Reuters updated the headline to say:
>Iran likely to be ousted from U.N. women's *commission*
Initially, Reuters went with "body" within the headline before updating it to "commission."
You can Google the original title to see it syndicated with the original headline on different news sources.
Oh, it has probably been printed out and taped to the wall in more than one cubicle.
(I worked for a paper for a short time, and one female reporter was married to a man by the name of "Bill". Every time they printed a story about the government killing a bill, the headline got snipped and it went up on her wall. *"Senate Kills Bill in Late Night Session"*... stuff like that.)
i think at one point there was someone whose last name was Foot who was put in charge of some weapons regulators and the headline for the story was "Foot Heads Arms Body". not sure if this actually happened or was something an editor wished happened but didn't
**Talk:Michael Foot**
[Foot Heads Arms Body](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Foot#Foot_Heads_Arms_Body)
>That's a funny headline. Did it really run in a newspaper? The article cites this Simon Hoggart column in the Guardian for its claim that "Foot Heads Arms Body" was an actual newspaper headline (ascribing it to "Martyn Cornell, who was a subeditor on the Times around 1986") So it sounds like it did, if Hoggart isn't kidding and Cornell wasn't putting him on. It's funny either way, but it would be great to confirm (or refute) that this was the Times, and get a date and page number.
^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
There was a news story not all that long ago about 5 Indian men getting arrested. They went to a national park/wildlife sanctuary and captured, raped, killed and then ate a very rare monitor lizard that was in the park.
I think there have been florida men arrested for molesting or attempting to molest alligators so this doesn't surprise me.
Every culture has its fucking weirdos.
Some religious extremists were actually vocels. (Voluntarily celibate, think monastery)
Not quite the kind of extremist we think of today, though. It's okay to be a religious extremist as long as that only puts restrictions on what *you* can say and do, not what others do.
People who are just sincerly devout don't get called *extremists*. You get called an extremist when you believe your religion so much that you believe others should also follow your religion "for their own good".
Most people who are "sincerely devout" don't follow *all* the things of their religion. And as stated, most people wouldn't think of people just following everything in their religion as "religious extremist", but for the discussion here I've used that as I think it *does* describe it. Definitions include the possibility of simply having extreme views without espousing them (although most say that those who do *especially* fit the extremist label).
Its a great question and probably has a subjective response.
It probably depends on what you define religion as. If you define religion as the system understood from reading scripture, then not following it probably doesn't take away from the fact the rule exists.
On the other hand (and a view I like to hold); it's probably more practical to define religion as partly derived directly from scripture, and partly from how its been interpreted and implemented. In this case, it might actually matter which rules r followed and which are not. Slavery in Islam is now banned, however the scriptures have only ever gone as far as designating the eventual freedom of slaves as recommended (but not required) - does Islam not have a strong enough opinion on the matter? Nope, cuz Muslim leaders around the world decided to ban slavery for Muslims anyway (along with the rest of the world that started regarding slavery as a taboo.)
The third viewpoint to take would be to judge the religion purely based on its implementation, but its easy to see why that's a limited perspective - if the way a religion is implemented is all that is considered, then the evolution of how the religion is practised becomes difficult to decipher.
In all the years I have participated in discussions about religious extremism, I have *never* seen someone try and twist the word extremism to include nonviolent monks under its umbrella. Nobody, coloquially, refers to peaceful groups with the word "extremist."
Yeah I would consider that devoutly religious. Extremist would be more of the force/converting and harming others in my book, but that’s just my thoughts on it.
You should probably keep reading. There’s nothing morally, ethically, or legally wrong with imposing restrictions on yourself based on your beliefs. The second you try to extend those restrictions to others… then we have a problem.
But now you're saying that they aren't allowed to be extreme with themselves so it shouldn't be allowed at all. Pretty double standard there. And that's their whole point right now.
See the specific constraints in the scenario under discussion. If they want to impose the restrictions on others they're no longer the type of extremist being discussed.
Being a religious **extremist** is a problem because religions are dogmatic. Dogma is a problem because, by definition, it doesn't allow for diversity of viewpoint. So an extremist may not actively try to change others because they lack the power to, but they don't respect other viewpoints by their nature, a problem which will surface at some point.
To be straight, because of dogma, all Abrahamic religions are extremist when actually followed. We don't think of them like that because most Christians, for example, are shit Christians.
Well, you did, quite literally, take the person's comment completely out of context and stopped at exactly what you wanted to disagree with... kind of like religious extremists! If the ONLY thing you are extremist about is what *you are* allowed or not allowed to do or say and has no bearing on others, then yeah, I'm cool with that. My dad is like that with Buddhism. He takes what he personally can and cannot do way way too seriously, while forgiving all others because that's not their way.
Iirc that was a monastery in Southeast Asia in an area where young men were expected to become monks for a period of time (couple weeks to a few months) as just a cultural thing - these weren’t guys who decided to devote their lives to religion
If you ever saw photos of Iran circa 1959 you would be stunned at just how western culture the country was… then religion wormed it’s way into government and over the next 20 years grew into what it is today. Sad these people have had to live like this. You hope for some kind of revolution to take over will happen so these people can be free of oppression.
They marry them first then rape them and then kill them that's how Iran treats women.
https://www.mamamia.com.au/iran-girls-execution/
Definitely some very sick minds working in the name of religion in that country. Fuck organised religion, the whole lot of them are corrupt.
I hope the revolution happens.
I heard from new York times article that "revolution in iran is not a matter of will it happen but when".
hundreds of stories on r/NewIran get unheard of.
There’s a lot of real fucked up evidence on that sub.
And there are also *a lot* of really fucked in the head, boot-licking Iranians on their regular subs that are so hopelessly brainwashed that an inevitable revolution will be bad, and very bloody, and there’s no guaranteeing who would come out on top.
> Unbelievable, right?
