Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on April 21st, 2009

[Sharif Behruz]

I mean, you said it right. All the Iranian attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and bringing that to the international table is really to hide the human rights violations. It's harder for the international community to focus on so many issues; there are so many things that could be done. One thing we always call upon is to make sure this doesn't hide the real acts of torture and genocide that have been happening in Iran. Especially with the comments that Ahmadinejad is making, he's making sure the focus is diverted from one issue to another. As you can always see, they are great at this, as they always disturb a conference like Durban, which is aimed to really promote togetherness and tolerance. They're just acting as if they're really there to do something else—which they are. Yes, it's been done, and that's their intention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

All right. Thank you very much.

Our next questioner is David Sweet from the Conservatives.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The more we go through the chapters of Ahmadinejad and the Guardian Council and the ayatollahs, the more it takes quite a stout heart to stay dignified and diplomatic around this. The treatment of individuals in Iran—minorities as well as the Persians themselves—is of course appalling. There are just not a lot of English words that I could express to talk about the tyranny that people face in Iran.

You've mentioned two incidents, and I thought I would just give you an opportunity, because one of your first points is to keep the behaviour of this regime exposed. Their tyranny does not stay within the geographic bounds of Iran, but in fact they export their tyranny internationally. You mentioned 1989, when Dr. Ghassemlou and two aides were assassinated. You also mentioned the 1992 assassination in Berlin. This was Dr. Ghassemlou's successor. Can you give us some more information—you mentioned that 50,000 Kurds have been killed in history—on these assassinations of political leaders?

[Sharif Behruz]

Just to make it clear, I don't want to be interpreted as saying that Ahmadinejad is representing the Persian minority or the Persian people. I think Ahmadinejad is really not representing anybody. He may be backed by five or ten percent of the population, in terms of hard-core supporters. Persians as well as everybody else are oppressed, but the oppression within the minorities is double, sometimes triple.

With regard to these two instances, Iran in the early revolution was able to not only export the revolution but also hunt down people who actually had gone abroad. Inside Iran there have been chain killings of opposition groups, and we've seen this. Probably you have heard about that. There are also chain killings outside Iran. Unfortunately, the leadership of two of our high-level delegations were victims of this chain killing while they were attending international conferences of the Socialist International, one in Vienna in 1989 and one in Berlin in 1992. They were both assassinated by Iranian agents. One was killed at the negotiation table. They were sitting in front of the Iranian negotiators, and the negotiators actually acted as terrorists. They were carrying guns, so they killed them at the negotiation tables. There is evidence, and unfortunately the Austrian government has not really put forward a case because of the international and the commercial interests of the Austrian government. So the Austrian government, despite finding out that they were the actual killers, let them go and sent them back to Iran.

That case has still not been opened and still not really been put forward and carried forward because of the commercial interests between Iran and Austria. That fact is quite sad, despite a lot of efforts put into place to really uncover this. The good thing about the 1992 assassination is that the German authorities allowed the German courts to detain people who actually did the killing in Berlin in 1992. There were four people who were actually killed at a table just like this. There were people talking together, and then they just swarmed the meeting room and killed the Kurdish leaders, in 1992.

The German authorities were able to go after them. They were able to capture the actual killers, and the main one of them, who was working for the Iranian embassy in Germany, was sentenced to 25 years in prison. That was in 1992. And in 2007, after spending 15 years, due to a German law he was sent back to Iran, and he was welcomed by the Iranian leaders in Iran. So despite really working to make sure...still they were able to send him back, and he was welcomed.

As for the 50,000, in Iran, since the revolutions, there has been a lot of unrest, to really bring about change and democracy. There wasn't a revolution so that these mullahs and clerics could take their place. The revolution was to really get rid of a monarch who was very despotic, very autocratic and very repressive as well, and the people came out. But unfortunately these mullahs and these clerics were able to take over and hijack the revolution.

Many people like us, the Kurds and other minorities, were very engaged and active in making sure that the mullahs did not take control. There was a power struggle. So the Kurds in Iran struggled for some 15 years after the revolution, until 1995, making sure that the mullahs did not have their way and making sure that the revolution that we paid dearly for actually got somewhere. During this process of 15 years, the Iranian Islamic forces and especially the IRGC, which is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, were heavily suppressing and doing killings. There were instances when they actually stormed a village, and they killed about 50 to 60 civilians. These killings in the early revolutions have been documented both in Iran and outside Iran.

