Without a doubt, what I see today on the streets of the country, especially in the capital, has no relation to “light”. What is being implemented under the name of “Light Plan” is, in other words, the same cultural cleansing that resulted in the death of Mahsa Amini and widespread protests across the country for several months, and the death of hundreds of others. But today, despite all the warnings, a strange insistence from a part of the government is still pushing for its implementation under a new name, but with the same methods and comparisons as before, and pays no attention to various criticisms. The situation has reached a point where even a part of the religious community is against the implementation of this plan and has expressed it in various ways. Nevertheless, the radicals and supporters are still pushing for its implementation. The following conversation is a scientific look at the subject from the perspective of a sociologist.

I have had a conversation with Dr. Fatemeh Moosavi Vaei, a PhD in Sociology of Social Issues in Iran and a member of the Women’s Studies Group of the Sociology Association in this field.

Mrs. Mousavi, do you define the Light Project as a cultural project?

If your intention by “Project Noor” is the deployment of anonymous white vans with chador-wearing women, supported by motorcyclists and police officers stationed in busy areas of the city, who occasionally attack and violently arrest women whose attire they deem inappropriate among pedestrians, I do not know how and on what basis a cultural name can be used for it. Project Noor has no relation to its name and is not a cultural matter, but rather the use of violence by police.

What are the main challenges in implementing the plan and how do you assess its feasibility in the current social situation prevailing in Iranian society?

The main problem with the “Plan for Light” is that it has no proper basis. Surveys and polls show that public opinion and the majority of people are against this method of resorting to violence and arresting unveiled women. From a religious perspective, there is no justifiable basis for the use of force by the government to enforce a secondary and insignificant religious decree, and several scholars from the seminary have also issued warnings about this. From a legal standpoint, the police have no authority to use violence to arrest individuals with minor offenses such as not observing the hijab. The only legal permission is the clause in Article 638 of the Islamic Penal Code, which is not enforceable, and the Bill for Chastity and Hijab has not yet been approved and cannot be considered as a basis for the actions of the police and judiciary, as it has not been passed and enacted. The “Plan for Light” only has political permission, not legal.

In your opinion, how well does the implementation of this plan align with the social needs in Iran?

The plan for street enforcement of hijab has no relation to the current needs and problems of the country. This means that if we prioritize and list the country’s social issues according to importance and inclusivity of the population, it would include: increasing the population below the poverty line, increasing marginalization, healthcare crisis, pension and insurance fund crisis, inefficiency of the education system, increase in dropouts, rise in addiction, influx of Afghan immigrants, family crisis, infidelity and divorce, and decrease in birth rate, among others. The issue of hijab is not even among the top ten social priorities in the country. The mandatory hijab plan, even if successful in the short term, will have no impact on improving social conditions and solving social problems. It will not affect the bankruptcy of pension funds, nor improve healthcare services, nor change the spread of addiction or the growth rate of the population. In fact, its unintended consequences will exacerbate social crises. For example, pressuring families

In your opinion, how effective is the involvement of the police in matters of chastity and hijab?

As I mentioned, the only existing legal provision regarding the compulsory hijab is Article 638 of the Islamic Penal Code: “Anyone who openly commits a forbidden act in public places and thoroughfares, in addition to the punishment of imprisonment from ten days to two months or up to 74 lashes, if they commit an act that is not punishable but damages public morality, will only be sentenced to imprisonment from ten days to two months or up to 74 lashes. Note – Women who appear in public places and thoroughfares without observing the Islamic hijab will be sentenced to imprisonment from ten days to two months or a fine of two to ten million rials.”

This legal article also has many legal issues and has been criticized; including the article by Seyed Hossein Hashemi (1386) entitled “A Critique of Article 638 of the Islamic Penal Code on the Crime of Unveiling” which discusses various topics such as problems in the wording of the act of haram and the confusion between sin and crime, and even stricter adherence to religious law, and raises two main criticisms regarding the extension of mandatory hijab to all women – even those exempted according to jurisprudence (such as non-Muslim women and elderly women) – and the lack of mentioning the violation of public chastity in the case of unveiling.