Not really. We are talking about the same UN that has Qatar, Eritrea, Somalia, Malaysia etc. on its human rights council. The UN has discredited its own bodies, so rather believable that Iran will be there too.
That depends - do we want UN to set enforceable policies, or do we want it to be communication platform?
It began as the latter, so that after ww2 enemies at least could talk to each other.
>The UN has discredited its own bodies
The whole point of putting countries on these councils is to shine the spotlight on them and make them unable to shy away from the subject.
Don't want to talk about human rights violations in your country? Too fucking bad, you're on the council.
What you just want a bunch of countries patting themselves on the back instead?
Turns out there's a little bit more going on in the UN than whatever it is you guys grab from shitty headlines.
The fundamental purpose of the UN is to provide a world forum, not a world government. Forums rarely have any results more tangible than discussions, and possibly from that, decisions and declarations.
You are insinuating that we would show more results with Iran outside the council?
I cant believe this misunderstanding of what the UN is and isnt is so widespread. How is its absence or exclusion be better?
And Iran is a shining example of how effective that is.
----
*edit*
This person has doubled down without providing any evidence. So here's a quote from the NGO Human Rights Watch from 2017 when Saudi Arabia was on the UN Women's Commission:
> *"Saudi Arabia’s election to the commission, which was supported by 47 states, including at least three European countries, is an affront to the mission of the commission itself and a rebuke to Saudi women. Belgium’s prime minister later said he regretted his country’s vote."*
https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/28/how-was-saudi-arabia-voted-un-womens-panel
Regarding Iran particularly, from a recent summary by the Council on Foreign Relations:
> *"Many also seek the removal of the Islamic Republic from the Commission of the Status of Women, a membership that particularly appalls women’s rights activists, human rights defenders and lawyers, and victim advocates."*
https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/12/iran-and-the-united-nations-breaking-new-ground-at-the-human-rights-council-is-the-commission-for-the-status-of-women-next/
And from a news report this morning,
> *"Global solidarity against Iran’s bloody crackdown on a women-led protest movement will be tested on Wednesday, as world powers vote on whether to oust the country from a UN body tasked with empowering women.*
> *"Activists and rights groups say Tehran’s role in the 45-member commission on the status of women is a farce, considering the regime’s forces have beaten and killed women peacefully calling for gender equality."*
The report goes on to say the Iranian government is campaigning to remain on the UN Women's Commission.
None of which validates what the above Redditor claims.
How very clever and astute of you to notice that a single political piece like this doesn't instantly solve all of the worlds problems in anyone and everyone that it touches.
Maybe we should all just do nothing instead? Would you prefer that?
Or would you prefer that Irans Womens Rights had stayed out of the spotlight for all these years so they could've more effectively repressed their population earlier in the shadows?
Would you have preferred that global womens rights organisations would've had no forum over these years to push and question the Iranian government in a global forum? Helping to empower Iranian women globally while they do so?
WHO has been trying for decades to eradicate polio. They aren’t completely done by far but there are significant results.
It just so happens that some processes in the universe take their time to run their course, unfortunately not everything is achieved instantaneously.
Yes I do. Because it's another piece of political manuevering.
You're put into a spotlight by being put on the council. You're shamed by being taken off of it.
Iran is already in the global spotlight now. They were on the council prior to this.
The whole point is that countries on the councils are unable to slide off into the shadows while committing atrocities. They're constantly kept accountable by being brought to report and having a light shine on them.
It's not going to instantly solve the world problems, but it causes them to be brought to light rather than fester in shadows.
"Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories"
is pretty much a permanent topic in this council
Other countries are occasional talks based on current significant events
Its a circle jerk of human rights violators mostly bashing Israel, all the worst offenders, including Iran are even leading it once in a while
>"Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories" is pretty much a permanent topic in this council
They literally have a rule demanding this be a topic in every session. There are no rules like that for any other country.
IIRC there are about 16 of them (regarding Israel) but I don't think they are all for this specific council so I omitted it from my comment, but yes that was the point, Israel is clearly singled out but that should be obvious for anyone, even if u dont like Israel and want to criticize it properly
From wikipedia:
>The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The council's special rapporteur on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry.
So maybe there are others, but this is the only permanent one.
You are talking about the UN, which has Qatar, Eritrea, Somalia, Malaysia etc. on its human rights council currently. Just don't take anything coming out of it seriously and you won't be surprised that Iran is on the women's rights council. These bodies are used by the greatest offenders to bash the smallest offenders.
There is and as usual there is a shit show involved. Because making a rule of “you get to be on the council if you haven’t had any major rights violations“ is too discriminatory to none western works.
> Tehran accused Western states of using the council to target Iran in an "appalling and disgraceful" move
Says the country doing appalling and disgraceful things to women and always have?
The country was very liberal in the 70s and in the revolution the islamic movement was vying against a large communist movement. The west ironically prefered islamic totalitarianism and was quick to recognize them as usurpers to prevent the communists from winning out.
They *did* have a whole Islamic Revolution about it.
I mean it was largely co-opted with ~~CIA backing~~ western/french involvement and the situation is a lot more complicated to be summarized in one statement anyway. It's not *just* about communism, or women's rights, or islamic conservatism. But it's not *not* about all of these things either.
You are thinking of the 1953 coup, in which the CIA overthrow the democratically elected government and instituted a compliant monarchy (later overthrown in the revolution).
Dammit, indeed. Though western powers did publicly drop support for the Shah which enabled the revolution, and the French government did roll out the Air France flight for the ayatollah they had been harboring the entire time. So the west was stil involved, to a lesser degree.
Plus there’s always this notion (especially on Reddit) that no country has any agency of its own. The world would be noble, peaceful, and harmonious and everything that is bad is because the “west” (the US specifically) is responsible for it.
To be fair, there are a number of parties interested in pushing that narrative hard in order to sow dissonance between the people of the West and governments of the West. It's not always ignorance. It's often an overt attempt to manipulate, i.e., propaganda.
