I don't mark this 30th anniversary of the 1979 revolution in any particular way except for a deep sigh. Having lived outside Iran for a while, I am relieved not to be bombarded by a constant stream of deafening propaganda on TV, radio, work, school and elsewhere in the public.

The sigh then is one of relief as well as grief. Grief for those who perished in the years leading to the revolution. For those whose idealistic hopes were dashed by the Islamic Republic, including the ones of those who actually supported it back then.

For those who were executed, jailed or forced into exile by the Islamic Republic since its inception. And for those whose lives in Iran today consist mostly of a seemingly futile struggle to lead what is considered a basic, normal life in the free world.

I just hope that the unrealistic world views and the intellectual clutter 30-some years ago that led to all of this now, and the yoke of theocracy, go away soon and my countrymen can one day live freely.

Labels: freedom, iran, media

 

Akbar Ganji, "someone who spent six years in Tehran's Evin Prison on a bogus charge of endangering national security," has published a column in the Washington Post (translated from Farsi) to clarify "why Iranian pro- democracy forces oppose the $75 million the U.S. government provides to aid civil society in their country."

But even the very title and the starting point is presumptuous. First, why should Ganji think he can represent such a vast group of people as "Iranian pro-democracy forces"? Second, why is being an Iranian democrat taken to be synonymous with "shuning foreign aid"? What, then, are Akbar Atri, Ali Afshari, and countless other activists? Ganji also claims that in any Middle Eastern country other than Iran people would choose fundamentalists in a free and fair election. Why? This is pseudo-intellectual nonesense! In fact, this statement has already been proven wrong in Iraq. But the problems with Ganji's piece are much deeper than this.

After a string of incongruous expressions of facts and opinions-dressed-as-facts about the situation in Iran and the Middle East and what people want or don't wan't, he reaches the following culminating point:

So here is our request to Congress: To do away with any misunderstanding, we hope lawmakers will approve a bill that bans payment to individuals or groups opposing the Iranian government.

This rhetorical request has a deeply sensational tone. But it is a foolish thing to say, void of any logic. Why should anyone hoping to help a group of people (Iranian pro-democracy forces here) ban transactions with them? How could such outright blocking of aid possibly help?

But it gets even worse. Ganji charges the (collective) West of helping Iran's government to restrict and filter the Web. (This, of course, confounds private companies with governments, but that's a minor offense.) Then, he proceeds to say that all Iranians really need is free media and TV,

The support we need at this point has nothing to do with funding the regime's opposition but with aiding Iranians in the quest for independent media and accurate information.

Mr. Ganji's piece is apparently in response to an earlier op-ed by Michael Rubin. But he seems not to have read it:

The congressional appropriation has grown from $1.4 million in 2004 to $66 million this year. Of this, $36 million disappears into the coffers of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. The State Department applies an additional $5 million each to visitor exchange programs and to translation of its Web sites into Persian.

VOA Persian and Radio Free Europe (Radio Farda in Persian) are perhaps the closest things accessible in Iran to free media with wide coverage through their radio and TV programs. Mr. Ganji has used VOA's platform several times already to reach his fellow Iranians. Now, he wouldn't want them off, or would he?

Labels: democracy, Ganji, iran, UN

 

Akbar Atri, an Iranian activists now living in exile in the US, writes in the Wall Street Journal,

As I write this, close friends of mine are sitting in cells of Evin prison in Iran. They are suffering from torture, solitary confinement and denial of medical care. Despite their suffering, they write and smuggle out of prison essays about the brutality of Iran's government and about how the democracy movement can stay resilient despite mounting repression.

Here in America, where I have been living since 2005 as an exiled activist, a controversy has emerged over the Bush administration's pledge to provide $75 million in democracy and human-rights assistance to Iranians. Critics of the funding, among them some Iranian-Americans, say the money endangers the lives of activists and gives pretext for the Iranian regime to crack down on their activities. Supposedly speaking on behalf of the Iranian people, these critics claim Iranians do not want and do not need America's help in their fight against oppression.

Then he mentions that similar opinions are expressed by Iranians, such as Akbar Ganji, another activist who is living in the US at this time. (See this related piece.) Mr. Atri continues,

I respectfully disagree. There are many sides to this debate, but one thing is clear: Those in Iran who favor receiving foreign assistance and consider international solidarity essential to the success of Iran's homegrown civic movements cannot speak freely. If they do, they will be subject to immediate retaliation by the regime. The lack of robust, transparent appeals for outside help by civic leaders should not be confused with a lack of need or desire for such help.

