Eight positions against the hijab law and a proposal to overcome this dilemma

Amir Debiri Mehr: 

When a decision is made at the level of government, some naturally agree with it and some disagree with it. From the perspective of political philosophy, the degree of validity and legitimacy of decisions is the degree of compliance with them. Therefore, a decision that is not welcomed by the people for implementation is so-called annulled, that is, annulled is born like a stillborn fetus. Regarding the hijab law, not all opponents and supporters agree with it from the same perspective and with the same purposes and intentions. 

The minority in favor of this law can be identified in the following three groups: 

A group that looks at governance in the pre-modern era and considers any decision by power, no matter how cruel, obligatory to obey. Those involved in the preparation and approval of the hijab law have such an impression of the Iranian people and are completely alien to the new discussions of constitutional rights and the philosophy of law and law and legitimacy and human rights and the limits of justified disobedience (in the words of Franz Neumann); Therefore, they are not willing to discuss and debate this matter. For example, even one person present here as a student of constitutional law would debate this matter and probably won't. 

A group that is unaware of the hidden and behind-the-scenes goals of this law and imagine that the drafters are seeking to expand chastity and hijab, and since they agree with this religious value, they consider compliance with this law as Sharia and for the benefit of the religious society. 

A group that has a substantial financial interest in enforcing this law, especially from the place of receiving large budgets and receiving heavy fines. This is the only way to fill their pockets, regardless of the truth. 

But the opponents of the hijab law are not uniform and can be put into five categories: 

A group that considers it an excuse for conflict and opposition to the system of the Islamic Republic and does not care about rights, justice and civil rights. 

The group that believes that this law is not enforceable and that its approval will weaken the legislative and executive body and oppose it out of sympathy for the system, such as the position of Masood of doctors and the government. 

Those who consider this law to be contrary to basic human rights and human rights values, especially women, such as lawyers and human rights activists. 

A group that considers this law unfair and violates the most important social and political value, namely justice, and considers the defense of justice the most important function of the government from the perspective of reason, law, conscience, custom and morality. From this point of view, I strongly disagree with this law. 

A group that thinks about the security implications of implementing this law and considers it chaotic, such as security, social, law enforcement and military experts. 

What's the solution? 

The government's insistence on implementing this law regardless of objections is the most wrong decision possible, which will do the most damage to the credibility and legitimacy of the government. The right way is to suspend this law so that in the right atmosphere the legislators can convince the last four categories of opponents of the law; If they succeed in convincing that it is better, but if they fail to convince the elites, the government should not only apologize to the people by repealing this law, but also deal legally with the designers and enforcers who imposed a high cost on the country and alarmed the public, so that this bitter experience is not repeated in the country.