Human Rights Watch ‘Cannot Accept’ Donations From Aziz Ansari and Other Comedians Who Performed at Riyadh Comedy Festival

While defending his decision to perform at the controversial, state-sponsored Riyadh Comedy Festival in Saudi Arabia, Aziz Ansari said he planned to donate “part of the fee” to “causes that support free press and human rights,” listing Reporters Without Borders and Human Rights Watch, which has long been critical of the comedy festival and the Saudi regime.

But in a statement to Variety, a spokesperson for Human Rights Watch said the organization “cannot accept” donations from Ansari and other comedians who have “generously offered to donate part of their performance fees.” (Jessica Kirson said “I deeply regret” performing at Riyadh Comedy Festival and committed to donating the entirety of her fee to an undisclosed human rights organization.)

Michael Mann Calls 'Heat' an Ensemble Film, Not Only Al Pacino Movie at Busan Masterclass, Sequel 'Possibly Shooting in 2026' “But while we cannot accept, it is not too late for them to call for the release of detained Saudi activists,” said Joey Shea, Saudi Arabia researcher at Human Rights Watch. She added: “Human Rights Watch didn’t call for comedians to boycott the Riyadh Comedy Festival, but simply asked them to express their support for free speech by urging the release of Saudi activists unjustly imprisoned.”

In September, Shea put out a similar statement calling attention to the Saudi Arabian government’s murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018. “Comedians receiving hefty sums from Saudi authorities shouldn’t be silent on prohibited topics in Saudi like human rights or free speech,” Shea said. “Everyone performing in Riyadh should use this high-profile opportunity to call for the release of detained Saudi activists.”

Arvind Ganesan, Human Rights Watch’s head of economic justice and rights division who also oversees the organization’s fundraising policy, tells Variety that HRW is “very mindful of our independence and objectivity” and cannot take government funding either directly or indirectly. The org is also “very careful” about private funding as well.

“We have been critical of the comedians, including Mr. Ansari, who are performing in Saudi Arabia [because of] the government’s human rights record,” Ganesan says. If the HRW accepted money from those comedians, “it could create the perception that somehow we compromised our independence after the fact.” He adds that to his knowledge, HRW has not been contacted by, nor received money from, any of the Riyadh performers.

On his late-night show on Tuesday, Jimmy Kimmel grilled Ansari for his decision to perform at Riyadh Comedy Festival. “It’s a pretty brutal regime,” Kimmel said of the Islamic kingdom led by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. “They’ve done a lot of horrible, horrible things.”

Ansari said he “put a lot of thought” into the decision and concluded: “A comedy festival felt like something that’s pushing things to be more open and to push a dialogue. You kind of have to make a choice of whether you’re going to isolate or engage. For me, especially being me and looking the way I do and being from a Muslim background, it felt like something I should be a part of.”

The Riyadh Comedy Festival ran from Sept. 26 to Oct. 9 and drew a sharp divide between the A-list comedians accepting large sums of money to perform — including Dave Chappelle, Bill Burr, Louis C.K. and Pete Davidson — and those who said they turned down offers, like Shane Gillis and Atsuko Okatsuka. (Sources told Variety that comedian paydays ranged from mid-six-figures up to $1.6 million for one show.)

Okatsuka revealed on X that she declined to perform at Riyadh Comedy Festival because “the money is coming straight from the Crown Prince, who actively executes journalists, [people with non-lethal] drug offenses, bloggers, etc w/out due process.” She included screenshots of an offer letter including an alleged “content restrictions” section meant to prohibit comedians from joking about the Saudi government, legal system or religious customs.

David Cross penned a statement slamming fellow comedians who participated in the festival, writing: “How can any of us take any of you seriously ever again? All of your bitching about ‘cancel culture’ and ‘freedom of speech’ and all that shit? Done. You don’t get to talk about it ever again. By now we’ve all seen the contract you had to sign.”

Meanwhile, many high-profile comedians have defended their decision to play the festival. Burr called it “one of the top three experiences I’ve had,” saying “the royals loved the show.” C.K. said it was a “good opportunity” and “comedy is a great way to get in and start talking.” Chappelle quipped onstage in Saudi Arabia that “it’s easier to talk here than it is in America.”

As Human Rights Watch pointed out in a press release on Wednesday, “Chappelle has not publicly commented on Saudi Arabia’s human rights abuses.”

Decades ago, my son worked for Bechtel in Saudi Arabia to help set up their computer systems, He told me that the Saudis were really nice to Americans and he had a lot of fun while earning a lot of money.

He took vacations too. Flew out on Saudi Air. The minute they crossed the boundary of Saudi, off came the veils, out came the drinks, and the Saudis partied with Americans, and in any country they were visiting.

Not sure where you’re heading with that comment.

You now have what I think a reformer in power that’s trying to advance the place not just technology, but also socially. You have seen many changes, some as with him going after many of the more extreme Wahhabists aren’t just some show (that’s the sort of stuff that could backfire on MBS - he’s sticking his neck out).

Do we see them as a despot totalitarian regime, a Kingdom (a royal family put in power by the Brits and it actually should be a Hashemite king not the Saud family) that hacks people apart, oppressing others, spreading radical ideology? Or do we see them as a trying to evolve and help those spearheading these changes along? Cutting them off or pressuring them to much will only help the retrograde forces in that country.

What I meant should be obvious — the criticism about the KSA being uniquely all icky and police-statey is clearly just about the death of that Washington ComPost Islamofascist.

To expand on that, it’s also grossly hypocritical, considering the number of police states in the world, some of which are merely in a different faction from that of the KSA’s current regime.

I’m sure. I’ve heard that the planes are nice.

That’s also the reason a number of very wealthy Saudis consider themselves good citizens, but maintain residences outside the country, and that’s where they spend their time. They also make sure their progeny get their higher education (and sometimes earlier schooling) outside the KSA.

When the fake, self-appointed ‘mahdi’ led that uprising and seized the grand mosque, back in the 1970s, the KSA brought in foreign specialists (that is, very experienced military advisors) to get the Saudi military and police on track. Prior to that it was rare to allow non-muzzies into Mecca.

Survivors of the rebels were in part from outside the country and were deported, including those sent back to the US. But all of them were paraded by the corpse of the so-called mahdi, just to show them he was not of the so-called prophecies.

At the risk of sounding hippy, I would say we are dangerously close to that ourselves.

We are smarter or apply it differently than most. In fact, most copy us!

They stick the surveillance state in the peoples face, brag about it, to intimidate. Probably because most despots want people afraid. They want the people to feel big brother is watching them (why the despot has his picture/image everywhere in these countries).

We do it in the background and even slap classified labels all over it. The people are not aware and/or apathetic of just how little privacy they truly have, how much censorship or government propaganda there really is at this point, what sort of powers government has given itself (in the name of public safety, national security, etc) in flagrant violation of basic Constitutional principles.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.