Join Amnesty in their support of LGBT Noise, who are organising a March for Marriage on Sunday 9th August at 1:30PM.
The march has been organised in support of equality for same sex couples in civil marriage laws and participants have been asked to assemble at Dublin City Hall on Dame Street at 1:30PM
Friday, August 7, 2009
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Let Lubna Ahmad Hussein Have Her Day in Court
Sudanese journalist Lubna Ahmad Hussein and 12 other women were arrested in Khartoum on July 3rd 2009 for wearing trousers. They were arrested by the Sudanese authorities for allegedly breaching Article 152 of the Sudanese Criminal Act (1991) which states that;
"whoever commits an indecent act or an act that breaches public morality or wears clothes that are indecent or would breach public morality which causes annoyance to public feelings is liable to forty lashes or both punishments"
Hussein is not the first woman arrested under the pretence of Article 152. Hundreds of other women have fallen foul of the requirements of the law both before and after her arrest. For this very reason, Hussein wants to have her day in court in order to raise awareness of the unfair treatment of women in Sudan and to directly challenge Article 152.
So do not be distracted by the media reporting on various aspects of the case. Forget for a moment how the idea of public morality (or the preservation of public order) is often used by governments to silence free speech, ensure the supreme authority of a dominant religion or limit the enjoyment of human rights. Forget also how barbaric the punishment is. And do not allow the focus to be on Islam or Sharia, for as Hussein herself says, where in the Koran does it dictate that women such be flogged on account of what they wear?
Instead focus on Article 152 and Hussein herself. The law gives no guidance as to what clothes could be considered indecent, liable to cause annoyance to public feelings or breach public morality. There is no list. There are no examples. There is nothing. No court that claims to uphold justice could order punishment for disobeying such an arbitrary law. This is not a case of ignorance of the law being no excuse but rather an ignorant law.
As for Hussein, she has waived her right to UN immunity and has resigned from her role with the UN media office to bolster her chances of going to trial. Her defence team naturally is trying to ensure that such immunity remains intact but the bravery of Hussein, a woman who unsurprisingly has previously written articles critical of the Sudanese Government, is driving her forward and may prove unstoppable.
Lubna Ahmad Hussein deserves her day in court and whatever importance it is to her personally, it may well prove even more significant to women living in Sudan.
"whoever commits an indecent act or an act that breaches public morality or wears clothes that are indecent or would breach public morality which causes annoyance to public feelings is liable to forty lashes or both punishments"
Hussein is not the first woman arrested under the pretence of Article 152. Hundreds of other women have fallen foul of the requirements of the law both before and after her arrest. For this very reason, Hussein wants to have her day in court in order to raise awareness of the unfair treatment of women in Sudan and to directly challenge Article 152.
So do not be distracted by the media reporting on various aspects of the case. Forget for a moment how the idea of public morality (or the preservation of public order) is often used by governments to silence free speech, ensure the supreme authority of a dominant religion or limit the enjoyment of human rights. Forget also how barbaric the punishment is. And do not allow the focus to be on Islam or Sharia, for as Hussein herself says, where in the Koran does it dictate that women such be flogged on account of what they wear?
Instead focus on Article 152 and Hussein herself. The law gives no guidance as to what clothes could be considered indecent, liable to cause annoyance to public feelings or breach public morality. There is no list. There are no examples. There is nothing. No court that claims to uphold justice could order punishment for disobeying such an arbitrary law. This is not a case of ignorance of the law being no excuse but rather an ignorant law.
As for Hussein, she has waived her right to UN immunity and has resigned from her role with the UN media office to bolster her chances of going to trial. Her defence team naturally is trying to ensure that such immunity remains intact but the bravery of Hussein, a woman who unsurprisingly has previously written articles critical of the Sudanese Government, is driving her forward and may prove unstoppable.
Lubna Ahmad Hussein deserves her day in court and whatever importance it is to her personally, it may well prove even more significant to women living in Sudan.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
