Articles 2004 - 2010

Tolerance towards that?
Asking to show tolerance vis-à-vis Islamic laws and customs is hypocritical

Azar Majedi
December 8, 2004
iranian.com

 

Political Islam has recently resorted to a new tactic: it speaks of tolerance. It asks Western society to show tolerance vis-à-vis Islamic laws, customs and discriminations. Their recent demonstration in Germany was an attempt to silence the rightly angry voice of decent and freedom-loving human beings who cannot tolerate the abuses, violence and intimidation carried out by this movement.

 

This movement crushes any resistance, protest and disobedience in countries where it has the upper hand. And in the West where it is under attack by secularists, freethinkers and organisations fighting for equality and freedom, it has changed tactics and resorts to speaking about civil rights and more sophisticated socio-political concepts as freedom of religion, tolerance and Islamophobia. It has become savvy!

Asking society to show tolerance vis-à-vis Islamic laws and customs is hypocritical, to say the least. The most intolerant movement is asking society to show tolerance for an ideology and set of principles, which are most restrictive, harsh, cruel, misogynist and reactionary.

 

They are taking hostage the consciousness of those who respect freedom of thought, belief and expression, and who despise racism. They are playing a political game. They want libertarians to be silent in the face of abuse, discrimination, and violence. Because this is what Islamic laws and customs mean in the real life of millions of people.

 

How can one be silent and show tolerance in the face of stoning, flogging, reducing women to third class citizens, sexual apartheid, the execution of human beings for being non-believers or homosexuals, and the veiling of girls?

 

The fact of the matter is that the same movement that throws acid at the faces of non-veiled women, knives them, and slashes their bodies with razors for not observing the veil in Iran and the Middle East, that flogs women for not being "good Moslems", flogs a 14-year-old to death for not fasting in Ramadan, is talking about tolerance.

They have definitely become sophisticated! They are not merely thugs who incite hatred; provoke prejudice, superstition, and terrorise all those who dare to question the law of Islam. They now enter socio-political discourse about civil and individual rights.

 

This is the same movement, which stones women in Iran, murders non-veiled, or "westernised" women and secular journalists in Algeria, executes women in football stadiums in Afghanistan. The same movement is defending the freedom of clothing, so it would be able to veil girls. It talks about showing tolerance vis-à-vis Islam, so it can establish Sharia courts in Canada. We know this movement and we will expose it.

 

Showing tolerance vis-à-vis Islamic rule and laws is ridiculous. It is absurd. They are trying to establish their small Islamic republics here in the West, to turn Islamic communities into mini-Islamic states. We will not let this happen. We will stop this reactionary movement from making inroads in the west. We would push them back in the Middle East as well.

The growing protest movement, the women's liberation movement and secular movement in Iran will push them back.

 

As a matter of fact, as freethinkers, as people who fight inequality, we should not have any tolerance for Islamic rule, laws and customs. We should criticise it radically. We should expose its inherent reactionary and misogynist nature. We should expose the hypocrisy behind the cry for tolerance coming from Islamists. We know this movement.

About
Azar Majedi is the head of the Organisation for Women's Liberation.

Hijab ban?
Interview with Azar Majedi

July 21, 2004
iranian.com

Transcript of a program on TV International English which aired July 12, 2004.

Maryam Namazie: The recent European Human Rights Court's decision in support of the Turkish government's ban of the Hejab in state schools and universities says this does not violate freedom of religion. Does it?

Azar Majedi: It depends. I agree with a ban of the veil in schools, including a ban on both teachers and under age girls. As it regards banning of child veiling, my demarcation point is protection of children's rights. Veiling of under-age children is in fact a violation of their rights. Veiling has adverse effects on both their physical and mental well-being. It deprives them of a normal, happy childhood and life. It segregates girls in school and in the society.

 

By imposing the veil on girls you are categorizing them as completely different species vis-à-vis boys, assigning different roles to them, and setting totally different goals and expectations for them in life. In short, you create and establish a system of sharply differentiated gender roles, which in turn creates an unequal environment for their growth. Child veiling discriminates against girls, and therefore it must be banned.

As far as banning the veil for teachers is concerned, I come to this position from a defence of secularism. I believe human's rights and women's rights are better safeguarded in a secular society with a secular state. The creation of a secular state is an important condition for the establishment of equal rights and equal opportunities for women.

From the stand point of secularism, religion and state, and religion and the educational system must be separated. The state must not represent any particular religion, i.e. it should take a neutral position vis-à-vis religion. To do that I believe employees of the state and educational system must not carry or wear any religious symbols. This is why I defend the banning of the veil for schoolteachers.

 

Furthermore, I agree with a ban of the veil in public schools because it is a restriction on the role of religion in the affairs of civil society rather than religious freedom as such. The ban is aiming to restrict the meddling of religion as an institution in the running of the state and society at large.

Religious freedom is commonly understood as freedom of religious beliefs and practice. However, depending on your point of view, practicing one's beliefs takes different dimensions. In a secular society, religion is and must be separated from the state, education, citizens' formal identification and so on; it must be a private matter.

Therefore, from a secular point of view, the state and educational system must not represent any particular religion or religious belief. Using religious symbols, such as veiling, would be considered a denial of the principle of secularism, and contradicts the principles of a secular society. By banning religious symbols in public schools and state institutions, one is aiming to safeguard a freer society where religion remains a private affair. 

 

Going back to your question, this ban is a restriction on religion but not a restriction on individual freedom or individual rights. In my opinion, this ban is a necessary step towards a freer society, and furthermore, I believe restricting religion will help create a more equal society, particularly for women. By restricting religion, society is in a better position to respect individual/citizen rights.

 

But when you talk about adult women students attending universities, then I have a problem with the ban. Such a ban does not allow adults to exercise their conscious will. I won't get into how much of those who are veiling are actually exercising their choice freely but nonetheless it is something that should be respected.

 

Maryam Namazie: Some would argue that since the university is a place of social gathering, it has different rules than let's say in one's home or on the street. And so it is legitimate to ban the veil in universities as well. What would you say?

 

Azar Majedi: I don't agree totally. It depends on the circumstances. There could come a time when in order to defend women's rights, you might take such decisions. I'm not sure this is needed in the case of Turkey. Whereas in the case of a child you cannot recognise veiling as mere clothing, and the issue of free choice or freedom of clothing does not enter the scene, in the case of an adult the issue of free choice, freedom of clothing does come into the scene.

 

It doesn't matter how oppressive or reactionary such clothing is in my opinion; how much I think veiling discriminates against women and places them in a lower status vis-à-vis men but if that's what they choose, then this is their choice. I do recognise the fact that in actual reality women are either intimidated or pressured morally and emotionally to observe the veil.

But to offset these pressures, we need to change the fabric of the society, the value system and create a freer society. In cases where it becomes apparent that intimidation is used to impose veiling on women then I believe the state must intervene to fight this intimidation, and in order to do so it might come to the decision of banning the veil. 

Maryam Namazie: So when it comes to adult women, you say it is a question of freedom of clothing?

 

Azar Majedi: Exactly, but again if it is an adult woman working in or representing a public institution, then any manifestation of religion should be banned. Otherwise, it is a question of freedom of choice.

 

Maryam Namazie: The reasoning the court gave -- which is important given the advances of political Islam -- was that "Measures taken in universities to prevent certain fundamentalist religious movements from pressuring students who do not practise the religion in question or those belonging to another religion can be justified." Do you agree?

Azar Majedi: This argument is a valid one and has its own merit. But it has to be applied to specific circumstances. In the case of Turkey, I am not sure this is the case. If it is the case that the force and impact of political Islam's intimidation is felt so strongly that young women are forced to observe the veil, then I agree with the banning or other kinds of state intervention to fight the intimidation.

For example, I strongly believe that in the case of Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban, there should have been a ban in order to defend women's rights because women were afraid to leave their homes unveiled and that thugs would attack them in their neighbourhoods and in the streets. In that situation that measure had to be taken so women could dare to come out without a veil.

 

Maryam Namazie: So it depends on every situation, with the primary focus of defending women's rights.

 

Azar Majedi: Exactly, there is not just one golden answer to all social and political situations. You have to take each one into consideration and you have to uphold certain principles. The principle for me is defending people's rights, women's rights and children's rights and so on. I think that is the main question you have to answer. How can I defend rights the best; how can I make a society in which these rights are best protected.

 

Thus, in Afghanistan, I would say a ban should be enforced 

we could argue about that - whilst in Europe I would say not. Here you would create a backlash and discriminate against a section of the society and a minority following a religion, however reactionary the religion may be. A ban here would be a violation of rights.

 

If women are choosing the veil, then you have to find other ways to fight religion, and defend women's rights. It is a delicate situation to reach the right answer. You have to have a defence of rights and human principles like secularism as your main framework.

 

Other rights, such as freedom of expression, freedom of clothing, freedom of religion … they are also important rights. When fighting for women's rights, you can implement other measures than just banning veiling altogether. We have seen backlashes in these societies, e.g. in Turkey.

 

In Europe the question is not so much religion, I believe, especially among the second generation; it's more a question of fighting racism and alienation that Western society has imposed on them and a question of an identity crisis.

 

Maryam Namazie: But don't governments often defend rights via a ban -- and again it is not governments but movements that have imposed progressive values on states -- e.g. banning child labour. Isn't it important for states to ban in certain instances to defend rights?

 

Azar Majedi: Sure. This is a valid point and I quite agree with your point. And it is from this point of view that I defend banning of child veiling; it's like banning child labour; it's like banning child caning in schools. But banning veiling for adult women in all circumstances is going too far. I understand the ban in public institutions and for teachers or employees of public institutions but banning the veil for university students or for those who are customers or clients of the state -- that I am against.

 

A change there can come about via a change in culture, with educational measures and creating a situation where intimidation doesn't work. Clearly women are forced to choose veiling because of intimidation in many situations, because they are under the moral pressure of the communities or families. The state has to be ready to fight all forms of intimidation but for the veil to disappear altogether, there are many measures that need to be taken.

 

Maryam Namazie: If the basis is defending rights, what happens when rights conflict - for example the right of clothing for adult women and secular schools?

Azar Majedi: Rights are not absolute. Any given right in the society is conditioned by different social restrictions or constraints. This is even true about unconditional freedom of expression that we regard so highly; one is free to express oneself in any way one wishes, but accusing others, making accusations against other individuals is not permitted. This is a rather straightforward issue. But even to decide on this straightforward issue, you need laws and legislation in order to safeguard individual rights.

 

Some areas are more complex, and you enter the so-called grey areas. Religious freedom and principle of secularism may seem to be one of these complex and delicate issues. One of the ways to solve this conflict is to look back at history - the struggle against religion's role in the society and the state, the struggle to relegate religion into the private sphere, to restrict religion's practices where they violated human rights, children's rights and women's rights.

 

From the point of view of a religious person, the outcome of this significant historical struggle might seem to have violated freedom of religion, but from a libertarian's point of view, these restrictions were essential for creating a more just and egalitarian society.

 

To get a clearer picture and to avoid any false assumptions, one must look at the history of the development of modern and civil society. Secularism is the product of this process and one of the pillars of such a society.

 

To eradicate the influence of the Church from the affairs of the state, to relegate religion to the private sphere and to restrict the role of religion as an institution are all significant achievements of modern society. The French revolution is an important historical moment in this process. These restrictions on religion became necessary in order to materialise the main slogans of this revolution: 'Freedom and Equality'.

 

As it regards freedom of clothing the same logic applies. Freedom of clothing is restricted every day in society, for health reasons, economic reasons, social reasons, etc. Dress codes at the work place, uniforms at schools are very clear examples. People seem to accept these codes. I might have objections to extreme dress codes, but the discussion around these restrictions never enters a deep philosophical debate on rights. If we agree that secularism is one of the important pillars of a free and egalitarian society then I believe restriction on so-called freedom of clothing in state institutions and schools can easily be defended.

 

Religion is an outdated and outmoded institution with many practices that violate the standards of modern civil society; genital mutilation is an extreme case, circumcision is another, the inhuman manner in which animals are slaughtered according to Islamic laws and so on. The list is long. For me the key to reach the right and sound position is respect for human rights and equality. I give prominence to those rights that safeguard people's equal rights and freedom.

Maryam Namazie: How come such a ban on the veil for adult women will create a backlash in Europe and not in Afghanistan?

Azar Majedi: We have to look at the socio-political framework or context. I am talking about Afghanistan after the Taliban. A society, which was terrorised by a violent, inhumane movement, where religious rule killed, tortured and terrorised people in unheard manners. There, women were flogged, shot at and executed for non-observance of religious laws, such as veiling. To free such society from this terror, to bring back any sense of normality to this society, to establish freer relations you need to take so-called drastic measures.

 

If the Taliban was overthrown as a result of a revolution, the situation would have completely been different. You would witness veil burning in every corner of the country. The women's freedom movement would have risen to a prominent position in the society that could not be ignored. In short, Afghanistan after a revolution would have been a different country.

 

But the Taliban was removed by USA intervention, and another Islamist tendency took over. Under these circumstances, women, rightly, will not feel free to unveil themselves. The environment of terror is not removed. It is still felt strongly. Therefore, giving any comfort and security to women would require a ban on the veil altogether.

In the West, the situation is different. Political Islam lost its legitimacy to a great extent after September 11. But after the USA-British attack on Iraq and its aftermath, political Islam has gained some moral and political legitimacy in the eyes of those opposing this atrocious act. In Islamic communities many youth have been recruited by political Islam, not for religious reasons, but political ones.

 

They are rightly angry at these atrocious policies, they are under racist attacks and pressures from the wider society; they feel isolated and alienated, so they choose political Islam as a defence mechanism. They see it as the only voice of protest. In my opinion, to ban veiling at large will only intensify and aggravate this situation.

A rightful and just fight against political Islam and the other pole of reaction, a progressive fight against racism will be the answer to a complete defeat of political Islam. I believe the ball is in our courtyard. Our movement and trend is the answer. We have to raise our voice and banner so high as for everyone to hear and see it; then the majority of this youth will turn to us and turn their back to political Islam. They should identify with us and not with political Islam.

About
Maryam Namazie is the host of TV International English, Executive Director of the International Federation of Iranian Refugees and Director of the International Relations Committee of the Worker-communist Party of Iran.

Not the last
On Theo 'an Gogh's assassination

November 17, 2004
iranian.com

Transcript of an interview with Azar Majedi which was broadcast on International TV on November 7, 2004. Majedi is the head of the Organisation for Women's Liberation.

 

Maryam Namazie: Theo van Gogh, a film director and journalist, was assassinated in broad daylight in Amsterdam on November 2. He was repeatedly stabbed and his throat slit. They say his assassin has "radical Islamic fundamentalist convictions". There is a debate on whether this is the act of an individual or the political Islamic movement. Why have you said it is political Islam?

Azar Majedi: This is not the first time we've seen that someone who has criticised Islam has been murdered. Political Islam has been massacring, torturing, executing and beheading people for the exact same thing in the Middle East, in Iran under the Islamic Republic of Iran, Afghanistan, the Sudan, and so on. Even when they are not in power but they have political voice in the opposition - they do the same with their opponents e.g. Algeria is a good example.

And we've seen what has happened in the west lately, e.g. 9/11. This is the method of political Islam - terrorising people. Terror and intimidation are the only methods they have for gaining power. Here we have a typical classic case of someone criticising Islam, exposing its misogyny, and being threatened a number of times and then killed. And 'coincidentally' the person who killed him is said to have 'has fundamentalist convictions' - the code word for someone who adheres to political Islam. That is why I have said this is another murder by political Islam, which has to be condemned.

 

You've said this has happened before. You yourself know many friends and comrades who have been killed and assassinated by the political Islamic movement. As you said, it is nothing new, is it?

No it's not. Actually just a week ago, I had a programme in commemoration of Gholam Keshavarz, a good comrade and friend of mine who was assassinated by the Islamic regime of Iran in Cyprus 13 years ago for opposing political Islam, being a communist, a socialist, and atheist. The regime sent agents outside of Iran with an elaborate and detailed plan to assassinate him. This is only one example of what political Islam has done to people in Iran, in the Middle East, North Africa and now to people in the west. What they are trying to do in the west - both in Islamic communities and in the society at large - is increasing more and more every year.

 

You have said in a previous statement: 'He was murdered because he cared and dared to expose the inherent misogyny in and the brutal nature of Islam. An act, which sadly, nowadays calls for great courage, due to advancements of political Islam and the rise in religion's influence in the society.' We are getting reports that he was a racist and that he didn't separate people from the ideology or religion.

For example, in an interview, with the Cultuur magazine he said: "I like to insult people with a purpose. I want to warn against the fifth column here in the Netherlands that tries to corrode our way of life." According to the Guardian newspaper (04/11/04) Theo van Gogh previously described Muslims in a derogatory manner. Do you think he really cared and dared and was courageous? I would say you are courageous.

 

I must admit when I heard the news I did not know Theo van Gogh and had not read anything by him. I read and found out that he had criticised Islam and made a film, which exposed Islam's misogyny. This, the news of the death threats he had received, the method of murder, and the letter found on his body all made it clear to me that he was murdered by political Islam. I became furious and saw it as my duty to categorically condemn this crime and call upon all free thinkers and freedom loving people to do the same.

If we do not raise our voice against this reactionary movement, if we do not stand firm, political Islam will continue to terrorize the society and make even more advances. Therefore, I described him as courageous. I must say that unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, his writings are not translated into English. Later I found out that he had made many racist and derogatory comments about Jews, Moslems, feminists, and so on.

Having said that, this murder must nonetheless be categorically condemned for many reasons. First of all, this is a murder. And any decent human being is against the murder and killing of human beings. Second, if it is not condemned, we are giving Islamists a green light to go ahead with their terror and intimidation. Thirdly, if this murder is not dealt with in a right and progressive manner, it will add fuel to the racism that already exists in the society. Racists are going to use this as an excuse to terrorise immigrants and incite racial hatred - something we are witnessing in the Netherlands.

I would like to make one point clear. Criticising Islam, ridiculing it, no matter how harshly, falls within the concept of freedom of expression and criticism, and is not racist. However, insulting people by reference to their religion or race is racist. We need to make this distinction very clearly because we find tendencies among the left who consider criticism of Islam as racist.

 

Islamophobia is an invented concept by Islamists and their apologists, a concept that condemns any criticism of Islam as a racist act. I believe Islamophobia is as hypocritical as it is reactionary. We should raise the banner of unconditional freedom of expression and criticism.

About
Maryam Namazie is the host of T' International English, is a Central Council Member of the Organisation of Women's Liberation and Director of the International Relations Committee of the Worker-communist Party of Iran.

 

 

Azar Majedi: We need to go forward and to de-religionise society
Message read at 7th December meeting in Paris to celebrate 100 years of secularism

 

December 11, 2005

 

Dear colleagues,

As a veteran campaigner for secularism, for de-religionisation of society and for women’s rights I salute all of you who have gathered to celebrate 100 years of secularism in France.

 

It is important to promote and safeguard secularism as a necessary condition for a free society. Throughout history more people have been killed, maimed and tortured under the name of God and religion than any other cause. Unfortunately, still, many people are killed and tortured under religious laws, by religious states, and religious thugs every day. Separation of church from the state is a significant achievement. This becomes more clear to us, as we are witnessing the inroads religion is making in our present society. It tries to dominate all aspects of our lives and society. We need to fight back; we need to push religion back to the sphere of private life. 

 

The fact that such a law existed in France made our struggle against religion’s role in public life easier. The recent law to ban carrying all conspicuous religious symbols in public institutions and schools was an important step forward.

 

We should safeguard this law, but we should keep in mind that this is not sufficient. We need to go further. We need to build stronger barriers to stop religion interfering in society’s affairs. Our historical experience shows that unless we defeat religion we would never be free of the threats this institution imposes on our society. We need to go forward and to de-religionize society. In order to achieve a free society, in order to promote free thinking, we need to push religion back from all sphere of public life.

We should build on our recent achievements in the secular camp, against religion’s role in public life and against political Islam. We need to plan our future action. Two important items on our agenda must be to ban all religious schools and to ban veiling of under-age girls.

Azar Majedi

Chair for Organisation for Women’s Liberation
Host of No to Political Islam & International TV

Is Canada next?
How many Islamic republics do we have to fight? One in Iran, one in Afghanistan, fighting the creation of another in Iraq, and now one in Canada

Azar Majedi
January 7, 2005

 

When I heard about the Sharia court in Canada, I first thought it was a joke. When I realised it was real; that it was really happening, and when I read that soon Islamic courts may become a reality in Canada, I was overwhelmed; I was shocked. It sounded like a fantasy world. As a friend called it: the Islamic Republic of Canada is coming into being. I thought of my friends, like Homa, who escaped one Islamic republic only to end up in another. How many Islamic republics do we have to fight? One in Iran, one in Afghanistan, fighting the creation of another in Iraq, and now one in Canada.

I am sure, right now, some of you will think: 'please don't exaggerate, this is going too far. This is not about the whole of Canada, it is only about the so-called "Moslem community". And it is only going to concern the civil and the family codes not other legal aspects. You are talking as though there is going to be stoning on the streets of Toronto, and furthermore, this is a voluntary matter, no one is forced to refer to these courts if they do not choose to. It is going to be purely "their own choice."

Fine. Let's examine and see whether I am exaggerating, or this statement is underestimating the graveness of the situation, the enormity of this action, and the extreme risk we are taking vis a vis women's rights, children's rights and human rights.

The defence of this legislation is based on fallacies. The first is the argument that by creating Islamic courts parallel with the national courts - that is by allowing every community to have its own judicial system - we are respecting the rights of minorities, and by doing this we are thereby creating a less discriminatory society and supposedly a more egalitarian one.

This is totally a false assumption. By defining the rights of communities as opposed to the rights of individuals or rather citizens, we are discriminating against a section of the society. We are depriving some citizens of their equal rights and universal rights recognised by the society. In the face of the law we should recognise citizens and not collectives, or communities. By recognising communities and assigning some arbitrary rights based on a particular culture or religion to that collective we are leaving the members of that particular community at the mercy of the inherent power struggle of the community. The so-called leaders of that community, be it elders, or the mullahs are gaining power over the individuals.

To recognise two or more sets of values, laws and rights in a single society is a discriminatory practice. By doing this, we are, in fact, defining different categories of citizens, and to do that on the basis of different ethnicity, religion and culture is nothing but racism, pure and simple. We are assigning different laws, rights and norms and standards to each different ethnic or religious group.

The concept of citizen and citizen's rights are modern concepts achieved by decades of libertarian struggle. The reduction of the church's power over society is another achievement. The world has made important strides towards the recognition of concepts such as human rights. In fact the struggle against sexism and for women's rights has been such a process.

In the case of Islamic courts and empowering them with legal procedures regarding civil disputes or family disputes, we are leaving women in the so-called Moslem communities at the mercy of Islamic laws and traditions, which are clearly discriminatory against women. There has been a long battle in countries under the rule of Islam by the women's liberation movement to achieve a secular system and secular legislation in order to diminish discrimination against women and promote the recognition of equal rights for women in the realm of family as well as the society as a whole.

