Should Women Wear Pants?

Should women wear pants? Not if you are Muslim and live in the Sudan. Lubna Hussein found this out the hard way. She was arrested and faces up to 40 lashes and an unlimited fine if she is convicted of breaching Article 152 of Sudanese criminal law, which prohibits dressing indecently in public.

It all began when Lubna was among a crowd listening to an Egyptian singer in a  Khartoum area restaurant in Sudan when policemen rushed in. They ordered Lubna and other women to stand up to check what they were wearing, and arrested all those who had pants on. Lubna, who was wearing loose green slacks and a floral headscarf, was taken to the police station.

"There were 13 of us, and the only thing we had in common was that we were wearing trousers," Lubna says. "Ten of the 13 women said they were guilty, and they got 10 lashes and a fine of 250 Sudanese pounds (about $100). One girl was only 13 or 14. She was so scared she urinated on herself."

Lubna asked for a lawyer and before her first court appearance, she had 500 invitation cards printed, and sent out emails with the subject line: "Sudanese journalist Lubna invites you again to her flogging tomorrow."

As it turns out Lubna works as a public information officer with the United Nations and, because of her job, she was protected from prosecution. She nevertheless decided to make a stand for Sudanese women, regardless of the punishment she might face.

"Afraid of what? No, I am not afraid, really," she insists. "I think that flogging does not hurt, but it is an insult. Not for me, but for women, for human beings, and also for the government of Sudan. How can you tell the world that the government flogs the people? How can you do that?"

"It is not for me. It is my chance to defend the women of Sudan. Women are often arrested and flogged because of what they wear. This has been happening for 20 years. Afterwards some of them don't continue at high school or university, sometimes they don't return to their family, and sometimes if the girls have a future husband, perhaps the relationship comes to an end."

The court was flooded with women's rights activists, politicians, diplomats and journalists, as well as well-wishers. During the hearing, Lubna announced that she would resign from her job as a public information officer with the United Nations in order to fight the case. The judge agreed, and postponed the trial.

On the second attempt to hold the trial the authorities again postponed it under the pretext of attempting to determine whether Lubna Hussein, who arrived at court wearing trousers,  had truly revoked her immunity from prosecution when she resigned from her UN position. The new trial date was set for Sept. 7th.

Speaking shortly before appearing in court, Ms Hussein said:

“Flogging is not pain, flogging is an insult to humans, women and religions. If the court’s decision is that I be flogged, I want this flogging in public.”

After court had adjourned she spoke to her supporters who had gathered outside. A defiant Lubna said:

“They want to check with the UN whether I have immunity from prosecution,” she said outside the courtroom. “I don’t know why, because I have already resigned from the United Nations. I think they just want to delay the case.”

Lubna was asked what will happen if the judge decides, as is still possible, that she was indecently dressed, and sentences her to 40 lashes?

"I will take my case to the upper court, even to the constitutional court," she insists, measuring her words. "And if they find me guilty, I am ready to receive not only 40 lashes, I am ready for 40,000 lashes. If all women must be flogged for what they wear, I am ready to be flogged 40,000 times."

Follow me on Twitter

Marijuana Scent is not Enough

In what is seen as a victory for the right-to-privacy, the Washington State Supreme Court decided that the scent of marijuana coming from a vehicle is not sufficient reason to arrest all the occupants of that vehicle. The decision was unanimous. They did however uphold the right of the police to stop and search a vehicle that smelled of marijuana but without further evidence they could not arrest nor search all the occupants.

.....we have concluded that where officers do not have anything to independently connect an individual to illegal activity, no probable cause exists and an arrest or search of that person is invalid....the arrest of one or more vehicle occupants does not, without more, provide "'authority of law' under article I, section 7 of our state constitution to search other, non-arrested vehicle passengers, including personal belongings."

This ruling resulted from a case that had been brought up through the lower courts with split decisions. It involved two people, Jeremy Grande and Lacee Hurley, who were in a car which was stopped by the police in April 2006 in Skagit County. The car was driven by Lacee Hurley when they were pulled over by State Patrol Trooper Brent Hanger. Trooper Hanger said he stopped the car because the windows were too darkly tinted. He said he smelled pot in the car, so he arrested and handcuffed Grande and Hurley.

