This is Citizen Journalism

What happened a few days ago in Zanjan should wake us all up. This ‎is not the first time that a public official violates a young woman, nor is this confined to ‎Iran, or limited to a deputy university chancellor or a police superintendent who ‎presented themselves as pious and law-abiding citizens in public while privately ‎engaging in heinous acts. If such behavior began with the poet Hafez, then it has a history ‎of at least six hundred years.‎

The use of publicly unaccepted behavior to expose those in power is not a new even in ‎politics. What is relatively new is that someone filmed an event using a mobile phone and ‎another person posted it on You Tube, making it instantly available around the world. ‎Forty thousand people are recorded to have accessed the site in four hours. What all this ‎means is that a crime committed by a deputy university chancellor appointed by ‎Ahmadinejad’s minister of science, Mr. Zahedi, became a worldwide event in an instant. ‎If someone asked why is Mr. Zahedi or Mr. Ahmadinejad dragged into this, this is my ‎response: It is because these individuals claim to be the pious, of having a pious ‎administration and boast spending money on the missing twelfth Shiite saint, while at the ‎same time belittling and negating the world for being “corrupt”. It is because these people ‎have put themselves at the center of the world and who ever toes their line will be ‎protected by them as if their credentials have been approved by the missing Shiite imam. ‎If someone falls out, then he is announced to be the enemy of the very same saint.‎

Every society wakes up to a tune. Some to the tune of church bells, while others to the ‎calls of the Moazen. Still others wake up to a gentle breeze.‎

But we Iranians, who seem to disregard our ancient history whose grandeur is completely ‎lacking today and whose triumphs have not passed on to our generation, have only a tiny ‎interest in this fatherland and do not care about its past which is occasionally aired to fool ‎the masses. But we cannot continue to pretend to be living in the Stone Age. A mobile ‎phone is not just something that you take out of its box and plug it in and call our home. ‎A mobile phone means a documentary, photos, transmission, dissemination, connection ‎to the rest of the world, etc. And all of this without recourse. If you wish, you can ‎continue to practice your ancient habits and deny modern tools and needs, to issue orders ‎to find “the trouble source”, order to shut down websites, issue fatwas to kill, etc. But ‎these will not resolve your problems or solve things. Yes, issues can be resolved, but not ‎this way.‎

The film on You Tube shows how a university authority who ordered students around at ‎one time, was suddenly trapped and then fell to the mercy of the very same students he ‎was bullying. All of this because of a single mobile phone.‎

Look at the impact of the Internet since it became a national and public tool of the Iranian ‎people since eight years ago. Look at the impact it has had on our social life. One of its ‎changes is that until a few years ago people in power regularly smeared and defamed ‎their opponents using any language they wished. Today, the same, people are scared. ‎Unless of course they are like Keyhan newspaper (state appointed daily) and its followers ‎who have given up on the future.‎

If one counted the number of individuals who in recent years made slanderous ‎accusations in their speeches, interviews, and public talks against others, they are ‎countless. Nobody has bothered to count them. Nobody plans to. But all you have to do is ‎look at the number of cautions that have been recently issued about being slanderous and ‎defamatory with the aim of protecting people’s image and respect, and you will see the ‎power of the mobile phone.‎

The Anniversary of Book Burning

Recently we passed the 75 anniversary of Nazi book burning and on the occasion, a ceremony was held in Berlin, among other German cities. Last week I saw a poster in Berlin on the occasion that invited the public to the event. What caught my attention was the poem by a German poet on top of the poster, which read: Wherever they burn books, one day they will also burn humans.

At the very least, the Nazis showed that this was not just a slogan but also the reality.

A few days ago a film on book burning in Hitler’s Germany was shown to the public. What is frightening about the film is that the individuals who are shown to be tossing books into the flames are decent-appearing people, and not outcasts or drifters. Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels (officially the Minister for Public Enlightenment) says something in the film that is striking: “If perished milk is given to children in schools, the government is accountable; if expired medicine is given to patients, the government is accountable; corrupt books are worse that perished food. We will not allow injurious food to be given to German children.”

