Another strange arrest in backwards Middle East

[Pardalis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8602449.stm

Interesting to note the kissing allegation came from a 2 year old girl, who told her mother the pair had kissed. The mother did not witness the actual kiss.

The plot thickens, it wasn't even a romantic kiss on the mouth, but a greeting peck on the cheek.

Good thing they weren't French, or they would have been charged with four counts of "kissing", or six, depending on which region they come from.

ETA: and btw, since when two year olds speak? Don't they still babble at that age?

 

[Hellbound]

Good thing they will only get prison time and a fine, what if they got beaten or executed, would you be OK with that too?

I'm not okay with the law, but I don't fault Dubai for applying their law. I think it's not a correct law, but the couple in question chose to live under it by travelling to that country. IN other words, while I believe the law is wrong and I disagree with morality-based laws in general, I do not think Dubai was wrong to charge this couple (given current information) or with the penalty applied.

Beating or execution would be different, in my eyes. But again, I would not fault Dubai for carrying out the penalty, but I would fault them for having the law in the first place.

But in any case, the main point is that when people were talking about the legal aspect, you seemed to equate this to moral equivalency. You're still mixing morality and legality together.

Morally, I'm right with you. I think the law is stupid, outdated, and wrong. Legally, it's being applied fairly by the Dubai government.

But isn't this exactly what the Dubai government is doing?

So it's OK if they do it?

Did you read my posts, or is it more fun to build your own opponents?

Yes, that's exactly what the Dubai government is doing.

No, morally I don't think it's okay if they do it.

Legally, they have every right as a sovereign nation to do it; no one forced the couple to travel to that country; no one forced them to ignore local customs and laws; no one forced them to drink; no one forced them into a public display of affection (again, assuming all the facts are in...I reserve the right to change my mind should new evidence point to a different scenario).

However, your complaints about the fine print of the laws are off-base in this case. Even cursory examination of the customs and laws of Middle Eastern countries will tell you that alcohol is definately illegal (with the sole exception of Qatar) and that public affection is STRONGLY against custom, at the least. It's not an aspect of Middle Eastern culture that's hidden.

 

[SnidelyW]

...snip....

ETA: and btw, since when two year olds speak? Don't they still babble at that age?

I'm not a legal expert, but I can probably go out on a limb here and predict the testimony of a two year old girl in any court wouldn't be given too much weight. Probably even less if she is the ONLY witness to an alleged offense.

However, the Dubai legal system works in a different fashion, it seems.

 

[Pardalis]

Legally, it's being applied fairly by the Dubai government.

Well, SnidelyW's new link shows that the whole incident was reported by a 2 year old (so we can dismiss her testimony altogether, sorry kids), and that the couple wasn't even kissing, but greeting eachother, so the story is even more ridiculous than expected.

 

[Hellbound]

Well, SnidelyW's new link shows that the whole incident was reported by a 2 year old (so we can dismiss her testimony altogether, sorry kids), and that the couple wasn't even kissing, but greeting eachother, so the story is even more ridiculous than expected.

Except that everyone is glossing over the alcohol consumption angle, which is another part of it.

Although the news story is pushing that they were arrested for kissing, the alcohol consumption is what seems to be driving the Dubai government into prosecution.

 

[Darat]

Wow, it's moral equivalency galore.

It's Dubai, just holding hands must be considered obscene over there. Or just walking side-by-side with a female.

Even if it was - so what?

And what about my comments regarding that until 2003 - just 7 years ago - that would have been illegal for me and my partner in the UK?

 

[Pardalis]

Even if it was - so what?

And what about my comments regarding that until 2003 - just 7 years ago - that would have been illegal for me and my partner in the UK?

That's surprising. Well, it's about time, and that 2003 legislation was backwards and idiotic.


Anyway, the moral of the story is beware of toddler tattle-tales.

 

[Darat]

....snip... and that public affection is STRONGLY against custom, at the least. It's not an aspect of Middle Eastern culture that's hidden.

Well really it is only about public affection between men and women, it is quite common even in the more "modern" middle east countries to see men greet each other with a kiss and holding hands when walking.

 

[Darat]

That's surprising. Well, it's about time, and that 2003 legislation was backwards and idiotic.

...snip...

I think you have got that a bit back to front.

And I would say the moral of the story is that if you are visiting a country do not break their laws.

 

[Pardalis]

And I would say the moral of the story is that if you are visiting a country do not break their laws.

As far as the kissing thing is concerned, the allegations seem to be now completely discredited with the new information in SnidelyW's BBC link (the incident was reported by a toddler who most likely doesn't speak).

The only thing left is the alcohol thing, and the couple was in a restaurant, so maybe the restaurateur is the guilty party.

 

[Hellbound]

Well really it is only about public affection between men and women, it is quite common even in the more "modern" middle east countries to see men greet each other with a kiss and holding hands when walking.

True. But still, this is not exactly hard to discover, if one does even a token amount of research into it.

 

[Darat]

True. But still, this is not exactly hard to discover, if one does even a token amount of research into it.

On the UK foreign office's website on their travel information:

http://ukinuae.fco.gov.uk/en/help-for-british-nationals/living-in-uae/DosDontsinDubai

...snip...

SOCIAL ETHICS

...snip...

IF YOU WANT TO FACE POSSIBLE ARREST AND IMPRISONEMENT THEN IGNORE THE FOLLOW ADVICE!

