Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Saudi Arabia. Show all posts

April 30, 2019

Our Ally Saudi Arabia Held A Mass Execution Beheading 37 men

Saudi Executions

(Beirut,) – Saudi Arabia’s government announced the mass execution of 37 men on April 23, 2019 in various parts of the country, Human Rights Watch said today. At least 33 of the 37 were from the country’s minority Shia community and had been convicted following unfair trials for various alleged crimes, including protest-related offenses, espionage, and terrorism. The mass execution was the largest since January 2016, when Saudi Arabia executed 47 men for terrorism offenses.

The Specialized Criminal Court convicted 25 of the 37 men in two mass trials, known as the “Qatif 24 case” and the “Iran spy case,” both of which included allegations that authorities extracted confessions through torture. One of the executed Sunni men received the harshest punishment under Islamic law, which includes beheading and public display of the beheaded corpse (salb). With this mass execution, Saudi Arabia carried out over 100 executions so far in 2019, including 40 for drug offenses, a much higher rate than previous years.

“Saudi authorities will inevitably characterize those executed as terrorists and dangerous criminals, but the reality is that Saudi courts are largely devoid of any due process and many of those executed were condemned based solely on confessions they credibly say were coerced,” said Michael Page, deputy Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. “The death penalty is never the answer to crimes and executing prisoners en masse shows that the current Saudi leadership has little interest in improving the country’s dismal human rights record.”

The official Saudi Press Agency stated that authorities executed the 37 “for their adoption of terrorist and extremist thinking, forming terrorism cells to sow corruption and disrupt security, spread chaos, incite sectarian discord, harm peace and social security, and attack police centers using explosive bombs.” The statement said the executions took place in various regions, including Riyadh, Mecca, Medina, Al-Qassim, Asir, and Eastern Province.

Fourteen of the men who were among the defendants in the Qatif 24 casewere from that Shia-majority area. The Specialized Criminal Court convicted them on protest-related crimes, and some faced charges of violence including targeting police patrols or police stations with guns and Molotov cocktails. Saudi media have described the 24 men as members of a “terrorism cell” that carried out over 50 armed attacks targeting security forces that killed an unspecified number of them and injured dozens.

The court convicted nearly all defendants based on confessions they later repudiated in court, saying the authorities had tortured them. The court sentenced 14 of the defendants to death in June 2016, and an appeals court upheld the verdict in May 2017. The court sentenced nine others to prison terms of between three and 15 years and exonerated one defendant.

Qatif 24 defendants executed on April 23 include Mujtaba al-Sweikat, whom authorities arrested on August 12, 2012, as he was trying to board a plane bound for the United States to attend Western Michigan University, and Munir al-Adam, who Saudi activists say lost hearing in one ear following beatings by interrogators.

Eleven of the executed men were part of the Iran spy case, which involved 32 defendants. They were accused of offenses constituting “high treason,” including meeting with Iranian “intelligence agents” and passing them confidential military information and background information on Shia communities in Mecca, Medina, and Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province. Authorities detained 17 people on March 16, 2013, 14 others later in 2013, and one in 2014, but did not bring them to trial until early 2016.

In addition to espionage, prosecutors in the Iran spy case also brought charges that do not represent recognizable crimes, including “supporting demonstrations,” “distorting the reputation of the kingdom,” and attempting to “spread the Shia confession” in Saudi Arabia. Mohammad Abd al-Ghani Attiyah, who was among the 37 men executed, faced these charges as well as “planning with an Iranian intelligence element… to establish a company to spread Shia activities in [Eastern Province].”

Taha al-Haji, a Saudi lawyer who represented a group of the “Iran spy case” defendants until March 2016, told Human Rights Watch that authorities held the men incommunicado for three months before allowing phone calls and visits with family members. The trial resulted in death sentences against 15 of the defendants. Saudi activists familiar with the cases told Human Rights Watch that families of the executed men were not told of the executions in advance.

Human Rights Watch analyzed 10 trial judgments that the Specialized Criminal Court handed down between 2013 and 2016 against men and children accused of protest-related crimes following popular demonstrations by members of the Shia minority in 2011 and 2012 in Eastern Province towns. In nearly all these judgments, defendants had retracted their confessions, saying they were coerced in circumstances that in some cases amounted to torture, including beatings and prolonged solitary confinement.

