|
Sampson seems to have missed the fundamental point: that every
country has its rules of conduct for its residents. For example, in the US,
residents are not allowed to fornicate in public, and they are not allowed to
distribute alcohol privately.
In
Saudi Arabia, the possession and consumption of alcohol is illegal, somewhat
like 'drugs' are in the US. When foreigners go to Saudi Arabia, they are
routinely told by their employers, Saudi customs and immigration, etc, that
alcohol is illegal and possessing and distributing it is a crime. Sampson
evidently decided to disregard the rule, and was caught. All too many Westerners
in taking up employment in foreign and especially in 3rd world countries
approach local rules with contempt and a belief that they are somehow above the
rules. I imagine Sampson's attitude, so vividly suggested in your account,
failed to evoke sympathy among Saudi officials and police and prosecutors.
It would certainly fail to evoke sympathy from me. I have seen too many of these
yahoos show up with their attitudes of being superior to the
'natives'.
Westerners are paid a LOT of money to work in Saudi Arabia. They know the
rules. One would think that instead of complaining and breaking the rules they
would abide by them. Or did they think they could have their cake and eat it
too? Everybody else has to obey the rules. Why not Sampson and his
buddies? Are Canadians -- or this Canadian -- exempt? If he was so
needy of his alcohol, he should have stayed home where he could drink himself
blotto to his heart's content.
Lawry
Last night I watched Peter Mansbridge of the CBC interview William Sampson,
a Canadian, who had been held in a Saudi prison for two and a half years for a
crime he did not commit. He was finally released in mid-August. Mr. Sampson
alleged that he had been severely beaten and tortured. Judging by the
difficulty and obvious pain he experienced in recalling it all, what he said
was credible. Under extreme torture, he had made a public confession of his
"crime", feeling that he might be able to save some of his co-accused who had
wives and children whereas he did not. He was sentenced to beheading.
His brief descriptions made Saudi Arabia sound like a nightmare.
Foreigners, like himself, live in compounds. Since liquor is not officially
allowed, people in the compounds bring it in clandestinely or make their own
beer and wine. Their biggest worry is the religious police, who, in making
arrests, appear all to ready to use extreme force.
How could what occurred to Mr. Sampson happen? One explanation might be
that who calls the shots in Saudi Arabia is becoming less and less certain.
For about two centuries, the house of Saud has been in an intimate
relationship with Wahhabism, a fundamentalist form of Islam. Using its oil
revenues, it has funded Wahhabist schools throughout the Islamic world. It has
also used such revenues to fund terrorist groups such as Hamas and Islamic
Jihad on grounds that they also undertake charitable works. As well, it has
made a pact with the "great Satan", permitting American military bases on
Arabian soil, which many Moslems regard as holy because of its historic role
in the history of Islam. But while doing all of these things, it has not done
very much for its own population, which now contains many seethingly angry
young people.
The House of Saud is in a bind. As one source puts it:
… the House of Saud finds itself split between two antagonistic forces. On
the one hand, it desires to keep the United States as an ally, and certainly
not as an enemy. In order to do this, it must crack down on the militancy
brewing within Saudi society. On the other hand, by tightening the leash on
militant groups within Saudi society -- both physically and financially --
Riyadh makes itself a target for these groups, thus risking domestic
stability. ( http://www.pinr.com/)
All of which suggests that what happened to Mr. Sampson and his co-accused
could happen because no one is quite sure of who is in charge or just what to
do. Those who feel they are in charge can, for whatever reason, exercise their
inhuman rights if they choose to do so. Some of the things Mr. Sampson said
suggested that he was being used as a personal punching bag.
Another case of the exercise of inhuman rights involves another Canadian
citizen, Maher Arar, who happened to route himself via New York in coming home
on an international flight. For some incomprehensible reason, even though he
was traveling on a Canadian passport, the Americans deported him to Syria, of
which he is also considered a citizen because he was born there. He spent a
year in prison even though he was never charged with anything. He is now on
his way home, though presumably not via New York. It will be interesting to
hear what he has to tell.
Ed Weick
|
