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

Oh, it will be in any newspaper at any time? What year is this case from? Sometime in the 15 hundreds?

It was a question. Would you be okay with any rules which are introduced regarding how to dress?

 

There are such rules everywhere, almost anywhere you go outside your home.

When you go in the public streets, you are told to make sure you cover your genitals and, if you are a woman, your breasts too. As you know by now, it used to be a lot more than that.

When you go to work, depending on your job, you are told by your employer what kind of attire is acceptable in your line of work. Not everyone has to wear a uniform like in certain professions, but in most professions, you aren't free to 'dress as you please' either.

When you go to a government office, you will often find being told to wear shoes, shirts etc.

When you go to certain bars and clubs, you have to abide by their "dress code".

When you go to a black-tie dinner or ceremony, that is what is expected of you.

When you go to church, you aren't going to go with your swim suit!

There isn't anywhere you go, outside your home, that you are really not told by someone what you should be wearing. None of us have absolute freedom. The issue is always whether who is telling us what to wear or not, has the proper right and authority to do so? And the answer to that is, at least to me, anyone who is properly entrusted to manage or oversee a property, or who owns it, has the right to set the rules that apply. In the public sphere, as long as those rules accord with prevailing standards and are imposed by an accountable government, then I see no problem with it. That is life.

 

What is behind it?

 

I've always had a problem with laws which prohibit an action in which there is no victim. Someone walking around naked isn't going to result in any victim. So I think that I'm against all clothing laws.

 

I will give you a simplified version, but I am not an expert on Saudi Arabia per se.

But, basically, Saudi Arabia was the product of the marriage of the Al Saud family (backed by the British and other European powers, in particular the French) and the Wahhabi clerics. The idea was that a group who would be largely doing the bidding of foreign interests, would gain legitimacy for their rule by Wahhabi clerics. That is still basic essence of Wahhabi Arabia, as the foreign interests (the past few decades, American) have largely looked at Saudi Arabia as a foreign gas station and, once it earned money from it, a place to peddle and sell their goods. And the Al Saud family saw their role enjoying the riches while appeasing and paying homage to both of the pillars of their rule: their foreign overlords and the religious clerics who gave their rule its domestic its domestic legitimacy.

Since Saudi Arabia, a largely barren desert land outside the areas of contention in the pre-petroleum days in the Middle East, was never really a part of the two dominant empires in the Middle East, namely the Ottoman empire in Turkey nor the Safavid empire (and its successors) in Iran, they were largely left out of even the advances which those empires had overseen during their tenure. While even the Persianate civilization of both the Ottomans and Iran was eventually unable to keep pace with an ascendant Western civilization, and each also began to absorb various forms of western influenced practices and ideas in their realm, the Saudis were largely left out of all of it. Instead, they were quite backward before the petro dollars and remain backward in everything except the superficial things that money can buy.

Their Wahhabi ideology, I should mention, is very anti-IRAN, anti-Persian, anti-Shia, while also being extremely narrow minded and bigoted towards non-Muslims as well. For the Wahhabi's, the two principal challenges they have had to contend with historically, has been the "Persian cultural influence" which they believed had sidelined them and ruined true "pristine Islam" and "western cultural influence" which later (much later for the Wahhabis) became another challenge to their view of the ideal society.

 

I don't think you mean that. For instance, are you against "uniforms" required in certain professions, in sports, etc? I don't think so. Are you against the right of a private restaurant or club to have a "dress code"? And while these dress codes aren't directly mandated by law the same way nudity and public decency laws are, they are underpinned by laws that allow such clothing rules.

The truth is that even if there were no laws to punish nudity in public, most would still not be free to go out nude in public. Law on the issue try to regulate public reactions that might create more problems. While you might not mind it, many parents wouldn't want to see their kids confronted with naked men or women in the streets.

 

No, they're not laws. They're codes of conduct inside private entities. I'm talking about in public.

Yes, they would be free to. There would be law to discourage them from doing so.

I'm sure that they wouldn't, but it's not as if the kids would be damaged and be victims if they saw nudity.

 

While I could quibble with you on certain points, I can respect those who favor no clothing requirement. I just don't want my kids to be raised in that kind of society. There are a lot of issues whose answers aren't clear to me, but until those answers do become clear, I like society to preserve enough of its traditional institutions while it copes with figuring the right answers. In this regard, the rule I favor is rather simple: whoever owns or is properly entrusted to manage a place, whether public or private, gets to decide the kind of clothing or attire are to be expected to wear when you visit a place under their proper jurisdiction. The main thing is to make sure the authority managing the place in question is properly vested with such authority. For a private establishment, it means the owner of the place or he/she who is vested authority by that owner. For public venues, that means an authority answerable to the people (collectively the rightful owners of such public venues) and their evolving cultural practices.

 

Why? There would be no law to discourage them from doing so.

 

Law is not the only instrument of coercion. Indeed, societal pressures and the need to conform, as well as reaction by those who might find it offensive to see someone parading nude in public, will all work to limit the "freedom" you speak about. In those cases it doesn't, it is predictable that there will be backlash, fist fights, and worse. Laws in a society on these kind of issues cannot be divorced from a society's prevailing standards. When they are, they cause more problems than they solve.

