The faux outrage expressed this week over Karl Andree, the 74-year-old British citizen sentenced to 350 lashes for possessing homemade wine, is another example of the western media deliberately misrepresenting how the Saudi judicial system works and why this man is in jail in the first place.
Andree has lived in Saudi Arabia for 25 years. He has enjoyed a very fine life and has expressed his love for living in his adopted country. Following his arrest during a traffic stop in which the police discovered the alcohol, he was sentenced to a year in jail. The lashes would follow his one-year sentence. His family argues that at 74 years old, Andree is too old and too sick and frail to withstand the lashing.
Very few people in Saudi Arabia have much sympathy for Andree. As a Saudi I have a bias and believe that guests in our country should respect our laws. So I turned to my husband, who is an American, and asked him if he felt the punishment was too harsh given his age. He said, “Twenty-five years in Saudi Arabia? He knew the consequences.”
And this is what this little manufactured drama boils down to: Andree was well aware of the laws here and he understood the consequences of his actions. Yet he went ahead and brewed homemade alcohol and then transported it in his car. He understood the risks. Every expat in the Kingdom understands the laws about drug and alcohol possession. The laws are stated on visa applications and announced on every flight landing in Saudi Arabia. Andree can’t plead ignorance.
When an individual is sentenced to lashings, the Saudi government takes great care to determine whether the prisoner is physically able to withstand the punishment. Lashings are not administered like some wild man stripping the flesh off a prisoner with a cat ‘o nine tails aboard the HMS Bounty or like the whippings depicted in the film, “12 Years a Slave.”
Rather, in the context of a lashing, it’s quite humane. My friend and colleague, Essam Al-Ghalib, who hosts a Jeddah radio show, put it best in a Facebook post: “In Saudi Arabia, a cane that is smaller than the thickness of a finger is used. The flogger is required by Shariah law to keep his elbow fixed to his side therefore making a full power swing of the cane impossible. Try it yourself. Put a book under your arm and try making a full swing. You can’t without dropping the book.”
The flogging is actually a wrist flick. Flogging, as with a number of punishments according to Shariah, are designed to inflict humiliation and shame. It’s not part of Shariah in the case of Andree to inflict pain.
There is some doubt whether the lashings will take place. Often in the case of expats, a judge or the king pardons prisoners for some types of transgressions.
Andree’s offense may qualify for a pardon.
In addition, Andree has already served his one-year sentence, and although he remains in custody there has been no indication that he will receive the final portion of his sentence.
But as Essam noted in his online post, the outrage expressed in the United Kingdom may have unintended consequences. By putting pressure on the Kingdom, the government may very well go ahead and administer the rest of the sentence.
