Sudan is under scrutiny, this time not because of Darfur, not because of the war. But, because a woman was found guilty of wearing trousers. Lubna Ahmed Hussein, faced upto 40 lashes if she was found guilty or had to pay a fine of $200. As reported in BBC news, international pressure was on Sudan to set the woman free. Amnesty International called on the government to withdraw the charges. The French foreign minister is one of those quoted to have strongly condemned the flogging. But, the fact remains that the woman was found guilty under article 152 of the Sudanese criminal law. She was found wearing trousers in Khartoum, which is an area run under sharia law. Someone paid the fine and she is now out of prison and receiving heavy media attention.
Out of curiosity, I looked up Hussein's story in the Sudanese newspapers online, none of them carried the story. Not even the Sudan's southern newspapers. The south is considered largely Christian and according to BBC news, in support of women's rights. Do the Sudanese people consider wearing trousers an essential human right for their women? Could this be something cultural that everyone outside Sudan is blowing out of proportion? Hussein did mention that under Sharia law she committed no crime but under a section of Sudanese law she was found guilty. If this is true, the issue has nothing to do with Islamic faith or Christian faith but Sudanese culture.
Even as I skimmed through the New Sudan Vision, the Sudan News Agency, and the Juba Post, I could not help but notice the male oriented articles and written by the predominantly male authors.
Although I am going off on a tangent here, I have one last thought to share. All the hype over the trouser issue and all the coverage it received from western news media, led me to the curious question, why was the UN so quick to condemn the conviction of this woman when it still struggles with the definition of genocide. The UN human rights office was quick to tell the Sudanese government. that Hussein's arrest was a violation of international law. An article in the Economist defines the Darfur conflict as neither an all out war nor a proper peace. It also stated clearly that despite the fact that 300,000 people had been killed, the conflict in Darfur is "widely accepted to be below what aid agencies consider the threshold for emergency." All I could do was gasp as I read these words.
So what is the threshold for emergency?
Nice blog....I guess they won't call it genocide because they would be obliged to invade Sudan and stop the genocide, and that is not in the best interest of China; as they are a major trading partner with Sudan. I am always amazed when Women are treated the way they're in some third world countries...that is why I would like to see more women educated in every society...without education, they would never realize that they are equally capable of doing almost everything men do. They've been kept down for so long that some of them accept it as faith or tradition...I understand the historical aspect of it...Men farm/ hunt and Women stay home take care of kids and cook but the world has changed, the role of Men has drastically changed and it's a shame that most Men are not willing or are too insecure to allow Women to be as free as they should.
ReplyDelete