Looks like I stepped in it. I thought this would be only on the "Latest Photography News" group, but it is showing up on Fred's home page. I'm sorry Fred - didn't intend that, and I can't find a way to delete it.
It is unfortunately very relevant to photography. 36% of journalists in the USA reported beings victims of or threatened with violence.
Looks like just an effort to control the media, on the part of the Taliban. But with a major presidential candidate often supported by religious people in this country threatening to jail journalists etc it is unfortunately not limited to the Taliban controlled regions.
James Markus wrote:
Looks like I stepped in it. I thought this would be only on the "Latest Photography News" group, but it is showing up on Fred's home page. I'm sorry Fred - didn't intend that, and I can't find a way to delete it.
I had the same thing. There’s a glitch, as Fred knows. Just send him a PM and he’ll move it.
AmbientMike wrote:
It is unfortunately very relevant to photography. 36% of journalists in the USA reported beings victims of or threatened with violence.
Looks like just an effort to control the media, on the part of the Taliban. But with a major presidential candidate often supported by religious people in this country threatening to jail journalists etc it is unfortunately not limited to the Taliban controlled regions.
I don’t think we can compare government-imposed rules in a country like Afghanistan with the behavior of fanatics elsewhere. With or without this new rule, Afghanistan, like many other countries, is a place where recording anything should be done with care and with a sound basis.
Sure, the US has gotten worse, but we and professionals retain our fundamental right to record public life.
And as far as a travel warning is concerned, there aren’t many places in the world tourists travel to that are ruled by extreme shariah laws. Personally, I’m more affected by the fact that by law I can’t take a picture of a person in France without prior permission than by what happens in Afghanistan. Then again, I feel I can safely ignore the French rule but wouldn’t want to mess with the Taliban, esp. not during a pleasant vacation in Kabul…
There are other countries where sharia laws have a place in their government. The article makes the point that this is a developing condition that has not yet spread to those other countries that embrace sharia.
Professionally, I always asked permission, or made sure the people were unidentifiable in the composition. It wasn't a legal requirement, because anyone out in public is in the public domain. There is a legal misconception in the US by some, that they own the light that reflects off their person. They don't. However, it is better to get a willing participant than not.
James Markus wrote:
There are other countries where sharia laws have a place in their government. The article makes the point that this is a developing condition that has not yet spread to those other countries that embrace sharia.
Professionally, I always asked permission, or made sure the people were unidentifiable in the composition. It wasn't a legal requirement, because anyone out in public is in the public domain. There is a legal misconception in the US by some, that they own the light that reflects off their person. They don't. However, it is better to get a willing participant than not.
We’ll see about those other countries. The Taliban are extreme by any standard.
You and I have a different take on shooting in public, but that’s fine. Professionally, it would also make a difference what your goal is. The few times I took a street image that I thought I could sell as commercial and not only editorial via a stock agency, I did get a model release from the person in the shot.
Many experts consider this to be an extreme interpretation of sharia law. According to an ABC News article published October 24th, "No other Muslim-majority country imposes similar restrictions, including Iran and Saudi Arabia."
As a citizen of any western country, especially the US, it would be rather difficult for you to enter Afghanistan even if you wanted to. According to some news sources, about 7000 people visit the country annually for tourism, but my guess is most of those people come from Iran, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and smaller numbers from China and Russia. The US State Dept has a no-travel advisory for Afghanistan.
Scott, That quote is already in the article I linked? The development was:
The "ministry for the "propagation of virtue and the prevention of vice". A 114-page document, published in the summer,"
Take that quote you pulled and add "yet" to the end. Experts haven't weighed with an opinion on the likelihood of other countries adopting the same, or modified versions of the phase-in of the photography ban. In my life time Iran, and Lebanon have gone from fashion setting to centuries old dress codes. The change over can happen very fast. It is a possibility - remote, perhaps - that other photographers would want to be aware was happening now, in real time. The new law & "summary" 114 page document was published August 21 2024. The full document/law hasn't even been published. There is more in a Afghanistan Analyst Network article by John Butt.
We have uneducated old men making pronouncement and speaking for "god" which is why the smart move is to separate religion from government as we used to do in the United States.
Sad that the new Muslim countries are so hostile to woman and ignorant that the Quran was written by Muhammad's first wife as we could neither read nor write. But then so is Catholicism and the Mormon religions which are male dominated.
johnvanr wrote:
I don’t think we can compare government-imposed rules in a country like Afghanistan with the behavior of fanatics elsewhere. With or without this new rule, Afghanistan, like many other countries, is a place where recording anything should be done with care and with a sound basis.
Sure, the US has gotten worse, but we and professionals retain our fundamental right to record public life.
johnvanr wrote:
What do you mean? One’s right as a photographer haven’t changed in the US.
There are, however, some recent troubling stories concerning visitors to the US. I'm sure that most visitors are fine, but stories like that of two German women who were handcuffed, thrown in jail, and then deported for no apparent reason when they arrived In Hawaii are troubling... and both upsetting and embarrassing to many of us who like here.
gdanmitchell wrote:
There are, however, some recent troubling stories concerning visitors to the US. I'm sure that most visitors are fine, but stories like that of two German women who were handcuffed, thrown in jail, and then deported for no apparent reason when they arrived In Hawaii are troubling... and both upsetting and embarrassing to many of us who like here.
Sure, but that has nothing to do with photography. I’m flying to the US soon and we opted to fly via Dublin because then immigration control takes place in Ireland, not in the US. But once in the US, I don’t expect any more issues than before when it comes to actual photography.
ctgoldwing wrote:
Watch what you say when you are here - you might find yourself in El Salvador
Or get a trip around the world. Read a story about two German girls who were sent back via Japan. Apparently, because they didn’t have a hotel booked when they entered and were planning to freely travel through the country. Ah, those old nostalgic road trips…now only for citizens.
What strikes me is the idea that immigration seems to believe that Europeans from wealthy countries would come to the US to illegally work in low-income jobs. As a European, you must miss some brain cells to lower your standard of living in that particular manner.
This doesn't align with Sharia law—at least not with the more widely accepted interpretations of it. That said, as with any religion—be it Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or others—there are often many different interpretations of religious laws, and some can be far more troubling than others. The real danger arises when there's no clear separation between religion and state. When governments use public funds to promote specific religious agendas or enforce particular interpretations of religious doctrine, it risks infringing on the rights of those who don’t share that faith. The Taliban is an extreme case, of course, but unfortunately, even here in the U.S., we're not entirely immune to that...
