The first is that the ruling passed against the Baha’is based on an accusation of threat; unsubstantiated, as a threat, more so one undefined, is not a criminal offense. Public disorder includes such crimes as treason, sedition, riot, affray, unlawful assembly, violent disorder, racial and religious hatred, aggravated trespass, watching and besetting, etc.; none of which have been committed by a single Baha’i or the collective membership.

The second is what may be extracted from the application of the term threat; that it firmly implies acts of public disorder by the radical and less progressive elements of the Islamic community. The potential – and perhaps unlikely – offenders would be those whose intolerance and blind rage may possibly spark violent and disruptive disorder.

In light of this, the potential criminal consequences of the displeased population – by allowing civil documents to members of the Baha’i community – have been assigned sentence in advance to those who are the victims rather than the potential offenders. Furthermore, evident offences committed against the Baha’i community by government and religious authorities, and various media, have been left to stand without judgment; those of slander and libel.