By John Q. Hosedrinker Demonstrators gathered in Berlin on June 21, 2025, to protest the Iranian regime. Supporters of the National Council of Resistance of Iran were present, with at least one individual holding a sign that read “Free Iran.” The protest was a public display of dissent against the current government of Iran. This event was captured by Reuters photographer Fabrizio Bensch.
Read the original article here
Over 1,000 people executed by the Islamic regime in Iran over the past nine months, according to human rights organizations, is a horrifying figure, and the implications are truly sobering. It’s hard to wrap your head around such a large number, especially when you consider the reasons for these executions, which often involve charges like blasphemy, apostasy, or even homosexuality. These are not crimes in any truly just legal system, but rather reflections of the regime’s rigid ideology and its determination to maintain power at any cost. It’s a brutal reminder of the lack of basic human rights and the suppression of any form of dissent in the country.
Considering the gravity of the situation, it’s natural to wonder why there aren’t more widespread demonstrations against these actions. The silence from certain quarters, even as other conflicts garner intense global attention, is striking. It begs the question of why some human rights violations are seemingly prioritized over others. It also brings to light the complicated dance of international politics and the delicate balance of interests that often overshadow the suffering of individuals.
It’s also important to distinguish between the application of the death penalty in different contexts. While the US also carries out executions, the crucial difference lies in due process and the reasons behind the sentences. In a country with a functioning justice system, one hopes that legal safeguards are in place to prevent the execution of innocent people, though, as the article points out, the risk is never truly zero. However, in Iran, the risk is significantly higher. The regime’s ability to bend the rules to suit its agenda and to label any form of opposition as a capital crime creates a chilling environment of fear and repression.
Of course, being against the death penalty is a stance regardless of the context. It’s a complex issue with strong opinions on both sides, but the very real potential for mistakes and the irreversible nature of the punishment are major concerns.
The focus shifts to the fact that some view Iran with an almost favorable eye, while it’s easy to see why that is a point of disagreement. It’s a challenging comparison to make. It’s important to consider that those are completely different, and that comparisons often fall flat.
Additionally, the use of language in describing the situation is crucial. Referring to the Iranian government as the “Islamic regime” might be seen as inflammatory or biased, particularly by those who view the situation more neutrally. It is also a point of discussion whether Iran refers to Israel in a similar way, by a loaded term.
There’s a clear distinction between the ideals of a country founded on tolerance and freedom of expression and a regime that executes people for expressing themselves or their sexual orientation. The suggestion that there’s a “shared culture” or system of government where the two co-exist is dangerous and inaccurate. The two sides are completely incompatible.
The similarities of government enforced morality of a religious right and the Iranian Islamic Regime. Both involve harsh punishments and enforced control of women.
It’s important to remember that, regardless of political affiliation, the basic principles of human rights should always be upheld. It’s a reminder that every individual deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, and that the right to life is a fundamental human right that must be defended.