•  Home
•  Who We Are
•  What We Do
•  Media Centre
•  Publications
•  Humphrey Award
•  Reference
•  Links
•  Contact Us

Akbar Ganji's speech upon receiving the John Humphrey Award

Ladies and Gentlemen; distinguished directors of Rights & Democracy

It is with great pride that I receive this award, which has been named after John Humphrey, the author of the draft of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I would like to thank you for deeming me worthy, as an Iranian, to receive this award. It is precious indeed for us to have the international community express its fellowship with the Iranian people, who are suffering great hardship in their struggle against a despotic, repressive and fundamentalist state. The ideal that inspired John Humphrey, the distinguished Canadian jurist, and other human rights activists is that human beings, simply by virtue of being human beings and regardless of colour, race, religion, gender and geographic location, should enjoy basic, inviolable rights. The goal of human rights, justice and equality for all has also been a constant source of inspiration to me, and the longing to fulfil this ideal has been the guiding star of all my political activities. My political and social activities have never been based on opposition to a specific government, or on support for a specific government against other governments. My political and social activities have always been inspired by the goal of equal rights to security, freedom, peace and a dignified life for all human beings.

It is cause for gratification that the belief that human beings - regardless of all their differences in terms of race, religion, gender, ethnic group, language, nationality and geographic location - are all intrinsically human and that suffering and pain are equally reprehensible, whether they are inflicted on Jews, Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus or unbelievers, is gradually turning into a universally-accepted and widely-held belief. This development speaks of humanity's growth in terms of both rationality and morality.  Let us not forget that the biggest failing of repressive regimes is their moral failing in the eyes of their own people and in the eyes of the global civil community. Paying tribute to the proponents of freedom and the defenders of human rights is effectively the proclamation of the moral failing of despotic regimes and shows that they lack legitimacy in the eyes of the world.

I believe that one of the most important moral foundations of human rights is that human beings are intrinsically valuable and that they must never be viewed merely as means of fulfilling the needs and wishes of other people. One of the tragedies of human history is that the intrinsic value of flesh-and-blood has been easily disregarded and people have been sacrificed for the sake of ambiguous and suspect ideals or rites and ideologies. Religions and ideologies should serve human beings, not the other way around. Rites and ideologies were originally intended to reduce human pain and suffering, but, with the passage of time, the servant and the served seem to have changed place, and real human beings have been sacrificed for the preservation of human constructs. Many of the world's political leaders have sacrificed human flesh-and-blood for illusory and utopian ideologies. For example, the Islamic Republic of Iran's top leader has turned the Iranian people into a mere means for gaining leadership over the world of Islam, for achieving his own nuclear ambitions and for the fulfilment of his fundamentalist beliefs. Similarly, Christian and Muslim fundamentalists turn the earth into hell so that they can go to heaven. National boundaries, too, are conventional constructs, in defence of which millions of lives have been sacrificed over the course of history. Human flesh-and-blood is so dear and valuable that even geographical frontiers and the concept of national sovereignty cannot serve as a pretext for violating their basic rights. All religious, ideological and geographical frontiers have claimed human lives and are splattered with blood. We must never forget the important principle that all these rites, ideologies and conventions, including democracy, are aimed at ensuring that human beings can live freely, in the way that they deem best for themselves; the aim is not to sacrifice the one and only life that human beings have for the sake of ambiguous ideals and paternalistic objectives and ambitions of statesmen.

The guiding principle of my thought, life and socio-political activity has been respect for freedom and the idea of equal rights for all citizens. And I believe that justice, too, is an offspring of freedom and the recognition of these equal rights. It is this guiding principle that commits me to oppose and struggle against discrimination and injustice. My opposition to and struggle against the current Iranian regime must be viewed within the framework of this regulative principle. But the notion of freedom and equality for all also guides our stances and conduct in the international arena. The principle does not only necessitate opposing and struggling against the Iranian regime; it necessitates struggling against all forms of unfair discrimination and human rights violations in all societies; opposing war and the occupation of other people's lands wherever they occur in the world; and opposing all forms of apartheid and the displacement of human beings from their lands. Anyone who is a sincere proponent of human rights, freedom and justice should not act on the basis of double standards. The violation of human rights is not only blameworthy in Iran and when perpetrated by the Iranian regime; it is blameworthy wherever it occurs.

I hope that Western governments do not observe double standards on the question of human rights. I consider Western democracies to be the best option among the actually-existing forms of government and ways of organizing power. But, in my capacity as a human rights activist, I expect Western governments not to pursue double standards. Double standards destroy the moral superiority of actually-existing democracies and allow despotic rulers everywhere in the world, including the Middle East and Iran, to present a better image of themselves in their propaganda campaigns against democratic forces. How can despotic rulers be made to abide by human rights when human rights are violated by the world's major powers? How can the proponents of freedom in peripheral societies expect the dictators ruling over their countries to observe the rules of democracy when democratic values are disregarded by the leaders of democratic societies? Western governments turn a blind eye to the extensive violation of human rights and the rules of democracy by their allies, but they show great sensitivity to and hold a magnifying glass over human rights violations committed by their enemies. The policy of defending dictatorial states in the Middle East as long as they are allied to Western governments is misguided and has produced the disastrous results that we are witnessing today. One of these calamitous results is that, in some countries, fundamentalists have become the only alternative to the governments of the region and they can often defeat their secular rivals in free and fair elections. They can, then, establish far more corrupt and despotic governments, and - in addition to exercising repression in the political sphere - extend the repression to every aspect of social life.

We must not forget that we live in a totally contiguous world and that what happens in one corner of the world directly or indirectly affects the rest of the world too. Hence, one of the factors that endangers the progress of democracy in places like Iran is Western democracies' double-standard approach to the violation of human rights. But this is not the only thing that impedes the growth of democracy in peripheral countries such as Iran. One of the most important factors that prevent the growth of democracy and respect for human rights in today's contiguous world is the prevalence of injustice worldwide. The growth of peace and democracy hinges on the materialization of justice in the relationship between nations and states, on the one hand, and in international relations, on the other. At the national level, justice demands that basic freedoms - i.e., political freedoms (such as the right to vote and the right to hold public office), freedom of expression, freedom of opinion, freedom of conscience, the right of assembly, personal freedoms (such as freedom from psychological and physical repression), the right to private property, freedom from arbitrary arrest - be distributed equally among all the members of society. Equal opportunity for all is among the pillars of justice. On this basis, the opportunity to attain advantageous social and economic positions and occupations must be available to all. The sources of wealth, power, information and status must be distributed equally among all members of society, including those living on the margins of society. So, at the national level, society's basic structure must be organized in a way that ensures that scarce resources, such as power, wealth, education and status, are being used to reduce the pain and suffering of the most deprived social strata. But this principle of positive discrimination must also be made to govern international relations; here I am talking about the countries of the global South.

It is true that the Middle East needs democracy and peace; but how can anyone who is grappling with poverty and hunger on a daily basis and constantly trying to fend off death be expected to take democracy and human rights seriously and to strive to bring them about? Someone who is caught in the jaws of poverty and wretchedness will view these concepts as little more than decorative and as products of futile intellectual debates. A society, in which poverty and illiteracy are the norm, will produce nothing but dictatorship. Combating poverty and spreading literacy to all social strata constitute an important part of the transition to democracy. It is true, of course, that one of the most important causes of poverty and hunger in peripheral countries is mismanagement by native rulers. But we must also not forget that, in nearly every instance, Western governments have played a significant role in the emergence of poverty and wretchedness in those societies through their direct or indirect support for incompetent and unworthy rulers. And that they, therefore, bear their share of the responsibility for the terrible conditions in the global South.

In addition to all of the above, there is another problem that has seriously endangered the human rights and democracy movement in Iran today. It is a problem that relates to nuclear weapons. Personally, I oppose the idea of Iran having nuclear weapons. But, since my opposition is not based on double standards, I also oppose an arms race, the proliferation of nuclear weapons and the imposition of unilateral policies on the strength of nuclear threats absolutely and wherever they occur. In order to establish stability and security in the Middle East, the region's arms race must be brought to an end and we must strive for a Middle East that is free of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Strict adherence to the Non-Proliferation Treaty is a good starting point for all the countries of the world; it will allow them to prevent the emergence of new nuclear powers and to destroy existing nuclear weapons.

