I’m generally a live and let live kind of guy who understands that there many cultures in the world, and they don’t all have to resemble ours. However, this is unacceptable to me.
Tehran is the seat where most of Iran’s artistic community resides and hopes to one day thrive, despite the tremendous censorship restrictions regarding who can perform and under which circumstances. Navigating these restrictions has become an art form itself, while social media sites (at least those that are allowed) are continuously monitored. Iran has very strict censorship rules regarding women’s appearance, and which topics are permitted to be discussed openly. Anything cultural or artistic that has the intention of being presented to the masses must first receive authorization and approval from the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance before it can proceed into production. Plays, novels, videos, films and songs all are subject to scrutiny, and which ones are ultimately approved or dismissed is often decided by an arbitrary stroke of an official’s pen.
I’m not ready to send our kids halfway around the world to liberate the playwrights of Tehran, but I am willing to say that there is something wrong with their government and the people there have the right to demand their freedoms. A government that is afraid of artistic expression is not a valid government.
This is one of the things that does actually make America exceptional – what you’re seeing in Iran could play out nowhere, really. Either you have libertine freedom of/from religion/expression or you don’t. Iran is possibly an extreme example, but France’s banning of the hijab isn’t far off.
“nowhere” = “elsewhere”, obviously. Preview is my friend…
Don’t USians yet know that people elsewhere in the world have religious freedom and all the other kinds of freedoms they have in the US? That must then make all of us exceptional. USians should grow up and at least realize how repugnant it is to the rest of the world to put up with your bragging. When even The Obama began to use such language everyone realized that the case is hopeless and threw up their hands in despair.
People elsewhere do indeed have these freedoms, but those freedoms can be taken away as well. That’s what makes USA different – those freedoms are irrevocable here.
The artists of Teheran at least know they’re oppressed.
Plays, novels, videos, films and songs here all are subject to scrutiny, and which ones are ultimately approved or dismissed is often decided by an arbitrary stroke of a corporate accountant’s pen.
Artists in the West, because they’re living under more insidious, covert, econimic forms of oppression, have only a simulacrum of freedom.
Is the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance really worse than the Schubert Organization, Disney and Bertelsmann?
STFU.
😉
Could have been so different if not for the UK/US decision to take their democracy away. Leaving the people with a choice between a fascist monarchy or fascist theocracy.
BBC Saudi Shia cleric Nimr al-Nimr ‘sentenced to death’
btw – KSA didn’t to spare the cleric the punishment of crucifixion and go with beheading. They’re still dicking around with how to display the head and body after the execution.
Iran is a very complex country, with many cultural streams, and while one repressive stream wields a lot of power, there are many artists working in defiance of the religious establishment, putting themselves in danger. And a real, public debate, which is the thing that always shocks me.
Here’s President Rouhani on Internet censorship and gender segregation on September 7, just a month ago, as cited in The National from UAE:
The president can’t do much to stop it, but he does have the courage to talk about it.
The way to empower progressive forces in Iran is not to threaten the government and isolate it, but to put an end to sanctions, and show the population that Rouhani’s way can achieve economic results.
I’ve known three Iranians fairly one. All left shortly before or after the revolution. Can’t recall if Saeed was a lapsed Muslim or Christian, one was a Jew and fairly religious, and the third was Bahá’í and very religious. Like all three enormously.
As long as the US (think 1953), Israel or religious archenemy Saudi Arabia won’t destroy Iran and its people, I have high hopes for Iranian culture and its future. A people highly educated and suffering under religious fanaticism. The Iraq – Iran war saved the regime of Ayatollah Khomeiny. President Bush defeated Saddam Hussein, making expansion of Iran’s power base in the region possible.
I’m not making excuses for the repression in Iran, I’ve been there several times and had a taste of it, though nothing serious. The place is full of contradictions, like everywhere else (US?). Thanks for drawing attention to this article. But questions are questions. Are the economic sanctions against Iran a form of repressions from outside the country? Isn’t it marvelous that Iran can continue to resist the Anglo-American sanctions (no other countries are so self-righteous as the UK and the US to oppress in the name of liberty and freedom). Like these artists, the Iranian government (and people) defy an authority telling them ‘to do as I say or else!’ And let’s now have something about arguably the greatest oppressor of all in the Middle East, Saudi, who even goes around stoking hate and violence abroad. As the Iranians say, ‘We are a very ancient civilization.’ And as the USians say, ‘We have your number, obley.’ Iran has the right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. That’s the end of the discussion.
