Here’s a question: if the veiling of women or forcing them into cloth sacks in countries like Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan was purely voluntary, why do those countries need “morality police” to ensure that women obey those religious dictates? If they all did it willingly, you wouldn’t need police!
Here, for instance, is a Morality Policeman in Afghanistan beating a women who didn’t cover her head properly:
The Morality Police enforce things other than dress, of course: you get punished, or taken away, if you engage in homosexual behavior, eat the wrong things, like pork, or leave your store open during prayer hours. Things can get quite serious, as Wikipedia notes (see the BBC report here):
Perhaps the most serious and widely criticized incident attributed to them occurred on March 11, 2002, when [morality police] prevented schoolgirls from escaping a burning school in Mecca, because the girls were not wearing headscarves and abayas (black robes), and not accompanied by a male guardian. Fifteen girls died and fifty were injured as a result. Widespread public criticism followed, both internationally and within Saudi Arabia.
Can you imagine a religion that would rather see girls die than go out without their coverings? (Yes, of course you can: Catholicism does something similar when it lets both mothers and babies die rather than give the mother an abortion during a life-threatening pregnancy).
Although Iran already had morality police, they’ve decided to make them more pervasive—and more insidious. According to this week’s Guardian, Iran is recruiting 7,000 undercover morality police to enforce dress codes and other infractions. There are already morality police in Iran, but their presence is obvious, as they drive around in marked vans. In response, they’ve created an app so people can see where the vans are if they want to show some hair. Now, though, there will be “undercover” police.
As the Guardian notes:
Every spring, as the temperature rises and with it the desire of people to go out, the authorities in Iran tighten their grip on social norms, increasing the number of the so-called morality police deployed in public places.
They target anything from loose-fitting headscarves, tight overcoats, shortened trousers for women and glamorous hairstyles to necklaces for men. Walking dogs has also been added to the long list of activities that upset the authorities.
It is not clear if the announcement is a response to the recent launch of the Android smartphone app Gershad, which enables users in Iran to circumvent the morality police vans based on information about their locations collected by other users.
. . . Sajedinia [Tehran’s police chief] said “confronting bad hijab and removal of veils inside cars, driving recklessly, parading in the streets, harassing women and stopping noise pollution are the priorities”, according to AFP.
The new recruits will not confront people directly, local news agencies said, but instead will send number plates to their superiors who will then officially summon them to see the police. Culprits will be prevented from selling their cars if they do not report to police after receiving a notice.
The sick thing is that, along with many Iranians, Hassan Rouhani, the nation’s president, claims to oppose the morality police, but he can’t do anything about it because they’re run not by him but but by Iran’s “Supreme Leader”, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has been the all-powerful theocrat in Iran since 1989.
There’s no doubt that the use of police to arrest women who have “bad hijab” shows that wearing of the hijab is not, in general, something that women in Iran do voluntarily—out of love of Islam. Before the Islamic revolution in 1979, Iranian women didn’t go around veiled; there’s a huge difference between the way women dressed in 1970 and the way they dress now (see the photos in my post on Iranian and Afghan women).
The lesson is simple, and was tw**ted by Maryam Namazie, an ex-Muslim activist born in Iran and living in England:
If veiling was people's culture, you wouldn't need 7000 morality police to patrol the streets of Tehran https://t.co/QZLbftnU2W
— Maryam Namazie (@MaryamNamazie) April 22, 2016
Quick! Progressives! Show your solidarity with Iranian women by wearing a veil!
These Iranian women could really use a safe space. An actual safe space that could protect them from harm. But you won’t hear the regressive left about that.
it is amazing how far people will go to not appear “racist”
which is nonsensicle applied to religion
but have little thought about being sexist
right and left end up the same when you go extreme enough
I don’t think it’s actually true that the political spectrum is a circle and that if you go far enough to the right you’ll meet the extreme leftists coming around the other way.
