Posted on 06/02/2008 7:46:11 PM PDT by summers
A court ruling in the UK has recently ordered the British Home secretary to lay an order before the Parliament to withdraw the groups name from the proscribed organisations list. This followed a fierce legal battle between an opposition force that claims to be the antithesis to the religious regime in Iran and the British secretary of State, who has claimed to have taken the decision to proscribe the movement independent of the Iranian regimes demands.
"We expect the EU to immediately remove the PMOI from the list," Rajavi told The Associated Press. "The EU decision was based on U.K.’s decision, which has been declared unlawful, therefore the EU must comply."
(Excerpt) Read more at agoravox.com ...
Only recently Three of Britain’s most senior judges, led by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips gave a final rebuff to the UK Government’s bizarre efforts, over seven years, to appease opponents as terrorists.
This followed a seven-year legal battle by Tehrans main opposition - People’s Mujahadeen of Iran (PMOI), during which British and EU courts have ruled there is no justification for the organisation appearing on the blacklist
A brief look back;
- The PMOI is the pivotal force for any change in Iran and considered as the antithesis to the Iranian problem therefore constant threat to Teharn’s clerical regime.
- In 2002, at the UK’s request, the EU added the PMOI to its own list of terrorist organisations
-The PMOI appeled aginst the decision
- In 2006 the European Court of Justice ruled that this was "unlawful"’ since the PMOI now sought to achieve regime-change in Iran only by peaceful methods. (It was the PMOI which first alerted the world in 2002 to Teheran’s plans to build nuclear weapons.)
-2007the UK’s Proscribed Organisations Appeal Commission described the Government’s refusal to take the PMOI off the UK list as "perverse" and "flawed".
-2008 A final Government legal challenge was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on May 7, prompting Home Secretary Jacqui Smith to agree to remove the PMOI from the UK list.
Conclusion
In all good conscience , not only must the judgments of the courts in London and Luxembourg now be obeyed without delay, but it is time for Western governments to "negotiate with the Iranian resistance, as the one hope of bringing an end to this religious dictatorship which poses a major threat to regional and global peace".
Legal impact of not delisting Iranian resistance from the EU terrorist lists
1. With their "smart sanctions" against individuals and public bodies within the framework of the fight against international terrorism the UN Security Council, and consequently also the EU, made something possible that should not be allowed in a liberal legal system: interference in individual rights without, at the same time, providing appropriate legal appeal. Neither the Ordinance of 13 June 2002 nor the Resolution of 17 June 2002 envisages any possibility of legal protection against the listing by the Council of the European Union. The affected persons and public bodies were not even informed about the listing or the reasons why they were included in the lists.
2. The inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran in the lists has numerous negative impacts on individual persons as well as organisations working on behalf of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran and the national resistance council. Very few of the people are explicitly affected by the measures for fighting terrorism. Most measures have indirect impacts. Here it can be determined that there is a tendency in both the commercial and financial service sector and in immigration and aliens authorities to recognise the decision at EU level, and that in many cases reference can be made to this in justifying behaviour. Here it is particularly problematic that individual persons - from a practical and legal perspective - can hardly be able to take any effective legal action against the blocking of a bank account or a decision regarding naturalisation or asylum that is based on the inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran in the EU’s terrorist list.
3. Inclusion in the EU’s terrorist list without legal protection violates European law, amongst other things the Committee of Ministers’ Guidelines on human rights and the fight against terrorism, which were adopted during 53rd session of the UN Commission on Human Rights. This rules that a person who is accused of terrorist activities has a right to have the case brought before an independent and unbiased court that is based on the rule of law, and that this case should be subjected to a fair trial within an appropriate period of time. (IX.1. of the guidelines) This basic principle is explicitly mentioned under Section XIV. of the guidelines. The EU acts for listing violates the Treaty Establishing the European Community (TEC). Section 253 of the TEC regulates the obligation to provide reasons for legal acts. Furthermore Section 301, 60, 308 of the TEC, as the legal basis for freezing assets of natural persons and groups of persons. Section 301 stipulates that the Community may only act to restrict, respectively completely restrict economic relations with third countries, while embargo measures against individual persons are not mentioned. In other words, the European Community is only empowered to enforce sanctions against countries.
4. The following basic human rights are violated:
Violation of the right to legal hearings: Section 6, sub-section 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights; Section 14, sub-section 1 of the International Covenant on Civic and Political Rights (ICCPR) - Violation of the right to defence: Section 6, sub-section 3 c of the European Convention on Human Rights; Section 14, sub-section 3 b of the ICCPR - Violation of the right to legal remedy: Section 13 European Convention on Human Rights, Section 2, sub-section 1 Protocol No. 7 on the European Convention on Human Rights; Section 14, sub-section 5 of the ICCPR; Section 47 of the Human Rights Charter - Violation of the right to property: Section 1 Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights; Section 1, sub-section 2 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - Violation of the principle of proportionality in connection with the guarantee of property (Section 1 of the Additional Protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights).
5. Terrorism is a political concept. Terrorism research has up to now brought forward more than 100 definitions of the term terrorism. However, this effort has in no way managed to provide us with a recognised definition or even a binding concept of terrorism.
So what is terrorism?
