Thursday, September 25, 2008 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

by Pravda

Thanks to Max Maxwell for the link.

http://english.pravda.ru/society/stories/23-09-2008/106429-dubai-0

Russian woman put on trial in Dubai for drinking juice in public

A 28-year-old Russian female, who visited Dubai on a tourist visa, and a 30-year-old male citizen of Lebanon, a salesman in a local store, were put on trial for drinking juice in a public place in the daytime during Muslim fasting.

The police caught the two people red-handed at a gas station in Dubai, Emirat.ru reports with reference to Gulf News.

In accordance with the Federal Penal Code of the United Arab Emirates, a public intake of food and beverages during daytime hours of the month of Ramadan is forbidden by Article 313. The article stipulates the punishment in the form of either a monetary penalty — up to 2,000 dirhems ($555) — or even a term of up to one month in prison.

The young people told the court that they were not Muslims and were thus unaware of the fact that their actions could be punishable.

The court took the mitigating circumstances into consideration, but found the defendants guilty, since ignorance did not exclude responsibility. The court ruled that the young people must pay the fine of 1,000 dirhems ($278) each.

The case became the first one in Dubai in violation of Article 313 since the beginning of the month of Ramadan on September 1.

Thousands of foreigners from Europe and Asia reside in the emirate of Dubai, the major tourist center of the Persian Gulf . Dubai is known as a relatively liberal region in comparison with other territories of the UAE. Tourists can be seen in the streets wearing shorts, whereas alcoholic beverages can often be available in bars and hotels.

This year, however, the authorities intend to remind all residents and guests of the emirate that they are staying on the territory of a Muslim country. There have been quite a number of incidents recently when the local police in plain clothes arrested women sunbathing topless, nudists and other violators of public order.

Many tourists acknowledge that that they do not always understand how they should behave in Dubai.

Guide-books advise tourists should always carry their IDs, or better their copies, with them for the majority of police officers wear plain clothes and can be rather meticulous in their inspections.

Posted: Thursday, September 25, 2008 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 141 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #254119 by DarwinsPitbull on September 25, 2008 at 11:30 am

It serves her right. Who the hell does she think she is drinking juice in public? I say we execute any person found drinking any kind of beverage in public places. Even children who think they are so above everyone by drinking there bottles in public. Society has gone to far by letting these criminals go out and think they can drink a beverage in public when they are thirsty.

PS: We should also go after these people who think its perfectly okay to chew gum in public. Off with there heads.

Other Comments by DarwinsPitbull

2. Comment #254129 by practicing atheis on September 25, 2008 at 11:48 am

after the billions of dollars that have been spent in the UAE by the government for the construction of the new hot spot tourist attraction for the jet-setters of the world, this makes no sense. in fact, it is just plain stupid. they are essentially going after the european leisure market and this incident will turn away more people than the fancy new buildings and man-made islands and indoor skiing facilities could ever attract. dumb-asses.

Other Comments by practicing atheis

3. Comment #254130 by TheHardProblem on September 25, 2008 at 11:49 am

'Put on trial' is maybe put a little dramatic here, the woman is given a fine, something you get as well for speeding.
I find this to be pretty much acceptable, from a cultural point of view. It's not like this woman is put behind bars for 10 years or sentenced to death.

Other Comments by TheHardProblem

4. Comment #254131 by Ex~ on September 25, 2008 at 11:49 am

lol, Islam. Muslims crack me up, in a sort of "holy shit it's a psychopath with a gun, but he is SOOO fucking backwards and stupid I have to laugh."

Other Comments by Ex~

5. Comment #254133 by decius on September 25, 2008 at 11:52 am

Comment #254130 by TheHardProblem

'Put on trial' is maybe put a little dramatic here,

It is not, given the one-year maximum penalty.

I find this to be pretty much acceptable, from a cultural point of view.

Acceptable theocracy. Right.

Other Comments by decius

6. Comment #254150 by DamnDirtyApe on September 25, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Sounds a little too draconian for my liking.

