An Indian couple have been jailed for three months each for sending smutty text messages in Dubai. The two, aged 47 and 42, were cabin crew for Dubai Emirates airline. They originally got a six month sentence followed by deportation - this has been cut on appeal to three months and they can stay in the country. The court found …
Another reason to be grateful that we live in a country where although it's getting smaller, freedom of speech,txts etc is still here, beliefs in some countries do make you laugh
Don't be so sure
In the UK you'll be put on the sex offender's register for sending pictures of yourself to your partner if you're under 18. Describing an act could even be seen as intent. Oh, and your partner would be on there too for posession of indecent images of a minor.
We're just as backward as any middle-eastern territory... We just don't chop pieces off the perpetrators.
I have to say that at this moment I am thinking of the children.
you are thinking of children in the nuddy?
Age of consent in the UK is 16.
Age of consent is 18. However, indecent images of under 18s are illegal.
Welcome to a backwards country and an archaic legal system.
Why the fuck anyone goes there is beyond me.
Not the half
Try reading this;
I'm with you wondering why anyone would want to go there.
That place is definitely on my "Never want to visit" list.
They were not jailed for smutty texts
They were not jailed for sending smutty texts.
They were jailed for planning "to commit sin".
A married couple sending such texts to each other (not planning to commit sin) would not have faced penalty (AFAIK).
Anyone there planning to commit sin, by any other means, such as emails, would have faced that same penalty. Soon there'll be talk of "two jailed for smutty emails".
what about the couple kissing?
Couples are not jailed for kissing.
They "committed sin" by the laws of the country:
a) they were not married
b) they did it in a public place.
I laugh at all those who gave me negatives, even though what I said is completely correct and thus far not refuted.
How about a new headline
"Indian couple jailed for breaking local laws"
Checks El Reg TLD... Yup, still UK.
Not the point
What they were doing should not be against *any* law *anywhere* in the world.
Economic sanctions, now.
It is exactly the point
You are not the be all and end all of what is right or wrong nor is anyone else. If you don't like a region's particular laws then either don't go there or STFU.
Their economy is already in the crapper. They had to get a bail out from another nation a few months ago. And its not going to get better for them anytime soon.
Let them fail on their own. Sanctions would just give them something to blame when the country goes bankrupt financially.
Economic sanctions, now.
OIL? The UAE doesn't have any.
They do not have as much Oil as they once did, but IIRC somewhere north of 6% of Dubai's GDP is Oil and Natural Gas. Any nation that exports even a drop of oil is a nation the US is far more dependant on than they are on the US.
Besides which, Dubai trades mostly with the Muslim world, India and China. I imagine that if the US got its knickers in a twist and convinced a large % of the western world to cut Dubai off, they'd laugh and shrug it off.
Now China, them you don't want to anger.
Whoa whoa whoa!
"Earlier this week another British couple began an appeal against a one month sentence for kissing in public"
So, let me get this straight, muslims who come to this country expect to be allowed to wear bhurkas in our shops, where it is clearly illegal as it completely covers the face, and expect us to deal with this.
Yet when we go there we can be imprisoned for kissing?
Hmmmm, doesn't seem quite right somehow...
I think you should stop reading the Daily Mail. It is not illegal to wear a bhurka in the UK.
Oh and just remember, it was only 40-odd years ago that similar actions would have got you into trouble in Franco's Spain,
"I think you should stop reading the Daily Mail. It is not illegal to wear a bhurka in the UK."
Not yet but hoodies are already banned in some shopping centres. It's only matter of time before they ditch the hoods and buy bhurkas to get around it....
Then lets see if bhurkas get banned in shopping centres!
Lucky we ain't in Franco's Spain. We are in the United Kingdom...
Religious exemptions again
It's not illegal, but how about trying going shopping in a balaclava and see how far you get.
Dear Daily Mail,
One of your own appears to have strayed. Please collect him as soon as possible.
I'm pretty sure your rant has little basis in law like you believe it has. If I wanted to walk around 24/7 with a giant mouse head/mask* on there is NOTHING anyone can do about it. NOTHING. The only people who "can" are the Police but they would, as they would with ANY other citizen, need to have reason to stop me, and only under certain legislation** would they have the power to REQUEST I remove said mouse head/mask. Under a "normal" (non anti-terrorism) stop and search I am NOT required (well, not yet at least!) to provide ANY form of identification or ANY other personal details, much less would I be required by law to remove said mouse head/mask.
It is an entirely different matter if the owner, or representative, of a business (i.e. a shop) refused me permission to enter (or requested me to leave) their property. The only element of law there is they are legally entitled to do so, but its certainly not illegal for me to attempt to do it.
*Deadmau5 or "Cartoon Head", take your pick.
** Anti-terrorism and driving legislation where I AM required to provide proof of ID if request by a police officer, removing the mask would be necessary to acertain I am who I say I am. This is ignoring the fact that it would probably be an offence to drive around with a mouse head/mask on anyway!
