Iran: The Latest Post-Election Death Sentences

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran reports:

....Motahareh Bahrami and Mohsen Daneshpour Moghaddam (husband and wife) and their son, Ahmad Daneshpour, together with two of their close friends, Rayhaneh Haj Ebrahim and Hadi Ghaemi (not related to the Campaign’s executive director of the same name) have been sentenced to death.

The family’s other son, Meysam Daneshpour, told the news-website Roozonline that his family members were arrested at their home following Ashura protests. In an interview with the Campaign, Meysam Daneshpour confirmed the execution sentences and said that his family did not have any recourse to an independent lawyer during the lower court’s prosecution. He also said family members had no access to detainees during the prosecution. “We did not have access to them [detainees] for two months, but now we can meet them on a regular weekly basis,” Meysam Daneshpour told the Campaign.

The Latest from Iran (21 April): Waiting for News

All five had court-appointed lawyers during the prosecution, who failed to inform the family of the execution sentence. Maysam Daneshpour told the Campaign that he had not received an official notification of the court hearing or death sentence.



During the appeals process, Mohammad Sharif, a prominent human rights lawyer, was able to represent the defendants and launch an appeal for Motahareh Bahrami, Rayhaneh Haj Ebrahim, and Hadi Ghaemi, and is under review at Branch 36. However, the appeals case for Mohsen and Ahmad Daneshpour had been sent to Branch 36 and already confirmed before Sharif could lodge a defense.

According to Meysam Daneshpour, intelligence agents arrested his parents, brother and their friend, Hajebrahimi, at the family’s home following Ashura protests on 27 December 2009, and not during a protest. Their lawyer Mohammad Sharif told the Campaign the defendants are charged with “deliberate cooperation with MKO” [Mujahedin-e-Khalq], “gathering and colluding against national security,” and “propaganda against the regime and in the interest of enemies.” The evidence supporting these charges included a trip by the parents to Iraq to visit another son, who is a member of MKO, sending videos and pictures to MKO, and participating in demonstrations....

In a similar post-Ashura case, 47-year-old teacher Abdolreza Ghanbari was charged with Moharebeh (enmity against God) and sentenced to death because of alleged emails and phone calls he had with MKO’s television broadcast abroad....

A lawyer who presents political prisoners told the Campaign that when authorities accuse political prisoners of being members of opposition groups such as MKO, it becomes impossible for Iranian media, human rights lawyers and defendants’ families to publicize these cases. “The Iranian media cannot touch on these cases, and lawyers like me will face severe difficulties to pursue our work if we advocate on behalf of such defendants regarding the nature of such affiliation,” the lawyer said. “This gives the authorities a free hand to use such punishments to terrify government critics and dissidents.”

How Iran News is Made: Adultery, Earthquakes, and the BBC

I leave it to readers to interpret the significance in this tale of modern journalism:

SATURDAY, 17 APRIL, 1235 GMT: EA's global news team is hard at work. A Twitter lead takes us to the activist site Green Voice of Freedom and produces this update:

Tehran Friday Prayer in 3 Words. Apologies that, lost in the southeast US, I was unable to give you an immediate summary of Hojatoleslam Kazem Seddiqi’s Friday Prayer. Here it is….

Adultery Causes Earthquakes

Or, to be precise, Seddiqi said that reducing sins were necessary for preventing the occurrence of natural disasters. And it seems that many Iranian women who do not abide by the Islamic dress code lead youth astray: “They cause the spread of adultery in society which leads to the increase in earthquakes.”

MONDAY, 19 APRIL, 1936 GMT: In more than 10 months of reporting on the post-election crisis in Iran, we have used Britain's Daily Mail exactly once: "Today’s Iran Non-Story: Some Guy Who Looked Like Ahmadinejad Protested in 1984".

Now, however, the "Mail Foreign Service" makes a dramatic discovery:

Women who wear revealing clothing and behave promiscuously are to blame for earthquakes, a senior Iranian cleric has said.

Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi's comments follow a warning by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that a quake is certain to hit the capital Tehran and that many residents should relocate.

