IRANIAN WOMEN IN PRISON

Zorya

Maybe this has been talked about on Boards, I have not been about much, but if it has not this is a topic that has occupied my interest of late.
Just wanted to post something about it so that anyone interested might know how things are going along for some women in Iran. There has been some media coverage, but not nearly enough.
When I see westerm women embrace the veil as a cutesie/quirky symbol of cultural respect, I shudder and think instead of these beautiful girls and women languishing in what must be hell on earth in Iranian jail. All because of a piece of cloth.
It is one thing to wear a veil if one desires to, and scarves can be very lovely, people can wear them if they wish. It is another thing to give any support or credence to a symbol that is devastating the lives of women in other parts of the world.

I want these women to be known by their names and not forgotten.

I think of Yasaman Ariyani. Gorgeous, brave 23 year old Yasaman who has been sentenced to 16 years in Iranian prison for peacefully protesting against mandatory Hijab.



Her mother Monireh Arabshahi, who has also been jailed for 16 years.


Their friend Mojgan Keshavarz, who has been jailed for 23 years.



Of course, one of the forerunners was Human Rights lawyer and activist Nasrin Sotoudeh, not only jailed for 38 years but also sentenced to be lashed.


There is Saba Kordafshari who has been jailed for 24 years.



Lovely Sahar Khodayari attempted to enter a football stadium recentlly but was arrested as women are not permitted to do so in Iran. She self-immolated and died last week from her injuries.


Vida Movahed. the original Revolution Girl, got one year in 2017, but the authorities have been cracking down much more severely since then.


Just so you know.

Fiery mutant

There are governments in this world that provide no benefit to human society at all. The Iranian government is one of them.

Glass fused light

For anyone looking to learn more you can search for white wednesday on social media etc.


https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/23/women-are-wearing-white-on-wednesday-to-protest-irans-strict-hijab-laws-9286149/

Portsalon

I share your revulsion for the régime, but every one of those young women knew the risks that they were taking and the likely consequences of taking such action, thus, it must be said, they were the architects of their own destiny. Not nice, not fair and, to educated Western eyes, it's wholly cruel and unnatural, but if you choose to play with fire in a country run by woman-hating religious maniacs, then you're quite likely to end up badly burnt.

For your next photo study, why not focus on FGM, where helpless infants and children are abused without their consent, rather than on cases where adults freely take adult decisions in situations where they are aware of the likely consequences?

Zorya

Glass fused light wrote: »

For anyone looking to learn more you can search for white wednesday on social media etc.


https://metro.co.uk/2019/04/23/women-are-wearing-white-on-wednesday-to-protest-irans-strict-hijab-laws-9286149/

Yes. Masih Alinejad is very good. A power house.

Zorya

Portsalon wrote: »

I share your revulsion for the régime, but every one of those young women knew the risks that they were taking and the likely consequences of taking such action, thus, it must be said, they were the architects of their own destiny. Not nice, not fair and, to educated Western eyes, it's wholly cruel and unnatural, but if you choose to play with fire in a country run by woman-hating religious maniacs, then you're quite likely to end up badly burnt.

For your next photo study, why not focus on FGM, where helpless infants and children are abused without their consent, rather than on cases where adults freely take adult decisions in situations where they are aware of the likely consequences?

I do focus on FGM. I mentioned it on Boards already today. I can't do all the things at the one time.

I totally disagree with your playing with fire caution - nothing would ever change anywhere if people adopted that rule

TheValeyard

Portsalon wrote: »

I share your revulsion for the régime, but every one of those young women knew the risks that they were taking and the likely consequences of taking such action, thus, it must be said, they were the architects of their own destiny. Not nice, not fair and, to educated Western eyes, it's wholly cruel and unnatural, but if you choose to play with fire in a country run by woman-hating religious maniacs, then you're quite likely to end up badly burnt.

For your next photo study, why not focus on FGM, where helpless infants and children are abused without their consent, rather than on cases where adults freely take adult decisions in situations where they are aware of the likely consequences?

If people dont stand up to these regimes then they will remain in power indefinitely without change.