The second fallacy is the argument that says referrals of family disputes to Islamic courts, and Islamic arbitration is voluntary and a matter of personal choice. This argument sounds very libertarian and legitimate. But this is only a fancy facade for imposing a patriarchal value system on women and children. Intimidation and force of communal moral pressure are tools of keeping women subjugated. No human being in her right mind would choose to deprive herself of equal rights, and into a subordinate position.

Under the patriarchal value system, such as Islamic traditions and norms, women are deprived of equal rights in matters such as marriage, divorce, custody and running of family matters and family disputes. Women in these communities are forced by intimidation and the communal moral pressure to accept this inequality as the norm, as the natural and divine law and to respect it. Creating a legal system and empowering the so-called leaders of the community with legal powers as well as religious and moral power will reduce the choice for women to live a more equal life. It will diminish women's rights to equal opportunity; it will isolate women from the broader society and ghettoise their lives.

 

Any women's rights activist and analyst will tell you that the family and the dynamism of family life and family order are the pillars of women's subordination in the society. Some argue that Islamic courts only deal with mundane issues, such as family law. This is a self-serving argument to fog the real issues involved. The women's liberation movement has fought long and hard to reform family laws and the structure of power inside the family. By recognising Islamic courts we are turning the clock back for women living under Islamic traditions.

 

The society is duty-bound to offer every woman equal opportunity and equal access to equal and universal laws. No one has the right to deny any woman, whether in Islamic communities, Jewish or any other, from this basic right. In an environment based on patriarchy, an old value system, and traditions so clearly misogynist, there can be no question of exercising your choice freely. The choice will be that of the strong partner in the relationship.

We have witnessed in the past decades, a glorification of culture as a primary issue dictating people's lives and rights. Culture has come to take precedence over human rights, equality, liberation, rights of individuals, children's rights and women's rights - concepts and issues which have been long argued and have prominence in modern and civilised civil societies. The birth of cultural relativism and its recognition in the society as a credible concept is the result of this process.

 

I ask you why an arbitrary concept as culture must be so glorified that takes precedence over prominent issues such as freedom, equality, and justice. Why should people be categorised and placed in different pigeon holes according to culture or religion. These should be private matters. There is no justification for assigning such prominent status to culture which overshadows any sense of justice, equality and freedom, the achievements of long battles fought by freedom loving people and socialists for more than two centuries.

I like to reflect on another issue here. As it regards the Islamic courts, we are dealing with a movement, which has gained political power in some influential countries and has become well known internationally: political Islam. In my opinion, it is a reactionary and misogynist movement. I am talking here to you as a first hand victim of political Islam. I can show you here among the audience many more victims of this brutal movement. There are many women and men here today who have fled the torture, execution threats, and humiliation of political Islam. For us to see that the seeds of an Islamic republic are being sown here in Canada is terrifying.

Let me briefly take you back to the 11th of September 2001. The horrific day that thousands were killed in the most horrendous manner. It was not only the number of human beings who lost their lives that shook the world, it was the manner in which it happened. As a result of this tragedy political Islam was marginalised and came under increasing pressure. The crimes of this brutal movement in Afghanistan and Iran were exposed. People in the world became appalled by the atrocities committed by political Islam.

However the actions by the U.S. and Britain, the attack on Iraq and the bullying attitude adopted by the U.S. created a ground on which this movement began to build a psychological and propaganda campaign to present itself as the victim of Western racism. It began to create a feeling of guilt among decent freedom loving people in the West. The crimes and atrocities inflicted by the U.S. in Iraq and against immigrants and people from Middle Eastern origin became a source that political Islam came to cash in on to appear as a victim'. After that date, political Islam took our belief in freedom and equality hostage to serve its own interests. Our decency became a source for their exploitation.

 

The term Islamophobia came into being. And once more after we have pushed back cultural relativism to the margins we came to fight a new monster. We were threatened by them and frowned upon by well-intentioned people for criticising Islam and its treatment of women, for criticising the veil, especially child veiling. The movement that flogged us, tortured us for not observing the veil, and made us flee our homes and seek refuge here, now calls us racist. We should not let this happen. This mockery must be stopped. We should put and end to this charade of victimisation and self- righteousness by a movement that has terrorised millions of women into submission and subjugation.

It is true that we are the first hand victims of political Islam, but we are not mere victims. We belong to a vibrant, dynamic, strong, and progressive movement, which has fought political Islam not only in Iran, not only in Iraq, and not only in the Middle East but also here in the West. We have raised the banner of freedom and equality not only for women but for humanity and are fighting to push back religion to its rightful place - that is to the private sphere.

 

We are fighting to diminish the role of religion in the running of society, to separate religion from education and the state, and judiciary. We have raised the banner of secularism. We are the front runner of the secular movement in Europe, and now in Canada. Women's rights, equality and freedom need the secularisation of the society. We have organised this fight; we are at the forefront of this struggle, and we are proud of it. We will not allow political Islam to take root in the West and we will soon uproot it in the Middle East as well.

The above is a speech prepared by Azar Majedi for an International Women's Day panel on March 8, 2004 on Sharia Courts and Women's rights. Azar Majedi is the head of the Organisation of Women's Liberation.

Separation of god & science
Especially on gender issues and sexual equality, religious schools contradict society's achievements

 

May 16, 2005
iranian.com

In January 2005 David Bell, a School Inspector, delivered a speech which was published in The Guardian about the rise in the number of religious schools in the UK. His comments have raised opposition by the Institute of Islamic Organisations in the UK. This interview aired on TV International. Bahram Soroush hosted the programme whilst Maryam Namazie was away.

Bahram Soroush: You may have heard statements by David Bell and also the response by the Institute of Islamic Organisations in the UK. They have said he is picking on Islamic schools. Do you think this is discrimination?

Azar Majedi: No I don't. Actually my position is to ban all religious schools. I think education must be separate from religion and the church. It is a positive move to investigate faith schools, from a children's rights point of view. It is of no surprise to me that they have found shortcomings in Islamic schools. I think it will probably be more or less the same with other religious schools. But perhaps other religious schools try to follow the national curriculum and standards more. Islamic schools are more into religious teachings than the regular curriculum.

So you feel that religious schools altogether across the board should be banned?

Yes. They must be banned and education must be separated from religion and the church. Universal laws and standards are the basis of a civil society that respects human rights and the equality of all the citizens. Separation of religion from the state and education is the basis of a secular society, where free thinking is respected and encouraged. Religion, in my opinion, is permeated with superstition and contradicts the scientific achievements of humanity. For all these reasons religious schools must be banned.

Furthermore, all religions are patriarchal and sexist. As it regards Islam, it is well-known for its sexist codes and rules. This is so because Islam has not historically been challenged or reformed, as it is the case with Christianity. The development of capitalism in the west resulted in significant social upheavals, of which the French revolution is the most influential. These upheavals challenged Christianity in different aspects and reduced its grip on the society and polished its most crude prejudices. When it comes to gender issues and sexual equality, religion has a negative effect.

Religious schools, not only do not promote sexual equality, they reinforce sexism and encourage a sexual division of labour and differential gender roles. Islamic schools are segregated and promote totally different roles for girls in society and restrict girls from many activities. Finally, these schools are more a place for indoctrination than scientific teachings. By allowing religious schools to function, we are discriminating against a section of society, and we are setting double standards.

In that case what do say to this argument that we should look after children's and pupils' religious needs and that is why we have faith schools?

I don't believe children have any religious needs. When it is talked about children's religious needs, it actually means their parents' need to indoctrinate their children. "Children have no religion"; they happen to be born in a family with a particular religion. I believe there should be no official religious teachings to children. Once they become of age, then they can decide whether they like to pursue a particular faith or not. I strongly believe that religious teaching to children is indoctrination, like exposing them to any particular ideology. Therefore, it must be banned. It is fine to teach them the history of ideas, the history of religion but teaching religion as such should be prohibited.

Somebody made a comment in the recent controversy that you have children who are in a religious family and when they go to school, they go to a religious school and they come back to a religious family. So 24 hours a day they are confronted by religion.

I think this is a very good and valid point. This refers to a sad reality of a life of indoctrination which is imposed on some children. I believe this must be stopped. This is wrong both from the child's point of view and society's point of view. To deprive a child of a normal happy life and normal education has become integrated in the society as a way of life. It is wrong to do that. They should be integrated with other children in the society as citizens, with children of all backgrounds. I understand that there are families with different religions and cultures.

However, these religions and cultures must not be imposed on the children. In societies today, children are exposed to all kinds of religions and cultures. They should be given the right of choice. Once they reach adulthood, they can choose. And in any circumstance, education must be secular and based on the latest scientific achievements. Children should be free from religious brain washing and teachings and preaching.

The effect of non-secular, religious and segregated education is very destructive on the society as a whole, and on our children's happy, normal life, and upbringing.

As we can see even a school inspector has come to recognise this fact. Of course this criticism is not radical enough (probably they have stronger criticisms themselves). It is carefully worded as not to "offend" any religious groups. But with a bit of insight one can recognise the severity of the problem. I am more concerned about the lot of these children. They are being deprived. Their basic rights are being violated. We cannot sit and watch. We should take action to defend the rights of these children to a happy, normal life, to safeguard their equal access to the world's scientific achievements, to free-thinking, and safeguard their integration into the society, with all other children.

In a sense these children are being sent to the religious schools by their parents and are being denied the same rights as the children who attend the mainstream schools. What is your view on that?

Yes that is true. Mansoor Hekmat has a very interesting and provoking statement regarding this issue and I have quoted it in many of my speeches and articles: "The child has no religion, tradition, and prejudices. She has not joined any religious sect. She is a new human being who, by accident and irrespective of her will has been born into a family with specific religion, tradition, and prejudices. It is indeed the task of society to neutralise the negative effects of this blind lottery.

Society is duty-bound to provide fair and equal living conditions for children, their growth and development, and their active participation in social life. Anybody who should try to block the normal social life of a child, exactly like those, who would want to physically violate a child according to their own culture, religion, or personal or collective complexes, should be confronted with the firm barrier of the law and the serious reaction of society."

I believe the position is very clear. We should have the interest of the child before us. Providing a happy, normal life for any child, and the creation of a harmonic society on the basis of secularism i.e. separation of religion from the state, are the right principle and the basis of a right and just position. Respect for multi-culturalism and cultural relativism leads to discrimination against some sections of the society, violations of human rights for some sections, double standards, and the creation of a disintegrated and segregated society, where people are put into different pigeon boxes and identified by their cultural or religious backgrounds, instead of as equal citizens.

Diversity is fine but creating boxes and stamping people's foreheads with their religion or their family's or community's religion is wrong. Furthermore, children are not given proper scientific education in these faith schools. They are given a one-sided education which is more based on superstition than science. Thus a normal life is denied from them.

We then come to the question of gender and sexual equality. Faith schools in general, and Islamic and Jewish schools in particular are based on sexist values and beliefs. In all religious schools there is a very definite defined gender role. Girls are considered as a whole different kind of human being than boys. There you have gender apartheid and segregation which is very discriminatory against girls and women. We have a long history of fighting for women's rights in Europe. Especially the gender roles have been challenged significantly in the past 30 years in Western Europe. The religious schools deny that and contradict society's achievements. They turn the clock backward. We should not let this happen. Bringing up children in religious schools is wrong and has to be banned.

 

Some might say fair enough, you want secular education, that children should be left alone until they reach the age of maturity, until they are 16, and then they can decide what religion to have or what not to have. But they also say, what about the rights of the parents? Don't they have any rights and responsibilities towards raising their children? Aren't you excluding them of their rights?

No, I am not excluding any one of their rights. Parents definitely have a responsibility towards their children. They also have some rights. These rights and responsibilities must be defined by the society as a set of universal laws. Parents are responsible to provide their children, in the framework of their means, with a happy, normal and safe life. They must provide their children with love, security and safety. But this does not mean that if a child is born in a poor or disadvantaged family, the society will leave the child to have only what the parents are capable of providing. Society has a duty toward the well being of the child. That is why there are internationally recognised charters and declarations to safeguard and protect children. Modern society has recognised the need for such laws.

That is why every civilised society has laws regarding obligatory education, prohibition of child labour, criminalising physical and sexual abuse of a child and so on. By passing such laws, the society has taken the matters in its own hand out of the parents' realm of rights. We are not living in a feudal system where the parents - actually the father - decide over the whole family's existence. For example, according to Islamic laws, a father or a grandfather can kill his children without being prosecuted. This is a law in some countries. Modern, civil society has abolished this right.

I want to say rights are not absolute and ahistorical. Each society must define these laws according to the well being of children and in light of children's interests. In my opinion, indoctrination of children is one of those so-called rights that must be taken away from parents. Education must be standardised and universal for every child in a given society.

What I am trying to say is that there is a responsibility by the society towards children as much as there is parents' responsibility towards children. That happy, normal and secure life that I was talking about is partly society's responsibility in all aspects: economically and education wise. The society will not leave it to the parents just because the children are born in a particular family to teach them whatever they want and brain wash them with superstition. There is actually a law and a limited safeguard that the society offers to children if the parents are abusive. Society would intervene and take the child's side.

I think abuse is understood as merely sexual or physical and verbal violence whereas indoctrination and brain washing of children with superstition and prejudgments must also be recognised as abuse. Inflicting or imposing religious or cultural customs upon children that hinder healthy physical and mental development must be considered as abuse. I consider child veiling as a serious violation of children rights. In the same token, sending children to religious schools is a serious violation of their rights.

It particularly affects the girls. Doesn't it?

It does. Religion by its nature and as an ideology is very much sexist and male chauvinist. Christianity has been challenged in the 18 and 19th century, from the French revolution to the transformation of the European society from a feudal society to a capitalist system. It has been pushed back in the society and is more or less behaving itself. Islam however, has not gone through the same process. Islam has never been dealt with like this in the societies that it was born in. Islam has never been challenged in this way, has never been pushed back from the society.

 

Moreover, for the past 3 decades a political movement has been born and developed, which takes its ideology and policy from Islam and is very reactionary, i.e. political Islam. This movement is not only religious but also political. We can see what political Islam is doing, gaining more and more inroads in western society as well. We know Islam's record, what Islam says; it is written black on white and we know how male chauvinistic and sexist it is. Gender apartheid is the basis of Islam. The veiling of children and many other abuses should be stopped. If you expose a girl or even a boy to that culture and education, you are actually depriving these children of a humane life, especially the girls. Islamic schools must be stopped because this gender discrimination is embedded in Islam.

About
Azar Majedi is the head of the Organisation of Women's Liberation.

Don't be intimidated!
On the row over “offensive” cartoons

 

February 4, 2006
iranian.com

The charade by Islamists over the publication ofthe cartoons depicting the Mohammed (prophet) as a suicide bomber is being taken too seriously by many. Apologies after apologies are being delivered to Islamic governments and thugs. Any apology makes them more vicious and more daring. The only weapon they have is hostage taking, bullying, intimidating, killing, maiming, and offending any human values and any libertarian rights.

 

We should not apologise to these reactionary forces who have organized the most sophisticated machinery of oppression and intimidation, who have organized and mobilised an army of terrorists world wide, who have been  terrorising the citizens of the Islamic ridden countries as well as citizens of the world, who have the worst criminal record.

 

This is their weapon: resorting to terror while appearing as victims. They kill, maim, stone to death people for wanting their rights, for wanting freedom, for wanting a better life. They humiliate women daily, deprive them of their rights, torture them for not observing the rule of Islam, and when someone dares to tell the truth about their atrocities, they become offended, they cry for their “violated dignities”, they become “sacred”. This is nothing but blackmail. Just the same way as they take innocent people hostage daily, by crying for their “sacred” beliefs, they take our conscious hostage. This is their method of survival.

 

The world without unconditional freedom of expression and criticism will be a very doll and scary world to live. These values are result of long and hard fought battles. We have to preserve the right to unconditional expression and criticism. Nothing is sacred for everyone. Thus everyone must have the right to criticize or ridicule any “sacred” concept, object or belief. The only way we can build a better and more humane world is to safeguard with all our power these sacred values. Unconditional freedom of expression and criticism is the sacred value, we should maintain.

 

Islamists become offended and hysterical too often. They should learn to be more tolerant, more respectful of libertarian rights that have been won through long struggles by humanity and progressive forces. We should teach them to respect freedom and civil rights. We should teach them to respect women’s rights. We should teach them not too readily resort to terror and intimidation. How? By standing firm to their face, and say no apologies are due. If any, it is your turn to apologize for all your crimes against humanity.

About
Azar Majedi is Chairperson of the Organisation of Women's Liberation. and producer-presenter of "No to Political Islam" an NCTV programme.

An Open Letter to Oriana Fallaci
Anti-Islamism does not justify racism!

by Azar Majedi

07 July, 2006

 

This Open letter was written in 2006, 18 years ago, when the Secularist and atheist entities and personalities in the West had not lost credibility; their hypocrisy was not exposed. Their real role in making acceptable the dominant Ideological and political narrative of the New World Order, i.e. the Clash of Civilisations, was not revealed. Oriana Fallaci was the sun rise of the truth. I must admit that at the time I thought this was a small minority; I still regarded the secularist movement as progressive, as I still think secularism is a necessary condition for a free society. However, the genocide in Gaza exposed them all; tore the mask of lies and hypocrisy. All these heroes and Gods of godless are promoting Christianity as opposed to Islam. They have all received divine revelation that Christianity is the pillar of civilisation.

Republished in Tribune Magazine 22 June 2024

Dear Oriana Fallaci

As a life-long activist for women’s rights, for freedom and equality, as a first hand victim of political Islam, and a veteran fighter against it, as an atheist who is a staunch believer in a secular state and secular education system, as a woman who has opposed the hijab, as a secularist who has defended the latest French secular law to ban bearing of any conspicuous religious symbols in public schools, as a campaigner for banning the veil for underage girls and banning religious schools, as a campaigner against honour killings, Sharia courts in Canada, against Islamism and Islamic terrorism, as a staunch defender of unconditional freedom of expression and criticism who defended the right of those who ridiculed Mohammad in the row over the caricatures, I share some of your beliefs and find some very offensive, and let me make it clear, not to Islam, but to human values, to freedom and egalitarian values which are also part of “European culture”.

When you came to Iran to interview Khomeini, I was fighting against him and Islamic regime for women’s rights, against the hijab, and for freedom. I knew you first and foremost for your interview with the Shah. I admired your courage and frankness then. I feel indignant now when I read some of your comments and your latest interview with Margaret Talbot in New Yorker. Your justified hatred against Islam and Islamism has been extended to all Moslems and everyone living under Islam. I am sure you do not need anyone to remind you that this is racism. I am bewildered when I read your comments against immigrants and immigration from countries under the rule of Islam, and find this in contrast with the justified pride you take in your history for fighting against Nazi-Fascism. 

It seems to me that the hate against Islam has pushed you towards Christianity. You have even visited the Pope asking him to take a stronger stance against Islamism. This I find puzzling. How does an atheist in hate of one religion take refuge in another? Your hate against Islamism and political Islam finds expression in Euro centrism. Your disapproval for multiculturalism and cultural relativism has led you to defend “western culture”, instead of universal rights and secular, humanitarian and values and freedom.

As a young girl growing in Iran, under the rule of Islam, I read western philosophers and writers to educate myself with enlightened principles and values regarding equality, freedom and women’s rights. I chose the egalitarian and freedom-loving side of Western culture, and I am bewildered why, you an atheist, a fighter against fascism, had to resort to Euro centrism and racism in order to defend “Western culture”.

Your defence of a superior culture goes as far as expressing more concern about the beheading of Buddha’s statue than murdered, maimed women and men in Afghanistan whose rights are violated daily, who are victims of political Islam and American militarism. This perplexes me. I found it offensive that a human being who enjoys a freedom fighter stature in the eyes of many, cares more about the cultural and physical ambiance of her native country than all those men, women and children who are killed, maimed and violated daily in Iraq. It seems that in defence of “your culture” you, a self-professed atheist, in attacking mosques end up defending the church. As a staunch campaigner against terrorism, I feel indignant when I see our “Western” anti Islamist can only voice condemnation of terrorism taken place in the West. All terrorist acts which take place daily in countries under Islam are mentioned at best only in passing. Are people who have by draw of a lottery been born under the rule of Islam not worthy of your attention, passion and rage?

All these become so ironic when one looks deeply into the root of political Islam. When one remembers how the Western governments unleashed this monster on the people of the region, how they created the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the cold war era, and then helped the Taliban, how in the fear of a leftist revolution in Iran dumped Khomeini on us and helped bring about an Islamic state, when one remembers these recent historical facts, one cannot help but discern a profound sense of hypocrisy and double standard. Sadly the saga of helping political Islam and Islamic terrorism by the Western governments is an ongoing effort. Just look at Iraq! The US and Britain, by invading Iraq, helped Islamists grow monstrously therein. Have you forgotten who the friend of Bin laden was? The tragedy is that as long as this monster was strangling the “native” people, our rage could stay under control, our passion not moved. Those people were not worthy of our passion and compassion!

The Western academia and journalists invented and nurtured the concept of cultural relativism, so that on its basis they could justify compulsory veiling, stoning, maiming and torturing of the people under the rule of Islam. That gave justification for turning one’s head while one’s government made deals with those Islamic states. This concept was invented so under the guise of “respect for other cultures” the brutal crimes and violation of human rights will be brushed aside “respectfully”. We have witnessed how European courts have resorted to cultural relativism in defending deportation of immigrants fleeing the rule of Islam. They have gone as far as stating that the prison conditions in those countries are suitable for those people.

I must state that these arrogant, hypocritical and racist attitudes and policies are an important tool to foster political Islam. If one does not distinguish between the Islamic movement, a reactionary and brutal political movement, and ordinary Moslems who are the first hand victims of this, if one does not distinguish between the oppressor and the oppressed, one becomes an accessory to Islamic brutality.

 We must try and understand the root causes of Islamic recruitment among the so-called Moslem communities in the West. The dominant racism in state policies and attitude and systematic marginalisation of these communities plus the aggression and militarism of the Western governments led by the US against the people in the Middle East, namely, Palestine and Iraq, have directed the youth in these communities to despair and frustration. The revolt of the “suburb” in France is a vivid and sad example of such policies. By rejecting these communities as part of ”us” we leave them at the mercy of the “leaders of the community”, who foster traditionalism, Islamism, sexism, and glorification of the “home land”. These are poisonous brain washings. And I must say that your stance is aiding this process.   

I find it so hard to understand that in despising the oppressor and oppressing ideology you come to despise the victims just as much. No sympathy, no compassion for the victims. No rage and passion provoked for these people who live under these inhumane and brutal conditions. It is amazing that in Mexico witnessing the brutal crushing of a student demonstration, and becoming a victim of it, you came to hate the sufferers just as much as the oppressors. So flippantly, you state you hate “Mexicans” and as a result despise the most impressive show of power and solidarity in the US for the rights of immigrants in recent months.

I was enraged by reading your racist comments. I was indignant by sensing your Euro centrism, by your lack of human compassion for millions who fled the rule of Islam and took refuge in the West in the hope of a better life. I share your despise and indignation for the Islamic movement. But I denounce categorically the racism that is openly expressed by you. And last but not least I must state that I defend the unconditional freedom of expression, and condemn the court which is to try you for what you have expressed in your books. One must be free to express any opinions. This is the pillar of a free society.

