The story began last week when our new freelancer in the capital gave me a copy of her ID card so I could give her a press pass. I noticed that the area reserved for her photo was covered. I asked her why, and she told me that someone from the National Guard had come to her workplace asking if any Saudi women wanted to participate in the Janadriyah festival. The representative told the people there to tell her to cover the photo on her ID card.

“Why would he ask you to do that? Doesn’t he know that your photo ID is an official government identification document?”

“I don’t know,” came the reply. “We just did as he asked.” I learned later on that all the women who participated in the Janadriyah festival were asked to submit their ID cards without photos. I also learned that the workplace where our freelancer works has agreed to let some conservative women get work ID cards without photos.

If an investigation were to take place because a criminal or terrorist act took place at the festival, how on Earth would the police be able to identify the female participants without their photos? What if the police went back to their workplaces and asked about them? Without any photos in the original application files at work, and without photos on work ID cards, how would they ever know that the female participant was indeed the same person who attended the festival?

The photo ID card for females is an official government card issued by the Civil Status Department complying with directives from the Ministry of the Interior. The person from the National Guard was acting on his own perception of what is right and wrong when he asked the women at work to cover their photos.

Still, the contradictions the story exposes are interesting. The government, on the one hand, has acted wisely by asking for photos to be put on new ID cards for women, for security reasons. It did so after some SR700 million were embezzled because women were impersonating others in court cases and banking issues in the absence of photos. On the other hand, our ultraconservatives believe that such a move is a mistake because it is a threat to morality.

Several months ago, a sheikh in a court here rejected the ID card of a female relative of a friend of mine. The sheikh said he would not accept “this sort of ID card” and requested instead that my friend bring two witnesses to testify that the woman under the abaya was his relative.

It has happened in the past, and it can happen again. Any man can come to a sheikh in court and say that the woman with him is his wife or sister and that she is giving him power of attorney in all legal matters, which of course includes selling and buying real estate, banking matters, etc.

The female would not be allowed to identify herself as the sheikh would insist she come forward covering her entire face. That opens the door to fraud.

The sheikh will only ask the woman: What is your name? The reply comes from under the veil, “I am so and so”. Who are you giving the power of attorney to? “I am giving it to so and so.” The judge will then ask the man with her for his ID card. To the witnesses, he will say, “Do you testify that so and so is a relative of so and so?” “Yes,” comes the answer. “Sign here then.” There you go. Wasn’t that simple? That is how it is done until this day in courts all over the country. I am just wondering that the amount embezzled was SR700 million and not in the billions.

Many of the terrorists in the Al-Madinah cell broken up last year tried to escape wearing abayas and veils. Another raid on a terrorist cell in Makkah, also last year, revealed that several women were involved in the terrorist activities, perhaps taking advantage of their gender to smuggle arms or avoid being searched at security checkpoints.

Terrorists in the Kingdom are using our own customs and traditions to commit their acts. Has the magic turned against the magician?

I guess the question we should ask ourselves here is: Which is more important to our society — some of our customs or our safety and security?