Individual Case (CAS) - Discussion: 1987, Publication: 73rd ILC session (1987)

Discrimination (Employment and Occupation) Convention, 1958 (No. 111) - Iran (Islamic Republic of) (Ratification: 1964)

The Government has communicated the following information:

As regards the observations made by the Committee of Experts, the following is emphasised:

(1) The activities of foreign-affiliated and espionage organisations and groups are illegal.

(2) Should it be proved in a competent court of law that certain people are members of such organisations or groups, they are excluded from employment in the government sector.

(3) This exclusion is merely due to the membership in illegal organisations.

It is not clear which Article of the Convention calls on the Government not to exclude from its employment the members of an espionnage or a foreign-affiliated organisation. Whereas Article 4 of the Convention stipulates that: "Any measures affecting an individual who is justifiably suspected of, or engaged in, activities prejudicial to the security of the State shall not be deemed to be discrimination...", in accordance with the irrefutable evidence and documents:

(a) The Baha'i organisation was established by the colonial Powers with a view to destroying Islamic values and creating disunion among Moslems. This organisation and its foreign supporters have been responsible for many instances of civil clashes in Iran.

(b) It has continuously been working in the interest of imperialist powers, and has given all-out assistance to them in disrupting Islamic unity in the Islamic countries.

(c) It has directly participated in many of the crimes of the previous regime through the management of the main departments of SAVAK (the Shah's dreadful secret security organisation).

(d) It has greatly shared in the economic exploitation of Iran during the previous regime.

(e) In the course of the victory of the Islamic Revolution, many of its members transferred hundreds of millions of dollars abroad.

(f) Today, this organisation is strongly supported by Western imperialism and international Zionism.

As regards the Freemason organisation the following is highlighted:

(a) The Freemason organisation was established in Iran by the British Empire in the 19th century. It was a secret organisation which was directed by the Embassy of that country. In the course of the victory of the Islamic Revolution important documents including the list of its members were obtained.

(b) The members of this secret organisation were among the most influential and powerful authorities in Iran. The majority of the prime ministers, the presidents of the Senate, and the speakers of the Majlis; a number of the cabinet ministers, members of the Majlis and Senate, capitalists, bankers, owners of the widely circulated papers, director-generals; and many other high officials whose treacheries have been unquestionable were members of this organisation.

(c) From the beginning of its establishment until 1953, when the National Government of Dr. Mossadegh was toppled by a CIA-backed coup d'état, this organisation had been the most powerful secret organisation in making the main policies of the country. Many of the colonialist treaties and agreements which intensified our country's dependency on colonial powers had been imposed by this organisation. After the coup d'état, in collaboration with the agents of the agents of the new imperialist power, Freemasons continued their destructive role until a short while before the victory of the Islamic Revolution.

(d) Many of its members and of those affiliated to the CIA network fled the country just before the victory of the Islamic Revolution and succeeded in transferring billions of dollars abroad.

(e) All the members of this organisation named in the list obtained have had a high level of education and training. Thus, any statement regarding the provision of equal access to training for this group cannot be relevant.

In view of the facts mentioned above, in accordance with the laws of the country, the Baha'i organisation and Freemasonry are illegal organisations and membership therein is also illegal. Every person who is proved by a competent court to be a member of these organisations is excluded from employment in the Government sector. The same applies to any organisation which acts against the principles of independence, national unity, Islamic precepts and the foundation of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In addition, a Government representative stated that the information requested in the report forms and comments of the Committee of experts had mostly been already communicated. Some points, however, apparently required further discussion. He stressed that his Government had fulfilled its reporting obligations under the ILO Constitution. As for Convention No. 111, it had already been pointed out during the general discussion that the point at issue was the circumstances on which the ratification of international labour conventions was based. These were clearly set out in the ILO Constitution and in Convention No. 111 itself, namely national conditions and practice. A member State would decide on ratification after reflecting on the provisions of a Convention as regarded conformity with national conditions and practice. Therefore the criteria for assessing the extent to which a ratified Convention was applied also had to be based on national laws and regulations, national conditions and practice. In his country, as previous discussions had noted, all laws were based on Islamic precepts which had developed over a millennium and a half in the culture, tradition, practice and, indeed, all aspects of the nation's life. Islamic laws were comprehensive, detailed, precise and flexible. They covered all aspects of an individual's activity; Muslim's thoughts and behaviour were based on Islamic teachings.

The Workers' members stated that no change had taken place and that there was no choice but to note in the report that there was confirmed failure to implement as has been done last year.

