www.facebook.com/iransecularii

Dariush

Did I say a word about you re Nazanin? Where did the word "namaknashnas" come from?!

AND IF YOU WROTE SOMETHING ABOUT NAZANIN , WHAT DOES THAT HAVE TO DO WITH ME!!! WHAT DO I OWE YOU?!!

I really don't know what your issue is with whatever I write that somehow I make an example about an effort for petition and you somehow presume I was referring to you!!

Wouldnt you think if you have any personal issue with me to email me direct? instead of bringing it up here publically?!!Thanks

Nazanin Who ? ;0)

Oh Right You mean This Girl I suppose :

Nazanin Afshin Jam and Reza Pahlavi and Amir Abbas Fakhravar

Or is she this one :

IRANIAN SOLIDARNOSC: Yasmine Pahlavi, Nazanin Afshin Jam and Arash Sobhani (July 9th 2009)

Thank You David for updating our knowledge and reminding me of what the Word Solidarity Truly means !

So strange that I had Never heard of her before ... I must be suffering from severe Alzheimers ... 

You can make a difference by Darius KADIVAR

Saving Nazanin By Darius KADIVAR (iranian.com)

Taking a Stand: Former Miss World Canada Struggles to Save Compatriot from Execution by Darius KADIVAR (payvand.com)

TAKING A STAND: NAZANIN AFSHIN-JAM by DARIUS KADIVAR (PersianMirror)

The Struggle continues: Nazanin Afshin Jam's Human Rights Campaign by Darius KADIVAR (payvand.com)

Nazanin Afshin-Jam New Human Rights Campaign to Stop Child Executions in Iran and Beyond by Darius KADIVAR (PersianMirror)

Drop in the ocean of indifference by Darius KADIVAR

Breaking the Waves by Darius KADIVAR

Mona's Dream by Darius KADIVAR (PersianMirror)

Mona's Dream by Darius KADIVAR (Payvand)

If the Word "Namak Nashnas" Did Not exist, David Would have Certainly Invented it ! ... Just like the 1906 Constitution or the Word Solidarity

Maybe next time You can add the Word Hypocrisy to Your limited Vocabulary !

Oh Well ... Bee Khial !

I guess re inventing the Wheel in Everything is An IRANICAN THING These days ...

Enjoy Your Weekend !

DK

Dear MM

chin up brother

Lets get back to work... emails, networks, Iranian media, blogs,  ... noone said it will be easy. but there are 70 million of "us"

my facebook posting was blocked day before yesterday for posting too many comments  (freed now)

my google email account just got blocked for 24 hours because I sent email to more than 500 in one day

but tomorrow is another day...

when Nazanin Afshin-Jam started the petition to save Nazanin Fatehi (a juvenile who was being executed for self defence from rape), it took a while but after a lot of hard work and despite all redicules by the end of the year we had 300,000 signatures and they were forced to do a new trial , new judge said in court , the world is waching us and  fatehi lives today

If we try hard enough, IRAN will live too

No - instead of d Stingray, we are acting like d untouchables

And, no, I do not mean this video:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zc9zF8G2Pvc

and, let me put a "LOL" here so that everyone thinks that I am smiling.

صاعقه ?

Was that the same as  "saeegheh" or something like that that was being shown on Iranian TV in 60's? 

You Ain't seen Anything Yet ... ;0)))

Halah Kojasho Deedeed ? ...

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=E06cNv55jTs&feature=related

Tazeh Avaleh Kareem !

Hee Hee

we are no better than Ahmadinejad and his gang

I totally agree. Despite our claim, we are not better than them; not a bit.

everyone should cool off a bid

this is not about changing minds or positions, but rather the art of compromise towards a higher goal.  If we do not understand that part and do not bring down the tone, we are no better than Ahmadinejad and his gang who do not give an inch even to the opposition who believes in VF. 

David ET Jaan Why Should I ? I don't Change with the Wind ! ;0)

J'Assume !

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVjaI9-8KbI

که از ماست که بر ماست

Dear Dariusuh

If you have changed your mind or you do in future, please let me know I can remove your signature. 

