Iran to Ban Dogs

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

Lawmakers in Tehran have recently proposed a bill in parliament that would criminalize dog ownership, formally enshrining its punishment within the country's Islamic penal code. The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards, the popularity of dog ownership "also poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West."

The criminalizing of dogs, in this context, helps the government address the legal gray areas concerning lifestyle behavior. When authorities found it difficult to police what it termed Westernized hairstyles worn by young men, it solved the problem last year by releasing a poster of specifically banned styles. These measures are a firm reminder that the government will brook no disobedience, whether it be chanting antigovernment slogans in the streets or sporting excessively long sideburns.

http://time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html

No comment. 

[BabylonHoruv]

Lawmakers in Tehran have recently proposed a bill in parliament that would criminalize dog ownership, formally enshrining its punishment within the country's Islamic penal code. The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards, the popularity of dog ownership "also poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West."

The criminalizing of dogs, in this context, helps the government address the legal gray areas concerning lifestyle behavior. When authorities found it difficult to police what it termed Westernized hairstyles worn by young men, it solved the problem last year by releasing a poster of specifically banned styles. These measures are a firm reminder that the government will brook no disobedience, whether it be chanting antigovernment slogans in the streets or sporting excessively long sideburns.

http://time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html

No comment. 

I don't think banning dogs and banning certain hairstyles are really the same category of action.  Dogs do in fact pose a public health hazard if not cared for properly, and they can be very effective assistance when fighting.  The hairstyle law was silly, this one, not so much.  Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it doesn't strike me as frivolous.

[Succulent Plant]

Lawmakers in Tehran have recently proposed a bill in parliament that would criminalize dog ownership, formally enshrining its punishment within the country's Islamic penal code. The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards, the popularity of dog ownership "also poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West."

The criminalizing of dogs, in this context, helps the government address the legal gray areas concerning lifestyle behavior. When authorities found it difficult to police what it termed Westernized hairstyles worn by young men, it solved the problem last year by releasing a poster of specifically banned styles. These measures are a firm reminder that the government will brook no disobedience, whether it be chanting antigovernment slogans in the streets or sporting excessively long sideburns.

http://time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html

No comment. 

I don't think banning dogs and banning certain hairstyles are really the same category of action.  Dogs do in fact pose a public health hazard if not cared for properly, and they can be very effective assistance when fighting.  The hairstyle law was silly, this one, not so much.  Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it doesn't strike me as frivolous.

I didn't see any 'public health hazard' reasoning mentioned for the banning in the article though, except maybe that last paragraph that posed the question of what would happen to the dogs if the owner's weren't able to care for them due to financial issues.  And that was the writers speculation... It didn't come from the lawmakers responsible for the ban - unless I missed something.

[BadBeast]

On a more positive aspect, they will have effectively banned cruelty to Dogs, Dogfighting, Stray dogs, and having to watch out for Dogshit wherever you walk.   

[Succulent Plant]

On a more positive aspect, they will have effectively banned cruelty to Dogs, Dogfighting, Stray dogs, and having to watch out for Dogshit wherever you walk.   

Good point BB.  Someone should ban having children! No child abuse, no playground bullying, no orphans, and no more shitty baby diapers to change. 

[BabylonHoruv]

Lawmakers in Tehran have recently proposed a bill in parliament that would criminalize dog ownership, formally enshrining its punishment within the country's Islamic penal code. The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards, the popularity of dog ownership "also poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West."

The criminalizing of dogs, in this context, helps the government address the legal gray areas concerning lifestyle behavior. When authorities found it difficult to police what it termed Westernized hairstyles worn by young men, it solved the problem last year by releasing a poster of specifically banned styles. These measures are a firm reminder that the government will brook no disobedience, whether it be chanting antigovernment slogans in the streets or sporting excessively long sideburns.

http://time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html

No comment. 

I don't think banning dogs and banning certain hairstyles are really the same category of action.  Dogs do in fact pose a public health hazard if not cared for properly, and they can be very effective assistance when fighting.  The hairstyle law was silly, this one, not so much.  Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it doesn't strike me as frivolous.

I didn't see any 'public health hazard' reasoning mentioned for the banning in the article though, except maybe that last paragraph that posed the question of what would happen to the dogs if the owner's weren't able to care for them due to financial issues.  And that was the writers speculation... It didn't come from the lawmakers responsible for the ban - unless I missed something.

you missed this

The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards.......

[BadBeast]

On a more positive aspect, they will have effectively banned cruelty to Dogs, Dogfighting, Stray dogs, and having to watch out for Dogshit wherever you walk.  