The Iranian one is odd. Extremists took the 79 revolution and made it their own. But I genuinely thought Iran was slowly reforming and modernising with the Nuclear deal struck during the Obama era. Then Trump, with support from his Israeli buddies, goes and balls it all up.

Overheal

TheValeyard wrote: »

If people dont stand up to these regimes then they will remain in power indefinitely without change.

The Iranian one is odd. Extremists took the 79 revolution and made it their own. But I genuinely thought Iran was slowly reforming and modernising with the Nuclear deal struck during the Obama era. Then Trump, with support from his Israeli buddies, goes and balls it all up.

Well look how that was portrayed in the US: 'Obummer negotiated with terrorists. Obummer gave away a pallet of cash. etc' All bunk, but when you can lie with impunity on prime time TV and daytime radio your base takes that in as truth (did they learn nothing from the Bush Administration?)

"Negotiating with terrorists: no president has ever done anything worse."

Zorya

TheValeyard wrote: »

If people dont stand up to these regimes then they will remain in power indefinitely without change.

The Iranian one is odd. Extremists took the 79 revolution and made it their own. But I genuinely thought Iran was slowly reforming and modernising with the Nuclear deal struck during the Obama era. Then Trump, with support from his Israeli buddies, goes and balls it all up.

Pictures from Iran in the 1970s are incredible compared to now.



I am not sure Trump has particularly anything to do here. Or at least not anything more than previous incumbents, all of whom, without exception, have been lizard tongued re the Middle East because of resource wars. Am not sure though about my opinion as I can hardly bear to listen to current affairs anymore.

Portsalon

Zorya wrote: »

I totally disagree with your playing with fire caution - nothing would ever change anywhere if people adopted that rule

Whether or not you choose to agree with me isn't of very much relevance to the women in prison. They knew the likely consequences of their actions and still chose to act, so whether these were heroic acts or futile gestures is purely a matter of judgement.

Ralph Ciffereto

Disappointed. Thought the thread title would direct to a film on XVideos.

Mojgan Keshavarz, rarrr! :pac:

The Late Late Show

Extremists in Iran have been able to 'get away with it' because of the way the West has treated Iran. Any time a moderate emerges in Iran and tries to end this 'Handmaid' laws, a Gilead type in the West like John Bolton scuppers things and a Gilead type in Iran then capitalises.

Also, it is sad to say that there is nothing particularly original about Iranian hardliners' laws. They are just copied from Iran's ENEMY Saudi Arabia. Why should Iran copy its evil enemy when Iran always was a much better place prior to 1983? Also, Iran sees Saudi Arabia REWARDED for being Gilead/The Handmaid's Tale/The Testaments. The West often do not like progressives such as Rouhani, Khatami, Pahlavi and even Ahmadinejad, all of who try and end the Gileadism in Iran. The West secretly like the Ebrahim Raisi and Ali Khamenei types who are the cause of Gileadism within Iran. Why? Moderate, non-Gileadised Iran would be a superpower (this was where the Shah was going) but Gileadised Arabised Iran would self destruct as we are seeing and set Iran back 100s of years.

Glass fused light

Zorya wrote: »

Pictures from Iran in the 1970s are incredible compared to now.

Yep anyone looking for the western version of this can tune into the Handmaidens Tale where the radical element of society captured its citizens with fundementalism.

TheValeyard

Glass fused light wrote: »

Yep anyone looking for the western version of this can tune into the Handmaidens Tale where the radical element of society captured its citizens with fundementalism.

At least they are not doing some stupid camera stare shot :P

The Late Late Show

Glass fused light wrote: »

Yep anyone looking for the western version of this can tune into the Handmaidens Tale where the radical element of society captured its citizens with fundementalism.

True, and we must remember this can happen anywhere. It is very clear the US prefers theocracy to socialism. Look at all the anti-communist rhetoric of extremist Republicans calling moderate Republicans and Democrats (who are NOT communist but centre right) communists! Iran could have had a socialist government in 1979 but the Americans made sure a theocracy copied from their pals Saudi Arabia emerged.

Iran's presidents have often tried to end the Gileadism but have been blocked by powerful forces who want to keep Iran down and poor. Even Ayatollah Khomeini said once 'he didn't intend to bring Iran back to the stone age' and spoke out against deep state actors in Iran who were ruling it in his place, especially after his health began to decline around 1983 when compulsory Handmaid wings became the law.

