Iranian women spark debate by defying hijab rule in cars

[Babak]

A growing number of women in Iran are refusing to wear a hijab while driving, sparking a nationwide debate about whether a car is a private space where they can dress more freely.

Obligatory wearing of the hijab has been an integral policy of the Islamic republic since the 1979 revolution but it is one the establishment has had a great deal of difficulty enforcing. Many Iranian women are already pushing the boundaries, and observers in Tehran say women who drive with their headscarves resting on their shoulders are becoming a familiar sight.

Clashes between women and Iran’s morality police particularly increase in the summer when temperatures rise. But even though the police regularly stop these drivers, fining them or even temporarily seizing their vehicle, such acts of resistance have continued, infuriating hardliners over a long-standing policy they have had a great deal of difficulty enforcing.

Iran’s moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, has argued that people’s private space should be respected and opposes a crackdown on women who don’t wear the hijab. He said explicitly that the police’s job is not to administer Islam. Speaking in 2015, Rouhani said: “The police can’t do something and say I’m doing this because God said so. That’s not a police [officer]’s business.”

Many in Iran believe that private space includes the inside of a car, but judicial authorities and the police have opposed that interpretation.

“The invisible part of the car, such as the trunk, is a private space, but this does not apply to the visible parts of the car,” Hadi Sadeghi, the deputy head of Iran’s judiciary chief, said last week.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jul/11/compulsory-hijab-rule-increasingly-flouted-by-iranian-drivers

[Wadaad]

These Persian women...smh. Obstinate as usual, but nothing a swift baton to the ankles won't cure.

[Babak]

“The invisible part of the car, such as the trunk, is a private space, but this does not apply to the visible parts of the car,” Hadi Sadeghi, the deputy head of Iran’s judiciary chief, said last week.


You're fucking retarded

[Sekarotuinen]

Hijab should not be forced on people who dont want to wear it. Personally though, I do wear it while driving, though sometimes Ill put it around my shoulders to get more comfortable for a bit.

[frankhammer]

If it can or does affect your peripheral vision even a little whilst driving, it needs to be made illegal for the driver. I've never known anyone who wears one so I can't comment any further.

Good on those Iranians willing to stand up for themselves.

[Babak]

If it can or does affect your peripheral vision even a little whilst driving, it needs to be made illegal for the driver. I've never known anyone who wears one so I can't comment any further.

Good on those Iranians willing to stand up for themselves.

Things are getting better, but its still a mess. Anything better than another revolution.

[N1019]

Iran’s moderate president, Hassan Rouhani, has argued that people’s private space should be respected and opposes a crackdown on women who don’t wear the hijab. He said explicitly that the police’s job is not to administer Islam. Speaking in 2015, Rouhani said: “The police can’t do something and say I’m doing this because God said so. That’s not a police [officer]’s business.”



Politicians will be politicians. They'll say anything to win support, but it's deeds not words that matter.

I hope they can make ground here. It seems doubtful, though. Mullahocracy is legitimized by a supposed connection to God. Take that away and they have no legitimacy.

[Babak]

Politicians will be politicians. They'll say anything to win support, but it's deeds not words that matter.

I hope they can make ground here. It seems doubtful, though. Mullahocracy is legitimized by a supposed connection to God. Take that away and they have no legitimacy.

Hes said shit similiar to this and nothings happened yet. I've heard theres been some changes in the education system but thats about it

[N1019]

Hes said shit similiar to this and nothings happened yet. I've heard theres been some changes in the education system but thats about it

We only have to look at the words of Khomeini during the revolution, with the promises he made, to see how full of shit they are. But they're in good company. Most politicians are the same the world over.

[zhaoyun]

Iranians are just reclaiming the progress they had made generations ago before this backward government placed these ridiculous religious restrictions on society. Iranians are way better and more modern than their government.

[Dandelion]

Things are getting better, but its still a mess. Anything better than another revolution.

