This article from The National highlights a problem that needs to be addressed in this country — rigid public decency laws. However, the article contains a couple of glaring omissions that should be noted.
The first two graphs read:
Public decency laws need to be reformed so that punishments can more accurately reflect the severity of the offence, several judges have said.
Sentencing guidelines for such offences leave no room for discretion, they said, warning that a misinterpreted hand gesture could lead to an expatriate being deported.
The article goes on to lay out specific criticisms from judges about the law’s failure to allow for judicial discretion. Anyone found guilty of a public indecency must be deported, no matter the situation. More serious crimes such as burglary do not necessarily end in deportation.
However, the article does’t name the judges who have complained about the laws. It merely cites “one lower court judge,” a “second judge,” and a “higher court judge.” The article does not explain why they chose to grant anonymity to these judges nor offer any information about their identity (e.g., jurisdiction or type of court). These criticisms would carry far more weight if the names of the three judges were included in the article. If the judges didn’t want their names used, then the article should have stated this clearly and offered a reason for their reticence.
But an even larger omission is the biggest case surrounding this issue right now. Earlier this month, British surgeon Dr Nunoo-Mensah was arrested in Dubai on charges that he made an offensive gesture to another driver. Dr. Nunoo-Mensah says he was simply raising his hands in frustration. The British press covered the case widely. According to this report in a Ghana newspaper, the doctor was released after two week’s in custody. His father is the National Security Advisor to the government of Ghana.
The avoidance of mentioning Dr. Nunoo-Mensah’s case points to the subtle self-censorship that pervades the UAE press. Drawing too much attention to the case must be considered taboo, so The National tackles it obliquely from a different angle. Perhaps this is the best they can do, given the realities of reporting in the UAE. But hopefully, a future article could address the case more directly and without the critical judges obscured by a veil of anonymity.