Abbas Abdi wrote in a note in Etemad newspaper: “These days, the dealings that have been made or are about to be made with social activists in the parliament or in other institutions, as well as the media, including Hame Mihan newspaper, made me come to the conclusion to write the following note.” A behavioral characteristic that is formed in a child earlier than any other teaching is the sense of opposition to discrimination. Interesting experiments have shown that animals are also sensitive to discrimination, even discriminatory love, and do not accept it, let alone that discrimination is cruel and unfair. If we love one of our children more than others, the others will protest; Not because they consider more caressing and affection cruel, but because they see it as a sign of discrimination. Children are upset by punishment, but they are more offended and offended by the inequality in punishment. It is worse that we punish one for the same act and comfort and support the other. Maybe it is important for them that parents are not too strict, but if they are strict, it is important that they are the same for all children.

This is instinctive justice; Justice that is formed in our minds even before we understand the law. We follow the same pattern at the community level. People usually tolerate strict and even restrictive laws, provided that the law is applied equally to all. But when the law is implemented in a selective and discriminatory way – for some with a magnifying glass and for others with blindfolds – public trust collapses. In such a case, the law is no longer the protector of justice, but becomes a sign of discrimination. Today, we see one of the clearest manifestations of this situation in some judicial summons and with people with political and social positions. A speech that comes out of the mouth of a certain group of people is tolerated, but the expression of the same speech from the mouth of another is considered a crime. In such an environment, the principle of “law” is not questioned; Rather, equality in the implementation of the law is lost. When this equality breaks down, justice becomes meaningless, even if it is ostensibly based on law. People suffer from “discrimination” more than they suffer from “oppression”, both at home, in the work and education environment, and in the government.

Cruelty can be tolerated if it is universal; But not discrimination, even if it benefits us, because it takes away peace. For this reason, the bitter and famous saying “oppression is the opposite of justice” is widely used and well heard. A sentence that is not a praise of oppression, but a protest against discrimination. It is a kind of logic of survival and discourse in a society where, in the absence of justice, only equality in suffering remains imaginable and a wish. You must be asking what evidence is there? Here I present only a few examples of this claim in recent days.

Mr. Hashmi Rafsanjani’s daughter said that she believes that her father was killed by the internals and that he was immediately summoned. While the same insiders and the radical faction reflect the same idea with a kind of arrogance and confidence, and of course with clearer ironies than Tasreeh. Regardless of the validity of Mrs. Hashemi’s claim, the taunters should have been dealt with first, instead of letting Mr. Hashemi’s family eat the wood of those ironies and the wood of this claim. If Mrs. Hashemi mentions those explicit ironies in the court and in defense of her statement, what will the court answer as to why she has not summoned them yet?

It is interesting that a representative belonging to the hardliners in the parliament said in protest to the above claim: “Why are they not being punched in the mouth? They accuse the Islamic Republic, but it is not dealt with because they are from a special family.”

A similar but opposite example is the claim of shooting down the helicopter of Mr. Raisi, the government has repeatedly emphasized the rejection of any special and foreign action, and it was clear from the beginning that the problem was only the incompetence of his travel management and the lack of attention to the rules and timing of the movement, but some people, because they are not interested in such a death, are looking for narratives and they know that such a narrative is more than anything against the General Staff of the Armed Forces, but they say this repeatedly and do not deal with them. can’t

Another example, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of the country said that: “Some of the political leaders of the country still do not understand the sensitivity and seriousness of the current situation and they easily fight with each other and disturb the atmosphere of the country.” By the way, it is very true. These disputes are not personal, they are about the most important issues of the country and have a wide reflection in the political atmosphere of the country. But it is interesting that this council does not take any action, nor is there any news of a judicial summons. But on the opposite side, if the slightest word or article from ordinary people and the press is included, 10 people and groups will wear the clothes of the public prosecutor and will be in line, what happened? Believers must come because faith, security, religion, country and hijab are in danger.

Another example is that a hard-line representative of Tehran introduced the former president as the first accused of theft, but no questions or summons are made. On the other hand, another person said that Shakdum had relations with many people, and he was immediately tried and convicted. Of course, I do not defend any undocumented claims; It is easy to condemn, but this level of discrimination is unacceptable. The media spokesperson of extremists said that Mehsa Amini was poisoned and killed by his cousin! No official body stepped forward to deny this claim while he does not have a cousin.

Another example was the frequent news about the violations of Bank Aindeh during the past years. While so far not even one of its managers has been subjected to serious legal and judicial investigation. While other people are rotting under the ground with vague and less effective charges. There are many of the above.

Selective and discriminatory implementation of the law means violating the rule of law. In such a framework, people have learned that “uniform strictness” is better than “selective enforcement of the law”. Perhaps it can be said that the phrase “oppression is the opposite of justice” is a reflection of our historical experience of discrimination rather than a product of a philosophical view. People have lived with oppression in their history, but they have not come to terms with discrimination. A society that puts its justice on the taste and relationship and personal and factional interests of its agents, auctions its moral capital and legitimacy. In such a situation, people do not follow the law, but through mediation; And they seek refuge not in truth, but in influence. Jonathan Turner’s studies in the analysis of the factors affecting the occurrence of anger show several factors, the most important of which is the feeling of injustice and discrimination. Our anger reaches its peak when we experience and feel the discriminatory (even unjust) implementation of the law. Here, discrimination in performance acts as a “trigger” igniting latent anger and action.