Executed Iranian Protester Denied Burial In Muslim Cemetery
Milad Zohrevand, secretly executed in Hamadan prison for his part in protests last year, has been denied burial in a Muslim cemetery and his parents arrested during his funeral.
Milad Zohrevand, secretly executed in Hamadan prison for his part in protests last year, has been denied burial in a Muslim cemetery and his parents arrested during his funeral.
The Hengaw Human Rights Organization claims regime authorities refused permission for his body to be transferred to the Muslim cemetery of Malayer, and after his burial in the Armenian cemetery of Hamadan, they poured concrete over his grave.
The burial ceremony, held on Saturday, took place under stringent security measures, with only a few family members in attendance.
On Sunday, the Iranian Human Rights Organization announced that Afsaneh Zohrevand, Milad's mother, was detained during her son's funeral on charges of "disturbing the peace."
Twitter account Dadban also reported on Sunday that Milad Zohrevand's father, Rouhollah, was arrested after the burial ceremony and transferred to prison. As of now, the reasons for his arrest and his current status have not been disclosed.
Milad Zohrevand had been sentenced to death in connection with trumped up charges of "killing" of an IRGC officer named Ali Nazari during the Woman Life Freedom protests in which more than 500 civilians were brutally murdered
Amnesty International has condemned Zohrevand's execution, the eighth related to the 2022 protests sparked by the death in morality police custody of Mahsa Amini, calling it a systematic use of extrajudicial executions by the Islamic Republic as a tool of suppression.
The closure, largely overlooked by Iranian media and officials, underscored the regime's struggle to propagate its ideological messaging among Iranians who had emigrated to avoid exposure to such totalitarian and biased content.
Saeed Fanian, a former manager of Jam-e Jam, contends that the channel's shutdown highlights the breakdown of the state television organization's monopoly on TV broadcasting. He specifically pointed the finger at Vahid Jalili, the deputy chairman of IRIB (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting), for lacking the necessary expertise to lead the channel.
Fanian also criticized IRIB Chief Peyman Jebelli for failing to fulfil promises to restore the broadcaster's credibility. According to Fanian, a successful television program should challenge authorities and convince the audience of its fairness -- elements he believes the state TV failed to achieve.
Fanian, an Iranian academic headed IRIB's newsroom from 1988 to 1994 and the Jam-e Jam channel from 2003 to 2009. He believes that the state television launched Jam-e Jam to confront the influence of foreign-based satellite television channels which were new in the Iranian media landscape in the 1990s.
However, with the proliferation of more foreign-based professional Persian networks after 2009, the channel lost its appeal for expatriates, who appreciated the transparent political slant of the foreign-based networks. The viewership of Jam-e Jam's three channels for Europe, US and Australia began to drop and during the past years only one of the three channels were beaming to Europe and parts of the United States. However, even Iranian officials admitted that very few Iranian expats tuned to Jam-e Jam for news or entertainment.
Toward the end of its lifetime as hardliners at home pushed their radical cultural policies, the channel stopped broadcasting Iranian music which was more or less the only interesting program on Jam-e Jam after 2009. On the other hand, the channel did not have anything to offer to Iranians who became increasingly politically minded after the disputed presidential election in 2009 and particularly with the start of major protest demonstrations in 2017. There was no trace of the protests and dissent in general on the channel whatsoever.
It was around the same time that major foreign-based channels including Iran International, BBC Persian and Manoto TV began to offer more programming on Iran's domestic politics and hot issues such as human rights violations in Iran. They catered to the needs of Iranians inside and outside of the country for accurate and unbiased information about events in the country.
In his interview, Fanian admitted that Jam-e Jam was somewhat successful before these channels appeared on the Iranian media landscape. While he still believes that Jam-e Jam's winning edge toward the end of its activity was broadcasting Iranian TV sitcoms, a recent report on Kahabr Online website indicates that the state TV lost its edge as online platforms in Iran started to produce their own series with less radical censorship.
A study cited by Khabar Online reveals that despite the state TV's monopoly on broadcasting and its extension of censorship to video-on-demand (VOD) services, TV series produced by the state were significantly less successful than those offered by VOD platforms. Notably, even though state TV provided its content for free, VOD series such as "Fatal Wound" and "Return" had nearly double the viewership of all state TV series combined. Another example is the comedy series "How Many Springs There Are in A Lifetime," which has maintained successful viewership on VOD platforms for over five months.
The decline in viewership extends to both news programs and entertainment shows on state TV and its Jam-e Jam channel, losing audiences to online platforms within Iran and foreign-based satellite television channels. Polls conducted domestically and internationally corroborate the substantial drop in state TV viewership. As a result, the government may find it increasingly difficult to justify investing funds in a propaganda machine that has lost its efficacy.
