Conversation with Mohammad Hossein Aghasi, lawyer

About the plan to develop a 10 to 15 year program for “critical commentary” from the parliament on the prison system.

“If it is expected that prominent and expert individuals refrain from expressing their opinions, naturally everyone should cover their mouths and remain silent until the official authorities of the country speak about the topic that has been raised and then others can follow suit. This is part of the remarks made by Mohammad Hossein Aghasi, a lawyer and legal advisor, in a conversation with the Peace Line. However, the subject is a proposal according to which expressing opinions about any issue that “requires the opinion of official authorities and has not yet been officially announced” will result in punishment for the person expressing the opinion. The punishment that has been considered for the person expressing the opinion, if their opinion does not fall under the category of “corruption on earth” (which will be examined under another article), is “third degree punishment (ten to fifteen years in prison), monetary punishment equivalent to twice the damages caused to the physical integrity of individuals or public and private property, and five to ten years of deprivation of social rights and

The same plan that some users of social networks have named “Khafghan” has caused the monthly magazine “Khat-e-Solh” to have a conversation with Mr. Aghasi, a lawyer, a member of the Bar Association, and a member of the Central Bar Association, and ask him about the plan and how it aligns with legal principles, freedom of speech, the constitution, and human rights. However, this lawyer says about the reason for this plan in this situation: “The opinions expressed by some well-known individuals about the gatherings that took place from September of this year, which gave credibility to these gatherings and showed a kind of support for them, have led to this issue being raised; in fact, they wanted to prevent the spread of these matters to other individuals so that they could deal with people like Mr. Ali Dayi, Ali Karimi, or actors who have expressed their opinions.”

You can read the transcript of the interview with Mohammad Hossein Aghassi, a legal expert, lawyer, and member of the Central Bar Association, in the monthly magazine “Khat-e-Solh” below.

Recently, a plan has been developed in the Islamic Consultative Assembly known as “Punishment for Non-Expert Opinions”. This is happening while we previously had laws that criminalized freedom of expression, such as “Disturbing Public Minds” or “Spreading Lies”. If such a plan is approved, to what extent will the defense of the accused and the work of lawyers and judges become more difficult in convicting them?

Of course, if it is intended for legislation to be done correctly, the Guardian Council must reject such a decision – if it has passed the parliament – due to opposition and inconsistency with the constitution. Because in the constitution – at least on paper – it is recognized that individuals have the right to express their opinions; as long as it is not against “legal standards” and does not “incite sectarianism or threaten territorial integrity”. In this case, everyone is free. All authorities also mention in their conversations that as long as a person is speaking, they are free. Of course, there is Article 500 of the Penal Code which raises the issue of criminalization for “propaganda against the system” and that is also one of the cases that has hindered freedom of expression. But if prominent and knowledgeable individuals are supposed to refrain from expressing their opinions, naturally everyone should put a muzzle on their face and remain silent until the official authorities of the country speak about the issue that has been

Let’s assume that this law is passed (which is not unlikely). To what extent will this make it harder for defendants to defend themselves and easier for judges to convict?

Work will be very difficult for lawyers. Because we have to say that this speaker is not among the individuals counted in the law (assuming this plan becomes a law). It is predicted that if ordinary people speak, there will be no problem, but if influential people speak, it can be considered a crime. This is strange. The work of judges will be much easier than what it is now. They can punish anyone who spoke and they were against their speech, under the title of being a known person – for example, a celebrity or a writer – and committed a crime under this law. It will really tie our hands more than they are already tied, and will open the hands of judges more than they are now; judges who have a long hand in convicting people for expressing their opinions.

Another question that arises is where this meter and standard will come from in the discussion of “expertise” and “non-expertise” as well as in the issue of “fame”?

It should be noted that the reason for bringing up such a plan is the opinions expressed by a few popular football players, actors, and the like. In fact, they may want to prevent these individuals from expressing their opinions. Because they influence a large number of people. Imagine a person who is famous in a small town, but no one knows them in another city. If they speak in their own city, a judge can say that those who know you in your city have been influenced by your statements and issue a conviction for that person. This is also a judicial interpretation that is within the judge’s jurisdiction. It does not require expertise; like many cases you see today. For example, so-and-so is accused of spreading lies that have caused public disturbance. This is while no disturbance has actually occurred. But the judge says that in my opinion, society has become confused. This is while no one may have even heard those statements.

