a écrit :WPI Briefing 168-169
Weekly of the Worker-communist Party of Iran
Editors: Fariborz Pooya and Maryam Namazie
February 19, 2005
In this issue:
* On the US threat on Iran, Interview with Hamid Taqvaee
* On the USA's military threat, Resolution of the WPI Political Bureau
* Which side to choose: the USA or Iran? Mansoor Hekmat
* Read Mansoor Hekmat's English translated works on
www.m-hekmat.com/translationsEn.html* We will make you give in! On the campaign to save Hajiyeh Esmaelvand from stoning
to death, Interview with Sohaila Sharifi
* Warning to the Mojahedin Organisation of Iran regarding the possible US military
attack on Iran
* We condemn the attack on secularism and the civil rights of the people of Iraq
* See International TV English on
http://www.anternasional.tv/english. This week's
programme: the US military threat on Iran; the rise of the socialist and popular
movement in Iran and the Islamists' attempts to impose Islamic law in Iraq.
____________________________________________________________________
* Our apologies for taking such a long winter break. We are back, though, and will
continue providing you with thought-provoking pieces on important Left and
social-political issues as well as updating you on the Worker-communist Party of
Iran's activities on a weekly basis. TV International English has been broadcast
every Sunday throughout Iran, Europe and the Middle East during this time but our
site has not been updated for some while, which is why those of you who watch our
programme via the internet were unable to do so. We have begun updating the site
once more and will be including archives not updated since January soon. Bahram
Soroush hosted the programme over January; for the time being, Fariborz Pooya will
be hosting the programme.
* On the US threat on Iran
Interview with Hamid Taqvaee
Fariborz Pooya: What are the aims and objectives of the US government's threat on
Iran? Is it only because of the nuclear facilities of the Islamic Republic of Iran
or do they have a wider objective in this regard?
Hamid Taghvaee: As you have said, the US is undoubtedly not pleased with the Islamic
Republic of Iran having nuclear weapons. However I don't think this is the main
reason for the US' threat. It is similar to what happened recently in Iraq - the USA
did not declare its real motives for its attack on Iraq either. The USA says it is
threatening military attack because the Islamic regime is developing nuclear
weapons. However, I think the main reason is to make the Islamic Republic submit to
US' policies in the Middle East. The main problem is the Islamic regime's role
specifically in Iraq and Palestine. These are the two key issues the US is concerned
about. The main aim of the US is to force the Islamic regime to back off and play
within the framework of US foreign policy in the Middle East. The USA has also
mention human rights in Iran. This is merely propaganda and for public and media
consumption in the same way that weapons of mass destruction were in Iraq. We need
to look deeper and go beyond these to find out the main reasons behind the USA's
threat.
Fariborz Pooya: So you are saying that the broader objective behind the US threat is
not necessarily nuclear weapons nor human rights violation in Iran, but the broader
objective of US efforts to prevent the Islamic Republic of Iran and political Islam
from having an influence in the Middle East specifically in Palestine and Iraq. We
know that in Iraq, Iran is busy in the south organising the Islamic movement to
establish a religious government in Iraq. But we see that in Iraq the US is happy to
accommodate the Islamic movement. Is the US policy to change the Islamic regime in
Iran or reduce its influence?
Hamid Taghvaee: The US has serious concerns with what the Islamic Republic is
striving for in Iraq. Of course, in Iraq they have an Islamic government and it was
obvious that they were going to have that - as long as it is a 'friendly' Islamic
state as far as US foreign policy is concerned. That is the same sort of Islamic
Republic they want to see in Iran, something unlike Al-Sadr, but like Sistani. That
is the main reason and the key issue as far as relations between the US and the
Islamic Republic is concerned. I do not think that they want to get rid of the
Islamic Republic in Iran. That is not their goal. This would create a political
vacuum and the US is not sure what direction it would go. We know there is a mass
popular Leftist movement against the Islamic Republic in Iran and the US is not sure
that if they topple the Islamic Republic whether they will be able to control this
mass movement. That is the difference between Iran and Iraq. So that is the main
reason why they are not after the entirety of the regime in Iran. They want the
regime to change somehow. They want to have some sort of Islamic regime similar to
what they have in Afghanistan or what they may have in Iraq now. I think that is
their main objective.