Signed ONLY in Solidarity But NOT Commitment !

done But I regret it Already !

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fadCAHjN-s

LOL

David and Jamshid the Gettysburg Address doesn't work in France

Lincolns Gettysburg Address is Specific to the American System of government where the "government" and "Presidency" are seen as One. That is not the case in Parlimentiary Democracies in Europe whether Republics like France or Constitutional Monarchies like Great Britain, Belgium or Spain.

Quoted out of that context Lincolns Statement of :

"Government of the People, By the People and For the People"

Would lead to Constitutional Crisis' in nearly ALL European States.

If by "Government" we mean the individuals elected to office and put in charge to Runn the country's new policies then indeed the above Statement corresponds to what ALL European governments live up to.

If by "Government" you wish to include the President ( as in France) or the King or Queen ( as in the UK, Spain, Belgium etc ...) Then Lincolns Statement is entirely at odds with All European Constitutions (to my knowledge at least).

American Presidency Vs French Presidency: A Useless Vice President VS A Useful Prime Minister

The American Constitution has personalized the President's Role far more than in France, Italy, or elsewhere. Your Vice President has no real function except hanging around in case the President is either Assassinated or impeached or anyother reason that would lead to a vacuum of power during his tenure.

We in France have a Prime Minister who basically is in Charge of running the state while the President Presides ( very much as a Constitutional King would do, except with Far more powers).

So if we were to apply the above Statement to the letter ( as understood from an American Standpoint) in France, it would mean that if the Government were to lose a major election then not only the Prime Minister would have to leave office but also the President would have to Resign.

That Never happens in France because the Constitution ( currently the 5th Republic) has been drafted to allow the President to remain in power despite losing his majority and therefore his chosen Prime Minister. In such circumstance he therefore Very Much Like a Constitutional King "names" a new Prime Minister imposed on him by the Poles in the person of someone from the Opposition party which has distinguished himself from the rest with a comfortable majority in Parliament.

La Cohabitation: Mitterand/Chirac & Mitterand/Balladur & Chirac/Jospin:

This specific situation occured under Socialist President François Mitterand two times during his 14 years as President ( at the time each term was 7 years, today ever since an amendment was voted in parliament and in consultation with the Senate and Constitutional Council that duration was reduced to 5. Note that this was done without asking the people's consent through a referandum). This situation became known as "cohabitation". The first "cohabitation" took place in the late 1980's with Jacques Chirac as Prime Minister and the Second in the 1990's with Eduard Balladur.

The situation was Very interesting to observe given that Mitterand was basically "reigning" but not "ruling" and was even parodied in the French Muppet Shows and dubbed as "Dieu" aka "God" and assimilated to a Monarch.

Mitterand masterfully managed to remain in Power and paradoxically even More Popular than any of his predecessors to the dismay of Chirac and Balladur in regular Polls that were done during this period.

Yet Despite having absolutely No popular Legitimacy as a result of the elections, Mitterand maintained his Presidential Prerogatives in two specific domains: The Military and Foreign Affairs. Not even Chirac or Balladur could decide on these questions and given France's Stature as Nuclear Power, Mitterand had the last word when it came to having to push the "Red Button".

Paradoxically Chirac Once President was faced with  the same Cohabitation scenario after foolishly disolving the Parliament and seeing his party lose the elections which led him to name Socialist party candidate Lionel Jospin as Prime Minister.

The Major Presidential Debates From Giscard, Mitterand, Chirac:

Notice the exchange between Mitterand and Chirac in particular, Chirac ( Then Prime Minister) demands Mitterand( Then President) to adress one another as Monsieur and not their respective functions in the debate ( Mitterand manages to brilliantly ridicule Chirac ):

Note: that Chirac was precisely following the Lincolnian Logic and definition of a government's Legitimacy as well as the fact that when running for the Office they should be regarded equally in the eyes of the People they wish to represent. Yet Mitterand who insists on calling Chirac Monsieur Le Premier Ministre instead of Monsieur (as demanded by Chirac ) Won the Elections ! ... LOL

Also see in the same 1988 debate President Mitterand Vs Prime Minister Chirac their confrontation in regard to the Gorgi Affair of the Iranian Embassy in Paris:

//www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAY0XrMC8FA

The French Constitution is drafted in such a way that the President is seen as an Elected Monarch. This may seem paradoxal for a country that spearheaded one of the bloodiest Anti Royal Revolutions in the history of mankind and served as a model of democracy for more than 200 years worldwide and for many people aspiring to Freedom.