Re: Replies to Jason 24
I think the point Jason was trying to make is that many people in this country make no attempt to fully integrate into our society, but rather maintain their own religion's/country's social norms (i.e., not going by the "when in Rome" mantra). As such, Britain is a far more tolerant nation than the majority of Middle Eastern countries where it is a legal obligation to follow local customs.
Also, how many of you never think twice about kissing your partner in public in the UK, and would likely make a tiny slip up (at a meal in a restaurant, BTW) when in Dubai. It's quite scary, really....
Re: Well then @Christopher Rogers
And WTF do you know about living in Franco's Spain? I live and work amongst people who remember Franco's Spain and furthermore I am married to such a person. The only people who speak about how bad Franco was are those who in England would be called the great unwashed, the scroungers, layabouts and other dregs of society. There is barely a day goes by when I am not reminded that things were better in Franco's time.
@ AC Re: Well then @Christopher Rogers
"There is barely a day goes by when I am not reminded that things were better in Franco's time."
You should choose your companies better, then. You know, people who are not rabid right-winger, Nazi-friendly, murderous-dictatorship-loving morons.
Spain has a lot of them still today, I know, but that's no excuse (my sister is there getting a PhD in political science studying *exactly* the most terrible of Franco's years).
There are people with such idiotic ideas everywhere apparently. You know, they miss the Brazilian military dictators of 1964-85, or they miss Pinochet in Chile, or the Nazis in Germany (even if they weren't even born then). Just goes to show how quickly we can descend into savagery given the slightest chance.
Franco's Spain == Nazi Germany
If you condone Franco, you should condone Hitler. They were basically the same crap, he overthrowed a democratic government and killed thousands. He didn't jump into "millions" because there aren't that many Spaniards in Spain to kill. And he asked the Third Reich for help ... remember Guernica!
You have to understand that your sister is studying under a rabid left wing government that is doing its best to erase the memory(*) of Franco and one that gave in to Al Qaeda at the drop of a hat.
(*)Renaming streets and tearing down monuments, although there is one in particualr they will have trouble getting rid of.
Planning to commit sin?
And who gives someone the right to define a 'sin'? Oh I forgot according to the priests/clerics/insert any power crazed loony here it's the invisible sky fairy - sorry God who must be obeyed.
How convenient that only the religious leaders can interpret his word based on text written by MAN over a millennia ago
Don't you mean "Thought Crime"?
Not surprised in the slightest.
Why anyone would want to visit one of these third world* dictatorships is beyond me -- the UK is bad enough without adding the supposed Koran-based perversions endemic in these places.
*for a large percentage of the population
Staying at home
Why did I want to go to Dubai? OK, the sun and hotels looked great and the cheap tech that you could purchase.
After reports like this though and with their reported "crackdown" I'm crossing this destination from my list. Why should I take my wife there if we can't relax and spend time together in our usual manner?
Dubai - who the heck wants to go there?
Personally I have little time for Dubai (where I will never, ever, willingly go).
For one thing I resent giving any money to princes who have enormous worldly wealth due almost entirely to chance (they didn't know they had oil) and are unwilling to use that money to help the pathetically poor people who are unfortunate enough to share the same country;
For another I find their laws draconian and outdated and their government's attitude towards injustice (injustice created mainly by their draconian and outdated laws) hypocritical in the extreme - princes have a playboy lifestyle while expecting non-princes to observe strict laws;
I resent that any of my money is given to these scrotal swellings via petrol receipts, and I for one will laugh like a drain at their looks of dismay if and when we stop using oil.
I will never holiday in Dubai (where I will never, ever, willingly go); I will never stop over in Dubai (where I will never, ever, willingly go); I will give no more money than strictly necessary to fund the lifestyles of the morally defunct leaders of Dubai (where I will never, ever, willingly go) and the UAE (where I will also never, ever, willingly go).
I am not religious, but I am not above quoting religious texts at those who have pretences towards religion while having, in fact, no religion higher than their own stupid desires. Therefore - the the princes of the UAE I say:
"Our true wealth is the good we do in this world. None of us has faith unless we desire for our neighbors what we desire for ourselves."
I truly hope that phrase sticks in their craw so badly they choke.
I won't be there to pat their backs.
@ Silver Fox
Whilst I applaud your convictions and I detest Dubai and other Arab nations who practice the "lie with open" hands technique you did get something slightly wrong in your post.
Dubai doesn't have much in the way of oil anymore hence why it's leader some Prince, (whose name I wouldn't know unless I looked it up), came up with the approach of turning Dubai into a resort Mecca for the world.
My reasons for disliking that and many other nations ruled by their religious faiths is that church and state should always be kept separate and Dubai with this whole kissing in public bullshit is a great example of why they should be separate.