If the Americans were serious about ending Gileadism in Iran, they would empower the moderates. Prior to John Bolton taking over America, the handmaid's laws were actually being phased out in Iran by Rouhani's admin. The ending of the Iran deal weakened Rouhani and the handmaids of Iran remained. Americans calling Iran 'Axis of Evil' is hypocrisy: Americans are keeping hardliners alive in Iran and are on their side against the elected officials in Iran.

If the Americans were serious about ending Gileadism in Iran, they would empower the moderates. Prior to John Bolton taking over America, the handmaid's laws were actually being phased out in Iran by Rouhani's admin. The ending of the Iran deal weakened Rouhani and the handmaids of Iran remained. Americans calling Iran 'Axis of Evil' is hypocrisy: Americans are keeping hardliners alive in Iran and are on their side against the elected officials in Iran. Gileadism is alive and well in America too with Bolton and the like so they are going to covertly support their equivalents in Iran who keep 'Iran in its place'. Now, with Bolton gone, a more moderate approach hopefully can be formed. But I won't hold my breath.

Glass fused light

Portsalon wrote: »

Whether or not you choose to agree with me isn't of very much relevance to the women in prison. They knew the likely consequences of their actions and still chose to act, so whether these were heroic acts or futile gestures is purely a matter of judgement.

And it is in the same way that FGM is being combated is by the brave women who stand up in their own community's and speak out against FGM.

About how their mothers, grandmothers, and aunties chose allow them to be harmed as children.

About how their fathers, grandfathers and uncles chose to allow them to be harmed as childern.

And for those women who suffered FGM, who speak out and are condemned for it by the people who should have protected them. They loose their family and community. They made this choice and are aware that there are consequences but still act in the hope that their choices will lead to the betterment of girls they will never meet in countries they will never visit.

end of the road

Portsalon wrote: »

Whether or not you choose to agree with me isn't of very much relevance to the women in prison. They knew the likely consequences of their actions and still chose to act, so whether these were heroic acts or futile gestures is purely a matter of judgement.

it's not purely a matter of judgement though.

it is actual reality, that what these women did was correct, brave, legitimate, heroic, necessary, just, and right, and they must be released without question.

Portsalon

Glass fused light wrote: »

And it is in the same way that FGM is being combated is by the brave women who stand up in their own community's and speak out against FGM.

About how their mothers, grandmothers, and aunties chose allow them to be harmed as children.

About how their fathers, grandfathers and uncles chose to allow them to be harmed as childern.

And for those women who suffered FGM, who speak out and are condemned for it by the people who should have protected them. They loose their family and community. They made this choice and are aware that there are consequences but still act in the hope that their choices will lead to the betterment of girls they will never meet in countries they will never visit.

Whatever you're having yourself! It's the difference being being a pragmatist and being an idealist I suppose.

Me, I want to stroll down to the pub on a sunny afternoon, enjoy an occasional pizza and french onion soup in my local bistro and watch my grandkids growing up; and I don't really care whether or not a statue is erected to commemorate my courage in 50 years' time.

Glass fused light

Portsalon wrote: »

Whatever you're having yourself! It's the difference being being a pragmatist and being an idealist I suppose.

Me, I want to stroll down to the pub on a sunny afternoon, enjoy an occasional pizza and french onion soup in my local bistro and watch my grandkids growing up; and I don't really care whether or not a statue is erected to commemorate my courage in 50 years' time.

And you think that the women are doing it for a statue ....

Good luck your future hope it works out for you.

Portsalon

end of the road wrote: »

it's not purely a matter of judgement though.

it is actual reality, that what these women did was correct, brave, legitimate, heroic, necessary, just, and right, and they must be released without question.

Good call! I applaud your cyber heroism!

Now, why not give both Khameni and Rouhani a bell and let them know your views? Then, with any luck the lassies will be out of the clink in time to watch the Dublin - Kerry game. :rolleyes:

Zorya

Portsalon wrote: »

Good call! I applaud your cyber heroism!