Prominent activists in Iran, and even activists recently exiled, fear the repercussions of open appeals for outside support, so they color their statements about American democracy funding in order to protect themselves and their families. This is understandable as a strategy and self-preservation tactic by otherwise brave activists against a regime that prohibits free and open interaction with the outside world.

Criticism of American support for Iran's democracy movement is not defensible when made by those who have barely seen Iran, much less been a part of its struggle for freedom. Despite being an elected leader of the Iranian student movement and an active participant in university politics for 10 years, I do not purport to represent Iranians or even the Iranian student movement. I speak for myself. Yet when Iranian-Americans who have no standing in Iran, and who have received no backing from Iranians, claim to represent the will of all Iranians, I feel I need to speak up.

Those so righteously opposed to funding might have us believe that if it were not for American support, Iranian activists would not be facing intimidation, imprisonment and torture. But since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the Iranian regime has been systematically imprisoning, killing and otherwise silencing civic actors -- particularly secular, liberal democrats -- under bogus charges of espionage and collusion with foreign agents. Just this year, Iranian authorities have executed without due process over 100 people, yet none were said to be connected to U.S. democracy funds. There is not much new in the Iranian government's strategy of repression, but what is promising and hopeful to Iran's democrats -- and threatening to the Iranian leadership -- is that there is finally real support from the outside.

And how does the funds get spent anyway?

Iranians have already benefited immeasurably from democracy funding, especially from the Persian-language broadcasts by Voice of America television and Radio Farda ("Tomorrow"), for which a majority of the $75 million at issue now is allocated. These broadcasts offer news and perspectives to the Iranian public that they would not otherwise have, including news regarding developments inside their own country. The broadcasts are popular with millions of diverse Iranians and have successfully broken the Islamic Republic's attempt to isolate the country from external sources of information. The Iranian regime could not be happier to see its popular nemeses -- VOA television and Radio Farda -- exterminated by Iranian Americans and others purporting to do good.

America's best civil-society organizations have also been developing successful links and activities -- independent of the U.S. government and in collaboration with international partners -- to support democratic awareness and civil society inside Iran. To cut Iranians off from the transfer of lessons and experiences gleaned from civic movements globally only strengthens the Iranian government.

And the necessary conclusion is:

American lawmakers and Iranian-Americans who would eliminate financial support for Iran's democrats need to understand the following: Supporting Iranian civil society and the nonviolent struggle toward democracy and human rights is likely the most cost-effective means to prevent a future conflict with Iran or an armed struggle within its borders. Democracy is difficult to achieve. But with its remarkably young, educated population, and a long-stifled yearning for the fruits of modernity and liberalism, Iran has many of the key ingredients for success.

With some help from their American allies, Iranian democrats are brave enough and capable enough to achieve for their country what the likes of Mahatma Gandhi and Vaclav Havel achieved for theirs.

Very well said!

Labels: democracy, iran, US

 

Akbar Ganji, the Iranian dissident who spent 6 years in jail and more than 2 months on hunger strike, has written a letter to the UN Secretary General, endorsed by more than 300 intellectuals. In it, he appeals for the human rights in Iran. But he also uses the opening half of the letter to criticize America's policy in the region, writing for instance:

The Bush Administration, for its part, by approving a fund for democracy assistance in Iran, which has in fact being largely spent on official institutions and media affiliated with the US government, has made it easy for the Iranian regime to describe its opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity. At the same time, even speaking about "the possibility" of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran.

A Reuters correspondent, Alistair Lyon, informs us that similar opinions are shared by other activitst in the region. We read that

"(U.S.) money is not going to help the democratization process here," said Ebrahim Yazdi, Iran's first post-revolution foreign minister and leader of the banned Freedom Movement.

and that

"The United States has lost a lot of its credibility on human rights because of Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions," said Nadim Houry of the U.S.-based Human Rights Watch group.

