Where is Ahmad Farhad? The mysterious case of Pakistan’s missing poet | Civil Rights News

Islamabad, Pakistan — A missing poet. A desperate family. A powerful security apparatus. And a court trying to decode conflicting claims in order to dispense justice. Those are the ingredients of a case that has grabbed Pakistan’s attention this week.

Hours after Ahmad Farhad, who is also a journalist, went missing on the night of May 14, his family petitioned the Islamabad High Court (IHC), alleging that he had been “disappeared” from outside his home in the capital, Islamabad, by the country’s powerful spy agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), for his criticism of authorities.

Pakistan’s government has said that Farhad is not in the custody of the ISI. But on Tuesday, the court demanded that security forces produce Farhad within four days, warning that it might otherwise summon senior government officials for a grilling.

So who is Farhad, how did he go missing, why is the court intervening and what has it said – and what is Farhad’s family saying?

Who is Ahmad Farhad?

Previously associated with various media outlets, including Bol News, Farhad was recently working as a freelance journalist and frequently reported on the recent antigovernment protests in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

The 38-year-old, who is originally from the Bagh district of Pakistan-administered Kashmir, is also known for his strong criticism of the country’s powerful establishment, a euphemism for Pakistan’s army.

Syeda Urooj Zainab, his wife, told Al Jazeera that her husband had said he was under pressure from government agencies for several months due to his perceived support for the Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (PTI) party of former Prime Minister Imran Khan, who is currently imprisoned on various charges he denies. Pakistan’s government and military accuse Khan’s supporters of orchestrating a violent attack on state institutions in May 2023 after the former PM was arrested.

Zainab said her husband’s ultimate loyalty was to human rights, not any party. “My husband has always stood for human rights regardless of any affiliation. He used to protest in support of the Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PMLN) when they were under pressure by the establishment, and he has refused to change his principles,” she added.

PMLN is the party of current Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif and his elder brother Nawaz Sharif, himself a three-time former prime minister. The PMLN, when it was in the opposition and the PTI was in power between 2018 and 2022, accused the military of cracking down on it – just as the PTI under Khan has accused security forces of doing since 2022. The military has denied the allegations of the PTI, and previously rejected the charges of the PMLN.

When did Farhad go missing and what was the reason?

Zainab says her husband of six years was returning home after a dinner late on Tuesday night when four men grabbed him outside the gate of the house and dragged him into a car.

“It was past midnight on [May 15], when four men, wearing dark-coloured clothes, pushed him in a big four-wheel-drive vehicle as they all sped away,” she said, adding that three other vehicles were also part of the group.

According to Zainab, her husband had told her about possible risks to his life due to his political commentary and reporting on the issues in Pakistan-administered Kashmir.

“He had told me that his instincts are telling him his life might be at risk due to his commentary on what is happening in his hometown. But he was clear in his view that the establishment has been after him for a long time,” she said.

She added that two days after the alleged abduction, she was contacted by Farhad through his WhatsApp asking her to withdraw her petition in the court in return for his recovery.

Ahmad Farhad is a poet and a freelance journalist in Islamabad who went missing last week [Courtesy of Rooj Zainab]

“I could tell he was being coerced into sending the message. He asked me to withdraw my petition, and he would return home. He also said he is away for some private business, but it was clearly a forced statement” she said.

The Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP), the country’s prominent human rights body, has condemned Farhad’s disappearance and demanded his urgent release.

What has the court said so far?

The court, in its hearing on Monday, ordered the police to find the missing poet promptly, warning that it might otherwise summon the defence secretary to appear before it.

In its written order issued on Monday, the court also instructed the police to “investigate the allegations with reference to the officials of Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) by recording the statement of officials”. Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, the IHC judge hearing the case, has said the government needed to change people’s perception of state institutions which are accused of abducting people.

But a defence ministry official on Monday informed the court that Farhad is not being held by the ISI. Additional Attorney General Munawar Iqbal, representing the government, told the court on Monday that Farhad was not being held captive by the intelligence agency and assured the judge that he would be found soon.

The judge had, in an earlier hearing, said that in the event of state authorities’ failure to recover the missing poet, the court would summon the prime minister.

The country has a chequered history of enforced disappearances, with Pakistan’s military and its intelligence agencies being accused of orchestrating abductions of critics and politicians.

But Zainab, Farhad’s wife, told Al Jazeera she was optimistic about her husband’s return after the court’s intervention.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

‘No to the Russian law!’ Georgia protesters demand a ‘European future’ | Protests News

Tbilisi, Georgia – Crowds of protesters have been braving tear gas and water canons after more than two weeks of protest against the Georgian government’s draft law targeting civil society.

The new law would require non-profit entities (NGOs and media outlets) receiving more than 20 percent of their funding from abroad to register as “organisations pursuing the interest of a foreign influence”, with tough penalties for noncompliance of up to $9,000.

Mass demonstrations last year forced the government to withdraw a similar bill. This second attempt has given renewed energy to thousands of young people, from school pupils to university students, swelling a tide of discontent.

They believe their government has fallen under the influence of the Kremlin and is sabotaging their dreams of being part of Europe. Each night, the rallies have begun with the Georgian national anthem, as well as the EU’s, Ode to Joy.

“This is where I live, where my son will live – I don’t want Georgia in the enemy’s hands. I want it free for everyone,” fumes 25-year-old Giga.

“No to the Russian law!” says Nutsa, 17. She’s holding up a placard which reads: “Northern neighbour, we don’t have anything in common with you”.

That northern neighbour is Russia, where Vladimir Putin’s 2012 law on foreign agents has eliminated dissent. In 2022, he expanded it to require anyone receiving support from outside Russia to register and declare themselves as foreign agents.

But the Georgian government has insisted its own law is similar to legislation in Western countries.

The EU disagrees that the law resembles Western transparency regulations, such as EU and French planned directives and the US’s Foreign Agents Registration Act.

Ursula von der Leyen, president of the EU Commission, warned on May 1 that Georgia was “at a crossroads”.

Washington is alarmed. It has provided almost six billion dollars in aid to Georgia since the 1990s. US Ambassador to Georgia Robin Dunnigan said in a statement on May 2 that the US government had invited Georgia’s prime minister, Irakli Kobakhidze, to high-level talks “with the most senior leaders”.

According to Georgia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs later that day, that invitation was declined. Instead, Kobakhidze accused the US of supporting “revolutionary attempts” by non-governmental organisations working in the country, such as EU-funded organisations Transparency International Georgia and ISFED, which often call attention to government corruption and abuses of power.

The government may fear that these organisations could influence the outcome of a general election in October in which the governing Georgian Dream (GD) party hopes to secure a majority.

Kornely Kakachia, director of the Georgian Institute of Politics, said he believes the government’s rhetoric reflects the opinion of Bidzina Ivanishvili, the billionaire founder of the governing party.

Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, he adds, has changed Ivanishvili’s calculus.

“Ivanishvili and GD leaders believe that Russia is winning in Ukraine and he just thinks [of] how to be friendly with [Russia], to find his place in this geopolitical new order,” says Kakachia.

In tandem with its foreign funding law, GD has promised to curb LGBT rights and has passed amendments to the tax code that will make it easier to bank money from overseas in Georgia.

