "warnings and Islamic guidance." According to the BBC, police are stopping pedestrians and drivers of all ages and nationalities. The BBC also reports that police are instructing shop owners not to sell tight clothing and cab drivers not to carry women who are not appropriately dressed.

Media Resources: Nobel Women's Initiative 4/25/07; Human Rights Watch 4/26/07; AP 4/26/07, 4/24/07; BBC 4/27/07; Voice of America 4/26/07; Los Angeles Times 4/25/07; Feminist Daily News Wire 4/23/07

http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=10279

Nobody will know how many people are stopped and warned: the zealots will play up the numbers at the beginning to show how devoted they are, and when the internal backlash comes everybody will play down the numbers to sooth the situation

[struggle4progress]

67. Criticism of police mounts

Saturday, April 28, 2007
Iran’s dress code
Criticism of police mounts over headscarf crackdown
By Hiedeh Farmani

~snip~ Witnesses have said that the drive, launched last Saturday, has not been universally popular on Tehran’s streets. Parents of the women apprehended in particular boldly made their feelings clear to the police.

Reformist newspapers and the ISNA student news agency reported that 2,000 students at a prestigious university in the southern city of Shiraz staged a protest on Sunday night over new restrictions on conduct and clothing. ~snip~

Alinejad recalled that Ah­ma­dinejad asked during his 2005 electoral campaign whe­ther the problem “in our country was two strands of women’s hair or fighting poverty, creating jobs and implementing justice?” ~snip~

Iran has issued 3,500 warnings nationwide and detained around 200 women in the new drive launched last Saturday, according to the latest police figures quoted by the local media. ~snip~

http://www.manilatimes.net/national/2007/apr/28/yehey/opinion/20070428opi7.html

[pnwmom]

4. Wait -- I thought they all WANTED to wear the veil.

Isn't that what they're always telling us here?

It's a cultural thing, purely voluntary, and it's just cultural imperialism for anyone here to think otherwise.

Isn't that the official DU party line?

[MADem]

9. There are a subset of binary thinkers--or should we say non-thinkers--

who actually believe that anyone who thinks Bush is an asshole is somehow imbued with saintly qualities and is "good." Now, anyone with a working brain knows full well that an asshole can actually dislike someone who is also an asshole, but that sort of critical thinking gets shut off in some when it comes to Bush and Company.

Thus, because the shithead Midget Mayor Puppet President of Iran dislikes Bush, "everything" he and his thuggish Pasaradan do in Iran is "OK" solely because they don't like the asshole running our nation.

It's idiotic thinking. It denies the obvious. It ignores the terrible repression going on in that country. Hell, most of the young folks in IRAN hate their Midget Mayor Puppet President, too. He has them arrested for sitting on park benches, holding hands.

I wouldn't push those insane views as the "official DU party line" though. What it is, is there are a few loudmouthed and uninformed people who bellow a particular and uniformed point of view incessantly. Those of us who think--no, KNOW--that this rosy scenario is pure bullshit are more representative of the thinking majority at DU than those folks. IMO.

[pnwmom]

21. You're probably right, MADem. And the general principle

probably holds true on a number of other issues here, too.

[MADem]

32. Yep...here's a site that really gives you a good look at what is going on

inside that beautiful, yet so sadly repressed, nation. I think this kid has guts galore--I love his posts and his fractured English: http://jadi.civiblog.org/blog

He put up this little photo essay entitled "Wear chador and be free" which shows a couple cuddling on a park bench, and the young lady is wearing a "mini chador" and tight jeans. They get rousted and arrested by the baaaastid cop, and then you see a picture of a woman in a full length chador who's draped all over her boyfriend, in the same place, presumably without conseqence.

It's a great photo-commentary, and all too true. Here's the link to it: http://jadi.civiblog.org/blog/Wearchadorandbefree

You can click on each photo and get a bigger view, if you'd like.

