Homs “non-fasters” video sparks debate over privacy and digital shaming

An incident inside neighborhoods of Homs has sparked widespread controversy after video clips circulated online, inside a café, a tourist venue, showing patrons smoking, eating, and drinking. The footage was later published publicly to shame them under the title “criticizing those who break the fast during Ramadan.”

The incident quickly spread across social media, reviving debate over the limits of personal freedom, legal rights related to privacy, and how religious and social discourse can turn into a tool of pressure or incitement against individuals in public spaces.

Filming without consent

Critics of the circulated video said that an activist entered a café in Homs and filmed patrons without their knowledge, then posted the footage on Facebook accompanied by comments condemning those not fasting during Ramadan, describing this as a “clear legal and ethical violation.”

This marks the second consecutive year in which reports of public eating during Ramadan and the use of social media as a tool for public shaming have resurfaced, raising deeper questions about the limits set by Syrian law to protect individual privacy.

Legal opinion: Publishing the video is a cybercrime

Syrian lawyer and legal expert in cybercrime cases, Mohammad Dahya, explained that the act falls under the Cybercrime Law for several reasons:

• Filming without consent: Syrian law prohibits photographing individuals in public or semi-public places if the intent is to harm or damage their reputation, even if the place is not private.
• Publishing with intent to defame: Sharing such clips online to condemn or incite against individuals constitutes a punishable offense under provisions related to harmful electronic publication.
• Criminal intent: The accompanying captions, such as “criticizing those who break the fast,” indicate that the purpose was defamation rather than neutral documentation or critique.

Dahya stressed that Syrian law prohibits photographing individuals without their permission, particularly if the goal is to harm their reputation or privacy. Even if the scene takes place in a tourist facility, publishing it with the intent of defamation elevates the act to a criminal offense.

He added that publishing such content online falls under provisions criminalizing harmful electronic publication in the Cybercrime Law, which penalizes sharing images or videos of individuals without their consent with the aim of causing psychological or social harm.

Criminal intent

The law requires the presence of intent, which Dahya says is clearly established in this case through the video’s caption on Facebook, “criticizing those who break the fast during Ramadan,” proving that the act was not incidental recording but deliberate defamation and incitement.

Regarding publishing personal information or images without consent, Dahya noted that under earlier Syrian laws, such as Legislative Decree No. 17 of 2012, penalties include imprisonment from one to six months and fines if privacy is violated, even if the information is accurate.

Under the more recent Cybercrime Law No. 20 of 2022, penalties have been expanded to cover various forms of harm linked to online publication, including content intended to insult, defame, or harm others.

These provisions apply to anyone publishing content via digital networks that violates decency, privacy, or calls for harming others’ reputations.

Penalties under the law

According to the Cybercrime Law, anyone who publishes private information, images, or videos without consent via the internet may face imprisonment from one to six months, along with a fine determined by the severity of harm.

If the content is considered “indecent or against public morals,” penalties may increase to:

• Two to three years in prison

• A fine ranging between 3 and 4 million Syrian pounds, about $252 to $336 at an exchange rate of SYP 11,900 to the dollar.

If the act targets a minor, the penalty may rise to five to seven years in prison with higher fines, especially if additional harm is caused to individuals or families appearing in the footage.

Public eating during Ramadan, what does the law say?

A review of Syrian legal texts shows that there is no explicit article criminalizing public eating during Ramadan. Claims that Article 208 of the Syrian Penal Code punishes public non-fasting are incorrect, as the article relates to defining methods of publicity in criminal acts.

In other words, Syrian law does not contain a clear provision criminalizing breaking the fast during Ramadan in general, nor does it prescribe a specific penalty for individuals who do so for personal reasons.

However, some legal provisions may be applied indirectly in certain cases, according to Dahya, including:

1. Article 462, inciting sectarian strife
   This article penalizes acts or statements that provoke conflict or tension between religious groups. It may be applied if public eating is done provocatively with intent to offend religious sentiments.
2. Article 463, insulting religious rituals
   This penalizes public acts that offend religious practices or show contempt for religion. In some cases, deliberate public eating in front of fasting individuals may be interpreted as an infringement if accompanied by offensive behavior.

Chewing gum led to detention

Earlier in March, a female employee in al-Salamiyah (in Hama governorate, central Syria) was detained for chewing gum during working hours in Ramadan, which was considered “publicly breaking the fast.”

The detention lasted about five hours before she was released following mediation efforts.

The detention was based on Article 517 of the Syrian Penal Code related to public decency violations, which theoretically carries a penalty ranging from three months to two years in prison.

Ottoman roots of punishing non-fasting

According to Dahya, during the Ottoman era, there was no modern penal code as in contemporary states. The legal system combined Islamic law, sultanic regulations, and local customs.

Before Ramadan, the Sultan would issue a directive known as “Ramadan Tanbihname,” which included instructions to preserve the sanctity of the month, such as:

• Prohibiting eating and drinking in public during daytime
• Encouraging adherence to prayer and public morals
• Monitoring markets and prices

Penalties for public non-fasting were not fixed in a single legal text but fell under discretionary punishments imposed by authorities, including:

• Temporary detention
• Shaving the head
• Release on Eid following a general pardon by the Sultan
• Flogging in some cases
• Administrative penalties such as closing shops serving food during the day

These measures were particularly enforced when eating occurred publicly, as it was considered a violation of religious public order.

In some Arab countries today, public eating during Ramadan remains punishable, such as in Jordan, where penalties include up to one month in prison or a fine, and in Kuwait, the UAE, and Qatar, where fines or imprisonment may apply.

The post Homs “non-fasters” video sparks debate over privacy and digital shaming appeared first on Enab Baladi.