Couple jailed for kissing in Dubai lose appeal over a two-year-old's testimony
47 replies, posted
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8602449.stm[/url]
[release]A British man and woman jailed in Dubai for kissing in public have lost their appeal against their conviction.
Ayman Najafi, 24, and Charlotte Adams, 25, were sentenced to a month in prison with subsequent deportation and fined about £200 for drinking alcohol.
The pair were arrested in November after a local woman accused them of breaking the country's decency laws by kissing on the mouth in a restaurant.
Najafi said he was "very disappointed". The pair plan to make a second appeal.
The initial complaint against them was made by a 38-year-old woman who said she was offended by their behaviour at the Jumeirah Beach Residence, where she was dining with her daughter.
'Very harsh'
The pair's defence lawyers said the woman - who did not appear in court - had not seen the kiss herself, but had been told by her two-year-old child that the girl had seen them kissing.
The defendants also claimed they had merely kissed each other on the cheek, and therefore had not broken any laws.
The BBC's Ben Thompson, at the court, said the judge spoke entirely in Arabic as he quickly dismissed the appeal, saying he upheld the previous sentence.
They were fined 1,000 dirhams, which is about £200. They now have 30 days to appeal.
It was left to the defence lawyer to explain the verdict to Najafi and Adams.
Najafi said after the case: "It's very harsh, based on contradictory evidence. The courts haven't called on any of our witnesses who are prepared to testify that this didn't happen."
His mother, Maida Najafi, told the BBC her son had grown up in the UK and was used to common British greetings.
"Maybe they think he should know better because he's from a Muslim family but Ayman grew up in this country, and that's the normal greeting... in this country," she said.
The pair decided not to start their sentence immediately, but the Dubai authorities are holding their passports so they are unable to return to Britain.
Professor John Strawson, an expert in Islamic law, told BBC Radio 5 Live he was not surprised by the judge's decision.
He said: "The problem in this particular case is that one of the British citizens is of Muslim origin.
"And I think that the combination of the alleged kissing and the consumption of alcohol in an illegal place, meant that this was a case that the authorities really wanted to pursue, and they are probably sticking to their rigid interpretation of the law."
Professor Strawson said the Dubai authorities often turned a blind eye to foreigners' behaviour, because of the high income that comes from tourists.
But he said Dubai had recently issued new explanations tightening up their laws.
'Cultural differences'
The Foreign Office advises Britons going to Dubai, which is part of the United Arab Emirates, to be wary of breaching local customs.
A statement on its travel advice website reads: "Britons can find themselves facing charges relating to cultural differences, such as using bad language, rude gestures or public displays of affection."
Najafi, from north London, had been working for marketing firm Hay Group in Dubai for about 18 months.
The case is the latest in a series of incidents over recent years in which foreigners have broken Dubai's strict decency laws.
In March, an Indian couple in their 40s were sentenced to three months in jail in Dubai after sending each other sexually explicit text messages.
In 2008, two Britons accused of having sex on a beach in Dubai were sentenced to three months in jail, though the sentences were later suspended.[/release]
:doh:
Goddamn, Dubai. You and your indecency laws.
Countries run by religion are shit.
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;21182529]Countries run by religion are shit.[/QUOTE]
Indeed. Muslims especially, but perhaps because they're the only ones left that are dumb enough to use the law to enforce shit written in a fiction book thousands of years ago.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;21182542]Indeed. Muslims especially, but perhaps because they're the only ones left that are dumb enough to use the law to enforce shit written in a fiction book thousands of years ago.[/QUOTE]
Hey, remember that guy who tried to start a country with a copy of star trek?
...
Me neither, but that would be funny.
because sending them to jail for a month now has now accomplished...? oh right. it didn't.
fucking dubai, you're going to be a wasteland shithole after all that oil money runs out, why don't you make yourself at least slightly presentable to the world instead of looking like a bunch of stone-age douchebags whose morals only lie with a simple fiction book.
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;21182570]Hey, remember that guy who tried to start a country with a copy of star trek?
...
Me neither, but that would be funny.[/QUOTE]
Elron Hubbard started a religion with a clone of Star Trek.
He made [i]millions[/i]
[QUOTE=aznz888;21187349]fucking dubai, you're going to be a wasteland shithole after all that oil money runs out[/QUOTE]
Oil makes up 6% of Dubai's economy.