Yet the French President particularly since De Gaulle and the Referandum that led to the 5th Republic (under which we have been living since ) is an Elected Monarch in the eyes of the nation.

Sarkozy on the otherhand eversince his immensly popular election in 2007 (which surpassed in statistics all his predecessors including the Iconic Figure of De Gaulle) has tried to precisely do the opposite and introduced controversial reforms to amend the Constitution. He even tried to behave like an American President by introducing a new ceremonial speach like the American President's State of the Union adress held in one of the Chambers of Versailles Palace. It created an Uproar amongst Parlimentarians of the Opposition accusing him of Bonapartism ( in reference to Napoleon, See Le Point Coverage ).

All This with the results we see today: A Slump in Popularity, and a recent major loss in elections forcing him to revise all policy for which he was elected in the first place. The elections in question were not as catasrophic to force him into a cohabitation situation ( not yet at least) but given that the next Presidential elections are in 2012 this election defeat has been a big blow.

As a Matter of fact His Own Prime Minister Fillon who had become as useless as an American Vice President would be, saw a rise in his popularity and has led to the paradoxal situation where the Prime Minister of his own government (and party member) was more popular than the President and what makes it even more paradoxal and troublesom for the Presidency is that he cannot blame the "government" precisely for his defeat ( as Mitterand could have done during the Cohabitation by not taking direct responsability)

Now imagine the same situation in Great Britain. At worst Gordon Brown as Prime Minister who is basically the President of Great Britain would simply resign and a new Majority would take office. So the Lincolnian Statement would perfectly apply in such a situation, without for that matter bringing down the State ( Monarchy) since One Prime Minister would chase another as a result of the elections. From this point of view It should be noted that the Cohabitation scenario would have been impossible under Great Britain's Constitutional Monarchy. Imagine Margaret Thatcher remaining Prime Minister but having to cope with Only Labor Party Ministers in her government ...

And I am not even mentioning the fact that citizens in a Monarchy ( Constitutional Or Not) are "Subjects" of their Sovereign and not vice versa. A Monarchy is Not an "Egalitarian" System, It merely claims to be a Democratic One and in Particular in Great Britain where Democracy was invented Prior to Even America or France thanks to the Bill Of Rights in 1688 which inspired YOUR American One:

No need to explain to you why it is like that ... That is how it is and the British have not been complaining about this nor feel their freedoms are at jeapordy for that matter because their Passports has a Crown on the cover and calls them "subjects" of Her Majesty the Queen.

Again I am Not claiming to any type of Authority in constitutional Law. I am just saying that Copy and Pasting Words in a Joint Declaration without understanding their implications in terms of drafting a future democratic Constitution seems to me a little abrupt.

In all honesty I think David has Great Ideas all of which should be taken into account and debated. He is passionate and as I said I do not doubt neither his patriotism nor his democratic convictions. He should be welcomes in any Think Tank as well as participate why not to any officially recognized commission or elected body ( be it in exile or in Iran upon regime change) which would be in charge of drafting tomorrows democratic and Secular Constitution.

It is not his legitimate demands, wishes and aspirations that I dissapprove of but their Coherence and applicability.

My Humble Opinion as a NON Expert,

DK

DK

In a true constitutional and democratic monarchy government, can the King run for the office of presidency/prime minister AND remain King at the same time?

Obviously, the answer is no. Because the obligations of a King and a prime minister should never be mixed. If you agree with that, then why do you think an Ayatollah should be able do mix his obligations?

One is either a traditional leader (king) or a prime minister, he cannot be both.

