« | »

NOW Silent On ‘Lashings For Trousers’

From the Agence France-Pressee:

Sudan court adjourns ‘lashes for trousers’ case

By Peter Martell (AFP)

KHARTOUM — A Sudanese court on Wednesday adjourned the case of a woman journalist facing 40 lashes for wearing "indecent" trousers, with 10 women already whipped for similar offences against Islamic law.

The judge deferred the case to Tuesday after Lubna Ahmed al-Hussein, who works for the left-wing Al-Sahafa newspaper and for the media department of the United Nations Mission in Sudan, waived the immunity given to UN workers.

"The court gave Lubna the choice either to accept immunity from the UN or to waive that and go on with the trial," her lawyer Nabil Adeeb told AFP.

"I wish to resign from the UN, I wish this court case to continue," Hussein told a packed courtroom before the judge adjourned the case to August 4.

Hussein, who wears a hijab or Islamic headscarf, faces 40 lashes and a fine of 250 Sudanese pounds (100 dollars) if found guilty.

She wore the same clothes to court as when she was arrested — moss-green slacks with a loose floral top and green headscarf.

She waved defiantly to crowds as she left the court.

Hussein said she was at a restaurant on July 3 when police came in and ordered 13 women wearing trousers to follow them to the police station.

Ten of the women were summoned to a police station two days later and were lashed 10 times each, according to Hussein.

The women whipped earlier this month included some from animist and Christian south Sudan where the Muslim north’s Islamic or sharia law does not apply.

Scores of people crammed into the courthouse to hear the ruling, many of them female supporters — some of them also wearing trousers out of solidarity.

Some held up placards on the street outside. "A woman is not for flogging," read one in Arabic.

"We are here to support Lubna, because this treatment of women is arbitrary and not correct," said Zuhal Mohammed Elamin, a law professor in Khartoum. "Women should not be humiliated in this manner."

Police have also cracked down on another woman journalist, Amal Habbani, after she wrote an article condemning Hussein’s treatment.

Habbani wrote an article for Ajrass Al-Horreya newspaper following the arrests entitled "Lubna, a case of subduing a woman’s body."

"I am waiting for a decision," Habbani told AFP after she was charged with defaming police, a charge which can carry a fine of up to several hundred thousand dollars

Unlike many other Arab countries, particularly in the Gulf, women have a prominent place in Sudanese public life. Nevertheless, human rights organisations say some of Sudan’s laws discriminate against women.

In December 2007, British teacher Gillian Gibbons faced 40 lashes after being convicted of insulting religion by allowing her pupils to name a teddy bear Mohammed.

Gibbons, 54 at the time, was eventually sentenced to 15 days in prison but was pardoned by Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir following the mediation of two Muslim members of Britain’s upper house of parliament.

As the article notes, the Sudanese wanted to give a middle-aged British teacher 40 lashes for letting her class name a Teddy Bear Mohammed.

Still, this woman’s case has been in the news for several weeks now. And yet there has yet to be a press release from the National Organization For Woman.

Instead, their ‘hot topic’ at the moment is getting Single-Payer Healthcare rammed through Congress:

Urge House Members Today to Support Single-Payer

The House of Representative may vote this week on its bill (America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, H.R. 3200) to reform our dysfunctional health care system. Act NOW to keep state single-payer options in this important piece of health care reform legislation! …

And what is more amazing, at least according to the AFP, the woman in question is a leftist and she works for the Unite Nations. In other words, she is one of their own.

If NOW won’t go to bat for people like her, who will they protect?

"I am waiting for a decision," Habbani told AFP after she was charged with defaming police, a charge which can carry a fine of up to several hundred thousand dollars.

Note to Mr. Gates: stay out of the Sudan.

(Thanks to ArtboyUSA for the heads up.)

This article was posted by Steve on Wednesday, July 29th, 2009. Comments are currently closed.

18 Responses to “NOW Silent On ‘Lashings For Trousers’”

  1. artboyusa says:

    Sudanese woman ‘faces 40 lashes’
    A Sudanese woman who is due to appear in court in Khartoum says she faces up to 40 lashes for wearing trousers.

    The woman, Lubna Hussein – a former journalist who now works for the United Nations – has invited journalists and observers to the trial.

    She was arrested in a restaurant in the capital with other women earlier this month for wearing “indecent” clothing.

    She said 10 of the women arrested, including non-Muslims, later each received 10 lashes and a fine of $100.

    Ms Hussein and two other women asked for a lawyer, delaying their trials.

    Now Ms Hussein has printed 500 invitation cards and sent out e-mails, saying she wants as many people as possible to attend her hearing on Wednesday.

