Sexual Abuse of Children Under the Protection of the 'Bait' of Criminals

Over the past four decades, we have witnessed a pattern in the government's response, particularly the leadership's office, towards criminals and suspects close to it and its appointed institutions (such as the IRGC, judiciary, and police): judicial, occupational, political, and professional immunity. There is no case where criminals and suspects close to the Supreme Leader and the institutions under his supervision (if they have dealt with the judiciary) have been fairly prosecuted; if a verdict was issued, it was fully executed; they have lost positions due to crimes and accusations; or they have paid any costs for their criminal acts. There has been no distinction between cases of murder, financial corruption, drug trafficking, and sexual crimes. Naturally, there should have been more sensitivity in murder cases, but all those close to the leadership and appointed institutions have emerged from these cases unpunished at various stages. Notable cases include Jalal al-Din Farsi (after he shot a villager leading to his death), the son of Fallahian (after killing a police officer), dozens of murders during the chain murders of political activists and writers, the Kahrizak murders, and the assassination of Saeed Hajarian. If Saeed Asgar (the shooter of Hajarian) and Saeed Mortazavi (accused of killing several people in Kahrizak) continue their lives freely, why shouldn't Mahmoud Karimi (accused of shooting in the street) and Saeed Tusi (accused of sexually abusing children) do the same? Supporting the accused or the victim. Proving the occurrence of a crime in cases of indecency is difficult because child abusers commit these acts in secret, and if anyone has witnessed them, they are deterred from testifying through bribery and threats, especially if the perpetrators are powerful. This explains the justification for the judicial immunity ruling for Saeed Tusi by the judiciary spokesperson. However, a judiciary can have two different strategies regarding this issue. One strategy belongs to the judiciary of the Islamic Republic, which wants to support defendants with strong ties to the rulers at any cost and makes no effort to gather evidence. The second strategy supports the victim by attempting to collect evidence and prevent the recurrence of the crime. In the first strategy, the judiciary collaborates with the accused to intimidate the complainants and potential witnesses so that no one comes forward and individuals are discouraged from filing complaints. Additionally, the media is threatened to prevent the issue from becoming public and attracting public attention, so that the power and social status of the accused are not compromised. In the second strategy, public opinion is open, and people can judge based on the claims of individuals, whether the judiciary can prove the crime or not, and whether the case leads to a conviction or not. The public good and the interests of the government. In an open and secular society, the second strategy is pursued. I refer to two very controversial and well-known cases in the free world. Bill Cosby, the famous African-American actor and comedian, is currently facing allegations of rape from dozens of individuals. Some of these complaints cannot be brought to court due to the passage of time. Some complaints are still under consideration in court. However, the media is free to present these complaints, and after these allegations were made, Mr. Cosby cannot continue his public activities as before. Another case is the allegations of women who have been sexually abused by Donald Trump. The media raises the issue of sexual harassment and abuse, and although the matter has not yet been referred to court, the presidential candidate has threatened to sue the women making the claims. Despite the threat of a lawsuit, Trump's status in polls before and after the revelations is not the same. Saeed Tusi, like Trump and Cosby, is a public figure. His sexual abuse of children is not just a personal and family issue that should remain within the confines of the court because even if the complainants cannot prove their claims in court, the accused, due to the nature of his work, can continue his alleged actions, and public good is at risk. Tens of thousands of accused child abusers and those convicted of sexual abuse are free in the United States, but in many states, there are restrictions placed on them (such as not being employed in schools or kindergartens, being prohibited from living near schools, and not approaching schools and children's play areas), and local families are aware of their living conditions. These measures are to prevent the occurrence of crimes, which is the most important duty of the judiciary. However, the ruling of immunity for Saeed Tusi has not been accompanied by restrictions on him from teaching the Quran to children or prohibiting him from living near schools or attending children's play areas. For this reason, the ruling of immunity for Saeed Tusi is not the end of the story, as we see it is not the end of the story. However, the judiciary insists that the case should not be exposed to public opinion: 'In other crimes, we say that until a final verdict is issued, it is allowed to be explained through a mechanism, but in these cases, even if a final verdict is presented, disclosure is not allowed. This is not a political or group discussion; it is a matter of religion, law, and ethics.' If this case is not exposed to the public, how can families be warned not to entrust their underage and defenseless children to others solely based on religious, ethnic, or even familial trust without the presence of several observers? Due to this type of information dissemination, in most Western societies, no group of students engages in extracurricular activities without at least two observers from the family. It is interesting that the religion and