The Government representative stressed that the Convention was being fully applied and highlighted the preoccupation just expressed by the Workers' spokesman. The gist of the matter was to hear whether Convention No. 111 was being applied in the Islamic Republic of Iran or not. He could state that it definitely was. The statement contained in the Committee of Experts' report which had been the basis of past discussions in the Committee had been clarified by the speaker during previous discussions, particularly over the past two years. What appeared to be lacking in this Committee today was full, mutual understanding based on good intentions. He felt obliged to deplore the manner in which important issues were being handled here; this was not the first time he had observed such behaviour. This Committee was meant to be objective and impartial. He was not prepared to continue dialogue in this atmosphere. This was unfortunate because he had commenced his statement in an attitude of mutual understanding. However, it appeared that this Committee wished to conclude this case now without hearing him out.

The Worker member of the Islamic Republic of Iran noted that this discussion concerned workers' rights, whether they be political or other rights, and that trade unions of workers in his country had been opposed to the harmful attitude adopted towards them and were trying to redress this. One could not exploit a people or a country which was trying to use its freedom. It was through production that a nation could earn the esteem of other countries, and production mobilised the active population. The report of the Committee of Experts did not reflect the facts and did not respect the rights of workers. For example, the language used by the Experts proved that, in the Islamic Republic of Iran, religion was of primary importance. The report mentioned the situation of the Baha'i group but did not state that Baha'is were spies who had been contributing secret information to foreign powers. The written information which had been sent to the Committee of Experts had indicated that there were many spies in the country who needed to be punished. Already last year, he has referred to the capitalist leaders of these entities and to the fact that, after the 1979 revolution, Iranian workers had been able to eliminate the Shah's regime which had supported these capitalists. The Baha'is had betrayed their country and were therefore a danger to national security. Before the revolution they had played a role in the repression of the workers' movement and the blood-thirsty acts of Baha'i leaders had not been forgotten. Iranian workers could not accept the return of capitalism.

The Workers' members recalled that in the general discussion the Workers' representative had raised the possibility of the Committee of Experts visiting his country to assess the situation on the spot. The Workers' members had replied that this was not customary but had noted that direct contacts were possible.

The Government representative noted that the question of direct contacts as to whether Convention No. 111 was being applied had already been put last year, and the same reply given, namely, that since it clearly was, there was no need for direct contacts.

The Employers' members noted that the Government had not spoken on the substance of the provisions of Convention No. 111. The Governments written reply was but a repetition of previous information. The Committee of Experts had noted that the Baha'is were considered to be spies and therefore suffered discrimination, particularly in their working life. This espionage and conspiracy theory was being referred to again now, but they noted that information contained in the United Nations Human Rights Commission document cited by the Committee of Experts agreed that there had been discrimination in employment. It appeared that Baha'is only got jobs if they renounced their religion. The Employers' members' reaction was therefore similar to the past. They believed that Islam did not permit discrimination on the grounds of beliefs and recalled that the Convention called for no discrimination on religious or political grounds. They were obliged to note that the Convention was not only not being complied with, but was being seriously violated.

The Government representative cited paragraph 40 of the United Nations report just referred to (E/CN4/1987/23) which had described the basis of Islam, including its respect for human beings and for differences of religion.

The Worker member of Pakistan recalled that, being from a brotherly nation, he was well aware of the atrocities under the Shah's regime. At the same time, however, he recognised the wish for a better life for all workers. He thought that this Committee should consider that Iranian legislation be brought into conformity with the Convention. He stressed that if some people behaved badly then they should be punished. A whole sect, however, could not be punished for the acts of a few members. Consequently, the Government should review the situation and continue dialogue with the Committee of Experts and the Office. He believed that Islam stood for justice and tolerance, and those who worked against this should be punished after a proper trial.

The Government representative, with all due respect to all the workers could not agree with them. The question under discussion was obscure; he had only commenced his statement and the rest of the information he had wished to give on the case had not been given. He therefore expressed his delegation's objection to the Conclusions and the manner in which they had been drawn up.

The Committee noted that the report due had not been received from the Government, and that, according to the information available, the situation had not changed. Consequently, as proposed by the Employers' and Workers' members, it adopted, as in 1986, the following conclusions:

The Committee took note of the oral and written information provided by the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As in 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986, it again expressed its deep concern regarding the problems which continued to exist in connection with the application of the Convention. The Committee again emphasised that the Government should abolish discrimination, particularly discrimination based on sex, religion, political opinion, and national or social origin, since such discrimination contravened the Convention. The Committee decided to mention the present case in the general part of its report under the heading "Continued failure to implement".

The Committee decided to mention this case in the general part of the report in a special paragraph to this end.

The Government representative, with all due respect to all the workers could not agree with them. The question under discussion was obscure; he had only commenced his statement and the rest of the information he had wished to give on the case had not been given. He therefore expressed his delegation's objection to the Conclusions and the manner in which they had been drawn up.