Show Hide image

Laurie Penny: Iranian women are being co-opted into a Nato narrative pointing towards invasion

The West must not use women’s rights to justify war.

Despite an international outcry, Iran seems determined to have Sakineh Mohammadi Ashtiani, 43, stoned to death for adultery. Her plight has become a test case for the global community's response to Iran's barbaric, institutional misogyny. Tehran has responded by thumbing its nose at the rest of the world, forcing Ashtiani to confess her "crimes" on television. In Britain, our outrage is unanimous, and rightly so.

It seems curiously inconsistent, then, that, just a few weeks ago, the Home Office was quite prepared to deport another Iranian woman, Kiana Firouz, to certain execution in her native country for sexual unorthodoxy. Firouz made the film Cul-de-Sac to raise awareness of the oppression of lesbians in Iran, outing herself very publicly and embarrassing the state in the process: both crimes punishable by death in Iran. Nonetheless, it took a co-ordinated campaign by LGBT activists and solidarity networks in the UK to shame the Home Office into granting Firouz leave to remain.

Bita Ghaedi, another Iranian woman facing execution for breaking her marriage vows, also escaped to Britain -- where she was sent to a holding cell and repeatedly threatened with deportation. Ghaedi has been on several hunger strikes to protest at her treatment, but she still lives in fear of being sent back to Iran. Had the unfortunate Ashtiani been smuggled to the UK, it is fair to assume that she, too, would currently be detained in Yarl's Wood, subjected to the indignity of pleading for her life to a government whose professed solidarity with Iranian women has not yet overcome its prejudice against immigrants to extend support to the hundreds of women who arrive on these shores fleeing violence every year -- all of whom, unlike Ashtiani, we could actually do something materially to help.

State violence against women has long been used to justify military interventionism. The government of Iran is rather unusual in taking it upon itself to employ the executioners, but plenty of states with whom the US and UK have no military disputes currently allow men who feel their women have besmirched their family honour to carry out the killings themselves on the understanding that punishment will be minimal or non-existent.

Article 340 of the Penal Code of Jordan states: "He who discovers his wife or one of his female relatives committing adultery and kills, wounds or injures one of them is exempted from any penalty." Similar laws were struck down only very recently in Syria, Morocco and Brazil; in Pakistan, incidences of women and girls being slain by their families for sexual transgressions (including having the gall to be raped) are routinely ignored by police and prosecutors.

Moreover, across the world, 68,000 women are effectively condemned to agonising death each year -- 5 per cent of them in developed countries -- for the crime of wanting sexual and reproductive self-determination in states with sanctions against abortion. There has, as yet, been no systemic global outcry at their plight. And in at least one European country, the defence of "provocation to murder" -- the so-called "cuckold's defence" -- was enshrined in law until just two years ago, allowing husbands to plead for a reduced sentence if the wife they had killed was unfaithful.

The country in question was Great Britain. Were the US or UK to launch a systemic offensive against every country brutalising its female citizens because of their sex at the level of policy and culture, it'd be World War Three on Tuesday -- and we would have to start by bombing our own cities.

In this context, it could well be construed that there is another, more sinister agenda at play beyond concern for women's rights. Yesterday, Iran told the west to butt out of its right to murder Sakineh Ashtiani, making it clear that this case is now less about the well-being of one woman than about moral and militaristic positioning between hostile states. There is clear precedent for this callous, ideological long game.

This month, Time magazine published a cover photograph of a young woman, Aisha, whose nose and ears had been cut off by her father-in-law. The cover ran with the unambiguous title, "What happens if we leave Afghanistan". However, as the Afghan women's rights activist Malalai Joya told France24, Aisha was attacked under western occupation and such atrocities have arguably increased since the 2002 invasion.

"Eighteen-year-old Aisha is just an example -- cutting ears, noses and toes, torturing and even slaughtering is a norm in Afghanistan," said Joya. "Afghan women are squashed between three enemies: the Taliban, fundamentalist warlords and troops. Once again, it is moulding the oppression of women into a propaganda tool to gain support and staining their hands with ever-deepening treason against Afghan women."

In March, WikiLeaks published a CIA briefing that outlined a strategy to counter growing opposition in Europe to participation in the US-led occupation of Afghanistan. It recommended using a narrative about the oppression of women in the country that highlighted the Taliban's misogynist violence, while ignoring that of the pro-occupation warlords and the occupation armies. A similar story is now being disseminated about the plight of women in Iran and poor Ashtiani has become a tokenistic figure in that absolving narrative.

Instead of the solidarity they deserve -- solidarity that might first be extended by treating asylum seekers with something less than contempt -- Iranian women are being co-opted into a Nato narrative whose trajectory seems to point inexorably towards invasion.

That the state of Iran hates and fears women is not up for debate and if even one person can be saved from fascistic, fundamentalist woman-haters, an international campaign is more than justified. However, if, as seems likely, Iran executes Sakineh Ashtiani anyway, it would be beyond distasteful for Nato governments to cannibalise her corpse as part of the moral groundwork for further bloodshed.

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.

Show Hide image

With Boris gone, the next Tory PM will be dangerously tough on immigration

Talking tough on immigration is good for your leadership chances, but not for future trade deals. 

On 24 June, Boris Johnson had just pulled off the gamble of his life. The blonde pretender's decision to back Leave had helped bring an insurgent campaign to victory and force the Prime Minister's resignation. The political establishment was in smoking ruins, but the path to No 10 was clear.

Less than a week later, though, everything had changed. Johnson was forced to tell journalists at his campaign launch that he was pulling out. It seems the issue that scuppered him was immigration.

Johnson has never been a convincing border patrol guard. As the country digested Brexit, he wrote in The Telegraph that: "It is said that those who voted Leave were mainly driven by anxieties about immigration. I do not believe that is so."

His fellow Leave campaigner Michael Gove seems to have thought differently. A leaked email from his wife discussed the need for "specifics" on what many believe to be immigration controls. 

Announcing his campaign launch on Thursday morning - minutes after alerting Johnson to the fact - Gove declared that voters "told us to restore democratic control of immigration policy".

Of course, Gove is not alone in the contest to be PM of Brexit Britain. But with the Classics scholar Johnson out of the way, a consensus on a tougher immigration policy looks likely. 

A relaxed Theresa May (pictured) laid out her arguments on Thursday morning as well, and although she backtracked from earlier calls to quit the European Convention on Human Rights, she  is clearly playing to the audience when it comes to immigration. 

During the EU referendum campaign, she quietly backed Remain but nevertheless called for "more control" over EU citizens working in the UK.

At her leadership launch, she expressed a desire to cut net migration by tens of thousands each year. "Any attempt to wriggle out" of regaining control "will be unacceptable to the public", she said. 

Stephen Crabb, another contender, has already described ending free movement as a "red line", while Liam Fox wants an Australian-style points based system to apply to EU migrants. 

Of course, condemning "uncontrolled" EU immigration is one thing. Agreeing on whether immigration per se is too high is another. Some Leave campaigners argued they only wanted a level playing field for EU or non-EU migrants. 

But the Tory candidates face a bigger risk. The public may lap up anti-immigration rhetoric, the party members might vote accordingly, but it leaves little room to manoevre when it comes to negotiating trade deals with the European Union. Even the cool-headed German chancellor Angela Merkel has made it clear access to the single market is reserved for those who accept the free movement of people, as well as capital and goods.

If the successful candidate also wants to be successful in government, they will have to find a way of redefining the debate, quickly.