According to CNN, a university student in Iran called Puyan Mahmudian was rejected for a Masters degree in the University of Amirkabir. The reason behind this was not due to academics, in fact, he scored the sixth highest marks in his year group in entrance exams; instead, it was his political background. In the year of 2007, Mahmudian had previously been kept in solitary confinement for being the editor of a student magazine that was critical of the government. Many people like Mahmudian were in jail for 50 days suffering both physical and mental torture. After 80 days, they were forced to videotape a confession inside prison announcing their apologies to the president for defaming Islam and to sign a guarantee that they wouldn’t continue any political/social/cultural activities once returned to university. During the 50 days of imprisonment, Mahmudian went on a hunger strike for 11 days to be allowed to make one phone to his mother to tell her he was okay. Even though the judiciary admitted that these students had nothing to do with the forged publication, the Middle East Director of Human Rights Watch, Sarah Lean Whitson, pointed out that the Iranian authorities used the flimsiest of pretexts to arrest student journalist.
The area of knowledge discussed here are ethics and human rights. The idea of violating some ethics raised a question: Do we treat a man differently based on his political background, academics, or neither? Basically, the moral issues of letting a piece of paper determine a man’s future? In the article, it showed that Mahmudian, an extremely hard working student, was rejected by the University of Amirkabir due to his false criminal records. However, how did a college applicant administrator assume that he/she had the ability to predict that Mahmudian would be a negative influence to the school environment? Relating this idea to the fact that humans perceived concrete facts far more seriously than a verbal translation, it showed that one bad record that wasn’t even fully investigated had the power to destroy Mahmudian’s academic career. Again, was it possible to say that one could decide to like or detest another person just by their personal background information? Based on this incident, the answer was yes, however, that wasn’t necessarily true.
Speaking of human rights, the right to have the freedom of speech was extremely controversial. Based on the facts presented in the article, Mahmudian wrote articles that expressed the student’s opinions on the government; as soon as they realized that the Iran authorities felt offended, they circulated forged editions of their publications containing offensive articles. When the students were sent to court for their charges, the Judiciary admitted that these students had nothing to do with forged publications. In other words, all of their articles published in the student magazine only presented opinions on the pro and cons of the government and not just emphasizing the cons. Also, regarding the solitary confinement that Mahmudian went through, it violated some human rights as well. Based on the human rights in Iran, free speech, press, and assembly does not exist. Iran is basically a fundamentalist religious regime that contains no secular concept of law whatsoever. Following this set of human rights in Iran, it was reasonable to say that Mahmudian got what he deserved. However, comparing this situation in the United States, the American Declaration of Independence clearly stated that human rights like freedom of speech was recognized ever since 1776.
In my opinion, Mahmudian was absolutely innocent. Speaking out and presenting his own thoughts to improve the government through a student magazine was a reasonable thing to do. Furthermore, regarding the ethics in the area of knowledge, I think that a man should not be judged just by a piece of paper. There were several characteristics of Mahmudian that couldn’t be described explicitly through language; perhaps, the only way to truly understand him was through communication over a long period of time to determine whether of not he would be a negative influence to the University of Amirkabir.
This issue was very similar to the debate of whether or not certain shows that contains a large amount of sexually explicit language should be banned or not. For instance, according to “The Telegraph” news, it said that Russia government suggest Russia children to avoid American cartoons like South Park, The Simpsons and Family guy; instead, Russia children should watch programmes teaching them patriotism, family values, and the importance of sport. Basically, both issues presented itself with an issue addressing the fact that there was never a precise definition for human rights because it was varied in different countries.
