A recent BBC report from Sudan said that Lubna Hussein, journalist and UN worker, is to be charged in Khartoum for wearing “indecent” clothing in a restuarant with 18 other women.
It seems that 10 of these women (including non-Muslims) were already dealt with by the court – they were each fined $100 and ordered to be given 10 lashes of the cane.
Lubna Hussein said she is charged under the country’s criminal laws and could face up to 40 lashes of the cane in addition to a $100 fine. A CNN report on the same incident said that at the time of her arrest she was wearing pants, a blouse and a hijab or headscarf. And her offense? Police accused Lubna Hussein of wearing trousers that were too tight and a blouse that was too sheer.
The rationale for caning a woman for wearing trousers is difficult to fathom. Afterall, trousers actually cover up the whole lower parts of the female body. Contrast with men wearing singlets, shorts, and swimming trunks and women wearing trousers, and it is puzzling to say women wearing trousers are indecently dressed.
Think about it. Why the different standard for caning? Why are women treated as criminals by law for covering up with a pair of trousers? What constitutes indecent dressing? Who decides that – the male police officers? I don’t know the answer to this one.
Sudan is governed by Islamic laws, but somehow Islamic law or not, women – regardless Muslims or not – aren’t given any fair rights. Considering that trousers for women originally comes from the west, no doubt putting on something “non-Muslim” invites much trouble.