But are these true? Has America lost its credibility with Mr. Yazdi or Mr. Ganji? That question supposes that these people once believed the US was a credible force of good and now they don't. But did they? In reality, the answer is no! These same people, long before "Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib and renditions," indeed long before George Bush Sr. and Jr. were ever in power, were hostile to the US. Mr. Ganji joined at a young age in a revolution whose mantra was "we crush the US!" and took more than a decade to go through a change of heart about its worth. Mr. Yazdi is a subtler type: while he and his cohorts in the Freedom Movement decry political repressions in Iran, they were happy to take power in the revolution that ousted their once close friend and last Prime Minister of the Shah, Shapour Bakhtiar of the National Front (a true believer in freedom), and that eventually assassinated him in exile in Paris. They are simply failed politicians after regaining their lost power.

Old habits are hard to kick.

Perhaps it is easy and convenient to blame our shortcomings on outside powers and expect them to be saints who uphold our rights and act for our freedoms even more steadfastly than we do ourselves. But the fact of the matter is that Iranian (and other Mideast) activists have consistently made far more serious mistakes and are far more responsible for their conditions than any outside power. The constant blaming of the US, whether to distance themselves from the West for domestic reasons or to please their idelogical prejudices, is just another one of those mistakes.

Labels: freedom, Ganji, iran, UN, US

 

An edited version of my brief letter to the editor on the leader of July 21st and the accompanying survey in The Economist has been published.

Labels: iran, politics

 

The Economist has a fresh "special report" on Iran's politics and nuclear crisis. It gives the so-called "pendulum theory" of Iran's politics, which states that it swings from the conservative to the reformist side with elections in the nation's quest for democracy, a well-deserved beating. But as it seems to be the habit of The Econmist when it comes to Iran, it comes short of, though it gives a hint at, articulating what is its most important factor (even in the nuclear crisis): the rationale of tyranny.

Labels: iran, media, politics

 

In the past few weeks, Iran's regime has added several new violations of human rights to its record. (See, for instance, Amnesty International's report.) Eighteen students belonging to the central council of Tahkim-e Vahdat, the main elected student political body, have been arrested on the anniversary of the attacks on Tehran University dormitories on July 9, 1999. Their office and homes were raided. Prison and other sentences were issued for women's rights campaigners. Bahareh Hedayat has been a member of both targetted groups. Human Rights First has more info and is asking for your support.

Today, Iran's state-run TV broadcast the first part of a program titled "In the Name of Democracy", which is nothing more than a televised "confession" of two Iranian-American academics, Haleh Esfandiari and Kian Tajbakhsh, who were arrested a few month ago on (bogus) national security charges. They "confess" to having been involved in a "velvet revolution" project. The move is part of a well-coordinated propaganda campagin with well-rehearsed Goebbelsian tactics. The broadcast was advertised in advance. When it was met with criticism from human rights activists in Iran and the West, an additional "analysis" segment was aired that "questioned" why the program is being criticised -- "could it be that they are afraid of what it shows?"

So, where is this wicked charade going to end up?

Labels: human_rights, iran

 

I always find it baffling when I hear or read about the psychological impact of an event on economy. I don't understand what is really meant by the term. Does it mean that the event in question somehow affects the psychology of the people in some unkown but pathological way and then this unhealthy state of mind impacts the economy? What I usually suppose they mean is that the said event either falsely signals a particular, non-existent situation, or that it is interpreted falsely due to invalid but popular theories. But to take people's reaction in such cases to be "psychological" and its economic consequences to be a sort of "psychological impact" on the economy, especially as a way of analyzing the situation, is hardly worth consideration in a rational, objective theory.

An example is this economic focus article in The Economist, which is concerned with the sensitivity of the Chinese economy to a stock market bubble burst. After giving a detailed account of who in China and how owns shares of the stock market and the proporion of companies and how much they issue shares in the market, The Economist concludes

The direct economic impact of a fall in Chinese share prices would therefore be modest.

But right afterward it continues

Some indirect effects could be larger. For instance, the psychological impact of a sharp sell-off could severely puncture consumer confidence.

But this way of viewing things is fishy. If the detailed analysis leading to the first conlusion is right then there remains nothing left to the psychology of the general consumer. Why should they care about a stock market sell-off if it doesn't affect them? What could be the case is that the consumers are not aware of this analysis. They have their own analyses. They act on them. If the result is a state of severly puncutred consumer confidence when the economic data show it need not be the case, I can't see this as the "psychological" impact of the stock market crash. It is the consequence of widespread false theories of what that crash means. It is perfectly non-psychological in exactly the same sense an otherwise solid consumer confidence would be.