Completely out of character for me I did a spot of research before posting my online rant, and you're entirely correct about Dubai's petrol receipts and their need to make up for loss in receipts by attempting to create a tourist industry (out of thin air, from what I can see). I don't think that entirely invalidates my point about petrol receipts, but I appreciate it doesn't make it as strong as it might otherwise have been.
I'm also none too keen on countries where religious hierarchy = governing hierarchy as they make uneasy bedfellows at best.
You were also right about name of the prince who rules Dubai - I had no idea who he was either so I looked his name up. He's called Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum, he's worth about $16 billion, and in 2007 he gave "$10bn of his wealth to set up the Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Foundation, an educational foundation in the Middle East" (see Wikipedia for remaining details).
While I'm not saying this makes the guy a saint I confess I may have some egg on my face over his moral leanings: I doubt there are many of us who could afford to give up 5/8ths of our income to establish places of learning. I suppose I could grumble on in a whiney kind of way about how this means he clearly has too much money to play with, but I don't think (and I can't quite believe I'm saying this) that this would be entirely fair to the bloke.
even more reason not to go there, for any reason.
@ Cameron Colley and AC 12:57
$£€ and equivalents.
Isn't it supposedly integral to Sharia law that Sharia law only applies to the faithful; ie Muslims? Were both the Indian pair and the UK couple Muslims? If not, then it seems that something is amiss; perhaps that si the grounds that could be used to contest these cases?
Anyone on here...
.....defending this is just mental. Sorry, but there you go. So much horror and wrong is `justified` on the basis of history or culture.... when it suits those in charge, of course. It would be fascinating to see how long a wealthy sheik would go down for, for a similar offence. I'd wager no time at all...
Been there once - Disgusting country.... for many reasons....
I have not one good thing to say about Dubai. Disgusting, unfair, and full of grotesquely wealthy parasites.
Re: Anyone on here
Your statement that anyone defending something you don't like shows you up to be no better than a fascist dictator, although they usually wallow in public recognition rather than hide behind a veil of anonymity.
That laws are made is a fact of life, whether it be by clerics, a body of elected representaives or one of non-elected representatives. No one can say that one method of law making is substantially better than any other or that laws based on belief are better than those based on mob hysteria, the latter seems to be what UK law is now based upon. Before directing your anger at a far away land that you don't like why not turn it towards an effort to repeal many of the ridiculous laws that have been passed by UK Gov. Plc and which directly affect you.
In the good old days...
When the global map was 75% pink, we'd have had a gunboat round there pretty quick. Mind you, as Lewis will tell you, we can't really afford one these days...
I have often wondered what would happen if I wore a burkha. (I'm a hairy straight beer-drinking non-religious bloke). Would it be construed as racist? What if I just felt comfortable in one, like Eddie Izzard is comfortable in womens cloths? Would it be an insult to islam and would a fatwa be issued, would I survive a pub-crawl around Leyton? Also, I think that a burkha would be very nicely complimented by a briar pipe.
Think about it, fall out of bed, throw the burkha over your head, tamp down the pipe and you're good to go for the day. You can really appreciate why they're so popular.
"it was only 40-odd years ago that similar actions would have got you into trouble in Franco's Spain"
Well isn't that fantastic, bring on the forced labour in prisons!
I do think they're batsh*t crazy in these Islamic states. But the law is the law in these places, if you don't agree, don't bloody go there!
what the Brits and indeed Euros in general saw in Dubai. One side affect of being Merkin and being hated in most of the world (thanks GW) is if you want to go somewhere without Merkins go to an Islamic country. Hell its even rare to see us in relatively tame Turkey. I was wondering when the honeymoon boom would end, and Dubai would resort to the 13th century moral code typical for the region. Guess the credit crisis claimed another victim.
When in Rome
It's news these days when people are prosecuted for breaking local laws in a foreign country. Why? These laws exist so why is it only news when somebody foreign in prosecuted for breaking them? Is it news when a local is prosecuted? Nope. So the general opinion of the news media seems to be that the law in any given country should be different for visitors than it is for locals.
Don't know about the rest of the world, but that's not allowed in the EU. I remember a big issue blowing up in France years back because traffic police were demanding that visitors pay up instantly for roadside fines whereas French nationals were allowed to defer payment. This is apparently in breach of EU law, under EU law the law must be applied equally to all people regardless of nationality or origin.
So they got nicked for breaking a law in Dubai. Would their defence by any chance revolve around their ignorance of the law? There are very few countries where ignorance is any defence.
Re: When in Rome
And that's the point at which your brain always stops and goes out for a pint? I envy you.
Can we have a check box next to comments so that I can give thumbs down to just about all of them in one go 'cause I'm too lazy to do it one by one.
planning to commit sin?
Would texting a friend to go for a beer when you get home from Dubai also qualify?
That will be a conspiracy.