The issue is broader than Lubna's apparel, says Asmaa El-Husseini Lubna Ahmed Hussein was arrested along with others by the chief of police for wearing pants in public, violating the indecency acts of Sudanese law. Under Article 182 of the criminal law in Sudan, Lubna is facing the maximum punishment for her crime -- 40 lashes. With all of Sudan's other problems, one may wonder why Lubna's case has gained such importance. Take, for example, the referendum that will be held in the South in less than 20 months, or the continuation of the Darfur crisis with no solution in sight, or the International Criminal Court's demand for the arrest of Sudanese President Omar Al-Bashir, and on top of all that, the recent conflict over the International Court of Arbitration's decision for Abyei's new borders. Not to mention the opposition's mounting attacks on the legitimacy of the current Sudanese government after the election date came and went without new elections being held. A leader of the SPLM belittled a National Congress Party (NCP) member during a speech he was making before the US Congress, demanding the US not lift sanctions on Sudan or that relations be normalised between the two countries. Despite these pressing problems in Sudan, all eyes are on Lubna Hussein. She has attracted a lot of publicity to her case and has attracted a great deal of sympathy within Sudan and internationally. The issue has gone far beyond simply a woman wearing pants in public. Lubna sees it as a good opportunity to campaign against laws that she considers degrading to the dignity of Sudanese women. She has resigned from her position at the United Nations so that she will not be privy to special treatment under the law as a UN employee, but will be tried as an ordinary citizen of Sudan. The case is not about Lubna being acquitted under the law, for this is not her goal. She rejected a settlement proposed by the journalists' syndicate that she be acquitted in return for a promise to leave Sudan permanently. Lubna also said she would reject a presidential pardon unless he agreed to annul laws harmful to women. She says: "If I had just wanted my own acquittal, I could have claimed legal immunity from the United Nations or simply bribed the right people." Rather, Lubna sees the issue of her arrest as an opportunity to campaign for the rights of women and to improve the situation of Sudanese women now and in the future. Thousands of women and girls in Sudan have been lashed by the police cruelly and unjustly, but without getting the same press attention. The goal of the groups that have rallied behind Lubna Hussein is to annul articles of law that are offensive to women. The Sudanese opposition and other activists found it difficult to oppose the government, or more accurately, the NCP, which is headed by President Al-Bashir. The opposition jumped at the chance to use the case of Lubna Hussein to attack the government's legitimacy. Different parties, organisations and women's rights groups organised a silent strike of women beginning on Tuesday morning before the court case started. The Sudanese opposition parties are focussing their anger on the type of Islamic law Al-Bashir imposed in 1989 when he overthrew a democratically-elected government. The opposition condemns the regime's active practice of oppressing women and shackling their liberty. The law stipulates heavy punishment for what the government considers indecency of women's dress, either 40 lashes or an unlimited fine. The law is implemented only at random and there is no such law for men. Women in Sudan are also the only ones punished by hanging for committing adultery and fornication. The opposition says that Sudan's streets were more committed to true values before the onslaught of the regime's oppressive practices. Others went further than that, and made connections between Lubna's case and the question of Sudanese unity. For if Sharia law is only being carried out in the North this threatens the survival of Sudan as a unified whole. Sharia law is a turnoff to the South, and the opposition is demanding that Sharia law be cancelled in favour of civil law. Sharia law, the opposition claims, is prejudicial to women and the indecency clauses are an obstacle to the desired democratic transition in the country. In response, the NCP says that the case has been taken out of context, that Lubna is trying to smear Sudan's image before the international community and to make it seem as though Sudan is living in the Stone Age. Conditions in Sudan are not at all as Lubna describes them according to the NCP, and Sudan does not lash women. Others say that Lubna's case is symbolic of conditions in Sudan in general, but they believe that the political situation in Sudan has changed. When the new regime took over in 1989, it was a totalitarian government, whereas now there is a government of national unity. There have been some police abuses in the application of the laws concerning women, but in general, the condition of women in Sudan has greatly improved. Women in Sudan now are freer to participate in public life, enjoy greater access to employment and education. And according to them, women have historically played an important role in the Sudanese national movement. The force of Lubna's case has reverberated across the Arab region, where individuals have been advocating women's rights and fighting against Islamic groups which they consider a danger to the present and future of the Arabs. They are calling for curbing the role of religion in Arab societies, to make society more observant of human rights and modern developments. Other groups think that the international community is simply against Al-Bashir and is using this opportunity as an excuse to smear his name and to bring the issue to international courts. Many think that a ruling on Lubna will not close the case, but will only bring similar issues to the forefront of Sudanese politics.
