This is a guest post by Abu Faris
****
Lubna Hussein
Hisham the singer has been regaling me with tales of his banning from Sudanese state television. He had tried to sing his “HIV protest song”, but the editor had put the kibosh on that. “So I sang my female circumcision song instead – and they said I would never appear on Sudan TV again!” He seemed very proud of this.
One of the more unusual features of the otherwise rather reactionary regime in Khartoum is its apparent rather wide tolerance of political and social dissent.
Perhaps it is as a consequence of the unstoppable Sudanese addiction to political debate, perhaps it is the result of a rather media-savvy regime, canny enough to allow its many critics some space in which to blow-off steam. Whatever the reason, Khartoum continues to have a refreshingly free press in comparison to other authoritarian states and be a city where some freedom of expression flourishes despite the manifest disapproval of those in power.
However, expressions like “freedom of the press”, or “freedom of expression” are relative terms – and sooner or later, one will run into the wall of censorship and repression if the wrong buttons are repeatedly pressed. Everything, especially in a dictatorship, has its limits – as Lubna Hussein has recently discovered to her cost.
Lubna is a rather well-known, brave and outspoken journalist in Khartoum, publishing her weekly “Men Talk” column in the Arabic-language newspaper “al-Sahafa” – a column which she uses to make overt and direct criticisms of an often highly misogynistic Sudanese society and the patriarchal values shared by many of the men in power in Khartoum. Lubna also works for the disliked by the government UN Mission in Sudan (UNMIS). In other words, the feisty Lubna has been pressing all the wrong buttons for quite some time. Sooner or later someone was going to react.
React they did, as now much of the world know, arresting Lubna back in July for wearing the wrong trousers. The story was picked up by the world’s press as another example of the ludicrous and reactionary nature of the Sudanese regime, however it is worth repeating as those outside of Sudan will have missed some of the finer and more depressing features of the whole story.
Nine Sudanese women, including non-Muslim Southerners, were arrested by police in July on charges that they violated the public dress code. These included Lubna Hussein. They were taken by the Public Order Police (POP) [POP are the Sudanese equivalent of Saudi Arabia's notorious "morality" police] on a Sunday from a cafe in an area east of Khartoum. The only thing in common between all those taken into custody was that they were wearing trousers, Lubna commented at the time.
Hussein said they found four young women ahead of them waiting for interrogation by a judge in the al-Sagana court in Khartoum. Among the detained were four from Southern Sudan, three of whom were under the age of eighteen, she added. The arrests took place under the Criminal Penal Code which states that anyone wearing “provocative clothing” shall be punished with no more than 40 lashes or a fine or both.
Ten out of the thirteen women ended up receiving 10 lashes and were fined 250 Sudanese Pounds [US $104] each while the remaining three asked for their lawyers to be present and as such their cases were transferred to the deputy prosecutor.
Hussein said that some of the women admitted guilt to the judge without appearing to be aware of its implications. She said that one girl told her that she just wanted to “get this over with”. She disclosed that one of the women was “so terrified” before the judge that she wet herself in fear.
Lubna (being Lubna) demanded a proper trial, which she duly received. After over a month of both international publicity and condemnation, the judge Mudathir Al-Rasheed Sid Ahmed found Hussein to be guilty under Article 152 of Sudan’s 1991 penal code and ordered her to pay a fine of 500 Sudanese pounds ($200) or in the alternative be jailed for a month.
Eyewitnesses and the defence team said that the judge was in a rush to indict Hussein and did nit allow for cross examination of the prosecution witnesses. They also expressed surprise that the judge did not use “common sense” as the outfit worn by Hussein at the hearing was the same one she had on when arrested.
The judge spared Hussein the flogging penalty included in the law that was inflicted upon the other girls caught with her likely to avoid further international outcry.
The police witness evidence provided to the court was positively breathless and pruriently excited by the details it recounts:
“The defendant was wearing pants and a blouse and the pants were tight and flashy and showed from underneath it the thighs and the outline and the form of the underwear and the colour of her panties that could clearly be seen which were beige in colour and a short shirt with sleeves up to her elbow and it was transparent and there was light reflecting everything within, such as the shape and form of the bra and that the top of her chest was showing because of the blouse opening and it also had two holes on the side lengthwise from top to bottom, and there was a gap between the bottom the shirt and the trousers so that it appeared [!] that one was able to view the navel and the underwear of the accused”.