Azar Majedi

Change NOW
We need to dismantle sexual apartheid in Iran

 

June 1, 2006
iranian.com

Speech in Cologne, Germany, 8th March 2006.

 

First of all I would like to congratulate everyone here on 8th March, International Women’s Day. However one can not help but feel so sad to see that in 21st century, in the year 2006 celebrating the International Women’s Day one has to hear these horrendous figures that Ayan Hirsi just told us. We read and hear them but tend to forget. I don’t think we forget because we don’t care. We forget because it is our self defence mechanism. How can we sleep every night to know that every year around 2 million women in the world are killed based on gender oppression, discrimination in one way or another?

Ayan compared it with Rwanda. I remember when Rwandan catastrophe happened. We were all so outraged. One million people were brutally killed in an ethnic genocide and we became outraged that world did not do enough to stop it. It happens all the time. Every year a Rwanda happens in the world and we don’t do anything about it and forget it! I don’t think we don’t care. We are conscious human beings otherwise we wouldn’t be here. It is difficult to bear such tragedies on our minds every single day knowing that we can’t do anything about it. But we COULD do something about it. This is what I am trying to talk about here today. What can we do about it?

Ayan talked about genocide, ethnic genocide, and racial genocide and now we know there is sexual or gender genocide as we have gender apartheid. There is gender apartheid in countries under the influence or the rule of Islam or Islamic ridden countries. I won’t call them Muslim countries. By Islamic countries I mean countries being under Islamic rule or groups or movements or political Islam.

 

Some of you may be too young to think that there was racial apartheid in South Africa. I am one of those who do remember. I fought against racial apartheid in the 70’s and 80’s. I was part of the movement against racial apartheid in South Africa and I still remember those days. I still remember when Nelson Mandela was freed and when apartheid was dismantled in South Africa. It was a nice day. Dismantling racial apartheid was one of the few good things that happened at the end of the 20th century. And I hope that one of these days I hear the same thing about gender apartheid. We need to dismantle sexual apartheid in Iran. So we have to build a movement as strong as the one built against racial apartheid in South Africa. I think that is one of the things we can do. And if we do that and become a member of such movement we can sleep better at night and we feel better about ourselves.

 

Violence
We are here today to talk about violence against women and against honour killings. What a strange name they have given it: “honour killing”! Or “crime of passion”! So romantic! We are talking about passion and all of a sudden someone gets killed, maimed and the killer walks away! Passion, isn’t it? Passion is nice. We see it in films. Or we call it honour killing. It is related to honour. “Honour?” Is this supposed to glorify the murder? Is it supposed to make it look acceptable?! Is it to dignify the murderer? All these names are used in order to mitigate the concept of murder. They are trying to say it does not matter if a woman is raped, if a woman is killed. They are killed for a good cause. They are killed so some “sacred” political and religious ideas and traditions are preserved. It boils down to this: It doesn’t matter, it is the culture, and it is the religion. It is crime of passion, it is honour killing.

 

Or think about this! Violence against women at home is called domestic violence. Automatically the word domestic softens the act. It makes it a personal matter. Domestic has these connotations: cosiness, privacy, warmth. So it cannot be that bad. It is not that outrageous. Can you see the trick the sexist and misogynist values play on us?

 

We have to name it as it really is. It is murder. It is first degree murder and has to be dealt with as first degree murder. No mitigation for in judging the crime, no leniency for those who commit it, be it the father, the husband, the brother or the cousin. No mitigation! It has to be dealt with as the most horrendous act, as act of terrorism. The culprits should be treated the same as terrorists who blow up a train, the underground, a bus. This is one of things we have to establish. We should make states and governments deal with those who kill women for “passion” or “honour” as first degree murder without any mitigation.

 

They say it is their culture and religion, we have to respect them, we should be tolerant! Let me tell you, we do not respect any values or ideology that does not respect human beings, women’s rights, children’s rights, liberty or equality. We do not respect religion, faith, ideology, political ideology that instigates murder and violence against women. How could we respect them? Humanity has fought for equality, secularism, freedom of expression, gender equality, and universality of human rights. What has happened to us at the end of the 20th century? Why are we talking about tolerance and respect for inhuman values and ideas at the beginning of the 21st century?! 

 

I am not talking about Muslims. I really want to emphasize and clarify this point. I am not talking about Muslims. I am not disrespecting Muslims for believing in whatever they want to believe. And I do not believe that the mere force of believing in an ideology or religion make you commit such murders no matter how violent those values you believe in are. There has to be another organisation that takes these values, religion, and ideas and puts them into force and creates a sophisticated machinery of suppression.

 

That is why I am saying it is a political fight. We have to look more deeply and question the arguments that try to portray these serial killings as results of mere religious belief. In fact there is a political force that transforms these religious beliefs into such a force of suppression, terror, maiming, discrimination, and torture at the end of the 20th century, a force capable of intimidating the whole world. It is not a mere belief in Islam. There is a political movement and organisation behind it all. A mafia like organisation based on Islam, getting its ideas from Islam. It is a reactionary political movement that tries to gain power, share power in the region and also globally.

It is a modern, contemporary concept and movement, based on ancient, antiquated ideas and ideology. It has moved globally now. When it was nurtured with the help of the USA and the Western governments in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union and in Iran by importing Khomeini and Islamic Republic into the country, at the time of 1979 Revolution, it worked in the region. However, now, it has assumed international significance. This organisation or industry is now fighting for power globally and September 11 was one of those tragic events that demonstrated this global trend.

 

Violence against women is not an isolated action especially when you talk about 2 million world-wide every year. It is organised. They are not all done by political Islam but a great deal of them are committed, incited, encouraged or supported by political Islam. I am talking about this orchestrated global religious machinery. I think this is important and we should talk about it. We have to talk about other political and religious movements as well. There are misogynous, sexist, chauvinist ideas that can create this situation against women.

 

When you talk about male chauvinism as an ideology, we are told that we can fight them by education and cultural transformation. Of course we need education and cultural transformation. But how are we going to do it? Are we going to just get those people and talk with them? Educate them and tell them it is bad to kill other people? Or are we going to the base and root of the problem? How is that these ideologies and values, male chauvinism, anti women values are maintained regardless of all the struggle carried out against them over centuries? How is it upheld? One needs to consider the role of the dominating values in the society carried out by states.

I have not got enough time to expand on the last point. Now I like to focus on political Islam as one of these main movements that creates and terrorises the world. It intimidates the world and tries to silence any criticism of its movement or its ideas. Islam, where it can, where in power it kills, tortures, maims people and stones them to death. Where it can NOT do blatantly kill, where it does NOT have the power it becomes clever and sassy and it uses terms like “respect”, “tolerance”, “Islamophobia” and “cultural relativism”.

 

 

So some very decent, freedom loving people, conscious people out of fear of being stamped as racists, do not dare to criticise them, do not dare to support the secularist. They look the other way, thinking if they criticise, if they stand against these values and actions, they might be racists, they have not respected other people’s culture or religion. The apologists of political Islam, the academia, the media, the Western governments come to their rescue. They ask for tolerance too. They demand respect for their outdated, backward, reactionary traditions, they demand respect for their culture. And they justify this with the help of concepts such as cultural relativism. These tactics are used to silence us. We are called racist, islamophobic, intolerant, if we do not comply. Nonsense!

 

I like to bring your attention to the fact that it is not only genocide, murder and submission that we are witnessing. We are also witnessing resistance. The film we saw tonight called Submission. But it was not only about submission, it was also about resistance. The heroine  was not submitted. She had not submitted to the act of god. She was trying to resist it and protect herself. I believe there is a resistance movement against this genocide, backward and male chauvinist ideology in the world. My time is up. In Iran there exists a very strong a vibrant resistance movement by women against gender apartheid, against the veil, against women’s subordination. This movement needs your support.  

I believe it is not just a question of women mobilising against this genocide. I am calling upon everyone, every decent, conscious, freedom loving human being to mobilise against this genocide, murder, violence, and chauvinism. Political Islam is mobilised globally and internationally, we need to mobilise internationally as well. We need to fight against political Islam, for secularism, universality of women’s rights, and for women’s equality. This is one important way to stop violence committed against women. I don’t think we need to wait one century. We can’t afford it.

 

We need to bring about the transformation NOW. I think we are able to do it now if we mobilise against it. So I call upon all of you to support our movement and to fight for these goals and values. We should unite and organise for a better and more humane world, to safeguard freedom and bring about equality. We need a world free from religious superstition and terrorism. We need to stand against two poles of terrorism, Islamic and state terrorism led by US and the Western governments. We have to organise to fight Oppression.  

About
Azar Majedi (www.azarmajedi.com) is Chairperson of the Organisation of Women's Liberation. and producer-presenter of "No to Political Islam" an NCTV programme.

First victims
We should build a united force against political Islam whose number one target is women

 

March 7, 2006
iranian.com

Speech at Stockholm conference on "Globalisation of Political Islam, Women's Rights" on 21/01/06, in commemoration of the death of Fatima Shahindal, a victim of honour killings.

We are here today to commemorate Fatima Shahindal who was murdered four years ago by her father. She was tried in a family court and executed by members of her family only because she chose to live differently.

We are here to talk about honour killings, which according to UN, takes the lives of 5000 women worldwide. There is another theme to the conference, as well, political Islam. Why political Islam? What connects Fatima with Aynor in Berlin who was killed in February last year? She was killed by her 17-year-old brother, in front of her 5-year-old son, while waiting at a bus stop.

What connects these two with another Fatima in Palestine and another one in Jordan, and another one in Nigeria or Syria? What connects them all with Fatemeh Rajabi; a 16-year-old girl in Iran who was gang raped and executed the next day by the Islamic Republic of Iran? She was accused of corruption and prostitution.

What connects these events with Hajiyeh Esmailvand who was sentenced to death by stoning last December? She escaped stoning as a result of international protests and especially the work of Mina Ahadi, who is one of the speakers in this conference, and Organisation for Women's Liberation (OWL).

What do they all have in common? I go further, what connects all these with women who are harassed every single day on the streets of Iran for not observing the veil, not observing it properly or try to break gender apartheid? All those women who are trying to live independently and all those women in Afghanistan? Or women in Iraq who are murdered by the Islamic thugs. All these women, In fact, millions of women are terrorised, kidnapped, raped and murdered because they are not Islamic enough.

I go even further, what connects these brutalities, atrocities and murders with September 11th in New York? To the victims of the suicide bombings in London in July 7th, In Madrid, In Bali and In Iraq?

Try and think carefully! They all have one thing in common. They are all connected by ONE movement, namely, Political Islam. I talk of a political movement and not a religion proper. Because it is not the force of believing in a religion, however violent its teachings and doctrines may be, that creates a sophisticated machinery of terror, maiming and murder.

There is need for a political movement, political power and political machinery to organize such horrendous acts of murder and brutality. It is the force of a political movement that has turned each and every mosque into recruitment headquarters for terror. True. Ideologically, Political Islam is based on Islam. It derives its doctrines and vision from Islam. But only as a political movement it can acquire such immense power to suppress millions of people.

For the past 30 years there has been a movement in the Middle East, in Afghanistan, Iran, and in the Islamic ridden countries that has gained power, which tries to acquire power in the region, and tries to become a power globally. It has based itself on religion, has based itself on Islam and has cashed on in people's sufferings and grievances to fill up the vacuum created in the political and ideological sphere in the region. Intimidation and terror is its strategic tool.

 

The first victims of this reactionary movement are women. They have been raped, stoned to death, killed, maimed, flogged and their dignity violated. Political Islam promotes and mobilizes a very concentrated, coherent campaign to suppress and silence women in the Middle East and the Islamic ridden countries and also in Europe.

 

As I mentioned, according to the UN 5000 women are killed annually world wide. Even the UN says that this figure is far from the real figure. Do you know why? Because some women are not even worth being registered as dead! Or their murder is disguised as suicide. The figure is much more than 5000. Majority of these victims belong to the Islamic communities either in North Africa, Middle East or Islamic communities in the West.

When a woman or a young girl is killed in the name of honour, it is not only her, but the whole family is killed in a way. They pick a 16 or 17 year old male member of the family to execute the death sentence. By doing this they kill the boy as a human being. Just think what this „trial‰ and execution do to humanity. To be present in such trial, to be judge or jury in it, and then be chosen as the executor, just imagine what this process does to the mind of any human being.

Going back to the question: why political Islam? Because Political Islam is responsible for basically all these atrocities taking place against women, children and humanity. Political Islam is the driving force behind this violence. It promotes violence and terror. It mobilizes force, it nurtures and recruits, it supports and encourages, it leads a global movement of terror and backwardness. 

It must also be added that political Islam did not reach this position; it did not acquire such power alone. It was aided considerably by the West. Bin Laden, the infamous character, who everyone is looking for, rose to power by the US. Taliban and Islamic Republic of Iran could not come to power without the West's aid. When the West wanted to fight the left, they brought these monsters to us. Unleashed them upon us and now that the monster has come to the West, they are looking for them! It is ironic that even when the US and the West decide to come after these monsters, again there are the people in the region who become victims. What happened in Iraq and the misery and bloodshed imposed on Iraqi people is a vivid example of this.

Perhaps most of you like to hear what you can do in Sweden to change the situation. For example what integration policy can be adopted to fight this? Definitely, Sweden needs to have a better, universal, more progressive and less racist integration policy. But fighting against honour killings, atrocities against women, violations against women goes further than a sound integration policy.

Political Islam is an international movement, it fights internationally, it mobilizes internationally. The network of Mullahs and Mosques that spread hatred, terror, and anti women, anti human values in Stockholm, London, Berlin and so on are related internationally. Just go to these Mosques and see what hatred and brain washing they inflict on young minds of our children. They issue fatwa's against people like us, people fighting for women's rights and freedom, secularism, fighting against religious rule, against political Islam, against whoever questions the rule of Islam or the god. All of us deserve to die.

Go to the religious schools and see what superstitions they put in the young impressionable minds of our children: hatred against women, hatred against the West, hatred against liberty and anything human. These are all related. We can not just sit here and talk about an integration policy that is better and can solve the problem. We have to think internationally. They think internationally we have to think internationally as well. They organize and mobilize internationally, we have to organize and mobilize internationally.

We should come together and build a united force against political Islam, against religion's meddling in public life, for a secular society, for equal and universal rights for women, for banning of child veiling, against gender apartheid, for banning religious schools, against funding of states to religious institutions and groups, to support our movement for liberation and equality.

I call upon you all to support our movement to fight for these goals and values. We should unite and organize for a better and more humane world, to safeguard freedom and bring about equality. We need a world free of religious superstitions and terrorism. We need to stand against two poles of terrorism: Islamic and state terrorism led by the US and Western governments.

About
Azar Majedi is Chairperson of the Organisation of Women's Liberation. and producer-presenter of "No to Political Islam" an NCTV programme.

 

Mass resistance is the other side of large scale oppression
The reality of women’s liberation movement in Iran

Speech at the international women’s rights conference in Dusseldurff (2006)

by Azar Majedi

24 October, 2006

In describing women’s conditions in a particular country, one either refers to laws governing that country or statistics. In this manner, one either exposes the extent of the oppression women suffer, or admire their achievements. As it regards women living under the rule of Islam, it is pure discrimination and oppression, subjugation and state violence. If women are considered second class citizens in many countries, in Islam-ridden countries they are not even considered as citizens. They are extension of men. In fact, according to Islam, the concept of citizen is non-existent. There is a relation between God and religious hierarchy and a collective of right-less, conscious-less men, with women as their slaves. As a matter of fact this is true about any other religion. However, this is beside our today’s discussion.

 

You have heard a great deal about women under Islam, Islam a la Taliban, in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran under the Islamic Republic. The downtrodden situation of women, sheer discrimination, gender apartheid, Islamic veil, forced marriages, officially recognized  pedophilia, by setting the legal age of marriage at 9 for girls, honour killing, polygamy, stoning women to death for engaging in sex outside marriage, encouraging men to hit their wives for punishment. The list is long.

 

If once the issue of Islam and women was an unknown topic, nowadays, thanks to the rise of political Islam, Islamic states in Iran, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq, it has become a well-known topic. I am sure that you all have heard about the non-existence of women’s rights in Islam. However, some think it is not Islam’s fault, they blame the patriarchy. They maintain that it is not Islam, but patriarchal interpretations of Islam that is responsible for the conditions of women in countries under the rule of Islam. In other words it is the ruling men’s fault not the ruling Islam. We will not get into the debate that Islam as all other religions is the direct product of patriarchal era. It could not have escaped being permeated by patriarchic values and outlook. However, we must state one undeniable fact, that is, millions of women are violated daily by Islamic laws, customs, values and states. We must deal in an effective manner with this violation.

 

I am here on behalf of Organization for Women’s Liberation. I am here to familiarize you with realities of Iranian society. You have heard about Iran. I do not mean the oil, or the nuclear project. I do not mean the mullahs or the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. I mean about the situation of women. Today, I want to talk to you about women’s resistance, rather than women’s oppression. You have heard long tales about women’s oppression. I like to tell you that there is a mass resistance movement against this systematic oppression, this official misogynic ideology. I like to break this encouraging news to you that Iran is the birthplace of a very important historic moment in international women’s liberation movement, a movement more significant than the Suffragette, or as vast as the women’s liberation movement in the Soviet Union during 1917-1930, or in the West during the 60s and 70s. I am here to ask for your solidarity and support. This movement has a great potential. If it materializes, it is capable of not only liberating women in Iran, but also it opens up the door to freedom to all women in the Middle East. We must recognize this fact.

 

The situation in Iran is different from that of Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan. There is mass discontentment in these countries. There is resistance, but there is a lack of a mass movement in defense of women’s rights. Such a movement exists in Iran.

 

In Iran there has never existed a secular state, the separation of religion from the state, or education. The laws have always been religious laws. There has always existed a dictatorship. The efforts to reform the family law in favor of women during the 60s, were very meager and not very effective. During the 1979 revolution a women’s right movement was born. This was not a mass movement, but rather formed by left and intellectual women. I am from that generation. My struggle for women’s rights and for freedom and equality goes further than that period.

 

Islamic Republic attacked women full-force after coming to power. The first phase of women’s movement was short-lived. It put up a brave resistance but it was silenced after 2 years. Women’s resistance continued in individualistic fashion, against the veil, gender apartheid and obligatory dress code. Many women have been imprisoned, tortured, or stoned to death. This brutal oppression was not able to obliterate the spirit of resistance. The new generation reignited this movement in mass scale and pushed it forward. Fighting against the Islamic veil and apartheid is one of the main battlegrounds.

 

When I hear the apologists of the Islamic movement or the defenders of cultural relativism (which, thanks to our relentless struggle has become a marginal tendency) say: “the Islamic veil and apartheid is their culture”, I get furious and want to laugh at the same time. If this is “their culture” then it is supposed that they practice it voluntarily. Why then has this massive means of oppression become necessary? Why are all these special forces formed to deal with cultural disobedience, non-observance of the veil and gender apartheid? I like to ask, are these people bunch of masochists, who like to practice their culture by being tortured, imprisoned and stoned? What rubbish!  Thousands of women who have been executed, stoned and tortured are the symbol of a vast movement against the Islamic laws, gender apartheid and the Islamic veil.   

 

Perhaps, you may think that this is a peculiar way to demonstrate resistance. I believe there is a straightforward equation: a complex and sophisticated oppressive system only demonstrates that there is a vast and complex resistance to be suppressed. When there are more than one hundred thousand political executions, this bitter and tragic fact exposes that the society does not accept the existing order and wants change.

 

In Iran there is a special police force to deal with women, those who protest, those who do not observe the veil and those who are innovative in fashion. This special force was used in the July demonstration in Tehran. It crushed the demonstration. Despite all the laws against non-observance of the veil and dress code, despite prison sentence, fine and lashing, women in Iran ridicule the veil and in their demonstrations have also burned it. The new generation cannot be silenced, cannot be forced back home. This is the resistance I am talking about.

 

In Iran there is a vast secular movement and for a free and egalitarian society. The women’s liberation movement is one of the main components of this general movement. The de facto status of women is much higher than their official and legal status. In the eyes of the dominant ideology and legislation, women’s status is half of that of men. A woman is the man’s slave. She cannot travel or work without his “master’s” permission, does not have divorce or custody rights, cannot become a judge or a president. But women in Iran have not been subdued to accept this status and image. They want to be a whole person, independent and equal.

 

I like to mention a statistical figure: around 66% of university entrances are female. This is in a country that you need to pass difficult entry exams. There is a very high competition. You also have to take into consideration the state’s efforts to push women home. Is this statistic accidental? No. This is a trend. Every year this figure has risen, from 30% to 66%. The parliament tried to pass laws to reverse this trend, to prevent women to get into university in this high number.  They argued that this is very detrimental to Islam and the institution of family. The Islamic parliament becomes alarmed by this statistics, I become overjoyed. This shows a resilient resistance on the part of new generation of women in Iran. This brings hope that women’s liberation in Iran is live and kicking.

 

8 March has become an established tradition in Iran. In the past few years, 8 March has been celebrated in different cities and in different ways. I recall in 1979, we organised several 8 March celebrations in Tehran. The society was free from monarchist dictatorship, and we, the women’s rights activists, were celebrating 8 March for the first time. On the same day Khomeini ordered women to wear the veil. A large demonstration took the streets in protest to this reactionary order and demanded women’s equality. This was the birth of a women’s right movement which was silenced after 2 years.

 

Islamic Republic tried a propaganda tactic, it named the birthday of Mohammad’s daughter the women’s day. The specialty of this regime has been to suppress a movement not only by brutal force but by means of demagogic propaganda. It crushed the 1979 revolution by calling its state a revolutionary state, its brutal forces the revolutionary guards, and the revolution itself, an Islamic revolution. It disarmed the left by taking over the so-called anti-imperialist movement by manipulating the anti American sentiments and taking Americans hostage at American Embassy. Naming Prophet’s daughter’s birthday the women’s day was a similar tactic. However, this tactic worked only for a few years. Then it was forced to assign a women’s week. This did not work either. Last year it was forced to admit defeat and a faction of the regime recognized 8 March as women’s day. 8 March now is an established tradition in Iran. Last year there were many different rallies and meetings organized to commemorate 8 March. Some of them, including one in Tehran, were suppressed. 3 months later there was a large protest organized in Tehran, several thousand took part. This was crushed. Couple of months later a movement was initiated to collect 1 million signatures for changing the laws in women’s favor. Women’s liberation movement is not going to resign nor silence.  They try to crush it, it rises again even stronger. It seems that all efforts to suppress it, only makes it more resilient and stronger.

 

These are the positive aspects of women’s resistance. Unfortunately, there is a dark and sad dimension to it, as well. The number of suicides and putting fire to oneself has raised considerably among women, specially among young women. Women in Iran have always lived under discrimination. Forced marriages, extensive restrictions on their life, being in a servitude status vis-à-vis the men has always been the fact of life for the majority of women in Iran. It seems that they used to accept this as a divine and natural law, and resigned to it. However, in the past decade we are witnessing a significant rise in suicide. This is a protest. The new generation has different expectations and aspirations. It does not resign to its “fate”. It wants to take it into its own hands. When it cannot protest collectively, when it cannot direct its anger and disapproval against the state, it directs it against herself. These self-inflicting harms are a means of protest. 

