Category Libs and Cons

Nothing Changed

In November 1979, Juhayman al-Otaibi and his fellow zealots occupied the Grand Mosque in Makkah. After a bloody siege that lasted for two weeks, they were eventually captured and shortly beheaded. Following this event, Saudi Arabia experienced a scary rise of conservatism and the social liberalization that had begun in the 60’s and 70’s was halted or even rolled back. Women were no longer allowed on national TV, and restrictions on their employment and participation in public life became so harsh.

It is July 2009, more than 900 suspects were charged with participating in terrorist attacks in the country over the past few years. In landmark trials, more than 330 people in 179 cases had been tried and one given the death sentence. While these trials are still in progress, several restrictions to a freer access to culture and entertainment have been put in place, including a ban on cinema and cancellation of the Jeddah Film Festival.

What a difference 30 years make?

Excuse You?

The cartoon in my previous post from al-Riyadh daily has apparently caused some controversy and attracted many angry comments from their readers who thought the cartoonist has crossed a red line. Today the newspaper published an apology, and said the cartoon did not attempt to mock the religious police. “We would like to stress that the point of the cartoon are those who invade people’s privacy and question their behavior without a justification in a conservative society,” the paper added.

Invade people’s privacy and question their behavior without a justification in a conservative society? I’m sorry, but isn’t that what the religious police exactly do? Hmmm…

Scurrilous

The sorry state of traditional media in the country has encouraged some Saudis in recent years to start news websites aka electronic newspapers. Some of the most well-known names in that field today include Sabq, Alweeam, and A’ajel. I have no idea what is the size of competition between such websites and traditional media, but considering that the likes of Turki al-Sudairi don’t miss a chance to attack the news websites you can probably guess they are not exactly thrilled about their existence.

Traditional media people try to attack the news websites by suggesting that they they lack professionalism and credibility, but I believe the same thing can be said about the traditional media in Saudi Arabia. So let’s not even get into this.

There are two advantages online news sites here enjoy over traditional media: speed and scandals. They can report news as they happen and don’t have to wait until the next day. They can report on scandals that traditional media would usually avoid for reasons related mostly to their red lines and sometimes to their standards. Scandals sell, and in a conservative country like ours they carry more weight due to the conformist nature of society.

You could be someone who enjoys reading scandals and celebrity gossip. Or you could be someone who hates the whole thing. But in this case that does not matter much because I think that these online websites should do their best to use these advantages to deliver a better service to interested readers.

Earlier this week Alweeam website reported on what they called a “missionary party” sponsored by several Saudi and foreign companies to celebrate St George’s Day. Alweeam said the British Ambassador and his wife attended the party, as well as “many women and businessmen, and they partied wildly until the morning.” The site added that the party violates the country’s laws, which calls for punishing the Saudi companies that sponsored the event.

It is obvious from tabloid-like reporting and pictures published with the story what Alweeam are trying to do. They are screaming: A missionary party in the heart of Saudi Arabia! How scandalous!

Now this story could be actually scandalous, except for one thing: Alweeam have added one little, but significant, false detail which is the word “missionary.” The Robin Hood-themed party has nothing to do with missionary work, and the St.George Society Riyadh (SGSR) describes itself as a “charitable and social organization, set up in September 2006 with the aim of promoting England and Englishness.”

You could argue that St George’s Day has a religious origin, but it is also England’s national day, and like Christmas and other holidays is no longer seen in that context. More importantly, there is nothing on SGRS website that suggests that the organization and its activities are missionary or related to religion. Unfortunately, the website is no longer accessible. It seems to me that after publishing the news about their party they decided to take the website down in order to avoid more controversy. You can still view a version of the website using Google’s cache.

Please note that I have no comment on the event itself. I’m only commenting here on the coverage of Alweeam which ignored obvious facts, included false information, and did not bother to talk to pretty much anyone from the people involved. They had a chance to make a real scoop here, but they miserably failed. The only aspect that will be worth watching from this rather ridiculous story is how those Saudi companies that sponsored the party will deal with their PR nightmare.

Bad, Bad Al-Watan (Updated)

UPDATE II 21/6/09: Jamal Khashoggi was not fired. He wrote an editorial today about the incident, saying “maybe what the Prince wanted to tell us is that there are many good things that you can do to serve this nation, and that is what we are going to do.”

UPDATE 21/6/09:There are conflicting reports regarding Khashoggi. Some sources confirm that he was fired, and some other sources deny it. I’m told he is unreachable because he is outside the country on vacation.

UPDATE 20/6/90: It has been confirmed that Jamal Khashoggi, the editor-in-chief of al-Watan, has been fired after the incident. This is the second time Khashoggi is fired of this job; the first one was in 2003.

For a long time I made no secret of my frustration with the policy of closing shops for prayer time, and also the fact that some government employees use prayer as an excuse to neglect their jobs. Actually, I posted about this more than four years ago. As the margin for freedom of expression is slowly increasing, the local press is finally getting the courage to discuss this matter, with a few articles appearing here and there. Here’s one of these articles that was published in al-Watan last week. Since the Commission for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is the body responsible for enforcing this policy, I don’t think this will change anytime soon.