Good point BB.  Someone should ban having children! No child abuse, no playground bullying, no orphans, and no more shitty baby diapers to change.  

That too. It would stop the exponential population explosion.

[Laughin Jude]

I don't think banning dogs and banning certain hairstyles are really the same category of action.  Dogs do in fact pose a public health hazard if not cared for properly, and they can be very effective assistance when fighting.  The hairstyle law was silly, this one, not so much.  Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it doesn't strike me as frivolous.

If they were banning dogs for the reasons you listed... that would still be ridiculous, but at least plausibly defensible. But you know they're banning dogs because "omg Western!" and "the imams say they're dirty," which are completely asinine reasons to do anything. Claiming dogs are "public health hazards" is just an excuse so they can try to justify it when people argue with them in non-religious/anti-authoritarian terms.

On a more positive aspect, they will have effectively banned cruelty to Dogs, Dogfighting, Stray dogs, and having to watch out for Dogshit wherever you walk.

And all it took was confiscating and killing all the dogs already in the country. 

[Succulent Plant]

On a more positive aspect, they will have effectively banned cruelty to Dogs, Dogfighting, Stray dogs, and having to watch out for Dogshit wherever you walk.  

Good point BB.  Someone should ban having children! No child abuse, no playground bullying, no orphans, and no more shitty baby diapers to change.  

That too. It would stop the exponential population explosion.

All NPG all the time.

[BadBeast]

 

I don't think banning dogs and banning certain hairstyles are really the same category of action.  Dogs do in fact pose a public health hazard if not cared for properly, and they can be very effective assistance when fighting.  The hairstyle law was silly, this one, not so much.  Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it doesn't strike me as frivolous.

If they were banning dogs for the reasons you listed... that would still be ridiculous, but at least plausibly defensible. But you know they're banning dogs because "omg Western!" and "the imams say they're dirty," which are completely asinine reasons to do anything. Claiming dogs are "public health hazards" is just an excuse so they can try to justify it when people argue with them in non-religious/anti-authoritarian terms.

On a more positive aspect, they will have effectively banned cruelty to Dogs, Dogfighting, Stray dogs, and having to watch out for Dogshit wherever you walk.

And all it took was confiscating and killing all the dogs already in the country. 

[Succulent Plant]

Lawmakers in Tehran have recently proposed a bill in parliament that would criminalize dog ownership, formally enshrining its punishment within the country's Islamic penal code. The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards, the popularity of dog ownership "also poses a cultural problem, a blind imitation of the vulgar culture of the West."

The criminalizing of dogs, in this context, helps the government address the legal gray areas concerning lifestyle behavior. When authorities found it difficult to police what it termed Westernized hairstyles worn by young men, it solved the problem last year by releasing a poster of specifically banned styles. These measures are a firm reminder that the government will brook no disobedience, whether it be chanting antigovernment slogans in the streets or sporting excessively long sideburns.

http://time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2065873,00.html

No comment. 

I don't think banning dogs and banning certain hairstyles are really the same category of action.  Dogs do in fact pose a public health hazard if not cared for properly, and they can be very effective assistance when fighting.  The hairstyle law was silly, this one, not so much.  Doesn't mean I agree with it, but it doesn't strike me as frivolous.

I didn't see any 'public health hazard' reasoning mentioned for the banning in the article though, except maybe that last paragraph that posed the question of what would happen to the dogs if the owner's weren't able to care for them due to financial issues.  And that was the writers speculation... It didn't come from the lawmakers responsible for the ban - unless I missed something.

you missed this

The bill warns that that in addition to posing public health hazards.......

Oh fuck, that was even quoted in the OP. lol  All I saw was the "imitation of the vulgar culture of the West" part of that sentence.

[BadBeast]

Our culture is quite vulgar though. They do have a point. (Not about Dogs, I love Dogs)

[Luna]

Our culture is quite vulgar though. They do have a point. (Not about Dogs, I love Dogs)

You love vulgar, too...

[BadBeast]

Our culture is quite vulgar though. They do have a point. (Not about Dogs, I love Dogs)

You love vulgar, too...

Well, yeah, . . . . . . . .

[Succulent Plant]

Our culture is quite vulgar though. They do have a point. (Not about Dogs, I love Dogs)

It is, but I think our pets are one of our least vulgar qualities.  Except the 'pets as accessories' trend, which they may have been referring to here: "The cleric Gholamreza Hassani, from the city of Urmia, has been satirized for his sermons railing against "short-legged" and "holdable" dogs."