Feminist activist in Iran sentenced to 24 years in prison for removing hijab.

Because, living in Iran, I realize that the reasons people assume (wrongly) that opinion polls in Iran would be unreliable, are false. And I know Iranian public opinion both from personal experience as well as through what is revealed by such public opinion polls.

No. Other than how one is an accepted norm based on cultural practices in the West, while the other isn't right now. (And, as I have mentioned, it isn't quite what the real norm in Iran would reflect either, which is why I oppose it).

In Iran, as elsewhere, they are under assault by primarily 2 things, neither of them factors which I believe can or should be stopped by fiat. First, women aren't as reliant on their husbands economically as they used to be. Second, the sexual revolution has removed any stigma that used to be associated with a woman not being a 'virgin' at the time of marriage. Making divorce less of a stigma for them as well, while husbands (and wives) also find a lot more opportunities to find different sexual partners than was traditionally the case.

 

Do you support the Supreme Leader being chosen by a group of Mullahs or do you think he should be elected by the people?

 

I have no problem, in theory, in terms of how the Supreme Leader is chosen. He is like a monarch, but instead of being chosen based on heredity, he is chosen by an Assembly of Experts elected by the people. (We already have a president directly elected by the people so need to duplicate that). The problem I have with the institution right now is more fundamental: it relates to things, I am sorry to say, you wouldn't understand.

 

Yes, the Supreme Leader is a monarch dictator. If Iran had nukes, would the Supreme Leader by the one that pushes the button?

 

Unlike many Iranians who advocate a reduction in the powers of the Supreme Leader because they want to get rid of the institution altogether, I want those powers (which do not make him a dictator, but do give him some powers that shouldn't be concentrated in one institution) better circumscribed even though I would oppose getting rid of the institution altogether. What I would prefer, however, is for the clerical establishment to better fulfill their function as scholars which they used to be. Iran's clerical system of education needs to do away with some "breaks" that have basically stopped it from generating the kind of education and thinking I like to see in Iran's version of Platonic guardians and a Platonic Philosopher king. The reasons for those breaks, and how they can be removed, are the kind of issues that are ultimately not ones that can be easily understood by someone who doesn't know the issues at all.

As for who would be able to push the "button" on nukes, in Iran, major foreign and national security policy decisions are made by consensus through decisions of the Supreme National Security Council. The president chairs the council, which is comprised of top government officials from the executive branch, the armed forces, representatives from the other branches, well as representatives appointed by the Supreme Leader. However, decisions of the council only become binding once ratified by the Supreme Leader himself. Day-to-day military operations, however, within the framework of the law and established policies, are of carried out by the applicable military organizations. If Iran had nukes, and those nukes were entrusted to the revolutionary guards as opposed to the regular military, then ultimately a decision on the use of nukes would presumably be made by the Supreme Leader and his appointees.

 

So the Supreme Leader would have his finger on the nuke button. Thanks.

 

People assume that opinion polls in Iran WOULD be unreliable, or ARE unreliable? "WOULD be" implies that polls don't happen in Iran currently.

You don't see a critical point of distinction between laws against public nudity and the Muslim head cover law? How about the fact that laws against public nudity apply to BOTH men and women?

And will NEVER be in the West. (Compulsory head cover for women.) Are you saying that you can see it happening in the future?

Well it IS the norm, but I assume that you mean the most of the population don't WANT it to be the norm.

Why is that a bad thing that "women aren't as reliant on their husbands economically as they used to be?"

Why was the stigma of not being a virgin a good thing?

Does the text in bold apply to the US, Iran or both?

 

Do I have to really listen to you to tell me what is reliable or not in Iran?

There are polls taken of public opinion in Iran all the time, including by many US organizations. I don't think they are doing this to throw away their money, but whatever you choose to believe, at the end, I can't do anything about it.

Nudity laws apply differently in terms of what parts need to be covered by women as opposed to me. Women need to cover their breasts but not men. In Iran, there are restrictions that also apply to men in terms of what they can wear (no shorts in public) and in certain areas (such as hairstyles) those restrictions are more onerous than for women. Overall, though, the issue isn't about what you want to make of it. I have explained it and if you don't understand the underlying issue, then I can't help you.

Why ask such a question? I certainly didn't suggest that is a direction that the West would or should follow.

Most of the population want it to be left to people to decide on their own. In some areas, where the Hijab rules are observed in the breach, and where there is strong evidence of dis-satisfaction with these rules, most would probably choose not to wear a head scarf.

Who said it is?

Who said otherwise?