Fariborz Pooya: In the resolution you say that the military threat is not highly
likely or immediate. Is it your assessment that the military intervention is just a
threat?
Hamid Taghvaee: I think they might use military action, but I do not think it to be
probable. That will be their last resort. They will try all diplomatic means at
their disposal first. In this respect it is different from what happened in Iraq. In
Iraq, they knew that Saddam and his regime were ready for anything; politically,
they wanted to invade Iraq and topple the Baathist regime in Iraq; they said it and
did it. In Iran they are not saying that they are after the regime, and I do not
think they are. In Iran they are after a political and diplomatic solution. That is
the way they want to settle the question, because Iran, geo-politically is very
different and more important than any other country in the region. The stability of
Iran is extremely crucial for the export of oil from the Gulf to the rest of the
world. All of these are barriers; if they invade Iran, the whole region, politically
and economically, would be in disarray. They are aware of these factors. The path
they want to follow to achieve their goal is mainly diplomatic. Again, in this
respect the situation is different from what we had in Iraq.
Fariborz Pooya: We know one of the current characteristics of Iranian society today
is the strong popular movement for the overthrow of the regime. What would be the
impact of a US military attack on this movement and the balance of forces between
the popular movement and the Islamic regime?
Hamid Taghvaee: The very mention of the threat is a negative factor. It has always
been so in Iran. It changes the issue at hand. Before the issue of the US attack on
the Islamic Republic, people were actively opposing the regime; we had a strong and
widespread popular movement. Almost all sections of the society from students,
teachers, workers, nurses, women, and so on were part of this widespread and strong
movement for the regime's overthrow. As soon as the US intervenes in this situation,
it changes the factors and issues to something else. It acts as a barrier to the
popular movement. It can potentially change the whole situation, especially if they
act militarily. Then everything will be changed radically and will suspend the
people's movement.
The people of Iran are not being represented in this war-like situation. In this
situation, the role of the communists and the Left is to prevent people from
returning to their homes and to urge them to be present on the streets; the mass
movement should continue and be even more radical and progressive against both sides
of this war. However, the fact remains that this war is against the people of Iran.
Both sides are against the revolution; we will do our best to prevent this from
taking place.
Fariborz Pooya: So this war will have a negative impact and is against the people of
Iran, and the Left, progressive and socialist movement would try to prevent this
war. As a final question, Hamid Taghvaee, what is your message to the progressive
public opinion in the west?
Hamid Taghvaee: My message to the people in Iran and all over the world is that
both sides are against the progressive movement in Iran. The people of Iran are not
represented in this war. The US has its own policy which has made a mess in the
Middle East. You see what has happened in Iraq and Afghanistan. We will not let the
same thing happen in Iran. As far as the Islamic Republic of Iran is concerned,
people have 25 years experience of this most brutal oppression in Iran and for them,
the regime must go. But not through US intervention. This is a war between two camps
of terrorism. On the one side, you have western state terrorism and on the other,
Islamic terrorism and political Islam. Both sides have been active against each
other and both are against people all over the world. As far as Iran is concerned,
people should know that supporting either side will not solve any of their problems.
This war has nothing to do with what people really want and the people should
organise, be active and loudly and clearly declare that they are against both sides
of this war. The war should not take place and if it happens it must be stopped
immediately.
The above interview was broadcast on February 13, 2005 via TV International English
and can been seen on
http://www.anternasional.tv/english.
* On the USA's military threat
Resolution of the WPI Political Bureau
Adopted February 9, 2005
1. The recent US government's military threat to attack the nuclear facilities of
the Islamic regime of Iran is linked to its policy towards guaranteeing USA hegemony
after the Cold War within the framework of the New World Order doctrine. This in
particular is another round of confrontation between western state terrorism versus
Islamic terrorism.
2. The possible USA military attack is thrusting the world into a new phase of the
war of terrorists and towards further destruction and the killing of civilians. On
one side of this war stands the immense war machinery of the USA's state terrorism
and its allies and on the other stands Islamic terrorism and the despicable
political Islamic movement. This potential war and its expansion will take many
victims from the defenceless and innocent people of Iran and other corners of the
world.