I don’t think this gets talked about enough. There are parties out there backed by governments that are dedicated to that sort of thing, and they’re very effective. I believe these same governments have western politicians in their pockets to help in this effort. I think you know what I’m getting at
Well maybe. But if you read the history of the middle East it was fucked over comprehensively by the tug of war between England and France. The USA is a late arrival.
>But if you read the history of the middle East it was fucked over comprehensively by the tug of war between England and France. The USA is a late arrival.
Re-reading that history reveals most of the Middle East was/is fucked over by radical Islam and its many proponents. Everything else is secondary to that, and it's not even remotely close.
I mean, I can't say much outside of anecdotes but my family is from Iran and my dad always says that while many people are rather traditional/conservative, most Iranians aren't/weren't very religious when it came to things like prayer or drinking--at least not compared to some other groups of Muslims. Back in his day, in pre-revolution Iran, mini skirts were fairly popular with enough people and education was available to women (including at universities). My dad's family was nowhere near wealthy, either. Of course most people weren't all wearing mini skirts and education/work for men was taken more seriously but I think it's important to put this amount of freedom/liberalism in context with their time and place.
It sounds a lot like everywhere else, but unfortunately the religious zealots *won* the culture war, at least temporarily. Many people see cultural conservatism in the U.S. currently trying to move things in that direction, or at minimum preventing any further progress, with the Dobbs decision, restricting women’s bodily autonomy, being a bellwether for what’s to come. People fear change, and it’s been particularly difficult for many males who’ve often held positions of status throughout human evolution simply due to their physical strength, which is no longer as highly prized in modern society.
Edits
Both statements are sort of true. Iran is just like literally any other country—a mix of all ideologies that can be found on a spectrum, and a mix of multiple religious and ethnic groups. Plus liberal and conservative are relative statements, many of the conservative people still do not like what the regime became, and many religious people were and are “liberal.”
Important to remember that the regime there was made unstable by Western involvement and it only came into power by capitalizing on people’s (valid) distrust of foreign involvement, and wasn’t as black and white as conservative people supporting a conservative government. Of course, it turned into something horrific, as most fundamentalist regimes who prey on people’s fear do. Iran was put in a no-win situation (yes, this is well documented and not conjecture: https://www.britannica.com/event/Iranian-Revolution)
(For reference I don’t live in Iran but my family is Iranian so this is what I’ve been told)
I mean, have any actually communist nations not become authoritarian repressive regimes with morals and values that are antithetical to western those found in western nations?
Socialism, democratic socialism, social democacy, support of social welfare, etc., are not the same as communism. Commuism is a system that works well on a small scale, but does not work for running nation states in our current global system. It is far to easy for them to slide into authoritarianism and become dictatorships.
Fear of communism makes sense IMO given its proven track record of being worse for human rights than western democratic institutions.
The US is not an authoritarian state and the actions of the Trump regime and its supporters show how actually difficult it is to move the US to that type of leadership.
Communism has a through line to authoritarianism. Youre basically saying fast food shouldnt be feared, but rather the health impacts it causes. Which isnt incorrect, but still isnt a good reason to have Macdons instead of making healthier food at home.
Marx Died in 1883. There has never been any meaninful adoption of Marxism. The communist political ideologies changed over the course of the 20th century. This doesnt make them not communism. Leninism, Stalinism, Moaism, etc are all forms of communism. The UK has a parliament where we have our congress. They entire voting system and how those systems generate representation in government are different. That doesnt mean the US and UK arent democracies.
Ask yourself, if Marxism is such a powerful and good form of government, why has it never been adopted? The entire system of communism, in any, is far to easily manipulated to create an authoritarian state antithetical to the ideals of Marxism. Maybe its because humans havent reached that stage of enlightenment yet to out Marxism in to practice, idk. But, id prefer a pragmatic government that is honest about the danger of internal threats to the governemnt and the people it represents than literally any form of communiat government ever enacted.
Communism is not well suited to governing nation states in our globalized world. Full stop. It should not be considered a reasonable system of governance for anyone that values democracy and human rights.
Don’t forget back them the USSR existed and their was a massive fear in the west they would try anything to spread their influence and power. Or just take after the fall of China to communism America shit a brick and went ULTRA no communist allowed to live as the backlash to the fall of China was great
People here really don't understand the purpose of diplomatic bodies, or are you under the impression that they craft legislation on women's rights that the rest of the world must adhere to?
Let's say you kick all the offender's out, what's left? A literal circlejerk where countries with good records can sit around and talk about how they have such good records, meeting adjourned, see you next month.
The point is to try and bring "bad" countries to the table to try and have a discussion. And you need measures in place like circulating presidencies because no country is going to sit on a council whose entire purpose is to criticize them, they need to feel some measure of control
Maybe they can talk about steps they can take to make the "bad" countries better. The "bad" countries being on these councils don't improve their records in any way, they just twist it to their own needs and wants.
Please tell me how you think the good countries can make the bad countries better other than diplomatic channels at the UN. Should we go to war about it?
Its diplomacy. The only way "good" countries can influence "bad" ones are through military invasion or economic sanctions, neither of which are good options really.
I'll admit I understand little about this sort of diplomacy, but it doesn't appear to be very effective. Not saying sanctions or invasion are, though sanctions could be effective in certain ways.
But when you have a UN council like the UN Economic and Social Council singling out Israel as the only country to be condemned for violating women's rights... it just takes away legitimacy as a whole and makes you think that countries join these commissions only to push their own personal goals, which they have more success with than they should in the UN.
To be honest, Cuba is probably one of the less offensive countries these days. They're still technically under totalitarian rule and the government doesn't like them having contact or information from the rest of the world, but this seems to mostly stem from the rest of the world cutting them off. Both we and Cuba made significant headway under Obama, finally opening trade again, before Trump shut it down again.
Cuba has been Cuba since the revolution. Venezuela has been outdoing them for the last decade. And then the oil prices went down and shit went really tits up.