The judge concluded from this “evidence”:
“Based on this evidence, we decide that the defendant was wearing a provocative outfit through which it showed all parts of the body, of the woman’s charms, and showed the underwear and [she was] revealing her hair as she sat inside a nightclub full of dancing and singing with mingling between women and men, and this cafe is a public place as defined in the comment of Dr. Mohamed Awad Ali Mohyideen on this code that the public space is attended by people without discrimination and examples like public roads and public squares, shops and places of public entertainment.”
Lubna Hussein refused to pay the fine and chose the jail sentence. However, a day after Lubna was sent to Omdurman women’s prison, the head of the journalists’ union, widely viewed as a pro-government body, Mohyideen Titawi announced that they had paid the fine and had a judge’s order to release Lubna. Many Sudanese journalists and observers believe that Titawi was nudged by the government to pay the fine to avoid escalation of the international public relations nightmare created by the case.
What is for certain is that Lubna Hussein was furious by the payment of her fine.
Hisham, the now banned singer, met his friend Lubna, together with many supporters at the gates of Omdurman women’s prison on her release. Hisham was gleeful in the protest that there occurred: “Never in all my days have I seen so many beautiful young women deliberately wearing such tight trousers”, he giggled. Let us hope, I opined, that those other women whipped and fined and now forgotten for wearing the wrong trousers can too see the lighter side of the whole affair.
5 Comments
Great anecdotal piece of the Lubna Hussein episode. Thanks for this Abu Faris.
The bravery of Lubna Hussein is a great retort to all those who believe that all Muslims are “a problem” or are intrinsically opposed to liberal values. This story also shows the power of international opinion in helping people like Lubna and her friends – if the international media and bloggers hadn’t brought this case to the world’s attention, it might have had a very different outcome.
Thanks Abu Faris for sharing this with us.
The African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies (ACJPS) has recently made the following press statement on the consequences of demonstrating for Lubna in Khartoum… as I wrote above, the seemingly wider degree of freedom of expression has its limits in authoritarian Sudan:
ACJPS Condemns Arrests of Women’s Rights Activists
(7 September 2009) The African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies today condemned the arrest of 48 women protesting in Khartoum in support of Lubna Hussein, the journalist arrest several weeks ago in Khartoum under controversial public order laws for wearing trousers. Police and security forces today arrested the women while they were demonstrating in front of a North Khartoum Criminal Court, which was holding its third hearing in the controversial Lubna Hussein case.
Police and security forces used excessive force during the arrest and eyewitnesses confirm that women were severely beaten and dragged into to a police pick-up. Three of the women were seriously injured, Amira Osman, Amani Jaffar and Sara Abdelrahman. These three women were transferred to the hospital.
Among the women who were arrested are lawyers, journalists, women rights’ activists and members of opposition political parties, all members of a newly formed initiative known as No to Women’s Oppression. The objective of the initiative is to educate the public Sudan’s public orders laws and the ways in which they are oppressively targeting women. The initiative is calling for the complete annulment of the public order legislation.
The 48 women were, at the time of writing, in cells at the North Khartoum Police Station. Lawyers have been denied access to the arrested women. All the women are have charged been charged with causing a nuisance and disturbing public peace under Article 77 of the Penal Code.
Among the women who were arrested are:
1. Zaianab Bader Eldin, teacher
2. Wala Salah, student
3. Manhil Ibrahim
4. Dr. Ihasan Faagiri, medical doctor and women’s rights activist
5. Fihima abd Alhafiez, Director of the Salama Women’s Rights
Organisation
6. Zienab Alsawi, women’s rights activist
7. Afaf Mohamed Hamid, lawyer
8. Rsaha Awad, journalist
9. Hadeel Gafar
10. Adillla Alzaibag, head of the Sudan Women’s Union
11. Amira Osman, engineer
12. Sara Abdelrahman, lawyer
13. Igabal AbdAlla
14. Shadia Abd AlMonim, women’s rights activist
15. Huda Shafieg
16. Amal Hussein
17. Amani Jaffar
18. Azza Altigani El Tayeb
19. Noha Alnagar
20. Rabah Al Sadiq Al Mahadi
21. Sabah Adam
22. Rabiea’h Hassan
The African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies condemns the actions of the government of Sudan as an illegitimate restriction of freedom of speech, which is guaranteed under Article 39 of the Sudanese Interim Constitution, as well as regional and inernational human rights law. The Centre calls for the immediate release of those arrested in connection with the protest and respect for the right of citizens to express their opinions about national laws.