 

It is our duty, it is the responsibility of women’s right activists to transform this method of self-inflicting hurt into a positive resistance. We must change this desperation into hope for change.

 

Another negative fact is the high number of girls who escape the restrictions and violence in the home in search of freedom and end up in streets, homeless, unprotected, and become victims of prostitution. They are abused and exploited. Many of these girls wear male clothing, hoping to be freer and less harassed. However, there is no escape. The life of these girls is a telling story of brutality, exploitation and cruelty. 

 

To my opinion, the last two factors are new sociological phenomena in a society undergoing profound social, cultural, political and economic changes. Analysis of this situation takes us to a massive and deep rooted social resistance against the ruling order, dominant ideology and culture, against the ancient and antiquated values of Islam.

 

And last but not least, we should mention the diverse cultural and NGO organizations which fight for women’s rights. These organizations must adapt themselves to the suppressive state and laws. We are witnessing the coming to birth of many different organizations, festivals, and solidarity camps. These are the bright and hopeful aspects of women’s resistance.

 

My friends

There is a mass resistance movement in Iran against sexual discrimination and for gender equality. This movement needs your solidarity and support. If we succeed to free women from oppression and misogynic laws and values, this would open up a door to all women in the Middle East and countries under the rule of Islam. We must lunch a vast international movement against discrimination, violence and systematic oppression, against gender apartheid and Islamic veil. The Organization for Women’s Liberation calls upon you to join this movement. We have drawn a resolution against gender apartheid, I ask you to support it. Show your support by applauding and sign our petition. Thank you.

Religion Is an Industry
 We Need a World Free of Religion

A statement made at the conference on Freedom of Expression and Fundamentalism,
in Paris, April 6, 2006

by Azar Majedi

23 April, 2006

We are here today to acknowledge the importance of free speech and unconditional freedom of expression. We are here today to say "enough is enough." We will not submit any more. We will fight to safeguard the right to freedom of expression and criticism. We mean it and we will not be intimidated, bullied or blackmailed by any religious groups, sentiments, superstition, or by any terrorist act.

This is important. We should continue this fight and never give up. However, this is not enough. This does not go far enough. In order to succeed in our struggle for securing the unconditional freedom of expression and criticism, we need to widen our scopes. We need to fight for freedom in a wider spectrum.

Right wing aggression on civil liberties and individual rights has been enormous, particularly in recent years. The terrorist attacks by political Islam have inflicted a great blow on our society. As a result of these attacks the world has suffered greatly, both in terms of human lives and the loss of civil liberties and individual rights.

We must stand firmly against religion as an institution. Religion is not only spiritual beliefs, it is an industry, big business, a mafia-like organisation, be it fundamentalist or not. We must fight for de-religionisation of the society while we respect the right of every individual to believe in any religion. To clarify the matter, I like to quote Waffa Sultan: "you can believe in any piece of stone you like, as long as you do not throw it at me." Religion must be a private affair.

If we aspire to make a much freer and more egalitarian world, we must go further than establishing secular principles. We need secularism as a necessary condition for a free society, but in fight against religion we need to be more aggressive, not against believers, but against the religious industry. We need to expose religion as a reactionary ideology, as a weapon to stupefy humanity, as a weapon of exploitation, discrimination and degradation. Throughout history and even today, more human beings have lost their lives under the name of god and religion than any other banner. We must cut religion's hands off state, legislation, education and society. We must organise an orchestrated and dynamic fight against religion to push it back to the private sphere and try to build a world free of religion. And here I mean world in the literal sense of the word. We must think internationally and not allow ourselves to be confined in Eurocentric or Western borders. The whole world needs to be free of religion.

Revisiting the question of the veil
Must the veil be banned? 

by Azar Majedi

08 November, 2006

The question of the veil has become a heated debate in the British media. In this debate some fundamental principles seem to be at stake: Individual freedom to practice one’s religion, freedom of choice, freedom of clothing and discrimination against a particular community, that is, the so-called Moslem community. Islamists and some human rights activists maintain that the so-called Moslem community is being stigmatized and have been under racist attack since September 11th. They argue that the latest attempts to ban burke or the nighab is a violation of individual freedom and another racist attack on Moslems. Let’s examine these issues closer.

Two events following one another brought up the question of the Islamic veil in the British media: Jack Straw’s comment on the women wearing the nighab and the case of Aishah Azmi, a 24 year old support teacher, who was ordered to take off her full veil, including the nighab. She took the school to court and the court decided in the school’s favour, and so she appealed against the court’s decision.

In my opinion defending the right to wear the veil in any form or shape and in any circumstances as freedom of choice is fallacious. It overlooks other, just as important, rights recognised by modern civil society. In unconditionally defending the right to wear the veil, one comes, at best, in collision with other set of rights, i.e. children’s rights, women’s rights, societal rights, and the principle of secularism. In debating about the freedom of wearing the veil, one must take different circumstances into consideration. 1. The age of the person wearing the veil. 2. The extent of the veil and 3. Where the veil is worn.

Why are these factors relevant in the discussion?
First and foremost it is important to define what the veil is. Is it only a fashion item, a mere clothing style? The argument that classifies the veil as a style of clothing is totally misleading. The veil is a religious ritual, a religious costume. Moreover, nowadays the veil has become the political banner of a political movement, namely, political Islam. The veil has become the symbol of Islamic power. Wherever, Islamists gain power, they force the veil on women, as a sign of their victory and supremacy.

Why is this argument relevant to our discussion? It may be argued that irrespective of its religious or political character and significance, one must be free to wear any “political or religious symbol” one chooses to wear. My response, and I believe many others’, to this is a categorical NO. It must be said that in most countries, including Western democracies, there are certain dress codes at workplaces and wearing different political symbols or religious ones are not allowed in the workplace. Therefore, the veil must also be viewed in this light. We should tear out all this romantic falsification surrounding the veil. The veil is a religious and political symbol of a religion and movement that degrades and deprives women.

The veil as a symbol of women’s subjugation
The veil is both the symbol and the tool for women’s subjugation. Islam, as in fact, all other religions, is a misogynist ideology. Islam is a direct product of sheer patriarchy. Islam, particularly, due to its earthly characteristics, penetrates every aspect of private and social lives of men and women. A woman, according to Islam, is an extension and subject of a man. She does not have an independent identity and is defined by her master. The veil has been prescribed to hide men’s property from potential violators. A “free” woman, according to Islam, is considered an open and free target, a free ride.

It is absurd to regard the veil as a fashion item, or a dress style. We should define the veil as it really is, and as it really functions in the lives of many women under the rule of Islam: a symbol of servitude and subjugation.

Nevertheless, it may be argued that, if one chooses a life of servitude, one should be free to do so. The modern civil society has a different answer to this argument. In a free, modern civil society when safeguarding human rights, children’s rights or women’s rights there are laws limiting an individual’s right to harm oneself or to deprive oneself of certain rights and privileges. By the same token, there must be some limitations imposed on the use of the veil. This is perhaps where some disagreements arise. This is where those above-mentioned circumstances come into the picture.

Veil must be banned for underage girls
One of the achievements of the modern civil society is the recognition of society’s responsibility to safeguard children from any kind of abuse. The society must be responsible for a child’s safety, happiness, health and their normal growth and development. Past decades have witnessed a great struggle by decent, human-loving individuals to establish the concept of children’s rights, to recognise a child as an individual and not the property of their parents. This is a landmark achievement, which contradicts the essence of religion. According to Islam, the child is the property of the father or grandfather and they even have the right to take the child’s life. Therefore, the modern children rights charters are in basic contradictions with religious laws and customs. They, in fact, nullify certain religious or “divine” rights. This must extend to girls living in Islamic communities.

The veil is a pure discrimination against girls. It hampers their physical and mental development. It segregates them from the rest of the society. It restricts their growth and future development. It assigns to them a prescribed social role according to their gender and a division of labour. Therefore it must be banned. Society is duty-bound to safeguard free, healthy and normal development of these girls. It is a crime to ignore this obligation. Freedom of choice is purely nonsensical regarding the veil for underage girls. “A child has no religion”. It is the parents’ religion that is imposed on the child. The society must respect the child’s right to a free development. Just the same way that modern society recognises the undeniable right to education for all children, bans child labour and regards physical abuse of children as a major crime, it must also ban the veil for underage girls. This must be added to all international children’s rights charters. The veil is a physical, mental and social abuse of girls and it must be recognised as such by the international community.

Secular society verses the veil
In a secular society, religion must be a private affair of any individual. The state must be separated from religion and stay away from promoting any religion. A secular society can better defend individual rights and civil liberties. Contrary to the commonly held belief, religious hatred or communal stigmatization can better be avoided in a secular society. In a secular society wearing or carrying any religious symbol at state institutions and in the place of education must be prohibited. By doing this, the state and the educational system do not promote any particular religion. Religion remains in the private sphere and clashes between followers of different religions is somewhat avoided. Therefore, I believe that the recent legislation in France regarding the banning of wearing any religious symbols in state institutions and schools is an appropriate step in the right direction.

However, I believe that its main shortcoming is to still allow private religious schools to operate. This leaves the girl’s fate in the hands of religiously-fanatic parents to send her to private religious school and ghettoize her life completely. This is not respecting individual freedom and civil liberties; this is discrimination against a group of girls who are isolated from the society at large and their lives are ghettoized by their parents and so-called leaders of their communities. The society must defend the right of children; girls living in Islamic communities are no exception. The society and the state have responsibility for their normal, healthy and happy development.

Burke or the nighab, an individual right or a societal right?
The veil comes in different forms and shapes, from a scarf, to a robe-like loose garment that covers the woman’s whole body (it looks some what different in different countries, or according to different Islamic sect’s rules) and finally the burke or the nighab. Burke has become known as the symbol of Taliban, the most severe restriction imposed on women’s appearance.

Must a woman be allowed to cover herself under this most severe form of the veil? In my opinion: NO. The banning of burke or the nighab can be argued from two angles, 1) the societal right and 2) the women’s right.

Firstly, in my opinion, when dealing with burke or the nighab, we surpass the sphere of individual rights. Here, we enter the sphere of what I call societal rights. The person under this kind of veil has no identity in the face of fellow citizens. The society cannot work with faceless humans. At a workplace, and I mean any workplace, it is the right of the fellow workers and customers to see the face of their colleagues or the personnel. There is also the issue of trust at stake. You can not trust the person who has covered their face. Eyes and facial expressions are the key to communication, if you hide these, there can be no real communication. Therefore, wearing burke or the nighab must be banned at the workplace.

I believe that the question of trust and identity goes further than the workplace. It is just as important on the bus, in the park, in the recreation ground, etc, that you can see the face of the person in your immediate surroundings. Here it is the question of individual rights verses the societal rights. There are instances where the society rightfully decides to deprive certain individuals of certain rights for the benefit of society as a whole. For example, banning smoking in public places and imposing severe restrictions on smokers, limits the individual rights of smokers, but it is defended on the basis of health benefit for the whole society. Burke or the nighab must be banned for the benefit of society.

Secondly, we argued above, that the veil is a symbol and a tool for women’s subjugation and degradation. This is one of the main reasons for demanding that it be banned for underage girls. Nevertheless, we agreed that in a free society an individual has the right to choose servitude, if he/she chooses to do so. However, we also argued that there are certain limitations imposed on self-harming practices by individuals. Female circumcision, which after a long and hard battle became known as what the practice really is, being female genital mutilation, is now banned by many Western governments. Women rights activists had to fight vigorously in order to bring consciousness about this brutal religious practice and succeeded to ban it in these countries. There are many different religious sects and not all their practices are permitted by the law. Therefore, religious freedom does not mean freedom to practice just any religious command or custom.

I believe that burke or the nighab should also be categorized as those religious practices prohibited by the law. Burke or the nighab deprives a woman of any identity. By allowing its use, we recognise the existence of some identity-less women who walk around in a ghost-like shape. This is a real insult to human dignity. The society should not permit such degree of degradation and humiliation of humans. This is outrageous. This must fall under the category of the limitations society imposes on self-harming practices. I add in passing that I doubt deeply the nature of voluntary and free choice regarding the veil, particularly in this severe shape. But we will not get into this debate here.

We should redefine the veil. We should debate this question widely and openly. Hopefully, we come to the agreement that certain limitations must be imposed on the veil: banning of all shapes of the veil for underage girls. The use of the veil at public workplaces and educational institutions and total ban on burke and the nighab.

azarmajedi@gmail.com
www.azarmajedi.com
www.azadizan.com

www.medusa2000.com
www.azarmajedi.com
www.m-hekmat.com
www.wpiran.org
www.azadizan.com
www.newchannel.tv
www.medusa2000.com

A child has no religion
We should tear out all romantic falsification surrounding the veil

 

 

November 9, 2006
iranian.com

The question of the veil has become a heated debate in the British media. In this debate some fundamental principles seem to be at stake: Individual freedom to practice one’s religion, freedom of choice, freedom of clothing and discrimination against a particular community, that is, the so-called Moslem community. Islamists and some human rights activists maintain that the so-called Moslem community is being stigmatized and have been under racist attack since September 11th. They argue that the latest attempts to ban burke or the nighab is a violation of individual freedom and another racist attack on Moslems. Let’s examine these issues closer.

 

Two events following one another brought up the question of the Islamic veil in the British media: Jack Straw’s comment on the women wearing the nighab and the case of Aishah Azmi, a 24 year old support teacher, who was ordered to take off her full veil, including the nighab. She took the school to court and the court decided in the school’s favour, and so she appealed against the court’s decision.

 

In my opinion defending the right to wear the veil in any form or shape and in any circumstances as freedom of choice is fallacious. It overlooks other, just as important, rights recognised by modern civil society. In unconditionally defending the right to wear the veil, one comes, at best, in collision with other set of rights, i.e. children’s rights, women’s rights, societal rights, and the principle of secularism. In debating about the freedom of wearing the veil, one must take different circumstances into consideration. 1. The age of the person wearing the veil. 2. The extent of the veil and 3. Where the veil is worn.

 

Why are these factors relevant in the discussion?

First and foremost it is important to define what the veil is. Is it only a fashion item, a mere clothing style? The argument that classifies the veil as a style of clothing is totally misleading.The veil is a religious ritual, a religious costume. Moreover, nowadays the veil has become the political banner of a political movement, namely, political Islam. The veil has become the symbol of Islamic power. Wherever, Islamists gain power, they force the veil on women, as a sign of their victory and supremacy.

Why is this argument relevant to our discussion? It may be argued that irrespective of its religious or political character and significance, one must be free to wear any “political or religious symbol” one chooses to wear. My response, and I believe many others’, to this is a categorical NO. It must be said that in most countries, including Western democracies, there are certain dress codes at workplaces and wearing different political symbols or religious ones are not allowed in the workplace. Therefore, the veil must also be viewed in this light. We should tear out all this romantic falsification surrounding the veil. The veil is a religious and political symbol of a religion and movement that degrades and deprives women.

 

The veil as a symbol of women’s subjugation

The veil is both the symbol and the tool for women’s subjugation. Islam, as in fact, all other religions, is a misogynist ideology. Islam is a direct product of sheer patriarchy. Islam, particularly, due to its earthly characteristics, penetrates every aspect of private and social lives of men and women.  A woman, according to Islam, is an extension and subject of a man. She does not have an independent identity and is defined by her master. The veil has been prescribed to hide men’s property from potential violators. A “free” woman, according to Islam, is considered an open and free target, a free ride.

It is absurd to regard the veil as a fashion item, or a dress style. We should define the veil as it really is, and as it really functions in the lives of many women under the rule of Islam: a symbol of servitude and subjugation.

Nevertheless, it may be argued that, if one chooses a life of servitude, one should be free to do so. The modern civil society has a different answer to this argument. In a free, modern civil society when safeguarding human rights, children’s rights or women’s rights there are laws limiting an individual’s right to harm oneself or to deprive oneself of certain rights and privileges. By the same token, there must be some limitations imposed on the use of the veil. This is perhaps where some disagreements arise. This is where those above-mentioned circumstances come into the picture.

 

Veil must be banned for underage girls

One of the achievements of the modern civil society is the recognition of society’s responsibility to safeguard children from any kind of abuse. The society must be responsible for a child’s safety, happiness, health and their normal growth and development. Past decades have witnessed a great struggle by decent, human-loving individuals to establish the concept of children’s rights, to recognise a child as an individual and not the property of their parents. This is a landmark achievement, which contradicts the essence of religion. According to Islam, the child is the property of the father or grandfather and they even have the right to take the child’s life. Therefore, the modern children rights charters are in basic contradictions with religious laws and customs. They, in fact, nullify certain religious or “divine” rights. This must extend to girls living in Islamic communities.

 

The veil is a pure discrimination against girls. It hampers their physical and mental development. It segregates them from the rest of the society. It restricts their growth and future development. It assigns to them a prescribed social role according to their gender and a division of labour. Therefore it must be banned. Society is duty-bound to safeguard free, healthy and normal development of these girls. It is a crime to ignore this obligation. Freedom of choice is purely nonsensical regarding the veil for underage girls. “A child has no religion”. It is the parents’ religion that is imposed on the child. The society must respect the child’s right to a free development. Just the same way that modern society recognises the undeniable right to education for all children, bans child labour and regards physical abuse of children as a major crime, it must also ban the veil for underage girls. This must be added to all international children’s rights charters. The veil is a physical, mental and social abuse of girls and it must be recognised as such by the international community.

 

Secular society verses the veil

In a secular society, religion must be a private affair of any individual. The state must be separated from religion and stay away from promoting any religion. A secular society can better defend individual rights and civil liberties. Contrary to the commonly held belief, religious hatred or communal stigmatization can better be avoided in a secular society. In a secular society wearing or carrying any religious symbol at state institutions and in the place of education must be prohibited. By doing this, the state and the educational system do not promote any particular religion. Religion remains in the private sphere and clashes between followers of different religions is somewhat avoided. Therefore, I believe that the recent legislation in France regarding the banning of wearing any religious symbols in state institutions and schools is an appropriate step in the right direction.

 

However, I believe that its main shortcoming is to still allow private religious schools to operate. This leaves the girl’s fate in the hands of religiously-fanatic parents to send her to private religious school and ghettoize her life completely. This is not respecting individual freedom and civil liberties; this is discrimination against a group of girls who are isolated from the society at large and their lives are ghettoized by their parents and so-called leaders of their communities. The society must defend the right of children; girls living in Islamic communities are no exception. The society and the state have responsibility for their normal, healthy and happy development.  

 

Burke or the nighab, an individual right or a societal right?

The veil comes in different forms and shapes, from a scarf, to a robe-like loose garment that covers the woman’s whole body (it looks some what different in different countries, or according to different Islamic sect’s rules) and finally the burke or the nighab. Burke has become known as the symbol of Taliban, the most severe restriction imposed on women’s appearance.

Must a woman be allowed to cover herself under this most severe form of the veil? In my opinion: NO. The banning of burke or the nighab can be argued from two angles, 1) the societal right and 2) the women’s right.

Firstly, in my opinion, when dealing with burke or the nighab, we surpass the sphere of individual rights. Here, we enter the sphere of what I call societal rights. The person under this kind of veil has no identity in the face of fellow citizens. The society cannot work with faceless humans. At a workplace, and I mean any workplace, it is the right of the fellow workers and customers to see the face of their colleagues or the personnel. There is also the issue of trust at stake. You can not trust the person who has covered their face. Eyes and facial expressions are the key to communication, if you hide these, there can be no real communication. Therefore, wearing  burke or the nighab must be banned at the workplace.

 

I believe that the question of trust and identity goes further than the workplace. It is just as important on the bus, in the park, in the recreation ground, etc, that you can see the face of the person in your immediate surroundings. Here it is the question of individual rights verses the societal rights. There are instances where the society rightfully decides to deprive certain individuals of certain rights for the benefit of society as a whole. For example, banning smoking in public places and imposing severe restrictions on smokers, limits the individual rights of smokers, but it is defended on the basis of health benefit for the whole society. Burke or the nighab must be banned for the benefit of society.

 

Secondly, we argued above, that the veil is a symbol and a tool for women’s subjugation and degradation.  This is one of the main reasons for demanding that it be banned for underage girls. Nevertheless, we agreed that in a free society an individual has the right to choose servitude, if he/she chooses to do so. However, we also argued that there are certain limitations imposed on self-harming practices by individuals. Female circumcision, which after a long and hard battle became known as what the practice really is, being female genital mutilation, is now banned by many Western governments. Women rights activists had to fight vigorously in order to bring consciousness about this brutal religious practice and succeeded to ban it in these countries. There are many different religious sects and not all their practices are permitted by the law. Therefore, religious freedom does not mean freedom to practice just any religious command or custom.

 

I believe that burke or the nighab should also be categorized as those religious practices prohibited by the law. Burke or the nighab deprives a woman of any identity. By allowing its use, we recognise the existence of some identity-less women who walk around in a ghost-like shape. This is a real insult to human dignity. Society should not permit such degree of degradation and humiliation of humans. This is outrageous. This must fall under the category of the limitations society imposes on self-harming practices. I add in passing that I doubt deeply the nature of voluntary and free choice regarding the veil, particularly in this severe shape. But we will not get into this debate here.  

We should redefine the veil. We should debate this question widely and openly. Hopefully, we come to the agreement that certain limitations must be imposed on the veil: banning of all shapes of the veil for underage girls. The use of the veil at public workplaces and educational institutions and total ban on burke and the nighab. Comment

About
Azar Majedi (www.azarmajedi.com) is Chairperson of the Organisation of Women's Liberation. and producer-presenter of "No to Political Islam" an NCTV programme.

No To Political Islam

by Azar Majedi

Posted 21 March, 2006

On the third anniversary of military attack on Iraq, is there any hope? Are we going to witness Amercian militarism in action again? Is attack on Iran imminenet? Interview Ali Javadi, director of NCTVDoes Islamophobia exist? Should we restrict freedom of expression on the basis of religious "insult"  Interview Ibn Warraq, writer of Leaving Islam

proposal submitted by OIC to UN human rights commission, should Blasphemy become recognised? How should we stop these religious attacks? Interview Roy Brown, president IHEU.

Crime of Passion, honour killings, or terrorist attack on women? No mittigation, no excuses for the so-called honour killings. We should unite globally to fight political islam. Azar Majedi's speech at 8 March international conference in Cologne Germany.  

NCTV, a satellite television, presents "No to Political Islam" a new, one hour weekly programme by Azar Majedi. In this programme, through interviews, reports and debates, Azar Majedi examines different issues concerning political Islam, crisis in the Middle East, secularism, women's rights and Islamic terrorism both in the Middle East and internationally. We invite all those interested in these topics to watch the programme and contribute by sending their questions and comments to Azar Majedi.

 

The other side of oppression
The reality of women's liberation movement in Iran

 

October 23, 2006
iranian.com

Speech at the international women's rights conference in Dusseldurff, interrupted many times by audience's applaud. The resolution was endorsed by heavy applaud and hundreds signed the petition during the conference.