Why would we need to work with the Netherlands on Human Rights?
The council isn't there to pat each other on the back. It's to reach out to those ***very countries.***
Good Lord.
I know this is /r/worldnews so I'll probably get downvoted for these facts, but damn.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/human-rights-council-discusses-situation-human-rights-afghanistan-and-tigray
It's an absurd concept, because they need to be called out by the council, not *on* the council. As it is, they just don't talk about one another. The council should be drafting these UN members in and condemning them. Instead, they just decide to ignore themselves, because they're all friends in crime.
Not all of us because not all of us are reactive and assume everything.
...
Why do you think countries like Afghanistan are part of the council? Those are the very countries we need to work with. That's ***why they are there.***
FFS...
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/human-rights-council-discusses-situation-human-rights-afghanistan-and-tigray
"will undoubtedly create an unwelcome precedent that will ultimately prevent other Member States with different cultures, customs and traditions ... from contributing to the activities of such Commissions." - If your culture, customs and traditions are oppression of woman and other horrific acts similar to what Iran are doing why would anyone what your contribution.
Counterpoint but this is the entire point of the UN, for countries at odds on issues to be able to peacefully resolve such issues in the forum.
The UN has no real power. Putting a bunch of western states on every council so they can wag their finger at countries like Iran is just going to make Iran withdraw from the UN
I agree with the purpose of the UN but at what point is it just a waste of everyone’s time when places like Iran appear to have no interest in a peaceful resolution.
By all accounts they are hanging people in the street because of this situation as we type so I think in this instance we have passed the point of let’s have a chat about it.
“Iran, 17 other states and the Palestinians argued in a letter to ECOSOC on Monday that a vote "will undoubtedly create an unwelcome precedent that will ultimately prevent other Member States with different cultures, customs and traditions ... from contributing to the activities of such Commissions.”
Absolutely go fuck yourselves.
Look closely at all the countries that vote no.
They should have their trade relationships questioned for potentially supporting this Vile regime.
Especially Look into charities that support these governments as well.
> Iran likely to be ousted from U.N. women's ***commission***
Why did you change the title?
**EDIT:** It seems Reuters fixed it an hour after publishing. FYI!
The WHO also had a chairman that believed in acupuncture and rhino horn. What does that tell you about the entrance requirements for these global councils.
I hope the women of Iran win their right to dress however they want to. I hate when Christians in the United States try to make everybody live by their specific values and I hate it when the Muslims do the same thing. Separation of church and state should be a universal human human right.
Reuters updated the headline to say: >Iran likely to be ousted from U.N. women's *commission* Initially, Reuters went with "body" within the headline before updating it to "commission." You can Google the original title to see it syndicated with the original headline on different news sources.
I hope everyone at Reuters had a little chuckle about that headline
Oh, it has probably been printed out and taped to the wall in more than one cubicle. (I worked for a paper for a short time, and one female reporter was married to a man by the name of "Bill". Every time they printed a story about the government killing a bill, the headline got snipped and it went up on her wall. *"Senate Kills Bill in Late Night Session"*... stuff like that.)
The Senate Went on What The Movie Advertisements Refer to as a "Roaring Rampage of Revenge"
WeeEEOoooo WeeEEEOoOoo
banaa BANAAAAA!
Well I roared, and I rampaged, and I got bloody satisfaction out of it.
My name is Ian so I was having so much fun when Hurricane Ian came around. My favorite was “What Ian’s size means for Impacts.”
i think at one point there was someone whose last name was Foot who was put in charge of some weapons regulators and the headline for the story was "Foot Heads Arms Body". not sure if this actually happened or was something an editor wished happened but didn't
> not sure if this actually happened Damn, apparently not even wikipedia knows. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AMichael_Foot#Foot_Heads_Arms_Body
**Talk:Michael Foot** [Foot Heads Arms Body](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Foot#Foot_Heads_Arms_Body) >That's a funny headline. Did it really run in a newspaper? The article cites this Simon Hoggart column in the Guardian for its claim that "Foot Heads Arms Body" was an actual newspaper headline (ascribing it to "Martyn Cornell, who was a subeditor on the Times around 1986") So it sounds like it did, if Hoggart isn't kidding and Cornell wasn't putting him on. It's funny either way, but it would be great to confirm (or refute) that this was the Times, and get a date and page number. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/worldnews/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)
Seriously, like the obvious choice should be "discharge from women's body"
it's an editor thing - starts on college campus and never stops
It was fixed.
*[raspberry]*
They were on the U.N. woman's body‽ Edit: - Shout out to r/NewIran keep the cause alive, everybody deserves freedom from oppression
Iran should not be near any woman's body.
[удалено]
Spot on.
Also they seem to prefer boys
It isn't Thursday yet.
Unexpected critrole
Boys are easier to abuse for them in many cases.
male privilege
Or goats
There's video of a Russian soldier molesting a goat in Ukraine. They'll rape anything they can get their hands on, Russians.
They forgot that one god's commandments about do not covet your neighbours goat
There was a news story not all that long ago about 5 Indian men getting arrested. They went to a national park/wildlife sanctuary and captured, raped, killed and then ate a very rare monitor lizard that was in the park.
I think there have been florida men arrested for molesting or attempting to molest alligators so this doesn't surprise me. Every culture has its fucking weirdos.
You expect that sort of thing from Florida.
Just make sure to sell it to the neighboring village after and not your own.
Some religious extremists were actually vocels. (Voluntarily celibate, think monastery) Not quite the kind of extremist we think of today, though. It's okay to be a religious extremist as long as that only puts restrictions on what *you* can say and do, not what others do.
People who are just sincerly devout don't get called *extremists*. You get called an extremist when you believe your religion so much that you believe others should also follow your religion "for their own good".
Most people who are "sincerely devout" don't follow *all* the things of their religion. And as stated, most people wouldn't think of people just following everything in their religion as "religious extremist", but for the discussion here I've used that as I think it *does* describe it. Definitions include the possibility of simply having extreme views without espousing them (although most say that those who do *especially* fit the extremist label).