“That’s an attempt to try to lure Putin and the Kremlin basically to give them a new model of Georgia, which will be a kind of offshore zone for Russian oligarchs,” says Kakachia.

Protesters who oppose a new ‘foreign influence’ law clash with police in Tbilisi, Georgia [Stephan Goss/Al Jazeera]

Hired thugs and ‘Robocops’

The nightly protests over the past two weeks have seen some of the largest turnouts in the 11 years of GD’s government.

On Thursday, protesters blocked a key intersection known as Heroes Square. But a group of unknown men in civilian clothing appeared and began to beat people.

Known as Titushky, hired thugs were deployed by the Ukrainian security services during Ukraine’s Euromaidan protests in 2013 and 2014 in which people called for closer relations with the EU and protested against corruption.

Professor Ghia Nodia of the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development said the moment feels similar to Ukrainian President Yanukovych’s decision a decade ago to use violence to put down protests.

“The feeling is that this time, Ivanishvili went too far and people have to fight. There are relatively small-scale violent crackdowns almost every day, but so far, the tide of protest didn’t go down.”

The protests have been mostly peaceful, though some protesters have tried to enter parliament where legislators have been debating inside.

Defiant men and women wave EU and Georgian flags in front of units of black body-armoured riot police dubbed “Robocops” who are armed with truncheons, mace and shields.

Other masked police officers without identification badges have been filmed punching, kicking and dragging protesters by the hair into custody.

Hardware stores have been emptied of face masks. Pepper spray and tear gas quickly incapacitate those without protection, their eyes and noses streaming from the chemicals, many of them retching or struggling to breathe.

The country is heavily polarised. Mikheil Saakashvili, whose reforms did much to modernise Georgia after 2003’s “Rose Revolution’” is serving a six-year prison sentence. He was found guilty of “abuse of power” and organising an assault on an opposition lawmaker. His party, the United National Movement (UNM), is the most powerful party in opposition, but it is deeply unpopular because of its own track record from its time in office from 2004- 2012.

Protests have rocked Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital city, for the past two weeks [Stephan Goss/Al Jazeera]

‘Backsliding on democracy’?

Many of today’s protesters do not identify with either the UNM or any other political party in opposition.

MEPs have repeatedly voted on resolutions in Strasbourg and Brussels condemning GD’s “backsliding” on democracy in recent years and its treatment of the former president.

But one group of protesters told Al Jazeera that the European Parliament was wrong to call for sanctions against Ivanishvili while simultaneously demanding Saakashvili’s release.

In power, GD has taken credit for winning the right for Georgian citizens to travel to Schengen countries within the EU without a visa. After Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it submitted its application for EU candidacy.

EU leaders are beginning to doubt that it is a serious partner, however. They have called on the Georgian government to enact reforms aimed at preventing any takeover of the state by oligarchs.

But that is unacceptable to Bidzina Ivanishvili. On April 29, he addressed tens of thousands of people who, by a GD leader’s admission, had been bussed in from other parts of the country to attend a counterprotest.

It proved that the government can command large numbers of supporters when it chooses, though the tired-looking attendees showed little energy or enthusiasm for being there.

In his address, reading from an autocue, Ivanishvili outlined his government’s new narrative: That a global force led by the West has tried to strip Georgia of its autonomy and goad it into another war with Russia.

“The funding of NGOs, which they often begrudge us and count as aid, is used almost exclusively to strengthen the agents and bring them to power,” he said. “Their only goal is to deprive Georgia of its state sovereignty.”

‘Slave law’

On one evening during the protests this week, printouts of Ivanishvili’s image with the word “Russian” across his forehead are lying scattered across a park close to the parliament building in Tbilisi.

As protesters make their way to a rally outside, they scuff and tear at the paper beneath their feet. Bikers roar through the streets and the crowd cheers and chants “Sakartvelo!” (“Georgia!”).

Twenty-year-old Shota is carrying crates of mineral water to hand out to the protesters. He says he paid for them himself.

“For us, for our generation, the European future is first of all,” he says. “That’s why we stand here with our finances, with some strength, and we will stand until the politicians withdraw the slave law they want to pass.”

GD looks set to pass its law on foreign agents in a third reading on May 17, and it remains unclear whether the government or its opponents are willing to risk a dramatic showdown on the streets.

But if hitherto fractious opposition parties find a way to unite now, that could make a victory in October’s election harder to attain for the government. The summer heat came early to Tbilisi. And it will only build as the election countdown continues.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

‘No turning back’: Carnation Revolution divides Portugal again, 50 years on | The Far Right

Lisbon, Portugal – The olive-green military vehicles are the same, as are the uniforms of the personnel riding them. It’s even the same day of the week on this April 25 – a Thursday.

This is when it all started, on the shore of the Tagus River where the sun hangs like a bulb over the Portuguese capital and Europe’s westernmost edge.

But the cheering crowds beside the road today, waving red carnations bought from flower ladies on Rossio Square weren’t there 50 years ago. Nobody clapped their hands or posted photos on social media along with catchy hashtags.

On that brisk dawn, the streets were deserted while Lisbon still slumbered, while a revolt was taking birth. That morning, Portugal was still a fascist dictatorship that had fought three brutal wars in Portuguese Guinea, Angola, and Mozambique in its desperate bid to keep control over its African colonies. By the end of the day, Portugal’s 42-year-old dictatorship, Estado Novo (“New State”), had been felled by a swift military takeover.

“We were professional soldiers, we’d been in wars and were trained to deal with stressful situations, but this was something completely different,” says former navy captain Carlos Almada Contreiras.

Contreiras was among the 163 military captains who in September 1973 had come together in secret at a “special farmhouse barbeque” to form the clandestine “Movement of Armed Forces” (Movimento das Forcas Armadas, MFA). These were men who had fought the Portuguese dictatorship’s colonial wars and knew very well that no military victory was close at hand; on the contrary, morale was in decline and an estimated 9,000 Portuguese soldiers had died since 1961.

Veterans parade on the streets of Lisbon alongside crowds celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Carnation Revolution, during which military leaders deposed the former authoritarian dictatorship, Estado Novo [Fredrik Lerneryd/Al Jazeera]

On April 25, 1974, they turned their gaze towards Lisbon’s political heart, intending to seize control of key military installations, political chambers and broadcasting facilities, as well as the airport. At the time, 50 years ago, nobody could predict the outcome of the day.

However, the rebels knew that “there was no turning back,” says Contreiras.

It was now life or death – if the military action failed, the MFA conspirators would in all probability have been charged with high treason and quite possibly sentenced to death. But a victorious outcome might just bring a new dawn for a dying empire in its last throes.

Was he afraid? Contreiras takes a deep breath and recalls that morning when his life – and the lives of numerous others – changed forever. “I haven’t thought of that,” he says. “We had to act, otherwise we would continue to live in this dead political system, keep fighting these meaningless colonial wars.”

In the end, and in less than a day, MFA gained full control over Portugal’s military facilities and brought an end to the far-right dictatorship. Prime Minister Marcello Caetano bowed to the conspirators and Portugal’s notorious secret police – PIDE – was dismantled.

The following year, 1975, a US-backed counter-coup in November would supplant the new government and the Carnation Revolution would come to an end. But the change it had brought about was permanent.

