Gulf News reported yesterday that in the United Arab Emirates, the Dubai Court of Misdemeanours has convicted two non-Muslim foreign tourists of violating the country's ban on eating and drinking in public during daylight hours in the month of Ramadan. The Russian and Lebanese toursts were drinking juice in a service station waiting room. In the first conviction this year under Section 313 of the Emirates Federal Penal Code, the two defendants, who said they did not know that they were acting in violation of law, were each fined Dh 1000.
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
12 comments:
I'd kind of enjoy being fined for this as a tourist if it weren't a prohibitive fine. I'd keep the citation as a souvenir.
I don't know if I quite understand why it's legal to serve food and drink during the daylight hours if it's not legal to actually consume them at that time, though. This smacks slightly of selective enforcement.
Lucky for them that they weren't harboring impure thoughts too. Then they'd really have been in deep ... stuff (phew, almost wrote a bad word during daylight.)
Presumably, Allah has agreed to let infidels eat (behind screens) in resort hotels during the day, but will compromise no further on this matter.
I've been enjoying your blog. I forgot who linked to it. My wife was once flying to Morocco on Royal Air Morocco during Ramadan and she had ordered a kosher meal. With many people on the plane fasting, she thought that it was a weird scene when the stewardess yelled out "Who ordered the kosher meal?"
CL, the tourists might have brought the juice with them, having been served it in closed containers during the hours of darkness. Or maybe they brought it with them from home.
I'm having a hard time believing that in this age of instant information, tourists to a Muslim country are not aware of such prohibitions.
1000 United Arab Emirates dirham is about $272, so the fine is neither prohibitive nor trivial.
CrypticLife: I also assumed that they were served, although they might not have been, as noted by Chimera.
Chimera: I was not aware of legal (only religious) prohibitions and generally consider myself to be rather "plugged in" to the instant information we enjoy in the West. However, I would not expect to be fined for eating steak in Italy (or the Vatican) on a Friday in Lent, a religious prohibition but not necessarily a legal one in a Christian country.
Tourists should certainly be aware of general rules in the countries they visit and always act with respect for local tradition, but cannot be aware of all laws (though of course they must be subject to them).
Even as a law student, I am not aware of all the laws of my country of residence, citizenship, and study. Surely tourists cannot be responsible for complete knowledge of a legal system.
The law is just idiotic. There is no other way to describe it. Imposing religious practices on those that are not of that religion is a violation of inalienable rights. They don’t believe in prostitution but I have seen them with one on each side of them in a bar with a bottle of champagne in the middle. This is a hypocrite society and third world country where there is little consistency or standard practice. There are not even addresses in the UAE yet other than PO boxes. It is not well known and some think it is not a law but an act of respect not to consume in public. I had a 12 year UAE resident tell me it is no longer a law but to refrain due to respect. He is clearly wrong from what I read here.
Xjane, in the UAR, all emirates have both secular and Islamic law for civil, criminal, and high courts. If someone is charged with an offense under religious law, then the religious courts will set the penalties, and the secular courts will not interfere.
You would have no such problems in Italy for two reasons: Italy is a secular state. And it is no longer prohibited for Catholics to eat meat on Fridays.
As for not having knowledge of all laws...no judge in any court will allow you to get away with an offense using that defense. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
"Imposing religious practices on those that are not of that religion is a violation of inalienable rights."
Wouldn't that be the best solution all around! And in the western world, it's at least within reach, if not 100% accepted practice yet.
But the UAE does not subscribe to the abstract of "inalienable" rights. Within the borders of any country, you must be prepared to abide by the laws within that country. You leave all your inalienable rights behind.
"You leave all your inalienable rights behind."
That doesn't sound very inalienable...
It doesn't, does it? Which is why I cringe every time someone trumpets their pet little "inalienables" around when they're talking about places that wouldn't recognize one if it married into the family.
Unfortunatley, there is no icon for tongue-in-cheek.
Chimera: thank you for the education on law in the UAR. My point, however, stands: it is impossible to be aware of all laws at all times. I'm not arguing that people should not be subject to laws they don't know, merely that they cannot possibly know all the laws that they may be subject to.
Anonymous@03:33:00 said "Imposing religious practices on those that are not of that religion is a violation of inalienable rights."
I look forward to the day that the United States abides by that.
Xjane, I was not disagreeing with you. I was simply pointing out that even if you don't know the law, you won't be allowed to use that as an excuse for breaking it.
Post a Comment