Iran Is Arresting Models Who Pose Without Headscarves On Instagram (bbc.com) 375
An anonymous reader writes: The Tehran cybercrimes court said the country has arrested eight people working for online modeling agencies deemed to be "un-Islamic." The women models were arrested for starring in photos on Instagram and elsewhere without wearing their headscarves, which has been required in public since 1979. A total of 170 people have been identified by investigators for being involved in online modeling, including 59 photographers and make-up artists, 58 models and 51 fashion salon managers and designers. The court's prosecutor Javad Babaei announced the the threats on TV, claiming modeling agencies accounted for about 20 percent of posts on Instagram from Iran and that they had been "making and spreading immoral and un-Islamic culture and promiscuity." He added, "We carried out this plan in 2013 with Facebook, and now Instagram is the focus."
Perhaps... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This actually happens in orthodox Jewish communities.
Married women are forbidden of having their hair seen by strangers or something of that sort, so they all walk around wearing wigs.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have to go to Iran to find men who justify their ill behavior because of what they view as women being over-provocatively dressed. I've seen that exact claim made on /.
Re:Perhaps... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Fringes are also banned/have to be covered up.
Re: (Score:2)
>But in iran this idea is codified in the legal system, its not a fringe idea expressed by a weirdo on an internet forum.
Considering how frequently it is expressed by lawyers in court defenses (all of them), and how often it succeeds (most of the time) there is nothing fringe about it in the USA either and for all matters of practicality it IS enshrined in law. If you want to actually be different: make it a law that you CANNOT ask the accuser in a rape case what she was wearing because it cannot EVER be
Re: (Score:3)
It certainly sounds fucking backwards but then you don't have to go back very far in many advanced Western cultures to find mistreatment of women, children, animals, minorities, homosexuals & cripples.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not a liberal, well except when being compared to a rabid rightwingnut with execrable reading comprehension.
Re:Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good comparison. Obviously the sad puppies or whatever are directly comparable to groups that stone women for things that aren't even crimes here. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is Hitler, right?
Re: (Score:3)
Yes because everyone knows that picking something because of their sexual identity is the true meaning of quality and should be lauded for it. And you should never, ever, select something based on the merit of something.
snap-hijab (Score:5, Funny)
H
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We should make an islamic instagram app that automatically superimposes hijab/niqab on all females in a given shot. Hek it just removes all females from pics
There would be multiple markets for that app. [cnn.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Where's the beef? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cops in the US will arrest women for going topless in public. What's the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, nobody wants to go topless when it's freezing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The difference is that they're not hunting down people who are topless in pictures posted online and seek them out and arrest them.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that they're not hunting down people who are topless in pictures posted online and seek them out and arrest them.
Perhaps someone should make a program that automatically photoshops pictures of random people to remove the scarf from the image, and make it look as if they're not wearing one.
Then release the edited images as a clone feed on Instagram, so it will be impossible for the gov't to tell WHO was not wearing a scarf VS who was.
Re: (Score:2)
>The difference is that they're not hunting down people who are topless in pictures posted online and seek them out and arrest them.
So the difference is not a difference. Be consistent. Everybody here would reject a patent when it just "ancient idea 'on a computer'" - well it's not a difference just because you don't punish people who do it on a computer but DO punish them in the streets.
Re: (Score:2)
Cops in the US will arrest women for going topless in public. What's the difference?
Degree. Yes, some parts of the US are a little bit like a Theocracy. But even your example is stretching it. Only a few states have laws against toplessness.
Sure there a lot of fucked-up things in the US. Like those guys arrested for posting reviews of sex workers. What free speech?
But you can't seriously claim that the abuses of power are in the same class as Iran, one of the more repressive countries in its region, let alone the world.
(And yes, it was probably worse when it was a US client state.)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the jurisdiction, and there is a movement to get equality for going topless everywhere (#freethenipple). It's a discrimination issue, women's breasts are fetishized while men's are not, so men don't need to cover theirs up.
Oh, no, can't have that (Score:2)
Yes, but also in Manhattan, there's this [nytimes.com].
