Abolish flogging of women in Sudan
Amnesty International has published a campaign briefing that denounces the continuous practice of flogging, which particularly affects women in Sudan.
Sudanese women face a daily risk of being arbitrarily arrested in public or private places for “indecent or immoral behaviour or dress”. Public Order Police Officers in Sudan have the power to decide what is decent and what is not. In most cases women are arrested for wearing trousers or knee-length skirts.
Such behaviour can be punishable by up to 40 lashes according to the Sudanese Criminal Act 1991. Judges have even exceeded the legal limit in some instances and punished women and girls by up to 50 lashes. These punishments amount to cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment and affect women as well as girls under 18 in Sudan.
In July 2009, Lubna Hussein broke the silence around these laws. Lubna, a Sudanese journalist with the UN, was arrested with 12 other women for wearing trousers. She chose to challenge her arrest in court and launch a public campaign calling for the abolishment of article 152 of the 1991 Criminal Act.
In the lead up to International Women’s Day, Amnesty International is calling on the Sudanese government to abolish Article 152 as the law is vaguely formulated, discriminatory and constitutes a violation on freedom of expression. Amnesty International also calls on the Sudanese government to end the use of flogging as punishment and to provide redress for the victims of this cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
Background Article 152 is not the only law that discriminates against women in Sudan. The article is part of the broader public order regime that actively restricts the human rights of women and girls. The public order regime includes the Public Order Acts, sections of the 1991 Criminal Act and the associated public order police and courts.


Comments
Steve Lieblich | Posted on 10 March 2010, 05:13PM | Report comment
Amnesty apparently supports the view that women are just chattel. It has just suspended Gita Sahgal who, until recently, headed the AI’s gender unit for objecting to “… appearing on platforms with Britain’s most famous supporter of the Taliban, whom we treat as a human rights defender…” referring to Moazzam Begg, a British citizen, who was arrested in Pakistan after fleeing Afghanistan.
Begg does not deny his past as an Islamist activist, nor withdraw from his statement that the Taliban was the best government available to Afghanistan.
Yet Amnesty International includes Begg in delegations that petition the British government about human rights, although he probably believes that women should be chattel, homosexuals and Jews and Hindus marked for slaughter, and all the rest of the jihadist canon.
See http://jiw.blogspot.com/2010/03/amnesty-international-has-lost-its-way.html for more detail.
pippa mccarthy | Posted on 4 March 2010, 08:16PM | Report comment
this is horrible. we should all have equal rights and women should be aloud to dress what they like