Why the Iranian government's security stance on Baha'i citizens continuing their studies at university
Case study of a verdict from the Islamic Revolutionary Court
What are the methods of the Islamic Republic government in imposing restrictions and depriving the Baha'i community of Iran of the "right to education"? How does the desire to continue education among Baha'i youth, by creating cases and imposing the narrative of security officials, pave the way for issuing them heavy prison sentences?
The following report examines a court verdict in Iran against four Baha’i citizens, which was obtained by the Human Rights Campaign in Iran, along with some documents. The verdict, based on which all four Iranian citizens were sentenced to 5 years in prison on charges of “acting against national security through the Baha’i sect organization and spreading lies in cyberspace.” An examination of the court verdict shows how and with what approach the judicial authorities considered the actions of these citizens to be an example of an act against security and Baha’i organizational activities, and in what ways they are turning the issue of education and training in the Baha’i community of Iran into a “security” issue. On the other hand, an examination of the court verdict and some documents shows how the desire to study and acquire knowledge turns some young Baha’is into security suspects in the eyes of the judicial system.
The report from the IRGC's Sarallah headquarters is the basis for the court's verdict.
In the late 1990s, four Baha’i citizens were sentenced to five years in prison in an Iranian court on charges of “acting against national security through the organization of the Baha’i sect and spreading lies in cyberspace.” Their sentences were issued under Article 499 of the Islamic Penal Code. This article states that “anyone who becomes a member of one of the groups or societies or branches of the societies mentioned in Article 498 shall be sentenced to three months to five years in prison, unless it is proven that he was unaware of its goals.”
The court’s ruling, based on the “Report of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps’ Sarallah Headquarters,” claims that the defendants in the case “have promoted the Baha’i sect” and “slandered the Islamic Republic by publishing untrue information about the conditions of Baha’i prisoners and the regime’s treatment of the individuals in connection with their education in the regime’s universities.” In its ruling, the court described the four Baha’i citizens as “activists in secret and illegal educational institutions.” The ruling repeatedly emphasized the students’ education in a virtual university affiliated with the Baha’i community.
Baha'i Virtual University: The Judiciary's Excuse for Organizational Activity
The continued deprivation of university education for Baha'i youth throughout the years of the Islamic Republic of Iran's rule gradually led the Baha'i community of Iran to establish BIHE University, providing the means for the education of youth deprived of education in this virtual university. A university that is in fact the only way for many Baha'i youth to embark on the path of learning and higher education.
The court's account of the actions of these four Baha'i citizens focuses specifically on the issue of Baha'i university education and in every possible way links this issue to some so-called "security" cases, which is clear evidence of the judiciary's view of the cases of Baha'i citizens.
The verdict of one of the defendants in the case, emphasizing that he received his bachelor's degree from the Baha'i-affiliated BIHE University and completed his master's degree virtually at a Baha'i-affiliated virtual university, states that "the leaders of the misguided Baha'i sect are asking him via email to organize classes for Baha'i citizens, hold meetings for them, and grade their courses."
The emphasis on the presence of this Baha'i citizen at BIHE and that he had contact with "cult leaders" via "email" indicates two points; first, the judiciary considers the very presence at a Baha'i-affiliated university a "crime" in order to legitimize the charge of "organizational activities." The second point is the court's reference and emphasis on the defendant's alleged connection with "cult leaders." The court's ruling refers to "forming a classroom and then grading students" as an illegal activity. The court's ruling states that "the named individual logged into the site using a username and password that was emailed to him and entered his students' grades into the site."
The court's attempt to make the very obvious and common actions and activities of this Baha'i citizen seem safe is clearly visible in this section; making "entering grades on the university website" and "holding meetings and classes" for Baha'i youth deprived of education seem safe are such attempts. For example, the court's ruling states that "one of the missions entrusted to the person named by the sect leaders was to recruit people to work in the virtual university."
Such a narrative in the judiciary about the educational activities of the Baha'is shows to what extent and from what angles the government considers these activities to be examples of "actions against security" and "organizational activities." In other words, it views any obvious and common activity from a security perspective. It follows from the court's ruling that, in the opinion of the judiciary, their educational activities and education are examples of "propaganda and promotion" of religion, and in fact, all educational activities are directed towards this direction. However, the court's ruling does not provide any reason or logical connection between the defendant's activities and the propaganda and promotion of Baha'iism. The ruling states that this Baha'i citizen had a Telegram group, "all of whose members were Baha'is." The judiciary's attempt to link these virtual activities (which, according to the ruling itself, were limited to Baha'i individuals) with educational activities at the Baha'i University is, in fact, another aspect of this security perspective on the case of Baha'i citizens. A view that ultimately results in a 5-year prison sentence for a Baha'i citizen.
The noteworthy point in the court's verdict for this Baha'i citizen is the process of oppression and discrimination that affects the daily life of a citizen in various ways; the deprivation of continuing university education and the desire to acquire knowledge in a young Baha'i, forces him to study in the only possible way, which is to study at a Baha'i university. A decision that is considered a "crime" in the eyes of the government. This path of discrimination has also been repeated for the other two defendants in the case.
The Discriminatory Cycle of Education
The story for two of the defendants in the case begins when they were banned from continuing their studies at the university. There is evidence that they tried every legal possibility to secure a path to university; from writing letters to the Ministry of Science and the Ministry of Interior, and the presidential office, to meeting with members of parliament. These efforts, of course, did not pave the way for these young people.
According to available evidence, these two young Baha'i students dropped out of the Baha'i-affiliated university after a few months. The reason for this was the opportunity to study at one of the country's universities, which did not require an entrance exam. However, when university officials learned of their religion, they expelled these students.
The court ruling regarding one of these youths states, “The named person is a member of the errant Baha’i sect who attended all Baha’i ceremonies known as banquets and was a student at the Baha’i Virtual University.” The ruling for another youth also mentions and emphasizes the presence of these students at the Baha’i Virtual University: “The named person admits to studying at the Baha’i BIHE University and states that he holds student classes at the homes of Baha’i individuals every month and communicates with officials via email.”
The ruling’s emphasis on the phrase “admission” of the individual to study at the university is actually an emphasis on the accusation that was made against these students only because they studied at the Baha’i Virtual University, and that too in a very short period of time. However, the judiciary’s narrative to justify the five-year prison sentence for these two young Baha’is does not end there; the imposition of accusations that are all due to their activity on virtual networks is another part of this security dossier-building. A noteworthy point in this part of the court’s ruling is the emphasis on their virtual activities regarding the issue of Baha’is being deprived of education in Iran. In part of the court’s ruling, it is stated about one of these students that by posting an article about the deprivation of Baha’i youth from education, he “accused the Islamic Republic of discrimination between ethnic groups.”
This emphasis is also seen in the verdict regarding another young Baha'i student; the court's verdict states that "forming a campaign under the pretext of depriving people of a deviant sect from education" and informing about "the rejection of a Baha'i girl's entrance exam answer" are among the activities of this student to smear the Islamic Republic.
On the other hand, the language used in the court ruling attempts to portray very ordinary citizen activities, such as membership in social networks, as strictly “security-related.” The court ruling states regarding one of the two students, “The person in question, by being a member of the social networks Line, Viber, Imo, WhatsApp, Telegram, Tango, BeeTalk, and Beemol, has been active in promoting a deviant sect.”
The emphasis on the large number of social networks that the defendant was a member of is entirely a result of creating a security atmosphere. The language of the verdict is as if “membership” in these social networks is a crime. Rereading the court’s verdict regarding these two young students reveals several important points in the government’s approach and view of the cases of Baha’i citizens; apart from the fact that membership in a Baha’i-affiliated university, even for a short period of time and as the only available opportunity for Baha’i youth to study, is considered to be equivalent to organizational activity, their protest against the existing reality, namely being deprived of their most obvious right, the “right to education,” is not only not tolerated, but also becomes an example of a “crime” for the court.
New aspects of government control over the Baha'i community
Examining parts of the court's ruling on the case of these four Baha'i citizens sheds light on the judiciary's overall approach to the issue of education in the Baha'i community from another perspective. An angle that can be said to be fundamentally different from the cases we read about earlier.
According to the court's ruling, the fourth person in the case, like the other three, was also active in "secret and illegal educational organizations affiliated with Baha'i Islam" and was a student at BIHE University. However, apart from this emphasis in the ruling and also referring to some of his virtual activities in defense of the right to education for Baha'is, another point is noteworthy. Part of the court's ruling states that "in order to implement the goals of the deviant sect to educate children and adolescents, the person in question has set up a kindergarten in his home and is teaching the spiritual programs of the sect to adolescents."
