Monthly Report: January 2007

During recent weeks, pressing issues in Iran included the tightening of state censorship and pressure for media freedom, in addition to the widely-covered city council and Assembly of Experts elections.

Iran’s publishing professionals announced last year that 2005 was the worst year for the press in Iran’s history. Some even warned of the “death of the book” in Iran. According to a report by Shahram Rafi’Zadeh (Nov. 23, 2006), Mohammad Hossein Saffar Harandi, the minister of Islamic guidance, in a speech, explicitly asked Iranian writers to censor themselves in order to “not to feed the younger generation with poisonous materials … information should be fixed from the beginning, when a book is being written and before publication.” He also criticized the translations of philosophical and literary works from other countries and languages, arguing that “many literary works from overseas do not deserve translation.”

Massoud Heydari, the manager of Iran’s Labor News Agency (ILNA), reported increased political pressures and control on the agency. The ILNA is one of the last news sources still close to former president Khatami and his reformist government, which has criticized the new government and has covered news on the student and labor movements, especially those unreported or ignored by other agencies. The Labor Ministry registered twenty complaints and claims against the agency in a short period of time, an unusually high number, according to Heydari. On November 25, Heydari told to reporters that there is tremendous pressure on the agency to be closed down and its reporters are not allowed into government meetings. Saffar Herandi, the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, recently denied the lack of freedom of speech in the Islamic Republic, telling the press they are free to criticize the president.

On November 30th, Iranian media published details of new regulations regarding the activities of websites in Iran. According to the regulations, all activities of websites have to be controlled by the government. Site owners must now register websites with the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. Section C, article 7 of the regulations affirms that “any action against the constitution or any deeds against national unity, Iran’s autonomy and independence that may incite public negativity towards the government’s authority and efficiency” are forbidden. According to some site owners, the new regulations are a clear violation of the constitution by the government itself. In a Nov. 30 statement, the Reporters without Borders condemned the government’s decision, calling it a new excuse to impose censorship in Iran.

Since late November, human rights and labor activists closely followed the re-arrest of Mansoor Osanloo, the director of the Vahed Bus Drivers' Union. In a December 14 statement, the European Community condemned the arrest. The EC urged Iran to respect freedom of expression and recognize the right of labor unions. The EC president stated that Osanloo’s arrest “had no legal grounds.” Osanloo and colleagues were severely beaten and then arrested by plain-clothed secret agents. His attorney announced that he was kept in an isolated cell in Evin prison. Mansoor Osanloo was first arrested in January 2006 following some protests regarding union issues. Koorosh Sanjari, an activist from National Front of Iran, was among other prisoners whose arrest contributed to protests during the last month.

Following a series of nationwide protests and rallies all over universities and colleges, the students of Tehran Polytechnic (Amirkabir University), organized a rally against government policies to coincide with a December 12 visit by Mahmood Ahmadinejad. The students, chanting “Down with the dictator,” “Ahmadinejad, agent of poverty and discrimination” and “Freedom, our indisputable right,” set fire to photos of the president. They protested against his visit and the politically-based limitations placed on students and instructors by the government. The students had warned university officials against his visit. Ahmadinejad did not respond to protesting students’ questions and instead called them a “minority group being fed by the U.S.” The rallying students interrupted his speech several times. The next day, the president, wrote in his webblog: “It gave me a great satisfaction to see a small group at Amirkabir University who insulted the president without any fear of harassment.”

The students responded to his comments by saying: “Your presence in Tehran Polytechnic was a day not to be forgotten by our student community in the university, the day the entire university shouted loud and clear: Mr. Ahmadinejad, the voice you are hearing belongs to an educated part of society… If your advisors were a bit wiser and if they had not thought they could have silenced the students by police and security force, this ignominy could have been avoided. You cannot threaten students, beat them, ruin their future prospects, and expect them cheer for you. Students are labeled as monafegh (mischievous) while their organizations are razed, their publications closed. They will not stay silent. They owe nothing to any political trends that have supported you regardless of circumstances. Maybe one should not expect much from you who encourage students to shout rather than to rationalize.”