    She says she has done nothing wrong under Sharia law, but could fall foul of a paragraph in Sudanese criminal law which forbids indecent clothing.

    “I want to change this law, because this law doesn’t match in constitution,” she told the BBC…http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8173714.stm

    Brave woman. Let’s hope for the best for her.

  2. GL0120 says:

    I’m taking a collection to send Hillary to the Sudan, anyone care to contribute?

  3. Yarddog1 says:

    Any trousers are indecent on the “Beast”. They should come equipped with “Wide Load” stenciled on the back.

  4. catie says:

    It amazes me that these feminazis are so silent on incidents such as this. I bet a thousand bucks though that if it had something to do with abortion, they’d be on it quickly. These so called women make me sick.

  5. beautyofreason says:

    Isn’t Shariah law respectful to women?

    In Sudan several females, including a pregnant woman, were stoned to death after being convicted of adultery in courts. In Somalia, 13-year-old victim Asha Ibrahim Dhuhulow was stoned to death after she had been gang raped and her aunt reported it. The mob called her a whore. In Iran the prison guards drug and rape females the night before their execution after “temporary marriages” allowed under Iranisn Shariah law, because it is believed that virgins will go to heaven. In Pakistan doctors warn rape victims not to go to the police because it is likely that the police will sexually assault them.

    Thanks leftists. They courageously stand in front of podiums and preach against non-existent discrimination against the headscarf and Muslim dress in the United States, just as Obama did in Cairo (where FGM happens). They cozy up to groups that do not believe in gender equality, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, or separation of religion from the state. I still remember when the NYT published a cozy articles about Shariah finance under Bush. Let’s see how long liberals can feign decency while having no principles whatsoever.

    I’m convinced that Susan B. Anthony would be appalled by the left today. The liberal perspective tends to be relativistic on matters of culture and other countries – it’s the sort of anti-Western, anthropological distance that allowed Obama’s mother to remain in Indonesia and to disassociate herself from the United States.

    • neocon mom says:

      Seriously, do you think the feminist movement was really ever anything but a bunch of bitter, eugenics loving, self-righteous, shrill, shallow, vengeance-oriented hags?

      What group of people have they helped? For whom have the feminists ever made life any easier?

    • beautyofreason says:

      Hi neocon mom. :)

      I think the Western feminist movement today has become leftist theory as opposed than anything practical. There is a lot of laughable theory about gender in women’s studies and so-called “third wave feminism” has a strange obsession with childlessness and lesbians. I think that original feminism had a lot going for it in the early days, under Susan B. Anthony and during the campaign to win women the right to vote….the right to access contraception…and the right to enter top universities that were traditionally reserved for men (Harvard, Princeton, etc). I’m glad that I’m a female living today instead of, say, 1900.

      I think feminism has morphed, through the sixties onward, into what you humorously described. Today’s feminism is largely a mantra from the left that lacks substance. It too often mistakes promiscuity for equality. It tends to loathe marriage. It ignores how great we have it in the United States….and how badly women are treated in Islamic countries.

      I remember when Obama introduced himself as a feminist at a party during his campaign trail. It clearly didn’t affect his consideration of women. He never once condemns Shariah law, the horrid practice of FGM in Egypt where he spoke, nor did it moderate his blessing of the “wise and gracious” Saudi monarch (in Saudi they lash rape victims as adulterers, sentenced a woman to death for witchcraft because she had a white powder on her robes, and women are fully segregated in public).

      I want the real feminists back. Not modern whiners who loathe men and favor government quotas / caps, but the normal women who speak out against Shariah law and it’s treatment of women. Many of those people, I think, are on the conservative side. Sarah Palin may be one good example, but there are certainly others. Those are my two cents. :)

    • neocon mom says:

      I hear you and although I think we ought never take any of our freedoms for granted in this great nation, I also think that it’s telling that the women’s rights movement didn’t split, it morphed into something repellent. I can tolerate someone like Sandra Day O’Connor reminding everyone what it was like for her after graduating from law school, about how far we’ve actually come (she was only offered work as a secretary initially). But one Sunday at Duke Chapel my husband and I had to endure a “sermon” (that never once mentioned Jesus, or even Mary) by a woman of the same age as O’Connor about how great women are, what they’d endured and how they’ve overcome (you’d have thought they were just admitted to the pulpit last week).
      While we probably agree on most things, I’m just not sure that we need anything resembling a women’s rights movement anymore. Not because there aren’t women that are being denied their God-given rights in the most dreadful and horrifying ways. Any group of people willing to do that to members of society will surely have loads of other human rights issues. Not sure anything other than the U.S. missions in Iraq and Afghanistan will have the potential to empower the most vulnerable citizens of those regions.
      In fact I think that in this country an “individual rights” movement would be far more fruitful.