Similar and much worse analyses prevail about inflation and prices in Iran. For instance, Davoud Danesh-Jafari, then head of the Economic Commission of Majlis and now the Minister of Economic Affairs and Finance, has the following theory:

"People expect the prices to go up when the new-year starts and this automatically pushes up the rates."

The fallacy of such claims is apparent on a little thought. Why, for instance, do people expect the prices to go up? As the same newspaper article also notes,

A close and impartial look at the budget statement and reasons behind chronic deficits show that unless the government comes up with ways to put a stop to the unchecked rise in liquidity, inflation will continue to haunt the economy not only during the next year but for years to come.

The psychological theory of inflation, of course, has no room in serious economics.

Labels: economy, iran

 

ILNA reports:

The last one who saw Hasan Hasani was one of his colleagues. Together with other workers they had gone to Kanaf (hemp) Factory in the morning to stop the evacuation of production machines but they faced the police. After they were beaten by anti-riot police they went to protest at the provincial governor's building. They were scattered by the police again. Then Hasan asked his coworker for some money. "He didn't even have a coin in his pockets." His coworker didn't have more than 500 tomans (less than $1) either. They shared the money. "He said don't count this as a loan. I didn't pay attention to what he said. We had been beaten since morning and just wanted to go home with our tails between our legs. He asked, they took the machines too, so is that it? I said, you saw what they did." He wanted to hear it from someone else that the little glimmer of hope to return to work had been destroyed. "No machine, no work. He knew, poor man! He took a cab with the money to go to the factory faster." At 1pm they found Hasan Hasani dead hanging from a rope in an abandoned factory. His eyes were white and his teeth had cut the tip of his tongue. The factory security who found him said, "he had tightened the noose so strongly I had to cut the rope to bring his body down." Such was his determination to go.

He had not received his wage of less than $200 a month for 11 months.

Labels: economy, iran, workers

 

A horrible blast in Samarra, Iraq has shattered the shrine of two Shiite imams on Wednesday. On this, the Supreme Leader of the the Islamic Republic said the following:

"The disgraceful and blind-hearted agents behind this big crime, whether they are remaining stooges of Saddam's Baathist regime or the beguiled Wahhabi and Salafi fanatics, it cannot be doubted that the intelligence services of the occupiers and Zionist's are the main masterminds of these heinous schemes."

But what causes this incredible certainty? This, he says:

"The occupiers have left the scene open to terrorists and panic-mongers to weaken the bases of the popular government of Iraq and justify their illegitimate presence in that country and are causing discord among Muslim brethren."

Apart from the nonsensical equality claimed between "leaving the scene open" and "masterminding" the crime, His Supreme Excellency sees of course no need to further explain why the occupying forces would even need such desperate justification for their presence. Are they benefitting from it? Even a cursory look at the facts shows this not to be the case. The US is spending hundreds of billions of dollars on its presence in Iraq. That would equal the entire Iraqi oil production in a decade. They have lost in excess of 3000 of their soldiers in Iraq. Even on a personal and political level, G. W. Bush is greatly unpopular because of the mishandling of the aftermath of deposing Saddam's regime. So what is there to gain in causing even further unrest? The simple answer is none.

But there is a lot to gain for Mr. Khamenei and his regime in spreading such lies and distorting the truth. In opposing the US, however irrationally, they buy legitimacy for their illegitimate hold on power in Iran and the region. By wrongly putting the blame of the crime on the US presence in Iraq they muddy the waters. But whether or not they can catch the big fish they are after depends just as much on our, the ordinary citizens' sense of justice, reality and truth.

Labels: iran, iraq, politics, US

 

There is a great confusion in the way people think about a tyrannical regime like the Islamic Republic of Iran. Does the regime really mean all the hateful propoganda they spread about the West? Do they mean it when they express a desire to "wipe Israel off the map" or "crush America under their feet"? Or when they write them on the missiles paraded in the streets? Aren't they just trying to survive? Wouldn't everyone else in their shoes do the same? Shouldn't we separate the "intent" (survival) from propaganda? Isn't the Islamic regime just another rational player? (See this comment, for instance.)

Some of the answers are "yes", and some "no". But the point is these questions miss the actual rationale of tyranny.

I don't have a problem with accepting the Islamic regime, as a whole, as a rational player. But so what? Even rational players have assumptions that go into their decision making. And there is always room for questioning the moral justifications of those assumptions. Yes, even a tyrant could be rational. But does that somehow make his tyranny okay?

Would anyone in a tyrant's shoes do the same under external pressure? No! Why should they? If the outsiders have reasonable demands, one could adequately assure them that their demands are met. One doesn't need to be a violent and abrasive dictator even in an authoritarian system. Even a tyrant really does have options. In particular there is always the option of accepting to dismantle the dictatorship altogether. This has been demonstrated many times in recent history of non-violent revolutions, be it in Eastern Europe or in Chile.

But what about the intent and the propaganda? It is a major (and sometimes deliberate) confusion of logic to claim that the fact that a tyranny's intent is to survive would somehow make the propaganda it spreads less lethal and dangerous. It is the complete opposite. Tyrannies spread hateful and false propaganda because they want to survive. Survival is why they do what they do and propaganda (and repression) is how. And when the why demands that they actualy act on the how they won't cringe. There is ample historical evidence for this. Here's one relevant to Iran:

In the second half of the Iran-Iraq war (more or less after Khorramshahr was liberated by the Iranian forces) when Iraq was in a defensive position and was seeking a ceasefire, the Islamic Republic continued the war and said it would not accept the UN resolution No. 598 for a ceasefire. So the war continued for another 4-5 years during which hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed and the economy was shattered even more.

How did they convince the people to do this? Propaganda, of course, besides a cycle of repression and fear. The walls of Tehran were covered with slogans such as: "War, War, Till Victory!" or "The Path to Quds Goes Through Karbala" or "War, War, Till Mahdi's Revolution!". The only two TV stations were filled with stories of martyrdom, etc. Saddam was kafir (nonbeliever) and the war was one against kufr (nonbelief). Classic tyrannical propaganda methods were practiced. Moreover, almost any voice of dissent was brutally silenced. Those who had differing ideas from the head of the power pyramide, from all stripes and colors even many early supporters, were silenced, jailed and/or executed.

Why did they do this? To survive. Did they believe in all they said? Probably not. In fact, after the intent for survival forced the weakening regime to finally accept the ceasefire in 1988 (or "drink the potion of death" in the words of Khomeini), it was suddenly as if Saddam was no longer kafir or the path to Quds did not go through Karbala.

In short, the strategy of tyranny is set by the intent for surival and its tactics by the propaganda. They go hand in hand. So the question of whether they believe in their own propaganda becomes irrelevent to what they would actually do. They'd do as they see fit for their survival and this could include acting on existing propaganda, or creating new ones. But what is for certain is that we on the outside should never dismiss or devalue the dangers of their propaganda.

Labels: freedom, iran

 

Iranian.com, a popular community web site, has published a rare letter by a group of academics including Noam Chomsky and Hamid Dabashi, prominent voices of the Left, to the government of Iran in protest to the recent detention of Kian Tajbakhsh. Though it starts by calling the policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards its own citizens "repressive", the real reason behind the letter shows even in the title: the anti-neocon agenda. Here, it shows up as:

The Iranian government should know how damaging these arbitrary arrests are to the country’s reputation and how these arrests have given ample opportunity to American neocons to vilify an entire nation in the interest of yet another military adventurism with hundreds of thousands of innocent lives at stake.

And also in the concluding remark:

The systematic abuse of human and civil rights of Iranian citizens can only exacerbate Iran’s international isolation and play into the hands of warmongers in the United States.

In this logic the problem is not the systemic abuse of human rights per se, but that it plays into the hands of "neo-cons". Even when they finally raise a voice in protest to a really repressive regime, Messrs. Chomsky, Dabashi and Co. would not miss a chance to repeat the false and ideological claim that the neocons are the real villains.

This truly disgusts me.

The neocons' influence on American politics has diminished greatly over the past couple of years. Evidence that no serious presidential contender in 2008 seems keen on the neocon strategy. In any case, there is--and always has--ample opportunity to oust the (remaining) neocons from office democratically. There is no such end in sight for the Islamic Republic's repressive policies. What excuse would this idiotic bunch use when G. W. Bush is gone in less than two years?

