Summons, arrests, intimidation, barred activities, and heavy sentences for peaceful activism are only some of the pressures facing women’s movements in Iran. In its security approach to civil activism, the judiciary sentenced a member of the Million Signatures Campaign for Changing Discriminatory Laws Delaram Ali to 34 months in prison plus ten lashes. Immediately thereafter, Alieh Eghdamdoust, another suspect in the July 2nd, 2006 gathering was sentenced to three years and four months imprisonment and 20 lashes.

In an interview with Rooz, Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh, a women’s movement activist says the message of these sentences is that segments of the security system will not tolerate gatherings and public protests. Referring to the escalating security atmosphere of the past few months, she adds: “These gentlemen have a plan for extensive suppression, especially after Ham Mihan newspaper was suspended and ILNA News Agency shut down. Therefore, one can comfortably say that the prison sentences on these women must be viewed in the larger context of the suppression project pursued by certain government forces that is gaining momentum to control society.” The following is Rooz’s interview with Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh, editor of Farzaneh publication, a quarterly journal dedicated to women’s issues, and the head of the training center of NGO’s in Tehran.

Rooz (R): What is the reason for the harsh sentences against Alieh Eghdamdoost, Delaram Ali, and other women’s rights activists following their participation in peaceful protests, and what message do such sentences carry?

Mahboubeh Abbasgholizadeh (MA): Such sentences convey the clear message that gatherings and public protests are not tolerated. Prior to March 5th, women who had been sentenced, such as Jilla Baniyaghoub, were acquitted. This means that based on [the repeated] interrogations and summons at that time, officials believed that there would be no more street demonstrations, and so they could issue lighter sentences. But after the March 5th protests and arrival of groups on the protest scene that had not participated in the July 2nd 2006 protests, officials became more fears of street demonstrations by women increased resulting in harsher sentences for activists such as Susan Tahmasebi, Fariba Davoodi Mohajer, Nooshin Ahmadi Khorassani, and Parvin Ardalan. These individuals themselves thought they would be acquitted. The same trend holds true for Delaram Ali, who symbolizes the brutal confrontation of police with women protestors, and who received a two-year prison sentence.

It must not be forgotten that the general atmosphere has become more security-based exhibiting greater police violence. The recent repeated security measures based on the fears of a velvet overthrow of the regime and the new round of street confrontations for the hijab (Islamic attire) attest that those in powers have an extensive plan to suppress events. After the closure of Ham-Mihan newspaper and ILNA news agency one can say that this trend has intensified. So the recent sentences passed against women activists should be seen in this light. These developments also signal the possibility of the dominance of those in power who favor to suppress rather than those who prefer to control events and movements.

R: But the women’s protests over the past several years were peaceful, apolitical and goal-oriented. What is the reason for such concerns? Is it in the nature of the message that the women’s movement is sending, or is there concern that such peaceful movements might be joined with other protests, such as those that took place at Tehran University a few years ago?

MA: I think that women continue to be treated less harshly when compared to the treatment that university students and protesting workers were subjected to. And as we debate the sentencing of a number of women, the solitary confinement and mistreatment of Amir Kabir University students who are behind bars on unjust charges of publishing student publications where it is claimed that religious scriptures were insulted is not even mentioned in the press any longer.

Women’s demands are clear and their independence from other political forces is easily verifiable. The women’s movement is currently the only social movement which is peaceful in nature and has tangible demands for social changes, which is why it enjoys wide social support. This phenomenon has created a dilemma for the government. On one hand they cannot arrest a few members of this movement and keep them in prison for a few years until the movement subsides, as was done with university students or labor protestors. On the other hand, our demands for changes in the law have been repeated by even the most conservative women’s groups. Certainly not all of our demands but at least those relating to gender equality in Diah (the Islamic criminal punishment and retribution where the blood of a woman is not as honored as the blood of a man). The heavy sentences are a message that show that officials are reaching the limits of their toleration. And if we disregard these, then more and harsher suppression awaits us. You know that as we speak, our court cases are still active. The message of the ruling circles is very clear.

R: There is bewilderment in understanding the government’s treatment of the women’s protests. This is particularly true because what women are doing falls within the acceptable legal domains of the constitution. What they are doing is aimed at helping the government and its bureaucracy, which would eventually lead to closeness between the people and their government. So what is it that has made the women’s movement so negative in the eyes of the authorities?

