Censorship in Iran

  

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear faculty and students:

I am delighted to have this opportunity to be with you tonight. I speak as an Iranian journalist during the reformist period.

The profession of journalism has played a major role in the transformation of the Iranian society and the development of a civil society there. It has also paid dearly for its activities.

Newspapers have been shut down; journalists have repeatedly been arrested, persecuted, even faced death.

Nevertheless, journalists continue to take advantage of any slight opening to inform the people and to reach the public.

One could speak and write volumes about the struggle that journalists face in Iran, but here I will briefly try to portray a glimpse of what horrendous difficulties a journalist encounters.

Publication of newspapers in Iran has a long and tumultuous history. The single most important mission of journalism is informing the general public. The main function, therefore, is to aid the progress of social and cultural change. This function, in part, involves speaking truth to power. Small wonder then if the press is considered the fourth pillar of democracy.

From the reformist period to the present, in the name of the law, the regime has committed illegal acts against the press. The triumph of the reformist government of Sayyed Mohammad Khatami in 1997 witnessed the founding of new publications. It marked the beginning of the flourishing of a free press.

But the power elite sensed that a well-informed citizenry was a real threat to its hold on power. It did its best to suppress it. During this period, the press was constrained and further limited through overt and covert mechanisms.

In its overt form, one single speech and the labeling of the press as the “base of the enemy” led to the closing down of tens of publications in less than a week. Censorship became more and more apparent to the public. During this same period, thousands of journalists were forced out of work while some others were locked up.

Notably, prior to this, the Fifth Legislative Session, which was dominated by reactionary deputies, had enacted laws which limited freedom of the press in clear contravention of the Constitution.

Even the Sixth legislative session, which was dominated by reformist representatives, failed to overturn the law against the freedom of the press. The direct intervention of the Supreme Leader added this oppressive law to other laws considered sacred.

The amended law in the Fifth Legislative Session became a means to impose censorship.

The other implication of press suppression and imposed censorship was even more distressing. Once the regime closed down newspapers and incarcerated journalists, it came up with novel ideas to eradicate the flourishing awareness of the public.

Surreptitious Censorship

The power elite began to create distance between the people and the press. Resentful of the hard-won trust between the press and its interlocutors, the regime did its utmost to weaken this bond.

The question is how this was accomplished?

Here are the ways through which press censorship is enacted in Iran today:

A. Censorship Imposed by the Council of Guardians

The powerful and conservative Council of Guardians started on the path of censorship during the middle of President Khatami’s first term and reached its peak subsequently. The primary function of the Council under the Constitution is to ensure that acts of legislation are not incompatible with Islamic tenets and the articles of the Constitution, but in effect the Council became a major instrument of press suppression.

Regularly, and in some cases on a weekly basis, the Council of Guardians approved new legislations which were communicated furtively to the press. If these amendments were to be collected in a volume, it would make masterpiece of satire.

Unfortunately, this boundless power was bestowed upon the Council of Guardians by the Fifth Legislative Session.

B. Censorship through the Office of the Prosecutor General

Instead of protecting the interests of the public against illegal encroachments, the Prosecutor-General in effect has become Prosecutor-Particular, in the sense that instead of protecting the public, it patently sides with the power establishment. Instead of siding with the people and protecting the press which serve as the watchdog of the people, the Prosecutor-General has regularly sided with the power elite and interpreted the law subjectively. This institution, with the help of the Revolutionary Guard, security agencies and the state-run television, has caused the arrest and imprisonment of many journalists. It is necessary to mention that the hard-line government of Ahmadinejad has outdone the judiciary in its anti-press activities.

C. Censorship Through Editorial Boards

During these years, the editorial boards of newspapers and journals were transformed into major agents of censorship. Clearly, this was in response to new developments as well as a strategy. The constant threat of indictment by the Persecutor-General was similar to taking the editors hostage. In addition, the policy of “surviving at whatever price” immersed the press in self-censorship. Obviously, there were those editors who set public interest above private gains and emerged triumphant.

D. Self-Censoring Journalists

Not a few journalists have succumbed to the temptation of self-censorship out of fear of arrest and imprisonment on the one hand and job insecurity on the other. Nevertheless, there are those journalists who continue against all odds to respond to the people’s demand for a free press. The majority of the journalists who are the product of the short interlude of the freedom of the press are doing their best to resist the regime desire to silence them. That is why it can be claimed that choosing journalism as a profession in Iran is not like walking in a mine field. It is like stepping on a mine.

In light of my brief personal account as an Iranian journalist, I have to emphasize that many journalists in Iran continue to struggle against press suppression. The rise of a new generation of journalists promises to increase journalists’ self-awareness and contribute to the growing public knowledge about freedom in all its manifestations, including that of freedom of the press.

I hope that every politically aware Iranian will find his or her path to freedom in a constructive manner.

Roozbeh Mirebrahimi

University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, U.S.A.

April 11, 2007

International Community and Human Rights in Iran

How can the international community further contribute to the realization of Human Rights in Iran?