“The people of Portugal and millions of people in our African colonies were given their lives back,” says Contreiras.

As Portugal celebrates 50 years of pluralistic democracy today, however, the long shadows of the country’s authoritarian past are creeping back in the wake of the March 2024 elections, in which far-right political party Chega (“Enough”) gained 18 percent of the vote and drove a wedge through the heart of the Portuguese two-party system, which had dominated the chambers of power since the 1970s.

‘We had to act,’ former navy captain Carlos Almada Contreiras recalls the events of April 25, 1974 when he and other senior military figures finally stood up to the dictatorship in Lisbon [Fredrik Lerneryd/Al Jazeera]

A revolution is born

On April 25, 1974, Portugal became world news. Newspapers around the world were drenched in bright images of celebrating Portuguese masses who took to the streets and placed red carnations in soldier’s rifle barrels and uniforms. Portugal’s “Carnation Revolution” is often described as a near-bloodless military takeover. But much blood had been spilled in the years leading up to that moment.

In the early 1960s, as most African nations fought for and won independence from their European colonisers, Portugal stood firm in its claim to the country’s African “possessions”. These were now dubbed “Overseas Territory” instead of “colonies” as a result of a 1951 rewrite of the constitution and the country had responded to self-determination claims with brutality and repression.

Dictator and Prime Minister Antonio de Oliveira Salazar had established the “Estado Novo” in 1932 – a corporatist state rooted in anti-liberalism and fascism formed in the wake of the demise of Portugal’s monarchy – and kept Portugal out of the second world war. Despite being a brutal dictatorship, Salazar managed to lead Portugal into NATO’s anti-communist club in 1949 thanks to its control of the Azores Islands, a vital strategic outpost.

When the first colonial war had erupted in Angola in March 1961, soon followed by wars in Portuguese Guinea and Mozambique, Portugal was able to source weaponry – helicopters, fighter aircraft and petrochemical weapons like napalm – from allied nations, primarily the United States, West Germany and France.

Furthermore, during the Cold War, the Azorean military base became a vital strategic and geopolitical outpost in the mid-Atlantic, particularly for the United States, whose continued access to the military facilities depended on political and economic support to Salazar’s authoritarian rule. The Azorean military facilities became crucial for the United States during its military operations to aid the Israel forces during the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.

A veteran joins the crowds on a march down Av da Liberdade on the 50th anniversary of the Carnation Revolution in Lisbon on April 25, 2024 [Fredrik Lerneryd/Al Jazeera]

Finally, in the mid-1960s, the Portuguese dictatorship started to implode. The colonial wars had finally brought Portugal’s economy to its knees, and large numbers of forced military conscripts were deserting – much to the embarrassment of the government – fleeing the country and becoming vocal proponents of antiwar movements in countries like France, West Germany and Sweden.

As a navy captain, Contreiras patrolled the Atlantic waters between Angola and Sao Tome. He recalls the first signs of dissent within the army. Within an authoritarian political system, the very thought of rebellion was unheard of. Therefore, the first whispers of change occurred in private exchanges.

“War fatigue and a longing for democracy finally caught up with us,” he says. “As part of the navy, I experienced all war fronts, and it was a living hell.”

A revolutionary seed was planted, he believes, and it grew into something larger – something irreversible. “The revolution was born out of the words we uttered at sea.”

Along with the seemingly never-ending colonial wars, the Portuguese military had started to ease the way for more rapid military rank advancement and promotions in 1973 through a series of new laws to attract more men to pursue military careers.

Low-ranking officers who remained on the lower rungs of the career ladder despite many years of war service saw this as an existential threat. “We were both frustrated and nervous about the development,” Contreiras recalls.

In the summer of 1973, the “Naval Club” had been initiated by the 200-odd military captains who were determined to protect their military careers and refused to be singled out as scapegoats for Portugal’s declining successes in its colonial warfare. The initial programme called for “Democracy, Development and Decolonisation” and to achieve these goals, the clandestine movement realised the only way was through a military overthrow of the Estado Novo.

In September 1973, Chile’s socialist president, Salvador Allende, was overthrown by military leaders in a US-backed coup. The Naval Club decided to copy the Chilean coup makers’ use of secret signals via public radio and convinced a radio journalist, Alvaro Guerra, to join the plot. Guerra would issue the “signal” which would start the military operation by playing a chosen song on his nightly programme, Limite (“Limit”).

Contreiras secretly met Guerra “mere days before the revolution” and handed him his last instructions. The chosen song – Grandola, Vila Morena by folk singer Jose Afonso – was to be played shortly after midnight on April 25, 1974, signalling to the MFA to launch its takeover attempt. “It was well planned, it all depended on timing,” he recalls.

A woman selling carnation flowers during the 50th anniversary of the Carnation Revolution in Lisbon on April 25, 2024 [Fredrik Lerneryd/Al Jazeera]

Return of the far-right?

Fifty years later, Afonso’s song is playing at a cafe on the Avenida da Liberdade as more a million people take to the street to commemorate the “Carnation Revolution”.

The impressive turnout of the elderly, youth, parents, and their toddlers underlines the importance of the dramatic political event – not just for those who lived through it.

Claudia and Lucia, two teachers in their 40s, break down and cry while drinking coffee at a cafe before the start of the commemoration march along Avenida da Liberdade down to Rossio Square.

They are crying for their parents who survived the dictatorship, explains Claudia.

“It’s so hard for them to talk about what it was like during the Estado Novo,” adds Lucia. “Many Portuguese have just put a lid over the past, never to talk about it again. For us, the children of the revolution, it’s been hard to deal with their pain, let alone helping them to move on. That’s why the rise of the far-right in Portugal is such a hard blow – for us and for our parents.”

The commemoration march – during which political leaders make speeches and cheer for the revolution while crowds of people drink beer and “ginja” (a Portuguese liqueur) – is framed by chants: “25 April, always! Fascism, never again!”

Still, in this environment of seemingly overwhelming consensus, some have chosen to march against the human current, against the wave of numerous people. A middle-aged man, seemingly just walking by, shakes his head and curses the revolution. Nobody seems to notice him, and his words are lost in the sea of revolutionary chants.

The man may be one of the self-titled pacote silencioso (“silent pack”) of whom Portuguese scholars have been talking for years, particularly during the past decade which has been a constant repetition of financial crises, government-imposed austerity policies and rising poverty, leading to an exhaustion of trust among some in democratic institutions and Portugal’s dominant parties, the Socialist Party (PS) and the Social Democratic Party (PSD).

A carnation lies on top of a newspaper on a bench in Lison during celebrations on April 25, 2024 [Fredrik Lerneryd/Al Jazeera]

The signs of dissent are here to be seen. On a park bench, another middle-aged man smokes a cigarette and glares at the passing wave of people. From a speaker, the hymn of the revolution is played again, to which the man screams: “Turn off that piece of shit! Nobody believes in that anyway!”

On the bench beside him lies a red carnation on top of a copy of the sports paper A Bola. A woman snaps a photo of the carnation and the newspaper, excusing herself, assuring the man she is not about to steal his flower. The man smiles and says: “Don’t worry, there are no thieves here. The only thieves are in the Portuguese parliament, stealing from the people!”