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

7. Comment #254154 by textnotspeech on September 25, 2008 at 12:11 pm

TheHardProblem = Troll or Asshat

Other Comments by textnotspeech

8. Comment #254157 by quantum_flux on September 25, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Hahahaha! At least it wasn't fermented juice, or they may have gotten their heads chopped off for that.

Other Comments by quantum_flux

9. Comment #254161 by Sargeist on September 25, 2008 at 12:16 pm

They have their laws, and if we don't like them, we should not go to Dubai.

Other Comments by Sargeist

10. Comment #254162 by History_Junky on September 25, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Meh, as Dubai and the UAE transition themselves from oil producing nations to ones whose main industry is based around tourism this will be a chance for the conservativeness of the countries to decrease as more and more foreigners enter the country.

Other Comments by History_Junky

11. Comment #254181 by javb222 on September 25, 2008 at 12:29 pm

The official punishment in Islam for drinking alcohol is 80 lashes with a whip.
Mainstream religion is so inconsistent and hypocritical...

Other Comments by javb222

12. Comment #254184 by kaiserkriss on September 25, 2008 at 12:32 pm

I'm sure every country has some dumb forgotten law that some overzealous cop can nail anyone with. The onus should be to abolish them, take them off the books or do whatever it takes.

AS for this particular incident: It would seem quite petty in my opinion, just as topless sunbathing on the beech would be. The city administration of a relatively cosmopolitan city such as Dubai should get with the times and recognize the fact not every tourist follows their particular brand of religion and show a bit of tolerance.jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

13. Comment #254191 by PaulJ on September 25, 2008 at 12:37 pm

Capital punishment for parking offences and dropping litter!

Well if it clears the streets, why not? If you obey the law you've nothing to fear.

[/irony]

Other Comments by PaulJ

14. Comment #254193 by Sargeist on September 25, 2008 at 12:40 pm

If you obey the law you've nothing to fear.

Yes. And?

Other Comments by Sargeist

15. Comment #254215 by Greybishop on September 25, 2008 at 1:05 pm

I lived in Dubai for about 3 years in the 90's.

While I don't think it's reasonable to fine someone for drinking juice in public, the laws of the country are the laws of the country and while you're there, they apply to you. It makes no difference what one thinks is "right" or "wrong".

I personally think that many, many laws in my own country are silly and should be done away with, but I still have to abide by them.

Anyone travelling to a country where the laws are likely to differ widely from those in place on their native soil would be foolish not to at least google up some tourist information about local laws and customs before their trip.

If you can read and have been awake during the last decade, you are well aware that a travel destination in the Middle East is an adventure that warrants treading carefully in all things.

While this particular law has a religous root, other illegal activities that might earn one a slap on the wrist in the West carry significantly more serious punishments in Middle Eastern nations. If a tourist doesn't bother to check these things, it's their own fault when they get into trouble. Unless, of course, they are not guilty. There seems to be no question of guilt in this case.

I'm not defending the silly law, just pointing out that EVERY nation has its share of silly laws, but silliness doesn't mean that they can be ignored.

Other Comments by Greybishop

16. Comment #254216 by D'Arcy on September 25, 2008 at 1:08 pm

All that foreign capital poured into Palm Island and the others, make Dubai a prime target for the next 9/11. Maybe the local Sheik is making a show of his Islamic credentials to avoid just such a catastrophe.

No way would I go topless or expose any of my precious skin to the sun in Dubai for more than 2 minutes, but then I was born in Scotland!

Other Comments by D'Arcy

17. Comment #254217 by Sargeist on September 25, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Greybishop,

Hear hear.

Other Comments by Sargeist

18. Comment #254226 by the great teapot on September 25, 2008 at 1:17 pm

What the fuck does Meh mean.
I mean, how the hell do you even pronounce it.

Other Comments by the great teapot

19. Comment #254238 by Greybishop on September 25, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Thanks Sargeist.

A re-read of the article revealed this nugget that I missed the first time.

The young people told the court that they were not Muslims and were thus unaware of the fact that their actions could be punishable.

Young people? Since when are 28 and 30 year old adults "young people". It's made to sound as if they should get special consideration because they're so young.

Other Comments by Greybishop

20. Comment #254244 by 8teist on September 25, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Serves her right,I mean, what was she doing out in public anyway?........She is supposed to be in her natural habitat,the kitchen barefoot and pregnant, damn militant feminists ,drinking juice in public,whatever next?

The planet is going to hell in a handbasket :o

Other Comments by 8teist

21. Comment #254250 by Samir Nayanajaad on September 25, 2008 at 1:38 pm

I have to agree with Greybishop on this. He said what I was thinking.

Also the great teapot meh is pronounced like meth with out the "th" sound and it means that you are indifferent about a subject, sort of like shrugging your shoulders only in a word.

Other Comments by Samir Nayanajaad

22. Comment #254251 by Sargeist on September 25, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Greybishop,

In an attempt to be accommodating, I can probably see that people might have thought that, not being Muslim, they were exempt from the rules about Ramadan. I can see myself thinking that, too, which is why (of course) I think it is reasonable. But the difference is that I would have found out if this were true. Ignorance of the law is no excuse because, I presume, it would be an overused defence otherwise.

I guess that they were described as young people in an attempt, akin to other recent threads, to portray them as innocent and undeserving of punishment.

I was thinking of silly laws in this country (UK) and the one about not being allowed to protest outside Parliament without prior permission (or similar to that anyway) came to mind. I think it is silly, but I do know about it and so if I go and protest anyway I can hardly be surprised if I am arrested.

Other Comments by Sargeist

23. Comment #254255 by Frankus1122 on September 25, 2008 at 1:41 pm

TheHardProblem said:

Wrong.

Greybishop said:

While I don't think it's reasonable to fine someone for drinking juice in public, the laws of the country are the laws of the country and while you're there, they apply to you. It makes no difference what one thinks is "right" or "wrong".

Right.

The laws of the land are the laws of the land. No arguement. But that the laws of the land are reasonable and acceptable is arguable. In fact, to say something is acceptable because it is part of a cultural history is stupid.
South Africa had system of legal racial segregation less than 20 years ago. Was that acceptable?
Just because something is institutionalized or part of a culture does not automatically make it okay.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

24. Comment #254274 by Greybishop on September 25, 2008 at 2:03 pm

Frankus1122 said:

The laws of the land are the laws of the land. No arguement. But that the laws of the land are reasonable and acceptable is arguable. In fact, to say something is acceptable because it is part of a cultural history is stupid.
South Africa had system of legal racial segregation less than 20 years ago. Was that acceptable? Just because something is institutionalized or part of a culture does not automatically make it okay.

Agreed. However, unless a person is in another country as an activist to try to fight unjust or unreasonable laws, acceptable or unacceptable is a moot point.

Tourists need to be aware that they don't take the laws of their homeland with them when they go abroad. It might seem silly to someone from the South of France to arrest a woman for sunbathing topless, but no amount of indignation will change the fact that it's an illegal act in Dubai. The same applies to someone from Amsterdam lighting a joint at at cafe in Chicago.

Other Comments by Greybishop

25. Comment #254293 by Janus on September 25, 2008 at 2:20 pm

Sigh.

The point isn't that it is legal to drink juice in Dubai. We know it's illegal.

Nor is the point that there is some greater purpose to saying that it shouldn't be illegal. We know it's pointless; so is most or all of the stuff we post on this website.

Nor is the point that the countries we live in do not also have many silly rules. We know they have silly rules, although those rules are a lot less numerous and a lot less barbaric than Dubai's.

Nor is the point that these tourists weren't dumb for failing to find out what Dubai's silly laws are before going there. We know they were dumb.

The point is that fining or imprisoning people for drinking juice is morally wrong.

Other Comments by Janus

26. Comment #254315 by Greybishop on September 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Janus wrote:

The point is that fining or imprisoning people for drinking juice is morally wrong.

I would say that the point is that to the lawmakers in Dubai, drinking juice at certain times is morally wrong. In this case, they have the law of the land on their side.

Many people think that imprisoning or fining someone for smoking the leaves of certain plants is morally wrong. Their opinion is trumped by the laws of the land, in most cases.

Every country has laws and expects citizens and tourists alike to abide by them. To suggest that our (Western) morality is somehow superior to the morality of another nation is akin to suggesting that our laws should supplant theirs. I believe we all get pretty upset around here when we hear the reverse suggested.

