Feminist Political Scientist Analyzes Transformations in Iranian Society Today

By Fatemeh Sadeghi, Alborz

Why Don't They Believe It?
. . . Many have tried to present minor or major documents to prove that a great fraud has taken place in this election, and that the results have been rigged in one way or another in favor of a particular candidate. In the following notes, my goal is not to present these documents which are quite considerable. My goal is to present a brief sociological analysis to demonstrate that given the social developments of the past few years, it is highly unlikely that the majority of voters would have voted for Ahmadinejad. Based on many predictions, Iranian society is heading toward a different choice. These developments could be detected even during the June 2005 election which was boycotted or treated with indifference by many who were called the silent majority.

Below, I will demonstrate why part of the voters, whether those who had boycotted the previous presidential election or the silent majority who account for the high rate of voter participation in this election, demanded change. This fact will give credence to the doubts about the announced results of this election. First I will examine some general development in Iran during the past few decades. Then, I will examine Ahmadinejad's cultural and social resume and its effect on people's participation in the recent election. The arguments below are by no means new. I am only emphasizing them as a reminder. Considering these arguments will allow us to better comprehend Iranian society's protests against the recent events and its concerns about the latest trends.

Political disillusionment in post-revolutionary Iran has increased in all the years after the revolution. This phenomenon can be explained by many factors. The most important factor is the inability of the Islamic system to satisfy many of the demands of the middle and lower classes and realize their dreams. I am referring to freedom and social justice in particular. Prominent signs of this political disillusionment can be found in the daily increase in open and hidden forms of opposition. These forms of opposition have continuously increased during the past several years. Two phenomena in the past few years can be considered symbols of this opposition.

One is the increasing use of internet sites as sources for obtaining news and analysis. The other is the increasing use of satellite news and information stations as the most important source of news and analysis inside the country. There has been a turn away from the government's "Voice and Face of Iran." [The name of the Iranian government's television and radio network -- tr.]

The number of internet users in Iran exceeds 25 million [Iran's total population as of 2008 was 72.2 million -- tr.] Despite extreme forms of media censorship, the internet became an important medium for transmitting news, especially during the ninth government [2005-2009 – tr.]. Even many of those who sympathized with the ruling current turned to the internet to obtain news and analysis. It is estimated that there are over 100,000 Persian language weblogs and news and analysis websites. Most are in one way or another critical of the status quo or opposed to it. . . .

Most remember that up until a few years ago, it was not easy to speak of satellite [television –tr.]. I was very surprised to see that intensely religious people in remote areas and in religious cities such as Qom were turning more and more to satellite [television—tr.]. Their earlier reluctance has almost disappeared. The increasing use of the internet and virtual space to obtain information and news reveals that the official ideology cannot satisfy searching and critical minds. During all these years, the government's "Voice and Face of Iran" has emphatically adopted an approach which resists change and underestimates its audience's ability to reason. This approach has resulted in people's disillusionment and their turn to other sources and media for news and analysis.

Political disillusionment revealed itself openly in the voters' behavior. Many voters refused to participate in the June 2005 election because they were not satisfied with the pace of the reforms in Iranian society and expected the reformists and Mohammad Khatami to be more decisive and to take more action in creating changes. However, the rates of disillusionment were even higher in the post-reformist period.

Many reasons can be given for this disillusionment. Here I will only point to reasons which seem to be significant in explaining the general trend toward disillusionment in the years after the revolution and especially in the past four years. The more time elapsed after the Islamic revolution, the more people disembarked the ship of the revolution. However, disillusionment increased at an accelerated rate during the term of the ninth government [2005-2009 tr.] because of the many criticisms of its record, particularly in the realms of culture and the economy. Naturally, this disillusionment reveals itself in the actions of the voters and their choice of a candidate or candidates who call for change, even if the candidate or candidates are not able to satisfy all of the voters' political and social demands.

The increase in literacy and consciousness among Iranians is most important in explaining all the markers of development and especially the disillusionment with the status quo. The literacy rate has increased during all the past few years. University entrance rates have increased considerably in comparison to the past.

Women's increased consciousness is very significant. During the past few years, the majority of university entrants have been women. We have often heard slogans about how women are the educators of humanity. Regardless of the intentions of those who created these slogans, it seems that this statement is undeniably true in Iran. If Iranian women of [the generation -- tr.] prior to the revolution were the educators of the ideological generation which opposed the Shah's regime and engaged in a ceaseless struggle against it, women in post-revolutionary Iran are to be given credit for much of the sociological developments, the rise in consciousness, and the development in methods of educating the young generation. Once faced with barriers to or limitations in their choices for advancement, these women turned to the universities and became determined to raise their consciousness and increase their knowledge.

I cannot say what percentage of the votes for Mousavi or Karroubi were cast by women. What I can say based on my own observations is that women and especially young women constituted the majority of those who voted for reformist candidates and especially Mousavi. Furthermore, their strong presence in the electoral campaigns of both candidates [Mousavi and Karroubi -- tr.] was completely new. Based on my personal observations I can even say that in many cases, the number of women activists at the campaign headquarters of both candidates outweighed that of men. . .

I don't mean to say that women did not vote for Ahmadinejad. However in the last part of this essay I will argue that Ahmadinejad was unable to draw the votes of the majority of women in this election. Even based on my own personal observations in many parts of Iran, it can be said that those who did vote for Ahmadinejad in 2005 did so not for the sake of nuclear energy or other ideological slogans.

They voted for him because of economic problems and because of his electoral slogans about social justice and combating corruption. In all the interviews that I have conducted with women who have voted for Ahmadinejad, not one has referred to his foreign policy and nuclear energy. All unanimously said that they voted for Ahmadinejad because his platform was against corruption and for social justice. Of course many complained that the government had not taken serious steps in this direction, and all complained about the rising prices and other problems, especially drug addiction. They regretted having voted for him.

It seems highly unlikely that the majority of the rural and suburban [poor -- tr.] population would have voted for Ahmadinejad during the last election. Such a vote would be even more questionable in areas populated by ethnic and religious minorities. . .

During these years [2005-2009 tr.] the number of publishers declined. The government has practically set barriers against the publication of useful books. Many books did not receive a publication permit or faced difficulties in receiving republication permits. Many internet sites were blocked. Censorship increased massively in all areas.

The "cultural revolution" that has taken place during the past few years has led to the expulsion of many university students and professors. At all the universities, the government attempted to replace critical professors and students with its own handpicked students and professors. Many students received stars [reference to students who were suspended for being political activists -- tr.]. Some received warnings from national security agencies or were expelled. Many Islamic student councils or other university student councils were closed and many students were arrested or harassed. Another measure taken by the government was to censor textbooks.

The gender quota system for university students was imposed [to limit the number of female students -- tr.] There has been a campaign to limit female university students' choice of campuses to those in their home province. The government's ideological machine was backed by institutions such as the Center for Women and Family Affairs which had proposed plans such as the Family Bill [Reference to bill introduced in the Summer of 2007 which made it more convenient for men to take a second wife. This bill also imposed taxes on a woman's alimony. In September 2008, after much protest by Iranian women's rights activists, the most controversial aspects of this bill were removed --tr.], the Mercy Plan [introduced in 2006 to teach housewives to be more obedient -- tr.] as well as plans to ban women from work outside the home, and to promote polygamy. Their goal was to force women to stay at home and take care of their husbands for fear that the husband would take another wife.

Furthermore, the government set out to enforce the "Plan to Elevate Public Chastity" which forced all institutions to strictly enforce women's dress codes and the rule against the mixing of women and men in the workplace. The government reduced women's working hours [outside the home -- tr.] to allow them to have more time for family chores. Most important was the "social security plan," the enforcement of which led to harassment and police searches of thousands of women by the Ministry of Culture. Many men were arrested as hooligans and saboteurs, and were taken to unknown places. There are even reports that some were murdered.

