Outraged Iranian pet owners kick back against new proposal to ban all pets

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".

Ultraconservative 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 hard-liner Ebrahim Raisi, a close ally of the country’s supreme leader, in August.

Parliament approved the appointment of 18 of Raisi’s 19-member roster of ministers, many of whom come from former hardline administrations and are sanctioned by the United States.

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 bill’s introduction, its authors condemn the practice of humans living under a single roof with domesticated animals as a "destructive social problem".

They claim pet ownership could "gradually change the Iranian and Islamic way of life" and fear it would swap "human and family relationships” with “feelings and emotional relationships towards animals".

The legislation would prevent "importing, raising, assisting in the breeding of, breeding, buying or selling, transporting, driving or walking, and keeping in the home wild, exotic, harmful and dangerous animals" - but it does not strictly cover animals typically considered to be a threat.

Animals listed in 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?" journalist Yeganeh Khodami 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.

Conservative lawmaker Naser Mousavi Largani told local media that animals have 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 anti-animalist 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.

Police announced in July that they would crack down on uncaged dogs in vehicles, claiming they pose a distraction to drivers.

Society should "try to establish an Islamic way of life," Mohammad Hossein Hamidi, the chief of the capital's traffic police, said at the time.

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.

The head of the Iranian parliament's judicial commission, Moussa Ghazanfarabadi, who signed the text, said: "I agree with the project in general, but I certainly disagree with some of its clauses."

He added: "It is just a bill, but whether it succeeds is another matter