So the 50,000 actually stemmed from these acts of terror within the first 15 years of Iranian establishment, and I think there are a lot of credible documents and evidence that can actually support these allegations.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Behruz.

By the way, if for some reason I didn't make myself clear in my preamble, I don't think Ahmadinejad or the Guardian Council or the ayatollahs represent anybody either. I think every person in Iran, outside of the government, is subject to great persecution and tyranny—certainly that's the evidence we have seen before this committee—unless of course they agree totally with that regime; then they're fine. But any kind of resistance or disagreement seems to be met with that kind of.....

If you would, subsequent to the committee meeting today I would like you to submit to the chairman the names of a number of organizations about which you feel our government should be wary. Rather than go through a list here, if you could you submit it—you were talking about international travel—that would be good.

My last question to you is this. You mentioned an association of minorities that is having some success internationally, as well as educating those people in Tehran that you feel are—how would I say this?—less apt to speak out against the government or the regime in Iran. You seem to have some kind of feeling of optimism for the future, and yet it's still a very serious situation.

I want to ask whether this is true. Is this what I'm getting from you: that you feel there is some movement because of the consistent pressure being put on internally?

[Sharif Behruz]

As I said, these increasing human rights violations are because there is activism. These activists are using different means and tools to make sure they're heard. This activistm is among the Persians, among the Kurds, the Azeri, the Baluchis—everybody—but the repression and the crackdown on the ethnic minorities is quite widespread.

Right now, because of many changes that have happened in the region, as I said, people are a lot more optimistic. We do not welcome a regime change by force or by international players, as happened in Iraq, but definitely, if it's of assistance to and to the benefit of the Iranian people, we welcome it. We would rather be done with this regime and have something start afresh, but definitely we want to make sure it's done cost-effectively in terms of human life.

The organization we set up is an organization that promotes peace, tolerance, and co-existence, and mostly it is created to lobby the outside world to make sure they understand what Iran is really about. Iran is not only Persians, and the current Islamic regime does not represent the Iranian population. It's more or less to provide that awareness to the international community, as well as to give some hope to the activists inside Iran, to make sure they know that there are organizations that support them and that there are alternatives that could be sought.

In that regard, people in Iran have some optimism. As well, because of the increased activities among the population in Iran, we are more optimistic that a change for the better could happen. But again, it's sooner or later; that's really not very definite.

[David Sweet, Conservative, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Westdale, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Behruz.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Mr. Sweet.

We now turn to our second round of questions. The questions and answers here must be no more than five minutes.

We'll go to the Liberals. Mr. Silva.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again I want to thank you for all the different comments made throughout the meeting.

To go back to some of the issues we talked about, particularly about the persecution of the Kurds in relation to language rights, I'm wondering whether there is a possibility for the Kurds, for example, to watch a television program in their own language or be educated in their own language, if they so choose. How bad has it gotten over the years? Is discrimination something that always existed in relation to the Kurds and their language rights?

[Sharif Behruz]

Since the early days of the revolution, and since this regime came to power, there has always been one official language, and that was in place even during the previous regime. The official language system, or educational language, has been Persian. But the Iranian Islamic constitution, which in writing is in compliance with many forms and norms, really hasn't been put into action.

In the Iranian constitution there is an article that allows Iranian national, ethnic, and religious minorities to practise their religions and to be educated in their mother tongues. But we've seen otherwise in the last 30 years. It is something totally different. Nothing has been done in that regard. It's there on paper, but since the revolution, the situation of the minorities has always been as it is in regard to their educational rights.

As to whether they're allowed to watch programs, as I said, gladly, with technological advances, especially the advance of satellites, Kurds right now enjoy the freedom to watch maybe 10 or 15 Kurdish satellite stations that have nothing to do with the government. They are actually run outside the borders. It helps a lot, in many ways, that people at least can watch news, programs, and shows in their own language. They not only have a different perspective but can also practise their own language.

So in many ways, it has helped the situation, but the government has also tried to open up, for example, some Kurdish programs that propagate its policies. You know how they do it. But again, it has been there since the revolution, and it continues.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

I hear that the Kurdish-speaking part of Iraq is thriving and doing quite well. Has there been a movement by the Iranian government to in fact destabilize the Kurdish region in Iraq?

