On 20 June, France found itself facing a test of its democratic principles. A major demonstration against executions in Iran, organised by the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) and expected to attract more than 100,000 participants from across Europe – as reported in Yorkshire Bylines last month – was banned at the last minute by the French authorities.
The decision came after more than two months of preparation and coordination with the authorities. Tens of thousands of Iranians had already travelled to France. More than 800 buses were on their way to Paris. Yet on the eve of the event, organisers were informed that the rally would not be allowed to proceed.
The timing of the decision raised further questions. The ban came shortly after a telephone conversation between French foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot and his Iranian counterpart Abbas Araghchi. The NCRI argued that the timing was not coincidental and pointed to it as further evidence of a policy of appeasement towards Tehran. French authorities denied any connection between the conversation and the decision to prohibit the rally.
The official reason was security. But that explanation raises a troubling question: when did threats become a justification for silencing those who are threatened, rather than confronting those who make the threats?
No surrender to terrorism
France is not unfamiliar with terrorism. In 2018, French authorities successfully uncovered and foiled a bomb plot targeting the annual gathering of the NCRI near Paris, a plot that later led to the conviction of Iranian diplomat Assadollah Assadi on terrorism charges. The lesson at the time was clear: democracies do not surrender to terrorism. They defeat it. Why, then, was a peaceful demonstration banned in 2026, instead of protected?
The ruling of the Paris administrative court only deepened the controversy. According to the court, intelligence reports indicated that the rally faced the risk of a major attack by agents of the Iranian regime or by Iranian monarchist groups. The judgment further stated that remnants of the Shah’s regime maintain an internal security service known as SAVAK, which had threatened to plant a bomb should the demonstration be authorised.
Iran’s democratic alternative
The purpose of the rally makes the decision even harder to understand. The gathering was intended to draw attention to the escalating wave of executions in Iran. Political prisoners continue to face death sentences. Protesters are imprisoned, tortured and executed. The message was clear: any future negotiations or agreements with Tehran should include an end to political executions and the killing of protesters.
The rally had another important purpose: to highlight a viable solution to the Iranian crisis. The debate on Iran is frequently presented as a choice between military confrontation and continued engagement with the current regime. For more than two decades, however, Maryam Rajavi, President-elect of the NCRI, has advocated a third option: neither war nor appeasement, but democratic change by the Iranian people themselves to establish a democratic republic based on her Ten-Point Plan.
What lends credibility to this option is the existence of an organised resistance movement inside Iran. Networks of Resistance Units operate across all 31 provinces and in cities throughout the country. Affiliated with the People’s Mojahedin Organisation of Iran (PMOI/MEK), the principal constituent organisation of the NCRI, these resistance units have played a role in organising and sustaining anti-regime protests and uprisings in recent years. The Iranian regime itself repeatedly identifies the PMOI/MEK as its principal opponent, suggesting that what it fears most is not foreign pressure, but the prospect of an organised movement capable of turning popular discontent into democratic change.
Banned – but not silenced
Although the ban prevented the planned rally from taking place at Place Vauban, more than 50,000 people gathered at different locations across Paris to deliver those very messages. They called for an end to executions in Iran, rejected both the ruling religious dictatorship and any return to monarchy, and expressed their support for a democratic republic based on Mrs Rajavi’s Ten-Point Plan.
This vision has also received broad international backing. In recent weeks, more than 3,000 political leaders, parliamentarians, former ministers, diplomats, military officials and other dignitaries from 55 countries have endorsed it.
The significance of the ban was underscored by the calibre of those who had travelled to Paris to address the rally. High-profile political figures from Europe and North America, including former British prime minister Boris Johnson, former European Council president Charles Michel, former speaker of the UK House of Commons John Bercow, former Canadian foreign minister John Baird, former Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe General Philip Breedlove, and others, had been due to speak at the event. Many of them also spoke at a two-day Free Iran Conference held as part of the same programme of events, attended by Maryam Rajavi.
Many warned that the decision to prohibit the rally sent a deeply troubling message. Charles Michel cautioned that decades of appeasement had repeatedly failed and only prolonged the suffering of the Iranian people. Boris Johnson criticised the suppression of what he described as a legitimate democratic demonstration. French National Assembly member Christine Arrighi called the ban a betrayal of France’s democratic traditions and warned that concessions to Tehran undermine the very values France claims to defend.
Democracy must stand against appeasement
Their criticism reflected a broader concern. The threats cited by the authorities, from agents of the Iranian regime and supporters of Reza Pahlavi, did not arise in isolation. They came against the backdrop of a longstanding policy of Western concessions towards Tehran. The consequences of appeasement now extend beyond diplomacy.
The events in Paris suggest that the Iranian regime has succeeded in extending its repression of the Iranian people and its principal opposition, the PMOI/MEK, beyond Iran’s borders. When peaceful democratic assembly in Europe is curtailed to appease a dictatorial regime, authoritarian forces are effectively allowed to influence what democratic societies permit within their own borders.
For Europeans, the events in Paris should prompt reflection. Europe rightly condemns repression when it occurs in authoritarian states. But democratic values are not tested when defending them is easy. They are tested when defending them carries political costs. The decision to prohibit a peaceful demonstration against executions in Iran raises a fundamental question: will democratic societies stand with those seeking freedom and support the right of people living under dictatorship to determine their own future, or will they continue to accommodate the demands of the very regime responsible for that repression?
The Iranian people deserve solidarity, not to be silenced in Europe as they are by the regime in Iran.
Paris should have stood on the side of that principle.
Bylines Network Gazette is out!
The latest Bylines Network Gazette is out now. Become a Friend of Bylines Network or upgrade to a paid Substack subscription, and you will get access to a vital collection of citizen articles and stories.
Journalism by the people, for the people.