http://acjps.org/Publications/09-07-09ACJPS%20Condemns%20Arrests%20of%20Women%E2%80%99s%20Rights%20Activists.html
More widely, the excellent ACJPS have released the following statement concerning the continued repression of the freedom of the press and speech in Sudan in the run-up to forthcoming elections:
Crackdown on Freedom of Expression and Association Ahead of Elections
Contact: Osman Hummaida, Executive Director at
Phone: +44-7956095738
E-mail: osman@acjps.org
(17 September 2009) The African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies today expressed concern about the increasing crackdown on freedom of expression in Sudan, targeting public discussion of, and preparation for, the elections scheduled for April 2010. Since the beginning of August, Sudanese authorities have systematically targeted any activities, symposia, public rallies or lectures related to the elections. Also, censorship of the media by the security services has, in recent weeks, increasingly targeted discussions of the elections.
Incidents which have occurred since 1 August 2009 include:
1. On 6 August 2009, the National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS) disrupted a public talk about the upcoming elections organised by the Sudanese Congress Party (SCP). Security forces arrived at the symposium and disbursed the crowd, ordering the organisers to cancel the event. The organisers had obtained all the necessary permissions and clearances from the police as prescribed by law.
2. On 13 August 2009, the NISS in Port Sudan prevented a public talk about the election organised by a coalition of opposition political parties, the Alliance of National Forces.
3. In Al Daein, South Darfur, the NISS raided the offices of the New Forces Movement “Haq” and confiscated documents and educational materials on the elections.
4. On 8 September 2009, the NISS ordered “Journalists for Unity,” a coalition of northern and southern journalists, to cancel a press conference at Tyeba Press. The press conference had intended to address issues related to the upcoming elections and the referendum.
5. On 8 September 2009, the NISS also prevented Asma organisation, Maa Society and the Sudan Research and Development Organisation from holding a symposium on elections to be held at Alshariqa hall in Khartoum University.
6. On 9 September, NISS prevented Al Sudani newspaper from publishing. The security officers who review the newspaper’s content every day in keeping with the government’s pre-print censorship policy arrived late and removed articles related to the elections. The entire edition had to be cancelled due to the volume of text removed.
7. On 10 September, NISS officers arrived late at Al Midan weekly newspaper and ordered the removal of many articles related to the elections and critical of the National Congress Party. The entire edition had to be cancelled due to the volume of text removed.
In response to some of these incidents a coalition of opposition political parties, including the Alliance of National Forces, including the main opposition political parties (25) submitted an official complaint to the National Election Commission on 12 August 2009 about restrictions imposed on them by security forces with regard to the election.
The Sudanese people have the right to freedom of expression and assembly, and the right to operate associations, guaranteed by Sudan’s Interim Constitution and international law. The African Centre for Justice and Peace Studies is concerned these incidents demonstrate that the government is actively restricting these rights and, by extension, undermining the possibility for free and fair elections and the credibility of the polling exercise.
http://acjps.org/Publications/09-17-09Crackdown%20on%20Freedom%20of%20Expression%20and%20Association%20Ahead%20of%20Elections.html
There are a number of issues that collide in this story.
First and foremost is the continued oppression of women, of all religions and from all regions in Sudan. In particular, young, unmarried women continue to be preyed upon by the notorious “morality police”, the Public Order Police.
Although in the last few years, the POP have been less active in their persecution of unmarried women caught with unrelated men – or, more generally, women who do not accord fully with Sudan’s strict interpretations of “public decency” – this case shows that the POP will still act with their usual bizarre sense of propriety and total impunity when they feel fit.
Most seriously, stories continue to circulate of the POP’s vile practice of gang-raping young women picked up after dark for “improper behaviour”. Given the choice of facing the ire of conservative family members humiliated by their young, female member’s arrest for being caught alone with a man not related to her, or keeping quiet about their treatment at the hands of the so-called “morality police”, many young women continue to say nothing about their harassment or rape at the hands of the POP. Young women so arrested by the POP who get away with having their personal effects and money robbed by the arresting officers before being dumped by the roadside miles from their homes late at night count themselves lucky.
The other aspect of this case that is worth considering is the continued use by the Sudanese state of “morality” laws – and more generally, religiously-based laws – to persecute identified political opponents of the regime. Such ranges from the deployment of deniable operatives to assassinate political opponents through to the use of “public decency” laws to harass people who hold dissident views, especially if they prominently publicise those views.