As soon as Arabs started using the internet their rulers started hankering after ways to control it – almost invariably making themselves look silly and out-of-touch in the process. 

Saudi Arabia, as might be expected, was one of the front-runners in internet paranoia and the kingdom's first rules for internet usersin 2001 were a classic of the genre. Among many other things, the public were forbidden from even looking at web pages containing "subversive ideas".

Now, more than a decade later – and undeterred by all the previous failed attempts – Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nahyan, president of the UAE, has issued Federal Legal Decree No 5, described as "the most detailed piece of legislation" ever promulgated in the Gulf on the subject of "cyber crimes".

Ali al-Jarman, a partner in the Dubai law firm Prestige Advocates,enthuses about it in The National. "This new law has managed to encompass everything needed to safeguard against the possible violations that can take place in this rapidly evolving technology," he is quoted as saying.

Gulf News describes the new law point by point (Arabic versionhere) but it can be summarised very simply by saying that use of the internet for anything the authorities happen to dislike can land you in jail. 

For example, it is an imprisonable offence to "call for the engagement in or the promotion of sins" or to "call for demonstrations, marches and similar activities without a licence being obtained in advance". 

Offenders can also be detained for unlimited periods in "a rehabilitation centre or a treatment facility".

One effect of the decree is to ban online political dissent. It forbids the use of "information technology" to "deride or to damage the reputation or the stature of the state or any of its institutions, its President, the Vice President, any of the Rulers of the emirates, their Crown Princes, the Deputy Rulers, the national flag, the national anthem, the emblem of the state or any of its symbols," along with anything that might damage "social peace".

This includes cartoons that pose "threats" to the "highest interests" of the state.

It is also a crime to provide, via information technology, "inaccurate or incorrect information" that might harm the "reputation and stature" of the state.

Of course, laws such as this reflect a more generalised problem with legislation in authoritarian states. Decrees are issued from on high without much public scrutiny or prior debate – and the result is unrealistic provisions that are impossible to enforce, along with sloppy drafting that leaves judges free to interpret the rules more or less as they like.

There is often an implicit assumption, too, that the internet is somehow special and distinct from everyday life. This can be seen in the new UAE law which also legislates against using the internet for unauthorised trade in firearms, human trafficking, terrorism, invasion of privacy, etc, etc. 

There is no need for that. Existing laws ought to cover trade in firearms, human trafficking, terrorism and the like, regardless of whether the internet is involved or not.

Ultimately, laws are useless unless there is compliance by the public – and this one is likely to be widely flouted, bringing ridicule upon its Canute-like authors. As one comment on Twitter put it:

"UAEs new internet law basically bans the internet. It would be scary, if the UAE was actually ruled by law."