women to recieve 90 lashes for film

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:45 pm

I can't remember the last time i was this politically motivated ....but this HAS to be shown it has to be said ...something is very wrong here .

We all know that if you have money in Iran you do not come und er the same laws as others but this is bringing it to the fore.

All she did was star in an australian film and she is to recieve 90 lashes for it . Dear god !!!!

VIDEO: My Tehran for Sale

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:55 pm

""The film was jointly funded by the South Australian Film Corporation and the Adelaide Film Festival.

She was arrested in June after black market copies of the film began circulating in Tehran, showing Vafamehr in some scenes without an Islamic hijab which covers the hair and neck.

Vafamehr's family had requested a Western media blackout of the case since her arrest but on Sunday the Iranian opposition website Kalameh.com went public with news of the actress's harsh punishment.

Adelaide co-producer of the film, Kate Croser, of Cyan Films, said the company had offered assistance to the family but would maintain a public silence on the verdict until it could determine if their wishes on Western commentary on the case had changed.

"There is an appeal which could be lengthy and the family may still believe that public comment will be unhelpful because they are going through all the official channels," she said.

"We can say the charges were that there was no permit for filming, which is not true, and that in some scenes Marzieh was not wearing a hijab and had a shaved head."

Supporters of Vafamehr were yesterday meeting to offer support to the family, including organising an Australian lobbying effort through the film's Iranian-born director Granaz Moussavi, who now lives in Melbourne.

The movie's plot is based in part on Moussavi's own life and that of her friend Vafamehr but also on stories the Flinders University film graduate was told when she volunteered as a translator at the Woomera detention centre.

Internet images of officially administered lashings in Iran show victims being placed face down in a prone position and then being whipped with a long stick on the upper legs, back and buttocks.

In 2008, Vafamehr, Moussavi and South Australian producers Croser and Julie Ryan filmed the movie in Tehran and brought the footage back to Adelaide for post production.

Vafamehr plays the character of a young actress in Tehran whose theatre work is banned by the authorities.

She is then forced to lead a secret life in order to express herself artistically while at the same time trying to migrate to Australia.

The 2009 film was highly controversial in Iran only because it showed footage of uninhibited modernised Iranians at Western-style rave parties.

Footage of those scenes would normally be censored by authorities for being subversive.

Family First MLC Dennis Hood said he would contact Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd today urging the Federal Government to offer assistance to the family.

Read more: Iranian star of Australian-produced film to be lashed | News.com.au

""

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Oct 11, 2011 12:20 am

http://www.videosurf.com/video/my-tehra ... 1268935760

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Oct 12, 2011 8:51 pm

Perhaps she should have stayed at home and tended to her hearth

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Thu Oct 13, 2011 1:27 pm

K.Snyder;1372435 wrote: Perhaps she should have stayed at home and tended to her hearth

Is that a Euphorism ?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 8:04 am

oscar;1372474 wrote: Is that a Euphorism ?Not a eupemism because I was being sarcastic. The situation is degrading, deplorable, demeaning, deranged, disgusting, despicable, and duly disgraceful.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Fri Oct 14, 2011 9:25 am

K.Snyder;1372518 wrote: Not a eupemism because I was being sarcastic. The situation is degrading, deplorable, demeaning, deranged, disgusting, despicable, and duly disgraceful.

And danged ?

You should save up for the next edition of that thesaurus.

These high profile tragedies have to happen for the outcry to reign in these practices unfortunately.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:59 am

Now, which of you anti-Iranian knee-jerk nuke-the-Muslims bastions of prejudice would like to congratulate the Iranian judicial system?Marzieh Vafamehr was released from prison earlier this week after her sentence of one year in prison and 90 lashes was overturned on appeal.

Group: Iran Frees Actress, Waives Lashing Sentence - From the Wires - Salon.com

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:58 am

Once the fundamentalists lose power the odds are Iran will become a secular state, the only thing letting them stay in control is outside pressure uniting the nation behind those who would attack.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 9:01 am

Wouldn't describe myself as "anti-Iranian knee-jerk nuke-the-Muslims bastions of prejudice".........but...

Her sentence was reduced to three months and the decision to give her 90 lashings was overturned it said.

Sentences for public flogging are not always carried out in Iran.
Media attention might be something to do with it ?

A student was lashed 74 times earlier this year for insulting President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Below the media radar ?

“It is deeply worrying that three filmmakers are still being held in Tehran’s Evin prison.

“Their continued detention illustrates the Iranian authorities’ desperate efforts to stifle any form of dissent. These people have done nothing except sell their documentaries to a foreign broadcaster or make a film about a banned director. They should be released immediately and unconditionally.”

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:00 am

spot;1373745 wrote: Now, which of you anti-Iranian knee-jerk nuke-the-Muslims bastions of prejudice would like to congratulate the Iranian judicial system?Marzieh Vafamehr was released from prison earlier this week after her sentence of one year in prison and 90 lashes was overturned on appeal.

Group: Iran Frees Actress, Waives Lashing Sentence - From the Wires - Salon.com

You feel 3 months in jail is acceptable punishment? What is judicial about already having been harassed and oppressed only to be sentenced to 3 months in jail for some invented threat to society? http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/ ... 5520111028

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 11:32 am

Many countries have laws that other countries don't have. The Iranians criminalize some things that the US doesn't and vice versa. The alternative would be World Government. We don't have that. We have sovereign nation states instead. People who choose to live in a country commit themselves to obeying the local laws.

So - just because the US doesn't make that behavior a crime, it's a bad law? You don't think that's American Exceptionalism showing itself? Superior America? You have no local equivalent to "3 months in jail for some invented threat to society"?

I note the revised sentence of 3 months means she doesn't have to spend any more time in jail, maybe you missed that bit.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:00 pm

spot;1373784 wrote: People who choose to live in a country commit themselves to obeying the local laws.

What ? My parents choose for me.........as do most other parents.

Should we all accept the law as it stands where ever we happen to end up by fate?

I note the revised sentence of 3 months means she doesn't have to spend any more time in jail, maybe you missed that bit.
“It is deeply worrying that three filmmakers are still being held in Tehran’s Evin prison.

Link works this time.........

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 12:39 pm

I'm sure Tehran's prisons have hundreds of prisoners. Vafamehr isn't one of them. We could, I suppose, add threads about other Iranian prisoners, or we could discuss other Iranian prisoners in this thread, but what I said related to Vafamehr, she being the subject so far.

As for living where you choose, there are few countries which refuse passports to those wanting to live elsewhere. Iran's not one of them. My understanding is that Vafamehr opts to live in Iran despite sometimes film-making outside the country - do please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 1:00 pm

spot;1373796 wrote: I'm sure Tehran's prisons have hundreds of prisoners. Vafamehr isn't one of them. We could, I suppose, add threads about other Iranian prisoners, or we could discuss other Iranian prisoners in this thread, but what I said related to Vafamehr, she being the subject so far.

That is why I added ..........

“It is deeply worrying that three filmmakers are still being held in Tehran’s Evin prison.

As you said "Related to Vafamehr"

As for living where you choose, there are few countries which refuse passports to those wanting to live elsewhere. Iran's not one of them. My understanding is that Vafamehr opts to live in Iran despite sometimes film-making outside the country - do please correct me if I'm wrong about that.
That's why I added.......

"Should we all accept the law as it stands where ever we happen to end up by fate/birth?"

Are you suggesting that everyone that disagrees with the Laws of their own country emigrates ?

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 3:34 pm

spot;1373784 wrote: Many countries have laws that other countries don't have. The Iranians criminalize some things that the US doesn't and vice versa. The alternative would be World Government. We don't have that. We have sovereign nation states instead. People who choose to live in a country commit themselves to obeying the local laws.

So - just because the US doesn't make that behavior a crime, it's a bad law? You don't think that's American Exceptionalism showing itself? Superior America? You have no local equivalent to "3 months in jail for some invented threat to society"?

I note the revised sentence of 3 months means she doesn't have to spend any more time in jail, maybe you missed that bit.No, I didn't miss that bit. And yes I believe that America has unnecessary laws and I will suggest I'm aware of far more of them compared to Iran but that's only because of myself not being particularly informed of Iranian law.

"People who choose to live in a country commit themselves to obeying the local laws" is a particular statement I have trouble disagreeing with. Of which leaves me to question just how simple it is for people to omit citizenship. "Superior America" is none my intention.

It's the "I note the revised sentence of 3 months means she doesn't have to spend any more time in jail, maybe you missed that" bit that serves "Now, which of you anti-Iranian knee-jerk nuke-the-Muslims bastions of prejudice would like to congratulate the Iranian judicial system?" absolutely no merit when attempting to compare it to other judicial systems I'm more so confused by.

Post by **spot** » Sat Oct 29, 2011 8:10 pm

Bruv;1373800 wrote: Are you suggesting that everyone that disagrees with the Laws of their own country emigrates ?Not at all, they could instead become an activist and change their country. Aung San Suu Kyi has done that in Burma, for example. Without people like her, the rich and powerful in any country have a clear field to continue in their old ways. My point was that staying and fighting for change, while honorable, is optional. Leaving is nearly always an alternative. It was certainly an alternative for Vafamehr even before her trial.

It's not just a new alternative either - I saw a claim by a respectable historian not long ago that a third of Europeans emigrated during the nineteenth century. I was surprised by how large a proportion he claimed, but we all know it was a lot of people.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:27 am

So the lady should be praised and encouraged for her courage in attempting to right a wrong ?

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:32 am

Bruv;1373833 wrote: So the lady should be praised and encouraged for her courage in attempting to right a wrong ?

Undoubtedly, yes. Pressure applied to any regime from inside the country is the only legitimate way to make improvements. Pressure from outside just consolidates support and the closing of ranks against the outsider. I'm delighted that she's been brave enough to push for liberalization of the reactionary fundamentalist government in Iran.

The only reason it's there is the outrageous imposition of that US puppet from the 1950s, Pahlavi. The only reason it continues to be so intransigent and immovable is the continuing US-led sanctions. Without the first, Iran was and would have remained a secular republic. Without the second, the country would have elected a liberalizing government decades ago.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:49 am

spot;1373835 wrote: Undoubtedly, yes. Pressure applied to any regime from inside the country is the only legitimate way to make improvements. Pressure from outside just consolidates support and the closing of ranks against the outsider. I'm delighted that she's been brave enough to push for liberalization of the reactionary fundamentalist government in Iran.

The only reason it's there is the outrageous imposition of that US puppet from the 1950s, Pahlavi. The only reason it continues to be so intransigent and immovable is the continuing US-led sanctions. Without the first, Iran was and would have remained a secular republic. Without the second, the country would have elected a liberalizing government decades ago.

Is that the definition of irony ?

(I have attempted three times to answer the Crime thread and get a server error.....just saying)

Post by **spot** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:58 am

Bruv;1373836 wrote: Is that the definition of irony ?

(I have attempted three times to answer the Crime thread and get a server error.....just saying)

I apologize for the server error, I'll try to get that area rebuilt overnight, I know how frustrating it is. It's a feature called ModSecurity and its authors should drown themselves from shame.

If you can explain where you find the irony or why you think I might be inconsistent I'd be grateful, I don't see it.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 6:51 am

No need to apologise, in fact it's my turn to apologise.

I misread the sentence as outside pressure and not inside pressure.