April 23, 2007

The Ankle Police

(link fixed)

Posted by Kate at April 23, 2007 10:03 AM

Link gives a 404 , try

(you missed the "l" at the end)

Posted by: The Hammer of Thor at April 23, 2007 10:22 AM

Need to add an "l" to the end of the link.

Posted by: Reid at April 23, 2007 10:24 AM

So when does Amnesty Int'l,SOW, jump all over this? I'm waiting to see the stinging headlines denouncing this act of cowardice by men afraid of women!

Posted by: Justthinkin at April 23, 2007 10:30 AM

Fining women for the way they dress, or in Canada the way they dont dress....there was that court case that allowed women to go go topless and not be fined, only seen two women in Toronto exercising their Charter Rights on that one....and none in the last couple of years.

What a contrast.....I seem to remeber this was a major issue for the womens rights movement.

Enemy of my enemy....Iran doesnt like GWB so they become friends of the left.

The silence is deafening.

Posted by: Stephen at April 23, 2007 10:49 AM

This is just the voice of an ordinary Zionist
yelling back at the radio - "Ehud Olmert speaks for me."

Posted by: Moe Real at April 23, 2007 10:53 AM

Good points Stephen!

In Iran they have 'hijab police',

here we have 'pension fund police'.

So on the one hand they have 'stealing a look',

and here we have simply 'stealing'.

I wonder what the Iranian police would think of some the brazilian bikinis which will be gracing our beaches this summer?

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at April 23, 2007 11:00 AM

Would love to see the 'ankle police' try and give chair-jumping Sheila a ticket.

Who would she cry to then ?? The UN ? Iran ? Dion ? Coderre ??

Posted by: ron in kelowna at April 23, 2007 11:11 AM

sarge here I think the lady just wants to know if some file sharing might be in order..."I'll trade you Pinks stupid girls for some of yer averil livigne

Posted by: sarge at April 23, 2007 11:13 AM

and in Yarmouth Nova Scotia they have clear plastic garbage bag police.

and in Gore/Suzuki world we will have thought police, - how dare we worry about the economy.

Posted by: cal2 at April 23, 2007 11:20 AM

The headbones are connected to the same ankle bone: Two heads on the same body: Fascism in Iran-Germany...-

A COLOUR CODE FOR IRAN'S 'INFIDELS'. by Amir Taheri National Post May 19, 2006 ... Dangerous Parallel: Is Iran turning into the new Nazi Germany? ...

The Eye Colour Police; Nazi Human Experimentation

Other experiments include attempts to change eye color by injecting chemicals into children's eyes,
(wiki) ...-

Posted by: maz2 at April 23, 2007 11:20 AM

I notice two things. One, the girlie in the pink scarf is HOT! Woo hoo!

Two, the battle ax in the black Bedouin gear is NOT.

Ugly chicks taking their revenge on the more fortunate. Kinda like our feminists!

Posted by: The Phantom at April 23, 2007 11:51 AM

Check out the Arab version of Rock and Roll:

Note the brazen hussy female background singer and her completely exposed face. Kids today and their confounded disrespectful rock and roll.

Next thing you know, they'll be stuffing their hookah pipes with waky tabaky and mocking the mosque. Someone outta Taliban such blasphamy!

Hmm, his and hers mosh pits perhaps?


Mohammad Jagger?

Morrocian Roll!

Posted by: Paul Decker at April 23, 2007 12:07 PM

Never a comment by the women of the western countries over such treatment of women. I guess if GWB were friends with these Islamofascists it would be different.

Posted by: Pat at April 23, 2007 1:05 PM

Has the woman on the left plucked her eyebrows? What does the Koran say about that????!

Posted by: Ade at April 23, 2007 1:27 PM

depends on where your eyebrows end.