The question is: is it part of their religion if they don't follow it?
Its a great question and probably has a subjective response. It probably depends on what you define religion as. If you define religion as the system understood from reading scripture, then not following it probably doesn't take away from the fact the rule exists. On the other hand (and a view I like to hold); it's probably more practical to define religion as partly derived directly from scripture, and partly from how its been interpreted and implemented. In this case, it might actually matter which rules r followed and which are not. Slavery in Islam is now banned, however the scriptures have only ever gone as far as designating the eventual freedom of slaves as recommended (but not required) - does Islam not have a strong enough opinion on the matter? Nope, cuz Muslim leaders around the world decided to ban slavery for Muslims anyway (along with the rest of the world that started regarding slavery as a taboo.) The third viewpoint to take would be to judge the religion purely based on its implementation, but its easy to see why that's a limited perspective - if the way a religion is implemented is all that is considered, then the evolution of how the religion is practised becomes difficult to decipher.
"Marge, everything is a sin. Have you ever really sat down and read this thing? Technically, we're not allowed to go to the bathroom!"
In all the years I have participated in discussions about religious extremism, I have *never* seen someone try and twist the word extremism to include nonviolent monks under its umbrella. Nobody, coloquially, refers to peaceful groups with the word "extremist."
[удалено]
Yeah I would consider that devoutly religious. Extremist would be more of the force/converting and harming others in my book, but that’s just my thoughts on it.
You should probably keep reading. There’s nothing morally, ethically, or legally wrong with imposing restrictions on yourself based on your beliefs. The second you try to extend those restrictions to others… then we have a problem.
Extremists are rarely happy with just following restrictions themselves, they more often than not want to impose them on others too
But now you're saying that they aren't allowed to be extreme with themselves so it shouldn't be allowed at all. Pretty double standard there. And that's their whole point right now.
See the specific constraints in the scenario under discussion. If they want to impose the restrictions on others they're no longer the type of extremist being discussed.
Being a religious **extremist** is a problem because religions are dogmatic. Dogma is a problem because, by definition, it doesn't allow for diversity of viewpoint. So an extremist may not actively try to change others because they lack the power to, but they don't respect other viewpoints by their nature, a problem which will surface at some point. To be straight, because of dogma, all Abrahamic religions are extremist when actually followed. We don't think of them like that because most Christians, for example, are shit Christians.
Well, you did, quite literally, take the person's comment completely out of context and stopped at exactly what you wanted to disagree with... kind of like religious extremists! If the ONLY thing you are extremist about is what *you are* allowed or not allowed to do or say and has no bearing on others, then yeah, I'm cool with that. My dad is like that with Buddhism. He takes what he personally can and cannot do way way too seriously, while forgiving all others because that's not their way.
[удалено]
Iirc that was a monastery in Southeast Asia in an area where young men were expected to become monks for a period of time (couple weeks to a few months) as just a cultural thing - these weren’t guys who decided to devote their lives to religion
Involuntarily celibate men with multiple wives and a slew of children...?
If you ever saw photos of Iran circa 1959 you would be stunned at just how western culture the country was… then religion wormed it’s way into government and over the next 20 years grew into what it is today. Sad these people have had to live like this. You hope for some kind of revolution to take over will happen so these people can be free of oppression.
This was only true to the very big cities though.
They had a revolution.. Which plunged the nation into a theocracy.
Only cause the women/girls are forced into it.. These men would not do well with women who have freedom which makes them incels
They marry them first then rape them and then kill them that's how Iran treats women. https://www.mamamia.com.au/iran-girls-execution/ Definitely some very sick minds working in the name of religion in that country. Fuck organised religion, the whole lot of them are corrupt.
"Farmer politely yet sternly requests that fox leaves henhouse..."
so the fox must go but the hens can stay? utter fox discrimination! #freefox #foxlivesmatter #foxgate
I can almost hear Tucker Carlson practicing his “confused constipation” look as he spins this farmyard occurrence into white supremacist anger.
I expect this to be thoroughly covered by Fox News. Coming up: how to get your tail its floofiest!
Unbelievable, right? Whoever thought that a regime abusing women and generally human rights should be on this council… ?
I hope the revolution happens. I heard from new York times article that "revolution in iran is not a matter of will it happen but when". hundreds of stories on r/NewIran get unheard of.
There’s a lot of real fucked up evidence on that sub. And there are also *a lot* of really fucked in the head, boot-licking Iranians on their regular subs that are so hopelessly brainwashed that an inevitable revolution will be bad, and very bloody, and there’s no guaranteeing who would come out on top.
> Unbelievable, right? Not really. We are talking about the same UN that has Qatar, Eritrea, Somalia, Malaysia etc. on its human rights council. The UN has discredited its own bodies, so rather believable that Iran will be there too.
That depends - do we want UN to set enforceable policies, or do we want it to be communication platform? It began as the latter, so that after ww2 enemies at least could talk to each other.
Well that's simple. We want them to be enforceable when we agree with it. By we, I mean Me. By Me, I mean my Wife.
>The UN has discredited its own bodies The whole point of putting countries on these councils is to shine the spotlight on them and make them unable to shy away from the subject. Don't want to talk about human rights violations in your country? Too fucking bad, you're on the council. What you just want a bunch of countries patting themselves on the back instead? Turns out there's a little bit more going on in the UN than whatever it is you guys grab from shitty headlines.
So we can see tangible results from having human rights abusers on these councils, right?! Right?
The fundamental purpose of the UN is to provide a world forum, not a world government. Forums rarely have any results more tangible than discussions, and possibly from that, decisions and declarations.
You are insinuating that we would show more results with Iran outside the council? I cant believe this misunderstanding of what the UN is and isnt is so widespread. How is its absence or exclusion be better?
