KHARTOUM, Sudan (AP) — Sudanese police fired tear gas and beat women protesting at the trial Tuesday of a female journalist who faces a flogging for wearing trousers in public.
Sudanese journalist Lubna Hussein could receive 40 lashes if found guilty of violating the country’s indecency law which follows a strict interpretation of Islam. The 43-year-old says the law is un-Islamic and ”oppressive,” and she’s trying to use her trial to rally support to change it.
”I am not afraid of flogging. … It’s about changing the law,” Hussein said, speaking to The Associated Press after a hearing Tuesday.
Hussein said she would take the issue all the way to Sudan’s constitutional court if necessary, but that if the court rules against her and orders the flogging, she’s ready ”to receive (even) 40,000 lashes” if that what it takes to abolish the law.
Hussein was among 13 women arrested July 3 in a raid by the public order police on a popular cafe in Khartoum. Ten of the women were fined and flogged two days later. But Hussein and two others decided to go to trial.
In an attempt to rally support, Hussein printed invitations to diplomats, international media, and activists to attend her trial which opened last week. She also resigned from her job in the U.N.’s public information office in Khartoum, declining the immunity that went along with the job to challenge the law.
Around 100 supporters, including many women in trousers as well as others in traditional dress, protested outside the court Tuesday.
And from another article:
Police have also cracked down on another woman journalist, Amal Habbani, who published an article in Ajrass al-Horreya newspaper (Bells of Freedom) entitled: “Lubna, a case of subduing a woman’s body.”
I am awed by Ms. Hussein’s courage and determination. She’s now been banned from leaving the country, either out of pure vindictiveness, or to make it harder for her to appear in the media.
Anne of Carversville (whose blog is all over this story) has posted an English-language translation of an interview with Lubna Hussein. In the interview, Ms. Hussein claims that three of the women lashed for wearing pants were teenagers, one as young as 16.
(The photos came from this AP photo gallery. The blog title quote came from this article.)
UPDATE: More commentary on this case:
SECOND UPDATE: Here’s a petition you can sign in support of Lubna Hussein.
Thank you so much! That’s really great of you to give me a mention. You see — I am checking every Google Alert. Anne
Thanks. I enjoyed the post and the interview. Ms. Hussein is courageous to stand up against this ridiculously vague law and it’s unjust and arbitrary enforcement. It makes me wonder if that’s just the tip of the iceburg, though. If a woman can’t even wear pants without being punished with lashings, are women in the Sudan allowed any freedom at all? Can they vote? Own property? Initiate divorce? Hopefully addressing this issue will inspire the women and men of the Sudan to address other issues as well.
This woman has courage. I am not familiar with Islamic Law but it does seem archaic to get a 40 lashes for wearing pants. I hope that she is successful in her pursuit! History has shown that those who stand up to be counted may not be immediately successful but with perseverance they will eventually prevail. I appreciate the article.
The History Man
http://wwwhistoryman.blogspot.com/
Pingback: “I aten’t dead yet” — a roundup « Modus dopens
What a shame.
I was put through the same situation.
They let me go though, but still, they did nothing but humiliate me and the other people around me.
*And this is just briefing the story, it’s much – much worse*.
I’m certain ‘ the feel of authority and superiority above others ‘ is what they really enjoy nothing else. Non of them take the job to actaully serve the country.
Instead of protecting their people from crime, poverty and rape, they are busy taunting and torturing the women! Let’s have someone lash their wives and children and wait for their reaction. Will it be silence? Just like they expect that out of citizens, let’s expect it from them too.
They should try avoiding any damage to the country’s reputation, yet they are inviting nothing but damage.
If we’re going to be advocating lashing anyone, shouldn’t it be the people who advocate abuse, rather than their wives and children?
It was an exagerrated comment. Oviously I mean no harm to them.
They wouldn’t accept it for their women of same blood, so why accept it for others?!
I hope you understand my point now.
If the “if clause” were satisfied, then the rhetorical question would be self-referential.
She is such a brave and courageous woman! We need more women like her to rise up and fight the injustices of the male-dominated system. It is really an encouragement for all of us around the world. I sincerely hope there will be a change, though the pessimistic part of me believes this kind of oppression will take another millennium to disappear… I mean, getting tortured for wearing pants? Where is the outrage over this kind of law? Much of this did not even get in the back-pages of my nation’s daily…
There have been similar cases that came to light recently in Malaysia…but of course, those women were facing caning for more ‘immoral’ things like drinking alcohol and adultery. What double-standards. I’m sure the government would not have blinked if the perpetrators were male.