Various people have presented me with this question over the past few months and I know that it is a one of the questions from today’s audience as well. I will therefore take advantage of this opportunity to initiate a discussion with you regarding the answers to this question. As you know, the realization of Human Rights on any corner of our humble earth requires a number of essential elements:

1. Acceptance of HR as a universal principle

2. Expanding and strengthening a Human Rights centered culture.

3. Establishing and strengthening human rights monitoring organizations not affiliated with the government.

4. The presence of a diverse spectrum of citizens who both in their core beliefs and in their actions, as well as citizens who through their obligation are committed to the realization of Human Rights.

Bearing in mind our limited time today; I will address each one of these essential elements.

1. HR as a universal principle: This important element has not been sufficiently addressed, lending it to the potential for misuse and mischaracterization. Imagine that every government on Earth would say we have our own special human rights. One claims an Islamic Human Rights, the other a European HR, and yet others African HR or American HR. As a result, for example, an Islamic country can refuse to enforce HR on the grounds that it contradicts Islamic HR. Or the European nations could refuse to enact HR on the grounds that it is American HR, etc… Will there be anything left of HR as a principle that is accepted by all countries? If we want HR to succeed, then we must make it a priority to prevent the erosion of the universality of HR. We must stand firm against interpretations that aim to undermine and fracture the universality priniciple. (though some Islamic countries are not even loyal to their own version of Islamic HR, which they themselves have long advocated. For those of you who would like to know more about this, I refer you to the reports of the Commission on Islamic HR in Iran).

2. Human Rights centered culture: We can only fulfill the promise of HR when we have a culture built upon HR principles. We can only achieve this goal when we interpret our traditions and culture within a framework with HR as our core principles; and we must marginalize any cultural tradition that takes us away from those principles. A HR centered culture will lead to a HR centered society and ultimately, to a government reflects the will of that society.

3. Non-Governmental HR Monitoring organizations: One actor in any HR dialogue is always the government. It is the government that must be sought after to fulfill its HR obligations and the government that resists these calls. Calling on a government to implement HR requires the presence of various monitoring organizations unaffiliated with the government. Only truly independent organizations can hold governments responsible. The most effective way to hold the government accountable is a public campaign orchestrated through these monitoring organizations. A group of like-minded and committed citizens working through these organizations will be far more influential than individual voices. These organizations should be supported, though supporting them does not mean allocating funds for this purpose. It is enough to look at the result of this funding coming from the governments of the USA and the Netherlands in the past year and a half. Have these funds brought anything but headache for activists within the country [ie. Iran]? As we speak, many of my activist friends and colleagues within Iran, men and women from the journalistic community, suffer under the blade of ongoing prosecution from a government accusing them of using these funds.

4. The presence of a diverse spectrum of citizens committed to Human Rights as well as those obliged to pursue its implementation. The implementation of human rights requires the presence of active committed citizens, just as a functioning democracy requires citizens committed to democratic ideals. This continuous effort of implementing HR requires people who are true believers of HR principles and incorporate them into their actions. As well as people who may find HR in contrast to their own beliefs, but are committed through their obligation to protect and respect it. Now that we have covered these four elements, we come to the heart of the topic for today. What is the role of the international community in this process? The biggest atrocity against HR comes from three sectors. First: nations who are ignorant of HR. Second: nations who are ignorant of HR. Third: the governments who are violating HR. Since the international community is comprised of both governments and nations, all, without exception (both governments who are advocating HR and nations who are demanding these rights from their governments) bear a heavy responsibility.

In light of this discussion, the international community can contribute to promotion of human rights in Iran in the following ways:

• The international community should not allow HR to cease to be universal.

• In Practice, the International Community must prioritize promoting HR in various cultures.

• The International Community must maintain the independence of international HR monitoring organizations. The international community must be sensitive to and show a serious reaction towards, any violation of HR, without any exception due to geography, or superpower status. These sensitivities should make no distinction between Iran and Israel….Iraq or Darfur. The greatest services to the countries that are violating HR are excuses like Abu Ghuraib and Guantanamo. Although, all active parties and governments should know that the violation of HR in one country does not provide license to violate these rights in another.

• If the International Community is serious about HR, it must not enter into any political, economic relationship, with out taking into consideration the HR track record of the country in question. When challenged on this front, some governments note the quantity of their statements condemning HR conditions in a violating country. Is there any value to these statements when at the same time lucrative commercial agreements between both sides? Recent history shows that the answer is negative.

Although it is unfortunate that in today’s world, HR is misused for political gains, we must focus on injecting more humanism into its discourse. Because the Universal Declaration of HR is a humanist document, not a political one.

I am sorry to state that many of us wait for victims of HR abuses to arrive on the scene before we raise our voices, and even then there are discriminations on whose behalf we advocate.

In conclusion, if a nation can reach consensus on human rights as its humanistic principles, to know their rights and to demand them, then no government can ignore these demands, no matter how much it may resort to violent means of repression and imprisonment.

Roozbeh Mirebrahimi

March 26, 2007

Princton University NJ