Freedom of Speech in Kuwait - Essay Example

Freedom of Speech in Kuwait Freedom of speech is one of the most fundamental and important rights a citizen of Kuwait and indeed any other nation holds and it should be treasured and universally respected. However, while acquiescing on its importance it is critical that we are aware of the fact that even to freedom here are limitations. Ergo freedom of speech must be recognized as a two-way traffic that is to say one should have it but use it in a manner that will not infringe on the rights of others. In our country, the issue of free speech has generated a great deal of controversy bearing in mind that most of people are divided along the conservative Islamic traditions and the western educated elites more so journalists who tend to take the freedom very literary. A few months ago, Ayyad Khaled who was working as journalist for the Sabr an independent news website was arrested and incarnated for the crime of objecting to the rights and authorities of the Emir as well as faulting him. This case dragged on for several months and ended up in the high court, he was found guilty and sentenced to three months imprisonment, however due to the time he had spent in remand, and he was immediately freed (“Kuwait: Court Deals Blow to Free Speech”). For many Kuwaitis, this was seen as a miscarriage of justices and this view was propagated by western newspapers, which insisted that the act was betrayal to the journalist’s freedom of expression, as well as Kuwait’s constitution that after all provides for free speech. The constitution of Kuwait describes the emir as immune and inviolable, ergo it is unacceptable for the land highest office to be treated in the same way normal individual are, and in justification, it was argued that failure to recognize his absolute authority could endanger the nation’s unity and national security. This argument may sound dictatorial to many in the west since western rulers are rarely immune from prosecution but the truth of the matter is that even if we have similar laws our countries are not based on the same values nor do we necessary share a history. It is important that the western press is made aware that the freedoms and rights touted in the UN human and human rights bill may be politically instituted in most of our constitution but they are not practical when it comes to their application (“Government positions on press freedom in the Middle East”). Even as we strive to promote equality and human rights, we must recognize that our differences cannot be relegated to obscurity and claiming that rights are universal is both unrealistic and hypocritical. For example, it is claimed that all human beings have a right to food shelter and security among other basic services, how would such rights be explained to citizens of third world countries where food security has never being achieved and which are plagued with violence? In the same way, human rights provide that all genders are equal in every way, what is to be said of culture sin which religion provides that women must be submissive to men? In the same way, even as we enjoy freedom of speech we should remember that we are not in the US or Europe and the realities hear make it difficult to express ourselves in ways that are completely normal elsewhere. It is not that were are inferior in implementing freedom of expression, it is simply that we come from the different backgrounds.A few months ago I was having a conversation with a friend who had lived in the united States for most of his adult life when we got into an argument about free speech. In his opinion in Kuwait, free speech fully was just as harmful as "democracy" was to Egypt, Libya and all those nations the west had helped to liberate in the Arab spring. I reacted quite skeptically to his reasoning but after taking time to consider it, I realized that in as much as we may rightly demand freedom of expression, assuming that it should cover the same scope it does in the west is naïve. Kuwait is founded on a backdrop of authoritative and religious rule, this is radicaly different from the American scenario whose bedrock is democracy. Therefore, even as we agitate for the right to free speech we must do so while considering our social cultural differences. Conversely as I mentioned previously there must be a degree of quid pro quo between govermennt and the people, the state must ensure that in its efforts to protect its institutions and leadership it does not over step its mandate and oppress them. This has unfortunately been the case in Kuwait for the better part of the last two years, since the political crisis that rocked Kuwait in 2012, the authorities have revamped their efforts in controlling security and this has been characterized by limiting the freedoms of expressions of many journalists, political activist especially on the online platform. Numerous individuals and groups have been imprisoned for various offences against the countries prime minister emir and even the prophet Mohamed. This situation has been made worse by the fact that in many cases prosecutors tend to rely more on the vague wording of the laws that stipulates that one should be imprisoned for one year. This has served to portray Kuwait as country where the right to free speech is completely suppressed and consequently provided a very negative public image in that regard. The state of Kuwait should however be flexible in the implementation of its laws since while they state the Emir should not be disrespected assuming that he is protected from criticism is not realistic since it paints his as infallible. Laws need to be made specific in such a way that there can be a clear distinction on what is considered criticism and disrespectful comments. By protecting leaders from criticism on the media more so the social media, the laws are giving them autonomy to be oppressive to the people, in the long run when leadership is shielded from any negative feedback from the people they may never come to learn of their mistakes and keep on repeating them irrespective of what their subjects think. This sort or situation makes people vulnerable to revolusionally ideals, which can result in mass action as was witnessed in the Arab spring where several governments were toppled through popular protests. The people on trivial or disrespectful matters should therefore neither use the freedom of expression and the state on the other hand should avoid using the same as an excuse to suppress individual who only seek to point out its shortcomings. In every institution of government, it is critical that leadership deconstructs the misconception that by virtue of having power one becomes infallible thereby negating the relevance or necessity of criticism. Many Kuwaitis have been taken to court with some of them being imprisoned because of the sentiments they express on their social media sites more so twitter, this has resulted fear among the public who are no longer confident enough to articulate their grievances to avoid negative consequences. This is motivated by the fact that even when they are charged suspects are not tried based on the truthfulness of their sentiments of concerns but on if they are deemed disrespectful to the powers that be. As I said earlier, freedom of speech must be respected both by the public and the state, given the vague description of what is deemed to be acceptable or unacceptable, citizens find that they can get in trouble simple based on how the prosecutor interprets the law and/or their sentiments. The fact that one cannot speak freely because they do not know just how much freedom of speech they have or its limit is serious challenge. In my opinion, laws need to be revisited so that there can be clearly mapped out guidelines indicating the extent to which one may express his or herself. While the people of Kuwait would be unrealistic to imagine that they can enjoy just as much latitude when it comes to speaking about their leaders and social religious institutions, they should not be held hostage by ambivalent legislation. At the end of the day, the governments and the people should operate from a point of mutual understanding so that the state does not oppress its people’s freedom but the people on the other hand must also respond in kind. Works Cited “Government positions on press freedom in the Middle East” CNN News. 2013. Web. June 24 2014 “Kuwait: Court Deals Blow to Free Speech”. Human Rights Watch. 2013. Web. June 24 2014 http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/12/11/kuwait-court-deals-blow-free-speech Read More