These are titles that judges can use to determine the conviction of individuals.

Does that mean it ultimately falls to the judge’s decision?

Exactly the same is true. A prominent example of this is when in a case, some individuals had said something and no one had heard it. Or even if someone had heard it, they had not raised a complaint that I had become confused. But this person was convicted because they were deemed to have caused “public disturbance”. While this was not the case. But the judge’s interpretation – and perhaps the biased opinion of the judge – was that this person had caused this and they were sentenced to prison.

According to this plan, individuals who are known as celebrities and have a large number of followers on social networks are not allowed to express any opinion, and if their opinion does not match the official narrative – even if it is correct – it will be considered a “third degree punishment”. Do you think such a law would not contradict the laws of citizenship rights, and even the principles of freedom of expression and human rights?

There is no doubt that fundamentally, even the proposal of this issue in the parliament is a threat to the society and a threat to freedom of expression in the community. If it is passed and put in the hands of some judges, not only is it a violation of the dignity and honor of legislation, but it is also a violation of the dignity of the Iranian people who live in a place where such oppression is imposed upon them. In other words, it can be said that this official, blatant and public oppression is against the sovereignty of individuals.

This plan is intended to be added as a repeated clause to Article 512 of the Fifth Book of the Islamic Penal Code – the section on punishments. What does Article 512 say and what does adding this repeated clause to it mean, and what changes will it bring to this article?

Yes, it is true that it will bring about changes and will create a wide range of opportunities for judges, court officials, and security forces to easily and without challenging their opinions, bring their plans to fruition and put them into action. It can clearly and easily hold people accountable to the law and the judge.

It should be noted that a new action has been criminalized. They did not want to add it as a separate article to the end of the law. Instead, they have introduced it as a repeated article, a single article, or an annex. In late 1399, two annex articles were added to articles 498 and 500, under the names of 498 repeated and 500 repeated, which in fact have made “inspection of beliefs” official and public according to these articles. These have no connection to the previous two articles. But here, they have mentioned that it has a security aspect.

In this plan, representatives have stated that the expression of opinions by individuals who hold specific job positions is effective in inciting different segments of society towards creating chaos, turmoil, disorder, and insecurity. From a philosophical perspective, how is it possible for the “expression of opinions” to lead to “insecurity in society”?

As I mentioned before, the influence of the words of some well-known and influential individuals in society has motivated the creation of this plan. The designers of this issue do not care whether this plan respects human rights and freedom of speech or whether it is against the constitution. They have come together with this motivation and have put together and presented this plan. Of course, I do not know whether this issue will be accepted in the parliament or not. Also, whether it has been reviewed and approved in the judiciary committee or not. This matter, regardless of what you have said, has been drafted and has a lot of room for discussion. If we want to have a debate and argument about this issue, it will require an almost one-hour speech.

While this plan does not consider factors such as proportionality between crime and punishment, it will not be the first article in which we face a lack of proportionality between action and punishment. We have Article 610 of the Penal Code, titled “Conspiracy and Collusion” for “committing a crime against internal and external security.” It carries a penalty of two to five years in prison. Now, the security and judicial authorities claim that if people gather and intend to go to protests (which they claim is a disturbance), this act carries a penalty of three months to one year in prison, based on Article 618 of the Islamic Penal Code: “Anyone who causes disorder and disturbance, or engages in unusual movements or attacks on individuals, causing disruption of public order and tranquility, or preventing people from engaging in business, will be sentenced to three months to one year in prison and up to 74 lashes.” However, the conversation about the two to five years in prison is based on Article

As a final question, why do you think such a plan has been formulated by the representatives of the parliament at this particular time?

Some known individuals expressing their opinions about the gatherings that took place in the month of Shahrivar this year, which led to legitimizing these gatherings and a form of support for them, have brought up this issue; in fact, they have requested that action be taken as soon as possible to prevent the spread of these events to other individuals, so that they can confront people like Mr. Ali Dayi, Ali Karimi, or actresses and actors who have expressed their opinions.

Thank you for the time you have given us in the Khatt-e-Solh magazine.