A search of Grande revealed a glass pipe with marijuana in his pocket. Hanger searched the car and found a joint in an ashtray, which Hurley said belonged to her. Both were charged with marijuana possession and Grande was also charged with possession of drug paraphernalia.

The case initially came before the Skagit County District Court, which found there was no probable cause for Grande's arrest. But the state appealed the ruling and the county's Superior Court reversed the order. The case was then appealed to the state Supreme Court.

Summing up the state Supreme Court's decision, Justice Charles W. Johnson wrote:

"Our state constitution protects our individual privacy, meaning that we are free from unnecessary police intrusion into our private affairs unless a police officer can clearly associate the crime with the individual." In the case of the Skagit County traffic stop, the court found the mere presence of the odor of marijuana was not enough probable cause to warrant the arrest of Grande.

Attorney David Zuckerman, who brought the case before the state Supreme Court, said the problem is that arresting someone based solely on the odor of marijuana can affect innocents.

"The smell of marijuana smoke can linger for weeks," Zuckerman said. "You could have a perfectly innocent citizen get into a car where somebody smoked marijuana at some point ... and an officer can just pull you out of a car and book you based on that."

The decision doesn't mean an officer must walk away from a vehicle that smells of pot. Trooper Hanger did have probable cause to search the car, the state Supreme Court decision said, just not to arrest Grande. Law-enforcement officers say it won't greatly affect the way they make arrests.

"What this means is officers are going to have to be a little more keen in their investigative skills," said Don Pierce, executive director of the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs.

"Normally, if you come across the odor of marijuana ... there's something else going on that helps you identify who the responsible person or persons is."

Advocates for drug-law reform cheered the ruling as a long overdue step in the right direction.

"As a general statement, it's a step back from the direction that our government has been going as we're veering into a sort of surveillance society," said Alison Holcomb of the American Civil Liberties Union's Washington chapter. "It strikes me as refreshing that the court has reaffirmed the values that our constitution calls for."

When it comes to passengers, though, the scent of pot alone doesn't give probable cause to arrest everyone in the car. Officers need additional evidence that each individual broke the law.

"Our cases have strongly and rightfully protected our constitution's protection of individual privacy," Justice Charles Johnson wrote for the court. "The protections ... do not fade away or disappear within the confines of an automobile."

In a pretrial hearing for Grande, the district judge found there was not specific probable cause to justify his arrest, and suppressed the evidence. But the Skagit County Superior Court overturned that ruling, pointing to a 1979 appellate ruling that said the smell of pot coming from a car was probable cause to arrest the passengers and driver. The State Supreme Court said subsequent federal case law has wiped away the legal footing of that 1979 decision.

I guess it goes without saying but Attorney David Zuckerman said Jeremy Grande was delighted with the decision.

Teen with Bullet in Head to go on Trial

Joshua Adam Bush, 19, a Groves teen with a bullet in his forehead will go to trial. The trial date has been set for Aug. 11. Bush had previously entered a guilty plea but changed his mind after learning that he was not properly informed of the maximum punishment he faced.

Bush had originally been charged with 6 felonies, stemming from an attempted robbery of a used car lot. He had agreed to plead guilty to two of the charges, deadly conduct and aggravated assault of a witness. If Bush had followed through with the plea agreement, prosecutors would have dismissed the remaining four felonies and Bush would have been sentenced to no more than 10 years in prison.

Criminal District Court Judge John Stevens allowed Bush to withdraw his guilty pleas:

"Generally, pleas of guilty are not allowed to be withdrawn because when the pleas are made, we go over them so slowly and deliberately," Stevens said to Bush in court Friday.

Instead of being told the aggravated assault charge carried a punishment range of up to life in prison, an error on Bush's indictment led Stevens to warn Bush when he pleaded guilty that the charge carried maximum punishment of 20 years.

"The thing is, you either lied to me before when you pleaded guilty or you are lying to me now, telling me you are not," the judge said. "However, the court must admonish you accurately for it to be a constitutionally valid plea."