The ninth government came to power with the slogans "social justice" and "combating corruption." It did not even elevate social justice and the battle against corruption. The slogan "social justice" was in many cases limited to distributing money and consumer goods among people, without making them economically self-sufficient.

Workers' economic status worsened in all these years. Many workers' organizations were suppressed. Their activists were arrested. The civil rights demands and protests of teachers also faced suppression.

The ninth government set out to dismantle all civil rights organizations by accusing them of getting money from abroad and aiming to create a "soft revolution." Many non-governmental organizations were closed. Their activities were put under severe limitations. Many civil rights activists landed in prison. Newspapers critical [of the regime -- tr.] were banned one after the other. Many journalists lost their jobs or were subjected to harassment by governmental and judicial institutions in one way or another.

Much evidence attests to the increasing level of social dislocation during the past few years. In many urban areas, drug addiction and unemployment are rampant. Analysts attribute this to the government's inept efforts to reduce economic problems. The rates of suicide, homicide, and assaults have increased during the past few years. The roots of most of these phenomena can be traced to economic inequality and to social and gender prejudices.

The ninth government has not left any class or social group unharmed. As a result, all social classes blame the ninth government more than any other government. While it is true that some groups such as women or youth have been subjected to a much greater degree of oppression and prejudice, no class, social or minority group has been left untouched by this government. It is not only the middle class that has suffered. Upper and lower classes, the rural population, bazaris [traditional merchants who have tended to support the clergy -- tr.], and ethnic and religious minorities have all suffered in various ways, and many of them are critical of the government.

Many within the ruling establishment have also criticized the [ninth -- tr.] government during its term in office. It seems that the only ones left unharmed by this government are the minority that the government has enriched as security officials, guards for the existing order, or passive voters. However, the dissatisfied and injured majority protests the results of this election. Perhaps [this majority -- tr.] has by now understood why the ninth government acted confidently and without any concern for people's protests.

read more

Interesting article about Burqa and how people react!

Bumps on the road towards a burqa ban in France Reuters Blog
Posted by: Tom Heneghan

Remember all the talk about France banning the burqa and niqab Muslim veils for women a few months ago? That project is now in the parliamentary inquiry phase, a six-month fact-finding mission expected to wind up late this year and produce a draft bill to outlaw them. That’s the way France handled it in 2003 when it wanted to stop Muslim girls from wearing headscarves to state schools. But the process seems more complex this time around. There’s less passion and more hesitation in the debate. A smooth progression from the inquiry to the ban and to its implementation no longer looks assured.

To get a feel for the debate, I dropped by the panel’s latest open hearing late on Tuesday and listened to the arguments being made. Five mayors from suburbs with Muslim minorities were due to speak to the panel, which is led by a Communist deputy named André Gerin who makes no bones about his view that a ban is needed. Mayors like these men play a key role in an issue like this, because they are on the front lines dealing with social change and are taken seriously when they clamour for change. Several are also deputies in the National Assembly - France allows them to occupy multiple offices - so they can easily lobby at the national level for something they want.

Sitting alone at the press table in the committee room, I soon saw why the drive towards a ban seems to be hitting some bumps. The mayors don’t know what they want. All think something has to be done, but most are worried that an outright ban wouldn’t work. Here’s my news story on the session.

This was the fifth of 16 hearings planned by the panel, which is officially called the Mission d’information sur la pratique du port du voile intégral sur le territoire national (Fact-finding mission on the practice of wearing the full veil on national territory). They’ve already heard representatives of women’s right groups, spokespeople of associations defending France’s secular system, a Muslim women’s rights advocate and two Muslim intellectuals and they plan to visit the ethnically mixed suburbs of Paris, Lyon, Lille and Marseille. You can often predict what will be said, but not always - some of the militant secularists turned out to be against a burqa ban because it meant the state interfered with personal choice.

To give you a better feel for the debate, here’s a summary of my notes and quotes from the session:

*Claude Dilain, mayor of Clichy-sous-Bois and chairman of the Association of Mayors of French Cities and Suburbs, said “the veil concerns the issue of women’s dignity and it’s clearly a brake on integration”. Within his association, though, “views (about a ban) are divided. Lots of officials are talking about the risks of passing a law. They’re concerned about political and civic risks.”

“Who’ll be responsible for enforcing this law? There’s a lot of concern about this.” France did not necessarily need a law, he said, but “it’s important that the Republic reasserts its values in a strong symbolic manner … It would be a mistake to look at the full veil just from the religious angle. There are socio-economic causes as well. People are taking refuge in identities.”

“We’d have lots of difficulty trying to enforce a law on the ground. Now, the police in Clichy-sous-Bois don’t even issue parking tickets in some areas at some times… There has been a strong rise in religious demands. We mayors can’t be left alone with this. This is happening several times a day. You can’t make a strong statement defending the Republic now without being called an Islamophobe.”

*Jean-Pierre Blazy, mayor of Gonesse north of Paris, admitted: “I’m hesitant. I can’t say today that we need a law. But we shouldn’t just dump the problem on the mayors. We need a firm dialogue to make secularism come alive in this country.” He stressed that he supported the 2004 headscarf ban and was concerned about growing religious demands by Muslims for exceptions to the usual municipal services. “If we have a law, we have to have accompanying measures with it,” he said, to make the measure more palatable to Muslims. One measure he suggested was to teach Arabic in state schools.

*Renaud Gauquelin, mayor of Rillieux-La-Pape near Lyon, said there were very few veiled women in his town but growing problems with Muslim demands in pools, hospitals and schools. On veils, he said: “Is this a regression for the rights of women in France? Certainly. Is there a parallel development for men? No.”

“I’m tending towards a law,” he said, noting that laïcité, the legal separation of church and state, was written into the constitution, as were women’s rights, and failing to ban the veil would amount to a failure to defend those rights. “What sign would we give to women around the world? To Iranian women fighting for their freedom? To Saudi women who want to be able to drive a car?”

*Jean-Yves Le Bouillonnec, mayor of Cachan south of Paris, thought existing laws would be enough to deal with the burqa issue. “If we pass a law, how would we enforce it? What would the sanctions be for violating it? There could be no worse message to send than to pass a law and tell people to obey it without saying they will be punished for not obeying it… I can’t see a ban working. It’s extremely complex and almost completely inapplicable.”

He suggested the National Assembly might want to pass a strong resolution reaffirming republican principles.

*Xavier Lemoine, mayor of Montfermeil east of Paris, said some Muslims in his town were becoming “reislamised” and this was visible in a rise in veil wearing and pressure some Muslims put on co-religionists who don’t fast during Ramadan. “It’s not always in the poorer areas, but also in the middle class areas that you see these demands,” he said. He noted that the full veil was not required by the Koran “but it’s in the Sunnah”, France had to take a strong position against the veil and understand how Islam was different from Western traditions. “In Judeo-Christian society, the individual is predominant. In the Muslim world, the individual exists through belonging to a community. The weight of the community is terrible.” At the same time, officials should separate Islam from its fundamentalist fringe when analysing religious issues.

Still, he was also hesitant about voting for a ban. “I prefer to do nothing for a good reason than something for a bad reason.”

Several panel members had questions or observations for the invited mayors.

*André Gerin, a Communist deputy, head of the fact-finding panel and former mayor of Venissieux suburb of Lyon, called full veils “medieval customs spread by salafists”. The veil was the I in an Islamisation drive by radical Muslims. Gerin said France should not only consider a ban on full veils but also go after “the gurus” who are not in these neighbourhoods but are spoiling everything”. (BTW Gerin gave no details about who he meant by “gurus”, a term usually used by Hindus and Sikhs. But they call all full veils burqas, using the Afghan term, even though almost all of them worn here are Arab-style niqabs. Go figure.)

*Jean Glavany, a Socialist deputy, said fundamentalism was part of all religions these days. “This idea of separating the fundamentalists from the religion doesn’t work. To say that fundamentalist excesses have nothing to do with the religion is like saying hooliganism has nothing to do with football or doping has nothing to do with the Tour de France.”

“We should refuse to make legislators into exegetists.”

*Jacques Myard, conservative UMP deputy and mayor of Maisons-Lafitte northwest of Paris, warned against turning into a “soft democracy” that could not stand up for its own values. He argued for a ban with punishments for violators. “Sanctions have to be rehabilitated. Not cutting off of heads and hands, of course. But this is the order of things in a structured society with its own values. It has to be respected. They can’t impose their personal order.”

“Is Islam compatible with laïcité? That’s not my problem. It’s not for us to decide if it’s compatible, it’s up to them. In the Muslim world, you find all kinds of interpretations. It’s not our role to solve this.”

Understanding the French approach to its Muslim minority has often proved difficult for outsiders. Does this make it any clearer?

read more

Les héros enchaînés-1

Recherches sur les prisons du régime des mollahs

Ces recherches ont été effectuée de 1996 à 2001 auprès des familles des exécutés politiques et sur la situation dans les prisons en Iran par l'organisation des Moudjahidine du peuple (OMPI).

Viol

Dans les prisons du régime iranien, il y a eu de nombreux cas de viol de jeunes filles et de femmes en particulier au cours des interrogatoires. Elaheh Daknama, une lycéenne sympathisante des Moudjahidine, arrêtée à Chiraz, a été violée durant sa détention. Après son exécution, quand sa famille a récupéré ses affaires, elle avait écrit sur ses vêtements qu’elle avait été violée à sept reprises.

En plus


Please SINGE our petition

read more

Iranian girls defy the anti-Iranian Mullahs by music

Please SINGE our petition

read more

Iranian women on the frontline of protests

For years, women's defiance in Iran came in carefully planned flashes of hair under their head scarves, brightly painted fingernails and trendy clothing that could be glimpsed under bulky coats and cloaks.

But these small acts of rebellion against the theocratic government have been quickly eclipsed in the wake of the disputed June 12 presidential elections. In their place came images of Iranian women marching alongside men, of their scuffles with burly militiamen, of the sobering footage of a young woman named Neda, blood pouring from her mouth and nose minutes after her fatal shooting.

In a part of the Muslim world where women are often repressed, these images have catapulted Iran's female demonstrators to the forefront of the country's opposition movement. It is a role, say Iranian women and experts, that few seem willing to give up, and one that will likely present President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hardline government with even greater challenges in the wake of the recent violence and protests.

Shoulder to shoulder with men
Across the Muslim Middle East, women have often joined men in protest movements.
When Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, women took part in street demonstrations in the tiny Gulf country. Over the years, images of Palestinian women, fists raised in anger against Israel and tears flowing in despair over children and husbands killed, have become a staple of that conflict.

But Iran's protests have elevated such images to a new level.

While Iranian women have been politically active in the past, coming out in large numbers in support of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the latest demonstrations showed them standing shoulder-to-shoulder with their male counterparts, enduring the same blows and threats.

"We were all together, and we helped each other despite our sexuality, and we will be together," said one 34-year-old Tehran woman who is active in the protests.

Images of Neda linger
They have also given the movement some of its most high-profile arrests — former President Hashemi Rasfanjani's 46-year-old activist daughter — and its first martyr, Neda Agha Soltan.

Soltan, who was allegedly shot by pro-government militia as she walked through a protest Saturday, became the public face of the government's repression — a female martyr in a culture that celebrates such symbols, but usually relegates women to the role of the martyr's mother or wife.

Video images of Soltan lying on the street, blood pouring from her mouth and nose as a few men crouch down, struggling to save her, quickly made their way onto the Internet. From there, they bounced around the world.

"She represents this youth who went there with such hope and idealism," said Ziba Mir-Hosseini, who researches the situation of women in Iran, at the University of London's School of Oriental and African Studies. "In a way, she is the first woman martyr. She is a martyr for democracy."

President Barack Obama on Tuesday summed it up as such: "We have seen courageous women stand up to brutality and threats, and we have experienced the searing image of a woman bleeding to death on the streets."

In the convoluted, and fluid, calculus of Iranian politics, it remains to be seen how the government will deal with these challenges. Also unclear is how these developments will shape policy.

Under previous reformist regimes, Iranian women secured a wink-and-a-nod attitude from the government that allowed them to adopt more casual hair coverings and more freedoms than those seen in other conservative Muslim countries in the region, such as Saudi Arabia.

Breaking taboos
Although they are barred from the presidency and religious posts, many Iranian women are in parliament and other political offices. About 65 percent of university students are women.

In 2006, a group of women launched a campaign to gather a million signatures in favor of equal rights for women. And, in the run-up to the presidential election, a coalition of women from diverse economic and social classes worked to ensure that the candidates focused their platforms on efforts to improve women's lives.

Mousavi's bid for the presidency further encouraged them, with women buoyed in no small part by his progressive stance on women's issues and his unorthodox — at least for Iran — campaign appearances alongside his wife, Zahra Rahnavard.

read more

Interview with Isobel Coleman on Iranian women !

After reading this interview I became more apt on the fact that the Obama administration is incapable of comprehending or the least of dealing with the Iranian regime! It is too simply vivid that when backed by such irresponsible thinktanks, the outcomes of foreign policy of the US is heartbreaking when it comes to Iran

follow the "UPdated" position of the Foreign affairs on women in Iran and their role in the uprising there.

Interviewee:	Isobel Coleman, Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy, CFR
Interviewer:	Bernard Gwertzman, Consulting Editor, CFR.org

In the demonstrations following the disputed election in Iran, there were many women on the streets. There were reports that the women were, in fact, goading the men to be more bold. We know there's been a women's reform movement. Was this election seen by women as a key election to further women's rights?

The reform movement and the women's movement in Iran are definitely and clearly interrelated. The women have been a key component of the reform movement since its very beginning. There have been women who have focused their reform effort specifically on improving legal rights for women and day-to-day livability for women. But they have worked alongside reformers who are focused on big-picture issues of democracy and human rights. Over time the two have merged. You've seen leading reformers going back to the 1990s taking on women's issues as part of their discourse, just as women have taken on human rights and democracy as part of their discourse. The two have really been intermingled over the past twenty years.

Are Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seen by the women's groups as anti-reform and anti-women's improvement?

Yes, I would say so definitely. Over the last four years, Ahmadinejad has overseen a crackdown on women, particularly with a much stricter enforcement of the dress code for women. There were various "spring cleaning" waves that ran through Tehran over the last few years where authorities rounded up literally thousands of women for dress code violations, such as too much hair showing and the wrong outer garment. The regime has arrested many women and used force on women who have peacefully demonstrated in city squares around Iran for more rights. Last fall, the conservative parliament that was encouraged by Ahmadinejad put forth an even more aggressive family code that would have taken women backwards, such as loosening up restrictions on polygamy and making it harder for women to get a divorce. They called it the Family Protection Act, but women could clearly see it was to their detriment. Women's groups organized multiple campaigns last summer to make women aware of what was going on and to show them that this wasn't even consistent with Islamic law. The bill was not passed. Ayatollah Yousef Sanei came out from Qom very much against this Family Protection Act, calling it anti-women, against the ideals of the revolution, and anti-Islamic.

Is Mir-Hossein Mousavi much stronger on women's rights?

We don't know exactly where he stands on some of these issues, but what we do know is that he has a very prominent wife, Zahra Rahnavard, whose independence and prominence preceded his. She was a very well-known academic who played a very active role in the campaign. It was unprecedented to see a power couple campaigning in the way that they have. Over the last several months, she's held rallies and spoken out very much in the way that we're used to in the American context of a first lady playing an active role. She made statements on the need to respect women's rights, so we could anticipate that women would have a better hearing under a Mousavi presidency than an Ahmadinejad presidency. In fact, in the last several days, as the crackdown on the reformers has become more intense, we have heard little from Moussavi himself, but Zahra continues to be out in front, publicly rallying protesters and defying the regime.

Another woman who's featured prominently is Faezeh Rafsanjani, the daughter of former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is a strong supporter of Mousavi. She was briefly arrested. Is she well-known in Iranian society?

She is very well-known. The bigger question is where would Rafsanjani be himself on women and women's rights? When he was president of Iran, he was no liberal. In fact, he himself oversaw a pretty strict interpretation of women's dress code and several restrictive policies on women. However, he took some steps to begin to normalize a role for women within the regime. One of the most prominent things he did was to promote his daughter, Faezeh Rafsanjani, to be the head of the Iranian Sports Council and launched a whole bid to allow women to participate in athletic activities in public. This had been disallowed after the revolution. She really rose to prominence on this issue. She was then elected to parliament in the fifth Majlis [1996-2000] but disappointed some women reformers at that time who were looking for women in parliament to take on an active role for women and reform issues. She was not reelected to the sixth Majlis, but since then we've seen her become an increasingly outspoken reformer, particularly on women's issues. She herself has been leading protests and was arrested over the weekend. From this, you can infer that she's come a long way in her own thinking on the connection between women's rights and reform in Iran.

Talk a bit about this phenomenon that occurred on Saturday when this young woman, Neda Agha Soltan, was killed. Is her death likely to become a part of Iranian hagiography?

It already has. Neda is already known by her first name. Her name is known around the world. She's become an iconic symbol of the struggle for greater freedom and justice. From what I understand, she was an innocent bystander who was just standing there and shot dead. She's really become an image that people will cling to for a long time in Iran.

It seems to me an interesting paradox: Women in Iran traditionally have the law against them yet there are more women in the universities and more women graduates. They seem to be outpacing the men. Clearly, in education at least, there really isn't that much discrimination. Am I wrong?

There's blatant legal discrimination in Iran against women, but the reality of women's lives is very advanced. Iran is not like other countries. Women are highly educated and most have jobs. It's not uncommon to see women as taxi drivers in Iran, while that would certainly turn heads in America. Women are pilots. There's a prominent woman who is a race car driver. There are women on television, women who are artists and who play a large role in the film industry in Iran. There are women members of parliament and two women have been vice presidents. Despite all of this, there [are] still pretty significant legal restrictions against women. That contradiction reflects the inherent contradictions of the regime itself. Ayatollah Ali Khomeini called women out from their homes--women who had never left their homes before--to come demonstrate in the streets in support of the revolution in 1978-79. And they did. They played a very important role in mobilizing popular support in the revolution. When the laws were changed to restrict many of their rights, a lot of the women started to think that "this isn't what we expected." I'm talking about conservative women, not the liberal, educated elite. They began to question what the revolution really meant for them. They, along with their daughters, have formed the backbone of the reform movement and protests you see across Iran today.

Have you been in touch with any Iranian women throughout all of this?

Yes. There's been a real shift in the past couple of days. People are scared. There's been a crackdown and they're all reluctant to go out on the streets. They see themselves as vulnerable when they see and hear about arrests and violence. It's a very frightening and unknown time right now.

If the status quo remains and Ahmadinejad remains president, does this have a direct impact on women?

It will have a direct impact in that you'll see a much more restricted Iran--more than what we've seen in the past few years. To squash what has happened in the last couple of weeks will take force and a very heavy hand. This will ultimately fall heavily on women, but it won't stop them. They've been through this before. What has changed now, so dramatically, is that the regime has no moral authority anymore. In the past, when women demonstrated, they were labeled as Zionist spies, American stooges, and enthralled to Western secular liberalism and feminism. Those sneers no longer work. These are traditional, conservative women who are saying this is enough. They will not be stopped, and their demands won't be silenced for more justice. This is why the regime fears them so much.

read more

Ten Days that Shook Iran

By:Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani-iranpressnews site

The protests have now nearly died down, but the demonstrations that erupted in response to the fraudulent results of Iran’s 10th presidential election did not fail to bear fruit. The protests, and the powerful people’s movement for a democratic Iran, changed the country as much in 10 days as all movements combined did in the previous 10 years.

The size and success of the Iranian people’s movement was not exclusively the consequence of an unjust election result. The Iranian government, like many of the world’s governments, had been weakened by the global recession, and, as such, Iranian citizens were more dissatisfied and more ready to protest than they might have been otherwise.

The climate of economic crisis, in combination with the electoral fraud, brought to the surface the longstanding, deep-rooted problems and contradictions in the structure of the regime. The people’s movement capitalized on this mood, participating in the election, publicly questioning and lobbying the candidates. Reformist politicians such as Mir-Hossein Mousavi, sensing the cracks in the status quo, were responsive to the movement, which in turn buoyed the people. This reinforced a hopefulness among Iranians, without which no positive change can be achieved.

Before the election, the role of the women’s movement in particular was to communicate issues to the presidential candidates and the society at large. The extraordinary coalition forged by numerous women’s rights groups continued in effect after the election and took it upon itself to explain and analyse events as they unfolded. The resistance was not organized overnight, and it was sustained with the involvement of the students’ movement and the independent trade unions. Together we made sure the public was aware of what was happening and was reminded of their rights. After 30 years of decorative elections, this time around we made sure to have our say. And we did have our say, which is why parts of the regime reacted with violence.

The role of women in the current struggle for democracy is disticly different from that during the 1979 revolution, when women activists participated in the broader struggle against the Shah and did not highlight women’s rights issues specifically. As a result, women lost out. In the current struggle we are determined to highlight women’s issues and women’s rights as critical and distinct components of the struggle for democracy.

The events following last month’s election constitute the largest civil and democratic movement Iran has seen in the past 30 years. The vastness of this movement is proof that Iranian society, and the suppressed in particular, are hungry for democracy. The struggle was not between religious forces and non-religious, or between Muslim and secular, but between the people and a government that does not represent them.

The movement is comprised of the whole “modern middle-class” of Iran. All these people, both religious and secular among them, want to have a say in their political destiny.

Moving forward, we need to keep our message alive. We want true democracy in Iran. We need to continue educating the masses so they will peacefully resist the violence of the state. We must teach our children, the young generation, never to forget our history of struggle, and we must explain to them that justice and equality can best be realized through patience and tolerance.

Iran is our common home, with all its socio-political variances, and we must refrain from violence. Short-term victories are not an option. We know we have a long struggle ahead, as culture and tradition and politics change slowly. If Ghandi was able to achieve victory by peaceful means after so much suppression and violence, if Martin Luther King was able to peacefully stand alongside his people against racism, then us Iranians can move forward without violence, slowly but surely, towards our dream of a democratic nation.

read more

Women in Iran – A look at President Khatami’s first year in office

Donna M. Hughes
Z Magazine, October 1998, pp. 22-24

Women in Iran want equality, respect and the right to participate in all social, political and economic activities. They want to live their lives productively and with dignity. Throughout the 20th Century Iranian women have organized and fought for human and political rights, from the Constitutional Revolution at the turn of the century to the democratic movement that overthrew the Shah of Iran. (1)

Iranian women were strong participants in the 1979 revolution, but fundamentalists, led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, seized control after the revolution. Once in power, the fundamentalists betrayed the work and humanity of women by implementing a crushing system of gender apartheid. Fundamentalists built their theocracy on the premise that women are physically, intellectually and morally inferior to men, which eclipses the possibility of equal participation in any area of social or political activity. Biological determinism prescribes women’s roles and duties to be child bearing and care taking, and providing comfort and satisfaction to husbands.

Men were granted the power to make all family decisions, including the movement of women and custody of the children. "Your wife, who is your possession, is in fact, your slave," is the mullah’s legal view of women’s status. (2) The misogyny of the mullahs made women the embodiment of sexual seduction and vice. To protect the sexual morality of society, women had to be covered and banned from engaging in "immodest" activity. (3)

Based on these woman-hating principles, Khomeini and his followers crafted laws and policies that are still in effect. The hejab, or dress code, is mandatory in all public places for all women. Women must cover their hair and body except for their face and hands and they must not use cosmetics. Punishments range from a verbal reprimand to 74 lashes with a whip to imprisonment for one month to a year. Stoning to death is a legal form of punishment for sexual misconduct. Women are banned from pursuing higher education in 91 of 169 fields of study and must be taught in segregated classrooms. A woman may work with her husband’s permission, although many occupations are forbidden to women.

The legal age at which girls can be married is 9 years (formerly 18 years). Polygamy is legal, with men permitted to have four wives and unlimited number of temporary wives. Women are not permitted to travel or acquire a passport without their husband’s written permission. A woman is not permitted to be in the company of a man who is not her husband or a male relative. Public activities are segregated. Women are not allowed to engage in sports in which they may be seen by men; or permitted to watch men’s sports in which men’s legs are not fully covered.

Although these laws were implemented with great brutality, women have always resisted. Recently in Iran there have been signs that women are increasingly rejecting subordinate lives ruled by the mullahs. Women have campaigned for inheritance rights equal to men’s, and for more rights to custody of their children. Women keep modifying or enhancing their public dress in ways that press the limits of the hejab. More publications by or about women are appearing. Women are demanding they be allowed to participate in and view sports events. Many Iranian women want change.

Some analysts have said that the election of Mohammed Khatami to the position of President was due to the votes of women. Khatami’s strongest distinction seems to be that he was not the hard-line government’s favorite candidate. His election was no doubt a vote against the hard-liners. His upset election has garnered him the label of "moderate," and raised expectations of people inside and outside of Iran. (4)

Khatami has been in office one year now. Is he a moderate? Has the status of women markedly improved in Iran since his election?

There is a widely held view that Khatami supports the rights of women, but his statements and appointments don’t validate that view. Prior to his election Khatami said, "One of the West’s most serious mistakes was the emancipation of women, which led to the disintegration of families. Staying at home does not mean marginalization. Being a housewife does not prevent a woman from having a role in the destiny of her people. We should not think that social activity means working outside the home. Housekeeping is among one of the most important jobs." (5)

Under Khatami’s leadership the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution decided not to sign the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), the most important international agreement on the rights of women. (6) An international study comparing workforce conditions for women around the world ranked Iran 108th out of 110. (7) In urban areas women make-up only 9.5 percent of the workforce, and in rural areas the percent is 8.8 percent. (8) Even Khatami’s advisor on women’s affairs acknowledged that there is discrimination in employment and promotion against women in government offices: "Some officials are of the opinion that men have more of a role in running the family, so they favor the men."(9)

Khatami has not called for an end to the most savage and sadistic punishment in the world – death by stoning. This form of torturous killing was initiated by fundamentalists when they came to power after the Islamic Revolution. Law specifies the size of the stones and the method of burying a person to be stoned. The purpose is to inflict great pain and suffering before death occurs. Since Khatami has been president at least seven people have been stoned to death in public, four of them women. (10)

Khatami’s advisor on women’s affairs, Zahra Shoja’l, says she is an advocate of women’s rights, but all within a fundamentalist defined Islamic context. She defends the restrictive and symbolically oppressive hejab, calling the chador "the superior national dress of the women of Iran." (11)

Khatami’s highly publicized woman appointment is Massoumeh Ebtekar, Vice-President for Environmental Protection. She has a long association with the fundamentalists: after the Islamic Revolution in 1979 she was spokesperson for the hostage takers who captured the U.S. embassy in Tehran. She does not favor loosening restrictions on women that would give them more personal freedom or stop the most barbaric institutionalized violence against women. She supports the law that requires women to get their husband’s permission to travel. She justifies this law by saying, "Man is responsible for the financial affairs and safety of the family. Thus, a woman needs her husband’s permission to make a trip. Otherwise problems will arise and lead to quarrels between them." (12) She also defends stoning women to death by saying, "One should take psychological and legal affairs of the society into consideration as well. If the regular rules of family are broken, it would result in many complicated and grave consequences for all of the society." (13)

Since Khatami was not the hard-line mullahs' favored candidate for presidency, his election has created factions within the Iranian government. A power struggle has ensued, but this is not an ideological fight between those loyal to religious fundamentalists and proponents of secular democracy. All sides, including Khatami, are committed to a theocracy based on velayat-e-fahiq – the absolute supremacy of the mullahs.

After 1979, the measure of the success of the Islamic Revolution was the depth of the suppression of women’s rights and activities. Now, nineteen years later, battles among factions within Iranian government are played out over women’s rights, hejab and segregation.

Draconian laws and discrimination are not things of the past. Women’s public clothing continues to obsess the mullahs. In the last year, the Martyr Ghodusi Judicial Center, a main branch of the judiciary, issued a stricter hejab, or dress code. The new guidelines call for prison terms from three months to one year or fines and up to 74 lashes with a whip for wearing "modish outfits, such as suits and skirt without a long overcoat on top." The regulations ban any mini or short-sleeved overcoat, and the wearing of any "depraved, showy and glittery object on hats, necklaces, earring, belts, bracelets, glasses, headbands, rings, neckscarfs and ties." (14)

Women continue to be arrested for improper veiling. In November, an Agence France Presse correspondent in Tehran witnessed approximately ten young women being arrested and placed into a patrol car for improper veiling or wearing clothing that did not conform to Islamic regulations. The women were wearing colorful headscarves and light make-up. (15) In June Ayatollah Ali Khamenei told senior official that it was time "to crack down on wanton behavior by women." (16) By mid-August 1,800 women and men had been arrested for "mal-veiling and lewd conduct." Most of the women were wearing makeup or in the company of young males who were not related to them. Women who fail to conform to the strict dress code are boarded on minibuses and taken to a center for fighting "social corruption." (17)

Under fundamentalist’s interpretation of Islamic texts, women are banned from being judges because they are not considered capable of making important decisions. One of the claims of moderation in Iran is the appointment of women as judges, but in actuality no women are allowed this rank. Judiciary Chief Yazdi recently made the issue clear in his Friday prayers sermon: "The women judges I mentioned hold positions in the judiciary, they receive salaries, they attend trials, they provide counsel, but they do not preside over trials and or issue verdicts." (18)

In the past year, women’s groups campaigned for a bill that would give women the same inheritance rights as men, but, Parliament overwhelmingly rejected the bill saying the proposal was contrary to Islamic law, which stipulates that a woman’s share may only be one half that of a man’s. (19)

Women made a small gain by getting Parliament to pass a law that granted women some custody rights to children after a divorce, but only if the father was determined to be a drug addict, an alcoholic or "morally corrupt." (20)

New laws strengthening gender apartheid and repression of women are not a thing of the past. During the last year Parliament and other religious leaders proposed a number of new laws or policies that will adversely effect the health, education, and well being of women and girl children in Iran.

Temporary marriage, in which a man can marry a woman for a limited period of time, even one hour, in exchange for money, is permitted in Iran. Earlier this year, Ayatollah Haeri Shirazi, a prominent religious leader called for a revival of this practice so clerical officials could have religious sanctioned sexual relationships with women. This practice is an approved form of sexual exploitation of women, and allows the regime to have an official network of prostitution. (21)

In April, Parliament approved a new law requiring hospitals to segregate by sex all health care services. This will compromise the health care for women and girls because there are not enough trained women physicians and health care professionals to meet the needs of all the women and girls in Iran. (22)

Another new law approved by Parliament imposes more restrictions on the photographs of women that can be published in newspapers and magazines. (23) The Iranian state television announced on August 1 a decision by the Justice Department in Tehran to shut down a newspaper and put its proprietor on trial. One of the charges leveled against the publication, Khaneh, was that it had published "obscene" photographs of women playing football. (24)

Parliamentary deputies submitted a plan to make girls' schools a "no-male zone," which will require all teachers and staff to be women. (25) This requirement will make education for girls even more inaccessible and difficult. Official statistics recently released reveal that 90 percent of girls in rural districts drop-out of school. (26)

More ominously, the Parliament also approved a law prohibiting the discussion of women’s issues or rights outside the interpretation of Shari’a (Islamic law) established by the ruling mullahs. (27) In a further effort to repress all discussion of women’s rights, in mid-August, the Parliament passed a bill prohibiting the publication of material in the media that defended women’s rights in a way that would create conflict between the genders. Advocates of women’s rights are subject to imprisonment and lashing for violations. (28)

In early July 1998, Mohsen Saidzadeh, a cleric, was arrested after writing articles that opposed these bills. He said that laws that deprive women of their rights are based on incorrect interpretations of the Koran. So freedom to criticize the government position on the rights of women does not exist even for fellow mullahs. (29)

In some Western writings Khatami is said to have given new freedoms to the press, but the experience of publishers is contrary to that claim. In February, the newspaper Jameah started to publish articles critical of the government, color photographs of smiling women harvesting wheat, and an interview with a former prisoner. By June a court revoked their license. (30) Also, police filed charges against Zanan, a monthly women’s magazine, for "insulting" the police force by publishing an article on the problems women face with the authorities on Iranian beaches, which are segregated by sex. (31)

Although Khatami is the President of Iran, he is not the Supreme Spiritual Leader, the most powerful position in Iran. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, controls the armed forces, the police, the security and intelligence services, radio and television, and the judicial system. The velayat-e-fahiq is a serious impediment to any reforms that may benefit women or society at large. Ayatollah Khamenei’s opinion of women and their place in society is the same as his predecessor Ayatollah Khomeini’s - women should be wives and mothers. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has publicly stated: "The real value of a woman is measured by how much she makes the family environment for her husband and children like a paradise." (32) In July 1997 Ayatollah Khamenei said that the idea of women’s equal participation in society was "negative, primitive and childish." (33)

There is no moderation in Iran. Both the U.N. Special Rapportuer and the U.S. State Department found that there was no improvement in human rights in Iran since Khatami took office. The Iranian government engaged in summary executions, extrajudicial killings, disappearances and widespread use of torture. (34) The hard-line mullahs will not lift the severe restrictions on women; in fact, they favor stronger gender apartheid. Khatami, although not aligned with the hard-liners, does not support the empowerment and emancipation of women from the velayat-e-fahiq or supreme rule of the mullahs. If the women in Iran want the rights and freedoms they deserve they will have to look elsewhere for change.

• (1) Iranian Women: A Century of Struggle for Equality, Associations of Iranian Women, February 1996.
• (2) Judiciary Chief Mohammad Yazdi, Ressalat, 15 December 1986.
• (3) The Subjection of Women, Parliamentary Human Rights Group, United Kingdom, November 1994.
• (4) "The ‘New’ Iran," James E. Akins, U.S. Congressional Record, 3 June 1998.
• (5) The Daily Salaam, 11 May 1997
• (6) Iran Zamin News, 7 February 1998
• (7) Internatinal Labor Organization, quoted in Bergens Tidende, 12 July 1997.
• (8) Abrar, 2 December 1997.
• (9) IRNA, 8 May 1998
• (10) Associated Press, Tehran, 26 October 1997.
• (11) IRNA, 8 May 1998.
• (12) Die Tageszeitung, 18 October 1997
• (13) Die Tageszeitung, 18 October 1997
• (14) Agence France Presse, 20 February 1998
• (15) Agence France Presse, 30 November 1997
• (16) U.S. News and World Report, 17 August 1998
• (17) Agence France Presse, Tehran, 26 July 1998.
• (18) Tehran radio, 31 July 1998.
• (19) BBC World Service, 5 January 1998
• (20) Associated Press, 2 November 1997
• (21) France Soir, 14 January 1998
• (22) "Discourse needed on Islam interpretation of rights," Laila al-Marayati, Los Angeles Times, 16 May 1998.
• (23) "Iran law sets tough rules on press photos of women," Reuters, 13 April 1998.
• (24) Iranian state television, 1 August 1998.
• (25) Iran Daily, 6 October 1997
• (26) Jomhouri Islami, Tehran, 14 August 1998
• (27) "Discourse needed on Islam interpretation of rights," Laila al-Marayati, Los Angeles Times, 16 May 1998.
• (28) Iran Zamin News Agency, 13 August 1998
• (29) "New Iran’s Alternative Voices Demand to Be Heard," Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, 20 July 1998.
• (30) "New Iran’s Alternative Voices Demand to Be Heard," Elaine Sciolino, New York Times, 20 July 1998.
• (31) "Hardliners Step Up Pressure on Press," Agence France Presse, 26 May 1998.
• (32) Iranian state television, 18 February 1998.
• (33) Tehran radio, 21 July 1997.
• (34) "UN Report: Executions Doubled in Iran," Associated Press, 5 November 1997.

read more

In Iran: Courageous People & Cowardly Regime

Courage is the Art of loving the "One thing beside Your Self" and creating a new value by paying the price to preserve it.

25 May 2007- Evin Prison

Torturer (Famous as the notorious Zarghami): You will never get out of here; no one will hear your voice except these walls. Now tell me who is the Hypocrite? When you went to Ashraf City, did you see the Hypocrites?
The young Houd, with much confident only replied: "What I saw in Ashraf were the Mojahedin (saviors of the people) and not hypocrites (a label created by Ayatollah Khomeini to deface its opposition the PMOI)
A thrust of batons and punches awaited young Houd as he knew very well the consequences of not insulting the PMOI. He was resolved to not weald to what his torturer expected and not let them use him against another.

Houd has been in solitary confinement for the past 9 months and is in a devastating physical condition. Some former cell mates contested he was vomiting blood but was extremely cheerful as usual and insisted that there is a voice out of these walls that would echo his will for "truth and the rule of the Law".
His last location was reported to be in Rajaii Shahr prison, known as the" last destination", although he has been given a 3 year prison sentence with maximum penalty but the human right activists in Iran have expressed deep concern for his fate since the Iranian torturers have been killing prisoners of conscience discretely recently.
As the consequence his mother, his father and brother have also been arrested and subjected to harassment and torture.
Houd is a student of Industrial engineering, his brother is an aeronautical engineer and his Father is a surgeon.

What is young houd's crime? And how distinctive is it amongst millions of other facts and figures in daily lives of each and individual of" Us"?

