Reforming Iran

A discussion with Shirin Ebadi, the Iranian human rights lawyer who was awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize

Shirin Ebadi. Photo: Misha Bruk

Shirin Ebadi has been at the forefront of progressive change in Iran for many years. She received a law degree in 1969, and that same year became the first female judge in the history of Iran. After the fundamentalist revolution in 1979, she and other women were forced to resign as judges. Since the revolution, Ebadi has fought to bring greater democracy and human rights to Iran. Her efforts were recognized by the international community when she was awarded the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize. Ebadi was the featured speaker at Stanford Law School's graduation ceremony held in May. She was also awarded the 2005 Jackson H. Ralston Prize in International Law by the law school, an award that has previously been given to the late Olof J. Palme, former prime minister of Sweden; Jimmy Carter, former president of the United States; and others. The following discussion between Ebadi and Eric Nee, editor of Stanford Lawyer, took place the day before graduation.

You were the first woman to become a judge in Iran. What inspired you to think you could achieve that? Ever since I was a child, I was in love with the concept of justice. Whenever I'd see children fighting I'd try to go to the defense of the one who was being beaten. And I was beaten several times without even having anything to do with the fights. Also, my father was a lawyer, so we discussed legal issues constantly at home. It was my interest in justice that compelled me to go to law school and try to become a judge immediately after I finished law school. I felt that by becoming a judge I could actually help promote justice.

After the revolution I was told that because I was a woman I could no longer serve as a judge. So a number of other women judges and myself were forced to give up our posts. I was given the job of secretary of the same court that I used to preside over. But I could not accept it, so I left the Ministry of Justice. I then went to the bar association and requested a license to become a lawyer, but the license wasn't granted. The reason was that I had written a number of articles criticizing some laws that had been passed after the revolution. Finally, seven years later, I was able to get a license to practice law. So I set up my own firm and started advocating human rights.

Why were you allowed to be a lawyer but not a judge? In the beginning of the revolution, through a misinterpretation of Islam, they ruled that women cannot be judges because women are emotional and can't make fair judgments. But a group of colleagues and I started writing and campaigning against this ruling. We wrote a lot of articles, attended a lot of seminars, and published books on the issue. Fortunately, 13 years after I left my job as a judge, the judiciary finally ruled that Islam does allow women to become judges. So we now have women judges again in Iran.

Why don't you become a judge once again? When I was a judge the laws were different. Today I would find it impossible to enforce the laws. For example, people can be stoned, we have juvenile executions, and individuals can stay in prison for long periods of time simply for being in debt. Since I disagree with these laws I can't become a judge.

You mentioned that you were able to get the law changed so that women could become judges once again. Was this an isolated victory, or has the status of women improved in Iran in recent years? The feminist movement in Iran has had some remarkable achievements. I'll explain the most important one. After the revolution, a law was passed that in cases of divorce the mother was given custody of a girl until the age of 2, and a boy until he was 7. After that the child was taken forcibly from the mother and given to the father.

Iranian women could not accept this law. Finally, in the last parliament, this law was overruled and a new one was passed. However, the Guardian Council, which sits above the legislature, vetoed the bill. The reformists in parliament objected, so it was sent to a higher council, the Expediency Council, for arbitration. The law remained pending there for two years until I won the Nobel Peace Prize.

When I returned to Iran after receiving the prize, about 1 million people showed up at the airport to greet me. All the streets leading to the airport were blocked. Most of the people who came to greet me were women. That was a signal that Iranian women were not satisfied with their status. That night was a very sensitive period. The police were on emergency call because they were afraid of a riot. Later, the government tried to find a way to pacify the women. The same bill that was pending for two years was passed within 15 days. Now, under the new law, after divorce the boy and the girl remain with the mother until the age of 7. Afterward the court decides, based on the interests of the child, whether the child should remain with the mother or go to the father. If the child remains with the mother, the father has to pay for the child.

Having a million people turn out for your arrival must have been amazing. Has that outpouring of support made it easier or more difficult for you to make reforms? It has actually made it more difficult. The last time I spoke at a university, a group of fundamentalists arrived and a clash broke out with the students attending my lecture. Since then I've been forbidden to talk at universities. I haven't even been allowed to give a talk at my own school in Tehran. The law students petitioned for me to go several times, but the university disagreed. I'm glad to be part of the graduation ceremony of your school tomorrow. But part of my heart is in pain. It saddens me to see that I have greater freedom outside Iran.

What role have other nations played in making things better or worse in Iran? Military threats from the outside provide a reason for the government to harden its position and put down freedom-seeking movements within the country. We experienced this during the war with Iraq. When Iran was at war with Iraq, the government had good reason to restrict dissent, saying that it violated the national security of the country. It's the same now. Whenever people object, they're asked whether they want to turn into another Iraq. It makes people fearful of criticizing the government. The government says that if you criticize us, it's an excuse for the Americans to attack us and turn this country into another Iraq.

What can the United States do to help facilitate change in Iran? First and foremost, the United States can't compromise with undemocratic groups inside Iran. It made this mistake in the coup which led to the overthrow of the former Iranian prime minister, Mosaddeq, in 1953. It replaced him with the Shah, who represented an undemocratic system. It was that event that led to the Islamic revolution. Secondly, it needs to understand that military strikes will not resolve anything. What I suggest is that the U.S. administration give genuine support to democracy and human rights. And whatever pressure it wants to exert on Iran has to be done through the United Nations, not through weapons and bombs.

Are you optimistic or pessimistic about your country, and the growing tension between Islamic fundamentalists and the United States and other Western countries? I have to be optimistic. The day I and the Iranian people lose hope is the day when everything's lost. The United States has to understand what true Islam represents. Unfortunately, the United States has supported the kind of Islam that was fundamentalist. It used the Taliban forces to prevent the spread of the Soviets. When America was giving money to the Taliban, did it ever imagine that that same group would attack the United States on September 11? When the Taliban were cutting women's breasts off because they were trying to go to school or because they were not veiling their faces, the United States remained silent. When it remained silent, did it know that one day its own embassies would be bombed? Rest assured, democracy will serve the United States' long-term interest if it is enhanced and promoted in Islamic countries.

Many Americans would be surprised that you're able to be as outspoken as you are and still move freely inside of Iran and make visits to the United States. I have been to prison once and just narrowly escaped two assassination attempts. In the past three months I've been summoned to court in Iran twice. They wanted to take me to court and then to prison. Fortunately, the reaction of the people of Iran and the international community was so strong that they weren't able to do that. The Iranian government knows that I do not have a political party of any sort. I have announced on numerous occasions that I have no intention to run in the political arena. The Iranian government knows that if I'm criticizing them, it's not because I want to sit in their place. So for this reason and because of international support, so far they've left me alone. Nobody knows of tomorrow.