"Too lewd for you" - Iran sentences woman to jail for watching male volleyball game

[hellheaven1987]

A British-Iranian woman detained in Iran after trying to watch a men's volleyball match has been sentenced to a year in prison, her lawyer says.

Ghoncheh Ghavami, 25, was found guilty of spreading anti-regime propaganda, lawyer Alizadeh Tabatabaie said.

Iran banned women from volleyball games in 2012, extending a long-standing ban on football matches.

The Iranian authorities have argued that women need protection from the lewd behaviour of male fans.

Britain's Foreign Office said it was concerned about the sentence.

"We have concerns about the grounds for this prosecution, due process during the trial, and Miss Ghavami's treatment whilst in custody," it said in a statement.

Amnesty International has described Ms Ghavami, who is from Shepherd's Bush in west London, as a prisoner of conscience, and called for her immediate release. More than 700,000 people have signed an online petition urging the authorities to free her.

The graduate of the University of London's School of African and Oriental Studies was part of a group of women who tried to watch Iran play Italy in a match on 20 June.

The women were arrested and allegedly beaten before being freed.

Ms Ghavami was rearrested later and subsequently put on trial. She launched a hunger strike in October after being held in isolation cells.

Source

Hmm I don't understand Muslim logic; if it is necessary to protect women, does not that mean men also need protection from women too? Why not ban volleyball for all genders? Is Islam bias againsting men?

[mongrel]

You could have read the source in more detail. The charge sheet says anti-regime propaganda, all the hallmarks of a trumped up-charge, as no legal means can be found to lock up the victim otherwise. I reckon the Facebook page is what determined the sentence as she clearly is the only one of the group to be convicted.

[Roma_Victrix]

So in other words a kangaroo court decision, then. Great. Iran is such a beacon of light and hope for the world! I can only hope that those who have no desire to stay have the ample means and opportunity to leave for good should the choose to do so. Something tells me this is at least partially true, given the noticeable presence of ethnic Iranians and Iranian nationals in the UK and US that I've personally observed.

[Costin_Razvan]

"Sigh" Iran, you are just stupid.

[Roma_Victrix]

"Sigh" Iran, you are just stupid.

I'm afraid it's much worse than that. If only it was just their stupidity! They've gone ahead and systematically excused their stupidity with the backing and legitimacy of religious dogma. A dangerous combination if ever there was one. They seem intent on copying the mores of their supposed polar opposite and arch nemesis, Saudi Arabia, in the strict societal segregation of women and men. This is merely a symptom and sideshow of that greater cause. In a way they have a very quaint 1950s-style attitude about keeping boys and girls separate, because boys are crude and nasty, and girls just can't handle such things! Lest their brains explode. Or something. Apparently a bunch of jerks making rude hand gestures is enough to destroy the sanctity and purity of innocent little women.



The only thing missing here are hijab head shawls, and of course dresses that drop all the way to the floor like a robe, unlike these poodle skirts showing bare ankles. How dare they! Sinners! Blasphemers! Seriously, they need to say seven hail Mary's and spend the next four Sundays in Church...er...the mosque. In that case, make it Friday.

[gaunty14]

I love that the reason for the ban on watching male sports is to protect women, rather than attempting to limit/control the behavior of men.

Ahhh Iran you have done it again, while this is not quite as extreme as the fact that I can be lawfully executed in Iran for my sexuality it is still shockingly appalling. Similar to that article in the BBC a while ago where a young group of men and women were imprisioned for appearing in a music video together.

[Elemental]

In good old Europe you can go to jail for just uttering an opinion on a historical topic. Im not sure if that is so much better.

[ShockBlast]

In good old Europe you can go to jail for just uttering an opinion on a historical topic. Im not sure if that is so much better.

True, true. I mean who would believe there was such thing as the Holocaust, the Nazis were just misunderstood.

[Himster]

In good old Europe you can go to jail for just uttering an opinion on a historical topic. Im not sure if that is so much better.

Yeah man, those God damn Jews.
We should all just be more like Nazis and Jihadists, everything would be so much better.