Goebbels words sound similar to those who these days defend censorship and condemn people for their views. What is even more frightening is that the public book burnings in the film were only part of the bigger picture and events that took place outside the public view. And sometimes this issue does not even need books, censors or flames. By simply telling people not to read a book or that it should not be in a library simply because I do not like it or its views is in practice doing what Goebbels was prescribing and preaching.

Governments that create conditions for book publishing and designate pre-viewers to read books before making them available to the public, in fact view themselves as self-appointed guardians of the public. They do the same thing with newspapers. Governments that have money and power but deny the Internet and bandwidths to the public too are doing what the book burners were doing. While people around the world read San Suu Kyi book, those in Burma are not allowed to, or Chinese language books abound all over the world except in China. These events and practices are no less than the book burnings that have taken place.

So as the 75 anniversary of book burning passes and the event is condemned worldwide, other forms of book-burning flourish. These events and views need to be condemned as well. Anyone who bans a reading material because he or she does not like its contents needs to be rebuked. Stalin did the latter without actually burning any books.

Robert Mugabe did this in yet another way. With seventy percent illiteracy, a 10,000 percent inflation rate, there is no money or desire to buy books for anyone. There are also some countries that do not have a Mugabe but their illiteracy policies and rates amount to a form of book burning.

But regardless of how the goals are accomplished, whether through Nazi book burning or Stalin’s methods, Mugabe’s practices, the colonels polices in Burma, etc one thing is clear: Book burning indicates a fear, the fear of free thought and ideas. Book burners know that they have nothing to say and his fear drives him to book burning. Samuel Beckett was right when he said that one day people would read all the burned books and hatred for the book burners would abound. If human progress and advance could be contained and checked, then the Church with its threats, Nazism with its zeal, Stalinism with its arrogance would have succeeded. But none of them did.

leader, Responsible for Today’s Condition? ‎

A few days after the publication of the letter of Ahmad Ghabel, a religious reformist who ‎criticized the supreme leader for “assisting a gang's takeover of the country” and ‎‎“dictatorship of one vote,” in his last speech on the floor of the Majlis, representative ‎from Tabriz Akbar Alami blasted Ayatollah Khamenei for miseries imposed on the ‎nation by institutions under his control. ‎
What made the Tabriz representative’s criticism all the more significant was his assertion ‎that "the supreme leader is equal to others in the eyes of law" and that "the supreme ‎leader and his appointees are responsible to the people and must be held accountable for ‎their actions."‎
‎ ‎
Such criticisms of top government officials are ordinary happenings in other countries. ‎However, in Iran, the reaction of the judiciary and paramilitary pressure groups to the ‎slightest criticism of the supreme leader’s responsibilities or performance has been very ‎severe and violent. ‎
Akbar Alami’s speech on the Majlis floor, and his reference to Ayatollah Khamenei’s ‎legal duties, finds new meaning given the Ahmadinejad administration’s mismanagement ‎of the economy, resulting in high inflation and unemployment rates, which have ‎diminished the popularity of the president (and those supporting him) in the public's eye. ‎
The administration, which has been enjoying high oil prices (above hundred dollars per ‎barrel), because of its propaganda efforts, has been identified in the minds of the people ‎as the supreme leader’s favorite administration and, as a result, Ayatollah Khamenei has ‎come to bear the blame for the government’s failures. ‎
On the other hand, Iran's hardline stance in the nuclear case, which has resulted in the ‎passage of Security Council resolutions against Iran, exacerbating the nation's economic ‎woes, has been identified as Ayatollah Khamenei's chosen policy. ‎
The handling of the eight Majlis elections, which were ridiculed as the Islamic Republic's ‎worst election experience, and which was engineered by the Guardian Council, are ‎among other criticisms pointed at the supreme leader. ‎
That Mr. Alami's directed his latest criticism at the supreme leader and the Guardian ‎Council, and not Ahmadinejad, is because of the vast powers given to the supreme leader ‎by the Constitution, enabling him to control all government branches in the Islamic ‎Republic. ‎
An official who has the largest arsenal of legal powers in Iran's history, and in whom the ‎largest amount of constitutional powers are gathered, must find a way of holding ‎institutions under his rule accountable. Otherwise, the supreme leader will no longer be ‎able to blame officials under him, including those in the executive branch, for failures ‎and hope that people will do so too. ‎
No one has yet volunteered in the Islamic Republic to supervise the supreme leader's ‎performance. In the future though, this task may find some volunteers, perhaps in the ‎Assembly of Experts, headed by Hashemi Rafsanjani. ‎

