This is not a complete sentence, so it cannot be translated accurately. Please provide the full Farsi text for an accurate translation.
Farzad Saifi Karan

Privacy is generally considered as a red line to prevent others from entering into people’s personal lives. The 21st century human lives in a world where their privacy is sometimes violated without their knowledge, due to the advancement of technology and the widespread use of social networks in various forms. However, it should not be thought that the existence of such conditions should convince us to accept the violation of privacy in any form or format.

On the other hand, the violation of privacy, due to the advancement of technology and innovation, is present by governments and regimes which has a much longer history and wider dimensions. The issue of individual freedoms and citizens’ privacy and the interference of authority and the desire to encircle and control it is an important matter that requires examination from various perspectives. One of the most significant aspects of privacy violation and interference in citizens’ lives is the ideological government of the Islamic Republic of Iran – which possesses all the characteristics of an authoritarian regime – also has a great sensitivity towards citizens’ privacy and has been trying with all its power for the past forty years to control and invade this personal space.

The possession and control of citizens’ privacy by the Islamic Republic of Iran must be examined from various perspectives, including Islamic ideology, the constitution, citizenship laws, and political and security issues. All of these issues are also intertwined in a complex manner, which unfortunately cannot be fully addressed in this writing. However, since many laws in the constitution of the Islamic Republic are derived from Shia Islamic jurisprudence, it is important to not only prioritize this aspect, but also be aware that it is this Islamic ideology that determines the country’s constitution and citizens’ rights, and that jurisprudence and lawmaking move in the same direction, which is to fulfill the goals of sovereignty. The next point is the proper implementation of this law and the conditions and requirements that have been considered for it.

Ayatollah Khomeini issued an 8-article decree in 1982 addressed to the judiciary and all executive organs regarding the Islamization of laws. According to this decree, unauthorized entry into homes and workplaces, wiretapping, listening to tapes, and recording the voices of others in the name of discovering crimes and espionage in the secrets of others and disclosing them were prohibited and considered a crime.

Despite the issuance of such a decree by the leader of the revolution, there is no article in the constitution of the Islamic Republic that specifically addresses the issue of citizens’ privacy and provides a clear and precise definition of it. Article 25 of the constitution generally and vaguely mentions some issues that may be considered as indirectly referring to the issue of privacy or at least can be inferred from it. According to this law, “inspection, interception of letters, recording and disclosure of telephone conversations, disclosure of telegraphic and telex communications, censorship, non-communication and non-delivery of them, eavesdropping and any kind of espionage is prohibited, except by the order of the law.”

Hassan Rouhani, the President of Iran in 1395, said in a cabinet meeting about the government’s interference and the interference of government organizations in people’s private lives: “It is not the case that anyone or any institution wants to control the people through their actions. People’s freedom cannot be limited by regulations and the personal opinions of individuals and some institutions. People’s freedom cannot be restricted by anything other than the law, and even the government and the judiciary cannot restrict the people. Only the law can provide a framework in this regard. We have no right to interfere in people’s private and public lives, except in the implementation of the law.”

According to the statements of the President of Iran and Article 25 of the Constitution, the question that arises is how the law regards the privacy of citizens and what definition it has for it. Referring to interference in the private lives of citizens, considering that no precise and clear definition has been presented, to what extent can the judicial and security institutions be allowed to resort to the law?

In fact, if we do not consider the 8-article command of Ayatollah Khomeini, there is no specific definition and principle regarding privacy and its limits in the laws of the Islamic Republic, and this leaves the authority of the security and law enforcement agencies to determine the limits according to their needs and interests.

On the other hand, entering citizens’ privacy due to the implementation of the law – which is always mentioned by officials to justify occasional and excessive interference in people’s lives and privacy – should also consider the important and religious issue of “enjoining good and forbidding evil”. In many cases, if the law does not address the thirst of government and security institutions for interfering in people’s private lives, the religious principle of enjoining good and forbidding evil fills this void for them.

One of the most common interventions of the security and law enforcement institutions of the Islamic Republic government in the privacy of citizens is disrupting private parties and gatherings and arresting individuals for participating in mixed-gender events. This is clearly one of the cases that is considered a violation of the principle of enjoining good and forbidding evil. Security forces often use this pseudo-ideological law, which is widely practiced in Iran and is also used in various dimensions regarding mandatory hijab, to disrupt private parties held in personal homes or completely private spaces and arrest the organizers and participants as criminals.

The well-known proverb “Four walls of authority” refers to the ancient concept of the necessity of preserving and respecting individuals’ privacy. Here, it becomes completely meaningless when citizens do not have the right to hold a party in their own home, which is considered the most private place for them. This raises the question again, what can be considered privacy? Does privacy even have a meaning or concept within the framework of the Islamic Republic, given such conditions?

Regarding the matter of parties that were mentioned, although according to the law, attending mixed parties and participating in them is not considered a crime, the government tries to arrest the participants by using arguments such as the possibility of engaging in illicit relationships and consuming alcohol and drugs. Based on this assumption (even if it becomes clear that attending and entering parties should not be allowed for this reason) and preventing such crimes (even though they are supposed to happen in private spaces), the government gives permission to law enforcement and security institutions to invade people’s private parties and turn their private spaces into public spaces in order to prevent potential crimes (from the government’s perspective). Although the government tries to portray itself as a “kind motherly figure” to its citizens, it not only has no right to intervene in this area, but it also sees it as an opportunity to suppress, create fear, and control people in various aspects.

Therefore, the forty-year history of the Islamic Republic’s rule has been accompanied and continues to be accompanied by constant interference in the private lives of people. Controlling people’s private space began from the very first days of the revolution due to security concerns and the elimination of opposition, and has continued for various reasons and methods until now.