Dubai, another warning

[Borisdog]

Looking at the States of America, they are heading in the direction of fundamentalism. Their laws are becoming more and more restrictive. They have more people locked up - both in absolute and relative numbers - than any other country we might consider visiting. Including the UAE.
.

That may well be true - but what are they locked up for?

My guess is not for having consensual sex with their partner.

And whilst you think the USA is heading in the direction of fundamentalism, they're a real long way from my definition of it.

 

[bam71]

That may well be true - but what are they locked up for?

My guess is not for having consensual sex with their partner.

They were locked up for having sex outside of marriage...

 

[Pushka]

I like Singapore but it isn't exactly challenging or exotic.

They were locked up for having sex outside of marriage...

That's what the relatives have said. Devil is in the detail. That we don't know.

 

[Jeffrey O'Neill]

Only if you're Yassmin Abdel-Magied.

Linda Sarsour as well.

 

[samh004]

Note that these 2 people were living and working in the UAE and not just visiting

That changes quite a bit.

My argument was that if you fly into an Arab state pregnant, the rules shouldn't then be applied to you, as the act happened somewhere 'legal'. I'm sure there's a flip side where a lot of Arab tourists could then be locked up by Western governments, but they're not because it's not the right thing to do. If you don't want those sort of people in the country, deport them.

It's like the US and having a DUI, you can be turned around. They generally don't incarcerate you for months at an airport.

Naturally, you get the DUI there and they might depending on the severity of the offence.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

There are many inconsistent stories about experiences in Dubai.
This requires no explanation. The inconsistency is the point.
There is no rule of law, as we understand it, in the UAE.
The law is entirely malleable and is applied as they consider appropriate in the circumstances.
There is no consistency, there is no equality before the law.
I have to correct myself - there is one consistency. The law will always be applied in the interests of Emiratis.
They are the only citizens of the UAE and the only people who have rights in the UAE.
Everyone else is an interloper in their country. They only have rights as long as it is convenient for Emiratis to indulge them.
They treat westerners slightly better than other foreigners. The treatment of Asian workers from the Phillipines and Thailand is appalling.
And physical labourers imported from India and Pakistan are virtually slaves. Payment of a (very small) wage does not automatically stop you from being a slave if you have little or no control over your life.
But at the end of the day we are all interlopers, and we better not get in their way. Even literally, in the overtaking lane on THEIR motorways.

Dubai is actually slightly better than Abu Dhabi because it has been economically outward focused for longer.
The ruler of Abu Dhabi was formerly intent on bringing economic development to Abu Dhabi through a domestic focus on economic activity within the UAE.
He has only relatively recently realised this is impossible and shifted to an external focus and sought to emulate Dubai.
Accordingly the laws are much less flexible and modern in Abu Dhabi and women are still stoned to death for adultery.

When we advise people to respect local laws and customs we have to make them aware that this doesn't mean respecting the written law as applied in other countries.
It means respecting the basic law of the UAE - only Emiratis matter. Every other law is secondary to this.

The other basic law is of course that women are inferior to men.
This isn't unqiue to the UAE. Nor is it unique to muslim countries.
All three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - incorporated similar distinctions between men and women.
All three demanded men and women be segregated in places of worship. Only a few christian denominations continue to observe this.
All three also insisted women cover their heads. In christainity this tradition persists in nuns' habits and brides' veils.
Some religions - and some sects within some religions - have changed more or less than others. But patriarchy isn't limited to one religion.
So I don't demonise any one country for it. However, I don't accept that it is just a quirky feature of their religion or culture which should be respected, either.
I have absolutely no respect for anyone who doesn't accept the fundamental equality of men and women.
However that's easy for me to say. I am not asked to cover my head. I don't have to decide whether to submit or risk rebellion.

I won't delve deeply into the treatment of LGBTQI people in the UAE as this could be the subject of a whole essay.
Like many countries in the region it has an absolute intolerance of anyone openly identifying as gay or admitting to homosexual activities.
At the same time the strict segregation of the sexes means secret homosexual activity is routine amongst young men.
The tension inherent in this hypocrisy explodes into the violence which is inflicted on openly gay men.
Every other man fears being exposed for the sins of his youth.
To paraphrase, let him who has sinned early and often cast the first and many other stones lest he allow the condemned time to betray him.

