Obama-Hillary ignore freedom of expression

Wall Street Journal's celebrated journalist Bret Stephens commenting on US President Barack Hossain Obama's Iran diplomacy wrote, “Barack Obama extended the olive branch to Iran's leaders in a videotaped message praising a 'great civilization' for 'accomplishments' that 'have earned the respect of the United States and the world.' The death of Iranian blogger Omid-Reza Mirsayafi in Tehran's Evin prison two days earlier was, presumably, not among the accomplishments the president had in mind.”

Omid-Reza Mirsayafi passed away silently in Iranian prison on March 20, 2009 (Friday) leaving behind thousands of admirers, friends and supporters. He was arrested last April, tried last November, and detained in February following an interrogation.

Human Rights campaigners called for prison officials to be prosecuted after Mirsayafi took extra doses of tranquilisers prescribed by prison doctors. He was suffering from depression and had previously attempted to commit suicide, according to a fellow inmate.

His death followed that of Amir Hossein Heshmatsaran, founder of an Iranian opposition group called the National Unity Front, who died on 6 March while serving an eight-year sentence. Heshmatsaran's family alleged that he had died because of negligence, after suffering a stroke.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran said the deaths illustrated contempt for political detainees' health.

"Iranian leaders have relegated the administration of the prison system to a group of incompetent and cruel officials who are showing their utter disregard for human life," said Hadi Ghaemi, the campaign's spokesman. "If the authorities do not move quickly to hold negligent officials responsible, they are reinforcing impunity and the lack of accountability."

Mirsayafi was convicted of insulting religious leaders and of making propaganda against the Islamic system. He was awaiting a further trial on charges of insulting "sacred Islamic values". The offences were allegedly committed on his blog, Rouznegar, which focused mainly on music and cultural issues.

Mirsayafi denied the postings were insulting and said they were only intended to be read by friends. Before being convicted, he told associates he would die if he was imprisoned.

Details of Mirsayafi's deterioration in prison were given by Hesam Firoozi, an imprisoned doctor who witnessed his treatment. Firoozi, who has treated some of Iran's best-known political activists, told Mirsayafi's lawyer that medical staff had denied him proper care by failing to send him to hospital.

Iran has come under scrutiny before for its treatment of imprisoned activists. Human rights groups voiced outrage in July 2006 when Akbar Mohammadi, incarcerated for leading anti-government student demonstrations, died in Evin prison after going on hunger strike. He had been fasting to protest against the lack of treatment for injuries suffered in captivity.

News of Mirsayfi's death emerged as officials announced the arrest of 27 people they said were involved in pornographic and erotic websites allegedly created by foreign powers aiming to foment a "soft revolution" against the Islamic regime.

Omidreza Mirsayafi was sentenced two years and six months in prison for the contents of his blog. The usual suspects covered the story: Global Voices Advocacy immediately issued a statement, then provided a followup piece detailing the arrests of other Iranian bloggers over the years. Reporters Without Borders documented Mirsayafi's arrest and subsequent trial. But the mainstream media? They remained silent as usual, as they continue to ignore many important cases of press repression in the world. For example, the case of anti-Jihadist Bangladeshi journalist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury, who was arrested on November 29, 2003, imprisoned for 17 months and released on bail on April 30, 2005 at the relentless efforts of Jewish activist Dr. Richard L. Benkin and Rep. Mark Steven Kirk. This important case as only covered a number of times by Wall Street Journal, New York Sun and The Washington Times, while most of the mainstream media in the West, including CNN, Fox, BBC, ABC, Guardian, Los Aneges Times, USA Today, Boston Globe, Miami Herald, International Herald Tribune, Christian Science Monitor, Globe & Mail, Toronto Star, Newsweek, TIME etc, continue to ignore this extremely important issue. Newspapers like New York Times although published an editorial in December 2003 right after the arrest of Mr. Choudhury, this newspaper too lacks in continuing any followup report on this case.

Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury faces sedition, treason and blasphemy charges in Bangladesh for confronting militant Islam, for promoting inter-faith understanding for exposing activities of madrassas which are breeding ground of jihadists, for demanding relations between Israel and Bangladesh and for condemning religious hatred, suicide bombing and jihad. According to Bangladeshi law, sedition bears capital punishment.

Shoaib has to spend hundreds of hours in the court since 2003 and his next trial date is May 26, 2009. From Bangladesh, he runs country's most influential and only anti-jihadist newspaper, Weekly Blitz.

Reporters Sans Frontiers in their statement on Omid-Reza Mirsayafi said, “Arrested on 22 April, Mirsayafi was released after 41 days in detention on payment of 100 million toman (72,000 euros) in bail. When he appeared in court on 22 November he was charged under article 514 of the criminal code, which says “insulting Supreme Guide Khomeiny, the founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran, or the country's leaders, is punishable by six months to two years in prison,” and under article 500, which says “propaganda against the state is punishable by three months to one year in prison.”

“Most of what Mirsayafi posted on his blog, Rooznegar, which can no longer be accessed, was about traditional Persian music and culture. He told Reporters Without Borders: “I am a cultural blogger, not a political one. Of all the entries I posted online, only two or three were satirical. I did not intend to insult anyone.”

Mirsayafi's lawyer told Reporters Without Borders that, “in the opinion of the court's experts, this blog did not have enough visitors to be regarded as a 'publication'.” Mirsayafi is meanwhile still facing separate charges of “insulting the prophet of Islam” and “attacking the sacredness of Iran” before a Tehran assizes court.

“Iran is one of the world's most repressive countries towards outspoken bloggers and often imposes disproportionate sentences. The government is currently considering a bill that would extend the death penalty to crimes committed online. On 18 December, the UN general assembly passed a resolution urging Iran to put a stop to death sentences and executions.”

According to Amnesty International, the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran contains many important safeguards of rights and freedoms that are guaranteed in the international instruments to which Iran is a state party (see box), including those relating to freedom of expression and fair trial. These seek to ensure that all individuals enjoy the same rights under law, and the human dignity that follows from this.

Human rights treaties that Iran has ratified:1968 - International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination

1975 - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

1975 - International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

1976 - Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

1976 - Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees

1994 - Convention on the Rights of the Child
There is also a vigorous human rights debate in Iran's parliament, the Islamic Consultative Assembly (ICA), amongst members of the judiciary, non-governmental and professional bodies such as the Bar Association, and many newspapers.

There are, however, issues of particular concern to Amnesty International regarding the implementation of international human rights safeguards, including in connection with freedom of expression and association and the administration of justice. The organization has repeatedly addressed the Iranian authorities on behalf of individual prisoners of conscience and people whose basic human rights appeared to be at risk, and has called for legislation to be reviewed and reforms to be implemented.

In August 2001, Amnesty International sent to the government and judicial officials a detailed memorandum on concerning freedom of expression and the administration of justice, which forms the basis of this report. The memorandum examined laws relating to freedom of expression, independence of the judiciary and restrictions on the Bar Association and right to defence, along with other issues relating to the administration of justice. The memorandum aimed to contribute to the debate in Iran and suggested ways of bringing laws and practice into harmony with Iran's international human rights obligations. Amnesty International asked the government of Iran and its judicial authorities for their comments on the memorandum. By the end of December 2001 the organization received acknowledgment that the government and judicial authorities had received the memorandum, but no comments or clarifications were received.

Amnesty International's further concerns in Iran include prolonged and often incommunicado detention, torture and ill-treatment of prisoners, including the use of cruel, inhuman and degrading punishments such as flogging and amputation; impunity of state officials for human rights violations; the extensive use of the death penalty and its public implementation and discriminatory laws including those relating to women's rights.

Freedom of expression and association in Iran is curtailed by legal restrictions and by flaws in the administration of justice. It has resulted in unfair trials and the imprisonment of prisoners of conscience.

