29-year-old Muslim woman named culture minister of Norway

[Zaras]

No, but it does make Iran not a completely Islamist state.

If it were, its human rights would be even worse, and Jews and Zoroastrians wouldn't receive a special protection in the Constitution.

Islamism refers to a very broad collection of political ideas, ranging from the implementation of religious law to Anti-imperialism to Ummah Federalism. The fact that minorities exist within Iran doesn't negate the fact that Iran is still under an Islamist regime. The government is a twelver theocracy, with the supreme leader being the Ayatollah, some minority rights in their constitution(to say nothing of actual enforcement of these rights) doesn't change that.

My point is that it's not Taliban Afghanistan yet.

[Sulamalik]

Islamism refers to a very broad collection of political ideas, ranging from the implementation of religious law to Anti-imperialism to Ummah Federalism. The fact that minorities exist within Iran doesn't negate the fact that Iran is still under an Islamist regime. The government is a twelver theocracy, with the supreme leader being the Ayatollah, some minority rights in their constitution(to say nothing of actual enforcement of these rights) doesn't change that.

My point is that it's not Taliban Afghanistan yet.

Well, if we want to be technical, it'd be impossible for Iran to become like the Taliban, because they're Sunni extremists.

I get what you're trying to say, but was just objecting to the part about Iran not being a fully Islamist state. It absolutely is. if you want to say that Iran is a more benign Islamist state than, say, Saudi Arabia, then I agree wih you.

[Ralkovia]

Iran's elections are heavily manipulated (There's even speculation that the results of the last national election were a heavy-handed fake ) and it's human right record, both on the theoretical and on the actual level, is utterly crappy. The fact that some of it's neighbour countries, including those that are allied with the US, are even worse, doesn't negate that.

Except when Iran's shiny record is emphasized while those of said neighbors are downplayed or outright imagined away.

Of which none can compare to Israel.

[Zaras]

My point is that it's not Taliban Afghanistan yet.

Well, if we want to be technical, it'd be impossible for Iran to become like the Taliban, because they're Sunni extremists.

I get what you're trying to say, but was just objecting to the part about Iran not being a fully Islamist state. It absolutely is. if you want to say that Iran is a more beign Islamist state than, say, Saudi Arabia, then I agree wih you.

Yup, that was the thing.

[Ralkovia]

Islamism refers to a very broad collection of political ideas, ranging from the implementation of religious law to Anti-imperialism to Ummah Federalism. The fact that minorities exist within Iran doesn't negate the fact that Iran is still under an Islamist regime. The government is a twelver theocracy, with the supreme leader being the Ayatollah, some minority rights in their constitution(to say nothing of actual enforcement of these rights) doesn't change that.

My point is that it's not Taliban Afghanistan yet.

It probably won't be. Iran is a special case. Iran was a secular state where most people had huge amounts of freedom. If the Islamists want to stay in power, they know they can't go clamping down on all the freedoms. Instead they'll just strip away your political rights and leave you with the civil ones.

[Zaras]

My point is that it's not Taliban Afghanistan yet.

It probably won't be. Iran is a special case. Iran was a secular state where most people had huge amounts of freedom. If the Islamists want to stay in power, they know they can't go clamping down on all the freedoms. Instead they'll just strip away your political rights and leave you with the civil ones.

Good civil freedoms and nonexistent political ones? Damn Islamists playing NationStates...

[Ralkovia]

It probably won't be. Iran is a special case. Iran was a secular state where most people had huge amounts of freedom. If the Islamists want to stay in power, they know they can't go clamping down on all the freedoms. Instead they'll just strip away your political rights and leave you with the civil ones.

Good civil freedoms and nonexistent political ones? Damn Islamists playing NationStates...

Even those civil freedoms are just barely there. Where political and civil mix, Iran has a clampdown. Hence Gays=Death.

[Baltenstein]

My point is that it's not Taliban Afghanistan yet.

It probably won't be. Iran is a special case. Iran was a secular state where most people had huge amounts of freedom. If the Islamists want to stay in power, they know they can't go clamping down on all the freedoms. Instead they'll just strip away your political rights and leave you with the civil ones.

I never understood the separation between civil rights and political freedoms in NationStates, and I don't see how it's supposed to work in a RL country either.

[Vecherd]

She supports forced marriages, therefore I am against her. New low even for Labour.

http://www.dagsavisen.no/nyemeninger/al ... ost_255835
http://www.verdidebatt.no/debatt/cat12/ ... ost_321918

[Sulamalik]

She supports forced marriages, therefore I am against her. New low even for Labour.

http://www.dagsavisen.no/nyemeninger/al ... ost_255835
http://www.verdidebatt.no/debatt/cat12/ ... ost_321918

What's the big deal? She (or at least the Google translation) is saying that she views arranged marriages to be an legitimate alternative to modern ones. No biggie, it's not like she's going to force you to allow your parents to choose your husband/wife.

[Saruhan]

She supports forced marriages, therefore I am against her. New low even for Labour.

http://www.dagsavisen.no/nyemeninger/al ... ost_255835
http://www.verdidebatt.no/debatt/cat12/ ... ost_321918

What's the big deal? She (or at least the Google translation) is saying that she views arranged marriages to be an legitimate alternative to modern ones. No biggie, it's not like she's going to force you to allow your parents to choose your husband/wife.

No, I and the majority of the worlds population reject that stone age practice. To say it's a legitimate alternative to modern marriage is equal to saying that slavery is a legitimate alternative to modern democracy and freedom

[Sulamalik]

What's the big deal? She (or at least the Google translation) is saying that she views arranged marriages to be an legitimate alternative to modern ones. No biggie, it's not like she's going to force you to allow your parents to choose your husband/wife.

No, I and the majority of the worlds population reject that stone age practice. To say it's a legitimate alternative to modern marriage is equal to saying that slavery is a legitimate alternative to modern democracy and freedom

How are arranged marriages in anyway comparable to slavery?

[Saruhan]

No, I and the majority of the worlds population reject that stone age practice. To say it's a legitimate alternative to modern marriage is equal to saying that slavery is a legitimate alternative to modern democracy and freedom

How are arrange marriages like slavery?

In slavery, a person is bound against their will to another person, and in arranged marriage a person is bound to another person against their will

[Sulamalik]

How are arrange marriages like slavery?

In slavery, a person is bound against their will to another person, and in arranged marriage a person is bound to another person against their will

You're thinking of forced marriages. Arranged marriages are when two parties consent to use a proxy (parents, matchmaking service, etc) to find a spouse.

[Ruridova]

Discuss what, we should, hmm?

[Fedeledland]

I personally disagree with somebody of Pakistani origin being apointed as "culture" minister, but I guess it's a good path in combating Islamophobia and intolerance.

[Saruhan]

In slavery, a person is bound against their will to another person, and in arranged marriage a person is bound to another person against their will

You're thinking of forced marriages. Arranged marriages are when two parties consent to use a proxy (parents, matchmaking service, etc) to find a spouse.

Do they then have the right to opt out of a match? Cause in a lot of societies where this is practiced (like India) it's mostly about family alliances and shit with the bride and groom not really getting much say in anything

[Sulamalik]

You're thinking of forced marriages. Arranged marriages are when two parties consent to use a proxy (parents, matchmaking service, etc) to find a spouse.

Do they then have the right to opt out of a match? Cause in a lot of societies where this is practiced (like India) it's mostly about family alliances and shit with the bride and groom not really getting much say in anything

Modern arranged marriages (this is also the way it's practised in Pakistan) work like this:

The parents, by themselves or though a matchmaking service, approach another family and talk about the possibility of their two children marrying. If both families think that they'd be a good match, they arrange an introduction meeting between the two. From there, it's up to the kids to decide if they wish to pursue the relationship further. No one's forcing anyone to get married.

I mean really, the Minister is a human rights activist, do you really think she'd be in favour of forced marriages under the guise of arranged ones?

[Zaras]

You're thinking of forced marriages. Arranged marriages are when two parties consent to use a proxy (parents, matchmaking service, etc) to find a spouse.

Do they then have the right to opt out of a match? Cause in a lot of societies where this is practiced (like India) it's mostly about family alliances and shit with the bride and groom not really getting much say in anything

That's what marriage has been for a lot of history. The idea that marriage can be done for love is a fairly new one.

[Khelshar]

I personally disagree with somebody of Pakistani origin being apointed as "culture" minister, but I guess it's a good path in combating Islamophobia and intolerance.

As long as she is not from Bergen, i'm happy...

[Inertialism]

ANY country should appeal to its own citizens first then others. Nothing wrong with multiculturalism but its best to please the majority and to not pander to the minorities

[Everbeek]

ANY country should appeal to its own citizens first then others.

Where did you get the impression she is not a Norwegian citizen?

[Eat_aly]

From one side I'm very pleased of the news:
- young minister
- woman
- muslim minister in Norway
An interesting answer and a strong government statement after what happened there vith Breivik, but...

From the other side the risk is that this could be just a mediatic show.

A real free democracy and society is where, for deciding a role in government, we don't care about gender or religion, but the only important thing are the skills and the experience of the candidate.

Nobody here is talking about her track, but the only interesting newspaper title is about the fact that she's Muslim.

Could be racism this too.

[Gravlen]

She supports forced marriages, therefore I am against her. New low even for Labour.

http://www.dagsavisen.no/nyemeninger/al ... ost_255835
http://www.verdidebatt.no/debatt/cat12/ ... ost_321918

Unsurprisingly, both you and the former head of the Norwegian Defence League are wrong, since there's a difference between arranged marriages and forced marriages. As she points out, forced marriages are illegal under Norwegian law.

[Zaras]

A real free democracy and society is where, for deciding a role in government, we don't care about gender or religion, but the only important thing are the skills and the experience of the candidate.

We haven't reached that ideal society yet.