Mehrangiz Kar: I was born in 1944, in Ahvaz, a city in the south of Iran. I moved to Tehran to attend the College of Law and Political Science at the University of Tehran. After graduation, I was employed at the Sazman-e Ta'min-e Ejtemaii [ Institute of Social Security] . I also wrote for the press, but I didn't write much about women. I wrote about the current issues of the time, and I published over 100 articles in newspapers and magazines, a great many of them in Ferdowsi magazine. The articles were on social issues, although some were political as well. I was perhaps the only woman who wrote about political issues. It was rare under the Shah. Right before the revolution, I passed the bar exam and received my license to practice law.

After the revolution, people were sensitive to those who had been known during the Shah's regime. Many of us realized that it was best to lay low for a while. It wasn't state-imposed, but there was so much publicity against certain people - writers, singers, etc. It became a dividing line: those who had been active during the Shah, and those who hadn't. I was one of those who became silent, and stayed that way for ten years. During that time, I started historical research on the history of women's identity in Iran, which I ultimately wrote with Shahla Lahiji. Because it was a historical study and didn't touch on current issues, we didn't have much difficulty publishing the book, "The Quest for Identity- The Image of Iranian Women in Prehistory and History." But I still didn't write for the press.

Then the war ended, things relaxed, and the media opened up a bit. Adeeneh and Donya-e Sokhan were two magazines which were allowed to open, and when they asked me to write, I accepted. Then Zanan magazine opened. Even though it was very religious, I sensed that it was working to open up the atmosphere a bit. They were trying to present ideas from various political spectra [ teif] .

At one point, I attended a seminar entitled "Women's Participation", the first of its kind since the revolution. It was different in that it wanted to open new possibilities for women. My article analyzed women and Iran's penal law. I compared the differences in punishments applied to men and women since the revolution, and addressed the sexual inequalities in the laws.

MS:  When was that?

MK:  1991. After I presented the paper, the editor-in-chief of Zanan approached me and suggested she print it in the magazine. And after some "changes" were made, it was. That's how our collaboration began. And it continued until last year.

MS:  Why did it end?

MK:  No particular reason. I was tired, maybe because of the pressures on me, and others like me. After the 1994 Letter of the 134 [ 134 intellectuals wrote an open letter to President Rafsanjani protesting against censorship] , I had to be more careful with my collaborations, and in general.

I decreased my number of articles, and focused on research and writing books, one of the latest ones being Raf'-e Tabeez-e Zanan [ "Eliminating Discrimination Against Women"] . I compare Iranian law to the UN Convention on Women's Rights, and note their similarities and differences. Opinions of other jurists are presented, and I show how the laws can be amended to match the Convention. Islamic law can change in accordance with changing interpretations. Legal experts interpret them differently, so there is room for change, even if those that are written in the Qoran cannot, because they are considered timeless.

I argue that Iran can sign the Convention, and meanwhile maintain the right to preserve certain laws by making certain stipulations. During Khatami's term, the Revolutionary High Council of Culture looked into the question of whether they should sign the Convention, and it was voted down, but if my information is correct, the vote was close. It was rejected by one or two votes. So there is hope for the future, we can't say that all members of the government are against it. Even if they ever do approve it, they will maintain the right of preservation [ of certain "cultural" prerogatives] . Before, the Iranian government wouldn't even consider making such stipulations. But after seeing many other countries, especially Islamic countries, make use of them [ cf. international section in this issue] , Iran has begun doing so too. So we are hopeful that laws concerning women will be re-considered.

My latest book, Khoshunat alayhe Zanan [ "Violence Against Women"] , examines the laws, documents, and judgments regarding women. The book is divided into a cultural and a legal section. I argue that the roots of violence against women, in Iran and in other countries, are not so much based in the laws, but in the culture. If we see religion as part of a culture, then it is one factor among many others. Our culture tolerates and accepts violence against women. There are many examples and indications of such violence in our norms. This discussion was made in the part of the book addressing culture.  The other part argues that the laws, instead of limiting and controlling violence, perpetuate it. In short, solutions lie not only in legislation, but in changing men's outlooks and behaviors. Violence cannot be controlled by legislation alone.

I have another book that is currently under print; Mavaneh-e Hoghooghooyeh Towseh-e Feghi dar Iran [ Obstacles to the Development of Rights within Islamic Jurisprudence in Iran] . Nahrhayeh Sookhteh [ Burnt Creeks] is another one, which is a compilation of essays on my travels to impoverished areas in Iran. I'm currently writing another book, which I'm not sure I'll be able to complete, so I won't talk about it.

Tirdad Zolghadr: What effects did growing up in Ahvaz have on you?

MK:  Well, the place of one's birth always makes an impact on one's life. I'm sure it's different to growing up in America, or Tansania. Maybe what influenced me was the backwardness that was prevalent there, in light of the violence committed against women by ethnic Arabs. This violence still exists in certain areas. The movie Aroos-e Atash [ cf. Pop Movies, in this issue] not only discusses the problem, but also offers solutions, and presents the complexity of the issue: the male character in the movie was a victim as well. He knew that his cousin did not love him, and he did not want to marry someone who despised him. But he said, "What can I do as an individual? What will I do about the people around me?" The movie shows that in systems of violence against women, men are victimized as well.

