This is topic N.Y. Post : IRAN'S VICIOUS DRESSTAPO HITS UNVEILED GALS WITH BARBARIC BANISHMENT in forum Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk at Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board.
This is their front page story. Not whats going on next door. The Iran media campaign is starting to amp up. Dont be fooled, Iran has been like this in some way for hundreds if not thousands of years. Let their students and womens lib. movement take care of it!!
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, AP and POST WIRE SERVICES AYATOLLAH KHAMENEI Misogynist mullah. April 25, 2007 -- TEHRAN, Iran - Women who refuse to wear a veil and otherwise adhere to the strict Islamic dress code will be banished from the capital for up to five years, authorities threatened yesterday after launching a new coverup campaign.
The frightening warning comes as police are carrying out their toughest crackdown in 20 years on young women who do not abide by Islamic law, which requires them to cover their face and hair and wear long, loose-fitting clothing to conceal their figures.
The possibility of exile to the Iranian hinterlands comes on top of stepped-up enforcement of existing penalties for flouting the clothing rules that include lashes, fines and imprisonment.
Prosecutor Saeed Mortazavi told an Iranian newspaper that if the current punishments are not effective in preventing women from showing some skin, those who repeatedly violate the law could be expelled from Tehran for five years.
"Those women who appear in public like decadent models endanger the security and dignity of young men," Mortazavi said, according to Reuters.
"If primary punishments are not effective, repeat violators may receive up to five years' exile from Tehran."
The harsh medieval measure touched off an immediate uproar in a country where about two-thirds of the 70 million people are under 30, and where people are worried most by an 11 percent unemployment rate and soaring inflation.
Elham Mohammadi, a 23-year-old student who shows her hair under a white and orange headscarf, called it insulting.
"You simply can't tell people what to wear. They don't understand that use of force only brings hatred towards them, not love," she said.
But Interior Minister Mostafa Pourmohammadi predicted the restrictions would be welcomed by Iranians because the measures will restore social stability.
"People are unhappy with the social and moral status of the society. They expect that the fight against social insecurity be properly implemented," he told the conservative daily newspaper Resalat.
Hard-line lawmaker Mohammad Taqi Rahbar said the flouting of the dress code had prompted growing cries for help from Iranian wives whose husbands were being distracted by women wearing skimpy clothing.
"Men see models in the street and ignore their own wives at home. This weakens the pillars of family," he said.
Already, more than 3,200 women have been officially warned, and 200 have been arrested for not covering up, despite recent temperatures approaching 80 degrees.
Police spokesman Col. Mahi Ahmadi said most of the women were released after they signed papers promising not to appear "inadequately dressed in public."
He added that a dozen men also were picked up by cops for wearing tight pants and short-sleeved shirts and "not observing the proper Islamic dress code."
On Monday, police were seen stopping and giving warnings to women who were showing too much hair or who dared to wear brightly colored headscarves, rather than black or gray, head-to-toe chadors and veils.
Parents of young women who were arrested complained bitterly to police about the crackdown.
Officers have also reportedly stopped foreign tourists, even though visitors are not required to follow Islamic law.
Ahmadi said the sartorial sweep to root out Western influence will continue for as long as necessary.
With summer approaching, more women have appeared in public wearing shorter, brighter and tighter clothing. Such clothes are banned under Islamic law, called sharia, which was imposed after Iran's 1979 revolution and is zealously enforced by the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameini.
In recent years, women have increasingly opted to wear loose headscarves that show their hair while dressing in shorter, fitted jackets that stop at the knee, showing their pants or lower calves.
Some Iranians predicted that the controversial crackdown could result in a backlash against fanatical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from hard-pressed Iranians who are angry at food- and housing-price hikes in recent months, despite his campaign promises to reduce poverty.
Critics demanded the government turn its attention to unemployment and the economy.
After his election in 2005, Ahmadinejad promised a return to Islamic values of the revolution, and hard-liners pressed for a tougher stance on "immoral behavior."
Clerics have repeatedly called for a crackdown on "un-Islamic" dress during spring, but sweeps over the past two years have been low-key and minor.
Looser dress codes had been one of the few surviving gains from the era of Ahmadinejad's predecessor, reformist President Mohammad Khatami, who was in power from 1997 to 2005.
Some conservatives applauded the current crackdown, saying it was an important move when many women are pushing the boundaries of acceptable conduct.
"All are responsible toward the problem of inadequate dress," said Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, a senior cleric.
But Iran's judiciary chief, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi-Shahroudi, criticized the crackdown, saying cops shouldn't be dragging women to police stations.
He urged officers to avoid any heavy-handed action against women, because it would only trigger resentment.
"Tough measures on social problems will backfire and have counterproductive effects," he warned.
Critics in the media and Iranian citizens also complained.
"Mr. President, I wonder if what the police, supervised by your Interior Ministry, are doing to women stems from a misunderstanding?" asked Masih Alinejad, a columnist in the Etemad Melli daily.
"Or have people's major problems of injustice and poverty been resolved?"
Sadeq Rowshani, a bank clerk, said, "The problem of our country is unemployment, the rapid increase in the number of crimes and murders, not women's dress."
The police campaign comes as 2,000 students from a prestigious university in the southern city of Shiraz held a protest on Sunday over new clothing restrictions, according to reformist newspapers.
The students were banned from wearing shorts and sleeveless vests outside their rooms in the dormitories, which are strictly segregated, and were also given an extended curfew.
While the clothing restrictions apply to both men and women, it is mainly young women who do not cover their heads and bodily contours who have been the target of the arrests.
Posted by urnso77 on :
hmm...wonder how their tourism figures are over there. Posted by rimasco on :
We should just have a chain of BeBe's open up out there.
Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by urnso77: hmm...wonder how their tourism figures are over there.
probably exactly how the country allowes it to be
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Posted by rimasco on :
Iran shouldnt concern US IMO. We seem to be making them our problem.
Over here, there were no topless beaches no to many years ago. Now you have to go to designated areas or face being arrested. Whats the difference? Its a dress code isnt it?
Europe doesnt seem to mind.....NEITHER DO I!
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Yes, there more important things to worry about than Iran pursuing nuclear weapons and human rights violations..... Like who will be American Idol 2007? Posted by rimasco on :
I can see your getting sucked in to thier "mdeia campaign". All of a sudden youre offended by the way they treat their women. Check out how the women AND CHILDREN are being treated in Ethiopia and Dafur. They wish they had the option to be spared by "covering up"!
pssssst NR I got a little secret for ya....Iran is 9 years away from having a bomb. and you know what else.....its not our problem...shhhhhhhhhh
Posted by stocktrader2006 on :
Based on some of the women I've seen in this country, they should be REQUIRED to wear a vail and hide their faces. Let me call my local congressman and get that bill moving. LOL
Posted by NaturalResources on :
Pssst Rimasco, I got a little secret for you....
The force that is creating the problems you speak of in Dafur is the same one that is forcing women to cover up in Iran... It's called Islamofascism and if you think ignoring it, or letting someone else deal with it will make it go away, your are wrong.
And BTW, my disgust and offence for extremist Islamists is nothing new... I've been paying attention to these things long before people were even talking about Saddam's human rights violations and WMD's (or lack thereof) so I don't know where you get the idea that I am "suddenly" being "sucked into their media campaign"...
Iran is not a nuclear power, but is on the road to becoming one. IMO it is ignorant to this that this isn't "our" problem.
Posted by NaturalResources on :
On second thought... We have 9 years before it does become our problem, so we should just forget about it until then, and deal with it as a "last minute" sort of thing...
After all, procrastination is always the best policy when it comes to dealing with a potential crisis... BTW, did you hear what Trump said about Rosie leaving "The View" !?!?
Posted by stocktrader2006 on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: On second thought... We have 9 years before it does become our problem, so we should just forget about it until then, and deal with it as a "last minute" sort of thing...
After all, procrastination is always the best policy when it comes to dealing with a potential crisis... BTW, did you hear what Trump said about Rosie leaving "The View" !?!?
Rosie - Now that is one that requires a vail...LOL
Posted by urnso77 on :
No what did he say? Oh please tell.
Posted by glassman on :
And BTW, my disgust and offence for extremist Islamists is nothing new... I've been paying attention to these things long before people were even talking about Saddam's human rights violations and WMD's (or lack thereof)"...
me too...
it's important to remember that many of the "Islamic Customs" as we NON0Islamic people perceive them, are in fact NOT Islamic customs... they are "cultural norms" that are adopted by the members of the Faith and included into their religious practices...