Led by Nima Gholam Ali Pour, an Iranian-born member of Sweden’s parliament (Riksdag), the lawmakers issued a statement condemning the Iranian government’s use of “intrusive mass surveillance technologies” to “disrupt peaceful assemblies and enforce oppressive modesty laws.”
The open letter comes as international attention to Iranian protests has diminished in response to Israel’s war with Hamas – even as news reports detail how Iran’s regime funds, arms, and trains Hamas fighters. However, protecting and empowering Iran’s opposition may offer the clearest pathway to regime change, and by extension, disrupting Tehran’s ability to export terrorism abroad.
“Regime change in Iran is the most effective way to neutralize the mullahs and their covert and overt campaigns in the region,” Mr. Gholam Ali Pour said when asked how demonstrations in Iran impact the Middle East, adding that Iranians view “the mullah’s expansionism in the region” as “a waste of resources.”
Beginning in September 2022, Iran was gripped with nationwide, women-led protests following the death in police custody of Mahsa Amini, a 22-year-old student who was forcibly detained for improperly wearing her hijab. Iran’s regime reacted to the months-long demonstrations by orchestrating a brutal crackdown, arresting thousands and subjecting peaceful protestors to torture and execution.
Mr. Gholam Ali Pour and his colleagues, who each hail from the right-wing Sweden Democrats party, referenced an Aug. 6 investigative report from the German broadcaster ARD. The report, which included interviews with Iranian activists, detailed how Iranian security forces used advanced “surveillance technologies purchased from European companies” to crush demonstrations and persecute Iranian women.
“These technologies form a crucial component of Tehran’s extensive surveillance network, which the theocratic regime uses to track political dissidents and suppress public criticism,” the MPs wrote.
According to ARD, the German manufacturing giant Bosch sold 8,000 closed-circuit television cameras to Iran’s regime between 2016 and 2018. Iranian activists showed ARD images of Bosch cameras and software used to monitor public spaces.
ARD claimed that Bosch cameras can be outfitted with “intelligent tracking,” an AI-based technology that allows for monitoring of vehicle and foot traffic. The parliamentary letter includes the account of an Iranian activist who described how the regime deploys cameras that issue an alarm whenever more than five to ten people gather in public, prompting security forces to arrive “‘within minutes’” to break up demonstrations.
The letter also points to an Amnesty International report, which “documented evidence of Iranian women driving through high traffic areas who received text messages from state security warning them about fines for improper wear of headscarves.” The women were identified through “facial recognition” software, according to Amnesty, a biometrics technology that maps facial features and compares unique identifiers to images in a massive database.
“The authorities are always watching so your behavior is in accordance with their idea of Islam,” Gholam Ali Pour said in an interview. “The regime in Tehran will use surveillance technology in the worst possible ways,” he added.
Germany isn’t the only country to host businesses that profit off the sale of surveillance equipment to Iran. Reporting for Iran International, Benjamin Weinthal described in August how Iran’s government purchased video cameras from companies in Sweden and the Netherlands, while the Danish security company Milestone Systems reportedly delivered video management software to Iran that is capable of facial recognition.
Both intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations have raised alarms concerning the use of surveillance technologies as an instrument of state oppression. In August 2022, the United Nations released a study warning about the “human rights” concerns associated with the systematic monitoring of public places using biometrics data. The study called for “data privacy legislation” and “robust well-tailored export control regimes applicable to surveillance technologies.”
In August, Mr. Gholam Ali Pour sent a formal Parliamentary Question to Tobias Billström, Sweden’s foreign minister, asking if he planned “to take action in the European Union and other forums” to ban the sale of surveillance technology to Iran, in light of the news reports concerning Bosch and other European companies.
Billström answered by stating that “Swedish trade with Iran is currently very limited.” As to the EU, the foreign minister pointed to the “sanctions regime against human rights abuses in Iran, established in 2011,” which he claimed, “includes a ban on selling or transferring certain equipment that could be used for repression or surveillance to Iran.”
However, EU sanctions against Iran, including the 2011 ban on “equipment which might be used for internal repression,” deal predominantly with military hardware, as well as devices and software used in the “monitoring or interception of internet or telephone communications.” The sale of surveillance cameras and facial recognition technologies are not explicitly forbidden.
For now, the law appears to be lagging advancements in technology, which offer abusive and tyrannical governments Orwellian control of their societies. With rising tensions in the Middle East, the EU should immediately adopt the Swedish MPs recommendations and proscribe European businesses from selling surveillance equipment to Iran. Otherwise, profit-seeking corporations stand to damage and impede the greatest natural bulwark against Iran’s military adventurism: the Iranian people.
The opinions expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect the views of Iran International
