Iran election: Cleric rules out women candidates

0

A constitutional body in Iran has ruled that women cannot run in presidential elections scheduled for 14 June.


Mohammad Yazdi, a clerical member of the Guardian Council, said the constitution ruled out the participation of women.

Thirty women registered as candidates but there had been little expectation they would be allowed to stand.

The Guardian Council is charged with vetting election candidates according to their Islamic credentials.

Observers say there is ambiguity in the constitution about the participation of women in presidential elections in Iran.

However, the latest interpretation appears to put an end to the debate.

Written By: BBC News
continue to source article at bbc.co.uk

NO COMMENTS

  1. As I said a few days ago when this decision was still pending:

    “I guess we’ll soon find out for certain (there has been considerable doubt) whether women in Iran are considered Very Important Persons (VIPs) or simply your run-o-the-mill gatecrasher type of person. As they used to say in the old Islamic republic: your sex aint down, you aint comin’ in!”

    Now we know.

  2. I hate to break it to you, but this article doesn’t belong in the News section. Islam is not compatible with human rights. This is quite an obvious FACT to anyone who has studied Islamic doctrine. So, reporting that Muslim Country X exhibits bad behaviour Y, is not news. It’s as predictable as gravity. Democracy is not coming to the Muslim world. The Muslim world is REVERTING TO TYPE now that colonial powers and dictators have gone. Even Turkey is returning to type – The Ottomans – they now have hundreds of journalists and secular military personnel charged or locked up on fabricated charges. It’s not news, it’s an incontrovertible fact of Islamic doctrine. Islam is not a religion of peace. It is not reformable. And it is not news when it exhibits bad behaviour. Stop trying to change the unchangeable. The only way to change the Muslim world is to aim for mass apostasy, and I don’t see that as feasible. Leave the Muslim world as it is. It can’t be changed. Islam and the West are incompatible, and that’s a cold hard fact.

    • In reply to #3 by mralstoner:

      I think you are wrong here.
      There was a News item, that thirty women had put themselves forward as candidates.
      If the Muslim World is as intractable as you say, then this would not have happened.
      What makes this News is that it is an update to conclude the previous real story.

      • In reply to #19 by CliveHill:

        All they did was test the waters because some apparent loophole that was closed immediately. And you call that “not intractable?
        It is the institutionalized Islam that plays to type, and is still able to effectively put a stop to any reforms. And it is the clergy and the Islamist politicians and not the ones questioning the power structure and its interpretation that rule. Until that changes – there is no change.
        Your claim of positive development by 30 women trying to participate is akin to some Gulag inhabitants asking the commander to be treated more nicely, only to be then starved a bit more for their efforts.

    • In reply to #3 by mralstoner:

      I hate to break it to you, but this article doesn’t belong in the News section. Islam is not compatible with human rights. This is quite an obvious FACT to anyone who has studied Islamic doctrine. So, reporting that Muslim Country X exhibits bad behaviour Y, is not news. It’s as predictable as gravi…

      Islam is perfectly compatible with human rights IF Human Rights are intertwined with the constitution of Islamic countries, which ins some cases it is. If Turkey joins the EU, they must adopt EU law, and then your argument is completely disproved as Turkey is a Islamic country.

      • In reply to #26 by mark_gg_daniels:
        >
        >

        Islam is perfectly compatible with human rights IF Human Rights are intertwined with the constitution of Islamic countries, which ins some cases it is. If Turkey joins the EU, they must adopt EU law, and then your argument is completely disproved as Turkey is a Islamic country.

        No, no, and no. Turkey is not Islamic it is secular.

        Islam is not compatible with human rights because Islam is a religion and not a law. The religion of Islam promotes Islamic law, or sharia (which literally means “law”). The Islamic sharia is in no way compatible with modern day human rights. I’ll refer you to the G8 summits and the UN commission for Women’s Rights which, upon every turn, has been vetoed or fought by Islamic nations because all proposed actions for animal and female rights contravene that of the Sharia.

