Reply
Tue 20 Dec, 2005 03:07 am
Iran bans Western music
Ruling takes country back to Khomeini days
Monday, December 19, 2005; Posted: 9:18 p.m. EST (02:18 GMT)
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has banned Western music from Iran's radio and TV stations, reviving one of the harshest cultural decrees from the early days of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Songs such as George Michael's "Careless Whisper," Eric Clapton's "Rush" and the Eagles' "Hotel California" have regularly accompanied Iranian broadcasts, as do tunes by saxophonist Kenny G.
But the official IRAN Persian daily reported Monday that Ahmadinejad, as head of Iran's Supreme Cultural Revolutionary Council, ordered the enactment of an October ruling by the council to ban Western music.
"Blocking indecent and Western music from the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting is required," according to a statement on the council's official Web site.
Ahmadinejad's order means broadcasters must execute the decree and prepare a report on its implementation within six months, according to the newspaper.
"This is terrible," said Iranian guitarist Babak Riahipour, whose music was played occasionally on state radio and TV. "The decision shows a lack of knowledge and experience."
Music was outlawed as un-Islamic by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini soon after the revolution. But as the fervor of the revolution started to fade, light classical music was allowed on radio and television. Some public concerts reappeared in the late 1980s.
Western music, films and clothing are widely available in Iran, and hip-hop can be heard on Tehran's streets, blaring from car speakers or from music shops. Bootleg videos and DVDs of films banned by the state are widely available on the black market.
After eight years of reformist-led rule in Iran, Ahmadinejad won office in August on a platform of reverting to ultraconservative principles promoted by the revolution.
Since then, Ahmadinejad has jettisoned Iran's moderation in foreign policy and pursued a purge in the government, replacing pragmatic veterans with former military commanders and inexperienced religious hard-liners.
He also has issued stinging criticisms of Israel, called for the Jewish state to be "wiped off the map" and described the Nazi Holocaust as a "myth." (Full story)
International concerns are high over Iran's nuclear program, with the United States accusing Tehran of pursuing an atomic weapons program. Iran denies the claims.
During his presidential campaign, Ahmadinejad also promised to confront what he called the Western cultural invasion and promote Islamic values.
The latest media ban also includes censorship of content of films.
"Supervision of content from films, TV series and their voice-overs is emphasized in order to support spiritual cinema and to eliminate triteness and violence," the council said in a statement on its Web site explaining its October ruling.
The council has also issued a ban on foreign movies that promote "arrogant powers," an apparent reference to the United States.
Fancy that! A country's leader having influence over what the citizens can hear and see.
Terrible.
<this post was sponsored by Fox News, in conjunction with the Homeland Security Department>
Lord Ellpus wrote:Fancy that! A country's leader having influence over what the citizens can hear and see.
Terrible.
<this post was sponsored by Fox News, in conjunction with the Homeland Security Department>
Having influence may not be terrible, but banning any music which does not conform to the state religion is certainly terrible, or don't you think so? If Bush banned Eastern music as being incompatible with Christianity, one supposes then that you would think it quite proper.
I'd get used to it, if I were you.
Thanks to GWB, this is how most of Iraq will be in about ten years.
Lord Ellpus wrote:I'd get used to it, if I were you.
Thanks to GWB, this is how most of Iraq will be in about ten years.
But you didn't merely tell me to get used to it. Your post implied that total and actively used state censorship of art was acceptable.
The word for today is sarcasm.
lezzles wrote:The word for today is sarcasm.
Is it? He seems to be stating his opinion pretty clearly:
Lord Ellpus wrote:Fancy that! A country's leader having influence over what the citizens can hear and see.
Terrible.
The implication of what he actually wrote is that state restriction of music to only that which conforms to the state religion is not terrible.
Unavoidable is more the word I would use, especially with GWB and his mobsters.
Anti west/american is nothing new. In France for instance, every planned McDonalds restaurant is vehemently opposed.
The Iranian people voted him in, knowing full well what he stood for. They voted him in BECAUSE he holds such views. He is now behaving in the way that MOST of the Iranian voters WANTED him to behave.
What don't you understand? Their way is THEIR way. Who are you to say it is wrong? Their strict religeous code does not even enter the road towards liberalism in any walk of life. But it appears to be what they WANT.
......and voted him in fairly and democratically.
A democratically elected leader, who swept into office with a very clear manifesto, now keeps to his word and puts these things into law.
I may not LIKE what he is doing, but....hey...he didn't come into power by force, has not changed his stance one iota and is now putting his manifesto into action.
Who am I to say he is wrong?