The court rejected all torture allegations without investigating the claims. It ignored defendants’ requests for video footage from the prison that they said would show them being tortured, and to summon interrogators as witnesses to describe how the confessions were obtained.

International standards, including the Arab Charter on Human Rights, ratified by Saudi Arabia, require countries that retain the death penalty to use it only for the “most serious crimes,” and in exceptional circumstances, following a judgment by a competent court. Saudi Arabia has one of the highest execution rates in the world and applies the death penalty to a range of offenses that do not constitute “most serious crimes,” including drug offenses.

Human Rights Watch opposes capital punishment in all countries and under all circumstances. Capital punishment is unique in its cruelty and finality, and it is inevitably and universally plagued with arbitrariness, prejudice, and error.

Most recently in 2018, the United Nations General Assembly called on countries to establish a moratorium on the use of the death penalty, progressively restrict the practice, and reduce the offenses for which it might be imposed, all with the view toward its eventual abolition. Then-UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called on all countries in 2013 to abolish the death penalty.

“Mass executions are not the mark of a ‘reformist’ government, but rather one marked by capricious, autocratic rule,” Page said.

February 20, 2019

Trump Tried To Rush Nuke Technology to Saudis in Potential Violation of The Law


The Trump administration sought to rush the transfer of American nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia in potential violation of the law, a new report from the House Oversight and Reform Committee alleges.
Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings' staff issued an "interim staff" report Tuesday, citing "multiple whistleblowers" who raised ethical and legal concerns about the process.
"They have warned about political appointees ignoring directives from top ethics advisers at the White House who repeatedly and unsuccessfully ordered senior Trump administration officials to halt their efforts," the report states. "They have also warned of conflicts of interest among top White House advisers that could implicate federal criminal statutes."
A new interim report from the House Oversight Committee details Trump administration officials' efforts to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia. Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, pictured here, visited the U.S. in March 2017..Andrew Cabellero-Reynolds/AP

The committee's report alleges that the major drivers behind the effort to transfer U.S. nuclear technology were retired Gen. Michael Flynn, who served as the president's national security adviser, and Thomas Barrack, who chaired Trump's inauguration committee. Flynn was fired in February 2017 for lying about conversations with the Russian ambassador to Vice President Pence and the FBI.
For about seven months in 2016, including during the presidential transition, Flynn served as an adviser to IP3 International, a private company seeking to build nuclear plants in Saudi Arabia.

The whistleblowers told the committee that Flynn continued to advocate for IP3's plan even after he joined the White House as the president's national security adviser in 2017.
The Atomic Energy Act requires that Congress approve any transfer of nuclear technology to a foreign country. The committee's report states that a senior director at the National Security Council (NSC), Derek Harvey, "reportedly ignored ... warnings and insisted that the decision to transfer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia had already been made."
The NSC's lawyers realized that Flynn had a possible conflict of interest that could violate the law, the whistleblowers said, and told NSC staff to stop working on the nuclear technology transfer plan. Despite Flynn's firing in February 2017, the plan appeared to continue to progress with Barrack's support.
The committee announced that it intends to launch an investigation into this matter "to determine whether the actions being pursued by the Trump administration are in the national security interests of the United States, or, rather, serve those who stand to gain financially as a result of this potential change in U.S. foreign policy."
Shortly after the release of the report, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., announced that his panel would be coordinating with Cummings' staff to explore these allegations.
Tuesday's disclosure of a plan to sell nuclear technology comes as the United States considers its relationship with the Saudi government in the wake of the killing of writer Jamal Khashoggi
Following his death, the House and Senate have both passed resolutions to limit U.S. involvement in the Saudi-led coalition fighting in the Yemeni civil war. The Senate also passed a resolution by voice vote — reflecting unanimity — that was fashioned to "hold Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman responsible for the murder of Jamal Khashoggi."
The report also comes as President Trump's son-in-law, Jared Kushner, is scheduled to travel next week for a trip to the Middle East that includes a stop in Riyadh, the Saudi capital. 
The White House did not immediately respond to a request to comment on the committee's report.
NPR's Ayesha Rascoe contributed to this report.

