از حوزه حقوق بشر – سمینار نقض بی پایان حقوق بشر در ایران

Issue No. 103, Friday, 14 Ordibehesht 1386
Mohammad Tahavori – Washington Prism
"What is to be done?" Dr. Stephen Marks, a professor and member of the Human Rights Committee at Harvard University in the United States, posed this question on Friday, April 27 (7 Ordibehesht), at a seminar held at the same university.
The question came after three hours of discussion and exchange of views on human rights violations in Iran. For years it has been raised after every meeting and conversation about the state of these rights in Iran, yet it has never found an adequate answer.
A number of representatives of international bodies and global non-governmental organizations active in the field of human rights also attended the seminar. By posing this question, the professor was in effect making these bodies and organizations more aware than ever that the time has come for collective action to end human rights violations in Iran.

The professor's ready prescription was to turn to the international conventions, unions and global organizations that Iran has joined. He spoke favorably of the fact that Iran has acceded to a number of international conventions and said that these conventions have good enforcement mechanisms for stopping human rights violations.
He named the Convention against Torture, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention against Discrimination in Education, the International Labour Union and others as bodies Iran has signed on to. He said that by raising cases of human rights violations in these forums, their potential to prevent repeated violations in Iran can be put to use.
At the same time, he said that American public opinion needs more, and more accurate, news and analysis about Iranian issues. (For in that case) US foreign policy would be obliged, while pursuing the issue of human rights in Iran, to make decisions about the country in such a way that its actions do not harm the advancement of human rights there.
He described support by international organizations for social movements in Iran as another way to pursue and revive human rights in the country. He noted that, despite many restrictions, Iran has positive features, features that, used properly, can help advance human rights.
Marks listed as positive points in Iran: at least minimal means of conveying news and analysis into Iran through blogs and websites; at least a minimal official commitment to human rights on the part of the regime; a civil society engaged with human rights issues, including labor, student and women's organizations; certain positive principles in the Constitution; and Iran's membership in some international conventions.
At the same time, he named the merging of religion and politics, the narrow scope of national security (such that any action is judged to be disruptive of national security), and similar problems in the judicial system as some of the negative points. He expressed hope that promoting and spreading an interpretation of Islam compatible with human rights and democracy could help improve the human rights situation in Iran.
According to Stephen Marks, focusing on the right to freely publish material and views, on the compatibility of Islam and human rights, and on the enforcement mechanisms of international conventions is an appropriate way to advance democracy in Iran.
US State Department Aid: A Gift to Iran's Security Apparatus for Cracking Down on Civil Society Activists
At the seminar, organized on the initiative of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, representatives of several international human rights organizations also examined the state of human rights in Iran.
Hadi Ghaemi represented Human Rights Watch at the meeting. He criticized the attribution of espionage charges to Iranian civil society activists. He said that normalizing relations between Iran and the United States could end the pattern of pressuring Iranian civil society activists on charges of spying for the enemy.

He described the US State Department's announcement of financial aid to Iranian non-governmental organizations as America's gift to the security apparatus of the Islamic Republic for cracking down on activists in Iran's social movements.
Ghaemi also aimed his criticism at the nuclear tension between Iran and the West. He said the issue of Iran's nuclear activities has become so prominent that it is no longer possible to talk about other issues, even as Iran's social movements are actively pursuing their work.
He named the movements of women, lawyers, workers, teachers and students as Iran's dynamic and active movements, and said that the pressures and threats of the Ahmadinejad government have not made Iranians passive; despite the pressure, they continue their activities.
He regarded the women's movement as the most active one and said women have been very successful because they have set concrete goals rather than pursuing abstract ones. For instance, when they spoke of the need for laws, they tried to identify the laws that conflict with their rights and worked to change them.
Referring to the killing of political activists in the prisons of the Islamic Republic during the first decade of the revolution, Ghaemi spoke about how policies changed under different governments. He stated: "Under the Rafsanjani government, because of his focus on economic development, the security agencies put the elimination of dissidents on their agenda. But the Khatami government managed to change this practice, to the point that, by promoting the idea of tolerating opponents, it tried to create a suitable environment for the activities of Iran's civil society, and positive steps were taken in this direction. Subsequently, however, Ahmadinejad, with a policy opposed to Khatami's course, has tried to push civil society into passivity. But he has never succeeded."
SAVAK's Critics Have Taken the Same Path
Joshua Rubenstein, representative of Amnesty International, was another speaker on the panel of international human rights organizations. Recalling his organization's work in defense of human rights in Iran, he said: "This organization has had the issue of human rights in Iran on its agenda since 1960 (1339). At that time SAVAK was imprisoning and torturing political activists, and the organization pursued many cases."
Referring to the letters and complaints the organization received from prisoners and political opponents in the Shah's time about SAVAK's conduct in cases of human rights violations, he stated that, unfortunately, once these same people came to power they adopted SAVAK's very practices, with the difference that this time they did not reply to our letters about human rights violations. This, he noted, even though Mr. (Ayatollah) Khomeini himself had referred cases to the organization during the Shah's era, which we pursued.
The human rights activist noted: "Unfortunately, Iran's treatment of ethnic minorities has been catastrophic, and they have answered every protest with violence. They still insist on carrying out executions and stoning."
He considered the efforts of international organizations to free some political prisoners to have been effective. In this connection, he said: "These efforts and pressures to end human rights violations continue, and we are certain that the Iranian government is sensitive to international complaints and cannot remain indifferent."
Like Ghaemi, Rubenstein criticized the actions of the US government and said that these policies are not only ineffective but also create more problems for human rights activists in Iran.
Danny Postel, representative of the Journalists' Association, was the third speaker at the meeting. He recalled the international efforts to free Dr. Ramin Jahanbegloo, who had been detained for a time by security forces. He said: "We wrote a letter for Ramin Jahanbegloo's release and collected signatures from a number of prominent figures. But Iran's security agents used this letter against him. They showed the letter to Jahanbegloo and questioned him about his connections with the signatories. This made us wonder whether what we had done was right or whether we had made a mistake. We also supported many journalists and bloggers. (But) the issue of human rights in Iran is very sensitive."
Danny Postel concluded by challenging the participants with the question: "Can every form of international support be effective or not?"

