August 5, 2009

Where Some Presidential Empathy Would Be Entirely Appropriate

Carroll Andrew Morse

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.
-- President Barack Obama, June 4, 2009 @ Al-Azhar University in Cairo, Egypt

Police used teargas to disperse protesters rallying in support of a Sudanese woman facing 40 lashes for wearing trousers in public Tuesday, a case that has become a public test of Sudan's indecency laws.

Lubna Hussein, a former journalist and U.N. press officer, was arrested with 12 other women during a party at a Khartoum restaurant in July and charged with being indecently dressed.

-- Andrew Heavens, Reuters News Service, August 4, 2009

What say you Mr. President? Am I being "hostile towards religion" for opining that Sudanese authorities are acting barbarously in this situation?

Comments, although monitored, are not necessarily representative of the views Anchor Rising's contributors or approved by them. We reserve the right to delete or modify comments for any reason.

What say you Mr President?
I dont think President Obama reads this blog

Do you really think that President Obama
thinks this women should be punished
for wearing jeans?

Posted by: Harry at August 5, 2009 9:54 AM

This blog contains a moronic question posed to no one who actually reads this blog, and which comes from a moronic contributor. The only thing being sold here is fear, paranoia and irrelevancies. Proof positive that the writer has nothing at all to contribute.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 5, 2009 12:02 PM


By calling peaceful protesters being beaten in the streets "irrelevancies", you provide as fine an example as can be found of the authoritarian left's complete disregard for individual life and liberty.

Posted by: Andrew at August 5, 2009 12:31 PM

Before we become too "holy" about women in pants, let's look at our own history.

The Christian bible proscribes "cross dressing", although this isn't given much thought any more. It was not all that long ago that we did not allow women to vote. Even less time ago, America was agasp at Audrey Hepburn wearing pants in a movie.

I am not sure America's prestige should be put at issue over women wearing pants. We should also realize that this is not about "women in pants". It is a social protest against a number of issues that has found a focus in "pants" and an "internal matter". We arrested our "suffragettes".

Let us remember that women in pants is seen there as sexually provocative attire. We proscribe nudity for the same reason.

None of this should be taken to suggest I approve.

Posted by: Warrington Faust at August 5, 2009 12:45 PM

How many lashes was Audrey Hepburn sentenced to by the courts?

Posted by: Andrew at August 5, 2009 12:54 PM

Andy,mi amiguito
I said that you peddle "fear, paranoia, and irrelevancies" and that you addressed your blo(b)g to no one who even reads the offal you offer. Have someone read it to you again since you obviously can't read it unaided.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 5, 2009 5:47 PM

What say you Mr President?
Has President Obama answered Carroll\'s
question yet,if not,why not? I hope that
someone at the White House reads this very important(or self-important)blogger.

My guess is Pres Barack Hussein Obama, is
on Miss Hussein\'s side on this question

Posted by: Quigley at August 5, 2009 5:49 PM

This kind of fundamentalist oppression should not be allowed to stand, whether on the Muslim or Christian side.
This is just intolerance cloaked with faith, as the freedom-loving people of Iran have recently discovered.

Posted by: rhody at August 5, 2009 7:00 PM


I had no idea that the idea that a blogger might dare to directly address someone above his station would offend you (and others, apparently) so greatly. Leftism just isn't what it used to be. Or maybe it is.

Do you have any thoughts beyond telling us commoners that we shouldn't speak the name of the king?


We wouldn't have to guess, if the President or the State Department said something on the issue, unless maybe the Cairo speech defines the full extent of his thoughts on matters like these.

Posted by: Andrew at August 5, 2009 7:28 PM

OTL-if there is nothing but offal offered(hmmm??) here why do you bother reading and commenting?

Posted by: joe bernstein at August 5, 2009 10:52 PM

Call it a Mission Civilisatrice.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 6, 2009 8:31 AM

Hola, Andres
Your goat is easy to get. To remind you, I said that you peddle "fear, paranoia, and irrelevancies" and that you addressed your comments to a person who obviously has no interest in them. The fact of his position is inconsequential. In philosophical terms you ignored the essence and seized the accident. Very sleazy.

You were playing to your little band of choir mates and were called out on it - your reaction might have gone over at Nuremberg in the 1930's.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 6, 2009 8:47 AM


If you want to make the claim that the President obviously (your adverb) has no interest in statements about the rights of women, I'm happy to let you own that one – but I think that's a little extreme. It is, however, the President of the United States who in high-profile public remarks has equated liberal attitudes towards Islamic dress codes with "hostility towards religion" hidden behind "a pretense of liberalism", raising a legitimate question of if you have to be "hostile towards religion" to not like what happened in the Sudan this week. (Presuming, of course, that you care about what happened in Sudan this week.)

Your Nuremberg analogy is off the deep end, especially coming from someone doesn't think discussion about attacks on peaceful protesters is "relevant". And there's no need to worry about my goats. I've got plenty to spare.

Posted by: Andrew at August 6, 2009 11:11 AM

I prefer the double "C" in keeping with my Italian heritage. You are so far out in right field that the original ballpark is no longer in sight. Your latest non-sequitor comments are worth only silence and a pitiful head and shoulders shrug.

You have proven, unequivocaly that Morse is Less.

Posted by: OldTimeLefty at August 6, 2009 11:05 PM

Indeed, the Sudanese gov't is acting barbarously - and evilly - in both situations: the original sentence of the woman and then the treatment of the protesters.

I just did a quick search and was a littled surprised to find a reaction by President Sarkozy but not by President Obama to this sitation. If anyone has seen a statement by the Obama administration, please post a link to it. It is impossible to believe the administration condones any of this.

Posted by: Monique at August 6, 2009 11:26 PM

OTL-if you really want awful offal go to Newport Creamery

Posted by: joe bernstein at August 6, 2009 11:40 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?

Important note: The text "http:" cannot appear anywhere in your comment.