What is the meaning of the term “valid” in this expression:
In Iran and several score of other countries censorship occurs through decree. In the US censorship occurs through decisions about employment and funding. In almost all parts of the world censorship occurs through peer pressure to conform to some set of traditions. Censorship prevents widespread critical views of the society from getting popular appeal and provoking thought, which is why the Enlightenment thought freedom of speech (broadly construed to include all artistic expression) to be a fundamental human right of liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in the 18th century connotation).
A government that practices censorship undermines its authority to claim allegiance of people who appreciate artistic freedom in general and people who appreciate the specific works and artists being censored. In most societies, open public debate comes down on the side of censorship through conservatism about traditional forms of artistic expression. Geographically this tends to be a point effect as one person after another opposes government policy.
Should enough people find the censorship oppressive, try to change it, and find the processes of change hijacked or suppressed by the government, the violation of process and the widespread criticism of the people destroy the government’s legitimacy as a tolerable ruler of the people. Geographically, this is a network effect, with growing networks of dissatisfaction and the government imposing more draconian measures to shut down the approach to the society declaring to the government in an unmistakeable way that the government is illegitimate. At that point, but not always, the government falls and is replaced with a government that promises to be respond to the will of the people. The networks of criticism become the networks of governance.
However minority-ruling illegitimate governments can persist through use of force and imposition of martial law through the network of those still obedient to it or can seize power through the use of force and imposition of martial law of disciplined shock troops obedient to it. There are a heap of countries in this category at the moment. They are isolated and contained or under pressure from outside governments to the extent that the outside world grants them sovereignty. Geographically, sovereignty exists within a territorial area, administered through a network of authority, which determines political relationships at a point in place and time, such the deference in a court or the deference to authority in obey the orders of the police or a censor.
As a guard against idolatry, Islam as a religion puts strict limits on artistic expressions of faith. You will find no Slavic blond-haired blue-eyed portraits of Mohammed or pictures of the events in the Propet’s life as religious objects of education or devotion, for example. The clerics in the government of Iran take the position that all of life is an expression of faith and that all members of society must conform to guards against idolatry. In practice, this is not clearcut; thus a bureaucratic ministry to make the more specific rules and enforcement staff to ensure that the rules are obeyed. But every state has its civic religion, rules, and enforcement to one degree or another. In the US, the civic religion involves the American flag, anthem, slogans, mottos, artistic designs on money, public art, architecture, shrines. Censorship rules are enforced in the US in peer pressure and the police action when a cop snatches and grabs the guy with the upside-down American flag and body slams him to the street before arresting him. And yes, theocracies tend to have much more restrictive limits and harsher punishments on their civic religions because their civic religions claim to be special and unique and in the West claim to be what Yahweh-God-Allah has commanded.
The problem with the notion of a “valid” government is who decides and what are the consequences of that decision. In a government with declining authority, individuals fail to respect that authority even to the point of disobedience; the consequence is punishment of individuals or growing disrespect for rules. In the US lots of Americans think that the sign of posted speed limits do not have the authority to limit them to the speed posted but to speed limit plus 10 mph. The fact that almost everywhere that is the de facto consensus speed limit is a consequence of that loss of authority, as are the additional accidents that result.
In a government of declining legitimacy, networks of people come to a consensus to oppose the government through actions outside of the “established process”. The consequence of this is increased repression, a crisis of legitimacy and a political resolution, civil war, or a revolution or coup that replaces the government.
For a government of declining sovereignty over part or all of its territory, a diplomatic interaction of other governments decide its fate. Often outside actors use the excuse of loss of legitimacy as a reason to violate the sovereignty of another state for their own interests. Other times a group of states will try to contain the instability from a legitimacy crisis by forcibly removing the illegitimate government and imposing its own friends or its own process of rebuilding legitimacy of a new government.
All governments are afraid of artistic expression to one degree or another. And so are the most liberal of liberals. Because where artistic expression gets dicey is when it is used to express approval of hate, slavery, torture, or genocide and edges from art to propaganda.
Oh, TarheelDem that’s so pre-WWII. The USA decides what is and isn’t a “valid” or legitimate government. Hasn’t been one in Cuba since the odious Batista was ousted. The US/UK installed Shah of Iran, fuck yes, that was a valid government. As is KSA. But we reserve the right to move any government from “valid” to illegitimate anytime we choose. That was something that GHWB’s good buddy Noriega didn’t understand.
For more on this see Who Supported the Khmer Rouge?
The US was down with Pol Pot after he’d been ousted. ISIS, the Khmer Rouge for the twenty-first century. Aided and abetted if not directly than by US friendlies.