Shutting the Information Outlets

po_masoud_01.jpg

The recent long directive by Iran’s National Security Council to the media instructs them ‎on how to write various domestic and international news reports. Such a directive has no ‎precedence during the last 30 years and is thus a sad return to dictatorship whose ‎difference aspects call for analysis.‎

Iranian officials who dictate such rules for the country’s media have probably forgotten ‎the fate of the Shah and his regime. Many documents pertaining to the years prior to the ‎‎1979 revolution remain and clearly show that when the Shah learned of the irreversibility ‎of the revolution there was nothing he could do to calm things down.‎

But why did the Shah arrive at such a situation? The answer is clear: During the Pahlavi ‎regime, censorship was so entrenched in the country’s media that instructions were sent ‎to the media on a daily basis, finally leading to a situation where SAVAK (the state ‎security agency) had representative in the national radio, television and newspapers who ‎controlled the headlines. The media had become so void of any criticism that the only ‎person they really deceived was the Shah. By reading the censored news of the time, the ‎Shah had come to believe that his opponents were merely a bunch of terrorists all of ‎whom were behind bars. He had come to believe that his enemies had relations with ‎Western oil companies or were in contact with Soviet spy agencies and worked on their ‎orders. He had come to believe that all international human rights organizations were ‎associates of his enemies. According to existing documents, things were such that since ‎‎1976 the Shah had instructed not to receive the confidential Imperial Inspectorate reports ‎because, in the words of the Minister of the Court, they contained negative points that ‎made him angry.‎

The Shah’s practices were identical to those of the current Supreme National Security ‎Council which expects the media to observe the various instructions it sends them so that ‎nothing that may be of serious concern about the situation in the country be published.‎

The results of these practices are such that, for example, according to the official ‎government newspaper Iran, the President has stressed that “Iran today is the number one ‎power in world” and that the critics of his administration are nothing but propaganda of ‎the country’s enemies. He has further said, “There are always people who exaggerate the ‎power of the enemy and even ignore their own confessions of defeat. But today, ‎everybody knows what the truth is.”‎

Under such censorship conditions dominating the country, the President easily makes any ‎claims he desires and is not even accountable to explain anything to the public, including ‎the basis on which such blown up claims are made. Is it not right to ask him what source ‎considers Iran as the number one power in the world? If some poor or wealthy country, or ‎perhaps some middle men in some foreign bank or company, or even an official in a ‎country that aims to get oil at some discount rate makes such strange and bizarre claims ‎to some naïve Iranian authorities to make them happy, does this a good reason for the ‎president of the country to publicly announce that “Everybody now has learned that “Iran ‎has turned into the number one power of the world?”‎

Those who desire to rule through the control of the flow of information, will not only fail ‎in the long run to hide information from the public, but will even keep the authorities ‎further from the truth. Such a situation is foremost dangerous for the regime itself. Iran’s ‎rulers should not forget the fate of the Shah.