I'm not saying that I personally think it's not morally wrong to imprison someone for drinking juice, rather I'm saying that my personal opinion on the morality has no bearing on the situation. To suggest otherwise is wishful thinking, and if you happen to be a tourist who feels that personally held moral stances should supercede the law of the land, it's wishful thinking of a very dangerous sort.

Other Comments by Greybishop

27. Comment #254329 by Jaz on September 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm

total nonsense Greybishop.

Your analogy of "smoking certain leaves" as ANOTHER example of ambigiuous individual morality is totally misplaced because this moral decision is linked in to on secular ideals, such as effects on health and society influence

This, however, is an example of absolute 100% irrationality which ONLY exists because of loyalty to absurd religious traditions.

No-one doesn't feel it isn't the responsibility for tourists to adhere to foreign laws, but to actually stand up for the law itself and compare it to other secular laws is laughable. It has nothing to do with eastern vs western morality, why are you bringing that into it

Other Comments by Jaz

28. Comment #254331 by Swordmaiden on September 25, 2008 at 2:47 pm

but it's not about the law itself, it's the craziness of the whole issue of them actually believing in a god who would be pissed off if you drink juice on a certain day.
A god who wants you to NOT EAT at certain times.
A god who tells you what to do and what not to do AT ALL!
I despair!
oh and D'arcy...your avatar made me laugh! Would make a good bumper sticker!

Other Comments by Swordmaiden

29. Comment #254355 by Greybishop on September 25, 2008 at 3:03 pm

Jaz wrote:

This, however, is an example of absolute 100% irrationality which ONLY exists because of loyalty to absurd religious traditions.

Having lived there, I can tell you that in the opinions of the local constabulary, there is zero difference between a secular or religiously influenced law.

I'm not defending the law itself, merely using examples to illustrate the point.

I wholeheartedly agree that the law is laughable and its roots even more so. That's not and never was my point.

Jaz further wrote:

It has nothing to do with eastern vs western morality, why are you bringing that into it

?

Actually, Janus brought up the morality issue when suggesting that

I was simply pointing out that the idea of morality is to at least a degree dependant on perspective. We dislike it when it's suggested that Sharia Law should be applied anywhere in the West, so to suggest that a Western definition of the morality of a law should apply in a Middle Eastern country seems at least problematic.

Other Comments by Greybishop

30. Comment #254367 by clintonjason on September 25, 2008 at 3:11 pm

hang on a minute... ...what juice was that?? Was it orange juice? Was it apple juice?? WAS IT COCONUT JUICE???

I am genuinely horrified... I mean... drinking orange juice... in a public space... during the day...

U N D E R - T H E - S U N !!!!!

There's no more religion nowadays... ;)

Other Comments by clintonjason

31. Comment #254372 by mrjonno on September 25, 2008 at 3:25 pm

Well not wanting to defend stupid laws if say a Texan walked around London with a hand gun in his belt the minimum punishment by law would be 5 years in jail. More likely the police would probably just shoot you , the person involved might well not live long enough to see a trial and the vast majority of Brits (including me) would support the police's action for what I believe is no crime whatsoever in Texas?

Other Comments by mrjonno

32. Comment #254374 by Eshto on September 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm

Sounds like a Star Trek episode. Remember when they visited that crimeless utopia, and Wesley Crusher walked on the grass and they sentenced him to death?

Oh yeah, and, hey tourists... STOP VISITING DUBAI!!!!!

Other Comments by Eshto

33. Comment #254379 by Goldy on September 25, 2008 at 3:38 pm

Funnily enough, in Syria, during Ramadan, the bedouins used to come to the workshop for a drink of water from the tap (and to see if there was anything they could help with etc)
We asked about it - the Muslim workers told us that since they were bedouin it was OK, even though they were Muslim too.
I wonder if this is a case of asserting sovereignty by the Dubai judiciary. After all, a couple of Britons were arrested recently there for shagging on a beach, weren't they?

