A Fine but No Lash for Woman Who Wore Pants.

[U-said-it]

A Sudanese court on Monday decided not to lash a woman for wearing trousers in public but convicted her of violating the country’s decency laws and fined her the equivalent of $200.

The Sudanese journalist Lubna Hussein outside the court in Khartoum after a final hearing in her case on Monday.

The woman, Lubna Hussein, an outspoken journalist who recently worked for the United Nations, was facing 40 lashes in a case that generated widespread interest inside and outside Sudan.

...

Reached by telephone after the verdict, Reuters reported, she said she would not pay the fine. "I will not pay the money, and I will go to prison," she was quoted as saying.

Sudan is partly governed by Islamic law, which calls for women to dress modestly. But on Monday, dozens of women — many wearing pants — gathered in front of the courthouse in Khartoum, Sudan’s capital, where Mrs. Hussein’s case was being heard, to express their solidarity. Many Sudanese women have said the law is vague and discriminates against women.

Witnesses said riot police officers fired tear gas at the crowd and beat at least one woman with a baton before arresting several others.

--Article--

This part really got me:

...Sudan is partly governed by Islamic law, which calls for women to dress modestly.

How are pants unmodest? Honestly these places are so backwater backwards, it's ridiculous.

[Lartrak]

I'd hazard a guess and say immodest is probably a bad translation. Though, they do reveal a lot more of the legs shape than a dress does.

But, it's probably in the same way in the west it isn't appropriate for a man to wear a dress, though of course it isn't illegal here.

Why in the west women are allowed to wear pants and men can't wear dresses though, I don't know.

[Eviltaco64X]

If she was wearing form-fitting pants, then I understand why they would do something like that. That's still pretty damn fucked up. :/

[Christuserloeser]

Honestly these places are so backwater backwards, it's ridiculous.

Yeah, it's sad. Really sad.


On the issue of men in dresses: You can wear dresses. I live on the same street as a transvestite and he/she wears nothing but dresses. Not a big deal, really. No fines, no lashes, no rules against it. All he has to deal with is some intolerant kids (and a few even more intolerant adults every now and then).

That's because we [and I mean you and me] live in a free society (or more accurately: a society trying to achieve freedom, influenced and inspired by the US Constitution and Bill of Rights). Islamic countries using the Sharia ("Islamic law" in above article) have very strict laws against homosexuality, feminism, and sexuality in general, usually being punished by death penalty: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual ... ic_nations

With the Iranian Revolution in 1979, the Islam gained influence and power, and with it the Sharia became an option in other parts of the world too (including e.g. Afghanistan and Sudan).

I think that when the Bush administration attacked Irak and Afghanistan, they were actually preparing an attack against Iran which they probably correctly identified as the source for the increasing power of djihadist movements around the globe: