Gay human rights violations don't sway state lawmakers on Iran divestment bill

If passed, House Bill 4270, which was filed at the beginning of January, would direct Massachusetts state funds to divest in Iran in addition to sealing divestments that are presently being held in foreign oil companies within Iran. The bill was voted on twice in committee and is currently pending in the House. It is questionable whether it will move to the House floor for a vote before the session ends on July 31.

The bill is backed by state Rep. Antonio Cabral (D-New Bedford) in the House and state Sen. Joan Menard (D-Fall River) in the Senate. Cabral believes that the bill is about more than simply divesting, it is about stopping the human rights violations - including against LGBT people - that occur in Iran on a daily basis.

"The appalling human rights violations are incredible, not to mention all the other issues. That was my initial interest ... here's a document that violates its own citizens human rights all the time," said Cabral of Iran's constitution. "We continue to support this kind of government by doing business directly with that government."

Indeed, Iran has had a multitude of human rights violations within its borders, including the hanging in 2005 of two teens for allegedly engaging in gay sex acts. In 2007, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Columbia University students, "We don't have homosexuals like in your country. We don't have that in our country. We don't have this phenomenon; I don't know who's told you we have it."

The text of the bill does not explicitly mention the state's goal of punishing Iran for its human rights violations. For this, and for a myriad of other reasons, it seems that many of Cabral's progressive peers, whom he feels would normally be aligned with him, adamantly oppose the bill.

State Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville), a staunch progressive and supporter of the LGBT community, for instance, testified against the bill in a recent committee hearing.

"I think it's an extremely ill advised bill, it's clearly part of a neo-conservative program to create foreign policy in a state government which is ill-equipped to do so," she said in an interview with Bay Windows, "[The foreign policy] in this case I think is designed to demonize and marginalize Iran in a way that's designed to make the public more accepting of military action in Iran, similar action to the prelude to the invasion of Iraq."

Cabral, while perplexed about the lack of support, is not in denial about the bill's lack of mention of the human rights dynamic. An aide to Cabral called it a "cafeteria" situation, with each legislator holding different reasons for voting a particular way on an issue. The aide said that that if the bill were explicitly about human rights many wouldn't support it.

Cabral feels that part of the problem is the lack of awareness surrounding the issue.

But state Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville), another LGBT-friendly progressive, voted against the bill in the Senate and is adamant that it would be unsuccessful.

"I think that it will be both ineffective and counterproductive and the reason I say that is that we've had sanctions against Iran, national sanctions, pretty tough sanctions, for thirty years and it has made no productive difference," said Jehlen.

Provost questions the bill's focus on Iran, as opposed to other countries which see just as many, if not more, human rights violations.

"I guess I would ask, they have human rights issues compared to where? Burma, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan ... why Iran versus these other countries? There are a lot of countries that have human rights issues ... Zimbabwe, Congo, there are human rights violators everywhere," said Provost. "That's why having state governments select which countries should be the target of sanctions and which should not seems very odd and very inappropriate."

Cabral disagrees with such sentiments. By cutting off funds to the Iranian government, he believes the bill is the first step in standing up against human rights violations.

"I know [those who don't support the bill] have the sense that somehow we're going to promote or effect change in Iran, and I could not disagree any more with that thought. ... You look at Iran and its actions of its own government. ... The way to do it is to starve this regime of its [financial backing] and at the same time support those citizen forces within or outside of Iran that that change," said Cabral.

While Jehlen agrees with that basic concept, she disagrees with the means by which the bill would go about the process.

"Iranian reformers, the pro-democracy, pro-peace forces inside Iran, are against divestment, they are interested in opening communication and are all opposed to sanctions. You want to strengthen the reformers in this situation," she said.

"I think the situation has changed dramatically in the last two weeks, that our own government is pursuing a different tact and I wouldn't want to be undermining Condoleezza Rice," added Jehlen. "I also wouldn't want to undermine the United States by making it harder to be flexible and to negotiate."

While nobody is denying the human rights violations that occur in Iran - especially in terms of LGBT rights - many legislators feel that Cabral's bill is the wrong approach.

"Absolutely Iran is not a friendly place for gay people, but there are a lot of places who aren't," said Provost. "Why Iran? I think there's another agenda here."