US technology firms will now be allowed to export online services such as instant messaging and social networks.

Companies had not offered such services for fear of violating sanctions.

Opposition supporters in Iran used social networking sites and services to organise protests after the country’s disputed presidential poll last year.

The US Treasury said exports would be allowed of services related to web browsing, blogging, e-mail, instant messaging, chat, social networking and photo- and movie-sharing.

Low impact?

The move was intended to “ensure that individuals in these countries can exercise their universal right to free speech and information to the greatest extent possible”, it said.

“As recent events in Iran have shown, personal internet-based communications like e-mail, instant messaging and social networking are powerful tools,” Deputy Treasury Secretary Neal Wolin said.

The department has allowed the export of services to all three countries, and the export of communications software only to Iran and Sudan, as the export of software to Cuba is governed by the commerce department.

Last year, software giant Microsoft barred users in five countries, including Iran, Cuba and Sudan, from using instant messaging services. People trying to use the service received an error message.

It is not clear whether the governments affected will be able impose their own restrictions on these services.

In Cuba, the numbers of internet users is still very low, so lifting sanctions may not have a major impact, observers say.

Earlier this year, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the US would be supporting the development of new tools to enable citizens to circumvent politically-motivated censorship.

Any country which restricted free access to information risked “walling themselves off from the progress of the next century”, she added.

Source: BBC

Former Iranian President Abu-I-Hasan Banisadr (left) met the Global-Editor-in-Chief of the World Security Network Foundation BrigGen (ret) Dieter Farwick to discuss the situation in Iran:“The Iranian people do not want this regime: a dark dictatorship.”

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr was the first President of Iran after the revolution in 1979. He was elected with 75 percent of the vote in the Iranian parliament. When he lived in Paris he joined the Iranian opposition in exile led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni, who came in 1978 to Paris. In 1979 Abu I-Hasan Banisadr went back to Iran with Ayatollah Khomeni, part of the “inner circle”. After the revolution in 1979 he was appointed President based upon the Parliament’s vote. He was President from January 25^th 1980, until June 21^st 1980, after which he was removed from office following dubious criticism of his performance during the Iran-Iraq war. He fled from Iran to Paris where he has been living since. He is still a leading political figure among Iranians living outside Iran. The Global-Editor-in-Chief of the World Security Network Foundation BrigGen (ret) Dieter Farwick had the opportunity to interview the former Iranian President on the problematic development after the revolution, on the fragile present and on the foggy future of Iran.

Dieter Farwick: Let us look back at your time as the first elected President of Iran after the Revolution. At the start of your time in office, what were your and Ayatollah Khomeini’s visions of Iran’s future?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: The vision of the Iranian people was a new future that followed the aims of the revolution, as expressed in the popular chants and slogans of the time. The revolution was an expression of freedom. It was based on independence and self determination for Iran; liberty; development founded on social justice; and Islam as both a discourse of freedom and a spiritual link for the people. These were the publicly expressed aims of the revolution. However, once in Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini opted for power over the unambiguous goals of the revolution. He and I therefore stood at odds with one another. As a presidential candidate during the election, I articulated the Revolution’s objectives as my platform and manifesto, including programmes to achieve them. The Iranian people voted, by a majority of 76%, in favour of my manifesto and to the extent that we were able to implement our agenda, it was successful. However, Ayatollah Khomeini and his people committed a coup against the elected president and the future turned into the dark dictatorship that we are facing today.