In a prayer sermon, the cleric said: "Many women who do not dress modestly... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which increases earthquakes."

TUESDAY, 20 APRIL, 1106 GMT: The BBC's top investigative reporters uncover surprising news:

Women who wear revealing clothing and behave promiscuously are to blame for earthquakes, an Iranian cleric says.

Hojjat ol-eslam Kazem Sediqi, the acting Friday prayer leader in Tehran, said women should stick to strict codes of modesty to protect themselves.

"Many women who do not dress modestly lead young men astray and spread adultery in society which increases earthquakes," he explained.

The Latest from Iran (21 April): Waiting for News

1455 GMT: Death Penalty for Kahrizak Abusers? Farda News claims, "Based on what Farda has heard, the court trying the defendants in the Kahrizak case is ready to issue its verdicts and apparently death sentences have been issued for three of them."

1445 GMT: Today's Not Very Surprising "No War" News. The Associated Press tries to find a story:

The U.S. has ruled out a military strike against Iran's nuclear program any time soon, hoping instead negotiations and United Nations sanctions will prevent the Middle East nation from developing nuclear weapons, a top U.S. defense department official said Wednesday.

"Military force is an option of last resort," Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy said during a press briefing in Singapore. "It's off the table in the near term."

Given that this has been the Obama Administration's line for more than a year, going back to early 2009 when officials told the visiting head of Israel Defense Forces, General Gabi Ashkenazi, that the US would not back a strike on Iranian facilities, this is a non-dramatic restatement of the status quo.

1220 GMT: Iran Media Highlight. We have posted a separate entry on how a most important story moved from EA to the British Broadcasting Corporation: "How Iran News is Made: Adultery, Earthquakes, and the BBC".

1120 GMT: Missing the Nuclear Story. Press TV's ritual feel-good piece on Iran's nuclear programme this morning: "As a member of the UN Security Council, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu defends Iran's right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. 'There was no deviation in Iran's peaceful nuclear program,' Davutoglu stressed in a meeting with Parliament (Majlis) Speaker Ali Larijani in Tehran on Tuesday."

OK so Davutoglu has now had two days of high-level meetings. He has seen Larijani, who is considered close to the Supreme Leader when it comes to Iran's negotiating position on the nuclear issue. And this is all that Iranian state media can offer on what appears to be a major push to restart Iran's discussions, including talks with the US, on a deal over uranium enrichment.

NEW How Iran News is Made: Adultery, Earthquakes, and the BBC
The Latest from Iran (20 April): Intrigues and a Bombing

1115 GMT: Money Makes the Government Go Round. Writing for Tehran Bureau, Reihaneh Mazaheri offers a detailed examination of Government spending to back up the claim, "Since 2006, a large portion of the national cultural budget has been diverted to religious foundations and especially the Basij (militia) groups."


1100 GMT: A Bit of Intrigue. Arshama3's Blog (in German) delves into the story of arms smuggling to Iran.

0900 GMT: A slow start to the morning. Reuters converts the latest chest-thumping from Iranian state media into news, "Iran to hold war games in Gulf, Hormuz strait".

Given the regular appearance of these pronouncements, this is about as significant as the Sun rising in the East. Still, it's good to meet again Brigadier General Hossein Salami, who says, "Maintaining security in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, as the world's key economic and energy routes, is the main goal of the war games. This war game is not a threat for any friendly countries."

A far more notable wait for developments continues outside Evin Prison, where families of politcal detainees have issue an open letter expressing their concern about illegal imprisonment and violation of civil rights and demanding an end to the situation.

And while we're waiting, there is time to go through the latest list of detainees, posted by RAHANA.

Britain's Three-Party Election: How the Strange Has Become Possible

Strange days indeed.

Volcanic ash. The most serious economic downturn in a generation, maybe two. A conflict in Afghanistan which is more a never-ending intervention than a war and an occupation of Iraq which has been left behind.

And now the Liberal Democrats, in the space of days, have emerged as contenders for a share of power after the elections on 6 May. Although shrewd onlookers picked up on signs even before Parliament was dissolved, Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg's performance in last Thursday's debate with Conservative counterpart David Cameron and Prime Minister Gordon Brown has turned a three-party race from glimmer into shimmering prospect.