MA: They view women’s civil activities as actions to softly overthrow the regime. Their security perspective and the so called soft overthrow project that they are following has made things difficult for the women’s movement. They cannot understand that the demands that women are making are legitimately based on women’s conditions. You should bear in mind that the situation and general atmosphere in the country is now completely out of the hands of civil society activists and particularly women, and is in then hands of the religious and charity propaganda organizations.

The women’s movement today is more radical than two years ago. This is because they have made the atmosphere more radical. Some women feel there is no place for them to express their opinions and views and so they chose riskier forums and activities.

R: So if the issue of velvet or soft overthrow was not raised by these agencies, women would have been able to continue their work for their demands without any problem?

MA: The idea of regime overthrow which began with the arrest of web-bloggers in 2004 and has been pursued by certain circles inside the regime gained new prominence in recent months. The announcement of special budgets in the US and Holland added fuel to the issue. In addition, the radicalization of the atmosphere in which activists work has made things even more complex and has finally led to the suppression of women activists. Currently, the offices of all women activists have been closed by authorities or have been voluntarily shut by their organizers. The allocated budgets for assistance to deprived women in distant provinces are frozen and not used. I must point out that I differentiate between NGOs and women’s movement groups. NGOs work on development and I believe we should work through domestic or foreign financial resources, based on the organizations that they work with. The women’s movement however must remain independent of any financial resources and must operate on strictly volunteer basis. This distinction is not understandable by the security forces. They do not understand the distinctions between volunteerism, activities based on idealism or pure values that exist inside the women’s movement.

We want to change the behavior of the state in its relations with women, and we believe the people of the country and Iranian women can do this. More importantly, these changes must come by relying on our own domestic resources.

R: My question is whether the concern that the regime has about a soft or velvet revolution is behind its harsh treatment of women. In other words, are authorities using this soft revolution pretext simply to suppress the women’s movement?

MA: I see this as a pretext and an excuse. They know from the interrogations that they have had that this is not the case. If there was a plot, these individuals would not be outside prison now. I would have been in ward 209 of Evin if there really was a velvet revolution in the making.

But soft revolutions have indeed taken place in some countries and if there had been no foreign sources for them, they would have not succeeded. For example there was a protest in a country during which soup was given to the protesters for a week, which finally resulted in the change of government. If there was no soup for the protesters, they would have gone home after 2 days and that would have been the end of the affair. But this is not the kind of overthrow that we are talking about in Iran.

The Iranian regime sees two kinds of threats facing it: War or so-called “soft overthrow”. I think the regime is pretty sure there is no revolution over the horizon. Still, it has been fighting against the other possibilities for years. Like Don Quixote and his type of conflict. Being prepared for war is good, but to pursue activists trying to softly overthrow the regime like Don Quixote is meaningless because Iran’s civil society structure and social movements do not allow for such an overthrow. Imagine what would be our response if lawmakers proclaimed a ban on stoning tomorrow. Would be thank them or seek to find another excuse to continue our propaganda war against him? In the women’s movement it is clear that we would do the first. This is the difference between behavior change and overthrow a regime.

R: Why are officials unable to make this distinction? Is it because they don’t have a clear understanding of this, and thus resort to the simplest, costliest and most turbulent response?

MA: They are incapable of understanding that there can be common desires even among those it calls insiders and those it calls outsiders. This is rooted in the psychology of power that they bear. They honestly think only they can understand what is in the best interests of the country. They cannot believe that there are women and men in this country who while criticizing them can also be fully dedicated to the country’s independence and sovereignty.

R: Do you see any possibility that authorities will allow greater leeway to civil society organizations and activists to help solve national issues along with the bureaucracy which is incapable of doing this?

MA: Ahmadinejad’s government is based on a security perspective and thus lacks such a possibility. We must believe that they are against a civil society.

R: Have you thought about opening a dialogue with the government as an accomplishment of civil society activists?

MA: We are not interested in biased or unequal discussion. Whatever discussion they have called for has been through interrogations and summons. Nobody has invited us to any government sponsored meetings or conferences either. The issue is not that we are not capable of talks based on equal respect. The issue is that they do not have the ability to talk with us.

R: Why?

MA: A hardline hierarchical regime does not have the power to talk to the public because of its nature.

R: Perhaps the time has come for a change in the format of the discussions from interrogation forums to the media, government and non-government bodies. Do you think Ahmadinejad’s government can do this?

MA: No, I do not think Ahmadinejad’s government has the capacity to do this.