Similarly, one is either a spiritual leader (ayatolah) or a prime minister, he cannot be both.

The first statement is a pillar of democracy and the second statement is a pillar of secularism. Aren't we all looking for a democratic and secular form of government?

To Sargord.............

you said   "..........  applies to the disgruntled exile community, and not Iranians living inside Iran. Remember, the last voter turnout was 85%."

logical, meaningful universal declaration and statement are without boundaries, regardless it's coming from "disgruntled exiled community" or from suffocated tortured, mentally, physically raped Iranian people from inside Iran. Remember, in Saddam Husain's time, he scored 92% of the votes and popularity, year after year, election after election, and I do not have to remind you Hitler's popularity, nor bring to your  attention the sham election in North Korea, Burma, most countries in Africa and middle east among a few.   

you said "What is extraordinary is attempting to subvert the democratically founded, present day constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Advocating such is nothing less than an act of treason."

If not accepting shameless IRI Constitution ( IRI is not adhering to any of it any way) constitute "act of treason" I would proudly declare myself as advocate to act of treason.

I am puzzled by your ignorance, your state of retard and high level of brain damage, I am sure by now, most if not all readers, and contributors in this site are aware of state of your mind and your character and I think we, here, collectively wasting our time and energy to go through the same issues with you over and over again.     

I wish you a quick recovery. 

"The future government is to

"The future government is to be chosen OF (from among) the people of Iran"   

"The future government is to serve and work FOR the people of Iran"

"The future government is to be voted BY the people of Iran"

---------------------------------------------------

Great, but this "declaration" of sorts really applies to the disgruntled exile community, and not Iranians living inside Iran. Remember, the last voter turnout was 85%. Thus, all this declaration demonstrates is a list of signatories that do not respect the democratic outcome of the June presidential election.

Not that I in any way advocate subverting the Islamic Republic of Iran's democratically enacted form of government or constitution, but I'd like to address a few of the points DK has made on this thread. DK, you'll recall that the 1906 Constitution was lifted, in large measure, from the Belgian Constitution. My great-grandfather was actually the writer of that document, putting his French language translation services to task in the composition of the constitution. Thus, borrowing from external sources is not in itself extraordinary. What is extraordinary is attempting to subvert the democratically founded, present day constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Advocating such is nothing less than an act of treason.

همبستگی

راز برانداختن رژیم خودکامه ملایان همبستگی تمامی ایرانیان میباشد. ایران فردا میهنی برای تمامی نسلها، بدون هیچ گونه برتری مذهبی، قومی، جنسی و عقیدتی.

خسته نباشید...

Reply to Questions:

Most of the following subject have been discussed for the past 1.5 years on Iranian.com on numerous occasions and I will shortly address them again

دولت منتخب مردم، از مردم و برای مردم

The future government is to be chosen OF (from among) the people of Iran   

The future government is to serve and work FOR the people of Iran

The future government is to be voted BY the people of Iran  

 I absolutely see no problem with these wishes and would not want it otherwise either. Everything we desire for has been the desire of many across the world somewhere and yet has no relevance to us

۵-عدم وجود ایدئولوژی رسمی‌ ، مثل دین/مذهب یا عقاید ماورای طبیعی.
۶-جدایی کامل و بدون استثنای دولت از دین در تمامی ساختارهای دولت.
۷-جدایی روحانیون، گروه ها، احزاب و سازمان‌های دینی/مذهبی از ساختار دولت.

Above declarations complement one another and one without other is meaningless. A clergy or a religious organization is free to practice its religion, organize, advertise, assemble, express itself within society FREELY. However can not enter a SECULAR government , because can not attempt to enforce its religious views or preferences in a secular government, because obviously then will be in violation of items 5 and 6 above

The primary role of a clergy's is to spread the words of his/her God and therefore obviously s/he can not perform his/her primary promise/task as a religious leader in a secular government and therefore has to chose between one or the other. Also the religious groups (who also have the goal of implementing their religious preferences will again be in violation of principle of secularity if they enter the government. ( This is to ensure the freedom of all people and religions so some would not to be forced to adhere to wishes of another)