[INDIA]

47. No! You're just a "Mahmoud Hater"!!!

Lol. I've actually seen a poster (who will remain nameless) call critics of Iran "Mahmoud Haters." It blew my mind. And then I laughed. :rofl:

[Odin2005]

56. I guess I'm a proud Mahmoud Hater, then!

:woohoo:

[leftynyc]

68. Count me in also (eom)

[MADem]

82. Heh, a proud one, too. I really like the country of Iran.

The people are great, but that Midget Mayor is a shitheel. If the people could have had free and fair elections, you'd see reformers in the Majlis and in all of the national AND local offices, at least in the major cities. A few backwater places like Qom might continue to elect rightwingnuts, but not the big cities.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

13. no the party line is not to judge. we can condemn governments if they force the veil.

however there are women in the US who weat the veil, who the hell am i to tell them not to,

[pnwmom]

20. I know some, probably many, in the US wear it voluntarily.

But even here, I don't think we should assume that every woman in a veil is enthusiastic about it. When they don't speak English and their husbands have to speak for them in the stores, and they're wearing a face covering that only allows vision through a couple inches of netting over the eyes, I have my doubts.

How do we know they're not pressured into wearing it by family members?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

28. we dont, but thats how i feel about women changing their last name after marriage

its not for me however to dictate which patriarchal norm some adult woman will follow.

its just for me to support laws that give women choice.

[William769]

26. It's different in America, they have a choice

In Iran they don't!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

29. exactly. thats exactly what my post meant.

[Odin2005]

55. no, just a tiny number of naive fools and cultural relativist idiots.

Cultural relativists have no right to call themselves liberal and/or progressive.

[treestar]

86. Then they inadvertently agree with Bushco, who will say they

want to wear it because they are fanatical Muslims who want to kill us all.

Whereas the reality is that a lot of women in Iran are wearing only a scarf for form's sake, like the gal in jeans in the pic.

Reminds me of girls who stuck a hankerchief on their heads to go to Mass, back in the days when women had to have hats on in church.

[William769]

5. Where are the Iran apologist now?

They always seem to be abundant here.

[NoPasaran]

6. I'm sure they'll be along soon enough

They're checking for posts derogatory to Hugo Chavez first.

[MADem]

10. Heh, heh.....!!! NT

[Odin2005]

57. LOL!!!

:spray: :rofl:

[pampango]

7. Some of them are on the "bash China" threads right now,

but give them a little time. If China would stick it in Bush's face, like Iran is doing, it might get a little more love from some quarters here.

[ohio2007]

12. Chinese women know how to deal with "uppity" men

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070426/od_nm/china_womentown_odd_dc_1



They should take their sister act into the mosques of Mecca

[pampango]

15. Sounds like a good idea.

;)

[MADem]

34. The sick thing is, in Iran, they have female pollice who do the "beat downs" of their sisters if

it's deemed necessary by the male police. I'm not making this shit up, either.

Check this link: http://jadi.civiblog.org/blog/_archives/2006/6/12/2028586.html

See that BEAST with the baton whacking the shit out of those protesters? She's a cop. She's like Tony Fucking Soprano in hijab, may she rot in hell.

[ohio2007]

62. Another video of men helping in the beat down of a 'liberal' woman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x66h5kAKg5g&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpubliuspundit%2Ecom%2F2007%2F04%2Fvideo%5Fof%5Fthe%5Fcrackdown%5Fon%5Firan%2Ephp


SOmehow I don't think women in Iran are willing to rise up against this oppression when their own 'sisters' are training for "the beat down"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ppNwvsbDTzA&mode=related&search=
C'mon, the thirteenth century wasn't all that bad !

LOL

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. i think both iran and saudi arabia's treatment of women is appalling.

but how is it that we only hear about iran?

[Igel]

19. We only hear about Iran?

Really?

With Sa'udi BMO's(*) sporting such glorious fashion, in virtue-enforced gender-segregated malls that their expat drivers take them to because they can't drive? The notorious hypocrisy of Sa'udi women returning home from abroad, the brightly and fashionably dressed women in the seats becoming, one by one, dull black lumps as they enter Sa'udi airspace? The girls that were killed in a school dormitory fire because in the girls' rush to avoid being burned to death they failed to dress "Islamicly" and thus the guardians of their virtue locked them in to die?

Thing is, there's nothing new in Sa'udiyya. It's oppressive to women, in the opinion of many, and has been so consistently without change or movement. Iran's cracking down, so it's not been consistent and currently shows change or movement. Things that are stationary are much less salient to mammalian vision centers than things that move.


(*) BMO = Black Mobile Object, Sa'udi English-language slang, IIRC, in some quarters for women.

[William769]

24. I Agree.

saudi arabia is no better than Iran.

[MADem]

36. Actually, SA is WORSE. You CAN drive in Iran. You CAN vote, even if there's

only a bunch of handpicked fundy assholes on the ballot, and all the reformers have been lined out. You can't run for President, though -- that's just for men.

