25/07/2026
Shorts Are Not Jordan’s Real Problem
By Dr. Haytham Ereifej
Voices have recently grown louder in Parliament and across some media platforms, calling for restrictions on certain forms of clothing in public places, including shorts and other garments that may not conform to the personal, religious or social preferences of some individuals.
Everyone has the right to hold their own beliefs and to choose the lifestyle and clothing they consider appropriate for themselves and their families. The problem begins when personal conviction is transformed into a demand for binding legislation, and when some attempt to impose their own preferences on society as a whole through the force of law.
The question that must be asked clearly is: Where are such demands intended to lead?
Are we expected to establish a committee for the promotion of virtue and the prevention of vice? Will self-appointed morality enforcers patrol streets, shopping centres and tourist destinations, monitoring people’s clothing and deciding what is acceptable?
Who would set these standards? What length of shorts would be legally permitted? Would different rules apply to men and women? Would tourists be subjected to the same requirements? Who would be responsible for assessing and penalising alleged violations?
These questions may sound sarcastic, but they reveal the danger of vague legislation that opens the door to arbitrary enforcement, social guardianship and unjustified interference in people’s private lives.
A modern state does not manage the wardrobes of its citizens. It does not measure morality by the length of fabric or turn police officers and public employees into fashion inspectors. Its responsibility is to protect rights and freedoms and to apply the law to conduct that causes real harm to society or violates the rights of others.
The Jordanian Constitution affirms that personal freedom is protected and that any infringement upon public rights, freedoms or the sanctity of private life is punishable by law. The Penal Code already contains provisions addressing indecent acts and gestures committed in public places.
Jordan’s legal system therefore already possesses the necessary tools to deal with conduct that genuinely violates public decency or harms others. There is no need to create new offences based on the type, length or appearance of a person’s clothing.
A clear distinction must be maintained between clothing that some people dislike and an indecent act prohibited by law. Disapproval does not turn clothing into a crime, and social conservatism does not grant any individual or institution the right to impose guardianship over the personal choices of others.
Freedom is not absolute. It is limited by the law, public order and the rights of others. However, restrictions on freedom cannot be based on personal impressions or changing social preferences. They must be clearly defined, necessary and proportionate to a genuine threat.
Expressions such as “public taste” or “inappropriate appearance”, when left without precise legal definitions, create confusion and inconsistency. What one person considers inappropriate may appear normal to another. What is acceptable in one place may be viewed differently elsewhere. Personal taste must not become the basis for criminal liability.
Jordanian men and women have always been known for moderation, dignity and respect for the values of their society. Jordan has never needed morality police to pursue people because of their clothing. Our traditions and cultural identity are deeply rooted and do not require enforcement through punishment and prosecution.
Imposing values by force may produce the opposite result. Genuine morality is developed through education, awareness, good example and personal conviction—not through fear of punishment.
Those who truly wish to protect society’s values should focus on improving education, strengthening culture, supporting families and confronting violence, drug abuse, corruption and unemployment. Public morality should not be reduced to a piece of fabric.
Such proposals would also be difficult to enforce in practice and would not provide genuine solutions to any social problem. Too often, these issues become political and media distractions that consume public attention while covering up larger and more urgent national concerns.
A Jordanian struggling with unemployment, rising living costs and weak public services will not see their life improve because shorts have been prohibited. A young person searching for employment will not find a job through new clothing regulations. Schools, hospitals and the national economy will not improve through campaigns monitoring citizens’ appearance.
The greater danger lies in where such demands could lead. What begins today with shorts may tomorrow extend to the colour and style of clothing, hairstyles, music, art, books and cultural activities, eventually imposing a single social model and excluding anyone who does not conform.
At that point, the debate would no longer be about clothing. It would become an attempt to reshape society through coercion and to classify citizens as more or less religious, moral or socially acceptable, according to standards established by those who have granted themselves the authority to judge others.
This approach would not protect society. It would divide it, weaken its national fabric and create unnecessary conflict.
Jordan is founded on moderation, pluralism and coexistence. Turning social differences into a confrontation between conservatives and non-conservatives would create tensions the country does not need while it faces serious economic, political and regional challenges.
Restrictions of this kind could also affect tourism, investment and Jordan’s international image. Tourists visiting Petra, Wadi Rum, Aqaba and the Dead Sea should not feel that they may be questioned because of their clothing. Investors seek stable and open countries governed by clear laws, not environments where rules change according to social pressure or temporary political campaigns.
Transforming Jordan into a closed society would not necessarily produce greater virtue. It could instead damage tourism and investment, increase unemployment and encourage qualified professionals and young people to leave in search of environments that respect their freedom and creativity.
Defending individual freedom does not mean promoting social disorder or disrespecting society’s values. It means respecting human dignity and the right to choose, provided that no one violates the rights of others or commits an act prohibited by law.
Jordan is a state of law and institutions, not a state of social inspection committees. It is a country of moderation, diversity and openness, and it should not become a closed model that monitors the personal details of people’s lives.
Jordan is not Kandahar, and clothing is not a national crisis.
Our real crises are unemployment, poverty, weak productivity and the decline of education and culture. They also lie in the inability of some officials to offer meaningful solutions, leading them to escape into marginal battles that neither feed the hungry, employ the unemployed, build schools nor strengthen the national economy.