Indeed in some countries (eg: turkey etc etc) the religious organizations have attempted to obtain vote and enter the secular government and then have attempted to enforce religious laws and preferences within a secular system which is in violation of the secular laws. This is dishonesty on their part on the oath that they take to adhere to secular principles and it is best tp prevent it to begin with . It is in violation of principles of secularism which separates religious preferences from government and does not allow it to be forced on the people. The secular nature of the government for the good of the people should be non-negotiable just as the right of the people to chose their government

Simply clergy or religious groups in nature organizations, can not run for official positions. This does not mean imprisoning them!! (that is thinking of IR and its supporters). They still can openly exists and practice freedom of assembly and expression outside secular government

Finally signing this declaration has NOTHING to do with approving any  constitution . Signing the declaration only applies to the contents of declaration of Solidarity of Iranians and nothig else

But to address my thoughts on the subject in more detail I borrow  two of the articles of my proposed constitution:

ماده ۸

  نظام ایران سکولار  و جدا دین است و بدون دین و ایدئولوژی رسمی . نظام سکولار ایران مستقل از هر نهاد و نفوذ مذهبی خواهد بود و هیچ دین،  مذهب، ایدئولوژی یا باور شخصی خاصی را تبلیغ نمی کند. جهت حفظ جذایی دین و دولت، قانون اساسی سکولار ایران هر گونه شرکت گروه های و احزاب مذهبی در تمامی نهادهای محلی، منطقه ای، استانی و ملی دولت را اکیدا ممنوع می کند. این شامل هر کسی که مقام یا رهبری مذهبی دارد، روحانیون و غیره هم می شود. مذهب و گروه های مذهبی آزادی عمل صلح آمیز به مذهب شان را خواهند داشت. افراد درون حکومت می توانند ترجیحات مذهبی شخصی داشته باشند اما نمی توانند هیچگونه قوانین و مقررات دین محور اعمال کنند.  

ماده ۹

نظام سکولار ایران فاقد مذاهب رسمی کشور است. بنا به ماهیت سکولار در ایران همه با برخورد برابر قرار می گیرند، مستقل از مذهب و فقدان آن. تمام مذاهب درون چارچوب قانون و بدون محدود کردن یا تخطی به حقوق تضمین شده ی فردی و انسانی درون قانون اساسی آزاد به استفاده از حقوق مذهبی خود و عمل بنا به باورهای خود در مسائل شخصی هستند. حقوق فردی و انسانی که توسط قانون اساسی تضمین شده همیشه بر ترجیحات و باورهای مذهبی و ایدئولوژیک اولویت دارد. 

Love and Unity

I hope one day, we will be like European Union.

Before Signing I need more clarifications on # 3 & # 7... ;0)

David Jaan,

I would first like to thank you for giving us this opportunity as well as congratulate you for your commendable efforts to unite Iranians for a common cause of Democracy and Human rights and your genuine patriotism which I do not doubt the slightest.

But again Unlike You David Jaan  I do not claim to be an authority in Constitutional Law, so all I have to offer are Not answers but Questions ...

I Speak here ONLY on My Own Behalf

As a free citizen and regardless of the personal decision that could be made by fellow compatriots belonging to my own Constituency of likeminds  or our own leadership's decision,  I am ready to sign the petition and agree to all 13 points ( which more or less exist albeit drafted differently in all democratic constitutions) in principle but I do have a problem with the semantics of the following two points in your list which are subject to different interpretation.