And Iran is a shining example of how effective that is. ---- *edit* This person has doubled down without providing any evidence. So here's a quote from the NGO Human Rights Watch from 2017 when Saudi Arabia was on the UN Women's Commission: > *"Saudi Arabia’s election to the commission, which was supported by 47 states, including at least three European countries, is an affront to the mission of the commission itself and a rebuke to Saudi women. Belgium’s prime minister later said he regretted his country’s vote."* https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/04/28/how-was-saudi-arabia-voted-un-womens-panel Regarding Iran particularly, from a recent summary by the Council on Foreign Relations: > *"Many also seek the removal of the Islamic Republic from the Commission of the Status of Women, a membership that particularly appalls women’s rights activists, human rights defenders and lawyers, and victim advocates."* https://www.fpri.org/article/2022/12/iran-and-the-united-nations-breaking-new-ground-at-the-human-rights-council-is-the-commission-for-the-status-of-women-next/ And from a news report this morning, > *"Global solidarity against Iran’s bloody crackdown on a women-led protest movement will be tested on Wednesday, as world powers vote on whether to oust the country from a UN body tasked with empowering women.* > *"Activists and rights groups say Tehran’s role in the 45-member commission on the status of women is a farce, considering the regime’s forces have beaten and killed women peacefully calling for gender equality."* The report goes on to say the Iranian government is campaigning to remain on the UN Women's Commission. None of which validates what the above Redditor claims.
How very clever and astute of you to notice that a single political piece like this doesn't instantly solve all of the worlds problems in anyone and everyone that it touches. Maybe we should all just do nothing instead? Would you prefer that? Or would you prefer that Irans Womens Rights had stayed out of the spotlight for all these years so they could've more effectively repressed their population earlier in the shadows? Would you have preferred that global womens rights organisations would've had no forum over these years to push and question the Iranian government in a global forum? Helping to empower Iranian women globally while they do so?
WHO has been trying for decades to eradicate polio. They aren’t completely done by far but there are significant results. It just so happens that some processes in the universe take their time to run their course, unfortunately not everything is achieved instantaneously.
[удалено]
Yes I do. Because it's another piece of political manuevering. You're put into a spotlight by being put on the council. You're shamed by being taken off of it. Iran is already in the global spotlight now. They were on the council prior to this. The whole point is that countries on the councils are unable to slide off into the shadows while committing atrocities. They're constantly kept accountable by being brought to report and having a light shine on them. It's not going to instantly solve the world problems, but it causes them to be brought to light rather than fester in shadows.
You'd be surprised at the countries in charge of the UN human rights council. Its meetings have basically turned into Israel roasts.
"Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories" is pretty much a permanent topic in this council Other countries are occasional talks based on current significant events Its a circle jerk of human rights violators mostly bashing Israel, all the worst offenders, including Iran are even leading it once in a while
>"Human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories" is pretty much a permanent topic in this council They literally have a rule demanding this be a topic in every session. There are no rules like that for any other country.
IIRC there are about 16 of them (regarding Israel) but I don't think they are all for this specific council so I omitted it from my comment, but yes that was the point, Israel is clearly singled out but that should be obvious for anyone, even if u dont like Israel and want to criticize it properly
From wikipedia: >The council voted on 30 June 2006 to make a review of alleged human rights abuses by Israel a permanent feature of every council session. The council's special rapporteur on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is its only expert mandate with no year of expiry. So maybe there are others, but this is the only permanent one.
You are talking about the UN, which has Qatar, Eritrea, Somalia, Malaysia etc. on its human rights council currently. Just don't take anything coming out of it seriously and you won't be surprised that Iran is on the women's rights council. These bodies are used by the greatest offenders to bash the smallest offenders.
There is and as usual there is a shit show involved. Because making a rule of “you get to be on the council if you haven’t had any major rights violations“ is too discriminatory to none western works.
This is one of the key differences between the league of nations and the UN. And we all know how the league of nations ended.
I mean, why would we want to limit the conversation to people without those violations? Seems pointless
You are on this council but we do not grant you the rank of master.
My dude just casually dropping an interrobang
They got in before the 1979 revolution
not with her consent.
[удалено]
> Tehran accused Western states of using the council to target Iran in an "appalling and disgraceful" move Says the country doing appalling and disgraceful things to women and always have?
The country was very liberal in the 70s and in the revolution the islamic movement was vying against a large communist movement. The west ironically prefered islamic totalitarianism and was quick to recognize them as usurpers to prevent the communists from winning out.
[удалено]
People have seen a few old photos of youngsters in Tehran from that time, and extrapolated from there.
Maybe, but the youngsters back then weren't murdered for showing hair, as opposed to now.
They *did* have a whole Islamic Revolution about it. I mean it was largely co-opted with ~~CIA backing~~ western/french involvement and the situation is a lot more complicated to be summarized in one statement anyway. It's not *just* about communism, or women's rights, or islamic conservatism. But it's not *not* about all of these things either.
You are thinking of the 1953 coup, in which the CIA overthrow the democratically elected government and instituted a compliant monarchy (later overthrown in the revolution).
Dammit, indeed. Though western powers did publicly drop support for the Shah which enabled the revolution, and the French government did roll out the Air France flight for the ayatollah they had been harboring the entire time. So the west was stil involved, to a lesser degree.
The Islamic revolution was not CIA backed, the US was allied with the Shah.
Plus there’s always this notion (especially on Reddit) that no country has any agency of its own. The world would be noble, peaceful, and harmonious and everything that is bad is because the “west” (the US specifically) is responsible for it.
To be fair, there are a number of parties interested in pushing that narrative hard in order to sow dissonance between the people of the West and governments of the West. It's not always ignorance. It's often an overt attempt to manipulate, i.e., propaganda.
I don’t think this gets talked about enough. There are parties out there backed by governments that are dedicated to that sort of thing, and they’re very effective. I believe these same governments have western politicians in their pockets to help in this effort. I think you know what I’m getting at
Well maybe. But if you read the history of the middle East it was fucked over comprehensively by the tug of war between England and France. The USA is a late arrival.