October 20, 2018

Trump Keeps Saying No Financial Interest in Saudi Arabia: Not True! He Still Dancing for Them

Image result for trump's dances with saudis
Trump dancing with the Saudis, he still dances for them 
As President Donald Trump faces criticism for passivity since the disappearance and suspected murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi dissident, and Washington Post columnist, Trump has sought to downplay his personal financial dealings with Saudi Arabia.
Trump has sent mixed messages in the roughly two weeks since Khashoggi vanished after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. At one point Trump vowed, "severe punishment" for those responsible. Yet he has also expressed reluctance at the possibility of jeopardizing the United States’ lucrative arms trade with Riyadh.
Even as he’s highlighted the financial stakes underlying U.S.-Saudi relations, Trump has said he has no personal business ties to Saudi Arabia.
"For the record, I have no financial interests in Saudi Arabia (or Russia, for that matter)," Trump tweeted Oct. 16, after reports detailed his past commercial transactions with Saudi partners. "Any suggestion that I have is just more FAKE NEWS (of which there is plenty)!" 
The Trump Organization also said in a statement that, "Like many global real estate companies, we have explored opportunities in many markets," but added, "we do not have any plans for expansion into Saudi Arabia."
Trump’s recent comments present a sharp contrast with remarks he made on the 2016 campaign trail when he boasted about his financial ties to Saudi Arabia.
"Saudi Arabia, I like the Saudis," Trump said at a July 2015 rally. "I make a lot of money with them. They buy all sorts of my stuff. All kinds of toys from Trump. They pay me millions and hundreds of millions."
We decided to take a closer look at transactions between Trump and Saudi business partners.
We found no evidence that Trump or the Trump Organization owns property or invests in Saudi Arabia. However, Trump has profited from business dealings with Saudis dating back at least to the 1990s, and his hotels continue to generate revenue from Saudi interests.
45th floor of Trump World Tower
In June 2001, Trump sold the entire 45th floor of Trump World Tower to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, according to multiple reports. The apartments, located near the United Nations headquarters, were later converted in 2008 into part of the Saudi Mission to the UN.
The transaction earned Trump $4.5 million, according to the New York Daily News, citing a New York City Finance Department spokeswoman.
The Daily News obtained documents showing the deal involved five apartments, which included 10 bedrooms and 13 bathrooms. In addition to the purchase price, the annual charges of more than $85,000 for building amenities — assuming they remained the same through the years — means "Trump was paid at least $5.7 million by the Saudi government since 2001," the Daily News wrote in a September 2016 article.
Other reports say Trump pocketed as much as $12 million in the sale. That figure comes from the Associated Press, citing the brokerage site Streeteasy, which said Trump’s 2001 deal with the Saudis "was the biggest purchase in that building to that point."
In his 2016 bid for the White House, Trump touted his real estate transactions with the Saudis.
"Saudi Arabia — and I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me," Trump said at an Aug. 21, 2015, rally. "They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much."
A yacht named ‘Princess’
Reports show that Trump has profited from deals with the Saudis since at least the early 1990s.
According to the Associated Press, Trump was "teetering on personal bankruptcy and scrambling to raise cash" in 1991 when Saudi billionaire Prince Alwaleed bin-Talal agreed to buy Trump’s yacht.
The 280-foot yacht, named "Princess," sold for $20 million, which according to the Associated Press, was a third less than what Trump is reported to have paid for it.
In 1995, Prince Alwaleed was among a group of investors who paid $325 million for Trump's Plaza Hotel, which looks over Manhattan’s Central Park. According to the Associated Press, the hotel at the time of purchase was a money-losing venture.
Saudi visitors to Trump hotels
Even as president, Trump hotels continue to earn business from Saudi interests, reports show.
Groups lobbying on behalf of the Saudi government spent $270,000 at Trump’s Washington hotel, according to a Washington Post investigation. The bill included some $190,000 for rooms, $78,000 spent on catering and $1,600 for parking, according to lobbyist filings.
"The bill was ultimately paid by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia," the Post reported.
A separate Washington Post investigation found that visits to Trump hotels by big-spending Saudis were responsible for a revenue bump.
A letter obtained by the Post from the general manager of the Trump International Hotel in Manhattan said "a last-minute visit to New York by the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia" had been a major factor in a 13 percent bump in revenue from room rentals for the first three months of 2018 — after two years of declining figures.
The Post reported that while the Crown Prince did not personally stay at the hotel, accommodating his accompanying travelers for a five-day stay in March "was enough to boost the hotel’s revenue for the entire quarter."
Emoluments Clause lawsuit
In July, a federal judge in Maryland ruled that a lawsuit could proceed against Trump over his Washington hotel’s acceptance of payments from foreign governments. The suit alleges that by collecting such revenues — from the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as well as other foreign governments — Trump is violating the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause.
The judge found that while Trump does not "actively manage" the Trump International Hotel, he "continues to own and purportedly controls" it, as well as the adjoining restaurant and event spaces, and "actually or potentially shares in the revenues."
The accountability watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, is involved in the suit, which was brought by the District of Columbia and Maryland.
A spokesman for CREW said Trump’s continued business dealings at Trump Hotel DC — less than a mile from the White House — represents a serious conflict of interest.
"The problems — both ethical and Constitutional — with the president's businesses profiting off foreign governments like Saudi Arabia are in the profits themselves, not the physical location of the businesses," said CREW spokesman Jordan Libowitz. 
Our ruling
Trump said, "I have no financial interests in Saudi Arabia."
We found no evidence that Trump or the Trump Organization owns property in Saudi Arabia.
However, Trump has profited handsomely from business dealings with Saudis dating back at least to the 1990s.
Even during his presidency, Trump hotels continue to earn business from the Saudi government, reports show. In fact, Trump’s Washington hotel’s acceptance of payments from foreign governments — including the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia — is the basis of an ongoing lawsuit against Trump.
 Trump Owns no properties in Saudi Arabia, no need to, he gets the US $ for commission on everything we sell to them. Isn't that illegal? Yes but his family gets the commissions and fees as advisers, etc. Jarred who is heavily in debt with the Saudis is been involved from day one in making them a number one ally in the region.    🦊Adam

August 1, 2017

Saudi Women Say They Won't Be Controlled by Men Much More

Women in Saudi Arabia are still controlled by men – but not for much longer.
From the moment a woman is born until the day that she dies, she is under the so-called ‘guardianship’ of a male relative. And that man – usually her father to start off with and then later, her husband – has the final say in some of the biggest decisions of her life. Her marriage, her work, her medical procedures – these all need to be signed off by her guardian.

A lot of women – and a lot of men – in the Kingdom aren’t happy about the state of affairs.
Sahar Nassif, a prominent women’s rights activist from Jeddah, told that her son is her guardian, and – being from an open-minded family – it’s treated as a formality.
But even then, she is one of the system’s most vocal opponents.

‘I come from an open-minded family, as do most of the people in Jeddah – so we don’t face any problems with our guardians,’ she said. ‘My son is my guardian, but on paper only. He has nothing to do with any of my decisions.

‘Yet, it’s humiliating to be 63 years old and have a guardian.’
Last September, tens of thousands of people signed a petition calling on King Salman to completely dismantle the country’s controversial guardianship system. The groundbreaking campaign was led by noted Saudi women’s rights activist Aziza Al-Youssef, and had an unprecedented level of support from women and men across the country. An artwork by Ms Saffaa, a well-known Saudi street artist now based in Sydney, went viral – and soon women around the world were sporting canvas bags and t-shirts emblazoned with ‘#IAMMYOWNGUARDIAN’. 

When we spoke, Al-Youssef was keen to stress that it wasn’t just women supporting the campaign.
‘A lot of people were supportive of the issues, it’s very rare to be against it,’ she said. ‘From the very rich to the very poor, even the ones who are in a high position in government – they are all touched by these laws.
‘It was not only women who signed the petition, it was women and men putting their name to petition and calling for the administration them to change the law.
‘This is because by fighting for our rights, we’re fighting for all human rights.’
When Al-Youssef and another prominent campaigner Eman Al-Nefjan went to the Royal Court to deliver the petition to officials in person, they were told – very nicely, apparently – to turn around, go home, and submit it in the post.
Which they did. And then they waited.

The badass women fighting for basic rights in Saudi Arabia
Aziza Al-Youssef led the anti-guardianship campaign last year, and tried to hand-deliver the petition to the Royal Court (Picture: Getty Images)

‘In three days we collected 17,000 signatures – then the site was blocked,’ Nassif, who was also directly involved with the anti-guardianship campaign, explained.
‘We had it reopened three more times, and it got blocked again. We sent telegrams to the King, and then printed out the petition and gave it to the Royal Court, but had no response whatsoever.’