3. Government of the People, By the People and For the People.

The above Lincolnian statement ( taken from the Gettysburg Address) is specific to America and even was not inititially stated as such in the American Bill of Rights and remains subject to different interpretations:

//askville.amazon.com/real-meaning-government-people/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=3492043

In addition endorsing it as stated has Constitutional Implications (particularly in the Choice of the System of Government ) and therefore demand further clarification beyond the semantic and moral significance of this historical statement in the History of American Democracy which differs in "spirit" (but not democratic functionality) from other democratic forms of government as in Great Britain or Europe:

//www.democracyweb.org/limits/history.php 

7. Exclusion of clergy, religious groups, parties and organizations from government.

How can you exclude a party from taking part in a government ? By definition anyone who runs for President or Prime Minister in a Democratic State represents a constituency and therefore a party which supports him and his ideas. Once Elected the Prime Minister or President has to take a public Oath of Preserve Protect and Defend the Constitution,  which then is "elevates" him or her to a very different status than Party Leader since he becomes the President Or Prime Minister of ALL the citizens and not merely the Political Party or Constituency he represents. Which does not mean that he won't campaign again for his own party's success or support them in local elections or another major Presidential or Prime Ministerial Election.

Clergies are citizens as any other and also have rights. Nothing can stop them to participate in civil life ( which by definition is political) and therefore run for Parliament or participate in Think Tanks when decisions made by government targets their establishment such as restoring the Mosques or Churches or if the government or City's mayor decides to build a road or cinema just in front of that Church. Or the right for prisoners ( I am not refering to Political prisoners but ordinary prisoners who are purging their sentance as they exist in all societies) to attend church or a mosque based on their pesronal faith. These are situations that can occur and do occur in all Secular Democracies and the clergy do have a say on such matters of direct concern. Or let's take the controversial law against the Burqa in France. It was drafted in accordance and consultation of all the country's official Religious councils. For instance Le Conseil du Culte Musulman ( constituted of prominent members of the muslim community, essentially sunnit's )  had to clarify it's position on the religious significance of the Burqa and whether wearing it was clearly mentioned in the Holy Texts. Not that the government for that matter would make it's decision merely on their answers but would try to make the best decision based on that extra knowledge in order to maintain civil peace.

The French Law of 1905 on the Separation of State and Religion:  

La Loi de 1905: Séparation de L'Eglise et de L'Etat

The above law specifies the Secularist Nature of the Republic but does not exclude clerics from running for government or Parliament.

No more than in Great Britain:

House of Commons (Removal of Clergy Disqualification) Act 2001 

For instance why should someone like Mehdi Karoubi Not Run for Parliament ? This is where the Constitutional Monarchy offers a flexibility which would not exist in a Republican Constitution since Karroubi would be able to Run for Prime Minister without jeapourdizing the Secular Nature of the State because in theory he is named by the King or Queen as is the case in Great Britain or Spain for instance, where as if he were to be elected President, he would be at the Very Top of a Secular State's hierarchy and therefore contradict the Secular Notion upon which that Presidency was founded.

Again I cannot vouch that my claims are accurate or correct all the more that I am no authority in law and even less in Constitutional Law for which I don't have the answers but Only questions.

But In that case I don't think that I am alone ...

As for the rest ... well Yes, I could perfectly subscribe to the "spirit" of this declaration as long as our common understanding is that by accepting it we are agreeing that it's two major pillars are our Support for Human rights and Democracy.

However my eventual signature should not be a pretext for a discriminatory debate of one System of Government in favor of another. Maybe You are Right and I am wrong or I fail to understand (in which case I count on you to enlighted me in my confusion) but It seems to be that Your Solidarity Call is a preambul to telling people that the debate of the nature of the future government is decided once this paper is signed, because based on the notion of "equality" Reza Pahlavi the Citizen won't be able to make any such claim as inheritant to the Peacock Throne. 

As Such it seems to me that you are once again doing what the French call : "Mettre Des Batons Dans Les roues ..." by confusing our Priorities.