politics of the rulers of the Islamic Republic are intertwined in all matters, but when it comes to accountability for scandals and information dissemination, religion and politics are separated. The spokesperson of the judiciary does not limit himself to separating religion and politics in this matter and threatens victims and their families as well as domestic media: 'Issues for which no verdict has been issued and guilt has not been proven, we kindly ask you not to publish. This is a crime and is prosecutable.' Public cases versus private cases. The spokesperson's statements regarding the justification for immunity are based on the assumption that the case of sexual abuse of children is a private case and that 'lack of proof' is the end of the story: 'Some accusations are difficult to prove. That is, addressing the complaint is possible due to the presence of witnesses and evidence with the statements of the complainant and investigations. If the judge becomes aware, he can address it. The complainant may have the right, but it is not proven.' The accusation of sexual assault against a Quran reciter and teacher is not a private accusation that should not be raised in the media, and lack of proof does not mean that the Quran reciter should return to his previous work. The judiciary's insistence on keeping the case and its details hidden is due to the sensitivity that the judiciary attaches to this case: 'Now, a case that has this sensitivity, even from the supervisory body within the judiciary, has been reviewed, and it has been seen whether anyone outside the case has a point of view or not; this uproar is unnatural.' If the case did not have a public aspect, why does the judiciary spokesperson consider it sensitive? When victims saw that the judiciary was trying to cover up the matter and found no place to present their claims in domestic media, they revealed it to Persian-language media outside the country. It is regrettable that such acts of indecency are first reported in Persian-language media outside the country, and then domestic media attempts to address public questions in a way that does not harm the reputation of the Supreme Leader, the ideology of Islamism, and religious institutions in a controlled manner. The claim of enemy interference in this matter does not resolve the issue for the leadership, which has close ties to Saeed Tusi. Labeling the reporting media as counter-revolutionary does not answer the scandal of unaccountable institutions. The dilemma of how to protect public decency. The spokesperson of the judiciary believes that the way to protect public decency is through lack of information and silence from victims, especially if the perpetrators are powerful: 'According to the constitution and other laws, issues of public decency are among those that must be addressed non-publicly... The reason for this is that many times, more than harming the offender, it harms the complainant, and sometimes disclosing the matter damages the complainant's family and can even lead to the spread of immorality.' However, the laws of the Islamic Republic have not been able and will not be able to prevent victims from seeking justice. Beyond the court, it is the families of the victims and themselves who must decide whether to make these cases public or not. However, another way to protect public decency in cases where the perpetrators are powerful is the revelation of the privileges of the powerful in committing any act without fear of punishment. Why are victims of abuses (sexual and non-sexual) by the powerful and their families always encouraged by security, judicial, and military forces to remain silent? The reason is solely to protect the ruling class and its interests, not to preserve decency or public interest. The history of sexual abuse of children in religious institutions. Sexual abuse of children by religious propagators and educators has a long history. This is not exclusive to these institutions: in other child-related institutions, wherever there is insufficient oversight, such incidents have occurred (such as in scouting organizations). In religious institutions, the level of parental trust is higher, and the potential for abuse is greater. Wherever religious institutions have been responsible for educating children, and believers have entrusted their children to leaders and clerics due to religious beliefs, this phenomenon has always been possible and has occurred. Perpetrators have always hidden behind sacred texts and religious fanaticism. It was only in the twentieth century that, due to individuals becoming aware of their individual rights, especially the rights of children and women, greater independence of the judiciary in secular societies, and the expansion of mass media, these issues came to public attention. The Catholic Church has faced thousands of public scandals in this regard over the past three decades. However, the church, due to not being in a position of political power and the independence of the judiciary in Western countries from the church, has not been able to ignore the issue or always sweep it under the rug. Initially, the church tried to cover up these cases by transferring priests from one area to another, but whistleblowers within and outside the church did not allow this to happen. Cases raised by families have often ended with the church paying several hundred thousand or several million dollars in damages to the family/individual because the church did not want these cases to come to public attention. Nevertheless, many investigative journalists have reported on these cases because fortunately, the media is not under the control of the church. Unfortunately, in Iran, the media, judiciary, and centers of power are either unmonitored and unaccountable or under the control of those who engage in such acts or do not have enough sensitivity to them or prioritize group and institutional interests over public good.