3. Contrary to the propaganda of the western media, the aim of the USA's military
policy against the Islamic Republic of Iran is not merely to neutralise the regime's
efforts to gain access to nuclear weapons. Undoubtedly, the west will not tolerate
an atomic Islamic Republic but nuclear disarmament is not the crux of the recent tug
of war between the Islamic Republic and the USA. The specific aim of the USA is to
challenge the influence of the Islamic regime of Iran in Iraq and Palestine and to
drive back and restrain political Islam that is dependent on the Islamic regime,
particularly in the Middle East.
4. It is not highly likely that the USA will carry out its military threat. The USA
is stuck in a quagmire in Iraq and does not want to face a similar experience in a
society with vast geopolitical significance such as Iran. Moreover, what makes the
USA cautious in attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran is the difference in societal
conditions in Iran compared with Afghanistan or Iraq - the likelihood of a popular
uprising against the Islamic regime under the Left's banner. The consequences of the
people's struggle under the Left's leadership vis-à-vis both sides of this war will
mean a loss of control by the regime and the west. The possibility of people's entry
into the political scene with Left and freedom-seeking slogans is an important
element in the USA administration's cautious approach in its war against the regime.
The USA government will first and foremost strive to use its military threat as a
means to reach a diplomatic solution. This situation further suggests that the
objective of any USA military action would not be the overthrow of the Islamic
regime but rather, to force the Islamic regime and political Islam to retreat and in
order to confine it within the framework of the USA's foreign policy in the region.
5. Politically and as far as the people's revolutionary struggle against the Islamic
regime are concerned, the USA's attack on the Islamic Republic and even the very
utterance of and hype surrounding this threat, is a negative development and an
obstruction in the path of the revolutionary movement for the overthrow of the
regime. The first and earliest consequence and impact of the US military attack
would be the consolidation of the Islamic regime in the short term, intimidation of
the population at large, and the overall bolstering of the Right's alternative and
solutions in society. It is even possible that in the event that the people become
desperate and lose hope and are consequently forced to retreat from the scene of
struggle that the structure of society may collapse and Iran may find itself in a
similar situation to that of Iraq. However, despite this situation, for the Left
movement, there exists a real possibility to confront this and turn the situation in
the people's favour. The existence of an immense revolutionary movement for the
regime's overthrow, the immense hatred of political Islam's rule by a vast majority
of the population at large, and the social presence of the Worker-communist Party of
Iran are amongst the factors that can change the developments completely in favour
of the people and their struggle against the regime. Active resistance against both
poles of the terrorist war and organising an active, vast and vigorous struggle for
the overthrow of the Islamic regime under these conditions is completely linked to
the actions of the Left in society and in particular - the Worker-communist Party of
Iran.
6. With the increased military threat and the confrontation between the USA and the
Islamic regime, and particularly if the threats are materialised, a new realignment
within the ranks of the counter-revolutionary opponents of the Islamic regime will
take place. On the one hand, in the religo-nationalist movement, support for the
regime will increase under the guise of opposing foreign intervention and on the
other hand, in the pro-west Rightist movement, the military attack will be backed
with the hopes of increasing their likelihood of gaining power. The Mujahedeen
Organisation of Iran (PMOI) is also hopeful that it can organise military manoeuvres
in border areas under the cover and backing of the USA's attack. These seemingly
contradictory positions of all the counter-revolutionary camp are in reality ways in
which to bolster their shared strategy and objective of opposing the revolution and
the popular revolutionary struggle of the people in the current situation.
In light of the above, we declare:
1. The Worker-communist Party of Iran (WPI) unequivocally condemns the USA's
military attack and both sides of this military conflict, i.e. the terrorism of the
Islamic Republic as well as the state terrorism of western governments. It calls
upon people in Iran and across the world to oppose both poles of terrorism. The path
to freedom and liberation of the people of Iran will not come about through the
confrontation of these two poles which represent today's capitalist barbarity. The
overthrow of the Islamic regime and achieving freedom, prosperity, and equality are
only possible with the revolutionary struggle under the banner of the civilised
world, humanity and socialism.