He visited Camp Ashraf in an effort to see his aunt who is a member of the PMOI and is under much repression by the pro-Iranian Iraqi authorities and police. He wished to see his aunt whom he had heard so much of; her bravery, resolve and determination to vanguard basic values lost at the moment in Iran; Freedom and Democracy and Peace.
These values had always enchanted him since he was a small child but this time he had seen and felt them in contact with her. THIS was the great threat for the Tyrants ruling Iran. It would be a thistle in their throat since their multi-million dollar propaganda had in the past 30 years envisioned another face of the PMOI and their members in Iran: Brutal terrorist who would do anything at any price and who as a cult kill, burn and torture their own members. He knew so little about Camp Ashraf since all news was censored in Iran. All he knew was that her aunt was extremely kind and amiable and brave. This alone gave him the desire to find more about the truth and the PMOI. Like hundreds of other youth eager to know about a better Iran to be, he traveled to Ashraf with his mother to see his aunt. The family spent a week of happy moments together in the Camp unaware of lay before them.

Why is a Camp posing such threat to an Islamic fascism which boasts on being the Godfather of State terrorism?

Camp Ashraf is situated in approximately 60 miles from Baghdad, the capital of Iraq.
Ashraf is the residents of the survivals of a of mass execution ordered by Khomein in a religious fatwa between 1980 and 1986, in order to for eradicate its only rival and threat the PMOI. The mass murder of three generations of the PMOI is one of the crimes committed against Humanity in scripted in piles of documents provided to the Special Reporters of the UN in 1987.

It was in 1986 that the PMOI members fled to Iraq. At that time the United Nations Security Council had called for a ceasefire and an end to the Iran-Iraq war. On the other hand, the peace plan of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) enjoyed the support of more than 5,000 parliamentarians and political personalities from throughout the world. The Iraqi government had also officially accepted the peace plan of the NCRI and had declared its readiness to end the war.
Another significant event of that time was the issue of the French hostages in Lebanon. The Iranian regime had tied the release of the French hostages in Lebanon to the expulsion of the PMOI leaders from France.
Ashraf later grew to be the largest Camp of Iranian dissidents and members of the PMOI in Iraq.

As reported by a Parliamentary report ;

Ashraf is made up of a complex of roads and buildings. It contains all sorts of educational, social and sports facilities. These include four Olympic size swimming pools, a shopping centre, a zoo, a park, a university, a full size football pitch, a 'museum of terrorism' containing details of attacks on the PMOI and its personnel by the Iranian regime, a 'museum of martyrs', a mosque and even a cemetery. Due to its size and in order to function effectively, Camp Ashraf also has services such as shops and bakeries, a petrol station and its own traffic police. Camp Ashraf even has its own Cola production factory, which produces thousands of bottles of 'Ashraf Cola' per day

Ashraf was reported by the LA Times correspondent as:

"MEK members have built a bustling, idyllic sprawl of self-contained mini-villages with barracks-style living quarters, dining halls, recreational facilities and carefully maintained gardens. Camp Ashraf has its own swimming pool, ibrary, monument to fallen comrades and a museum where visitors can view gruesome videos of Iranian regime brutality…. Whatever their idiosyncrasies, MEK members also project a progressive streak and political ethos unusual in the world, much less the Middle East. They're ardent feminists. Women make up 30% of the fighters but hold an outsized number of political and military leadership positions… Far from the noise, traffic jams and ambient daily dread of Baghdad, Ashraf feels like a quiet rural retreat. Earlier this week, the entire camp mobilized for a raucous celebration of Wednesday, a pre-Islamic holiday that precedes the Iranian New Year."

International observers visiting the life of Ashraf camp residents have often expressed astounding surprised by the sprightliness and cheerfulness of spirit of its inhabitants despite dangerous political situation and deploring weather conditions. This esprit in the face of difficult conditions stems from a profound and knowledgeable decision of the people in Ashraf to endure the hardships and from their faith in freedom.

Their inventions, innovations and hard work to create and stay independent under harsh conditions has always been a source of inspiration for Ashraf neighbors and warmth and hope for the Iranian people in Iran who see it as a bastion for Freedom. Ashraf as seen by 5,200 000 Iraqis as declared in a detailed petition: "The People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran came to Iraq in 1986 with the aim of establishing democracy in their homeland, Iran. They have had absolutely no role in the internal affairs of Iraq and no one among the people of Iraq, including Sunnis, Shiites, Arabs, Kurds, etc. have ever experienced anything except decency and compassion from them. The solidarity of various social strata of the people of Iraq with this organization best attests to this truth."

Signed by: 121 political parties and social groups, 700,000 women, 14,000 lawyers and jurists, 19,000 physicians, 35,000 engineers, 320 clerics, 540 professors, 2,000 tribal sheikhs and 300 local officials among 5.2 million signitaries of the declaration *2

In the second half of the year 2003, in view of the events covering the Iraq War and subsequent changes in Iraq, Tehran intensified its conspiracies to fish from muddy waters and . Under pressures from Tehran, even food and fuel rations of Ashraf were terminated; elements affiliated with the regime blew up the water pipelines to Ashraf; members of the PMOI were abducted in Iraq. Even a bus carrying Iraqi laborers to the city of Ashraf was blown up killing 11.

Only yesterday the Iraqi Police Squads raided the camp in an attempt to militarily take over control of the lives and everyday rituals of the camp residents. This incident came a couple of days after Ahmadinejad reminded Iraqi government of its treaties and ties with Tehran on one side and a well known pro-Iranian MEP in the EP, Emma Nicholson asked for the shut down of the camp.*3

This initiated a series of appeals on behalf of International Bodies and Inter- Parliamentary groups who have so far followed the sensitive situation of the camp.
British Parliamentary Committee for Iran Freedom in an urgent letter called on Mrs. Hillary Clinton, US Secretary of State to intervene in order to prevent a human catastrophe in Camp Ashraf, Iraq. In part of their letter the MPs note: "Iraq has refused to acknowledge the rights of Ashraf residents, and since February its forces have besieged the camp. The European Parliament on 24 April adopted a resolution urging Iraq to respect the rights of Ashraf residents in the framework of the Geneva Conventions, end the siege of the camp, and refrain from forcibly displacing, deporting, or expelling the residents in violation of the principle of non-refoulement."*4

This committee is comprised of 5 UK members of Parliament and is supported by 200 Peers.

In a separate letter the International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ) to the US secretary of State, the committee representing 2000 MEPs wrote: " By suppressing the opposition, specifically the PMOI [the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran], Khamenei is striving to pave the way for appointing Ahmadinejad for a second term as Iran's President". The ISJ concludes " In return the Iraqi government has neither acknowledged Ashraf residents' basic rights nor has it recalled its siege which has begun since last February and is still ongoing.
In view of the Iraqi governments' failure to acknowledge Ashraf resident's rights as stressed in the 24 April Resolution of the European Parliament, and its continued violations, the ISJ appeals to the US forces and US Government for an urgent intervention to prevent a possible humanitarian catastrophe and to guarantee the full implementation of the Resolution". *5

Sometimes history should not be repeated

What we should have learned after nearly 30 years is that neither humiliating concessions nor bending over redlines nor ethical values, keeping a shut eye on catastrophic butcheries in the Iran nor secret deals have advanced our interests with respect to the ruling fascism. On the contrary the policy of appeasement has only bolstered the power and prestige of the worst elements in the Iranian autocracy.

There is definitely a correct way to solve the Iran Crisis and safeguard our ethics, humanism and principals. The solution is what Iran's courageous democratic dissidents have long implored us to do is to stop "chastising" the Iranian resistance for wanting to protect its people against "professional-murderers" and terrorists of the mullahs from Tehran. The Iranian people only seek democratic change from inside Iran with its own sources and the Iranian resistance.

This is the value young "Houd" has endeavored to safeguard with all his merit and might, so let us not let his hopes down and prove the torturers wrong;
HIS VOICE IS HEARD BEHINDE PRISON WALLS.