What I think is going on is that those on either extreme are simply both less inclined to tolerate diversity and dissection than those in the middle. But the things they are intolerant about are usually different things. You won’t catch the David Dukes of the world apologizing for regressive Islamic culture or slinging mud at people who criticize the bad ideas which are a part of Islam.
dissection = dissension
Autocorrect would be ok if it only corrected words that were actually misspelled. But I really can’t stand it when it “corrects” a word I didn’t misspell because it judges that there is a much more commonly used word that I must’ve meant to type instead.
On a related note, why am I in the mood for a Popsicle?
the David Dukes lack the mental capacity of insight to understand that irony. 🙂 – maybe another context: religious right and feminists against pornography? (remembering that 1970s feminists threw the lesbians under the bus, eh?)
@musical beef
Posted April 24, 2016 at 3:06 pm
“I don’t think it’s actually true that the political spectrum is a circle and that if you go far enough to the right you’ll meet the extreme leftists coming around the other way.”
Absolutely, Mr. Beef, or may I be more informal, and call you ‘Musical’?
There are real political differences between the far right and far left and it’s rather superficial to mistake the authoritarian mind-set they share for there being no difference in the types of society they promote.
Contrast Mussolini’s Italy and Castro’s Cuba: Franco’s Spain vs. Chavez’s Venezuela. None worked but they didn’t work in different ways.
Besides, the Roman Empire lasted 2,200 years and nobody would say that was a haven of pragmatic open-mindedness.
Actually, the Romans were very pragmatic: they were great entrepreneurs and inventors of new technology (and military tactics).
They were also tolerant of diversity (they had to be, given the number of different peoples in the Empire) and other religions: everyone could follow their own religions as long as they also made offerings to the Roman gods – all that was required was a show of respect.
Damn colonialism!
Thank you for slurring the millions of people who have voted for Bernie Sanders. I’m sure Ted Cruz is proud of you.
I should have put scare quotes around ‘progressives’ as someone else suggested but around here, most regulars will read it as a jab at the *regressives*, which it was.
They know that I am referring to the SJWs.
Your error demonstrates how important it is for people to be precise in what they say and write. If you had used the term “regressives” instead of “progressives,” readers would not have to surmise or guess as to what point you are trying to make. I am often irked at how much time I have to waste trying to figure out what people really mean.
I didn’t have any trouble understanding what he meant. The context made it quite obvious. After all, whether you like it or not, SJWs call themselves progressives.
My advice to you: If you often struggle to figure out what people mean, perhaps you should consider the common denominator in your interpersonal dealings instead of blaming others.
Perhaps you can mind read the meaning of the unclear writings of people you know nothing about. Unfortunately, I lack that skill. In this particular case, Cindy used the term “progressives” without any clarification. It is not the job of the reader to guess that she was referring to only a small subset of people who may label themselves as progressives as opposed to the whole group. She should have made it clear as to exactly whom she was referring to.
No one has the obligation to pander to the lowest common denominator. The meaning of the comment was clearly a sarcastic jab at pseudo-progressives. Again, SJWs themselves claim to be progressives, which was basically the point.
There’s an old saying about how explaining a joke is like dissecting a frog. You get to understand how it all works, but now it’s dead.
It was obvious that the comment was sarcastic, and thus it was obvious to me what she meant.
Yes. I presented it in a deadpan fashion because the regressives consider themselves to be progressive. No, not just progressive, but on the cutting edge of everything that is progressive.
Go to any of the atheist liberal blogs on Patheos sometime, and you will find that the commentariat speaks of how women freely choose the hijab out of *devotion*. They say this whilst patting themselves on the back for their ‘progressive’ views. They are so understanding of other cultures, that they can clearly see, unlike ‘white supremacists’ such as the commentariat here, that women in Saudi Arabia and Iran *choose* to walk around in head and even body coverings, because they are just so very devoted to honouring their deity.
Here is an ex-Muslim woman talking about how these ‘progressives’ accuse her of being a white supremacist – yes – for speaking out against the Islamist subjugation of women:
http://www.cbc.ca/radio/the180/unheard-muslim-voices-banning-dangerous-dogs-and-a-plea-for-plain-language-1.3393360/speaking-up-for-unheard-muslim-and-ex-muslim-voices-1.3394359
FWIW, Cindy, I understood you perfectly well.
Me too! Hence my follow up smart assed comment.