It’s a sentiment that many appear to share. Chega clinched 50 seats in parliament in the same year that Portugal celebrated 50 years of liberal democracy. According to an analysis by social scientist Riccardo Marchi, Chega’s swift rise since its formation in 2019 by Andre Ventura, a former social democrat and television personality, is rooted in Portugal’s established “two-party system”, dominated by PS and PSD and which became an established political model after the fall of Estado Novo in 1974.

Marchi writes: “The PS and PSD were unable to reverse the growing dissatisfaction of large sectors of voters with the functioning of Portuguese democracy. This feeling of democratic decline was attributed to the elite of the two dominant parties and is evidenced, for example, by the steady increase in abstention.”

Chega’s electoral victory has been at least partially attributed to the far-right party’s ability to persuade formerly reluctant voters to return to the voting booth and to present itself as an appealing choice for young adults (primarily men between 18 and 25) with a deep-lying lack of trust in political institutions. For the first time since 2009, voter turnout reached close to 60 percent, which according to Marchi is a testament to Chega’s ability to attract young voters who are “unaware of the nostalgia for the right-wing dictatorship, and dissatisfied but informed about politics, mainly through the tabloids and social networks”.

This trend has overlapped with eroded historical narratives about Portuguese colonialism and the Salazar dictatorship. There is lingering nostalgia among Chega voters for the “stability” and “order” that the Estado Novo offered its citizens, scholars have said. But the notion that the future is to be found in an authoritarian past goes hand-in-hand with a renewed global populist movement of recent years and Chega’s rewritten historical narrative, which includes downplaying the dictatorship’s global atrocities while outright celebrating it as a functioning state.

A woman holds a carnation flower during a performance at the 50th anniversary of the Carnation Revolution in Lisbon on April 25, 2024 [Fredrik Lerneryd/Al Jazeera]

This narrative has even begun to cross the political aisle. In 2019, Lisbon’s socialist mayor, Fernando Medina, underlined Portugal’s historical global identity as “a starting point for routes to discover new worlds, new people, new ideas”. Portraying Portugal as a positive historical actor who “discovered new shores”, Medina turned a blind eye to the brutality and atrocities that went hand in hand with Portuguese colonialism.

In the conservative press, Chega’s rise is portrayed as “a maturing wine” while the Carnation Revolution, according to The European Conservative magazine, opened the door to political instability, chaos and “left-wing hegemony”.

Framing its movement as a resurrection of Portuguese dignity and identity has been a success for the Portuguese far-right, according to an analysis by anthropologist Elsa Peralta: “In today’s overall scenario of global crisis, former imperial myths and mentalities seem to have gained a second life, often testifying to a grip on a nostalgic and biased version of the colonial past,” she writes.

Chega has been able to ride this nostalgic wave, lifted by a European discourse rooted in xenophobia, focusing on immigration and populist solutions to complex financial and political dilemmas, observers have said.

Uprooting the seeds of a revolution

Half a century ago, Estado Novo’s primary pillars of power were the police, military and the Catholic church – and academic circles. Both of Estado Novo’s dictators, Salazar and Caetano, were well-educated economists who saw Portugal’s universities as an extension of the conservative identity of the corporatist state.

Today, many Portuguese universities have become ideological battlegrounds between Chega’s far-right policy and climate action groups who are taking a stand against fossil fuels-driven capitalism.

The day before the 50th anniversary of the Carnation Revolution, Matilde Ventura and Jissica Silva from the student climate crisis action group Greve Climatica Estudantil (GCE), are smoking cigarettes in plastic chairs and enjoying the sunshine next to protest tents pitched on the campus of Lisbon’s Faculty of Social and Human Sciences for the past month.

This is a group action with various other action groups at universities in Portugal and other European countries, protesting against the country’s dependency on fossil fuels.

According to Ventura, a political science student, the climate crisis has become a perfect engine for Chega and the party’s far-right agenda which downplays the man-made environmental destruction of the Earth and questions climate change as a hoax.

“Something’s changing here,” she says, squinting her eyes against the bright sunshine.

‘Something’s changing here’. Matilde Ventura and Jissica Silva, seated centre, of Greve Climatica Estudantil (GCE), a student climate crisis action group at Lisbon University of Social and Human Sciences, says the police stormed their protest encampment last November [Fredrik Lerneryd/Al Jazeera]

She recalls the early hours of Monday, November 13, 2023, when the climate action groups had decided to occupy the campus ground. That was when police stormed the campus and forced the student occupants out of their tents where they slept. They were hauled to the police station and kept in custody overnight. “It was the first time since the Salazar dictatorship that police crossed the threshold into a university,” she says. “It was a significant and symbolic step. The police were violent against us, and – don’t forget – there are many Chega supporters among the police. But we refused to be silent.”

The students returned to the faculty campus the next day, refused to leave, and continued to make their voices heard. The threat against democracy and the climate go hand in hand, says Silva, a medical student. “The fossil fuels-driven capitalism is the context that embodies all aspects of the problem,” she adds. “All issues – political, financial, social and environmental – can be traced to the problem with climate change and its roots in fossil fuels dependency.”

CGE’s campus occupation is significant for both Portugal’s far-right movements and the country’s financial oligarchy. Lisbon’s Faculty of Social and Human Sciences was born from the Carnation Revolution, established in 1977 on a site that had previously belonged to the military.

Now, the faculty is about to be removed and the former military barracks it occupies is to be converted into a hotel complex. The moving date is not set, but the occupying students of CGE see it as a symbol of political ebb – of uprooting one of many seeds planted by the revolution.

“The circle is closed,” says Ventura. “It’s been 50 years since the revolution, and the far-right is back. Not only in parliament but also as a force against the democratic fight against the climate crisis.”

Members of Chega were there, at the campus, when Ventura and Silva and other students returned from police custody, they say. Chega’s young political star, 25-year-old former university student Rita Matias, entered the campus to hand out flyers and denounce the climate crisis protests.

“Chega was protected by the police,” says Ventura. “But we managed to oust them from the campus and block the entrance by forming a human wall and chanted the same motto as our parents did after the revolution: ‘25 of April, always! Fascism, never again!’”

The incident, she concludes, was a testament to the perils of Portugal’s far-right momentum: “Portugal’s political and economic leaders have no idea how it is to live here. If they did, they wouldn’t waste another minute by moving forward in the same shape and form as today.”

Silva talks of her grandfather, a war veteran from the battlefield of Portuguese Guinea (now Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde). “He often talks about our shared responsibility to make things right,” she says. “He returned to Africa after the revolution to work with a museum, to remember the colonial wars and what really happened. That’s an inspiration for me.”

Veterans parade with crowds celebrating them during the 50th anniversary of the Carnation Revolution in Lisbon on April 25, 2024 [Fredrik Lerneryd/Al Jazeera]

A lost revolution?

All over Lisbon, there are red carnations painted on murals, displayed on posters, visible in shops and worn by people. On an electricity pole close by, someone has shared a question on a poster for the 50th anniversary: “E depois?”(“And then what?”)

Portugal’s Carnation Revolution was “the most profound to have taken place in Europe since the Second World War”, writes historian Raquel Varela in her book about the revolution, A People’s History. But it’s easier to commemorate the dismantling of a fascist dictatorship and the decolonisation of African colonies than to approach the death of the revolution, due to the following counter-coup on November 25, 1975. As one prominent employee at Lisbon University, who wishes to remain anonymous, puts it, “We must not only remember 25 April 1974 but also address the trauma of 25 November 1975.”