Posted by: cal2 at April 23, 2007 1:53 PM

Iran better get it's nukes is going to need them to quell the masses who WILL revolt in the very near future! Iran - 1000 years of history unimpeded by progress"

Posted by: odie441 at April 23, 2007 1:57 PM

Should anyone care to respond to my comment below, please be aware that I generally agree with the viewpoints expressed on SDA. In particular, I don't think all cultures are equal. I am a fervant supporter of Israel, and I do think Islamic militants and their apologists are cut too much slack by our MSM. Having said that, I think that, when considering the crackdown on female dress in Iran, it might be instructive to imagine how a primitive South-Sea islander might view our own culture. In particular, he might find it strange, perhaps absurdly prudish, that we expect our women to cover their breasts in public. Just so, we ourselves find it absurdly prudish that some Iranians expect their women to cover their hair and more. Now, I am NOT arguing that the Iranian puritans are "right". Nor am I arguing that our own views are "wrong". Rather, I am saying that many questions of propriety are simply matters of tradition. The (arbitrary?) nature of tradition is highlighted only when (a) a culture itself experiences disagreement regarding its tradition, or (b) when two cultures having different traditions collide.

Posted by: Robert Pujat at April 23, 2007 2:07 PM

Here is a better photo on the same topic from Iran three years ago. It's one of my favourites (check the others too).

Posted by: John B at April 23, 2007 2:39 PM

some nice units.

may have to tighten my mormon undies.

Posted by: cal2 at April 23, 2007 2:48 PM


Interesting photo set, nothing that would get me running to the 'morality police'.

And hey Iranian women are some knockouts as well.

The cross cultural survey from primitive tribes to modern day indicates that not a few societies went needed only a grass skirt for covering purposes.

The proposition that men would turn into a bunch of uncontrolled rapists is of course false. Such behaviour is an act of the will.

My daughters school debates the length of their uniform skirts, so it doesn't look like most parents, make it an object to turn their daughters into the town harlot.

For the most part it is cultural levels of acceptance.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at April 23, 2007 2:55 PM

Is anyone really surprised at this?

It's friggin' Iran after all.

Posted by: mark peters at April 23, 2007 3:13 PM

Yes, there is a "dress code" in Iran.

The dress code is imposed by the Sharia Law of the Islamic mullahs. It's called "Islamic guidance"; even the Islamic mullahs speak in politically correct jargon. "Islamic guidance" means beatings with steel rods by the Black Witch Scorpions of Islam.

The evidence is here: "dress code", "its dress code", "1,347 women have been warned and given Islamic guidance,”.

"It foresees handing out warnings and guidance to women found to have infringed its dress code in public." (AFP, aka Agence France Presse)...-

Posted by: maz2 at April 23, 2007 3:22 PM

Does this dress code apply to visible minorities and non muslims?

Hello is this the UN human rights commission...I'd like to register a complaint!

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at April 23, 2007 3:28 PM

Sorry WL, white people don't count. Bummmer eh?

Posted by: The Phantom at April 23, 2007 4:50 PM

Phantom, you nailed the real reason why the frenzied feminists are keeping their loud mouths off the airwaves - most 'feminists' are old and ugly!
This is NOT about looking like a bat out of a dank, dark belfry; IMO, it is about CONTROL. If a government controls what women wear they can control other aspects of the society.
Sort of like the helmet law, seat belt law and smoking bans in our own country. Lawmakers deciding how their Patrons (the citizens) will live their lives is Dictatorship.

Posted by: Jema54 at April 23, 2007 5:01 PM


And the rest for that matter. I know Islam bashing is the norm and all, but lets stick to proven facts, not made up ones..

"The headbones are connected to the same ankle bone: Two heads on the same body: Fascism in Iran-Germany...-

A COLOUR CODE FOR IRAN'S 'INFIDELS'. by Amir Taheri National Post May 19, 2006 ... Dangerous Parallel: Is Iran turning into the new Nazi Germany? ..."

Tell me, maz2, do you believe everything you read in the media? Or do you only want to believe that which conforms with your views regardless of whether it is true. The Article you mention is dated May 19, 2006.

Here, from Ha'aretz, dated May 22nd 2006.

"Canada's National Post retracts report that Iranian Jews will be forced to wear yellow patches

By Yossi Melman

For a few hours on Friday, many around the world were ready to believe a report in the media that Iran had decided that Jews living there would be forced to wear a yellow strip of material on their clothing to denote their religion.

Leaders of international Jewish organizations were quick to respond, and likened the decision to the Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany.