I also think it's best for the theocracy to gradually fizzle out rather than it getting violently overturned. May it take a few generations still, less people get hurt and more stability would likely get ensured.
Of course, evolutions should happen according to the will of the people and such will has to exist for it. Even authoritarian regimes need to take the population's wishes into account in order to be governed efficiently.

[Pahli]

Iranians are just reclaiming the progress they had made generations ago before this backward government placed these ridiculous religious restrictions on society. Iranians are way better and more modern than their government.

A secular and much more progressive government could do wonders for Iran, I can imagine that countries like Russia or China would offer nice expertise in expanding the current infrastructure (roads, sanitation and so on)

[Dandelion]

Iranians are just reclaiming the progress they had made generations ago before this backward government placed these ridiculous religious restrictions on society. Iranians are way better and more modern than their government.

They have come far. During the '80s even chess was banned there over it supposedly being a form of gambling. Not anymore today, luckily.

[zhaoyun]

A secular and much more progressive government could do wonders for Iran, I can imagine that countries like Russia or China would offer nice expertise in expanding the current infrastructure (roads, sanitation and so on)

Iranians in general are logical and secular. It's a travesty their government is so religious and ass backwards.

If Iran had a secular government staffed by engineers like China's, it could easily become the dominant and most developed major country in the region.

[zhaoyun]

I also think it's best for the theocracy to gradually fizzle out rather than it getting violently overturned. May it take a few generations still, less people get hurt and more stability would likely get ensured.
Of course, evolutions should happen according to the will of the people and such will has to exist for it. Even authoritarian regimes need to take the population's wishes into account in order to be governed efficiently.

Agreed. A violent overthrow won't help anybody. Hopefully the theocracy will be gradually, and more quickly, overturned.

[Tooting Carmen]

The Iranian people are probably the most secular and liberal people in the Middle East bar possibly Turkey and Israel. I certainly think that Persian culture is by and large a lot more intelligent and rational than Arab (especially Saudi) culture, and this current Government is a real aberration.

[N1019]

I also think it's best for the theocracy to gradually fizzle out rather than it getting violently overturned. May it take a few generations still, less people get hurt and more stability would likely get ensured.




If Iran had a secular government staffed by engineers like China's, it could easily become the dominant and most developed major country in the region.

Iran "should" this, "if only" that... This stuff is pure fantasy. The theocracy won't fizzle out because it is receiving a constant income from oil and gas exports, and there are countries like Russia willing to sell them arms. Iran even has its own military industrial complex. They have what they need to cling to power, and massacre any serious uprising. There are too many powerful interests benefiting from the survival of the current regime. The transition is going to be bloody, the country a mess, and that's if they don't end up like Iraq. If the US et al start supporting a new revolution, they will probably stir up ethno-sectarian strife to weaken and destabilise the new Iran.

[wvwvw]

Stop Attacking Iran and look at Saudi Arabia, says Phil Giraldi.
https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/who-is-the-real-enemy/

[N1019]

Stop Attacking Iran and look at Saudi Arabia, says Phil Giraldi.
https://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/who-is-the-real-enemy/

KSA isn't the real enemy. They are a pack of pathetic puppets who do what they are told to avoid being shot in the head.

[wvwvw]

KSA isn't the real enemy. They are a pack of pathetic puppets who do what they are told to avoid being shot in the head.

How is Iran a real enemy?

[N1019]

How is Iran a real enemy?

I never said Iran was the enemy.

Iran is an obstacle to unfettered Anglo-American-Israeli hegemony in the middle east. Iran fights for independence and sovereignty, particularly fiscal and energy sovereignty, seeks to establish a sphere of influence beyond its borders and supports the opposite side to the US/UK/Israel in middle eastern conflicts. Iran also produces some very silly propaganda about the future of Israel.

Now, you might not have a problem with the above, and in theory it sounds fine, but it's clear there are bigger fish in the pond who don't like it. What does that mean? Well, have a look around and see how the world works.

Also, looking at the article you linked, putting a peace symbol in the centre of the Iranian flag makes a mockery of all the atrocities that regime has committed.

