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

You are a Christian religious zealot who likes to engage in a crusade against "Islam", never mind your country has allied itself with the country that is the birth place and the country which most directly represents the "Islam" your crusade would need to fight! Iran is predominately Shia -- and Shia Islam, a minority creed in Islam, was above all about denying legitimacy to all who were rulers of the Muslim world until the rise of the Safavid dynasty in Iran in the 16th century.

Anyway, you wouldn't understand anything I will have to say on this subject, so you can imagine as you wish.

 

I admit that he could be factually incorrect. Whether or not he was being deliberately deceptive is another question.

 

What country is he from?

 

You're a propaganda parrot for Iran. You're my enemy. You will fail. Freedom and liberty will prevail.

 

yup

 

What year?

 

Are you saying that he was being deliberately deceptive?

 

He is reading off a script and that script is intentionally deceptive - to put it mildly.

Since my interest here is to educate people about Iran, and not the US, I will take the underlying issues and tell the story of Shia Islam -- and training of Shia religious clerics -- and then you might be able to also draw the applicable analogies as well.

For the masses, Shia Islam has its parables and tales of martyrdom of Shia Saints at the hands of tyrants who conquered and ruled the Islamic world after the conquest of the Persian empire by the Arabs. The purpose of these parables and tales isn't to convey a factual account so much as to rally emotions within the framework of the societal ideology where they would resonate. Those parables fit the cosmic view which sees history as a battleground between the forces of good v evil. That view, of the battle between the forces of 'good' v 'evil', regardless of how it has been dressed up, reflects ancient Iranian religious ideologies predating Islam which then influenced many other religions, including Christianity.

For preachers being trained to preach to the masses, there are institutions developed to indoctrinate them in the historical 'facts' that support the narratives at issue. It is not a real intellectual exercise: any factual content in that endeavor isn't coincidental but simply part of an effort to help the indoctrination.

Then you have the next level of education intended to produce scholars. People who would have the ability to defend the faith in polemics and debates where fables and parables won't be sufficient. At this level, the training is different. What is presented as though a factual account for the masses is here interpreted in a more 'mystical' and less literal sense. Here the education begins to introduce people to subjects of philosophy, of Iran's Islamic mysticism, and begins to support the indoctrination by the underlying 'truth' about the forces of history.

You have a similar thing in the West. You have a script intended for the masses. You then have slightly more sophisticated scripts for those who are to speak to the masses. You then have the academic institutions that need to be more sophisticated in how they present their stories.

On any issue you take, and whether the underlying 'cause' and 'ideology' is on one side or the other in America's political divide, you have the same basic dynamic. Stories that would appeal to the base regardless of how accurate they might be. Slightly more sophisticated accounts which are for slightly more aware people. And then the more difficult, and challenging accounts, which are meant for 'specialists' and 'experts. But all of this is ultimately funded, supported, and promoted, by the groups (in the US, you can refer to them as 'special interest groups') which are trying to advance their agendas.

 

deleted - I had posted a message intended for another thread here by mistake.

p.s.
Is there a delete function that can be used?

 

There used to be one many years ago, but no more.

 

How do you know that?

 

It is a long story. Much longer than what would fit in a message on a message board.

This article (linked), in the meantime, will help with some of the facts relevant to one face of several involved in the underlying agendas and issues. It is an old article but it does a decent job of tackling one aspect of these issues relating to the coalition built between the ultra Zionist Jews, the Christian evangelical Zionists, and the military industrial complex. Namely the one which focuses on the linchpin of this neocon alliance, namely the pro Israel lobby.

 

What about discrimination based on sex, religion and sexual orientation?

 

Attitudes on all these issues among westernized Iranians reflects, more or less, the same type of diversity and prevailing attitudes as exists in the West. And roughly 35% of Iran's population can be classified as falling more in this category than the one I describe below. Among Iran's westernized classes, you have people whose attitudes would be considered very libertarian, liberal, leftist, as well as those who would have views corresponding to the other end of the spectrum in western societies.

Iranians of more traditional Irano-Islamic Persian cultural background still comprise probably a slight majority of the population. The rest who don't fall into these general categories would belong to those ethnic and religious minority groups (mainly in the south and southeast of Iran) which are least integrated and most distant from prevailing Iranian cultural trends. Otherwise, with minor distinctions for religious minorities who follow different legal practices and institutions, the attitudes I describe below are also shared by the more integrated traditional families from ethnic and religious minority backgrounds as well.