In the US, many people will find public nudity offensive to themselves, and if not for themselves, than for their kids and family. In Saudi Arabia, the standards of what offends people is different. And in Iran those standards are different compared to Saudi Arabia on the one hand and the US on the other hand. But the issue is ultimately the same: if the law doesn't comport with prevailing societal standards, it will either bring despotism or invite disorder and vigilante behavior.

 

Oh, but in Iran the attitude is GREAT towards non-Muslims?

 

On balance, absolutely. Indeed, remarkably so. I would prefer to be a religious minority in Iran than being one practically anywhere else. While the US has better legal protection for its religious minorities, Iranians have much better (much more tolerant) cultural attitudes. And Iranian law does have significant (although not entirely equal) protection for its officially recognized religious minorities.

 

Did you actually type this with a straight face?

How many gay bars are there in Iran?

"more tolerant cultural attitudes"

My eyeballs just rolled out of my head.

 

Of course, I can say that because it is true. We aren't talking about "gay bars" but attitude towards religious minorities. I don't agree with this woman on anything much, but even this ultra Zionist, pro Israeli, journalist talking to Israeli television couldn't deny the obvious. And the obvious is more clearly reported by anyone (Jew or otherwise) who has visited Iran. Please note her comment on what "surprised her the most about Iran" (minute 11:40). And if you want, I can fill this threads with literally thousands of videos of people who have actually visited Iran from all backgrounds -- and who will tell you how much you really don't know anything about Iran!

Here is a PBS report

On Christians

 

Yep, you're not talking about gay bars, that's for sure.

All pretense of "Iranian cultural tolerance" has to go out the window when that topic is being discussed.

Iran is tolerant of the religious beliefs of tourists.

Wow, so enlightened.

 

You didn't watch the videos because it was about Iran's own religious minorities -- and how they feel. Not tourists.
As for the 'gay bars', I will address that once you show any inclination to actually pay attention to something other than your preconceived (and propaganda filled) notions.

 

Then why does Israel routinely lock up Christians?

"BETTER legal protection" for religious minorities in the US? Try ABSOLUTE legal protection! And you can include the rest of the West in that too!

 

America doesn't have laws which make apostasy and proselytizing crimes punishable by long terms of imprisonment, like Iran does.

I am perfectly free to stand on just about any street in America and preach the good news of the risen Christ, or the noodley divinity of The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

What would happen to me if stood on a street in Tehran and handed out Bibles?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/12/10/iran-arrests-100-christians-growing-crackdown-minority/

Now, how about those gay bars in Tehran?

 

I am not really here to discuss what Israel does.

Even if what you say is true, and there are really no "absolutes" in the world, my point was that the US protections under both the first amendment (free exercise of religion) and 14th amendment (equal protection of the laws) is indeed stronger than Iran's constitutional and legal protections for its religious minorities. But Iran does have its own constitutional and legal protections. More importantly, and to draw this analogy to make my point: despite US legal protections against discrimination against blacks being much better than anything in Iran, America's history with discrimination and racism (and the cultural and ideological foundations for it) still make it (for a large number of blacks, not all) more difficult to be a black person living in America than what they would face in Iran. Cultural attitudes are important. Islamophobia is rather strong in America and the legal protections aren't all that determine how a society treats its minorities.

 

On this issue, while some of the reports you read are politicized and fail to report the real issues involved, the basic truth is along the lines you mention. Iran protects the rights of its religious minorities practicing their own religion. It does not really tolerate trying to convert Muslims to other religions and does crackdown on such efforts. That is about government policy, however, not cultural issues.

p.s.
While the basic idea behind what you said isn't off, to draw the correct analogy, you would need to ask comfortable will someone who is a Muslim feel, preaching Islam and handing out the Koran in the of America. They would be legally protected in that activity (unless they are somehow connected to some group designated to be a terrorist organization), but they will find a cultural backlash and reaction. In Iran, the activity you mention (proselytizing Christianity) will be more tolerated by the people culturally than protected legally.

 

So, only the Iranian government is intolerant.

The average Iranian citizen would be tolerant of Christians proselytizing in public?

 

The Muslim slave trade is a dirty little secret, and we'll just pretend it never happened, and Iran wasn't involved at all, 'kay?

 

Iran actually wasn't that involved. And in terms of numbers, they were very few slaves in Iran. And those weren't based on race.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Iran
Slavery in Iran

 

Everything is relative: To draw the correct analogy, you would need to ask how comfortable will someone who is a Muslim feel, preaching Islam and handing out the Koran on the streets in America. Especially in regions in America were religious and other forms of bigotry are very strong? They would be legally protected in that activity (unless they are somehow connected to some group designated to be a terrorist organization), but they will find a cultural backlash and reaction.

In Iran, the activity you mention (proselytizing Christianity) will be more tolerated by the people culturally than protected legally. How much tolerated culturally will depend where this is taking place? In a cosmopolitan city like Tehran, most wouldn't have a problem with it at all. In other places, you would find a similar reaction as you would in many places in America towards a Muslim doing the same.

 

source it, that it's some kind of secret.