Now, why not give both Khameni and Rouhani a bell and let them know your views? Then, with any luck the lassies will be out of the clink in time to watch the Dublin - Kerry game. :rolleyes:

May I applaud your cyber-apathy..and your choice of flavoursome soup?

Portsalon

Glass fused light wrote: »

And you think that the women are doing it for a statue ....

Good luck your future hope it works out for you.

My future is death, cremation and nothingness; and I won't need any luck to achieve it.

Zorya

Portsalon wrote: »

My future is death, cremation and nothingness; and I won't need any luck to achieve it.

I want to be cremated too. And I will die. We have at least these thing in common. I can appreciate your cynicism - on a bad day I share it. But it is misplaced I feel with these women. Time will tell, I suppose, if they will win the day. Hopefully before you or I leap into the nothingness. :pac:

jam_mac_jam

What amazingly brave women. I wish there was more focus on them. I hope I would havery the guts they have when faced with such oppression.

I don't really understand how you could say they knew what they were doing, should people just accept being oppressived and not stand up for themselves.

PCeeeee

Portsalon wrote: »

Whether or not you choose to agree with me isn't of very much relevance to the women in prison. They knew the likely consequences of their actions and still chose to act, so whether these were heroic acts or futile gestures is purely a matter of judgement.

With the greatest of respect, the word that seems to be eluding you is brave.

We can pass judgement if we wish from our great remove on how heroism and futility but those women chose to act rather than passively wait for their rights to be given to them.

That is brave. And for the life of me I cannot see how that isn't a virtue.

Portsalon

jam_mac_jam wrote: »

I don't really understand how you could say they knew what they were doing, should people just accept being oppressived and not stand up for themselves.

I'll explain it to you in simple terms: some people think with the rational side of the brain, others with the emotional side.

I, being of an aspergerish bent, lean towards the "I know the consequences ----> I'm willing to do the act ---> ergo I am willing to suffer the conseqences of my actions " approach; in short it's the suicide bomber approach.

Others appear to operate under the "I know the consequences but believe that the law isn't just

---

> so I'm going to break the unjust law

---

> I wonder what will happen next?" approach.

I'm not in any way doubting the courage of the women involved, merely pointing out that, putting it simply, they achieved the predictable outcome of their actions. They are every bit as brave as the kamikaze pilots of WW2. Whether or not their actions will prove as effective must, for the moment, be moot.

batgoat

Would love to hear what the above poster thinks of Suffragettes, MLK and Rosa Parks...

JMMCapital

Same could be said about Saudi Arabia, terrible rights towards women the amount of them locked up for just protesting for the right to drive as Mohammed Bin Salman wanted to get all the credit for lifting the ban.

Iran is a real sad case however, the country was beautiful and westernized during the khan's rein then comes the Revolution which brought the country back another thousand years, with all the country's potential wiped down the drain.

Odhinn

JMMCapital wrote: »

Same could be said about Saudi Arabia, terrible rights towards women the amount of them locked up for just protesting for the right to drive as Mohammed Bin Salman wanted to get all the credit for lifting the ban.

Iran is a real sad case however, the country was beautiful and westernized during the khan's rein then comes the Revolution which brought the country back another thousand years, with all the country's potential wiped down the drain.

It was a police state that tortured tens of thousands and much of the 'westernising' was done by force. There's a better option than dictatorship and/or theocracy.

JMMCapital

Odhinn wrote: »

It was a police state that tortured tens of thousands and much of the 'westernising' was done by force. There's a better option than dictatorship and/or theocracy.

That is true but still the Shah did led Iran through a series of sweeping changes.
Under his rule Iran's economy and educational opportunities expanded.
The United States and UK counted the country as a major ally in the
Middle East among many other changes.

I think Iran was still a much more pleasant and progressive place to live
in under the Shah's rule than the Ayatollahs.

Odhinn

JMMCapital wrote: »

That is true but still the Shah did led Iran through a series of sweeping changes.
Under his rule Iran's economy and educational opportunities expanded.
The United States and UK counted the country as a major ally in the
Middle East among many other changes.

I think Iran was still a much more pleasant and progressive place to live
in under the Shah's rule than the Ayatollahs.

