Many know her for her courage and resilience, but before being a global symbol, Nasrin Sotoudeh is a woman speaking with hope in the heart of darkness. A renowned lawyer, writer, and human rights activist, Nasrin Sotoudeh is remembered not so much for her prestigious international awards, but for her unwavering resistance to tyranny and her defense of the most vulnerable and voiceless in Iran’s contemporary history.
She has received honors such as the “Sakharov Prize” for Freedom of Thought from the European Parliament and the International Human Rights Award from the American Bar Association, but she has paid the price for this human dignity through years of imprisonment, deprivation, and unbearable pressure on herself and her family.
This interview was recorded in the final days before Israel’s massive attack against the Islamic Republic of Iran began. Its completion and publication were delayed due to the nationwide internet shutdown in Iran, and therefore, there was no opportunity to update the questions regarding the recent bloody developments or Ms. Sotoudeh’s positions on them. Nevertheless, her words in this interview offer a clear picture of the structural roots of the crisis, government repression, and civil resistance in Iran.
– Thank you for accepting my invitation to this interview. For the first question: why is a regime that for years succeeded in dominating women’s bodies and identities through moralization, religious philosophy, and discriminatory laws, no longer successful in doing so? Does this mean the end of the regime’s political legitimacy?
– I must say we women have waged this kind of struggle both inside and outside of prison. Now, the Islamic Republic is facing a situation where it can no longer use those old tools—imposing hijab in the name of morality, or enforcing discriminatory laws under the pretext of thousands of hollow philosophies hidden in the labyrinth of its illogical reasoning. This is the point at which women have come face to face with the regime and believe they will prevail.
But I think the outcome will be that a system defined by a patriarchal foundation will, most likely, not yield to any reasonable or logical demand. It will be forced to step aside so that a healthy referendum can be held and a new government can take shape through a just and democratic process.
– How does the reaction of governments to women’s rights in male-dominated societies change with generational shifts and increased awareness among women? Can we say that governments adopt different strategies to violate or justify gender discrimination depending on how much resistance or cooperation they face from society?
– A government seeking to violate the rights of its citizens chooses its methods based on the conditions it is in. Sometimes, a government finds no obstacle because its citizens also oppose women’s rights. Consequently, a spirit and atmosphere dominate society that recognizes male values as societal values and seeks to strengthen them.
In such a context, the government does not need to hide its actions or give them a legal façade, as there is no resistance to what it does. For instance, during the early years after the revolution, society was indifferent to women’s rights, and the government violated those rights without any concern—neither legally nor in terms of appearances.
When generations changed, and those raised in that context began raising their voices in protest, the government tried to justify the inequalities. For example, they said that if we decree that a woman’s blood money or inheritance is half that of a man, it doesn’t mean the woman is worth half a man. They started inventing other philosophies for it.
Now, as the voices of protest keep rising, the government tries to turn concepts like hijab into tab
Leave a Reply