Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

IRANIAN WOMEN IN PRISON

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    JMMCapital
    Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭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..


  • Options
    #33
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #34
    Gregor Samsa
    Registered Users Posts: 8,913 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #35
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #36
    noel1980
    Closed Accounts Posts: 107 ✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    suicide_circus
    Registered Users Posts: 19,802 ✭✭✭✭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....


  • Options
    #38
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


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

    Why not ask him?


  • Options
    #39
    batgoat
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,423 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #40
    sabat
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,896 ✭✭✭sabat


    Zorya wrote: »
    Pictures from Iran in the 1970s are incredible compared to now.

    3C903F5400000578-4148684-image-a-115_1485529382637.jpg
    .

    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.


  • Options
    #41
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya


    sabat wrote: »
    Zorya wrote: »
    Pictures from Iran in the 1970s are incredible compared to now.

    3C903F5400000578-4148684-image-a-115_1485529382637.jpg
    .

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    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.


  • Options
    #43
    p1akuw47h5r3it
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,001 ✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #44
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭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. :confused:

    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!


  • Options
    #45
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #46
    The Late Late Show
    Closed Accounts Posts: 840 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #47
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #48
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #49
    Enough is Enough!
    Site Banned Posts: 106 ✭✭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.


  • Options
    #50
    Zorya
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,194 ✭✭✭Zorya




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


  • Options
    #51
    Veritas Libertas
    Closed Accounts Posts: 579 ✭✭✭Veritas Libertas


    Zorya wrote: »


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Gynoid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,524 ✭✭✭Gynoid


    Today is World Hijab Day, when the Hijab is celebrated in 140 countries.

    It is also No Hijab Day because as founder of that movement Yasmine Mohammed says....

    "No Hijab Day is a day to support brave women across the globe who want to be free from the hijab. Women who want to decide for themselves what to wear or what not to wear on their heads. Women who fight against either misogynist governments that will imprison them for removing their hijab or against abusive families and communities that will ostracize, abuse and even kill them."

    In Iran scores of women continue to be imprisoned for not wearing a scarf.

    https://twitter.com/AlinejadMasih/status/1223322518465011712?s=19


    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/13/world/middleeast/kimia-alizadeh-iran-defection.html


  • Options
    #53
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    Women in Iran (and other places) fighting oppressive regimes and religious doctrines are incredibly brave.


  • Options
    #54
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    “This is surreal,” tweeted Iranian women’s rights activist Masih Alinejad. “A regime that treats women as second class citizens, jails them for not wearing the compulsory hijab, bans them from singing, bars them from stadiums and doesn’t let them travel abroad without the permission of their husbands gets elected to the UN’s top women’s rights body.”

    Iran elected to UN Commission on Women's Rights. How can anyone take these gravy train global mega-organisations at all seriously? Up to 50 women are serving lengthy sentences in Iran right now for not wearing a scarf on their hair. How about fcuk off, UN.

    https://twitter.com/HillelNeuer/status/1384962614938247170?s=20


  • Options
    #55
    end of the road
    Registered Users Posts: 28,987 ✭✭✭✭end of the road


    their credibility took a massive dip at best and got completely shot at worst once saudi arabia got elected, you would have thought they would have learned from that but obviously not.

    ticking a box on a form does not make you of a religion.



  • Options
    #56
    smurfjed
    Registered Users Posts: 10,040 ✭✭✭✭smurfjed


    their credibility took a massive dip at best and got completely shot at worst once saudi arabia got elected, you would have thought they would have learned from that but obviously not.
    why so, what’s wrong with women’s rights in Saudi Arabia these days ?


Advertisement