....I suggest you might read a bit more about it - he was put in power to replace a democratically elected regime that sought to take back control of its oil. He supported the US and Britain because he was a puppet of the Americans.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

JMMCapital

Odhinn wrote: »

....I suggest you might read a bit more about it - he was put in power to replace a democratically elected regime that sought to take back control of its oil. He supported the US and Britain because he was a puppet of the Americans.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

Will do thank you for this information, wow never heard of this before US/UK really does interfere in everything..

the_syco

Zorya wrote: »

I am not sure Trump has particularly anything to do here. Or at least not anything more than previous incumbents, all of whom, without exception, have been lizard tongued re the Middle East because of resource wars. Am not sure though about my opinion as I can hardly bear to listen to current affairs anymore.

I hope nothing bad happens now that Bolton has gotten sacked.

Gregor Samsa

the_syco wrote: »

I hope nothing bad happens now that Bolton has gotten sacked.

Given that Bolton was the one with a crazy war fetish, and Trump was elected on an non-interventionist policy, I’d say (as no fan of Trump) that the chance of something bad happening with Iran or indeed anywhere else have significantly diminished with Bolton gone.

Zorya

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Given that Bolton was the one with a crazy war fetish, and Trump was elected on an non-interventionist policy, I’d say (as no fan of Trump) that the chance of something bad happening with Iran or indeed anywhere else have significantly diminished with Bolton gone.

Hopefully.

I don't know. So far I have not seen this apocalypse Trump is supposed to be causing. Though he is quite an odd ball. Still, the reaction to him seems incredibly neurotic.


This video is heart-breaking. Saba's mam, after Saba's sentence..

https://twitter.com/alinejadmasih/status/1167464094854799363?lang=en

noel1980

TheValeyard wrote: »

If people dont stand up to these regimes then they will remain in power indefinitely without change.

The Iranian one is odd. Extremists took the 79 revolution and made it their own. But I genuinely thought Iran was slowly reforming and modernising with the Nuclear deal struck during the Obama era. Then Trump, with support from his Israeli buddies, goes and balls it all up.

I knew it wouldn't take long before someone mentioned Trump.

suicide_circus

the plight of women and women's issues in general are beloved of the media and celebrities, i wonder why this isnt a bigger news story....

Portsalon

batgoat wrote: »

Would love to hear what the above poster thinks of Suffragettes, MLK and Rosa Parks...

Why not ask him?

batgoat

Portsalon wrote: »

Why not ask him?

You are free to answer... Go for it. The fact is, people throughout history have done things for the rights of many while risking their own well being. Sometimes they died as a result. That's not a matter of them asking for it, it's that those with power invariably target those who may disrupt their order. So it's entirely courageous to do so.

sabat

Zorya wrote: »

Pictures from Iran in the 1970s are incredible compared to now.


.

Murder, torture, imprisonments, dissappearances, corruption, looting and whatever else you can think of were far more widespread in the final years of the Shah's regime than they have been at any time since the revolution-it was quite simply a far more oppressive society than even at the peak of the Ayatollahs' influence. Putting up a few old photos of people wearing t-shirts drinking beers is just regurgitating the western narrative that this was some liberal progressive eutopia destroyed by fundamentalists.

Zorya

sabat wrote: »

Zorya wrote: »

Pictures from Iran in the 1970s are incredible compared to now.


.

Murder, torture, imprisonments, dissappearances, corruption, looting and whatever else you can think of were far more widespread in the final years of the Shah's regime than they have been at any time since the revolution-it was quite simply a far more oppressive society than even at the peak of the Ayatollahs' influence. Putting up a few old photos of people wearing t-shirts drinking beers is just regurgitating the western narrative that this was some liberal progressive eutopia destroyed by fundamentalists.

Regurgitating some western 'narrative' was my exact intention, you got me.

But seriously, if you know differently, just say so without animus. I am happy to learn.

I can imagine that life under the Shahs was horrific. I know many were forced to escape and seek asylum in the 70s. I know one person who went to Australia then. But doing even a short scope of references I cannot see how the present dreadful theocracy is somehow better or not to be criticised because what came before was worse.
I cant seem to link on this phone but I also read there has been some revision historically re numbers supposedly killed, tortured or imprisoned under the Shahs. Though of course even one person suffering torture or death is horrible.
Still I also dont get why anyone could attempt to dismiss the present situation by saying look how bad it was before.

