Iranian woman living in Moscow airport seeks asylum in Canada

CBC News

January 23, 2007

An Iranian woman who has been living in Moscow's international airport for the last nine months continues to be in legal limbo as she seeks asylum in Canada. Zahra Kamalfar, who was granted refugee status by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Office in late November, said she wants to go to Canada with her two children. She said her brother has been living in Vancouver since he fled Iran as a refugee more than a decade ago. Zahra's lawyers said she's applied for asylum in Canada but there's been no response, leaving her stranded at Moscow's Sheremetyevo International Airport.
"I want to go Canada because I want go someplace that is good place, that is good place for future [of] my child," she told CBC News.
"Canada is number one in the world because person from Canada is very nice and they understand respect," her 18-year-old daughter Anna said.
Her lawyers said she arrived in Russia nearly two years ago, after fleeing Iran during a prison sentence.
She took her two children, got phoney travel papers and left for Canada, via Russia and Germany.
She got to Germany but was caught and sent back to Russia.
Zahra said Russian officials have tried to deport her, and her two children, back to Iran.
She said they won't allow her to leave the airport, where her family must sleep on the floor in public, and use a sink in a public washroom to bathe.
Meanwhile, her lawyers say the Canadian consulate won't give her any information about her case. Canadian diplomats say that Canada's privacy laws prevent them from doing so.
But her lawyers can't understand what's taking so long to treat her asylum request. Canada has a special procedure to deal with desperate cases in 72 hours and another for women in danger.
Zahra said what hurts most is seeing her children suffer, especially her 10-year-old son David.
"He need books, he need everything. Now he is very tired. Every day he cry and cry. He told me, 'I don’t have hope.'"

The Women’s Revolution in Iran: Interview with Ramesh Sepehrrad
The Global Politician

By Ryan Mauro

January 25, 2007
Ramesh Sepehrrad is political scientist and president/founder of the oldest Iranian women’s Organization in Washington DC: The National Committee of Women for a Democratic Iran (est. 1990). Sepehrrad comes from a family of political prisoners with first hand knowledge of the Iranian peoples’ suffering, particularly women, at the hands of the clerical regime. In addition to public speaking, she has been published in The Brown Journal of World Affairs, The Washington Post, The Washington Times, The United Press International – Outside View, Global Politician, American Chronicle, Women eNews, Feminist Voice, Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, and Women's Caucus for Gender Justice Newsletter.

RM: What is the state of women’s rights in Iran?
RS: The current status of women in Iran can be described in one phrase: system of gender apartheid. The regime in Tehran has institutionalized violence against women in its laws and regulations. Women are considered as second class citizens whose affairs have to be managed through their male guardians.

RM: Are women’s rights increasing or decreasing in Iran?
RS: Before 1979, women did not have much political or economic rights. They enjoyed some very basic social rights under the family act law in the areas of divorce and child custody. For this reason, women were an important player in the 1979 revolution, but fundamentalists, led by Ayatollah Khomeini, set the clock back for Iranian women. Under the rule of Vali-e-faqih (Supreme Leadership of clerics), aka Islamic Fundamentalism, women have no rights. The worldview of Islamic Fundamentalists describes women as a source of sin who must be controlled at all times. In the past 27 years, the measure of success of the Islamic Fundamentalists, be it turbaned leaders or not, was the depth of the suppression of women’s rights and activities. The constant battles among factions within Iranian regime are played out over women’s rights, hejab (compulsory dress-code for women) and public segregation.
 

RM: How strong is the movement for democratic change in Iran?
RS: Given the women-hating nature of the regime in Tehran, one can measure the strength of democratic movements in Iran through the active involvement of women in both leadership or other ranks of the organized resistance movement. Tehran’s regime has the highest
number of female political execution in the world, even higher than China. Yet, women are not deterred and continue to challenge the regime politically, socially and ideologically. I must say for the first time in Iran’s history, women’s movement is very much political in nature. Over the past several months, women have held some of the largest rallies in Tehran demanding more rights and freedom. Their strategy is commendable because they ask for the very basic social and political rights such as divorce rights, child custody or employment rights. Iranian women know their very basic demands shakes the very foundation of theocracy in Tehran. Iranian women are fully aware that Tehran’s regime will never heed to their demands, yet they continue push their agenda which is essentially a regime change. They are not alone. They have coupled their efforts with student and labor movement in Iran. They also have a very strong presence outside of Iran. For example, Maryam Rajavi, leader of the organized Iranian resistance movement in exile, has held numerous international conference and seminars since 1990’s to raise awareness on the threat of Islamic Fundamentalism. She has met with world leaders in Europe to raise the voice of democracy in Iran and push for democratic change in Iran. This is a sign of strength both inside and outside of Iran.