[Sharif Behruz]

None of the countries in the region that have Kurdish populations would like to see an autonomous structure, or some form of structure, in which Kurds would enjoy full rights. Iraqi Kurds are one example. Their security and their stability have been threatened, not only by Iran but also by Turkey. Turkey, with a huge population, feels very threatened by a stable Iraq. A stable Iraq may be in the best interests of Turkey, but that would be a stable Iraq with a central government that can actually control its population, just like in the Saddam era.

Right now, Iranians have infiltrated Iraqi political structures, because Iraqi Kurds do not have a lot of options in terms of friends. You have a huge area of borders that actually runs through Iranian Kurdistan, which is part of Iran. So you have really no choice, and the Iranian government makes sure that Iraqi Kurdistan, and Iraq in general, is not used as a place for insurgency or resistance movements.

For example, our organization used to be based in the border areas, and because of the Iranian government's endless pressure from the Iraqi Kurds, we were forced to relocate all our camps and areas to the heart of Iraqi Kurdistan to kind of prevent our activities or our cross-border activities. As is the case for the Mujahedin, who are threatened to be removed from Iraq, the case applies to us.

The Iraqi Kurds do not want to go that far and listen to Iran. But we've been very accommodating to the Iraqi Kurds, making sure that we do not create such a situation whereby Iran can actually pressure them further. That is why there's no military activity whatsoever from us on the Iranian borders, because we think it's destabilizing. But Iran has still infiltrated the institutions and makes sure that the area is not going towards some sort of pressure that the Iranian Kurds would actually think of.

Right now, Iran is very worried about the fact that the Kurds of Iran are looking to the Kurds of Iraq, who have a president, their own prime minister, and their own Parliament. The Kurds of Iran want the same thing, and Iran is very worried about that, and definitely, yes, is working very hard to make sure that it doesn't succeed.

[Mario Silva, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you.

That runs out the clock on that particular question.

Mr. Weston, please.

This will be the last questioner today.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Behruz, it's been often said that evil occurs when good men do nothing. You are doing something, and I congratulate you on your courage and your effort in being here. I think it's fair to say that 308 members of Parliament stand with you in your concern for human rights, and I'm pleased to be one of those.

I'd like to follow up on the questions of Ms. Thi Lac. She was getting to the practical issues. I'm going to ask you three questions.

In my riding, West Vancouver, there is arguably the highest concentration of Persian Canadians and a lot of people who would sympathize with you. I had the honour of being on the podium with Nazanin Afshin-Jam just a few days ago, where we talked about the rights of people in Iran and how she's doing something. This is a Canadian of Persian background who, like you, is doing something. But we don't have ambassadors between the countries. We have a very narrowly constrained series of issues we can talk about.

What can we do to not offend the Persian Canadians in Canada—300,000 people? Every time we condemn the Government of Iran in the House of Commons, people hear they're being condemned just because they're of Persian background.

Second, what can we do to empower people like you and Nazanin to speak out? You're the most powerful Canadians, you of Persian background who understand it, who've breathed it, who've seen the suffering yourselves. What can we do to help you?

Third, if you were the Minister of Foreign Affairs, what two things would you do differently?

[Sharif Behruz]

Starting with the first question, on whether condemning will result in being offended, there's some resentment from the Persian-background community for accommodating ethnic minority rights within Iran. We're working toward making sure they interpret from our policies and activities that we do not want to separate from Iran. None of the ethnic minorities are actually working toward that.

Because of the Persians' historical dominance--their empire and the territories they have lost over the years and centuries--they're quite suspicious of our activities. We always want to make sure to tell them that through the policies that have been enacted and adopted by the previous regime, this regime, and a lot of Persians, the threat of disintegration in Iran is much greater than if we were to come together and say “This is what you want, and this is what we'll give you”. People in Iran, especially the ethnic minorities, would be much happier in an Iran that accommodated everybody. They would be less inclined to resort to other means, especially wild means, of separating from the country if they were happy and accommodated.

The Persian communities in Iran and Canada must understand that condemning human rights violations in Iran does not mean supporting secession and separatism by anyone. If you condemn the human rights violation of Kurds in Iran, it's probably best to refer to the territorial integrity of Iran, which sometimes pleases the Persian community, and say, “Yes, we are worried about activities like this, but at the same time they must be addressed and respected”. That might ease the tension and minimize their fears.