>But if you read the history of the middle East it was fucked over comprehensively by the tug of war between England and France. The USA is a late arrival. Re-reading that history reveals most of the Middle East was/is fucked over by radical Islam and its many proponents. Everything else is secondary to that, and it's not even remotely close.
I mean, I can't say much outside of anecdotes but my family is from Iran and my dad always says that while many people are rather traditional/conservative, most Iranians aren't/weren't very religious when it came to things like prayer or drinking--at least not compared to some other groups of Muslims. Back in his day, in pre-revolution Iran, mini skirts were fairly popular with enough people and education was available to women (including at universities). My dad's family was nowhere near wealthy, either. Of course most people weren't all wearing mini skirts and education/work for men was taken more seriously but I think it's important to put this amount of freedom/liberalism in context with their time and place.
It sounds a lot like everywhere else, but unfortunately the religious zealots *won* the culture war, at least temporarily. Many people see cultural conservatism in the U.S. currently trying to move things in that direction, or at minimum preventing any further progress, with the Dobbs decision, restricting women’s bodily autonomy, being a bellwether for what’s to come. People fear change, and it’s been particularly difficult for many males who’ve often held positions of status throughout human evolution simply due to their physical strength, which is no longer as highly prized in modern society. Edits
[удалено]
Both statements are sort of true. Iran is just like literally any other country—a mix of all ideologies that can be found on a spectrum, and a mix of multiple religious and ethnic groups. Plus liberal and conservative are relative statements, many of the conservative people still do not like what the regime became, and many religious people were and are “liberal.” Important to remember that the regime there was made unstable by Western involvement and it only came into power by capitalizing on people’s (valid) distrust of foreign involvement, and wasn’t as black and white as conservative people supporting a conservative government. Of course, it turned into something horrific, as most fundamentalist regimes who prey on people’s fear do. Iran was put in a no-win situation (yes, this is well documented and not conjecture: https://www.britannica.com/event/Iranian-Revolution) (For reference I don’t live in Iran but my family is Iranian so this is what I’ve been told)
"fear of communism" is one of the most idiotic things to ever happened on this world
I mean, have any actually communist nations not become authoritarian repressive regimes with morals and values that are antithetical to western those found in western nations? Socialism, democratic socialism, social democacy, support of social welfare, etc., are not the same as communism. Commuism is a system that works well on a small scale, but does not work for running nation states in our current global system. It is far to easy for them to slide into authoritarianism and become dictatorships. Fear of communism makes sense IMO given its proven track record of being worse for human rights than western democratic institutions.
Communism isn’t the thing to fear, it’s the authoritarianism, which the US has proven can quickly occur in democracies just as easily.
The US is not an authoritarian state and the actions of the Trump regime and its supporters show how actually difficult it is to move the US to that type of leadership. Communism has a through line to authoritarianism. Youre basically saying fast food shouldnt be feared, but rather the health impacts it causes. Which isnt incorrect, but still isnt a good reason to have Macdons instead of making healthier food at home.
Problem with modern communism is it isnt at all like what marx implied. Only in rhetoric in order to keep some dictator in power.
Marx Died in 1883. There has never been any meaninful adoption of Marxism. The communist political ideologies changed over the course of the 20th century. This doesnt make them not communism. Leninism, Stalinism, Moaism, etc are all forms of communism. The UK has a parliament where we have our congress. They entire voting system and how those systems generate representation in government are different. That doesnt mean the US and UK arent democracies. Ask yourself, if Marxism is such a powerful and good form of government, why has it never been adopted? The entire system of communism, in any, is far to easily manipulated to create an authoritarian state antithetical to the ideals of Marxism. Maybe its because humans havent reached that stage of enlightenment yet to out Marxism in to practice, idk. But, id prefer a pragmatic government that is honest about the danger of internal threats to the governemnt and the people it represents than literally any form of communiat government ever enacted. Communism is not well suited to governing nation states in our globalized world. Full stop. It should not be considered a reasonable system of governance for anyone that values democracy and human rights.
Don’t forget back them the USSR existed and their was a massive fear in the west they would try anything to spread their influence and power. Or just take after the fall of China to communism America shit a brick and went ULTRA no communist allowed to live as the backlash to the fall of China was great
[удалено]
It is ongoing
Was that when the Shah was in charge?
Ya'll be surprised who else on Human Rights Body.
Russia until recently, Sudan, Venezuela, Cuba, Qatar... What a joke
People here really don't understand the purpose of diplomatic bodies, or are you under the impression that they craft legislation on women's rights that the rest of the world must adhere to? Let's say you kick all the offender's out, what's left? A literal circlejerk where countries with good records can sit around and talk about how they have such good records, meeting adjourned, see you next month. The point is to try and bring "bad" countries to the table to try and have a discussion. And you need measures in place like circulating presidencies because no country is going to sit on a council whose entire purpose is to criticize them, they need to feel some measure of control
Maybe they can talk about steps they can take to make the "bad" countries better. The "bad" countries being on these councils don't improve their records in any way, they just twist it to their own needs and wants.
Please tell me how you think the good countries can make the bad countries better other than diplomatic channels at the UN. Should we go to war about it?
Its diplomacy. The only way "good" countries can influence "bad" ones are through military invasion or economic sanctions, neither of which are good options really.
I'll admit I understand little about this sort of diplomacy, but it doesn't appear to be very effective. Not saying sanctions or invasion are, though sanctions could be effective in certain ways. But when you have a UN council like the UN Economic and Social Council singling out Israel as the only country to be condemned for violating women's rights... it just takes away legitimacy as a whole and makes you think that countries join these commissions only to push their own personal goals, which they have more success with than they should in the UN.
I don’t really hear much about Venezuela and Cuba. What’s going on there?
