Khaberni - The Kuwaiti criminal court sentenced Salman Al-Khalidi to 15 years with labor and enforcement and deportation from the country after serving the sentence, for state security charges, and also ordered the fining of a second defendant in the same case with a thousand dinars, ordered the blocking of the electronic media platform on social media “Instagram” permanently and ordered the erasure and destruction of video clips, images, and phrases obtained.
The first accused was charged with “publicly defaming through drawings and images the royal person and overstepping the line to the emirate’s stand, as well as carrying out a hostile act against a brotherly state which may expose Kuwait to severing political relations, as well as publishing through the information network and by using a means of information technology anything that would harm the dignity of the victim” head of the central agency for resolving the status of residents residing illegally.
The court charged the second accused with publishing the offensive videos prepared by the first accused.
The court confirmed in its verdict rationale obtained by Al-Qabas that state security is a comprehensive entity, upon which the sovereignty of the homeland, its stability, unity, and prestige at home and abroad are based, thus any act that touches its symbols, undermines its stature, or exposes its political relations to danger, is a serious breach that does not tolerate leniency, emphasizing that the royal entity is a red line and freedom of expression does not mean overstepping.
No to Overstepping
The court emphasized that freedom of expression, while it is a right, does not extend to be a cover for insult, a shelter for overstepping, nor a tool to undermine the symbols of the state or the public denigration of its sovereign stances, for there is no freedom in demolishing the state's entity, nor opinion in undermining the prestige, as the position of His Highness the Emir of the country is the core of state security, and a symbol of its sovereignty, and presence of its unity, thus touching it publicly, by any means, is not merely a linguistic excess, but an act that touches the essence of the system itself, and since the political relations of the State of Kuwait with the brotherly states represent an original dimension of its security, then any public insult to the symbols of those states, in a tangible context, is considered a hostile act by nature, suitable for causing political danger, and this is what the legislator explicitly intended by criminalization, and since the court, in such crimes, does not stop at the mere boast, nor at the claim of intent, but rather estimates the danger of the act, its context, and its impact, in order to protect the state, safeguard the prestige, and deter all those who use means of expression as an outlet for insult, for freedom is not established by shouting, nor is it squandered by disguised trifling.
Freedom of Expression
The court mentioned that the freedom of expression must stop at its limit, so that it does not turn opinion into insult, nor expression into aggression, nor criticism into overstepping, as freedom of expression does not permit the undermining of the state's symbols, nor justify the public denigration of its sovereign stances, nor justify insult under the guise of speaking, imaging, or broadcasting, for freedom is not chaos, nor opinion a disputation, nor expression an aggression since the word - albeit light in weight on the tongue - might weigh heavily in the scale of law if it exceeds the limit of opinion and seeks the path of aggression and the constitution in its Articles Six and Thirty-Seven has made freedom of thought and expression the crown adorning the state’s forehead, but it established around it a fence of responsibility, so dignity is not violated, nor are sanctities breached, for the freedom that is born without restraint leads to chaos and the thought that breaks free from the bond of truth plunges into the abysses of injustice and aggression, and whereas the law recognizes the freedom of expression, it does not permit it to be used as a weapon thrown at the public prestige of the state's symbols or to act aggressively against brotherly and friendly states or to undermine personal dignity, for permissible criticism is that which adheres to decency and is based on the truth, but anyone who uses means of communication as an outlet for igniting hatred has distanced himself from the protection of the law.
Insulting the rulers of the Gulf states is a fully established hostile act
The criminal court said that the relations linking Kuwait with the brotherly states are not temporary relations, but are solid bonds and a historical fabric, and a shared fate, and intertwining security and political and economic integration, based on mutual respect.
The court mentioned in its rationale that any public act involving the denigration of the symbols of those states, whenever issued in a tangible material form, is considered a deviation from the path of opinion, and entry into the sphere of political danger that the legislator intended to criminalize, since hostile acts are not limited to forms of war or violence, but rather the legislator extended them to include any public, material, tangible act, capable of reflecting denigration or hostility or demeaning the states, whenever it is by nature suitable for causing harmful political impact.