And of course there's that whole "can't show up without your ladyparts / manparts covered" feature of our society as well. And this "you have have sex for free, but you can't sell it" bit. And the "you can drink your liver into oblivion, but you can't smoke pot" thing. And so on.
We're plenty good at oppressing our citizens. But, just like Islamists, we have... "reasons." So it's okay.
Here's the beef (Score:2)
Oppression of the adult, informed individual is bad. If it's wrong, it's wrong. You don't get a pass because you're not quite as much of an asshole about it. Nor if there are other areas where you are just as bad, or worse.
The US exerts oppressive coercion - which is another way to say violence - across a long list of issues that bear upon informed personal and consensual choice. Some of them with huge official penalties, some with less. Any that have legal consequences echo strongly into other parts of lif
Soggy knees (Score:2)
It's all fun and games until women are literally subjugated.
http://addictinginfo.org/2014/... [addictinginfo.org]
[Yawn] (Score:3)
Third world problems.
But we must respect them because they're different (Score:5, Interesting)
Women are property with no rights, gays should be stoned to death, people who leave the faith are executed by family members. This is what life is like in Iran since the Islamists took over. This is what Islamists want for the world.
But for some reason you gullible westerners would rather get outraged at keeping boys out of girls toilets. You almost deserve it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you say that is what "Islamists" want for the world? Because the news told you?
No, because the leaders of those savage countries have said it. Go look it up for yourself.
Your myopic view is worthless.
Yes it is. Again, go find out about that prison for the mind for yourself.
People below a certain class are all considered "property with no rights" (according to the simplistic definition you imply) in all present societies (that I am aware of).
No, they aren't. They really aren't.
I doubt it. "Women
Re: (Score:2)
Actually - that sounded mostly like Orwell. It could have come straight out of "The theory and practice of oligarchical collectivism" - which in case you were wondering was a book within the book 1984 about what makes autocratic communism fail to be socialism and in fact turn into a complete disaster.
Actually, you should just read 1984. Then learn that Orwel hated capitalists even MORE than he hated communists, and that he actually fought for the anarcho-socialists in the Spanish revolution - and then read
Re: (Score:2)
"Women are property with no rights, gays should be stoned to death, people who leave the faith are executed by family members". It is exceedingly easy to find parallels for these in western society.
Where are the parallels for stoning gays and family executions? We have almost universal equal rights for all and it's only getting more so (despite some individuals opposition)
Re: (Score:2)
>for stoning gays
Never heard of gaybashing ? It is STILL a common practice.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you say that is what "Islamists" want for the world?
It's what Muslims want for the world. Sharia law as set down in the Qur'an and Hadiths.
Error in summary (Score:2)
FTFY.
The real reason for the head scarf (Score:2)
is being scrubbed out of existence and re-reasoned, as it would truly be scoffed at.
I've looked for links to what I know so if I ever brought it up I had a citation, yet to no avail. My only source is a National Geographic two cartridge VHS set titled ISLAM that I checked out of the library many years ago. The title might be different I just remember that the word ISLAM was in large bold letters, and how I read it's title, (inside ISLAM?)...
I won't post the story without any available backup source (the cle
Law applies to Territory - where is Instagram's? (Score:3)
"The territorial principle (also territoriality principle) is a principle of public international law under which a sovereign state can prosecute criminal offences that are committed within its borders." [wikipedia]
I would say that those women committed the picture-crime on US-based servers - no against US law. But the policemen viewing the pictures from Iran committed the immoral thing of viewing uncovered "US-based" pictures in Iran - against Iran law. I say let's sue those indecent Iranian policeman!
Sigh (Score:2)
I thought the Religious Police could no longer arrest people. Was that reversed?
Perhaps some states could hire those guys to prevent people from entering the 'wrong' bathroom...
Unlike in Freedomerica (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here, women are totally free to control their hair ...just not their own reproductive organs. On that point, US conservatives and Islamic Courts are in total agreement.
