Freedom for 'Insiders', Law for 'Outsiders' | Where Is the Radical Current's Contradiction?

Following the trial and enforcement of the prison sentence for Hamid Rasaei, figures close to the Paydari current and Saeed Jalili stress the need for unity and consider the enforcement of Rasaei's sentence to be injustice. A current that has always claimed the right to harsh criticism, gatherings and insults, yet claims injustice when faced with the enforcement of the law against its associates.

Political group: The margins of execution of Hamid Rasai, a member of the 12th Parliament, continue. Now Saeed Jalili has also come to the field to defend this figure close to him. Referring to the necessity of maintaining unity in war conditions, he emphasized that even justified differences should not distort unity. However, this comment has been criticized. The question is, should the call for unity be heard only when the figures of a movement face the judicial consequences of their behavior? Destroying officials, making accusations and holding protest rallies against official institutions and current and former officials is not against Vahdat?

Referring to the same approach, Mohammad Saeed Ahdian, advisor to the speaker of the parliament, wrote to Jalili: "Mr. Jalili! The calendar of unity does not start from the day of friends' troubles and it does not end on the same day.

It seems that Saeed Jalili and the radical forces defend the right to protest, harsh criticism and street presence when faced with the government's decisions, officials' positions or rivals' policies. While in the criticisms of this movement, mostly baseless criticisms are raised, which also take on the color of insult. In its demands, this trend calls for legal action against political rivals. Many times, without providing any documents, the slogan of the trial of former president Hassan Rouhani has been raised in the gatherings of extremist groups.

But when the law and judicial proceedings involve the status of one of the figures close to them, the people of this stream suddenly talk about injustice, political confrontation and the need to stop confrontations.

Of course, the principle of protesting a judicial ruling is not a sign of lawlessness by itself. Every citizen and representative can question the legal reasoning of a vote, use legal mechanisms to protest and demand transparency in proceedings. The problem is a double standard in which freedom for insiders extends to the threshold of attack and insult, but when faced with a political rival, it becomes an action against the interests of the country and is interpreted as disturbing the public mind.

From protest letter to street rally

Before Jalili, Jalili's advisor Amirhossein Thabiti's objection to the verdict and political reactions surrounding this case had highlighted this approach. Do those who have the right to protest against the judicial system recognize the same right for others? If gathering against an official or official institution is considered as a sign of demanding because of opposition to the positions of that official, why is there no right to protest and gather for other groups?

The story of Rasai can be an opportunity to rethink the meaning of unity, freedom and law. The point here is that unity does not mean silencing differences, but accepting common rules for managing differences. Freedom of expression is not a privilege for noisy trends, but a right that should be included within the framework of the law and without discrimination.

If a political movement wants broad freedom to criticize the government, parliament, judiciary and other institutions, it must accept the same right for its critics. If he emphasizes the necessity of enforcing the law, he cannot question the principle of enforcing the law when the legal consequences reach his relatives, unless he can introduce a real objection to the proceeding with a specific legal argument. A law that is only valid for a competitor is not a law. Just as freedom that is demanded only for insiders is not freedom. Unity also becomes meaningful when no one considers himself beyond the common rules and no critic is deprived of legal rights due to opposition to the government.

According to the published explanations about the case of Hamid Rasaei, the complaint of Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf is related to the materials that were published in 1402, before the current representation of Rasaei. One of the focal points of the case was an article titled "Carpet weaver's manipulation of parliament documents" in "9 Day" magazine. Also, in another part of the case, the use of the term "parliamentary dictator" was examined, and according to the published report, an acquittal was issued in this part.

The spokesperson of the judiciary has also announced that the sentence of 10 months of imprisonment in the case of publication of falsehoods has been implemented, after being confirmed in the appeal stage and despite numerous opportunities for compromise, and Rasaei is now serving his prison term.