Wednesday 26 September 2018

The truth about Golriz Ghahraman.

This article has been plagiarized. I'm fully aware of who the author is and will remove at his request but nobody else.
It was sent to me by somebody that does not want it lost even though the author was forced to remove it from the internet due to bullying by a social media giant and a lying MP. 
I've made some changes to formatting and tried to fix some links. Some links repeat but as I've never seen the original I've assumed that was the authors intent. One link no longer works so I've removed it and just left the sentence. 
 
GOLRIZ GHAHRAMAN, GREEN PARTY NEW ZEALAND MP  
13 August 2018
The Green Party MP, Golriz Ghahraman, came to my attention on 3 August 2018 after she posted a video on Twitter saying, “No human right is absolute. They are all subject to lawful limits.” I responded that in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there are many human rights which are absolute, such as the right not to be tortured or suffer cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. She blocked me on Twitter.
Ms Ghahraman’s Green Party profile states, “Golriz is an Iranian-Kiwi refugee, lucky to escape war and persecution as a child” and “Golriz made history as the first ever refugee to be sworn in as an MP”.
In a NZ Herald article, 7 October 2017, Kirsty Johnston writes, “Most of Golriz Ghahraman's childhood memories are of war. She remembers howling sirens, sending families scurrying into basements. She remembers people being trapped.”
In her Maiden Speech to Parliament Ms Ghahraman said, “I remember the bombs and the sirens, running to a basement and just waiting. But mostly I remember kids my age who stopped talking from the shell shock, and I still don't know what happened to them.” 
Ms Ghahraman stated in June 2017, that “I’m from Mashhad in the north of Iran”. She is also reported to have claimed that when departing Iran, they left from Mashhad. She was proud of her city and claimed that since Mosul in northern Iraq had been destroyed, it was the most important “holy city” for the Shi’a. This claim is incorrect because the most important Shi’a cities have always been Najaf with the shrine of Imam Ali, and Karbala with the shrine of Imam Hussein. In the order of revered Shi’a holy men, Ali is the first Imam, Hussein is the third and Mashhad has the shrine for Imam Reza, lower down the list as the fifth Imam of the 12 Imams.
The significance of Ms Ghahraman’s statement is that she has an affinity with Mashhad, which indicates she was living there and not in Tehran.
Mashhad is the largest city in eastern Iran, near the border with Afghanistan. It was unaffected by the war, except as a safe haven for many people displaced by the Iran-Iraq war in the west and south. There were no missiles attacks. It is 900 km east of Tehran and 1500km from Iraq, well out of Iraqi rocket range. If she was always living in Mashhad until 1990, the claim of war memories is fictional.
In answer to the concerns raised about her living in Mashhad, Ms Ghahraman is reported to have claimed that she went to Tehran in the school holidays, so in 1987 or 1988, but does not give specific dates. Between June and September 1988, there had been missile attacks on Tehran between March to May 1988 and it is implaisible that she would have gone there for the school holidays. That only leaves 1987 when aged 6 years. This also lacks the ring of truth because it does not explain why she would be taken to Tehran, within possible range of bombing/missile attacks, instead of remaining in the safety of Mashhad.
There is no record in published information I have seen that Ms Ghahraman and her family moved from Mashhad to Tehran. There are reports of some bombing raids on Tehran by Iraq's depleted airforce after 1984 but nothing of the damage done to other cities closer to the border. Iran's airforce was one of the most modern in the Middle East, with the Shah having squandered the nation's oil wealth on building up the armed forces, having been allowed to purchase modern US fighters. However, if the claim about her memory of missile attacks is true, her family would have had to have moved to Tehran by the first attack in mid March 1988.
In a 52 day period during March to May 1988, Tehran was attacked by Iraqi missiles and 86 landed in populated areas. Some 422 civilians died and 1579 were injured. As noted earlier, it appears on the evidence of Ms Ghahraman that she never lived in Tehran. 
In an online article, 5 August2017, she says, “I had this lovely, happy childhood in the middle of what was a really insecure political time in Iran's history.” There is no reference to missiles, sirens, or trapped people. This inconsistent statement casts further doubt on whether she was ever affected by the war between Iran and Iraq from 1980 to 1988.
The claim that Ms Ghahraman was so traumatised by events over 52 days in an 8-year war when she was 6 or 7 years old, giving the impression to Kirsty Johnston of the NZ Herald that “most” of her “childhood memories are of war” is not consistent with the facts.
There is no recorded evidence I have seen that Ms Ghahraman has given the name of the suburb where she lived in Tehran, if she indeed ever lived there, which could confirm whether she was anywhere near one of the 86 missiles that landed in Tehran. Ms Ghahraman has given vague information about this claim, while at the same time indicating a strong connection with Mashhad, which further casts doubt on whether her family moved from Mashhad to Tehran and was she was exposed to any rocket attack.
All of this also casts doubt on Ms Ghahraman's claims about bombs, sirens and children her age who stopped talking from shell shock and her related claims.
In the NZ Herald, Ms Ghahraman is reported as talking about a friend’s cousin who wrote graffiti on a wall and “then he was gone”. She links this to people being disappeared by the regime and ending up in unmarked graves.