Other Comments by Goldy

34. Comment #254394 by Ohnhai on September 25, 2008 at 3:58 pm

1: it is a Muslim country
2: it wanst a lynching, it was a valid law on the books and well known.
3: Ignorance of local laws is no defence...
4: not brushing up on local laws that might trip you up BEFORE you go there is simply stupid...

In the UK I play Airsoft, it's illegal here in Australia. Can you imagine the mess I would have been in if I had simply ASSUMED airsoft was also legal and got off the plane with my totally illegal toy guns?

Other Comments by Ohnhai

35. Comment #254406 by MaxWeiss on September 25, 2008 at 4:16 pm

The problem with all the people who think this isn't so bad is that it goes beyond cultural differences. If it was something like you can't wear skimpy clothes, that's different--that's an acceptable cultural thing. But the problem with this particular incident is that they are preventing people from eating and drinking, and this is a HEALTH concern. It is possible somebody will need food or water desperately. This is NOT an acceptable "cultural" difference. Granted the people should have studied the rules of where they were going and they are somewhat at fault for their ignorance, but that doesn't change the fact that the law is NOT ok.

Other Comments by MaxWeiss

36. Comment #254408 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 4:19 pm

I find the problem to be Dubai is a fucking theocracy. Laws should serve to protect the rights of the people. That is not the purpose laws serve in a theocracy. There, they protect the way of life prescribed by religious scripture, which doesn't exactly look out for the people's rights.

This incident merely illuminates that a tiny little bit.

Other Comments by Sciros

37. Comment #254411 by MaxWeiss on September 25, 2008 at 4:27 pm

I was simply pointing out that the idea of morality is to at least a degree dependant on perspective. We dislike it when it's suggested that Sharia Law should be applied anywhere in the West, so to suggest that a Western definition of the morality of a law should apply in a Middle Eastern country seems at least problematic.

Certainly some aspects of morality are subjective, but many aspects are not. It is possible to objectively analyze two moral opinions (the following being only one possible way) based on the culture which created, and the general well being of an aggregate of cultures for or against (or indifferent to) that issue. The fact that a whole Muslim society thinks it's OK to suppress women, or to deny people basic health concerns, like oh I don't know, eating or drinking during the day, does not make it OK.

We should NOT just consider it a cultural difference. Those women who want to adhere to Muslim ideas and people who don't want to eat or drink during day time may do so, but the law must respect guests' right to not adhere to those ideas.

It is only acceptable to infringe on another's rights when by doing so you prevent him from infringing on others. This is a basic moral commonality throughout all civilized nations. There is no threat posed by people drinking during the day, and it is absolutely unacceptable to force people not to eat or drink. Period.

Other Comments by MaxWeiss

38. Comment #254419 by Jesus Jones on September 25, 2008 at 4:37 pm

Although the thought of drinking juice being punishable is humourous and worrying, I have to agree with Sargeist and Greybishop.

I'm sure the law is considered rediculous to all of the civilised world (or at least those who visit this site) but it is the law of the land and "when in Rome, do as the Roman's do".

In New Zealand we seem to be constantly bombarded in the media with people from other cultures coming here to live and complaining that our laws don't repect their culture, views, etc. Personally I can't stand this sort of crap and feel sick when politicians appear to bend over backwards to accomodate them.

I hate being hypocritical, therefore if I travelled to a country that had laws different to mine, I would have to abide by those rules and unfortunately, face the consequences if I was found guilty of violating them. That's not to say I wouldn't protest my innocence (so I guess I am a hypocrit!) but I viewing the situation dispationately, I should have to suffer the consequences (and a couple hundred bucks sounds like an easy let-off in an Islamic country).

Other Comments by Jesus Jones

39. Comment #254420 by NoXion on September 25, 2008 at 4:44 pm

1: it is a Muslim country

I live in country that is officially Christian, with the head of state as the head of the Church. That doesn't make medieval-minded laws right.

2: it wanst a lynching, it was a valid law on the books and well known.

It is not a valid law, as it forces non-Muslims to abide by Muslim customs or face punishment for not holding to certain unsubstantiated beliefs (in this case, that drinking juice during the day offends Allah).

The fact that I do not personally observe Ramadan does not infringe on the ability of Muslims to do so, whether I am in the UK or in Dubai.

