"The pro-reform daily Kargozaran reported Monday that police were questioning women and men where they bought their clothes or had their hair done, then targeting the shops."
-- from the article above

To quote Wislawa Szymborska:

"Only in blue and just small sizes."

Posted by: Hugh at June 16, 2008 4:32 PM

Ok, Mr. Spencer,

I have followed your site for many years. It is in my favorites list. I appreciate that you mostly quote "mainstream media" to illustrate your point...(AP, AFP,Reuters...". To me, that makes you more credible, and, I know, that is why you do that.

But, I had to wrestle with this story. I mean, the USA has a dress code too. Women can't go shirtless like men in 99% of the country. Hell, I can't put a "Shit Happens" bumpersticker on my truck. Even though it is obvious to anyone that in fact, shit does happen. But, our government denies that "shit does happen".

So, what is the difference between Iran and USA dress code ? I'm just looking forward to your reply.

Thank You,

Derek

Posted by: qzy at June 16, 2008 5:39 PM

Dear Mr. Spencer,

Please delete my previous post. I was wrong. Georgia declared the ban on "shit happens" to be unconstitutional.

Posted by: qzy at June 16, 2008 6:03 PM

Well, I'm not Robert, but I'm the one who posted the article, so I'll offer a few thoughts:

Yes, every country has a dress code, but Western norms and the Iranian system defy comparison on a number of levels:

One is the nature of the government making the laws. Western democracies are social-contract governments, whereas the democratic elements in Iran are reined in by a set of clerical authorities who are more concerned with acceptable government than truly representative government, and who are concerned with maintaining that control in order to preserve their power.

Further to that point is the separation, or lack thereof, between religion and state. Laws concerning decency in the U.S. are driven by consensus, not by clerical decree. And law enforcement cannot be put in the service of clerical opinion here, as is the case in Iran.

Another is the scope of legally acceptable attire in Iran versus what people would like to be wearing, and the resulting level of compulsion in what one ends up wearing. There are obvious cultural differences between Iran and the West here, but the fact that such an aggressive crackdown is deemed necessary in Iran, not only against the level of coverage in women's attire, but in men's haircuts, the wearing of neckties, etc., shows the the government is out of step with the norms of attire that would emerge if Iranians were left alone to choose what they wear.

Contrast that with the U.S: Large numbers of people are not lobbying for the right to ride the subway nude, and not nearly in the proportion of Iranians who might like to toss the chador, or sport a Western hairstyle. So I don't think the comparison holds up.

Posted by: MarisolJW at June 16, 2008 6:06 PM

Thank You Marisol,

I just want to let you know, I read your article several times. I read your response several times too. I guess I just want you to know I am serious about debating this. I am a little worried because my response to your response is somewhat brief.

Can you explain why it is acceptable for a man to walk around outside without a shirt, but it's not acceptable for a woman to walk around outside without a shirt ? I'm sure it is related to the Bible. Also, I did a quick search for, "Should women be allowed to go topless in the USA ?". Most people said, "Yes". So, I guess I disagree with, "the laws are driven by consensus. I would have to say that law is driven by religious tradition.

Anyway, that's it. We all have our dress codes. I can't see why the USA's is superiour to Iran's. And, I'm not trying defend Iran. I can't say I know much about that country. But, the dress code thing seems a little petty. People in glass houses...

Thank you for your time,

Derek

Posted by: qzy at June 16, 2008 11:40 PM

Thank You Marisol,

I just want to let you know, I read your article several times. I read your response several times too. I guess I just want you to know I am serious about debating this. I am a little worried because my response to your response is somewhat brief.

Can you explain why it is acceptable for a man to walk around outside without a shirt, but it's not acceptable for a woman to walk around outside without a shirt ? I'm sure it is related to the Bible. Also, I did a quick search for, "Should women be allowed to go topless in the USA ?". Most people said, "Yes". So, I guess I disagree with, "the laws are driven by consensus. I would have to say that law is driven by religious tradition.