        • In reply to #31 by Virgin Mary:

          In reply to #26 by markggdaniels:

          Islam is perfectly compatible with human rights IF Human Rights are intertwined with the constitution of Islamic countries, which ins some cases it is. If Turkey joins the EU, they must adopt EU law, and then your argument is completely disproved as Turkey is a Isl…

          Turkey is an Islamic society with an ostensibly secular government. I’ve read news or commentary to the effect that the commitment to secularism has been weakening. Is it domestic accommodation to public sentiment by Erdoğan, PM since 2003, or a shift in national posture?

    • In reply to #5 by MilitantNonStampCollector:

      Islam is literally alien to fundamental human rights and equality. And in other news, the pope is still Catholic.

      Not true. Turkey has relatively good human rights and is a Islamic country. Iraq also (whilst being in economic ruin) has individual rights.

      • In reply to #27 by mark_gg_daniels:

        In reply to #5 by MilitantNonStampCollector:

        Not true. Turkey has relatively good human rights and is a Islamic country. Iraq also (whilst being in economic ruin) has individual rights…

        Turkey is neither an Islamic country nor a beacon of human rights. It’s a secular country populated by majority Muslims. As for their human rights record, I suggest you go and have a chat with a Kurd, or a prisoner, or a political prisoner, or even a Kurdish political prisoner. I’m sure you’ll change your mind after doing so.

        And Iraq currently has individual rights, but I wonder why that is? Could it be the puppet government put in place by the US that has something to do with that? By law there may be rights but on the ground there’s nothing. Just look at the sectarian bombings which happen on a near-weekly basis.

  3. Baffling. It really makes one wonder how long countries that suppress human rights like this can go on doing it. The world changes at a rapid pace, so the gap between these countries and those who work to strengthen their human rights will just keep on growing. What will the situation be in, say, 50 years? Will Iran still hold on to its ridiculous rules while most of the world at that point has allowed women to run for president for well over 100 years? Breaching human rights in this way simply stops a country from developing, which leads to it falling behind others at an increasing pace.

  4. Time to tweak the Lyrics to the ELO song, “Calling America”

    Songwriters: Lynne, Jeff

    Somebody told her that there
    Was a place like heaven
    Across the water on a 747
    Yeah, we’re living in
    In a modern world

    And pretty soon
    She’s really got the notion
    Of flying out across
    The big blue ocean
    Yeah, we’re living in
    In a modern world

    Talk is cheap on satellite
    But all I get is (static)
    Information, I’m still here
    Redial on automatic

    (CHORUS)
    (Calling UNITED NATIONS)
    Can’t get a message through
    (Calling UNITED NATIONS)
    That’s what she said to do
    (Calling UNITED NATIONS)
    That’s where she has to be
    (Calling UNITED NATIONS)
    She left a number for me
    (Calling UNITED NATIONS)

    But I’m just talking to a satellite
    Twenty thousand miles
    Up in the sky each night
    Yeah, we’re living in
    In a modern world

    All I had to do was
    Pick up the phone
    I’m out in space
    Trying to talk to someone
    Yeah, we’re living in
    In a modern world

    She left a number I could call
    But no one’s there, no one at all
    There must be something going wrong
    That number just rings on and on

    (CHORUS)

    Said she’d call when
    She’d been gone awhile
    Guess she’s missing me
    Across the miles
    Yeah, we’re living in
    In a modern world

    (CHORUS)

    Calling UNITED NATIONS, calling UNITED NATIONS
    Calling UNITED NATIONS, calling UNITED NATIONS…

    Mike

  5. I’m envisaging a highly trained secret elite combat force of just women fighting back covertly to force those wankers to rethink that decision over the next few yrs. Although, it’s stuff of movies, but I’d say anger levels amongst the female population are at an all time high there right now. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s more than one or two contemplating the idea,and a few willing to risk their lives for the cause of it. Hell hath no fury…Regardless, it’s a pity and a total disgrace.

  6. mralstoner: #3

    My reply button isn’t working.

    I agree with you entirely.

    I think it was you I had an exchange with about prophesies in the Qur’an about the present day, and you very helpfully told me not to waste my time looking for them, because despite having been given assurances by a Muslim about them being there they simply don’t exist.

    Fantasies, all fantasies! But the danger is that billions of people believe them and will go to great lengths to prove it. Scary stuff.