[Dandelion]

Iran "should" this, "if only" that... This stuff is pure fantasy. The theocracy won't fizzle out because it is receiving a constant income from oil and gas exports, and there are countries like Russia willing to sell them arms. Iran even has its own military industrial complex. They have what they need to cling to power, and massacre any serious uprising. There are too many powerful interests benefiting from the survival of the current regime. The transition is going to be bloody, the country a mess, and that's if they don't end up like Iraq. If the US et al start supporting a new revolution, they will probably stir up ethno-sectarian strife to weaken and destabilise the new Iran.

I was thinking of Franco Spain which got formed after a bloody war, yet Spain transitioned to a democracy without any bloodshed. It can happen without revolution. Usually by foundationed laid by a progressive leader and/the passing of one generation. For us Westerners only their foreign politics matter.

I'm not talking in what if scenarios of the past and I think it's not wrong to prefer a peaceful evolution of a regime that's very authoritarian and theocratic today. Am I allowed to?

[N1019]

***

[N1019]

I was thinking of Franco Spain which got formed after a bloody war, yet Spain transitioned to a democracy without any bloodshed. It can happen without revolution. Usually by foundationed laid by a progressive leader and/the passing of one generation. For us Westerners only their foreign politics matter.

I'm not talking in what if scenarios of the past and I think it's not wrong to prefer a peaceful evolution of a regime that's very authoritarian and theocratic today. Am I allowed to?

You're allowed to dream and I'm allowed to remind you that you're dreaming.

But anyway, yeah, a peaceful transition is possible in theory. It just doesn't seem likely given how the empire operates in the middle east. Looking at recent events in nearby countries I fail to see why Iran would be an exception to the trend of violence.

Sadly for Iran, it has a few problems that on the one hand might seem like advantages but which actually get it into a lot of trouble. Iran is inherently strong owing to its size, population and resources. Furthermore, its persistence in terms of fighting for independence, sovereignty, autonomy etc. are an issue for the global powers. The Shahs did it and the mullahs are doing it. In terms of foreign policy they have more in common than one might think. Iran has been given a chance to behave and it has repeatedly failed in the eyes of the big fish. It doesn't bode well for the future of the country.

Regime change in Iran will never be some purely organic grassroots event (although our media might portray it as such). It will be under strong influence from external forces and most likely involve a lot of violence, if not destruction of the country.

[Sarmatian]

Agreed. A violent overthrow won't help anybody. Hopefully the theocracy will be gradually, and more quickly, overturned.

We should not forget the fact theocracy was a mere reaction to US meddling into Iranian internal affairs in attempt to turn outdated monarchy into puppet. It was never intended to make lives of Iranians better but rather retain nation's sovereignty.

As far as I'm aware wearing hijab was never mandatory in Islam nor in Persian traditional religion. It's purely Arab cultural (not religious) custom.

[N1019]

We should not forget the fact theocracy was a mere reaction to US meddling into Iranian internal affairs in attempt to turn outdated monarchy into puppet.

Yeah, that's what the Iranian socialists (and their Western libtard associates) who lost out in the revolution say because they don't want to accept responsibility for the disaster that unfolded between 1979 and 1989. But it's no more a proven fact than to suggest that the CIA and MI6 simply controlled the revolution and put the mullahs in power themselves.

[Gizem]

My heart is with them.

[Gizem]

The Iranian people are probably the most secular and liberal people in the Middle East bar possibly Turkey and Israel. I certainly think that Persian culture is by and large a lot more intelligent and rational than Arab (especially Saudi) culture, and this current Government is a real aberration.

MENA = Arab, desert culture. Turkey is Eurasian, Israel is only geographically MENA but they are like Australia in Asia. Iran is as well a region on its own, maybe Near East but not MENA again.

[Sarmatian]

Yeah, that's what the Iranian socialists (and their Western libtard associates) who lost out in the revolution say because they don't want to accept responsibility for the disaster that unfolded between 1979 and 1989. But it's no more a proven fact than to suggest that the CIA and MI6 simply controlled the revolution and put the mullahs in power themselves.