As to why the imprisonment of many women protesting mandatory hijab is not gaining the attention it should, I think it might have something to do with a fear of appearing "Islamaphobic". Whatever that invention of a silly word means.

It's like all revolutions, there are those who give their life/freedom to the cause.

These women will one day be remembered with the utmost reverence throughout Iran.

They certainly have mine already.

p1akuw47h5r3it

suicide_circus wrote: »

the plight of women and women's issues in general are beloved of the media and celebrities, i wonder why this isnt a bigger news story....

Because its not happening to wealthy Western women. Feminism as it exists amongst those in the media/arts is narcissistic, self-absorbed ****. How can they be victims when the actual victims are non-Western, and the perpetrators/victims Muslim?

Portsalon

batgoat wrote: »

You are free to answer... Go for it. The fact is, people throughout history have done things for the rights of many while risking their own well being. Sometimes they died as a result. That's not a matter of them asking for it, it's that those with power invariably target those who may disrupt their order. So it's entirely courageous to do so.

No need. You've partially answered it for me.

The bit about that them not asking for it is a bit confusing for a logician like me, but I assume that if I brush up on my human rights skill set I'll eventually realise that doing something with a predictable outcome isn't asking for it just as long as what is being done is particularly courageous.

Incidentally, I can't recall claiming anywhere that what they had done wasn't courageous - but then perhaps you're psychic so can read things that aren't even written. Which leads me to wonder why I bothered replying to you in the first place, as you obviously knew what I was going to write long before I started!

Veritas Libertas

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Given that Bolton was the one with a crazy war fetish, and Trump was elected on an non-interventionist policy, I’d say (as no fan of Trump) that the chance of something bad happening with Iran or indeed anywhere else have significantly diminished with Bolton gone.

I hope you're right, but fear you to be incorrect.

Bolton was like a mad dog that Trump could unleash. A viable threat to Iran. With him gone, the administration is left with only doves and Iran may feel more emboldened than before. A bluff is much less harmful on the world stage than actually having to risk strikes in retaliation.

Having Bolton(but not using him) was a great tactic.

The Late Late Show

TheValeyard wrote: »

If people dont stand up to these regimes then they will remain in power indefinitely without change.

The Iranian one is odd. Extremists took the 79 revolution and made it their own. But I genuinely thought Iran was slowly reforming and modernising with the Nuclear deal struck during the Obama era. Then Trump, with support from his Israeli buddies, goes and balls it all up.

Extremists thrive often due to the needs of superpowers. The main problem with Iran in 1979 was the revolution had no clear leader, which allowed extremists to work away in the background. There were religious types and communists. The Americans needless to say did all they could to scupper the communists.

The Shah was dying and wasn't willing to put up a fight for long and fled. The Shah appointed government crumbled and extremists did all they could to consolidate power and a veteran cleric called Ruhollah Khomeini, who like the Shah was not in the best of health, returned from exile to be the figurehead leader. The REAL leader was emerging in the background though and between 1979 and 1983, he transformed Iran from a moderate, advanced country into a near theocracy that was also on poor terms with the world and at war with an opportunistic Saddam. The real leader was Ali Khamenei and he is still the leader.

1983-1988 Iran was the nadir of that country's modern history. Oppressive laws, war, recession and third world status destroyed what was a few years earlier a great nation. From the end of the war with Iraq, things began to improve in Iran (and it was now Iraq's turn to become the former rich country to fall apart) and the regime relaxed social oppression and also opened up to the world. But every time, the Americans got in the way. Relations could have been restored in 1998, 2002, 2017, and other times. Instead, various US presidents labelled it a 'rogue state', 'Axis of evil', etc. and that is not counting the current so-called American regime that perhaps set back the country more than ever with its abhorrent carry on since May 2018.

Now, you would nearly say: America (or Gilead is it?) do not want Iran to be a modern, moderate country and despise anyone be it the Shah, 1997-2005 president Khatami or current president Rouhani who all tried to change it for the better. Prior to the 'Gileadisation' of America in April 2018, Rouhani's government were on the way to rolling back compulsory handmaid dress. But hardliners now have gained strength and were at one point within inches of impeaching Rouhani.

