د خالد (روثمان): عقوبة الجلد ورثناها من بريطانيا

Quote: Lubna Hussein's trial had nothing to do with trousersHer arrest was for affray, and rights for women are advancing in Sudan Comments (45) Buzz up! Digg it Khalid al-Mubarak The Guardian, Friday 11 September 2009 Article historyThe soundbite "40 lashes for wearing trousers" which underpins Lubna Hussein's article is misleading and sensationalist (When I think of my trial, I pray my fight won't be in vain, 4 September). She says she was charged with "committing an 'indecent act' – wearing trousers in a public place"; but the government made clear that her arrest had nothing to do with trousers at all, but affray and antisocial behaviour. The law has now spoken and she is free after a fine was paid by the Journalists' Union. Her case has been blown out of proportion. Those interested in the link between law, human rights and progress know that the death penalty (abhorred by Amnesty International), house arrest and caning in the penal code were inherited by Sudan from the British colonial era. Hussein says that "women are still constrained – not only in their freedom of dress but also their freedom to work". In fact Sudanese women have won the right of equal pay to men, and occupy leading positions. The president's legal adviser, two federal ministers, three senior ambassadors, six supreme court judges and two chairs of political parties are women, plus hundreds of lecturers, businesswomen and scientists (one of whom went on to work for Nasa). Women have won the right to 25% of the seats in the next parliament. Some constraint! Hussein says: "Opposition parties will not be able to fight these elections unless the laws are changed to be compatible with our new constitution." But we have already done this: the press and publications law has been unanimously adopted by the national assembly, and representatives of the left, including the communist party, have approved it. Hussein writes: "The laws under which we live have not modernised with our economy." In fact, the interim constitution has introduced proportional representation in order to guarantee a voice for small parties and minorities. It has also divided the country into states to reduce excessive centralisation. The states now run their own budgets and are in a far better position to promote development. And when Hussein says, "I feel anger and frustration that our government will not allow people to freely discuss our future", she ignores the fact that there is vigorous and animated discussion in 52 newspapers (none of which is the organ of the government) along with several independent radio and television channels. Indeed, many articles were published within Sudan in support of Lubna Hussein. The comprehensive peace agreement and the protocol of human rights to which she refers were only possible after the split among the Islamists which ousted the hardliners, led by the ideologue Hassan Turabi, and enabled the moderates and pragmatists to pursue peace and democratisation – recognising that ours is a multiracial, multireligious country. Do we claim that Sudan is perfect? Certainly not. But Hillary Clinton admitted in her recent talk in Nigeria that even US democracy is facing challenges. The graph of development is never linear or regular, as the experience of women's struggle in Britain demonstrates. And whatever the criticisms, it is undeniable that Sudan is moving in the right direction. Khalid al-Mubarak is media counsellor at the Sudan embassy in London