‘Death to the Islamic Republic’: Narges Mohammadi Reveals Details of Her Evin Prison Protest for the First Time in Podcast Talk

‘Death to the Islamic Republic’: Narges Mohammadi Speaks Out in Rare Podcast Interview During Medical Leave

 

Nobel Peace Prize laureate and Iranian human rights activist Narges Mohammadi, currently on a temporary sentence suspension from prison, has publicly shared details of an incident that happened in Evin Prison while she was in detention.

 

In a newly released episode of the Patt Podcast, hosted by former political prisoner and activist Hossein Razzagh, Mohammadi describes how she climbed onto the roof of a car, in Evin Prison yard, without forced hijab, and shouted “Death to the Islamic Republic” in protest of the denial of medical care to a fellow inmate.

 

This conversation was recorded in the Patt Podcast studio in Tehran. Following the recording, the studio was raided by authorities, reportedly in response to the interview with Mohammadi.

 

In the podcast, Mohammadi reflects on the broader struggle for democracy and human rights in Iran, emphasizing the inseparability of women’s rights from the fight against authoritarianism.

 

“You cannot draw a line separating the women’s movement for achieving women’s rights from their stance on ending the Islamic Republic. You just can’t,” she asserts.

She further states:
“Democracy is based on human rights—human rights are the very essence of democracy.”

Mohammadi highlights the regime’s oppressive nature, noting:
“The situation of the people is such that they have come to believe that with each day the Islamic Republic continues to exist, the length of their own lives shortens.”

She also discusses the evolving nature of resistance in Iran:
“Dialogue is part of our struggle under current conditions. These conditions have their own requirements—they’re different from ten years ago, from twenty years ago. I’d even say they’re different from the time before the ‘Woman, Life, Freedom’ movement.”

 

The full conversation is available on the Patt Podcast YouTube Channel.

 

 

 

Narges Mohammadi’s Talk with Patt Studio Podcast hosted by Hossein Razzagh aired on 28th April 2025. Here is the English Text from their conversation.

 

[00:00.0]
N : In my opinion, the most dangerous form of tyranny is religious tyranny. We have no choice but to engage in dialogue with one another.

H : I am a human rights activist focused on political matters, because if our political issues aren’t resolved, our human rights issues won’t be either.

N: Human rights defenders are considered the first opponents of authoritarian regimes.

[00:20.7]
N : The situation of the people is such that they have come to believe that with each day the Islamic Republic continues to exist, the length of their own lives shortens.

N : Democracy is based on human rights—human rights are the very essence of democracy.

[00:41.1]
N : If human rights activities aim to target the foundations that support this regime, then they are essentially striking at its roots.

[00:56.7]
H : I want to speak more frankly. Are you looking for us to simply move past religious tyranny? That’s what the 1979 revolutionaries used to say: “This country won’t be a true homeland until the Shah is buried.” Then they got rid of him, but made no plan for what came after.

N : If we’re seeking to establish democracy, one of its key requirements is securing women’s rights.

[01:12.9]
N : You cannot draw a line separating the women’s movement for achieving women’s rights from their stance on ending the Islamic Republic. You just can’t.

[01:28.1]
N : In this equation, we see elements of resistance, of standing firm, and of progress.
Dialogue is part of our struggle under current conditions. These conditions have their own requirements—they’re different from ten years ago, from twenty years ago. I’d even say they’re different from the time before the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement.

N : I know what you’re going to say—that I didn’t wear a hijab and my hair was showing.
H : That’s nothing new.

[02:02.8]
H : Greetings and respect to all the dear listeners and audience of StudioPat. I’m Hossein Razzagh, and here we are again with another episode of the Emkan program—what I must say is a truly exceptional and special episode with a very special guest.

[02:32.2]
H : It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that today’s guest is one of the most prominent and well-known political figures in the country right now. I have the honor of hosting her today—Ms. Narges Mohammadi, welcome.

N : Thank you so much.

H : Ms. Mohammadi, it’s been almost a year since you received one of the world’s biggest human rights awards. It’s actually the second time an Iranian has received it—Ms. Shirin Ebadi was the first.

H : But your award had a different flavor.

[03:06.6]
H : That’s because our society was in the midst of a major social movement. The atmosphere and discourse of society were moving in a direction that needed global reinforcement—needed international support.

Your award sparked great hope in people’s hearts. It was very timely and well-deserved.
Now I wonder—did receiving this award make a difference in your behavior, your actions, your activism before and after the award?

N : When I received the award, I was in prison.

[03:43.1]
N : Consider the special nature of receiving the news of the Nobel Prize under those conditions — I was deprived of access to society, to international institutions, even to the Nobel Peace Committee and my own family.

So I want to say this was a unique feature of this prize — for someone to win the Nobel Peace Prize under such circumstances.

And in a way, maybe it was an advantage. An advantage in the sense that, as you mentioned, we were in the throes of a powerful and magnificent movement called Woman, Life, Freedom. From Kurdistan to Sistan and Baluchestan and all corners of Iran, people were protesting.

This movement had taken flight, and many were wondering how to amplify its voice even more. So in fact, this was an opportunity for the name of Iran, for the women’s movement, for the fighters for freedom, equality, and democracy, to be seen worldwide through a clear and specific image of the Woman, Life, Freedom movement.

[05:21.6]
N : On the other hand, another notable aspect was that in many cases of human rights violations — whether involving victims or human rights defenders and peace advocates, both inside and outside Iran — international human rights organizations or Iranian human rights defenders were trying to expose the face of the Islamic Republic as a human rights violator.

[05:52.9]
N : To introduce and better understand what we call religious tyranny. So I believe this created a global reflection: the image of someone who won the Nobel Peace Prize, who committed no crime other than defending human rights and women’s rights, and advocating for peace — and yet is imprisoned.

[06:22.4]
N : In my opinion, this clearly illustrated the intensity of repression under this dictatorial regime. Anywhere in the world, when someone wins this award — for example, the current Nobel Peace Prize winner in Belarus is in prison — that not only highlights the individual, but also immediately reveals the true face of the regime.

A peace activist, a human rights defender, is in jail — and the world must understand the scale of human rights violations, repression, and authoritarianism taking place.

[07:13.1]
N : These were the evident aspects of this award, in my view. But what responsibility did it create for me?

Well, when I was in prison, my circumstances were somewhat different from now.

[07:29.2]
N : Still, I often said — and declared — even inside prison that the walls of prison do not define me. Meaning, if the Islamic Republic tries to imprison me so that prison walls can silence me, or make me give up or retreat from struggle—

[07:50.1]
N : These walls do not have that power over me. They’ve lost that capacity. I received the prize in the ninth year of my imprisonment.

[08:01.8]
N : Even inside prison, I did everything I could to fulfill the responsibilities this award placed on my shoulders. Though of course, the cost was high for me.

[08:17.2]
N : My phone access was completely cut off. Even before my most recent arrest, I had made repeated requests to the prison to allow me to call Ali Akbariyan using the international dial code, but they refused.

[08:32.6]
N : In reality, I used to talk to my father. He was nearly 90 years old. But after the Nobel Prize was announced and they cut off my phone line, I didn’t hear my father’s voice for three months. He passed away, and they didn’t even allow me to attend his burial.

