Sara Moghadam
Mansureh Shojayi, Jhila Bani-Yaghoob, Parvin Ardalan and Nahid Keshavarz, four prominent women’s rights activists in Iran talked with Rooz in an exclusive interview about their problems, the situation with the ‘family protection’ bill in the Majlis, and the possibility of reactivating article 23 of this bill (which sanctions polygamy in Iran).
A few months ago human rights and women’s rights activists, in addition to millions of other Iranians, celebrated the Majlis decision not to go ahead with parts of a bill (articles 23 and 25 to be specific), known as the ‘family protection’ law that would allow men to take multiple wives, among other regressive provisions. But the Majlis did approve debate of the bill (without the 2 articles) and last week a Majlis deputy raised the possibility of putting back the controversial article into the bill.
Shojayi, a women’s rights activist and a member of the coalition against this bill, which is also knows as the anti-women’s law, calls women’s activism against this legislature the most civil and peaceful protest by a social group. According to her, article 23 and its removal from the bill, was in fact not a step forward, but an effort to prevent a bad and humiliating regressive law from being passed. It was both a peaceful and civil exercise. She added that she felt that some were trying to sabotage this work through obstinate measures, making more peaceful protests and activism regarding women’s rights impossible.
Another women’s rights activist Yaghoob, who is also a journalist, says the worldview of people has a lot to do with choices they make and said, “Women in our society are not short of problems. There are many problems that families in our society are constantly dealing with. Why article 23 of this bill becomes such an important issue that all the energy of conservatists is focused on including this provision into law is because of the way some officials think and who want to establish regressive relations in society.” She said she does not believe that those who initially put this provision in the bill will quietly sit on the sidelines but will continue their efforts which are based on their regressive views on women and the family.
Parvin Ardalan is also a member of the coalition against this bill and a winner of the Swedish Olaf Palme human rights award. She says that the article demonstrates the anti-woman attitude of its authors and stresses, “This article is a symbol of the view of those people who are against women and who view man to be the center of the family, thus advocating such provisions to prove their male superiority perspective.” She said it is unfortunate that so much energy is spent by the women’s movement on challenging a provision, adding, “Our goal is complete equality and not the facilitation or difficulty in polygamy. What all women’s movement activists aspire and demand is the complete annulment of the law that allows polygamy, and not merely legislating conditions for it.” She said that their efforts till today were to stop this article because it made matters worse for the family, and which was what the coalition worked for. Prior to this, she added, the one million signature campaign for equality worked against multiple marriages. “This is why I think there are some individuals who are constantly trying to belittle our work and keep us busy to be engaged with minimum changes, which we must consciously resist,” she added.
Another activist, who is also a sociologist Nahid Keshavarz called the efforts of those who were trying to return article 23 to the bill as “complex”, and said, “What is most clear in this case is the will that is determined to stand in the way of women’s rights and is in no way prepared to retreat.” She believes that the equality debate has now become a popular one in the country, and adds, “Efforts against the passage of this provision in the bill have lead to open debate in the media and the public. This debate even includes those inside the regime. It has forced even senior clerics to take a position on the issue, thus involving society at large. The fact that women’s issues are now controversial and debated in the public is a good development by itself, which shows the seriousness of the efforts of the women’s movement. But it is not sufficient. It is not good enough to be fighting for the prevention of worse conditions and laws. Our efforts are to move forward, and not to stop from regressing back.”