 

[Moindardt]

I don't see how UAE is any different to China or Russia or any of most of the rest of the world. They care for their own first and their rules reflect it. When in their country obey their rules whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, don't go. What some people complain about as draconian could be compared to the social corruption of the rest of western society. Neither is fully right. Neither is fully wrong. It is all a point of view. I personally love to read all the reports of how bigoted they are by people who don't even consider their side. Hmm. Dictionary anyone?

 

[Melburnian1]

Having travelled through the ME quite a lot, (never lived there) it seems to me these inflammatory posts are just islamaphobia and not even in disguise. 99.995% of us travelling through ME countries will have very few problems. Any country can pose issues if you don't respect the customs and laws of that country but we Australians have far fewer problems that people from other countries travelling through 'western' countries.

Why don't you ask some of the Western women who have been detained in some Middle Eastern countries? Particularly those who have complained of being raped with courts then putting the blame on them.

The moral superiority of the Left can never cease to amaze. It's based on 'tolerance' but the Judeo-Christian heritage of Western countries is based on 'love.' The latter is far stronger than the former.

Unfortunately for the Left, many of us in Australia, the USA and increasingly Europe have woken up to this sort of Left wing filtering of the facts.

Although not perfect, Israel is a freer society than any other Middle Eastern nation. Arguably, no other Middle Eastern nation is 'free.'

 

[Quickstatus]

Respect the customs and traditions?. Not if you are Muslim in a non Muslim country. Fire and brimstone for those non Muslims who dare tell a Muslim to respect their non Muslim customs and traditions.

 

[samh004]

I will try to bring this back towards the topic before veering off it in precisely the way my short response was intended to avoid.

There are many inconsistent stories about experiences in Dubai.
This requires no explanation. The inconsistency is the point.
There is no rule of law, as we understand it, in the UAE.
The law is entirely malleable and is applied as they consider appropriate in the circumstances.
There is no consistency, there is no equality before the law.
I have to correct myself - there is one consistency. The law will always be applied in the interests of Emiratis.
They are the only citizens of the UAE and the only people who have rights in the UAE.
Everyone else is an interloper in their country. They only have rights as long as it is convenient for Emiratis to indulge them.
They treat westerners slightly better than other foreigners. The treatment of Asian workers from the Phillipines and Thailand is appalling.
And physical labourers imported from India and Pakistan are virtually slaves. Payment of a (very small) wage does not automatically stop you from being a slave if you have little or no control over your life.
But at the end of the day we are all interlopers, and we better not get in their way. Even literally, in the overtaking lane on THEIR motorways.

Dubai is actually slightly better than Abu Dhabi because it has been economically outward focused for longer.
The ruler of Abu Dhabi was formerly intent on bringing economic development to Abu Dhabi through a domestic focus on economic activity within the UAE.
He has only relatively recently realised this is impossible and shifted to an external focus and sought to emulate Dubai.
Accordingly the laws are much less flexible and modern in Abu Dhabi and women are still stoned to death for adultery.

When we advise people to respect local laws and customs we have to make them aware that this doesn't mean respecting the written law as applied in other countries.
It means respecting the basic law of the UAE - only Emiratis matter. Every other law is secondary to this.

The other basic law is of course that women are inferior to men.
This isn't unqiue to the UAE. Nor is it unique to muslim countries.
All three Abrahamic religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam - incorporated similar distinctions between men and women.
All three demanded men and women be segregated in places of worship. Only a few christian denominations continue to observe this.
All three also insisted women cover their heads. In christainity this tradition persists in nuns' habits and brides' veils.
Some religions - and some sects within some religions - have changed more or less than others. But patriarchy isn't limited to one religion.
So I don't demonise any one country for it. However, I don't accept that it is just a quirky feature of their religion or culture which should be respected, either.
I have absolutely no respect for anyone who doesn't accept the fundamental equality of men and women.
However that's easy for me to say. I am not asked to cover my head. I don't have to decide whether to submit or risk rebellion.