In describing women's conditions in a particular country, one either refers to laws governing that country or statistics. In this manner, one either exposes the extent of the oppression women suffer, or admire their achievements. As it regards women living under the rule of Islam, it is pure discrimination and oppression, subjugation and state violence. If women are considered second class citizens in many countries, in Islam-ridden countries they are not even considered as citizens. They are extension of men. In fact, according to Islam, the concept of citizen is non-existent. There is a relation between God and religious hierarchy and a collective of right-less, conscious-less men, with women as their slaves. As a matter of fact this is true about any other religion. However, this is beside our today's discussion.

You have heard a great deal about women under Islam, Islam a la Taliban, in Pakistan, in Bangladesh, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran under the Islamic Republic. The downtrodden situation of women, sheer discrimination, gender apartheid, Islamic veil, forced marriages, officially recognized  pedophilia, by setting the legal age of marriage at 9 for girls, honour killing, polygamy, stoning women to death for engaging in sex outside marriage, encouraging men to hit their wives for punishment. The list is long.

If once the issue of Islam and women was an unknown topic, nowadays, thanks to the rise of political Islam, Islamic states in Iran, Afghanistan, and now in Iraq, it has become a well-known topic. I am sure that you all have heard about the non-existence of women's rights in Islam. However, some think it is not Islam's fault, they blame the patriarchy. They maintain that it is not Islam, but patriarchal interpretations of Islam that is responsible for the conditions of women in countries under the rule of Islam. In other words it is the ruling men's fault not the ruling Islam. We will not get into the debate that Islam as all other religions is the direct product of patriarchal era. It could not have escaped being permeated by patriarchic values and outlook. However, we must state one undeniable fact, that is, millions of women are violated daily by Islamic laws, customs, values and states. We must deal in an effective manner with this violation.

I am here on behalf of Organization for Women's Liberation. I am here to familiarize you with realities of Iranian society. You have heard about Iran. I do not mean the oil, or the nuclear project. I do not mean the mullahs or the fatwa against Salman Rushdie. I mean about the situation of women. Today, I want to talk to you about women's resistance, rather than women's oppression. You have heard long tales about women's oppression. I like to tell you that there is a mass resistance movement against this systematic oppression, this official misogynic ideology.

I like to break this encouraging news to you that Iran is the birthplace of a very important historic moment in international women's liberation movement, a movement more significant than the Suffragette, or as vast as the women's liberation movement in the Soviet Union during 1917-1930, or in the West during the 60s and 70s. I am here to ask for your solidarity and support. This movement has a great potential. If it materialises, it is capable of not only liberating women in Iran, but also it opens up the door to freedom to all women in the Middle East. We must recognise this fact.

The situation in Iran is different from that of Afghanistan, Iraq or Sudan. There is mass discontentment in these countries. There is resistance, but there is a lack of a mass movement in defence of women's rights. Such a movement exists in Iran.

In Iran there has never existed a secular state, the separation of religion from the state, or education. The laws have always been religious laws. There has always existed a dictatorship. The efforts to reform the family law in favour of women during the 60s, were very meagre and not very effective. During the 1979 revolution a women's right movement was born. This was not a mass movement, but rather formed by left and intellectual women. I am from that generation. My struggle for women's rights and for freedom and equality goes further than that period.

Islamic Republic attacked women full-force after coming to power. The first phase of women's movement was short-lived. It put up a brave resistance but it was silenced after 2 years. Women's resistance continued in individualistic fashion, against the veil, gender apartheid and obligatory dress code. Many women have been imprisoned, tortured, or stoned to death. This brutal oppression was not able to obliterate the spirit of resistance. The new generation reignited this movement in mass scale and pushed it forward. Fighting against the Islamic veil and apartheid is one of the main battlegrounds.

When I hear the apologists of the Islamic movement or the defenders of cultural relativism (which, thanks to our relentless struggle has become a marginal tendency) say: "the Islamic veil and apartheid is their culture", I get furious and want to laugh at the same time. If this is "their culture" then it is supposed that they practice it voluntarily. Why then has this massive means of oppression become necessary? Why are all these special forces formed to deal with cultural disobedience, non-observance of the veil and gender apartheid? I like to ask, are these people bunch of masochists, who like to practice their culture by being tortured, imprisoned and stoned? What rubbish! Thousands of women who have been executed, stoned and tortured are the symbol of a vast movement against the Islamic laws, gender apartheid and the Islamic veil.   

Perhaps, you may think that this is a peculiar way to demonstrate resistance. I believe there is a straightforward equation: a complex and sophisticated oppressive system only demonstrates that there is a vast and complex resistance to be suppressed. When there are more than one hundred thousand political executions, this bitter and tragic fact exposes that the society does not accept the existing order and wants change.

In Iran there is a special police force to deal with women, those who protest, those who do not observe the veil and those who are innovative in fashion. This special force was used in the July demonstration in Tehran. It crushed the demonstration. Despite all the laws against non-observance of the veil and dress code, despite prison sentence, fine and lashing, women in Iran ridicule the veil and in their demonstrations have also burned it. The new generation cannot be silenced, cannot be forced back home. This is the resistance I am talking about.

In Iran there is a vast secular movement and for a free and egalitarian society. The women's liberation movement is one of the main components of this general movement. The de facto status of women is much higher than their official and legal status. In the eyes of the dominant ideology and legislation, women's status is half of that of men. A woman is the man's slave. She cannot travel or work without his "master's" permission, does not have divorce or custody rights, cannot become a judge or a president. But women in Iran have not been subdued to accept this status and image. They want to be a whole person, independent and equal.

I like to mention a statistical figure: around 66% of university entrances are female. This is in a country that you need to pass difficult entry exams. There is a very high competition. You also have to take into consideration the state's efforts to push women home. Is this statistic accidental? No. This is a trend. Every year this figure has risen, from 30% to 66%. The parliament tried to pass laws to reverse this trend, to prevent women to get into university in this high number. They argued that this is very detrimental to Islam and the institution of family. The Islamic parliament becomes alarmed by this statistics, I become overjoyed. This shows a resilient resistance on the part of new generation of women in Iran. This brings hope that women's liberation in Iran is live and kicking.

8 March has become an established tradition in Iran. In the past few years, 8 March has been celebrated in different cities and in different ways. I recall in 1979, we organised several 8 March celebrations in Tehran. The society was free from monarchist dictatorship, and we, the women's rights activists, were celebrating 8 March for the first time. On the same day Khomeini ordered women to wear the veil. A large demonstration took the streets in protest to this reactionary order and demanded women's equality. This was the birth of a women's right movement which was silenced after 2 years.

Islamic Republic tried a propaganda tactic, it named the birthday of Mohammad's daughter the women's day. The specialty of this regime has been to suppress a movement not only by brutal force but by means of demagogic propaganda. It crushed the 1979 revolution by calling its state a revolutionary state, its brutal forces the revolutionary guards, and the revolution itself, an Islamic revolution. It disarmed the left by taking over the so-called anti-imperialist movement by manipulating the anti American sentiments and taking Americans hostage at American Embassy.

Naming the Prophet's daughter's birthday "women's day" was a similar tactic. However, this tactic worked only for a few years. Then it was forced to assign a women's week. This did not work either. Last year it was forced to admit defeat and a faction of the regime recognised 8 March as women's day. 8 March now is an established tradition in Iran. Last year there were many different rallies and meetings organised to commemorate 8 March. Some of them, including one in Tehran, were suppressed. 3 months later there was a large protest organised in Tehran, several thousand took part. This was crushed. Couple of months later a movement was initiated to collect 1 million signatures for changing the laws in women's favour. Women's liberation movement is not going to resign nor silence. They try to crush it, it rises again even stronger. It seems that all efforts to suppress it, only makes it more resilient and stronger.

These are the positive aspects of women's resistance. Unfortunately, there is a dark and sad dimension to it, as well. The number of suicides and putting fire to oneself has raised considerably among women, specially among young women. Women in Iran have always lived under discrimination. Forced marriages, extensive restrictions on their life, being in a servitude status vis a vis the men has always been the fact of life for the majority of women in Iran. It seems that they used to accept this as a divine and natural law, and resigned to it. However, in the past decade we are witnessing a significant rise in suicide. This is a protest. The new generation has different expectations and aspirations. It does not resign to its "fate". It wants to take it into its own hands. When it cannot protest collectively, when it cannot direct its anger and disapproval against the state, it directs it against herself. These self-inflicting harms are a means of protest. 

It is our duty, it is the responsibility of women's right activists to transform this method of self-inflicting hurt into a positive resistance. We must change this desperation into hope for change.

Another negative fact is the high number of girls who escape the restrictions and violence in the home in search of freedom and end up in streets, homeless, unprotected, and become victims of prostitution. They are abused and exploited. Many of these girls wear male clothing, hoping to be freer and less harassed. However, there is no escape. The life of these girls is a telling story of brutality, exploitation and cruelty. 

To my opinion, the last two factors are new sociological phenomena in a society undergoing profound social, cultural, political and economic changes. Analysis of this situation takes us to a massive and deep rooted social resistance against the ruling order, dominant ideology and culture, against the ancient and antiquated values of Islam.

And last but not least, we should mention the diverse cultural and NGO organisations which fight for women's rights. These organisations must adapt themselves to the suppressive state and laws. We are witnessing the coming to birth of many different organisations, festivals, and solidarity camps. These are the bright and hopeful aspects of women's resistance.

My friends,

There is a mass resistance movement in Iran against sexual discrimination and for gender equality. This movement needs your solidarity and support. If we succeed to free women from oppression and misogynic laws and values, this would open up a door to all women in the Middle East and countries under the rule of Islam. We must lunch a vast international movement against discrimination, violence and systematic oppression, against gender apartheid and Islamic veil. The Organisation for Women's Liberation calls upon you to join this movement. We have drawn a resolution against gender apartheid, I ask you to support it. Show your support by applauding and sign our petition. Thank you. Comment

About
Azar Majedi (www.azarmajedi.com) is Chairperson of the Organisation of Women's Liberation. and producer-presenter of "No to Political Islam" an NCTV programme.

Islam and Sexual Apartheid

There can be no compromise on the universality of human rights. And cultural relativism both compromises women's rights and justifies sexual apartheid.

–   by Azar Majedi   –

THURSDAY, 14TH JUNE 2007

originally published in 2001

Published in newhumanist.org.uk

 

What do we mean by universality of women's rights? Briefly, by this we mean that women should enjoy the same rights, regardless of their race, religion, culture and nationality. Depriving a woman of her freedom or equality by reference to the dominant culture, religion, or the political system in the country she lives in, or the country she was born is by no means justifiable or acceptable. Women in Islamic fundamentalist countries are deprived of many rights. They cannot travel, or work without their husband's, or father's permission. In Iran women must wear the hejab, they are segregated in society. They are stoned to death because of engaging in sexual relationships outside of marriage. The family law in almost all these countries discriminates against women. And this deprivation and oppression is justified by a false argument, that their religion or culture dictates this, so it is alright. Genital mutilation, for example, is practised in some other parts of the world, this too, is justified by the dominant tradition, and culture of the given country. The list is long. When we defend universality of women's rights, we demand to put a stop to this injustice, and to expose the defenders of it. Another example, no one, be it state, or parents has the right to deprive a girl from education, to force her to marry, or to impose upon her the traditions of a specific religion or culture, for example the hejab in the context of Islam. The rights of all girls and women should be universal, should be the same all over the world. 

 

In the 1970s, we did not need to discuss the legitimacy, the rightness, and relevance of this concept. Every progressive human being and any women's rights activist would believe in and uphold the universality of women's rights and women's equality. 

 

Why now in the year 2001, do we feel the need to open the debate on these basic human rights? Because for the past two decades we have been under attack from the Right, and surprisingly from sections of the Left, as well. We have been denied and deprived of our rights not only by reactionary governments in the countries we were born, but also by a considerable section of the Western academia, media, politicians, governments, and even sections of the feminist movement. 

 

We have been told repeatedly that we have to respect our so-called culture, our so-called religion and silently and respectfully accept the fate they have assigned to us. This has been defended under the dressed-up concept of cultural relativism, and backed by the fashionable theory of postmodernism. Cultural relativism is a fancy name for racism because it justifies two sets of values, rights and privileges for human beings according to a subjective, arbitrary concept, such as culture. To put it bluntly, according to this concept, because of my birthplace, I should enjoy fewer rights relative to a woman born in England, Sweden or France. I should be content with my second-class status, because I was born in a country that is under the rule of Islam and because a reactionary, misogynist government is in power. 

 

There are certainly different factors contributing to the rise and dominance of this racist and reactionary view, not all of the same significance and weight. In my opinion, there are two factors, which play a major role in the rise and popularity of this view. 

 

The fall of the Soviet Union. 

The coming to power of an Islamic regime in Iran. 

I will try to elaborate on these two points. 

 

The fall of the Soviet Union, that is, the defeat of state Capitalism by free market Capitalism was celebrated as a major victory for human rights. But very soon it became clear that it added to the misery of not only the majority of people in the Eastern bloc, but it also had a direct effect on the lives of many people in other parts of the world. As a result of the destruction of the old system, and an absence of a more humane, egalitarian and progressive one to supersede it, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, prostitution, trafficking of women or so-called white slavery, political corruption, ethnic wars, extreme nationalism, etc. became dominant in the entire Eastern bloc. Religion found an upper hand and as a direct and immediate result, women lost the status and rights they enjoyed before. Sexism became a dominant ideology. 

 

What was the international effect of the fall of the Soviet Union? During the Cold War, behind the Cold War rhetoric, there existed a political and ideological balance, which had some positive effects. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Convention on Refugees, for example, were the results of the existing competition, and the climate of the Cold War. If not immediately after the end of the Cold War, but 10 years later, we can clearly see the impact it has had on the lives of many. The Human Rights Declaration is not even observed in Western countries, let alone in other parts of the world. 

 

The Geneva Convention has been made obsolete, and as a result of it, the tragedies and deaths of hundreds of people who had tried and still try to flee war, torture and lack of rights. 

 

In this climate, postmodernism has found strength and popularity as an ideology that defends and legitimises the oppression, inequality, and injustice that are so widespread. According to this ideology, everything is relative; there is no good or bad, right or wrong, progressive or backward. Universality is irrelevant. This is the message of postmodernism - perhaps a bit oversimplified, or crude, but this is the essence of this theory. 

 

The political, popular, offspring of postmodernism is cultural relativism, a view, which too readily is used to justify the lack of rights and the oppression of people living in Iran, Algeria, Afghanistan and the like. It is a theory that has helped the world ignore the killings in Rwanda and to shamelessly accept dictatorship and torture in the world. 

 

What effects does it have on women? Besides general hardship, suffering, and oppression, women particularly suffer from this new set of values, especially in countries and, in the West, communities where political Islam has a stronghold. The world has ignored their fate, their lack of rights, their subjugation, their segregation, their victimisation, and their de facto slavery, under the rubric of cultural relativism. Post September 11th 2001, the focus on political Islam may have one benefit: it may highlight the barbaric regimes - such as the Islamic Republic of Iran - under which women have, and continue, to suffer. 

 

After decades of marginalisation of Islamic movements as a political force, the coming to power of an Islamic regime in a country such as Iran, has had a major impact on the rise of Islamic movements in the region, and given birth to what is being defined as political Islam. This is not only because the Islamic Republic supported these movements vigorously, both financially and morally, but also because the Islamic Republic seemed to be the result of a popular uprising in a country which had been a main ally of the West, giving it a popular appeal. 

 

Islamic rhetoric in the region, in countries under dictatorship, where no opposition was tolerated, where progressive, left, women's rights groups, civil rights movements, and where workers' organisations were brutally crushed, found a way to the hearts of many deprived people. The anti-imperialist rhetoric added flavour to this appeal. Outside the region, this popular, demagogic appeal, plus the real threat of terrorism by Islamic groups hanging over Western societies - which has now come to its bitter fruition - paved the way for the reinforcement of cultural relativism. Here it was mainly out of pragmatism, rather than principles, that we see the widespread acceptance of these reactionary views, regarding the attitude towards people living under Islamic laws, be it state laws, or patriarchal laws practised in Islamic communities. The case of Salman Rushdie is only one, and the most famous, example of such threat. Today, however, things are changing and there is a strong chance for women's liberation in Iran, which can profoundly effect the situation of women in the region. 

 

Iran is undergoing profound and sweeping changes. The country is in turmoil. For the past two years, people have more openly criticised the state, the religious character of the state, demanded more rights, and challenged the religious laws. The opposition movement is gaining strength and momentum every day. 

 

A very strong and far-reaching secular movement has been born and is growing rapidly. The Islamic Republic's leadership itself has felt the danger and is cautioning its ranks constantly. 

 

You have to see these changes in the context of a country that has been most brutally suppressed for two decades. The crimes against humanity committed by this regime are amongst some of the most horrendous of the twentieth century. Women have played a very important role in bringing about the political upheaval we are witnessing today. One of the first suppressive measures enacted by this government was to restrict the very few rights women had. Sexual apartheid was in place after a few years of the regime's establishment. But women have fought against it. The more open opposition was crushed. But women continued their objections by defying the rules. Now, a new generation of women has begun to challenge the state more openly. 

 

The anti-religion, anti-Islamic sentiment is very high among the population. Spirits are high, hopes are high. The future is ours.

 

Any changes in Iran will not only affect the lives of people living in Iran, but will have a significant impact on the region. The fall of the Islamic Republic will once again marginalise the Islamic movement in the region - both by ending the enormous financial and material help they receive from the Islamic Republic, and because an overthrown Islamic state as a result of a popular uprising will wash away all that popular and demagogic appeal that Islamic movements and rhetoric once enjoyed. 

 

We will see not only women in Iran freed of a religious tyranny, but also witness the loosening of the Islamic grip on women in Algeria, Sudan, Egypt and Palestine. The force of secularism will not stop in Iran, it will penetrate the whole region, even Israel. The future is secular.

Riposte Laique: Interview with Azar Majedi

Tuesday, 23 October 2007, 10:47 am

Column: Riposte Laique

 

Interview with Azar Majedi on the threat of war on Iran, the question of the veil, the great mosque project in London

 

by Riposte Laique

1) Would you say that the British have become aware of the danger of multiculturalists’ policies since the London terrorist attacks?

Azar Majedi: It is difficult to judge the British public opinion, as it is usually the media that makes and shapes the public opinion. As far as the British political arena is concerned, I must say no, it has not changed. The British government continues the policy of appeasement of the so-called “Moslem leaders,” whom to my opinion, are self appointed. Consulting with these religious men, in order to “win the hearts of Moslem community, is British government’s key policy.

Unfortunately, an atmosphere of mistrust has developed between the so-called Moslem community and the general public. Moslem community feels isolated and discriminated against. It has been stigmatized. This is the negative effect of the present tension. In the eyes of some, whoever considers themselves Moslem, has their origin in the region associated with Islam, or looks “Moslem” is considered a terrorist suspect. This attitude deepens the tension and friction in the society and deepens the existing separation.

On the left, perhaps with a good intention, to fight racism and stigmatization of Moslem community, the general mood is to support Islamic movement, the veil, gender apartheid, and all the Islamic values which are deeply reactionary, discriminative and misogynist. This is very wrong. This is in effect racism. To say, that gender apartheid and discrimination is ok for the “Moslems”. This is in fact double standards. We should first and foremost distinguish between “ordinary Moslems” and the Islamic movement. Second we should feel free to criticize Islam just as we feel free to criticize any other religion, ideology or set of beliefs. However, part of the left movement does not distinguish between these categories and accepts the self appointed “Moslem leaders” proclamations. Islamic movement is not the representative of Moslems, is not the representatives of Palestinians’ or Iraqi people’s grief. This should be stressed.

 

 

 

 

 

I believe we need a healthy debate. We need to criticize Islam and Islamic movement and at the same time fight racism, stigmatization and defend the individual rights. Since September 11 tragic event, many civil liberties have been eroded in the society, in the name of security. We should try and reverse this tide.

2) Has the Trotskyite SWP distanced itself from the Islamic fundamentalists or does it carry on openly in public with them as it did at the 2005 Social European Forum in London?

Azar Majedi: I must admit that I do not follow this party’s actions closely. As far as I know SWP has not changed its policy towards the Islamists. I believe they still fully support this reactionary and terrorist movement.

3) What's your opinion about Ken Livingstone's Big Mosque project?

Azar Majedi: I am totally against it. We don’t need more mosques. There are already too many of them. What we need is better and more schools for the children and youth in the Moslem community, a better and more and funded education for them, more leisure centres and sport’s facilities. Much more funds have to be poured into these communities to improve the social environment. These mosques are the place for brain washing of the children and the youth. Usually the underprivileged and marginalized youth are drawn into these mosques and being fed by hatred and reactionary and misogynist values. It is proven that some of these mosques, for example the Finsbury which has been used to train terrorists. We should also be aware that Islamic governments like Islamic regime of Iran and Saudi Arabia are behind such monumental projects. This is quite telling about the goals for building such monuments.

4) You are hostile to Iran's ayatollahs. What's your stand concerning the war threats relayed by Kouchner?

Azar Majedi: Yes, I am a staunch enemy of the Islamic Regime in Iran. This is a brutal regime that has executed more than hundred thousand people. It is a brutal dictatorship that oppresses the people and it is misogynist to its bones. I have been fighting this regime from the day it came to power.

Having said that, I must add that I am totally against the war. Military attack will be a catastrophe. It is the people in Iran and the region who will suffer as a result of this war. This, to my opinion is a war of terrorists. There are two poles of terrorism, state terrorism and Islamic terrorism which are inflaming this war. Such a war has no positive result for humanity, for peace, or for the people of Iran and the region.

This war will strengthen the Islamic regime, just as the Iraq war strengthen the Islamists and Islamic regime of Iran, just as the war in Lebanon strengthen the Hezbollah and the Islamic movement. As soon as the threat of war becomes imminent, the Islamic regime will make more restrictions for the people. It would brutally crush any sign of discontentment. It will execute people even more mercilessly.

The war will also be an environmental catastrophe. Attacking the nuclear sites will mean a nuclear hell in the region. I am totally against the war. We should try and stop this war. It will create a chaotic situation, a black scenario, which will only be a breeding place for terrorism. Look at Afghanistan, Iraq, Lebanon, future for Iran will be if not more disastrous, just as catastrophic.

We must take the volatile political situation in Iran into consideration. People in Iran are resisting this regime. There is a great protest movement in Iran, workers’, women’s rights and youth movement against Islamic restriction and for cultural freedom. There is a significant secular movement in Iran. The war will have devastating effects on these popular and progressive movements. I believe our slogan should be “no to the war and no to the Islamic regime!” International left and progressive movements must support these movements in Iran

We should also expose the America’s war mongering propaganda. I should add that dismantling Islamic regime’s nuclear power is a pure misrepresentation of the war’s aim, just like the destruction of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a pure lie. American government has been defeated in Iraq. To win back its position as the bully of the world it needs another war. Islamic regime was the actual winner in Iraq. By attacking Iran the US will show the world it still has the muscles to fight this regime, to attack any country, or do whatever it so pleases to, for that matter.