So as the candidates move to this Thursday's discussion on foreign policy: what happened and will it last?


1. CHARISMA AND THE LEADER

Rightly or wrongly, debates turn parties into an individual. On Thursday, Clegg was the one man who, primarily by speaking to the millions in the television audience as well as the dozens in the studio, had a significant impact.

This was more than a one-evening phenomenon, however. With the probable exception of 1992, this is the first poll since 1974 and the Ensuing Thatcher-Blair era without a dominant leadership figure. Brown, limited even before he took office by Labour in-fighting, has not been able to morph from effective Chancellor of the Exchequer into powerful PM. Cameron, in the eyes of many non-Conservatives (and I suspect a few inside the party) appears manufactured and lacking substance.

This did not guarantee Clegg's emergence as an equal amongst candidates --- I doubt that he was a household name at this time last week. Instead, the weaknesses of the two leading contenders and Britain's first-ever debate among would-be PMs gave him an opportunity.

2. DRIFT

Again with the probable exception of 1992, this is the first campaign in a generation without a trump card for one of the candidates. Thatcher had the Falklands Factor in 1983 and economic recovery in 1987. Blair had his "New Labour" in 1991, his own economic good times in 2001, and --- for enough, if not most, Britons --- his role as post-Iraq crisis PM in 2005.

Brown and his advisors may argue they avoided economic free-fall but that is not the same as a platform of resurgence. Afghanistan --- and if little else comes out of this Thursday's debate, this will by default rather than by admission --- offers no prospect of "victory".

Normally this lack of a Government banner issue should play into the hands of the main opposition. This year, however, the Conservatives have not defined their own big statement, either positive or negative (those with long memories will recall the effective 1979 slogan, "Labour Isn't Working").

On the economic front, there has no been grand alternative, either on the immediate crisis of lending and bank solvency or on the longer-term stimulus question. Indeed, the terrain of challenge --- who will cut or raise taxes? who will cut or raise social spending? --- is little different from any contest of the last 40 years.

And in foreign policy, there is no Iraq to define, for better or worse, a crisis candidate and party. Afghanistan offers no alternative --- escalation gives no benefit of imminent victory, withdrawal opens the door to accusations of defeat before extremism --- so will remain a rather anodyne talking point for the foreign policy debate.

3. RESPONSIBILITY AND RESPECT

It is not the case that the Liberal Democrats offer that Big Idea that could determine the outcome of the election. However, in the absence of either the Conservatives or Labour offering a political approach which offers either the answer for economic recovery or a resolution to Britain's interventions overseas, the Lib Dems may be able to capitalise by showing that they can at least be trusted with the oversight of the country's future.

The American comic Rodney Dangerfield had the famous catchphrase, "I Don't Get No Respect". That has been damagingly half-true for the Liberal Democrats. For decades, they have been a participant, often the leading one, in the running of local councils; however, at the national level, they have been relegated to the man shouting loudly from the Visitors' Gallery. Britain's system of Parliamentary election, based on first-past-the-post rather than proportional representation, has made the challenge more difficult.

It should not be forgotten, however, that the Liberal Democrats had their best result in more than 20 years in the 2005 elections, winning 52 seats in the 650-member Parliament. In a contest defined to a significant degree by Britain's involvement in the 2003 Iraq War and the ensuing occupation, the Liberal Democrats could define themselves as the only party to oppose the military action as both unnecessary and irresponsible.

While Iraq has faded as an issue because of the withdrawal of British forces from the country, the headline issue of recent months --- the members of Parliament castigated and even facing criminal charges for abuse of expenses --- also could play to that theme of Lib Dem responsibility. Whether because the party has fewer MPs than Labour or Conservative or whether its representatives are indeed more scrupulous, not a single Liberal Democrat has been amongst those named and shamed.

Nick Clegg's task has been to build upon the image of Liberal Democrat respectability at local level and to transform individual touchstones of responsibility into a voter decision that the Liberal Democrats are just as entitled as either of their two competitors to be trusted with day-to-day power in London. The prospect of that transformation was his big victory in last Thursday's debate.