    Islam really is a monster with a life of its own and totally out of control.

  7. Why not simply cast a vote for their manly opponents?
    Oh, AFRAID that they would win?

    Reminds me of why many believers oppose gay marriage: because the gay people will probably be BETTER at marriage than the heterosexual masses. If they really were interested in protecting the sanctity of marriage, they would outlaw divorce.

    I mean if women are unfit to serve in the capacity of President, then there would be no way an electorate would possibly vote in their favor? AND more importantly, no way GOD would allow them to be elected. So, what are you scared of? If you are so right in your beliefs, allow them to be challenged. How could you lose?

  8. The semi-official Mehr news agency quoted Mr Yazdi as saying that the “law does not approve” of a woman in the presidency and a woman on the ballot is “not allowed”.

    Good. Let them say it clearly in public for everyone to hear. The next time someone tells us that Islam is all about equality for women we need to ask them to explain this blatant discrimination. Why must possession of a penis be a requirement for the office of President of Iran?

      • In reply to #24 by kamel:

        In reply to #16 by LaurieB:

        Hi LaurieB

        “Why must possession of a penis be a requirement for the office of president of Iran”

        Would the penis have to be authentic,I wonder?.

        Tiresome. Be objective, rational and honest: the male system is far superior when it comes to tracking and firing on a moving target; that is, projecting force. Some design exceptions come to mind: the squid propulsion system, the skunk, the bee/wasp and the aft torpedo tubes of submarines; however, these are all primarily defensive weapons systems. Defense does not put food on the table; try bringing down a buffalo from horseback using the female model. Take a break from generalized male-bashing and try precision targeting. :)

        They have a extremely despicable system but within that context, like it or not, their logic is hard to contest. :(

        • In reply to #34 by whiteraven:

          In reply to #24 by kamel:

          In reply to #16 by LaurieB:

          Hi LaurieB

          “Why must possession of a penis be a requirement for the office of president of Iran”

          Would the penis have to be authentic,I wonder?.

          Tiresome. Be objective, rational and honest: the male system is far superior when it comes to tr…

          Well the mind removed such uses for the Penis and the strength of men to bring down a wild animal for food and survival, it created a farming system thousands of years ago and later on created the bullet to kill the animal. Iran live in the past, at least 10,000 yrs in the past and so does Islam.

          • In reply to #36 by No Gravitons:

            In reply to #34 by whiteraven:

            In reply to #24 by kamel:

            In reply to #16 by LaurieB:

            Hi LaurieB

            “Why must possession of a penis be a requirement for the office of president of Iran”

            Would the penis have to be authentic,I wonder?.

            Tiresome. Be objective, rational and honest: the male system is…

            I’ll consider responding to a rational comment.

        • In reply to #34 by whiteraven:

          In reply to #24 by kamel:

          In reply to #16 by LaurieB:

          Hi LaurieB

          “Why must possession of a penis be a requirement for the office of president of Iran”

          Would the penis have to be authentic,I wonder?.

          Tiresome. Be objective, rational and honest: the male system is far superior when it comes to tr……….

          What logic is that. Being inspired by wild life’s social behavior in order to implement social convention is not a good logic I hope you agree.

          One of the benefits of evolving a big brain is the separation from animalistic tendencies.

          Needless to say. physical strength does’t count for very much(“fuck all” in every day language) as far as intelligence is concerned.

          • In reply to #37 by kamel:

            In reply to #34 by whiteraven:

            In reply to #24 by kamel:

            In reply to #16 by LaurieB:

            Hi LaurieB

            “Why must possession of a penis be a requirement for the office of president of Iran”

            Would the penis have to be authentic,I wonder?.

            Tiresome. Be objective, rational and honest: the male system is…

            I’ll reply to this as I did in #36, with a bit more on both replies regarding the need to have to genitals and sex acts on the tip of one’s tongue:

            I was able to frame my comment without having to use “fuck”, “penis”, “vagina”. But it’s the “fuck” I see absolutely no call for it being directed back at me. In the absence of cause or necessity (artistic expression) I’d challenge it as a kind of sexually motivated verbal abuse. Out of curiosity, it it coming out of a male or female mind?