To be fair, there has been an ongoing discussion on this site for a while, about the the problems with progressives.
And in the wider “left world”.
In that context it is easy for regulars here to get the point.
But maybe not a not regular.
It matters not a whit that some readers guessed what Cindy was implying. At best, it was an educated guess that she was being sarcastic. They could say that they knew her views based on previous posts. But, how do they know she hasn’t changed her mind since her last post and now, in fact, is including all progressives? Moreover, one cannot assume that all readers (including intelligent ones) correctly guessed what she was trying to say. New visitors to this site (and I trust there are many) would know nothing about the views of an anonymous poster. It is not unreasonable that such visitors would take the comment literally.
To call for clarity in writing is hardly pandering to the lowest common denominator. It means that one’s point is understood by the greatest number of people.
How did we know? By being aware of the long running and general conversation on the topic here at WEIT.
Sometimes it is useful to simply say “Oh, I didn’t recognize it.” and acknowledge that the reader may be responsible for misunderstanding, too.
I think there should be scare quotes around “progressives”.
sub
Seems like it’s the morality police that are the ones harassing women.
On the other hand, the list makes it seem like driving recklessly, parading in the streets, and harassing women are their priorities rather than their prevention.
Yes, Rouhani keeps getting slapped down during Friday prayers by Khamenei.
What is new is that following the Nuclear deal and the trade deals with the west, Iran is slowly opening up to western tourists (and who wouldn’t want to go Iran?)
Yet the female foreign tourists are obliged to wear the hijab. According to this report in The Independent, this is how at least one of those tourists feel about their follicles being immured from Iranian air-space:
‘“I thought it would be easy (to wear the headscarf) but after two weeks, my opinion really changed,” a Belgian woman wrote. “I hated it every minute of the day.”
Another tourist said the restrictions made her “feel like a slaves (sic)”, while another woman wrote that she felt unable to express herself.’
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iranian-women-in-my-stealthy-freedom-campaign-call-on-western-tourists-to-violate-headscarf-law-to-a6996136.html
Masih Alinejad of My Stealthy Freedom is on the case. It’s bound to widen slightly more the ideological chinks between the economically illiterate theocrats around the Supreme Leader and the more liberal (in a very narrow sense) people around the Rouhani who want to prevent Iran becoming even more of an economic basket-case.
Sounds like the hijabs were having the desired effect.
Positively revolting. One more reason to stay clear of the Middle East.
Would anyone need another reason to avoid visiting the Middle East?
I mean, I do it because people pay me to do it. I can’t claim to have enjoyed a single visit there, with the exception of Azerbaijan. And you can have a good debate on whether Azerbaijan is in the “Middle” East.
I must admit that my friend Stef speaks well of Kurdistan – despite being detained at gun point for an average of a month a year. Occupational hazard. If the Somalia job comes off, I’m sure we’ll have time to discuss the comparisons.
I must admit, Aidan, that in the best of all possible worlds I’d jump at the chance. Following in the footsteps of Herodotus, from Egypt’s gay capital Siwa where Alexander took the oracle via a trip through Syro-Palestinian archaeology in the company of Israel Finkelstein, a little detour to Asia Minor to follow the pre-Socratics and the Hellenes, back east to Baghdad to squint at the Assyrians and Babylonians and on to Shiraz to finish off with a nice red to wash down a fesenjan with chole rice: that’d do it for me.
All tempting ideas. But all that time roasting under the sun, and having to deal with people trying to shove their goods and services down your face. Nope, does not really appeal.
The wife and I were considering an Egyptian holiday before the recent unrest. We’re passing for the time being. Far too dangerous.
I also think Egyptian authorities need some divestment because of the torture-murder of Giulio Regeni. It is bad enough when they kill Egyptians, but when they start doing it to foreigners, let’s take it as a message that they do not want us or our money.
Certainly doesn’t pass my cost-benefit analysis.
A handful of years ago, a friend travelled for work into Lybia and had a good weekend at Leptis Magna, which looks really tempting. But not tempting enough.
I certainly hope you’ll have time to compile a report and depart safely.
Me too. But I’ve known enough people who’ve had the 3am Kalashnikov-in-the-face wake-up call (followed by the sorting of passports into two piles) to not really consider the area for entertainment. There are enough other places to go.
Hmmm, Turkey … for the time being probably remains on the “consider” list. Have to keep an eye on developments though.
“…confronting bad hijab and removal of veils inside cars, driving recklessly, parading in the streets, harassing women and stopping noise pollution are the priorities”
– Apparently berating, beating, or arresting women who are not dressing or behaving “properly” doesn’t fall under the category of “harassment”
Reblogged this on Nina's Soap Bubble Box and commented:
I am starting to agree with Quebec’s burka ban and France’s ban on overt religious garb.
I don;t know how anyone can claim women chose religious oppression when their only option is being killed.
I am glad I grew up in post 1970s Canada, the last decade there were social rules about women’s clothing.
meanwhile, suspected athiests are still being killed
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-36125115
nothing ever changes in religion
If this sort of policy is indeed very far out of the mainstream sentiments in Iran, then sadly it is time for Iranians to collectively grow a pair and start killing these people in the streets and in their pulpits. It appears to be the only thing Islamists understand.
They have tried. There was a serious try in 2009, when Neda Agha-Soltan and many others lost their lives. Once a dictatorship solidifies its grip, it is almost impossible to be overthrown from within. A good example is Syria.
I take it that mutual antagonists Saudi Arabia and Iran are of the same mind at least about this.
Looking forward to Nicholas Kristof and Ben Affleck holding forth on this.
This is indeed part of the larger picture. With the Sunni/Shi’a conflict Saudi Arabia and Iran will always try to out-pious each other.
And piety in Islam requires one to act like an uncivilised barbarian.
My experience on Yahoo has been anything that is “according to AFP” can’t be trusted.
I wonder how much of the attraction to the job of religious police is getting to beat people? Especially getting to beat women.
I think the women should get together and protect each other, and give back to the religious police.
If women have to wear the absurd costumes, perhaps they should use them to carry appropriate tools to protect themselves.
Is it wrong that I want to see the women gang up on these guys and beat them bloody?
I should think a loose-fitting garment would excellently conceal a nail gun.
I wondered what it was like for the child in that picture to witness that and how it would influence the adult that child would become.
I like my women how I like my eggs: beaten. And my cream: whipped.
This bad joke brought to you courtesy of Moderate Islam™
So what is it about men in the Middle East that makes them so scared of women? Most of them are clearly a pretty pathetic bunch if they even have to go as far as forcing women to wear certain clothing in order to retain their dominance.
And are Middle Eastern men so weak that the sight of almost any part of a woman’s body drives him into such paroxysms of lust that he can’t control himself?
Conservative Islam controls women in order to maintain power. Their view of women has barely evolved since the seventh century, and they lack the courage to let it.
I see that Iran got $131million in foreign aid in 2013. If they are rich enough to recruit 7000 bruisers for this ‘work’ why do they need foreigners to support them?
Just on the economic considerations, I would expect the employment of more ‘policemen’ to be financially neutral. They would spend their wages in local shops, neither bringing in foreign currency nor costing any. (I’m assuming, being ‘undercover’, they don’t require expensive imported vehicles to operate).
The trouble with cutting aid or imposing sanctions is that the people who suffer are usually not the people committing the obnoxious actions.
cr
Here in Ottawa, Ontario, in February, local “feminists” organized a “Wear the hijab for a day to support our Muslim sisters” event. I believe this was going on in other cities as well. It happened to be the same week that Jerry was here, giving a talk through our local Centre for Inquiry group. I mentioned this to him and said something to the effect that it was supporting the subjugation of women. Which is exactly how I felt about it. When I asked my sister to go to the event with me, to protest, she said ‘no’ because she didn’t want to be seen as racist. And my sister is staunchly feminist! I am at a loss as to how to fight this notion that standing up against a hideous religious ideology is racism. Especially given that this sister has read Ayan Hirsi Ali and others. Incredible. Maybe if I can get her to watch the Real Time segment with Ben Affleck and San Harris…The Regressive Left has done it’s job well if it has even gotten to her. Never thought I’d see the day.