[Elemental]

Yeah man, those God damn Jews.
We should all just be more like Nazis and Jihadists, everything would be so much better.

Putting people in jail for having an opinion is very nazi-like. So I guess you are right

[Mangalore]

In good old Europe you can go to jail for just uttering an opinion on a historical topic. Im not sure if that is so much better.

That Freedom of speech should protect deliberate lies is beyond me. And you have to be very bad at it to go for jail for it.

And finally: Yes, it is better plainly because it is clearly defined in a very narrow specified area and not a limitation to every day life. To try to draw parallels between the two cases is frankly just stupid.

[anant]

This has nothing to do with Islam...during it's golden centuries Islamic women played integral roles in all segments of society, and wherever they were able to rose to high rank and esteem...examples abound, but one I would really like to give here is of Razia Sultan, sultana/queen of my very own city, Delhi, centuries before ANY European queen, who was chosen by her father over her brothers...Iran and Islam are sort of like America and Capitalism...orthodox in the extreme about what they consider an integral part of their culture, whereas their REAL culture has been eroded away by decades of sycophany to these "ideals".

[Mangalore]

This has nothing to do with Islam...during it's golden centuries Islamic women played integral roles in all segments of society, and wherever they were able to rose to high rank and esteem...examples abound, but one I would really like to give here is of Razia Sultan, sultana/queen of my very own city, Delhi, centuries before ANY European queen, who was chosen by her father over her brothers...Iran and Islam are sort of like America and Capitalism...orthodox in the extreme about what they consider an integral part of their culture, whereas their REAL culture has been eroded away by decades of sycophany to these "ideals".

That's all nice and dandy but claiming something is not Islam sounds very hollow. The Inquisition was not Christianity, it however was a contemporary conclusion based on the then widespread interpretation of Christianity and the position of the Church in the Western world. The difference seems that while the position of worldly power was diminished for the Christian churches and faith in general over the centuries something reversed happened in Islam. As you say in the Islamic golden Age Islam was more progressive than most other civilizations, now its interpretation in many places stands for the opposite. Disregarding it as a non-Islamic problem doesn't seem the right way to figure out what went wrong and what to fix to get back on the horse so to speak.

[mongrel]

That's all nice and dandy but claiming something is not Islam sounds very hollow. The Inquisition was not Christianity, it however was a contemporary conclusion based on the then widespread interpretation of Christianity and the position of the Church in the Western world. The difference seems that while the position of worldly power was diminished for the Christian churches and faith in general over the centuries something reversed happened in Islam. As you say in the Islamic golden Age Islam was more progressive than most other civilizations, now its interpretation in many places stands for the opposite. Disregarding it as a non-Islamic problem doesn't seem the right way to figure out what went wrong and what to fix to get back on the horse so to speak.

The point isn't even relevant.

See post 2 and the one after that. The sentence was for "anti-regime propaganda". On the presumption that Allah himself doesn't run Iran directly, it is safe to assume this is a political charge, not (necessarily) a religious one. I note that her other female companions are not jailed. As I mentione dbefore, she was backed by a sizeable Facebbok campaign in the West. I beleive it is a fair guess that this was sufficient grounds for a paranoid regime to lock her up. Elemental's comment is closer to the truth, I think.

[anant]

... As you say in the Islamic golden Age Islam was more progressive than most other civilizations, now its interpretation in many places stands for the opposite...

That's the crux of my argument...that in the "Golden ages" civilisations are more progressive...this is a historical fact and no amount of debate or theological discussion has ever worked against this phenomenon...we see the rise of the right wing nuttos in the US everytime the economy hits a bad spot...Islamic civilization has been battered and bombed, colonized and exploited, abused in mainstream politics for centuries now...what do you expect the reaction will be? The moderates are thoroughly discredited, and the loonies rule...seems like the future for the west too if you ask me.
At this juncture I should also probably add (in case some ignorants didn't realize from my SANSKRITised, 'bout 8000 year old name {!!!!}), I'm NOT a muslim, and my country (India) is NOT an Islamic country....yet we have over 200million muslims living here (probably more than the entire middle east), and over the centuries they HAVE come up with MANY tolerant and inclusive forms of Islam...and these forms HAVE any one point or the other been accepted as mainstream by many Islamic rulers, not just in India but beyond. Iranian interpretations of Islam are based on a WESTERN viewpoint, they are modern systems dealing with the challenge of the west TODAY, and thus they are as soulless and impersonal as ALL modern systems...I repeat, this incident has NOTHING to do with Islam.

