Lubna Hussein has been freed from prison against her own wishes. Hussein and other women were arrested for public indecency for wearing trousers in a public cafe in Khartoum. The punishment decreed was flogging. Ten women accepted the flogging, reportedly 40 lashes, but Hussein refused and fought it in a public trial which drew international criticism. Her punishment was reduced from the flogging to a $200 fine which she refused to pay. This led to her imprisonment. Now her fine has been paid by a member of the ruling party who wanted to end the international attention which this case has brought to Sudan for their uneven and arbitrary application of laws about what is meant by public indecency. Many human rights groups believe that the laws target women from southern Sudan who are mostly Christian and are supposed to be free from the Islamic rules of the northern (and ruling) part of Sudan. Many people in the West are celebrating Lubna Hussein's victory for human rights. However, there is another side to this story.
In 2004, France banned the wearing of religious symbols in public schools. Although the hijab (head scarf) is never mentioned in the law, many people interpreted this as a move against Muslim girls. Muslims make up between 5 and 10 percent of the population of France. The private sector followed the public law and refused to hire and even fired women wearing the hijab. In August, a woman was refused admission into a bank where she had her account because she was wearing an hijab.
Many Muslims sites and blogs argue that France's ban on the hijab is no different than Sudan's ban on trousers.
Do you thnk that is a sound argument?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is from Emily. She had trouble posting it so she sent it to me in an e-mail and I am posting it for her:
ReplyDeleteYes and no.
No, the two bans are not the same. Women wear hijabs as a religious choice (we can argue about the "choice" part of it later, but for now, that's not the point). Women wear trousers as a social and/or political choice. The French law is a secular law against a religious practice, while (it seems to me) the Sudanese law is against a social practice (wearing pants) and is driven by some combination of culture and religion (it's hard in any country to separate the two and their influence).
What I'm trying to say is that banning pants interferes with the freedom of choice in clothing. Banning the hijab not only interferes with freedom of dress, but also with people's personal religious beliefs. Although I guess you could argue that religion is just as much an expression of personal or cultural choice as wearing pants is.
Regardless, when it comes right down to it, in both cases it's a question of a government dictating what people may and may not wear--which is not right to begin with--in a way that seems to target a particular religious group (Christians in Sudan, Muslims in France)--which is discriminatory, regardless of whether that was the original intent. In that sense, the cases are the same, and both laws are wrong.
i agree with Emily. I think they are both terrible laws but I think the french law is way worse simply because it doesn't allow people to keep their religion. This is especially important because religious people think of god's laws above the country's. A very religious person will disobey the law.
ReplyDeleteI'd say the two cases are fairly similar for the sake of the arguement that bloggers are trying to make. But citing france's law won't help them justify the sudanese law is correct.
Good point, Michael. What I see as different is the flogging. I think both laws are wrong, but the punishment makes the Sudanese law much worse.
ReplyDeleteTrue, Ms. H.
ReplyDeleteI don't think the bloggers are trying to justify the Sudanese law--they're probably trying to discredit the French one.
From Nadia Elkaddi
ReplyDeleteI read the post about Lubna Hussein and the
comments responding to it. One thing struck me as a recurring mistake in all responses: the false and widely held notion that the wearing of the hijab is required by the Islamic religion and the Qu'ran. The holy book preaches modest dress and only mentions the hijab once as the dress worn by Khadija (Mohammed's first wife). The hijab is actually just a pre-Islamic tradition. The hijab, in my opinion, is sexist and oppressing towards women. It only re-enforces the archaic idea (which is still widely held in many countries in the global south, to be PC) that a woman's body in itself is a temptation. It was Eve that tempted Adam to bite the apple of knowledge, which lead to the eternal punishment of human kind. This same idea is what leads to the punishment of woman who are victims of rape. The woman must have been asking for it, tempting the man with her body. To add another perspective, why aren't men covering their bodies? Why
only the women? Men are allowed to wear almost whatever their hearts desire in these patriarchal societies.