Economic Pressures Have Driven Workers into the Streets
At the seminar, Ms. Heba El-Shazli, head of the Middle East section of the Center for International Labor Solidarity in America, also portrayed the dismal situation of workers in Iran, citing layoffs, temporary contracts, attacks on peaceful gatherings, and the denial of the right to form free labor organizations. She stressed that this situation in Iran is a small part of the effects of globalization on workers. Therefore, workers have no choice but to globalize their solidarity with one another.
She then described the capacities of international labor unions and global organizations to support Iran's workers as part of global worker solidarity. El-Shazli explained that these international capacities can be defined in three structures: there are national labor federations and international sectoral unions, both of which fall within the International Trade Union Confederation, with more than 300 million members; and finally there is the International Labour Organization which, as part of the United Nations, plays the role of a tripartite body.

As examples of how the capacities of this large labor family have been used to support Iran's workers, Shazli cited writing letters of protest to the country's officials about respecting international labor rights; organizing campaigns in support of Iranian workers, an example being the international day of action held around the world on February 15, 2006 (26 Bahman 1384) in support of the arrested workers of the Sherkat-e Vahed (Tehran bus company); online petitions; and finally filing complaints with the International Labour Organization.
She said that as a result of these actions, a heavy case was built against Iran last year, which is why the country's government tried to appear very imposing at the 2006 (1385) annual session in Geneva. But because of reports that had reached the International Labour Organization in time, it was forced to answer questions in the Committee on the Application of Standards.
According to Shazli, this year too the international education federation has filed a complaint against the Iranian government with the International Labour Organization in protest at the arrests of teachers, which violate the right to freedom of association. As a result of this complaint, Iran has been forced to provide explanations. It appears that because of the deplorable events targeting teachers' rights, the "Global Trade Solidarity Union" and the "International Education Union" are jointly preparing another complaint to the International Labour Organization.
In her view, it seems that in any case Iran needs the assistance of the "International Workers' Organization." Therefore, it is sometimes displeased by these complaints and opens up the space somewhat for workers. Examples include the release of many imprisoned workers or the review of the situation of Sherkat-e Vahed workers awaiting reinstatement.
She also noted that the labor family, despite its great international capacity, still faces a major challenge, which stems from these bodies' lack of enforcement power. Her final words were an appeal, on behalf of the workers of Iran and the world, to all human rights defenders, organizations and journalists: "Please do not use workers for your own purposes. Rather, see them as human beings who are seeking their rights."
Shazli went on to describe the workers' situation as dismal, saying: "Our approach is a free society, but unfortunately Iran operates in a completely closed manner. It gives no group the right to protest or assemble, and the syndicates do not have the right to protest. (At the same time) Iran's labor community needs solidarity in order to be better off. They have the right to learn how to respond to the challenges of the workplace. They have the right to say: do not use us politically. They want there to be no discrimination in their workplace."
Sharply criticizing the living conditions of workers and teachers, she said that their dire economic situation has driven them into the streets. Yet at last year's session of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, Iran had brought a very large delegation in the labor section. This delegation included the representative of the Workers' House and representatives of other Iranian sectors who had taken part in the workers' union, in order to show that workers' conditions in Iran are good.
Iran is a member of the "International Labour Union" and wants this organization's technical assistance. Therefore, it must be said that granting this assistance should be made conditional on improving the situation of workers.
According to Shazli, the treatment of the Syndicate of Workers of the Tehran bus company has been highly improper. She called on all international organizations to support the Sherkat-e Vahed workers' syndicate and declared: "The International Labour Union, with millions of workers under its umbrella around the world, has supported the rights of Iranian workers and teachers and will continue this support."
Three Iranian researchers at Harvard University, together with Dr. Houchang Chehabi, a professor at Boston University, also described human rights violations in Iran in a panel discussion.
Dr. Fatemeh Haghighatjoo drew attention to violations of academic freedom and of the rights of academics. In the view of this Harvard researcher, censorship and ideological control, selection based on ideological beliefs, punishment, dismissal, forced retirement and travel bans are the main violations of the rights of university professors. She noted that the punishment of professors ranges from threatening phone calls to loss of employment, arrest, trial and even death sentences.
