Neither

Both are unacceptable.

There COULD be an exception, however. What if the majority of people of a certain region voted that hejab is a requirement in living in their neighborhood? If through the bottom up, through the people, there is a verifyable vote that limit these things, then I personall think it should be acceptable, as long as those who wish to now move out of the neighborhood are given the proper resources to move out. Make sense? 

To give a related example, just recently California voters voted on making gay marriage illegal. Now, I don't agree with that, but over 60% of Californians did vote that way, so their vote must be respected and gays who want to marry have a decision to make: stay in California and work hard on convincing their fellow neighbors to rethink their position, or move out to somewhere they are accepted. 

If Iran was a true democracy, then we'd plainly see that there in fact are regions where the whole population is in agreeance on the forced hejab. Its hard to believe because there's no systematic proof, but I'm willing to guess that in many regions, if given the freedom to apply these laws locally, would in fact apply the hejab. On the other hand, there would be many regions in Iran where the exact opposite could be true. That's the beauty of America: if the people are divided at the national level, the issue becomes a state issue. If they are divided at a state level, it could drill down to the local level.

Dear Zion

Since when a civil and free society dictates to its citizens, how and what to wear?

Neither one of those act in those two picture is right.Governmnet should stay out of religon and peoples business.

You are an amazing ,confused ,double standard individual ,are u by any chance related to   "pat  " the SLN character ?

Don't get upset now,I just wanted to say hi and I didn't know any better but to use your comment as an excuse.

Cheers

They are the same? Really?

Is this the new PC thing here? I don't know, the right picture sort of help the emancipation of women, no? Not even as a balancing force? You see, I have this silly notion that the forces of patriarchy and the limitations they impose on women do not necessarily act through governments. Maybe sometimes they are imposed by, you know, what the word patriarch originally meant in the families themselves.
But hey that's probably just Zionist delusions. ;-)

Thanks to Attaturk, Turkey

Thanks to Attaturk, Turkey is somewhat (?) secular in nature as he forced turbans, chadors and relgion out. I guess time will time will tell. So far Turkey has it better.

niether.....

na ghom khobe na kashan laanat be har doo ta shan.     Maziar

Two Side of the same coin

Both Evil, both wrong.

ofcourse someone from ZION

ofcourse someone from ZION would say that shit... What should be obvious is that their both equally wrong and unjust.

Neither...

I go with the freedom of choice.

The first one (the one on the left.)

Obviously.