Anyway, that's it. We all have our dress codes. I can't see why the USA's is superiour to Iran's. And, I'm not trying defend Iran. I can't say I know much about that country. But, the dress code thing seems a little petty. People in glass houses...

Thank you for your time,

Derek

Posted by: qzy at June 16, 2008 11:41 PM

One last thing,

I would say the USA is a republican government and not a democracy.

Derek

Posted by: qzy at June 16, 2008 11:50 PM

People in glass houses...

Derek, you raise a good question

Much of women in Africa went naked the same as America where the climate permitted the indians went topless until the christians imposed their dress codes, the same happen in Indonesia, where most women where topless, and in East Java and Bali, many older women in the villages go topless.

What is interesting, is in Indonesia, it was the Dutch (christians) who imposed the so called modest dress code, not the muslims.

Much of the history of Indonesia is vague,so there are claims that Indonesia was Islamized peacefully, but there are clues that this was not the case.

Blambangan (East Java) in the sixteenth century when the people in this region were introduced to Islam and Christianity for the first time.
This was an epoch which witnessed dramatic changes in Javanese political and cultural life. The Kingdom Majapahit finally collapsed in the 1530s. On the north coast of Java, Demak, the first Islamic kingdom in the island, was established in 1513. Ten years later of the former Majapahit territory was already Islamized at least nominally. Tuban and Kediri accepted Islam in 1527 and Surabaya three years later. With the fall of Majapahit, Blambangan was left as the only
Hindu kingdom in Java. As the realm crumbled, most of the very devout Hindu community in former Majapahit territory moved to the east, to such areas as Pasuruhan, Panarukan, Blambangan, and Bali.

In 1545, Demak failed in its efforts to Islamize Panarukan by exercising its military power, but its endeavours to Islamize Blambangan continued unabated.

With the capture of Pangeran Wilis in 1768, the rebellion against the The Dutch East India Company in Blambangan ended and peace could finally be restored. The Company banished all of the rebel leaders to the island of Banda, including the first two Regents installed by the The Dutch East India Company, Mas Uno and Mas Anom. However, the intractable problem of deep-seated ethnic and religious sentiments simmered on as potentially disruptive elements which might spark new political disturbances in Blambangan.
The attention paid by the Company to the rebellion of Pangeran Wilis extended only to its origins from the political point of view. The
disturbing factor was the intervention of the Balinese in Blambangan politics. Weighing up the significant role played by the Balinese in the
rebellion, the Dutch administration surmised that the former would always be potential supporters of the Blambangan people in their resistance to further attempts by the Company to establish itself in this region. The religious factor and the primordial linkage between the Balinese and the Blambangan people were believed to be the key factors which guaranteed Balinese support. A large number of the
Blambangan royal family were of Balinese origin, and in the eyes of the Balinese, Blambangan represented the last buffer against the
expansion of Islam into the island of Bali. Anxious to prevent any pretext for intervention by the Balinese and any recrudescence of an
anti-Dutch movement in Blambangan, the Company authorities in Java’s Oosthoek devised the idea of encouraging the Islamizing of the Blambangan people. This policy was engineered to stifle ideological sentiment and attempt to eliminate primordial relationships between the two realms.
As might have been expected, this policy raised considerable obstacles to the introduction of law and order to the newly conquered region. The Islamization of Blambangan proved to be contra-productive for the maintenance of the peace. For more than two centuries, the people of Blambangan had strongly opposed the twin spectres of Islamization and Javanese colonialism, the two bugbears aroused by recurrent endeavours made by Javanese-Muslim rulers of Mataram and their vassals to exert control over the region.
Colonization campaigns by the Javanese kings had alienated the Blambangan people, draining them of any ethnic sentiment of being Javanese; professing to be Javanese by this time meant being both
Muslim and colonized.

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/dspace/bitstream/1887/12547/12/04.pdf

Posted by: InfidelK9 at June 17, 2008 1:26 AM

Remember this

A Muslim woman was awarded £4,000 yesterday after the owner of a hair salon refused to employ her because she wears a headscarf.

Bushra Noah, 19, who has been rejected for 25 hairdressing jobs, had accused Sarah Desrosiers of religious discrimination after she failed to offer her a position in May last year. Ms Desrosiers, 32, said she needed staff to display their hairstyles to customers at the Wedge salon in King’s Cross, North London.

A panel at the Central London employment tribunal dismissed a claim of direct discrimination but upheld a complaint of indirect discrimination.

Mrs Noah, of Acton, West London, applied for a job as a junior assistant. When she arrived at the salon she claimed that the owner was shocked that she wore a headscarf. Ms Desrosiers told the tribunal she was surprised that Mrs Noah had not mentioned it. She said she needed stylists to reflect the “funky, urban” image of her salon.

The panel refused an application by Mrs Noah for aggravated damages. But they did find that she had been badly upset by the 15-minute interview and awarded her £4,000 damages for “injury to feelings”.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4153529.ece

Posted by: InfidelK9 at June 17, 2008 1:56 AM

Derek,

There are many issues, which I don't have time to fully cover. Here are a couple.

The Iranian women just want to be ... well, human. They want freedom just like everyone else, but in Islam, if a woman shows an ankle or a forearm or a lock of hair and that excites a man and he rapes her, it is the woman's fault (especially if there aren't 4 male witnesses to the rape), so Islam forces women to dress "modestly" for fear of inciting men to sin. Instead of teaching men to behave responsibly and respectfully (elevating human behavior), the physical and social burden is placed on the heads of women (thereby lowering human behavior -- no need to aspire to better yourself).

Another thing that concerns me is the health aspect. Human bodies were designed (or evolved?) to require sunlight. (I'm talking about normal and reasonable levels, not leathery skinned cancer patient.) Last summer a medical report came out of the United Arab Emirates and 196 of the 198 women (that's 99%) in the survey who wore the traditional Islamic attire were Vitamin D deficient. Your body makes Vitamin D when sunlight touches your skin. Go Google "Vitamin D Deficiency" to get an idea of the health problems that can result from the deficiency. Last month another report hit the news about how Vitamin D helps women fight breast cancer. Also, Vitamin D deficiency is known to increase the risk of mental health problems in the offspring of test animals and it wouldn't surprise me if the same was true in humans.

Personally, I am in favor of healthy, empowered, and respected women. Islam opposes this.

Posted by: Liberal Guy at June 17, 2008 8:07 AM

Derek said:

"And, I'm not trying defend Iran. I can't say I know much about that country."

Nor about islam, apparently. Stick with JW/DW, Derek - you'll learn more than you ever really wanted to know.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at June 17, 2008 9:35 AM

Derek,

Here's a difference for you. If, for any reason a woman is found wandering topless in public (or, stark naked, for that matter) in the US, she will not be confronted by shouting, cursing, gun-waving "cops", who will automatically blame her for violating a dress code, and be as likely to shoot her as to question her.

Instead, she would be offered something to cover her nakedness, and would then be questioned as to what, if anything, happened to her and her clothing. If her answers make no sense, she will then be taken into protective custody, and hospitalized, if her mental state seems questionable, and if it isn't possible to locate her next of kin.

If, on the other hand, she's deliberately walking around in a state of undress, she will be given something to cover herself with, and be fined for indecent exposure.

In the US, unlike in Iran or other Muslim countries, a woman will never be put to death by the government or by law enforcement for violating a dress code.

In Islamic countries, fully dressed and hijabbed women have been shot in the head, executed on the streets by the police, for having visited a hairdresser, or for wearing makeup.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that US law enforcement agencies are far less obsessed with what women are wearing, than are their counterparts in Iran.