Assuming that this claim, namely the establishment of a kindergarten, is correct, the court's ruling suggests that the government's broader view of education among the Baha'i community is not limited to universities and higher education. Although the court's explanation of "sect spiritual programs" is not very precise and it is not clear what type of education or organizational activity these programs refer to, the emphasis of judicial and security authorities on "education of children and adolescents" could be a sign of a controlling and security approach to the Baha'i community, and its effects can be seen in the daily lives of Baha'i adolescents and youth.
Why is the court's decision unfounded?
The court sentenced all four defendants in the case to 5 years in prison on charges of “acting against national security through the Baha’i sect organization and spreading lies in cyberspace” under Article 499 of the Islamic Penal Code. A verdict that was also confirmed by the Court of Appeal. However, what is found in the re-reading of this case and the court’s verdict has no logical relationship to the charges against these citizens. The emphasis on studying or working at a Baha’i-affiliated university in the case of all four Baha’i citizens is in fact a justification for their “organizational activity” and, as a result, a reason for the charge of “acting against national security.” This is while such a claim can be rejected from two perspectives; first, the virtual university cannot be an example of the “groups” and “groups” referred to in Article 498 of the Islamic Penal Code. Article 498 of the Penal Code, which is actually Article 499, states that "Anyone who, for any purpose, forms or manages a group, group, or branch of a group of more than two people inside or outside the country under any name or title, whose purpose is to disrupt the security of the country and who is not recognized as a war criminal, shall be sentenced to imprisonment for two to ten years."
The second point about the Baha'i organization in Iran is that this religious minority has not had the right to have an organization for many years, and therefore the claim that these four citizens are members of such an organization is fundamentally meaningless.
The accusations of these four citizens regarding their activities in cyberspace, like many similar accusations in other cases, are opaque and inaccurate.
In a broad overview of the court's ruling regarding the four Baha'i citizens, it can be said that the height of injustice and discrimination in the court's ruling is the ignoring of the systematic process of discrimination and oppression against Baha'i citizens, especially regarding the deprivation of the right to education; a process in which being deprived of continuing education solely because of "being a Baha'i" and "making a security case" for "studying at a Baha'i university" and being convicted for "protesting against the ban on the right to education" is ongoing in an endless cycle of discrimination surrounding the lives of Baha'i youth.
Has the government changed its approach to discriminating against Baha'i education and training?
A review of the court’s verdict regarding these four Baha’i citizens shows that the government’s methods and techniques for implementing deprivation and discrimination are in line with imposing a security narrative and linking any of their normal civic activities to this security narrative. The verdict for all four defendants in the case emphasizes some of their civic activities that have nothing to do with the charges brought against them;
For example, the verdict of two of the defendants in the case refers to their presence at a peaceful sit-in at the Bar Association.
It can be understood that in the eyes of security authorities, any lawful and peaceful activity for Baha'i citizens is a "double crime." It is as if a Baha'i citizen cannot participate in civic activities like an ordinary citizen from the beginning, simply because of "being a Baha'i."
The heavy barrier of the government has systematically suppressed the voices of protest and the demand for the rights of Baha'i citizens to obtain their inalienable rights, including "education," in all the past years, and it seems that this systematic suppression has become more explicit than before. This year, on the eve of the university opening season, many reports have been published of Baha'i citizens being deprived of continuing their education simply because of "being Baha'is." Citizens who, after taking the entrance exam and visiting the website of the Examination Organization, have encountered the message "rejected" or "generally disqualified." As stated in the statement of the Baha'i community protesting the increasing number of Baha'i citizens deprived of university education, this form of informing Baha'i citizens of their educational deprivation, that is, emphasizing the phrases "rejected" or "generally disqualified" on the website of the Examination Organization, is a new practice that formalizes the deprivation of education solely because of their belief in the Baha'i faith. Previously, the Ministry of Science used the phrase “file defect” to announce the exclusion of Baha’i youth who had passed the entrance exam. This change in procedure is a clear example of the government’s narrative and macro-view of Baha’i citizens living in Iran. A community that has been deprived of its fundamental rights in various ways through systematic discrimination and oppression over the past years.
Source: Iran Human Rights Campaign