What the fuck are you talking about? What woman in America can't "control" her reproductive organs? Oh, you mean abortion. I'm rabidly pro-choice, more than you I bet, but saying stupid stuff just clouds, not clarifies.
The Hijab is Complicated (Score:2)
shave your heads in protest (Score:2)
Mock the law, women in Iran and around the world should shave their heads in protest. If you're in a western country wear an armband so that people know why.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
But they were breaking laws.
Stupid laws, yes, but they were being broken.
Re: (Score:2)
In the city I'm in, it's illegal to hang the wash out to dry on one particul
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like a dumb law to begin with. The answer is "well don't hang out your wash on that day" not to fine them for doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the law saying it's not a free country in this very narrow circumstance.
Re: (Score:2)
No vehicle without a driver may exceed 60 miles per hour.
Is that an "instantaneous" rate? Or is it really a limit on the number of miles traversed in one hour? What if the vehicle goes in a circle? Are we talking gross miles or net?
Walk a mile in my caligae (Score:4, Funny)
International, US survey, or Nautical? Statute? Roman, Italian, or Chinese?
African, or European? No, wait... that's swallows.
Re:Religion is what's 'immoral' (Score:4, Insightful)
As mentioned, this *is* a law. But laws can be changed.
Women can be, and have been, elected to national political office in Iran. [aljazeera.com] In fact, 84 of 435 (19.3%) of their national representatives are women. That isn't that great, admittedly, but at least it's--
Oh wait, those are the US house of reps numbers. Our senate has 20 women out of 100 senators, roughly the same ratio.
Meanwhile, Iranian women MPs are 21 of 290, or 7%. But before you argue how backwards that is compared to the US, reflect that it is roughly the representation the US had in the early 1990s [wikipedia.org].
So there's hope for a more representational government, both for Iran and the US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well said. We should not close our minds to the good things, even if there are many things we may dislike about a specific nation or culture. However, it we also have to allow legitimate criticism, and it is obviously wrong to dictate how people choose to look or dress, whether it is making it mandatory to wear headscarves or banning the same. This is wrong simply because it runs against the diverse nature of people; some women clearly feel more comfortable with a headscarf or other traditional dress items,
Re: (Score:2)
If you claim that Israel is a racist country by the mere fact that it is a Jewish state, you are doing exactly that: denying Jews the right of self-determination.
If you are repeating Holocaust deniers' false "historical" claims, you are either painfully uninformed, or doing so on purpose.
Both of those have nothing to do with criticizing Israel.
Shachar
Re: (Score:2)
If you claim that Israel is a racist country by the mere fact that it is a Jewish state, you are doing exactly that: denying Jews the right of self-determination.
I would like to hear the details in that argument - I don't see how criticising the state of Israel for allowing illegal settlements (not to mention actively building them) or practising what looks increasingly like apartheid means that you are calling Israel racist by "the mere fact that it is a Jewish state", or how that logically leads to the conclusion that Jews have no right to self-determination. I am willing to let you convince me - with logical arguments, please,
As for whether Judaism is inherently
Re: (Score:2)
If you claim that Israel is a racist country by the mere fact that it is a Jewish state, you are doing exactly that: denying Jews the right of self-determination.
I would like to hear the details in that argument - I don't see how criticising the state of Israel for allowing illegal settlements (not to mention actively building them) or practising what looks increasingly like apartheid means that you are calling Israel racist by "the mere fact that it is a Jewish state", or how that logically leads to the conclusion that Jews have no right to self-determination. I am willing to let you convince me - with logical arguments, please,
It's one thing to say "Israel should not build settlements over the green line". That is legitimate criticism (one, BTW, I share). It would have been a legitimate criticism to accuse Israel of operating an apartheid regime, had that accusation not been based on completely and utterly incorrect facts, and the people making that accusation usually being unwilling to discuss those base assumptions, often redefining what "racism" and "apartheid" mean. Personally, I see neither of those basis of criticism as inh
Re: (Score:3)
Dump the breaking laws part and replace harm with significant harm and you got it.
Laws can be made up to be anything the rulers want it doesn't make them just.