She referred to students being barred from continuing their education for political and religious reasons, being deprived of their rights, and being punished, and presented a statistical report on the extent of the expulsion, trial and imprisonment of students.
According to Haghighatjoo, reviewing the content of books before publication has become standard practice in Iran. As a result, many books, especially in the humanities, are prevented from being published because they conflict with the official policies of the regime. Hiring non-religious professors is prohibited, and they are kept out of the universities. University presidents are chosen from among Ahmadinejad's like-minded associates, members of the professors' Basij and conservatives, so that most of the appointed presidents do not hold the rank of full professor.
Mohsen Sazegara, another Harvard University researcher, examined numerous articles of the Constitution to explain human rights violations in Iran. According to him, on the surface the Constitution is consistent with human rights, but a close look shows that it is not compatible with human rights. As an example, he cited the Guardian Council's authority to control and supervise elections, particularly elections for the Assembly of Experts of the Leadership. He said that through this control and supervision, in a vicious circle, the council is charged with vetting the candidates for an assembly that is supposed to oversee the performance of the Leader. In other words, this task has been placed in the hands of the Leader's own appointees on the Guardian Council.
Referring to certain provisions of the Constitution, including Articles 24 and 26, which concern freedom of the press and of political parties, he said that adding the phrase "unless contrary to Islam" to the end of these articles has led to the violation of the rights of the press and political parties.
The political activist described the Guardian Council's authority to interpret the Constitution as a tool for violating citizens' rights. He stated that when such a right is granted to the Guardian Council, the body interprets the law however it wishes, ignores citizens' rights, manipulates elections, and is accountable to no one.
Iran's Civil Society Needs International Support, Not Military Attack
Mehrangiz Kar, a researcher at Harvard Law School, explaining the legal situation of women, noted that at present the only strong voice heard from Iran is the voice of women. She said that although they carry out their activities in Iran at great risk, they have launched two campaigns: "One Million Signatures for equal rights with men" and the campaign to abolish stoning. She concluded that these women "have been put under pressure for this very reason, so that they will stop."
Explaining that even before the revolution the rights of women and men in Iran were not equal, she pointed to the changes in women's favor made in the ten years before the revolution. She said: "During that period some laws, such as the Family Protection Law, were changed, but after the revolution, with the order to annul laws contrary to Islam, these laws were changed back again."
Stating that (in Iran) only Islamic sharia is accepted, Kar said: "Every action by women is interpreted as hostility to Islam. Therefore, in Iran we cannot say that we are feminists or non-religious, because they consider such statements hostility to Islam and a crime."
Referring to the activities of labor, student and teachers' organizations, she stated: "All these movements are carried out courageously, in full awareness of how dangerous they are, because all these organizations are exposed to the charge of acting against national security. They need international support, but not support pursued through military attack; rather, support that can help advance human rights in Iran through diplomacy and dialogue."
Responding to a question about the compatibility of Islam and human rights, Mehrangiz Kar said that an interpretation of Islam can be offered that is compatible with women's rights, and indeed some clerics have offered such an interpretation. But the regime recognizes an interpretation of Islam that is opposed to women's rights.
Dr. Houchang Chehabi, a professor at Boston University, examined the situation of religious minorities in Iran at the meeting. Presenting statistics on religious minorities in Iran, he said: "The Sunnis, with a population of 7 to 14 million and as the largest religious minority in Iran, are still regarded as second-class citizens. They have no representative in the Assembly of Experts of the Leadership and suffer employment discrimination. Because of pressures from outside the Majlis, they have so far been unable to have a single member on its presiding board. Sunnis in Tehran are denied a mosque and must go to the Pakistani embassy school in Tehran for congregational and Friday prayers."
Describing the situation of other Islamic denominations, he referred to the Sheikhi and Sufi orders and called their situation deplorable. According to Chehabi, the leader of the Sheikhi order was assassinated in Kerman, and the Sufis' khanqah (lodge) in Qom was demolished and their leader arrested.
Explaining that the legal situation of minorities had improved to some extent under the Khatami government, he pointed to the equalization of their diyeh (blood money) with that of Shiites.
Referring to the non-Muslim religious minorities in Iran, Chehabi called the discrimination against them in the military saddening. According to him, non-Muslims cannot attain officer rank in the army. The Armenian quarter of Isfahan has been turned into a garbage dump, and Baha'is are not allowed to attend university and are not safe in their lives.