Traditional Iranian culture discriminates both in favor, as well as against, women. This is even more true today, as those those traditional values and attitudes are evolving and a pendulum which might have predominately favored males in a patriarchal society has swung enough to make any absolute verdict in this regard difficult even among Iran's traditional classes. Especially today, these attitudes cannot be simply viewed as discriminating against women because it gives women a very strong role in the family, backed up by an institution called "mehriyeh" where a groom is supposed to commit to payment on demand of a sum that is ordinarily far in excess of his real wealth. Failure to pay "mehyriyeh" has landed many Iranian men in jail although there are legal reforms which now restrict imprisonment if the husband pays up to the sum he is actually capable of paying and agrees to pay the rest in installments.

Furthermore, even traditional families today place a high value on education for their daughters -- something reflected in the fact that more than 60% of Iranian university students are women. And because economic realities today dictate households where both husband and wife work, there is even growing acceptance among traditional families of seeing women in the workforce. But clearly this traditional culture underpinned what was once a male dominated, patriarchal society, and many aspects to it still try to discriminate on the basis of gender to preserve this vision of society.

Attitudes regarding religion among traditional Iranians is more or less one of curiosity, albeit one from an angle which will see itself has holding the 'real truth'. More politicized elements in this traditional culture might take hostile attitudes towards those who threaten their belief systems the most, but those aren't from either the Christian or Jewish traditions. Instead, they are mostly people like the Bahai and other groups which were offshoots and arose from within the same Iranian community of believers. Given real or perceived connections between some of these groups and outside forces who many view as trying to practice 'divide and conquer', there have been instances of real discriminatory practice against people like the Bahai in Iran.

With respect to sexual orientation, traditional Iranian attitude would be one where it sees homosexuality as a perversion and a form of deviant behavior. However, this issue is even less politicized in Iran than in the US, which means that the real prejudices that exist aren't often ones that go overboard to encourage genuine hatred of people based on their sexual orientation. Indeed, even traditional, non-politicized, Iranian culture has a deeply ingrained tradition of tolerance arising from Iran's influential poetic and philosophical heritage.

 

Groom? You mean husband?

Well wouldn't this be the case for ALL traditional families that place a high value on education for their daughters? If the daughters don't end up working, then there's no point in them going to university.

 

Are there any laws against discrimination based on sex, religion and sexual orientation?

 

Basically, yes, but technically the groom because it is part the marriage contract just before exchange of wows of marriage.

No, not all. Many traditional families viewed education as helping a women be a better mother and person, not something for purposes of employment. But as I mentioned, economic circumstances are changing those attitudes. Still, in traditional families which don't need two incomes, the wife (no matter how educated) will usually not work and be a housewife.

Yes there many laws, both specific and general, that protect against different forms of discrimination on the basis of sex and religion (although not all forms). Including constitutional protections. There are general laws that protect people regardless of sexual orientation that would protect the LGBT community in Iran as well, but other than specific laws and religious edicts in favor of transgender surgery (the government pays for sex change operations in Iran), there are no legal protections or even legal recognition of homosexuality. There are sodomy laws in Iran which are extremely draconian in words, but in practice unenforceable (even if you will hear totally false reports on the subject in the West).

 

What religious edicts are in favor of transgender surgery?

WOW! I'm astounded! I would ask WHY, but given that Iran is an Islamic State, the answer may come in your response to my above question regarding religious edicts.

So what happens if two guys are caught by police having sex?

 

This piece is mainly polemical, like most pieces on Iran, but the first few lines more or less answer your question.
https://www.economist.com/middle-ea...hy-iran-is-a-hub-for-sex-reassignment-surgery

Nothing. Unless there are 4 people (police or otherwise) who viewed the sexual act, even reporting the issue would be a crime and would subject the police to punishment.

 

"It is not because the regime is liberal." I didn't read anything in that which explained how it isn't because the regime is liberal. It was based on that Ayatollah's emotion - seems like a pretty liberal basis to me.

Why the hell would reporting the issue be a crime?

 

Because it is a serious crime to accuse someone of sodomy without being able to produce 4 witnesses to back up your accusation. In theory, if you have 2 witnesses, you can hold the person guilty of a lesser offense, but in reality, none of this is encouraged by law. These provisions are seen as a statement of morality (of right/wrong); not punishments to be actually enforced.

 

As for the government paying for sex change?

 

ttps://foreignpolicy.com/2008/02/25/want-the-government-to-pay-for-your-sex-change-go-to-iran/
Want the government to pay for your sex change? Go to Iran.

 

So what are these "religious edicts" in favor of transgender surgery?

 

They are the ones I have already quoted and mentioned.