But the threat of war that now looms over Iran on the pretext that the Islamic Republic may one day obtain nuclear weapons ultimately works to the detriment of the proponents of democracy and human rights in Iran. The Iranian state interprets any criticism of itself by its opponents as "treachery", "soft subversion" and a "velvet revolution". In circumstances in which the international community considers a military attack on Iran a serious possibility, the fundamentalists in the Islamic Republic can more easily tighten their grip on power and use the threat of an "enemy” as a justification for crushing Iran's nascent civil society. The pro-democracy movement in Iran will suffer serious harm in an emergency-security situation; in circumstances in which war can turn into a reality at any moment; and in totally polarized political conditions in which the state can present all its opponents as US "lackeys" and "mercenaries".  In such circumstances, the defenders of human rights and civil society activists find themselves in an unwanted predicament: having to choose between the despotic, fundamentalist state and a situation similar to what we are seeing in Iraq. Beating the drums of war, even as a theoretical possibility will inevitably place the Iranian people, including political activists and the proponents of freedom and democracy, at a crossroads. And, in fact, this is exactly what the Islamic Republic's fundamentalist rulers hope to see, which is why they, too, keep harping on war. This is why I am of the view that we must condemn the idea of a military attack on Iran under any guise and under any pretext. Iranian proponents of freedom and democracy expect the Canadian government to repeat its wise and brave decision not to enter the Iraq war by becoming the standard-bearer of opposition to any military attack on Iran, and to argue that peace and democracy cannot be achieved by destroying a country's infrastructure and killing its women and children. At the same time, we are also opposed to any sanctions that exacerbate the pain and suffering of innocent Iranians. The Iranian people must not be punished instead of the Islamic Republic's fundamentalist rulers. As an alternative, a bill of indictment can be drawn up against all Iranian statesmen who have been involved in torture, assassination and the killing of dissidents and people with dissident lifestyles. Then, these officials could be detained at the first opportunity and tried in an international court on the charge of crimes against humanity.

The international community must put pressure on repressive states to force them to respect human rights and make the transition to democracy, but this pressure should consist of an aggregate of incentives and punishments. The European Union's package of proposals to the Turkish government and the possibility of joining the EU was worth so much that it made the Turkish government change thousands of laws, eliminate capital punishment and give every Turkish citizen the right to appeal to the European Court against sentences issued by courts in Turkey. Extensive investment in Iran, selling it advanced technology, taking into consideration Iran's regional interests and granting Iran an active role in the international community can form part of a package of proposals aimed at bringing about respect for human rights and the transition to democracy. If Iranian rulers still refuse to respect human rights and to submit to the process of democratization, they can then be subjected to a whole range of punishments.

The Iranian state is rule by a minority that has imposed its will on the majority, including young people, women and workers. It is a state that disregards the people's democratic rights, their diverse religious and political beliefs, and their choice of lifestyles. It crushes any choice and conduct that is not in keeping with its own prescribed model. It crushes its political opponents who struggle for equal rights for all citizens (regardless of religion, ethnic group, gender and political persuasion) and demand freedom of expression and opinion and the elimination of privileges for the rulers and the minority that supports them. It is a state that disdains equal rights for women in political, economic and legal spheres, and does not allow them to have an equal say in the running of family affairs. The Islamic Republic's fundamentalist rulers have created a kind of apartheid by the name of the right to vet election candidates. This vetting is carried out by the members of the Guardian Council who are appointed by the country's top leader and who are of the view that that leader himself has a God-given right to rule for life. The Islamic Republic arbitrarily arrests political opponents and holds them for indeterminate lengths of time without the right of access to lawyers and their families. Many detainees are held in solitary confinement and subjected to sexual and psychological abuse so that they will make "confessions" that will incriminate their friends and other political activists.  The violation of the rights of ethnic, religious and sexual minorities are among the other points that can be added to this list.

International humanitarian intervention must be aimed at strengthening civil society and the Iranian people in the face of these repressive actions, rather than changing the military balance of power to the detriment of this or that state in the Middle East. A strong, democratic Iran will change the balance of power to the advantage of democracy in the Middle East as a whole. Punishing Iran in order to achieve military and strategic superiority for the Israeli government would deepen the rift between the world of Islam and the West and fan the flames of fundamentalism. But harshly penalizing the Islamic Republic's fundamentalist regime for jailing women who are struggling for equal rights; for punishing workers who try to form independent labour unions; for crushing students using military and paramilitary forces and torturing them in jail; or for disqualifying thousands of their reformist rivals in order to win unfree, unfair elections will assist the spread of democracy and human rights in Iran. Iran is the key to the Middle East; democratization in Iran will lead to the democratization of the entire region.

Support for democracy and human rights in Iran is the moral duty of governments and civil institutions in Western countries. And I would like to voice my own tribute to and gratitude for the support that the press, human rights organizations and the representatives of the people at all political levels in Western countries (and, especially, Canada's human rights organizations) have expressed for Iran's pro-democracy movement.  Democracy's greatest strength is the inspiration that it provides and its moral superiority. I would like to express my most heartfelt thanks to International Centre for Human Rights and Democracy Development (Rights & Democracy) and to everyone who strives to perpetuate this source of inspiration and this moral strength.

4 December 2007