Most actions a person makes affects someone else and may cause harm to someone else. if I go out in public showing my face some people may be offended, that can be construed as harm. However I don't consider being offended as significant harm. One of the things I see more and more people thinking they have the right not to be offended. I believe this
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things I see more and more people thinking they have the right not to be offended. I believe this should never be a right.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental right, and that includes saying you find things offensive. It's an absolutely fundamental right in all modern, progressive countries, and absolutely should be. It's fundamental to democracy.
What isn't a right is to stop others offending you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish I was joking.
Re: (Score:2)
Regarding theocrats, see patriarchy [wikipedia.org]. In fact, I can't think of a single theocratic country that is run by women...
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.vox.com/2016/5/16/1... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>Insulting a woman doesn't make you a woman hater.
If the insult is based on an innate experience of womenhood then yes, that's exactly what it makes you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Iran wasn't so stuck in the past.
Indeed. Before Iran became an Islamic Republic, it was an enlightened American client state, ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a really great guy, who provided his people with the most modern instruments of torture, and housed his political prisoners in state of the art facilities. It is surprising how ungrateful the Iranian people are toward America, since we installed and unselfishly supported this wonderful regime for nearly three decades, and we gave them plenty of advice on how to build and run th
Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:3, Insightful)
Both of those regimes are/were messed up in their own special way.
It's too bad that sheeple put up with such tyranny, in either case.
Re: (Score:3)
When in Rome, follow Roman law. You want to play with fire, try starting a Communist party in the USA (illegal), or offering end to end encryption email with no back doors in England.
No, the US isn't Europe. We don't ban any political parties from existing or saying whatever backwards shit they want to say, which is inclusive of anything from Communist to Fascist parties. The thing is, it's borderline impossible for them to have it their way, because the amount of support they need to be able to do anything is astronomical compared to what is needed in Europe (and is hence one of the downsides of a parliamentary system.)
Re:Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:4, Insightful)
Europe has more freedom than the US. We have paedophile political parties and stuff like that too. We also have much more positive freedom, that is where the state is obliged to protect people to some extent. The US kinda has it in some back-door ways, like the requirement to scrape people off the street after an accident and do the bare minimum require to keep them alive Since Europe has had problems with specific groups (e.g. Nazis) in the past, it is judged that on balance banning them in certain countries (Germany) is justified.
US schools force children to pledge allegiance to the state. The pledge contains the phrase "under god", even though there is supposed to be separation of church and state. Don't tell me that the US has more political freedom than Europe, it's a gross over-simplification and untrue.
Re: (Score:3)
Freedom of speech is a guaranteed right under the ECHR. A constitution isn't the only way to codify rights.
Re: (Score:3)
Ahem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
"In 1973 a federal district court in Arizona decided that the act was unconstitutional and Arizona could not keep the party off the ballot in the 1972 general election (Blawis v. Bolin). In 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the act did not bar the party from participating in New York's unemployment insurance system (Communist Party v. Catherwood)
However, the Supreme Court of the United States has not ruled on the act's constitutionality. Despite th
Re: Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:3)
I did. I even mentioned those facts in another comment. None of it changes anything. A law doesnt cease to be a law because it is not enforced.
Only an idiot would claim this law has not had a stiffling effect just by existing.
Re: (Score:3)
try starting a Communist party in the USA (illegal)
I'd like to believe you're simply ignorant rather than intentially telling a falsehood [cpusa.org]. We don't ban political parties in the US. Granted, we haven't always lived up to that ideal, like the McCarthy-era witch hunts - perhaps that's what you're thinking of?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ahem, Ahem, a-fucking-hem: you bloody well DO ban political parties in the USA and have SPECIFICALLY banned communist parties: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The law has never been enforced, and was found unconstitutional by one state supreme court (but because nobody appealed the finding it has never been nationally decided by the federal supreme court) but the law DOES exist.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because the law isn't actively enforced doesn't mean it is any less bad that the law exists, which it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Iran wasn't so stuck in the past.
