Defending the Riyadh Comedy Festival is very naive Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

In his latest essay, Omid Jalili makes the case for the power of comedy to bring about progressive cultural change, and this forms part of his justification for performing at the Riyadh Comedy Festival (I was criticized for being part of the Riyadh Comedy Festival. That’s why I did it, October 8).

This may be so, although such power would be minimal, filtered not only by official censorship but by the knowledge that any truly challenging topic will go unaddressed. The concept is that the performers won’t rock the boat, so it seems unconvincing to justify participation on the basis that the boat might be rocked a bit in vague, harmless ways.

There is also a rejection of the idea that highly paid comedians like Dave Chappelle would perform for money. However, many wealthy people are looking for opportunities to acquire more wealth. Another participant explicitly said that he was offered enough money to “look the other way.”

Finally, Jalili says perhaps people should visit the area first before criticizing it. This is a nice feeling, but my existence as a gay person is criminal in Saudi Arabia, subject to corporal punishment and even execution. Visiting is neither safe nor recommended.

When a public figure enters into a contract with a host, it is a mutually beneficial bond. The host here is guilty of heinous human rights violations and murders of people like me. I fear that the benefit you see from these reservations is to wash your international reputation.
Jewel Sport
Ealing, London

Omid Djalili’s defense that performing in Riyadh helps “expand the imaginable” is extremely naive. His attempt to place the moral burden on critics, implying that they simply don’t understand the nuance, or are bitter that they weren’t invited, is arrogant and dismissive.

By appearing at a state-sponsored festival, he is helping to purge a government that continues to imprison critics and suppress basic freedoms. A little laughter in a controlled environment does not challenge this reality, but only helps an oppressive regime acquit itself as progressive while silencing dissent elsewhere.

Comedy can be brave, but not when it is orchestrated by those in power, who only invite uncritical voices to perform. After rejecting Saudi concerts for 15 years, what has changed: the regime or Jalili’s willingness to look away?
Peter Burgess
Liverpool

I completely agree with Omid Jalili’s position. I went to Libya in 2006 during the Gaddafi era to work, and I was treated with nothing but respect from ordinary people. They wanted to talk to me, they wanted to practice their English, they wanted to know my perceptions of Libya, and they wanted to learn about the UK from someone who lives there. They wanted to talk to me about Pink Floyd, for example. It was a powerful reminder, Jalili says, that the people of a country are not its government.

By building stronger cultural connections between people from different countries, we stand the best long-term chance of improving governments around the world. He is also right to point out that change happens in degrees, and by pointing out commonalities in humanity and laughing together about them, we become more willing to listen to each other’s point of view. Most of his audience in Riyadh may have been young people, but some of them will grow up and hold government positions in the future.
Mike Hersey
London