Although it has been said by some that the rise of Mohammad Bin Salman as ruler of Saudi Arabia has brought about a certain liberty to a long thought of repressive state; there are still very real human rights abuses being carried out in and by the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
This is giving human rights campaigners both inside and outside of the state still much to be concerned about, particularly at a time when the UK, backed with a number of high-profile businesses, brands and professionals (in sectors such as sport and music) seem to be proactively seeking to positive build relationships with a state that has a widely reported, well known poor track record in human rights.
Amnesty International report
The state as mentioned in the Amnesty Report: ‘Don’t worry it’s just another branch of Amazon’ isn’t party to several core international human rights treaties including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; and the International Convention on the Protection of theRights of All Migrant Workers and Members of their families.
Contrary to how the state behaves, it is party to the International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of racialdiscrimination and the UN Protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children.
Saudi Arabia is also ( although it is sometimes difficult to believe), a member of the United Nations so should be following the United Declaration of Human Rights and abide by the articles within. However, the state opted to abstain from the vote of adopting the UDHR stating it contradicted Sharia Law. It has also failed, since 2018, to implement some of the recommendations from the UN Human Rights Council on issues such as freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and protection of workers. It is, however, party to the convention of rights of persons with disabilities.
Draft penal code leaked
The repressive state of Saudi Arabia is detailed in a report released earlier this year by Amnesty International after a draft penal code was leaked showing evidence that the state was falling short of human rights standards; and specifically criminalises the rights to freedom of expression, thought and religion, and the lack of protection of freedom and assembly. The code would also allow for the punishment and harassment of LGBTQI+ community, However, the last known report of prosecuting people within the LGBTQI+ community was back in 2021 and a UN State Report mentions
“There were no known reports of prosecutions of LGBTQI+ persons for same-sex conduct during the year, but widespread stigmatisation and discrimination existed. It was illegal for “men to behave like women” or to wear women’s clothes, and vice versa. The government did not actively enforce these laws, except when individuals postedphotographs of so-called ‘cross-dressing’ on social media There were no known prosecutions under these laws during the year. “
The code also fails to recognise marital rape as a crime, it codifies the death penalty as primary punishment for a range of crimes and allows room for corporal punishment for situations like adultery or theft.
If the Saudi Authorities are failing to make progress on their own human rights, aren’t abiding by international law and standards of adequate human rights – then who is holding the state accountable and working to protect those most at risk from human rights violations?
Even the country’s own human rights organisations appear to be corrupt.
Saudi Arabia’s Human Rights Commission claims to be fully independent from the government, but the organisationopposed an international investigation of the killing of Jamal Khasoggi in 2018.
Since its creation in 2005, it should be responsible for promoting and protecting human rights in the country. However, it is closely associated with and funded by the government and never sought accreditation from the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions and has never gone through the process of being assessed according to international standards as adopted by the UN General Assembly (Paris Principles). This has led to the organisation being heavily criticised by MENA and ALQST who have correctly called the institute a whitewashing tool to cover up the government’s human rights track record.
There is a National Society of Human Rights, but questions have been raised about the closeness of the organisation with the government. This came to light in 2018 when a Canadian minister called for the release of Samar Badawi from prison and the NSHR supported the Saudi Government’s response detailing punitive actions against Canada (Badawi has been released since 2021 and her campaign was supported by Amnesty International).
Independent Saudi Human Rights Organisations do exist, but the opportunity to create one comes with a warning. Mohammad Al Qahtani – who co-founded the human rights organisation ACPRA was charged for his human rights activities in 2012 and is still in prison.
There have been numerous attempts by human rights activists who have tried to create human rights organisations -only to be given lengthy prison sentences by the Specialised Criminal Courts for crimes including ‘attempting to seize power’ and ‘terrorism.’
The United States Commission on International Religious Freedom 2024 report details the Saudi human rights cases that are still ongoing. This year, a Specialised Criminal Court (SCC) resentenced Salma al-Shehab to 27 years in prison—a reduction from 34—over tweets supporting activists peacefully challenging the guardianship system. The SCC charged and jailed Nourah al-Qahtani in 2022 for possessing a banned book by jailed dissident religious scholar Salman al-Ouda. In January 2023, the Riyadh Criminal Court heard charges against social media influencer Manahel al-Otaibi. They included publishing content related to abolishing the guardianship system that allegedly violated “public morals,” supporting activists who oppose guardianship, and dressing “improperly” according to religiously grounded guidelines. Abdulrahman al-Sadhan, whose sister is a U.S. citizen and critic of Saudi policy, remains jailed on a 20-year sentence for satirising religious officials.
All of this means that anyone who wants to speak out against repression in Saudi Arabia risks facing the same treatment by the authorities.
Saudi Arabian Amnesty Sub- Group
The examples of human rights cases mentioned have formed much of the work I am involved with as part of a specialist Amnesty Saudi Arabian Amnesty Sub- Group. There is also a local importance for two of the cases. Manahel’s sister is now based in Edinburgh and tirelessly campaigning for her. Salma Al-Shehab was a Leeds student and Abdul Rahman Al-Sadhan had his appeal against his sentence refused the same week that Newcastle United FC was taken over by a consortium of which the Saudi Arabia Public Investment Fund is a major part.
Over the last few years, we have engaged with the general public to gain support for the release of these human rights defenders. This isn’t an easy task when you are engaging with demographics of the public in a region which accepts millions of pounds in investment from the Saudi state, is home to a Premier League football club who has a fanbase that believes the development, status, success of this club (as well as the level of talent that is needed to do so) rests on how much money the club has to spend. The same attitude applies to some North East employees who believe that investment from Saudi is necessary in order to grow and develop Newcastle and subsequently the wider region.
Human Rights Organisations
The work of human rights organisations such as Amnesty International in trying to discover factual information about less vocal and more vulnerable Saudi citizens or migrant workers has become more difficult in recent years due to the risk of termination of employment or more seriously a risk to life – should anyone decide to speak out about any human rights violations they are experiencing.
A recent report about Noon, a Saudi Based online retailer was pulled together with the help of human rights organisation Equidem, who managed to source accounts of human rights violations of direct and indirect Noon employees. These men and women who work in low wage jobs are reported by Equidem to live in an environment of ‘little privacy, high surveillance and significant physical and mental stress;’ this resulted in Equidem having to report these accounts anonymously and using pseudonyms to protect their identity.
The Noon report
Treatment like this shouldn’t be happening in a state which is in theory a member of the UN, a member of the International Labor Organisation and has a commitment to four Geneva Conventions. In fact, the Noon report was published in the same month that the ILO released information that Saudi Arabia ratified the Promotional Framework for Occupational Safety and Health Convention – reflecting the states ‘commitment to ensuring the highest standards of safety and health in the workplace.’ This clearly contradicts what is actually happening in organisations who operate in or are owned by the state.
The employees emotional accounts of working for Noon details experiences of vulnerability, deception, restriction of movements, retention of identity documents, withholding of wages, debt bondage, abusive working conditions, unpaid overtime; all of which have led to serious health impacts of working in excessive heat (particularly kidney problems) and relentless national- based discrimination. Treatment of these workers has been described as human trafficking for labor exploitation by a broad range of human rights organisations.
It’s obvious to see then, why it is so difficult to discover human rights violations by the most in need- who are living and working in the State of Saudi Arabia. Too afraid to speak out, focused on making a living to offer financial support and security to their families at the risk of their own health. For them, the risk is too high to say anything.
So, who and what can protect them?
It has been questioned whether the UN Guiding Principles are fit for purpose – since as the title suggests – are just guidance and not legally binding.
But most progressive countries who are part of the UN also follow and implement human rights guidance when itcomes to business operations in their country. Saudi Arabia should and could have adopted The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights as a blueprint to ensure human rights are protected and promoted throughout business operations in the country.
The first part of the Guiding Principles outlines the states duty to protect against human rights within their territory and/or jurisdiction by third parties including business enterprises.
It mentions that the state should set out clearly that all businesses domiciled in their territory and/or jurisdiction respect human rights throughout their operations; enforce laws that are aimed at, or have the effect of, requiring business enterprises to respect human rights, and periodically to assess the adequacy of such laws and address any gaps and provide effective guidance to business enterprises on how to respect human rights throughout their operations.
When it comes to businesses, The UN Guiding Principles states that businesses have a responsibility to undertake human rights due diligence to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts. This should cover adverse human rights that businesses may cause or contribute through its activities, or which may be directly linked to its operations, products or services but its business relationships. In the event of a failure to take these steps, companies would be failing in their responsibility to respect human rights and expose themselves to claims for remedy, typically financial compensation, as well as suffering reputational damage.
Violation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights
Since Saudi Arabia refuses to adhere to the UDHR, it is no surprise that the organisation fails to implement any part of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and therefore in the example of Noon, any organisation doing business with the online retailer (which includes sponsorship deals) risks contributing to any human rights that both the organisation and state commit.
Not only does NUFC’s partnership with Noon violate the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, but it also violates the NUFC’s own modern day
slavery statement. The modern-day slavery statement is a document that is usually produced as part of an organisation’s human rights policy that is often derived from guidance such as The UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. It is often used as a reassurance to stakeholders, partners, employees and in the case of NUFC – fans.
NUFC’s modern day slavery statement that the club has on its website includes mention that “there is no modern slavery or human trafficking in our supply chains or in any part of our business”. This of course is in contradiction to the report published on 12th June 2024 by The Athletic , which details accounts by current and former Noon employees (who have worked both directly and via agencies). Furthermore, the article confirms that NUFC carried out due diligence on Noon and ‘remained supportive’ at the time the article was printed.
It is difficult to understand how NUFC’s operations are in contradiction to its own modern day slavery statement unless we know the due diligence that the club have used if human rights violations have not been discovered in their supply chain – before any contracts were signed with Noon and during the tenure of the partnership.
The human rights violations associated with Saudi Arabia have been long reported by human rights campaigners and press; and questions have been long asked about the ethical implications of NUFC accepting investment.
So why were no questions asked about the behaviours and practices of Noon and who should have been asking?
As far as I can see – there are around five different parties who could have raised questions about Noon sponsorship and made sure due diligence took place.
- NUFC owners, The Board and NUFC and the CEO
- The Directors of Marketing and anyone who heads-up sponsorship at NUFC
- HR and Corporate Social Responsibility Directors
- NUFC Supporters Trust
- The Fans Advisory Board
If directors and owners aren’t being accountable for the due diligence of organisations they are partnering with (and given that Noon is also owned by the PIF – the same organisation that owns NUFC ) there may well be a feeling amongst staff of ‘what’s the point ‘- if the state committing human rights abuses already own the majority of the club in the first place); then who could put pressure on them?
The Fans Advisory Board exists as an ‘inclusive and diverse’ forum to represent ‘the interest of supporters.’ How do they know what the NUFC supporter base thinks about Saudi Arabia’s involvement in the club with particular reference to the state’s track record in human rights. We know from the meetings of the Fans Advisory Board that the scope of the FAB does not include commercially sensitive matters which we take as sponsorship and business deals. But surely for the FAB to be effective in representing supporters’ views they should be included in these decisions and have the option to have their say before any deals take place.
Investments
The dilemma between investment into regions which are in need of cash injections for development and growth purposes vs the ethical implications of accepting money from states which are carrying out human rights violations isn’t really talked about as much as it should. It is a major barrier for human rights campaigners to harness support from locals at grassroots level in order to put pressure on key decision makers who are responsible for investment into their towns and cities.
There are many reports (and some very recent) about the implications of regions accepting investment from states committing human rights abuses and the local implication of doing so. In Manchester, reports of ethnic cleansing are taking place as a result of UAE backed property organisations going into partnership with councils and creating unaffordable housing in the city centre. There are observations that there is a system of states including Abu Dhabi and Saudi Arabia to build networks of key influencers through the channel of the football club and then diverse into other areas such as property and retail; in effect – cities are being sold to people who have a track record in repressing human rights.
Like the football clubs that are situated in these towns and cities; there aren’t any real suggestions about what the alternatives are for regions which are in need of urgent cash to operate on the same level as other parts of the UK and compete on a global stage.
For the sake of sustaining or improving local democracy and being involved in decision making processes which affect our local investments, is it time that we focused more on developing our local citizen voice; and in particular our local employee voice rather than to look at people in authority to ask the questions and make the changes for us?
BY: Rebecca Patterson
Human Rights Campaigner, Activist and Volunteer Member of the Amnesty Newcastle Saudi Arabia Sub-Group