But while the women were given the silent treatment by the King, they were heaped with praise from people all over the world. At the same time, Ms Saffaa’s illustrations were admired, shared and worn by women in the UK, the US, and beyond.
In the most recognisable of her drawings, a Saudi woman stares defiantly at the viewer, with the campaign’s slogan written underneath in both Arabic and English.
‘I Am My Own Guardian reflects on ideas of resistance,’ the 39-year-old artist wrote in an article for Muftah.

‘The resistance of Saudi women to patriarchy is often a silent one that goes undetected. This silent resistance helps Saudi women manoeuvre through socially complex structures that favour men over women.’

The badass women fighting for basic rights in Saudi Arabia
Ms Saffaa’s campaign artwork, emblazoned with ‘I AM MY OWN GUARDIAN’ in Arabic, came to represent the groundbreaking campaign (Picture: Ms Saffaa/Twitter/

The recent uprising against guardianship has echoes of an earlier campaign by women in the Kingdom – the October 26th driving protest four years ago, which highlighted women’s inability to drive in the country as an example of their lack of freedom.

Women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia. They can legally – but not in reality.
What many don’t know is that women aren’t technically banned from driving in the KSA; so, technically, it’s legal. But women aren’t granted driving licences. And in Saudi, like most places, driving without a licence is illegal.
So on October 26th, 2013, dozens of women flouted the (technically unofficial) rule and went out in their cars.

Mostly they ran errands – they dropped the kids off at school, picked up the shopping, filled their cars up with petrol. Normal everyday stuff, except they were in direct contradiction of an archaic, misogynistic de-facto ban.
In one of the many videos posted to YouTube from that day, Sahar flashes a V-sign at the camera before taking her place in the driving seat.
She told me that most people were surprisingly happy to see them behind the wheel – with the exception of the police, of course.
‘Believe it or not, people were ever so nice and encouraging,’ she said. ‘Clapping, honking and giving me thumbs up!

‘That is, until a police car turned up and signalled at me to pull over to the side of the road. Then suddenly six more police cars came. I was made to feel like a drug dealer.’ 
Sahar was forced to sign an official document stating that she would never drive again, which then had to be co-signed by her guardian, her son.
But as soon as she got her car back a week later, she was driving again.
‘I drove four more times to the pharmacy and supermarket [a week after getting stopped by the police],’ she said. ‘It felt really accepted by all the people who saw me get in and out of my car.’

It is fortunate that Sahar wasn’t arrested, however, and she has a supportive family who treat the guardianship requirements as a formality.
Rothna Begum, a researcher at Human Rights Watch who specialises in Saudi Arabia, explained that many women aren’t so lucky.

Because female inmates are reliant on their male guardian to sign them out at the end of their sentence, they are at the complete mercy of their husband, father or son.
‘There are women languishing in prisons because their families refuse to come and get them,’ Rothna told me. ‘Women have been kept in prison for years, having served their time, who can’t get out because their families won’t collect them.’
This is a particularly big problem when their ‘guardian’ is the one who put them in prison in the first place.

Many other women have been arrested and detained for ‘driving while female’, as one activist’s charge sheet called it.
Loujain Al-Hathloul, a 27-year-old activist, was arrested on June 4 this year – for the second time.
Loujain Alhathloul attempts to cross Saudi borders

Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%

Current Time0:00
Duration Time0:18

She was picked up by police at King Fahd International Airport in Dammam on June 4, according to Amnesty International, and was denied access to her family and lawyers.
Three years had passed since her first arrest, in 2014, when she tried to drive into Saudi Arabia from the United Arab Emirates in protest against the ban.
Samah Hadid from Amnesty described the ‘continued harassment’ of Hathloul as ‘absurd and unjustifiable’. ‘It appears she is being targeted once again because of her peaceful work as a human rights defender speaking out for women’s rights, which are consistently trammeled in the Kingdom,’ Hadid said.

An Amnesty spokesperson told that Hathloul was, fortunately, released just a few days later on June 7.
Another activist Manal Al-Sharif, who was arrested for first flouting the driving ban back in 2011, has just released a new book about her experiences called Daring to Drive. She has also attracted the police’s attention for being against the veil.
‘I’m proud of my face,’ she writes in the book. ‘I will not cover it. If it bothers you, don’t look. If you are seduced by merely looking at it, that is your problem. You cannot punish me because you cannot control yourself.’

A photo of Manal, now 38, giving the V sign to the camera as she sits behind the wheel has since become an iconic symbol of women’s fight for basic freedoms in the Kingdom.
After that she lost her job, her home, and even custody of her son – whom she is now only able to see once or twice a year.

The badass women fighting for basic rights in Saudi Arabia
Manal al-Sharif was arrested for driving in 2011 – and has since lost her home, her job, and custody of her child (Picture: Ella Byworth for

Manal’s case seems severe, but activists in Saudi are often relentlessly targeted by the authorities. Many have chosen to leave the country because of it, while others face government-imposed travel bans.

‘The risks to activists really vary,’ Rothna explained. ‘Initially in the 1990s, when women first started driving as a protest against the ban, they were arrested and then suspended or even fired from their jobs.
‘More recently, activists face a range of things, like being arrested on trumped-up charges. They will then only be released when a male guardian comes to sign for them, which itself is a form of humiliation for them. ‘Otherwise, others can face being formally charged, and even jailed.’

These campaigns, built on the basic human need for freedom, sent shockwaves around the world – and the tremors were too big to simply be ignored by the King.

In April this year, King Salman announced that women would no longer need a male guardian’s signature to access new government services, and asked the Shura (advisory council) to provide a full list of all of the functions that still require a guardian’s approval.
Guardianship is complex. While there are few things that actually require a guardian’s signature by law, many providers of services will enforce unofficial guardianship requirements anyway. What King Salman’s decree does is, essentially, clamp down on these unofficial guardianship rules.

It has been hailed as a major breakthrough for women’s rights in the country – although there are some setbacks.

The badass women fighting for basic rights in Saudi Arabia
Women in the Kingdom hope that the royal decree, announced in April, signals the beginning of the end of guardianship in Saudi (Picture: Ella Byworth for

Although women won’t need a guardian’s approval for some government services, they may still be required to provide one when dealing with the private sector. For example, if a woman needs to get a medical procedure in the country, or if she’s applying for a job, she will still need to provide a male guardian’s signature. Women will also still be forbidden from travelling abroad or applying for passports without male approval.

Hala Al-Dosari is one of the activists who wrote the anti-guardianship petition last year, and a scholar who specialises in women’s rights and domestic abuse. After winning awards for her work, including the 2016 Freedom Award from international advocacy group Freedom House, she now uses her position on the world stage to speak out on behalf of the Kingdom’s women. 

She told me that the decree didn’t go far enough in protecting women from the violence they face from their own families.
‘Women are forced to try and leave their homes because they’re stuck in violent situations, because their families are violent,’ she said. ‘But their families can then report them to the authorities as a runaway. She can then be tracked down and arrested. But there’s no mention of this in the decree.’

Many activists, however, are optimistic that guardianship will soon crumble to dust.
‘It’s a great sign,’ Sahar enthused. ‘At last he [King Salman] addressed our issues and mentioned women’s rights several times. Now we’re just waiting for the annulment of this act, and women will be free human beings at the age of 18.
‘The campaign is going to keep going on until we’re emancipated. But things are changing a lot – we’re getting there.’
Male Guardianship in Saudi Arabia

Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%

Current Time0:00
Duration Time0:39

When I asked Al-Youssef if she also thought this was the beginning of the end for the oppressive system, she replied: ‘We hope. We’re hoping it will happen. Things have to change, because we can’t have this in 2017.’
Al-Dosari agreed, adding that while she acknowledges she has lived a ‘privileged’ life with a family who are supportive, many others aren’t so lucky.
‘Most activist women are from very supportive families, because you simply cannot go out there in public and say these things, and speak out against the government in this way, if you don’t have support. It’s just impossible,’ she said.

‘People sometimes try to silence me by saying “oh, well, you’re from a privileged background”. But I will not be silent. We have to speak out for those women who can’t.
‘It’s not about individual men or the few women who can work and travel because they have supportive “guardians”. It’s about the state, and the state’s responsibility towards its women citizens.
‘So I will not stop my fight against guardianship.’


Featured Posts

The Food Delivery/Ride Companies Wont Allow Drivers to be Employees But California is Changing That

                               Hamilton Nolan Senior Writer. After a monumental...