New dress code in Iran: Jews and Christians must wear badges

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Not a germane question until you show me where Taheri lied. His words, not third-hand commentary.

Sigh.

From the article you posted as the original source, which appears under Amir Taheri's byline:

WHILE Iran's economy appears to be heading for recession, one sector may have some reason for optimism. That sector is the garment industry and the reason for its optimism is a law passed by the Islamic Majlis (parliament) on Monday.

The law mandates the government to make sure that all Iranians wear "standard Islamic garments" designed to remove ethnic and class distinctions reflected in clothing, and to eliminate "the influence of the infidel" on the way Iranians, especially the young, dress.

It also envisages separate dress codes for religious minorities, Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians, who will have to adopt distinct color schemes to make them identifiable in public. The new codes would enable Muslims to instantly recognize non-Muslims so that they can avoid shaking hands with them by mistake, and thus becoming najis" (unclean).
...
Religious minorities would have their own color schemes. They will also have to wear special insignia, known as zonnar, to indicate their non-Islamic faiths. Jews would be marked out with a yellow strip of cloth sewn in front of their clothes, while Christians will be assigned the color red. Zoroastrians end up with Persian blue as the color of their zonnar.

At no point in the article is there any indication that any of this is Taheri's speculation. It's reported as established fact.

And who would be more knowledgeable about, and more outraged by the passage of such a law than the Jewish representative on the Iranian parliament, Maurice Motamed? What does he have to say about this?

From Agence France-Press:

"This report is a complete fabrication and is totally false," Maurice Motammed told AFP in Tehran. "It is a lie, and the people who invented it wanted to make political gain" by doing so. .... Motammed said he had been present in parliament when a bill to promote "an Iranian and Islamic style of dress for women" was voted. "In the law, there is no mention of religious minorities," he added. MPs representing Iran's Jewish, Christian and Zoroastrian minorities sit on all parliamentary committees, particularly the cultural one, he said. "This is an insult to the Iranian people and to religious minorities in Iran," he said.

The paper that printed the original story issued a retraction and an apology. There is no evidence for the claims stated in the article. There is considerable evidence against it.

That counts as a lie in my book.

So, is the man who fabricated this story a reliable and competent expert, worthy of being consulted by the White House?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

And who would be more knowledgeable about, and more outraged by the passage of such a law than the Jewish representative on the Iranian parliament, Maurice Motamed?

Well,

I bet being leader of the Jewish caucus in the Iranian parliment is an interesting job, now that Iran's on recent record for "wiping Israel off the map". I wouldn't expect a member of the Iranian parliment to publically support a negative article by an expat who's been editor of the big newspaper in town under the previous regime. I understand the Vichy government expressed a high opinion of the Nazis, too.

The article points out that the law had passed, and that the official clothing rules would be codified (with comfortable deniability in the event of a ruckus like what actually ensued) in the "consensus" of the aformentioned committee. He then descibes what he'd found out about the likely content of the "consensus".

The Canadian paper withdrew their publishing of the article, including the headline and wrapup comment/teaser that they wrote.

Should the White House listen to input from ex-pat editor of a major Iranian national newspaper on matters of Middle East policy? Yes, I think they should. Should they consider the motivations of people they listen to when evaluating what they say? Absolutely.

Would Molly Ivans meet your "worthiness" test for a White House meeting? By your standards for "lying"?

How about Arafat?

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Should the White House listen to input from ex-pat editor of a major Iranian national newspaper on matters of Middle East policy? Yes, I think they should. Should they consider the motivations of people they listen to when evaluating what they say? Absolutely.

"Well, doc, you know... after you diagnosed me with testicular cancer for what turned out to be a zit, I had my doubts. Especially after all those office visits. Now I've got this rash, I'd like your opinion on it. But I'll have you know... I'm keeping my eye on you, by Jove."

Would Molly Ivans meet your "worthiness" test for a White House meeting? By your standards for "lying"?

I don't know much about her. Why don't you explain to me why she shouldn't be trusted? Use examples, please. Her own words, now.

How about Arafat?

Looks like you've got a lot of homework.

I made the case that Taheri lied, and I made it using the papers that published him, reliable sources, encyclopedia entries, politicians in positions to know all about the issue... etcetera. I'm bushed. If that's not enough to convince you that perhaps this man fabricated a story to further his own ends...

you're just not worth arguing with.

A guy's got to have his standards, after all.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

I don't know much about her. Why don't you explain to me why she shouldn't be trusted? Use examples, please. Her own words, now. Looks like you've got a lot of homework.

Actually, no. I'm not trying to discredit her as a "liar". Just suggesting that...

Originally Posted by MrVisible

A guy's got to have his standards, after all.

...your "standards" are variable.

[MrVisible]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Actually, no. I'm not trying to discredit her as a "liar". Just suggesting that...

...your "standards" are variable.

Then prove to me that the people you proposed are as deceptive as Mr. Tahir.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by MrVisible

Then prove to me that the people you proposed are as deceptive as Mr. Tahir.

I'm not the one flinging accusations about on who's a "liar" and pronoucing judgments on who's "worthy" to speak to Bush. I do note that you bit hard on the "Truthdig" (love the name!) bait-and-switch on Iraq vs. Iran--nothing deceptive there, of course.

Besides, you've already pronounced me beneith your notice. You should go hobnob with tw or something.

Unless you *are* tw, of course. :-)

[Crimson Ghost]

Thread Hijack
-------------

Originally Posted by MaggieL

I'm more libertarian than Republican. And as long as we're label-mongering I'm both bisexual and transsexual.

Huh.
More power to ya.

As per your choice of weaponry, always remember -
Gun control means hitting your target.

-----------------
End Thread Hijack

[wolf]

So, if we would nuke Iran, would that make it Shiites of Glass, or would it be The Light of a Thousand Sunnis?