2. The WPI will confront any attempt to militarise the political environment in Iran
and intimidate and repress the people's struggle under the pretext of the USA's
military attack and will not permit the war of terrorists to bring the struggle of
workers, women and youth to a halt.
3. The WPI will use the subsequent situation as a result of the conflict between the
USA and western governments with the Islamic regime to organise and mobilise the
revolutionary movement on a massive scale to overthrow the Islamic regime. The only
way to prevent the USA's military attack, and in the event of its materialisation,
to neutralise its destructive effects such as revenge terrorist attacks, is to bring
to the fore the workers, women, youth and other protesting sections of the
population for the overthrow of the regime and the attainment of prosperity, freedom
and equality under the banner of a better world and the socialist republic.
4. The WPI will relentlessly and consistently expose the positions and actions of
parties and political opposition forces that take sides with the Islamic regime or
the west in this military confrontation. The WPI will stand up to any force that
will act as an ally of the USA or the Islamic regime. The guiding position of the
party will remain representing the revolution, defending the people's revolutionary
movement and intensifying and pushing it forward vis-à-vis the entire
counter-revolutionary camp either in power or in opposition.
5. The WPI calls on the progressive and humanist people of the world to oppose the
USA's military threats and the state terrorism of the USA and other western
governments on the one hand and the Islamic regime and political Islam on the other.
The ever stronger and more widespread the presence of people, labour unions,
humanitarian and progressive organisations and groups internationally, the more
effective will be their determining role in the confrontation with these two poles
of terrorism at an international level.
Translators: Maryam Namazie and Fariborz Pooya
* Which Side to Choose: the USA or Iran?
Mansoor Hekmat
The below article was written by Mansoor Hekmat in 1993. The WPI Briefing is
publishing this article for the first time in English because of its relevance over
a decade on.
The possibility of a US economic squeeze or military attack against the Islamic
Republic of Iran has renewed antiquated pre-occupations and sentiments within the
Iranian bourgeois opposition. For some, this indeed is the verdict for the regime's
imminent overthrow. Once again, the old question of 'which side to choose' is echoed
in the corridors of former Leftists and today's nouveau democrats. Irrespective of
the differences in their interpretations and choice of their directions in this new
gamble, a set of shared assumptions forms their thinking. If any truth is to be
revealed, these assumptions must be shattered. Contrary to the opinion of the
majority of these groups:
The USA and west do not aim to overthrow the regime. Undoubtedly, human rights
violations and the regime's crimes against the people are not the concern of the
United States. Though, the issue is also not about the Islamic regime's terrorism
nor the danger of its gaining access to nuclear weapons. The Islamic regime and the
monster of 'Islamic fundamentalism' are currently, and for completely understandable
reasons, the next candidate for the post of evil empire and the anti-thesis of
western civilisation, which has remained vacant since the fall of the Soviet Union.
Political stability, avoiding military confrontations in the west and the industrial
world despite the intensified trade war, and the opportunity for the USA's
leadership as the military superpower requires such a strategic enemy. What is in
the west's agenda is to hoist the Islamic regime in this new role and not to bring
about its downfall. The very hands that are deemed to destroy the regime are
actually also holding it up to prevent its downfall.
The west's pressure, especially if it leads to military intervention, will in fact
extend the regime's life span. Such an attack will in the first instance give the
regime an open hand in intimidating and terrorising workers and the toiling
population at large and will prevent them from intervening in politics. The ruling
administration will consolidate itself around an ultra-right wing and phalange-ist
platform. Military intervention against the Islamic regime, when it faces an
economic dead-end and political paralysis, and the increased likelihood of people's
intervention, will be a heaven-sent blessing for the despicable regime.
We are struggling for the overthrow of the Islamic regime of Iran and against the
establishment of the reactionary New World Order. For worker-communism, there is
only one side to ally with and that is the interests of a workers' revolution and
the task of freedom.
Translators: Maryam Namazie and Fariborz Pooya. The above is an editorial first
published in Persian in August 1993 in International number 7.
* We will make you give in!
Campaign to save Hajiyeh Esmaelvand from stoning
Interview with Sohaila Sharifi
Bahram Soroush: There was a very successful campaign to save Hajiyeh who sentenced
to death for extra-marital relations in the city of Jolfa in Iran. How do you see
it?