This legal provision is not executable, because nowadays the majority of Iranian women do not adhere to the religious dress code (covering the entire body except for the face and hands up to the wrists), and according to this law, they should all be arrested and brought to court for the judge to issue a sentence of imprisonment or a fine. The entire police force and judiciary will not be sufficient to handle the large number of violators of the religious dress code. As a result, the morality police, following their usual illegal methods, randomly detain two to three hundred women with non-religious dress every day, based on the likelihood of no resistance, and transfer them to the Ministry building, where they are insulted, humiliated, and subjected to violence. After their family members come to collect them and give a guarantee, they are released. We have seen that the morality police ultimately led to the tragic death of Mahsa Amini. The mandatory law for the religious dress code has legal and practical flaws,

It should be noted that the behavior of each individual is a part of the cultural norms that they have learned in their family and school. The reaction of those close to them is an unofficial guarantee of their adherence to these norms, as the deviant individual will face criticism and even social exclusion. The police should ensure the safety and rights of individuals in public interactions, and be careful not to allow conflicts between individuals to escalate into violence. Unfortunately, the current situation is the opposite, where individuals are given permission to confront other citizens in the name of promoting virtue, or out of fear of having their businesses shut down or facing fines as police officers. This only leads to social violence. It is not far-fetched to see another tragedy like the death of Mahsa Amini happen again, this time in a conflict within businesses.

You had said elsewhere that being unveiled is not the same as being immoral. Do you think the traditional part of Iranian society is in agreement with this view?

The fact that lack of hijab and chastity do not have a significant statistical relationship is a social science data. Essentially, many arguments about the social impact of hijab and the preservation of the family foundation are meaningless from a social science perspective and no statistical data, field research results, or even historical-comparative comparisons confirm it. Let’s go back to our own country; 150 years ago, during the Qajar era, women’s hijab and gender segregation were strictly observed. Was that society morally chaste? Historical data shows that not only was it not chaste, but there were many cases of child abuse, adultery, and sexual assault reported. Therefore, popular assumptions cannot be the basis for laws and social policies.

Unfortunately, a part of society considers their taste and traditional preferences to be in accordance with religious law; to the extent that the hijab for women is considered a fundamental principle of their religion and they insist that this interpretation be the basis of the law. When we say that the law must be in line with custom, we mean the custom of the majority of society, not a minority. The main argument of supporters of police intervention to enforce the hijab is that by abolishing the mandatory hijab law, some women will walk around unveiled. However, we saw that one year after the Mahsa Movement and before the return of police vans, not much happened, and rarely did anyone with inappropriate clothing walk around, making those concerns and warnings about a “nudity tsunami” like many other claims, baseless.

Apart from the flaws that have entered the definition of nudity in the minds of those who differ from the majority’s definition and cannot be a criterion, in all criminal laws, actions and behaviors contrary to public chastity are defined and offenders are arrested, tried and punished. To this end, it is sufficient to rewrite clause 638 of the Islamic Penal Code as follows: “Those who appear in public places and views with clothing contrary to public chastity shall be sentenced to a fine.”

Some will argue that after the change in the law, during the arrest of naked women (whose nudity must be precise and in accordance with standard images), the same current criticisms of the Guidance Organization will also be raised and it doesn’t matter. This argument is incorrect because the law must be precise, non-arbitrary, and in accordance with general customs. With a precise definition of the red lines of clothing for women and men in accordance with customs, there will be no arbitrary treatment by the police and the arrest of the accused will not be met with resistance and non-acceptance by observers. Other Muslim countries that do not have mandatory hijab laws also do not face the problem of naked men and women parades and sexual behaviors that go against public decency, and these fantasies have no relation to the culture of Muslims and the East.

Thank you for the time you have given us.