War With the Free Media

The recent banning of 5 Internet sites by Tehran’s Public ‎Prosecutor on charges that they are “poisoning” the elections ‎atmosphere, which was followed by similar threats made by the ‎minister of Islamic Guidance, attests to the growing power of ‎the Internet in Iran’s world of media.‎

In the five years since the Internet has been established in Iran, ‎many plans to control it have been launched, and all have failed. ‎After Khatami’s administration, the first thought that came to ‎the minds of the new right-wingers was to limit the Internet ‎lines, reduce the expansion of fiber optics and escape ‎commitments to expand high band width resources and ‎communications facilities. But they soon realized that the needs ‎of the military-defense, industry-services, and education and ‎research sectors of the country for cyber resources were so high ‎that they could not minimize their availability and usage.‎

At the same time, policies and projects that had succeeded in the ‎realm of television (controlling them) did not work for the ‎Internet. The creation of hundreds of pro-government and right-‎wing Internet sites did not diminish the interest of Internet users ‎in using independent websites.‎

In the nineties, the Iranian regime had tried for 2 or 3 years to ‎dissuade the public from installing satellite dishes to gain access ‎to foreign sources of information through police tactics. But ‎those failed and it came up with another strategy which was ‎partly successful. It began showing foreign serial programs and ‎all international sporting events on its own government ‎channels, thus making it unattractive for the public to watch the ‎foreign channels, whose content many could not follow because ‎of language limitations. So after a passage of about a decade and ‎a half, one can say that even though the government news media ‎is one sided and its programs are propagandist, the entertainment ‎aspect of the controls have worked.‎

The same can be said of Persian speaking foreign media such as ‎the Voice of America. The VOA which may appear to be ‎successful has turned into a propaganda tool because ‎professionally it has the same mission as the Iranian government ‎television network. Rather than producing independent ‎programs, it has become a propaganda tool and thus has a ‎limited appeal among Iranians. With this state of affairs, one can ‎say that the professional and non-ideological aspect of news ‎dissemination in Persian is now absent. The Iranian public is ‎thus deprived of a Persian news media that is independent and ‎credible. The visual and propagandist media is lost in its ‎extreme and non-professional activities. So the only outlet that is ‎left for the news-hungry Iranians is the Internet. The Internet ‎remains and independent source and is thus effective in reaching ‎Iranians.‎

So the publishing media is now controlled by the Iranian ‎government which has tens and tens of its own publications. It ‎also controls the national radio and television network which is ‎for all practical purposes under the monopoly of the right-wing ‎elements of the regime. Iranian opposition television stations ‎outside Iran have little impact on Iranian society because they ‎are now very distant from the actual events inside Iran and not in ‎touch with what is really going on. So despite all the controls ‎that the regime has imposed on public access to the Internet, this ‎media remains its greatest concern to the effect that it fears that ‎even this narrow channel could suddenly create the eruption that ‎it most fears. ‎

Even from the perspective of the rulers of Iran, the practice of ‎filtering websites, arresting Internet activists, and identifying ‎websites that it deems inappropriate have not produced the ‎desired results. And this is why on the eve of the parliamentary ‎elections in Iran on March 14, the government is increasing its ‎efforts to control the Internet, which it will probably intensify ‎even more.‎

Iran Has Been Full Of Them

Even though those following Iranian developments have become used to reading strange ‎and usual news about Iran during the past three years, still some events do come as a ‎surprise. Among these is the news that the new secretary of Iran’s Supreme National ‎Security Council told Solana, the EU foreign policy tsar in their first message, that he ‎was not bound by the words of his predecessor, Ali Larijani.

Another one is about the a ‎photograph that shows Mr Ahmadinejad smiling under the banner of the “Arabian State ‎of the Gulf Cooperation Council” in Doha. The members of the Gulf Cooperation ‎Council (GCC) have always refrained from adding the adjective Arabian to the name of ‎this association, because of the differences that have existed between Iran and the Arab ‎states to the south about the name of the Persian Gulf. Iran has relied on historic ‎documents which have called the waterway Persian Gulf, while the Arabs domestically at ‎least call it the Arabian Gulf. So the name was in a way a compromise. But even this ‎small alteration is sufficient to provide our southern neighbors with an important ‎document and evidence for their purposes, and which could lead to colossal negative ‎consequences for Iran, even though the government’s propaganda machinery has claimed ‎a victory for preventing them from using the term Arabian in its name.‎

One should note that when the new administration came to power the new chief nuclear ‎negotiator Ali Larijani is not recorded to have ever said that he did not accept the views ‎of his predecessors, despite all his criticism of the way his predecessors had pursued the ‎nuclear issue. Imagine what would happen to the world and relations among countries if ‎new governments rejected outright what their predecessors had said or undertaken. The ‎Islamic Republic too has recognized the agreements and arrangements made by the ‎monarchy and the government’s position on Bahrain is a clear example, despite the ‎remarks by a cleric in the early days of the Republic who made territorial claims on the ‎island, whose independence was recognized by Iran in the seventies following its ‎referendum. Similarly Saddam Hussein could not get the agreement of the Islamic ‎Republic in its drive to abrogate the 1975 agreement that put a new land and river ‎demarcation between the countries. Similarly Iran’s debts and foreign investments were ‎recognized by foreign governments through the principle of state succession. In light of ‎this, one wonders how to interpret Mr. Saeed Jalili’s recent remarks.‎

Mr. Ahmadinejad seems to have an agenda with a daily gush of propaganda surprises, ‎regardless of their impact on the country’s national security. He seems to believe that ‎these shockers can be translated into national pride! His approach is similar to the late ‎ayatollah Khomeini’s, after whose death Le Monde wrote about his three million man ‎funeral procession, “The final bombshell of a man who shocked the world for ten years.”‎

The first time the unconventional views of Iran’s revolutionaries about world issues ‎reached the public was when former US Attorney General Ramsey Clark and British ‎officials who met the ayatollah on the outskirts of Paris reported these back to their ‎respective countries. And of course this brought about unconventional responses from ‎them as well. But many subsequent events only confirmed this trend, i.e. that what they ‎are witnessing is a new regime with new tools and methods to advance its interests and ‎interact with the world, none of which had any records or precedents in the national ‎archives of the West. And as Western observers, analysts, politicians and statesmen were ‎searching for answers, more shocks came out of the pipeline. The take over of the US ‎embassy in Tehran, the failure of the hostage rescue mission, the secret trips of Iranian ‎officials to Europe over the hostage issue and other desires, the abandonment of the ‎Iranian elements recruited to provide logistical support in the hostage rescue mission, are ‎among the numerous shockers provided by Iranians. Among the greatest most recent ones ‎is when the CIA discovered and announced that the young man who had just been elected ‎the new President of Iran was the very same person who had been present at the US ‎embassy in Tehran when it was run over by the so called students in 1980 and argued ‎over first taking over the Russian rather than the US embassy first. ‎

The other shock worth mentioning is about the participation of Iran’s president in a ‎meeting of an organization which the Iranian national radio and television, among other ‎state run propaganda agencies, proudly claims to be the “Persian Gulf Cooperation ‎Council”, while photographs and the large emblem hanging over the head of Mr. ‎Ahmadinejad read “The Arabian Countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council.” ‎