Sohaila Sharifi: It was intensive and successful. Mina Ahadi, the coordinator of the
International Committee against Stoning, kicked off the campaign. We contacted
numerous human rights organisations, staged demonstrations, collected signatures,
and organised stalls in many European cities. We tried to get in touch with as many
people as possible to exert international pressure on the Islamic regime of Iran.
In cases like this, it is a struggle between us and the Iranian regime. Every now
and again they start a case of stoning and are challenged by us. And everybody waits
to see what we do. We managed to stop many such stonings. Hajiyeh is still in
prison. But they said they were not going to stone her. The Iranian regime retreated
because of the international pressure and the pressure inside Iran.
At one point there was news from the city of Jolfa that the regime was preparing the
square to stone her the following day. There were vigils several cities. People came
out spontaneously. What happened in those few hours? The moment we heard from our
contacts in Jolfa that the regime was preparing to stone her, we had to do
something. Mina Ahadi urged people to do something about it on a radio programme.
The response was that immediately a lot of people came out, holding candles and
protesting against the stoning. At the same time we contacted the European Union
about the urgency of the matter. Previously Mina Ahadi had met EU officials. Prior
to that, we had also contacted organisations like Amnesty International. It was good
that they issued an urgent action and petition.
There was also a demonstration outside the Iranian embassy in one city. The
interesting thing was that the officials were so afraid that they closed the
embassy.. It shows the intense pressure they were under.
About two years ago, under the same international pressure, the Islamic Republic of
Iran declared a moratorium on stoning. But despite that, they continue to attempt to
carry out stonings. How do you explain that?
The problem is that the law of stoning is still there. The Iranian regime hasn't
withdrawn the law. According to one of the officials, only a few weeks ago at a
Friday prayer that, "it is a real shame that we cannot carry out stonings. This is
our law and we should carry it out. But our enemies won't let us do it". And he was
suggesting to the government that they should do it in prisons. He said they could
not do it publicly but they could still do it in prisons. That is their position. As
I said before, they put forward a case every now and again to see what kind of
reaction they will get. If they didn't get so much protest and pressure they would
not hesitate for one second to do it. Another example is the case of Zhila and Babak
Izadi who were sentenced to death. If it wasn't for this sort of campaign and
protest that we run all the time, the Iranian regime would carry out its executions.
Bahram Soroush: How was the response different from the public in your own
experience from the previous campaigns?
Sohaila Sharifi: This time it was really quick and we were surprised. The response
we got was overwhelming. People were responsive and helpful. It helped us a lot,
especially because it was very urgent. We had collected 2000 signatures within 2
days. We had so many letters of support coming in. At the same time many people were
sending protest letters to Khatami, the Iranian president. They condemned stoning
and demanded the banning of stoning not only in Iran but everywhere. It was an
international outcry.
Bahram Soroush: It was somehow snowballing. Wasn't it?
Sohaila Sharifi: If you remember the case of Amina Lawal in Nigeria, you notice that
the campaign to save her from stoning went on for 2 years. So many organisations
were involved. But Hajiyeh's campaign went on for only 10 days. Ten days of hard
work by many activists - from telephone calls and the organisation of activities
late at night to writing letters and articles.
There was actually a telephone call from the office of the Iranian president to Mina
Ahadi asking her: 'why are you embarrassing the Islamic Republic of Iran?' This was
the first time there was such a response. Other times they would come up with lines
such as "we didn't mean to stone Zhila". But this time by calling Mina Ahadi they
acknowledged that stoning is happening and Mina Ahadi is leading the struggle to
stop it. They actually said that "we will not give in this time"! Mina's response
was: 'We will make you give in!' And that is what happened.
Bahram Soroush: What is the situation with Hajiyeh now? Has the threat of stoning
been lifted?
Sohaila Sharifi: No. The European Union has contacted the Iranian regime about
Hajiyeh. The Iranian authorities have replied that they are not going to stone her.
So far all that has been announced is that they are not going to stone her. She is
still in prison and nothing is certain about her future. That is why our campaign
must go on. We want the banning of stoning and we want to make sure that nobody gets
stoned.
