The
\"women driving\" trial
Summary: Saudi
Arabia shoots itself
in the foot, bringing
10 women to trial for
promoting lifting the
ban on women driving.
The trial of ten women
which began yesterday in
Riyadh is a remarkable
example of Saudi
Arabia’s ability to
commit self-harm (not an
ability confined to
Saudi Arabia).
The case arises from
the issue of women
driving, which in a
different way had been
another example, that
one lasting over 50
years. The ban, unique
to Saudi Arabia, was
never convincingly
justified on any
grounds, Islamic law,
tradition, security,
even Saudi law. Arabian
women have ridden and
driven camels since time
immemorial, and since
the introduction of the
motorcar herding
livestock, largely
women’s work, has mainly
been done by car
(Charles Doughty writes
that “herding maidens
may go alone with the
flocks far out of seeing
of the menzil [camp] in
the empty wilderness.”)
The ban was not only a
crippling restriction on
women but a tiresome
obligation on men, since
husbands and other male
relatives had to spend
their time driving women
around.
During the last 10 or
even 20 years, with the
Saudi government
committed in theory at
least to improving the
position of women,
criticism of the ban was
heard increasingly often
including (as we have
noted in earlier
postings) in the Saudi
press. The decision to
scrap the ban was almost
universally welcomed,
and could have been a
symbol of the reforming
spirit of the new regime
and MBS personally.
Instead a number of
activists, some of them
women whose names and
faces had become
familiar in the media as
campaigners for lifting
the ban, were arrested
in the weeks before the
ban was actually lifted
last June. Many reports
say that they were
ill
treated or tortured
(the newly released US
State
Department report
on human rights in 2018
lists torture of
prisoners as an issue in
Saudi Arabia). They were
not charged and
reportedly had no access
to lawyers, but the
public prosecutor said
they were suspected of
harming
Saudi interests
and offering support to
hostile elements abroad.
Some Saudi media called
them traitors. The case
was to be heard in the
Specialised Criminal
Court which deals with
terrorism and political
offences, but was
apparently transferred
at the last minute to
the Criminal Court.
Reporters and diplomats
were not admitted.
According to a report
in the Saudi newspaper
Okaz
investigations were
concluded 12 days ago.
At the court hearing the
accused were informed of
the charges, and given
time before a second
hearing to consult
lawyers and prepare
their defence. According
to a Saudi rights group
in London they have been
charged under a
cybercrime law and could
face prison sentences of
1 to 10 years.
The reports in Okaz and
other Saudi newspapers
are short on information
such as the names of the
accused, but the
Saudi-based
Arab
News gives a bit
more detail, adding that
when local media said
the accused were
traitors and “agents of
embassies”, Arab News
criticized such
reporting as unfair and
unprofessional, and
argued that the accused
should be treated as
innocent unless proved
guilty.
Last week at least 36
countries including all
28 members of the EU
(but not the US,
although Mike Pompeo
like Jeremy Hunt has
reportedly raised this
case during recent
visits to Riyadh)
included a call to
release the activists in
a joint statement at the
UN Human Rights Council.
Three of the U.S.
congresswomen mentioned
in yesterday’s digest,
Ilhan Omar, Rashida
Tlaib and Tulsi Gabbard
have on various
occasions called for a
boycott of Saudi Arabia,
criticised human rights
violations, and opposed
arms sales to Saudi
Arabia.
The Arab News report
adds that “The accused
women generated a high
level of publicity when
they were arrested, and
the opening of the trial
also attracted
considerable attention
from international media
and human right
organizations.” That
perhaps underestimates
the importance of the
case for Saudi Arabia’s
image, tarnished as it
currently is. At a time
when women’s affairs and
women’s rights are
everywhere in the media,
the damage this case
will do goes beyond
cases which are perhaps
objectively more
important, such as
executions.

No comments:
Post a Comment