In a not-so-distant time in South Africa, for the writing of the Declaration of Freedom, announcements were published and distributed in all cities and villages of the country. This announcement asked: If you could write the law, what would you do? How can you turn South Africa into a land of happiness for all its people? And now in Iran, we want to write the text of citizenship rights; do we really want to turn Iran into a land of happiness for all its people – without any exceptions and self-interest? I think the first step is to identify our intention and be honest with ourselves, and if our intention is not to create a land of happiness for all the people of Iran, our law will not be a law of citizenship. How wonderful it would be if we prioritize honesty as our first right and audience in this stage.

Assuming that our intention is sincerely to recognize a land of happiness for all people of Iran, some believe that the existing laws are deficient and need to be amended, while others say that the problem lies in the implementation of the laws, and some see both as the problem. As a result, in the pursuit of a law-abiding society, we can place the quality of the law and its enforcement on one side, and the people’s lawlessness and law-breaking on the other. One of the factors of lawlessness is unjust and discriminatory laws; some believe that when a person is deprived of the right to live in the way they believe, they have no choice but to rebel. Therefore, I believe that entering into a discussion of prioritizing the quality of the law and its enforcement or the people’s lawlessness is like discussing the chicken and the egg. Therefore, I understand that it is not about giving or taking away rights, but about respecting them.

Every individual, organization, and government can, by respecting their own rights, simultaneously help to respect the rights of others and speed up the process of building a land of happiness for all Iranians. I agree that the law and its enforcement are one of the tools for educating and changing the behavior of society, and the effectiveness of this tool depends on the quality of the law. Sometimes, laws can be a catalyst for increasing dishonesty and inequality in order to be accepted, gain security, or gain an advantage. This means that a certain issue in society is reduced and becomes normalized, resulting in a loss of sensitivity and acceptance or inaction. For example, in our country, what is the purpose of asking about a person’s religion on a hospital admission form? Will this question affect the acceptance or rejection of a patient or the type of treatment they receive? Is this practice of asking about religion on passport forms, university applications, government employment, and many private institutions in line with Article 23 of the