a. Freedom of Expression, Including for Members of the Press and Other Media
The constitution provides for limited freedom of expression, including for members of the press and other media, but the law prohibits criticism of national rulers and speech that may create or encourage social unrest. Legal changes enacted in January impose additional restrictions on freedom of expression by creating criminal punishments for “spreading rumors or false news.” The law also penalizes the use of the internet to disseminate information or data that insults a foreign country. The government regularly restricted freedom of speech, and human rights organizations reported that the government continued to detain political activists and human rights defenders on expression-related charges. Media outlets conformed to unpublished government guidelines. Editors and journalists were aware of government “red lines” for acceptable media content, stipulated in federal libel and slander laws, and commonly practiced self-censorship on socially sensitive topics such as government criticism and human rights violations.
In January a consortium of 15 international civil society organizations published a joint statement condemning the new cybercrime law for “severely threaten[ing] and unduly restrict[ing] the right to freedom of expression (both online and offline) and the rights to freedom of association and of peaceful assembly.” The group stated that the new text contained vague terminology, particularly on issues related to “national security,” and provided authorities with excessive discretion to criminalize and impose lengthy prison sentences on individuals exercising their rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. The consortium asserted that the law further enabled the criminalization of the work of journalists, whistleblowers, activists, and peaceful critics, subjecting those engaged in lawful activities to harsh prison sentences and excessive fines. They called on authorities to “repeal the law or sufficiently amend its provisions so that it is brought into line with international human rights standards.”
Freedom of Expression: The government continued to make arrests and impose other restrictions for speech related to and in support of Islamist political activities, calls for democratic reforms, criticism of or perceived insults against the government and government institutions, and, in rarer cases, criticism of officials and private citizens. Both verbal and written insults online are prosecutable offenses.
Changes to the penal code that took effect in January provide for between 15 and 25 years in prison for anyone who “insults or ridicules the head of the state or harms his reputation or standing.” The amended penal code also reduces the punishment from 10 to 5 years in prison for anyone who “ridicules, insults, or harms the reputation or prestige of the state, its institutions, its founding leaders, the state’s flag, national emblem or anthem, or any of its national symbols.” In April the Abu Dhabi Public Prosecution ordered the prosecution and pretrial detention of a woman on charges of “disturbing public order, disobeying a state official and resisting arrest” after she allegedly was “shout[ing] racist and discriminatory remarks against the UAE” in a hotel lobby, according to news reports.
Cyber-related laws impose criminal penalties for “spreading rumors, false news, or content that derides or damages the reputation of the state, or any of its institutions, via any information network or technology.” The law prohibits any person from “publishing any information, news, caricatures or any other kind of pictures that would pose threats to the security of the state and to its highest interests or violate its public order.” The punishment for such offenses is imprisonment and a fine not exceeding AED 1 million ($272,500).
Censorship or Content Restrictions for Members of the Press and Other Media, including Online Media: International NGOs categorized the press, both in print and online, as not free. Except for regional media outlets located in Dubai’s and Abu Dhabi’s free-trade zones, the government owned and controlled most newspapers, television stations, and radio stations. The country has no specific media law; however, the penal code contains provisions relating to media, particularly regarding defamation, as does the Cybercrime Law regarding digital communications. Journalists reported the government maintained unpublished guidelines for unacceptable media content.
Regulations for electronic media, including rules for publishing and selling advertising, print, video, and audio material, require those benefitting monetarily from social media advertising to purchase a license from the Media Regulatory Office (MRO), a government body responsible for managing and regulating media activities and media-related free zones. The law also penalizes the taking and dissemination of pictures of others without permission, including victims of accidents or disasters.
By law the MRO, whose chair the president appoints, licenses, and censors all publications, including those of private associations. Domestic and foreign publications were censored to remove any criticism of the government, ruling families, or friendly governments. Online content was often removed without transparency or judicial oversight. Domain hosts or administrators are liable if their websites are used to “prompt riot, hatred, racism, sectarianism, or damage the national unity or social peace or prejudice the public order and public morals.” Censorship also extends to statements that “threaten social stability” and materials considered pornographic or excessively violent. Government authorities announced in January the implementation of standards for media content, mandating that such content should “refrain” from offending God and Islamic beliefs and respect other “heavenly religions.” The standards list various topics that content creators should not publish, to include “harming national unity and social cohesion or violating the sanctity of public morals.” In May the MRO and TikTok jointly closed a number of accounts, citing inappropriate or offensive content. Authorities announced in June that the Disney movie Lightyear, which includes two same-sex cartoon characters kissing, would not be licensed for public screening due to its “violation” of media content standards. Also in June, the MRO allegedly withdrew copies of a locally published children’s magazine for “offending social values” for showing a rainbow-colored cartoon character perceived to speak in support of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and intersex (LGBTQI+) equality.
Government and private institutions must obtain a license before publishing or broadcasting media or advertising content, or face penalties. This requirement applies to any media or advertising activity and to any person or entity that issues any type of publication, including clubs, associations, diplomatic missions, foreign centers, and movie theaters.
Government officials allegedly issued warnings to journalists who published or broadcast material deemed politically or culturally sensitive. Editors and journalists commonly practiced self-censorship due to fear of government retribution, particularly since most journalists were foreign nationals and risked deportation. Authorities did not allow importation or publication of some books they viewed as critical of the government, Islam, or local culture, as well as books that the government perceived as supporting the Muslim Brotherhood or its ideology.
Internet and television providers continued to block Qatari-funded al-Jazeera’s website and most Qatari broadcasting channels at the direction of government authorities.
Libel/Slander Laws: The Cybersecurity Law that came into effect in January mandates imprisonment or a fine of not less than AED 250,000 ($68,100) and not exceeding AED 500,000 ($136,200) for persons who insult others online or use an electronic site for accusations that may subject another to punishment or contempt. Insult or slander against public employees is considered an aggravating circumstance.
The government used the threat of libel and slander laws to suppress criticism of its leaders and institutions.
The law also criminalizes any form of expression the government interprets as blasphemous or offensive toward “divine recognized religions,” inciting religious hatred, or insulting religious convictions.
National Security: Authorities often cited the need to protect national security as the basis for laws that prohibit and punish criticism of the government or expression of dissenting political views. The law includes broad limitations on using electronic means to promote disorder or “damage national unity.” Human rights groups criticized these laws for excessively restricting freedom of expression.
Legal changes enacted in January allow the government to punish citizens and foreigners for committing or being accomplices to crimes occurring outside the country. Allegations categorized as state security cases, violations of the constitutional system, premeditated murder, or insults to the country or its symbols can warrant prosecution.
The government may deport residents deemed to pose a national security threat. In such cases, a government commission reviews deportation orders, and an individual can be deported only if an extradition agreement exists with the destination state.
Internet Freedom
Federal laws define broad categories of online activities as illegal, including: defaming or disrespecting others and other countries, contempt of religion; promotion of disorder, hate, racism or sectarianism, and damage to national unity, social peace, public order, and public decency; promotion of demonstrations without license; violating privacy; entering an electronic site illegally and without permission; filming persons or places and posting these videos without permission; spreading false news and rumors; manipulating personal information; engaging in blackmail and threats; establishing websites or accounts that violate local regulations; posting work-related confidential information; collecting donations without a license; and conducting surveys without obtaining security approval. The law imposes fines and sentences up to life imprisonment depending on the nature of the alleged offense.
Federal prosecutors in January issued warnings that individuals mocking COVID-19 rules were subject to administrative and penal sanctions.
In April a Lebanese physician was detained for three weeks, allegedly over tweets written several years ago that the government deemed offensive to the country, including one that made jokes about naming conventions in the country and Lebanon.
The government restricted access to some websites and conducted widespread surveillance of social media, instant messaging services, and blogs with little to no judicial oversight. Virtual private networks (VPNs) are permitted for use by companies, institutions, and banks for internal purposes only; use by private individuals is forbidden. Use of VPN technology for illegal means is considered a serious offense under the law. Authorities threatened to imprison individuals for misusing the internet. Self-censorship was widely practiced on social media.
There were numerous reports of online surveillance to track dissidents in the country and abroad. NGOs and media outlets reported that the government targeted activists, journalists, politicians, and dissidents in systematic hacking campaigns.
The country’s two internet service providers, both majority-owned by the government’s sovereign wealth fund, used a proxy server to block materials deemed inconsistent with the country’s values, as defined by the Ministry of Interior and overseen by the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority (TRO). Blocked material included some sites with LGBTQI+ content; atheist material; negative critiques of Islam; testimonies of former Muslims who converted to Christianity; gambling; promotion of illegal drug use; pornography; the al-Jazeera.com news site; and postings that explained how to circumvent proxy servers. International media sites, accessed using the country’s internet providers, contained filtered content. The government also blocked some sites containing content critical of the government or laws of the country, and other states in the region.
The TRO operated with no oversight or transparency in identifying which sites it blocked. Service providers did not have the authority to unblock sites without government approval. The government also blocked most voice-over-internet-protocol (VoIP) applications, the use of VoIPs through VPNs, and the use of VPNs through internet service providers. A temporary exception was in place for VoIP applications to support teleworking and distance learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. Convictions for unauthorized use of VoIPs can lead to significant fines, imprisonment, or both.
The Federal Public Prosecution for Information Technology Crimes investigated criminal cases involving use of information technology, including the use of the internet with intent to “damage public morals,” the promotion of “sinful behavior,” illegal collection of donations, trafficking in persons, calling for or abetting the breach of laws, and the organization of demonstrations.
Restrictions on Academic Freedom and Cultural Events
The government restricted academic freedom, including speech both inside and outside the classroom by educators, and censored academic materials for schools. The government required official permission for conferences and submission of detailed information on proposed speakers and topics of discussion. The same procedure applied to on-campus events at private schools. Some organizations found it difficult to secure meeting space for public events that dealt with contentious topics.
b. Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association
The government restricted the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association.
Freedom of Peaceful Assembly
The law provides limited freedom of assembly, although in practice the government imposed significant restrictions, including criminal penalties.
Protests and demonstrations are prohibited. The law restricts the right of assembly by, for example, prohibiting operation of an electronic site for the purpose of planning, organizing, or promoting protests or demonstrations. Conviction brings imprisonment or a fine of not less than AED 500,000 ($136,200) and not more than AED 1 million ($272,500).
The law imposes a penalty of between one and three years in prison for “participating in a gathering of at least five people in a public space with the intention of rioting or disrupting the implementation of laws and regulations,” but only if the accused disobeys an order to disperse. The penalty increases to a minimum of five years in prison if the gathering results in rioting or a disruption of peace or public security. Additionally, the law provides a life sentence for anyone who calls for, promotes, or leads a gathering in a public space “with the intent of rioting, preventing or disrupting the implementation of laws and regulations, or disturbing public security, even if his call is not accepted.”
The law requires a government-issued permit for organized public gatherings. While there was no uniform standard for the number of persons who could gather without a permit, some residents reported that authorities asked groups of four or more to disperse if they did not have a permit. The government did not interfere routinely with informal, nonpolitical gatherings held without a government permit in public places unless there were complaints. The government generally permitted political gatherings that supported government policies. Hotels, citing government regulations, sometimes denied permission for groups such as unregistered religious organizations to rent space for meetings or religious services.
Freedom of Association
The law provides limited freedom of association, but in practice the government significantly restricted this freedom.
Political organizations, political parties, and trade unions are illegal. All associations and NGOs are required to register with the Ministry of Community Development, and many of those that registered received government subsidies. Domestic NGOs registered with the ministry were mostly citizens’ associations for economic, religious, social, cultural, athletic, and other purposes. NGOs tracking human rights abuses or issuing reports critical of the government were not allowed to operate (see section 5).
Registration rules require that all voting organizational members, as well as boards of directors, must be citizens. This requirement excluded almost 90 percent of the population from fully participating in such organizations. In Dubai, volunteer organizations were required to register with the Community Development Authority (CDA) and obtain its approval before conducting fundraising activities. The law mandates that individuals and entities must obtain a license from the CDA to engage in fundraising activities or collect donations, which they may do no more than four times a year. Penalties under the law may include substantial fines and deportation of noncitizens. Similar organizations in Abu Dhabi are also required to register with the appropriate local authorities.
In Abu Dhabi all exhibitions, conferences, and meetings require a permit from the Tourism and Culture Authority. To obtain a permit, the event organizer must submit identification documents for speakers along with speaker topics.
LGBTQI+ individuals could not openly engage in advocacy for LGBTQI+ rights due to social norms and possible prosecution or reprisal (see section 6).
d. Freedom of Movement and the Right to Leave the Country
The law provides for freedom of internal movement, emigration, and repatriation. While the government generally respected the right to freedom of internal movement, emigration, and repatriation, it imposed certain legal restrictions on foreign travel. The lack of passports or other identity documents restricted the movement of stateless persons, both within the country and internationally.
Foreign Travel: Authorities generally did not permit citizens and residents involved in legal disputes under adjudication and noncitizens under investigation to travel abroad. In addition, authorities sometimes arrested individuals with outstanding debts or legal cases while in transit through an international airport. Abu Dhabi and Dubai maintain a system that allows individuals to verify whether they are subject to a travel ban related to unsettled debts or pending legal action. In some cases, travelers can settle debts directly at the airport and have their travel ban lifted. Debtors also may challenge travel bans in court.
Emirate-level prosecutors have the discretion to seize the passports of foreign citizens and restrict foreign travel during criminal or civil investigations. These measures posed problems for noncitizen debtors who, in addition to being unable to leave the country, were usually unable to find work without a passport and valid residence permit, making it impossible to repay their debts or maintain legal residency. In some cases, family, friends, local religious organizations, or other concerned individuals helped pay the debt and enabled the indebted foreign national to depart the country. In April Ajman police authorized the release of 103 prisoners after resolution of their debts using funding from charities. In July Dubai Islamic Bank paid the debts of 46 prisoners to facilitate their release.
Citizens targeted for reasons of state security, including former political prisoners, encountered difficulties renewing official documents, resulting in implicit travel bans.
A husband may impose a travel ban on his children to prevent the mother from absconding with them.
Citizenship: The government may revoke naturalized citizens’ passports and citizenship status for criminal or “politically provocative” actions.
e. Protection of Refugees
The government allowed the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other humanitarian organizations to provide protection and assistance to refugees, returning refugees, or asylum seekers, as well as other persons of concern.
UNHCR lacked formal legal status in the country separate from the UN Development Program. The government nevertheless worked with UNHCR on a case-by-case basis to address refugee issues. The government informally granted refugee status or asylum to aliens seeking protection and allowed some asylum seekers to remain in the country temporarily on an individual basis. This nonpermanent status often presented administrative, financial, and social hardships, including the need to frequently renew visas and the inability to access basic services such as health care and education.
Access to Asylum: The law does not provide for the granting of asylum or refugee status, and the government has not established a transparent, codified system for providing protection to refugees. While the government extended informal protection from return to refugees in some cases, any persons lacking legal residency status were technically subject to local laws on illegal immigrants, and authorities could detain them. In some cases, authorities confined individuals seeking protection at an airport to a specific section of the airport while they awaited resettlement in another country. The government continued to support efforts to resettle or relocate to other countries individuals relocated from Afghanistan since August 2021.
Employment: Access to employment was based on an individual’s status as a legal resident, and persons who lacked legal residency status, including those with either short-term visitor visas or expired visas, were generally not eligible for legal employment.
Access to Basic Services: Access to education and other public services, including health care, was based on an individual’s status as a legal resident. As a result, some families, particularly from Iraq and Syria, reportedly did not have access to health care or schools. The government provided or allowed access to some services on a case-by-case basis, often after the intervention of UNHCR representatives. Some hospitals were willing to see patients without the mandatory insurance but required full payment up front.