“بازیگران اصلی”

“Main actors”
Goddess Amani

In over four decades since the establishment of the Islamic Republic, those in power have always strived to impose their Islamic identity by violating women’s rights, particularly in regards to the right to choose their own clothing. Street patrols and committees, such as the Jundallah Patrol, Tharallah Patrol, Ansar Patrol, and Arshad Patrol, have disturbed and harassed citizens in both public and private spaces, depriving them of peace of mind and violating their basic human rights.

Compulsory hijab has been a key element in shaping the Islamic identity of those in power, and despite repeated and unsuccessful attempts by the ruling government, the Iranian society has never succumbed to the narrow-minded beliefs of the conservatives, and has always resisted in various forms, never giving in to their backward ideologies.

If the discovery of the imposition of the veil was in line with the global societal changes and the opening of women’s presence in public space and social participation, compulsory hijab with its specific ideological coordinates and violent methods of imposition has turned into a political action.

In the past four decades, the concept of “everyone becomes my ally” has been reflected in the security, morality, structure, and norms surrounding the control of women’s clothing and hijab. In each period, with the influence of specific bright shadows, there has been a reflection of tension and power struggle within the circle of those in power in the Islamic Republic.

It seems that with the intensifying tension between America and Iran, the economic sanctions that burden the hardworking people of Iran are once again tightening the grip of authoritarian control, especially on women and their hijab. This time, the invisible veil of moral security has unleashed violence against women in public spaces. Looking back at the past four decades and the trend of compulsory hijab leading to unveiling, even some officials of the Islamic Republic admit that they will not turn back on the same path. In February 1979, Ayatollah Khomeini told a group of seminary students in Qom that women should come out with Islamic hijab, and then the slogan “Either hijab or the scarf” not only appeared on the walls of the streets, but also street harassment, insults, disrespect, and arrests increased so much that Ayatollah Taleghani said in an interview, “All the rights of women in Islam and in the Islamic Republic will be preserved, and now we ask them

On July 1, 1980, Hojat al-Islam Reishahri, the then Chief of the Revolutionary Court, wrote in a circular that the entry of women who do not observe Islamic dress into military facilities and transportation services should be prevented. As a result of this circular, a new wave of violence against women in public spaces occurred and the media reported on the beating of women’s foreheads.

In the month of Aban 1362, the Islamic Penal Code was passed, according to which women who appear in public without proper Islamic hijab are sentenced to imprisonment and up to 74 lashes. For the first time in that same year, a new discussion titled “improper hijab” emerged and committees such as Jundallah and the Anti-Vice Force were formed to address it.

In late July 1984, a group of people were arrested by the Ministry of Interior’s agents for raiding clothing boutiques. In April 1985, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, with the increase of uncontrolled movements of Hezbollah motorcyclists on the streets, prevented them from acting without harsh criticism.

The bright shadows of the fight against immodesty continued during the years 1364 to 1375. The Guidance Patrol, officially known as the “Plan for Moral Security Promotion”, officially launched with its new organization in 1384. This plan, with 219 articles regarding the specialized duties of legislative and executive bodies, and 16 articles on policies and solutions during the presidency of Ahmadinejad, was announced.

In the summer of 1385, the Guidance Patrol cars were stationed on the streets as part of the “Social Security Enhancement Plan”. In 1387, the law enforcement forces announced the allocation of a budget of 103 billion for this plan and its permanent implementation. Despite various oppositions to the implementation of this plan, it continued until 1389, when the Guidance Patrol was officially removed and a new project called “Social Security Plan” for controlling women’s clothing was introduced. However, this name change could not change people’s belief in the role of the Guidance Patrol and they still referred to this plan as “Guidance Patrol”.

The focus of the activities of the Guidance Patrol is the issue of women’s hijab and dealing with those who do not comply with the standards set by the Islamic Republic. Offenders are pursued legally and a large number of women have been dragged into the judicial system. In 2013, Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam announced that three million and six hundred thousand cases of improper hijab were reported, of which eighteen thousand were referred to the judiciary and legal cases were opened against them. However, since women’s clothing has always been a tool for promoting the political goals of those in power, with the approaching presidential elections, the activities of the Guidance Patrol were reduced. Despite the huge cost to the government for the Guidance Patrol and the large number of legal cases and the efforts of the Islamic Republic to suppress women’s desire for choice in their clothing and diversity in type, color, and design, the phenomenon of “bad hijab” not only was not contained, but it turned into

In the year 1394, the research center of the Islamic Consultative Assembly considered this plan unsuccessful. Its implementation was deemed to cause division and hypocrisy in society. This report also saw the lack of success of this plan as a lack of public demand. The report also noted that the crime of improper veiling occurred in the early days of the Islamic Revolution when such demand existed in society. The report called for new measures and solutions for “social security”.

In 1395, Hossein Sajjadi Nia announced the presence of 7,000 undercover forces to advance the “Social Security Enhancement Plan”. In recent years, social media and smartphones available to the public have reflected violence and aggression towards women by the Basij organization, leading to widespread resistance against their presence in public spaces.

Fatemeh Saeedi, in 1396, talks about the morality patrol with girls: “I wish instead of the morality patrol, we had a patrol of lies, we have abandoned lies and corruption and have become entangled in a few strands of girls’ hair.”

Duty/Task“

Invisible Ethical Security Tour“

What is it?

These 7,000 officers report license plate numbers of cars that engage in activities such as violating dress code in the vehicle, disturbing others, making noise pollution, and performing stunts, through sending text messages. After the report, the moral security police officers contact the offender and inform them to come to the police within the given deadline; if the offender complies, legal action will be taken, otherwise the police will go to the offender’s home and if they are not home or the address is incorrect, the license plate will be recorded in the violations area and the person will not be able to sell their car or use its services. This plan and its implementation raise the following questions:

• Although these 7,000 people do not directly contact individuals, they are considered law enforcers. According to the criminal procedure of the country, there is no undercover police and therefore these individuals cannot be law enforcers.

• What qualifications and expertise do these individuals possess?

• Management and review of judicial cases that create invisible ethical circles increases the volume of current judicial cases – which in Farvardin 1395 is twice the global standards compared to the population of Iran. Hamidreza Tabatabaei Nayini, vice chairman of the Judicial and Legal Commission of the Parliament, says that about 7 million cases are filed annually to the judiciary or related judicial institutions, such as dispute resolution councils. In fact, the number of judicial cases in Iran is equal to that of India – which has a population of over one billion. This is happening while the overall global trend and international guidelines are moving towards a more effective organization of the judicial system, in order to open fewer cases.

Furthermore, the role of the morality police raises the question that, according to Iranian laws, the police are only enforcers of the law and cannot legislate. However, Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam, the former commander of the police force, says: “The responsibility for enforcing the rules of hijab and its boundaries falls on the police force.” It should be noted that the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, contrary to the constitution which recognizes the parliament as the sole legislator, has the right to make laws and has entrusted the implementation of the “Comprehensive Plan for Chastity” to the police force, Ministry of Intelligence, and Basij. The police and “tangible” security forces in current and past Iran have not had the trust of the people in terms of their moral behavior, so what can we expect from the “intangible” forces whose accountability to the people is unclear? It is highly likely that personal conflicts and petty crimes will be the focus

Unveiling, a security issue?

In a society where freedom and respect for human rights do not exist, any issue can become a matter of security and politics. The pursuit and futile efforts of four decades of imposing Islamic hijab on women have consumed a significant portion of the material and spiritual capital of the government. Compulsory hijab, as Mohammad Jafar Montazeri, the prosecutor of Tehran, says, has become one of the fundamental and strategic issues of the government, and the daily confrontation with women has stirred up a lot of sensitivities in society. It seems that a considerable part of the struggle against the Guidance Patrol and visible and invisible forces of “enjoining good and forbidding evil” is a form of opposition to the dominant and official discourse, and a form of social action has been taken.

I remember having a conversation with an Iranian student who wears the Islamic hijab, studying for her master’s degree at the University of California. To make sure that her rights were not violated in the current atmosphere in America and she could continue her studies with peace of mind, I asked her how she felt about her hijab here compared to Iran. She quickly replied that she felt more pressure in Iran compared to America. She said that because hijab is mandatory in Iran, in the past decade, layers of government have classified those who do not wear hijab as embezzlers and thieves. The administrative-political magazine of the Revolutionary Guards writes in its recent issue: “If we do not want embezzlement, theft, hoarding, and Haram, we must have a chaste, noble, and veiled woman in society,” and also explicitly states that hijab is “a security, ideological, and cultural issue that is a matter of ethics before it is a law.” On

The reality is that security, whether in the real world or in the virtual world, is one of the most important topics of the current century. However, the intersection of security and gender is of even greater importance and layers. One of the tangible areas in totalitarian and closed governments is their use of women’s security as a tool to strengthen control over society, or their attempt to link women’s security with national security in order to silence the cries for gender equality and the realization of women’s human rights.

Control over women’s clothing, lifestyle, behavior, and actions in both private and public spaces, which comes at the cost of depriving citizens of their personal freedoms, imposes heavy layers of insecurity and unrest on people in the current circumstances where their daily lives are faced with new pressures of economic sanctions. Women, in such conditions where on one hand they experience tensions in foreign relations and the possibility of war, and on the other hand economic pressures, no longer have the resilience to withstand the psychological pressures of insecurity caused by surveillance.

Securitizing the issue of hijab, threatening messages, suppression, arrests, harassment and persecution of veiled and unveiled women, and girls on the streets of Enghelab, ignoring the public’s demand for the right to choose their clothing, is essentially erasing the issue. The struggles and confrontations of post-revolution generations – who have been raised within the Islamic Republic – for individual freedoms, the right to choose their lifestyle and clothing, continue and will grow. Iranian youth, thanks to information technology, are now closely connected to the global community and demand their rights, holding the government and its agents accountable. The attractiveness of the hijab issue for those in power and Western media has led them to use it as a tool to advance their oppressive policies.

Securitizing the issue of hijab not only does not bring moral security, but it will also confront the gender-stricken society of Iran with new challenges and can be seen as the government’s attempt to suppress modern demands.

Notes:

1. A review of the history of the Arshad Tour, Iran’s era, 1st of Ordibehesht month, 1395.

2. Arshad Tour’s entry to the Book Fair, Fararu, 10th of Ordibehesht month, 1393.

3. Judicial cases in Iran are twice the global standard, Parliament Building, April 9, 2016.

4. Ethical security, website of the Office for Preservation and Publication of the Works of Ayatollah Khamenei.

5. What is the Moral Security Police? From the Farmon website, 1 Esfand 1397.

6. “Political Department of the Revolutionary Guards Publication: Hijab is a “Security Issue”, Iran International Website, 29 Ordibehesht 1398.”

7. The “Gasht-e-Ershad” encounter with immodesty has not been effective, ISNA, July 18, 2017.

8. The Research Center of the Parliament announced; the lack of public demand is the reason for the unsuccessful implementation of the Guidance Patrol and satellite collection, Ana, September 21, 1394.