[08:50.4]
N : They denied me the chance to attend his funeral. I couldn’t say a final goodbye to my father. It’s true that the restrictions increased, but the truth is — it made me stronger.

[09:05.5]
N : It increased my motivation and hope. Now that I’m out of prison, I feel that responsibility has doubled, because even those walls aren’t there anymore. I’ve done everything I could — though I had just come out of major surgery.

[09:23.4]
N : They had opened up my leg bone, shaved it, removed a mass, and performed a bone graft. It was one of the most serious and concerning surgeries I’ve had. But I tried to ensure even illness wouldn’t stop my struggle. I hope that whether I’m behind the wall, inside prison, or on this side of the wall, in the streets and among my fellow citizens, I can fulfill my duty.

[09:59.2]
H : Ms. Mohammadi, in every statement you make, every speech you give — even just now — you place a strong emphasis on saying religious tyranny when you refer to tyranny. It’s true that the official name of this system is the Islamic Republic, and that it is a religious government. But one could simply say tyranny—

[10:14.6]
H : You could call it a dictatorship. But when you say “religious despotism,” you’re attributing a specific ideological aspect to this regime.

Does this Islamic ideology—this revolutionary, political Islam of the Islamic Republic—make its human rights violations more profound, which is why you emphasize it?

N : Look, in my view, we need to approach this conversation based on experience.

[10:40.6]
N : That is, when we present some concepts in an abstract form, they may be difficult to understand for someone—a third party—sitting on the other side of the world, watching. It may create doubt or confusion.

[11:03.7]
N : So, in these situations, we try to accompany these concepts—what exists in our mental lives and what we want to communicate—with the strategy of storytelling.

[11:20.4]
N : I believe I have the right to use this strategy. Because I am a 52-year-old woman who has lived in the Middle East, in Iran, and I’ve lived under the Islamic regime since I was six or seven years old. And when we make the discussion concrete, based on our own personal experiences or those of others whose stories we know and can tell, we align with that.

[12:00.8]
N : I believe that helps in understanding these concepts and these mental realities.
From this point, I want to return to the fact that I, as a woman who has lived under the Islamic Republic regime—when I say lived, I want to be a bit more precise here.

[12:26.1]
N : I want to speak about my childhood, my adolescence, the different stages of my life, the more nuanced and diverse points of my life. My youth, my experience of becoming a mother.

[12:44.1]
N : When I reflect on all of this, I see that the religious aspect you mentioned cast a shadow over every part of my life.

[13:00.3]
N : I believe that for all of us Iranians, in this experience that’s lasted more than four decades, even if we look at the most private and hidden corners of our lives, we see they’ve been affected by this religious nature of the regime.

[13:25.3]
N : In other words, even when we thought we had crawled into the furthest, most distant place from the regime to be safe from the radiation of this religious regime—from its rays—it wasn’t possible.

[13:46.9]
N : We were still caught in it. This ideology was present in the atmosphere we lived in—it shaped the air we breathed—and it wrapped itself around everything. I’m intentionally using the word “wrapped.”

[14:04.4]
N : It was not a force that could be restrained, controlled, or limited. You couldn’t define a boundary for it. We never managed to, through all these years—with all the ups and downs, during the war years, during what were called the reformist years, during the so-called moderate era, throughout the 1980s—

[14:37.2]
N : —all of them. You couldn’t say, “This is the boundary, the limit I define.”
What I’m trying to say is that a religious authoritarian regime, specifically because of its religious nature—

[15:01.7]
N : —it infiltrates every corner and dimension of your life. It seeps in. You see? It doesn’t just rely on political levers. You can’t look at it as a mere political structure anymore.

[15:19.2]
N : It uses propaganda, cultural engineering, social conditioning—imposing what it believes and trying to dominate society through it. It uses education. It uses upbringing.

[15:35.3]
N : About society’s beliefs, norm-setting— all of these are utilized by the regime’s religious and ideological nature in order to encircle the lives of every individual.

[15:54.6]
N : Even those who do not hold religious beliefs. You see? So yes, I emphasize the term “religious authoritarian regime.” I use it. I also link its misogynistic nature to that. In fact, this misogyny has been intensified precisely because of the religious and ideological character of this regime. You see? So I want to say yes, this religious authoritarianism might be unique.

[16:35.3]
N : It may have many things in common with other authoritarian regimes, but it also has unique aspects that stem from its religious nature. And in my view, the most dangerous form of authoritarianism is religious authoritarianism.

[16:54.8]
N : Now, under the control of a religious authoritarian regime, as you said—under the grip of a totalitarian system—all our affairs become political. Even buying bread becomes political. And this is not just the case with the Islamic Republic or a religious government.

[17:11.3]
N : In life under any totalitarian and authoritarian regime, everything becomes political. Now, as a human rights activist with a very long history in this field—do you consider your human rights work as separate from politics, or not? Do you say, “I’m just a human rights activist”?

[17:30.6]
N : “I only speak about human rights violations”? Whereas, if we look at it carefully, human rights violations are carried out by a political structure. So do you limit your activities strictly to human rights and say you are not political? Or do you say, “I’m a human rights activist engaged in political matters”?

[17:50.4]
N : Because if political issues are not addressed, then human rights issues cannot be addressed either. Look, it’s better to start from here: the effort to realize human rights, in authoritarian regimes, is an extremely exhausting struggle.

[18:11.1]
N : Take the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for example. Activists around the world have worked to promote it, to realize it, to make people aware of its articles—and they accept every possible risk in doing so.

[18:37.3]
N : When we speak of torture as a human rights violation, when we talk about the right to life as the most basic, essential human right, or when we talk about the justice system…

[18:57.9]
N : …the criteria and standards that must exist for fair and just trials, and so on—then you see it all outlined in the two international covenants: the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

[19:19.5]
N : Under this covenant, wherever you look—in governments, in authoritarian regimes—we face severe confrontation with the regime. Because essentially, our insistence on upholding human rights first and foremost runs into the regime’s rigid, harsh, and violent wall.

[19:50.1]
N : Because it is fundamentally the regime itself that violates these rights. So whenever you speak out against human rights violations, it’s as if you are standing in opposition to the government.

[20:06.6]
N : Whenever I speak to oppose human rights violations, I inevitably confront the state. The first enemy of human rights is the authoritarian government. Therefore, standing against human rights violations, in the truest sense, means standing against a regime that is authoritarian, tyrannical, a religious dictatorship, misogynistic—all of these things.

[20:35.0]
N : That’s why I use the word confrontation. There is a confrontation between authoritarian forces and human rights defenders.

[20:52.8]
N : Democracy is based on human rights—human rights are the essence of democracy. And when you speak about authoritarian rule, you’re describing something that is the complete opposite of that mindset and approach.

[21:08.7]
N : So essentially, a human rights defender doesn’t stand in opposition by choice, but rather is forced into that position—due to the nature of this situation, this contradiction between two worldviews. They become a target of the regime.

[21:28.9]
N : And to the extent that human rights defenders strive to achieve human rights, it’s as though they are working toward the dismantling of tyranny and authoritarianism.

[21:48.0]
N : They weaken it. On what foundations does authoritarianism build its power? Where does its strength lie? I go back again to the strategy I mentioned at the beginning.

[22:06.0]
N : Just look: opponents speak out. Protesters take to the streets. Activists resist. And what does the regime do? It executes them. It tortures them.

