The legal and executive situation regarding the issue of hijab is very complicated. This complexity has become even more strange since the start of the “Women, Life, Freedom” movement last year. Text messages about uncovering hijab, confiscation of cars, the hijab and chastity bill, nighttime arrests, internet taxis, online businesses, yogurt containers, the sealing of the Shazdeh Garden, and thousands of seemingly unrelated combinations have been the subject of discussion in recent months, all somehow related to hijab. On one hand, bearded and turbaned men in parliament are busy discussing a bill that would discourage women from going without hijab, while on the other hand, women on the streets do not take signs and warnings seriously. The government is going in one direction and society in another. So far, neither has been able to lead the other. In such a situation, nothing can be done except for stricter legislation, which only makes a mockery of the lawmakers. The current

Current situation: Neglected law

The current legal basis for dealing with what is called “improper hijab” is Article 638 of the Islamic Penal Code. This article states:

»

“Anyone who publicly commits an act of immorality in the eyes of the public and in public places and streets, in addition to the punishment for the act, will be sentenced to imprisonment for ten days to two months or (74) lashes. If they commit an act that is not punishable by law but still damages public morality, they will only be sentenced to imprisonment for ten days to two months or (74) lashes.”

Directive [Monetary Penalty Amendment 8/11/1399]: Women who appear without proper Islamic hijab in public places and in the view of the public will be sentenced to imprisonment from ten days to two months or a monetary penalty of 2,000,000 to 10,000,000 rials.

It is not clear what the legislator means by pretending to commit a forbidden act. Abortion, abandoning prayer, having bad thoughts about a fellow believer, and many other actions are considered forbidden. Would someone who publicly says, “I have bad thoughts about you, so-and-so” be punished? The limits and boundaries of the material element of the act in this article are unspecified. It is also unclear what public chastity is and how it is violated. In criminal law, everything must be clear enough that there is no doubt about the person being subject to the law and the judge. The definition of murder in Article 290 of the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 clarifies the conditions so that individuals in society and then the judge know which murder is intentional and which is not. When we punish someone for a crime, according to the principles of criminal law, they must know what they are being punished for. Article 167 of the Constitution states: “The judge is obligated to make

This article, instead of providing an explanation, adds to the complexity of the subject. What is the Islamic hijab? What are its limitations? Do all members of society, religious scholars, judges, and law enforcement officers have a unified opinion on the Islamic hijab? Who is responsible for determining it? Why does the Ministry of Guidance arrest individuals based on the judgment of a judicial officer? If they are guilty, they should be handed over to the judicial authorities instead of being detained by the police. If they are not guilty, why are they being arrested?

Two years ago, a message came to the writer of these lines to go to the Moral Security Police. I went to the famous building of the Ministers. I swore that on that particular day, no one besides me and my son had been present in my car. In response to the question of who took my license plate, they remained silent and said if you want to protest, your car will sleep for a month (will be impounded). I accepted that I was a criminal and had to attend a training class. They showed me and a few others in a hall, took our pictures and that was it! The training class was probably a few hours long, which wasted our time.

Recently, what I hear from others is even more strange than my own experience. I receive a text message saying I have to go to court. The crime has already been proven, as none of the evidence supporting the claims is mentioned. An unknown person, a regular person, or a law enforcement officer has claimed that a hijab was found in my car. There is no reason for this claim. Either I accept it, or my car will be impounded. But why my car?

According to some, for “crime” of unveiling, the car is considered a means of committing a crime. For example, in the crime of murder, the weapon used could be a gun, knife, or bomb. Can a car be considered a means of committing a crime in the case of unveiling? According to honorable judges who issue such rulings, if a person uses a car to remove their headscarf, can it be considered a means of committing a crime? Perhaps years later, the current procedure for teaching the rule of law in criminal matters can be used as an example; where the law is meaningless and enforcement is arbitrary.

Some articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights without further explanation:

Article 9: No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention, or exile.

Article 10. In determining rights and obligations and any criminal charges, everyone has the right to a fair and public trial by an independent and impartial court.

Article 11, Clause 1: Anyone accused of a crime has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in a public trial, with all necessary guarantees for their defense, according to the law.

Future situation: Everyone for hijab, hijab for everyone!

The draft of the Hijab and Chastity law, as reported by Fars News Agency, has 70 articles. The appearance of the law is very confusing and in this version that the writer has seen, there are also spelling mistakes. They have even crossed out a word in one place and have not completely erased it. The content is not much better either.

The first thing that catches the eye (it is better to write it with enthusiasm) is the number of organizations involved in this bill: the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution, the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the National Inspection Organization, the Ministry of Interior, the Administrative and Employment Organization of the Country, the Seminaries, the Islamic Propaganda Organization, the Ministry of Economy and Finance, the Ministry of Industries and Mines, the Ministry of Commerce, the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Organization for Regulation of Audio and Visual Media, the Ministry of Education and Training, the Ministry of Science, the Ministry of Health, the Scientific Deputy of the Presidency, the Municipalities and Village Councils and Islamic Councils of Cities and Villages throughout the country, the Welfare Organization, Emergency Social Centers and Counseling Centers, the Ministry of Sports and Youth, the Ministry of Roads and Urban Development, the Ministry of Communications and Information Technology,

The first thirty-seven articles of this bill can be removed; as they do not contain any useful provisions or points. Sentences such as: “Developing a safe, healthy and beneficial family-oriented space for families, children and adolescents in the virtual space with respect to the culture of chastity and hijab” (Article 2, Article 24), “Supporting the production of cultural, artistic, cinematic, theatrical, visual, literary, and similar products for children and adults in the field of promoting the culture of chastity and hijab” (Article 2, Article 11), “Raising awareness and enlightening about movements that are against the foundation of the active family or promote individualism, nudity, promiscuity, homosexuality or other vices that undermine the foundation of the family” (Article 2, Article 10), and so on, are abundant in this bill: they are reckless, slogan-like and lack definition and criteria. General and cliché words such

Article 58 of this bill discusses the general and specific authorities of the judiciary. According to the definition of the Criminal Procedure Code adopted in 2013, judicial officers include law enforcement personnel, prison chiefs and deputies in prison affairs, members of the Basij Resistance Force of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who are considered judicial officers within the scope of their assigned duties by special laws, and other armed forces in cases where the Supreme National Security Council assigns all or some of the duties and authorities of law enforcement personnel to them, as well as officials and officers who are considered judicial officers within the scope of their assigned duties by special laws (Article 15). The latter includes government revenue collectors and smugglers, ship commanders, aircraft commanders, railway police officers, port and customs guards, customs organization protection officers, municipal officers, and code enforcement officers. These individuals are considered judicial officers in specific matters, conditions, or times. What can be understood from Article 58, without any restrictions for specific officers, is

In addition to law enforcement officers, people who have received the necessary training and certification from the police can report images of individuals without hijab or improperly dressed, as well as owners of businesses and professions, to the system. Apart from the social issue that this creates, involving the judiciary in the large number of cases that are created is far from a rational legal behavior. Furthermore, the question of how a photo or video can serve as evidence and where it falls in terms of proof for these specific crimes is another legal concern. Even more strange is the case of managers or highest authorities responsible for land, sea, or rail transportation companies and institutions, who are required by Article 55 to equip their vehicles with identification tools for identifying perpetrators of crimes.

In continuation, the mentioned bill with kindness accuses crimes that many of them are in conflict with the fundamentals of criminal law. The criminal titles introduced by this bill are as follows: promoting nudity and lack of hijab or immodesty with the cooperation of governments, networks, media, groups or foreign or opposition organizations, insulting the principle of hijab or promoting nudity, immodesty, lack of hijab or immodesty, ordering advertising work to individuals or legal entities who promote nudity, immodesty, lack of hijab or immodesty, promoting nudity, immodesty, lack of hijab or immodesty by owners of speech, businesses and virtual and non-virtual professions, committing nudity, immodesty, lack of hijab or immodesty by owners of speech, businesses and their employees (with the condition that tourist routes and places are considered as the place of business for officials, managers or owners of groups and official and unofficial tourist tours), import, production or

It was previously stated that criminal laws must be explicit and clear. Any ambiguity, generality, defect, or conflict in criminal law must be interpreted in favor of the accused. This bill considers uncovering the veil as not wearing a chador, manteau, headscarf, or shawl. Women’s immodesty is also defined in this bill as wearing clothing that goes against public decency, such as revealing, tight, or clothing that exposes any part of the body below the neck or above the ankles or above the wrists. Men’s immodesty is also defined as men wearing clothing that goes against public decency, such as revealing or clothing that exposes any part of the body below the chest or above the ankles or shoulders. But what is revealing clothing? Why is there no definition of it anywhere?

The meaning of nudity and semi-nudity, immorality, unconventional movements, networks, media, groups or organizations, or rebellious individuals is not clear. It is not clear what fame or social influence means. Discriminatory actions towards the families of officials, famous individuals, and foreign nationals cannot be justified rationally.

Another issue is the principle of personal responsibility for crimes and punishments. Just like the old saying that no one can be buried in someone else’s grave, this is also a fundamental principle in criminal law. No one can be punished for a crime committed by someone else. No one in society should pay for someone else’s actions. A taxi driver should not be punished for someone else’s actions. It cannot be considered a crime just to give someone a ride, as it is possible for the person to undress after getting in the taxi. A manager of a tourism company cannot be held responsible for the lack of hijab of a tour guide – who is responsible for managing a group’s tour in a public place, such as the Tabriz market or Naqsh-e Jahan Square. Is this then a crime committed by two people? One for not wearing hijab and the other for owning a business, and both are punished? These cases are so obvious that I am ashamed to explain them further

From the past, there has been a proportion between crime and punishment. Currently, if an intelligence officer, who is responsible for security and classified information and has received the necessary training, negligently and disregarding security principles, discloses information to the enemy, they will be sentenced to one to six months in prison (Article 506 of the Islamic Penal Code, Book of Punishments, approved in 1996). However, with the Hijab and Chastity Bill, if someone promotes a short skirt in a media outlet outside of Iran (it is not clear who is meant by “opponent”), they will be sentenced to imprisonment and a fourth-degree fine; meaning imprisonment of more than five to ten years and a fine of more than 18 to 36 million tomans. The interesting point is that if the person does not have enough funds in their account, they will be considered a debtor in the central bank system so that their account can be withdrawn from as soon as possible. Compare

The carelessness of the esteemed writers of the bill is evident in the text line by line. Note 58 states: “Any person who insults or slanders women due to their hijab, through any type of behavior, whether through action or inaction, will be punished according to this article.” The esteemed drafters of the bill have not considered that insults and slander can also occur through inaction. In other words, one cannot insult or slander someone by not doing something.

Let’s talk about forbidden clothing, or the phrase “organized deception”, or the government’s duty to provide the necessary resources for this law. At the time of writing these lines, it is expected that with the help of Article 85 of the Constitution, this bill will not be passed in the public session, but rather in the commission for review and approval. They have the right to be embarrassed about making this bill public and discussing it. It seems that all the resources of the country must be used to pass this strange bill. Perhaps they think that by passing this bill, they will divert the path of society towards themselves, or that the situation will return to before September 22, 1982. They have normalized crime in society through extremist criminalization. Each of us who uses a filter is a criminal. There is not enough capacity to arrest and prosecute millions of filter users. They used to go to people’s rooftops to find satellites with a rapel, and now the issue has