The shortcomings of a single individual belonging to any sector or professional organization must not lead to generalization of all the people that work in that particular field. In fact, the mistake of a single person should not provoke us to call for the closure of the sector that the person may be affiliated with. Otherwise we would end up closing down countless educational institutions and hospitals because of the mistakes or malpractice of a single teacher or doctor.
Reports relating to the recent “murder case” that involves an alleged forced entry of a house and the beating to death of a Saudi citizen by members of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice confirm the assumption that many of us have discussed the incident in a subjective manner.
No wise person would want the Commission’s activities to be suspended. In fact, we want their work to increase especially in public areas. The murder was wrong, but what went wrong in the time that followed was that the media dealt with the issue as if the information they had received was conclusive and absolutely accurate, which is wrong because no solid proof has yet been found to convict or acquit the Commission members involved.
It was totally wrong to allow details of the incident to be leaked from police files to different media outlets, who used this information negatively against the vice police.
Commission members make mistakes. However, they seldom abuse their authority except in some rare incidents such as cutting a young boy’s hair or inappropriately talking to a woman because of the way she was wearing her abaya. Citizens and officials all agree that wrongdoers are subjected to accusations if they commit mistakes, regardless of whether the wrongdoer is a common citizen or a commission member. But to be prejudiced against Commission members reveals the way people underestimate the work that commission members do. Don’t you think that the very existence of the Commission in public is the thing that keeps people in check? Especially since some people are habituated to abide by the rules only when they are forced to rather than through their own conscious and moral behavior.
We agree that transparency in security work is a must, but not to the extent that the media interfere in a case which is in its initial stage and which results in the media passing judgments on others. The police and the security sector definitely do not have the right to beat suspects. But whoever knows the details surrounding the incident and the reasons that led to the beating could identify what went wrong and therefore determine the punishment. That is why the interference of the media has not helped the situation.
Our disagreement with a few Commission members does not allow us to stop approving the Commission’s role in maintaining security and social discipline according to standards that protect all parties. I believe that the relationship between the Commission and the media is dysfunctional. Some media representatives lack objectivity and are subjective in their articles when referring to the Commission. On the other hand, Commission members refuse to communicate with the media for unjustified reasons.
We have to readjust the relationship between the media and the Commission. Meanwhile, the Commission continuously needs to improve its conduct and the way it deals with other private and public institutions. Commission members must understand that they are not always right. The media must also make greater efforts in being fair and objective when dealing with news relating to the Commission.