[22:22.6]
N : It sends them to solitary confinement. It keeps them there for days, months, even years. It sends them to court—courts that have absolutely nothing to do with justice.

[22:38.5]
N : They’re injustice courts. I deliberately use the phrase “nothing to do with justice.” They are completely disconnected from truth, from the pursuit of truth. Alien to truth, turning their backs on justice—they sit the accused in front of a judge and call it a legal process.

[23:00.9]
N : And in the area of women’s rights—look at what the regime has done. From culture, to the public sphere, to the private sphere—it has sought to control everything. In legislation through parliament, in enforcement through the executive, in punishment through the judiciary, and through its subsidiaries:

[23:33.2]
N : Islamic propaganda, hijab and chastity policies, the morality police—all of these have been used to design a system. And that system is called gender apartheid. The regime is built on this.

[23:52.2]
N : The foundations and supporting pillars of this regime—from its identity to its function and performance—are based on these structures.

[24:07.2]
N : If human rights activities aim to target the regime’s foundational supports, then in fact, they are striking at its roots.

[24:25.2]
N : They strike at the roots of authoritarianism. And if our vision is democracy, then these actions are gradually building, founding, and strengthening the structure of democracy.

[24:44.1]
N : In my opinion, through this lens—as you said—human rights defenders are seen as the primary opponents of authoritarian regimes. Their actions are not tolerated in such regimes.

[25:03.9]
N : They cannot tolerate it, and in fact, human rights defenders are truly seen—and in my opinion, rightly so—as enemies. The Islamic Republic has shown us that position and treated us accordingly.

[25:23.7]
H : I’m reminded of one of your letters from Zanjan prison. I think it was in 2017, after the December protests. It had a very key sentence: “Reformism was not our pact. It was our agreement for a different pact.” Did I quote it correctly? – Yes. – Now with what you just said, it becomes very clear that the pact is something else.

[25:47.7]
H : So let me speak more plainly: are you just seeking for us to move past religious despotism? To transition beyond it? Like the 1979 revolutionaries who said, “This land won’t become a homeland until the Shah is buried,” and then had no plan for what came after.

[26:02.8]
H : Khomeini handed us the closed box of the Islamic Republic, and then 98%—whether true or not—said “yes.” Are you, Narges Mohammadi, saying the same thing—that this despotism is destroying us and we need to move past it—or do you also have a vision and plan for Iran’s future?

[26:21.4]
H : Do you have a vision in mind and say, “Without achieving democracy, we’ll just end up back where we started”?

N : I believe the point of origin and destination make very clear where a person, a movement, or a society stands.

[26:44.5]
N : Our current situation is very clear. In my view, it goes beyond the clash between a political group and the Islamic Republic. It is a confrontation between a society and a regime.

[27:01.8]
N : Every Iranian, no matter where they live in this country—even in terms of the environment—is in conflict with the Islamic Republic.

[27:18.0]
N : It leads to a clash with the Islamic Republic. In the realm of culture, for example, someone may not even be politically active—not part of any party or group—but through their cultural activities, they find themselves standing in direct opposition to the government.

[27:42.4]
N : They see their own survival as being in conflict with the survival of this regime. In livelihood and economy, you see that people have come to believe that with each additional day the Islamic Republic survives, their own lives grow shorter.

[28:07.6]
N : Even the life of the homeland—the life of the land of Iran—shortens. This is too vast a topic to fully unpack here. But yes, from personal and individual issues to broader societal ones…

[28:30.8]
N : From ethnic issues, from women’s issues, from economic and social matters, to even environmental ones, all of them lead us to one point: that we are all standing against the Islamic Republic—or that it stands against all of us.

[28:58.7]
N : This is a mutually defined confrontation. So, in this context, as a human rights activist, I believe reform is not possible.

[29:21.7]
H : You know, this is not about a political group or person’s desire for reform—we’ve tried that. Over twenty years of trial.
N : Yes, this isn’t about whether someone wants reform. If we want to approach the matter realistically…

[29:40.9]
N : Reform within the Islamic Republic is not possible. On the other hand, is it just the religious despotism, misogyny, or the irreformable nature of the regime?

No. There’s something else we must add—and I think this is the most decisive part: this regime is fundamentally ineffective. It is incompetent.

[30:18.1]
N : This regime no longer even represents the people of Iran. On what basis does the Islamic Republic claim to represent the Iranian people?

H : They say 40% participated in the elections.

N : What kind of election, with what standards? If each…

[30:38.3]
N : Even if they claim to follow the international charter of the parliament, they are completely contradicting it. So in such a situation, I believe in transitioning from the Islamic Republic regime. I believe that the will of the Iranian people — and we, alongside the people, shoulder to shoulder — is to bring an end to a religious authoritarian regime, to bring an end to the Islamic Republic.

[31:14.1]
H : Now then, what tools do we have?
N : Yes. Within this framework and with this approach, our starting point — though it is indeed a continuation of all the struggles that have gone on for over four decades against the Islamic Republic — is clear.

[31:35.9]
N : The transition from religious authoritarianism is important — but to what? To democracy, to freedom, to equality. In my opinion, this is a decisive matter. I believe there are necessary requirements to achieve democracy, freedom, and equality.

[32:04.5]
N : One of those requirements, in my view, is that gender apartheid must come to an end. Democracy without women’s rights is essentially not democracy. And throughout these consecutive decades, we have experienced the harshest forms of discrimination against women.

[32:29.5]
N : And the more that this discrimination, oppression, and suppression against women has intensified, the more democracy has been weakened. It’s a completely direct and inverse relationship.

[32:50.6]
N : So, if we are seeking to realize democracy, one of its essential requirements is the realization of women’s rights. As long as we do not end gender apartheid, talking about democracy can become just another abstract concept.

[33:09.0]
N : If we want to live in democracy, if we want a democratic society, if we want to enjoy democratic governance, in my view, first and foremost, we must clarify our stance on women and women’s rights.

[33:27.6]
N : I believe that women are a benchmark — a measure. For any individual, any political movement, any group, any society — to clarify its relationship with secularism…

[33:43.0]
N : To clarify its relationship with human rights, and even its relationship with democracy itself. This relationship is measurable. It is visible. So first and foremost, I raise the issue of women, and I believe that both groups and movements…

[34:06.7]
N : And the Iranian society — we have the lived experience. We know what domination over women means. Even if it brings some benefit to a segment of society, that benefit comes at an irreparable cost to the whole society and to our future.

[34:30.7]
N : So, any so-called benefit gained through the violation of women’s rights must be ignored. We must absolutely keep this in mind and prioritize the realization of women’s rights — because this defines the level of our democracy.

[34:51.7]
N : It defines the level of a society’s access to human rights. But the second issue, in my view, is human rights itself. Differences, even contradictions — anything across the spectrum, any kind of disagreement in society — must not result in people being stripped of their human rights.

[35:21.7]
N : Losing their dignity and human worth. This must be a priority. And I believe that democracy without human rights is lifeless — it becomes weak very easily.

[35:36.9]
N : They’ll undermine it, hollow it out — and then we’re left having to save democracy. So, I believe we must view human rights as a necessary and inevitable requirement for our future — for the future of our land, our people, and of humanity.

[35:58.6]
N : Because we live in Iran. Iran is in the Middle East. Iran can be one of the powerful and influential models in this region. It is best that we take the right steps toward democracy.