Varela concludes that the reason the Portuguese coup in 1975 remains a delicate political topic is that it suffocated a social revolution that “was the last European revolution to call into question private property of the means of production”.

Between April 1974 and November 1975, writes Varela, “hundreds of thousands of workers went on strike, hundreds of workplaces were occupied sometimes for months and perhaps almost 3 million people took part in demonstrations, occupations and commissions. A great many workplaces were taken over and run by the workers. Land in much of southern and central Portugal was taken over by the workers themselves. Women won, almost overnight, a host of concessions and made massive strides towards equal pay and equality.”

Portugal’s NATO allies, primarily the United States, feared that the former fascist state would become a socialist state. The White House, led by President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, acted through the US embassy in Lisbon, instructing the American ambassador Frank Carlucci – later secretary of defense – to “vaccinate” Portugal against the communist disease. The United States supported an anti-communist military section, the so-called “Group of Nine” with both political capital and military equipment, as well as bullying Portugal within the NATO community.

When the “Group of Nine” finally deposed the revolutionary government in Lisbon on November 25, 1975, by dispatching 1,000 paratroopers, and clinched power over the Portuguese government, the Carnation Revolution came to an end.

The historical aftermath has been dominated by a narrative based on the notion that the Group of Nine normalised and stabilised Portuguese society via a “democratic counter-revolution”. The United States rewarded Portugal with a massive economic boost in the form of a “jumbo loan” to integrate the Portuguese Armed Forces further into NATO and liberalise the industries that had been “socialised” during the revolution.

Now, the tiny right-wing party, Centro Democratico e Social – Partido Popular (CDS-PP), has moved to make November 25, 1975 an annual day of remembrance. The day, CDS-PP states in a submitted law proposal, “marked the path towards an irreversibly liberal democracy of the Western model”. This proposal has the backing of Chega while PS, the Communist Party and the Left Bloc oppose it.

‘People became squatters’. Silvandira Costa, 61, was a young teenager when her family ‘returned’ from then-Guinea, Africa, following independence after the Carnation Revolution [Fredrik Lerneryd/Al Jazeera]

‘I am a refugee, not a returnee’

One focus of attention for far-right parties in Portugal today is immigration. One-third of Portugal’s non-white immigrants live in poverty.

In Rio de Mouro, a town of 50,000 inhabitants situated 23 kilometres (14 miles) from Lisbon, migrant workers from former Portuguese colonies arrive to sub-let over-priced apartments and take low-paid jobs in construction, the service sector or season-dependent industries.

Silvandira Costa, a 61-year-old assistant administrator and union activist at Editorial do Ministerio da Educação, a publisher of learning materials, points to a row of apartment buildings a five-minute drive from the train station. “All these houses were occupied by returnees after the revolution,” she says. “People had no place to go, nowhere to sleep, so they became squatters.”

Costa can relate to their situation. She was in her early teens in 1977 when her family “returned” to Portugal from Guinea-Bissau, where she was born, in the wake of Guinean independence. “I’m a refugee,” Costa emphasises – she does not see herself as a “returnee”. “I consider myself African. I was born in Guinea, I had my first experiences of smell and taste of food and experiencing the soil and the solidarity among the people in the village where I grew up.”

Refugee status, however, was never granted to 500,000 – 800,000 Portuguese citizens who arrived in Portugal in the mid-1970s from the former colonies. Portugal’s post-revolution governments and the United Nations High Commissioner’s Office for Refugees (UNHCR) deemed them “citizens of the country of their destination” and, therefore, not eligible for refugee status under the Convention of Refugees of 1951. For Silva, that underlined the sentiment of being a castaway in a new society, one to which she arrived without any possessions but the clothes she was wearing. “If we weren’t refugees, then what were we?” she asks out loud. “We left our home in Guinea in a hurry, boarded a plane and expected to deal with the situation in Portugal without any money, nowhere to stay, no work for our mom and me and my sister were looked upon as aliens at school.”

Costa’s mother had left Portugal in the 1950s, as part of an immigration programme under which Portuguese citizens – often poor families and urban dwellers – were promised land and a purpose at the frontiers of the empire. The colonial war in Portuguese Guinea changed everything. Then the Carnation Revolution ended 500 years of Portuguese presence in Africa.

It was a burden to carry, to be the “physical representation of Portuguese colonialism and repression”, says Costa.

People from Guinea-Bissau protest during the 50th anniversary of the Carnation Revolution in Lisbon on the 25th of April, 2024 [Fredrik Lerneryd/Al Jazeera]

At the train station, she approaches a group of young Guinean men who have gathered on the concrete steps close to the train station. They speak in Creole, about life, hardships, the situation in Guinea-Bissau, and the future.

“The future?” says one man and laughs. “We talk about Africa – but the only future we’ve got is the world under our feet.”

“Portugal has an enormous responsibility to deal with her colonial past and atrocities against African people,” says Costa. “Chega repeats the same historical mistake as the fascists did by blaming poverty, inflated living costs and social insecurity on immigrants. They’re afraid of the truth, and now they’re trying to whitewash Portugal’s colonial history.”

A closed circle

Back in Lisbon, at Rua da Misericordia, on the second floor of the old military barracks that was overtaken by the MFA on April 25, 1974, former navy captain Carlos Almada Contreiras looks out over the same street on which his life irrevocably changed – along with the lives of millions of others in Portugal and its colonies.

Now, tourists stroll in and out of restaurants and stores. Vehicles drive up and down the same cobblestone street that carried the olive-green military vehicles that early April morning 50 years ago.

“So much has changed, yet the street remains the same,” he almost whispers.

Locked inside the narrow street, constantly sprayed by salty winds from the Atlantic Ocean, Europe’s last social revolution took place. “It was a revolution for the coming generations; it’s important to tell the story in a way that runs along their everyday life, to make them realise what was at stake back in 1974.”

How did it feel to be part of the collapse of a colonial empire? Contreiras laughs, ponders the question, and then answers: “I’ve never really thought of it. But sure, that’s what we accomplished in the end.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

How a Gaza protest at Indiana University became a battle for free speech | Israel War on Gaza News

The sun was casting shadows onto the green grass of Dunn Meadow at Indiana University Bloomington, as a line of police carrying batons and shields moved forward.

Across from the police stood a daisy chain of protesters, their arms linked in front of a newly established pro-Palestine encampment. The cluster of tents resembled dozens of other encampments set up at universities across the United States in recent weeks, as demonstrations against Israel’s war in Gaza reached a fever pitch.

College campuses in the US have long been bastions of academic freedom and political protest, and Indiana University was no exception. For 55 years, Dunn Meadow had been its designated “assembly ground”, an area the university itself described as a “public forum for expression on all subjects”.

But that changed on April 24, as university administrators swiftly revised policies that had been on the books since 1969.

While the university had previously allowed “the use of signs, symbols or structures” for protests on the meadow, the change banned temporary structures without prior approval. The very next day, police appeared to dismantle the encampment — and arrest students.

The move catapulted Indiana University to the forefront of a heated debate: Are those protesting the war in Gaza facing disproportionate challenges to their rights to free speech and expression?

