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.
If your intention is to provide an explanation, that’s a good point.
If your intention is to justify that law in a broad moral context then “it’s the culture there” really isn’t a valid justification, unless the point you want to make is that the country’s culture is inconsistent with present day broad moral context, in which case it sounds about right.
Who gets to dictate present day broad moral context? Is a vote taken on such?