Indeed. Before Iran became an Islamic Republic, it was an enlightened American client state, ruled by Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, a really great guy, who provided his people with the most modern instruments of torture, and housed his political prisoners in state of the art facilities. It is surprising how ungrateful the Iranian people are toward America, since we installed and unselfishly supported this wonderful regime for nearly three decades, and we gave them plenty of advice on how to build and run the prisons that kept all the troublemakers locked up. All we asked for in return was plenty of cheap oil.
Seems like what they have now is so much better :|
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear power
nuclear powen (extend the last line of the "r")
nuclear wepon (swap two letters)
nuclear weapon (add "a")
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It wasn't that long ago that Christians were burning each other at the stake for being the wrong kind of Christian.
It doesn't take much for religionists to regress to this kind of mentality.
Trump is the future (Score:3, Insightful)
Trump is the creation of people like you, that called every mild person you disagreed with Hitler, and thus were all vanquished.
You got exactly what you wanted, all of the mild people banished, and replaced by hard men and women who punch back twice as hard when challenged because it's the only way to stand up to people calling you Hitler - they obviously will not listen to reason, only louder bluster.
It's obviously what you wanted as you worked so hard for this to com to pass. Strange that you sound unhap
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Lol. Trump may not be Hitler, but to pin the rise of Trump on people who care about the common good? Nonsense. No, Trump is the creation of the rights brand of histrionic finger-waving. The Fox News dumbing down of America. The manufactured acceptance of Palin-style bullshit to feed your racist, bigoted agenda. Trump is your creation, your problem, and will be your downfall. I will laugh when he either loses or actually pivots so much to the left (where his policies have lain for the greater part of
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly. A lot of people just aren't getting this. Trump isn't really conservative, and he's proving that many Republican voters aren't either. They don't care for the religious BS that idiots like Santorum push (like trying to ban contraceptives), and they're not for the hardline economic conservatism that "let's eliminate taxes on the billionaires" candidates like Marco advocate. They apparently don't even care much about which bathroom trans people use. They don't see the Democrats as working for th
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Gods I'm so glad to see you saying that.
War Hero John McCain runs... we can't let him win or lose, we'd better say he's waging a WAR ON WOMEN and is SEXIST!
http://inthesetimes.com/articl... [inthesetimes.com]
Romney runs, a governor with a reasonably liberal history, especially regarding women's issues? One who wants to be SURE that women get representation in his possible future administration that he gets started, early, on the task of making a list of qualified women? That becomes "binders of women". Romney is waging a W
Re:Trump is the future (Score:5, Insightful)
>Liberals will call every Republican sexist, no matter fucking what they do
That's easy to fix: support paid family leave, childcare assistance, guaranteed maternity leave, promise to leave abortion rights untouched and fight AGAINST state governments that try to restrict it, stick to the small government thing enough to get the fuck out of women's wombs entirely in fact - leave that between her and her doctor, and stop fighting against letting women have ready access to birth control, make ending rape culture a goal - and that includes ensuring every rapist gets the punishment he deserves and actually BAN victim blaming as an attempted defense in court.
Republicans have been consistently on the wrong side of every one of these issues and every now and then they go even further and pull a Todd Aiken on top of it. Those things are what is described as the war on women. You will NEVER escape that accusation unless you change on ALL those things. You cannot stop being accused of a war on women unless you stop FIGHTING one.
Re: Trump is the future (Score:2, Insightful)
Because Muslims are desperately trying to escape America... Not break in for welfare and jihad... Right, you fucking dipshit?
Re: (Score:2)
They're simply trying to help you free yourselves from the upcoming repressive regime :)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure about Hitler - but comparing him to Verwoerd is a spot-on accurate comparison - except that the latter was a LOT more eloquent.
The thing is - as somebody who lived under the only fascist government to ever rule a country for a significant period WITHOUT being simultaneously at war with major powers... I heard every variation of fascist rhetoric. From the absolute hatred of communism to blaming other races for your hardships, blaming liberals for every evil in the world and filling people with f
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting three rather important little words: Nuclear Launch Codes.