One of the biggest problems in the south is that men give themselves permission to kill women in the name of honor, saying there's no other choice. If she is not killed, then the tribe and the community, will be accused of undermining its principles. The courts can't investigate because these acts are accepted and supported by the community, and there are no plaintiffs. One of the greatest challenges we face is affecting cultural change in such regions of Iran. Many southern girls are studying now, they won't accept certain practices so readily, and the culture has to accommodate this. Growing up in this context has certainly affected me. And it has made me deeply opposed to all forms of violence.

MS:  I remember hearing you speak about a year ago, and you had said that women who were active in women's rights issues face many risks. At best, you said, they're isolated and alienated by society. And at worse,...

MK:  This problem exists all over the world, although abroad, this occurs mostly with the more extreme feminists, who separate themselves from society at large. But feminists who look for justice are not treated this way - those who look at women's rights in the context of human rights, independent of race, ideology, etc. In Iran, however, all feminists are treated this way.

Women are doubly oppressed here. Both before and after the revolution, the shar' [ religious canon] was used against women's rights.  One of the greatest controversies surrounding women's rights occurred in 1963 over the issue of women's suffrage, and the shar'i was used as a tool to prevent its success.

Today, whoever talks about women's issues is confronted with issues of religious law, and with religious leaders whose interest in women's rights goes no further than what is written in the canon. Before, when the atmosphere was more conservative, there was very little room for discussion. After President Khatami's victory, in which women played a very important role, the wall broke, and women's rights started being discussed. Reformist leaders have started putting in their two cents worth, and propagating a different interpretation of Islam. They began saying that religious experts can make amendments to the law, and that religion must stay up to date, and keep up with the times.

Women's activists have noted this change. In the old days, the few who spoke about women's rights were called 'apostates' [ kafar] . Whenever I criticized our laws, they would say that I was criticizing religious law.

This is still being said among certain elements, and when I said it was risky to enter into discussions of women's rights, this is what I meant. Blasphemy is a heavy accusation, with a heavy punishment, and certain conservative elements are still saying that we are at odds with Islamic law. But in reality, this is not our intention. We are not speaking against religion. We are speaking against certain inadequate laws.

MS: What about the risks now, in light of Berlin and your trial?

MK: Faced with all these heavy charges and accusations against me, I am without any rights. According to our constitution, it is not a crime to criticize a law, but this is in fact what is happening. What they're doing now is slicing and pasting together various bits of quotes, statements, and general information, and arranging them to imply something other than what I've said. And this collage is distributed throughout various groups and organizations.

This has become very common in the past several years. Information is distorted, and twisted to make me, and others like me, seem like something else. And our reputations are being redefined this way.

These are the risks one faces when addressing women's rights. In my case, they take one sentence I said, like, "The laws don't respond to women's needs" and change it to, "Islamic laws cannot respond to women's needs". Such statements are distributed throughout institutions of power, like the justice department, where decisions are made.

We don't even have physical security. Look at the serial murders. These are the risks we encounter.

MS:  Do they look into your personal life as well?

MK:  Yes, they write about everything. If I say something they don't like, they announce something about me in the radio or somewhere.

In our laws, and in our constitution, we are innocent until proven guilty. But I, and others like me, are condemned in public before being proven guilty. No one has objected to this . Unfortunately, all this propaganda has taken effect, and I saw it during my trial. For example, during my questioning, I was being asked about statements I had made when I was 24 years old. Why? Because [ the conservative paper] Kayhan had featured some distorted statement as indications of my character and work. Even if I had said those things, I don't know how statements made 30 years ago bear relevance on events, today.

This is how they're making an effect on people. Since the Berlin conference, I became even more aware of how dangerous it is to speak about women's rights. It has become worse in the past 8 months.

MS:  Did you have any idea of what you would face upon your return to Iran?  Did you recognize the danger while still in Berlin, when all the ruckus started?

MK:  When Kayhan started writing about it, everyone knew something was going on.  But most of the talk was about Ganji, regarding some interview he gave to a German magazine.  But the day before we were to leave Germany, I learned that I would most certainly be arrested upon my return.  There were witnesses in the room when I received this phone call, as we were leaving Berlin to go to Frankfurt.  The call came on my mobile, and I was informed that charges had been leveled against me and Mr. Ganji.  We were advised not to return.  We both asked for time to think about it, and the next morning we decided that we would return nonetheless.

I decided to return because making participation in a conference into a crime is a dangerous and strange charge, not only for Iran, but throughout the world.  And I was hoping that the justice department would reach that conclusion too.  The main point in my speech in Berlin (leaving aside the Q&A period) was that the legislative system in Iran does not allow for reformists to implement change.  Now that it's been eight months since the election, I think my statements have been proven correct.  The majlis [ parliament] has not been able to implement any of the important reforms they campaigned on. Their being able to do so is beyond one's imagination. What I said in Berlin was that the system does not allow for it,  and that this must be addressed so that a solution can be found.  I certainly didn't mean blowing up the system as a solution.