Posted by: Abscedere at June 17, 2008 10:10 AM

Marisol,
Cheers for the "Hefty, Hefty, Hefty, Wimpy, Wimpy, Wimpy" commentary. Perhaps you should explain it for the benefit of our overseas readers. I would, but I'm laughing too hard (thanks, by the way).
All the best,
Denise

Posted by: deniisu at June 17, 2008 5:44 PM

P.S.

I am reminded of the Wendy's commercial that depicts a behind-the-Iron-Curtain fashion show. The same large, dour-looking woman parades out onto the runway to the announcer's heavily accented calls of "Eveningvear!" "Svimvear!" She is wearing the same dull, grey burlap sack each time. Only the accessories change: a beachball for swimwear, a flashlight for eveningwear, etc.

I applaud these young women's and men's creative and brave attempts at individuality.

Posted by: deniisu at June 17, 2008 5:53 PM

Derek

Just in case you didn't know the law in the US does NOT mandate a dress code for women (or men). As a matter of fact it's not against the law for a woman to go without a top. Disorderly Conduct laws are defined as exposure of the anus or genitals of a person. And that's only an offense if someone is offended and makes a complaint.

Women don't walk around topless (regardless of the high demand for it) for the same reasons you don't leave the house without your pants on. Modesty and decency are NOT "Bible related".

As for wearing or displaying offensive writings, it's not against the law thanks to a little thing called freedom of expression.

Oh BTW, a democracy is a society/government for the people, by the people with elected agents. Being Republican doesn't change that.
You are way out of your league here and might want to consider another website.

Posted by: islamnomo at June 17, 2008 8:34 PM

Dear islamnomo,

Legal Status in the United States
In the fifty states of the United States indecent exposure is defined by state law as exposure of the genitals and/or the female breast in a public place and may in some states require evidence of intent to shock, arouse or offend other persons. The act is prohibited by state laws titled variously as Indecent Exposure, Sexual Misconduct, Public Lewdness, and Public Indecency. It is a criminal offense in all fifty states and is punishable by fines and/or imprisonment, and in some states a conviction results in having to register as a sex offender.

Now, give me twenty dollars for wasting my time, and I'll give you a rubber mallet and a fifty pound bag of sand. You know what to do.

Sincerely,

Derek

Posted by: qzy at June 18, 2008 12:07 AM

Thank You Everyone,

I read the main article. My first thought was, " Oh, those poor Iranian womanl."...That horrible Dress Code... Naturally, my next thought was...

What should the dress code be in Iran ?

Then, I thought, Who am I to decide ?

I sure would not appreciate it if Iran tried to impose their dress code here.

I noticed, a lot of people disagree with me. So, MarisolJW, Liberal Guy, Abscedere,

What should be the dress code for Iran ?

Posted by: qzy at June 18, 2008 12:41 AM

ImNoDhimmi,

I've been reading this site since The Towers fell. Alright ? I was desperate to know about Islam. Now, the brutal truth is, you don't know what I know, or don't know, about islam. So, go bang on your keyboard. In 700 years, you might come up with a decent post.

Bitch.

Posted by: qzy at June 18, 2008 1:07 AM

qzy should read Marjane Satrapi's graphic novel, 'Persepolis'.

During the period when Khomeini was consolidating his rule over Iran, Marjane's 'secular' Muslim mother - with uncovered hair, but wearing perfectly modest western-style trousers and top, arms and legs covered, high neckline - calls Marjane's dad to come pick her up after her car broke down.

Here is the dialogue as reported.

Mrs Satrapi (distraught, in tears) "Two guys...two bearded guys...two fundamentalist bastards...the bastards...the bastards...they"

Mr Satrapi: "Calm down darling. Calm down. What did they do?"

Mrs S: 'They insulted me. They said that women like me should be pushed up against a wall and f***ed and then thrown in the garbage...and that if I don't want that to happen, I should wear the veil'.