Hell, Iran is party central compared to SA. But at that, it sucks. There is not an American woman who would put up with that shit that is doled out in Iran for three minutes. There'd be some asskicking going on, and toute suite, too...

[MADem]

35. I certainly know about the plight of Saudi women--and have for eons.

There's information everywhere, and blogs, too, if you want to read them.

A good one, here: http://eveksa.blogspot.com/

And then there was the DRIVING DAY...despite the hopefulness of this article, they still can't drive. And of course, they've gotta always add the "We LIKE being slaves--we consider our lives BETTER because we don't have rights" nitwit quotes from people who are AFRAID to speak the truth. http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1207/p06s02-wome.html?s=widep

Spurred by the Gulf War and the sight of female American GIs driving in Saudi Arabia, the group took to the road. They traveled the streets of Riyadh before being surrounded by curious onlookers and stopped by traffic cops, who took them into custody. They were released only after their male guardians signed statements that they would not drive again.

The women, many of whom are professors, had been prepared for a reprimand from the government, even some jail time. But it was the reaction of their students, their extended families, and many acquaintances that surprised them.

After the protest, thousands of leaflets with their names and their husbands' names - with "whores" and "pimps" scrawled next to them - circulated around the city. They were suspended from jobs, had passports confiscated, and were told not to speak to the press. Overnight, they became pariahs.

About a year after the protest, they returned to work and received their passports. But they were kept under surveillance and passed over for promotions.
...

Another link for edification: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4397615.stm

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

23. You mean all the ones that love Ahmadinejad?

See, that's what happens when you make things up. It comes back to haunt you.

[William769]

27. Make things up? Hardly.

Your proof positive! :rofl:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

31. You don't have to be an "Iran apologist" to see this as trying to

soften up the American public for an attack on Iran.

It's history repeating itself. The so-called "far left" tried for years to bring attention to the treatment of women under the Taliban in Afghanistan, including during the Clinton administration, and no one in the political world could be bothered. (Come to find out that the CIA actually FAVORED the Taliban because of their ability to "restore order.") The destruction of the Buddhist statues at Bamiyan provoked more worldwide outrage (it was right that it provoked outrage, but you can see what I mean, I hope).

Then, in 2001, after the Taliban rejected the deal to build an oil pipeline across their country, all of a sudden the newspapers couldn't get enough of stories about Afghan women. There was little public awareness that these horrors had been occurring since 1996.

In the aftermath of the 2001 invasion, the American corporate media were crowing about the "liberation of Afghan women." Come to find out that today, little has changed outside the large cities.

So yeah, I'm skeptical of this RASH of reports on oppressed Iranian women, who after all have been in this situation since 1979.

Ironically, I suspect that if the U.S. were to be so stupid as to invade Iran, the women of Iran would be cheering for their own soldiers, not for foreign invaders.

Or haven't the armchair warriors learned anything from Iraq?

[MADem]

37. This stuff was in the Brit papers first, though. The US papers are doing what they do, copying.

We can't attack Iran. We don't have the assets.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[LostinVA]

43. Beat me to it, LL -- nice post

[B3Nut]

51. Bushco only wants the American people to give a damn

when it suits their interests. They use the repressed women in the Middle East as a political football, and IMHO it makes them every bit as detestable as the worthless intellectually-bankrupt superstition-wracked piles of superfluous biomass that comprise Iranian and Saudi leadership.

A moral and intelligent administration would maintain awareness of repression regardless of whether or not it furthered its interests. Bush's administration is neither moral nor intelligent.

Todd in Cheesecurdistan

[Dutch]

72. I see they've turned up below

It should be a sad day when self-proclaimed progressives stand up for authoritarian governemnt thugs collaring people in the street for not dressing correctly. Unfortunately, it's now just depressingly predictable.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[superconnected]

18. Those poor women, I hope they can get out before there is no

way to get out.

Perhaps it is already too late.

I don't think this warrents a bombing but I do think it warrents embargos. I'm sure their gov runs off money from big business just like buscho, so can be persuaded.

And yeah, as a female it's hard for me not to scream.. "MEN", but I know not all men are like that. Even though I suspect many would like to be - keeping women totally supressed.

One more thing, lets not forget, what is happening there is not really about religion. It's about control. Were there no religion, the meglomaniacs in charge would still be ordering complete dominance over the women. It's their leader right now - Ahmanjed(sp?), and his fucked up views. Last week they had the same religion but weren't arresting women and stopping them like this.

