There are so many serious things to be said under the heading of this conference. Political questions, philosophical questions, religious questions and many others. However, the short film regarding Ashraf City brings to the forefront of one’s mind that we are not just dealing here with principles, politics and religion. We are dealing with the lives of people.
The video of Ashraf shows a realistic picture of what life is like there – the mosque, the buildings, the roads, the farm, the university and schools. The ice-cream there is better than that of anywhere in the world. The music is absolutely fantastic and the warmth of the place reminds one of the importance of this issue to so many people.
The book, ‘Fallen for Freedom’, which contains the details of more than 20,000 PMOI members and sympathisers viciously murdered by the Iranian regime, highlights the atrocities committed against this resistance movement. One reads about the people who have suffered, including so many mothers who have seen their children tortured and killed. In the face of such brutality, Ashraf fills me with great hope, enthusiasm and pride in what has been achieved.
Regrettably, western governments have placed unjustified restrictions on the lives and human rights of these people – to speak freely, to lobby and to campaign for what they believe is right in the interests of freedom, peace and democracy.
However, we can now celebrate the recent decision of the European Court of Justice. This is a judgement of great importance. As you well know, the PMOI was unjustifiably proscribed by the EU. In light of the fact that our own Foreign Minister of the day said that there was no evidence of any terrorist activity by the PMOI in this country or in Europe and no one had any such evidence elsewhere, we thought it was very important to challenge the basis of this proscription by the EU.
Everybody acknowledges that where there is a serious threat to society by terrorists, governments have a duty to act to protect their citizens. However, this must be balanced by basic safeguards. We thought the decision of the EU to proscribe the PMOI was very peculiar and asked where the evidence is that justifies such a step. Not only where is the evidence, but why have you not shown it to us. And so, a team of lawyers, of which I am a very insignificant member, decided that we would challenge this proscription at a hearing before the ECJ. It was a remarkable experience. The result was a judgement of the ECJ, which says if you are going to proscribe a group such as the PMOI, you must first of all clearly set out your complaints and allegations against them. You must also produce the evidence on which the allegations are based and give them a full chance to go before the Council and ultimately a Court of law to defend themselves.
Having considered the case of the PMOI, the judges of the ECJ decided that the PMOI were not told of the case against them and were not given an opportunity to effectively make their response known. The Court decided that the PMOI had been proscribed by a regulation of the Council, which did not follow the basic procedures required by the rule of law. As a result that regulation was annulled to the extent that it concerned the PMOI and therefore all restrictions placed upon the PMOI should be lifted.
This is a great achievement, which will lay down standards for the future. The Council must now remove all restrictions placed on the PMOI. We have got over the first hurdle and I hope and believe that this is a very important step on the way to ensuring that the PMOI is deproscribed. So I congratulate all of you on your dedication and rejoice with you in this great success, which will hopefully be followed by many similar steps.