It applies to both.[/QUOTE]

 

Yes, and speaking of barbarism, Julian Assange has been imprisoned in the west for telling the truth.

 

What the hell does this have to do with the fact that it is illegal and she was sentenced to prison?

 

He's not serving a prison term is he?

 

He is in the Belmarsh Prison in London. Prior to that he served 7 years effectively in prison as a political refugee in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.

Understandably his health has been deteriorating since. WWJD about that?

 

That's a pretty sickening story. If the Ayatolah's were smart they would get rid of some of their archaic laws - which would really
cost them nothing - and gain some positive publicity at a time of international crisis.

 

Iran along with many other countries are barbaric and have no justice whatever. They bury men and women up to their necks and stone them to death for being merely "accused" of adultury or homosexuality, or treason

This is that country and the mullahs that Obama supported and gave half a billion dollars too, while ignoring our only true ally in the middle east ISRAEL

Most every country in the middle east have no regard for women no regard for justice, saudi arabia has been beheading people in public for the new Prince.
Syria gas's its own people, the list goes on of atrocities against humanity and STILL, the progressive left hates on israel and loves them some muslims.

I dont get it

 

Back to the ridiculous regular programming I see!

 

Officially, Iran has gotten rid of the ban on women attending men football matches, but there is clear opposition to it from the top. Unlike some other issues raised and distorted, this one is an example of something that is real and does carry unnecessary costs. I don't quite get it as there is no real constituency for the way the issue is handled. The excuse is that the environment in football matches, where it can get rowdy and profane, is not suited for female spectators. But that issue is something the government has for years tried to respond to by coming up with plans which would mitigate those concerns. The opposition from the top of Iran's leadership has for some reason persisted.

 

The clerics see it as a tendency towards Western standards, which to them are decadent and corrupt.

Frankly I don't know why we give a damn whether the Iranians wear a head scarf or not. It's a custom that they consider part of their faith - in the same way that Christian fundamentalists consider their own cultural standards and customs part of their Christian faith.

I thought at one time that covering ones head was a sign of modesty, and in some Christian Churches it's still considered a sign of respect. The real reason was probably to protect from lice. Frankly I find scarves attractive and when I was young women wore hats. If you were depressed you went out and bought a new hat - and believe me it was a lot better than eating chocolate cake.

There were no homosexuals in Western Europe in the past either. The society was such that it rarely entered their minds. If it did, it was suppressed.

 

In one of his earlier posts Iranian Monitor said that it is a "lie" that Gays are executed in Iran. Ayaz Marhoni and Mahmoud
Asgari were arrested when they were 16 and 14 years old respectively. They were charged with having homosexual relations.
When International attention was brought to the case by Human Rights groups who complained that the boys had been beaten
and tortured while incarerated, Iran began claiming the two had raped a 13-year-old boy - although this had not been mentioned
at the time they were first charged. After fourteen months in prison, they boys, then 18 and 16, were given 228 lashes each in
a public flogging and then hanged on July 19, 2005. Officially, they were hanged for rape, but to non-Iranians it appears obvious
they were hanged for being homosexuals.

 

Yep, repeat something often enough -

 

Everything you repeated about the allegations in that case is false and intentionally so. You cannot be convicted of sodomy in Iran unless you really want to be and confess to it, not once, but 4 times in open court. Otherwise, you will need the testimony of 4 witnesses who say they saw the sodomy. And to discourage anyone making any such claims, if you see someone engage in sodomy but have lets say 3 male witnesses and not 4, and you bring such an accusation, you will face very harsh punishment. No one in Iran has an interest in the subject and all the cases you believe were about sodomy were about entirely different things. Murder, kidnapping, etc. The defendants, however, represented by lawyers with links to the usual suspects, tried to see their clients escape by presenting the facts of the case in the manner you mention. Otherwise, a society that wants to punish sodomy has no reason to do it secretly. And there are quite a few locations in Tehran which are known gay hangouts where gay men cruise and pick up other gay men. These are truly false stories but they fit the narrative some prefer.

 

Allowances should always be made for teenagers because they don't think and they're rebellious no matter where they live.

 

The homosexuality being any part of that story is false. Trust me on that. Here is the case he is referring to, based on a real investigation and not just parroting mud thrown by lawyers trying desperately (in the best spin on their motives) to win their clients a reprieve. And in the worse spin, trying to spew propaganda for ulterior political purposes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Asgari_and_Ayaz_Marhoni

 

No one is arguing that they are the same. The question was about equality. Do they have female polizei?

 

Inability to make a sensible informed reply always results in a deflectiing silly reply, which says it all