  9. Oh, those Muslim clerics. So threatened by intelligent, outspoken women. Can’t have a woman in a position of authority over men – their teeny weeny peenies might shrivel up and fall off! Then what would they do with those 72 virgins in Paradise?

  10. It’s not Islam PER SE that is the problem (as Christianity has managed to live in relatively good harmony with secular liberal democracy), but the fact religion is so intertwined in the political process.

    I get frustrated when Atheists talk about Islam being evil.. and is the source of the problem etc etc… as this is the basis of a lot of anti islamic actions (i.e. burka ban.. which is totally unjustified). As secular humanists we should speak out against minority persecution.

    And there will be no progress in Iran if we just tell them to stop believing in Islam. that is a unworkable solution and just distances them from any rational discussion.

    We should engage people, not push them away.

    • In reply to #25 by mark_gg_daniels:

      It’s not Islam PER SE that is the problem (as Christianity has managed to live in relatively good harmony >with secular liberal democracy), but the fact religion is so intertwined in the political process.

      I get frustrated when Atheists talk about Islam being evil.. and is the source of the problem etc etc… as this >is the basis of a lot of anti islamic actions (i.e. burka ban.. which is totally unjustified). As secular humanists >we should speak out against minority persecution.

      And there will be no progress in Iran if we just tell them to stop believing in Islam. that is a unworkable >solution and just distances them from any rational discussion.

      We should engage people, not push them away.

      Yes, it is Islam that’s the problem. Islam and the despicable people that control Islamic countries. Arabic culture is hugely to blame as well as it is just as bad as the religion borne from it.

      No it hasn’t. Christianity has been fighting social evolution tooth and nail. The difference is that secular democracy is predominantly Western and Westerners are on the tip of the curve when it come to social evolution and will not put up with religion sticking its nose in where it isn’t wanted.

      Islam is evil and it is the root of most of the world’s problems. There’s nothing unjustified about wanting to ban the abaya and niqab, but there is something massively unjustified about forcing women to wear them! Especially hair coverings because that is not called for once in the entire Quran. In fact, the word “hair” only appears once and that’s in relation to a man’s beard. The closest you’ll get to the Quran stating that hair should be covered is, “pull your veils over your faces”. It doesn’t even state that the veil MUST be worn because it was a given, you wore something over your head for cultural reasons, reasons of necessity as they prevent sun stroke.

      There will be no progress in Iran for as long as that regime is in place and they continue with an Ayatollah. This is a person who claims to speak to a headless prophet in a cave somewhere in Iran, and takes guidance from said prophet.

  11. One of the principles of all abrahamism is to keep women ‘in their place’ This is one of the major exports of the iron age middle east mentality that the rest of the world has seized upon. It disgraces all of civilisation and while we can see a feeble rationale for the average mysogynist or patheitc male ego, the women who vote for it by compliance are the greatest of fools.

  12. And this filth is said to be respectful and morally proper, the west should adopt Islam and Sharia law they say. This curse on humanity would reverse every advancement be it socially or morally, stop scientific advancement and start world war 3, all this would happen if Islam took over the western world.

    The legalization of rape, murder, violence, inequality and human rights in the name of a religion, are a problem for humanities future unless we sort it out.

    How does one remove a Nazi style religion without acting in the same way against it? This has nothing to do with race, this is a way of life for whoever adopts the belief system of Islam.

    Out of all faiths, this is the worst one and governments being afraid to offend the perpetrators of crime who believe it to be just and right, isn’t an excuse to the very people governments are designed to protect this sort of behavior from.

    We wont allow assisted suicide, yet we will allow a cult to grow and push for Sharia Law, who openly promote public execution for nothing more than a verbal conversation.

    A reaction of fear against a threat such as this, shouldn’t be classed or branded racial or religious hatred, the threat should be dealt with to stop the fear. Its the job of the Judicial system and government to protect itself and the people, from a possible take over or attack by such a ruthless religious belief system.

  13. That the Iranian clerics have forbidden women to stand for election as candidates should not be surprising, the surprising thing would have been to have allowed women to stand for election!

Leave a Reply