America's (and especially the post-March 2018 version) policy suits the hardliners. This suits the Saudis and so on too because the hardliners keep Iran poor and incompetent, the way they like it. Anyone America worked against who ruled Iran were competent. America's current regime's licking up to Saudi Arabia shows they have no qualms about regimes who abuse human rights. America practically invented modern Islamic extremism as a bullwark against communism in Persian countries and socialist Arab nationalism in Arab countries.

Just you wait and see: America/Gilead will do all they can to destroy Hassan Rouhani but will then do a deal with some brutal dictator that will come next be it Ebrahim Raisi, the MeK or whoever. Would an American regime with some of the traits of the one seen in The Handmaid's Tale and The Testaments care about Iranian women? No. They hardly care about American women either. Their insufferable love of Saudi Arabia prove that. They secretly love the unelected hardline elements of Iran's regime too.

Zorya

^^^All interesting info and perspective. One question - what made America Gilead in April 2018?
Plus to be honest i think the handmaid metaphor has been worked to death meself. I was Margaret Atwoods greatest fan 20 years ago but I think the tv version of her book was loaded with extra on script ideology and her new effort Testaments is a stab at capitalising on that and the last squawk/sting at relevance of a fairly waspy lady.
Theres so much bs about. About everything.

Zorya

Ayatollah Khamenei, Iran's Supreme leader says women should wear hijab to avoid rape - https://www.latimes.com/world/la-fg-iran-me-too-20181005-story.html

https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir/status/1047540289265647616?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1047540289265647616%7Ctwgr%5E363937393b636f6e74726f6c&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.latimes.com%2Fworld%2Fla-fg-iran-me-too-20181005-story.html

(I don't know if this will embed as I think Khomenei has deleted the tweet. It was a 2 minute film he retweeted on 3rd October 2019).
Seen here also -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5F7Zs-rpGc

Imran Khan recently attempted to make full burqa mandatory in Pakistan, including for school children, claiming it would stop the severe rise of sexual assaults - https://www.dw.com/en/pakistanis-split-over-mandatory-burqas-for-women/a-50564634

Authorities in Peshawar, the capital of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, and Haripur, another city in the conservative province, last week issued a directive to all government educational institutions mandating female students to wear an abaya, a body-shrouding garment that covers a woman's body from head to toe.

And yet in a recent BBC Asia investigation it was found that high up spiritual leaders in Iraq are organising ''temporary or pleasure marriages'' between children and adult men where child prostitution can happen within the confines of religious law

Working with an undercover reporter, BBC Arabic’s Nawal Al-Maghafi investigates Shia clerics at some of Iraq’s holiest shrines. She uncovers the grooming and exploitation of vulnerable girls and young women, trapped into prostitution and pimped out by a religious elite.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNOMEoEMBVs

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/06/pleasure-marriages-iraq-baghdad-bbc-investigation-child-prostitution

I don't care is people think I am Islamophobic - the widespread denegration of females seems to be endemic to this religion as it manifests in modern times. And before people come in with the usual same with Catholics BS (or other religions), no it is nor was not the same - people should know how to be serious and tell the difference between things.

Enough is Enough!

suicide_circus wrote: »

the plight of women and women's issues in general are beloved of the media and celebrities, i wonder why this isnt a bigger news story....

Libs will always put Islam above women's rights.

Zorya

https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1181982598756786176?s=19

Sahra Afsharian, one of 3 young Shuffle dancers arrested in Iran on 8th October to be tried for the crime of public dancing.

Veritas Libertas

Zorya wrote: »

https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1181982598756786176?s=19

Sahra Afsharian, one of 3 young Shuffle dancers arrested in Iran on 8th October to be tried for the crime of public dancing.

Christopher Hitchens was able to sum things up in a way no other could.

I always remember this clip of an encounter he had with an Australian lady on a discussion show about the treatment of women in Iran.

"You insult your sisters in Tehran who are being beaten and raped when you say they have their rights in an Islamic republic"

-Christopher Hitchens