Woman Takes on Sudan's Female No-Pants Law

(AP)  A Sudanese female journalist facing 40 lashes for wearing trousers in public in violation of the country's strict Islamic laws told a packed Khartoum courtroom Wednesday she is resigning from a U.N. job that grants her immunity so she can challenge the law on women's public dress code.

Lubna Hussein was among 13 women arrested July 3 in a raid by members of the public order police force on a popular Khartoum cafe for wearing trousers, considered indecent by the strict interpretation of Islamic law adopted by Sudan's Islamic regime. All but three of the women were flogged at a police station two days later.

But Hussein and two other women decided they wanted to go to trial and Hussein invited human rights workers, western diplomats and fellow journalists to Wednesday's hearing.

Some of her women friends showed up in court Wednesday wearing trousers in a show of support.

"This is not a case about me wearing pants," said Hussein, who works in the media department of the U.N. Mission in Sudan and contributes opinion pieces to a left-leaning Khartoum newspaper.

"This is a case about annulling the article that addresses women's dress code, under the title of indecent acts. This is my battle. This article is against the constitution and even against Islamic law itself," she said after the hearing.

Judge Mudathir Rashid adjourned the hearing until Aug. 4 to give Hussein time to quit her job.

Hussein said she would immediately quit and thanked the U.N. for intervening to spare her possible punishment.

She said the U.N. mission was trying to stand by her, invoking a clause in an agreement between the Sudanese government and the world body's representatives in Sudan that obliges authorities to ask permission before starting legal proceedings against a member of its staff.

Hussein's defense lawyer, Nabil Adeeb, said the U.N. wanted to protect its staff, but Hussein wanted her trial to proceed.

"We have contradicting interests," he said. Hussein can face at least 40 lashes, according to Adeeb.

Islamic Sharia law has been strictly implemented in Sudan since an army coup led by President Omar al-Bashir seized power in 1989, toppling an elected but ineffective government. Activists and lawyers say the implementation of the law is arbitrary.

Public order cases usually involve quick summary trials with sentences carried out shortly afterward, as was the case with the 10 of the 13 women arrested earlier this month. They were flogged and fined 250 Sudanese pounds, or about $120.

Women in the mostly Arabized and Muslim northern Sudan, particularly in the capital Khartoum, dress in traditional outfits that include a shawl over their head and shoulder. Western dress is uncommon.

Still, the raid on a Khartoum cafe popular with journalists and foreigners was unusual.

[gramto8]

They arrest these ladies for wearing pants, but look how many men in those countries wear 'dresses,' i.e. robes! Somehow their thinking is just FUBAR.

[formrusmcsgt]

Obviously, the percentage of really feminine women has gone down decade after decade.

If they want to look masculine, let 'em wear pants.

Spandex, however, in any size over 12 should be strictly banned......

[dwilson59]

Size 12 drop that by 4 to 8. On second thought if you have to ask someone "does this spandex look good" just dont get it or wear it.

[jellybaby99]

Bravo. The ones that open doors for future generations, who bear all risk, are among the bravest people on the planet.

[jankebenzone]

Extremist? Perhaps, but western culture is on the other end of the extreme scale where women can and do parade their wares wearing very revealing clothes or almost no clothes. And then the men get in trouble for wanting to handle the publicly flaunted and advertised goods. Thats like leaving food on the picnic table and expecting the bears to stay away. The smart campers hide the food to keep out unwanted feeders away.
Who are the wiser when it comes to dress code? Seems both the west and the east could use some moderation.

[doctor_know]

So you are saying that women should be only moderately oppressed in a perfect society?

[AnyWayYouSliceIt]

I actually went through the entire CBS registration and email confirmation process, just so I could reply to this comment. Feel special.

There are two really, really important things to note about your statement:

1) You call the aspects of a woman's body "wares" and "goods".
2) You liken men to bears attracted to food.

Think about these two points, and what it reveals about your mindset.

Men are not wild creatures, they are human beings with intellect and free will. They operate in society where absolute liberty is restrained in order to preserve order and avoid anarchy and chaos -- in the social contract, we control ourselves and agree not to do some things, in exchange for function and peace for the strongest and weakest alike.

To act like men are drooling beasts who are to be excused for trying to grope boobs like Homer Simpson chasing a donut is appalling. To act like you need to hide things from them so they won't grab them, as if they are children who cannot stop themselves from going after a cookie that they see, is condescending and unfair to men. Of course men "get in trouble for wanting to handle" another person's body. It's ANOTHER PERSON'S BODY. Men have forebrains and the ability -- and responsibility in society -- to use them. To hold them to the same standards as a wild bear is sexist and dense.