WILL IT LAST?

If I could answer that question, I would be on-line at the bookmakers in the next few minutes, casting a large bet on Britain's first "hung Parliament", with no party winning a majority of seats, in almost 80 years.

The conventional wisdom is that voters considering a ballot for the Liberal Democrats will shy away at the last minute because of the Safety/Fear Factor. Better to entrust political fate with one of the Big Two who have been in power for generations rather than putting faith in an untested party. And, of course, both the Conservatives and Labour will be playing steadily upon that Factor in the next two weeks.

However, in this unusual political year, the Election Day aversion to a Lib Dem vote may not be as strong. The shakiness of both Labour and the Conservatives in defining their political approaches, combined with the lack of faith in Gordon Brown or David Cameron, has opened up a space which could be exploited by the Liberal Democrats.

So once more to the importance of last Thursday's debate. When Nick Clegg took the platform, he was the first Liberal Democrat to be treated as a political equal in the Prime Ministerial contest in post-1945 Britain. When he came off it, he was --- at least for the next seven days --- head and shoulders above his rivals.

Forecasting whether the Liberal Democrats can sustain political parity all the way to 6 May is even more difficult than predicting if this volcanic ash will clear enough for my return to the UK. For now, however, let it be said: the strange has become quite possible.

The Latest from Iran (20 April): Intrigues and a Bombing

2045 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. It is reported that detained journalist Mehdi Mahmoudian, who helped expose the Kahrizak Prison abuses, has been taken to hospital in handcuffs.

2040 GMT: The Silenced Reformists? The Government may be putting out the story of the recommendation by "watchdogs" that reformist political parties shoud be banned. However, members of Parliament haven't suspended their criticisms.

Iran Document: The Speech Khatami Would Have Given at Japan Disarmament Conference
Iran Document: “Our Sons’ And Daughters’ Agony” (Sahabi)
The Latest from Iran (19 April): Stay Firm, Spread the Word

Dariush Ghanbari has said that the Government must pursue a reform of the media law and that rulers must recognize the opposition's rights to political activity.

Mostafa Kavakebian has asked why the regime only shuts down newspapers that are critical of the Government, while Jamshid Ansari criticises "parallel" intelligence services, saying that one makes arrests while the other remains uninformed.


2035 GMT: Today's Video Moment. A video has emerged of the Iranian New Year meeting of women's rights activists with Zahra Rahnavard, the prominent activist, academic, and wife of Mir Hossein Mousavi. ()

The video comes out as the Government announces a plan to create a "Women's Ministry".

2030 GMT: Seeking the Help of Clerics. Rah-e-Sabz writes that a report on torture in Iranian prisoners has been passed in an open letter to marja (senior clerics).

2015 GMT: Guess Who's Waiting for Mir Hossein? It's not unusual to see the question, "Will Mousavi's Green Manifesto be published soon?" After all, the the way forward for the Green Movement is a top subject of discussion.

It is a bit different, however, when the question is being asked by Ali Larijani's Khabar Online.

2000 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Even if a detainee is freed, his encounter with Iranian authority may be far from over. Green Voice of Freedom reports that the family of Iranian-Canadian journalist Maziar Bahari, who was imprisoned for months after the election, has been threatened.

1955 GMT: Academic Corner. The suspension or expulsion of "troublesome" professors, which we have followed in update, is summarised by Green Voice of Freedom.

1545 GMT: We'll be on an extended break today. Thanks to all readers for continuing to bring in news and comment.

1215 GMT: Breaking the Opposition? Following the recommendation by Iranian "watchdogs" for the suspension of two major reformist parties and the banning of Bahar newspaper, pro-Ahmadinejad MPs have maintained pressure. Ali Abbaspour has declared that Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi have not stopped treasonous activities, while Ruhollah Hosseinian said the post-election role in "fitna" (sedition) by the Islamic Iran Participation and the Mojahedin of Islamic Revolution justified their dissolution.