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;21182570]Hey, remember that guy who tried to start a country with a copy of star trek?
...
Me neither, but that would be funny.[/QUOTE]
Considering Star Trek promoted secular Humanism, that would be a little contradictory.
[QUOTE=PrismatexV8;21182476]
In March, an Indian couple in their 40s were sentenced to three months in jail in Dubai after sending each other sexually explicit [B][U]text messages[/U][/B].[/QUOTE]Seriously? :doh:
I guess you could say...
[img]http://chrisstubbs.com/AustinPowers.jpg[/img]
They can [I]kiss [/I]their freedom goodbye!
You guys realize the American constitution was based on the basic principles of Christianity?
But India just took shit too far.
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;21189388]You guys realize the American constitution was based on the basic principles of Christianity? [/QUOTE]
No.
[QUOTE=BuddieBBB;21189427]No.[/QUOTE]
You're so cool and edgy for just posting "no." instead of a valid argument.
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;21189388]
But India just took shit too far.[/QUOTE]
Dubai isn't in India if that's what you're implying.
[editline]06:27PM[/editline]
Disregard, read thread.
This shit makes me sad. I feel slightly sorry for the people who live there.
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;21189463]You're so cool and edgy for just posting "no." instead of a valid argument.[/QUOTE]
You didn't have any proof, or a valid argument, in your post.
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;21189463]You're so cool and edgy for just posting "no." instead of a valid argument.[/QUOTE]
Maybe because it's common knowledge that it wasn't you dolt
That's so gross... kissing.
They must be gay or something.
Does anyone remember the couple who had "[I]sex" [/I]on the beach.
[img]http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q198/Hezzy88/mojo.jpg[/img]
he might have gotten cooties. good thing they saved him while they could
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;21189388]You guys realize the American constitution was based on the basic principles of Christianity?
But India just took shit too far.[/QUOTE]
You guys realize that the tenants of Christianity are based on the basic principles of common fucking sense? Well, except for the parts where you can sell your daughter into slavery and kill your children if they misbehave, those aren't in the Constitution are they?
"As [B]the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" - George Washington
[/B]
[QUOTE=TheChantzGuy;21189388]You guys realize the American constitution was based on the basic principles of Christianity?
But India just took shit too far.[/QUOTE]
No it wasn't.
[editline]01:52PM[/editline]
The US Constitution was penned by Deists and Doubters and was based on the principles of secularism and early Liberalism (now closer to Libertarianism) based on the works of philosophers like John Locke.
The Treaty of Tripoli also destroys that claim.
[editline]01:54PM[/editline]
Treaty of Tripoli Article 11:
Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
[QUOTE=DireAvenger;21182529]Countries run by religion are shit.[/QUOTE]
Countries not run by religion are still shit, but to a slight degree.
Although... there are shit non religion based countries, but that doesn't change the fact that countries run by religion are indeed shit.
FYI when I refer to John Locke's liberalism, I am referring to REAL liberalism, which is to say Capitalism and small government. John Locke all but founded the principles of Liberalism and the goddamn father of the political persuasion was an complete proponent of ownership of property and worth of labor. If John Locke saw what we call Liberalism today, he would pitch a fit and turn into a giant smoke monster.
the american constitution has stuff like "there should be no 'official' religion". though that doesnt sound right considering all the shit on currency like "one nation under god"
[QUOTE=wonkadonk;21190093]the american constitution has stuff like "there should be no 'official' religion". though that doesnt sound right considering all the shit on currency like "one nation under god"[/QUOTE]
In God we Trust was ratified in the 1960's during the Red Scare.
[editline]01:58PM[/editline]
Find a buffalo head nickle, circa 1930's. It will NOT have "In God we Trust" on it. The later references to God fly in the face of our doctrine.
[QUOTE=Stupideye;21190121][IMG]http://susansternberg.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/john-locke.jpg[/IMG]
:v:[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Lankist;21190058]If John Locke saw what we call Liberalism today, he would pitch a fit and turn into a giant smoke monster.[/QUOTE]
:v:
Hopefully one day something'll happen that gets rid of all these foolish laws and outdated fictional concepts. I mean, they're not even entertaining...
Getting rid of them would be counter-productive. Keeping them as a reminder would be better.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