Yesterday, after it emerged that the report had been false, the affair of "the yellow patch that wasn't" left us with one lesson: The world is ready to believe anything when it comes to a country ruled by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad."

"Several hours following its publication, the National Post retracted the article, and laid the blame for the story in the lap of veteran journalist and Iran analyst Amir Taheri.

In the retraction, the National Post quoted the spokesman for the Iranian Embassy in Ottawa, who said of the original report, "These kinds of slanderous accusations are part of a smear campaign against Iran by vested interests that need to be denounced at every step."

The representative of the Jewish community in Iran's parliament also rejected the report."

From your own National Post:

"Last Friday, the National Post ran a story prominently on the front page alleging that the Iranian parliament had passed a law that, if enacted, would require Jews and other religious minorities in Iran to wear badges that would identify them as such in public. It is now clear the story is not true. Given the seriousness of the error, I felt it necessary to explain to our readers how this happened."

Now I know the general line of thinking here is biased, but at least get the facts straight.

Posted by: jeremiah at April 23, 2007 5:25 PM

"Hello is this the UN human rights commission...I'd like to register a complaint!"

There must be a leftist out there who can tell us whether Louise Arbout has ever charged a Muslim with a human rights violation.

To the Culture Equivalencer. If I were you I wouldn't go around telling people that you can't distinguish between a woman's breasts and the rest of her body. If everyone was like you Hefner would be a pauper.

Posted by: Terry Gain at April 23, 2007 5:39 PM

Whether or not the story was false or not, the fact remains that Jews are targeted by the Iranian government as enemies. One need only to review the rantings of that President of theirs to confirm the government's intention. The fact that he has stated in public on many occasions that Israel should be "removed from the face of the earth" is more than telling.
Yes, the general line of thinking here is definitely biased. Biased in favor of human rights,dignity and truth. Your specious comments would be amusing, if it were not for the Jews that are being persecuted by you and your fellow travelers.
If the comments on this blog cause you to think they are biased, then you are absolutly correct.
Biased in the way of truth, justice and decency toward all mankind.

Posted by: Rattfuc at April 23, 2007 5:59 PM

Iran*s mullahs are attempting to solidify their iron grip on the people using the religious police approach.

This suffocating policy is solidly in place in Saudi Arabia. Women who are fully concealed in fabric know not to enter small shops with narrow isles.

The religious police inflict punishment because they state women know there is the chance they could brush against a male shopper.

Women are limited to shopping in large malls with very wide isles. = TG

Posted by: TG at April 23, 2007 6:14 PM

Hirsi Ali's book will tell you what it's like to be a muslim women.
Tell me jeremiah, is this made up as well?

Posted by: multirec at April 23, 2007 7:23 PM

...what were those little trolls called in Star Wars again?

Posted by: tomax7 at April 23, 2007 7:37 PM

Terry Gain:

"To the Culture Equivalencer. If I were you I wouldn't go around telling people that you can't distinguish between a woman's breasts and the rest of her body. If everyone was like you Hefner would be a pauper."

Of course everyone can tell the difference between a woman's breast and the rest of their bodies. The differnce is the Kung! bushmen of the Kalahari or the Aborigines of Austrailia societies don't sell magazines to ogle women for the purpose of profit.

This would be called the unfair analogy, of judging their 'normal' behaviour with our cultural norms.

In contrast the Inuit don't run around topless either; because of the very practical reason that the Artic is cold most of the year.

"If Hefner was pauper."

I would not be sad about such a remote prospect.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht at April 23, 2007 7:56 PM

Notice the reaction from western feminists. Silence just a deafening silence. So very loud at the smallest thing in the west. Remember the outrage at casual remark at Harvard.

Facing real oppression they have nothing to say. Islam is not their concern women are not their concern only their anti-western agenda counts.

Posted by: Bruce at April 23, 2007 8:26 PM

To Robert Pujat (AKA the Culture Equivalencer):

You raise a valid point when you note that different societies establish and maintain different standards of behaviour, dress, etc. That's part of the endless variety found in the human race that is supposed to be the basis for our much-vaunted (but disastrous) multiculturalism.