The stoning of Hajiyeh was suspended after an intensive 10 day campaign. This is not
the end of the campaign because of two reasons. First of all the stoning threat
against Hajiyeh has just been lifted but is not indefinite. She is still in prison
so the campaign is going to continue until her release. Secondly, the issue of the
abolishment of stoning from the penal system in Iran must continue. Actually the
third reason is that there are people now physically sitting in prison like the case
of Laila Mafi so we can't stop now. Laila is 19 years old but has a mental age of an
8 year old. She was forced by her family into prostitution at a very young age. She
had her first child when she was 9. She was flogged at that time for being a
prostitute. She was in prison for a while. She then had her twins when she was 14.
Again while she was pregnant with the twins she was in prison and flogged. She was
accused of spreading immorality in the society. She has been sentenced to execution.
We have launched a campaign to stop her execution. She is physically 19 but mentally
a child. Even if she was mentally 19, she hasn't done anything wrong. None of this
is her fault. In an interview she had said that she hadn't even seen any money for
what she has done. She gets sweets to keep her going. She was abused by different
people including the regime and her own family. All the abusers are walking free and
she is left the victim of society and is going to be executed.
Her case has had a lot of publicity which is very good. It has led to the Norwegian
government to make an official protest to the Islamic regime of Iran. One point
which has received a lot of attention including in the urgent appeals issued by
human rights organisations like Amnesty is the fact that she has the mental age of
8. But even if that was not the case you would have opposed it anyway.
Bahram Soroush: Exactly. We have opposed the death penalty for many people. For many
women under the same situation but for different reasons. Even if she had decided
with all her senses intact to sell her body, it wouldn't have been a crime. It is
considered a crime by the government but it is not a crime. Especially in a society
where poverty has left many to resort to other means of survival. Could you please
tell us a bit about other men and women who are in jail. For example Hajiyeh's
partner or lover who has also been condemned to hanging. We don't even know his name
but he is also under threat. So are several other women like Shahla Jahed, Kobra
Rahmanpoor, Afsaneh Norouzi, Zhila Izadi. What is your campaign going to do about
their release?
Sohaila Sharifi: So far, during the past few years each time we start our campaigns
we aim at stopping the immediate danger. What happens then is that the regime says
it is not going to stone them but they remain in prison. The regime's policy is such
that they hope people will forget about them and they can do whatever they want to
the prisoners, like in the case of Zhila. They said we will keep her in prison
because she will not be safe outside! She has been flogged and her brother is also
in prison. These are only the cases that have been identified by organisations like
us and have been made public. The arrested people like Zhila, her brother and the
baby should be released and protected.
The above interview was broadcast on January 23, 2005 via TV International English
and can been seen on
http://www.anternasional.tv/english archives.
* Warning to the Mojahedin Organisation of Iran regarding the possible US military
attack on Iran
Worker-communist Party of Iran
16 February 2005
According to several reports in the European media, including German TV WDR Monitor
programme, which aired on Thursday 3 February, a number of CIA agents were quoted as
referring to the Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI) as a force that will aid the
US' possible attack on Iran by providing such support as target identification and
guerrilla raids. The CIA agents referred to the PMOI as 'our terrorist' group - one
that backs the USA. The programme showed PMOI military exercises and praised their
military capacity. A Pentagon civil servant stated that the PMOI is 'ready to do
things which we would be ashamed, and over which we try to be silent' In the same
programme, the PMOI's National Council of Resistance (NCR) spokesperson Mohammed
Mohadesin took a conciliatory role towards co-operation with the US' military
forces.
Two weeks after this programme, the PMOI has not denied these reports and their
military co-operation with the USA forces in a possible attack on Iran. The PMOI's
silence on such a sensitive and important issue could only be interpreted as their
approval of such an alliance with US policy.
The Worker-communist Party of Iran regards the PMOI and the NCR position as
alarming. Any alliance or cooperation in any shape or form with the possible US
military attack on Iran from any group or organisation is condemned and will be seen
as contributing to the disastrous consequences of war and hostility towards the
popular movement for the overthrow of the regime. The Worker-communist Party of Iran
will stand against any co-operation and collaboration with or endorsing of the
possible US war and will expose such groups. The PMOI is answerable to the people of
Iran and must declare its policy clearly and openly towards the US military threat.