3: Ignorance of local laws is no defence...

No, their defence is that that they are not Muslim, and that their transgression of a bunch of laws dreamt up by bronze age goatherds does not prevent others abiding by those silly laws.

4: not brushing up on local laws that might trip you up BEFORE you go there is simply stupid...

True, but that doesn't make this law or it's arbitrary enforcement just. These guys were just unlucky because they were caught doing something that annoyed some uptight superstitious person's imaginary friend.

In the UK I play Airsoft, it's illegal here in Australia. Can you imagine the mess I would have been in if I had simply ASSUMED airsoft was also legal and got off the plane with my totally illegal toy guns?

Well, one would hope the reason Asutralia has such laws in place is a reasonable one, rather than the completely unreasonable basis for it being against the law to eat and drink in public at certain times in Dubai.

I don't hold to the belief that breaking the law is wrong simply because it's breaking the law. Laws are a means, not an end to themselves.

Other Comments by NoXion

40. Comment #254429 by Greybishop on September 25, 2008 at 4:54 pm

MaxWeiss wrote:

It is only acceptable to infringe on another's rights when by doing so you prevent him from infringing on others. This is a basic moral commonality throughout all civilized nations.

Really? So when the government infringes on your right to smoke dope in the privacy of your own home or carry a weapon to defend your own person this is somehow because that action infringes on another?

MaxWeiss further wrote"

There is no threat posed by people drinking during the day, and it is absolutely unacceptable to force people not to eat or drink. Period.

So, when you go for surgery, you don't let those immoral health practitioners tell you not to eat for 24 hours before hand, do you!

Like I pointed out, I lived there for 3 years. A healthy adult can easily go from sun up to sun down without eating, drinking, smoking or kissing. It's not fun, but it doesn't threaten your health. Exceptions are made for the ill, children (and Bedouins apparently) and there are dozens upon dozens of restaurants and hotels where the windows are covered so Muslims don't have to see us Westerners sinning at lunch time.

I'm not saying it's a moral law or even a moral idea. It simply is the law of the land. The idea of moral outrage over the practice has more to do with an anti-religion position than with morality.

I'm an atheist and as such I look at the whole idea of religion, religious celebration and such as silly, but that doesn't alter the fact that those in charge in Dubai don't see it that way.

NoXion wrote:

It is not a valid law, as it forces non-Muslims to abide by Muslim customs or face punishment for not holding to certain unsubstantiated beliefs (in this case, that drinking juice during the day offends Allah).

A mouse can protest that being eaten by a cat is not a moral act and that the law of nature that says predators eat prey is invalid. The cat's still going to enjoy its dinner.

Further, the law in Dubai doesn't ask that you "Hold to certain beliefs" but that you abide by their practices, which happen to be shaped by their beliefs. If you are in a persons home and they ask you not to eat in the living room, you abide by their request. After all, it's their home and the reason they asked you not to eat in the living room is irrelevant.

Other Comments by Greybishop

41. Comment #254447 by ukvillafan on September 25, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Ah, common sense at last, NoXion.

If everyone throughout the years had taken the view that laws should never be broken, what an even worse place the world would be. As a moral stance, it lacks all credibility as it is blatantly authoritarian. So, like everyone should just have followed Hitler's Nazi laws? You see my point. Absolutism has its pitfalls.

The point of the story is that this country is a theocracy and it passess laws that are a) based on superstitious nonsense and b) discriminatory against all non-muslims

I could go on but I am too tired - work it out for yourselves!

Other Comments by ukvillafan

42. Comment #254450 by A on September 25, 2008 at 5:10 pm

If we let these bastards drink juice in public we will be a small step away from Darwinism, let's kill off this nascent display of worldliness now.

Other Comments by A

43. Comment #254459 by Greybishop on September 25, 2008 at 5:20 pm

ukvillafan wrote:

The point of the story is that this country is a theocracy and it passess laws that are a) based on superstitious nonsense and b) discriminatory against all non-muslims

And as we are SO fond of saying whenever the idea of imposing Sharia Law in a Western country comes up:

"If you want to live under the laws of your home country, go back home."