The problem here is not simply that Muslim society (or societies) prefer certain standards of dress - they are quite entitled to so so - but rather that Muslim *governments* seek to *impose* those standards (and not just on their own populations but on everyone).

If it were merely Muslim society, then the goal of maintaining a dress standard could be accomplished using the methods that all societies, including our own, employ (or at least used to employ). These include simple verbal disapproval, on up the scale to ejection from private property, to total ostracism (something that used to be quite a severe punishment, and which in a desert environment where survival is often dependent on the generosity of strangers, still is).

But when the government steps in, especially with the sort of violence employed by the mullahs et al, then that's a different story. Indeed, when the government steps in, the odds are that they aren't actually reflecting the wishes of the society at large but only those of a specific elite. (And I'm not referring only to Muslim governments here - our own government have their little elite-driven totalitarian streaks .....)

A couple of asides here .... First, I mentioned the disaster of multiculturalism - that's another gift of government intervention. Left to themselves, people would develop a nicely "multicultural" Canadian culture. Second, you are right to call the Iranian dress code a cultural (albeit government-enforced) phenomenon, because it is not in fact religious. The Koran says nothing about dressing women in gunny-sacks. It only says that women should "dress modestly", which isn't bad advice anywhere.


Posted by: Doug at April 23, 2007 9:32 PM

You're right, Bruce. Western feminisim was never about "oppression" of women. It was all about already privileged women duking it out with men.

They did a good job of intimidating Western men and ruining the nuclear family, the foundation block of our Western democracies, and a terrible job of liberating truly oppressed women (like women in the ME and the women who take care of their children while they're making big buck$ in the careers of their choice).

In a word, modern feminism has been a bust for "the village" that Hillary Clinton keeps blathering on about. In her village, the women who do the cooking, who rock the babies, and who watch the other kids from the doorway are women who don't count. They can be paid peanuts to care for all of the Chelseas while the modern moms climb up the corporate ladder.

Oppressed women of the world are of no account to the SOW/NOW feminists. What a scam. 'Good thing the Prime Minister and his CPC government are onto them...and are doing the genuine work of liberation by supporting our troops in the ME.

There's a story here. How come our intrepid and enlightened MSM aren't covering it?

Posted by: 'been around the block at April 23, 2007 9:44 PM

Western feminisim was never about "oppression" of women. It was all about already privileged women duking it out with men.

aint that the truth.

Posted by: DrWright at April 23, 2007 11:02 PM

I can't help but draw comparisons of this story to Quebec language laws.

Posted by: Bob at April 23, 2007 11:07 PM

Reply to Doug:
Like you, I think my earlier post could use a bit of refinement. However, my second thoughts differ somewhat from yours. I don't think government involvement in the enforcement of dress codes is, by itself, the real problem. After all, we have our own anti-nudity laws, which I accept. (Legal penalties, however, should be in proportion to the "offense", and it is not at all clear that they are in Islamic societies.)
My real problem with my earlier post is that I seem to refer to Iranian dress codes as JUST a matter of cultural preference. While they may indeed be such, I've probably failed to acknowledge how one-sided those codes are and how they are part and parcel of a much larger program of control and subjugation. Here, we depart from questions of "cultural preference" and enter the realm of basic morality and ethics. Is a woman's worth in relation to that of a man realy one-half (or one-third, or whatever fraction Islamic custom specifies)? If she complains of rape, should she be stoned to death for adultury if she cannot produce a suitable number of male witnesses who will vouch for her story? We could go on and on, but my point is that there is a core of basic decency from which no society should be allowed to stray without being criticized. I probably failed to acknowledge that adequately.

Posted by: Robert Pujat at April 24, 2007 12:14 AM

Robert Pujat "there is a core of basic decency from which no society should be allowed to stray"!? gimme a break, my core basic decencies differ greatly from others. who is to judge basic decency?

Posted by: kelly at April 24, 2007 1:13 AM

Is it just a coincidence that the uniform looks like an OPP dress blue???

Posted by: OMMAG at April 24, 2007 12:38 PM

rosie o'donnell has a new career...

Posted by: POGUETRY at April 26, 2007 11:10 AM