Posting People's Pictures Online Could Carry A Fine Or Even Jail Time

United Arab Emirates (Photo credit: saraab™)

The National newspaper today confirms what has long been an odd quirk here in the UAE has indeed been taken to its (inevitable) online conclusion - publishing (posting) pictures of people without their consent is against the law here - and, as a criminal case, could result in a hefty fine or prison time.

It's always been the case that you actually needed written consent before publishing somebody's photo in the UAE. That we often shortcut this requirement - as so many legal requirements are shortcut in a society which rubs along very nicely with a mainly 'laissez faire' attitude - does not mean it does not exist. As with so many aspects of life here, when things go wrong, the law comes into play and suddenly what seemed a forgotten piece of legislation becomes very real indeed.

Now it's been confirmed in words of one syllable that the online equivalent of the offline phrase 'publish' which is, of course, 'post' also carries the same weight. In short, you post an image on Facebook, Twitter or the like and you are open to criminal prosecution. Not a civil case, you understand, a criminal one.

Lt Col Salah Al Ghoul, Head of the bureau for law respect at the Ministry told The National: "Article 24 of the cybercrimes law stipulates that anyone who uses an information network to infringe upon someone else’s privacy shall be punished by a minimum prison sentence of six months and/or a fine of between Dh150,000 and Dh500,000."

You can consider an image to include video and, presumably, audio. So if you see a gentleman beating a hapless-looking chap around the head with his agal, you have 500,000 great reasons to pass by rather than film the incident and post it on YouTube.

That has always been the case here - as some of the more liberally grey-haired on Twitter pointed out when that particular video was put up. You can, literally, defame someone with the truth in the UAE.

Protecting decent folks' privacy or obviating social justice? You tell me...

The Emirati Indian Road Rage Assault Video

So Twitter was all a-twitter on Monday night with chat about a video posted to YouTube. The clip, taken from a car adjacent to the incident, clearly shows an Emirati man beating a cowering Indian man with his aghal (the black ropey headdress thing worn as part of the traditional Arabian costume) and punching him. The Emirati appears to be driving a Lexus Land Cruiser with a three-figure plate (a status symbol here), the Indian a stationery distribution company van.

By Tuesday, the YouTube video had been taken down but these things, once done, are hard to undo and it was soon back up thanks to LiveLeaks. Why would the video be taken down? Well, because it's illegal to photograph or film someone in the UAE without their permission - and this was certainly a case of a video taken without permission. The taker obviously gave in to wiser counsel, although his act in sharing the video was a brave one, presumably motivated by sheer indignation.

Dubai Police acted quickly after a large number of people brought the incident - and video - to their attention, particularly over Twitter. The Emirati - a government official as it turns out - is currently 'in custody' and faces a charge, according to 7Days, of minor assault. This carries a maximum jail term of one year and a maximum fine of Dhs10,000.

The Indian gentleman who took the video and posted it to YouTube was arrested after the official's son lodged a defamation case against him with police and is apparently 'being questioned' after his computer was seized by police on Tuesday and now potentially faces a charge of recording without permission and defaming a person, which carries a TWO year sentence and Dhs20,000 fine. Abusing someone's privacy and putting private material on the Internet can result in a six month jail term, the newspaper tells us.

Can we be quite clear. Defamation applies here in the UAE as a criminal case and includes publicly sharing evidence of a thing that would lead to punishment for the person so defamed - regardless of whether the alleged act took place or not. The UAE cyber-crime law makes this clear. You can, in fact, defame someone in the UAE with the truth.

Dubai Police have told press the man should have shared the video with them rather than post it up publicly, where hundreds of thousands have now seen the incident. The son told media the video had damaged the reputation of his father and family. You'd be forgiven for thinking that beating cowering men who know full well that if they raise a hand in defence they'll be for the high jump and likely end up being deported for it was what damaged anyone's reputation, but who am I to judge?

At one rather poignant moment in the video, the poor man appears to hand the dropped aghal back to the official who continues to beat him with it.