    • beautyofreason says:

      “But one Sunday at Duke Chapel my husband and I had to endure a “sermon” (that never once mentioned Jesus, or even Mary) by a woman of the same age as O’Connor about how great women are, what they’d endured and how they’ve overcome”

      Oooo…..that would have annoyed me. I’ve had tons of college courses where the instructors were obsessed about women and misogyny, and various “constructions of gender.” Those lectures were more often than not pretentious, unintentionally funny and repulsive at the same time.

      “In fact I think that in this country an “individual rights” movement would be far more fruitful.”

      I like the sound of that. :) A lot of the repellent things that happen to women in the third world also happen to men. I suppose it’s best not to split people into interest groups based on race or sex.

  6. Right of the People says:

    This is what we are dealing with especially when it comes to our security and sovereignty, an opponent that is still living in the 6th century. These people are unbelievable! There used to be a saying “Nuke ’em back into the stone age” but they probably wouldn’t notice the difference unless we killed their camels or all of the plump little boys.

    Catie I’m with you. I’m still amazed that more groups like NOW, the different gay organizations, etc. whom the Jihadis would kill, whip or otherwise persecute never say a darned word when it come to issues like this. The funny fellows in CA will scream their little heads off about Prop 8 but are mum on stuff like this.

    Now I know what it is like to live in the decline of a civilization and it sucks.

    • GL0120 says:

      Hey now, no killing of camels or plump little boys; TCO has decreed that these people not only have Miranda rights but they also have the same constitutional guarantees that we have and that includes the pursuit of happiness.

  7. wirenut says:

    Sorry womenfolk out there. I’d have given her forty for the U.N. thing. Twenty or more for being a leftist. As for fashion, I leave that to Mrs. wirenut. Ever see a sunflower in a nightgown? Thank God I wake up to the same/sane one everyday.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      AAAHHH…………….to laugh but for the tear in my eye.

      Take that ………. leftist do nothing women crybabies of “NOW”, “ERA” and “CODE PINK”
      You disgust us equally!!

  8. joeblough says:

    I’ve been convinced for decades that “feminists”, who claim to be defending womens’ rights have
    ** no interest whatever in anybody’s rights,
    ** less than no interest (indeed hostility) toward femininity and things feminine.

    The only positive interest I have ever seen them diplay on a consistent basis is an interest in influence & power for a very limited specific group of women.

    And membership in that group is not readily granted to just anybody, regardless of virtues or accomplishments.

    Ayn Rand, Phyllis Schlafly, Sarah Palin (right off the top of my head), all woman of exceptional, indeed some amazing accomplishments, are anathema. And those are western white girls with all the credentials you could ask for (all of which were won through their own efforts).

    It’s all nonsense. And it’s all far too obvious.

    There is absolutely no reason why the rest of the world has to grant the “feminists” any credence, consideration or respect. Or to my way of thinking, even public courtesy.

    They simply don’t deserve it. What they do deserve is to be unmasked, disgraced and condemned for what they are. Frauds and exploiters.

    The “feminist” movement is simply part of the left’s attack on western civilization (Jamie Glazov’s new book does a pretty nice treatment of this) and has made common cause, on that basis, with the jihaddis.

    The destruction of western civilization is their goal and priority. And their particular angle is simply to cite the disatisfactions and difficulties of women (real or imaginary) to discredit the west. But the women whose pains are at issue are simply tools.

    The condemnation of the west is the key concept of their ideology. And everything else in their thinking and public announcements is going to be choreographed to preserve that goal. All their other thinking will be bent or twisted as needed to resolve conflicts with other condemnations of the west, and give the appearance of a smooth thought out argument.

    Those of us who love our civilization may take some pleasure in mocking them on the occasions when feminism and 3rd world victimology come in conflict. And we may even feel a faint hope that some sense will come out of the collision. But for them it is just an exercise in creative writing.

    They will paper over the differences and evade the obvious facts that expose their lies.

    Believe your eyes.

    So it is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you can win a thousand battles without a single loss.
    If you only know yourself, but not your opponent, you may win or may lose.
    If you know neither yourself nor your enemy, you will always endanger yourself.
    – Sun Tsu

  9. MinnesotaRush says:

    NOW .. a gaggle of entirely self-serving folk (usually females).

« Front Page | To Top
« | »