[36:14.0]
H : That time you were holding your meeting, we were in prison. Right next to you — wall to wall — and the sound of your friends cheering in the women’s half-yard.

H : And because, after all, this is the Islamic Republic’s prison, I have to call it by that name — the Islamic Republic.

[36:30.4]
H : Cell number zero. But, well, the women’s prison. From the sound of cheering, we realized that you had won the prize, and when we contacted the outside and asked the family, they said, yes, Ms. Mohammadi won the prize, and we were here. It was truly an exciting and wonderful moment.

[36:46.1]
H : At that moment, when we were talking with friends, we said that Narges needs to clarify whether she wants to be a leader, a voice, or a flag-bearer. Maybe she will define her position herself. I don’t consider myself in that position.

H : But anyway, does she want to push this movement forward, or should she focus on the political realm and work toward establishing a new movement, a new initiative, a new direction?

[37:14.2]
H : With the statements you made about women’s rights being the central principle in the future government, we come to the conclusion that you make no distinction and prioritize it. This is because of the forty-some years of discrimination that have existed in society and the gender apartheid, which has essentially become an epidemic across this country, throughout this land. This apartheid exists…

[37:38.4]
H : …in families, in patriarchal lives, it has existed. Do you not make a distinction or do you want to push forward the women’s movement? Because, you see, advancing the women’s movement means claiming women’s rights.

[37:53.5]
N : Do you think that when women are fighting in the streets against the government, they are simply seeking to claim women’s rights by not wearing the headscarf? With this question, you should have reached your answer.

[38:10.4]
N : Look, fundamentally, this cannot be separated. You cannot make this distinction. You cannot draw a line between the women’s movement for women’s rights and their stance on ending the Islamic Republic.

[38:32.3]
N : You cannot. These issues are so intertwined that if you make this separation, you’re essentially making the discussion abstract. You can only have this debate on paper. But when you go to the level of society, you’re inevitably forced to accept the reality.

[38:48.0]
N : The reality is that women are at the forefront of ending the Islamic Republic. There’s nothing else to it. So, don’t think that the girl who takes off her headscarf and gets shot in the street…

[39:08.2]
N : …is just saying, “I want to take off my headscarf.” No. She is standing in complete opposition to the domination, to the oppression of a religious authoritarian regime, standing tall and paying the price.

[39:25.7]
N : The Islamic Republic cannot say, “I am imprisoning them just because, in my view, this is a religious duty and they should wear the Islamic hijab.” No. The Islamic Republic knows full well that the subjugation of women is a strategic point for the regime.

[39:52.6]
N : If we strike at this strategic point, this strategic center, we will succeed. Alongside the other activities we undertake, and I believe that women are at the forefront.

[40:08.5]
N : In my view, women will shatter the lifespan of the Islamic Republic. Right now, they have already cracked the glass of the Islamic Republic’s existence. Fearless women are in the streets. The more you see women as combatants against domination, subjugation, marginalization, discrimination, and gender apartheid, the more you see the politics of the regime.

[40:36.1]
N : Which force or political movement do you see? It is the women who stood up. You see, women showed their power, causing the government to lose its confidence. The government had sought a subjugated woman, confined to the home and family, where the man is the head of the household, the law of the Islamic Republic.

[40:58.9]
N : A woman who is subjugated, who cannot become president, who cannot become a leader, who can only do things in lower levels of society. All of these policies have been based on subjugating women.

[41:16.5]
N : But now, the woman has become powerful, standing tall against an oppressive regime, not backing down. And so, the issue here is not whether we reduce our analysis to simply the struggle for, for example, the right to wear a hijab.

[41:44.0]
N : No, we cannot do that. We must accept reality. Women want to end tyranny.
Women want to end domination, control, and subjugation.

[42:00.2]
N : Women seek equality and freedom. Achieving freedom and equality means ending the Islamic Republic. In what process will the Islamic Republic end? How will it be destroyed?

H : Well, that’s my question now.

[42:17.5]
N : With the continuation of these resistances, with the continuation of these struggles—
H : despite the oppression
N : Yes, this is inevitable.
H : Ms. Mohammadi…
N : you cannot change the equation.

[42:32.7]
N : In this equation, we see the elements of resistance, steadfastness, and progress. I mean, now you see that society is moving step by step. Resistance doesn’t mean simply standing still and insisting on the same point.

[42:53.6]
N : Step by step, society is progressing. You see, step by step, as society moves forward, the government, not by its own will or desire, is being pushed back. Why can’t they implement the Hijab and Chastity bill?
H : They are scared.
N : They have all the legal tools at their disposal.

[43:13.5]
N : They have the power with all these committees, all these hijab enforcers. Over the past 46 years, they have made the greatest investments in mandatory hijab.

N : Look at all the institutions they’ve established, both on a large scale and a small scale, officially and unofficially.

[43:36.5]
N : Look at the total amount, and see how much they have invested. They’ve made substantial material and spiritual investments, tying their identity to this issue. It’s like a military investment, a huge investment for the subjugation of half of society—women—in order to assert control over the entire society.

[44:03.2]
N : They wanted to show society that you are under our control. You see, in my opinion, mandatory hijab was the bloodline of the regime’s control, the vein and flow of authority in society.

[44:26.2]
N : Look at the schools. You could see an image of authoritarian religious rule there. Half of the students wore the Islamic hijab. Look at the workplace.

[44:43.5]
N : Half of the workforce presented a clear image of an Islamic society. Why do you think the Islamic Republic, from the very beginning of its consolidation, sought mandatory hijab? Why did it enter into this confrontation with society? Why didn’t it yield to the protests of women who came out in the streets? In my opinion, if the Islamic Republic wanted to showcase an Islamic society to the world, what should it have done? It needed to set up an Islamic display.

[45:14.4]
N : So, how should this Islamic display be set up with the Islamic hijab in the realm of sciences? Even in Islamic sciences, what did it have to offer? In the cultural sphere, what efficient force did it have that could influence the creation of this Islamic society for the world to see that we have established an Islamic society?

[45:45.8]
N : What did it have? It was impoverished. It tried, but it was impoverished. It presented an image of an Islamic society to the world with women wearing scarves and chadors.

[46:01.5]
N : To show that we have established an Islamic society. Which foundation, which force, which people? Therefore, this was a key point. This was truly a decisive point in the Islamic Republic’s strategy.

[46:25.8]
N : And so, if women stand at the forefront, they won’t wear the scarf. They face heavy financial penalties. Look at this.

[46:41.1]
N : Economic centers are suffocating people in this poor economic situation. Because of the hijab, they are closing businesses. They are emptying people’s pockets. A young person, with the little money in their pocket, trying to make a living, is not a simple thing.

[46:59.7]
N : It’s not just because they want to take off their scarf. The cost isn’t just for removing the scarf. This is a real cost for ending this system of domination. Therefore, I don’t think this can be easily separated, and I believe that the continuation of this process, this kind of resistance, and this kind of steadfastness.

[47:29.2]
N : And progress is aimed at ending the Islamic Republic.

H : Now, we come to the question of what tools we have to transition from this system of domination? This regime has everything.

[47:44.3]
H : It is equipped with its machinery of repression, and it adds to its tools every day. What do we have? What do people have?