[Gen. Jack D. Ripper]

25. What is it with Tehran and apologies?

Definitely a humiliation factor there. Antiquated trash.

[superconnected]

33. Gotta love that black! Basically women are supposed to be shadows

is what I interpret from that.

[daleo]

38. We let airport radar scanners strip search us

We dutifully take off our shoes when asked. We let our employers tell us to wear ties or enforce dress codes in other ways. Some of us have to wear humiliating uniforms at work (e.g. Hooters).

I would hate to have the government tell me how to dress, but we undergo similar things in the west. Generally it is our corporations who tell us how to dress, though. It is a great way to exercise dominance over others.

[mark414]

41. well said

:thumbsup:

we give up our rights and we don't even know it

[The Stranger]

44. Holy brilliant post.

Why couldn't I have posted that?

[MADem]

46. Well, each of those situations involves some degree of choice. It's not entirely the same.

The goal of dominance certainly is there, but it can be eschewed to some degree. You can take the train instead of flying. You can decide not to work at Hooter's, and get a job at Chili's instead. You can look for work at companies that don't hang a tie around your neck--they do exist.

Imagine being told what to wear when you went to the grocery store? When you picked up your kid from school? When you walked with a romantic partner in the park? (Ooops, you couldn't do that--and if you're newlyweds, expect to be challenged, continuously). No public displays of affection, and constantly under the scrutiny of thuggish looking bastards in olive uniforms, checking you over to be sure you aren't showing too much hair or skin, and correcting you in everything from paternal to angry fashion if you don't measure up. That's "dominance around the clock."

[daleo]

48. Yes there are some differences between the West and Iran on this

But perhaps we in the west should be bothered by our own limitations more than we are. After all, the defining cultural characteristic of western society is choice (individual freedom), so having our choices restricted ought to cut us deeper, so to speak.

I agree that the (mostly) informal restrictions we put up with are better than having government dress police, though.

[MADem]

49. Well, I happen to like school uniforms. I think they're a social leveller.

I realize some people completely disagree, and feel that the ability of the child to express themselves should extend to clothing, each day and every day, but I'm an old fart in that regard. The poor kids who can't afford the two hundred dollar stupid-ass "I'm a sucker who bought the marketing bullshit" sneakers feel bad and are insulted and denigrated for wearing the unpopular fashions, and uniforms avoid that. Let them have the odd 'dress up day' for personal expression, but uniforms level the playing field.

And so long as uniforms aren't demeaning, they actually do serve a purpose in the workforce as well. I spent decades in one, and it did make getting my ass up and out to work a simpler proposition, at home or deployed.

In some countries, if you work in a bank or a hotel or a car rental place, you wear the full "team colors" and the company foots the bill for the outfits. I think it's helpful in determining who belongs and who doesn't--we'd probably have fewer stolen babies if hospitals had standardized uniforms for medical personnel.

I do find them useful in many circumstances, like pilots and flight attendants for airlines. I dunno, I don't think I'd like "personal freedom" in the cockpit or on the plane, and rightly or wrongly, I'd have less confidence in the pilot or flight attendant who turns up in cutoffs and a tee shirt and flip flops--the uniform serves to know who's running the show.

[daleo]

53. I never experienced school uniforms

I suppose they do take away some of the clothes competition, although I imagine that kids come up with clever ways to get around this. As for work uniforms, sometimes they are functional (police) and sometimes not (ties on engineers at the job site). There is always a happy medium to strive for.

Informal "dress codes" can be pretty complex and go in a lot of different directions. I have lived in places where a tie is almost a necessity, and others where people give you strange looks if you wear one outside of a wedding or funeral. Personally, I kind of like wearing a tie, except when I am actually required to - then I dislike it.

In terms of social leveling, I would just point out that religious people often make the same arguments for clothing restrictions i.e. that they actually free women from the tyranny of the male gaze and prevent envious (and impious) clothing competitions among women.

Regarding Iran, my main point was that any society's dress codes can look irrational from a distance, our's and their's. From the photos in the original post, I got the feeling that dress codes in Iran were kind of like speeding laws in the west - more honored in the breech than the observance. Like speeding laws, enforcement is probably taken a lot more seriously at some times and places than others.

[MADem]

61. I went to a school with a 'dress code' not uniforms, and this was decades before the

sneaker shit we see now, but even back then, I noticed that the kids who didn't have the latest sweater or the expensive shirt were sometimes teased. The teasers were assholes, but still, it had to be unpleasant for the kids at the receiving end of that kind of abuse.