The debate over the choice of a given system of government is once again being put on the table before that of Regime Change. A provisional government even in exile cannot be a substitute nor even be a model of how the future government should run the country. For instance De Gaulle's Exiled Government in London fighting to Restore the French Republic as opposed to the illegitimate VICHY Government and it's ZAHAK President Pétain did not function as a government with a President or Prime Minister but a coalition of different parties or Resistance groups ranging from Communists to Republicans to Right wing or Left Wing parties and even Monarchists but coordinated together by one centralized bureau in London with De Gaulle as Leader ( yes believe it or not many Monarchists such as the Compt de Paris the legitimate Heir to the French Throne Joined De Gaulle in London. De Gaulle initially thought that given the lost credibility of the French Republic in accepting collaboration with an Occupying Nazi Forces that he could convince the French of Restoring the Monarchy but like in Great Britain with a Constitutional King in the person of the Comte de Paris and himself as Prime Minister but finally abandoned the idea all together)

Again I am willing to sign this Declaration of Yours if it matters and can help convergence between all democratic forces which was already suggested here with similar intentions and spirit and even repeated months before last June's Elections to deaf ears :

REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc... by DK

But to which many have been responding to eversince Both outside:

RESPONDING TO REZA's CALL: An Iranian Solidarnosc in the Making ... By DK

And inside:

IRANIAN SOLIDARNOSC: Defecting Revolutionary Guard's confession and support to Reza Pahlavi by DK

Including Nazanin Afshin Jam :

IRANIAN SOLIDARNOSC: Yasmine Pahlavi, Nazanin Afshin Jam and Arash Sobhani (July 9th 2009) by DK

But if you insist of having my signature I will sign it as a well intentioned initiative.

Yet the Fatal question of a vaccuum of leadership still remains unsolved.

My Humble Opinion and Lingering Questions Remain at Your disposal,

DK

An Expat Iranican Seeking Knighthood ;0)

Very thoughtful David

I like it David & sign it. Need a solidarity movement outside like the eastern europe.

Mr Q is saying that people should be allowed to vote for religious or clergyman!! my question is whether the religion & clergy has any ABEROO left to vote for? Please 31 years of crapiligious rule is enough for our 70 POSHT. Its time for iran to become absolute secular. Sure religious guys like Q can participate & vote for their religious parties but under a secular constitution & when they enter the paliament they first must leave their QORAN behind the door.

nepotism, corruption and terror run deep in the divine cesspool

In the US, we have separation of church and state, but the clergy can run for government.  Here, there are not that many clergypersons who run for government, but the people are quick to recognize a charlatan wolf in sheep clothing and run them out of town before and after being elected. 

Maybe one day, after a moratorium period, clerical class in Iran be able to run for government, but after 31 years of nepotism, corruption and terror brought about by the mullahs, it is time they went away to their cubicles in Ghom, Najaf and mahhad and left the political arena to those with leadership skills and educational background in government. 

David ET, how is this in ANY WAY fair or democratic?

7. Exclusion of clergy, religious groups, parties and organizations from government.

Do you realize this language would be laughed out of any USA legislation, let alone constitution?

Many of your other points sound good. But the devil is in the details, as I have told you many times. Many of these provisions could will come under question on the same grounds.

Shouldn't people be able to vote for a religious party if they want?

How can you claim "freedom and equality" if you are banning parties that (someone) decides are too religious? How is that different than banning people who are not religious or not Muslim? How does that square with this?

9. Equal social and legal rights and opportunity for all Iranians.

???

And let's say an openly religious party did try to run candidates or an elected person professed that he was a part of a religious organization and will act according to that doctrine (will 100% happen in Iran).

So, what is the punishment for breaking that part of the constitution ?

How would any punishment square with this?

No political prisoners and prisoners of conscious.

???

As dreams go, you have a nice one. But you are far removed from the reality of Iran and Iranians. There are philosophical flaws with this, but those are rather moot because it will not be implementable on practical grounds.

You can gather all the celebrity signatures you want, but You need to understand that for something like this to be at all conceivable it has to be voted on by the Iranian people. Assuming you have somehow overthrown the current system, and set up a constitutional convention, that still means delegates chosen by the people have to approve this for it to be valid.

Few of the signatories on first day:

Nazanin Afshin-Jam [Human Rights Activist- Miss Canada 2003]

Comment: This is a great start for a constitution based on the Declaration of Human Rights and the rule of law. If we can adhere to these principles, Iran can prosper into the great country it deserves to be

Mitra Khalatbari [Journalist - formerly with Etemaad Newspaper]

Mehran Mir-Ahmadi [Journalist - Writer]