Dieter Farwick: Thirty years after the Revolution, Iran’s government is in serious religious and political difficulties. Millions of protesters are questioning the legitimacy of the government. What went wrong in the past 30 years?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: The aims thirty-one years ago were to rebuild Iranian society free from the dictatorial system of the past. However, thus far it has not been possible to completely destroy the traditional dictatorial elements within Iranian society. Historical power structures in Iran have traditionally had several bases: the monarchy, the clergy, feudal land owners in villages, and the owners of the bazaar economy in the cities. In addition, there were relationships with dominant foreign powers. The Shah’s regime destroyed the power of the economic base. It also clashed with the clergy. The revolution ended the monarchy, so the clergy is the remaining basis of dictatorship in Iran. You are aware that non-democratic regimes based on anything other than the sovereignty of the people have always been overthrown. The fall of the Soviet Union and the dictatorships of Latin America are clear examples of such regimes. The following changes have materialised over the last 31 years in Iran: first, at present a large body of clergy has dissociated itself from the current regime. Consequently, the regime has lost its religious authority. Hence, the clergy power base on which it stands is half-broken. This is the most important element of change that has transpired in the last 31 years. Second, as a result of the economy’s dependence on oil revenue and imports the regime has created an employment vacuum. Third, in political terms the regime does not allow any room for manoeuvre. It goes so far as to stop the nation from voting freely in an election where the nominees were preapproved by the regime itself. Fourth, from a sociological point of view, there is no respect for the rights of women and the human rights of both men and women are nonexistent. Creation of any social groups, such as trade unions, is outlawed. Fifth, the regime has created a closed cultural environment that is not conducive to creativity and growth. Everything mentioned above has created a society with many young people and high unemployment. This society has risen up and is now a driving force for change. Its objective is to free itself by removing this regime. These transformations have taken place in Iranian society over the past 31 years.

Dieter Farwick: Observers find it difficult to picture the real Iran from the outside, but you have better information about current events. What is your assessment of the situation? Will the regime succeed in oppressing the opposition in such a way that protests lose their importance and dynamics? Or will the opposition remain powerful enough to bring about the necessary changes in the system? Will future developments be independent of the leadership of Mousavi and Karroubi, or will this protest movement emancipate itself with the help of modern technologies?

“The Iranian people need to struggle towards freeing themselves from this regime and creating a democratic Iran”

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr:The movement started two to three weeks before the June election and it has continued for over 8 months. Over that time the regime has unsuccessfully tried to put an end to the movement. For the anniversary of the revolution, the opposition (Messrs Karroubi, Khatami, and Mousavi) invited people to attend the demonstrations at Freedom square in Tehran. The regime, for their part, had planned to present the crowds as supporters of Mr. Khamenei andVelayat-e Faqih (supreme leader). However the wisdom of the Iranian people prevailed and most did not attend. Those who did, on noticing the armed police, left the venue, leaving the square almost empty for Mr. Ahmadinejad’s speech. Evidence for this can be seen in aerial pictures taken by Google, estimating 50,000 people in the square. This is despite the large numbers who had been bussed in from other cities. Further evidence is the film taken showing people busy with their picnics and children playing football. Apparently, no one was paying much attention to the presidential speech. This informs us that the Iranian people do not want this regime and no one is prepared to listen to the president, including those in attendance. The regime is unable to stop this movement. However, it is within the power of the opposition leaders to bring an end to the movement. If the opposition continues the strategy of trying to progress within the structures of the regime they will bring the movement to a halt. On the other hand if they work outside the constraints of the regime looking to make real change, i.e. looking to establish a government chosen by the people, the movement will continue. My opinion regarding Mr. Karroubi and Mr. Mousavi is that if they stay within the system then people will continue the struggle and leave them behind. However, if they decide to move forward with the people, they will succeed.

Dieter Farwick: Should a peaceful transition within the system be impossible, do you think that a danger remains that the oppressed and disappointed population might attempt regime change by violent means, considering the dramatically deteriorating economic and social situation? How probable is this?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: So far, the people have not gone down the path of violence, despite the fact that the regime is pushing them in that direction by its actions. We are against violence. A strategy of violence can be adopted by an organized political group. However, not every citizen can participate in a movement that is violent. An aggressive movement by its very nature cannot be inclusive of all people. If several armed organizations take over the movement, there would be a real possibility of Iran following the path of Iraq and Afghanistan. The only certain means of success is the method chosen by the people: a nonviolent movement. It is vital for Iran’s future and for establishing democracy that we (the Iranian people) learn to build political relationships with each other and express our differences through dialogue rather than guns.