Mr S: Forget about these morons! Let's go home.

Marjane: 'That incident made my mother sick for several days" (picture of Mrs S., lying in bed trembling with shock, saying nothing).

Marjane: 'And so to protect women from all the potential rapists, they decreed THAT WEARING THE VEIL WAS OBLIGATORY.

Bearded cleric on TV: "Women's hair emanates rays that excite men. That's why women should cover their hair. If in fact it is really more civilised to go without the veil, then animals are more civilised than we are..."

Mr S, watching this on TV: 'Incredible! They [Khomeini's clerics] think all men are perverts'.

Mrs S: Of course - because they [the clerics] really ARE perverts."

And yet qzy wants to argue that the dress code in the West, and the way that it is administered and enforced, is no different from the dress code in Iran, or Iraq, or Saudi Arabia, and the manner in which it is administered...

Get real, mate.

Suppose there is a fire in a Catholic girls' school. Would a bunch of priests lock the door and prevent the girls from escaping, and allow them to be burnt to death, rather than that the fleeing girls should be seen in their undies, their pjs, a towel, or even in the nude?

But that's what the 'religious police' in Saudi Arabia did. Rather than let a bunch of uncovered girls flee for their lives from a burning building, they blocked the exits. The girls burned to death.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 18, 2008 1:42 AM

Oh, and qzy:

here's another charming example of how the 'dress code' is enforced, in Islamified regions.

From Geraldine Brooks, 'Nine Parts of Desire', chapter 8.

"The campus of the Gaza university is split down the middle, with one section for men and one for women. When I visited the women's campus in the spring term of 1993, I wore a scarf and a loose-fitting, long-sleeved, ankle-length dress, since I knew the institution STRICTLY ENFORCED hijab. But my arrival at the women's gate caused a flurry anyway. 'We have to find you a jalabiya', explained Asya Abdul Hadi, a recent graduate, pointing to her own neck-to-toe button-through coat. 'Even on the women's campus, we have men professors.'

'Eventually someone found a baggy blue serge garment...'

Then, a little later on, in the student common room, Brooks reflects -
"Driving from the huge military roadblock that divides the Gaza Strip from Israel, I hadn't seen a single unveiled woman.

'There is no coercion', said Majida. I gazed down at my dowdy serge sack.
'Of course, we can impose it here, inside the university. But outside we don't impose it. The relationship is with God and each woman can decide for herself.'

'I sipped my coke and said nothing. I had been in the emergency room of a Gaza hospital, when a young Palestinian nurse came in, shaking, her uniform covered with brown stains.
"It was the boys in the market', she said. 'They told me to cover my head. I told them I was a Christian, but they said it didn't matter. They said, 'The Virgin Mary covered her head, so why not you? THEY THREW ROTTEN FRUIT AT ME AND TOLD ME NEXT TIME IT WOULD BE ACID."

Got that, qzy? Here is a Palestinian Arab Christian nurse, in her uniform, in the market. Here are a bunch of arrogant, sneering, brutal Muslim boy-thugs, telling her to put on a Muslim-style hijab, or else. When she does not, they pelt her with rotten fruit: and they tell her NEXT TIME IT WILL BE ACID.

Would anyone, anyone at all, here in the west, throw sulphuric acid, or suchlike, over a 'streaker'? On a topless sunbather at the beach?

Can you imagine anyone, Christian, Jew, secular atheist, in a Western supermarket, in a market, deliberately throwing rotten fruit at someone who didn't meet their standard of 'modesty', whatever that happened to be? And threatening them that if they DIDN'T cover up, next time they would get a faceful of sulphuric acid?

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at June 18, 2008 1:58 AM

Derek asked, "What should be the dress code for Iran ?"