· Alcohol consumption is only allowed in licensed restaurants, pubs, clubs, private venues, and at home (for residents who have acquired an alcohol ...snip...




· Sexual relationships outside of marriage are illegal, Irrespective of any relationship you may have with your partner in the UK! While Dubai may attract many thousands of Brits every year to their hotels and resorts, be aware, if you come to the attention of the police authorities, even in a hotel while on holiday, you will be arrested for co-habiting; this can become a further legal issue when registering births conceived outside marriage. This can lead to imprisonment of both parties.

...snip...

· Holding hands for married couples is tolerated but kissing and hugging is considered an offence against public decency. Other displays of affection amongst any couples in public places, regardless of marital status, are not accepted.

...snip...

So it is not hard to find information about what is and what is not allowed.

What I have found particularly distasteful in this instance is the way it shows that the Dubai legal system really has no concept of due process. Again of course they have every right to have whatever legal system they want - but that doesn't mean I can't criticize it. I've lived in countries with similar issues and I do know that you fervently hope that you are never subject to "justice" in such a country!

 

[Darat]

As far as the kissing thing is concerned, the allegations seem to be now completely discredited with the new information in SnidelyW's BBC link (the incident was reported by a toddler who most likely doesn't speak).

The only thing left is the alcohol thing, and the couple was in a restaurant, so maybe the restaurateur is the guilty party.

That is the claim the defense lawyer wanted to put to the judge (as you would expect him to do) and it looks like the judge wasn't willing to hear a counter-argument.

 

[Hellbound]

On the UK foreign office's website on their travel information:

http://ukinuae.fco.gov.uk/en/help-for-british-nationals/living-in-uae/DosDontsinDubai



So it is not hard to find information about what is and what is not allowed.

What I have found particularly distasteful in this instance is the way it shows that the Dubai legal system really has no concept of due process. Again of course they have every right to have whatever legal system they want - but that doesn't mean I can't criticize it. I've lived in countries with similar issues and I do know that you fervently hope that you are never subject to "justice" in such a country!

Oh, I agree wholeheartedly.

My only complaint was being painted as a "moral equivalence"-ist simply because I recognized the failure of these people to do even basic research into the country they were going to (and, for the man...if I read the article correctly...staying in for some time). I think the law is wrong, but I recognize the legal right of Dubai to enforce it's own laws. Morally I think the law is wrong, but the two guilty parties are also just as wrong for their complete disregard for the country they visited. Legally (again, assuming the facts in evidence, I reserve the right to change my mind), the couple has no leg to stand on.

I don't want anyone to think I'm saying or implying that you can't criticize the law, the system, or their implementation of it. But refusing to recognize the obligation of a visitor to a foreign land, especially with something that could have been so easily discovered and avoided, and claiming it's "moral equivalence" to point that out, gets under my skin a bit

Besides, I think we need to seperate custom, law, and morality in these types of discussions. I fully expect that as a visitor to a foreign land one has a duty to learn the laws and customs of the host nation (at least making a reasonable effort), and abide by them while visiting. Doesn't mean you have to agree with them, though .

 

[Folly]

This is all tragically familiar to me. I hesitated to bring this up, because it's embarassing being charged with something, but it seems relevant enough to share. In the small culture in the North of Canada where I live, it's fairly common to give close friends a quick hand down the pants when you meet them. I know it's uncommon elsewhere, but I figured when a bunch of us traveled down to America for a trip last winter, we would be fine as long as we stuck to a handshake with anyone else.

Land of the free, hah! $500 fine, a public indecency charge, and no re-entry. What's the problem, if we weren't involving anyone else? We weren't given many legal options either: it was all "we have a witness, case closed, get lost."

 

[Pardalis]

You mean all the way down?

 

[Giz]

Even if it was - so what?

And what about my comments regarding that until 2003 - just 7 years ago - that would have been illegal for me and my partner in the UK?

That just means that - until 2003 - the UK had an unjust law on the books. It just means that until 2003 we would have been justified in criticising the UK in the same way that we are criticising Dubai now.

(And it sounds awfully like you are saying, "well, the two of us suffered from unjust laws so why shouldn't these two", which, while understandable, seems petty)

 

[Polaris]

For most of my life me doing that with my partner in the UK would have been illegal and even today doing that would probably get me thrown out of many places along with a "good kicking" in many places however that doesn't lead me to have much sympathy for people who do not respect the laws of the country they are visiting.

Just some semantics...

A person should obey the laws of the country he visits, but he has no obligation to respect them. No faith-based law deserves the respect of anyone, anywhere at any time for any reason.

 

[Hellbound]

Just some semantics...

A person should obey the laws of the country he visits, but he has no obligation to respect them. No faith-based law deserves the respect of anyone, anywhere at any time for any reason.

Well said, and a much shorter version of the point I was trying to get at.

I tend to get enamored of my own writing, and keep going far too long after I should have stopped. In fact, I remember in one thread when I...


Um...

Oh. Nevermind.

 

[cwalner]

Just some semantics...

A person should obey the laws of the country he visits, but he has no obligation to respect them. No faith-based law deserves the respect of anyone, anywhere at any time for any reason.

The problem with that is what do you consider a faith-based law. Several of the 10 commandments are part of US law (and most of Europe as well) Does this means that laws prohibiting murder, theft, and purgery should be disrespected as much as a law requiring belief in the Jedeo-Christian God and prohibiting doing business on Sunday?