Given Tatchell's recent statements, it seems likely that his ideological disposition caused him to look past or dismiss information that cast doubt on the "gay teenagers" story. But Outrage! came to the conclusions it did partly because of the thorny evidentiary issues that arise whenever human rights violations occur in states where civil society and freedom of the press are threatened. Where does the burden of proof lie? Tatchell for one believes that, "given the Iranian government's record of executing gay people and putting out bare-faced lies to cover up their crimes, we should always treat any official Iranian version of events with great skepticism." A subsequent post on the Outrage! website said, "We acknowledge there are conflicting reports. It is difficult to be certain about the truth. But on balance we believe the evidence points to the youths being hanged for same-sex relations, rather than rape."

HRW's Long agrees that "skepticism about official accounts in any country with a record of rights violations--be it Iran or the US--is merited." But Long, Ghaemi, Ettelbrick and other human rights activists disagree with Outrage!'s conclusions. Discounting the ISNA report, about which there appears to be at the very least a translation discrepancy, Long says that the conclusion that the teenagers were hanged for same-sex relations was "woven from one source--the fact that a website [NCRI] which has a tendentious record of distorting Iranian news in the name of its political agenda omitted the reference to rape. That's not enough, in my view, to support all the sweeping and speculative claims that have been made."

Outrage! based its conclusions not only on the NCRI news story and its ISNA translation but also on consultations with dissident Iranians, some of whom, Tatchell confirmed, are affiliated with the NCRI, which he describes as a "respected democratic opposition movement." (Outrage! claims it also consulted independent Iranian dissidents and activists still in Iran.) In press releases and interviews, Tatchell objects to the classification of the NCRI as a "'terrorist organization' by the US State Department" and calls it "a smear." Canada and the EU also deem the NCRI a terrorist organization; it is considered the political wing of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK or MKO), a militant group based in Iraq that has reportedly fed information on Iran to key neocons in the Bush Administration. Outrage! explains that while they "do not share the politics of the NCRI...it has played a heroic role in resisting the clerical fascist regime in Iran and campaigning for democracy and human rights. The NCRI is no more a terrorist organization than the African National Congress in South Africa or the anti-Nazi resistance in occupied Europe during World War Two." In an interview with The Nation, Tatchell described the NCRI as "a key liberation movement inside Iran that deserves international support."

Janet Afary, author of Foucault and the Iranian Revolution and the president of the International Society for Iranian Studies, strongly disputes Tatchell's assessment of the group. Afary characterizes the NCRI as a "discredited exile group" and says "the democratic opposition in Iran does not recognize the organization as an ally." Indeed, former members of the NCRI have publicly accused the organization of brainwashing, torture and forced separation from spouses and children. Ervand Abrahamian, professor of history at Baruch College, described the NCRI as a "cult" and says "they have as much credibility as Chalabi and the Iraqi enthusiasts for liberation and invasion." None of this necessarily means that the NCRI is wrong in this case, but given that the NCRI has long agitated for international sanctions on Iran, it is abundantly clear that it should not be considered an impartial source.

The different camps in this controversy also have different prescriptions for what form the international protest should take. HRW issued a letter, signed by Ghaemi and Michael Bochenek of the Children's Rights Division, petitioning the Iranian government to cease the execution of minors. Amnesty likewise urged the Iranian government to stop executing minors in its public statement. IGLHRC released background information on previous executions in Iran, but did not write to any government bodies.

Outrage!, by contrast, echoing the NCRI, called upon Western governments to place international sanctions on Iran, and specifically urged Britain to cease diplomatic relations. Tatchell does, however, oppose military action against Iran. "Regime change must come from within, and not be imposed by Western intervention. We must not repeat the mistakes of Iraq," he said.

What are the possible ramifications of calling for sanctions against Iran based upon hazy evidence that it executed two teenagers for consensual homosexual sex? Ettelbrick, who took exception to the "very strong anti-Muslim language" in the Outrage! statement, expressed concern that given both the precarious state of human rights in Iran and global tensions between the US/UK and the Muslim world, such statements might "play into anti-Muslim and anti-Arab sentiment in the name of gay rights" and possibly "put gay people in those countries at further risk." Tatchell responds to such criticism by saying, "We've never attacked anyone's race or ethnicity, and we've never attacked Islam as such, only the anti-humanitarian fundamentalist version of Islam as exemplified by the ayatollahs' dictatorship." But Tatchell remains firm on his characterizations of Iran, Islamic extremism and Outrage!'s call for international sanctions. "We're not going to apologize for condemning the Iranian tyranny as an Islamo-fascist dictatorship. That is what it is. And this phrase is used by progressive Muslims to denounce the fundamentalists and by democratic and left opponents of the Tehran regime," said Tatchell. In previous articles unrelated to the execution, Tatchell has criticized the "the left's political somersaults and ethical acrobatics...on the issue of Islamic fundamentalism" and complained that "the threat of being labeled 'Islamophobic' is inducing a new wave of moral paralysis."

HRW's Scott Long, however, worries about the way the incident has played into "preconceptions that have partly been created by the atmosphere of the war on terror." He also emphasizes the necessity, in this climate, of a sober evaluation of evidence to conduct an effective campaign in defense of human rights in countries like Iran. "Iran is a country about which you can say almost anything and be believed. Islam is a religion about which you can say anything and be believed. Iran's human rights record is abominable, and religious extremism of all sorts is dangerous. This is obvious, but it doesn't need exaggeration. But on both counts people have been all too ready to presume something worse and different than what took place. I think there are a lot of people on the left that think they need to prove their manhood vis-à-vis Islamists and Islamic states because they are being baited by people on the right."

• « Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

• Get The Nation at home (and online!) for 75 cents a week!
• If you like this article, consider making a donation to The Nation.