Iran has abolished its morality police in the wake of protests about the death of Mahsa Amini at their hands. The Jerusalem Post has more.
Iran has abolished its morality police, AFP reported citing Iran’s Attorney General Mohammad Jafar Montazeri.
This comes after the ongoing protests erupted across the country about the death of Mahsa Amini two months ago, who was arrested by Iranian morality police for allegedly violating Iran’s strict dress code for women.The morality police, also known as the Guidance Patrol, were founded in 2005 under the administration of president Mahmoud Ahmadinijad and serve as a religious police, reporting directly to Supreme Leader Ali Khamennei.
The typical unit consists of a van with a mixed male and female crew that patrols or waits at busy public spaces to police behavior and dress considered improper.
In an anonymous interview with the BBC, one officer spoke plainly about his work as a member of the morality police.
“They told us the reason we are working for the morality police units is to protect women,” he said. “Because if they do not dress properly, then men could get provoked and harm them.”
“It’s like we are going out for a hunt,” he confessed.
The officer also told the BBC that he found it especially difficult when citizens resisted arrest: “They expect us to force them inside the van. Do you know how many times I was in tears while doing it?
“I want to tell them I am not one of them. Most of us are ordinary soldiers going through our mandatory military service. I feel so bad.”
This is obviously fantastic news. But it does beg the question: when will Britain abolish its own morality police? The Free Speech Union estimates that police forces in England and Wales have investigated and recorded approximately 250,000 Non-Crime Hate Incidents since 2014. In spite of Harry Miller winning his Court of Appeal case, in which the judges ruled the College of Police’s guidance on NCHIs that the police have been following is unlawful, British citizens are still being investigated for committing these non-crimes.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Courts seem to exist primarily to provide income for the legal profession and satisfaction to the political profession.
With the summary provided it is difficult to understand why Simberg should only have been fined $1,000 in comparison to Steyn’s $1 million.
If Mann’s lawyers intentionally deceived the court, have they been arrested? Has Mann been charged with perjury?
Good luck to Mark Steyn and I hope he gets all his legal costs back, and more, and that his health steadily improves.
Courts seem to exist primarily to provide income for the legal profession.
I recall the tale of the 2 lawyers in a case concerning a contested will. Bumping into each other in the court’s toilets, one of them said: “Let’s spin this out for a few more weeks; after all, if we settle now, the money will only be frittered away by the beneficiaries”
That was exactly the case with my late grandfather’s estate. He had intended to leave equal provision to his stepson, son, and daughter, but the daughter chose to dispute her step-brother’s entitlement to an equal share. The case rumbled on, to no-one’s benefit other than the lawyers, with the legal costs being deducted from an already modest estate.
My daughter is a lawyer. I had hoped she would pursue something more honourable such as used car salesman, traffic warden or pole dancer – but no such luck.
Or estate agent?
I once saw a painting of two farmers arguing over a cow, one pulling at its horns, the other at its tail, with a lawyer sitting on a stool between them milking it. Sums them up.
Good news.
Mark Steyn one of life’s most intelligent Good Guys
This case should now start to crumble the rest of project Climate fear !!
The Climate Con. Mann is no scientist. To rephrase what the judge wrote – Mann is a liar and a charlatan.
Steyn was taken to court, not on the ‘science’, but in comparing Mann to a child predator. The case had zero to do with ‘science’.
That Mann lied is of no surprise at all. That seems to be what ‘the science’ is – an industry of liars, thieves, self promoters, totalitarians and self worshippers.
TheScience™
Roger Pielke Jr, The Honest Broker’s take…
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/in-bad-faith
“…A Washington DC court sanctions climate scientist Michael Mann and his lawyers for misconduct extraordinary in its scope, extent, and intent.”
New administration in Washington, new verdict. Justice seen to be done.
The times they are a changin’.
Even back in the 17C the approval of the legal profession was not high. I present Dick the Butcher from Henry VI Part II who advised, “The first thing we do is, let’s kill all the lawyers”. A tad extreme, I agree, but a useful first step in the general push to improve our society.
Agreed. Also to note that in Shakespeare’s time, “lawyers” meant lawmakers, i.e. politicians.
Are lawyers over-represented in the UK House of Commons, at the expense of engineers and scientists? Judging from the “debate” over the Climate Change Bill, I would not be surprised if some backbencher were to introduce a Bill To Repeal The Second Law of Thermodynamics in order to Save The Planet. (As today is International π Day, we could reflect on the 1897 attempt in Indiana to “adjust” the values of π.)
And he also blocked Steyn on X when he got news of the 5K fine, reduced from around 1 million.
Protestors storm the BBC amid anger over funding to Syria, with the persecution and murder of Christians and other minorities like the Alawites.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5cd0sFtooj8
Mann said “….. research is distorted and the truth about the climate threat is dissembled”.
He hit the nail on the head but not in the way he intended.
One of the funniest distortions was when Mann used the Tiljander proxies upside down (the age of some lake sediments went the wrong way). That is, owing to a silly slip, a slide was presented upside down at some conference of The Climate Faithful, yet the obvious blunder was downplayed. The joke is easily understood by non climate scientists. Perhaps Macavity Mann has finally been nailed to the crime scene!
Apperently there is no comment from Gavin Schmitt on his Real Climate blog which was one of Mann’s cheerleaders.
Oh dear, how sad, never mind.
Perhaps he’s writing a detailed explanation of why he supported a lemon.
It would seem that Mann is a serial liar. I’ve just checked the Guardian and can’t find anything about this, however I did quickly find an article there about Mann winning the original $1m. They mention the hockey stick but nothing about it being discredited.
Perhaps an aspiring poet could pen something on deniers v liars in the style of The Great McGonagall.
The image of Michael Mann makes my foot itch.
Perhaps now we will see an end to Mann made climate change.
I wouldn’t be so sure. The Minnesotans thought the Mann era was over in 2011, yet he’s still around. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMqc7PCJ-nc
Here is some commentary on the original Mann defamation claim. https://junkscience.com/michael-mann-defamed-or-defined-by-hide-the-decline/
There is far more behind this article than a defamation suit. One starting point might be YAD06 – the Most Influential Tree in the World – and its part in Mann’s downfall.