30 Apr 2012 | Egypt, Middle East and North Africa
The detention of an Egyptian human rights lawyer shortly after his arrival in Saudi Arabia last week to perform Umrah (or lesser pilgrimage) has evoked outrage and a wave of anti-Saudi protests in Egypt. The case has brought to light the deep resentment harboured by a sizeable portion of Egypt’s population against the oil-rich kingdom for alleged rights violations practiced by the monarchy against Egyptian migrant workers. It has also caused a rift between Egypt and the ultra-conservative Gulf country — one that has culminated in the withdrawal of the Saudi Ambassador to Egypt.
Scores of protesters gathered outside the Saudi Embassy in Dokki on Tuesday demanding the immediate release of activist and lawyer Ahmed El Gizawi who was tried in absentia and sentenced to one year in prison and 20 lashes for insulting the Saudi monarch. El Gizawi had earlier sued Saudi King Abdalla Bin Abdel Aziz for “the unlawful detention of Egyptian workers in Saudi prisons without charge.” He was arrested on arrival in the Saudi kingdom despite having obtained an entry visa to perform the religious rituals of Umrah.
In a show of support for El Gizawi, the protesters chanted “down with the Saudi family”. They vowed to take their revolution to Medina. Some waved their shoes in the air in a sign of disrespect for the Saudi authorities.
“It is unacceptable that Egyptian authorities are turning a blind eye and allowing Egyptians to continue to be stripped of their dignity after our revolution, ” retorted an angry middle-aged protester.
“If Gizawi is not released in the next few days, we will take matters in our own hands,” threatened another.
Protesters’ cries of “one hundred lashes for the Saudi Ambassador” could be heard several blocks away from the Embassy.
The issue is the subject of a lively debate on social media, which is once again being used by the activists to vent their frustration. This time the anger is directed at the Saudi royal family, not the Egyptian authorities. Facebook posts and tweets on the issue teeter between humorous sarcasm and offensive insults.
“You have recalled the Saudi Ambassador. We are hoping that the next step will be for the Saudis to stop the sweeping tide of Wahhabism exported to us from Saudi Arabia,” noted cyber-activist Yasmin Amin.
“When a Danish cartoon insulted Prophet Mohamed, Saudi officials did not react but when King Abdalla was insulted by an Egyptian lawyer, the Saudi Ambassador in Cairo was recalled to his country,” read another Facebook post.
Many of the activists are sceptical about Saudi accusations that El Gizawi was trying to smuggle narcotic tablets into the country — a serious charge punishable by death in Saudi Arabia. Egyptian Foreign Ministry officials have tried to appease the public, saying they are “in constant contact with Saudi counterparts to diffuse the crisis.”
Since the oil boom in the seventies, millions of Egyptian migrant workers have traveled to the oil- rich country seeking jobs and better lives for themselves and their families. But earning higher incomes has not come without a price. Graphic stories of their maltreatment by Saudi nationals and authorities have for years been reported by the Egyptian press fuelling anger and deepening the divide between the peoples of the two countries (staunch allies under ousted President Hosni Mubarak).
Before last year’s mass uprising in Tahrir Square, Egypt was a popular holiday destination for many Saudis because “Egypt is a freer, more open society and because of its affordable holiday rates,” according to a Gulf tourist who did not want to be named. Many wealthy Gulf holiday-makers frequent Egypt’s nightclubs, gambling casinos and brothels, lavishly spending petro-dollars on alcohol and prostitution because of restrictions on both in their own countries.
In a country where tourism is the number one foreign currency earner and a source of livelihood for millions of Egyptians, Egyptian authorities have for years encouraged tourism from the Gulf turning a blind eye to some of the negative aspects this type of tourism brings, such as the seasonal marriages that are commonplace in Egypt and which are considered a form of human trafficking: Deprived Egyptian families “sell” their daughters in marriage to wealthy Gulf visitors seeking brides who are often a lot younger than their ageing grooms. Many of these elderly husbands abandon their young Egyptian wives after a few brief months (sometimes weeks) returning home to their countries never to be heard of again. In many cases, the brides become pregnant and are left to fend for their children on their own after the disappearance of their “husbands”. Worse still, these child brides are exposed to an increased risk of HIV/AIDs because their husbands practice polygamy.
Liberal Egyptians are also concerned about the growing tide of Wahhabism, a rigid type of Islam exported to Egypt in recent decades from Saudi Arabia. Ultra-conservative Salafi principles like the face veil or nikab for women are a manifestation of this trend, rejected by Egyptian secularists. Many intellectuals and liberals complain that Egypt has been “Saudised” thanks to numerous Saudi-funded satellite channels infiltrating Egypt’s airspace during the Mubarak era. There are increasing suspicions that Saudi Arabia is pouring millions of petro-dollars into Egypt to fund Islamists who want Islamic Sharia law to be the source of all legislation in the country. “The Saudis are ready to do whatever they can to stop our revolution from reaching their shores,” explained Ibrahim el Toukhy, who owns a Red Sea tourist resort.
“We had our revolution to claim Egypt back from the grip of the Saudis, ” said political analyst Emad Gad from AlAhram Center for Political Studies. “Egypt has always been moderate and must remain so.”
In the meantime, the fate of one Egyptian rights activist hangs in the balance.
Journalist Shahira Amin resigned from her post as deputy head of state-run Nile TV in February 2011. Read why she resigned from the “propaganda machine” here.