N : It depends on how we look at it, what we see as power.

[48:02.9]
N : What do we see as the determining force, and where do we invest? I believe that the people of Iran have power. Our power is completely evident. It’s true that the Islamic Republic has lost its proxy forces in the region, and it has been confined within its borders.

[48:28.5]
N : And it no longer has that power in the region. But I believe it is more hurt by its isolation within its borders. You see, society is now living its own life, meaning it lives in a parallel world to this government.

[48:53.9]
N : It has no common ground with the government. The government promotes and acts on everything it thinks, but the people have no connection to it. Essentially, the path for communication and dialogue with this government is blocked, just as the government attempts to block our social mobility.

[49:18.4]
N : You know, this is what power means—the people also have power, and in response to the government’s policies, they act in kind. In Václav Havel’s The Power of the Powerless, I read this several times while in prison.

[49:37.6]
N : He said that society goes on living its lifestyle, creating a deep rift with the government. It goes on for itself, and this happens without any intersection with the government.

[49:55.1]
N : Our society has become like this—a deep, irreparable rift between the people and the government. And I believe that the people, particularly in the Women, Life, Freedom movement, especially in the events following the movement’s start—after the killing of Mahsa (Jina) Amini in Iran—have been able to show their strength, and the Islamic Republic is now afraid of this power.

[50:29.6]
N : Imagine, every class and group in society, from doctors, teachers, and workers, to even retirees, you know, they are all protesting.

[50:45.7]
N : They are in the streets of the city. They are present. They are chanting. They are voicing their demands. And they have a voice. You see, something has happened. We need to understand this event.

[51:03.2]
N : The people of Iran have managed to bring their voice of protest and opposition to the global hearing level. This voice is audible worldwide. It has risen to such an extent, producing a frequency that has reached the level of global hearing.

[51:24.3]
N : This means that the people, the people of the world, the media, international organizations, and even governments hear the voice of the Iranian people, and the Islamic Republic is trying to reduce this voice’s audibility.

[51:39.8]
N : Our power is here. Our position is here. This is where we must stand. I believe that the people are a powerful, determining parameter in the equation of transitioning from the Islamic Republic, from religious dictatorship to democracy.

[51:57.9]
N : The people have gained awareness. They have gained understanding. They have reached a point where that point is decisive. The Islamic Republic knows that this means power. And I think now we must look at ourselves.

[52:13.5]
N : In this equation, we need to address the determining parameter. What matters to us? What is valuable? What should we do? I think the Islamic Republic is doing everything it can to…

[52:37.3]
N : Cause society to fragment and break apart. To create distance between individuals.

H : This is one of its repressive tools, too. Yes, ultimately, it is trying to survive. It is trying to cause division.

N : Yes, it wants to increase the distance between groups, between individuals, and between influential elements in society as much as possible.

[53:04.8]
N : You see, every society has faults. There are disagreements. There are differences. In the case of earthquakes, for example, even right now, Tehran has faults.

[53:22.5]
N : The moment these faults activate… That is when the disaster will happen. The Islamic Republic wants to activate these faults, and you can see that it does not miss any opportunity to activate these faults, meaning the divisions between people.

[53:48.3]
N : I think the caring individuals, the movements that are thinking about the future of Iran, about freeing the people of Iran from the grip of a ruthless, violent religious dictatorial regime, should be considering this.

[54:08.3]
N : They need to give special attention to this issue. They should not see this issue as secondary in their strategies. We need to focus on dialogue right now.

[54:27.8]
N : I believe, I truly believe, that the more we can enlarge the table for dialogue, the more we can recognize the differences. You see, recognizing the differences is one of the most important steps to make the dialogue lead to a real outcome for transitioning away from the Islamic Republic.

[54:59.0]
N : We must have an understanding of these differences. We must comprehend these differences, you know, and this requires a collective will. This is not about the will of one person, nor advice and counsel. I believe this requires a collective will, where we commit ourselves to see, recognize, acknowledge, and understand the differences, and through dialogue, find solutions.

[55:30.7]
H : Unconditional dialogue? With all opposition groups?

N : You see, I believe Iranian society is a pluralistic society. I mean, you can see this in various aspects of people’s lives, even in how they live.

[55:50.6]
N : Even in the geography of Iran, I’m talking about their intellectual orientations, their politics, their language, ethnicity, culture, and politics. You can see this diversity and plurality. Should these groups live together in harmony? Or should they face forced exclusion or forced inclusion? None of these answers will work.

[56:20.7]
N : It is a futile effort. Can we think of exclusivity and simultaneously say we are thinking about transitioning from dictatorship to democracy? I believe that if we adhere to the issue of dialogue, if we believe that in today’s world, in contemporary societies, these differences, these pluralities, these diversities exist, but it is the same humans who, for the survival of life, for the survival of the Earth, for the survival of their own lands, must live together.

[57:05.6]
N : Ultimately, a solution must be found. You know, if we want to move away from war, violence, exclusion, and elimination, meaning to distance ourselves from anything that leads to violence…

[57:22.0]
N : In order to build life and make the facets of life beautiful for every human being, we have no choice but to engage in dialogue. You see, even in…

[57:41.4]
N : In fact, in some periods—there are neighborhoods in cities where Africans live, Armenians live, Jews live, Poles live, and others…

[57:56.6]
N : And they can live together. This is not something newly invented that we must now think about its necessities. No. Humans have had this tendency. So, do we want to strengthen this or weaken it? Strengthening it takes us somewhere, and weakening it takes us somewhere else.
H : These are two separate issues, Mrs. Mohammadi.

[58:15.3]
H : You see, one issue is that we want to live peacefully with everyone, regardless of their ideology, sect, or religion, and build our country.

N : That requires obligations.

H : Yes, the issue is, to reach that, to move from this system to a life of prosperity, development, progress, freedom, justice, and equality.

[58:36.8]
H : Are you willing to sit down and talk with all political movements? You see, dialogue means that I, as a human rights activist, am willing to defend everyone’s rights, even the rights of those who engage in armed struggle. I will defend their citizenship rights. But when it comes to a political movement, I do not sit next to those who engage in armed struggle.

[58:59.4]
N : You see, we are not discussing that. We are not asking whether we accept armed movements or not.

H : Your stance is clear—if you were in that position, you wouldn’t have received the Nobel Peace Prize.

N : See, yes.

[59:17.3]
N : I—now my main point is this: We are in a situation where the conditions are unstable. Right now, as you pass through the streets, they may appear normal.

[59:36.3]
N : Shops are open. People are coming and going. You and I are having a conversation in a building. Afterward, we’ll go see our friends. But the conditions are not sustainable.

[59:53.8]
N : Life is at risk. We are facing a social collapse, the destruction of life, and a plague called the Islamic Republic. I do not talk about women’s rights and the struggle against gender apartheid merely to confront deprivation.

[60:24.1]
N : Because deprivation is destructive. I am speaking about a destructive element, which is the disregard for or the degradation of human dignity, honor, and status. We are in a situation where no one is satisfied with this condition.

[60:48.8]
N : Not only are they dissatisfied, but they also see the danger to themselves and their community. By “themselves,” I mean every aspect of their lives; by “community,” I mean the entire society is at risk. In this situation, we speak of transitioning away from the Islamic Republic.