Dieter Farwick: The vast majority of people in the ‘Free World’ desire a regime change in Iran and the departure of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a man who has alarmed the world and especially Israel with his aggressive diatribes on Israel and the Holocaust. How should the Western world behave in the current situation? Should it try to influence him, and in which direction? Are sharper sanctions the right way to accelerate the fall of this regime?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: We would also like the regime to be replaced by a democratic system. However, the position of the west with regards to the current regime is not clear. General Petraeus current commander, US Central Command, has stated that “President Ahmadinejad and the Irani (Iranian) leaders continue to be the best recruiters for Central Command as we embark on our partnership plans. They’ve caused enormous worry and concern by those on the western side of the Gulf “. Firstly, the west needs to clarify its position regarding the regime, so the Iranians are clear about the West’s stance. From my point of view, the West wants the current regime in place. At best, the West is looking for minor changes to the system which best serve their interests in the region. However, we want a democratic change to establish national rights for Iranians. From my perspective the west needs to be unambiguous about its wants and wishes so that the Iranian people are reassured that it is not looking for an Iranian regime dominated by foreign powers. In addition I propose that the West takes an approach of Active Neutrality. This means that it should act in a manner that would harm the regime without harming the Iranian people without direct interference.

Dieter Farwick: Who are the persons or groups that you would trust to lead Iran out of its isolation and who would be able to re-establish the reputation of Iran as a great nation with strong historical tradition and culture? Do you think that successful Persians living abroad would agree to return to their homeland to take part in the reconstruction of their country? What part would you play in this process?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: This answer to this question is for the Iranian people and not for individual figures or groups. The Iranian people need to struggle towards freeing themselves from this regime and creating a democratic Iran. They need to create a culture of development. The political groups will only have meaning within the context of serving the wants and wishes of, and governing, the Iranian people. Established individual figures should not play a role above and beyond the desires of Iranian people. There is a big group outside of Iran who has struggled against the regime of the Shah and today resists the current regime. I have no doubt these people are ready to go back to Iran, and take part in a democratic society and an enlightened culture. As for me, during the period of transfer between the current regime and democratic regime I will be happy to serve the people in whatever capacity they ask of me. However after a democratic system is established and the new government is about to get elected, I am not looking for any position in office, elected or designated. I will continue to serve my people in my country by other means.

Dieter Farwick: Iran’s nuclear programme is a special issue. There are many signs that this regime is trying to use the civilian nuclear energy programme to build nuclear weapons. What is your position on these allegations? How does the Iranian population regard the civilian nuclear programme and a possible military nuclear programme?

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (left), Supreme religious leader, and President Ahmadinejad: “The regime is unable to stop this movement.”

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr:Clearly the Iranian regime has a nuclear programme and I would be lying if I said that the regime has no intention to create nuclear weapons. From my perspective, the regime has this intention. If not, why would Mr. Ahmadinejad and the head of the Iranian Atomic Agency announce that they have the capacity to enrich uranium not only to 80% but also to 100%, adding that they have no interest in pursuing this. The technology is either being used for fuel, in which case it would not have the capacity to enrich uranium to weapons grade, or it is sophisticated enough for weapons grade enrichment. In this case one cannot pretend that it is not for that purpose. It is clear that at the very least they are interested in acquiring the technology. Therefore, from my point of view the world is correct to be suspicious of the regime’s intentions.

Fourty percent of Iran’s petrol supplies are imported. Yet there is 33% to 40% fuel leakage from old pipelines. This means that if the old pipe lines were repaired or replaced there would be no need for the imports. The people find the regime’s proposals for nuclear energy comical. Iran has access to oil, gas, wind, sun, and water. The regime seems to have forgotten about all those other sources of energy, insisting on creating a nuclear power station. The people ask themselves therefore: what is the purpose of spending all this money on something that would be very expensive to use and would not be affordable by the poverty-stricken Iranian public? They would have to wonder whether the aim was energy supply or something else. It is possible that some Iranian people, on the basis of nationalistic pride, want nuclear weapons given that neighbouring Israel has access to them. However, in a free environment it would be clear to people that it is not desirable for Iran to have nuclear weapons. Nor is it advantageous to dismiss all Iran’s available sources of energy and aim for nuclear technology.

Dieter Farwick: How would a different civil government in Teheran deal with the nuclear issue? Would it start negotiations with the ‘Free World’? Would it accept complete, even ad hoc, inspection and monitoring of the civilian nuclear programme? Would it officially reject any nuclear programme?

