– so Richard Lovelace wrote to his love Althea while imprisoned by the Roundheads during the Civil War. Apparently the BBC thinks that Lovelace’s philosophy is also an appropriate attitude for fallen women imprisoned in an Iranian House of Compassion. Although the story does make clear that the inmates are imprisoned, it is referred to as a “shelter”.
Commenter “pounce” examines the BBC story:
They include runaways, drug addicts and prostitutes. Many are suffering from severe mental health problems.”
Oh we have runaways (from what?) drug addicts and prostitutes why they even throw in the catch all “severe mental health problems” in other words what the BBC is saying is that every women there is partly to blame.
But it gets better contrast the above Oasis statement with the following;
The house rules say that women brought in by the police, cannot leave unless their families take them back. “I want to get out here,” she says, “I want to live my life, go shopping and go to the park with my friends.””
Oasis, more like a Prison. But just to reinforce it’s the women’s fault angle promulgated by the BBC they insert this;
“Her face is clouded by the shadows of drug addiction. When she holds up her hands, her fingers are permanently clenched – the tendons in her wrist have been severed by repeated suicide attempts.”
See its all her fault. But not to worry the BBC does try to claim that the refuge come prison does try to help them out, (but with little success)
“Staff at the shelter have tried to help the women turn their lives around by organising training courses and teaching them new skills. But so far they’ve met with little success. For many of the residents, it’s just too late to make a new start.”
Err BBC how about what’s the point of learning a new trade if you can’t leave the 4 walls of said refuge unless accompanied by one of the prison wardens.
“They like it when the staff take them on outings to the city. And they would love it if someone could buy them a tape recorder so they could have some music.”It seems BBC that the above was written by somebody working at the ministry of disinformation in Tehran.
The BBC and half a story.
pounce
The House of Compassion in Teheran has many parallels with the Magdalen Laundries in Ireland. The attitude of the BBC to these institutions was different. It commissioned “a powerful new BBC screenplay.”
UPDATE: An anonymous commenter writes, “The photo caption says “Some of the women are reluctant to leave this haven of safety”!”
The photo caption says “Some of the women are reluctant to leave this haven of safety“!
Repellent.
The BBC and a bodge job.
1) I’m positive that the picture of a smiling women wasn’t there when I first read that article.
2) Err BBC if you are going to stealth edit your articles in which to try and make yourself look impartial it would help if you actually kept to the story. Note you added a picture of a smiling uncovered woman. Not only is it a stealth edit but, and I quote ‘but’ such a pose and picture is illegal in Iran.
“Many of the women say they have children, but lost contact with them after getting divorced”.
Is that beeb speak for banished by their former spouse?
what the BBC is saying is that every women there is partly to blame
What the BBC are saying is Poor Victims, they are not to blame.
This is an example of that other BBC bias towards feminism.
I wonder if there is a men’s refuge? Oh yes, now that is called a prison.
west
—-
Have the details of the BBC’s arrangement with Iran been made public? I seem to recall reading here that Iran has paid the BBC some undisclosed sum to promote tourism in Iran.
Frank | 19.11.06 – 2:50 am | #
…which surely is preposterous
the bbc is supposed to be an IMPARTIAL newsbroadcaster
money (i.e., the advertizer) corrupts
if they did, can they be compelled to admit – nay, to confess, to use one of their tactics) that they did sign such a play-for-pay contractual arrangement?
how on earth can a country’s tourism agent under its other hat broadcast factual news that might put said country in a bad light? talk about conflict of interest 101!
The ads are only to be shown on BBC World but I don’t imagine the deal will encourage impartiality across the whole spectrum of BBC output regarding Iran.
Mind you, if the Beeb wasn’t so pro-arab already they might not have got the deal in the first place so it’ll just be business as usual I suppose.
From
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=bbc+iran+tourism
Here’s the link containeing information about the Iran regime paying the BBC for positive coverage.
http://sify.com/news/international/fullstory.php?id=13714448
Since those women are ‘only muslims’, the BBC figures that it is OK to treat them thus, as long as it is in their own country (maybe they think it is in the Quaran?).
