Before foreigners come to work or visit this country they are told to respect the Kingdom’s religious and social traditions such as the conservative dress code pertaining to women, and the prohibition on dating, talking or even looking at women. Such restrictions on interacting with Saudi women — even at the most innocent, casual and professional levels — naturally arouse the foreign media’s interest and curiosity about everything in Saudi society. Our own insistence that we are a “unique” society and have a “special” standing and that we consider ourselves religiously and morally above other Muslim societies tweaks that curiosity even more to the extent of perhaps taking it as a challenge to expose the “other face” of our society. It is therefore not surprising to see a large amount of programs on Arab satellite channels (most of which are fully or partially owned by Saudi investors) that focus on Saudi society and address sensitive or taboo issues such as harassment, all types of abuse, and sexual escapades as if they are only found in our society. These issues attract a wide audience that includes Saudis and non-Saudis (i.e. more advertising money), thus feeding the frenzy to “uncover” more Saudi secrets.
The Saudi “sex braggart” episode on LBC’s “Bold Red Line” program in mid-July, the backlash he and the channel faced, and the harsh five-year jail sentence and 1,000 lashes that he received are what is expected when going too far in exposing Saudi society. We are, in general, still not used to being under the spotlight and are intolerant of criticism. Whenever a program usually discusses an issue in Saudi Arabia such as women’s rights, the religious police or the legal system, many scream and howl that this is a conspiracy to undermine our social traditions and a deliberate attack on our values when in fact they can be seen as constructive criticism and balanced reporting. Although I consider most reports on Saudi Arabia worth studying and evaluating at face value, I find this particular episode disgusting, offensive and completely unnecessary as it did not serve any purpose other than highlight a reprehensible lifestyle, which can be found in other societies as well.
The man and his lawyer are blaming the channel for manipulating and tricking him and his friends into participating and talking about his sexual exploits on camera and without concealing his identity. The lawyer filed a complaint against LBC for allegedly editing and recontextualizing a long video shoot into a minutes-long segment aimed at portraying his client in the worst possible light. In the aftermath of the public condemnation of the channel, the Ministry of Culture and Information closed down its two offices in Riyadh and Jeddah for “operating without a license” even though it has been operating in Saudi Arabia for years. The lawyer described last week’s verdict as “hasty and made under public pressure.”
The public blamed the channel for exposing such abhorrent behavior, and they have every right to be angry especially since the man revealed scandalous information that would be considered unethical and deplorable even in liberal societies. I, however, think a more mature response would have been to look at the behavior itself and consider its reasons and the circumstances surrounding it so that it might be addressed in a reasonable way. I’m also glad the judge sentenced the man and his friends to counseling.
The man is also blaming the channel instead of taking responsibility. I think that if he had shown sincere remorse, not only for participating in the program but more importantly for his behavior and lifestyle, he would have received a little more sympathy from the public and the court. His behavior was stupid and irresponsible, especially considering he has three young children. I cannot imagine the devastation and psychological trauma this whole drama has brought them and his family.
I also believe in a free media, but I also believe in a responsible media that respect people’s privacy and rights. I blame the channel for enticing the man to speak about his private life while fully anticipating the kind of reaction the issue will have. I also blame the channel for not taking the man’s consent on the final edit and for not disguising his identity. Having said that, I don’t believe the answer lies in closing the channel or punishing those who work for it for doing what they were told to do.
Saudi newspapers should also have shown some sensitivity in their reporting and not published the man’s picture and full name. It is ironic that these same newspapers hesitate to name establishments or individuals involved in financial scandals, labor disputes or health and sanitary violations that affect the public. In the West, the names of sexual offenders are made public to protect society. This sex braggart did not rape a woman or child, and yet his name was publicized serving only to shame his family, pain his children, and place his friends and neighborhood under suspicion.