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr: It is clear this regime is looking to create external turmoil, especially given the current internal movement. Why would it give up the nuclear turbulence? Are they crazy? They are relying on heavy external pressure to stop the pro-democracy movement of the Iranian people. They are depending on the patriotic character of the Iranians. They are assuming that the people would concentrate their efforts on defending Iran’s national territory first given the external dangers, and opt to deal with internal issues at a later stage. It is not on an arbitrary whim that Mr. Ahmadinejad agreed with the American and Russian proposal presented by head of IAEA Mr. El Baradei in Vienna, and then on his arrival in Tehran opposed the proposals. Again, a few days before the anniversary of the revolution he suggested that they were prepared to negotiate. He went as far saying that they were not troubled by the prospect of not receiving 20% enriched uranium. Shortly after that however, on the day before the anniversary, the head of Iranian Atomic Agency, Mr. Salehi, announced that the enrichment of uranium to 20% should be started. At present, unlike Mr. Bush’s time in power, the west does not have the inclination to create turmoil, and Mr. Ahmadinejad has to create one all on his own. So the answer to the question is that he will not give up on creating external turbulence. My hope is that the Iranian people will continue with the pro-democracy movement. We will then have a democracy and will resolve the nuclear issue like any other. If the movement does not succeed, the Americans have no short term intention to bomb the nuclear plants and have opted for placing missiles around Iran. They have chosen a posture of containment rather than one of attack. On the economic front, unemployment is high and poverty rife. The regime admits that 50 million Iranians are in need of state financial assistance. They have created a destitute nation. Economic sanctions will cripple the society completely. I propose that the West takes an approach of ‘Active Neutrality’. This means that it should act in a manner that would harm the regime but without harming the Iranian people. As an example, western governments should stop their banks from dealing with a regime that is taking the country’s money. They can stop western traders and arms companies from selling the weapons used against the Iranian people. All the arms sold are used on the Iranian people. They west should freeze the foreign assets of the top ranking officials. The assets should be claimed on behalf of the Iranian people. This should be done in conjunction with freezing the assets of the Shah’s regime that were stolen from Iran and are still being used outside of Iran. All these assets will be the property of the Iranian people when a democratic system of governance is established. The West can put pressure on the regime on issues of human rights, and act decisively. Currently, the human rights issues are not taken seriously by the West. People are killed in the streets; in Kahrizak prison they have raped, burned and buried people. If this is not crime against humanity, what is? The West can ask the IPCC to try the top ranking officials in the international criminal courts. All of this will be much more effective than economic sanctions. The actions taken against the Sudanese regime can be taken against the Iranian regime. They can even go as far as banning the exports to Iran of luxury items, affordable only by the regime’s elite, to make life difficult for them. This will create difficulties for the regime and will give the Iranian people the space to struggle for a free Iran.

Dieter Farwick: The student movement that took to the streets of Teheran is carried now by a generation that has only known the Islamic Republic. Who are their political icons? To whom do they relate politically? What advice would you give to them?

“The young lady Neda – killed during a peaceful demonstration – has become the icon of the non-violent resistance”

Abu I-Hasan Banisadr:The Iranian nation has a vision of liberty that it carries from the 1979 revolution. I explained this vision in your first question. The chants and slogans are clear and precise. They are saying “No” to the Velayat-e Faqih (supreme leader), “yes” to democracy, freedom and independence. They are also saying no to violence. However, in my opinion the movement is not yet completely nonviolent: the chants of “death to…” still remain. Clearly, chants of this nature encourage violence. One cannot pretend that “death to Khamenei” does not promote violence. However, given the strength of the suppression imposed by the regime, the youth of Iran has not reacted violently en masse. The instances of violence in the movement are isolated and not general. Therefore, the Iranian people are clear about the aims and objectives of the movement. They are also unambiguous about the methods they have adopted to take the movement forward. This is in particular true of the youth. However, there remains a dilemma: the people are trapped between what they think is possible and that which is desirable. They are assuming that it is possible to make changes within the current system which would result in some of their rights being respected. At least a section of the society assumes this possible. However, what they see as desirable is the replacement of this regime by a democratic government. A segment of the society does not see this wish as possible. Thus you see differences between the slogans chanted. Some say no to Velayat-e Faqih, yes to democracy, independence and liberty, and some chants are within the constraints of the regime. This shows that differences exist within the movement. However, as they progress the messages and aims will become more transparent, and the alternatives needed for the change to take place become more precise. Currently, there are many influential people in the minds of the Iranian people, some of whom are inside the regime, some outside. It was very much the same at the time of the 1979 revolution. Nevertheless, as the revolution advanced, the alternatives became clear for people. The detail of the competing visions crystallised and it became apparent how the positions of leaders and political groups related to these alternatives.