[Himster]

This has nothing to do with Islam...during it's golden centuries Islamic women played integral roles in all segments of society, and wherever they were able to rose to high rank and esteem...examples abound, but one I would really like to give here is of Razia Sultan, sultana/queen of my very own city, Delhi, centuries before ANY European queen, who was chosen by her father over her brothers...Iran and Islam are sort of like America and Capitalism...orthodox in the extreme about what they consider an integral part of their culture, whereas their REAL culture has been eroded away by decades of sycophany to these "ideals".

They claim it is Islam, you claim it is not Islam. It's their word against yours. That is the beginning, middle and end of the issue.
Islam is an abstract construct and inherently subjective and unverifiable, meaning that its meaning is contingent solely on its use. Hypothetical, or possible culture has no relevance when an actual culture is extant.

Putting people in jail for having an opinion is very nazi-like. So I guess you are right

It is quite Nazi-like and it's something any reasonable person should object to.
Allowing insane tards to deny the holocaust publicly would make it much easier to identify those with dangerous mental illnesses and get them the treatment they so desperately need.

[Mangalore]

...
It is quite Nazi-like and it's something any reasonable person should object to.
Allowing insane tards to deny the holocaust publicly would make it much easier to identify those with dangerous mental illnesses and get them the treatment they so desperately need.

It's not Nazi-like at all. It's narrowly defined, it's not random, it is reasoned, it's not affecting specific demographics nor does it infringe on private life and put under court jurisdiction. People should learn what Nazi-like means instead of spouting hyperbole.

You can end up in jail for lying for a good number of reasons. In this case it's associated with enabling or perpetrating hate crimes. Simple as that. I have little problem with punishing lying and disingenuousness. At the very least invoking any rights to defend it is a farce and a twisting of the spirit of those rights. The freedom of speech appeal implies that facts are a matter of opinion which in this and a lot of other cases they aren't, reality should ultimately win a debate.

[Himster]

You can end up in jail for lying for a good number of reasons. In this case it's associated with enabling or perpetrating hate crimes. Simple as that. I have little problem with punishing lying and disingenuousness. At the very least invoking any rights to defend it is a farce and a twisting of the spirit of those rights. The freedom of speech appeal implies that facts are a matter of opinion which in this and a lot of other cases they aren't, reality should ultimately win a debate.

If enforcing punishment for lying is contingent on proving that perpetrating hate-crimes was the defendants intent, then that's all fine and dandy.
But as it stands there are European countries where that is not required, simply espousing the holocaust-denial-conspiracy-theory can warrant legal action.

Lies are protected freedom of speech, or rather they should be, otherwise all religions would have to be illegal, poorly researched history theses would not only warrant a poor grade: but also a prison sentence, nobody would be permitted to say that they didn't like Breaking Bad etc. Proving intent is the key, as that is the case: special treatment applied to the lie that is holocaust denial is unwarranted, it should be treated like any other lie.

Of course, I was presuming that we were talking about holocaust denial this entire time..... as that is the only point of freedom of speech in the west that I find contentious, I naturally assumed that was what Elemental was referring to..... if we were actually talking about hate-speech in general, then we're in complete agreement.

[DaVinci]

If enforcing punishment for lying is contingent on proving that perpetrating hate-crimes was the defendants intent, then that's all fine and dandy.
But as it stands there are European countries where that is not required, simply espousing the holocaust-denial-conspiracy-theory can warrant legal action.

Lies are protected freedom of speech, or rather they should be, otherwise all religions would have to be illegal, poorly researched history theses would not only warrant a poor grade: but also a prison sentence, nobody would be permitted to say that they didn't like Breaking Bad etc. Proving intent is the key, as that is the case: special treatment applied to the lie that is holocaust denial is unwarranted, it should be treated like any other lie.