5) How did you react when you heard about the Vosges case? (If you haven't heard about it, I'll sum it up for you. A lady called Fanny Truchelut used to run a guest house somewhere in Eastern France. One day a woman booked a room for two and sent a cheque over. When the two women who had booked the room arrived, they were wearing the headscarf. Fanny kindly asked them to take it off in the common area. The Muslim ladies refused, claimed the cheque back, went away, contacted a newspaper, lodged a complaint against Fanny accusing her of racism.
A few days ago at the trial Fanny was given a four-month suspended sentence and she will have to pay a fine and an award (over 8,000 Euros).
Lots of people think Fanny was right because she doesn't understand why we should be shocked by theburke in Afghanistan and not by any sort of head-scarf in France).
Do you think that forbidding the headscarf altogether is the best solution to the headscarf offensive throughout Europe?

Azar Majedi: This is a complex issue. I must first state that I am against the veil. I believe that the veil is the tool and symbol of women’s oppression and enslavement. Moreover, nowadays veil has become the banner of the Islamic movement. Many women both in the west and in the Middle East and North Africa wear the veil as a political gesture. American aggression, the war in Iraq and Lebanon and American’s full fledge support of Israel vis a vis Palestinians have motivated many young women to wear the veil as a sign of protest against the US and the west’s policies.

I have been fighting against the veil and have tried to expose its nature. Moreover, I am for banning the veil for underage girls. I think no child should be forced to wear the veil. A child has no religion. It is the parent’s religion that is forced upon them. The veil restricts greatly the physical and mental development of a child and must be banned. I am also in favour of banning the burke in all circumstances. However I do not believe that other forms of the veil should be banned for adult women, except in public institutions and schools, as the French law has prescribed. I believe more than that we are restricting individual rights of citizens to freedom of clothing and religion. I have written an article on the subject of the veil, a shorter version of which was published by Respublica. I explained in depth my reason for this position.

I believe a complete ban on the veil will have more negative effects than positive ones and will create a negative backlash which will damage our goals for a free and secular society, and for the freedom and equality of women. Instead of a total ban on the veil, we should campaign strongly against the veil, the Islamic movement and American aggression. We should expose both poles of terrorism to open up the eyes and minds of those women who have “freely” chosen the veil as political manifesation. Islamic movement is trying to portray itself as the liberator of the people in the Middle East, the Palestinians, and the Iraqis. This is a big lie. We have to expose that. We need to fight against the Islamists and their banner, the veil on the ideological and political sphere as well.

 

Let’s Build an International Secular Movement for a Civilised World

by Azar Majedi

17 Feb, 2007

Speech by Azar Majedi in International Paris Conference
 

 

I am very pleased to be part of this movement. Coming from the Middle East, living under the Islamic Republic in Iran, one of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century, I feel very passionate about the aims of this movement. As a first hand victim of political Islam, as a woman who has lived under the rule of Islam, I have experienced first hand the brutalism and suppression of an Islamic regime and political Islam. As a left activist fighting for freedom and equality I experienced this brutal regime and this reactionary political force, loosing many friends and comrades.

I have devoted my life to fight for a better world, a free and egalitarian society, where there exists unconditional freedom of expression and criticism, unconditional freedom for women and equality among all human beings, regardless of their gender, nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or beliefs.

Religion is not only an oppressive institution, suppressing freedom of thought, speech and criticism and oppressing women. It is also the machinery for terrorizing societies. In the history of mankind, more people have died under the name of the God, than any other ideology or cause. In fact religion is a mafia-liken institution. As it regards women, all religions are very oppressive and Islam particularly is well-known for its oppressive nature towards women.

The main enemy of women’s liberation movement in Iran and the Middle East is political Islam and we must fight it, push it back and create a secular society as a precondition for materializing women’s liberation. Religion must be a private matter. We have to push the institution of religion to the margins of society, curtail its role and influence in society. This is a precondition for creating a free society.

Political Islam as a reactionary global force resorts to intimidation and terrorism to gain power. Depriving, degrading and humiliating women are enshrined in its ideology. The veil is its political banner and gender apartheid a pillar of its movement. We have to fight against it.

As the world is increasingly becoming a global entity, we need more than ever to build an international movement. We need to build a movement around humanitarian and egalitarian values and goals. It is not enough to safeguard Europe from religious institutions and political Islam. As a matter of fact it is no longer possible. We need to reach the whole world. Our fight must be on an international scale.

As president of the Organisation for Women’s Liberation, I like to call upon you all to support our struggle for achieving women’s equality and liberation in Iran. To do this we need to fight against the Islamic Republic and political Islam. Realising women’s liberation in Iran will open the window to freedom for women in the whole Middle East and countries under the rule of Islam. The women’s liberation movement is one of the main pillars of the movement against political Islam and for a free, egalitarian and secular world. If we topple the Islamic Republic in Iran, political Islam will be marginalized internationally.

I ask for your support and solidarity. Join us in our fight against Islamic Republic, against political Islam and for women’s equality. We are building an international movement against gender apartheid, like the movement against racial apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s. Join this movement to recognise gender apartheid as an inhuman and reactionary system as racial apartheid was recognized. We should dismantle gender apartheid in the world as we once dismantled racial apartheid in South Africa.

 

The first two women in the world under Islam
The prime minister of Pakistan
The bus driver in Iran
Who is leading the way for women?

by Azar Majedi

05 Nov, 2007

A couple of weeks ago I saw two short films, one news report, the other a documentary. They have apparently no relevance to each other. But for me they exposed latent truths about the so-called “Moslem world.”

The first one was about the return of Binazir Bhutto to Pakistan. She is the former Prime Minister of Pakistan, who was introduced both by the reporter and herself as the first Moslem leader of a “Moslem country.” The international media tried hard to turn this into an important piece of news. We were even shown live the landing of the airplane which took her and her entourage from Dubai into Karachi. We were made to feel emotional by her broken voice talking about her beloved country. The first Moslem woman leader who was elected and toppled twice, tried for embezzlement and money laundering. By the words of the same reporter, in exile, in Dubai she has made millions of dollars, amassed in international banks.

She has made a deal with President Musharraf, to help him, as an ousted opposition leader, out of the political crisis he is in, in return for her money be unblocked in Pakistani’s banks. They have negotiated behind closed doors for a while. Finally they reached an agreement. Musharraf is in deep political crisis. Since September 11 terrorist attack, Musharraf has become increasingly close to the US. The United States has paid him dearly for his services. This has put him in odds with the Islamists, who enjoy a great power in Pakistan. Musharraf was previously a great ally of Taliban. Taliban leaders escaped to Pakistan after the western military attack led by the US. Islamic Madrasses, where suicide bombers are trained and Islamists recruit their victims, are an important feature of Pakistani society. The tensions between Musharraf’s government and the Islamists came to a height after the siege of the Red mosque.

The scenario of Ms Bhutto’s return is classic or better described a cliché. The military dictator is in trouble, the milder opposition leader, whose main job when in power, had been to plunder the country and the people, is portrayed as the hero of democracy. The international media knows this job only too well, to sell her as the angel of freedom to the frustrated people, stuck between two evils, one military dictatorship and the other an Islamic one. This game of political and media engineering is too transparent to miss. However, what struck me was, the way she was described repeatedly, as the first “Moslem woman leader in the Moslem world.” Why did they have to mention this repeatedly? What purpose does this serve?

In the world under the Islamic terrorism, and gaining power by political Islam, finding “moderate Moslem figures” has become a strategy. The problem has been defined by the politicians, strategists and academia as Moslem extremists, so, to their mind, the panacea is Moderate Moslems. Particularly if they are female they are more appealing. This is why we keep being reminded of her being the first Moslem woman leader. This is to say she is a good alternative vis a vis the extremists.

However, one cannot help but to ask some pertinent questions. Did Ms Bhutto make any changes in the lot of Pakistani women, when she was leading the country? Did her reign make any significant change in Islamic laws concerning women’s rights and male privileges? Did she even try to challenge the Islamists grip on power? Did she even attempt to close down the notorious Madrasses? The answer to all above questions is a clear NO.

We should leave Ms. Bhutto and move to the second story.

During the same days that Ms. Bhutto was constantly in the news, I was sent several emails inviting me to see a short is also a woman. I felt excited, clicked on the link to see this first woman bus driver under the Islamic regime in Iran. As the film progressed I felt more excited and a deep feeling of joy overtook me. To watch this brave, determined and confident woman in an Islam stricken country was thrilling.

The first woman bus driver I saw was in 1974 in Paris. I remember when I got on the bus and realized the driver was a woman, I felt so excited and it was even more exciting than seeing the Eiffel Tower for the first time. I did not think that 33 years later I feel the same way about another woman bus driver.

To me, this woman symbolizes women’s resistance movement under the Islamic rule. This woman with her natural confidence, her words, her “as a matter of fact” behaviour, her comfort in front of the camera, the way she described her mission, exposes the deep roots and mass scale of women’s liberation movement in Iran. She reigns in her bus, she dictates her own laws. In this bus men get on from the back door and women from the front, contrary to the Islamic laws of the land. Some of the men who are told to get on from the back door, are puzzled, but dare not question her, when they hear her determined and confident voice. She even gets into arguments with several men bus drivers, who she says harass her while driving. She admits that she slapped one of them. She is asked why? She responds in a calm and natural tone of voice, “We are the bulldozer, flattening the grounds for other women.”

The discussions among the passengers are interesting. Women seem so approving of their driver. They hope that a case like this would have positive effect on the gender roles in the society. Some men look puzzled, but the atmosphere is so charged for women’s rights, that they try to be cautious in their statements. You can definitely discern the women’s offensive in this bus. This 10 minute documentary is more revealing about women’s liberation movement in Iran that a 500 page book.

I must admit when I read the film’s title, I was expecting a big, heavy woman behind the wheels. But this woman had a rather fragile built, with her sun glasses she looked more like a fashion model than a bus driver in a country ruled by Islamist misogynists.

When the film was finished, almost by way of a natural reflex, I compared these two first women in the world called “Moslem.” One from the ruling classes, privileged, rich, with vast resources accessible to her, twice the prime minister. Has she done any thing to challenge the Islamic values, the misogynism that has absolute power in Pakistan? Has the lot of women improved a tiny bit under her rule? Has she tried to appear as a bulldozer for women’s freedom in Pakistan, even for one day? No. In power and out of power, she has tried to appease the Islamists.

What about the first woman bus driver in Iran? Just by mere choice of occupation she has challenged the whole value system governing the society. She has been giving electrical shocks to thousands men and women every day. Everyone getting on that bus, after the first shock, would think about gender roles in the society. When they arrive home safely, they would definitely think twice before calling a woman “the weak” (a common term by which traditional men address women.) I believe we should call this bus, the freedom bus. A half hour journey in this bus gives everyone more food for thought than hours of meeting on women’s liberation. Her existence is a statement against traditional male chauvinist values and Islam. She is in essence a leader of the women’s liberation movement, a bulldozer that flattens the grounds for women to dare new challenges, break walls, cross new borders.

Long Live Women’s Liberation!

The link to the documentary

http://www.whydemocracy.net/film/14

What the civilised world needs
An international secular movement

 

 

February 16, 2007
iranian.com

I am very pleased to be part of this movement. Coming from the Middle East, living under the Islamic Republic in Iran, one of the most brutal regimes of the 20th century, I feel very passionate about the aims of this movement. As a first hand victim of political Islam, as a woman who has lived under the rule of Islam, I have experienced first hand the brutalism and suppression of an Islamic regime and political Islam. As a left activist fighting for freedom and equality I experienced this brutal regime and this reactionary political force, loosing many friends and comrades.

I have devoted my life to fight for a better world, a free and egalitarian society, where there exists unconditional freedom of expression and criticism, unconditional freedom for women and equality among all human beings, regardless of their gender, nationality, ethnicity, race, religion or beliefs.

Religion is not only an oppressive institution, suppressing freedom of thought, speech and criticism and oppressing women. It is also the machinery for terrorising societies. In the history of mankind, more people have died under the name of the God, than any other ideology or cause. In fact religion is a mafia-liken institution.

As it regards women, all religions are very oppressive and Islam particularly is well-known for its oppressive nature towards women.

The main enemy of women‚s liberation movement in Iran and the Middle East is political Islam and we must fight it, push it back and create a secular society as a precondition for materialising women‚s liberation. Religion must be a private matter. We have to push the institution of religion to the margins of society, curtail its role and influence in society. This is a precondition for creating a free society.

Political Islam as a reactionary global force resorts to intimidation and terrorism to gain power. Depriving, degrading and humiliating women are enshrined in its ideology. The veil is its political banner and gender apartheid a pillar of its movement. We have to fight against it.

As the world is increasingly becoming a global entity, we need more than ever to build an international movement. We need to build a movement around humanitarian and egalitarian values and goals. It is not enough to safeguard Europe from religious institutions and political Islam. As a matter of fact it is no longer possible. We need to reach the whole world. Our fight must be on an international scale.

The two greatest evils in today‚s world are the two poles of terrorism: state terrorism, led by the USA, and Islamist terrorism. We must fight against both. They reinforce each other. Look at Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, as well as September 11th, and Madrid, and London. We need to raise the banner against both and come together as the voice of the civilised world.

As president of the Organisation for Women‚s Liberation, I like to call upon you all to support our struggle for achieving women‚s equality and liberation in Iran. To do this we need to fight against the Islamic Republic and political Islam. Realising women‚s liberation in Iran will open the window to freedom for women in the whole Middle East and countries under the rule of Islam. The women‚s liberation movement is one of the main pillars of the movement against political Islam and for a free, egalitarian and secular world. If we topple the Islamic Republic in Iran, political Islam will be marginalized internationally. 

I ask for your support and solidarity. Join us in our fight against Islamic Republic, against political Islam and for women‚s equality. We are building an international movement against gender apartheid, like the movement against racial apartheid in South Africa in the 1980s. Join this movement to recognise gender apartheid as an inhuman and reactionary system as racial apartheid was recognised. We should dismantle gender apartheid in the world as we once dismantled racial apartheid in South Africa. 

About
Azar Majedi (www.azarmajedi.com) is Chairperson of the Organisation of Women's Liberation. and producer-presenter of "No to Political Islam" an NCTV programme.

Islam and Sexual Apartheid

There can be no compromise on the universality of human rights. And cultural relativism both compromises women's rights and justifies sexual apartheid.

–   by Azar Majedi   –

THURSDAY, 14TH JUNE 2007

originally published in 2001

Published in newhumanist.org.uk

 

What do we mean by universality of women's rights? Briefly, by this we mean that women should enjoy the same rights, regardless of their race, religion, culture and nationality. Depriving a woman of her freedom or equality by reference to the dominant culture, religion, or the political system in the country she lives in, or the country she was born is by no means justifiable or acceptable. Women in Islamic fundamentalist countries are deprived of many rights. They cannot travel, or work without their husband's, or father's permission. In Iran women must wear the hejab, they are segregated in society. They are stoned to death because of engaging in sexual relationships outside of marriage. The family law in almost all these countries discriminates against women. And this deprivation and oppression is justified by a false argument, that their religion or culture dictates this, so it is alright. Genital mutilation, for example, is practised in some other parts of the world, this too, is justified by the dominant tradition, and culture of the given country. The list is long. When we defend universality of women's rights, we demand to put a stop to this injustice, and to expose the defenders of it. Another example, no one, be it state, or parents has the right to deprive a girl from education, to force her to marry, or to impose upon her the traditions of a specific religion or culture, for example the hejab in the context of Islam. The rights of all girls and women should be universal, should be the same all over the world. 

 

In the 1970s, we did not need to discuss the legitimacy, the rightness, and relevance of this concept. Every progressive human being and any women's rights activist would believe in and uphold the universality of women's rights and women's equality. 

 

Why now in the year 2001, do we feel the need to open the debate on these basic human rights? Because for the past two decades we have been under attack from the Right, and surprisingly from sections of the Left, as well. We have been denied and deprived of our rights not only by reactionary governments in the countries we were born, but also by a considerable section of the Western academia, media, politicians, governments, and even sections of the feminist movement. 

 

We have been told repeatedly that we have to respect our so-called culture, our so-called religion and silently and respectfully accept the fate they have assigned to us. This has been defended under the dressed-up concept of cultural relativism, and backed by the fashionable theory of postmodernism. Cultural relativism is a fancy name for racism because it justifies two sets of values, rights and privileges for human beings according to a subjective, arbitrary concept, such as culture. To put it bluntly, according to this concept, because of my birthplace, I should enjoy fewer rights relative to a woman born in England, Sweden or France. I should be content with my second-class status, because I was born in a country that is under the rule of Islam and because a reactionary, misogynist government is in power. 

 

There are certainly different factors contributing to the rise and dominance of this racist and reactionary view, not all of the same significance and weight. In my opinion, there are two factors, which play a major role in the rise and popularity of this view. 

 

The fall of the Soviet Union. 

The coming to power of an Islamic regime in Iran. 

I will try to elaborate on these two points. 

 

The fall of the Soviet Union, that is, the defeat of state Capitalism by free market Capitalism was celebrated as a major victory for human rights. But very soon it became clear that it added to the misery of not only the majority of people in the Eastern bloc, but it also had a direct effect on the lives of many people in other parts of the world. As a result of the destruction of the old system, and an absence of a more humane, egalitarian and progressive one to supersede it, poverty, unemployment, homelessness, prostitution, trafficking of women or so-called white slavery, political corruption, ethnic wars, extreme nationalism, etc. became dominant in the entire Eastern bloc. Religion found an upper hand and as a direct and immediate result, women lost the status and rights they enjoyed before. Sexism became a dominant ideology. 

 

What was the international effect of the fall of the Soviet Union? During the Cold War, behind the Cold War rhetoric, there existed a political and ideological balance, which had some positive effects. The UN Declaration of Human Rights, and the Geneva Convention on Refugees, for example, were the results of the existing competition, and the climate of the Cold War. If not immediately after the end of the Cold War, but 10 years later, we can clearly see the impact it has had on the lives of many. The Human Rights Declaration is not even observed in Western countries, let alone in other parts of the world. 

 

The Geneva Convention has been made obsolete, and as a result of it, the tragedies and deaths of hundreds of people who had tried and still try to flee war, torture and lack of rights. 

 

In this climate, postmodernism has found strength and popularity as an ideology that defends and legitimises the oppression, inequality, and injustice that are so widespread. According to this ideology, everything is relative; there is no good or bad, right or wrong, progressive or backward. Universality is irrelevant. This is the message of postmodernism - perhaps a bit oversimplified, or crude, but this is the essence of this theory. 

 

The political, popular, offspring of postmodernism is cultural relativism, a view, which too readily is used to justify the lack of rights and the oppression of people living in Iran, Algeria, Afghanistan and the like. It is a theory that has helped the world ignore the killings in Rwanda and to shamelessly accept dictatorship and torture in the world. 

 

What effects does it have on women? Besides general hardship, suffering, and oppression, women particularly suffer from this new set of values, especially in countries and, in the West, communities where political Islam has a stronghold. The world has ignored their fate, their lack of rights, their subjugation, their segregation, their victimisation, and their de facto slavery, under the rubric of cultural relativism. Post September 11th 2001, the focus on political Islam may have one benefit: it may highlight the barbaric regimes - such as the Islamic Republic of Iran - under which women have, and continue, to suffer. 

 

After decades of marginalisation of Islamic movements as a political force, the coming to power of an Islamic regime in a country such as Iran, has had a major impact on the rise of Islamic movements in the region, and given birth to what is being defined as political Islam. This is not only because the Islamic Republic supported these movements vigorously, both financially and morally, but also because the Islamic Republic seemed to be the result of a popular uprising in a country which had been a main ally of the West, giving it a popular appeal. 

 

Islamic rhetoric in the region, in countries under dictatorship, where no opposition was tolerated, where progressive, left, women's rights groups, civil rights movements, and where workers' organisations were brutally crushed, found a way to the hearts of many deprived people. The anti-imperialist rhetoric added flavour to this appeal. Outside the region, this popular, demagogic appeal, plus the real threat of terrorism by Islamic groups hanging over Western societies - which has now come to its bitter fruition - paved the way for the reinforcement of cultural relativism. Here it was mainly out of pragmatism, rather than principles, that we see the widespread acceptance of these reactionary views, regarding the attitude towards people living under Islamic laws, be it state laws, or patriarchal laws practised in Islamic communities. The case of Salman Rushdie is only one, and the most famous, example of such threat. Today, however, things are changing and there is a strong chance for women's liberation in Iran, which can profoundly effect the situation of women in the region. 

 

Iran is undergoing profound and sweeping changes. The country is in turmoil. For the past two years, people have more openly criticised the state, the religious character of the state, demanded more rights, and challenged the religious laws. The opposition movement is gaining strength and momentum every day. 

 

A very strong and far-reaching secular movement has been born and is growing rapidly. The Islamic Republic's leadership itself has felt the danger and is cautioning its ranks constantly. 

 

You have to see these changes in the context of a country that has been most brutally suppressed for two decades. The crimes against humanity committed by this regime are amongst some of the most horrendous of the twentieth century. Women have played a very important role in bringing about the political upheaval we are witnessing today. One of the first suppressive measures enacted by this government was to restrict the very few rights women had. Sexual apartheid was in place after a few years of the regime's establishment. But women have fought against it. The more open opposition was crushed. But women continued their objections by defying the rules. Now, a new generation of women has begun to challenge the state more openly. 

 

The anti-religion, anti-Islamic sentiment is very high among the population. Spirits are high, hopes are high. The future is ours.

 

Any changes in Iran will not only affect the lives of people living in Iran, but will have a significant impact on the region. The fall of the Islamic Republic will once again marginalise the Islamic movement in the region - both by ending the enormous financial and material help they receive from the Islamic Republic, and because an overthrown Islamic state as a result of a popular uprising will wash away all that popular and demagogic appeal that Islamic movements and rhetoric once enjoyed. 

 

We will see not only women in Iran freed of a religious tyranny, but also witness the loosening of the Islamic grip on women in Algeria, Sudan, Egypt and Palestine. The force of secularism will not stop in Iran, it will penetrate the whole region, even Israel. The future is secular.

A show of force at Rome women’s rights conference

by Azar Majedi

09 Jun, 2008

On Saturday May 31 and Sunday June 1 Casa Internazionale Delle Donne (the International House of Women) in Rome was host to a great conference, entitled “Feminists for a Secular Europe”, organised by European Feminist Initiative. The theme of the conference was to build a secular Feminist Europe which respects human equal rights and dignity and freedom. More than 100 activists from France, Italy, Poland, Sweden, Germany, Croatia, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Iran took part in this historical event.

The participants were all activists or representatives of different organisations working for women’s rights, human rights and secularism and campaigning to make the world a more humane and better place to live. They had come to Rome to build a new movement together. They were all focused and determined. They had an important goal and an inspiring vision. They all were eager to push this new campaign forward. Two days of heated debates, passionate discussions and comradeship brought enormous energy into the movement. A strong feeling of solidarity was present at all times.

From testimonies of discriminations, religious inroads into society and threat of religious reaction against individual and civil freedom, free thinking and women’s rights, to eloquent arguments for secularism were presented at the conference. A great deal of first hand information was offered on how the religious institutions have gained power in different countries and are threatening the important values which have been achieved through decades of struggle by progressive movements. “It is our freedom and basic economic, social and political rights at stake.” This was the message of the conference. Wanting to do something against this trend and to change the tide toward a free and humane Europe was the main passion of all.

