The dogs in uniforms thing may have clouded my brain and made me jaded, but I'm finding the the whole propaganda explosion around this story a bit overwhelming at the moment.
There are plenty of places you can go for better coverage of it all than I can provide, but since this fits in with this blog's theme, I'd just like to ask why 'forced to wear the hijab'is on the list of horrific treatment at all, let alone above 'made to praise her Iranian kidnappers'.
Of all the things you could choose to say to condemn the Iranians, why would you choose that? Why would you choose to say she was forced?
And you'd think the evil baddies would force her to wear the thing properly. Her hair's showing.
Why would you presume someone had to be forced to wear a fucking scarf? Why would you assume it even needed resisting?
The Express has its own, characteristically wierd take. Naturally, it agrees that she's been forced - but in the Express, it's a Muslim scarf. What is a Muslim scarf? How can an inanimate object have a religion? Well, aside from my Wiccan screwdriver.
What kind of crazy science fiction dystopia has this country become if we have to assume people need to be forced to wear a scarf because it's from the wrong religion? I thought it was these arseholes that banged on about 'enlightenment values'.
Plus - what kind of crazy, dystopian world is it where the one of the worst examples of treatment of captives our press can come up with to attack Iran with is that they made someone wear a scarf, when our side's treatment of captives includes buggery with lightsticks, attacking with angry dogs and stabbing with knives and the people responsible get away scot-free?
*UPDATE* Beaten to the punch by Obsolete. As usual, his post is better.