On the general condemnation of Iran's human rights, my understanding is that the majority of Iranians would like to see Iran condemned because of this violation, but at the same time do something about it. For example, a lot of times people align the Iranian regime with its people. When they say this regime is a terrorist group or terrorist regime, a lot of people are worried that it actually refers to the people as well. This is something they are afraid of, and they think this will lead to something worse. Maybe there could be something done in that regard to actually ease their fears.

If I were the Minister of Foreign Affairs there are two things I would do. It's very hard to understand the circumstances, being in that position, and Canada's interests in many regards. A minister first has to take into account the interests of the country. On the human rights condition, Iran was a major market for Canadian goods, especially Canadian wheat. But that changed a lot because of the human rights conditions, especially with the case of Zahra Kazemi. It affected diplomatic relations in many ways.

It really has to be put in the context of the situation at that time and in that place. But one of the things I would do is continue to work very hard, because Canada is well respected, to make sure that Iran--within the international rules and regulations like the human rights council--continues to be monitored and condemned, if needed. At the foreign affairs level, I would set up human rights monitoring groups and gatherings to promote human rights and a better understanding of Iran and Iranian culture.

I think what the Canadian government has to do, as a suggestion, is make sure that while they condemn the Iranian government for their actions, they are by the side of the Iranian people. That's very political as well, but again that has to be done within the context of that time, and really the statement needs to be made. So that's what I would do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

We're essentially out of time, Mr. Weston. We won't get our business done today before our time expires, so if you have a further question, now is your opportunity.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Thank you.

You spoke to questions one and three, but what about empowering people like you and Nazanin? It just seems that in terms of our making a difference to the people in Iran you have said we should continue doing what we're doing. I wonder whether the 300,000 people of Persian background, many of whom rejoiced when we recognized Norouz, for instance, in the House of Commons recently, would somehow be the ones to make a difference and help us really change the life of Kurds and other minorities and other persecuted people in Iran.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Just for the purposes of keeping order, I'm going to see the clock as being at three minutes before two o'clock. Please continue.

[Sharif Behruz]

I'm sorry for skipping your second question.

First of all, I wouldn't be here if it wasn't for Nazanin. Engaging Nazanin with these kinds of activities definitely brought someone like me here, because Nazanin had referred another friend and then there was a connection of activists where I was able to attend here. That's helpful in itself, so I might be able to get other organizations and activists who are able to maybe do other things. For example, Rights and Democracy, a parliamentary organization, I think, that's funded by the Canadian government, can actually do a lot more on Iran in terms of maybe protecting women who are in dire need or giving them some resources to have access to lawyers and giving them educational materials. There's something like that in Afghanistan, by Rights and Democracy. I think it's part of the Canadian Parliament, but it's independent. But I think we could also use that venue as well.

In regard to Norouz, I think it was a good start, but I have one complaint. It is that Iran is not only Persians, and in the statement it is quite disturbing to a lot of Kurds and not only Iranians but also Afghanis. I think it has to be amended to an extent, because Norouz is a new year and it's celebrated not just by Persians but also by Afghanis—yes, they are Persians, but they call themselves Afghanis—by the Tajiks, who are in the north Caucasus, and by Kurds who live in Iraq. So even stating “Iranians” would offend a lot of people and not include everyone. We don't just have to worry about the 300,000 Persians who live in Canada or elsewhere; we also have to think about the Kurds in Turkey who celebrate Norouz. I think by that statement and by officially recognizing that, we're actually excluding a lot of others, especially the Kurds in Turkey, who are about 20 million, the Kurds in Iraq, and other people in the north, Caucasians, who actually celebrate Norouz, such as Azeris.

So I think it has to be amended in two ways. One is that you have to take out the Persian word, because it's not Persian. Yes, it is a Persian celebration, but others celebrate it as well, and it's not solely an Iranian celebration. I think Norouz has to be referred to as the new year, and we have to put it in words so that everybody's included. I think that would be a start. It's a good start to officially recognize Norouz.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

I'll talk to you next year.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

All right.

I want to thank our witness. It's been very interesting. You packed a lot into the limited time that we had available for you to be here, and I think all of us appreciate it very much.

It being 2 p.m., this subcommittee is now adjourned.