10 Apr 2012 | Index Index, minipost
A woman has been sentenced to 50 lashes for swearing at her friend in a text message in Saudi Arabia. Following an argument between two women, aged 33 and 31, about where to go on an evening over the weekend, the two women went their separate ways. Some time later, one of the women sent a text message including a swear word. The recipient went to court and showed the text message to a judge. Although the woman said she was joking when she sent the message, she was sentenced to be lashed 50 times.
9 Mar 2012 | Index Index, Middle East and North Africa, minipost
A Saudi journalist facing the death penalty for a series of tweets deemed to be blasphemous is reportedly to be released. Hamza Kashgari, who fled his own country after tweeting a conversation between himself and the prophet Mohammed which sparked calls for his death, is expected to be released in the coming weeks to face a “light sentence”. Kashgari hoped to secure political asylum in New Zealand but was arrested in Kuala Lumpur while in transit, and sent back to Saudi Arabia.
21 Feb 2012 | Asia and Pacific, Middle East and North Africa, News and features
In deporting Saudi journalist Hamza Kashgari for his blasphemous tweets, the Malaysian government acted in its own interests and prioritised diplomacy, even if it might ultimately cost the columnist his life, argues Malik Imtiaz Sarwar
A version of this piece was first published in The Edge on 18 February
On 12 February Malaysia deported a young Saudi journalist named Hamza Kashgari where he is to face charges of blasphemy, an offence that carries the death sentence.
Kashgari fled Saudi Arabia after a controversy erupted after he used to social network Twitter to imagine a conversation with the Prophet Mohammed. Kashgari apologised and deleted the tweets in the hope that this would calm the situation. His efforts were insufficient and a directive was issued for his arrest for blasphemy. Kashgari fled the country, he hoped to secure political asylum in New Zealand but was arrested in Kuala Lumpur while in transit.
It seems that the Malaysian authorities would have rather kept the arrest and deportation off the radar. However, the news began to spread. The authorities began trying to justify themselves and their intended actions. It was suggested that the arrest was part of an Interpol initiative, though Interpol denied any knowledge of the matter. Attempts were then made to characterise the affair as being part of an extradition exercise but Malaysia does not have an extradition treaty with Saudi Arabia.
Lawyers were appointed and began efforts to meet their client and to secure his release. They appear to have been given the run-around or kept in the dark about the fact that the authorities had already unilaterally decided to return Kashgari to Saudi Arabia. The procuring of an injunction from a High Court judge on Sunday to temporarily restrain the deportation came to nought; Kashgari had been deported earlier that morning despite awareness of the intended legal challenge.
One cannot help but question the manner in which the Malaysian authorities conducted themselves. Malaysia was under no legal obligation to return the journalist to Saudi Arabia and the two countries are not bound by an extradition treaty, meaning what Kashgari has done in Saudi Arabia is not of relevance in Malaysia. Kashgari had not committed any offence in Malaysia and had entered the country on a valid travel document. He was not intending to stay in Malaysia; his final port of call was New Zealand.
There is a more fundamental question: what was Kasghari arrested for? That has not been made clear by the authorities; all they have said is that he is wanted in Saudi Arabia. Under Malaysian law a person is guaranteed life and liberty and can only be arrested for having committed a crime. Kashgari did not commit a crime here, he was entitled to contest the legality of his arrest. This is why his lawyers ultimately filed a habeas corpus application.
The situation is ironic. The Home Minister has attempted to justify the deportation as an extradition. But were this to be the case, the person sought to be extradited would be entitled to challenge the validity of the extradition order. Those who have been following the extradition proceedings concerning Julian Assange would have seen how aggressively he has opposed extradition. In the same way, General Augustus Pinochet had fought his extradition to Spain. In such cases it is open to the person sought to be extradited to show that were he to be extradited, he would face consequences that were harsher than those permitted in the deporting country.
Where Kashgari is concerned, this was clearly the case. He is facing a death sentence for having done something that would either not have been an offence in Malaysia or would not have carried a death sentence.
The very real possiblity of Kashgari being sentenced to death has been studiously avoided by the Malaysian authorities. They take the position that this is an internal Saudi matter. Curiously, the Home Minister has gone on to say that Malaysia is not to be seen as a haven for terrorists; the offence Hamza is said to have committed does not concern an act of terrorism.
And underlying all of this is the fact that the Malaysian authorities did not have to intervene at all. Kashgari could have been left to take his flight to New Zealand and the problem would have been New Zealand’s.
All of this marshals into one inescapable conclusion. The Malaysian government acted only in its own interests and chose to prioritise diplomatic expediency over the lawful rights of Hamza Kashgari, even though this may ultimately cost the columnist his life. In doing so, the government acted in complete defiance of legal obligations it was under.
I am not alone in this view. The National Human Rights Commission (SUHAKAM) has condemned the authorities for having acted as they did.
For all its talk about moderation, progress and commitment to the fundamentals of the international human rights framework, it is regrettable that the Malaysian government appears to be willing to uphold human rights only where it is politically convenient to do so. Put more plainly, it just does not seem to care.
Were it otherwise, Hamza Kashgari would have had his day in court.
Malik Imtiaz Sarwar is a practising lawyer and the president of the Malaysian National Human Rights Society. He tweets at @malikimitiaz
