Subcommittee on International Human Rights Committee on March 10th, 2009

[Joe Stork]

That's a good question. I think I have to be a little vague in my answer in the following respect. I think we have a very active civil society in Iran on many fronts. There are very few who have identified themselves as human rights organizations in an organized form. Ms. Ebadi's is one of the few. With her profile as a Nobel laureate, she has had a certain immunity, as well as being a target for criticism. But I think there is also a certain amount of protection from that international profile.

She has been tireless in expanding her own concerns in the area of children's rights, which is where she began to embroil her concerns about human rights generally, taking up the cases of the Baha’is, for instance, as well as numerous other cases of people coming under attack and arrest by the government.

I think there's a fairly high degree of awareness, particularly in the political class. I also have to say that because we are not allowed into the country, we tend to have a very Tehran-centric view of things. On the extent to which the same kinds of civil society activities, particularly with a human rights focus, exist in other parts of the country, the Kurdish area probably has the highest profile. We know there's activism there, but wherever you're dealing with a situation of an ethnic minority--particularly an ethnic minority like the Kurds that have been connected at various times with separatist movements and so forth--the security rationale for suppression is extremely high.

I'm not sure what I could add to that. Because we're not able to get in, we depend a lot on reports we get from individuals inside the country via the Internet, telephone, and other modes of communication.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

I'll just put a quick question to Mr. Genser.

I'd like to flip it a bit in terms of what can be done from outside the country. As an American, President Obama has announced a policy of engagement with Iran—carrots and sticks, to use a quick snapshot metaphor.

What do you think can be done effectively with respect to this policy of engagement?

[Jared Genser]

I think President Obama is taking it the right way, which is acknowledging that things are not going to happen quickly in terms of engaging with Iran.

The United States and Iran have a long history together, and there's a lot of enmity among the Iranian people about the U.S. role in Iran, going back to the overthrow of Mr. Mossadegh and up to the withdrawal of support for the Shah, which led to the current regime.

I do think the Iranian people and the American people have strong, abiding, long-term friendships, so really, it's a question of having more of these kinds of people-to-people exchanges and letting our governments--hopefully--slowly begin to work things out.

I agree completely with Mr. Stork's view that for the Government of Canada, it's really important to raise human rights concerns not just in Iran but also more broadly, because Iran claims, I think wrongly so, that they're being unfairly targeted. I think it's also important to work multilaterally. It's important that there not just be a handful of voices speaking out about these abuses; it's much more difficult for the Government of Iran to reject criticism when it's coming from numerous quarters.

To come back to your question, I think President Obama is taking things cautiously in terms of the discussions. There's a whole host of bilateral issues between Iran and the U.S., human rights being among them. But obviously the nuclear question, Iranian involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Iranian involvement in the broader Middle East, in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories, are all issues that, frankly, at some point or another, are going to have to be discussed. But things are in flux in a whole host of ways in the United States as the U.S. copes with the economic crisis. Things are in flux in Iran with the forthcoming elections this June. It remains to be seen how that plays out.

So there are a lot of moving pieces, and I think it's going to take some time. I think that's why a cautious approach for engagement makes sense. I think we have no choice but to persist, and the more people-to-people contact we can have, the better.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Ms. Thaï Thi Lac, please.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

I will start with an apology. I will have to leave before the committee finishes its work today because I am due to speak in the House at 2:00 p.m. Please be assured that it is not from any lack of interest in what you can bring to our committee.

Mr. Genser, you identified the main types of persecution that are rife in Iran, and you gave a very complete presentation.

Mr. Stork, your ability to tell a story is remarkable and I am grateful to you because I am new to the committee. As a newcomer to the situation in Iran, in a number of ways, I was shocked to find myself understanding the facts you presented.

Mr. Rimstad, you talked about arbitrary treatment and about the political situation. Although you spoke last and although the speakers before you gave us plenty of information, that took nothing away from the quality of your presentation.

I want to thank all three of you. For me, it is an honour to be speaking with great defenders of human rights such as yourselves. We can never have too many.

My first question is for you, Mr. Genser. You mentioned the impunity with which the Iranian government operates. Could you give us some thoughts on that specifically, please?

[Jared Genser]

I believe there are numerous problems with respect to the human rights situation in Iran, but one of the problems that exist over time when any authoritarian regime is allowed to commit human rights abuses in a widespread and systematic way over an extended period of time is that the people involved in those abuses, when there is no accountability for those actions, come to believe that they are above any law and are capable of committing those crimes in an ongoing way without fear of any retribution.

What starts as people perhaps following orders to commit human rights abuses becomes their feeling that they don't even need an order to commit the abuse because people will look the other way. When people who commit crimes in the name of the Islamic Republic are not arrested or investigated or prosecuted, then you also see a climate of fear taking place among the populace and a recognition that it's very difficult.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Rimstad, you mentioned improvements in the status of women in Iran. Two days after International Women's Day, I would like to know what those improvements are.

Mr. Stork, which countries have expressed their concern on the human rights situation, bilaterally and multilaterally, and how has that helped to improve the situation?

[Keith Rimstad]

I don't want to leave the committee with the impression that the state of women's rights in Iran is great. I was referring specifically to the fact that since the Islamic revolution, the number of women in universities, for instance, has grown; certain laws, particularly discriminatory ones, have been changed—they still remain discriminatory, but they have improved—and, I would want to emphasize particularly, women activists themselves very bravely continue to press the government and the authorities, as well as men generally, to achieve greater rights.

We're still a long way from seeing a situation in which women's rights in Iran are good, but there is hope from the women's movement that as long as space is available, they can achieve better improvements over time. For instance, right now a petition campaign is going on to achieve a million signatures to remove further discriminatory laws. In such a context as Iran, it's an extremely brave thing for women activists to go out. Having said that, those who are leading the campaign find themselves being arrested and suppressed in a variety of ways.

So I don't want to leave the illusion at all that the situation is good, but I don't want to not acknowledge the fact that there has been some improvement.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you very much.

[Joe Stork]

To answer your very good question, I have to say that if one looks at, for instance, the list of co-sponsors of the resolution that Canada introduced in the General Assembly in November 2007, one is hard-pressed to find an African state, or certainly a state from the Middle East region. I think the voting list will show a similar kind of pattern.

That is one illustration of a broad phenomenon, which is the heavy politicization of human rights issues, particularly in a forum such as the United Nations, which is made up of states and where state interests tend to dictate the issues a state raises and determine whether it gets the support of other states. Frankly, there's plenty of blame to go around on the part, if not of all, of most parties in contributing to that politicization, which is why I made the recommendation I did in my presentation about the need for a country such as Canada, when it addresses human rights in the world, but particularly in the Middle East, to look for ways to contribute to depoliticizing the issue.

[Ève-Mary Thaï Thi Lac, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you, Ms. Thaï Thi Lac.

Mr. Marston, please.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

When I first got the documentation today and saw Mrs. Ebadi's name, it made me think about when we had that fine woman before this committee. From my perspective, it was a very special day. I mean, when you sit across from somebody and get to look them in the eye, with the experiences that we know they have had and are currently going through....

I spent six months in Saudi Arabia in 1979, and to some degree was exposed to some of their punishments. In fact, by complete accident I was close by to an execution one day in the parking lot of a mosque. When you hear the statement that we have juveniles executed there, it just makes you cringe. It's one of those things you'd rather not even believe possible in our world.

There's something I've been concerned about, and have raised with this committee. You've used the periodic review as an opportunity that's coming up, and I've wondered for a while now.... The periodic review of Canada, of course, is nowhere near on the same kind of record as Iran. I'm not suggesting anything so ridiculous. But as a result of our own record being called into question from to time—we haven't signed on to OPCAT, and there are our aboriginal rights and land claims, and of course male violence, particularly against women, in Canada, and things of this nature that have been raised over time—do you think Canada's reputation and our moral authority have been damaged to some extent when we deal with countries like Iran?

[Keith Rimstad]

I think it's important, in terms of legitimizing the international mechanisms, that Canada puts itself forward to be examined and that in this process where the examination takes place and recommendations are made Canada take action on those recommendations to improve human rights in the country.

As Amnesty International, we don't take a political side. We always approach it, as does Human Rights Watch, from the human rights perspective. And we examine all countries. As you may be aware, Amnesty actually submitted comments with regard to the periodic review of Canada, raising our concerns and making recommendations as to how those issues could be addressed.

From the perspective of a country like Iran, they are quick, for whatever reasons, legitimate or not, to point out the inconsistencies, at times, in the international mechanisms to review and to evaluate and to judge countries. This is one of the problems, and I agree with Mr. Stork that the international mechanisms need to be depoliticized. The whole point of creating the Human Rights Council was to get away from the problems of the former committee because it was too political. Unfortunately, at least up till now, it appears that the council's following a similar path. It is up to the international community, all countries, to really push each other to step back from the politics, otherwise human rights won't be addressed.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Just a little bit further, and in an entirely different direction, one of the things that we hear from time to time is how the use of the Internet is almost like a saviour for some of the people in a variety of countries who have no safe communication.

Are you aware of how sophisticated the Iranian government is at tracking, identifying, and then arresting people who blog or who are connected with the Internet?

[Joe Stork]

I'm not sure how specific I can get in this, simply because I don't know the specific answer, but we do know that particularly among young people who are arrested for exercising their right to freedom of speech, typically that communication is done on the Internet. Typically it's done in blogs. I mentioned in my presentation that a number of these people end up leaving Iran rather than facing long jail terms. In fact, there's sort of a wink and a nod to them getting out of Iran, too. It seems a sort of safety valve, on the part of the government, to have these people leave, thinking they actually represent “less of a threat” outside the country than inside.

But in any case, certainly a very large number of those who do get arrested and get into trouble are in fact exercising that right on the Internet. And we're talking about a society that's relatively very sophisticated on both sides of the line, so to speak--that is, those who use the Internet to spread information and to share information about human rights violations, political analysis and so forth, but also on the part of the government.

Also, frankly, as I understand it, it's a very computer-literate, Internet-literate society, but most of that Internet traffic has nothing to do with politics, has nothing to do with human rights; it's just people using it for very mundane reasons or, indeed, even religious education.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

I guess that was a little wishful thinking on my part, then. We've had previous testimony here that 70% of the society is more progressive than the 30% who are holding power right now, and that the Internet would be a tool that could perhaps open the gateway for those young people, for their expression and to take it to the next level.

[Joe Stork]

No, that's true.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's all I have, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Scott Reid]

Thank you very much, Mr. Marston.

Next, one of the government members.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, gentlemen, for taking the time to come here and make an investment in our committee's research on this.

I want to read to you some testimony from one year and four days ago, from Shirin Ebadi, and get your educated opinion on the situation we're in right now.

In response to a question, she said:

All the people who are in the government in Iran are not the same type. There are some who are pro-reform and there are some who are pro-fundamentalism. There are plenty of things that happen in Iran that people, as well as some of these reformers, are against. It is easy to realize that, even through the newspapers published in Iran. In the specific case of Mrs. Kazemi, the reformist group helped us a lot so that justice would be done.

Of course that didn't happen.

Therefore, when you talk about the violation of human rights in Iran, not only will the people be happy but also the group of reformers will be happy about that, because they are also criticizing them. They express their views very plainly and frankly. You can easily see that in the newspapers in Iran. There is not much freedom of speech in Iran, but you can see that in the newspapers.

So you've talked about the diminishment of human rights and an escalation in offences after Ahmadinejad has come to power. Is what Mrs. Ebadi said one year ago now diminished? Along with other people who are being jailed, are some of the pro-reformers now being jailed by the regime?

[Joe Stork]

I think her point would be just as valid today as it was a year and four days ago.

In response to the first question, where you asked about the judiciary in particular, I neglected to say.... I mean, that is an institutional locus of reformers. That's not to suggest the judiciary as an institution is reformist, but there are people there, and I think they're some of the people that Ms. Ebadi was alluding to.

I think the difference is with President Ahmadinejad coming into power in 2005. I mean, that's sort of the...where you saw progress on the Kazemi case was before that. There was some movement in that direction.

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

Some progress, yes.

[Joe Stork]

But certainly it continues to be the case today.

Are those reformist elements more numerous today than before, proportionally greater than before? That I couldn't say.