Married Saudi Females, Keep Your Mobile Phone Charged!

[Beef Oven!]

The BBC News website has this very interesting report that the powers that be in Saudi Arabia will apply new regulations to Saudi courts, requiring them to inform women via text message that their husbands have divorced them. The courts must tell them of this fact, via a text message.

If this regulation works, It will not be possible for men to secretly divorce their wives - they will have to be informed of what has happened.

Is this new measure, added to the recent lifting of the female (Saudi is very gender-binary) driving ban, evidence of a new liberalising force in Saudi/Middle East/Islamic life?

[Lat-Literal]

Ideas and Theory. The theoretical question here does not ostensibly concern Muslims or the Middle East. It concerns the idea that citizens, wherever and whoever they are, should have by law to make a purchase from a private company in order to function equally. I oppose any legislation - or systemic change - which makes it a formal requirement to own a mobile phone. Should it happen here - for example, in enabling a shift in basic money transactions so that payments at Tesco etc can only be made by mobile phone - I will go to the courts on human rights grounds. That has long been my position and will continue to be. If there was a nationalised mobile phone company in parallel, it would be a greyer area but only slightly. Incidentally, I have never texted. I don't know how to text and do not have an aspiration to learn how to text. Nor do I intend to be forced for no good reason into acquiring that "skill".

[richardfinegold]

The BBC News website has this very interesting report that the powers that be in Saudi Arabia will apply new regulations to Saudi courts, requiring them to inform women via text message that their husbands have divorced them. The courts must tell them of this fact, via a text message.

If this regulation works, It will not be possible for men to secretly divorce their wives - they will have to be informed of what has happened.

Is this new measure, added to the recent lifting of the female (Saudi is very gender-binary) driving ban, evidence of a new liberalising force in Saudi/Middle East/Islamic life?

Strange happenings in the Midevil Desert Kingdom. Women are now required to be informed when they have been discarded-a small step in the right direction. Journalists critical of the regime being turned into a Cobb Salad—not so much

[Beef Oven!]

Ideas and Theory. The theoretical question here does not ostensibly concern Muslims or the Middle East. It concerns the idea that citizens, wherever and whoever they are, should have by law to make a purchase from a private company in order to function equally. I oppose any legislation - or systemic change - which makes it a formal requirement to own a mobile phone. Should it happen here - for example, in enabling a shift in basic money transactions so that payments at Tesco etc can only be made by mobile phone - I will go to the courts on human rights grounds. That has long been my position and will continue to be. If there was a nationalised mobile phone company in parallel, it would be a greyer area but only slightly. Incidentally, I have never texted. I don't know how to text and do not have an aspiration to learn how to text. Nor do I intend to be forced for no good reason into acquiring that "skill".

But mobile phone ownership in Saudi Arabia is widespread, so this is quite a big step in the direction of gender/human rights. And it's much quicker than sending a letter. Divorced Saudi women will be able to get on with the next stage/chapter in their life that much quicker - and more importantly, they now have a regulation in place that means they must be told that their husband has divorced them. It can't remain a secret anymore.

[Beef Oven!]

Strange happenings in the Midevil Desert Kingdom. Women are now required to be informed when they have been discarded-a small step in the right direction. Journalists critical of the regime being turned into a Cobb Salad—not so much

Indeed a small step in the right direction, but quite a big one for Saudi married women.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Indeed a small step in the right direction, but quite a big one for Saudi married women.

But it's such a foul society in which this sort of humiliation counts as "a big step in the right direction". Ending the West's financial propping-up of this society is not the least important benefit of finding alternatives to petrol-based fuels.

[Beef Oven!]

But it's such a foul society in which this sort of humiliation counts as "a big step in the right direction". Ending the West's financial propping-up of this society is not the least important benefit of finding alternatives to petrol-based fuels.

Yes, it is indeed a foul society where such a measure is treated as a "step in the right direction".

Western governments need to put an end to petrol-based transport and take steps to roll-back arms-sales to these people. Of course this won't directly affect the 'backward mindset', but it will make us in the west feel better and will mean that such backward people might think twice about their actions.

[french frank]

Ideas and Theory. The theoretical question here does not ostensibly concern Muslims or the Middle East. It concerns the idea that citizens, wherever and whoever they are, should have by law to make a purchase from a private company in order to function equally. I oppose any legislation - or systemic change - which makes it a formal requirement to own a mobile phone.

Are women being "required by law", or formally required to own a mobile phone? It isn't necessary to oppose a tiny, tiny step towards women's equality in order to push for even longer steps - that is an argument which has held back many steps 'in the right direction' on the grounds that 'we won't accept that because it's not enough'. Now, if they couldn't be divorced unless they possessed a mobile phone … the law would change pretty swiftly .

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I'm inclined to think that if Saudi Law ever required women to carry mobile phones at all times, it would be so that they could be more easily kept track of.

[Beef Oven!]

Are women being "required by law", or formally required to own a mobile phone? It isn't necessary to oppose a tiny, tiny step towards women's equality in order to push for even longer steps - that is an argument which has held back many steps 'in the right direction' on the grounds that 'we won't accept that because it's not enough'. Now, if they couldn't be divorced unless they possessed a mobile phone … the law would change pretty swiftly .

It seems the 'regulation' requires Saudi courts to advise women that they have been divorced by their husbands, via text message. I suppose that it's up to Saudi women whether they own a mobile phone or not. I'm just sayin' that if Saudi women have a mobile 'phone, they should keep them charged in case they get an important text message from the court concerning their marriage. If I were a Saudi (which I'm not), I'd advise my daughters to check their 'phones for messages. I wouldn't need to do the same with Mrs Oven, because I'd be up front about the matter.

[french frank]

I suppose that it's up to Saudi women whether they own a mobile phone or not. I'm just sayin' that if Saudi women have a mobile 'phone, they should keep them charged in case they get an important text message from the court concerning their marriage.

Yes, I got your point. I was responding to Lat's post saying (as I understood it) he was opposed to legislation requiring citizens to obtain, for example, a mobile phone, by pointing out that they were not required to obtain one by law.

I'm not sure whether, legally, women must be informed by text, or whether they must be informed - and a text message is fine. Are a formal letter or word of mouth not legally counted?

[Lat-Literal]

Are women being "required by law", or formally required to own a mobile phone? It isn't necessary to oppose a tiny, tiny step towards women's equality in order to push for even longer steps - that is an argument which has held back many steps 'in the right direction' on the grounds that 'we won't accept that because it's not enough'. Now, if they couldn't be divorced unless they possessed a mobile phone … the law would change pretty swiftly .

If this is a liberalising reform - I wouldn't wish to be categorical without greater comprehension - it fits in with changes re driving as mentioned and also cinema attendance. The latter is a substantial symbol of some greater openness towards western society. The power of the media and so on. It is not so in line with various other stories about the fate of a journalist, not that we can really know the detail there. There was talk not so long ago that the country was about to become the next Israel which is to say far more liberal, notwithstanding, say, Palestine. But the jury is out on the longer term given the mixed messages. Plus there is an inevitable confusion of hopes with facts as change occurs with the key resource running out.

I support the condemnation in other posts of many aspects of the international relationships involved. I am also acutely aware that any genuine initiatives for peace are inevitably based on alliances with devils so as to defeat the even worse. Who is what depends on any given time and the way that the people involved see things in the round. So I don't have answers or aspirations here, nor interest in being a commentator. The insiders know best and often they know little. But if this mild measure is for the good as it could seem, then I see no reason why any decision has to be texted, if it has, rather than communicated in another way. It isn't all one way, this, in that we do look at what other countries are doing and often follow suit. Japanese on robots. Canadians on dope. Saudis being assumed to have mobiles etc. All possible here. Mostly, I don't want an expectation here that we will all carry mobile phones.

(And I did say to one kind forum member that I wasn't going to become embroiled so I won't be but this hopefully helps to clarify my position on the mildest liberalism in Saudi Arabia)

[Dave2002]

All possible here. Mostly, I don't want an expectation here that we will all carry mobile phones.

But there already is that expectation/assumption.

If I go to one railway station with ticket machines in the car park (3) which are often all out order, there is an assumption that

1. I have a mobile phone, and have time and willingness to use it if the train is about to come in
2. I noted the number to contact and
3. use the contact number to pay for the parking.

Noting the number can be done if a phone has a camera, but if I were to do this at all I'd probably use pen/pencil and paper. I have been in that situation, with all the car park machines out of order, and I did not have a phone with me. I'm afraid I just left the car and went on the train.

I think there are other situations where the assumption that everyone has a mobile phone, and/or has it on all the time, and is willing to use it are completely false. It's completely unreasonable, IMO.

One other situation is multi factor authentication for banks, which will bounce transactions if one of the factors fails. This can be a real pain even if one's phone is active, but the phone is in a poor reception area, so the "secret" code is never read in time to validate the transaction.

[french frank]

I think there are other situations where the assumption that everyone has a mobile phone, and/or has it on all the time, and is willing to use it are completely false. It's completely unreasonable, IMO.

My doctor's surgery keeps pestering me to enter my mobile number. And there are several online 'services' that send verification texts, without which ………

[teamsaint]

My doctor's surgery keeps pestering me to enter my mobile number. And there are several online 'services' that send verification texts, without which ………

Not least the “ government gateway”.
Its texts seem to get stuck somewhere in a “ London Provincial” office outbox somewhere.