This is a caption

This is a captionFatima Mohammadi

Institutions and individuals affiliated with power not only constantly strive to interfere in the privacy of citizens, but also have it on their agenda to determine their way of life. It can be said with certainty that so far, everything that has been put forward by government authorities to justify their interventions and decisions in various aspects of citizens’ lives has been nothing but baseless excuses.

Governments are chosen by the citizens. The resources of the country and the right to make major decisions, such as entrusting individuals who promise to build and manage the country more successfully and advanced, are delegated. The continuity of maintaining power and government is subject to trustworthiness, proving competence and efficiency.

One of the main reasons that institutions and government authorities allow themselves to make decisions in the private lives of citizens is the lack of a “dignified and valuable human” perspective towards citizens by the government. It should not be forgotten that “human” is inherently valuable and deserving of dignity, and has the right to enjoy human rights. If institutions or individuals in power do not value the human, dignity, and worth, the root of this issue must be found in their false beliefs from the past, such as philosophies that have survived from ancient times, and their way of looking at the entity known as “human”. A government that does not consider equal rights and citizenship for each individual is fundamentally weak in understanding the “human” and expecting it to respect human rights is futile and pointless.

From a different perspective, the political and security institutions that are said to interact with citizens actually treat them as children and themselves as the ultimate authority. They see their children as ignorant and in need of guidance in every matter, and do not recognize their right to choose, demand, ask for clarification and explanation, freedom, and other fundamental rights.

The brand of products used by citizens, websites, satellite maintenance, citizen-used applications, types of clothing and makeup, religious and ideological beliefs, political tendencies, statements, writings, boundaries of criticism, tourism purposes, sports fields – especially for women -, methods of hosting, keeping and caring for domestic animals, and many other things are examples of how the ruling system has largely limited and practically deprived the people of the right to choose their lifestyle. These interventions go beyond the streets and public places and have reached inside citizens’ cars and homes. These interventions range from high-ranking officials’ speeches to the enactment of laws. The issue that is addressed in this text is the prohibition of traveling with pets, especially dog walking.

Raising domestic animals, especially dogs, has become a concern for the government; to the point where it has criminalized this act and established laws for aggressive treatment towards citizens who are accompanied by their pets. An ordinary citizen who simply keeps a dog and takes care of it is considered a criminal and is punished. The current situation bears no resemblance to a modern and free society, and the lack of democracy, freedom, and respect for citizen’s rights is more evident in society than ever before. It is worth mentioning that the government is unable to justify its unjustified interference in determining the lifestyle of citizens and makes completely contradictory and baseless statements. It seems that even among officials, there has been no communication or transparency regarding the ban on keeping dogs. They themselves are not aware of the main reason for opposing certain natural and obvious freedoms and are only taking steps to increase the restrictions on citizens.

Some authorities and opponents have used the excuse of not following health guidelines to justify imposing restrictions on keeping domestic animals.

“Common domestic animals” (1) As the meaning of this phrase suggests, they are harmless and their owners are obliged to consider hygiene points. Common domestic animals do not jeopardize physical, mental, or hygiene safety. Of course, we cannot deny the existence of common diseases between humans and animals, but usually pet owners follow necessary precautions and hygiene measures. However, the neglect of some individuals towards this matter is not a justification for banning domestic animals. It is better to establish laws that require pet owners to follow necessary precautions. Implementing smart laws based on the needs and conditions of society can greatly reduce existing problems. Excessive attention to ideology and preferred culture is reminiscent of apartheid, which in any field leads to the regression of society and the country.

The intensity of pressure and confrontation with individuals has reached a point where one ordinary citizen who keeps a pet dog at home is afraid of being interviewed without mentioning their personal information and only limits themselves to a few sentences.

He says, “I strongly encounter people who let their dogs roam the streets, and I am forced to only use the alleys around my house to walk and take my dog out of the house.”

Some others, from an ideological perspective, address the issue of keeping and caring for animals, especially domestic dogs, and issue unacceptable rulings.

Dogs that are kept for their beauty are not considered as “property” and should not be taken to public places. This is just one example of the cases raised by authorities to justify the ban on dog walking.

Decision-making for the people should be done through the lens of the dominant ideology, away from pluralism. The absence of pluralism, which is synonymous with tyranny, is considered one of the most negative characteristics of governments.

In other cases, “the possibility of domestic animals attacking pedestrians” has been cited as a reason for opposing dog-walking.

One of the other surprising examples is the recent statements of the public prosecutor and the revolutionary prosecutor of Fardis city. In a letter, he requested that “upon observation,” individuals who bring dogs to the city, public streets, and parks for “recreation or showing off,” be dealt with harshly. The text of this letter indicates that the reason for dealing with these individuals is not the possibility of attacking pedestrians, nor health issues, nor any other reasons. Because it is emphasized that upon observation of these individuals who intend to “show off,” action should be taken. The government even interferes in the intentions of individuals and resorts to creating files and punishments to control their thoughts and recreation. Harsh methods have never been successful and the failure of such methods in dealing with citizens is a precedent in achieving the goals of governments.

The prohibition of dog walking and even having a dog in the car naturally leads to a prohibition of keeping dogs at home; because if taking a dog or any other domestic animal outside is considered a crime and prohibited, people are forced to give up keeping them in order to prevent any emotional harm to them.

What is inferred from the existing system is the imposition of authoritarian laws based on the government’s official ideology. These actions aim to expand life and culture based on the country’s official ideology and eliminate other ideologies and cultures. The government not only does not allow the emergence of different cultures – not just different from the dominant ideology but also not in conflict with it – but also does not respect the diversity of beliefs and lifestyles chosen by citizens; a diversity that is considered the beauty and attraction of society, but the government is not able to understand it and therefore suppresses it.

The law prohibiting dog-walking, although it has not officially been passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly, is enforced by the police against individuals who walk their domestic dogs. They are prosecuted and citizens who commit this crime are punished. Laws regarding walking domestic animals in public places and streets should be such that they do not violate the individual rights of citizens or infringe upon their social rights. Individuals who own domestic dogs have the right to keep and walk their pets, and if they are prohibited from doing so, their individual and citizen rights are called into question. Some believe that walking dogs and other domestic animals in public places goes beyond personal and private boundaries and invades social boundaries. It should be noted that the line between individual and social rights is sometimes so thin and delicate that it may be difficult to distinguish, and we may mistakenly disregard individual rights in order to protect social rights or vice versa. However, what is certain is that we should not seek an effective solution in prohibiting walking domestic animals. In

Laws must be established to maintain balance and protect individual and social rights; laws that are not based on imposing ideological culture on the people, but on preserving individual, social, and citizenship rights.

Note:

1- Domestic animals are divided into two groups: common domestic animals and uncommon domestic animals. Dogs and cats are considered common domestic animals, while animals like hamsters and various types of snakes are considered uncommon domestic animals.