I won't delve deeply into the treatment of LGBTQI people in the UAE as this could be the subject of a whole essay.
Like many countries in the region it has an absolute intolerance of anyone openly identifying as gay or admitting to homosexual activities.
At the same time the strict segregation of the sexes means secret homosexual activity is routine amongst young men.
The tension inherent in this hypocrisy explodes into the violence which is inflicted on openly gay men.
Every other man fears being exposed for the sins of his youth.
To paraphrase, let him who has sinned early and often cast the first and many other stones lest he allow the condemned time to betray him.

That was an amazing post, I'm glad I stuck with it to the end!

Some good insights on the rule of law, or lack of, in the UAE and how that applies to 'everyone else'.

 

[Moindardt]

Odd then that your first response completely misread what I wrote on both major issues, and your second pursues only one.

My point about the rule of law in the UAE was not that they have their own laws, as every nation has its own laws.
My point was that their written laws are not uniformly, consistently and fairly enforced as laws in most other countries at least attempt to appear to be.

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own version of my words.

Wow. You love telling people how they misread things when you constantly do the same. I never questioned that they don't apply the law in an inconsistent manner, I said many countries do. My point was you know about it, either suck it up or go somewhere else. There is issues with every countries laws.

I find it particularly hilarious when you consider our own country. We have constant issues with our own laws being applied un-uniformly and, at times, in complete contradiction to the written law and intent specified by the parliament. A judge effectively can do what they like with no punishment. Most of the time they are political appointments with many known for disregarding precedence to apply their own version of the law (there was an article in Qld a while ago that listed many of these judges). Try seeing a lawyer and getting an definitive answer on something. I would ask one of the lawyers on the forum to give an answer but we know they will demand your first born child and then still not give you a straight answer

 

[Melburnian1]

I find it particularly hilarious when you consider our own country. We have constant issues with our own laws being applied un-uniformly and, at times, in complete contradiction to the written law and intent specified by the parliament. A judge effectively can do what they like with no punishment. Most of the time they are political appointments with many known for disregarding precedence to apply their own version of the law (there was an article in Qld a while ago that listed many of these judges). Try seeing a lawyer and getting an definitive answer on something. I would ask one of the lawyers on the forum to give an answer but we know they will demand your first born child and then still not give you a straight answer

Is not one difference between nations with the Westminster system of government and the common law that decisions are reviewable by higher courts in most cases? I doubt that this applies in the UAE or Saudi Arabia.

 

[esseeeayeenn]

Wow. You love telling people how they misread things when you constantly do the same. I never questioned that they don't apply the law in an inconsistent manner, I said many countries do. My point was you know about it, either suck it up or go somewhere else. There is issues with every countries laws.

I find it particularly hilarious when you consider our own country. We have constant issues with our own laws being applied un-uniformly and, at times, in complete contradiction to the written law and intent specified by the parliament. A judge effectively can do what they like with no punishment. Most of the time they are political appointments with many known for disregarding precedence to apply their own version of the law (there was an article in Qld a while ago that listed many of these judges). Try seeing a lawyer and getting an definitive answer on something. I would ask one of the lawyers on the forum to give an answer but we know they will demand your first born child and then still not give you a straight answer

What makes you think a lawyer hasn't already contributed to this thread?

Our laws are uniformly applied but we have both statute law and common law.
Common law is based on the previous decisions of courts. Consistency is assured by following these precedents and by the principle of stare decisis.
This esentially means that once a court (subject to appeals to the top of the court system) has decided a question of legal principle, no court may revisit that question.
If a judge defies precedent that decision can be appealed and a higher court would reassert the precedent.
Australia has much less of a problem with political appointments than, for example, the USA.
It is seldom if ever possible to identify "sides" in our high court in the way there are clearly always conservative and liberal factions within SCOTUS.
The numerous and delightful dissents of Murphy J and Kirby J notwithstanding.
The appointment of a poorly qualified family court judge as chief justice by the former Campbell Newman Government in QLD was a sorry exception to the general rule.
I don't like or respect George Brandis as A-G, but at least he hasn't sought to stack the high court with conservatives.