I believe that this issue's real issue is whether or not the government has the right to suppress freedom of speech. It is already evident from psychology that people misattribute certain factors of one person just by one event that happened. An event that gives off bad impression will in turn cause for the observers to only focus on that event and ignore those that show someone's good traits. In my opinion, it feels that the government is justified in their actions as it is the event happened within their borders and it is their laws that should be in effect and not those of America. Even though Mahmudian was innocent, by presenting his own thoughts he should have already been aware that there is a potential danger of commenting. I don't really think that the government should have waited a while until his full background could be investigated, since a mere thought of his could pose a danger to the government. There was a point about violating the human rights that Mahmudian went through but then it is mentioned right after that "Iran is basically a fundamentalist religious regime that contains no secular concept of law whatsoever " so wouldn't that justify the government's actions? There is really no need to compared with the US since Iran is not under its control and has a separate government of its own.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the government was justified to punish Mahmudian as he had violated their laws on their land. This is simpler than it is; Mahmudian broke the law as defined by the government, and therefore, was punished accordingly. His punishment ultimately depended on whether or not he followed the law. Saying that he should not have been punished is like saying that jay-walking is okay if there are no cars around. When the pedestrian jay-walks, he/she should be aware of the consequences before they choose to do so, and if they decide that the consequences will be worth it and are willing to take the risk, they take action. If they get hit by a car, then they just have to deal with it. This is like Mahmudian, who should accept his punishment for disobeying the law as he was the one who chose to take the risk. He happened to figuratively get hit by a car when the government sent him to solitary confinement, so he should accept it as a consequence of a choice that he made.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. I believe Mahmudian is innocent- in order for a government to be successful, one must always listen to critiques from other people. Furthermore, I believe another important TOK issue is the idea of censorship. To what extent is the government allowed to censor something? In this particular case, Mahmudian was shunned from university because he was jailed by the government for criticizing it. This shows that the government has an iron fist over the nation by censoring and outlawing open opposition and critique towards the government. However, one problem of extreme censorship within a nation is that the people are either ill-informed and brainwashed with government propaganda, or they will choose the path of revolt. This is evident in history, and the example i am going to use is the 228 incident in Taiwan. Due to severe censorship of the KMT government in 1947, the civilians in Taiwan decided that they were going to revolt. Although the mob and protests were ultimately stamped out, this is still a clear example illustrating the problem of government censorship- people will ultimately revolt. To add on, government censorship, like you mentioned above, violates human rights. Freedom of speech is clearly violated, and the people are not allowed to learn the truth. For example, in North Korea, the government feeds civilians with propaganda while stripping away their right to learn the truth. Opposition or criticisms of the government is costly as well- people get jailed, executed, or tortured by merely displaying their will to learn and to speak out. I personally believe that freedom of speech is important. However, since some governments know that by granting the people their rights, they will ultimately challenge the governments' control and demand for reform. Therefore, they strip away these rights by creating propaganda and laws to prohibit people from speaking out. I believe this is the case of Mahmudian in your example.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the fact that he was denied a degree he earned rightfully was unjust, especially since it was such a blatant act of censorship motivated by obviously political goals. While it is understandable that some might feel that the government was justified, I must disagree, since the nature of Iran's law is more similar to that of guidelines for the government rather than measures to protect the rights of the people they are supposed to serve and govern at the same time.
ReplyDeleteAs Sony mentioned, it is true that Iran is not under the jurisdiction of US law, but Monica L's point about Mahmudian having the right to speech is also true. Just as an unjust law is no law at all, a government that is unjust loses its right to govern its people. While this might come across as a personal opinion, this is the believe that is largely accepted by the international community, and there is an overwhelming majority of nations that favor democratic rule over other forms of government.
In other words, I think this incident can also be a springboard for the question of when the international community should intervene in 'domestic affairs'. It would be dangerous to say that each country is responsible for itself and that no other country has any influence over those decisions. If that were to be the case, the world would comprise of a lot of DPRK-like nations, and any form of international communication would be impossible. This is precisely the reason why organizations like the United Nations have been established, and why declarations like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have been ratified. It would also be interesting to explore this issue further through the WOK of media, and how that influences our perception of what is 'just' or 'unjust'.
This article is similar to that of a popular Saudi video blogger, Feras Bugnah, who was arrested for posting videos to report on poverty in the kingdom’s capital, Riyadh. In both these cases, the government arrested these men for no plausible reason and only because what they had said was not with what the government wanted them to say. However, they are not saying these things to try to stir up a revolution but rather they are trying to create change. Both these articles relate to the ethics and human right issues that are being violated as these men are both innocent and being detained for no reason. I believe that everyone should be given their basic human rights and that freedom of speech comes along with each person’s rights. Therefore, I feel that the governments have no right to arrest these men and imprison them on no basis and that they are doing it for censorship and not wanting to reveal all the information to the public to see.
ReplyDelete