And speaking of sexist and dense, the "wares" and "goods" comment? No part of anyone's body is a ware or a good. Whether you feel it's being "advertised" or not does not change the fact that these are integral parts of a human being we're talking about, not a basket of apples.

If a man has a foot fetish and a woman wears sandals, that does not mean she's advertising her foot wares to him, even if she wears them because she thinks her feet look pretty. And it doesn't mean he should be excused for groping her feet without permission. It means he sees parts of this PERSON that he finds attractive, and it means he has to deal with that like an adult. And not like a bear.

Your comment is condescending to men, and objectifying to women. This has nothing to do with whether or not I find Western standards of (un)dress good or bad, and everything to do with how disappointed I am by your thought process. Please try thinking about men and women as men and women, not as beasts and advertised parts.

[shippg]

Why are pants scandalous? They aren't open at the bottom, like a dress or robe.

[doctor_know]

perhaps they are uncontrolably aroused by camel toe....

[tmittelstaed]

You should see what they do to men caught dressing as women.

They want women in dresses and men in pants because the morals police over there want to be able to stand in a public area and look at a crowd and at a glance be able to see if there's any women in a group that they think is supposed to be all men, or men in a group that they think is supposed to be all women.

The "official excuse" used is that you can see the shape of the woman's legs and that's immodest. But that obviously only applies to tight jeans, or spandex pants, not slacks like what Hussein was wearing.
What is even more telling is that Hussein was also wearing a Hijab
which wasn't required by law, either! So she has pretty much got an airtight case if they want to argue it along moral grounds.

The fact is though that Hussein almost certainly wants to appeal it up to the highest court, which would be forced into acquitting her because what she actually wore wasn't immodest according to Islamic, Sharia, and constitutional law. The problem from the government's point of view is that an acquittal weakens their ability to blindly tar all "pants-wearing" women as immodest, and they would have to start specifying what type of pants were immodest and what wern't - and so then the ability of a policeman to just look around in a crowd and identify women or men from their dress would be compromised. My guess is that this will be quitely dropped.

Think of it this way, suppose in the US we had a law that any convicted child molester would be fored to wear a yellow shirt with black stripes in public, the rest of their lives. Now along comes someone claiming that this is unconstitutional. I'm sure that a lot of people would be rather unhappy when the court ruled it unconstitutional.

[g_morgan]

I dunno...this story bothers me on several levels. First, why would a smart, young, muslim women risk 40 lashes by wearing pants in the first place? Ya gotta believe she knew the rules. Second, if she felt so strongly about wearing pants, why stay in a country where women in pants are forbidden? I'm reminded of an old Sam Kinison bit wherein he advises the audience to stop giving money to famine relief funds and instead advises the hungry to "move where the food is."

[doctor_know]

You do realize that the VAST majority of the Earth's population lacks the resources to move away from the town in which they were born, let alone move to another country..... What you are saying is like telling a black person "Hey, you don't like being treated differently because of your skin color, then just change your skin color already!"

[Kimbakat]

It's this kind of "lack of critical thinking" that is destroying the country.

[swmiller58]

The US needs to butt out of the business of other countries and the media needs to stop reporting junk about what is happening in other countries that is none of our business. Do I like what is happening in other countries, do I agree with what is happening in other countries...hell NO! But what happens there is none of our business just like what happens here is none of theirs. And this mindset that we need to be involved or it will be in our own backyard soon just does not hold water anymore. "IF" someone tries to bring their trash here, then we will deal with it...until then, it is none of our business. We need to take care of our own issues and the media needs to report more of what is going on in our own country and let us stay out of everyone else's business!

[docpeter1953]

I totally disagree with you, maybe.

Show me a photo of this woman in her pants, I may be willing to spank her.

[Slrman-21001573651763300012869]

swmiller, what an idiot you are. If you had the brains to pay even minimal attention to what is happening in the world today, you would see that the radical Islamists intend to impose their rule and laws upon everyone everywhere. Yes, it can and will happen in your back yard. Just ask the Dutch. By the time it does, it will be too late to deal with it. They will have already won. That will be due to the stupidity and ignorance of people like you.

[orinfagel]

Just another example of idiocy and macho men trying to prove their power...I'd love it if the women gained power and ruled over these barbarians.

[jwesel1]

What's wrong with imposing modesty?

[orinfagel]

Imposing (your words) is wrong anyway you put it. It implies force and subjective imposition. Modesty is in the eyes of the beholder. Pants, geeze, that is imodest?

[jwesel1]

So if you read outside an establishment "No shoes, No shirt, No service", isn't that imposing modesty.

[govwatch2]

Woman are possessions and they can order them anyway they want. If the Muslims want to join the world it will be the women that bring it about. Not that much different from the USA in the 1900.

[orinfagel]

We're getting over that and are getting better. Not at the zenith yet but progressing toward the better!