On December 13, Ebrahim Yazdi, the leader of Nehzat-e Azadi-ye Iran (Freedom Movement) in an interview with the ILNA stated that the events of Amirkabir University were the outcome of a series of incidents in universities and colleges throughout Iran. “For over a year, academic independence has vanished from our universities. Certain individuals have been appointed as university deans without any experience, and at same time the jobs of some dissident professors who were valued by students for their knowledge and experience have been terminated. The student movement is under tremendous pressure.” According to Ebrahim Yazdi, there is a long list of banned student organizations and newspapers and students banned from colleges, prosecuted, or imprisoned. However, officials are not accountable to students. Yazdi, referring to the lack of official announcements indicating reasons for keeping some students out, added: “Being banned from continuing studies is a type of punishment and, according to the constitution, no punishment on citizens can be imposed without a court order. Considering the difficulties of entering a college course and the cost associated with those courses, nobody knows why and on what grounds the students have been banned.”

On December 11 and 12, Tehran was a host to a controversial conference on the Holocaust, organized by Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The conference, hosting a number of individuals from extremist and racist groups, opened with the remarks of the president of Islamic Republic of Iran. “The days of Israel are numbered,” Mahmood Ahmadinejad stated. “In the same way the Soviet Union vanished from the earth, the Zionist regime will soon come to an end, and humanity will be relieved.” The two-day conference, “The Holocaust: An International Perspective,” produced significant criticism, especially from Jewish communities both inside Iran and abroad. German Chancellor Angela Merkel condemned the conference and British Prime Minister Tony Blair called it “shocking beyond belief.” David Duke, former congressman from Louisiana and former leader of Ku Klux Klan, Austrian Rabbi Moshe Friedman, and Robert Forrison, a historian from Sorbonne University in Paris were among the participants in the conference. While the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized recently for closing down several papers, limiting free access to the internet, and imprisoning students and political activists, Mahmood Ahmadinejad announced that “Iran was a home to all freedom lovers of the world who could freely express their opinions in peace and brotherhood.” Meanwhile on December 12, the European Community condemned the Tehran conference and asked Iran to stop promoting discriminatory activities that violate human rights and evoke racial hostilities.

On Friday, December 15, Iranians went to the polls to vote in elections for the Assembly of Experts, city councils seats throughout Iran, and midterm parliament seats. These elections caused concern among political groups in Iran which feared election fraud. In an unprecedented decision by government, Basij members were put in charge of guarding ballot boxes instead of police. This evoked criticism from several members of parliament. Ghodratollah Alikhani, a member of parliament from the minority party, condemned the decision, arguing that the decision to have the Basij, with their clear political tendencies, guard ballot boxes was obviously politically motivated. 

Many opposition groups in Iran announced that they were not willing to take part in the election of the Assembly of Experts because of restrictions on who could run for the seats. Voter turnout in Tehran reached 47 percent while the average for Iran was 60 percent. This demonstrates voter apathy among groups which historically have been more politically engaged. Former President and reformist candidate Rafsanjani received the most votes in the election to the Assembly of Experts. More conservative ayatollahs such as Meshkini, Yazdi, Jannati, and Mesbah received fewer votes.

The Assembly of Experts elections revealed the beginning of another round of political contention among various factions to gain power at the highest level of supreme leadership. Although the election of the Assembly of Experts (which has the important role of electing and overseeing the Supreme Leader) is a crucial one, people have shown more interest in city council and parliament elections.

Opposition groups in Iran took part in the city council elections despite many difficulties, including poor access to public media. In these elections, reformists formed a strategic alliance allowing Iranians to vote for them in bloc. Conservatives who supported Ahmadinejad, however, were divided over three electoral lists. This caused reformists to win a considerable number of seats, which signified a decline in Amadinajad’s popularity.