Source: World Security Network

By Simon Webb and Luke Pachymuthu

DUBAI/SINGAPORE, March 8 (Reuters) – Oil trading firms Trafigura and Vitol are stopping gasoline sales to Iran, industry sources said on Monday, joining a growing list of suppliers that have halted sales under threat of U.S. sanctions.

U.S. politicians are working on legislation to slap sanctions on suppliers of fuel to Iran to increase pressure on the Islamic Republic to halt uranium enrichment. Western powers accuse Tehran of using its atomic programme to develop weapons, while Iran says it needs nuclear electricity.

“The field of suppliers is narrowing, and Iran is getting squeezed,” a Middle East oil trader said.

The Financial Times reported on Monday that Trafigura and its rival Vitol had halted supply to Iran. Privately-owned Trafigura has its main offices in Amsterdam [ID.nLK595640]. Independent oil trader Vitol is based in Switzerland.

Vitol decided to stop participating in new tenders to supply Iran at the start of the year, the company said in a statement e-mailed to Reuters. It was completing existing spot supply deals that were made before the start of the year, it added.

Trafigura executives were unavailable for comment on whether they had made a similar decision to Vitol to honour existing supply deals.

Trafigura and Vitol will join international oil major BP (BP.L), Glencore and Reliance Industries (RELI.BO) among suppliers that have stopped selling fuel to Iran. The U.S. legislation would penalise firms that also have operations in the United States.

DELIVERIES

Shipping data obtained by Reuters showed that Vitol was unloading gasoline from the vessel NS Parade at Iran’s port of Bandar Mahshahr on Monday. The ship was carrying 34,000 tonnes, or just under 300,000 barrels, of motor fuel.

The shipment was part of “previous tenders or agreements that were concluded prior to a change of direction”, the company said. “We decided not to take part in tenders at the start of the year.”

Shipping data also showed vessels chartered by Trafigura discharging cargoes in Iran in February.

Analysts say Iran would always find traders to sell it fuel even if larger, established oil firms and trading houses stop sales. Still, the smaller list of suppliers means Tehran would have to pay higher prices for the fuel, analysts and traders say.

France’s Total (TOTF.PA), Malaysia’s state oil firm Petronas [PETR.UL] and Kuwait’s Independent Petroleum Group are among firms that continue to supply Iran, traders said.

A Total spokesman declined to comment on Monday as to whether the company may take a similar decision to Vitol and Trafigura. The volumes Total supplies were small, he added.

Iran is the world’s fifth-largest oil exporter but lacks sufficient refinery capacity to meet domestic gasoline needs, forcing it to import up to 40 percent of requirements.

The country spends billions of dollars each year covering its shortfall through purchases on the international market and then subsidising the gasoline at the pump. Its motor fuel is among the world’s cheapest.

The Islamic Republic has taken measures to restrict consumption and has rationed the fuel. The government plans to begin phasing out subsidies this year, part of a wider move to save up to $100 billion annually from subsidies on fuel, gas, power, water, food, health and education.

Iran also tested last year emergency measures to produce gasoline from petrochemical plants. Iran’s oil minister said at the time the move showed the potential limitation of any sanctions on fuel suppliers to Iran.

Analysts said the measures could only serve as a short-term solution to lack of supplies due to the high cost of production from petrochemical plants and the impurity of the fuel produced.

Iran’s purchases of gasoline from abroad for February were about 23 percent higher than the 2009 average, at more than 150,000 bpd, Reuters data showed. [ID:nLDE60U015]

“The companies don’t feel it is worth it to carry on fuel trading with anymore,” said IHS Global Insight Middle East Energy analyst Samuel Ciszuk.

“Political pressure from the United States and its European allies are starting to make an impact and deter fuel trading with Iran.” (Additional reporting by Jonathan Saul in London, Muriel Boselli in Paris and Alejandro Barbajosa in Singapore; Editing by Sue Thomas and Keiron Henderson)

Source: REUTERS

Simin Behbahani, 82, said she was about to fly to France when her passport was confiscated at Tehran airport.