[61:06.3]
N : Even if you talked about transitioning from the Islamic Republic of Iran twenty years ago, it probably would have had different requirements, influenced by different conditions. Even our current situation is affected by the global context.

[61:23.7]
N : These issues are not separate; they influence each other. When you talk about crises in Iran, it doesn’t mean, for example, that you’re just talking about the environmental crisis plus the women’s crisis. You are speaking about an overarching crisis.

[61:43.9]
N : In this atmosphere, in these conditions, we are talking about transitioning from the Islamic Republic. These conditions have their own requirements. It’s different from ten years ago. It’s different from twenty years ago.

[61:59.6]
N : In fact, I want to say it’s different from before the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement. So, in this situation, I believe that the rule of exclusion, the forced exclusivism, and compulsory expulsion are not the answer.

[62:18.7]
N : Rather, we must find a solution that leads us toward coexistence. Here, we need to listen to each other’s voices. We need to listen to each other’s words and allow the voice of the other to be heard as well.

[62:39.4]
N : In such conditions, I believe that only through dialogue can we find a solution, and that solution will make our transition from despotism to democracy possible, real, and powerful.

[63:01.3]
N : Whatever comes from the heart of dialogue in relationships. We see dialogue as one of the most effective tools in fact…

H : You see dialogue itself is a form of fighting?

N : I want to say that the struggle to end the Islamic Republic, the struggle to transition from religious despotism to democracy, is partly about this dialogue.

[63:20.8]
N : Dialogue itself is part of the struggle. When you engage in dialogue and insist on hearing the other’s voice, while also expressing your own, you are confronting the policy of the Islamic Republic, which seeks to eliminate dialogue.

[63:36.0]
N : It wants there to be no conversation, no voice, and that the divisions are so active that people can never speak to one another. This is part of the struggle.

[63:52.3]
N : This is part of the resistance. By doing this, you are aligning the struggle with its outcome. You are making your goal a reality. Therefore, I believe that dialogue is an essential part of our struggle in these conditions.

[64:09.6]
N : We must see ourselves as obligated to engage in dialogue. We must strengthen dialogue and not underestimate tolerance. See, don’t we say that we want to transition from despotism to democracy? What is democracy? What defines democracy is that you must have tolerance.

[64:34.3]
N : We must tolerate each other, not necessarily become the same. I understand what you’re saying, but it doesn’t mean I have to be part of your group. You know, to be able to have a conversation. No, I say that with understanding and recognizing the differences of your group, we must sit down together around the table and talk.

[64:55.9]
N : Let me add this as well. Even in the matter of democracy, when we review its requirements and definitions, in my opinion, the solution will emerge.

[65:12.2]
N : That is, if we believe that in this geographical unit, in this territory, if we live together, we must see ourselves as sharing a common destiny. Your fate is my fate, and my fate is that of the other.

[65:29.9]
N : Therefore, this is where we reach the necessity of democracy. Democracy is not created overnight; it must be realized. It needs a plan. We also need to pay attention to the issue of civil society.

[65:49.1]
N : You know, one of our necessities is this. It’s not that teachers fight for teachers, workers fight for workers—those things are valid.

[66:06.4]
N : But we want a civil society that strengthens democracy. It ensures participation in society. Unfortunately, we don’t have an independent civil society organization to protect people’s rights.

[66:33.9]
N : We can’t all arm ourselves with guns to protect people’s rights. The system won’t allow it. This is exactly the struggle. Yes, if the system allowed it, you would have organizations defending prisoners’ rights, human rights organizations.

[66:50.1]
N : We should have organizations for women, universities, and students. Excuse me, what would you be fighting for? It would have been realized. Yes, we are in the fight. The element of repression is directly in front of us, eye to eye.

[67:06.5]
N : Look, I have an image. The image is that we are standing face to face with the government.

[67:19.4]
N : What does this situation mean? For me, it means that we are standing in the right place. We are standing where my right is. Freedom is my right. Access to human rights and women’s rights is my right.

[67:35.2]
N : If I want to be defined as a human, I must stand right here. I should not retreat even a little. Under no circumstances should I move back. The one standing in the wrong place is the government. This is not their place; they must go to their rightful place.

[67:52.8]
N : So, yes, we are face to face with the government. The repression is right in front of our eyes. There’s no other choice. We believe the time for democracy in Iranian society has come. We have fought for it.

[68:09.1]
N : We have paid the price. For us, ending the Islamic Republic is no longer an option. The only option before us is the survival of society, life, and humanity.

[68:30.4]
N : We are also being repressed.

H : Ms. Mohammadi, you mentioned that dialogue is one of the essential components for transition. Do you believe that after this dialogue, if deemed necessary, there should be an alliance with all opposing political factions, or do alliances have limits?

[68:58.9]
H : Or then you’ll say that I am a human rights advocate, and I cannot ally with just anyone?

N : Dialogue means that there is a central issue, and around that issue, people talk to each other.

[69:17.0]
N : What do you think this central issue is?

H : Right now, it’s Iran—democracy.

N : Iran and the people of Iran. We say, for the salvation of the people of Iran, we say, for the salvation of our beloved land, Iran. And we say, for democracy.

[69:35.2]
N : We are having dialogue. That means those who believe the people of Iran do not deserve this life and should have a better life. Our land, Iran, must be protected.

[69:52.9]
N : Our land, Iran, is rich, it has everything, and it does not deserve to be divided and destroyed. On the other hand, we believe that the people have historically reached the level of understanding and realization of democracy.

[70:18.7]
N : This level is important. You see, look at the definition of rights, from what level to what level, and through what process it has been reached. Regarding democracy, I believe we are entitled to it.

[70:36.0]
N : Now, the Iranian society, the people of Iran, should have democracy. Not just political movements and groups. Not just the academic discussion, for example, among intellectuals. The people of Iran. This is the central issue of dialogue. Anyone who thinks something must be done for Iran to save the people of Iran must reach a solution.

[71:01.5]
N : And those who think we should avoid violence.

[71:09.7]
N : They can sit down and have a dialogue. This dialogue—I insist on saying this—is a stage of the struggle. It is a crucial part of the struggle that, if achieved, can bring an end to the Islamic Republic.

[71:33.4]
N : But in these differences, in these divisions, what will remain, and we will help its survival, we will prolong its life, is the Islamic Republic. I think it is around this that we can sit and talk.

[71:51.1]
N : With tolerance, with moderation, with an effort to hear each other’s voices. You know, so that no group is forced to shout just to be heard. We should try to hear the other’s voice, to understand the other’s situation. And if we— in my opinion— if we recognize each other, understand the differences, and acknowledge them, we should believe that for Iran, for the people, for democracy, something must be done and we must have a dialogue.

[72:29.3]
N : This is part of the hard work we must do.

H : In your opinion, what kind of political system in the future of Iran can guarantee the respect of human rights? I mean, what is your ideal political system for the future of Iran?

N : Look, having democracy is our priority. And having a secular government, meaning a government that is not justified by any ideological reasoning, is crucial.

[72:55.8]
N : Such governments have already been experienced in the world. We have also experienced them in Iran. I think that for the improvement of the situation of the Iranian people, this will help.

[73:14.6]
N : A government that truly recognizes the will of the people. The kind of government that recognizes the will and choice of the people. It must ensure people’s participation, meaning people should be able to freely, fairly, and justly elect their officials.