Amongst adults, out on their own and having fun, sure, wear what ya want. Folks should be aware though, that clothing can and does speak for an individual. The person in the undertaker's suit is telegraphing "I'm SERIOUS." The individual wearing the sweatsuit is saying "I'm CASUAL." The person wearing the old clothes is either saying "I'm poor" or "I don't give a shit" or "I'm a nonconformist." So that said, people who wear VERY LITTLE clothing are also telegraphing a specific message, anything from "I am proud of my physique" to "Look at MEEEEE" or as Chris Rock, I believe, termed it (this is a pathetic paraphrase), "If you don't want to be treated like a prostitute, don't wear the uniform."

With choice comes consequences. But in Iran there is no choice. This guy's blog is just great--he nails it, even with his goofy English. http://jadi.civiblog.org/blog

His WEAR CHADOR AND BE FREE photoessay tells it EXACTLY like it is over there--it ain't a nice place for females, nowadays. And that's the truth. http://jadi.civiblog.org/blog/Wearchadorandbefree

[Malidictus Maximus]

58. The *ONLY* appropriate function of clothing

is to hold stuff and prevent sunburn or hypothermia, any other reason is merely either a craven attempt as social dominance of capitulation to fundie assholes (a redundancy).
;-)

[MADem]

59. Well, and to keep yer nasty shit (not yours, personally, mind you) off my furniture! nt

[otherlander]

65. Do you truly believe that identical outfits

will stop children from insulting each other? Because it won't. Children are fucking cannibals.

[skipos]

75. I had a uniform for 8 years, dress code for 4

It was pretty hard to tell the poor kids from the rich kids with the uniform, and it greatly reduced the amount of wealth based teasing. Kids still got picked on for their weight or their looks, but at least money was taken out of the mix.

[MADem]

80. No. It just removes one popular topic of insults, and because the students aren't wearing

the latest, attention-seeking fashions, it puts their eyes on the blackboard, and not on the asscrack of that fourteen year old or the feet of that putz with the absurdly expensive footwear.

I don't think children are cannibals, either. I think the way they turn out has a lot to do with how they are raised. Sometimes, sadly, even the most attentive parenting can turn out a troubled kid, but the parenting does improve the odds that you turn out a good kid who is an asset to the community.

[leftynyc]

70. The fact that the government of Iran

forces this makes ALL the difference. People can choose where to work or whether to fly. Cultural relativism does not apply here.

[The Stranger]

52. Yep, pretty much the same.

None of those examples really quite get it. The only real difference is that one situation involves what is going on in Iran, a nation that has been tapped as part of the "Other" (or, according to some war criminals, "part of an Axis of Evil"), and that all of the Neocon propaganda is trying to dehuamnize this nation and its people to fuck the U.S. military into yet another illegal war.

It is impossible to read posts about Iran outside of this context. The war-time propaganda effused by the criminally complicit media is ubiquitous. And it is important to understand that when the Neocon propaganda is filtered, much of what you see is common every place.

[MADem]

64. Well, Iranians are griping about this, and they have been for a long time

The Supreme Leader JUST ordered that the Morality Police "back off" on this issue, because the kids are getting really pissed off. It's a 'good cop, bad cop' distraction. Give a little, take a little, give a little--a bullshit game.

This kind of blogging is coming from within Iran, not from anyone with an America-centric agenda: http://jadi.civiblog.org/blog/Wearchadorandbefree

It's one of my favorite photoessays ever--sums up the shit those poor folk are going through. And it is OUTSIDE the context of the US sabre rattling, which, believe it or not, is NOT the sole focus of most Persians on a daily basis.

Really.

[The Stranger]

84. The U.S. sabre rattling is not the sole focus of most Persians on a daily basis.

But it is the sole focus -- nay, the sole actitivity -- of most U.S Neocons on a daily basis.

[MADem]

85. Certainly. But that's not the "Big Story" in Iran. We just aren't THAT important! NT

[Dutch]

73. Yeah, if these women aren't properly veiled, they might be able to conceal a bomb...er...where?

I mean, I can see you've gone to a lot of effort to come up with this twisted logic to defend the indefensible here - much to the relief of your fellow apologists below - so i just want to be able to follow how women being forced by authoritarian thugs to cover their heads in the street is the same as scanning someone getting on a plane?

