close button
Switch to Iranwire Light?
It looks like you’re having trouble loading the content on this page. Switch to Iranwire Light instead.
Special Features

Iranians’ Legal Right to Protest

November 26, 2019
Musa Barzin Khalifehloo
8 min read
Do Iranians have the right to protest under the country's constitution?
Do Iranians have the right to protest under the country's constitution?

Law enforcement and security forces clashed with protesters when widespread demonstrations against the sudden rise in gas prices broke out on November 15. One government source told IranWire that as many as 218 people have been killed, and many hundreds have been injured. 

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and other officials have described the protests as a "riots" and labeled protesters “thugs.” Iran’s Supreme Leader has made similar remarks. The officials have claimed that citizens have no right to protest and assemble, that they have been stoking violence, and point to the damage done to government buildings. They say the protests must be suppressed. 

But do Iranian citizens have the right to protest? Are their demonstrations protected under Iranian law?  Can the government suppress protesters and deprive them of this right, under the pretext of responding to damage of government property? 

The third chapter of the Iranian constitution is devoted to the rights of the people, and is entitled "The Rights of the Nation.” In general, in law, it is stated and broadly understood that every right brings with it an obligation. That is, if a right is recognized, there is an obligation for other people to protect that right. The rights of nations are no exception; in this context the government is responsible for the rights of the nation. So if the law enshrines rights, the state is obliged to establish, exercise, and protect those rights. 

In "The Rights of the Nation" section of the constitution, attending a protest is recognized as a right. According to Article 27 of the Constitution: "Assemblies and rallies are free, without [people] carrying weapons and on the condition that it does not infringe the foundations of Islam." The principle explicitly provides for only two exceptions to the right to freedom of assembly — if an individual or group is armed, or if they infringe on the foundations of Islam. There is no doubt that the recent demonstrations against the rise in gas prices did not go against the fundamentals of Islam, which are of a religious nature. The purpose of the demonstrations was to voice a clear protest against the high cost of a necessary commodity, gasoline, and about poor living conditions. 

It could be argued that some people violated the condition about being unarmed because they set government buildings, including banks, on fire, and therefore the gatherings were not peaceful. In response to this claim, however, it must be said that the destruction was carried out by isolated groups of people, and not all protesters were armed or going on to the streets with the intention of destruction. In addition, there are no credible reasons to believe that the demonstrators were the perpetrators of such damage. 

Without a doubt, the government is entitled to deal with people who destroy and set fire to service centers or private property, but it is not allowed to block the flow of peaceful protests. Protest is a right of the nation and, if a person commits a crime while exercising this right, the responsible forces can arrest him. However, in the most recent events, high-ranking authorities have repeatedly used the  term "thugs" to describe all protesters and referred to their behavior as illegal. This is despite the fact that, during the process of ratifying Article 27, regulators of the principle tried to prevent government abuse of the right by placing certain restrictions on it.

The Assembly of Experts debated this subject of the Constitution in the Sessions 26, 27, and 65 of the Assembly, held on September 22, 1979, September 23, 1979, and November 11, 1979. The article stipulates: "Organizing meetings and rallies without arms in streets, squares and public spaces is allowed, provided that they do not undermine public security and order, and are not contrary to the principles of Islam." But following the protest from some Assembly of Experts members, it was eventually updated to read: "Assembly and rallies are allowed; the rules and regulations governing the assembly and rallies in public streets and squares shall be governed by law.”

 

What Happened at the Meetings?

Abdul-Fazi Mousavi Tabrizi was among those Assembly of Experts members who believed the text should be revised. “Forming gatherings and marches are free, with prior permission. This should be added to the text.” He was supported by Seyed Hasan Taheri Khoramabadi, who said: "I would like to point out that there may be times when the government has to prevent a march or a gathering. So there must be a word here to make sure the hands of the government are not tied.” Mohammad Mehdi Rabbani Amlashi agreed, saying that Iran’s leaders should be “informed” that a protest was due to take place. Mousavi Tabrizi added:  "We must not allow... people if they want to march against Islam.“

Seyyed Jalal Taheri Isfahani agreed about the dangers of people attacking Islam. "If a person or a crowd came out ... and chanted death to Islam or that Islam should be destroyed, this would not be correct“ Mohammad Yazdi said: “A meeting which is against Islam or against the fundamentals of Islam, certainly cannot be allowed to be free".

Abdorrahim Rabbani Shirazi asked for further clarification. "When we say that gatherings and marches are totally free, does this means an absolute freedom; no restrictions, totally free?” Assembly member Seyyed Mohammad Beheshti said yes, that the text would grant an “absolute” right “without restrictions."

Others emphasized the importance of enshrining the right to protest into the constitution, including assembly member Mohammad Taqi Besharat: "Regarding what Mr. Taheri says about giving more power to the government, I think the government should do more to provide facilities to prevent damage to economic centers, roads, and streets, but should not prevent people from marching and gathering because they [these rights] are central to our country. They must be able to express their pain and discomfort and perhaps we can understand their problems during these marches“.

Hamidollah Mirmoradzahi also agreed that protests should be allowed without restrictions, and hinted that demonstrations were a viable way for people to express their frustration with governments or policies. 

Taheri, agreed: “They [protests] must also be protected so that they [people] can speak up and say their words."

 

A Protection Against Broad Interpretation

Seyyed Abolhassan Banisadr – who was the Islamic Republic’s first president – went further, expressing concern that the authorities could take advantage of any restrictions that may be introduced. "We have reviewed these issues, and we have seen that this authority could be potentially spoiling and grounds for corruption because the government may completely prevent [protests] for security reasons ... This Article will not acquire enough support if put to vote. The basis of the delegates' objection is that there should be restrictions such as [protesters should] not be conspiratory [against the Islamic Republic], [and] not go against the security, the Islamic system, and Islam.“

Jalaleddin Farsi also called for strong support for protest as long as it did not go against Islam. "Meetings and marches are means of expression,” he said. “We want to boycott abuses. It's like limiting the sale of paper production and saying that no paper will be produced, and paper must be banned from sale unless we know what will be written on it.... it is not the march that is a crime. A crime is to propagate against one of the principles of Islam, whether in the community, or in a party, or at the top of the pulpit.”

But Banisadr pointed out that it might not be useful to focus too much on the reference to Islamic principles when applying the right. "Why are you playing around? Simply say the right to demonstrate is our right only and not the right of any other people. If you say that no one other than Muslims has the right to speak out, you can clearly say this, but keep in mind that the rule will not always be in your hands. Tomorrow a military man with a beard may come and use it against us..."

He went on: ”The edited version [of the Article] that says 'Meetings and demonstrations are free provided that they do not go against Islam and security, and the rules governing the meetings and rallies in streets and public spaces shall be governed by law,' will not get enough votes."

Hossein Ali Montazeri, who was later regarded as the successor to Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, also warned against making the provision too broad because it would be open to abuse – particularly the reference to conspiracy. ”We say there is a right to free assembly if it is not a conspiracy against anything. Tomorrow, when people want to gather in a meeting, the police might come and say that they want to conspire against the security of the state... This means giving power to the government to prevent any assembly." 

(from the unabridged debates of the Assembly for the Final Review of the Constitution, First edition, Volume I and III, Majles Publications, pp 655 to 736, and page 1,777) 

 

After much debate, the right to freedom of assembly was enshrined in Article 27 of the Constitution as outlined above. A review of the debates clearly shows that many political representatives were either explicit about supporting or willing to support the right to assemble without restrictions, and that several of the assembly delegates who agreed with restrictions were mainly concerned about rallies against the foundations of Islam. For the most part, they rejected restrictions, even when suspected conspiracy was thought to be a reason for the protests. 

Iran’s current leaders are clearly going against what was set out by those who help set the laws in the early days of the Islamic Republic. Iran’s Supreme Leader, President Rouhani and other key officials have vilified people for going out on the streets to voice their frustration about the current conditions in the country, ordering the shutdown of the internet to further restrict their right to freedom of assembly and expression. Now they are talking about the prosecution of protesters – despite the fact the right to protest is enshrined in Iranian law, and despite the fact that the authorities that put these laws in place firmly believed the right played a role in society. 

 

 

 

comments

Features

Afghan Workers in Iran are Abused and Exploited – But Relatively Safe

November 26, 2019
Jo Glanville
7 min read
Afghan Workers in Iran are Abused and Exploited – But Relatively Safe