On September 16, 2022, Iran’s Basij arrested Mahsa Amini for an alleged breach of its public

morality code. Reports surfaced that the Basij severely beat Amini for resisting an officer’s
insults, after which Amini was later found dead. Amini’s death has sparked protests worldwide
and raised the question of whether morality policing should be proscribed in all nations.

Before I make the case that morality policing should be outlawed, it is important to know what
this article does not do. This article is not a pathological altruistic rescue of women in Islam, as a
large percentage of women—both in the East and West—continue to wear the hijab despite
Amini’s death. Second, this article is not a critique of the Qu’ran, nor is it an opposition to how
Muslims interpret the Qu’ran in Islam.

Why Morality Policing Should Be Outlawed

Morality policing should be outlawed in all nations because the basic standards of society are
shifting with time. Most societies across the world view murder, arson, and assault as wrong.
Whereas working hard, monogamy, and waiting for one’s turn are considered right. But who
decides what is morally right? More importantly, who decides what is morally wrong?

The American Psychological Association defines morality as “a system of beliefs or set of

values relating to right conduct, against which behavior is judged to be acceptable or
unacceptable.” In Islamic nations, ḥisba is nestled under the system of morality. The treatises of
ḥisba meticulously regulate the dress code of women, the hours women spend outside of the
home, and the places women visit. Ḥisba further mandates that Muslims must intervene when
one is perceived to have violated Sharīaʿ law. If a woman is thought to have violated societal
standards, such as the improper wearing of a hijab, she becomes a priori suspect. In her waking
life, a woman is subjected to arrest. In her afterlife, she could be hung by the strands of her hair
or, burned in hellfire.

The first problem with this sentiment is that Sharīaʿ law does not outline who may enforce ḥisba.
This leads to arbitrary enforcement of moral code by vigilante groups in nations outside the
regulated police force. Indeed, several European nations, such as Germany, Ireland, Norway,
Spain, and the United Kingdom, have all seen a rise in de facto morality police over the last
decade. In these regions, claims surfaced that Islamic men were exercising a particular kind of
social control over immigrant women who defied patriarchal control and gay men who defied
Muslim heteronormativity. To be sure, Grete Brochmann, a sociology professor at the University
of Oslo, discovered asylum seekers and marital partners from abroad were steadily
reinforcing the morality police phenomenon. As can be seen, every Muslim who is capable
of doing so is obliged to exercise ḥisba, irrespective of jurisdiction.

Second, when ḥisba is regulated by law, it may be enforced against those who may not be out
to harm others. If there is no harm to others in the private sphere, then it follows that nations
should not interfere. As viewed by Israeli philosopher, Joseph Raz, “for there to be a harm, one
must place someone worse off than they were or is entitled to be—in a way which affects their
future well-being.” Most would agree that wearing a ‘liberated hijab’ does not place an individual
worse off than others are entitled to be. This leads one to believe that regimes that are enforcing
the morality police phenomenon are conflating law and morality. Every act of compliance with
Sharīaʿ law may not be morally right, just as every act that is morally right may not be in
compliance with Sharīaʿ law.
Another way of looking at morality policing is through the lens of legal moralism. From a
burqa’s-eye view, it may be legitimate and permissible for morality police to intervene in an
individual’s private life on moral grounds. If one violates a nation’s dress code by flaunting
their physical attributes, this may lead to inappropriate behavior. In Islam, ‘inappropriate
behavior’ is a greater criminal threat to society. Therefore, it is legitimate and permissible for
morality police to target those who oppose moral enforcement.

Even if it is legitimate and permissible for morality police to regulate the private lives of
individuals in order to preserve social morality, this is not an indication that those who enforce
ḥisba will do so impartially. One should, however, not forget that the enforcement of morality
only leads to psychological reactance. For example, individuals may believe the morality
police are limiting their exercise of freedom. If an individual is heavily pressured into accepting a
certain mode of behavior, an individual may adopt or strengthen a noncompliant view or attitude
contrary to compliance. Hence, the Amini protests.

A noncompliant attitude also resulted in a civil action against Sharīaʿ enforcement in Europe. In
Molla Sali v. Greece, the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) undertook an appraisal
of Sharīaʿ law and found that it violated the fundamental principles of democracy. Sharīaʿ law
fails the generality requirement because it does not benefit citizens in a fair and non-
discriminatory way. Furthermore, most citizens in Europe do not comply with or accept the
benefits of Sharīaʿ law. All of this points to the conclusion that European law is a reasonable
and cooperative scheme. Indeed, Lord Anderson asserted that Sharīaʿ law is not compatible
with the European Convention of Human Rights. In 2020, the ECtHR revisited the Molla Sali
case and awarded damages to a woman after the State deprived her of a comparable
percentage of her property under the rules of Sharīaʿ law. While Greece may have believed that
its application of Sharīaʿ law was an appropriate interference, the ECtHR’s decision
demonstrates Greece “ interfered wrongly and in the wrong place.”

This raises another question as to whether one is acting morally if they are coerced into
abiding by specific religious norms that may not be a part of a country’s cohesion. To answer
this question, and to get a balanced view on the topic, I reached out to stakeholders and
activists in Ireland who sit on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Derek Blighe, an activist
in Cork, firmly believes there should be a limit on the admission of International Protection
Applicants. He is also of the audience who disagrees with the broad spectrum of people who
transiently or persistently identify with a gender different from their natal sex. While I strongly
disagree with Blighe’s view on the foregoing issues, he offered a vexing appraisal of the morality
police phenomenon. For example, Blighe “heard there are people in direct provision following
girls and telling them they are not dressed appropriately.” In Blighe’s view, “this is another
symptom of bringing in a culture that is completely opposed to your own culture.” Blighe further
added, “We believe in freedom and liberty in this country. Islam is the opposite.” While some
groups, such as Ireland Against Fascism, gave no official comment, it has inferred in several
of its Twitter posts that Blighe’s activism is a form of white supremacy that is dividing Irish
communities and immigrants. However, Blighe responded that he is not a white supremacist. He
further said, “My activism is not about a division. I am not opposed to any group. I am pro-Irish.”
Where Blighe seems to delineate the boundary on immigration is when policies “encroach on
[his] traditions and culture.”

Nasc, the Migrant and Refugee Rights Centre, whose goal is to realize the rights of all
migrants and refugees within Irish society, did not respond. In light of the fact that anyone can
enforce ḥisba, and ḥisba may be enforced against those who may not be out to harm others,
morality policing should be proscribed.
Quianna Canada is a B.A. law student, an anti-racism human rights defender, and a country
condition researcher.

Suggested citation: Quianna Canada – Unveiling of Morality Police Phenomenon Reveal

Arbitrary Enforcement of Practices, JURIST - Student Commentary, October 18, 2022,
https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2022/10/canada-quianna-morality-police-arbitrary-practices/.