Again, the information about this claim is vague. She does not name this person, when this occurred, what was the graffiti, whether she actually saw this person writing graffiti or another source of information, why she thinks he “disappeared”, and whether he was caught writing graffiti or this claimed disappearance occurred at a later date. As this occurred sometime between 1981 and 1990, at most when she was 9 years old, there is no evidence as to why she remembers this and makes the connection to politics and the regime. This claim does not stand up to scrutiny.
In the NZ Herald article, it states that “The fighting stopped when she was eight”. As the war finished in August 1988, and she was born in 1981, Ms Ghahraman would have been 6 or 7 years old. It is an obvious error and one she could have asked the journalist to correct. If she was only 6 years old in August 1988, this would cast doubt on her ability to remember in such detail all the claimed events of war and persecution. The claim that she was 8 years old at the end of the war and failure to correct the record, casts doubt on her credibility.
Ms Ghahraman makes much of the claim that she is a refugee. In her Maiden Speech to the Parliament she said: "I never intended to run as the first ever refugee MP but I quickly realised that my face and my story mean so much to so many, so my fear of tokenism dissipated."
And: "When that repression got too scary, my family and I fled."
The claim that she is a “refugee” does not stand up to scrutiny, based on media reports and human rights and other reports on Iran. Her vague claims about the repression of the regime are not consistent with human rights reports on Iran because the regime was repressive from the beginning in 1979, not just in 1990. After the Islamic Revolution, thousands were imprisoned and executed because of their association with the Shah or his government. 
Entrants to university were carefully scrutinised to ensure no student or their family harboured opposition to the regime.
The claim of Ms Ghahraman is all the more shocking because hundreds of thousands have been killed, imprisoned and tortured since the Islamic Revolution in January 1979. About 3 million fled the regime and mostly went to Europe, USA, Canada and Australia. Opponents of the regime do not dare return to Iran, even for a visit. The regime had death squads operating in Europe in the 1980s and 1990s and there is evidence they have restarted. This is a regime which hunts down and kills and maims opponents, even after they have fled the country.
The claim to be a refugee from Iran is a significant claim, historically and morally. Too many people have been tortured, executed or forced to flee for their lives for anyone to claim this status without justification. Unlike her and her parents who left by plane, many escaped in dangerous journeys over the mountains to Turkey or across the border into Iraq. Many died or were killed in the attempt. 
I first represented Iranian refugees in 1994 in their application for refugee status in Australia, and have being doing so up until the present. I have listened to many stories of torture, persecution and escape. I have read the human rights reports and gone through pages and pages of reports with the photos of those executed. Between July 2010 and June 2015, as a Member of the Refugee Review Tribunal, I conducted hearings with Iranians who had applied for a protection visa and been refused by the Department of Immigration, and made decisions giving detailed reasons. 
Ms Ghahraman has described in the NZ Herald and Stuff online how her parents supported the Islamic Revolution, like many people at that time from all sides of politics who came together to oppose the Shah. She says that father was an agricultural engineer, working for the Ministry of Agriculture. She says he was undertaking research in developing alternative fuel sources. She says her mother was admitted to university after the Islamic Revolution and graduated. She described how she left Iran, with an orderly departure at an airport. The family was issued with passports, given permission to leave the country and allowed to take a holiday in Malaysia. The regime had a watch list to stop opponents obtaining passports and departing from an airport. 
This indicates that Ms Ghahraman’s family were viewed by the regime as their supporters. Her father was undertaking strategic research. That he was allowed to travel outside Iran with his family, indicates he was trusted to return. He would only have been given these benefits if he was either a supporter of the regime or harboured no indications of opposition to them. All government workplaces had monitoring units to ensure adherence to the principles of the Islamic Revolution. The issuing of passports, permission to leave for a holiday and an orderly departure, is not consistent with people who were persecuted by the regime.
Ms Ghahraman claimed that they had to leave their house but not that it was confiscated. The regime has made billions of dollars in confiscating the property of those who fled by falsely registering title deeds transferring the property to themselves: Reuters, 11November 2013.  This indicates they were not viewed as opponents of the regime, otherwise the house would have been stolen by the regime.
Ms Ghahraman is not a refugee or a “child asylum seeker”: Green lawyer hopes to be first refugee to win a seat in Parliament. Her claims of war and persecution do not stand up to scrutiny. Her claim to be a “refugee” is disrespectful to the victims of the regime and the millions of Iranians forced to leave the country under threat of torture and death. She is the child of parents who, like all migrants, wanted a better future for their children, especially as she was approaching the years of high school and university. They made the right choice because Ms Ghahraman has had access to education and other benefits not available to her, had they stayed in Iran.