But speaking of the Commission and al-Watan, something interesting happened a few days ago. The Commission held an event in Riyadh last Tuesday to celebrate launching a strategic plan for the Hay’a. The ceremony was under the patronage of Prince Naif, the Second Deputy Premier and Minister of Interior, and after the ceremony there was a press conference where reporters had a chance to ask him about all kinds of issues.

The last questions in the press conference was by Mohammed Nasser al-Asmari, who writes a column for al-Watan. He asked the minister to explain why Riyadh has more Commission centers than police centers. Prince Naif said this is untrue, “and may God increase [the Commission centers],” he added, and then he went on to criticize the newspaper saying they have bad intentions, and that they attract writers against the faith and against the nation.

Al-Watan, which is considered one of the more liberal Arabic-langauge newspapers in the country, has strangely omitted the criticism from their coverage of the event that was leading their front page on Wednesday. Some observers have expressed their fear that the relative freedom al-Watan enjoyed since its inception might be coming to an end.

Adwan al-Ahmari, the reporter whose name appears in the byline of the story, told me the newspaper did not include that question in their coverage because al-Asmari is an opinion writer who does not represent the newspaper and that he was speaking for himself only. While I understand the choice the editors made here, I’m not sure if this was the best choice. Ignoring that comment raises questions about their transparency and credibility at a time when they really needed to emphasize such values.

Footnotes:

Let Them Protest

Riyadh witnessed a comeback for cinema after 30 years of absence. Menahi, a movie produced by Alwaleed’s Rotana, was opened to public in King Fahad Cultural Center (KFCC) last week. I was curious to see how this was going to play out, but not curious enough to actually go there myself. The main reason for missing on this “historical event,” as some called it, is because I dislike Faiz al-Malki (the rumors about his assassination are false btw, he is alive and well, shooting a TV series in Taif). I believe I’m free to dislike al-Malki, and also free to express that dislike in any way I deem appropriate. Look, I just did exactly that in this paragraph. Some people go to extreme measures to express their opinions, and that’s also fine, as long as they don’t cause physical harm to others or damage property. It’s called freedom of expression.

That being said, I was not surprised to read that several groups of young men attempted to disrupt the movie’s showings at KFCC, by trying to persuade moviegoers to leave in order to close down the show. We have seen this kind of behavior before in the book fair, Yamama College theater, and other places.

Dawood al-Sherian does not like how the local media covered what happened this time, or more specifically how columnists and opinion writers like him talked about it. He thinks that most writers have linked between the behavior of these young men with terrorism. “They almost made it look like a plot by al-Qaeda,” he wrote. He says that if the writers support the return of cinema as a form for freedom of expression, then they should welcome the reaction of those men in the same spirit.

I agree with him that linking this behavior to terrorism and al-Qaeda is unfair, but I don’t think it is far-fetched to link it to extremism. I don’t know about you, but I really think there is something extreme about trying to convince people to leave and close down the show. I admit it is hard sometimes to draw the line between what is accepted as freedom of expression and what is not, but in this case it seems easy enough. The young men should have been allowed to hold their protests outside KFCC, under the eyes of the police to make sure that things don’t get out of control. Now of course Dawood al-Sherian would never say such thing, probably because his limits are different than mine, or simply because he knows that public demonstrations are not allowed here.

Although I’m not sure if/how this would work, but I think that if they were allowed to express their disapproval this way they won’t feel it necessary to go extreme and try to stop the show, or start vandalizing and destroying like what happened in Jouf where they burned a tent prepared for literary events.

Decades of fundamentalist religious propaganda have made the concept of “freedom of expression” seems very alien to our culture, but that does not mean it truly is. This is a universal basic human right; it was not invented by the infidel West. Some Saudi pseudo-liberals claim that too much freedom of expression is bad — even dangerous — for this country, simply because it would give their opponents more rights that these opponents are trying to deny the rest of us now. That’s a fallacy. The real test of how sincere we are about freedom of expression is in how much we are willing to tolerate those we disagree with.

Norah and Adela

Norah al-Faiz says she has been misquoted. She does not say she was misquoted on what exactly: her Najdi niqab, introducing sports to girls schools, that she can’t appear on TV without permission, or the news that she started her talk with the reporters by saying “ya mama…” Alas, she said she will no longer speak to the press directly and will conduct all her interviews from now on via fax or email. I hope the new approach of the deputy minister would stop her from uttering nonsense like that she is more influential than Barack Obama. Al-Faiz has retracted her statements about introducing sports to girls schools, saying she is not against it and that “an integrated plan is being worked out to introduce PE in girls schools.” This actually could be true, not necessarily because al-Faiz said so but because someone who is far more influential than her is pushing for it.

Princess Adela bint Abdullah, the King’s daughter, told al-Riyadh daily yesterday that “it’s high time to look into the matter of introducing sports at girls schools seriously, following the teachings of Islam.” Princess Adela does not work in the government, but she is married to the minister of education. A friend of mine who met the princess says she is offering a new image for the women of the royal family. She is highly-motivated and very determined, and she is playing an increasingly assertive role in public life here. Since she is standing behind this, I think that female students might start enjoying their sports classes when the new school year begins this fall.