The human rights activist has written poems in support of the opposition campaign against disputed elections in June last year.

Last week Iran detained international award winning film director Jafar Panahi and members of his family.

“The moment I was due to get on the plane, a man came and took my passport away from me and said that I was banned from going abroad,” she told the BBC’s Persian service.

They questioned her for hours asking questions and then ordered her to appear before a court, she said.

She was on her way to Paris to present a paper on feminism and read a poem at conference.

Election challenge

Mrs Behbahani is close to the Nobel Peace Prize winning human rights lawyer Shirin Ebadi, who has been living in exile since elections in June.

Supporters of reformist figures Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi say that the elections in June were rigged in favour of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian protest movement has developed into the biggest challenge to the government since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.

Thousands of people have been arrested and dozens killed.

Opposition supporters have faced increasing pressure from the authorities, with some hardliners labelling them as “mohareb” – enemies of God who can be sentenced to death under Iran’s Sharia law.

At least nine have so far been sentenced to death and two people have reportedly been hung.

Source: BBC

According to Iran Green Voice, Monireh Rabiee, who is currently detained, remains in high spirit but is unaware of her sentence and the  decision for its enforcement.

Monireh Rabiei, a chemical engineer, was arrested for unknown reasons after being summoned to the Revolutionary Court.

Source: RAHANA

“I know my jailers in Iran were aware of the depth of international concern,” said Newsweek correspondent Maziar Bahari, who was jailed for 118 days in Iran. “We need to raise a similar outcry on behalf of the more than 60 journalists, writers, and bloggers jailed there today. Adding your name to this petition will help us deliver the message that people around the world are watching.”

The “Our Society Will Be a Free Society” campaign—a reference to a pledge made by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini on the eve of the 1979 Revolution—is gathering signatures for an online petition to be sent to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on March 20, the Iranian New Year.

To sign the petition, visit the campaign Web site www.oursocietywillbeafreesociety.org or access our page on Facebook.

“The Iranian government is counting on the world to forget about the journalists and writers who have been imprisoned under cruel conditions,” said Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists. “We can’t allow that to happen.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists, PEN, Reporters Sans Frontières, Index on Censorship, Canadian Journalists for Free Expression, the International Federation of Journalists, Article 19, the World Association of Newspapers and News Publishers, and the International Publishers Association have joined forces for “a sense of shared, urgent concern for the welfare of journalists, writers, and bloggers and a profound alarm over the situation for free expression in Iran.”

For more information about the campaign and to find links to upcoming events and relevant articles please visit www.oursocietywillbeafreesociety.org.

Source: CPJ

Mohmmad Maleki, former president of Tehran University, has been accused of “enmity with God” (Moharebeh) according to his lawyer, Mohammad Sharif. Reportedly, he is accused of “insulting Imam Khomeini and Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei as well as propaganda against the regime.”

Mohammad Maleki was released on bail Monday night after 191 days in prison. Prior to this, he was also arrested in1982 and imprisoned for over five years. He was also detained at a meeting of National Islamic forces along with several other leaders of this political movement in 2001.

According to his lawyer, Mohammad Maleki’s file will be processed within six weeks.

Mohammad Sharif is also defense lawyer for three imprisoned journalists, Badrosadat Mofidi, Ahmad Zeidabadi and Masood Bastani.

Mr. Sharif reports that Badrosadat Mofidi has been transferred to the prisons general section and will possibly be released soon on bail.

As far as Ahamd Zeidabadi and Masood Bastani is concerned, Mohammad Sharif claims that he has not been able to obtain any news concerning their condition.

Reportedly plans for an “apology” ceremony involving the detained journalists and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei are in the works by Islamic Republic authorities.

Source: RadioZamaneh

On International Women’s Rights Day, Iranian Activists to Open Campaign for Equality

Photo: Activists demanding Women’s rights – Tehran, June 2009

(Beirut) – Iran should stop infringing on women’s rights and take immediate steps to meet Iranian women’s demands for full equality, Human Rights Watch said today. Iranian women’s rights activists have issued a call for freedom and gender equality in Iran in connection with International Women’s Rights Day on March 8.