The women of Iran should decide what they want to wear, but that is clearly not happening. The Iranian men/government/clerics are dictating the behavior of women (as Allah decreed, for men are in charge of women in Islam). However, the women of Iran (or any nation) shouldn't be accosted, harassed, insulted, intimidated, embarrassed, made an example of, arrested, raped, assaulted, murdered, etc -- just because their hair is showing (or any other body part).

Islam makes women responsible for the actions of men, which is ludicrous. It debases and devalues women so that men might find better favor with Allah (whom I don't believe to be God, but that's another topic) instead of encouraging men to raise their standards of conduct and value and respect women. If God didn't want women's hair to be seen then woman would've been created to be hairless.

Remember, we aren't talking about one woman in Iran showing her hair or streaking through the streets of Tehran. We are talking about a lot of women showing their hair. It is clearly the choice the majority are making -- or would if they could.

Posted by: Liberal Guy at June 18, 2008 7:53 AM

Abscedere,

If a woman is walking around naked or topless in public,in the United States, most likely she is breaking the law against indecent exposure. And, she will be arrested. If she resists arrest, I am fairly certain she will be tasered. So, I don't agree the scenario will be quite as nice and neat as you suggest.

Nevertheless, it is illegal in most of the fifty states for a woman to go topless in public. Can you explain why, logically it is ok for a man to be in public without a shirt, but it is not ok for a woman ?

Once again, I have read this site for many years. I deplore the moral equivalency argument. But, I am more concerned with laws here, where I live, than laws in another country.

Thank you,

Derek

Posted by: qzy at June 18, 2008 9:50 AM

To Everyone Who Responded,
Yes, I know. A woman going topless in public is the extreme example. But, there are other, less extreme examples. A public high school student usually can't wear a t-shirt with the confederate flag. Do you know why ? The reason is disturbingly similar to the reason given for islamic dress code. In islam, if a man sees too much of a woman, her face, her hair, then he can't control his emotions. So, he might be tempted and possibly rape her. If he does, it isn't his fault. If a student wears a confederate flag, apparently black people can't control their emotions. So, they aren't responsible if they commit violence against the wearer. Never mind using the N***** Word.

Once again, I don't like the moral equivalency argument. But, I am more concerned about affairs nearer to me.

Derek

Posted by: qzy at June 18, 2008 10:02 AM

Derek,

You are missing the point. How embarassing for you. For the life of me,I don't know why I'm wasting time on you-it appears you wont ever see your errors-but here it goes. I've been a police officer in Texas for 16 1/2 years. So here is a little lesson on the penal code and the acts necessary to meet the criminal elements of the following offenses:

Disorderly Conduct/Indecent Exposure Texas Penal Code 21.08- is the exposure of the anus or genitals of a person. . Class C Misd. NOT BREASTS

Public Lewdness Texas Penal Code 21.07- sexual contact in the public or presence of someone who might be offended by sexual intercourse/deviant sex intercourse, contact of anus or genitals with the mouth of another, etc.... Class A Misd.

The Confederate Flag not being allowed in the school is school policy only. In any of the 50 states you can wear or fly or drive around with your rebel flag! I challenge you to show me any law in the Penal Code that says you can't wear a specific article of clothing.

Sexual Misconduct is a vague term and not a specific offense in the penal code (in Texas at least)

Posted by: islamnomo at June 18, 2008 9:10 PM

islamnomo,

You probably shouldn't waste your time with me becuase you will lose this argument. Ok, you're a cop, so here is the Texas Code. Actually, I'll break it up.

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar
language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance
tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;

So, an officer could arrest me for just using vulgar language. For example, telling the officer to go pound sand.

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public
place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate
breach of the peace;

And "offensive gesture or DISPLAY" ? Well, that could very well include a woman exposing her breasts. Or, a citizen wearing a confederate flag. If ANYONE is offended, it is, by defintion, offensive. Right ?

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and
unreasonable odor in a public place;

Well, my body is made of chemicals. So, I could be arrested if my farts are too foul.