Laws which are applied uniformly and inflexibly always result in injustices.
The common law evolved as the uniform law of England as determined by the King's courts which replaced the inconsistent rulings made by local nobles.
But it often led to unfair results. So people turned to the ecclesiastical courts of the church to temper the application of the common law.
These ecclesiastical or equitable courts developed their own body of law which we know as equity and is now part of the law administered by our courts.
Although lawyers can't agree on the extent to which equity and common law have become fused or remain separate. Google "fusion fallacy" one day.

It is the complexity, flexibility and adaptibility of this legal system, in itself a strength, which sometimes makes it hard to get a black and white answer.
Of course this isn't helped by the rapacious greed of some lawyers who will argue any case for the right fee.
But I don't think "simplifying" the law or applying it with less flexibility is the answer to this problem.
Moving away from time-based charging is helping to address the greed which afflicts some aspects of the legal profession, as it afflicts all professions.

Returning to the original topic, this flexibility to apply the law so as to deal fairly and properly with different circumstances can be distinguished from manipulation of the law to acheive certain outcomes.
It's not black and white. It's grey, if not multicoloured. But who wants to live in a world without colour?

 

[Moindardt]

What makes you think a lawyer hasn't already contributed to this thread?

Our laws are uniformly applied but we have both statute law and common law.

Well that explains a lot.

And yes, I am well aware of how it is supposed to work but with lots of friends who are lawyers, I am well aware that I have more chance of arranging a loving merger of One Nation and the Greens than a lawyer ever accepting that the system is completely broken, not matter which side of politics they are on. Hand that feeds it and all that. Every lawyer will tell you their system is fantastic and everyone else's is terrible. I am sure the lawyer in the UAE will think theirs is a wonderful system.

Oh, and Carmody, at least recognised that the judiciary didn't care what the people or politicians wanted and tried to fix a broken system. McMurdo on the other hand...

 

[williamsf1]

Then they should have known better... Perhaps that sounds a bit harsh, but then they cant have been completely oblivious to the laws of the country... and to be honest, most women knows the symptoms of a pregnancy...
Perhaps they thought they had the same patient-doctor privacy as at home...

Yes they should know better... I know many people who live and work in the UAE without issues. A few have even decided to get married to make things easier and proper.

 

[boomy]

I will try to bring this back towards the topic before veering off it in precisely the way my short response was intended to avoid.

We don't have any disagreement about the inconsistencies of the laws in UAE so I must assume your previous <redacted> "utter rubbish" comment was intended towards the off topic issue.

 

[samh004]

Here is the directive. Get back on topic. Infractions may be issued.

This thread is about an engaged couple being arrested in Dubai for extramarital-sex.

 

[Princess Fiona]

IIRC the OP has quite a long track record of posting news articles from various sources about people being imprisoned/charged/detained in the UAE. There is usually an abundance of replies giving factual information about the UAE and a similar abundance of replies decrying any individual or airline from transiting through there to Europe.
It's getting old very quickly.......

 

[esseeeayeenn]

On topic, you can get away with almost anything in Dubai, in a private pool, at a western club which serves alcohol, in a 5 star hotel or at their private beach.
But you only get away with this on indulgence.
You may get away with more as a tourist in transit. Less as an expat with a work permit.
Even though that might seem counter-intuitive.
The indulgence may be withdrawn at any time without notice.
By all means transit through the middle east and take the opportunity for a stopover.
But be aware of these unpredictable realities.

 

[Reds2011]

Pretty much sums it up.

My only comment would be that I expect there is more to the story than referenced in the media. The pregnancy in itself, at that stage would not usually trigger anything like what has happened.

On topic, you can get away with almost anything in Dubai, in a private pool, at a western club which serves alcohol, in a 5 star hotel or at their private beach.
But you only get away with this on indulgence.
You may get away with more as a tourist in transit. Less as an expat with a work permit.
Even though that might seem counter-intuitive.
The indulgence may be withdrawn at any time without notice.
By all means transit through the middle east and take the opportunity for a stopover.
But be aware of these unpredictable realities.