Their campaign, Call for Solidarity: Freedom and Gender Equality in Iran, seeks an end to state-led violence and other forms of repression directed against both men and women. On January 10, 2010, for example, more than 30 women were beaten at a weekly vigil in Tehran. The women were seeking news of their sons and daughters who had been detained during the protests following the June 2009 presidential elections. This campaign calls on the authorities to immediately release all political detainees, including many women’s rights activists.”This initiative of Iranian women’s rights activists is crucial to the overall struggle for democracy in Iran,” said Nadya Khalife, women’s rights researcher for the Middle East and North Africa at Human Rights Watch. “It is also a tribute to the strength of women, who continue to demand their rights and support fellow citizens in the toughest of times.”

For more than 30 years, the women’s rights movement has been at the forefront in the struggle for human rights and gender equality in Iran, Human Rights Watch said. Iranian women have been subjected to a range of discriminatory laws and practices, often under the guise of enforcing Islamic law.

As an example, the Legal and Judicial Commission of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of the Parliament is pressing for passage of a Family Support Bill, including an amendment that would legalize polygamy. Under the proposed measure, a husband could take a new wife if his wife is diagnosed with a terminal illness, is away from home for six months, or even if she is imprisoned for a bounced check.

“Iranian women have bravely sought over and over to end gender-based discrimination, only to be met with threats, arrests, and imprisonment of activists,” Khalife said. “Human Rights Watch calls on the Iranian government to allow women’s rights groups to operate freely, without harassment, or worse.”

In February, Human Rights Watch released a report, “The Islamic Republic at 31: Post-Election Abuses Show Serious Human Rights Crisis,” which documents widespread human rights violations including extra-judicial killings, rape and torture in detention, and extensive violations of the right to freedom of assembly and expression since the disputed presidential election June 12.

Source: Human Rights Watch ]]> http://www.astreetjournalist.com/2010/03/07/iran-stop-undermining-women%e2%80%99s-rights/feed/ 0 http://www.astreetjournalist.com/2010/03/07/iran-frees-award-winning-filmmakers-wife-daughter/ http://www.astreetjournalist.com/2010/03/07/iran-frees-award-winning-filmmakers-wife-daughter/#comments Sun, 07 Mar 2010 19:17:21 +0000 admin http://www.astreetjournalist.com/?p=5710

Jafar Panahi, 49, is known for his gritty, socially critical movies

Iranian authorities have freed 14 people arrested at award-winning filmmaker Jafar Panahi’s home but the pro-opposition director remains detained, an opposition website said on Thursday.

Kaleme.com said Panahi’s wife and their daughter were among the 14 released late on Wednesday, adding that Panahi and two other people, Mohammad Rassoulof and Mehdi Pourmoussa, were still being held.

According to the website, at least six human rights activists, including women’s rights militant Mahboubeh Karami, were among the group of 17 people arrested overnight on Monday.

Apart from Panahi, the other five were identified as Hessam Firouzi, Behzad Mehrani, Navid Khanjani, Mansour Taghipour and Aboufazl Abedini.

The filmmaker, a vocal backer of the opposition movement, was arrested along with his wife, daughter and their guests when security forces raided his home in Tehran.

Media reports said Panahi was arrested for making a film about the unrest which rocked the Islamic republic after the June 12 disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Panahi was producing “an anti-regime film with his colleagues but the security apparatus vigilantly discovered their moves and they were arrested,” said leading conservative news website Tabnak.

Opposition website Rahesabz echoed the report and said: “Intelligence officials said Panahi and a movie crew were making an unauthorised film about the incidents linked with the election at his home.”

But his son, Panah Panahi, has denied the reports.

And on Tuesday, Tehran prosecutor Abbas Jafari Dolatabadi said Panahi was not arrested for political reasons or because he is an artist. He was “accused of some crimes and arrested with another person following an order by a judge.”

Panahi, 49, is known for his gritty, socially critical movies such as the “Circle,” which bagged the 2000 Venice Golden Lion award, “Crimson Gold,” and “Offside,” winner of the 2006 Silver Bear at the Berlin film festival.

In February, the authorities banned Panahi from leaving the country to attend the Berlin film festival.