This is not an insignificant event and we may soon see others making reference to it. The ‎President’s supporters have proclaimed it a victory that they had succeeded in changing ‎the name of this regional grouping. State run Keyhan newspaper has even called for a ‎national holiday on the victory. It called for a similar celebration when the Caspian Sea ‎littoral states met in Tehran and claimed that the fact that the event was held in Tehran ‎was a great victory. Regarding the GCC meeting in Doha, Keyhan said the meeting was ‎thumbing the nose at the organizers of the meeting in Annapolis in the US. The ‎newspaper then asked, with the conference in Doha, could an alliance be expected ‎between the Arabs and the US against Iran. It continues to argue that while the Arab ‎invitation of Ahmadinejad to the GCC meeting does not signal the resolution of all ‎outstanding issues between the southern Arab states and Iran, it is a great leap towards ‎this end, at the same time indicating the failure of the US to widen the gap between Iran ‎and the Arabs while not being an alliance among the Islamic states either. And while the ‎US is committed to isolate Iran, it continues, it should be noted that it will never be able ‎to stop Iran from remaining and perhaps even growing as a powerful Islamic symbol in ‎the Middle East and the world. The path to defeating Iran is getting narrow by the day.‎

But while Keyhan does not expect a response to its claims, it may be said that, “An ‎alliance against Iran has already been formed because of Ahmadinejad’s policies. Iran’s ‎greatness has nothing to do with any specific government or regime and this prevents the ‎Arab sheikhs from executing their wishes. But you have taken every possible action to ‎weaken Iran, none of which will be effective. What the Arab nations saw of Iran a few ‎days ago is that its government hides from its people the fact that its President ‎participated in a meeting in Doha out of fear of its own people. You can lie as much as ‎you like but by going to those who are taking away gas from South Pars fields in the ‎Persian Gulf, and who will not diminish their claims on the three islands in the waterway, ‎you will not change their claims. And what is more is that you are even proposing to ‎provide the water and gas needs of these very people. One must ask you, why do they get ‎preference over the Iranian people in the south who lack similar basics. Is this what they ‎deserve for defending their motherland in a bloody war a quarter of a century ago?‎

Flattery surrounds the current Administration and Hamid Reza Taraghi’s (belonging to an ‎official of the Hezbe Motalefe) is exemplary, when he writes, “In view of the fact that ‎this council is primarily in the hands of the Arab states of the Persian Gulf, the invitation ‎that they extended to the President of the Islamic Republic is an indication that they have ‎accepted Iran as a neighboring member and also that the name of the waterway is the ‎Persian Gulf, signaling their retreat from their previous position vis-à-vis Iran.”‎

Even Khomeini had in his talks said that the differences and purpose that those in power, ‎and his supporters had, was because of their own personal greed and goals, and had ‎nothing to do with Islam. Similarly, when current authorities make humongous claims of ‎advancing national interest, they are in fact simply pursuing their personal goals and ‎ambitions.‎

the veil

MPORTANT CULTURAL EVENT

The Veil
From the palace harem to occupied Paris, experience the incredible journey of a Persian princess and "see her world from behind The Veil.


"The Veil is a sweeping, epic drama that flows as fluidly and rapidly as a good movie." (Chronicle Herald)


OneLight Theatre has developed an original adaptation of Behnoud’s epic novel, Khanoom in association with Neptune Theatre and Mermaid Theatre of Nova Scotia. The staging of The Veil will transport the audience on Khanoom’s journey from her childhood in the Qajar palace, to war-torn Europe and back to her childhood home, forever changed by war and revolution.

"It holds its audience in the grip of a different culture and the strong voice of its women. " (Elisa Bernard)

Join four generations of women as they struggle to find their identities, independence and a place for themselves in a rapidly changing world. This original play, written and directed by Shahin Sayadi, will play in two Canadian cities:


Halifax:
October 30-November 18, 2007
Neptune Theatre Studio – www.neptunetheatre.com - 902.429.7070


Toronto:
November 28 – December 9, 2007
Harboufront Centre Studio – www.harbourfrontcentre.com -416.973.4000

" The Veil, directed by Sayadi with a strong ensemble cast and a keen eye for visual imagery, is, so far, one of the best shows this fall for its thorough development and artistry." (Chronicle)


A OneLight Theatre production
Written by Shahin Sayadi, based on Masoud Behnoud’s Khanoom
In association with Neptune Theatre and Mermaid Theatre of Nova Scotia