Posted by rimasco on :
"The force that is creating the problems you speak of in Dafur is the same one that is forcing women to cover up in Iran... It's called Islamofascism "
pssssst.....So then why arent we flying sorties over there there
And BTW, my disgust and offence for extremist Islamists is nothing new
pssssst.....this is their culture for a thousand years....its nothing new....psssst...why dont you start off by heading over to amish-town pennsylvania and free there women first...I hear they gotta cover up too....shhhhhhhhhhh
Posted by rimasco on :
Nice post glass you beat me too it
Posted by NaturalResources on :
I do see your point Glass, and I have no problem with people following "Islamic Customs" such as a veil, if that is in fact what they want to do....
Also, just to make things clear, my issue with Iran and Islamofascism is much more than whether or not women wear veils, there are a whole host of other "violations" that I don't need to get into because I know you are well aware of them.
My problem lies with the fact that women are FORCED to follow "customs" whether or not they want to and are punished severely if they do not....
In other words, I do not have a problem with the abundance of culture, but rather the lack of freedoms to choose which customs you follow.
It is customary for Catholics to wear crosses around their necks but you don't see them handing out "lashings" when citizens who are not members of the Catholic faith do not wear them...
Granted, there was a time in the past when this was the case, but as most will admit, this was wrong then, and it is wrong now. Just because it is happening in Iran doesn't make it any less wrong IMO....
Posted by glassman on :
It is customary for Catholics to wear crosses around their necks but you don't see them handing out "lashings" when citizens who are not members of the Catholic faith do not wear them...
not any more anyway Posted by rimasco on :
"My problem lies with the fact that women are FORCED to follow "customs" whether or not they want to and are punished severely if they do not...."
psssssst.... The Civil Rights Movement is only 40 years old with a slew of victims and eye witnesses that could tell you similar stories....shhhhhhhh
patience
Posted by urnso77 on :
I still wanna know what Trump said about Rosie today. Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by urnso77: I still wanna know what Trump said about Rosie today.
I think it went something like...."BWAAAAAAHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA AHHH AHHHH AHH AHHHHH BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AHHH AAAHHHH AH AH AH BWAAAAAAAAAAAAA"....ETC
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by rimasco: "The force that is creating the problems you speak of in Dafur is the same one that is forcing women to cover up in Iran... It's called Islamofascism "
pssssst.....So then why arent we flying sorties over there there
And BTW, my disgust and offence for extremist Islamists is nothing new
pssssst.....this is their culture for a thousand years....its nothing new....psssst...why dont you start off by heading over to amish-town pennsylvania and free there women first...I hear they gotta cover up too....shhhhhhhhhhh
Rimasco,
I do agree, that it is hypocritical to take issue with Islamofascism in Iran and say/do little regarding the same in Dafur or Ethiopia. IMO we should address both issues equally, but unfortunately we do not. Sadly, to the politicians, it is not about human rights, they just use that as an excuse for other agendas... It shouldn't be that way, but just because it is, please don't assume I agree with it.
Also, I do realize those customs have been around for thousands of years... Still doesn't make it right to force someone to follow them that doesn't want to. We take it for granted here that there is a separation of religion and state... Unfortunately, it is something not afforded to most in this world.
Regarding the Amish.... Funny you should bring that up, I do not know if it was intentional, but I do live in Southwestern PA and have done quite a bit of work in and around the Amish communities to the north of Pittsburgh.... Last I checked, one is free to leave the Amish lifestyle behind any time they want. While they may be "shunned" by the Amish community for doing so, they certianly don't get beaten for doing so...
Posted by rimasco on :
Well I hear....a father bedding their daughters is a common practice in those communities... I dont know if its true, but they did have a first hand victim on the news about a year or so back...
Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by rimasco: "My problem lies with the fact that women are FORCED to follow "customs" whether or not they want to and are punished severely if they do not...."
psssssst.... The Civil Rights Movement is only 40 years old with a slew of victims and eye witnesses that could tell you similar stories....shhhhhhhh
patience
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: It is customary for Catholics to wear crosses around their necks but you don't see them handing out "lashings" when citizens who are not members of the Catholic faith do not wear them...
not any more anyway
Most here will not deny that it was wrong when it took place in the name of Catholicism , yet for some reason, people have a hard time admitting it is wrong when it happens in the name of Islam....
In all honesty, if women wanted to wear veils, because they believed in Islamic customs, then the "government" of Iran should not need to "crack down" on women who aren't wearing them.. Right?
Posted by rimasco on :
"In all honesty, if women wanted to wear veils, because they believed in Islamic customs, then the "government" of Iran should not need to "crack down" on women who aren't wearing them.. Right?"