And you want to give them to somebody with all the tact, social grace and diplomacy of a hungry crocodile in a penguin-tank.
Re: (Score:3)
>The only country that says its citizens are entitled to disagree with the government,
You are right on every part except this one - this is true in many countries and hell the USA wasn't even the first. You could argue they were the first in the modern world but only by less than 10 years since the French republic after the revolution was built on the same principles and then rapidly exported it across all Europe.
Re:In China... (Score:5, Funny)
How about if you kiss her on the mouth?
Re: (Score:2)
All for Silas. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Try to stay on subject, and not blasting out your own personal political rants on other topics. It's not a 'feminism' thread, it's a 'Iran is Violating Human Rights of Women' thread.
Ah, rights (Score:2)
I am not at all in favor of Iran's culture.
However, the fact is that "rights" are those local things (generally nationally local) that someone is willing to put force behind to ensure. They are not some inherent, holy set of things that descend with banners waving and gilded choirs singing, no matter what anyone tries to tell you or wants to think.
Further to that, national borders put an extremely hard stop between what one set of willing enforcers will defend, and what other sets of willing enforcers will
Well, but then there's reality (Score:2)
I guarantee you that, all other things being equal, when men are making the decisions, the wearing of high heels as compared to flats, long hair as opposed to short, skirt and/or dress as opposed to pants, hosiery as opposed to no hosiery, makeup as opposed to no makeup, clear skin as opposed to visible tattoos... those things will in general result in more immediate hiring, faster career advancement, more pay, and better customer relations. As men's taste's change, the sorts of things one might accurately
Re: (Score:2)
Repressing half the population (Score:2, Troll)
If a female goes outside in the USA (and many other places) without a top on, you'll get to see repression of an exactly similar nature.
Probably shouldn't be feeling all that superior to Iran, really.
Just a matter of degree.
Re: (Score:2)
If a female goes outside in the USA (and many other places) without a top on, you'll get to see repression of an exactly similar nature.
Probably shouldn't be feeling all that superior to Iran, really.
Just a matter of degree.
It may be frowned upon but in a lot of the US it's not illegal. I read this thing about a woman who goes around topless for the most part and apart from dodgy looks its mostly fine. I'm not going to search for it because I'm at work and my internet history is probably already dodgy enough. They certainly don't go around arresting women who have topless photos online though.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you got that backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw this news earlier on Google News and Yahoo! News and some other places. No offense but, is this really Slashdot relevant? It's interesting news, sure, but what is still separating Slashdot from any other news website anymore?
Not really but it mentions instagram so it's fair game.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrational belief is often not compatible with classical liberal perspectives.. Good luck finding one.
Re: (Score:2)
USA is lead by Obama, isn't it?
Seriously, Turkey is reasonably western and always was. Yes, it is pretty dim if you look at it from hippie western point of view, but it is a star of personal freedom compared to most other Muslim countries. At least it was since https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org], it seems to be degrading in few last years from what I have heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Turkey, Indonesia, India, Pakistan... actually MOST countries with Muslim majorities have fairly good track records on human rights (at least, no worst than America). The only ones where this kind of terrible shit happens is where theocrats got themselves made government, when theocrats make the law it is always only a matter of time before only the crazy theocrats get to make the laws.
And historically - everytime theocrats got into power in the Christian west, the outcome was exactly the same. How short ou
Re: (Score:2)
Its a typical geek/nerd thing, random deep interest in a particular subject. So why specifically women's hair and why not men's hair. What happens if you shave you head and are bald, do you still require the covering. How about if you shave you head and wear an artificial wig, it's not your hair, so do you still need to cover it. What happens if you shave you head and displays the leftover hair, do you cover your head or that hair. If it is women's hair what happens if a bald man, wears a wig made of women
Re: (Score:3)
For those on the other side of the pond who've never heard of it, the world's largest annual music competition - Eurovision - just voted a muslim woman as the winner. Of course, that was more a slam at Russia than anything else, since she's a Tatar and was singing [youtube.com] about how the Russians ethnically cleansed her great grandmother.