‘Unclean’ pets fall foul of Iran’s hardliners
Ultra-conservative ministers back harsh fines for owning or breeding ‘decadent’ animals
‘How many times have cats sought to devour you so that you consider them wild, harmful and dangerous?’
IRANIAN animal lovers have ridiculed a new law that could ban people from owning pets after the country’s government floated legislation aimed at protecting the country from “unclean” animals.
Citizens would be barred from owning, breeding and transporting dogs, cats and other common household pets under the proposed law, or face fines equivalent to 10 or 30 times the “minimum monthly working wage”.
Ultra-conservative lawmakers representing about 25 per cent of Iran’s parliamentarians have signed the bill, according to Emirati media outlet The National.
Iran’s government has become increasingly conservative since the election of Ebrahim Raisi, a hardliner and close ally of the country’s supreme leader, in August.
Parliament approved the appointment of 18 of Mr Raisi’s 19-member roster of ministers, many of whom come from former hardline administrations and are under US sanctions.
The group of conservatives are reportedly backing the ban as they consider keeping pets decadent or unclean, as dogs and pigs are considered under Islamic law.
In the e bill’s introduction, its authors condemn mn the practice of humans living under der a single roof with domesticated animals as a “destructive social problem”.
They y claim that pet ownership could “gradually change the Iranian and nd Islamic way of life” and fear ear it would swap “human n and family relationships” ips” with “feelings and emotional motional relationships towards owards animals”.
The legislation would prevent nt “importing, raising, g, assisting in the breeding reeding of, breeding, ng, buying or selling, transporting, driving g or walking, and keeping eeping in the home wild, exotic, harmful ul and dangerous animals”, but it does not strictly cover animals typically considered onsidered to be a threat. hreat. Animals listed in n the ban include turtles, snakes and lizards, as well as common pets including rabbits and dogs.
“How many times have cats sought to devour you so that you consider them wild, harmful and dangerous?” Yeganeh Khodami, a journalist, joked on Twitter. Another user posted a photograph of his kitten alongside the caption: “I have renamed my cat ‘Criminal’ since I heard this proposed law.” “Solving the country’s problems is tied to [killing] people’s cats and dogs?” Abdollah Ramezanzadeh, a reformist politician, tweeted.
Offenders could face fines of up to £2,900 and confiscation of the animal, as well as any vehicle used to transport it.
Landlords who allow their tenants to keep pets would be hit with the same penalty, and law enforcement would be obliged to investigate any accused of violations.
Naser Mousavi Largani, a conservative lawmaker, told local media that animals had caused “panic for children and families” in residential areas. Mr Largani said keeping pets “also brings about several infections and diseases common between humans and animals”.
Iran’s Society of Veterinarians warned that the bill could result in “uncontrollable social repercussions”.
“The bill’s text as it is written is antianimalist and far from the customary and religious laws common between humans and other creatures of God Almighty,” a statement from the society said.
Dog ownership has been a contentious issue in Iran since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, with many conservatives viewing it as a sign of Western influence. There have been attempts to ban dogs entirely, but so far none have been successful.
This summer city authorities in Tehran banned dogs from city parks and streets following pressure from hardliners.
It remains unclear whether the legislation will be passed into law. In light of the backlash, few parliamentarians are actually willing to defend it, according to reports. Moussa Ghazanfarabadi, the head of the Iranian parliament’s judicial commission, who signed the text, said: “I agree with the project in general, but I certainly disagree with some of its clauses. It is just a bill, but whether it succeeds is another matter.”