To sum up the relevant events as briefly as I can, the journalist Lubna Ahmed Hussein was arrested in a Khartoum restaurant in July, along with 12 other women, including non-Muslims, who were "indecently" attired in trousers. Some of the women were prosecuted immediately , lashed and fined. Lubna insisted on calling a lawyer and wants her case to go to full trial. Later she resigned her UN status, which would have given her immunity from prosecution. She feels that she is fighting for all Sudanese women. If convicted, Lubna could be flogged 40 times. Her trial today was adjourned. I understand that only the French Govenment has condemned the initial floggings.
Lubna's "indecent" or "disrespectful" attire was this:
As I understand it, this is perfectly acceptable female attire to most Muslims. But even if it were not, men cannot dictate to women what they may and may not wear and I don't care whether the man in question is The Pope, a Muslim cleric, a fashion designer or Joe Bloggs down the road. Interestingly, the US Embassy to the Holy See seems to think the Vatican has a "no pants" rule for women, whereas the Vatican itself claims it doesn't!
When men impose dress rules upon women and mix these up with their own ideals of "purity", or of a "woman's place", using "religion" or political doctrine to justify them, nothing but unhappiness for both sexes can ensue.
What is the first thing an extreme right-wing faction does after taking power by violent means? It gains control of the media. And what is the second thing? It attempts to control its nation's women. Women are told in no uncertain terms that they cannot wear trousers [Chile], that their place is in the home [Mussolini, Franco] and from there it becomes clear that they have no rights. Dictators fear the power of words and they also fear women.
Why? Long before 9/11 and its consequences I read a book called The Harem Within by Fatima Mernissi. Much of this book consists of charming tales of the author's childhood in 1940s Fez but always she is questioning the concept of the harem and wondering why it is the men, not the women, who walk freely. In a footnote she explains that "domestic" harems were really extended families who continued the tradition of secluding women. She writes:
"What defines a harem is not polygamy, but the men's desire to seclude their wives."
Be secluded or completely cover yourself: women have to be hidden in some way and all this, the men would have us believe, is done to "protect" women. Think about it for a minute: how can a state defend polygamy and claim to be protecting women? Mernissi writes:
"The fundamentalist press's defence of polygamy and divorce is in fact an attack against the right of women to participate in the law-making process. "
[Bear with me, reader - I'm getting there!]
And:
"But that historical heritage [that of early Islam's anti-slavery stance] did not influence the position of some of the conservative Arab leaders who resisted the slavery ban by camouflaging it as an attack on the 'umma', the Muslim community, which is exactly what they are doing today with women's rights. They know too well that they cannot promote democracy without liberating women. Their resistance to women's rights is in fact a rejection of democratic principles and human rights." [My italics.]
I have thought that that was the key since I first read it in 1994. Therefore it is for democracy and for human rights that I ask you, today, to support Lubna Ahmed Hussein. There is a campaign on facebook and advice on other measures you can take here.
Finally, do take a few minutes to listen to this interview with Lubna. I am quite proud that it was a BBC woman journalist who asked the $64,000 question!
Thank you.