The regressive left might not be brutally suppressing speech through heavy handed governmental decrees however…
They have created a social climate wherein many folks will self-censor out of fear of being labeled racist/misogynist etc.
I have even found myself, in certain situations, refraining from using the word ‘crazy’ out of the fear that someone somewhere might accuse me of being ableist. It’s ridiculous. It’s insidious. I know in my head that I should not be having such thoughts, but when you hear, over and over again that only ‘bad’ people use such terms, you can find yourself *reflexively* wondering if you should censor yourself ‘just in case’.
There is always an angry twitter mob around the corner.
And I admire folks such as PCC (along with Mick Nugent, Dawkins, Sam Harris, Shermer etc) who openly stand up to the bullies. I for one do not have the cajones.
My cajones have gotten me into trouble, it’s true.
Oops, I left out Gad Saad. A microaggression against a ‘person of color!’ 😛
In this excellent lecture he explains “How Political Correctness Limits the Free Exchange of Ideas on Campus”
Well worth the 59 minutes!
Ok, hopefully third time is the charm, hoping I can link to this properly:
Gad Saad on PC
+1 I’ve felt the same way. I self censor because I don’t want to deal with the outcry and the stress and the ostracism and all the other crap. They’ve done a good job of bullying a lot of us into silence. It’s a less violent version of what Islamists do to fellow Muslims who hold more liberal beliefs.
They’ve got to me, too. Any time I’m about to use a politically suspect word I get a little niggle. Usually I think ‘sod* them!’ and go ahead and use it anyway. It annoys me that I have to do this, though.
cr
(*’sod’ is not, in fact, the word I think. The word I think has four letters.)
Three points, and giving the devil his due:
1. The ‘moral police’ will report license plates of offenders to the Police Department. There will be no harassing or beating people by these undercover agents.
2. Women in Tehran are not required to wear veils. It is unclear why removal of veils inside cars is an infraction. It may be an error in translation.
3. The statement that police would be “harassing women” makes no sense, especially when it is also stated that the new cops would only note car tags. I suspect that police chief actually said the ‘moral police’ would be fining men who were harassing women from their cars. Nothing AFP says can be trusted.
From the site of our Ministry of foreign affairs (http://www.mfa.bg/index.php?page=15&staticpage=findanembassy&posolstvo=65, link in Bulgarian):
“There are mandatory rules of conduct and dressing… They are particularly strict for women, who are obliged to wear headscarves and long clothes covering the ankles. Men can wear short sleeves but not short trousers, earrings, necklaces or other jewellery. Closeness between males and females cannot be shown in public. If these rules are violated, punishment can be very harsh.”
These are general recommendations for tourists I assume.
Yes.
Re your point 2, I agree the term ‘veils’ is probably confusing. If ‘veils’ means face covering, this does not seem to be legally required in Iran (so not wearing it in a car is obviously not an offence).
If ‘veils’ is taken to mean headscarves, then it does appear to be mandatory, presumably including in cars.
There’s nothing in the Bulgarian(!) Ministry of Foreign Affairs advice – not that I’d take that as authoritative – that contradicts that.
Re the other points, the official line is that the undercover police will report to the regular police and will not confront anyone directly. Quoted here: http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/04/iran-undercover-police-force-poor-veiling-tehran.html
cr
The thing that disturbed me the most about the image you posted is the little boy looking on as the woman is being beaten. How on earth can boys learn to respect their mothers (and grow up to respect their wives) when they grow up learning that things like this are acceptable?
Yes, I thought the same thing.
I remember watching a documentary and in this program a young boy was bragging about beating his sister whenever she misbehaved – because a girl’s job is to stay covered and act as a servant to the males in the house.
He felt that he was her superior and that it was his job to keep her in line, through force if necessary.
Me too.
A Muslim woman is the property of her father, her brothers, her husband and her sons. Their religion, their culture and their society does not flinch when they are abused and sometimes murdered by their “guardians.”
Verbal and physical abuse and the occasional honor killing is nothing to flinch at as the women were obviously asking for it and deserve any and all punishment inflicted upon them.
sub