RM: What do you need from the West to cause change and what sort of change do you seek?
RS: Iranian women seek democratic change in Iran by the people and for the people of Iran. There is no need for military intervention and further talks or negotiation only legitimizes regime’s terrorist crimes and state-sponsorship of violence against women. Iranian people ask the west to isolate the regime politically, diplomatically and economically. The people of Iran can take care of the rest. The recent UN Security Council Resolution 1737 is a step in a right direction. Isolation and international pressure on Tehran’s regime empowers the Iranian people and weakens Ahmadinejad’s regime. This can pave the way for change by the Iranian people.

RM: Is regime change even possible in Iran considering how brutal the regime suppresses dissent?
RS: Absolutely. The price of freedom in Iran is very high and the brutality of the regime has cost thousands of lives, but the resistance is also very strong. I am reminded of a message from Valliollah Faiz-Mahdavi, a political prisoner who was murdered in prison a few months ago; who said: “In the course of my struggle I learned that for freedom fighters it is not all that important to personally see realized the ultimate aim of their efforts and sacrifice. What is paramount for them is steadfastness in struggle. I truly believe that freedom, democracy and justice are as vital to human life as the air one breathes. I thus permit myself to ask you not to abandon Iran’s just fight against the oppressive regime of the mullahs. I also have a few words for the leaders and minions of the regime: we will never resign ourselves to the ignominy of surrendering to your repressive dictatorship, even if it will cost us our lives.” Faiz-Mahdavi reminds us how Iranians will undoubtedly unseat the fundamentalist regime in Tehran.

RM: Looking at Iraq, the American people are hesitant to endorse regime change, due to the chaotic aftermath. Should the mullahs fall, who will replace them? How? Won't there be-infighting among people seeking to replace the mullahs?
RS: First, in Iran’s case regime change does not mean military attack and American people must understand the 26-year-old call for regime change is coming from Iran not Washington. In 1981 a broad coalition of democratic Iranian organizations, groups and personalities, was founded in Tehran. This coalition, the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), has been on the forefront of calling for democratic change in Iran. They have been exposing regime’s human rights since the 1980’s, terrorist network and activities since the 1990’s and illegal nuclear activities in the last 15 years. Although NCRI has been forced to exile, they have strong support among Iranians at home and abroad. Headquartered in Europe, NCRI have strong support among European parliamentarians and US Congress.
Second, while Iranian people and their resistance are fully aware of the chaotic aftermath in Iraq, they have been exposing the hands of the Iranian regime acting as the engine of chaos in Iraq. Reports publishes in numerous Iraqi newspapers, Time magazine, LA Times, Fox News and elsewhere testifies on Tehran agenda and drive to never tolerate democratic governance in Baghdad.
So, by continued promotion of chaos in Iraq and unlawful nuclear activities, Tehran is boxing Washington and EU to choices between US-led military attacks or negotiation (appeasement). However, as Maryam Rajavi said in European Parliament, there is another option and that is change brought about by the Iranian people and the Iranian Resistance.
This option will be costless for American people. The war with the Iranian regime is between the people of Iran and the regime in Tehran. Iranians are not asking for American soldier to fight their battle. Instead, they are asking America (Washington), to completely close the door on this regime and de-legitimize it politically and diplomatically. The rest is up to Iranians and their resistance movement. Because of NCRI’s comprehensive platform to protect the rights of all citizens, there will not be any infighting of any nature. NCRI plan is to have a transitional government, led by Maryam Rajavi as its president-elect, for 6 months. After that, there will be a nationwide election where people can decide on the type of governance.