What would be reasons behind such move?

[Herr Abubu]

What would be reasons behind such move?

Because the Shah didn't want to renew the contract with British Petroleum. We do know Ayatollah Khomeini was in contact with the US government, including direct contact with Jimmy Carter. Also something I'm forgetting about the hotel he stayed at in Paris.

There's also the Shah accusing the British and the Americans of being behind the revolution, which makes sense on its own and in the context that if he had just been a sockpuppet of these interest groups he wouldn't have spoken that way.

Anyway, foreign-sponsored revolutions often turn on the foreign powers. The German support of the Bolsheviks didn't end up well for them, because if you give rope to someone so he can hang your enemy there's also a chance he might hang you.

[N1019]

What would be reasons behind such move?

There are a few reasons why it may have been done. Either way, when it comes to proof, it is no less proven than the standard libtard line of "the overthrow of Mossadegh caused the 1979 revolution".

You may take Her Abubu's post as covering some of the possible reasons why the Anglo-Americans wanted rid of the Shah and/or opted for the ayatollahs. What is clear is that by the mid 1970s, particularly after the fall of Nixon, the Shah was colliding with American and British policymakers on several issues (oil, economics, human rights, military purchases, his ambitions and megalomania, and even nuclear technology; he threatened to buy military hardware from another party [probably the USSR], was becoming critical of the Jewish lobby, British economic management etc) and refused to be treated as a puppet. That reality is something few people seem to realise nowadays, probably because the standard narrative in the West is that the Shah remained a loyal puppet right to the end, when his people overthrew him, but it was not really the case. The left are known for their aversion to fact but on Iran they seem particularly bad.

For what it's worth, it should also be remembered that when the British put the last Shah in power in 1941 following the Anglo-Soviet invasion, they explicitly reserved the right to get rid of him later if necessary.

It is also possible that they were not totally in control of the revolution but simply chose not to support the Shah and did nothing to stop the return of Khomeini (they almost certainly could have prevented his return, even had him assassinated, but as suggested above, it does seem he was in contact with the CIA in Paris and perhaps even earlier, during his exile in Iraq). This theory runs that, having accepted that the Shah was finished, they were faced with a few political movements to fill the void, none of which was ideal, e.g. communists (totally unacceptable during the Cold War), secular nationalists (similar to the Shah and likely another headache), and the Islamists (seen as the least worst option). There is also the fact that the Shah was dying of cancer. No doubt there was some concern at whom would replace him. While this less involved theory is plausible, I suspect the Anglo-Americans played a more direct role in securing the final outcome, but it may be many more years before details of those events are made public. The US is still in the process of admitting to its involvement in the Mossadegh affair, so I'm not holding my breath - 1979 is still a little too recent.

As for the benefits of having the ayatollahs in power, here are a few off the top of my head:
- least worst option compared to communists and Shah-like nationalists
- Islamists would be anti-communist, which was important during the Cold War
- MI6/CIA had an established relationship with the Iranian clergy going back to at least 1953 and in the case of the British probably earlier; perhaps this relationship would endure and assist in Anglo-American control of the country
- anti-democratic, anti-freedom - democracy can be a problem for the world powers; it is easier if the government is not accountable to the people
- regressive, would hold development of Iran back, thereby weakening the country, which was important, since Iran was probably seen as becoming too strong, too ambitious and too big for its boots (another major attempt at weakening Iran was the Iran-Iraq War, which probably wouldn't have happened if the Shah had survived)
- the various other political movements in the country could be stirred up to destabilize and manipulate the regime at will - owing to Iran-Iraq War this may not have been pursued as a serious option but apparently it is now

As it turned out, the ayatollahs' regime was much more like the Shah's than might have been assumed, but to make matters worse, a strong Anti-American stance was quickly revealed (or was it known all along - look at Kissinger's remark in 1976 (https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0314/1553524.pdf) "if we get rid of the Shah, we will have a radical regime on our hands"). The Islamic Republic continues to pursue independence in foreign policy (now much moreso), continues to pursue a nuclear programme, continues to call for the exodus of foreign militaries from the Gulf, continues to call for a nuclear weapons free zone in the middle east, etc. There are many similarities. 'Death to America/Israel', Hezbollah, forced hijab and so on are of course major differences.

