Both Free and Closed System Surfers

Note--After Trump's order to protect the United States from terrorist attacks and the ban on the entry of citizens from seven countries into the United States, many prominent Iranian figures, by avoiding the main issue and without the slightest reference to the Islamic Republic of Iran and its role in placing Iran at the top of the list of terrorist countries, held the Trump administration responsible for including Iran in the list of seven countries subject to visa denial and expressed their protests against his government. Among these, the protest of some Iranian artists whose film was nominated for Best Foreign Film at the 2017 Oscars has attracted media attention. Asghar Farhadi and Taraneh Alidoosti condemned Trump's order and canceled their trip to the United States. Asghar Farhadi appointed two people to attend the ceremony in his place (despite having no travel ban), which received relatively successful media coverage in both Persian and non-Persian outlets. In a video message, Farhadi described the atmosphere in the United States as fascist. However, if we place this behavior alongside the actions of these artists, serious questions arise: Have those who protested this order regarding the travel of Iranians ever voiced their objections to the behavior of their own government towards Iranians traveling to their homeland and in general regarding the travel of Iranians? If we consider the atmosphere in the United States to be fascist, what name do we give to the situation in Iran? Has there been any protest from those who objected to Trump's order regarding the hostage-taking of dual-national Iranians in Iran for use as bargaining chips in negotiations with Western governments, the detention of political activists returning to their own country, and the inability of critics and opponents of the Islamic Republic to travel (due to the real risk of arrest at the airport)? Have Farhadi, Alidoosti, and other protesters against Trump's order objected to the ban on Iranian women traveling without a male companion in the country (and their referral to the police station at the bus terminal) and the requirement to obtain travel permission from male family members when traveling abroad? Unfortunately, the answer is negative. Both non-political and political artists, this issue that some Iranian and non-Iranian artists do not take a political stance is understandable. Not all artists are supposed to be active in politics and human rights. However, they are at least expected to defend themselves and their colleagues (like Jafar Panahi and dozens of other filmmakers whose films are censored or banned every year). Among Iranian artists, many remain silent on political issues in their country and others, and this is their right. People cannot be condemned for their silence. However, individuals can be criticized for their double standards. One cannot be a camel (non-political) inside the country and a bird (political) outside the country, and others celebrate them as an ostrich. Is the 'right' of Iranians to enter their homeland more important than the 'privilege' of their entry into the United States? Among Iranian artists, there are those who do not have consistent behavior in this regard. Their voices are loud regarding the developments of other countries (because there is freedom in those countries and individuals do not pay a price for speaking out and protesting) but remain completely silent against the actions of their own government. Issuing a visa for Iranians to enter the United States is a 'privilege,' and the protesters against Trump's order can object to this issue with a globalist stance and a denial of passports and borders. However, these same individuals cannot forget this globalist stance and belief in a borderless world when faced with their own government and then throw it in the trash upon entering Iran. Unfortunately, individuals like Asghar Farhadi and Taraneh Alidoosti are silent when it comes to their government's behavior regarding the 'right' of Iranians to travel to their homeland. Thousands of Iranians who continue to criticize the government after leaving the country cannot travel to their homeland and visit their elderly and sick or dying parents, but no protest is heard from anyone. Khamenei falsely speaks of handcuffing a child at the airport (to conclude human rights violations in the United States) while the deprivation of thousands of Iranians from traveling to their homeland due to the possibility of arbitrary detention is taken for granted. Which Iranian artist protesting Trump can point out Khamenei's lies or has done so? Opportunism and baseless protest This behavior is completely understandable from a cost-benefit perspective but is inconsistent and contradictory within ethical, legal, and political frameworks. Farhadi and Alidoosti found Trump's order to be the best opportunity for exploitation both inside and outside. Abroad, they found platforms to promote their film among the leftist movement to the extent that Farhadi's protest against Trump's order became a headline news on the main page of the New York Times, and the mayor of London planned a screening of his film in Trafalgar Square while no one had prevented the screening of Farhadi's film in cinemas. Also, inside the country, their protest behavior was welcomed by the government to the extent that Ali Larijani specifically praised Taraneh Alidoosti from the podium of the parliament. Naturally, Farhadi and Alidoosti, whose behaviors abroad are not fully endorsed by the fundamentalists (shaking hands with the opposite sex, wearing a tie, wearing a shirt and pants without a manteau, and having a significant portion of their hair exposed), need this safe haven and gain it by protesting against Trump and playing in the anti-American orchestra. Thus, these protests not only have no cost for them but also have many benefits. However, imagine an artist protesting against human rights violations (both inside and outside the country) regarding the detention of dozens of dual-national Iranians after traveling to Iran on fabricated charges, the detention of political activists without any case upon their return, pressure on families of Iranian activists abroad, and the inability of government protesters to visit their families. The result would be exclusion from the cycle of privileges and rents provided by the government for the production and intensification of censorship and pressures in a society where any artistic and cultural activity is under severe government control and, on the other hand, dependent on government resources, and artists and cultural figures compete for them. Thus, the positioning of Farhadi and Alidoosti is not a protest against the violation of Iranians' rights (which is an unviolated right) but rather reflects the sick and rent-seeking structure of cultural and artistic production in the country, censorship and severe restrictions on artists and their works, and the opportunism of artists who make the most of this situation. Such individuals may argue that Iranians are free to enter their country and must also pay the cost of their criticism of the government. This is exactly like the claim of freedom of expression in the country, where individuals have freedom of expression but do not have freedom after expression. Those who consider the detention of individuals due to their opinions a natural matter certainly do not have the right to protest against the denial of visa privileges by other countries. Globalist or totalitarian? Individuals like Farhadi and Alidoosti stand in the United States alongside those who are globalist and believe that their country's borders should be open to all, but in their own country, they stand alongside those who consider anyone entering the country (even Iranians) and not aligned with the government to be a foreign spy or at least remain completely silent against this behavior. This dual behavior is not exclusive to them: the government uses all freedoms in Western countries in its religious propaganda and has schools and mosques in Western countries and holds gatherings, but in Iran, if four people gather in their home to worship a deity other than Allah or the Supreme Leader, they are imprisoned. Freedom in Western countries has provided this behavioral duality for rulers and Shia clerics, but it does not diminish the behavioral duality and opportunism of those who maximize their benefits from both free and closed systems.