RM: How likely is it that there'd be civil war in Iran as the various minorities seek independence after the mullahs are overthrown?
RS: All minorities have seats in NCRI which acts as a parliament in exile. According to NCRI’s platforms, the rights of women, religious and ethnic minorities are guaranteed and protected. If there is going to be change by the people and their resistance movement (NCRI), the chance of civil war and sectarian conflict is zero. No to mention, Iran has a very strong history in its national pride and unity. Let us not forget, in its modern times, Iran has experienced two major popular revolutions: the anti-monarchic (1978-79) and Constitutional revolution (1906-1910). Neither one resulted in such conflicts; instead it enhanced the national unity which is now echoed in the NCRI.

RM: Should there be a Western strike on Iran, how would the people of Iran respond?
RS: Disappointed and disenchanted. As mentioned, there is no need for Western strike. The only way to defeat the threat from Tehran’s regime is to support the call of change by Iran’s resistance groups such as Maryam Rajavi’s organization.

RM: How do Iranians view the Mujahideen-e-Khalq? What sort of reaction would occur if the U.S. were to back the group?
RS: Given the suppressive nature of the regime, no one can measure popularity of any political organizations. This regime does not adhere to any standards of liberal democracies which makes it difficult to assess the popularity of the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK/PMOI). However, one can certainly measure the Tehran’s fear of the effectiveness and impact of MEK in the society. According to a study conducted by a Washington Think Tank, Iran Policy Committee, the MEK is the topic of discussion over 230% more often than all other groups combined. The results suggest that the regime is worried about the MEK because of the latent and overt support the group has within the Iranian population and the capability of the MEK to facilitate regime change.
MEK is the largest member of the NCRI coalition. More than 100,000 of its members and sympathizers have been killed by the regime in Tehran. But it is the only opposition group that has maintained an active and effective network in Iran. Obviously, that would have been impossible without popular support in Iran. For the past two decades, MEK has been the single most effective and accurate source of intelligence on Iran’s terrorist activities, missile technology, bio/chemical weapons and nuclear weapons program. The MEK also has an effective network throughout Iran and organizes and conducts an assortment of protest and publicity activities across the nation. None of which could have been possible without a strong and favorable support among Iranians. At the end of the day, MEK organization is part and parcel of the Iranian society made by the sons and daughters of the Iranian people.
Although it is difficult to put numbers on MEK's popularity inside Iran, they have always challenged the regime with free and fair elections (with international monitoring), because the issue is not the MEK popularity, it is about the popular will. Another good indicator of level of support for MEK is outside Iran where Iranians can express themselves freely without fearing reprisals from the regime. In a rally against Ahmadinejad, September 2005 in New York City, more than 20,000 of their supporters showed up. Two months later in Brussels, some 35,000 came out in support of the MEK. So, no wonder the regime invest so much political and monetary capital to demonize and destroy the MEK.
On the issue of US backing, the people of Iran have only one demand and that is the removal of all obstacles from the NCRI and the MEK. Both the current and previous administrations blacklisted the MEK and the NCRI as terrorist organizations to curry favor with Tehran’s regime. The designation has been challenged in US courts and by members of Congress. The State Department no longer has any justification to designate them. In order to reinforce President
Bush’s promise that America stands with the people of Iran in their struggle to liberate themselves, the designation against the MEK and NCRI must be reversed and all political and legal restriction on this groups must be lifted. This approach will have short-term and long-term benefits.
In the short term, it helps with the expansion of the MEK’s intelligence network inside Iran on a variety of issues such as information about Iran’s nuclear and terrorist network throughout the Middle East, its support for chaos in Iraq, and a more detailed understanding of the political situation in Iran, including leadership issues and popular sentiment. In the long term it is a move in supporting and strengthening pro-democracy opposition in Iran that will deliver a more permanent solution to the threats posed by regime in Tehran. The fact is that the terrorist designation has hamstrung more than 90 percent of the social, political and financial potentials of the MEK. If removed from the terror list, the MEK can utilize all that effort toward organizing the opposition in and out of Iran.


