One of the challenges for Iranians is that, aside from the flaws and weaknesses of the Islamic Republic’s constitution, the government is not even loyal to its own laws and does not act upon them. We have seen numerous times that the rulers of the Islamic Republic, or their supporters and followers, use the cliché and tiresome excuse of “this is the law of the country and it must be obeyed” when faced with criticism of the violent and oppressive actions of government officials, for example, regarding the enforcement of hijab. However, those who make such excuses conveniently forget that these same laws, which are supposed to protect the rights of the people, are constantly and easily disregarded.

Apart from the right to free education or the right to have a decent life according to the dignity of every human being, which has never been achieved during the life of the Islamic Republic, it is stated in Article 9 of the Constitution: “No one has the right to deprive legitimate freedoms, even by enacting laws.” This is while in some cases, the parliament has approved laws through government bills that have led to the deprivation of the legitimate freedoms of the people.

Recently, some representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly have proposed a bill to impose a prison sentence of ten to fifteen years, along with other penalties, for expressing critical and opposing views towards the official positions of the Iranian government to the presiding board of the parliament.

The complete text of “Proposal for the Addition of a Clause to the Fifth Book of Islamic Penal Code on Deterrent Measures and Punishments” along with the names of the signatory representatives has been published in Iranian media on Tuesday, 10th of Bahman.

According to this plan, expressing opinions on any subject in which “the need for official opinions is required and has not yet been officially declared” will result in punishment for the person expressing the opinion. It should be noted that not only the amount of this sentence, but also the lack of legal knowledge is considered._‌

It should be noted that many independent jurists have pointed out conflicts between this bill and other laws of the Islamic Republic, including conflicts with some provisions of Article 9 that we mentioned.

Apart from the contradiction of this bill with other laws passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly, this controversial plan also includes other criticisms. In this plan, the punishment for the person expressing their opinion, if their expression is not considered as a case of corruption on earth, which carries the risk of execution, is titled as “third degree punishment, equivalent to double the damages caused to the physical integrity of individuals or public and private property, and five to ten years of deprivation from social rights and prohibition from the profession and occupation that led to their reputation.”

In the laws of the Islamic Republic, the third degree of retribution punishment includes “imprisonment for ten to fifteen years” and “a fine of three hundred and sixty million to five hundred and fifty million rials” mentioned.

The designers of this plan claim that such statements are “false” and cause “serious disruption to the public order of the country, insecurity, or major harm to the physical integrity of individuals or public and private property, or lead to widespread corruption or indecency.”

Let’s assume that the designers of this bill are right and due to the expression of incorrect criticisms, harm is done to a person or persons. In this case, shouldn’t there be a proportionality between the rights lost by the victims and the punishment of the guilty individual? While a punishment of fifteen years in prison for the most serious crimes rarely occurs in many countries, is its implementation acceptable for a mere expression of an incorrect and unprofessional statement, or even in the case of causing disturbance? Such heavy sentences, which in a way resemble the grotesque and ridiculous, without considering legal and rational appearances, are unprecedented even in the most totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. These shameful proposals, instead of showing the power of the government and even intimidating critics, are a sign of the collapse of legitimacy and the instability and fear of the government, and in the long and medium term, will harm the political structure governing society.

I’m sorry, there is no Farsi text provided to translate. Please provide the text so I can assist you.

Furthermore, before the finalization of this plan, we witnessed some members of parliament making efforts to punish “celebrities who spread unofficial news” and it is also mentioned in the final text: any person who holds a position in society, whether it be professional, social, political, familial, scientific, cultural, or military… is not allowed to express their opinions in speeches, interviews, articles, messages, or notes in the real or virtual space… In other words, such a person will be subject to such punishment.

But it is worth mentioning that this distinction between individuals, whether it be a discriminatory distinction to the benefit of some individuals or to their detriment, has no legal basis. In various articles of the nineteenth principle of the third chapter of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it is stated that all individuals are equal before the law; therefore, what is the meaning or logic behind differentiating celebrities or well-known individuals and increasing their punishment? If we accept the rational argument of the proponents of this plan, that due to the greater influence of these individuals, the harm caused by their incorrect expression will be greater and therefore their punishment should be increased, then the punishment for government and ruling violators should also be intensified. Can we even give an example of a government official who has been punished more than what is stated in the law due to a mistake, negligence, or even administrative corruption?

Sadly, even in the implementation of its flawed laws, the ruling power is lenient and indulgent when it comes to its own responsibilities and the rights of the people. However, when it comes to punishing citizens, it becomes harsh and goes beyond its own laws, and is not accountable for this double standard.

All that was said was just a manipulation that, under the pretext of legitimacy of the government, could be presented, but the truth is clear that the house is collapsing. Indeed, it must be asked, in a system where even the legitimacy is questioned by those within the government, how can the authority to determine accusations such as “inciting public opinion”, “spreading lies” or “being unprofessional in criticism” be entrusted to government institutions that are the subject of criticism and accusation? How can one file a complaint against the accused and hope for a fair judgment?

Although the principle of this plan may be contrary to the principles of freedom of expression, which are also enshrined in the Constitution, even if there is no contradiction, is the independent judicial system willing to properly and accurately implement the procedures outlined in the legal proceedings if this bill is passed? Does the judicial system of the Islamic Republic, if it is confident in its integrity, allow for an independent and impartial panel to oversee and even intervene in the process of issuing verdicts? And this is easy, do the courts of the Islamic Republic have the courage to hold public trials with the presence of the media and free press? And again, is it easy, do these courts consider the most basic and fundamental rights of the accused, including the right to choose their own lawyer, as respected? There are thousands of examples that show that respecting the rights of the accused in the judicial system of the Islamic Republic is not a mere joke.

Not only critics of the Islamic Republic, but also authorities and supporters of the ruling system in Iran know that freedom of expression, even in a superficial form, does not exist in this country. What these proposed laws aim to achieve is not just a pseudo-legal justification for threatening and limiting freedom of speech, but rather a blatant attempt to intimidate critics. However, these efforts will go down in history as a testament to the disgraceful actions of those who design such laws. In this global village and in the 21st century, with the rise of virtual space and the flood of free information exchange, the adoption of oppressive and medieval laws will not cause fear and terror, but rather will become a source of ridicule for their creators.