The government accuses social groups of damaging the international prestige of Islamic system if they argue about issues such as death by stoning. What is your opinion in this matter, Mrs. Ebadi?
The political standing of a country would not be damaged by its citizens discussing important social issues. It would be damaging if the citizens are not able to express their opinion. The world would believe that there are no intellectuals in this country to have any opinion over the important social issues.
When the people of a country have active opinion about the important social issues of their country and they get involved in expressing them, it benefits the international prestige of that country.
One of the issues that caused the world community upbraiding Iran frequently is that we have legal penalties that are not compatible with the international human rights standards, such as death by stoning.
One of the topics in the second round of negotiations between the representatives of European Union and Islamic Republic of Iran on Human Rights at the time of Khatami’s Presidency in Tehran, Iran, was ban of torture. Based on the United Nations Convention against Torture and Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Iran was reprimanded for allowing death by stoning in their judicial laws.
Since I was not present at that meeting, I am not aware of the Iranian delegations respond to the European Union representatives. However, Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, the head of Judiciary system, circulated a directive letter to suggest using comparable measures instead of death by stoning.
I mentioned in a few interviews then after that even though his good intention is greatly appreciated, a directive letter is lacking a legal value. The head of the Judiciary system is well aware that by issuing a directive letter can not stop the enforcement of law. If he believes that death by stoning should be replaced, he should write two lines law suggesting to the Congress to pass it as a new bill to omit the death by stoning and replace it by other appropriate punishments. I believe that challenging the laws on important social issues not only doesn’t hurt the country’s prestige, but it helps to show the world that there is awareness of ground rules of Human Rights in Iran.
There are plenty of social inequalities that help the wrong actions to happen. In case of adultery, for example, we can clearly see the effect of these social injustices. In different cases we can see the unjust family law, the lack of power to choose their husbands or to get divorced for women, is some of the social conditions that could affect the person’s judgment.
Let me answer this question in a broader aspect. Let’s ask in what way we should try to change the laws that we believe inappropriate? The most important matter is social awareness. It means that people should understand where the problem is. It means knowing which parts of the laws are inappropriate and the consequences of them. We should work on these issues until the social conscience is sensitive enough to wish the laws to change.
In this regard, mass media such as TV, radio, newspaper and magazine, internet, and public institutions such as None Governmental Organizations could play a very important role. The social awareness and sensitivity would affect on what measures are passed in the Congress. We should not forget that even though the representatives have to be approved by the Guardian Council, they still need to get the highest public vote. Therefore, in this way we can use the public conscience and help more responsible individuals get elected to the Congress. This has happened in Iran many times before and the resulting effect on improving children rights was very satisfactory.
Is the death by stoning which some consider as an Islamic law, practiced in all Moslem countries?
No. In many countries this act has been banned but in some others such as Iran and Saudi Arabia it is still practiced.
In comparison with other crimes such as homicide, is adultery so heinous to require a worse punishment?
One of the strangeness of our laws is that a homicide is pardonable if the immediate family members consent to it. The judge could give a maximum of ten years in prison if he feels that the convict is a danger to the society. However, in most cases it does not exceed one or two years. While the law is so relaxed in case of a homicide, it is so rigid in case of adultery that a defendant would be sentenced to death by stoning even if the husband consent to it and there is no plaintiff.
The comparison between these two cases shows the disparity in our punitive laws and the need for a complete review and sweeping change.
How is it that in an adultery case even if there is no plaintiff the defendant should be sentenced to death by stoning, but in a homicide case the defendant would go free just by getting the consent of the immediate family? These show that our laws are in needs of a review.
One of the objections to no stoning campaign by Meydaan.com is that the stoning law should be viewed from the religious point of view. What punishment should it be replaced with if you are against stoning?
Many religious leaders have spoken about stoning. They believe that there are two kinds of Islamic Laws; constitutional laws and laws that are endorsed. Stoning is one of the endorsement laws.
It means that fourteen century ago stoning was a common punishment for adultery and Islam also endorsed it. There is not a direct mention of stoning as a punishment for adultery in Quran. Only in one verse it is mentioned that when Mohammad was passing a judgment on a Jewish woman who was accused of adultery, he mentioned that according to Torah she should be stoned to death. Therefore, accepting it as an Islamic constitutional law is not correct.
Another way of looking at it is that in many Moslem countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria, and many others death by stoning has been banned. Can we say that only the representatives of Congress in Iran are Moslem and the other countries are not practicing the correct Islam? This is unjust to say so. Therefore, it’s better to accept that with an open minded and dynamic understanding of Islam, we can eliminate the stoning law and take this political burden from our shoulders.
In national and international gatherings, the representatives of Islamic Republic of Iran claim that there is no stoning in Iran. However, there are lawyers who are working on death by stoning cases in Iran right now. How can the government representatives account for this duality in their claim and action?
In general I am not involved in executive activities. I am concerned with law activities. A law is written to be enforced. It is not written to be ignored. Therefore, any respectful representative who says that the law of stoning exists in Iran but not implemented, is wrong. The law must be enforced and the courts are doing it. In the past year we have had many such cases and in two cases the stoning has been put to act.
As a board member for Campaign against Stoning, do you believe a truth finding committee could be effective in solving this problem?
An investigative committee would be effective in finding the truth when the issue is unclear. The existence of the stoning in our law is an undeniable fact and any body could pay 500 tooman (70 cents) and buy the book of law to see that stoning is a part of it. What we are looking for is to change this law and there is no uncertainty to its existence to require having a truth finding committee.