[Deepblue]

So you don't believe the story to be true?

Despite the fact that the Iranian president denies the Holocaust?

[Bobboau]

may we bomb them yet?

[Mefustae]

What about Athiests, Buddhists, and other belief systems?

If true, they've probably got to wear certain identifying items too, the report just mentioned Jews and Christians for the emotive response from readers.

So you don't believe the story to be true?

Despite the fact that the Iranian president denies the Holocaust?

It's a view of history spawned from their culture and said individual's upbringing. I'm not defending that view, but to instantly assume the man is Hitler v2.0 for his view of history is almost as bad as the view itself.

[Mars]

Why did Bush go after some petty dictator like Saddam? Why couldn't it have been Iran? Maybe Bush could've had a duel with the head hauncho of Iran.

[Rictor]

Hey, the Iranian government may be many things: repressive, anti-Semetic and so on, but they are more-or-less democratic and freely elected. Granted, the clerics have final control, but every country has its entrenched elite who can skew elections. In the West, it's the business class, in Iran it's the mullahs.

As for the Nazirific story, either it's fake and/or unconfirmed or else the Iranian government has very, very good contacts inside the media to keep it from spreading. I think it's probably the former. I'll try asking my Iranian friend about it.

[Mefustae]

I'll try asking my Iranian friend about it.

OMG T3RR0R15T!!*

*I'm sorry. I'm really, really sorry. Honestly, that is just so terrible, my deepest apologies. I shall never do it again... funny though.

[Mars]

Y'all know I wasn't serious... right. I wouldn't want to offend the head hauncho of Iran.

[Ace]

Why did Bush go after some petty dictator like Saddam? Why couldn't it have been Iran? Maybe Bush could've had a duel with the head hauncho of Iran.

Because to put it bluntly, it was a feud.

The real targets of a "War on Terror" would be Iran or Saudi Arabia.

The Bush family has too many ties to the Saudis.

Iraq was more or less a known commodity when it came to the invasion. Of course they didn't expect an insurgency...

[Mefustae]

Moreover, the neo-cons had been planning for an invasion of Iraq since the mid-90's, and made those plans public years before the invasion was even thought up. The hubbub surrounding the so-called 'War on Terror', which - ironically - should have targetted the US as much as anyone else if it were a true war on terror, gave these people the excuse they needed to go into Iraq. I, for one, am happy that they've encountered such a s***-storm, and hope the legacy of their infamy follows the members of the current administration to their graves.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

it's semi-true: there's apparently a law in the making to force traditional dress on the iranians (to counter western influence) but it doesn't contain the "lets make jews wear yellow stars!" thing (yet).

Frankly, if Iran wants to counter foreign influences they should start with getting rid of Arabic script and that Arab religion Islam.

[Nuclear1]

Frankly, if Iran wants to counter foreign influences they should start with getting rid of Arabic script and that Arab religion Islam.

Zoroastrianism FTW!

[aldo_14]

So you don't believe the story to be true?

Despite the fact that the Iranian president denies the Holocaust?

I don't assume anything is true without some form of actual proof.  That's what led us to the Iraq fiasco, after all.

Hey, the Iranian government may be many things: repressive, anti-Semetic and so on, but they are more-or-less democratic and freely elected. Granted, the clerics have final control, but every country has its entrenched elite who can skew elections. In the West, it's the business class, in Iran it's the mullahs.

I wouldn't be sure about that, given that it's not much of a democracy is an unelected group has complete control over which candidates are allowed to stand.

[Rictor]

OK. And anyone without 300 million dollars doesn't get to stand for Presidential elections in the US. That's somehow more fair? Personally, I think an unelected branch of the government (notice I say branch) is a good thing to have, sort of like the House of Lords in the UK. Since they're unelected, they can keep the country steady through changing governments, economies and eras, without fear of being deposed. Fact is, few countries in the world are fully democratic. Iran is comfortably within that grey area, no worse than several hundred others.

[aldo_14]

OK. And anyone without 300 million dollars doesn't get to stand for Presidential elections in the US. That's somehow more fair? Personally, I think an unelected branch of the government (notice I say branch) is a good thing to have, sort of like the House of Lords in the UK. Since they're unelected, they can keep the country steady through changing governments, economies and eras, without fear of being deposed. Fact is, few countries in the world are fully democratic. Iran is comfortably within that grey area, no worse than several hundred others.

Not to say US or UK democracy is perfect, but neither is in the situation of facing the electorate with a list of candidates selected to give a desired outcome.  There's a big difference between a barrier caused by logistics, and one enforced on political ideologies.  It's like a factory, eg, not hiring someone because they don't have any need for workers, or a factory rejecting someone because they are black.

It's worth remembering the House of Lords, whilst powerful as an institution, cannot indefinately block legislation or arbitrarily affect the franchisement of candidates during elections.  The key difference in this vis-a-vis Iranian 'democracy' is that the HoL, of course, are not the highest level of government (nor would they be accepted as such) but only part of the checks-and-balances system.  Plus, of course, in the UK example the cost of standing as an MP is relatively low (£500 bond, refunded after a certain amount of votes are gained), and there is no ban on forming political parties or particular ideologies, simply the usual logistical difficulties.

[Sandwich]

Well, I'm fairly certain that the Jerusalem Post isn't under Iranian influence to publish a story or not. Given that, here's what they have:

Iran denies religious dress code law

Iranian officials on Saturday denied a report published by the Canadian National Post on the previous day, claiming that a new dress-code law was passed in Iran this past week, which mandates the government to make sure that religious minorities - Christians, Jews and Zoroastrians - will have to adopt distinct color schemes to make them identifiable in public.

The National Post later cited experts saying that the idea of religious demarcation had only arisen in discussing a law defining Iranian dress code. The paper quoted an Iranian commentator who said the idea of external identification of non-Muslim minorities was only raised as a secondary motion.

Legislator Emad Afroogh, who sponsored the bill and chairs the parliament's cultural committee, told The Associated Press on Friday there was no truth to the Canadian newspaper report.

"It's a sheer lie. The rumors about this are worthless," he said, explaining that the bill seeks only to make women dress more conservatively and avoid Western fashions. "The bill is not related to minorities. It is only about clothing," he said. "Please tell them (in the West) to check the details of the bill. There is no mention of religious minorities and their clothing in the bill," he said.

Iranian Jewish lawmaker Morris Motamed told the AP: "Such a plan has never been proposed or discussed in parliament. Such news, which appeared abroad, is an insult to religious minorities here."

A diplomat at Iran's mission to the United Nations in New York called the report "completely false."

"We reject that. It is not true. The minorities in Iran are completely free and are represented in the Iranian parliament," the diplomat said, speaking anonymously because he was not allowed to make official statements.

Whether approved as law or not, the proposal demanded that Jews will have to wear a yellow band on their exterior in public, while Christians will be required to don red ones.

The new law was drafted during the presidency of Muhammad Khatami in 2004, but was blocked. That blockage, however, has been removed under pressure from current President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In addition to the requirements on non-Muslims, the Iranian government has also envisioned that all Muslim Iranians wear "standard Islamic garments" designed to remove ethnic and class distinctions.

The purpose for the law was to prevent Muslims from becoming najis "unclean" by accidentally shaking the hands of non-Muslims in public.

According to Ahmadinejad, reported the National Post, the new Islamic uniforms will establish "visual equality" for Iranians as they prepare for the return of the Hidden Imam.

The final shape of the uniforms is yet to be established but there is consensus on a number of points.

The United States issued a strong condemnation on Friday of the reported proposal. US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said any such measure would be "despicable" and carry "clear echoes of Germany under Hitler."

Internal Security Minister Avi Dichter responded to the new law Friday night, saying, "Whoever makes Jews anywhere wear the yellow star again, will find themselves in a coffin draped in black."

Ophir Paz-Pines, minister-without-portfolio responsible for culture, sports, science and technology, who is also a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, called on the government's secretary to ensure the issue be immediately addressed during the next Cabinet meeting.

"The State of Israel was created after the Holocaust in order to ensure it would not be repeated. The yellow star is a bright red warning sign that obligates us to muster the entire world in the face of events there [Iran]."

Paz-Pines also called on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to make the issue his top priority when he visits Washington D.C. next week to meet US President George W. Bush.

Meretz Chairman Yossi Beilin said, "Israel could no longer be satisfied with warnings, and that the moment Jews are forced to wear the yellow band, Israel must act to evacuate all Jews from Iran." He added that, "Israel must stand at the forefront of efforts to separate Iran's crazy and Hitlerite regime from government control."

"The new law resembles the Holocaust," said head of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles, Rabbi Marvin Heir, and warned that, "Iran was nearing Nazi Ideology."

According to Army Radio, Wiesenthal Center officials sent a letter to United Nations Director General Kofi Annan urging him "not to ignore" the new law, and reminded him that, "The world ignored Hitler for many years."

The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations released a statement saying, "We have been seeking to clarify these reports but do not yet have confirmation. There are clear indications that various Iranian government agencies, including the Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, are working on new uniforms to be introduced in the fall.

"While such legislation would be reminiscent of dark periods in the past, like the Nazi era when Jews and others had to wear identifying badges, it is also consistent with the racist and extremist ideology propagated by President Ahmadinejad.

We are monitoring the situation and seeking to ascertain the facts in order to determine the appropriate response."

[Rictor]

Not to say US or UK democracy is perfect, but neither is in the situation of facing the electorate with a list of candidates selected to give a desired outcome.  There's a big difference between a barrier caused by logistics, and one enforced on political ideologies.  It's like a factory, eg, not hiring someone because they don't have any need for workers, or a factory rejecting someone because they are black.

Not to get in to a larger debate here, but I personally support a private business' right to refuse work to anyone for whatever reason, as long as they are not being screwed out of compensation/rights for work already performed. If I don't like Filipinos and want none of them in my store, it's entirely my business.

I guess it depends on your stance on the relative importance of democracy versus sovereignty. I take more or less the same stance with nations as with businesses: if they choose to persue their own political, economic or cultural course, that's their choice. I am not of the opinion that democracy, free press, rights etc (the whole package, you know what I mean) should be regarded as the universal standard to which everyone will be held. It's a Western concept and a relatively new one at that.  If Iran wants to introduce a strong religious tone in all their social activities, from dress to elecotral politics, that's their own business. Of course, as with all things, this applies only within reasonable limits (so for example, killing ten million people is not OK, regardless of sovereignty). But inhabiting the grey area between North Korea and Sweden is fine by me.