[73:42.6]
N : And this power is one that, due to being chosen by the people, even if it’s not the best choice, seems to be the best and most feasible path in the current world situation.

[74:00.4]
H : You’ve emphasized a lot on pairing freedom with equality. But the reality is that some intellectual circles prioritize freedom, others prioritize justice, and some see equality as an unattainable dream.

[74:18.2]
H : Which of these is a priority for you?

N : Look, if there is no freedom, I believe that a person cannot reach their humanity. I am only a human when I am free, I flourish, I find creativity, and I am able to express myself.

[74:42.0]
N : In a society without justice, we won’t have stability. You cannot talk about stability in a discriminatory society.

[74:58.1]
N : Therefore, these are interconnected. They are intertwined, and I believe that freedom, equality, and democracy are the future of Iranian society.

H : Well, let’s move into a bit more personal territory. Is that okay?

[75:14.6]
N : I don’t have a secret area, to be honest.

H : What I’m about to ask is not really hidden.

N : From inside the women’s ward of Evin to my home to the streets, I have nothing to hide.

 

[75:32.6]
H : One day, Mr. Madani and I, who were separated from the other prisoners, were placed in a different ward above the guard officer’s area, where we had a view of the medical facilities of Ward 4 or the central clinic of Evin

N : I know what you’re trying to say. (Laughs)

H : Yes, one day we heard a loud sound, a cry. I could even say not a cry, but a distant call for justice, a woman’s voice filling the entire space. (A voice crying out) Mr. Madani and I quickly ran to the window of our kitchen.

[76:11.7]
H : Of course, the shutters of Evin, the window shutters that were barred, from behind them, because we were on the second floor, we could see the courtyard, and through these shutters, I saw that everyone had gathered around an old Paykan, which was used to bring the sick prisoners from the women’s ward to the medical clinic.

[76:31.6]
H : Officials, prison deputies, male and female guards, all gathered around it, and one person was standing on the roof—on the hood (laughs) of the car, shouting.

[76:50.3]
H : And that woman was you.

N : I didn’t have a headscarf, my hair was visible, right? (laughs)

H : It wasn’t something new.

We were actually enjoying the fact that, well, at first, the prison guards were in a mess, standing there, each trying to pull you down but unable to.

[77:14.5]
H : Your presence was overwhelming. Besides this, you said something that was very striking. You said, “I have detached myself from my life.” I mean, amidst those cries, you said, “I have detached myself from my life.” They were threatening you.

[77:30.6]
H : Yes, I clearly remember. They were threatening to move me to solitary confinement, to Division 9, to exile me. And you said, “Let them do whatever they want. What are you trying to scare me with? I have detached myself from my life.” You have two children.

[77:47.2]
H : Ali and Kiana. I don’t want to get emotional, but well, it’s the reality of life. Then, almost ten years passed without seeing them up close. During the times you were granted leave or after your release, you were able to see them through video.

[78:08.2]
H : Yes, and this time, when we were on leave, I witnessed the birthdays of Ali and Kiana. And you were able to speak with them through video. Perhaps there were a few birthdays in these ten years when you managed to talk to them. Detaching yourself from life as a human rights activist, your two children on the other side, needing you. Does this detachment from life justify the end goal you aim for?

[78:35.2]
N : Well, I should explain the situation in which I said this. We had a fellow prisoner who was an extremely intelligent girl, one of the elites, and she had been under immense pressure to use her talents. She had been kept in solitary confinement for a long time in a remote area.

[79:01.2]
N : Then she was brought here. Solitary confinement in Tehran, Evin, and then she came to be with us. She attempted suicide twice. Both times, I personally did everything I could.

[79:17.8]
N : Because as you know, it’s not like they allow anyone from the ward to go. Of course, this might be possible with men, but it’s impossible for women to accompany a sick fellow prisoner. Anyway, I forcefully went, sat in the ambulance, and came to the medical clinic, and I was with her for both gastric lavage sessions, and it was extremely painful.

[79:47.1]
N : She was a very young girl, and every time I thought of Behnam Mahjoubi, Sasan, Nika Nafas, if they had reached Laghman Hospital sooner, they might have survived. Every time they did the gastric lavage on her, she would faint.

[80:09.5]
N : Honestly, it made me feel terrible. I felt like the suffering of these people was endless. Because as long as the interrogators are pursuing their own agenda, they won’t release them. Even after their release, even in general wards, they won’t be left alone.

[80:27.7]
N : And there, I had a verbal altercation with the medical staff, asking, “Why aren’t you moving faster? Why are you delaying this? Do you think just because they’re prisoners, they should be treated like this? If they came to your office, would you treat someone who is steps away from death this calmly?”

[81:12.9]
N : When I said this, one of the security officers, who overheard me, started to cry. I told him about Behtash, and I said, “If you had gotten him to the hospital on time, he would have survived.” And then, even they started to feel affected. When they said inappropriate things to me, I turned to them and said, “You don’t have the right to say that.”

[81:33.1]
N : But instead of the prison authorities and even the medical staff keeping her away from me, they came at me, grabbed me, and dragged me, causing a lot of bruising on my body. They were dragging me.

[81:48.2]
N : For example, there was a stretcher there, and I was leaning against it. Since I take aspirin and Plavix, I have a risk of bleeding, and my body was covered in bruises. Later, I went to the medical unit, and they registered it. They kept dragging me and taking me, and finally, they took me to a door, brought me into the medical unit, and tried to put me in an ambulance to take me to the medical center.

[82:14.9]
N : And that man was using threatening and provocative language from a distance. I went towards him, saying, “If you have the courage, stand here so I can see if you can back up the words you’re saying and bear the consequences of them.”

[82:33.8]
N : “I will file a complaint against you, and I want to see who you are and why you’re treating people this way.” Then, in a moment, I saw the security orders. A large number of guards from section 209 came, and they started threatening me.

[82:50.3]
N : It was then that I said, “What are you doing to the youth of this land? What responsibility has the medical staff taken for someone who has attempted suicide twice? How is it that after a suicide attempt, you send someone to Aminabad, a psychological hell, and there they try to shock him, and then, fearing being sent to Aminabad again, he attempts suicide once more?”

[83:23.3]
N : “You know, these are policies that are relentlessly repressive. Policies that are being implemented against political prisoners, from solitary confinement to medical treatment.” And that’s when they came to capture me and take me away, and I ran up onto one of the vehicles. It was there that they began chanting.

[83:46.3]
N : After I shouted “Death to the Islamic Republic” a few times, more guards from section 209 came, and they instructed the women to grab me and bring me down. After the chants of “Death to the Islamic Republic,” they finally put me in a vehicle and took me away.

[84:03.6]
N : They took me into my cell.

H : Now, let’s talk about the children, Ali and Kiana. Is it worth it?

N : You see, there, in that place, there was this lovely prisoner girl, and in a way, she was like Kiana to me.

[84:27.2]
N : I felt that if my child were to pursue education and then oppose such a regime, would they deserve death? Would they deserve this treatment—no, not just death, but this pressure and torment that breaks their spirit and psyche? This is what they do, and it really brings them to the point of collapse.

[84:56.0]
N : The truth is, I cannot endure these moments. I think that even if it costs me another deprivation or even my life, I must shout and protest.