Of course, I was presuming that we were talking about holocaust denial this entire time..... as that is the only point of freedom of speech in the west that I find contentious, I naturally assumed that was what Elemental was referring to..... if we were actually talking about hate-speech in general, then we're in complete agreement.

Although complete offtopic, i can't bear that without getting a bit annoyed... it now and then obviously must appear in TWC's mudpit.

I usually appreciate your comments, Himster, but were you drunken as you've have written that and the former, where you said it is Nazi-like to prohibite the holocaust denial?

The opposite is merely the case, it is Nazi-like to not persecute this special case of the holocaust, where it is historical fact that 6 millions people were killed by a fascist regime. I would like imagine how you would think about it, when you were a jew (or roma or sinti, of whatsoever ethnicy who were killed due to racism or regarded just as sub-human or not life-worthy, and political regime-enemies), who lost his whole family by the Nazi-killing-industry. It is annoying that so much people aren't able to change perspectives, and cannot properly differentiate between cases, and cannot see the different motive and quality of political action here in this matter.

Fyi: It is also not percecuted by law to express simply the meaning, the denial within a loosely group in private manner, you can "discuss" this item privately if one wants and can bear it, nobody can be persecuted for that, even there was the case that an else appreciated author strived the item in one of his books which was correctly interpeted as holocaust denial, he wasn't persecuted with law, but of course it boiled high in public discussion, and thus he lost some reputation (rightfully so imo.) - but it is persecuted to make that specific denial in public manner on a political meeting/platform ie. on an usual neo-fascist demo, and this is what is prohibited, because it breaks certain german law, more closely it is law within "disturbing the public peace" * paragraph 130 calling 'Volksverhetzung' (hate-speech on people), which is created to work against hate-speech action of far right organisations rather their members.
Those meetings are always organised and done by neo-Nazis to spread their fascist trash while trying to do other political hate-politics, when and where it is possible to get along with it without being persecuted within the else existing freedom of speech in Germany, and the proper conclusion is just the trial to reduce the freedom of fascist extremists, because these humans are full of hate to the world and most of them are disturbed personalities often (known) violent criminals with the goal to destroy the democracy and liberal society, which must be observed and persecuted where possible ... society must be protected like else from crime, rightfully here from crime against humanity and human rights et al, especially because due to the special history in Germany (it is learning from history!). For me personally, everyone who criticises that law-approach has idiotic views about freedom of speech in that specific matter, but obviously only (german) liberals can understand this approach, which have learned enough (and properly) from the historical period from 1920 or latest 1933-1945, and understand what fascism means.

* so let's imagine you, yes you, dear reader, are the last survivor of a family killed in the holocaust period by Nazis because they belonged to their targets, watching a crowd of right-radical skins whatsoever on the street paroling their extremism including saying the holocaust is a created lie by western allies and left wing politcians and jews and whatnot, if overall, there were killed a few regime-enemies but not more, propagating that on german streets with their usual symbols and outfit and hate-mongering shouts and gestures, again, this in Germany, where the started? Are you having that less empathy and emotional intelligence to not see that insanity? Can't you understand, what that can cause by the majority of people with sane or at least normal liberal views and proper history education? And fyi, nearly every neo-Nazi demo in Germany has a counter-demo of anti-fascists, if to the usual tension comes also the publicly allowed denial of the holocaust, it'll support agressivity and violence only the more, and (theoretically speaking) if i were a jew or another one of a victim-family, i probably would think about to shoot on the neo-fascists on their demos. I heard also from survivors, that they feel like that their family members were killed once more, when they hear the denial, yes and it is understandable, because the denial negates the lifes of the victims.

[Ciciro]

This has nothing to do with Islam...during it's golden centuries Islamic women played integral roles in all segments of society, and wherever they were able to rose to high rank and esteem...examples abound, but one I would really like to give here is of Razia Sultan, sultana/queen of my very own city, Delhi, centuries before ANY European queen

Irene of Athens ring any bells? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irene_of_Athens