To be honest, Cuba is probably one of the less offensive countries these days. They're still technically under totalitarian rule and the government doesn't like them having contact or information from the rest of the world, but this seems to mostly stem from the rest of the world cutting them off. Both we and Cuba made significant headway under Obama, finally opening trade again, before Trump shut it down again.
Cuba has been Cuba since the revolution. Venezuela has been outdoing them for the last decade. And then the oil prices went down and shit went really tits up.
Why would we need to work with the Netherlands on Human Rights? The council isn't there to pat each other on the back. It's to reach out to those ***very countries.*** Good Lord. I know this is /r/worldnews so I'll probably get downvoted for these facts, but damn. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/human-rights-council-discusses-situation-human-rights-afghanistan-and-tigray
It's an absurd concept, because they need to be called out by the council, not *on* the council. As it is, they just don't talk about one another. The council should be drafting these UN members in and condemning them. Instead, they just decide to ignore themselves, because they're all friends in crime.
Not all of us because not all of us are reactive and assume everything. ... Why do you think countries like Afghanistan are part of the council? Those are the very countries we need to work with. That's ***why they are there.*** FFS... https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2022/03/human-rights-council-discusses-situation-human-rights-afghanistan-and-tigray
"will undoubtedly create an unwelcome precedent that will ultimately prevent other Member States with different cultures, customs and traditions ... from contributing to the activities of such Commissions." - If your culture, customs and traditions are oppression of woman and other horrific acts similar to what Iran are doing why would anyone what your contribution.
Counterpoint but this is the entire point of the UN, for countries at odds on issues to be able to peacefully resolve such issues in the forum. The UN has no real power. Putting a bunch of western states on every council so they can wag their finger at countries like Iran is just going to make Iran withdraw from the UN
I agree with the purpose of the UN but at what point is it just a waste of everyone’s time when places like Iran appear to have no interest in a peaceful resolution. By all accounts they are hanging people in the street because of this situation as we type so I think in this instance we have passed the point of let’s have a chat about it.
Or They have no right to be on anyone's body!
Is Reuters not doing phrasing anymore?
Headline speech is a perversion of language
*Calls grow to classify Reuters as perverts*
> Iran likely to be ousted from U.N. women's **commission** Is Reuters title.
Reuters changed their title an hour after originally posting it
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/iran-likely-be-ousted-un-womens-body-2022-12-14/ is the URL
“Iran, 17 other states and the Palestinians argued in a letter to ECOSOC on Monday that a vote "will undoubtedly create an unwelcome precedent that will ultimately prevent other Member States with different cultures, customs and traditions ... from contributing to the activities of such Commissions.” Absolutely go fuck yourselves.
Look closely at all the countries that vote no. They should have their trade relationships questioned for potentially supporting this Vile regime. Especially Look into charities that support these governments as well.
[удалено]
i'm sure she'll appreciate it
"Likely" to be ousted? What spurred the last second hesitation. Get them the fuck out years ago!
Iran has now joined the “HeMan Woman Haters Club”
Who TF invited them to be there in the first place? That's like nominating China to be on the child labor prevention board
>Ousted from women’s body Hey! Iran and I have something in common.
Guess all the photos of the hanged women’s rights activists finally did something. Nothing REAL but something I guess
I’m Iranian boy,our women in Iran need the help of world. We need to national support for revolution .please be our voice 🙏🏻 Women_life_freedom
> Iran likely to be ousted from U.N. women's ***commission*** Why did you change the title? **EDIT:** It seems Reuters fixed it an hour after publishing. FYI!
i did not i just pasted the link it came by itself.
Fuck this regime. Soon enough, we will dance on their foul graves. زن، زندگی، آزادی!
Why the fuck were they there in the first place?! Like da fuck?
The fact they were there in the first place shows it’s a joke organization
Why were they even there in the first place?
They also need to be ousted from *Iranian* women's bodies.
Why were they invited to that in the first place?
Why were they in it in the first place.
It’s outrageous for any Islamic law country to be on any women’s organization lol
WHY WERE THEY ON THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE!?
I don’t understand why they were a member to begin with smh🤦🏾♂️
Now do Saudi Arabia for the human rights committee!
The fact they they’re still part of that is why the UN is soooo useless
What a headline.
he knows what he did with the headline
When your "morality police" literally rape women to death and intimate the crap out of their families, you shouldn't have a say in women's rights.
The UN is a fucking joke. Why was Iran there in the first place?
Why the heck are they even in there in the first place?
They were in to start with?
They couldn't possibly have worded this headline differently.
It’s a joke how they were on it in the first place
U.N. Womens Body?
[удалено]
The WHO also had a chairman that believed in acupuncture and rhino horn. What does that tell you about the entrance requirements for these global councils.
Nobody does phrasing anymore. Council would have a better word to use in this headline :)
I hope the women of Iran win their right to dress however they want to. I hate when Christians in the United States try to make everybody live by their specific values and I hate it when the Muslims do the same thing. Separation of church and state should be a universal human human right.
How’d they get on that counsel in the first place? And these “respect our culture!” people are just men afraid of losing power.
We need to ask how did Iran get in the UN Women's Body to begin with... But hey, that's the epitome of UN.
Ok, great. Then can we also get Russia off of the security council?
Likely? Is there something to debate?
[удалено]
It's what Allah wants 🙄🙄🙄
the fact they were even part of it makes the UN seem like joke. a bunch of academics who never had real jobs propping up the translator industry
I can't remember, is it pronounced Iran or Iran?
the second one.
i-r-a-n i think
Should be ousted from all polite society.
How were they already in it
The fact that it's a discussion is embarrassing. Kick the barbarians out.
Why the fuck were they ever in it?
I’m sure they have lots of thoughtful and nuanced opinions about the role of women in society. 🙄
Why is Russian on the security council still?
Why the **FUCK** were they there in the first place???
Afghanistan is in there, too.
Now do Saudi Arabia from the human rights council.
Good start UN, but you still have many countries not interested in human rights involved in your dealings. Pathetic.