Susan Tavernetti reports: >At the recent San Francisco International Film Festival (April 19- >May 3), artistic director Peter Scarlet moderated a roundtable on >Iranian cinema. The panel included the co-producer of MARAL >who lives in Iran (but whose name escapes me), Behrouz >Vossoughi (the "De Niro of Iranian cinema" now living in the >U.S.) and Sussan Deyhim (composer, SHIRIN NESHAT >UNVEILED), among others. Scarlet was outraged by Jafar >Panahi's detainment and fingerprinting in New York while en >route from Hong Kong to the Buenos Aires and later to the San >Francisco and Los Angeles Film Festivals. He emphasized a >point not mentioned in Panahi's letter: The State Department has >traditionally WAIVED such transit visas and fingerprinting for >artists, including those entering the country from Iran. [. . . ] [excerpted portion commented upon herebelow] >Therefore, Panahi >found this newly instituted policy (Scarlet points his finger at the >Bush administration) particularly humiliating and refused to be >fingerprinted. Perhaps some actual legal / historical facts would help here. First, according to the Federal Register, the requirement to fingerprint and photograph non-immigrants bearing Iranian travel documents was promulgated under President Clinton on or about September 5, 1996. Also according to the Federal Register, this policy was reiterated in July 1998, still under President Clinton, at which point the Clinton government consolidated previous requirements for nonimmigrants carrying travel documents from Iran, Iraq, Libya and Sudan. According to the July 1998 notice, the Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of State, has the power to exempt certain nonimmigrants from the regulation in the interest of foreign policy or national security. Media sources, both American and Iranian, confirm several instances of Iranian protest against the fingerprint/photography requirement --- academics, fencing teams, wrestlers refusing to comply and being sent back home --- occurring primarily between September 1996 and December 2000, solidly under the Clinton regime. Not surprisingly, the outrage expressed on each of these occasions used the very same verbiage used by Mr. Panahi in his ostensibly fresh outrage this past month. Now, to the next point. Transit visas, despite Mr. Scarlet's confusion, are apparently an entirely different question. Again according to the Federal Register, citizens of certain nations are not eligible for transit without visa (TWOV) *under any circumstances.* Iran has been among these listed nations since 1982. Others, as noted on the most recent list, effective February 5, 2001 (or April 6, 2001 pursuant to extension) include Afghanistan, Angola, Bangladesh, Belarus, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Burma, Burundi, Central African Republic, People's Republic of China, Congo (Brazzaville), Cuba, India, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, North Korea, Pakistan, Russia, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sri Lanka and Sudan -- a group that proudly encompasses members races White, Black, Latin, Asian, Arab, Indian and other. Ms. Tavernetti cites to Mr. Scarlet further: >Panahi >was not fingerprinted upon entering the US last September for >the New York Film Festival, nor in March when he went to >Washington, D.C., for a tribute in his honor. To attend either event mentioned here, Mr. Panahi would not have needed a transit visa -- i.e., as he was not transiting through the U.S. on his way to someplace else. Given the facts as stated by Mr. Scarlet, I suspect that both trips were conducted under a different class of non-immigrant visa --- maybe even an O-1, which, according to the State Department and other online sources, is available under stringent regulation to (inter alia) foreign nationals who have made extraordinary achievement in art and science, including in the motion picture industry, and are coming to the United States to perform temporary services relating to an event or events. In any case, the fact that he was at such times treated in a way that comports with his stated expectations seems to me to go a long way toward confirming that the treatment he received at JFK this last time was not a result of racist rejection of his national origin, which he presumably had on all points of touchdown on U.S. soil, but rather a result of his failure to comply with U.S. regulations for entry and his refusal to comply with U.S. regulations upon arrival, two substantial acts that distinguish this trip from the others. Shari L. Rosenblum ---- To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L in the message. Problems? Contact [log in to unmask]