'I shall remain an attorney committed to human rights'.

Shirin Ebadi is the recipient of the 2003 Nobel Peace Prize, for her efforts for democracy and human rights, focussing especially on the struggle for the rights of women and children. She is the founder and leader of the Association for Support of Children's Rights in Iran. A lawyer and human rights activist, Ms. Ebadi, one of the first female judges in the country, served as President of the city court of Tehran. She has also written a number of academic books and articles on human rights. Kaveh L. Afrasiabi, founder of the non-governmental organization Global Interfaith Peace, (pictured here with Ms. Ebadi) interviewed her for the UN Chronicle on 8 November 2003.

**********

I would like to first of all congratulate you for being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Has the Prize given you a new mission with respect to human rights and world peace?

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The honour of this award has reassured me that my path in the past has been a correct one and that I should continue this path, albeit with more energy and persistence, in order to prove that I am worthy of this honour.

What do you see as the biggest obstacles to world peace, particularly in the Middle East?

The lack of respect for the guidelines of the United Nations represents a serious challenge to world peace. The United Nations crystallizes the global conscience, and its principles and recommendations should be heeded. When a decision is made without due consideration of the UN Charter, then that global conscience suffers. For example, the invasion of Iraq occurred without United Nations blessing, and this represents a dangerous development with respect to the future of world peace, and I hope it will not be repeated.

According to some people, particularly since the tragedies of 11 September, Western and Islamic civilizations are clashing with each other. What are your views on this matter?

Unfortunately, the idea of clashing civilizations, which had previously been theorized in different forms, itself constitutes a rationalization for warfare. For centuries, people of different faiths--Christians, Jews and Muslims in the Middle East, for instance--lived peaceably alongside each other. There is no reason to accentuate the differences among civilizations when we should be focusing on their commonalities in today's interdependent world. If certain people exploit their religion and commit murder in the name of Islam, we should not put that on account of Islam, just as we did not attribute to Christianity the horrors that were perpetrated in Bosnia, or just as we do not blame Judaism because of Israel's disregard of various UN resolutions. How is it, then, that if some Muslims commit an error, that is interpreted in the name of Islam--that is a mistake and certainly there is no winner in this dark contest.

You have said that Islam and human rights are compatible and that the problem stems from erroneous interpretations of Islam. How do we counter this problem?

Sadly, every school of thought or ideology lends itself to pseudo-interpretations and exploitation. Islam is not an exception to this rule. Just as socialism was implemented differently in different parts of the world, similarly is the case with Islam. What is important is to interpret it correctly so that it matches the needs of contemporary time and place. Islam is a religion that values human dignity. The only distinction acceptable among human beings, according to it, pertains to their piety, not to their faith or gender. A correct interpretation of Islam shows that there is no contradiction between this religion and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Hence, the interpretations that claim Islam does not correspond with human rights, and therefore human rights should not be implemented, are quite wrong.

Given the violence in today's world and your insistence on the principle of non-violence, how can the movement of non-violence be strengthened?

Violence often stems from prejudice, which, in turn, often arises out of ignorance--i.e. ignorance of the other. It is knowledge that overcomes ignorance and the root causes of violence. Hence, the most important means for combating violence is through education, particularly by educating the young generation about the rich legacy and history of the global non-violent movement.

At what stage is the process of democracy in Iran today and how do you see its future?

Whenever I want to express my opinion about a country, I do not see it in abstraction: rather, I try to compare its present state with its past, to inquire whether or not there has been any fundamental change. If there is a change, then we can be optimistic about the future, and if the society appears to be stationary, then we should seek a different solution. Compared to twenty years ago, we see that we have made progress with respect to democracy and human rights and, therefore, I would say that we are on the path of progress. But this does not mean that we are not facing serious difficulties. We need new laws that would facilitate people's role in managing their own affairs and which respect equality of sexes that would provide more respect for freedom of speech and assembly.

What are your suggestions, as a specialist in child law, for improving such laws, for example, in Iran?

The problem with child laws in Iran is that they view children as objects, albeit valuable objects, in relation to their fathers. For example, if a man kills a neighbour's child, he can receive the death penalty, yet if a father murders his own child, he receives a maximum of ten years' imprisonment. In other words, murdering your own child is a lesser offense. This is a traditional and erroneous view of child laws. We need a new approach to child laws that begins with the premise that children are distinct from their parents. Case in point, the law states that after divorce, fathers get custody of children. This is an inappropriate law that forgets about the welfare of children, who do not belong to anyone, and the courts must creatively seek to find the best methods for protecting them.

What should be the position of women in society and social institutions such as the family?

Women should have equality of rights and positions with men. Iranian society is an evolved society. Some 63 per cent of university students are female, and this is even higher than in some European countries. Iranian women expect that their rights as equals to men should be respected, and yet they are not, and numerous laws in the country weaken the position of women in society. In addition to inappropriate laws, certain traditionalist approaches toward women promote gender inequality and prejudice, and this is contrary to the spirit of an evolving society.

You have said that you don't intend to take part in elections or the legislative process. Why is that?

I have repeatedly stated that I have no intention of taking part in factional disputes, or of direct participation in governmental affairs. Human rights address the Governments because it is Governments that violate human rights. A human rights advocate would be hard-pressed to be self-critical if he or she is within the government; that person should remain within the fabric of society. I have always been a judicial counsel, defending the innocent, political prisoners, women and children within my capacity. I shall remain as such in the future, an attorney committed to human rights.