“Origin of freedom”

Regarding the concept of privacy, there is neither a precise definition nor a consensus on its boundaries. The first time Aristotle defined private space and household management in contrast to public and political space; however, here we are interested in this concept in relation to human rights. We want to know if there can be something called private space in legal terms or not. In other words, are there actions that humans are not allowed to do in public space but are allowed to do in private space? It is also questioned to what extent laws can interfere in the private space of individuals.

Before starting the discussion, it is important to mention that the laws of a society should be based on the principle of human freedom, not on the preferences of rulers, moral and customary principles of the society, or religious laws. The preferences of rulers should not have any influence on human rights. What they personally consider to be in the best interest has no importance. Similarly, religious laws and moral principles should not be the basis for determining the fate of people. The right of a human being or what is good or bad for them is not determined by a fictional deity. Such actions are clear examples of oppression and violation of human rights.

In a military system like the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the rule of Sharia and the religious law determines what is right and wrong, it is not possible to talk about human rights. Under this system, there is no fundamental right, because as we have mentioned before, rights must be based on the principle of freedom. From this, we can conclude that expecting human rights to be respected from a system that is fundamentally against human rights is futile. Any laws or system that is not based on the principle of freedom is inherently unjust and must be abolished, even if it hypothetically benefits some individuals or humans.

But what is the essence of freedom? Everyone is free to do any action in society, unless that action hinders the actions and freedoms of others. The rights and therefore the laws of a modern society should be based on this principle. In other words, if it is determined that my action does not harm others, then I have the right to do that action. A brief look at the laws of the Islamic Republic shows that these laws are far from this principle.

Privacy policy

Taking into consideration this brief discussion and the principle of freedom as the basis of human rights, we turn to the concept of privacy. The Islamic Republic, which has established its laws based on the principles of Sharia, easily violates the privacy of individuals, as any action that goes against the command of God, whether in public or private, is considered evil and must be prevented. The most basic and fundamental human rights, under Islamic titles such as adultery, fornication, corruption, homosexuality, fasting, disbelief and apostasy, are violated. This has led many to openly protest against this violation of the rights and privacy of individuals. These friends proudly declare that certain actions such as marriage and parties, consumption of alcohol, and sexual relations fall under the private sphere of individuals and the government should not interfere in this sphere. Therefore, the private sphere of individuals is sacred! Contrary to modern appearances, these expressions forget the principle of freedom and fundamental human rights.

In fact, with this defense of human privacy, it is implicitly accepted that the Islamic government has the right to prohibit these same human rights in the public sphere. This tolerant idea accepts that the Islamic Republic can ban drinking, eating during Ramadan, and free dress in public, but is satisfied with allowing people to do these things in their hidden and private spaces, such as wedding ceremonies, mountains, deserts, seclusion, and solitude. This idea is contrary to the modern and progressive appearance, and is completely in violation of the fundamental human right. If eating and drinking do not harm anyone, why should I only have the right to do so in private and not in public? The principle of freedom dictates that if my actions do not contradict the freedom of others, then that action is absolutely and fundamentally my right, whether in private or public. A system should not allow the violation of freedoms and human rights in any sphere or place.

This discussion is also relevant in the field of law. Supporters of privacy claim that certain actions may be prohibited in public while permissible in private. My view, which relies on the principle of freedom, is called “reductionism”. Reductionists do not believe in drawing lines for human rights such as privacy and publicity. All freedoms related to human privacy can be explained based on the principle of freedom, and there is no need to introduce the concept of privacy into the realm of law.

Despite the fact that the argument of reductionists against the concept of privacy is prominent and acceptable in many cases, it can be controversial in some situations. According to the reductionists’ viewpoint, if an action is my right, then it does not have a private or public domain. (Note that the public domain does not refer to specific places such as offices or private places with defined and predetermined regulations. For example, it is obvious that the organizers of a masquerade party have the right to prohibit people from entering in casual clothes.) Therefore, in this case, actions such as nudity and public sex should be considered as part of human rights. Opponents of reductionists usually refer to these same moral principles to show that the concept of privacy can be incorporated into the philosophy of law to some extent.

As someone who considers privacy to be a fundamental right in the discussion of human rights, what response can I have to this criticism? Actions such as nudity and sex do not harm others and everyone has the right to engage in these activities even in public. If traditional moralists are not accustomed to these actions, it is their own problem. Adherence to the principle of freedom is much more important than the moral fears of a group of people. We must defend freedom even if it goes against the norms of society in some cases. We must accept that in society, we may encounter actions, behaviors, and beliefs that may not be desirable to us. It is a challenge, but it is worth it.

“We, as defenders of human rights, believe that human rights do not recognize borders and cultures. No system or government has the right to violate the fundamental rights of humans under the pretext of customs and culture prevailing in society (even if it is proven to exist). If human rights do not recognize political and cultural boundaries (which unfortunately has not been achieved yet), why should we recognize the boundaries of our homes and streets? Is this not contradictory to our modern assumptions about human rights?”

Criticism of feminist and Marxist views on privacy.

Privacy in practice can be much more restrictive and inhumane than these words. When supporters of privacy talk about limiting laws, they forget that many actions and behaviors of humans in privacy are oppressive towards each other. The oppression of men over women is one example of this. Feminists attack the liberal idea of privacy and private property on this basis, showing that the defense of the private sphere by liberals is in a way a defense of the rights of patriarchal family members, not individual humans.

Let me give an example: Liberals and unfortunately some leftists defend the idea that Muslims in Western countries should have the right to practice their religious rituals. This statement may seem very humane, but in reality, when we replace “individual” with “Muslim family”, it becomes completely unjust; female genital mutilation, compulsory hijab for children and women by male family members, imposing religious rituals on children, and even confining women to their homes are all part of these so-called religious rituals. Note that all of these heinous and inhumane acts have been made possible by the ridiculous concept of privacy and religious freedom! In these countries, of course, if women and children escape from their families and seek refuge in the arms of the law, they will be protected. But that’s not the issue. The issue is that terms like privacy and religious freedom are non-legal and completely misleading terms that justify injustice. Of course, everyone has the right to practice any religion, but with the introduction

So the issue is “individual” and not their family and personal privacy. It is this individual who has the freedom to practice their religious rituals, not a family, tribe, or religious minority. These concepts should be set aside in law and only the freedoms of an individual as an individual should be considered.

Investment and exploitation that employers impose on their workers and employees are also considered part of the agreement in the employment contract. Again, in accordance with the principle of non-interference of the government in private transactions of individuals and their privacy, the government does not have the right to interfere in these matters. Here, instead of the individual, private ownership and individual transactions are considered. The principle of freedom is based on the freedom of governments, governments, capitalist cartels, families, tribes, and religious sects, but it is based on the freedom of the individual.