Arrested in Abu Dhabi for exposing a disabled park thief?

[DrA]

Wonder how many people realise this?

This information is hardly a secret. All widely available with a few mouse clicks on a Google search. All information available on various government travel warning websites. All information available in Lonely Planet guidebooks. If people don't look into things like this, then whose fault is it really?

The laws might well suck, and we might well disagree with them, but it's not like they're state secrets or anything. IMO, there comes a point where you as a traveller have to take some degree of personal responsibility.

 

[Melburnian1]

Indeed, DRA, we must take personal responsibility, but for me acting 'responsibly' is not supporting a medieval view of the world and of one's fellow man, but a view that is post-Enlightenment, and hence while I have had the displeasure of transiting through some of the Middle Eastern airports, visiting DXB, AUH, DOH, BAH and so on is not on my travel wish list.

Yes, Bandicoot, the legal system in Singapore is streets ahead in fairness to the 'legal system' (I use the words advisedly) in the UAE. Sure, there are penalties in Singapore with which we might not agree (as a trivial example, one cannot legally drink a bottle of water on a train) but arrested persons get access to barristers and solicitors.

Transiting through Asia is hugely preferable.

 

[DrA]

Transiting through Asia is hugely preferable.

Yes, but as stated, you don't always get that luxury of choice. Transiting through DXB is sometimes your only viable option if your destination is in Africa.

If you want to stage a protest, great. If I refuse to transit in DXB, it effectively means that I can't do my job. My contract would be terminated. If you've got someone who can support you while you find alternative employment, congratulations. I don't.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Indeed, DRA, we must take personal responsibility, but for me acting 'responsibly' is not supporting a medieval view of the world and of one's fellow man, but a view that is post-Enlightenment, and hence while I have had the displeasure of transiting through some of the Middle Eastern airports, visiting DXB, AUH, DOH, BAH and so on is not on my travel wish list.

But even transiting the ME, and the countries you mention, is indirectly supporting their views and laws, or at the very least, stating that you don't disagree enough to change your travel plans. You are contributing to their economy, and paying government taxes.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes, but as stated, you don't always get that luxury of choice. Transiting through DXB is sometimes your only viable option if your destination is in Africa.

If you want to stage a protest, great. If I refuse to transit in DXB, it effectively means that I can't do my job. My contract would be terminated. If you've got someone who can support you while you find alternative employment, congratulations. I don't.

We all have choices. We can choose not to buy clothes manufactured in sweat shops. We can choose not to buy products which have been sourced unethically. We can choose to fly to Africa via a multitude of options, including direct services from Asia (CX, KQ, ET, SA to name a few) - which all connect to comprehensive African networks.

 

[Ausbt]

It was a hassle to prove he was my brother.

My wife and I have different surnames. So surely that puts us at more risk of travelling together in the UAE than other travellers? I have no particular desire to travel somewhere to see a lavish swimming pool, a luxury shopping mall or 4wd driving in the desert (although the latter seems the best of some ordinary choices).

Just in the UK presently and happened to stroll along Knightsbridge. Surprised to see and learn about all these rich 'Gulfies' who ship over their Lambo's and Ferraris and then drive like loons through these crowded streets. Some locals claim they get away with things UK motorists would get pinged for. Apparently they also hit the clubs in a big way - something they wouldn't be able to at home. I suppose on the latter point they are simply adhering to local standards.

 

[DrA]

We all have choices. We can choose not to buy clothes manufactured in sweat shops. We can choose not to buy products which have been sourced unethically. We can choose to fly to Africa via a multitude of options, including direct services from Asia (CX, KQ, ET, SA to name a few) - which all connect to comprehensive African networks.

Not so much, no. I don't know how things work with your employer, but we have very little choice when it comes to which flights we are booked on to. When it comes to personal travel, that's another thing entirely.

 

[DrA]

My wife and I have different surnames. So surely that puts us at more risk of travelling together in the UAE than other travellers? I have no particular desire to travel somewhere to see a lavish swimming pool, a luxury shopping mall or 4wd driving in the desert (although the latter seems the best of some ordinary choices).

But you have a marriage certificate, yes? Then there'd be a way to look that up, and you'd be fine.

 

[Melburnian1]

My employer booked me through DXB, so despite my suggesting another airline and route, this was ignored.

True - I don't like contributing to their economy either, but if one's employer says that one is required to travel by airline X via Y to Z, there's not much choice.

 

[JohnK]

My employer booked me through DXB, so despite my suggesting another airline and route, this was ignored.

True - I don't like contributing to their economy either, but if one's employer says that one is required to travel by airline X via Y to Z, there's not much choice.

I know with some jobs it's not easy but if my employer didn't care about my well being then they don't want me to travel either.

e.g. I will not travel in long haul economy on some carriers. If you cannot book me on QF/BA/AA and possibly SQ/TG then you don't want me to go. We are talking about a few hundred dollars difference in airfares. Shouldn't be a big deal.

 

[Buzzard]

Have you left off the death penalty warning for drugs in Singapore? (Barlow and Chambers for anyone trying to say Singapore doesn't have harsh laws)

In practical terms what is the difference between outrage of modesty laws and, strict laws on personal conduct? I'm also sure not paying a bill would be a serious offence in Singapore as well.