Labels: freedom, human_rights, iran

 

Why should Iran's government arrest people who have apparently been trying to portray a good image of Iran abroad? Ms. Esfandiary, for instance, the director of the Middle East program at the Woodraw Wilson Center had been regularly analyzing the political situation in Iran and its elections as if they are happening in a perfectly democratic setting. In the most recent example of such an analysis, Iran After the June 2005 Presidential Elections, there is hardly any mention of voting fraud, undemocratic laws and institutions, and the extremely limited choice, which essentially undermine any analysis of the elections and their implications for the demographics and the wants and needs of the electorate that presupposes a democratic setting. In brief, her activities could be seen as a vindication of the Islamic Republic. So, why is she prevented to leave Iran after a regular family visit, interrogated long hours for weeks, and finally detained on clearly bogus and selective charges? (In fact there are yet no charges, just hints at what they entail.)

The reason is simple once we look at the Islamic Republic as what it is: a tyranny whose first and foremost objective is to prolong its existence and the reasons behind it. Of course, Ms. Esfandiari has not been active in anything that would resemble a plan for toppling Iran's theocracy. The words freedom, democracy, liberalism and their derivatives do not even appear in the Wilson Center Mission Statement. But she is a known figure in a known institute concerned with Iran's politics. As such, she must have contacts with other scholars, including those who could be considered liberal and/or active in institutions with an agenda for democratic government and human rights in Iran. Her arrest is a scare tactic. It is even more effective once her background and her line of thinking is taken into account.

There are a few million Iranians living outside the country for various reasons. Almost all of them still have family and close friends in Iran whom they would like to visit. This diaspora could be very effective in ending the tyranny in Iran in various ways. So, it pays greatly to scare them off.

But now what? What should we do? Apart from the calls and the campaign to release these innocent men and women, an important thing for the Iranians abroad is to show that they are not scared, and for those who care for freedoms to bolster their calls. This does not mean engaging in silly and plainly dangerous activities. All it needs to show is that such scare tactics will not work. If this advanced assault on our front is not withheld the international pressures by the Iranian diaspora on the government of Iran to behave will be subdued and their effectiveness eroded. Then, we could expect an even worse situation inside Iran for those we love and care about.

Labels: freedom, human_rights, iran

 

Iran's government has detained four Iranian-American dual nationals: Parnaz Azima, who works for Radio Farda, the Persian channel of Radio Free Europe; Haleh Esfandiari, an academic who was most notable for promoting a positive image of Iran; Kian Tajbakhsh, who is affiliated with George Soros' Open Society Institute; and Ali Shakeri, founder of the Center for Citizen Peace Building at the University of California, Irvine. Regardless of the details of their cases, these men and women are being held against their will on bogus charges.

There are many more unnamed individuals in similar conditions who don't make it to the headlines. But even when they do, like Mojtaba Saminejad, Arash Sigarchi and Sina Motallebi, there remain parasitic analysts and apologists of Iran's regime, who live by passing on as experts (on what?) in every online forum they can sell themselves off, that insist this is just a figment of our imagination. It is in fact perfect daylight, they proclaim, despite all the evidence of a pitch dark night. They are morally accountable for the lies they spread and for the harms they inflict. For lying in the same bed with the evils of our time. Because they do so knowingly.

Labels: human_rights, iran

 

Yaghoub Yad-Ali, an Iranian novelist, has been jailed since March 14, 2007 in the eastern city of Yasouj, Iran for what has been called "insulting ethnic groups and interfering with national security." The charges are related to two of his books, Halat-ha dar Hayat and Adab-e Bigharari (The Ritual of Restlessness), published in 1998 and 2004, respectively. Books published in Iran are first vetted by the Ministry of Islamic Culture and Guidance's censor office and must have an official permit. The charges of insult have been brought against the writer because in the first book he had described a "special" relationship between a female character who speaks Luri and a man other than her husband. The second book was awarded the 5th Golshiri Best Novel of the Year in 2004.

His conditions are reported to be grave. His request for release on bail has been denied by the judge.

(Via خوابگرد and BBC Persian.)

Labels: human_rights, iran

 

Someday is the title song of Nazanin Afshin Jam's début album. It is a recounting of the "regressive revolution" that marked her birth in Iran. The Revolutionary Guardians of the new regime "jailed and tortured" her father. "Awaiting execution, it was the family's escape to Europe that saved them from political persecution." The song is poignant and powerful. With her passion for human rights (she staged a major international campaign to save another Nazanin, a minor, in Iran from execution), intelligence, and beautiful and effective art Nazanin is a fine example for the Iranian youth in diaspora -- and for my generation as a whole.

Labels: canada, human_rights, iran, music