Courage in the face of assassination

There was discrimination too regarding religion. The official religion was Shi’ite and while different sects of Islam, together with Jews and Christians, were officially recognised, others, such as the Baha’ists and Buddhist, were not and therefore had no rights. Jews, Zoroastrians and Christians could only choose one representative and could not vote for Muslims. In this way, she said religious minorities were underrepresented and were never going to have what they wanted brought forward (in parliament). The president, for instance, had to be a Muslim and male.

When she later spoke to the conference through an interpreter, it was indicative of her spirit that, as a small rather rotund figure in a dusty pink suit, she soon had the audience’s total concentration.

She took peace as her topic because she said without peace there could be no underlying foundation of sustainability. In times of war and bloodshed, people had to be concerned about saving their lives and could not worry about the environment. Peace had to be founded on such things as human rights, education, freedom of speech and access to a judiciary, otherwise it was without meaning. Where people suffered despotism it created silent societies because all other voices were silenced by prison or bullets. This was a false calmness.

Applause greeted her announcement that other Noble Prize laureates retained a chair waiting for her friend, Burma’s opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi, who had been held in prison or in house arrest for so long. Dr Ebadi said this was an example of false calm and in such cases it was not long before “the people’s patience will run out and the false calm will fall apart”.

On domestic matters she said that in the 18th century it could be normal that a woman could not leave the house without a husband’s permission. She asked: was that permissible in the 21st century?

She said fundamentalists had closed their eyes to change and, with the eyes of their ancestors, were facing problems with the outdated answers of yesterday. Rulers were trying to solve 21st century issues with 14th century rules. “These people have got off track and dismiss all new ideas.” It was odd, she seemed to add ruefully, that such ideas were held when, today, so many women bore the financial burden of the household: totally different from women all those years ago.

She warned that as soon as the people saw a weakness in their (despotic) power, the people would protest. She had in mind countries in South America, Iran, Kuwait, the Yemen and others.

“One can be a Muslim and respect human rights,” she said. While some undemocratic governments had justified their actions in the name of Islam, “the United States justifies its warmongering by abusing the name of democracy”.

Of Middle East problems, she said sooner or later, the conflicts had to end. Such events affected all the countries of the world and in time all nations were damaged. Innocent people who had never been involved would fall victims to terrorism and violence.

No country needed nuclear weapons, not Iran, not the US, nor any other, she told a questioner, adding that as an optimist she saw the future of Iran as a bright one.

Issues of war and peace were global and the fate of all mankind was tightly ordered and no one had the right to deprive others. “We must wish others a share in the fate we wish for ourselves,” she said.

“Let’s wish each other kindness: the only commodity that will not be depleted by its expenditure.”