| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.50 am
Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) for his choice of subject this morning. He spelled out the violence that exists in Iran, and my contribution to the debate can be all the briefer as I do not have to echo all the statistics that the hon. Gentleman gave.
I remind the House that, under Mr. Khatami's regime, there is continued violation of human rights on an unparalleled scale. More than 400 executions have taken place, including four people hanged for the offence of being insulting to the leader. There have been at least 10 cases of stoning to death in public, and the House will know that, last March, 13 members of Iran's Jewish community were arrested on charges of espionage. Sadly, terrorism is a characteristic of the Khatami regime. Yesterday's events--when the students demonstrated in favour of democracy--are just another case of the brutal actions of the regime.
The hon. Member for Hall Green told us about 44 United Nations and other international organisation resolutions condemning Iran. There is no evidence of moderation. We all want to promote trade wherever we can--that is in the interests of both parties. However, if an ethical foreign policy means anything, it is not seeking closer ties with Iran, given the present regime there.
I had an opportunity to speak briefly to the Minister a little time ago, and he readily agreed to see me. We are now trying to arrange a time. However, I want to put on record my deep concern about Iran Aid, a charity whose London office is in my constituency. I am told that the charity has been able to help up to 15,000 Iranian children, mostly children whose parents have, in one way or another, suffered at the hands of the brutal regime.
I am concerned that there seems to have been a persistent attempt to discredit Iran Aid. The Minister may know of information that I do not have, but I understand that some people have accused Iran Aid of links with terrorism. More certainly, Iran Aid has been subject to a inquiry by the Charity Commissioners, and a receiver manager was put in. It is worth reminding the House that this is the second inquiry by the commissioners, and that Iran Aid was cleared following the first inquiry in 1996.
There is a deep feeling among some of my constituents that the Charity Commissioners have intervened only because of trumped-up allegations by two ex-volunteers of the organisation. Have the people making the allegations to the Foreign Office, the Home Office and the commissioners been checked out for probity?
The Iranian Government treat the relatives and children of so-called dissidents as infidels--they are being shut out of Iranian society, abused and even killed. I have a great fear that the information that Iran Aid holds about those
children may be passed to the Iranian authorities. Action could then be taken against them and their families. I am anxious that information gleaned by the Charity Commissioners should not be passed on to the Iranian regime. That would have tragic consequences--indeed, there is evidence that it has had such consequences already.
Mr. Robin Corbett (Birmingham, Erdington):
As we speak this morning, the reality, rather than the rhetoric, of the regime in Iran is clear. Students and others are demonstrating in their thousands in Tehran and several other cities for the freedom and democracy that they have been denied, and which have been stolen from them, for the past 20 years, in the face of the brutality and organised thuggery of the mullahs, who are so fearful of change. That is the background to this short debate.
When human rights were discussed in the other place on 22 June, my noble Friend Baroness Symons said:
The president is a claimed reformer whose Government hanged four people--as the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) said--for insulting the leader. His is a reformist Government, who have allowed 420 executions, 10 public stonings and the organised murder of 47 opponents of the regime at home and 35 abroad. That speaks volumes about being
Meanwhile, my hon. Friend the Minister of State--whom I am pleased to see here this morning--was telling readers of The Guardian on 1 July:
Earlier this year, 330 Members of Parliament--half plus one--signed a statement on Iran which said:
I am grateful that my noble Friend at least seemed to retract the view that the National Council of Resistance of Iran is a terrorist organisation. It is no such thing. It represents a coalition of interests determined to offer the people of Iran a democratic, secular state that respects human rights and the equality of every citizen. The armed MKO with which it is associated is there precisely because there is no other democratic way in which the mullahs' regime can be opposed. It claims the support of the universal declaration of human rights for the right to
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome):
I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe). Not even he can have realised how topical this debate would be when he applied for it. This is an especially opportune moment to be discussing Iran.
There was some optimism when President Khatami was elected about two years ago, and a feeling that at last there would be a shift in the dynamics of Iran, with a move towards greater democracy. I join others who have spoken in questioning whether that has happened. Has there been increasing democracy? To understand the level of democracy in Iran, one must realise that parties in favour of secular government were not allowed to stand for election, so the country was already committed to the prevailing mullahism. In Iran there could be no Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat party.
Has there been an increase in openness and freedom of expression? The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) has already shown that there has not. The press legislation was passed in the Majlis by 125 of the 215 members. What view is taken of independent journalists? Ayatollah Khamenei says that they are mercenaries who defend the position of the enemies of Islam and the Islamic revolution.
There is no press freedom in Iran. The decision of the clerical court on 9 July to ban Salam clearly shows what is happening. It was banned for
"It is important to note that some important changes have already taken place under the reformist government of President Khatami. That government remain committed to building a civil society based on respect for the rule of law."
That claim now lies in tatters, smashed by the so-called reformist president who, around midnight last Thursday, sent security forces to attack students in their dormitories at Tehran university, injuring at least 1,000 and killing at least one. So much for the rule of law. How little has changed since January 1962, when the Shah did exactly the same thing to trigger his demise.
"committed to building a civil society".
In the debate, my noble Friend the Under-Secretary made more claims:
"Progress with that commitment is most evident in the unprecedented freedom of expression which the press now enjoys."--[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 June 1999; Vol. 602, c. 866.]
This is a regime that has just banned the daily newspaper Salam, after it published a report that hardliners were planning new restrictions on the press. This is a Government whose Parliament only last Wednesday approved new press laws which severely restrict the freedom of expression of an already circumscribed press. Never have the claims of a Minister turned to tears so quickly, as this president has shown himself to be more mullah than moderate.
"Thanks to British action, the ILO has passed an emergency resolution penalising Burma for its record on forced labour . . . We have persuaded the UN to pass a series of resolutions slamming Burma's human rights record. We have suspended government support for British companies doing trade with Burma."
14 Jul 1999 : Column 327
Congratulations. Will the Minister now tell us whether he will do the same in the case of Iran? Will he withdraw the support of his Department, and that of the Department of Trade and Industry, for the 25th Tehran international trade fair, from 1 to 9 October, or will that still go ahead, despite current events in Iran? Whoever in the Foreign Office wrote the document on the trade fair deserves a medal, as it is headed, "New Optimism in Iran."
I hope that the Minister will not argue that somehow Burma's human rights record is worse than that of Iran, so that we can, in effect, turn a blind eye to what the mullahs are doing and go ahead with participation in this international trade fair. I hope, too, that the Department of Trade and Industry will withdraw its support for a chamber of commerce mission from Northampton to Iran later this year.
"For Britain to change its policy now over Iran, without evidence to support claims of greater freedom of expression and better human rights, is to run the risk of repeating the mistakes in the last days of the Shah."
The events of the past six days in Iran give me no reason to change that view. There is no evidence of change by Tehran, or willingness to change.
"rebellion against tyranny and oppression."
I hope that the Government will recall our ambassador to Tehran and follow the lead of the United States in issuing a statement like that of State Department spokesman James Foley, who said:
"The rule of law cannot be achieved through repression of fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression, association and assembly."
That is surely the least that we can offer to the people of Iran as they reach out for freedom and human rights.
10.1 am
"violating Islamic principles, endangering national security and disturbing public opinion,"
even though it was an organ produced by reformist clerics who were seen as allies of President Khatami.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |