"Today, censorship cannot hide the truth"

Upsurge of citizen journalism in Iran as funeral of dissident cleric turns into opposition protest

Above: the scene in Qom

Days after the Twitter hacking by a group styling itself the "Iranian Cyber Army" comes another outbreak of citizen journalism from Iran's opposition movement.

The funeral of the dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri in the holy city of Qom has attracted tens of thousands of mourners, with the number increasing as I post.

Foreign media are banned from reporting the funeral, but the Twitter hashtags #Montazeri and #Iranelection are flourishing, disseminating photographs of the huge crowds, videos of anti-regime chants, and details of arrests as and when they happen.

This video -- one of three posted (at the time of writing) on a live blog of events -- shows demonstrators holding up placards painted green, the colour of the pro-democracy movement:

 

One video records the chant: "He who was the cheater, ripped the picture." This refers to the disputed election (the government being the "cheater"), accusing the government of responsibility for a ripped picture of Ayatollah Khomeini shown on state media and blamed on protesters.

Other demonstrators have tweeted that people are chanting: "Basiji, you've gone wild!" and "Khamenei, did you know, soon you will fall!". Another says: "Every minute the number of Greens increases." A third says that "Groups of ppl have left Ghom for Tehran".

In the summer, Ayatollah Montazeri wrote in support of the protesters:

I ask the police and army personnel not to "sell their religion", and be aware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God. Recognise the protesting youth as your children. Today, censorship and cutting telecommunication lines cannot hide the truth.

It remains to be seen whether this will turn into an outbreak on the scale seen after the election in July. But, in the light of these words, it seems rather fitting that Twitter and the blog network, which allow the grass-roots movement to spread its message worldwide, will be the place to find out.

 

Follow the New Statesman team on Twitter

Samira Shackle is a freelance journalist, who tweets @samirashackle. She was formerly a staff writer for the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

How tribunal fees silenced low-paid workers: “it was more than I earned in a month”

The government was forced to scrap them after losing a Supreme Court case.

How much of a barrier were employment tribunal fees to low-paid workers? Ask Elaine Janes. “Bringing up six children, I didn’t have £20 spare. Every penny was spent on my children – £250 to me would have been a lot of money. My priorities would have been keeping a roof over my head.”

That fee – £250 – is what the government has been charging a woman who wants to challenge their employer, as Janes did, to pay them the same as men of a similar skills category. As for the £950 to pay for the actual hearing? “That’s probably more than I earned a month.”

Janes did go to a tribunal, but only because she was supported by Unison, her trade union. She has won her claim, although the final compensation is still being worked out. But it’s not just about the money. “It’s about justice, really,” she says. “I think everybody should be paid equally. I don’t see why a man who is doing the equivalent job to what I was doing should earn two to three times more than I was.” She believes that by setting a fee of £950, the government “wouldn’t have even begun to understand” how much it disempowered low-paid workers.

She has a point. The Taylor Review on working practices noted the sharp decline in tribunal cases after fees were introduced in 2013, and that the claimant could pay £1,200 upfront in fees, only to have their case dismissed on a technical point of their employment status. “We believe that this is unfair,” the report said. It added: "There can be no doubt that the introduction of fees has resulted in a significant reduction in the number of cases brought."

Now, the government has been forced to concede. On Wednesday, the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Unison’s argument that the government acted unlawfully in introducing the fees. The judges said fees were set so high, they had “a deterrent effect upon discrimination claims” and put off more genuine cases than the flimsy claims the government was trying to deter.

Shortly after the judgement, the Ministry of Justice said it would stop charging employment tribunal fees immediately and refund those who had paid. This bill could amount to £27m, according to Unison estimates. 

As for Janes, she hopes low-paid workers will feel more confident to challenge unfair work practices. “For people in the future it is good news,” she says. “It gives everybody the chance to make that claim.” 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines.