Introduction
Freedom and human rights have become major issues in the 21st Century. However, the interpretations and application of human rights regulations have different ends in different countries. The purpose of this paper is to compare the systems of freedom and human rights as they exist between the United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. In doing this, this paper presents a hypothesis that freedom of speech and freedom of religion in both Saudi Arabia and the United States are the same and although they have different traditions, they all seek the same goals and ends.
Basically, to understand the role of any human rights issue, there is the need to understand the national philosophy of a country and how it devolves to various legal institutions. Human rights and freedom are constituents of the broader political system. Hence, it is necessary to critique its unique position in the legal system.
The United States’ legal system is based on the Constitution of the late 1700s and early 1800s. Saudi Arabia’s Basic Law came into force in 1932 when the House of Sauds conquered most of the Arab Peninsular with the help of Sunni Islamic clerics. The US Constitution is based on the need to separate powers between three different institutions – the Executive, Judiciary and Legislature in order to ensure the government works for the betterment of its citizens. In order to do this, the US constitution guarantees the human rights and civil liberties of the US citizens and this is entrenched by a series of constitutional clauses and provisions that can be invoked by any American citizen against any institution or arm of government.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia’s Basic Law is premised on the fact that the King of Saudi Arabia will play a leading role in upholding the Sunni Islamic traditions accepted and recognized by the Constitution. Thus, as part of the provisions of the constitutional system of Saudi Arabia, the king’s title includes the “Custodian of the two Holiest Mosques [of Islam in Mecca and Medina]”. The 1992 constitution of Saudi Arabia states the kingdom is an absolute monarchy, but the king is to obey the Islamic law and Holy Quran. This means the king has a fundamental duty to ensure that the fundamental tenets of Islam are recognized and practiced in all aspects of life in Saudi Arabia. Thus, all institutions and entities are to operate within the principles and rules of Islam as accepted by the scholars of Sunni Islam.
Freedom of speech is a fundamental aspect of the rights of the man. It is about the ability of people to communicate and conduct interactions as and how they deem fit. And as long as a statement or exchange of information is not against the person of another person, or reasonably disturb the peace within the boundaries of a nation, a person making the communication is free to do so without any form of suppression or restriction. This means a total and absolute abstinence of the state from interrupting with the affairs and processes of the rights of individuals to make all types and all forms of communication.
In the United States, the concept of Freedom of Speech is protected by the First Amendment of the United States constitution. The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law relating to the establishment of religion or prevent the exercise of free speech. This means that in the US Constitution, the attempts by any arm of government to limit an American’s right to free speech is illegal and unconstitutional. This means that anyone who feels his right to free expression and free speech is infringed upon by any entity or institution in the United States can go to court and insist on his basic constitutional rights. In situations where a person is in a negative situation and finds himself in a case whereby there are limits on his right free speech, the individual can invoke the first amendment and demand for some kind of right to air his or her views and speak up for what he desires to communicate and put across.
There have been many cases whereby people’s rights to free communication and free information have led to claims in court. There have been many government agencies that have been sent to court for breaching the fundamental elements of the rights to free speech. For instance, there have been many cases including the National Security Agency (NSA) and the American people that has been considered a restriction to the First Amendment. For instance, there was the case of the NAACP Versus Alabama where it was identified that the actions of the government succeeded in creating a “chilling effect” on the demands of various groups of people who sought to demand for civil rights. This means that any element and any constituent of the United States whose rights are disrespected will be able to come to the United States and make demands from the government in court and the court will be forced to acknowledge that.
On the other hand, Saudi Arabia is a country where the freedom of information is guaranteed, but within certain contexts. This is because the constitution requires the government and its agencies to place the fundamental principles and ideas of Islam ahead of all other elements including the rights, happiness and freedom of the citizens. Saudi Arabia does not allow people to demean and insult their people and religious figures. And by all accounts, Saudi Arabia view the king and all his agencies as representatives of the sacredness of Islam in the world. Therefore, they all work to pursue and demand the sanctity of Islam over and above the rights of people to do things as and how they wish.
Article 39 of Saudi Constitution states that “Information, publication and all other media shall employ courteous language and the state’s regulation”. This means that everyone has to work within a certain framework that is authorized and presented by the Saudi government officials. And this includes the right to censorship of the Saudi media. Thus, there are many laws and regulations that are made by the king and authorized by his agencies to ensure that people are within a certain framework of acceptable speech and acceptable communication to avoid sanctions and punishments.
Human Rights Watch announced that in 2014, there were many punishments prescribed by Saudi Laws that prescribed and applied sanctions for speech that was considered to be in contravention with Islam, Islamic culture, Islamic religion, the king and government of Saudi Arabia and the proper and orderly organization of the society as well as against Muslims in general. There was a wide range of punishments which include imprisonment, lashes and several other things. They cite the example of a blogger who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes for writing things that were viewed as heretic and against the principles of Islam.
Furthermore, a constitution is meant to protect and promote the rights of individuals in a given country. It has to work within a certain framework – outside of which it can be seen as incompatible with the rights of the citizens and people. Thus, every country has the right to limit the freedom of speech where there is a cogent and specific requirements and expectations of the state and national security. Thus, when freedom of speech is severely threatening the lives of citizens and could lead to serious uprisings a nation has the right to limit the rights of individuals to free speech. However, in the case of Saudi Arabia, it seems they go the extra mile in doing this and use the situation to infringe on the rights of people within its realms. For example, in January 2016, there was the case of a Shiite cleric who was executed for allegedly spreading information that led to widespread protests. This shows they have integrated the sacredness of their duty to protect the Saudi constitution and preserve the structures of their brand of Islam ahead of the rights of citizens who live within their boundaries.
Freedom of religion is the right to choose and interact and partake in any religious activity of one’s choice. This involves the right to freely indulge in all religious activities in any country without any interference and limit by the state or government. This right is linked to the freedom of association and the right to a social life and a family life.
The United States has its civil liberties relating to the right to the freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution. This is covered by the First Amendment which guarantees the right to the freedom of religion for all Americans. Thus, alongside the right to freedom of speech, any American who feels his rights to practice his religious beliefs is infringed upon can go to court and invoke the rights under the First Amendment. This is a serious demand that any US government institution will have to respect and honor.
There have been various cases in the United States where the practices of some religious movements and groups have been questioned. This includes some religions with practices that were considered incompatible with the views of some people – like animal slaughtering and others. However, all such persons invoked the right to free religion as a basis to carry out their beliefs and practices without hindrance. Therefore, the United States has a constitutional commitment and an objective and challengeable commitment to helping citizens to honor their rights to the freedom of speech.
Saudi Arabia is a Sunni Islamic state and it is positioned as the head of all forms and branches of Sunni Islam. Therefore, Sunni Islamic law defines the tenets of its constitutions and its legal structure. According to Islamic Law, a person born a Muslim has to live as a Muslim and failure to do so and live according to the standards of Islam prescribed by Sunni Islamic schools of jurisprudence has consequences.
The default position for any Muslim who converts to any other religion is a death penalty. This is because Islamic jurisprudence dictates that anyone who crosses carpets will have to be put to death. Therefore, in any situation whereby a Muslim converts to another religion, Islamic law demands their execution. Supporters of this worldview state that this has been the practice for generations and people in Saudi Arabia have survived all these years. Hence trying to get them to quit in the name of human rights is against the main essence of the religion and the country and its constitution.
There have been many cases where people who blasphemed were killed in Saudi Arabia. Therefore, there is a view that freedom of religion can only be practiced if one is a Sunni Muslim. This is incompatible with the laws of the United States and the Western world who state that human rights is to be placed on any nation in a manner in which the citizens are able to choose their religions, including atheism and strange or foreign religions on the basis of their choice, rather than what is prescribed for them.
Saudi Arabia is also known for persecuting minorities. For instance, Jews are not permitted into the kingdom and there are many limits on the practice of the religions of foreigners. Therefore, the constitution is limited to the dominant religion of the kingdom and anything outside its scope is viewed as some form of a transgression.
Conclusion
The thesis statement for this exercise asserted that the two systems have structures for human rights. However, although they have different ends, they pursue the same goals of protecting citizens in the two areas under study, freedom of speech and freedom of religion. However, the findings show that the two systems have different constitutional structures. And whilst the Americans pursue a constitution that demands the best for its citizens and allows them to make choices, the kingdom of Saudi Arabia is limited by the elements of Islam. If a citizen does not stay within the tenets of Islam, that citizen is seen as one who breaches the essence of this constitution. On the basis of this information, this research concludes that there are major departures in the elements of human rights in the US Laws and Saudi Laws. Although there are similarities, one pursues the sanctity of the dominant religion, whilst the other pursues a goal of protecting and ensuring the free choice in speech and religion for its subjects.
References
Barbour, C., & Wright, G. (2015). Keeping the Republic: Power and Citizenship in American Politics. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
BBC News. (2016, January 2). Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr: Saudi Arabia executes top Shia cleric. Retrieved from BBC Middle East: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35213244
Caner, F. M., & Caner, E. F. (2014). Unveiling Islam: An Insider's Look at Muslim Life and Beliefs. New York: Kregel Publishing.
Chomsky, N. (2012). Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (2nd ed.). New York: MacMillan Publishing.
Duarte, N. (2013). EFF Weeks 8-9: How the NSA’s mass data collection violates the First Amendment. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from http://medialaw.unc.edu/2013/07/eff-weeks-8-9-how-the-nsas-mass-data-collection-violates-the-first-amendment/
Ferrari, J. (2015). Routledge Handbook of Law and Religion. London: Routledge.
Human Rights Watch. (2015). World Report 2015: Saudi Arabia. Retrieved April 21, 2016, from https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2015/country-chapters/saudi-arabia
Mellor, N., Rinnawi, K., Dajani, N., & Ayish, M. I. (2013). Arab Media: Globalization and Emerging Media Industries. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
Ramady, M. (2012). Political Economy of Saudi Arabia (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Young, J. H. (2014). International Election Principles: Democracy & the Rule of Law (2nd ed.). New York: ABA Publications.