One of the main problems is that formal, juristic terror definitions are applied to any facts of a case. In the case of the inclusion of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran in the list, there was a complete failure to mention the fact that Iran has been one of the most notorious violators of human rights in the world, and that every type of opposition in Iran is eradicated through violent, undemocratic means that violate the rule of law. Consequently, from the very outset there was no debate on whether the policy of the People’s Mojahedin of Iran - namely to engage in an armed struggle within Iran within limits that it defines itself, and outside the immediate battleground to engage in a purely political struggle - can be defined as terrorism.
6. Therefore the EU listings, and consequently the measures applied in connection with them, are based on political decisionism without any legal character and fairness. The entire context of the measures hence not only represents a flagrant violation of the character of the human rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights regarding rights to defence, but they must also be rejected on the basis of a legal philosophical examination of their legal character. In democratic systems the underlying principle is that the rule of law must restrict state power and political decisions. However this basic principle distinguishes between law based on the rule of law and law not based on the rule of law. Should the EU fail to correct the situation they have created through their terror lists - where law is no longer based on the rule of law - and instead continue it and even expand it, there would be a danger of a disastrous development towards "law" that was merely based on the name and had no proper legal basis, and in reality represented a law based on political enemies. Following the end of the East-West confrontation and the fall of the Iron Curtain, this would be a return to the legal understanding of the old political systems, which we believed had been overcome.
Article researche with the help of Dr. Jörg Arnold, lawyer and private lecturer at the University of Münster and the Humboldt University in Berlin and Wolfgang Kaleck, lawyer, Berlin, Chairman of the Republican Lawyers’ Association (RAV),
You might be interested in visiting http://antimullah.com where variation of opinion about the MEK appears but since MEK is against the Mullahs and AntiMullah has no deep seated fear of the Mojaheddin, as do the Mullahs, you may find a more balanced presentation than your very partisan one.
Of special interest may be the article about the Kurds taking their attacks into Tehran. The MEK is still on the USA terrorist organization list but apparently working hard and persuasively to get removed - as successfully in France and the UK.
And French courts.
In my opinion you have the right to promote what you believe but suggest some caution about promoting the MEK, still a terrorist group in the USA and as you say staying on the good side of the legal line.
Some matters can become exceptions to the freedom of speech. Like shouting fire in a crowded cinema.
To most informed Americans, the MEK has turned into a cult for Maryam with feminist Marxist leanings. On the other hand it has potential uses against the Mullah regime in Iran, so AntiMullah withholds their own judgment and criticism for the sake of the bigger picture. As they happen to see it in that very limited aspect.
You cannot count on everyone to see it the same way, so posting pro-MEK information on private sites may not be viewed as acceptable to the site owners/admnistrators and receive an unsympathetic response. As their controlling opinion.
Hello again , it’s nice to see some one so enthusiastic and concerned on the subject of the PMOI! I am so pleased. It is the one subject I welcome amongst all other assignments I have , to debate and prove. So ,as I understand you are some how worried about the site and the owner of the site and also the American public , to be deceived by a genuine Court order that has managed to study 12 detailed documented dossiers provided by the security agents of 5 major countries of the EU over the aspect of terrorism of the group! Ok . I understand very well.
So allow me to clarify some points: OF COURSE with the permission of the respected owner of the site :
- I believe that the US is a democratic state.
- I believe the foundations of the US bill on human rights and the basic values on which President Lincoln- father of passion and peace and mercy and democracy , is based on “Freedom of speech and thought”
- I also believe the owner of this site is as proud as ever to be following the same line of democratic values and tries to provide space for reconciliation and understanding
so , if the above are true .. why worry my friend?
why worry about the judgment of the American public before their knowledge is cleared from smear campaign that has been ongoing for at least 29 years , headed by Iranian backed lobbies?
Tell me please, when does the truth hurt?
and where is the frontiers of forbearance.
I am sure form your wise words that you , yourself have personal understanding and logic of many things in life, including political ones such as the PMOI issue.
-Second, please allow me here to make an other clarification, this article is not one sided analysis of one person that has come into blistering words out of the blues. It is a careful research covered by imminent lawmakers and a result of at least 20 hours of condense study and work of a team.
The second note is that , I do appreciate the fact that you are enlightening me of the realities in the US, but please allow me to rely on your opinion , de facto of unproved prepositions and presumptions .
The released article is a legal opinion based on 2 years of study of 2 high government courts in the United Kingdom. The judges were confronted by several teams of lawyers of the plaintiffs and a great team of lawyers representing the UK Secretary of State. So it is a FACT that this group has been smeared through out these years by the same Tyranny that is massacring its people in Iran, and deceiving the world all over. All the mentioned facts , as you referred in your note, have been reviewed and studied and debated in the court in detail . Because unlike our general view the documentations provided for the court were in great detail and covered 3 suitcases. !!
So , I do actually welcome your view but suggest you reconsider the old fashioned view points of things , because this world is a changing world , and if any one was to be successful , it would be to adapt to changes.
At the moment the court has gone to the extend as to re iterator that this movement-the MEK, is very known amongst hundreds of parliamentarians world wide and prove to be a viable solution to the Iranian crisis. This my dear friend is not MY judgment, but of an official British court , who’s job is to examine in detail, whether the mentioned group is supposed to be in the blacklist or not. And this is what they have ruled, so be it .
Thanks for commenting.. lets be in touch
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.