People seem to become enraged when I wear my Richard Simmons shorts when I play basket-ball...
NR....serious, we have a dress code too dont we?
I cant just walk out the house with my bean-bag swingin in the wind. Different cultures are offended by different things. Because we have a higher tolerance does that make US right?
Posted by glassman on :
what are we arguing about again? i admit it i'm confused...
i am all for protcting human rights...
the problems aren't fixed if you destroy everybodys rights in the process of fixing the other problems (cough bushcheneycough cough)...
i am concerned about Irans nukes.. i think we WILL HAVE NO CHOICE but to eventually use some military tactics sooner or later..
Bush has destroyed all faith in his leadership ability so it ain't gonna happen anytime in th enext year. unless? somethig really bad happens (a distinct possibility)...
as for invading other countries to take the scarves off womens heads? let's get real...
i proposed a long time ago (here) that we offer women sanctuary or visa's (here),especially for Educational purposes, from countries that are deemed to be severely discriminatory toward them, and? we stop granting the men from those countries Visa's for Educational purposes..
it might help.. or it might make things worse...
Posted by NaturalResources on :
quote:Originally posted by rimasco: "In all honesty, if women wanted to wear veils, because they believed in Islamic customs, then the "government" of Iran should not need to "crack down" on women who aren't wearing them.. Right?"
People seem to become enraged when I wear my Richard Simmons shorts when I play basket-ball...
NR....serious, we have a dress code too dont we?
I cant just walk out the house with my bean-bag swingin in the wind. Different cultures are offended by different things. Because we have a higher tolerance does that make US right?
FWIW, IMO you should be able to walk out of your house with your "bean-bag" swaying in the wind if you want to.... Regardless, even though in our "culture" you can't, unless you get some "napoleon complex" cop detaining you, I doubt you would be "lashed" for doing so....
Posted by glassman on :
not in my neighborhood.... the dogs would chase him
Posted by rimasco on :
"as for invading other countries to take the scarves off womens heads? let's get real..."
Well I started out by accusing the NY Post of making this front page news as sort of a prelude for the Iran smear campaign to come....
Im sure you seen in my past posts...i believe that womens lib in these countries are vital..but they have to go it on there own....just like they did here.
As far as invasion....we cant afford another Iraq....on all facets of costs
We isolated our selves with Iraq....I think that will be considered a luxury considered to what would happen
Posted by NaturalResources on :
LOL Glass, after seeing a picture of your dog on a different thread, I definitely wouldn't wanna be "free willy" in your neighbourhood... Posted by NaturalResources on :
Glass, Rimasco,
I want to make it clear that I am not advocating "invading Iran". I am simply saying that Nuclear Proliferation and Human Rights Violations must be dealt with ASAP, and not brushed to the side for others to deal with, or to be dealt with at a later time.
Posted by jordanreed on :
its ok for us to have wmd..right??
Posted by NaturalResources on :
I believe I already explained my opinion on this to you once Jordanreed...
I won't bother explaining it again, I will just give you my short answer, which is:
No.
Posted by jordanreed on :
sorry..i have SMD
Posted by rimasco on :
Shame of it is....like I said earlier. if we didnt "blow our load" (so to speak) in Iraq. Ashamedennnneeen might not have even popped up in fear of Saddam......and if he did...they would have duked it out themselves Posted by NaturalResources on :
Too many spliffs Jordan?
One more time...
If I rob a bank, and then tell you it's wrong to rob a bank when I see you getting ready to do the same thing, does that mean I'm wrong, and it's ok to rob a bank?
No, I might be a hippocrate and you probably won't listen to me because I don't lead by example, but I'm still right....
Same thing with WMD's... Sure we are hypocrites, and should change that if we expect people to take us seriously, but we are STILL RIGHT....
IMO, we should work on getting rid of our own WMD's, but at the same time make sure that nobody else is making them.....
If the goal is zero nuclear weapons on this Earth, then standing around doing nothing while another nation creates them is not a good way of achieving that goal.
You see what I'm getting at?
Posted by urnso77 on :
haha he said "blow our load" lol
Posted by rimasco on :
Lets just think of it as like a "global gun control"...would we let a loose cannon buy a gun? ummmmmmm errrr oh wait forget that......
Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: its ok for us to have wmd..right??
Well unfortunatly we harnessed the power under a severe amount of destress. And I think its safe to safe most of US regret it.... thats the difference....these guys have a parade when they aquire them.