However, in a sign that not all may be running one way, Hosseinian was not present at yesterday's meeting of clerical MPs with the Supreme Leader.

1205 GMT: The Subsidy Battle. Despite reports of a settlement between Parliament and the Government over subsidy cuts and spending proposals, there is still some confusion over what exactly will be implemented. Pro-Ahmadinejad MP Iraj Nadimi has insisted that all is settled but chided reporters not to ask questions such as when when the cuts will start.

In that context, readers can interpret the latest statement of Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani that the Government must enforce laws passed by the Majlis.


1200 GMT: A car bomb in Ilam has killed at least three people.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xq_XPVPcyK8&feature=youtube_gdata[/youtube]

1130 GMT: Politics, Rights, and Deportation. Bita Ghaedi, an Iranian women who fled to Britain because of alleged domestic violence, is due to be deported today, despite fears of how she will be treated upon her return to Iran. Activists are publicising her case, protesting in London yesterday.

Beyond the bureaucratic procedures of Britain's Home Office, Ghaedi's case is complicated by her participation in a rally in summer 2009 over the treatment of Iranian residents of Camp Ashraf in Iraq. Most of those residents are connected with the People's Mujahedin Organization of Iran,  the political wing of the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MKO) who have sought the overthrow of the Islamic Republic for more than 30 years.

For the moment, Ghaedi's deportation is held up because of a twist beyond politics: UK flights to Iran are grounded because of the ash cloud from last week's volcanic eruption in Iceland.

1040 GMT: The Uranium Swap Talks Are On? Agence France Presse reports on the visit of Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu to Tehran (see 1000 GMT):

Davutoglu...said that Turkey, which has resisted a US push for a fourth round of sanctions against Iran, "is ready to act as an intermediary in the issue of uranium exchange as a third country and hopes to have a fruitful role in this. We will continue to try our best to see what we can do for this nuclear fuel swap."

And Press TV, after its initial PR focus on Turkish support for Tehran, has now gotten to the heart of the matter, thanks to Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki: "We think that if the other sides have this real will to materialize this nuclear fuel deal then this swap can be a multilateral confidence building for all sides including the Islamic Republic of Iran." (Curiously AFP misses the signal, claiming that Mottaki "did not explicitly react to Ankara's latest offer".)

1030 GMT: Academic Corner. Students at Elm-o-Sanat University in Tehran have written an open letter in support of lecturers who have been suspended from teaching.

1000 GMT: A quiet start to the day. We're now far enough away from the Washington and Tehran showpieces on nuclear disarmament for the often-diversionary headlines to fade, even though the real stories are still there to be evaluated.

For example, in Iran, Press TV's press release on Turkish Foreign Ahmet Davutoglu's visit --- "Turkey has always supported Iran's stance when it comes to the nuclear program" --- fails to approach the interesting questions about his discussions with Iranian counterpart Manouchehr Mottaki.

Given Turkey's persistent role in the uranium talks as broker and intermediary, do the talks point to a serious renewal of negotiations on a swap of uranium and possible "third party enrichment"? Press TV only offers, "On a UN-backed deal that would provide fuel for Tehran's research reactor, the top diplomat said that Turkey would be willing to act as a mediator and Ankara would 'do its best' to see what it could do for the fuel swap."

In the US, the curious aftermath lingers after this weekend's fuss over Secretary of Defense Robert Gates' three-page memorandum on US policy towards Iran. Unnamed officials used The New York Times to argue that the Secretary of Defense was blasting the Obama Administration for being indecisive and that he was looking towards military "containment" of Tehran.

Gates has quickly repudiated the claims: "The New York Times sources who revealed my January memo to the National Security Advisor mischaracterized its purpose and content."

Fine, but what exactly did Gates say in that memo to the head of the National Security Council, James Jones, if he wasn't criticising an Obama policy caught between sanctions, discussions with Iran, and the US military presence in the Persian Gulf? And who, if the Secretary of Defense is correct, was trying to misrepresent him through a Page 1 story? (Or the alternative: is Gates trying to back away, at least in public, from concerns that were in fact "correctly" expressed in the leak to the Times?)