Public Morality Agency in Eastern Libya Bans Filming and Marketing of Female Activities
The decision by the Public Morality Agency in eastern Libya to ban content creators and store owners from filming or marketing any female activities has sparked a wave of controversy in the country. While some Libyans believe it is a measure to respect customs and traditions, others see it as a new attempt to restrict women and confiscate their freedoms.
Background
The Public Morality Agency in Benghazi has called on all owners of commercial activities, particularly cosmetic stores, women's clothing stores, beauty salons, women's sports centers, and spas (including hammams, facial care, and massages), to refrain from filming or publishing any promotional material for activities, products, or stores without obtaining prior permission.
"Preservation of Public Taste"
In a statement released last night, Sunday, the Agency explained that this measure aims to "preserve public taste and control any visual content published that could harm customs and traditions."
Reactions
However, this decision has been met with a wide debate on social media. Human rights activist Abir Amnina warned against restricting or banning female activities without a clear legal framework, considering the decision to be ambiguous and opening the door to interpretations that could affect women's work in advertising, photography, and beauty.
She emphasized the need to shift the debate from the sphere of security restrictions to that of legal regulation of advertising company activities for both sexes. She also noted the importance of raising fundamental questions about the tax and legal situation of these activities, rather than focusing on measures that could be interpreted as restricting freedoms.
Activist Belaïd Belaïd, on the other hand, strongly supported the decision, considering the use of women for advertising purposes to be an insult to women and society, as well as an overstepping of values, emphasizing that women are "pearls and not commodities to be sold."
In contrast, activist Abir Al-Arabi estimated that the "vague terms" contained in the Public Morality Agency's decision, such as public morality, customs, and traditions, and harm to public decency, are used by security agencies as a pretext to confiscate public and individual freedoms.
He considered it an "abuse and restriction of individuals' lives, particularly women, and commercial activities, by an agency with vast powers to exercise its moral guardianship over society."