Iran's Constitution guarantees freedom of belief. However, restrictions on freedom of expression and association in Iranian law go beyond both the Iranian Constitution and the international human rights treaties to which Iran is a state party. Restrictive, contradictory and vaguely worded provisions contained in the Penal Code, the Theologians' Law - a body of law that deals with offences committed by clerics - and the Public and Revolutionary Courts' Procedural Law undermine the right to freedom of expression. For example, the Penal Code prohibits a range of activities, such as those connected with journalism or public discourse, which do not amount to recognizably criminal offences.

Sources referred to in this report that relate to minimum international standards concerning administration of justice and the duties of lawyers, prosecutors and the judiciary include the following:

United Nations' Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary

United Nations' Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers

United Nations' Guidelines on the Role of Prosecutors

The restrictions set out in national law are exacerbated by structural flaws in the judicial system. The judiciary does not enjoy the independence accorded to it by constitutional provisions and the functions of investigator, prosecutor and judge are frequently combined, bringing the impartiality of the judge into question. Lower court judges are under pressure to investigate and prosecute allegations that may be brought by a superior judicial official who is often the official directly responsible for their appointment and continued employment as a judge and judges must provide rulings for which they may be held personally responsible even when there is, as noted in Article 167 of the Constitution, ''silence or deficiency of law''.

The Bar Association in Tehran and other regional centres in Iran were re-established by the judicial authorities in 1999 after many years in abeyance. Restrictions on its functions weaken its independence and therefore safeguards against unfair trial. The function of the Bar Association to grant licences to newly qualified lawyers and to freely choose its own representatives are, for example, essential safeguards of the independence of the Bar Association. Recent legislation, however, has removed these functions. The judiciary controls who is eligible for apprenticeship places with the Bar Association, entry into the legal profession, and continued functioning as a lawyer. This weakens the independence of the Bar Association and undermines the professional integrity, security and independence required by lawyers and could lead to exclusion on the basis of ethnic origin, religion, or beliefs.

Taken together, these flaws have obstructed the delivery of justice. Over recent years there have been a catalogue of victims of arbitrary detention, unfair trial and imprisonment for no reason other than the expression of their conscientiously held beliefs. Such practices are not only contrary to Iran's own Constitution but also violate international human rights standards.

An academic conference entitled Iran After the Elections held in Berlin in April 2000, in which a number of Iranian intellectuals participated, was disrupted by political groups based outside Iran. The conference was filmed by Iran's state broadcasting company and shown in Iran, where it caused controversy. On return to Iran, the participants were summoned for questioning and some were detained, often for prolonged periods. In October and November 2000, participants and translators of conference papers were tried on serious but vaguely worded charges concerning ''attempts against national security'', ''propaganda against the state'' and ''insulting Islam''. At least nine people were convicted and sentenced to prison terms, yet the only evidence against them seems to have been their presence and presentations at the conference. These presentations were, in fact, reproduced and published in late 2000, in a book (see page 5) authorized by the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. At the time of writing, many of their cases were being heard by the Tehran appeals court.

Former US President George W Bush already criticized Obama's Iran Diplomacy as an attempt similar to appeasing Nazis in 1930s.

Obama-Hillary couple in White House and State Department respectively are considred to be champion ignorers of freedom of press and freedom of expression. In particular, the present administration in Washington under Barack Hossain Obama has a past track record of ignoring all those anti-jihadist voices, as they have the agenda of pleasing Islamists and terror-patrons around the world, under their policy of establishing so-called global unity.

Barack Obama and his team ignored the case of courageous Iranian blogger Omid-Reza Mirsayafi. Now after assuming power, they are visibly ignoring the extremely important case of Bangladeshi anti-Jihadist journalist and peace-activist Salah Uddin Shoaib Choudhury. Even there was no mention about Obama's statement on the case of Burma's democracy icon Aung San Su Kyi. This is a terrible shame for the present government in United States.