I think we consider ourselves responsible...
reminds me of an article I was reading about a pakistani who went to japan for a hiroshima anniversary...he said soemthing along the lines " our country has no clue what these things are capable of doing"
does that answer question jordo?
Posted by rimasco on :
opps ...."safe to say"
Posted by rimasco on :
Originally posted by jordanreed: its ok for us to have wmd..right?? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well unfortunatly we harnessed the power under a severe amount of destress. And I think its safe to say most of US regret it.... thats the difference....these guys have a parade when they aquire them.
I think we consider ourselves responsible...
reminds me of an article I was reading about a pakistani who went to japan for a hiroshima anniversary...he said soemthing along the lines " our country has no clue what these things are capable of doing"
does that answer question jordo?
-------------------- "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication"
Posted by jordanreed on :
i think nr is right...it is not right for us to have them. we should disarm and lead by example. what do you think would happen?..
Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: i think nr is right...it is not right for us to have them. we should disarm and lead by example. what do you think would happen?..
I think at this point we would have the living crap bombed out of US....thats what I think
Posted by jordanreed on :
lol.. Posted by glassman on :
but we haven't bombed anybody else since then... d'oh, wait a minute.. let me rephrase that...
Posted by jordanreed on :
quote:Originally posted by rimasco:
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: i think nr is right...it is not right for us to have them. we should disarm and lead by example. what do you think would happen?..
I think at this point we would have the living crap bombed out of US....thats what I think
thats why everyone else wants them
Posted by NaturalResources on :
I am all for giving up nuclear weapons, but it is hard to present that as a realistic solution when there are some that would probably never give them up, even if we did give up ours in an attempt to lead by example....
The way I see it, the major nuclear powers of the world are stuck in a "mexican standoff"... I do not know if the "lead by example" solution will work, but I do know that adding more "guns" and "players", if you will, to this standoff is not the solution, and will only make the matter more complicated and more dangerous.
Posted by jordanreed on :
agreeed
Posted by bdgee on :
quote:Originally posted by rimasco:
quote:Originally posted by jordanreed: i think nr is right...it is not right for us to have them. we should disarm and lead by example. what do you think would happen?..
I think at this point we would have the living crap bombed out of US....thats what I think
Is your crap alive?
Straaaaaaannnnge......
Maybe you should write a horrow flick.
Posted by glassman on :
gerbils? Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by NaturalResources: I am all for giving up nuclear weapons, but it is hard to present that as a realistic solution when there are some that would probably never give them up, even if we did give up ours in an attempt to lead by example....
The way I see it, the major nuclear powers of the world are stuck in a "mexican standoff"... I do not know if the "lead by example" solution will work, but I do know that adding more "guns" and "players", if you will, to this standoff is not the solution, and will only make the matter more complicated and more dangerous.
I think we should try viewing it from a different angle..... we should start looking into a defense weapon that makes uranium reach its shelf life instantly. I think the orignal design calls for 20-25 years. It would be nice if another Einstein came along and figured out how to render these things obsolete....
Uranium is the main heavy metal used in a weapon's "rad case" to redirect the x-ray radiation produced by the weapon's fission primary. It is also sometimes used in other weapon parts.
Uranium and its alloys age in several ways. Like steel, pure uranium "rusts" when exposed to the oxygen in air. It is also corroded by hydrogen. Although nuclear warheads are sealed in airtight metal containers to reduce oxidation and corrosion, the high explosives, plastics, and other organic materials also in the container emit tiny amounts of oxygen, hydrogen, and water vapor that, over time, can cause problems.
Uranium alloys also change their crystal structures, or phases, over time, which also presents aging problems. Materials scientists manufacture a part to have a specific phase in order to optimize its strength, density, or corrosion resistance. However, the strain a part accumulates during fabrication and the temperature variations a weapon experiences in the field can, over time, change the phase, thereby degrading a part's properties.
Subjected to the considerable heat given off by a weapon's radioactive plutonium, for example, a uranium part—and all other weapon parts—can reach temperatures as high as 40°C (about 100°F). A weapon can also experience temperature extremes in its storage environment, such as a desert. Temperature-induced phase changes that degrade uranium's mechanical properties are a major concern.
Posted by rimasco on :
quote:Originally posted by glassman: gerbils?
You own gerbils? What do they eat? What do you keep them in? You had them declawed? Why? Are they ill tempered? If not do you provoke them to be? Why would you do that?
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)