one of the posters held by the women
in Johannesburg, South Africa,
defending the rights of women to wear
miniskirts without harassment. The
protest which was an outrage against a
young woman who had her clothes torn
off by hawkers and taxi drivers for
showing too much skin is one in a gale
of protests by women in defence of
their fashion choices. But that was
more than a year ago.
Now fast forward to 2014. Miniskirt is
grabbing the headlines again! The
stylish fashion item loved by ladies has
become the subject of legislation. Now
it's official. Miniskirts are illegal in
Uganda and government offices in
Lagos. I am not surprised about the
controversial Uganda Miniskirt law now
being challenged by the Amazons in
that country. What does one expect of
a country where its President, Yoweri
Musevini, once denied the existence of
HIV/AIDS?
This law banning miniskirts is typical...
It re-echoes the regime of another
brutal dictator, Idi-Amin, who once
considered the miniskirt as a security
risk! But that is in Uganda, a country
where its leadership mirrors the
hypocrisy of African leaders. Now if we
pardon the eccentric Musevini, what
does one make of Lagos reputed to be
governed by a governor who we expect
will know better than to endorse
decisions that threaten the fashion
choices of women in its workforce? Now
let's review the two miniskirts laws. In
Lagos, out of the blues emerged a
circular issued from Alausa pronouncing
the Fatwa against the wearing of
miniskirts. It was reported that the
state government has banned all forms
of dresses that expose breasts, curves
and other sensitive parts of the female
body, saying "they are indecent."
This was contained in a circular issued
by the Head of Service to entire
Ministries, Departments and Agencies.
It was said that the decision was taken
as a result of worsening cases of
indecent dressing among the state
government female public servants. The
circular urged the state's officials to
immediately move against indecent
dressing, mandating public servants to
dress ''properly'' and ''decently'' to the
office and official functions to portray
the good image of the state
government. The state government
warned that it would begin to take
drastic and punitive measures against
recalcitrant public servants who flout
the directive. The state government
has also prescribed a new dress code
for female workers.
In Uganda where the miniskirt law is
ridiculous as it is draconian, the anti-
pornography law states that women
who go out wearing miniskirts could
face jail term of 10 years or be fined as
much as 10 million Ugandan shillings
(£2,500) or jailed for up to 10 years, or
both. The passage and ratification of the
law banning miniskirts simply mean that
criminal charges will be pressed against
women of Uganda. In Lagos, female civil
servants could be victimised.
Yet, comprehensive definition of what a
"miniskirt" entails remains inadequate.
Several questions were left
unanswered: What length qualifies a
skirt to be deemed as a mini? What
shall become of traditional attire that at
times leaves parts of the body
uncovered? I am not suggesting women
should expose their nudity in the name
of wearing miniskirts.
However, blanket passage of a law that
illegalised miniskirts targets women
dress choice and gives the government
security apparatus enormous powers to
interpret what a miniskirt is. Such
unregulated definition will lead to
victimisation and harassment of
women. The constitution doesn't
discriminate against people based on
gender, religion and traditions which
include varied dress codes. Traditionally
speaking, Africans wore just a piece of
cloth/skin that left a big portion of the
body uncovered.. Why do African
leaders leave the real issues to chase
shadows? It is possible for the moralists
among us to look at these laws and
conclude that there is nothing wrong
with them.
But there is everything wrong with a
law that targets women dress choices
and limits their freedom to live their
lives the way they please. Why does
the society assume that women cannot
determine what is good for them? Why
does the society believe women must
dress and behave in a certain way? Why
single out the female gender? Now my
concern is with the mindset of those
who propose such bizarre laws. When
people find themselves in a position of
authority, wake up one day and impose
their values on the society using the
instrument of their office, then the
society should have cause to worry.
These laws, in my own view, wrongly
target women and stigmatise them.
Laws such as the banning of miniskirt
symbolically victimise and stereotype
women.
It blames them even for crimes that are
committed against them. We have
often heard when women are blamed
for rape. The argument is that women
invite rape because they dress in
certain way that men cannot resist. It is
this blame the victim attitude that gives
rise to the miniskirt law. The man who
committed the offence is absolved. But
we have heard such refrain before?
We've heard it in courtrooms where
women's fashion choices have been
used against them in sexual assault
trials. Or in the workplace, where
women's attire is constantly scrutinised
to make sure she doesn't cause her
male colleagues to be so utterly
distracted that they are unable to focus
on their work. The Alausa miniskirt law
is based on such assumption. The
fashion police, for example are really
the gender police, making sure women
dress in ways that make sure men feel
comfortable. Nothing can be more
dangerous than to use an object worn
by women to criminalise the entire
womenfolk.
Those countries that make laws limiting
the freedom of women further
dehumanise them. In extremely
patriarchal and religious societies such
as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India and
Afghanistan, women are the subject of
sexist and retrogressive laws. Now to
my question: If we blame the miniskirt
for the degeneracy that has become
pervasive in the society, what reason do
we now give for the alarming incident of
the rape of minors? Or do minors also
dress to kill? Is women dress choice
responsible for our under development?
Both the law in Uganda and the circular
banning the miniskirts in Alausa serve
to achieve one aim: limit women's
freedom to dress and live their lives in
a free and democratic society. Women
know what is good for them. We should
not legislate what they choose to wear.
Now I fear that women in Alausa will be
the subject of victimisation because a
certain 'oga' bans a certain dress. The
Nigerian Police Force has for long
harassed women because of vague laws
that categorise how a woman should
dress. How do they determine indecent
dressing? What is decent to one may be
offensive to another. A government
that establishes and enforces trivial
laws against its own people which
include and are not limited to laws
pertaining to dress code isn't protecting
"morality." Rather, it is enhancing
dictatorship. Leave the miniskirts alone
please.
BY BAYO OLUPOHUNDA
No comments:
Post a Comment