I was there as the representative of Organisation for Women’s Liberation-Iran. It was a great feeling to be among these brave and active women and men. (Unfortunately only a couple of men were present. Hope to see more in the next conference.) I talked about the rise of religious movements in the past decades and about how Islamic movement has first come into existence out of USA’s efforts against the Soviet Union in the cold war era. The movement which was nurtured by the USA grew to become the monster known as political Islam and came into open war with its illegitimate father. The Irony is that this terrorist movement is still being strengthened and reinforced by policies and actions of state terrorism led by the United States. I mentioned how the veil is today a political statement rather than a religious practice. I urged the participants to show solidarity with the women’s movement fighting against political Islam and gender apartheid and not to shy away out of the fear of being be labeled a racist or Islamophobist. This is the propaganda war waged by the Islamists, using multiculturalism and cultural relativism to push their reactionary cause forward. These calls were received with great enthusiasm and approval. It was a great feeling to see the warmth and passion with which my speech and my proposals were received.

The conference was ended by a proposal for a secular Europe prepared by the organizers. The proposed manifesto was a well formulated and progressive document to be handed over to the European council. It proposed demands concerning women’s rights, scrapping any reference in the civil and family law to religions. Separation of religion from the state and judiciary, prohibition of religious studies in public schools, establishment of secular education, and sex education in public schools, legalization of abortion and providing free abortion and contraceptive, stopping state funds to religious institutions, etc. The manifesto was debated thoroughly. Proposals were submitted by participants and was agreed to prepare a second draft, taking into consideration the proposals of the conference.

OWL submitted two resolutions to the conference: one to condemn the Islamic Republic of Iran for attacking women on a daily basis for not observing the veil and arresting women’s rights activists, and to express solidarity with women’s liberation movement in Iran. The other resolution demanded that refugee status being granted to any woman fleeing misogynist threat or violence. These resolutions were unanimously passed amongst applauds. The conference also unanimously passed a resolution put forward by me and seconded by Maria Hagberg, from Network against Honour Crimes. The resolution condemned gender apartheid as a discriminatory system against half of humanity and demanded that it will be internationally renounced just the same way racial apartheid in South Africa was.

At the end every one left the conference with great deal of energy, a sense of joy for a fruitful conference, and with confidence that the first steps to build a strong, determined and compassionate secular feminist movement are taken. A warm applaud is due for the organizers who worked hard to make this event possible. Indeed, this conference was a great historical movement.

 

Archbishop’s Message: Let Sharia Law Govern Women’s Lives, Amen!

by Azar Majedi

17 Feb, 2008

Perhaps Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thought his statement about Sharia Law will be received enthusiastically as well-intended and an effort to reduce racial tensions in the society. However, his proposal got him into trouble. He was attacked from right and left. Those who saw their “white Christian culture” under threat asked for his resignation. Women rights activists, secularists and such like attacked him for the negative effects of Sharia Law on human rights, particularly the disastrous effects of such a practice on women in so-called Muslim communities. In response to harsh criticism he tried to qualify his proposal by stating that he did not mean the whole Sharia Law, but in family matters. He has just missed the point.

The status and rights of women in Islam is the Achilles hill of this religion, and I must add, ideology. Misogynism is the trade mark of Islam. The veil is its banner and gender apartheid its main pillar. Moreover, today a very active reactionary political movement has based its ideology on Islam, namely political Islam. Anywhere they gain power they first and foremost victimize women, strip them of all their rights, force them under the veil and segregate them in society. The same movement that laments lack of tolerance for Sharia law in western societies is terrorizing the population in societies under its rule to obey Sharia Law, observe the veil and gender apartheid and punishes the defiant by flogging, cutting their limbs and execution.

One main reason to oppose Sharia law is the way it treats women. Rowan Williams’ promise that he only means the family code of Sharia law is no comfort to any woman living under the threat of losing her rights, nor to any girl who is frightened by “honor violence,” forced marriage and veiling. In fact it only exposes his ignorance.

It may be argued that the Archbishop’s intention is to combat racism. Let us examine whether the Archbishop’s proposal is anti-racist. One might argue that he has taken Muslim’s demands and culture into consideration, particularly when Muslims are increasingly being stigmatized. This assumption is false. Historically, the fight against racism has meant fighting for equality not for differentiating; equality before the law and in social, economic and political sphere. Anti-racism has been about integration not segregation. The civil rights movement in America was not about creating a set of different laws for blacks, but treating blacks and whites equally. The essence of long battle against racial apartheid in South Africa was to create one system and one law for all citizens, which treated them equally.

However, it is not only the Archbishop who espouses this upside-down approach to racial equality. This is a political trend. For this trend the meaning of anti-racism has changed from equality to differentiation, from integration to segregation. We owe this falsification to post modernism, which gave rise to cultural relativism and eventually giving such high socio-political status to the concept of multi culturalism in this deformed interpretation of it.

Some misled section of the “intelligentsia,” academia and political institutions have played a significant role in defending these concepts as progressive, libertarian, egalitarian and anti-racist. Reactionary political forces, such as political Islam have been the only beneficiaries of this trend. For decades gross violations of human rights in societies under Islam were neglected and even justified by these mal-formulated theories. Only when these brutal practices made an inroad into western societies in the form of terrorism, particularly after September 11, some outcries began to be heard.

Multiculturalism is racism; cultural relativism is racism; this should be recognized once and for all. By defining different laws for different citizens on the basis of such arbitrary concepts such as culture or religion, we leave the lot of the weakest sections of that so-called “cultural community” to the mercy of the self-imposed leaders of that community. We deprive these weakest sections the protection of the law and society. Women under Islam are down trodden and deprived of any rights. Leaving them under Sharia law will only victimize them further.

There are many fallacies involved in such an approach. One which is seemingly very liberal is the assumption that members of the “Muslim communities” will voluntarily resort to Sharia law. If Muslim women or children had any choice or voice, they would tell the Archbishop, to keep these proposals to himself. The question of choice is non-existent in a hierarchical and deeply male chauvinist community. Allowing Sharia Law to be practiced will cut off the poor voiceless women from any protection and make life much more difficult for the young women who struggle with backward traditions at home.

Giving the Archbishop’s intention the benefit of the doubt is the best case scenario. The other, to my opinion most probable scenario is that he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole. By assigning a stronger position to Islam in “Muslim Communities” he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society. If one accepts the role of Islam and Islamic laws in one community, by the same token, they should accept the role of Christianity and Church of England in the larger community. His defence of Sharia Law is a clever step towards revitalizing the role of Church in the wider society.

And finally, as a veteran women’s rights activist and one who has suffered first hand under a brutal Islamic state, as an activist who has fought hard against Islam and political Islam for liberty and equality, I am very indignant by Rowan Williams’ proposal. We do not need to establish Sharia law in any form or shape. We need a secular, free society, free from racism, misogynism and inequality. We need to rid the society from religion and religious establishment, be it Muslim, Christian, Judaism or the like.

Honour crimes or terrorism against women

by Azar Majedi

31 May, 2008

This article is based on two speeches made at 8 March conference in Gothenburg, Sweden and the conference in London to commemorate Dua, the young girl who was stoned to death in Iraq last year. The conference condemns the Islamic Republic of Iran for its systematic attacks, persecution and imprisonment of women in Iran for not observing the veil.

Today all speakers talked about honour crimes as a widespread form of violence against women. What bewilders me is the name given to this horrendous crime: honour. Honour has a very positive connotation. Regardless of one’s world outlook and beliefs, the word honour has a good ring to one’s ear. When you hear this word, you fill up with positive and good feelings. The combination of these two completely opposite concepts to describe one phenomenon brings a lot of contradictions and confusion: “honour crimes!”

I have given this phenomenon a great deal of thought. I posed this question: Why is this brutal act being described so positively? After reflecting on this issue for some time, I came to see a pattern. It is like crimes committed under the name of patriotism and nationalism. The more you kill, the more brutal you become, the more heroic your status. This is exactly the same. The more inhuman you become under the name of misogyny, the more elevated your status among the community.

Misogynic crimes which are sanctified by religion and old traditions are called honour crimes, in order to be glorified, to be elevated to the position of heroic acts worthy of medals. Honour crimes are encouraged by traditional values, which are passed on from generation to generation. I will argue here that a certain ideology is behind justifying and glorifying crimes against women and by doing this promoting not only such crimes, but also fostering the dominance of religion and patriarchy. I will then conclude that one way to fight against such crimes is to shed all religious and cultural romanticism and taboos surrounding this brutal act. This is to say that our fight against honour crimes is not only an educative one or in the field of law and order, it is apolitical and ideological one as well. Misogynic ideology is a vital instrument in justifying and glorifying honour crimes.

There may be an objection raised here and quite validly too: not all misogynic crimes are named honour crimes. True. However, those criminal acts committed against women and girls, because they dared violate the sacred codes of piousness of the community are called honour crimes. Modern reformed misogyny has more or less come to terms with women’s ownership of their sexuality. Nevertheless, crimes categorized as crime of passion, committed under the fury of jealousy still shares that element of ownership of female sexuality by the male partner. It has only been privatized; it is an individual act punished by the law. But women’s rights organizations still struggle to have these crimes recognized as serious crimes, they still fight to get enough attention by the official institutions to these crimes that are mitigated or ignored by the fact they take place in the privacy of the home and in the confines of the sacred family. Our focus here is, however, on the first category.

Ideology

How is a value system formed?

How are essential concepts and their definitions formed?

How are we led to regard similar acts in so many different ways?

How are we led to judge one act of violence as horrendous and inhuman, and the other one as heroic?

Is this not double standard?

The answer to all of these is Ideology. Ideology is the means by which our minds are formed or manipulated to interpret the world, and thereby give different, and at times opposite meanings to similar actions. The dominant ideology is preserved and reproduced by the ruling classes in every given society. Religion is one of the main ingredients in dominant ideologies world wide.

Let us examine this in a more concrete historical context. We will only dwell on examples that can be related to our subject. Killing for a justified cause or terrorism, this is the question put before us time and time again. Depending on our political inclinations or our ideological tendencies, we answer this question one way or the other. At time sit is more challenging to come with a straightforward answer. Our sympathies are divided, so our response is confused. There seems to be no other way to judge. As a rule, if we sympathies with a cause we tend to justify the action related to it or stemmed from it.

The African national Congress is a very good example to demonstrate how this dynamism works. ANC was considered a terrorist organisation by the apartheid regime in South Africa and by its Western supporters. In the late seventies and early eighties this image changed. ANC came to be recognized, universally, as a legitimate, progressive organisation, so-called freedom-fighter, and its leader Nelson Mandela became an international hero, and was awarded the Noble peace prize. Here we can see how an image or concept can change in people’s views, giving the political or ideological explanations.

Let us look at a more controversial case. Suicide bombings committed by Palestinians against Israelis are regarded a vile crime by Israelis and heroic sacrifice by Palestinians. By the same token, in any war killing the enemy wins a medal for the killer and hatred and vengeance by the other party. How do we come to form these views? They are political views formed by our world outlook and value system, that is, ideology.

Misogyny is an old ideology and integrated part of all religions. In this day, we still witness the reduction of punishments by the court of law, in more advanced part of the world for the so-called crime of passion. Passion and honour are names given by the official ideology to crimes against women by the men who are taught to believe women are their possessions, their properties.

One way to fight these horrendous crimes is to challenge the prevailing ideology. Sexism and misogyny has been the subject of many debates and protest movements. One way to shake this old value system is to attack its basis. I believe the so-called honour crimes should be called terrorism against women. Just the same way female circumcision came to be called female mutilation. This change of name had a great impact on shedding all the absurd cultural romanticism associated with this brutal abuse (which led well known feminists such as Germaine Greer defend it.) This is not an attempt to inflate a reality for the sake of propaganda. In reality “honour crimes ”are nothing but terrorist acts against women.

What is terrorism?

Action aimed at silencing, subduing and blackmailing certain people for apolitical aim is terrorism. Ideologies have been created in order to justify and/or glorify a terrorist act. Historically, nationalist, and certain left groups have been categorized under this title, e.g. the IRA, the left groups in Italy and Germany in the seventies, and groups fighting for independence in so-called third world countries. In these fights a much defined political cause dominates. At present, there is apolitical/ideological battle over whether you can call fighters of a “just” cause terrorists, regardless of the similarity of the methods they use. A heated debate is over how to call Palestinian suicide bombers, are they terrorists or soldiers of a nationalist army fighting for their land and independence? We have gone as far as calling some states terrorists, and the war they wage state terrorism, such as the United States and Israel, or Islamic republic of Iran.

This is the place to pass judgment on these above-mentioned cases. I merely stated these for the sake of argument, to demonstrate the similarities between these political cases and honour crimes, these seemingly unconnected acts. I believe there is a very strong common denominator between these acts, which bring them under the same category: terrorism. Honour crimes can be categorized under this term.

If straightforward political conflicts that lead to terrorist acts can cause confusion as how they should be judged, i.e. legitimate or murderous, and at times there are endless debates involved in the process of judgment-forming, there is no confusion regarding honour crimes. Except the fanatics ,who endorse or carry out such crimes, everyone else condemns honour crimes as abhorring murders. Moreover, there is a common agreement among all, including the fanatics, over the purpose of these crimes: to subdue the female population, to show her rightful place in the home and the community, to suppress any thought of rebellion.“ Honour crimes” wash away the shame from the family and the community, and teach a “good” lesson not only to women but to the whole society :women are property of the men of the household; they should remain subdued, pious, and silent and obey the laws and their owners.

All the religious leaders who promote or condone honour crimes will testify to these, the elders, the youth stooped by this ideology, the mothers and the victims, too will testify to this. We should conclude that honour crimes are carried out to put women in their place and prevent their rebellion or protest. Thus, honour crimes, are crimes with apolitical purpose, to foster or establish a misogynic power relations in the society and the family. Moreover, they are not individual and isolated crimes. They are usually planned in the extended family court. They are promoted by the “leaders” of the community. (Be it the leaders of a society in the case of societies under a backward religious state, or smaller communities in the West.) They are crimes sanctified by a community and carried out collectively. It is a crime with a socio-political cause and aim, justified by an ideology, carried out as a team. Hence, we have established the relation between a terrorist act and honour crimes.

It is important that we spread this word around. Start a movement demanding honour crimes to be called by their appropriate name: terrorism against women. It will help us fight more vigorously against these crimes and to alleviate the situation of women and young girls in such communities. It makes it easier to punish the criminals. It gives our campaign a momentum to mobilize more strongly and to attract more support to our cause. As a final point, I like to make the parallel once more between this and the campaign to change the name of female circumcision to female mutilation. It did not take very long to establish in the public mind that female circumcision is actually mutilating women in order to inhibit their sexuality. By bringing this awareness all the cultural romanticism or taboo was torn from it. Hence, it became easier to fight against it. We should do the same to “honour” crimes. By calling it terrorism against women we facilitate the fight to root it out.

Must the veil be banned: The Danish case

by Azar Majedi

10 Jun, 2008

The veil once again became the focal point of a controversial debate. This time the new legislation in Denmark which Bars judges from wearing religious symbols is the reason behind the debate. Presently, any debate surrounding religion and secularism focuses on Islam and the veil. This is true as much as when carrying religious symbols is banned in any circumstances, Islamic groups are at the forefront of protest, and every one only talks about the veil. This is because of the rise of Islamic groups and militancy world wide, and Islamist's concerted strategies to attack secular values and impose themselves as an important international force. Hence, any move to enforce secularization of the society or the state in the West has been triggered by the Islamic offensive, and the veil at its centre. When a similar piece of legislation, was passed in France in 2004 a long and heated debate over the veil dominated the national as well as international debate. In fact, the French law applies to all public institutions, not only the judges.

In the Danish case, the controversy seems to stem from the fact that a racist party is behind this law and anti-Muslim sentiments are being provoked in support of the legislation. This has made some progressive and secularist individuals and organisations uneasy to support the law openly, from the fear of being associated with racism and xenophobia. This is a credible dilemma. While I sympathise with the reason behind this reluctance, I like to argue that the left and progressive people and organisations must put forward their own anti religious agenda. Defence of women's rights, children's rights, freedom of expression and criticism and secularism are very basic and important principles that must not fall hostage to our fear of racism. Islamists have taken our anti-racist sentiments hostage for long. We can and must fight against racism and at the same time uphold women's rights, children rights, freedom of expression and criticism and secularism. It is not racist to criticize Islam, to expose its misogynic and brutal nature and to demand the ban on the veil in certain circumstances. Here I would like to look at the veil more closely, and defend the banning of the veil in some circumstances. Is the veil only a religious symbol? Do religion and the right to practice it take precedence over any other laws, e.g. women's rights and children's rights or the secularist principles?

In this debate some fundamental principles seem to be at stake: Individual freedom to practice one's religion, freedom of choice, freedom of clothing and discrimination against a particular community, that is, the so-called Muslim community. Islamists and some human rights activists maintain that the so-called Muslim community is being stigmatized and have been under racist attack since September 11th. They argue that the latest attempts to ban burke or the nighab is a violation of individual freedom and another racist attack on Muslims. Let's examine these issues closer.

In my opinion defending the right to wear the veil in any form or shape and in any circumstances as freedom of choice is fallacious. It overlooks other, just as important, rights recognised by modern civil society. In unconditionally defending the right to wear the veil, one comes, at best, in collision with other set of rights, i.e. children's rights, women's rights, societal rights, and the principle of secularism. In debating about the freedom of wearing the veil, one must take different circumstances into consideration. 1. The age of the person wearing the veil. 2. The extent of the veil and 3. Where the veil is worn.

Why are these factors relevant in the discussion?

First and foremost it is important to define what the veil is. Is it only a fashion item, a mere clothing style? The argument that classifies the veil as a style of clothing is totally misleading. The veil is a religious ritual, a religious costume. Moreover, nowadays the veil has become the political banner of a political movement, namely, political Islam. The veil has become the symbol of Islamic power. Wherever, Islamists gain power, they force the veil on women, as a sign of their victory and supremacy.

Why is this argument relevant to our discussion? It may be argued that irrespective of its religious or political character and significance, one must be free to wear any “political or religious symbol” one chooses to wear. My response, and I believe many others', to this is a categorical NO. It must be said that in most countries, including Western democracies, there are certain dress codes at workplaces and wearing different political symbols or religious ones are not allowed in the workplace. Therefore, the veil must also be viewed in this light. We should tear off all this romantic falsification surrounding the veil. The veil is a religious and political symbol of a religion and movement that degrades and deprives women.

The veil as a symbol of women's subjugation

The veil is both the symbol and the tool for women's subjugation. Islam, as in fact, all other religions, is a misogynist ideology. Islam is a direct product of sheer patriarchy. Islam, particularly, due to its earthly characteristics, penetrates every aspect of private and social lives of men and women. A woman, according to Islam, is an extension and subject of a man. She does not have an independent identity and is defined by her master. The veil has been prescribed to hide men's property from potential violators. A “free” woman, according to Islam, is considered an open and free target, a free ride.

It is absurd to regard the veil as a fashion item, or a dress style. We should define the veil as it really is, and as it really functions in the lives of many women under the rule of Islam: a symbol of servitude and subjugation.

Nevertheless, it may be argued that, if one chooses a life of servitude, one should be free to do so. The modern civil society has a different answer to this argument. In a free, modern civil society when safeguarding human rights, children's rights or women's rights there are laws limiting an individual's right to harm oneself or to deprive oneself of certain rights and privileges. By the same token, there must be some limitations imposed on the use of the veil. This is perhaps where some disagreements arise. This is where those above-mentioned circumstances come into the picture.

Veil must be banned for underage girls

One of the achievements of the modern civil society is the recognition of society's responsibility to safeguard children from any kind of abuse. The society must be responsible for a child's safety, happiness, health and their normal growth and development. Past decades have witnessed a great struggle by decent, human-loving individuals to establish the concept of children's rights, to recognise a child as an individual and not the property of their parents. This is a landmark achievement, which contradicts the essence of religion. According to Islam, the child is the property of the father or grandfather and they even have the right to take the child's life. Therefore, some laws which defend rights of children and give the state the power to remove a child from their home, if it can be established that the child is being abused, contradict basic religious laws and customs. They, in fact, nullify certain religious or “divine” rights. This modern achievement must be extended to girls living in Islamic communities.

The veil is a pure discrimination against girls. It hampers their physical and mental development. It segregates them from the rest of the society. It restricts their growth and future development. It assigns to them a prescribed social role according to their gender and a division of labour. Therefore it must be banned. Society is duty-bound to safeguard free, healthy and normal development of these girls. It is a crime to ignore this obligation. Freedom of choice is purely nonsensical regarding the veil for underage girls. “A child has no religion”. It is the parents' religion that is imposed on the child. The society must respect the child's right to a free development. Just the same way that modern society recognises the undeniable right to education for all children, bans child labour and regards physical abuse of children as a major crime, it must also ban the veil for underage girls. This must be added to all international children's rights charters. The veil is a physical, mental and social abuse of girls and it must be recognised as such by the international community.

Secular society versus the veil

In a secular society, religion must be a private affair of any individual. The state must be separated from religion and stay away from promoting any religion. A secular society can better defend individual rights and civil liberties. Contrary to the commonly held belief, religious hatred or communal stigmatization can better be avoided in a secular society. In a secular society wearing or carrying any religious symbols at state institutions and in the place of education must be prohibited. By doing this, the state and the educational system do not promote any particular religion. Religion remains in the private sphere and clashes between followers of different religions is somewhat avoided. Therefore, I believe that the recent legislation in France regarding the banning of wearing any religious symbols in state institutions and schools is an appropriate step in the right direction.

However, I believe that its main shortcoming is to still allow private religious schools to operate. This leaves the girl's fate in the hands of religiously-fanatic parents to send her to private religious school and ghettoize her life completely. This is not respecting individual freedom and civil liberties; this is discrimination against a group of girls who are isolated from the society at large and their lives are ghettoized by their parents and so-called leaders of their communities. The society must defend the rights of children; girls living in Islamic communities are no exception. The society and the state have responsibility for their normal, healthy and happy development.

 

Burke or the nighab, an individual right or a societal right?

The veil comes in different forms and shapes, from a scarf, to a robe-like loose garment that covers the woman's whole body (it looks some what different in different countries, or according to different Islamic sect's rules) and finally the burke or the nighab. Burke has become known as the symbol of Taliban, the most severe restriction imposed on women's appearance.

Must a woman be allowed to cover herself under this most severe form of the veil? In my opinion: NO. The banning of burke or the nighab can be argued from two angles, 1) the societal right and 2) the women's right.

Firstly, in my opinion, when dealing with burke or the nighab, we surpass the sphere of individual rights. Here, we enter the sphere of what I call societal rights. The person under this kind of veil has no identity in the face of fellow citizens. The society cannot work with faceless humans. At a workplace, and I mean any workplace, it is the right of the fellow workers and customers to see the face of their colleagues or the personnel. There is also the issue of trust at stake. You can not trust the person who has covered their face. Eyes and facial expressions are the key to communication, if you hide these, there can be no real communication. Therefore, wearing burkes or the nighab must be banned at the workplace.