No one forces tourists to go to Dubai. Tourists make that choice for themselves. There are hundreds of tourist friendly destinations with liberal, Western laws that are WAY cheaper to visit. If tourists stopped visiting because the laws are too strict, then things might change.

Other Comments by Greybishop

44. Comment #254461 by SPS on September 25, 2008 at 5:33 pm

I wonder what the chances are of finding out this type of thing is against the law even if you were to 'brush up' on it before going there. It's not the type of action one would immediately associate with the violation of law.
Does anyone know how the potential punishment for violating this law in Dubai compares to the prescribed punishment recommended in the qu'ran?

I read another article recently at nytimes.com about the cultural diversity in Dubai and the lives of some of those who live there. A welcome read compared to the usual topics about muslim extremism:

Young and Arab in Land of Mosques and Bars

Other Comments by SPS

45. Comment #254463 by Greybishop on September 25, 2008 at 5:38 pm

SPS asked:

wonder what the chances are of finding out this type of thing is against the law even if you were to 'brush up' on it before going there

I googled "Things to know when traveling to Dubai" and clicked the first link that came up.

This was the fourth item on the page, after "Passport and Visa", "Currency" and "Language and Religion".

Ramadan
During the Holy Month of Ramadan all Muslims fast from sunrise to sunset, and eating, drinking and smoking in public areas during daylight hours should be avoided.

Other Comments by Greybishop

46. Comment #254466 by SPS on September 25, 2008 at 5:45 pm

Greybishop,

Pretty easy then if you do the right search. I typed in 'laws of Dubai', and had more difficulty.

Other Comments by SPS

47. Comment #254467 by Border Collie on September 25, 2008 at 5:45 pm

I mean, really, they were caught 'red handed' AND at a gas station, nonetheless, foul juice-drinking criminals that they are. Isn't religious totalitarianism just the best?!

Their cops remind me of small town Texas cops. They'll do anything to bring money into the town coffers ... AND they can be sanctimonious about it.

Other Comments by Border Collie

48. Comment #254472 by m-man on September 25, 2008 at 6:00 pm

F*CKING islam, i am so sick of this sh*t,
just bomb them all off the planet,
that seems to become the ever more practical solution

Other Comments by m-man

49. Comment #254476 by NoXion on September 25, 2008 at 6:18 pm

Greybishop wrote:

A mouse can protest that being eaten by a cat is not a moral act and that the law of nature that says predators eat prey is invalid. The cat's still going to enjoy its dinner.

Sorry, I don't subscribe to the philosophy of "might makes right". We are not "animals in the jungle" and haven't been for quite some time.

Muslims, being modern humans like the rest of us, are perfectly capable of applying reason and realising that such laws are indefensible. Their unwillingness to do so is what is at fault here.

Further, the law in Dubai doesn't ask that you "Hold to certain beliefs" but that you abide by their practices, which happen to be shaped by their beliefs

You're quite right. Nobody can force you to believe anything. But these guys aren't being punished for not believing - they are being punished for not adhering to religous practices which don't apply to them, what with them being non-Muslims and all.

Which is absurd and deplorable by any reasonable measure.

If you are in a persons home and they ask you not to eat in the living room, you abide by their request. After all, it's their home and the reason they asked you not to eat in the living room is irrelevant.

The difference being that someone's living room is private property. Eating and (non-alcoholic) drinking are perfectly reasonable activities to carry out in public, and in no way infringe upon the ability of Muslims to practice abstinence.

And as we are SO fond of saying whenever the idea of imposing Sharia Law in a Western country comes up:

"If you want to live under the laws of your home country, go back home."

I don't oppose Sharia law because it isn't the law of my country. I oppose it becuase it is unjust and irrational. I oppose my own country's Puritan drug laws for much the same reason.

Other Comments by NoXion

50. Comment #254477 by WilliamP on September 25, 2008 at 6:18 pm

If Dubai wants to be the tourist destination it aims to be, it should be more liberal.
Fewer tourists are going to be attracted to all those luxury hotels if they can't even have the luxury of a cold drink in hot sun.

Other Comments by WilliamP

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 3 | Next | Last