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in
an obviously offensive manner;

It sounds like the police can arrest anyone who has an argument in a public place. So, if I was in Texas, and we had this conversation, you could be arrested for using abusive language against me. I'm not saying you WOULD be arrested. I'm saying you COULD be arrested.

The last parts of Texas code for disorderly conduct relate to waving a gun around in a public place. We weren't really talking about that, so I didn't include here.

But, yes, just like every other state, the good ol' "disorderly conduct" law can let you arrest just about anyone you want to. But, you are police officer in Texas, so I'm sure you already knew that.

Posted by: qzy at June 20, 2008 4:12 AM

islamnomo,

Here is the whole code, just so you don't have any doubts.

PENAL CODE

TITLE 9. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER AND DECENCY

CHAPTER 42. DISORDERLY CONDUCT AND RELATED OFFENSES

§ 42.01. DISORDERLY CONDUCT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) uses abusive, indecent, profane, or vulgar
language in a public place, and the language by its very utterance
tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace;
(2) makes an offensive gesture or display in a public
place, and the gesture or display tends to incite an immediate
breach of the peace;
(3) creates, by chemical means, a noxious and
unreasonable odor in a public place;
(4) abuses or threatens a person in a public place in
an obviously offensive manner;
(5) makes unreasonable noise in a public place other
than a sport shooting range, as defined by Section 250.001, Local
Government Code, or in or near a private residence that he has no
right to occupy;
(6) fights with another in a public place;
(7) discharges a firearm in a public place other than a
public road or a sport shooting range, as defined by Section
250.001, Local Government Code;
(8) displays a firearm or other deadly weapon in a
public place in a manner calculated to alarm;
(9) discharges a firearm on or across a public road;
(10) exposes his anus or genitals in a public place and
is reckless about whether another may be present who will be
offended or alarmed by his act; or
(11) for a lewd or unlawful purpose:
(A) enters on the property of another and looks
into a dwelling on the property through any window or other opening
in the dwelling;
(B) while on the premises of a hotel or
comparable establishment, looks into a guest room not the person's
own through a window or other opening in the room; or
(C) while on the premises of a public place,
looks into an area such as a restroom or shower stall or changing or
dressing room that is designed to provide privacy to a person using
the area.
(b) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(4)
that the actor had significant provocation for his abusive or
threatening conduct.
(c) For purposes of this section:
(1) an act is deemed to occur in a public place or near
a private residence if it produces its offensive or proscribed
consequences in the public place or near a private residence; and
(2) a noise is presumed to be unreasonable if the noise
exceeds a decibel level of 85 after the person making the noise
receives notice from a magistrate or peace officer that the noise is
a public nuisance.
(d) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor
unless committed under Subsection (a)(7) or (a)(8), in which event
it is a Class B misdemeanor.
(e) It is a defense to prosecution for an offense under
Subsection (a)(7) or (9) that the person who discharged the firearm
had a reasonable fear of bodily injury to the person or to another
by a dangerous wild animal as defined by Section 822.101, Health and
Safety Code.

Posted by: qzy at June 20, 2008 4:15 AM

islamnomo,

I want you to know that I appreciate you want to debate Iranian Dress Code with me. But, I think, one of the things that makes America great is the idea of, "Minding your own business". So, if Iran wants to have a particular dress code, I don't worry too much about that. The dress code doesn't really affect me. If Iran wants to continue enriching uranium, that is different. If they make a bomb, and I believe that is their goal, that can affect me. So, I am in favor of military intervention to stop them. You know, you can't fight every battle. You have to choose which battles to fight. I think the dress code in Iran will fix itself. I understand Iran is one of the most "westernized" countries. I kind of doubt the Iranian women will give up French and Italian designers for potato sacks. Well, they might for a few years, but, they'll come back. Women like to look pretty. I believe that.

Thank you,

Derek

Posted by: qzy at June 20, 2008 4:28 AM