I believe that the question of trust and identity goes further than the workplace. It is just as important on the bus, in the park, in the recreation ground, etc, that you can see the face of the person in your immediate surroundings. Here it is the question of individual rights versus the societal rights. There are instances where the society rightfully decides to deprive certain individuals of certain rights for the benefit of society as a whole. For example, banning smoking in public places and imposing severe restrictions on smokers, limits the individual rights of smokers, but it is defended on the basis of health benefit for the whole society. Burke or the nighab must be banned for the benefit of society.

Secondly, we argued above, that the veil is a symbol and a tool for women's subjugation and degradation. This is one of the main reasons for demanding that it be banned for underage girls. Nevertheless, we agreed that in a free society an individual has the right to choose servitude, if he/she chooses to do so. However, we also argued that there are certain limitations imposed on self-harming practices by individuals. Female circumcision, which after a long and hard battle became known as what the practice really is, being female genital mutilation, is now banned by many Western governments. Women rights activists had to fight vigorously in order to bring consciousness about this brutal religious practice and succeeded to ban it in these countries. There are many different religious sects and not all their practices are permitted by the law. Therefore, religious freedom does not mean freedom to practice just any religious command or custom.

I believe that burke or the nighab should also be categorized as those religious practices prohibited by the law. Burke or the nighab deprives a woman of any identity. By allowing its use, we recognise the existence of some identity-less women who walk around in a ghost-like shape. This is a real insult to human dignity. The society should not permit such degree of degradation and humiliation of humans. This is outrageous. This must fall under the category of the limitations society imposes on self-harming practices. I add in passing that I doubt deeply the nature of voluntary and free choice regarding the veil, particularly in this severe shape. But we will not get into this debate here.

We should redefine the veil. We should debate this question widely and openly. Hopefully, we come to the agreement that certain limitations must be imposed on the veil: banning of all shapes of the veil for underage girls. The use of the veil at public workplaces and educational institutions and total ban on burke and the nighab.

Iran: Myths & Realities - What do the people want?

Friday, 26 June 2009, 12:13 pm
Column: Azar Majedi

A look at the Media’s presentation of the protest movement:

Iran: Myths and Realities
What do the people want?

by Azar Majedi

Iran is at the top of international news. What led to the mass protests? How did the situation change so dramatically over a week? What do people want? What will be the outcome of this protest movement? These are the questions discussed repeatedly on TV channels and in the press. Different political analysts and members of Iranian-American/European academia, all with different degrees of allegiance to the so-called state reformist camp, are invited to throw light on the situation. All these different commentators make one common assumption: “The people in Iran do not want a revolution.” By this, they mean that the people do not want to overthrow the Islamic regime. They claim that the people want an evolution, a gradual road to change. They insist that people want some minor changes in the political system, a bit more freedom. They argue that people are protesting against Ahmadinezhad and the rigged election and not against the Islamic regime. Thus, if Mousavi becomes president, everything will return to normal.

This is the core of all analyses presented by the international media. From the Independent’s so-called left wing, “anti-imperialist” Robert Fisk to the right wing reporter of the Financial Times, they repeat the same line. The former categorically claims that the people in Iran “are happy with the Islamic regime.” He goes on to repeat the “anti-imperialist” cliché that people in Iran “do not want the West to tell them what to do. They do not want to be like the West.” (Quoted interview with Aljazeera TV/English) As though wanting to get rid of the Islamic regime, wanting to get rid of religious tyranny, gender apartheid, suppression, poverty and corruption are by default Western aspirations and not universal human aspirations. As though the people in Iran and women in Iran cannot distinguish on their own between dictatorship and freedom, discrimination and equality, brutality and respect for humanity. As though if they even were so-called Western values, this would discredit their validity and desirability. According to Fisk, people in Iran are loyal to the “Islamic” revolution. They only want to get rid of Ahmadinezhad.

The Financial Times reporter on GMTV breakfast news adamantly disagreed with my statement that these protests are “the beginning of the end of the Islamic regime.” She maintained that people in Iran “do not want a revolution. They want an evolution and a bit more freedom. They want to be able to wear the T-shirts they want.”

If I did not believe so firmly in what I want to see happen in my birth country; the one from which I had to flee (like thousands of others) to save my life, to escape torture and execution, at the time of Mr. Mousavi’s term as prime minister, I would have thought I was crazy for wanting real change, for wanting the overthrow of this brutal, misogynist, reactionary, religious dictatorship. I would have thought all my beloved comrades and friends who were murdered in the Islamic regime’s notorious prisons were crazy for having lost their lives fighting against this regime. I would have thought that these hundreds of thousands of people who risk their lives and venture into street must be crazy.

I am sure Messrs. Mousavi, Karoubi and Khatami do not want much change. They only want a little change. I have no doubt that “they are happy with the Islamic regime.” But what about Neda, the young woman who was shot in Tehran? What about that pregnant woman who was killed protesting? What about her partner who lost two loved ones in one shot? What about all those mothers and fathers whose sons and daughters were brutally tortured and executed; those parents who still do not know where their beloved children are buried; those parents who, for fear of reprisal, buried their children in their front gardens. What about the parents of those thousands of children who were made to walk over land mines during the Iraq-Iran war with a key to heaven around their necks? Those children whose mothers were stoned to death? What about the millions of women who are forced to wear the veil and are treated as half humans? Are all these people “happy” with the Islamic republic and only want a little bit of freedom, a bit of change?

If I did not know and feel these grievances so closely, if I had not seen them first hand, if I did not know some of those decent brave young women and men who were executed by this monstrous regime, then I would be convinced. I would have no choice but to accept the only interpretation offered by the international media. It is bewildering. Is this accidental, or is there a hidden agenda? Are these analyses the products of a superficial understanding of a society under the grip of dictatorship and censorship, or are they part of a plan to materialize a make-believe plan and strategy?

We’ve been there, we’ve seen that!

I am from the generation that has seen the mass protests against another dictatorship. I am from the generation that fought against the Shah’s dictatorship. I have fought against two dictatorships for freedom, equality, socio-economic justice, and prosperity. I am, like so many other comrades, a seasoned political activist. The international media acted the same way 30 years ago. Back then, technology was not so advanced. There was no YouTube, no internet or satellite television. But people still depended on international media for news. Then, it was the age of short wave radios. People depended on the BBC, Voice of America, Radio Israel and Radio Moscow for information and analysis.

In 1978, these media played an important role in making a leader of Khomeini – who was no more than an exiled clergyman, hardly known by the majority of the population, and almost forgotten by many of his fanatical followers. Then, in the midst of the Cold War, the fear of an increasingly popular leftist movement in Iran, brought the Western states around the table in a summit held in Guadeloupe, to change the course of events of the hitherto largest mass movement in Iranian history. In a short time, to our shock and bewilderment, the Islamists, who were marginalized in the initial phase of the protests, took over the leadership of the anti-monarchist movement.

Saddam Hussein was asked to deport Khomeini, under the pretext of engaging in political activities against the Iranian state. France welcomed him. Overnight, he became an international media celebrity. A “leader” was born. A revolution for freedom, equality and justice was aborted. This was the beginning of 30 years of bloodshed, oppression, misogyny, gender apartheid, stoning, mutilation and a most heinous political system.

History is being repeated. As ever, fearful of radical changes that may lead to empowerment of the left, the opinion-making machinery of the media is telling half of the truth. Their “in-depth analyses” do not even scratch the surface. Maybe on the part of some journalists, the surface is all they are capable of grasping, but overall, there is a deliberate plan to censor the left, not to present the deep aspirations and demands of the people. A “moderate leader” is all they are ready to give voice to.

Balance of power

Are the protesting people only against Ahmadinezhad? Are they really happy with the Islamic regime? Do they really want only a bit of change, a bit of freedom? How do these journalists and political analysts arrive at such assumptions? Let us examine these questions.

This is what has happened in Iran in the past few weeks. In the couple of weeks leading to the election of June 12th, people organised rallies and meetings in support of the two so-called reformist candidates and against Ahmadinezhad. They voted for Mousavi or Karoubi. There was widespread anticipation that the election would be rigged, so the people stayed vigilant and ready to take to streets. When the results were announced only two hours after the closing of voting polls, massive demonstrations took place. The people rushed into streets in the thousands and protested against the rigged election.

This is how events unfolded. But this is not the whole truth. There is more than meets the eye. While trying to analyse the situation in Iran, one must take into consideration the important factor of balance of power. It is self-evident that people could not go into the streets and shout “down with the Islamic Republic”, while the brutal and sophisticated machinery of suppression was intact. People work within the framework of a balance of power and try to change this balance in their own favour.

Most people’s vote for Mousavi or Karoubi was in fact a “no” vote for Ahmadinezhad and the Islamic Republic. There were only four candidates who passed the vetting system of the Guardian Council. Under the Islamic regime, around 99% of the people are not allowed to stand as candidates. According to Islamic law, a woman cannot become president. This excludes roughly half of the population in one stroke. Godless people not only cannot stand as candidates, they must be beheaded according to the law. Adherents of other religions, except Shi’a, are also excluded. So we are left with male Shi’as. But among the latter group, only those who are true followers of the Islamic Republic may stand as candidates for presidency.

The Guardian Council vets all the prospective candidates and decides who complies with the requirements. In this round, only four men who have been prominent figures in the regime, who had occupied high-ranking posts and played an important role in consolidation of the regime, passed the vetting. The candidates besides Ahmadinezhad were Mousavi, Karoubi and Rezaei. Mousavi was the prime minister at the time of the Iran-Iraq war. Under his term, in August 1988–in less than a month–thousands of opposition activists and even some children were executed in prisons. Karoubi was a prominent figure in the regime from the time of its inception, close to Khomeini and also speaker of the Majlis (Parliament) for some time. Rezaei was the commander of the Islamic Guards Corps (IGC), the main instrument of suppression. These men have all participated in the brutal suppression of the opposition under the Islamic Republic. If the people of Iran ever succeed to bring justice to their society, all these men will stand trial for crime against humanity.

Does this present any real choice to the people? This is the first question that must be asked. If no, then why did people participate in such numbers in the election? People used this opportunity to express their protest, to show their discontent and to say a big “NO” to this regime. The mass rallies that were identified as Mousavi’s or Karoubi’s campaign were a big shock to everyone, including the candidates themselves. In a country where any show of protest, let alone a demonstration, is brutally suppressed, the presidential campaign presented a window of opportunity. The Islamic regime became quite frightened of these mass rallies and the speed with which they grew in numbers and in radicalization.

In the face of this rapid escalation of anti-government rallies under the banner of an election campaign, the IGC issued a communiqué stating that the extremists in the camp of the candidates are trying to overthrow the regime. It threatened the people with hard clamp down if such attempts were to take place. Therefore, the IGC and the Khamenei-Ahmadinezhad camp decided to put an end to the election mood and abort any plans aimed at further weakening of the regime. This led to the election results being announced only couple of hours after the polls closed.

They misread the situation. They failed to recognize the different collective psychology and general mood among the people. They did not see or understand that the times were changing. This time the mood was very different among the people. The people seemed to have become determined not to back down. This was not necessarily a conscious or expressed decision. This mood of defiance was rather the result of a deeper change in the social mood and collective psychology of the people. Iran is at a crossroads. It seems that the situation has reached a point of no return.

The people do not want this regime. They do not want to live under a religious tyranny. They do not want gender apartheid. People want to be free. They want equality and prosperity. This is the will of the people. It seems that this time they are determined to continue their protest until they achieve their demands. The development of events in the past few days, particularly after the Friday sermon by Khamenei, has shifted the power struggle between the people and the regime. Despite heavy clamp down by the security forces, killing around 200 people, injuring many more and imprisoning of hundreds of protesters, despite unleashing security forces and militia thugs on unarmed people, people are defiant. The balance of power has shifted in favour of the people, not in a military sense, but in terms of defying intimidation and fear.

If until Friday, the protesters rallied with their mouth shout, in an attempt not to provoke violence, in the past few days, the protests have become more radical and less restraint. Already the protesters are shouting “down with the Islamic Republic”. The true uncensored feelings are surfacing on the streets. There are news and even video clips of unveiled women in complete non-Islamic clothes in some neighbourhoods. One significant characteristic of this protest movement is that it is not organised or led by those who claim to be its leader, or are identified by the media as its leader. They have a spontaneous characteristic. What we witness on the streets of not only Tehran, but also some other large cities, looks more like an uprising. It seems that the Islamic regime has entered a phase that whatever tactics it adopts and whatever tones it takes on, it only brings its demise closer. This is the beginning of the end of one of the most brutal, heinous and notorious political regimes of the 20th century. Its demise will have far-reaching effects on the Middle East and political Islam. The women in Iran and indeed the whole region will stand to gain significantly from this course of events.

v
SCOOPTOP SCOOPS



Iran: Myths & Realities - What do the people want?

Friday, 26 June 2009, 12:13 pm
Column: Azar Majedi

A look at the Media’s presentation of the protest movement:

Iran: Myths and Realities
What do the people want?

by Azar Majedi

Iran is at the top of international news. What led to the mass protests? How did the situation change so dramatically over a week? What do people want? What will be the outcome of this protest movement? These are the questions discussed repeatedly on TV channels and in the press. Different political analysts and members of Iranian-American/European academia, all with different degrees of allegiance to the so-called state reformist camp, are invited to throw light on the situation. All these different commentators make one common assumption: “The people in Iran do not want a revolution.” By this, they mean that the people do not want to overthrow the Islamic regime. They claim that the people want an evolution, a gradual road to change. They insist that people want some minor changes in the political system, a bit more freedom. They argue that people are protesting against Ahmadinezhad and the rigged election and not against the Islamic regime. Thus, if Mousavi becomes president, everything will return to normal.

This is the core of all analyses presented by the international media. From the Independent’s so-called left wing, “anti-imperialist” Robert Fisk to the right wing reporter of the Financial Times, they repeat the same line. The former categorically claims that the people in Iran “are happy with the Islamic regime.” He goes on to repeat the “anti-imperialist” cliché that people in Iran “do not want the West to tell them what to do. They do not want to be like the West.” (Quoted interview with Aljazeera TV/English) As though wanting to get rid of the Islamic regime, wanting to get rid of religious tyranny, gender apartheid, suppression, poverty and corruption are by default Western aspirations and not universal human aspirations. As though the people in Iran and women in Iran cannot distinguish on their own between dictatorship and freedom, discrimination and equality, brutality and respect for humanity. As though if they even were so-called Western values, this would discredit their validity and desirability. According to Fisk, people in Iran are loyal to the “Islamic” revolution. They only want to get rid of Ahmadinezhad.

The Financial Times reporter on GMTV breakfast news adamantly disagreed with my statement that these protests are “the beginning of the end of the Islamic regime.” She maintained that people in Iran “do not want a revolution. They want an evolution and a bit more freedom. They want to be able to wear the T-shirts they want.”

If I did not believe so firmly in what I want to see happen in my birth country; the one from which I had to flee (like thousands of others) to save my life, to escape torture and execution, at the time of Mr. Mousavi’s term as prime minister, I would have thought I was crazy for wanting real change, for wanting the overthrow of this brutal, misogynist, reactionary, religious dictatorship. I would have thought all my beloved comrades and friends who were murdered in the Islamic regime’s notorious prisons were crazy for having lost their lives fighting against this regime. I would have thought that these hundreds of thousands of people who risk their lives and venture into street must be crazy.

I am sure Messrs. Mousavi, Karoubi and Khatami do not want much change. They only want a little change. I have no doubt that “they are happy with the Islamic regime.” But what about Neda, the young woman who was shot in Tehran? What about that pregnant woman who was killed protesting? What about her partner who lost two loved ones in one shot? What about all those mothers and fathers whose sons and daughters were brutally tortured and executed; those parents who still do not know where their beloved children are buried; those parents who, for fear of reprisal, buried their children in their front gardens. What about the parents of those thousands of children who were made to walk over land mines during the Iraq-Iran war with a key to heaven around their necks? Those children whose mothers were stoned to death? What about the millions of women who are forced to wear the veil and are treated as half humans? Are all these people “happy” with the Islamic republic and only want a little bit of freedom, a bit of change?

If I did not know and feel these grievances so closely, if I had not seen them first hand, if I did not know some of those decent brave young women and men who were executed by this monstrous regime, then I would be convinced. I would have no choice but to accept the only interpretation offered by the international media. It is bewildering. Is this accidental, or is there a hidden agenda? Are these analyses the products of a superficial understanding of a society under the grip of dictatorship and censorship, or are they part of a plan to materialize a make-believe plan and strategy?

We’ve been there, we’ve seen that!

I am from the generation that has seen the mass protests against another dictatorship. I am from the generation that fought against the Shah’s dictatorship. I have fought against two dictatorships for freedom, equality, socio-economic justice, and prosperity. I am, like so many other comrades, a seasoned political activist. The international media acted the same way 30 years ago. Back then, technology was not so advanced. There was no YouTube, no internet or satellite television. But people still depended on international media for news. Then, it was the age of short wave radios. People depended on the BBC, Voice of America, Radio Israel and Radio Moscow for information and analysis.

In 1978, these media played an important role in making a leader of Khomeini – who was no more than an exiled clergyman, hardly known by the majority of the population, and almost forgotten by many of his fanatical followers. Then, in the midst of the Cold War, the fear of an increasingly popular leftist movement in Iran, brought the Western states around the table in a summit held in Guadeloupe, to change the course of events of the hitherto largest mass movement in Iranian history. In a short time, to our shock and bewilderment, the Islamists, who were marginalized in the initial phase of the protests, took over the leadership of the anti-monarchist movement.

Saddam Hussein was asked to deport Khomeini, under the pretext of engaging in political activities against the Iranian state. France welcomed him. Overnight, he became an international media celebrity. A “leader” was born. A revolution for freedom, equality and justice was aborted. This was the beginning of 30 years of bloodshed, oppression, misogyny, gender apartheid, stoning, mutilation and a most heinous political system.

History is being repeated. As ever, fearful of radical changes that may lead to empowerment of the left, the opinion-making machinery of the media is telling half of the truth. Their “in-depth analyses” do not even scratch the surface. Maybe on the part of some journalists, the surface is all they are capable of grasping, but overall, there is a deliberate plan to censor the left, not to present the deep aspirations and demands of the people. A “moderate leader” is all they are ready to give voice to.

Balance of power

Are the protesting people only against Ahmadinezhad? Are they really happy with the Islamic regime? Do they really want only a bit of change, a bit of freedom? How do these journalists and political analysts arrive at such assumptions? Let us examine these questions.

This is what has happened in Iran in the past few weeks. In the couple of weeks leading to the election of June 12th, people organised rallies and meetings in support of the two so-called reformist candidates and against Ahmadinezhad. They voted for Mousavi or Karoubi. There was widespread anticipation that the election would be rigged, so the people stayed vigilant and ready to take to streets. When the results were announced only two hours after the closing of voting polls, massive demonstrations took place. The people rushed into streets in the thousands and protested against the rigged election.

This is how events unfolded. But this is not the whole truth. There is more than meets the eye. While trying to analyse the situation in Iran, one must take into consideration the important factor of balance of power. It is self-evident that people could not go into the streets and shout “down with the Islamic Republic”, while the brutal and sophisticated machinery of suppression was intact. People work within the framework of a balance of power and try to change this balance in their own favour.

Most people’s vote for Mousavi or Karoubi was in fact a “no” vote for Ahmadinezhad and the Islamic Republic. There were only four candidates who passed the vetting system of the Guardian Council. Under the Islamic regime, around 99% of the people are not allowed to stand as candidates. According to Islamic law, a woman cannot become president. This excludes roughly half of the population in one stroke. Godless people not only cannot stand as candidates, they must be beheaded according to the law. Adherents of other religions, except Shi’a, are also excluded. So we are left with male Shi’as. But among the latter group, only those who are true followers of the Islamic Republic may stand as candidates for presidency.

The Guardian Council vets all the prospective candidates and decides who complies with the requirements. In this round, only four men who have been prominent figures in the regime, who had occupied high-ranking posts and played an important role in consolidation of the regime, passed the vetting. The candidates besides Ahmadinezhad were Mousavi, Karoubi and Rezaei. Mousavi was the prime minister at the time of the Iran-Iraq war. Under his term, in August 1988–in less than a month–thousands of opposition activists and even some children were executed in prisons. Karoubi was a prominent figure in the regime from the time of its inception, close to Khomeini and also speaker of the Majlis (Parliament) for some time. Rezaei was the commander of the Islamic Guards Corps (IGC), the main instrument of suppression. These men have all participated in the brutal suppression of the opposition under the Islamic Republic. If the people of Iran ever succeed to bring justice to their society, all these men will stand trial for crime against humanity.

Does this present any real choice to the people? This is the first question that must be asked. If no, then why did people participate in such numbers in the election? People used this opportunity to express their protest, to show their discontent and to say a big “NO” to this regime. The mass rallies that were identified as Mousavi’s or Karoubi’s campaign were a big shock to everyone, including the candidates themselves. In a country where any show of protest, let alone a demonstration, is brutally suppressed, the presidential campaign presented a window of opportunity. The Islamic regime became quite frightened of these mass rallies and the speed with which they grew in numbers and in radicalization.

In the face of this rapid escalation of anti-government rallies under the banner of an election campaign, the IGC issued a communiqué stating that the extremists in the camp of the candidates are trying to overthrow the regime. It threatened the people with hard clamp down if such attempts were to take place. Therefore, the IGC and the Khamenei-Ahmadinezhad camp decided to put an end to the election mood and abort any plans aimed at further weakening of the regime. This led to the election results being announced only couple of hours after the polls closed.

They misread the situation. They failed to recognize the different collective psychology and general mood among the people. They did not see or understand that the times were changing. This time the mood was very different among the people. The people seemed to have become determined not to back down. This was not necessarily a conscious or expressed decision. This mood of defiance was rather the result of a deeper change in the social mood and collective psychology of the people. Iran is at a crossroads. It seems that the situation has reached a point of no return.

The people do not want this regime. They do not want to live under a religious tyranny. They do not want gender apartheid. People want to be free. They want equality and prosperity. This is the will of the people. It seems that this time they are determined to continue their protest until they achieve their demands. The development of events in the past few days, particularly after the Friday sermon by Khamenei, has shifted the power struggle between the people and the regime. Despite heavy clamp down by the security forces, killing around 200 people, injuring many more and imprisoning of hundreds of protesters, despite unleashing security forces and militia thugs on unarmed people, people are defiant. The balance of power has shifted in favour of the people, not in a military sense, but in terms of defying intimidation and fear.

If until Friday, the protesters rallied with their mouth shout, in an attempt not to provoke violence, in the past few days, the protests have become more radical and less restraint. Already the protesters are shouting “down with the Islamic Republic”. The true uncensored feelings are surfacing on the streets. There are news and even video clips of unveiled women in complete non-Islamic clothes in some neighbourhoods. One significant characteristic of this protest movement is that it is not organised or led by those who claim to be its leader, or are identified by the media as its leader. They have a spontaneous characteristic. What we witness on the streets of not only Tehran, but also some other large cities, looks more like an uprising. It seems that the Islamic regime has entered a phase that whatever tactics it adopts and whatever tones it takes on, it only brings its demise closer. This is the beginning of the end of one of the most brutal, heinous and notorious political regimes of the 20th century. Its demise will have far-reaching effects on the Middle East and political Islam. The women in Iran and indeed the whole region will stand to gain significantly from this course of events.