The Bush case has drawn a lot of publicity because he has a bullet lodged in the fatty tissue of his forehead about 2 inches above his eyes. Bush claims that he was shot accidentally by his friend but the police have a much different story.

The police contend that Bush was involved with a robbery at Olive's Used Cars in Port Arthur on July 21, 2006. During the course of the robbery they say that Bush shot at the manager of the car lot, competitive pistol shooter Allen Olive who returned fire hitting Bush in the forehead with a 9mm slug. Olive, however, told Port Arthur police he could not identify the man with whom he exchanged gunfire.

Bush, claiming that he was innocent, explained that he originally took the plea because: "I'm innocent, but I want to go home. If I took the plea I would get home faster, and that would be better than getting almost a life sentence."

"I didn't shoot at nobody," he said. "They ain't got no gun. The man at the car lot said he can't even identify that it was me. This man, I don't even know how he looks. He don't know how I look."

Michael Mayfield, who has a child with one of Bush's sisters, came forward to take the blame for the bullet in Bush's head which he claims is a .32 caliber slug:

"It was me that shot him," Michael Mayfield said in an interview. "What the DA is saying about the car lot, I kind of laugh at that," Mayfield said. "Because that bullet didn't come from no car lot situation. Can't nobody be more sure than me."

At the time the police obtained search warrants from state 252nd District Court Judge Layne Walker to remove the bullet lodged in Bush's head against his wishes. They claimed that they need the bullet as evidence to prove that it came from Allen Olive's 32mm gun.

Bush was prepped for a forced surgery at the University of Texas Medical Branch Hospital in Galveston in December 2006 but the hospital backed out of the operation when Dr. David Parkus, a surgeon at Beaumont's Christus St Elizabeth hospital, noted the bone of Bush's forehead had begun growing around the slug, requiring a more extensive surgery than planned. After failing to find another doctor to perform the surgery the prosecution gave up and said they were confident of convicting Bush without the bullet.

The bullet's bulge on Bush's forehead was plainly visible when he appeared in court Friday. The withdrawn guilty pleas covered two separate cases. The aggravated assault charge was for shooting at the car lot's manager, Allen Olive. The other charge was an unrelated deadly conduct charge for shooting at a teenager on March 30, 2006, at the Port Arthur school district baseball field while a Memorial High School game was under way.

JetBlue Sued Over Toilet Seat

Gokhan Mutlu, of Manhattan is suing the airline JetBlue for $2 million. He claims the pilot forced him to give up his seat and sit on the toilet seat in the bathroom for over three hours while on a flight from California to New York.

[youtube=http://youtube.com/watch?v=f6vzcPYy9cI&feature=related]

On Feb. 23 2008 Gokhan Mutlu was returning from San Diego to New York on a "buddy pass" ticket. This is a free voucher that JetBlue employees give to friends and family who are willing to fly on a stand-b y basis. Initially, Mutlu was told a flight attendant had taken the last available seat on the plane, but she had agreed to sit in the "jump seat" which is a seat reserved for JetBlue employees only. This meant that Mutlu could catch the flight and use the seat the flight attendant had given up.

About 90 mins into the 5 hour flight the pilot approached Mutlu and told him that the attendant was uncomfortable in the "jump seat" and he would have to relinquish his seat to her. He also told Mutlu that he could not use the "jump seat" because it was only for JetBlue employees. The pilot suggested that Mutlu "go hang out" in the bathroom.

When Mutlu objected to having to sit in the bathroom the pilot said:

"He was the pilot, that this was his plane, under his command that (Mutlu) should be grateful for being on board,"

When the aircraft hit turbulence passengers were directed to return to their seats and Gokhan Mutlu had no choice but to sit on the toilet seat, with no seat belts to use. It was hours later when a male attendant knocked on the toilet door and informed Mutlu that he could return to his original seat.

Mutlu's lawsuit, filed in Manhattan's State Supreme Court, says JetBlue negligently endangered him by not providing him with a seat with a safety belt or harness, in violation of federal law.

P.S.

I would like to know if anyone tried to use the bathroom during the three hours Gokhan Mutlu was in there!!