A number of publications have reported on the deployment of 7000 undercovers agents of morality in Iran. Here’s a typical report from The Manila Times:
Police in Iran’s capital have a network of 7,000 undercover agents whose job is to inform police of alleged moral transgressors in the Islamic republic, a top official said Monday.
Bad veiling — covering the head is mandatory for women in Iran — and anti-social behavior is among the crimes the force has been tasked with tackling.
The men and women’s “undercover patrols will confront implicit transgressions in the city,” according to General Hossein Sajedinia, Tehran’s police chief.
“Confronting bad hijab and removal of veils inside cars, driving recklessly, parading in the streets, harassing women and stopping noise pollution are the priorities” for the agents, he said.
A somewhat incoherent response was published on MatarAndRosset.com:
Spurn attention of reprisals, millions of Iranian women, defy the restrictions on a cursory stand by get-up-and-go at the boundaries.
Iranian leading, still, fate to insist on the issuing, eve though the way masses coif reveals where many Iranians stand.
Mend wearing the traditional chaddar, which covers women cap-a-pie, was the mean in the initial years aft the revolution, about women are now erosion the Iranian-style manteau, a cap worn below the knees, and a looser-fitting headscarf.
Observers in Tehran say an increasing play of women do not wear headscarves go capricious and the latest fashions hold manteaus without buttons on the front.
Diplomats and noncitizen dignitaries are not exempted from the regulations. In a former accompanying, the female foreign curate of India, Sushma Swaraj, came chthonian brobdingnagian attack online this week for coat her head during a meeting with the Iranian chairman, Hassan Rouhani .
Earlier in April, Air France, which recently resumed flights to Tehran afterwards an eight-year abatement, said its female cabin lot can scorn flights to Iran subsequently protests by a numerical of the crew members o’er the compulsory hijab.
Iran Wire notes that, along with Supreme Leaders Khamenei, two Iranian MPs support the undercover agents:
And Khamenei is far from alone. He enjoys strong support from various conservative groups including the hardline “principlist” faction in Iran’s parliament. Among the principlists are two women MPs, Sakineh Omrani and Laleh Eftekhari, who spoke to IranWire.
Omrani, an MP from Semirom, says this undercover project will safeguard the dignity of women and reduce sexual harassment. “If a woman’s hijab is proper, then nobody would dare to harass her,” she says. “Proper hijab attracts less attention to women and prevents the committing of sin. The project is also a warning to those who want to violate the honor of women by telling them to be careful about how they behave.”
Omrani points out that according to the police commander, undercover agents are not allowed to confront violators themselves and can only report violations. “This project is certain to improve the situation of hijab in the country,” she adds. Omrani says all Islamic laws are designed to benefit women. “If women observe the laws of Islam,” she says, “they will learn how much respect and dignity Islam gives them.”
Omrani believes that the more conservative a woman’s hijab is, the more the society will respect her. “Nobody dares to harass a woman in hijab or look at her in a vile and disgusting way.”
But, I ask her, aren’t undercover morality patrols a violation of people’s privacy? “No,” she says. “In our society, promotion of virtue is valued highly and many people practice it. Undercover patrols are promoters of virtue, but instead of confronting the person directly they inform the police, who put the promotion of virtue into action.”
Which strikes me as avoiding the question. She could have simply said that privacy is not as important as virtue; and the entire point seems to be, like some Americans, the belief that ideology will best reality. AL Monitor talks to an expert on sociological matters:
Haleh Mirmiri, a cultural studies expert and sociologist, highlighted violations of people’s freedoms and also increasing violations of privacy in an interview with Al-Monitor. Mirmiri described the undercover agents as “private eyes or cameras” that have become a “capillary network” among marginalized members of society. She told Al-Monitor, “Previous supervision [of morality] was unsuccessful as people resisted it. This new form of supervision is just a weakened version of the old one. The political establishment keeps instilling censorship in people up to a point where eventually there will not be a clear means of distinguishing between ‘self’ and ‘other,’ and we start to become suspicious of even ourselves. In such a society, even one’s own parents can be undercover morality agents.”
In Mirmiri’s telling, the most damaging aspect of the new policing project is the harm to what she called “social capital.” She told Al-Monitor that the telltale signs that identify the people watching your conduct “are no longer people’s outfits and appearances. … For instance, having facial hair, staring at the ground and wearing loose shirts and pants can no longer be indicative that the person is a representative of the establishment. Now, even people who dress like we do can use aggressive speech against us [to enforce moral codes]. … When the means of social navigation are removed, security and trust will be damaged as a result.”
I cannot help but contrast this with the doom and gloom attitude of some of America’s social conservatives at the apparent triumph of Trump over Cruz. One sample from Politico:
If he doesn’t find someone acceptable to evangelical leaders, he risks completely turning off some of the party’s most dedicated activists, a key part of the traditional GOP base — and a problem as he tries to erase his deficit in the polls against likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton.
“If Trump is going to be successful against Hillary, he’s going to need the Tony Perkinses of the world, the Dr. [James] Dobsons, the Bob Vander Plaatses engaging and encouraging their networks,” Vander Plaats said. “Right now, I don’t see a lot of that. I see a lot of people with huge cause for concern. We really don’t know what we’re going to get with Donald Trump.”
“The choice is not him or Hillary,” added Nance, the head of Concerned Women for America, a prominent conservative group focused on bringing “biblical principles” to public policy. “The choice is him or don’t vote. … That’s really my concern, that people just stay home.”
I know I read a much better article on this subject, but cannot find it at the moment.