[skipos]

77. Apples and oranges.

Companies around the world for thousands or years have had uniforms or dress codes. Very different from being arrested in the streets for not covering your face, no? It is musch easier for an American to find a job with a dresscode policy that they like than for an Iranian to leave the country.

Airports need to have security checks. If you don't fly, you'll never have to suffer the horrors of taking off your shoes. Again, very different from being detained for not wearing a big enough veil, wouldn't you say? It is much easier for an American to avoid flying than for an Iranian to leave the country.

[AngryAmish]

39. Way to go, Bush

[leftynyc]

71. Blaming Bush for this? I don't get it. (eom)

[deadparrot]

40. Religious zealotry at its finest. nt

[struggle4progress]

45. Iran judge criticises veil crackdown

25 Apr, 2007 l 0232 hrs ISTlAFP

TEHRAN: Iran’s latest crackdown on badly-veiled women to make them obey Islamic dress rules has found an unlikely critic in the hardline head of its judiciary, press reports said on Tuesday.

Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, who is appointed by the country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, warned police against heavy-handed actions against women found to have broken the rules.

“Hauling women and young people to the police station will have no use except to cause damage to society,” the reformist Etemad Melli newspaper quoted Shahroudi as telling a meeting of local governors. “Tough measures on social problems will backfire and have counter-productive effects,” he warned.

“Of course, we need to act against organised crime and thugs but when there is no necessity to take someone to a police station, there is no need to do it,” he added. Iran has issued 3,500 warnings nationwide and detained around 200 women in the new drive launched Saturday, according to police figures quoted by local media. ~snip~

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Iran_judge_criticises_veil_crackdown/articleshow/1952008.cms

[MADem]

50. Smart judge--actually, smart Supreme Leader, who is playing both ends against the middle.

The SL knows damned well that the country is at an interesting point in time--they've had EEEE-NOUGH. The promise of 79 has NOT been realized, things are gettting WORSE, not better, they're suffering everything from infrastructure collapse to brain drain, and they are just sick to death of the bullshit. And I don't blame them.

Of course, the problem is with some of these fuckers, the Morality Police. Give some baaastids a little authority and they turn into raging, raving assholes. "PAAAPERS!!! Let me see your PAPERS!!!"

[rodeodance]

54. women have had a taste of freedom-----most won't go back

[cigsandcoffee]

60. Iran's government are really a pack of assholes.

It's like a Jerry Fallwell on speed is running the place.

I look forward to sensible people reclaiming the halls of power there - as I do here.

[Mugsy]

63. Manequin's have breasts sawed off (photo)

The BBC just ran the story.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6596933.stm

Frightened dress shop owners were forced to saw the breasts off their mannequins for being "too revealing":

[MADem]

83. Wow, the Iranian media lies just like ours does!!!!! See, we do have much in common!

...It is the talk of the town. The latest police crackdown on Islamic dress has angered many Iranians - male, female, young and old.


But Iranian TV has reported that an opinion poll conducted in Tehran found 86% of people were in favour of the crackdown - a statistic that is surprising given the strength of feeling against this move. ]/u].....Though the authorities want coverage internally to scare women - they don't want the story broadcast abroad.

[robcon]

69. It's sad.

Iran has a lot of educated, liberated women.

The only 'good' thing that might come of this is that this may be the straw that boke the camel's back - as far as the current regime.

[Triana]

76. I don't think it's the women who need psychological counselling (n/t)

[kineneb]

78. morality police

this is what the US would look like if the Pat Robertsons/Jerry Fallwells/etc. were running the place. Iran is an example of theocracy run amok. Remember Ashcroft putting drapes in front of the Justice statue? Islam doesn't have a monopoly on idiocy; there are plenty of nutcases in other religions.

As to the Iranian people, they are used to playing cat-and-mouse with authority. It seemed to be a national sport, even during the Shah's time, when I lived there. I am sure my relatives there are still part of the game. The Iranian/Persian people identify with their country and heritage much more than they identify with the particular government in power. Perhaps this is why they have not overthrown the current bunch- "this too shall pass".

[Zhade]

79. Can anyone tell me more about the source?

I am not familiar with it, and thus do not know its dedication to honest reporting.

I'm not saying this is untrue; I'm not saying it's true. I don't know. Does anyone?

[mainer]

87. Sounds like our buddies, the Saudis

So the media's up in arms about Iran's treatment of women. Interesting how the Saudis have been able to get away with the same behavior.