Dubai: A historian has been cleared of breaching the UAE Hate Law and committing a hate crime in a 25-page petition that he addressed to a religious endowment body in Dubai.
The Emirati historian was said to have addressed the religious body in a 25-page petition written in May that allegedly contained terms and phrases that are deemed a breach of the hate law.
Then he circulated the petition on social media networks, according to records, before a lawyer saw its content and lodged a criminal complaint before the Dubai Public Prosecution.
Citing lack of corroborated evidence, the Dubai Court of First Instance acquitted the Emirati of committing a hate crime and inciting discord.
When he appeared in court, he pleaded not guilty.
Prosecutors said the suspect incited segregation in the 25-page handwritten petition that he addressed to the religious endowment body.
The complaining lawyer [who represents the body] testified that the suspect published the petition on the social media.
“The suspect signed the petition, through which he incited a certain sect to form an opposing party against the religious endowment body. He also tackled, in the petition, issues about political and sectarian strife in the region and described the members of that sect as being ‘oppressed’,” the complainant told the interrogating prosecutor.
The historian was quoted as telling prosecutors that he sent a three-page letter to the body’s president suggesting to him to organise a Ramadan festival and bring people together.
The Emirati was further cited as claiming to prosecutors that the body’s president met him in a wedding banquet a few days later and threatened that he would get the historian stripped of his nationality and have him detained and deported.
The suspect argued before prosecutors that he wrote the 25-page petition thereafter in which he asked the religious endowment body’s president to hold [as per the rulers’ directives] an open day with the members of that sect to hear their suggestions but that never happened.
In court, the historian denied any wrongdoing and maintained that he did not have any criminal intention.
The ruling remains subject to appeal within 10 days.