[85:11.1]
N : Perhaps these shouts and protests can prevent its continuation. At that moment, I saw that this girl, whose name I cannot mention, was like Kiana to me. I tried to speak to save Kiana from death and to speak with those responsible for her death, hoping to influence them. Perhaps with this protest, I could raise my own voice.

[85:42.9]
N : That girl, who had no voice, was slowly slipping into a coma. Her vital signs were in critical condition. At that moment, I decided to shout and stand firm, willing to pay the cost.

H : So, do you think you’re fighting for the children of this land? And not just Ali and Kiana.

N : yes, exactly, see the motherhood in this.

[86:06.8]
N : Of course, I am a feminist, and I believe that femininity and motherhood require a different kind of meaning. A redefined meaning. I could not just think of Ali and Kiana.

[86:23.7]
N : I couldn’t. Now, looking back, in the eyes of many, perhaps even society, if viewed traditionally, I stood in the place of a non-mother.

[86:41.7]
N : But I couldn’t see myself as a mother who gave birth to life from my own body and remained indifferent to the lives of other children in this land, even in this world.

[87:02.4]
N : In this meaning of motherhood, I see a distance from the kind of motherhood I feel and believe in. I think femininity and motherhood place an additional social responsibility on our shoulders.

[87:27.0]
N : Ali and Kiana have been away from Iran for ten years, and I haven’t seen them since. Over these years, I’ve been thinking about how I haven’t seen them for ten years. But in this world of communication, talking about not hearing the voice of your loved ones in any other country is so alien to us.

[87:55.2]
N : Because all this technology is meant to eliminate distance, so you can hear the voice of your loved ones with just a few seconds’ delay. It’s incomprehensible.

[88:11.6]
N : But in the place where I was, from 2014 to 2015, Tehran’s prosecutor, Mr. Jafari Dolatabadi, didn’t let me hear the voices of Ali and Kiana. Then I managed to make a connection through the courts, and the phone was established. Once a week, I spoke with Ali.

[88:27.5]
N : Once a week, I spoke with Kiana, but through a guard. The officer would come, and then they’d go into the cell. Then, from August 2019 to August 2020, my phone was cut off again. I was exiled to Zanjan prison. After that, I went on hunger strike, and three years later, after my arrest in 2014, the prison still didn’t agree to allow calls.

[88:50.6]
N : This deprivation definitely harmed Ali and Kiana more than it harmed me. I can’t deny or ignore that. But this can’t be seen from the perspective of a stepmother.

[89:09.2]
N : This is actually one of those images that reveals the nature of the Islamic Republic. The Islamic Republic—no, no, no—keeps no area of private life of its opponents and protesters safe from that suppressive machinery.

[89:31.0]
N : It fights and suppresses its opponents with all its might and everything it has. Maybe this is another image of the violence and cruelty and the intensity of suppression by the Islamic Republic.

[89:49.6]
H : Although you say I may be a stepmother, this sense of motherhood and family, you feel it in the years of struggle, and especially after receiving the award, when Ali and Kiana went to receive the award, Ali and Kiana became—

[90:06.6]
H : Now they are your spokespersons, and they go everywhere and talk about you, and your husband, Mr. Rahmani. This family—this sense of family is ongoing, and then there’s the image of your father, your brother, your mother.

[90:23.4]
H : There was one time you came on leave because your mother had passed away. All of this shows that you are a family person and you carry that institution of family with you and promote it and are supportive of it. Never has Ali or Kiana said, “Mom, you swapped us for prison, for the struggle.”

[90:44.4]
N : My daughter, when she couldn’t pronounce “family” when she was little, used to say “house wind.” And when their father left Iran, they were five years and a few months old.

[91:01.6]
N : At that time, she said, “We are a house wind, but we don’t have a father.” Then when he left Iran, I went to prison, and they were left alone. After a year, when I managed to make a court connection and got the phone, she said, “Mom, we are a family, but when we have a father, we don’t have a mother.”

[91:17.4]
N : And I really didn’t know what to say to her.

[91:35.5]
N : I just told her, “My dear, wherever you are, I am with you in my heart.” I didn’t have an explanation for her—what kind of family is this, and why are you condemned to have such a family? I had no explanation.

[91:55.5]
H : Ms. Narges, do you currently have any ongoing cases?

N : Yes.

H : What for?

N : I have been tried nine times. Four of those were due to activities I carried out outside of prison, after which I was arrested and sent to prison, and five times due to activities I carried out inside prison while serving my sentence, which resulted in new cases and subsequent convictions.

[92:21.7]
N : The trials took place, but I do not participate in them. I do not sit in the defendant’s seat. Since 2016, when I was sentenced to sixteen years in prison by Judge Salavati, and the same sentence was upheld by Branch 36 of the Appeals Court.

[92:42.3]
N : After that, I did not participate in any trials. Although in 2021, I was taken from solitary confinement, blindfolded and in a chador and slippers, without knowing where I was being taken. It was a trial at Branch 26, headed by Judge Afkhari, where I did not present any defense. He asked three times, and I said I had no defense because I believe that in these courts, what is absent and forgotten is actually what is being fought against.

[93:12.2]
N : They try to trample on it. There is no justice in that court; justice does not exist there, and I refuse to sit in the courtroom. I was tried, and I went to prison with a sentence of two and a half years.

[93:35.0]
N : But after eight years and three months, I received a six-year sentence that was enforceable, and then, as time passed, it exceeded ten years. There are other cases still in the prosecutor’s office due to activities I carried out inside prison.

[93:52.6]
N : I don’t know when they will be activated.

H : Don’t you think that the Islamic Republic, with all its tools and its repressive machinery, and with the benefit that the international community gains, will eventually find a way to reach a compromise? For example, today, with a crazy person becoming president in America, maybe they’ll eventually strike a deal, and the Islamic Republic will remain for years to come. God forbid, and may I never say this, but you may end up in prison forever, and spend the last days of your life in prison.

[94:32.6]
N : Yes.

H : Look at the past.

N : Look at where we are standing now. When I look at the past, if I had to choose again, I would choose this same path.

[94:49.3]
N : And at this point, where I stand for the future, I will continue this same path. Yes, one possibility is that I will be in prison for more years, but the reality is that the meaning of life for me is deeply intertwined with the issue of freedom, democracy, and human rights.

[95:13.7]
N : My life takes meaning this way. This is how life gains meaning for me. Therefore, even if I am within the walls of prison, I am still living and resisting.

[95:33.1]
N : Whether inside prison or outside, it makes no difference. We will continue until the day we succeed. I am hopeful about the connection to Iran, because deep changes have occurred in our society, and these changes are moving toward the realization of democracy.

[96:00.5]
N : And that is our goal. I hope we reach this point soon. It may take time, but I am sure we will get there. Thank you.

H : Thank you very much for being here with us, Ms. Narges Mohammadi.

[96:18.8]
H : I wish you success and honor, and may freedom be yours always. I hope there will no longer be any temporary leave, and that you will enjoy permanent freedom, and that our homeland will also be free. I hope so.

N : Of course, I am always free. Thank you,

H : You are free, that’s for sure. Thank you.

N : Thank you.

H : Thank you to all of you dear ones who were here for us. You’ve watched another episode of the Emkan show. We will be back with other sessions, but only with the condition of freedom. Wishing you a happy day and a good time. Goodbye.