Anyway, I hope that's some food for thought.

[Babak]

There are a few reasons why it may have been done. Either way, when it comes to proof, it is no less proven than the standard libtard line of "the overthrow of Mossadegh caused the 1979 revolution".

You may take Her Abubu's post as covering some of the possible reasons why the Anglo-Americans wanted rid of the Shah and/or opted for the ayatollahs. What is clear is that by the mid 1970s, particularly after the fall of Nixon, the Shah was colliding with American and British policymakers on several issues (oil, economics, human rights, military purchases, his ambitions and megalomania, and even nuclear technology; he threatened to buy military hardware from another party [probably the USSR], was becoming critical of the Jewish lobby, British economic management etc) and refused to be treated as a puppet. That reality is something few people seem to realise nowadays, probably because the standard narrative in the West is that the Shah remained a loyal puppet right to the end, when his people overthrew him, but it was not really the case. The left are known for their aversion to fact but on Iran they seem particularly bad.

For what it's worth, it should also be remembered that when the British put the last Shah in power in 1941 following the Anglo-Soviet invasion, they explicitly reserved the right to get rid of him later if necessary.

It is also possible that they were not totally in control of the revolution but simply chose not to support the Shah and did nothing to stop the return of Khomeini (they almost certainly could have prevented his return, even had him assassinated, but as suggested above, it does seem he was in contact with the CIA in Paris and perhaps even earlier, during his exile in Iraq). This theory runs that, having accepted that the Shah was finished, they were faced with a few political movements to fill the void, none of which was ideal, e.g. communists (totally unacceptable during the Cold War), secular nationalists (similar to the Shah and likely another headache), and the Islamists (seen as the least worst option). There is also the fact that the Shah was dying of cancer. No doubt there was some concern at whom would replace him. While this less involved theory is plausible, I suspect the Anglo-Americans played a more direct role in securing the final outcome, but it may be many more years before details of those events are made public. The US is still in the process of admitting to its involvement in the Mossadegh affair, so I'm not holding my breath - 1979 is still a little too recent.

As for the benefits of having the ayatollahs in power, here are a few off the top of my head:
- least worst option compared to communists and Shah-like nationalists
- Islamists would be anti-communist, which was important during the Cold War
- MI6/CIA had an established relationship with the Iranian clergy going back to at least 1953 and in the case of the British probably earlier; perhaps this relationship would endure and assist in Anglo-American control of the country
- anti-democratic, anti-freedom - democracy can be a problem for the world powers; it is easier if the government is not accountable to the people
- regressive, would hold development of Iran back, thereby weakening the country, which was important, since Iran was probably seen as becoming too strong, too ambitious and too big for its boots (another major attempt at weakening Iran was the Iran-Iraq War, which probably wouldn't have happened if the Shah had survived)
- the various other political movements in the country could be stirred up to destabilize and manipulate the regime at will - owing to Iran-Iraq War this may not have been pursued as a serious option but apparently it is now

As it turned out, the ayatollahs' regime was much more like the Shah's than might have been assumed, but to make matters worse, a strong Anti-American stance was quickly revealed (or was it known all along - look at Kissinger's remark in 1976 (https://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/library/document/0314/1553524.pdf) "if we get rid of the Shah, we will have a radical regime on our hands"). The Islamic Republic continues to pursue independence in foreign policy (now much moreso), continues to pursue a nuclear programme, continues to call for the exodus of foreign militaries from the Gulf, continues to call for a nuclear weapons free zone in the middle east, etc. There are many similarities. 'Death to America/Israel', Hezbollah, forced hijab and so on are of course major differences.

Anyway, I hope that's some food for thought.

Pretty accurate lol