They are a bunch of misogynist racists, who make money out of publishing misery porn.
Frances Harrison has a new accomplice in Mojgan Tousi, a BBC “reporter” who is actively hiding the social realities for women living in the hell that is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Moujan dosent mention why it is that women find themseleves in the situation where she finds them.
(1) Islamic Laws dont protect them. instead they afford all kinds of rights to those who prey on them. From Basiji pimps to predator mullahs and men.
(2) Drug use has exploded in Iran since the revolution.
(3) The government takes little responsibitlity for the massive numbers of poor women that its Islamic policies have generated.
Moujan Tousi sheds no light on any of this but instead adds to the lipstick job that Harrison started on the pig that is the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Tousi ironically finishes her whitewash by quoting a woman who says that she will dance if she wants to. Its worth remembering that Dancing in Iran in public or private usually results in some 40 lashes for men and women.
Someone should write in to Moujan and ask her to do a story on that subject.
Of course, it doesn’t take much to be labelled a prostitute in Iran. But it’s OK to be locked up for it, eh? This is actually disgusting, does the Beeb take us for fools?
Surely the BBC’s undenianable pro arabist stance mentioned above is not the originated by the left wing bias of its worldview, but rather from its role as the propaganda arm of the foreign office and its srongly pro arabist policies to further its political and economic aims. Policies it has endorsed since before the second world war.
The fact that the BBC recruits from left wing media is surely because it provides staff that is ideological and more easily indoctrinated in following FO policies when thay are suitably coated in terms of “human rights” and other emotional terms which are absorbed like blotting paper by the ideological left.
It seems to me that the BBC are in fact controlled and manipulated by Elites situated well outside its own walls and located in the real corridors of power.
The incessant anti israelism is surely in line with the home office’s own views for example and is this not an example of how the BBC is used to manufacture consent in the public mindset to the views of its masters.
Obviously what is on the agenda now is to produce a “softer” image of Iran for public consumption.
Watch for new ties with that awful dictatoship to emerge on the scene
in the near future.
The BBC is a creature of the Forgien Office and the left wing “intelligensia” its always been that way. Just finished reading George Orwell’s ‘Lion and the Unicorn’ he writes (I’ve highlighted his emphasis in bold):
“England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. All through the critical years [WWII] many left wingers were chipping away at English morale, trying to spread an outlook that was sometimes squashily pacifist, sometimes violently pro-Russian, but always anti-British.”
Its worth remembering atht at thi stime Orwell was working at the BBC.
PLUS CA CHANGE …
Whatever the issue with the “house of compassion” may be – do you think you guys are being ‘impartial’ here? I mean, maybe you don’t claim to be, but if you accuse the BBC of not being impartial shouldn’t you at least be exactly that in your criticism of it?
It seems like you all just hate the BBC, no matter what it reports on.
Two things:
1 – the ‘deal’ between Iran and the BBC mentioned above is nothing but a simple advertising contract – they pay and BBC puts up banners showing how great Iran’s sights are (which they are!) – but that hasn’t stopped the BBC from reporting critically about the country.
2 – Shouldn’t we at least appreciate that there is such a place as the “house of compassion” in Tehran? Have any of you been to Iran? The social system there is very discriminating towards women and one doesn’t need to be feminist to see that – it’s a matter of humanity. [Although it must be said here that women are MUCH better off here than for example in Saudi Arabia or the Yemen] There have been numerous cases where women were raped and then punished for it by the law when the men ran free… women that have been divorced are on the lowest social rank and can find it incredibly difficult to find work etc., not to mention a new husband – especially in the country and in the lower classes. Prostitution is obviously illegal (as it is in the UK – whereas in Germany prostitutes are registered, pay taxes and have health insurance!!), but the demand is of course there – they have absolutely no security and of course such a place is a wecome place and refuge for such women. And it seems to me that the article doesn’t put the blame on the women themselves but rather the men that have ruined their lives, which is unfortunately a common story in Iran.
Anyway – I’m not pro-BBC (although I am definitely pro-Iran – though not pro-Iranian government), just stumbled across your page and found it very one-sided, so thought I’d add a little spice.
Greetings.