Viðbrögð við úrskurði saksóknara Írans

Í dag barst bréf frá Allsherjarhúsi réttvísinnar, æðstu stjórnstofnun bahá'í trúarinnar, þar sem kemur fram að í ljósi þess að starfsemi stjórnunarnefndanna sem hafa haft umsjón með lágmarksþörfum trúarinnar þar í landi sé ekki lengur liðin af hálfu stjórnvalda hafi verið ákveðið að leggja þær niður. Þetta ætti ekki að vekja of miklar áhyggjur þar sem ýmsar leiðir eru fyrir bahá'í samfélagið þar í landi að skipuleggja starfsemi sína.

Einnig hefur Alþjóðlega bahá'í samfélagið skrifað opið bréf til Ayatollah Qorban-Ali Dorri-Najafabadi ríkissaksóknara bréf í framhaldi af nýlegum yfirlýsingum hans í fjölmiðlum um að starfsemi stjórnunarnefndanna væri ólögleg og vísaði til þjóðaröryggis.

Þetta bréf er ítarlegt og bendir honum á þá hættulegu rökvillu sem felst í orðum hans nýverið að fylgja meginreglum eða sannfæringu sinni sé öllum frjálst en að tjá þær þannig að aðrir afvegaleiðist sé hinsvegar ekki leyft:

In reference to Article 20 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran pertaining to the rights of its citizens, as well as Article 23 related to freedom of belief, you have stated: "Adherence to a principle or belief is free [to anyone], but to openly express and proclaim it in order to cause deviation in the thoughts of others, to manipulate, pretend, disseminate [ideas], and otherwise attempt to deceive and confuse people will not be permissible." Such a statement tests credulity to an extreme. It is widely recognized that similar statements have been used by repressive regimes throughout the centuries to justify the arbitrary suppression of conscience and belief.

Bent er á að það sé algerlega fölsk röksemdafærsla að hægt sé að aðskilja sannfæringu fólks og tjáningu hennar í orðum og gerðum:

The suggestion that it is possible to separate the convictions held by an individual from their expression in words and action begins an entirely false line of reasoning. To see its absurdity one need only ask oneself what it means to have faith if it is not consciously manifested in one's relationships with others. Qualifying the argument by implying that only those expressions of belief which cause deviation in the thoughts of others are objectionable may appear reasonable at a first glance. In reality, of course, it is a means of granting license to those in authority to suppress whomsoever they wish, for it leaves open the possibility of labeling any action or comment not to their liking as a cause of deviation in the thoughts of others. In any event, the record of the Bahá'ís of Iran is clear in this respect. They have never sought to cause such deviation, nor have they ever attempted to deceive and confuse people.

Síðan er saga ofsóknanna í Íran rakin fyrir saksóknaranum lið fyrir lið. Bréfinu lýkur svo á lýsingu sem getur ekki annað en snortið hvern þann sem hana les:

In light of these well-established facts, Your Honor, it is difficult to understand how words such as "manipulative" and "deceitful," "dangerous" and "threatening," can be applied to Bahá'í activity in Iran. Do you consider dangerous the efforts of a group of young people who, out of a sense of obligation to their fellow citizens, work with youngsters from families of little means to improve their mathematics and language skills and to develop their abilities to play a constructive part in the progress of their nation? Is it a threat to society for Bahá'ís to discuss with their neighbors noble and high-minded ideals, reinforcing the conviction that the betterment of the world is to be achieved through pure and goodly deeds and through commendable and seemly conduct? In what way is it manipulative for a couple to speak in the privacy of their home with a few friends confused by the portrayal of Bahá'ís in the mass media and to share with them the true nature of their beliefs, which revolve around such fundamental verities as the oneness of God and the oneness of humankind? What duplicity is there if a child at school, after listening to offensive language about the Founder of her Faith Whom she so loves, politely raises her hand and requests permission to explain to her classmates some of the teachings she follows? What deceit is there if a young person, committed to the acquisition of knowledge and learning, seeks the right from the authorities to enter university without having to lie about his faith? What harm is done if several families gather together periodically for communal worship and for the discussion of matters of concern to them all? Given that the human soul has no sex, is it so alarming for someone to express the view that men and women are equal in the sight of God and should be able to work shoulder to shoulder in all fields of human endeavor? And is it so unreasonable for a small group of people, in the absence of the administrative structures prescribed in their teachings, to facilitate the marriage of young couples, the education of children and the burial of the dead in conformity with the tenets of their Faith?

These are but a few examples of the various endeavors for which the Bahá'ís of Iran are being so grievously persecuted. It is the right to engage in such activity that has been denied them for thirty years

Your Honor, many times over these twenty years the Yaran [stjórnvaldsnefndin fyrir Íran] and the Khademin [stjórnvaldsnefndirnar fyrir hvert sveitarfélag fyrir sig] have been told by government officials that they are in fact protecting the Bahá'í community from those who regard its members as a negative element in society. It is true that there may be a small fraction in any populace who, succumbing to the forces of hatred and enmity, can be incited to perform acts of cruelty and oppression. But, in the main, our vision of the Iranian people does not correspond with the one projected by such officials. Narrow-mindedness and pettiness are not the qualities that we attribute to them. Rather do we see the staunch commitment to justice evinced by the citizens of one town who petitioned the government when several shops owned by Bahá'ís were closed without reason. We see the fidelity shown by the young musicians who refused to perform when their Bahá'í counterparts were prohibited from playing in a recital. We see the courage and tenacity of university students who stood ready to prepare a petition and to forgo participation in examinations that their Bahá'í classmates were barred from taking. We see the compassion and generosity of spirit exhibited by the neighbors of one family, whose home was attacked with a bulldozer, in their expressions of sympathy and support, offered at all hours of the night, and in their appeals for justice and recompense. And we hear in the voices raised by so many Iranians in defense of their Bahá'í compatriots echoes from their country's glorious past. What we cannot help noting, with much gratitude towards them in our hearts, is that a majority of those coming out in support of the beleaguered Bahá'í community are themselves suffering similar oppression as students and academics, as journalists and social activists, as artists and poets, as progressive thinkers and proponents of women's rights, and even as ordinary citizens.

Að lokum er honum bent á að ákvörðun dómsstóla á næstunni muni hafa mikla þýðingu langt út fyrir hið þrjúhundruðþúsundmanna bahá'í samfélag í Íran. Hér er í raun verið að tefla um sjálft trúfrelsið og frelsi allra íranskra þegna til að hafa tiltekna sannfæringu.

Bréfið í heild má finna hér: http://bic.org/areas-of-work/persecution/prosecutor-general-iran-en.pdf

Athugasemdir

[Hilmar Gunnlaugsson, 6.3.2009 kl. 18:55]

Það er leitt að Íran hafi þessa afstöðu gegn þessari friðsömu trú. Trúfrelsi ætti að ríkja. 

[Róbert Badí Baldursson, 7.3.2009 kl. 07:00]

Að sjálfsögðu. Við vonum að þetta breytist fljótlega.

[. (IP-tala skráð) 9.3.2009 kl. 08:11]

Frábært blogg Badí :)

[Róbert Badí Baldursson, 9.3.2009 kl. 16:38]

Takk Jakob!