NationStates

Sulamalik wrote:

Zaras wrote:
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.

Zaras wrote:

Sulamalik wrote:
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.

Gauthier wrote:

Baltenstein wrote:
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.

Sulamalik wrote:

Zaras wrote:
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.

Zaras wrote:

Sulamalik wrote:
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.

Ralkovia wrote:

Zaras wrote:
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 wrote:

Ralkovia wrote:
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 wrote:

Zaras wrote:
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.

Vecherd wrote: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 wrote:

Vecherd wrote: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 wrote:

Sulamalik wrote:
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 wrote:

Saruhan wrote: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?

Saruhan wrote:

Sulamalik wrote:
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

Farnhamia wrote:Discuss what, we should, hmm?

Sulamalik wrote:

Saruhan wrote: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.

Saruhan wrote:

Sulamalik wrote:
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

Saruhan wrote:

Sulamalik wrote:
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

Fedeledland wrote: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.

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

Vecherd wrote: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

Eat_aly wrote: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.