I thought there was a telling paragraph in Gulf News' story about the arrest today. Here, have a go at seeing where YOU would put the bold text emphasis in this paragraph quoted from that story:

"Major General Al Mazeina said the case will be transferred to the public prosecutor. He said the Emirati official has been arrested over beating up an Indian man in the middle of the road in clear view of other road users."

My mum said I should always tell the truth, but she never told me you should go to prison for telling it. 'spose it just goes to show what my mum knows...

Justice For Natalie

Sometimes a cause comes to light that you just can't ignore. Natalie Creane's is one such. For two years her family have been fighting in the UAE's courts to get Abu Dhabi's Emirates Palace Hotel to admit liability for the injury she sustained when staying in one of their rooms. According to her family:

"After going to the Emirates Palace Hotel for a weekend break, Natalie opened the door to the wardrobe in her hotel room to put shoes in the bottom. A loose wooden panel high up in the wardrobe fell, hitting her on the front of the head. A member of the hotel’s staff found Natalie unconscious in the room.

Rather than call an ambulance, the hotel’s duty manager took her to hospital by car. It soon became clear that Natalie was very unwell. With no prior history of such problems, she began to suffer from violent seizures. The Emirates Palace Hotel referred the family to its insurance company. After talks with the company broke down, the family was faced with the hotel’s lawyers. Forced to take their case to court, a full two years after the accident, the family is still fighting for justice now – four years on."

The injury was a serious one, Natalie's family say the appalling seizures and a range of related conditions have seen her in four comas with a totally shot immune system and over twenty visits to intensive care. Right now she's on a ventilator in Rashid Hospital and in desperate need of specialist treatment her family can't afford any more - four years after the accident, they've spent all they have.

She is a very sick woman indeed.

The luxurious 'seven star' Emirates Palace Hotel, which is managed by the Swiss/German multinational Kempinski Hotels, has apparently consistently refused liability and the family say the hotel's legal team has 'aggressively' fought their attempt to take the issue to court, appealing against expert opinion that has favoured the family's case. That court battle has arguably cost Natalie dear - and the family is now finally so desperate they've decided to take it public. The family is scrupulous to point out that the legal system and judges in the case have been fair and professional. But time is running out for Natalie...

This is the Facebook page, 'Justice for Natalie'.

There's also a petition for her at Care2.

Could I suggest you go there and add your voice? If you can give help, expertise or do anything to help her cause (for instance publicity), you'd be showing a great deal more humanity than any wealthy international hotel management organisation that would stand by and watch this happen to a young woman in the name of liability.

George Bush Colon Cancer Scare: Brilliant!

Do you understand what happened here? They removed polyps from his colon. That means the simian wee bastard had a rectally inserted laproscopy procedure. They gave him 48 hours’ worth of wickedly chemical laxatives that made him shit himself clear (literally), together with a 48 hour ‘no solids’ regime. Over the past two days, he’s eaten nothing but consommé and drunk nothing but water and apple juice. He’s had to take a number of evilly effective chemical laxative doses that had him speeding at absolutely no notice to the bog to void himself in an uncontrollable frenzy of shitting an increasingly watery and uncomfortable stream of warm gleet. And then they slapped a dose of pethedine into his withered veins (Christ, but I bet that reminded him of how a bottle of Jack felt) and slid a KY-smothered fibre optic 'scope into his puckered little Texan ass.

But that’s just the beginning...

Then they pumped air into his colon to inflate it so that the cameras can see around. It’s despicably uncomfortable, like someone released a high pressure airline into your gut. People who’ve done it without the happy juice have been known to scream with the pain of it all.

And then they excised lumps of his lower gut (videotaped – I can’t WAIT for the bootleg) with a hot wire loop so that he could shit it out in a stream of post-operative blood and KY jelly, like a pretty new resident of a Texan jail taking his first crap.

No wonder he handed over to Dick Cheney. Who wants the Free World to be in the hands of a drugged up psychopath who's lost control of his bowels and is taking a royally huge instrument up his ass?

Oh. Hang on. That's pretty much situation normal, isn't it? You'd almost wonder why they bothered calling Dick at all, wouldn't you?

This is something that people in the Arab World should be told about. It will bring them a little moment of joy. Particularly the Iraqis...