Barlow & Chambers were in Malaysia, I just can't remember the name of the fellow in Singapore ATM.

 

[Geegeela]

But you have a marriage certificate, yes? Then there'd be a way to look that up, and you'd be fine.

Not necessarily.
For example one would expect a prescription and doctor’s letter would be sufficient.
However,
Travellers who are taking Narcotic Medications should fulfil thefollowing requirements (a – e):a. A valid medical letter from an authorized Physician /doctor which shows the full name of the traveller, name/s of the medication/s and its quantity (should be one month only).

b. Authenticate the medical letter from one of the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs &Trade offices in the Australian States.

c. Post the authenticated medical letter to the Embassy of UAE in Canberra for legalization to the following address:(12 Bulwarra Close, O’malley ACT 2606 Att. Consular Section)

d. Include a fee for the amount of AU$90.00 by Money Order or Bank Chequepayable to the Embassy of UAE.

e. Include also a pre-paid self-addressed return envelope (Express post…..) as well as a covering letter which includes day phone number, e-mail address & physical address.·

Please note that any type of medication/s which are carried by apassenger entering to UAE are subjected for inspection by UAE Ministry of Health officer upon arrival at one of the UAE Ports and has the right to ban or allow the entry of the medications even if the passenger has an authorized medical Prescription legalized by the UAE Embassy in Canberra. ·

Travellers entering to the UAE or transiting through one of its ports are not allowed to take medications which are listed under the PROHIBITED column(attachment N° 2) even if it is prescribed by an authorized physician /doctor in Australia.

Who knows? Proof of marriage may require a statuary declaration from the local Mullah and a virginity test at the embassy prior to the marriage ceremony and a fee of $500.

Even then the local blokes may prohibit your entry.

 

[medhead]

I'm still trying to resolve the differences between not supporting dodgy laws in the middle East, but being happy to support dodgy laws in Asia.

Who knows? Proof of marriage may require a statuary declaration from the local Mullah and a virginity test at the embassy prior to the marriage ceremony and a fee of $500.

Even then the local blokes may prohibit your entry.

Why would a marriage ceremony be required if someone is already married?

 

[mannej]

Barlow & Chambers were in Malaysia, I just can't remember the name of the fellow in Singapore ATM.

Van Tuong Nguyen in 2005

 

[Geegeela]

Sorry if it was not clear but I was referring to the acceptability of a normal marriage certificate as the only proof of marriage and not for another marriage ceremony.

The point I was trying to make is what the average person might regard as sufficient is not always the case for The UAE.

 

[feezable]

But you have a marriage certificate, yes? Then there'd be a way to look that up, and you'd be fine.

I guess this rules out DXB, AUH etc for me and my defacto partner of 17 years (and our 2 children 14 and 11 years old). This thread has been a great source of information for me as it had never occurred to me that our relationship may pose a problem in the ME, not that we have any current plans to visit that part of the world.

 

[RAM]

Do travel agents stop and say "By the way you can be imprisoned if you kiss your girl

Really does make you wonder.

Has anyone who has used a travel agent to fly through Dubai been warned by the travel agent or simply told;

"You can fly through Singapore to London or through Dubai with Qantas (BA from Sing) but you can't kiss your boyfriend while stopping over at Dubai?"

for example?

Given the PC world we are supposed to be living in - I wonder why Q does not have a mandatory 'health warning' before you accept a flight via Dubai?

Especially a Travel Agent, by definition is acting as your agent and owes you a duty of care. So they should warn female travellers especially of the risks of leaving the airport in Dubai. If a female is 'sexually' assaulted - she is guilty and prosecuted.

Does not seem too much to expect for the TA to warn before you make the choice, especially if a single female traveler.

Lucky my daughter is going via Singapore (intentional routing by the way). Unaccompanied that is...

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Re: Do travel agents stop and say "By the way you can be imprisoned if you kiss your

Especially a Travel Agent, by definition is acting as your agent and owes you a duty of care.

In general terms, a travel agent is an agent for the airline (or hotel or cruise line) - not for the passenger. There are cases where the travel is an agent for the customer, but in a booking involving airline seats/hotel rooms from the system, probably not the case.

Whether they owe a duty of care in the circumstances you describe is an interesting issue - but probably unlikely... unless the passengers specifically raised the issue with them and sought their advice.

 

[medhead]

Sorry if it was not clear but I was referring to the acceptability of a normal marriage certificate as the only proof of marriage and not for another marriage ceremony.

The point I was trying to make is what the average person might regard as sufficient is not always the case for The UAE.

I understood that point. My question was, if the existing marriage certificate was not acceptable, why would someone then need to take all the steps to marry. They can't force someone to marry - no need for a ceremony. Considering that the people would already be married in another jurisidiction the virginity test would be irrelevant and pointless. Not to mention if you're not getting married there is no need to undertake the qualifying requirements.

 

[Geegeela]

I understood that point. My question was, if the existing marriage certificate was not acceptable, why would someone then need to take all the steps to marry. They can't force someone to marry - no need for a ceremony. Considering that the people would already be married in another jurisidiction the virginity test would be irrelevant and pointless. Not to mention if you're not getting married there is no need to undertake the qualifying requirements.

Sorry you’ve lost me.

Just put it down to a bit of hyperbole nonsense on my part.