The military conflict between the US and the Islamic Republic is completely against
the popular revolutionary struggle of the people to overthrow the regime. The
Worker-communist Party of Iran calls on all political opposition parties and
organisations to avoid backing any side in this terrorist war.
* We condemn the attack on secularism and the civil rights of the people of Iraq
A political Islamic group in Iraq known as the Shiite Reference or Almarji'yah Al
Shi'iyah has recently made a hostile and reactionary statement in which it has
clearly launched a flagrant attack on freedoms, civil rights, secularism, civility,
and modernism of the citizens of Iraq. This position was expressed in an
announcement issued by that group demanding that Islam be made the sole source of
legislation in the state's expected constitution.
Political Islam in all its factions has depended on the outcome and support of the
US war on Iraq in order to shamefully confiscate the will of the Iraqi people. It is
now trying through the huge support of the Islamic regimes surrounding Iraq to
strengthen its grip on society and convert it into another huge prison for the
aspirations of millions of its citizens who are eager to live in a modern and
secular society.
The people in Iraq despise living under the tyranny of Islam and its sheikhs and
Mullahs with their anti-women and barbaric Sharia laws especially after witnessing
the inhumane and brutal practices of the Islamic regime in Iran, the Taliban in
Afghanistan, the Saudi rulers and all the other political Islam-stricken countries.
The Defence of Secularism and Civil Rights in Iraq (DSCRI) condemns such statements
and declares that it will stand against all those who try to attack civil freedoms
in Iraq.
We will not only oppose Islam being the sole source of legislation but we will
struggle so that Islam as a religion finds absolutely no place in the new
constitution of Iraq.
We demand the immediate separation of religion from the state and the educational
system and consider religion to be a personal matter. We demand freedom of religion
and atheism in Iraq. The imposition of religion is not permissible on the society.
We will escalate our campaign in all international venues and among all human rights
and women's rights organisations in order to expose the attempt of those mullahs as
an inhumane political Islamic movement against the people with the disguised back-up
and encouragement of the USA and western governments.
We call upon all freedom loving people, secularists, women and humanitarian
organisations in the world to denounce this statement and expose its consequences on
the freedom and equality of the people in Iraq. We urge the support to our
organisation in its efforts to push the demand of secularism and civility to the
forefront of Iraqi society and to establish a civil, modern, and humane society with
a secular non-nationalist state which grants equal rights for all its citizens.
Issam Shukri
Defence of Secularism and Civil Rights in Iraq (DSCRI)
Baghdad - Iraq
www.secularsociety.net * See International TV English
On
http://www.anternasional.tv/english On Sunday 13 February 2005, Fariborz Pooya interviews Hamid Taghvaee on the US
military threat on Iran; Azar Majedi on the rise of the socialist and popular
movement in Iran and comments on the Islamists' attempts to impose Islamic law in
Iraq.
TV International English is broadcast via satellite TV every Sunday from 8:30-9:30pm
Tehran time (5:00-6:00pm London time) on Satellite: Telstar 12, Centre Frequency:
12608 MHz, Symbol Rate: 19279, FEC: 2/3, Polarization: Horizontal. You can also see
the programme on its website throughout this week:
http://www.anternasional.tv/english. TV International/English is a weekly hour-long
news analysis and commentary programme that focuses on the Middle East and rights
and freedoms from a progressive and Left standpoint. The programme also plays music
selected by Mona Razani, the programme's VJ.
Prior to the English programme, Fariborz Pooya also hosts a half-an hour long Farsi
programme as well as an hour and a half long Persian programme on Tuesdays from
8:00-9:30pm Tehran time (5:00-6:00pm London time) on Satellite: Telstar 12, Centre
Frequency: 12608 MHz, Symbol Rate: 19279, FEC: 2/3, Polarization: Horizontal. You
can also see the programme on its website throughout this week:
http://www.newchannel.tv.
For more information or to comment on the programme, please send an e-mail to
m.namazie@ukonline.co.uk or call +44 (0) 7719166731.