Source: AFP

Actress Golshifteh Farahani, exiled in Paris, reveals the pressures on Iran’s artistic community after anti-government film-maker is arrested

Actress Golfshifteh Farahani said she was forced to leave Tehran after starring in Body of Lies Photograph: Sipa Press / Rex Features

Golshifteh Farahani knows how dangerous it is now to be an artist in Tehran. In 2008 she became the first Iranian-based actress in almost 30 years to appear in a Hollywood blockbuster. Starring opposite Leonardo DiCaprio and Russell Crowe in Ridley Scott’s Body of Lies, she hoped the film would be appreciated in her homeland for its critical stance on America’s politics in the Middle East.

She was wrong. When she returned to Tehran the then 24-year-old was subjected to seven months of inquisition from the authorities of the Islamic republic. Reprimanded for not having asked the permission of the government, she became a regular guest of the Information Ministry and intelligence services.

Eventually she cracked. By the time Body of Lies was released, she was an exile in Paris. She does not know when she will go home.

Last week, as the Iranian diaspora reeled from the arrest of Jafar Panahi, the most outspoken film director still living in Tehran, Farahani felt a fresh rush of fury towards a regime which critics say is taking ever greater steps towards a total crackdown on free speech.

Panahi, a vocal supporter of the opposition movement and known for his award-winning, politically subversive movies, was taken from his home in Tehran on Monday night along with 16 others. Most have since been released, but Panahi remains in detention. He had reportedly been making a documentary on the mass protests which came in the aftermath of last year’s disputed elections.

“We are so angry,” says Farahani, now 26, and a year and half into her new life as one of the French capital’s “family” of Iranian artistic exiles. “Jafar is one, maybe the only one… still in Iran who is talking. Most artists [in Iran] don’t talk because they would rather work somehow. I appreciate that, but Jafar is the one who had the courage to talk, and he talked for everyone.”

Farahani, who is using her time in Paris to make the music she could not have made at home and to pursue her acting career, admits to feeling uncomfortable with her new role as critic-in-exile but says: “There’s no bullet in your head. You can talk freely.”

She feels the changes in Iran are such that she is obliged, as one of her country’s most recognised cultural ambassadors, to speak out. For the past month she has worn a green bracelet discreetly under her shirt sleeve – marking her out as a supporter of the green movement led by Mir Hossein Mousavi. Yesterday she travelled to Geneva to take her place on the jury of the annual Human Rights Film Festival. “This time is the time that for 30 years we have been waiting for. We’re not kids any more. We are just asking for our rights,” she says, speaking as a member of a generation born after the revolution of 1979 and frustrated with the hardline tendencies of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime.

As a musician and actress who grew up in a country convulsed by widespread violence and repression, Farahani has seen through her own eyes how Iran has become more hostile to those who dare to speak out through their creativity. She remembers how, under the successive presidencies of Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, rules governing music and cinema became “relatively” open compared with the stringent censorship that dominated the 1980s. She remembers the first pop music that came out when she was 16 or 17. But she believes that, ever since Ahmadinejad came to power in 2005, things have been very different.

“If you want to do what you want to do, you cannot work,” she says. “So art is going to be finished, and this is the will of the Islamic republic: to not have any artists or art and close the doors of all the cinemas and music and everything.” After seeing it happen to countless friends, the lure of exile eventually seduced Farahani as well.

“I reached a certain point where I thought ‘OK, I cannot stay any more. This is finished’,” she says, remembering the pressure put on her by the regime after Body of Lies. “Although it was the best time ever [professionally], I could choose whatever I wanted, I was really highly paid compared to other actresses, I could produce, I could do anything – I chose to say goodbye.”

Now the beneficiary of a liberty “incomparable” with the lives of her counterparts in Tehran, Farahani struggles with the creative legacy of that period of her life. She finds herself automatically self-censoring and admits that even in a city more than 3,000 miles from home she does not feel completely free. She worries for her family. When she speaks to them, she knows she is also speaking to the intelligence services.

But, while she says her generation of Iranians have learned “never to hope”, she believes the movement for change could soon prove unstoppable. Rather than another revolution, she says, they would like to see “an evolution – we want even the mullahs to live in peace”. “It’s like a windscreen of a car: when there’s a little crack, it will be everywhere,” she says. “Either you have to change it or it’s going to destroy itself. And now the crack is there.”

Source: Guardian