In Iran, there is a long historical precedent for the authorities and state and quasi-state institutions to enforce dress codes for women. The practice of enforcing dress codes has always stood as one of the most simple, available, and yet important means of exerting control over individuals. In contrast to controlling thoughts and intentions, exerting physical dominance over the body can be achieved more directly and yields clear and immediate results. The body, as the protector of an individual’s inner realm, plays a pivotal role as a buffer in safeguarding one’s autonomy, beliefs, and ideologies. Therefore, for these very reasons, one of the most effective ways of controlling the mind and subjugating a person is by penetrating this buffer – by controlling the body.
This report presents a brief historical overview of the evolution of rules and regulations governing body-covering in Iran, from the era of Rezā Shāh Pahlavi to the aftermath of the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests following the death in police custody of 22-year-old Kurdish-Iranian woman Mahsa Jina Amini, who was arrested for “improper” observance of the mandatory hijab. Rather than focusing on the rationale behind these regulations, this report provides a detailed examination of hijab-related laws, whether they mandate the compulsory wearing or removal of the hijab.
It is crucial to note that this report examines and analyzes laws related to women’s bodies and how they should be dressed. The report also critiques extrajudicial actions by law enforcement, which go beyond the actual letter of the law. However, this critique should not be interpreted as an endorsement of the laws themselves, rather the laws should be seen as the state’s attempt to legalize and legitimize violence against women and undermine their bodily integrity. This approach extends itself to the violence with which citizens are treated, when objecting to aggressive or unlawful treatment by law enforcement officials, even low-ranking officials, when monitoring women’s bodies. These objections are often met with more violence, leading in some cases to imprisonment or even death. Thus, discussions about compliance with these laws in such contexts may inadvertently be perceived as a validation of the violence they propagate.