RM: How do you respond to experts like Ken Timmerman who claim the MEK is a Marxist-Islamist terrorist group with little support inside Iran? Or those that point to Saddam Hussein’s sponsorship of MEK and use of the group to suppress internal strife?
RS: Other experts such as the members of Iran Policy Committee beg to differ with Mr. Timmerman. Clearly, an objective study on this group is in order. IPC experts have done an extensive research on these issues and published their findings on the MEK.
They have found that the phrase (an oxymoron) first came from the days of Shah in the 1970’s as a scare factor in the Iranian society. Shah’s secret police, SAVAK, manufactured this phrase to demonize the MEK and the current regime inherited it to further lobby against the MEK. I believe, looking at the published material and books by the MEK (a Muslim group), any expert and scholar can conclude MEK’s rejection of Marxism. An article by Dr. Safavi, a sociologist who has closely studied and followed the MEK activities, explains how Massoud Rajavi (leader of the MEK) delivered a series of lectures in Tehran University in late 1979 on the ideology of the MEK. He, in fact, saved his most extensive critical commentary for Marxist materialistic epistemology.
Still, ‘Marxist-Islamist’ has become a catch phrase among the MEK opponents who have not done their homework and used so callously by some experts.
On the issue of MEK’s relation with Saddam, the fact is, recently, Washington Times had a page on 5.2 million Iraqis (of the voting population over 18) who declared their support for the MEK. Their declaration was first reflected in Iraqi, Middle Eastern and Asian newspaper. So, if indeed the MEK was used by Saddam to suppress Iraqis why do they enjoy such popularity among the Iraqi people? Some even accuse the MEK of killing the Kurds, yet in 2002, Reuters obtained a document from a civil suit in the Netherlands testifying that the MEK had no part in Saddam’s brutal operations against the Kurds. The document, signed by a principal Kurdish political official, said that the MEK was not involved in suppressing the Kurdish people neither during the uprising nor in its aftermath. Furthermore, one has to ask the question that with the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime and 16 months investigation and interviews by several US agencies, where is the evidence on MEK’s involvement in any act against Iraqi people? They have not surfaced because there is none.
In July of 2004, the New York Times reported "there was no basis to charge any member of the group [MEK] with the violation of American law." In fact, the Multi-National Force-Iraq in 2004 recognized the rights of the MEK as "protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention." So, just as the members of US congress called them a “legitimate resistance group”, the recent Iraqi declaration reads “The terrorist allegation and designation of the People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran that with 120,000 martyrs is the prime victim of state-sponsored terrorism is neither legitimate nor credible and it should not be regarded as a criterion for relations with this organization.”
On the issue of popularity, experts like Dr. Kenneth Katzman of the Congressional Research Committee acknowledge the popular base of the MEK given their extensive access to Iran’s nuclear intelligence (Congressional briefing in summer of 2003). Ultimately, the answer to the question on MEK’s popularity comes out of the ballot boxes in a free and fair election in Iran. This has been and remains to be political challenge to Tehran’s regime. No matter what the outcome will be, let us focus on making sure such elections can take place in Iran.
To conclude, we must recognize the political realities in Iraq, Iran and the role of Tehran’s most formidable opposition, the MEK. I sincerely hope that some of our experts look beyond the catch phrases and see the fact for what they are and not what Tehran’s regime has painted them to be.

THE STONE & THE WOMAN
By Dr. Carole R. Fontaine 
February 2007

(In the Islamic Republic of Iran, stones used for public executions must be neither too large, nor too small; proper stoning requires that the stone must be just the right size in order to cause serious pain and injury without killing the victim too rapidly.)
 
How is a stone
Different from a woman?
Just the right size,
One makes death;
Woman,
Made to give life,
Cruelly dies…
 
Her age? No matter.
Her crime? Look at her:
Defence against a rapist?
Peddler of her flesh?
Just choose the crime
That looks the best
As index of social morality,
And pile up the stones
Of  brutality.
 
Not too big:
She will die too soon.
Not too small:
She must bleed and swoon
From the pain
All gather to see.
 
O, Defenders of Morality!
You soil the Qu'ran
With impunity,
So eager to make your world
Safe from sin,
You re-enact it again and again.

###