NCRI – Special guests, with former French Prime minister Edith Cresson, of the gathering of Iranians near Paris on July 1st, Lord Slynn of Hadley made a speech in front of 30.000 participants. The former judge of the European court of Justice, underlined the progress made in the judiciary process, from the status of protected person for the freedom fighters in Achraf City in Iraq, to the removal of legal restrictions on members of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, in France :
Young actors and actresses when they are training are told that there is one rule, never turn on stage with a child or with a dog because if you do the audience will only laugh the child and the dog. I think men should be told that they should never speak at a meeting like this after a woman and even more that they should never speak after two such stars, two such ladies as we have heard this afternoon.
I want to just say three or four things and I will be brief. The first is this however the important the football match may appear to some of you, this has been a quiet remarkable occasion. it is a day to be remembered in the history of the National Council. So many politicians from so many countries, so many of you, I wish you could all be on this platform to see yourselves one after the other and you realize what a vast and what a enthusiastic audience you are.
First thing I want to say is this, it was very good, the speakers and of course particularly Mrs. Radjavi in her speech pay tribute to the men and women who are in Achraf. The suffering of so many of your people in the interest of democracy and freedom, their suffering is considerable. If you go to Achraf and talk to the people and talk to the parents and children from Iran who live in Paris, who live in London, who live in Washington, they will tell you of the executions, of the torture and of the name it, they have suffered. These are acts of which the world community should and must take notice. They are acts which can not be ignored.
I have the highest regard for the people in Achraf having been there myself on the couple of occasions. I have high regards for their courage, for their determination and the interest of democracy and freedom, all they desire to create rather than to destroy. On their devotion to the culture which they represent and for so much that they have done. What matters now though is that not only politicians, but lawyers applying the law, the rest of us who are neither politicians nor lawyers should seek to persuade governments on the importance of understanding what it is that the National Council of Resistance and PMOI is seeking to do. What are its true aims? What are its true principals? Unless this is done, you shall not get, we shall not get the support which we rarely deserve.
You all have seen outside on the posters the reference to Mrs. Rajavi’s option. That option is obviously one to be adopted rather than war or appeasement. It obviously equally one which may be slower than the other options which may be available.
But let me say as my second point this to the progress that already has achieved. It is important that this progress should be realized and taken into account. Their progress I know has encouraged people in Achraf. It should encourage people in Iran. It should encourage those outside and the fact that so many of you not hundreds, not thousands, not even ten thousand but I tend far more should be here today is a great encouragement to the further progress. What is the progress that has been made? Well, we have achieved the recognition of the people in Achraf as protected persons under the Geneva Convention. That’s not obscure law. That is a real factual incentive. A real factual achievement to which much importance applies. What happened when American authorities sought to interview all of the people in Achraf to see whether they could find any evidence of terrorism? The answer is that they found none. What happened when letters have been written to the authorities both before and after the new Iraqi government was elected, putting forward complaints, putting forward principals of law which had to be applied. There is letter, there is complaint what taken seriously and properly replied to it.
Now we all recognize and if we don’t, we have to, that governments have an obligation to protect their people and to protect their countries and they may have to impose restrictive measures, sometimes measures which restrict freedom, which restrict activity. But those measures got to be proportionate. They have got to be based on real evidence and it is very important that mistakes should not be made and they should constantly review what they have done.
We heard today about proscription. Well, it is essential that states that proscribe organizations like PMOI should only do so with great caution and should diligently look to see whether what they have done was the right thing. I believe that it is now or the great importance that we should strife to all our governments that these two principals, a cautious application and a constant review should be carried out. It is very good that France in court of appeal has recently revoked those restrictions on movement, those impositions of an obligation to report to police which was imposed to Mrs. Rajavi and 17 other people in Auvers. It is good news that those particular restrictions have been lifted. It is good that German courts have recognized the rights to asylum of the Iranian refugees. It is very good that in the British Parliament only this week the secretary of the Foreign Affairs said that she was sure that the Home Office in England would keep these matters under review and that is a very important factor. It is significant for work which you are doing.
And he goes on, this is said in particular of the PMOI. It said they claimed disarmed in 2003 to become a political organization dedicated to the reform of government in Iran and it also added this, and this is significant when you bear in mind what Mrs. Radjavi was saying about the changes in the international appraisal of the PMOI and the National Council of Resistance position.
The author says this, I am sure that this group has significant parliamentary support across parties in Westminster. I am sure the group referred above will give a serious examination whether, and I stress this, the PMOI should continue to be proscribed. Within support of what Mrs. Radjavi said about the change in world attitude, it is important to bear in mind the many meetings which are being held throughout the world, the pledge, the voice support for PMOI and National Council of Resistance of Iran. Perhaps the most significant is the petition which has been signed in Iraq, not a hundred thousand signatories, not a million signatories, not even 5 million, but more than 5 million people condemning the terrorist tag being affected on the PMOI.
And third, I tell you that in the past few years there has been very considerable progress that has been a serious change in attitude. Now my final point is this, it is a quiet obvious that much of what has happened in these years is due to the leadership of Maryam Radjavi and to the support of her colleagues. Colleagues at Auvers like Mr. Abrishamchi, like Mr. Hashemi, like Mr. Mohadessin. It is important to realize what is being done.