There are different cultures throughout the world, Brandon. Maybe they all don't want to drink Coke and walk around with pierced belly buttons.
What you SHOULD be worried about, is how GWB has opened up the Pandora's box that is Iraq.
Now....Iraq and Iran as strong allies in the not so far future.
That IS worrying!
Quote from Brandon....
"After eight years of reformist-led rule in Iran, Ahmadinejad won office in August on a platform of reverting to ultraconservative principles promoted by the revolution."
It seems that the Iranians didn't WANT reformist-led rule, wouldn't you agree?
The right of people to elect leaders who will institute a strict religious government.
Isn't this what we are fighting for in Iraq?
Brandon, I would think this would make you happy.
Zzzziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnnnnnnnnnnngggggggggggg !!!!!
heeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheeheehee . . .
i love it
okseeyahbye
Hopefully the Iranians will bounce him out on his ass in the next election.
Lord Ellpus wrote:...What don't you understand? Their way is THEIR way. Who are you to say it is wrong?
Yes, I do think that forcible censorship of art is wrong. The majority may not rightfully vote in a candidate who will remove freedom of speech, expression, assembly etc. from the minority. That is inherently wrong.
Lord Ellpus wrote:...Who am I to say he is wrong?
If you're unable to make moral decisions, what good are you?
Lord Ellpus wrote:...There are different cultures throughout the world, Brandon. Maybe they all don't want to drink Coke and walk around with pierced belly buttons...
But that's not what we're talking about is it? We're talking about government censorship of art, not people who resist drinking Coke. That is inherently wrong in a way which doesn't depend on culture. For you to look at basic civil liberties violations and say that's just their culture is pathetic. I'm sure you'd be the first to scream at any civil rights violations of war prisoners or anyone else by Bush.
ebrown_p wrote:The right of people to elect leaders who will institute a strict religious government.
Isn't this what we are fighting for in Iraq?
Brandon, I would think this would make you happy.
The majority may not rightfully vote in candidates who will restrict basic rights of the minority. Also, if you look at their election rules, they are not exactly fair. Most reformist candidates are vetoes by clerics.
Lord Ellpus wrote:The Iranian people voted him in, knowing full well what he stood for. They voted him in BECAUSE he holds such views. He is now behaving in the way that MOST of the Iranian voters WANTED him to behave.
What don't you understand? Their way is THEIR way. Who are you to say it is wrong? Their strict religeous code does not even enter the road towards liberalism in any walk of life. But it appears to be what they WANT.
......and voted him in fairly and democratically.
I dont think that an election in which the candidates who were allowed to run were hand-picked by the Guardian Council, with most of the reformist and all the radical candidates barred, can be said to be fair or democratic; nor do I think that the resulting election can be assumed to represent what "the Iranian people" want.
(And thats without going into the allegations that Ahmadinejad only ever got into the second round, at the cost of Mehdi Karroubi, through fraud, and that the banning of four reformist newspapers who wanted to publish Karroubi's letter of complaint didnt exactly disprove those allegations.)
Brandon9000 wrote:The majority may not rightfully vote in candidates who will restrict basic rights of the minority.
This is a pathetic attempt at a statement from authority. It is only your opinion--and although one might assert moral preference, this neither a law of the universe, nor binding on any political system.
Quote:Also, if you look at their election rules, they are not exactly fair. Most reformist candidates are vetoes by clerics.
Care to put your money where your mouth is? You can read
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran here.
Oh, he doesnt need to dig that deep, Set.
When an unelected Council of Guardians (half the members of which are appointed by an in turn unelected Supreme Leader) gets to veto who is allowed to stand or not - and does in fact bar all but seven out of 1014 registered candidates (stating, for example, that it will bar any woman candidate) - I think the point about "election rules that are not exactly fair" is pretty much already illustrated.
The process as it pragmatically exists might be described as unfair . . . however, he referred to the rules, not the pragmatic process . . . this is a member who consistently sneers at others on the matter of the quality of their proofs, Habibi . . . and sauce for the goose makes sauce for the gander . . .
Gosh, at first I thought they were banning Western Music i.e. Bob Wills, Sons of the Pioneers...
Setanta wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:The majority may not rightfully vote in candidates who will restrict basic rights of the minority.
This is a pathetic attempt at a statement from authority. It is only your opinion--and although one might assert moral preference, this neither a law of the universe, nor binding on any political system.
No, it's just my opinion, but I would have hoped it was yours too. I don't think that a national majority may rightfully deny basic freedoms we would here associate with the first amendment to a national minority, even if they do so by voting in their candidates.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace