RE: https://mstdn.social/@Remittancegirl/116221646008456537

I have mixed feelings about this. I spent 20 years living in Vietnam, not photographing the things I was prohibited from photographing.

Because I was visitor. It wasn't my country, and I was allowed to live there under the forbearance of the government. So, you know, I obeyed their laws.

Dubai isn't a democracy. Your rights are whatever the government says they are. If that offends you, go home.

And yet I can understand that people living expat lives come to believe the rules don't apply to them. I saw it often, Westerners who believed themselves to be above the laws of the country that was hosting them.

And with smart phones it is very easy to think that because you can take a picture of anything, you should and have a right to.

But you don't.

Meanwhile, in the US, where you literally DO HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT to document ICE acting badly, they shoot you for it these days.

@Remittancegirl

One useful definition of a police state is one in which you are compelled to obey the police, not the law.

@EricLawton Outstanding definition

@Remittancegirl @EricLawton Isn't it just? Kinda like how it's not illegal to wear a mask at protests here in Britain...but it *is* illegal to refuse to remove a mask if asked to do at a designated protest location, by police.

Which, of course, makes it 👉🏼de facto👈🏼 illegal to wear a face covering should the cops arbitrarily decide they don't like the look of you.

Police state. 🤷🏻‍♂️

@[email protected] But that’s not an "expat". That’s a country that said: “We can’t live off oil forever. So we’re bending our own laws.” We’re courting tourists. They’re allowed to drink alcohol here. Women don’t have to wear veils. They’re allowed to kiss in public. The main thing is that they spend plenty of money here. Of course, this country can do that. But if it doesn’t consider that these tourists are used to being allowed to photograph everything, then problems can arise. They should have be prepared for that.

@Life_is Wait, are you inferring that their hypocrisy robs them of the right to apply their laws?

Because no matter where you live, governments behave hypocritically to attract investment.

@[email protected] but you might consider the effect on future commerce.

@Life_is

When a country is being bombed, it seldom has the foresight to think about future commerce.

@[email protected] (Germany at the Moment is doing everything to destroy trust by foreign investors, ExPats, Allys, whatever)

@Life_is ?

Sorry, I just don't see the connection.

@[email protected] Just an afterthought. Because it is particularly bad when the own country itself is not better.

@Remittancegirl I have seen it all my life traveling. I do the chameleon thing. Most seem to morph into the mythic creatures they can't be at home.

Entitlement.

@knowprose @Remittancegirl Oh my, I could spend hours ranting about expats in China ruining things for me (also an expat for the record). There was the English lady (though she identified as Scot because she lived there for two years) who *unironically* said things like "why are they not letting me to the head of the ticket line, can they not see I'm a foreigner?!"

And the extreme whining that starts when consequences strike!

@ZDL You just know how many times I saw similar things.

@knowprose

@Remittancegirl in the UK it is generally permissible to take photos of anything*from* public land, eg a road or path, or *from* private land with the landowner's permission even if the person of thing you are photographing is on private or government land. Seems some Brits assume this is the case in all countries when clearly it isn't.

@pthane Apparently so.

I cannot remember how often I had to stop a Western tourist, taking a picture of the Naval yards in HCMC and point out the incredibly LARGE PICTOGRAPHIC SIGN that indicated that photography was prohibited there.

I think they simply assume the rules don't apply to them. This is fairly typical western arrogance.

@Remittancegirl You don't have to go as far as Asia to see examples. Greek islands being small often have airfields shared by commercial flights and military use. No photography there. USians are notorious in Europe for assuming their laws and customs are universal and my fellow Brits are embarrassingly prone to offending local cultural norms by turning up at historic religious sites in shorts, tees or crop tops.
@Remittancegirl during my travels, I eventually learned that when people with uniforms and gyms tell you not to take photos of something, they usually mean it
@Remittancegirl
Even in a full democracy the legality of documenting targets hit by drones would be questionable. Supposing there's no explicit law, it might still be interpreted as an act of espionage.
@CosminOprescu @Remittancegirl Granting and denying rights is what every government does. Democracy is no protection, it's just a veil between the people and all out class war, and it's in tatters.

@Fishercat
Well, you're right, democracy is a thin veil; you can tell it's a dictatorship when the veil gets replaced by a a concrete wall.

@Remittancegirl

@CosminOprescu @Remittancegirl So.. Louis XVI, Nikolai II, Mohamed Reza Pahlavi.. not dictators?

@Fishercat
Definitely, dictators; sometimes the walls they build are not tall enough.

@Remittancegirl

@CosminOprescu @Fishercat

Well, democracies only function when the people living under them take responsibility for them.

The fact that 1/2 the fucking country wasn't out on the street protesting after Pretti's murder is proof of this.

People COULD get out and protest en mass, but they chose not to.

In non-democracies, you can't. You get shot.

@Remittancegirl @CosminOprescu

Protestors are murdered by every form of government. When the kleptigarchs feel like there's threat to their position, protesters get shot. To my mind, there's not a significant difference between those deaths being at a protest or in front of a firing squad.

Quelling protests, and making it clear that white privilege is no protection, was part of the point of killing Renee Good and Alex Pretti.

@Fishercat

Here you're absolutely wrong. Dictators are those who kill; thousands of people or more.

In democracy you might see tear gas or even rubber bullets but no mass shooting by police.

When protesters like Renee Good or Alex Pretti are killed, you know a country took its first step towards a totalitarian regime. The fact that people can still protest against those killings means it was *only* the first step.

@Remittancegirl

@CosminOprescu @Remittancegirl

There's certainly a difference in scale between dictatorships and democracies with respect to how many of their citizens they kill. That doesn't mean people in democracies are *safe* from being shot by their governments.

Tear gas and rubber bullets aren't harmless, and the murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti were absolutely not the first step the US took towards fascism. This has been building for decades.

It's not new, and it's not just the US.

https://www.aclu.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/lethal_in_disguise_inclo_single_page.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_siege

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2025/09/india-authorities-must-immediately-investigate-use-of-lethal-force-against-leh-protesters/

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/9/25/bloodiest-day-how-gen-z-protest-wave-hit-indias-ladakh-killing-four

@Fishercat

I agree, and this's why I believe crimes like those committed by ICE are the first sign a wannabe-dictator has started building 'walls'.

Anecdotal data is not reliable, for sure, but it's hard for me not to mention this:

@Remittancegirl

@Fishercat

I live in a country (Ro) that went from a horrific Stalinist dictatorship to being a self titled 'original democracy' to being a full EU member state, and all these in only one generation.

And now I realize the more democratic the country became, the safer protests became.

From machine gun shooting, to isolated incident, to being safe to take a kid to a protest.

@Remittancegirl

@CosminOprescu I remember the fall and winter of '89. With regimes falling and getting more violent ending in the shooting at the end of the Ceausescu era. You have come quite a way.

@snaefell

Yes, Romania was the only place where things got terribly violent, culminating in the execution of the dictator.

And looking at the fate of - for instance - Belarus, we can tell Ceausescu's attempt to cling to power was not entirely unrealistic, after all.

@CosminOprescu In Germany they were pretty close to shoot on demonstrators as well, but in the end luckily they decided against it.
The question what would have happened if Ceausescu would have still been around is another one. He wouldn't have handed over the power. See his final words, he saw himself still as the leader of Romania.

@snaefell The wannabe autocrat who ran Norway on behalf of the Nazis in WW2 considered himself "minister president" still when the war ended. He claimed his innocence until the firing squad shut him up.

@CosminOprescu

@veronica @CosminOprescu Pretty common theme among this kind of men (no gendering needed here).
@CosminOprescu @Fishercat @Remittancegirl hi. This is an interesting take.
In France the protests are getting more and more dangerous (and not because of the protestors...)
I guess it means we are a failing democracy now...

@benjamin

Please, let us not pretend that, for most of history under democracies, it has ever been completely safe to protest.
The short periods when it has been completely safe have been the exceptions, not the rule.
@CosminOprescu @Fishercat

@Remittancegirl

That's clearly true, and what I believe is that the more democratically a country is the safest the protests are.

It doesn't mean once a country is labelled as a democracy the protests become 100% safe.

And the problem is we see democracy as a binary status, when, instead, it is more like a spectrum.

@benjamin @Fishercat

@Remittancegirl The law literally changes daily, whatever you thnk the law is ... it isn't
@racingdaily Are you talking about Dubai or elsewhere?
@Remittancegirl Saudi, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar. They are all the same, tyrannies where diktats are dreamt up on the fly by the crown ruler. I'm sure they make acceptions in Dubai however, based on the number of zeros in your bank balance. Dont hold hands, for example. Public shows of affection are illegal. Don't pat a friend on the back, you will be looking at a sexual assault charge. Just two lunatic laws

@racingdaily Yup. None of them are democracies, nor do they claim to be.

And while their citizens have every right to try and change that, a visitor, an expat on a residency permit... does not.

Because they don't have to stay and suck up the consequences.

@Remittancegirl I apologize; I hijacked your thread.

You were talking about your mixed feelings WRT being a good guest(?) in another country, and suppression of information (I think).

@Remittancegirl Even if Dubai were a democracy your rights would be whatever the elected governments would say they are. Visiting a democratic (FSVO "democracy") country doesn't eliminate your need to obey local laws, after all.
@ZDL Indeed! However, when it's your own country AND a democracy, there are mechanisms by which you can interrogate and perhaps change laws.