A UK citizen has been sentenced to three months in jail in Dubai after “insulting” airport staff who were slow to bring his mother a wheelchair.

The unnamed man was originally issued a Dh 10,000 (£2,150) fine, but his appeal against this failed and his punishment was extended to a jail term on 6 November.

An airport employee told the court that the man swore at her after she had explained the airport’s wheelchair policy to him, telling him that “a wheelchair would be made available before boarding the bus”.

“When I tried to explain it to him, he insulted me using very bad language. I told the traveller that using such offensive language is not allowed at Dubai airport but he responded that he didn’t care.”

The employee then called the police, and a case was filed against the man in Dubai’s Criminal Court. Following an appeal, which he lost, the fine was escalated into a jail sentence, followed by immediate deportation.

  • 01011@monero.townOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    10 000 Dh is not $10 000. It’s a lot less than that, more like $2700.

    As for free speech…

    Why differentiate between physically abusing somebody and verbally? Abuse is abuse. It should not be tolerated.

    • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Still, 2.7k fine for an insult, in a single instance, is already bonkers, but three months jail time?

      Whatever your stance on whether or not the guy should be punished, the extent of this punishment here really shouldn’t sound fair or just in any way

      • Lmaydev@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        17
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m thinking about it from the staff’s point of view.

        I have mental health problems and an interaction like that would make it difficult for me to work.

        His little outburst will actively affect the member of staff. Weird how no one is mentioning that.

        I think it’s totally fair personally.

        • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          To fine an absurd amount and/or send them to jail for 3 whole months?

          If one person being an ass causes one to spiral bad enough to warrant that kind of sentences, I would hazard a guess that they are extremely likely on a wrong occupational path. There’s no way interactions like that aren’t weekly for everyone working any service gig.

          I get that it has an effect and nobody should behave like that, but I can’t believe anyone would deem these as proportional punishments.

          You likely get same 3 months jail here where I live (a western social democracy) for manslaughter, if you are first-time offender. Depending on a lot of course, but that anyone would consider these appropriate seems insane to me.

          • Lmaydev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Section 4A of the Public Order Act 1986 regulates the intentional causing of harassment, alarm or distress. It is a summary offence, which means it is tried in the Magistrates Court. The maximum penalty for committing this offence is 6 months imprisonment or a fine. If the offence was racially aggravated, the Crown Court can impose a 2-year custodial sentence.

            Pretty standard really. This is from the UK

            • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I don’t know UK law, but I’d be surprised if that would be applied in a similar case. Maybe someone can educate me here and give examples of such rulings, but I feel like the wording is so vague and wide, that this very same law could be applied to wildly different and much more serious and alarming cases, entirely on a different level.

              If getting frustrated and calling a service worker names in a single, non-recurring instance, warrants anything more than a small fine at the very worst in the UK, I will be very surprised. But I’m willing to accept that’s a thing there, just not convinced by that quote alone.

              “Pretty standard really” sounds very wild a statement, but then again, maybe UK is weird like that.

              Edit: At this point I’m just very surprised to learn so many are of this opinion, so I’m just trying to get my bearings and understand if this is a common sentiment and way to look at things. I’d really like to know more if something like this truly is commonplace in a western country at this day and age.

              • Lmaydev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                At the end of the day people don’t go into work to feel threatened and scared for their safety.

                Why the hell should people be allowed to do it? I’m surprised by the amount of people who think this is fine and shouldn’t be punished harshly tbh.

                • orgrinrt@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Well, I for one never said that it’s okay. And it isn’t. But there’s a long gap between “not fine, should have consequences” to “3 months in jail”.

                  Obviously people don’t go to work to get abused, I don’t think anyone claimed that. It’s hard to imagine anyone thinking that people should go to work to get abused. That’s just a weird thing to say.

    • Bobbettes@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Why differentiate between physically abusing somebody and verbally?” Because of the obvious difference in severity. One insult doesn’t need medical attention, while a punch could put someone in the hospital.

      • 01011@monero.townOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        You are intentionally underplaying the importance of mental wellbeing to justify odious behavior.

        • steakmeout@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          How’s the mental wellbeing of women and foreign workers in Dubai? Know many gay men who feel safe there?

          • stephen01king@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ok, so since women already feel unsafe there, they should be allowed to be verbally abused by tourists?

        • GenEcon@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          If someone insulting you causes harm to your mental wellbeing, you weren’t well in the first place.

    • Nudding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Why differentiate between physically abusing somebody and verbally?

      Would you rather someone beat the shit out of you, or call you a bitch?

        • tory@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Ah, the cowards way out. Why engage with a question that obliterates your argument when you can feign moral superiority and refuse to think about it?

        • lovesickoyster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          proportional to what exactly? to your poor ass, or to the rich dubai native? I would say the latter, because, you know, it happened in dubai.

          punishemnt should be high enough so that next time he will think twice before he’s abusive. He was warned first, he said he didn’t care. He got a fine, he wasn’t happy with it either. So he’s in jail. I think it’s all perfectly fair. I bet my left nut he will never again be abusive to the staff in dubai.

            • lovesickoyster@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              how exactly do you objectively decide that? please, specify the methodology, I’d love to hear it. If anything, the crime should be based on what makes it stick, which usually means proportional to the wealth. Obviously the higher the standard in the country the higher the fines are going to be, and that standard is pretty damn high in dubai.

              e.g. if you’re living in india where everything is objectively cheap for people in the west and you visit germany, get a 500 eur speeding fine, you cannot just cry “it’s not proportional to my standards!!11!1”.