Further notes on the article:

Chronology Ashraf Camp

- Since 2003, the ayatollahs' regime has been relentless in sowing terror and mayhem in Iraq. Capitalizing on a series of U.S. errors, both strategic and tactical, Tehran has accelerated its drive to force the Multi-national forces out of Iraq and become the de-facto power-broker in Iraq. the Qods Force, aided by Arabic-speaking agents of the Lebanese Hezbollah, has been training Iraqi Shiite assassination teams in four locations inside Iran

- Tehran's terrorist campaign in Iraq has been widely reported, little has been written about its concerted efforts to eliminate its principal opposition, the People's Mujahedin Organization (MEK/PMOI), which is based in Iraq. In recent months, Tehran has tried to exploit the complicated negotiations between the United States and Iraqi government over the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), to advance its strategic aims, including the elimination of the 3,500 MEK members in Camp Ashraf in Iraq.

- Hassan Kazemi Qomi, a senior commander of the notorious Qods Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corp, who is now Tehran's ambassador to Iraq, told the state-run media on August 21, 2008 that the MEK "has six months to leave Iraq," and that the Iraqi security forces intend to take over the control of Camp Ashraf. The camp has been protected by the United States military since 2003.

- Members of the PMOI in Ashraf are under the protection of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and the principle of non-refoulment. Following the voluntarily submission of all the weaponry at their possession to the Multi National Forces-Iraq in 2003, the residents of Ashraf signed an agreement with the MNF-I in which they denounced terrorism and violence. The right to protection and security for Mojahedin is the requirement of the Fourth Geneva Convention and the US government has recognized that for all the residents of Ashraf. Following the signing of the agreement by all the PMOI members in Ashraf, Deputy Commander General of the MNF-I stated in a letter to the residents of Ashraf on 2 July, 2004: " The United States has confirmed your status as '' protected persons" under the Fourth Geneva convention and has communicated that determination to the International Committee of the Red Cross in Geneva. The acknowledgement of this determination will assist in expediting the efforts of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations High commissioner for Refugees in your disposition as individuals in accordance with applicable international law''.

- The European Court of First Instance annulled the EU Council's decision to include the PMOI in the terror list and called it unlawful on 12 Dec 2006. A year later, on 30 Nov 2007, the Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission (POAC) in the UK ordered the British government to remove the PMOI from UK list of terrorists. Following the 2 rulings, today it has been completely proved that designation of the PMOI as a terrorist organization has taken place at the behest of the religious fascism ruling Iran and has had no legal basis from the beginning.
- In July 2004, after a vigorous 16-month review by seven different U.S. agencies, including the State Department and Federal Bureau of Investigation, every MEK member in Camp Ashraf was cleared of any violations of American law. U.S. Forces recognized the Ashraf residents as ''protected Persons'' under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Multinational Force-Iraq has been responsible for the protection of the base.

-According to letters by UNHCR officials, on 6 and 9 March 2007 , and the Human Rights Report, dated 11 Oct 2007 by UNAMI to warn against a planned human catastrophe and mass murder of the residents of Ashraf City (the base for members of the People's Mojahedin Organisation of Iran) by the mullahs ruling Iran.

-During its independent stay in Iraq, the MEK has openly defied any interference in Iraqi affairs. It has maintained close ties with its Iraqi neighbors, who share its aversion to Tehran's agenda in Iraq. This common bond was underscored on June 17, 2008, when it was announced that more than 3 million Iraqi Shiites had signed a petition condemning Iranian meddling and declaring support for the MEK and Ashraf residents.

- In retaliation, Tehran is trying to compel Washington to hand over the protection of the unarmed residents of Camp Ashraf. The Iranian regime has taken advantage of the exceptional situation of Iraq to annihilate the 3500 Human rights defenders in Ashraf city: I has embarked on its psychological war and terrorist conspiracies against the residents of Camp Ashraf, Iraq. One can, for example, refer to the August 2005 kidnapping of two Ashraf residents, the May 2006 bombing of a bus carrying Iraqi workers to Ashraf (which resulted in the death of 11 passengers), the July 2006 bombing of Ashraf water pipelines, the October 2007 attempt to poison the water going to Ashraf, the November 2007 bombing of a vehicle carrying Ashraf workers, the murder of Iraqis who support the residents of Ashraf and the February 2008 bombing of the water pumping station which deprived residents of Ashraf and 20,000 Iraqi citizens from water.

- In paragraph 7 of a resolution on Iraq, adopted unanimously on 12 July 2007, the European Parliament declared that it "Strongly rejects the threats of expulsion and cutting off supplies of fuel and drinking water made by some senior officials in the Iraqi Government against 4000 members of the Iranian opposition who have been political refugees in Iraq for the past 20 years and have the legal status of "Protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention" and calls on the Iraqi Government to respect their rights under international law. "

- In its October 2007 report, UNAMI stated, "UNAMI continues to assess any risks faced by residents of Camp Ashraf of repatriation to their country of origin, and takes the view that the residents must non-voluntarily not be deported, expelled or repatriated in violation of the principle of non-refoulement or displaced inside Iraq in violation of the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law."

-The International Committee of Jurists in Defence of Ashraf sent a communication to the ICRIC , reminding a catastrophe and suggested a guarantee that would secure the residents of Ashraf and avert a human catastrophe.They emphatically demanded that the ICRC confirm and make public the rights of the residents of Ashraf consistent with the principle of non-refoulement, International Humanitarian Law, International Law and in the framework of the Fourth Geneva Convention, especially the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which according to the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1770 can be applied to the residents of Ashraf.

.................................................

Reference and links - Los Angeles Times, 19 March 2005
2- http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/1791/70/
3-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5grN-5v40w&feature=channel_page
4-http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/6416/1/
5- http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/6418/1/

read more

Hunger Strike a Daily Reminder of U.S.'s Forsaken Promise

Read the article

read more

WHat is my crime? UK Daughters of Light production

Women are at the forefront of the Iranian resistance. Their numerous presence in all uprising movements dating 20 June onwards and amongst female student activists has been the complained of by Iranian officials in numerous interviews and news articles.
Iranian mullahs’ misogynist minds have always underestimated the role women play in the political events that would lead to a fundamental change in Iran. Equality and Gender apartheid is far beyond clerical mindset and for this reason their potential and central enemies are the Iranian women who lead the uprising. These women have also in their combat for FREEDOM been able to display a role model in forms of leadership of political movements such as the PMOI in Camp Ashraf. Unfortunately in the recent attack ordered by the Iranian supreme leadership onto this residential camp in Iraq, the 1000 women leaders of the camp have been beaten, wounded and threatened to be sexually raped if they refused to be returned to Iran, where they would be persecuted. Amnesty International has so far issued 3 actions to safeguard the “protected status” named after them by the MNF-I after they, along with another 2400 agreed to give up their only means of protections in the dangerous deserts of Iraq only in return for a promised” Treaty” signed with the US commanders which guaranteed their safety until they were on Iraqi soil. The US how ever were only bystanders in the recent savage attack on the camp and whilst 11 were killed and the rest attacked by axes, sickle and nailed batons , run over by US made Humvees and lashed and beaten by pro –Iranian forces, they only filmed the scenes and did not intervene to protect the residents. Today it is the 33rd day of the women’s Hunger Strike. Many have been fail and weak and taken urgently to the clinic in the camp but refused to break their hunger strike. They have decided to stand against this injustice and deliberate silence that has caused 11 dead and would lead to more Humanitarian Catastrophe, since the camp is still under siege by the same forces that attacked them and 36 of their friends who are wounded have been abducted. These women have extended their hands out to YOU and ME for help: sign our petition on:
http://daughtersoflight-petition.blogspot.com

read more