There were participants in Berlin who completely and wholeheartedly accepted the system. Who were unwilling to make the smallest criticism in terms of economics, legislation, or the sociopolitical situation.  What's interesting is that even they are facing criminal charges.  They didn't say anything, so why are they being charged? This is what I mean when I say that these charges are strange, and that they will go down in history.

Iran is in a very sensitive place right now.  We're trying to overcome a long history of dictatorship, and this is the process. There are prices to pay, and I see myself as a sacrifice to this process.  These structures are old, and firmly entrenched, and it will take time to make reforms.  But one cannot believe that the old system will prevail. Iran's young population, the increasing relations with the outside world, globalization, etc., all these factors are wearing out our structures. 

Lily Farhadpour [ who has just joined us for chaii] : You and Shahla Lahiji said very different things, and behaved very differently in Berlin. Despite that, ever since you and Ganji got that phone call, everything that followed, happened to both of you.

You were both arrested on the same day, put in solitary confinement for the same period of time, taken out at the same time, put in a shared cell, kept in prison for the same length of time, released at the same time. Even your bail amount was the same. And the two of you were the only ones who had a closed-door trial.  Do you think that the real issue is not Berlin, but your women's activism?

MK:  Truthfully, I don't know.  It's true, both of us had to pay 50 million tomans bail [ $60'000] .  I don't know why it was so high for us. We didn't, and do not hold any secret information.

During questioning, all of the participants said they had thought the government was ok with our participation.  Everyone knew we were going to attend - it was announced publicly, in the papers and on the internet before we left.  The man who invited us had a proper visa from the government.  And we thought the conference was being held in the spirit of developing relations between Germany and Iran.  It's obvious we had no intention of overthrowing the government.

It had become a joke between me and Ms. Lahiji that we were Siamese twins.  During the closed-door trial, however, the twins were split apart.  Ms. Lahiji's charges were limited to the Revolutionary Court, but I received 3 additional charges that must be tried in a general court.  Now, I have to go through this process all over again, alone this time.

As to your question, it's possible that what you say is the case, although no one has ever said those things to us. Maybe the charge is more political in nature; it's possible they're settling scores with us.

MS:  I was surprised to see how limited public support was.  Even Zanan magazine didn't react.

MK:  In light of the fact that the editor in chief was one of the accused herself, I didn't expect much. But when I saw that Zanan had put Ms. Kadivar and her daughter on the cover, it made me wonder.  Why not put all the women from the conference on the cover? If a Berlin participant is to be featured, then why not include all the participants?  This upset me. Ms. Kadivar is a member of parliament who has not done anything yet in that capacity.

I took Zanan's approach with a grain of salt, I justified it.  But after seeing Kadivar's picture, with all the fuss, it became harder to rationalize.

MS:  Maybe there was an attempt to create a gap between religious and non-religious women.

MK:  This is something we have to accept: We always sensed there was a gap. It simply became very clear after Berlin that the reformists will never take any risks for us, pay any price for us, or defend us.  They used us.  Especially after our imprisonment, we felt this with our body and our soul.

Flipping through the papers after our release, the most painful incident, perhaps, was not my imprisonment, but the realization that the line between us and them, which has always existed with the conservatives, existed with the reformists as well.  And this made my burden much heavier, and caused a great deal of pain.  I wasn't aware of this in prison, especially when in solitary confinement.  When we started receiving Kayhan once out of confinement, I didn't think much about the coverage, because I didn't expect anything from them anyway.

But when I came out and read the reformist papers, I saw that not only did they not support us, but they even joined in on the accusations. If they were reformists, and truly believed in reformism, they wouldn't have done that.  Nobody objected to our closed-door hearing.  No one addressed this issue.  Everybody's trial was public, except for ours.  Not a single paper questioned this, and asked, "Why were these two women tried privately.  What were the conditions that warranted this?"

My point is not to object to my closed-door hearing.  That's not the issue.  The issue is that not one member of the reformist movement, has raised it.  Some papers even drew the line between us and them very explicitly, saying things like, "Why are our Muslims still in prison, when they've released those two secularists"?

The pressures, the accusations, the questioning, the imprisonment, the hearing on the one hand, and the reformists distancing themselves from us, on the other.  This was very painful and difficult.  But this is not to say we should lose hope, because it's not me and a few reformists who make up the movement for change.

I hope that my cancer will not progress too quickly, so I will have the time to write about these experiences and disappointments .

Before my hearing, my lawyer had showed my medical file to the judge, because the doctors had differing diagnoses.  He wanted to get permission for me to leave the country for a short while, so that I could get a more definitive prognosis, but the judge refused, saying my court date had already been set.  By that point, I preferred to go to court as soon as possible, so I could begin my chemotherapy. Because the longer I waited, the worse my medical condition would have become.

transl.:MS and Noushin Ahmadi Khorasani

Select Titles of Kar's Works

Children of Addiction: Social and Legal Position of Children of Addicted Parents in Iran

Angel of Justice and Patches of Hell

The Quest for Identity: Image of Iranian Women in Prehistory and History

Women in the Iranian Labor Market

Legal Structure of the Family System in Iran

Research on Violence Against Women in Iran