“Students and faculty and community members have gathered at this meadow for decades, and it has never been met with this,” said Benjamin Robinson, a professor of Germanic studies at the university who joined the protesters on April 25.

He was ultimately arrested, along with about 50 other demonstrators, all of whom received an immediate year-long ban from campus.

“Now I’m seeing this militarised, overwhelming, disproportionate show of force,” Robinson told Al Jazeera. “It makes you wonder: Why this time? Why is this time different?”

Possible ‘viewpoint bias’

The right to free speech is a cherished cultural ideal in the US, enshrined prominently in the First Amendment of the Constitution.

But the war in Gaza — and the protest movement it has inspired — has brought to the fore questions of where that freedom ends. Student protesters have taken aim at their schools’ ties to Israel, and even at the US government for its continued material and political support for the war.

How those protests are unfolding on college campuses has proven particularly thorny. Several high-profile administrators have argued that certain students, particularly those of Israeli and Jewish backgrounds, may feel targeted by the anti-war protests. They maintained dismantling the encampments is essential to creating a safe learning environment.

But some students, faculty and advocates say the attempts to dismantle the camps reveal biases about whose voices are prioritised on campus — and whose are blocked.

Alex Morey, the vice president of campus advocacy at the Foundation for Individuals Rights and Expression (FIRE), said a swift policy change like the one enacted at Indiana University — in an apparent response to a particular protest — “raises all the red flags and screams viewpoint discrimination”.

She told Al Jazeera that FIRE is currently monitoring about 10 instances of schools shifting their policies since the war started in a way that may be discriminatory.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also voiced concerns about the Indiana University policy change in the aftermath of last week’s arrests.

The president of the state ACLU chapter, Chris Daley, called it “alarming” that decades-old “policy would be specifically changed on the morning of, and in response to, a planned protest against the State of Israel’s treatment of Palestinians”.

At least 34,568 Palestinians have been killed in Israel’s offensive in Gaza, and rights groups have said the Palestinian enclave is on the verge of famine, as Israel’s siege approaches its ninth month.

Violent arrests

How administrators choose to respond to protests and cases of civil disobedience — defined as nonviolent acts where a law or policy is intentionally broken — can have wide-ranging implications.

Images of violent arrests have become common since the latest surge in university protests and encampments began. To date, more than 1,000 arrests have been recorded across 25 US campuses, according to CNN.

Columbia University in New York City is often understood as the epicentre for the current encampment movement: Its students started erecting tents on April 17, as part of a campaign to push the school to divest from Israel.

But the university’s reaction has set the tone for crackdowns across the country. The next day, Columbia called in the New York Police Department (NYPD), arresting more than 100 protesters.

Critics said the decision escalated an already tense situation. Arrests have since continued, with more than 282 additional students detained at Columbia and the City College of New York by Wednesday morning.

Scenes of police violence against faculty members and students at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and the University of Texas at Austin have stoked further anger.

The Austin campus is a state school — and critics have pointed out that restrictions of free speech there could teeter into government censorship.

Nevertheless, Texas Governor Greg Abbott, a self-styled free speech crusader and prominent Republican, decided to send state troopers onto the University of Texas campus on April 24, resulting in more than 50 arrests.

Morey at FIRE noted that Abbott issued an executive order in March requiring universities to update their free speech policies to respond to what he characterised as “the sharp rise in anti-Semitic speech and acts on university campuses”.

That, she said, could be seen as another example of “viewpoint discrimination” — favouring one point of view over another. Even right-wing libertarians have denounced the decision as a form of hypocrisy.

Former Congressman Justin Amash, for instance, wrote on the social media platform X: “If [Abbott’s] arresting them for their speech, then he’s violating the law, and his actions threaten everyone in the state, including everyone he claims to be protecting.”

The police have also been wary of violent crackdowns on the largely peaceful protesters.

In one particularly striking instance, The Washington Post reported that the Metropolitan Police in Washington, DC, refused a request from George Washington University to clear a protest encampment at the school.

A police official noted earlier this week that the protest “activity has remained peaceful”.

Rights on campuses

The US Constitution provides sweeping protections for political speech. That includes language that may be considered hate speech, as that label can potentially be used to stifle controversial or opposing views.

The constitutional protections are so broad they can include discussions or even the advocacy of violence. However, the Constitution does not protect speech that crosses the line into “true threats” of violence or incitement.

Students at state universities are automatically afforded these protections. By contrast, students at private universities typically enter into a contract with administrators upon enrolling that outlines what speech will be acceptable.

Still, civil liberties groups have argued that private institutions should inherently respect freedom of speech and expression. For instance, in an April 26 letter to campus presidents, ACLU officials wrote that “academic freedom and free inquiry require that similar [free speech] principles guide private universities”.

But universities must balance free speech concerns with student safety and the right to access education. Some groups have accused pro-Palestine protesters of being broadly anti-Semitic.

Protest organisers, however, have rejected that claim, saying it conflates criticism of Israeli policies with anti-Semitism. They have, in turn, accused administrators and outside forces, including influential donors, of seizing on isolated incidents of violence and harassment to justify stifling their free speech rights.

“Under the First Amendment, we say that we’re only going to stop speech that falls into narrow categories like a true threat or incitement or discriminatory harassment,” FIRE’s Morey explained. “That is not somebody shouting ‘intifada’ or ‘from the river to the sea’ at a peaceful protest.”

However, she added, the Supreme Court established a specific standard for discriminatory harassment in an educational context.

She explained that the court defines it “as unwelcome conduct that can include speech that’s so severe, pervasive and objectively offensive, it creates a pattern of conduct that prohibits the victim or student of getting an educational opportunity or benefit”.

Even at universities where students are guaranteed their First Amendment rights, administrators can impose “time, place and manner restrictions” on protests to ensure that the school can continue to function, according to Tom Ginsburg, a law professor and faculty director for the University of Chicago’s Forum for Free Inquiry and Expression.

“These restrictions have to be, in my view, reasonably accommodative of student speech,” Ginsburg said. “Then the second issue is: Are they being applied neutrally? And this is a place where administrators have to be very careful.”

How administrators respond is often subject to the influence of political tailwinds, Ginsburg added.

In the US, for instance, support for Israel is seen as sacrosanct among many Washington politicians. That, in turn, renders any questioning of Israel’s war in Gaza potentially a political third rail.

“Congress has come in and treated the issue like a political football,” Ginsburg told Al Jazeera. “And that’s always bad from the point of view of higher education.”

Since December, a Republican-led committee in the House of Representatives has called the presidents of four high-profile private universities to appear for public questioning over allegations of anti-Semitism on campus.

Columbia University President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik was among them. On April 17, she defended herself before the committee, though critics accused her of obsequiousness before the lawmakers. The crackdown on her campus’s protesters occurred shortly after her appearance.

“When legislators get involved, they can distort the responses [of administrators],” Ginsburg told Al Jazeera. “I think this might be part of the Columbia story: The president was thinking about her testimony before Congress instead of her own campus culture.”

‘Insist on our basic rights’

At Indiana University, a state school, outrage has continued to grow over the administration’s abrupt policy change to the Dunn Meadow protests.

In a letter, the president of the school’s faculty, Colin Johnson, called on university President Pamela Whitten to step down. Local officials and other faculty groups have also condemned the new protest restrictions.

In a tweet, Steve Sanders, a professor at the university’s law school, said it was “difficult to argue the policy [change] was viewpoint-neutral, as the First Amendment requires”.

For her part, Whitten defended the policy switch in a statement to faculty obtained by the publication Inside Higher Ed. She noted the changes were posted online and at Dunn Meadow before arrests were made.

“Participants were told repeatedly that they were free to stay and protest, but that any tent would need to be dismantled,” she wrote. She also cited the risk of “external participants” joining the camp.

But Robinson, the Germanic studies professor arrested at the meadow, said a higher ideal was at stake in the policy change. Photos of his arrest show him standing between police and students, wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the phrase, “Jews say ceasefire now.”

“We tried to show that we were determined to insist on our basic rights,” he told Al Jazeera after his release.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

South Africa: 30 years after apartheid, what has changed? | Nelson Mandela News

Three decades ago, on April 27, 1994, after centuries of white rule, Black South Africans voted in general elections for the first time. This marked the official end of apartheid rule, cemented days later when Nelson Mandela was sworn in as the country’s first Black president.

Since the arrival of Dutch settlers in the 1600s and British colonists in the 1700s and 1800s, South Africa had been a project that subjected Black people to systematically segregationist laws and practices.

But it was the adoption of apartheid in 1948 that codified and formalised these racist practices into law. It strictly separated people into separate classes based on their skin colour, putting the white minority in the highest class, with all others, including Black, Indigenous, multi-race people, and descendants of indentured Indian workers, below them.

South Africa’s road to freedom was long and bloody –  laden with the bodies of thousands of Black activists and students who dared to protest, both loudly and quietly.

The wounds of those times are still painful and visible. Black South Africans make up 81 percent of the 60 million population. But, burdened with the trauma and lingering inequalities of the past, Black communities continue to be disproportionately afflicted with poverty.

Here’s how apartheid unfolded, how it collapsed, and what has since changed in South Africa:

(Al Jazeera)

What was apartheid?

The Afrikaner National Party (NP) government formally codified apartheid as government policy in South Africa in 1948.

Translated from Afrikaans – a language first spoken by Dutch and German settlers – apartheid means “apart-hood” or “separateness”, and its name embodied the ways the ruling white minority sought to separate itself from, and rule over, non-white people socially and spatially.

The policies rigidly and forcefully separated South Africa’s diverse racial groups into strata: White, Coloured (multiracial), Indian, and Black. These groups had to live and develop separately – and grossly unequally – such that although they lived in the same country, it was largely impossible for any one group to mix with another.

The rules were debilitating particularly for the Black majority who were relegated to the bottom rung. Laws limited their movement and squeezed them into small sections of land. The places they were allowed to inhabit were generally impoverished and included designated “Bantustans” (rural homelands) or townships on the outskirts of cities – settlements largely built out of ramshackle corrugated iron homes that were unplanned, overcrowded and had few to no amenities.

Meanwhile, the minority white population reaped the benefits of a gold-and-diamond-powered economy and flagrantly underpaid non-white labour as it kept the lion’s share of land, resources and amenities for themselves.

Apartheid also affected Indians, at first brought into South Africa as indentured labourers and later as traders, and multiracial people, called the Coloured community, who faced segregation and discrimination but to a lesser degree than Black Africans.

(Al Jazeera)

What were the apartheid laws?

Apartheid was enforced through a system of strict laws that kept everything in its place. There were “Grand” laws dictating housing and employment allocations, and “Petty” laws dealing with rules of everyday life, like the racial separations in public amenities.

Some of the most important laws were:

  • Where people lived: The Group Areas Act – People were legally segregated based on race and allocated separate areas to live and work in. The law relegated nonwhite groups further away from developed urban cities. Black people, in particular, were housed in under-resourced fringe townships far from the centre. From the late 1950s, some 3.5 million Black South Africans were forced to relocate from urban areas, and some 70 percent of the population was squeezed into 13 percent of the country’s most unproductive land. Those who opposed the laws and refused to move had their homes forcibly demolished and were sometimes arrested and imprisoned. Black people, specifically men, who worked in cities as a source of cheap labour were required to carry “pass books” that dictated which white areas they were allowed to be in and for how long. Under the Separate Amenities Laws, public transport, parks, beaches, theatres, restaurants, and other amenities were segregated racially. Signs stating “Whites Only” and “Natives” were commonplace.
  • What people learned: The Bantu Education Act – Apartheid laws stipulated the segregation of schools, including setting a different standard of education for different races. White schools were the best resourced, Coloured and Indian schools in the middle, while Black Africans were intentionally given an inferior education, specifically meant to ready them for manual labour and more menial jobs. A later law also segregated tertiary education. Some universities allowed non-white students to study but only to a limited degree, as apartheid officials sought to intentionally underskill the population. Government spending on white institutions was far higher than those catering to other groups.
  • Who people could marry: The Immorality Laws – While intermarriages between white and Black people were already illegal under a 1927 law, a revised version (PDF) criminalised marriage and intimate relationships between white people and all other groups. The penalty was up to five years imprisonment. Thousands of people were arrested for this during apartheid, with nearly 20,000 prosecuted.
In August 1990, Black South African protesters are dispersed by tear gas fired by police [File: John Parkin/AP]

Why did apartheid end?

Apartheid came to an end out of the need for the white minority to sustain itself, not because of a change of heart, noted Thula Simpson, a historian of apartheid at the University of Pretoria.

“There was nothing benevolent or voluntary about the retreat of the white government,” he told Al Jazeera. “It was because there was an internal criticism of apartheid, and people were basically saying, ‘In order to maintain white supremacy, you must maintain white survival.’”

Before apartheid finally yielded, it was placed under tremendous pressure, including by growing resistance among Black South Africans. Political groups like the African National Congress (ANC) led by Nelson Mandela, and the Pan African Congress (PAC), roused the population, instigating protests, peaceful and violent. These movements triggered deadly crackdowns by the apartheid government.

When, on March 21,1960, apartheid police officers opened fire on some 7,000 Black people protesting pass laws, killing 69 people and injuring 180 others in what is now known as the Sharpeville Massacre, the world noticed. International uproar and condemnation from the United Nations followed, even as Mandela was imprisoned and the ANC liberation movement and others like it were banned by the apartheid government.

The 1976 killing of hundreds of Soweto pupils protesting the compulsory use of Afrikaans in Black schools also drew a similar global reaction. June 16 still marks the African Union’s “Day of the African Child,” in remembrance of those killed in the Soweto Uprising.

Increasingly, South Africa became isolated as it was slapped with economic sanctions, starting with a trade ban from Jamaica in 1959. The country was banned from sporting events, as well. By the 1990s, President FW de Klerk was forced to release Mandela and start negotiations for a democratic transition.

(Al Jazeera)

What’s changed since apartheid?

Legally and politically, much has changed in South Africa, with people of all races now free and equal under the law. Anyone is technically able to live, work and study anywhere, and people are free to interact and marry across colour lines. Black South Africans have democratically governed through the ANC for the past 30 years, compared with during apartheid when it was illegal for a Black person to even vote.

However, despite the significant gains, the legacy of apartheid is still present economically and spatially, which has contributed to South Africa being one of the least equal countries in the world.

Economy

Although South Africa’s economy grew with the end of apartheid and international sanctions, Black South Africans households continue to receive only a small share.

In the first decade after apartheid, the ANC-led South Africa’s gross domestic product (GDP) went from $153bn in 1994 to $458bn in 2011, according to the World Bank.

However, a cocktail of corruption and government inefficiency has seen economic growth taper off, with gross debt rising from 23.6 percent of GDP in 2008 to 71.1 percent in 2022, according to researchers at Harvard (PDF).

While infrastructure quality has declined in general – partly due to the crumbling of the coal-powered electricity system that provided cheap power for production – it is exacerbating the historical inequalities Black communities face, experts said.

“The whole network has not been maintained so now the collapse is spreading out [even] to areas where it was not the norm,” Simpson of Pretoria University said, referencing South Africa’s recent, but frequent power and water cuts. “That impacts first and foremost the poor people,” he added.

A shopkeeper serves a customer in the dark during a regular electricity blackout in South Africa [File: Rogan Ward/Reuters]

In 2022, the World Bank classified (PDF) South Africa as the most unequal country in the world, and listed race, the legacy of apartheid, a missing middle class and highly unequal land ownership, as the major drivers. About 10 percent of the population controls 80 percent of the wealth, its report said.

Researchers from Spain’s Universidad de Vigo in 2014 found (PDF) that the average monthly income of Black South African households was 10,554 rand ($552), compared with 117,249 rand ($6,138) in white households.

In 2017, a government survey tracking household expenditure echoed those findings, stating that nearly half of all Black-headed households were spending the least while only 11 percent were in the highest spending category.

Economic woes have added pressure on the ANC, which is predicted to lose a parliamentary majority in the upcoming May elections for the first time since 1994. Simpson said a divide between older voters who witnessed the ANC’s struggle to end apartheid and younger people who do not have an attachment to the party has widened.

Education and skilled employment

After apartheid collapsed, historically white schools with good amenities and qualified teachers were desegregated and drew ambitious parents from Black communities, where government schools were poorly funded and lacked amenities like toilets – conditions that have persisted. According to a 2020 Amnesty International report, out of 23,471 public schools, 20,071 had no laboratory, 18,019 had no library, and 16,897 had no internet.

However, there is persistent trouble with transport to these formerly white-only schools for pupils from low-income and rural communities as these areas remain far apart and are not easily accessible. Pupils have also complained of racism in the formerly segregated white schools.

Meanwhile, general unemployment in South Africa is at more than 33 percent – one of the world’s highest. Nearly 40 percent of Black South Africans were unemployed in the first three months of 2023, while that rate was 7.5 percent among white people, according to government figures (PDF).

Where Black people make up 80 percent of the employable population (PDF) and account for 16.9 percent of top management jobs, white people who comprise about 8 percent of the employable population hold 62.9 percent of top management jobs.

A new law aimed at seeing more Black people employed – the Employment Equity Amendment Bill of 2020 – was signed last year by President Cyril Ramaphosa, but it sparked debate, with South Africa’s main opposition party the Democratic Alliance (DA) saying the law prescribes “race quotas” for companies and would cause other groups to lose jobs.

Housing

Although Black South Africans are no longer confined to rural, fringe townships – and people of colour spread out to urban areas across the country at the end of white minority rule – many still live in settlements with limited amenities.

In the once-majority-white Cape Town, for example, the population of Black South Africans increased from 25 percent in 1996 to 43 percent in 2016, according to the Center for Sustainable Cities (PDF).

“There’s been a massive redistribution of the population and whites have moved to the suburbs or outside the country,” Simpson said. “It has created the opportunity for Black South Africans to move closer to business districts.”

But, the historian added, “the townships remain the areas that have not been de-racialised.”

In some parts, small buffers separate Black townships from high-income neighbourhoods, providing starkly visible differences in satellite images. For example, a quick Google Maps tour will reveal the beautiful Strand, a seaside community in the Western Cape province that boasts of big homes with large, well-tended yards, and clean streets. Just beside it though, the Nomzamo township stands, with tinier homes and streets littered with refuse.

Cape Town’s Khayelitsha township is seen in this picture taken in 2016 [File: Johnny Miller/Reuters]

Raesetje Sefala, a researcher at the Distributed AI Research Institute (DAIR), said her organisation has observed that townships are still expanding. “They continue to resemble their appearance during the apartheid era, indicating that similar small land sizes are still being allocated,” she told Al Jazeera.

Sefala said the South African government now groups townships together with well-serviced suburbs as “formal residential neighbourhoods”, which makes it difficult for researchers to track the actual improvements in quality of life since the end of apartheid.

However, as someone who comes from a township, “I can attest to the extent of the poor service delivery,” she added.

Government reforms have sought to provide subsidised homes for low-income earners, with some four million homes (PDF) delivered since 1994 according to the South Africa Human Rights Commission. But some of those policies have meant houses are located far from economic centres, inadvertently recreating the same apartheid dynamic, some researchers have said.

Besides, there is a national backlog of some 2.3 million households and individuals still waiting for a home since 1994.

Meanwhile, rural homelands, where Black people were once forced to reside, continue to be at a disadvantage. For one, they experience extremely low employment rates: Although some 29 percent of South Africa’s population lives there, employment rates are roughly half of what they are in all other parts of the country according to Harvard researchers. Experts have blamed the government’s failures to expand connecting infrastructure like transport, technology, and know-how to these historically excluded places.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

‘Children of the Ganges’ – The mallah community of India’s Varanasi | Workers’ Rights

Varanasi, India –Hum paani ke jeev hain. We are creatures of water,” says 29-year-old Vishwakarma Sahni.

Sahni belongs to Varanasi’s community of approximately 8,000 mallah, the boatmen whose lives are deeply intertwined with the Ganges – a river considered sacred in India and which they hold in profound reverence.

To them, the Ganges is not merely a river; it is their lifeline.

A boatman offers prayers before setting out on his boat [Uday Narayanan/Al Jazeera]

On its journey eastward from the Himalayas, the Ganges traverses more than 2,500 km (1,550 miles) before flowing into the Bay of Bengal in the northeastern Indian Ocean. Along its route, it passes through several regions, including the ancient city of Varanasi, also known as Kashi or Banaras in Hindi. “Banaras” is derived from the word “Banarasi” in the Pali language.

A cruise ship sails past at sunrise. In 2018, the government of India introduced three private cruise ships to operate along the ghats of Varanasi. The boatmen argue that the cruise liners adversely impact their livelihood [Uday Narayanan/Al Jazeera]

Varanasi has long fascinated historians, anthropologists, artists and storytellers and is often celebrated as one of the world’s oldest inhabited cities. It also happens to be the constituency of India’s Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, who rode to power in 2014 with a promise to transform Varanasi into a Kyoto-style smart city, and who is facing elections again from later this month.However, the lives of Varanasi’s boatmen have remained largely overlooked, they say.

In 2018, despite widespread protests from the community, the Government of India granted permits to three private cruise ships to operate along the ghats of Varanasi – the small staircases which descend to quays and cremation facilities along the river.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

‘I am prepared to die’: Mandela’s speech which shook apartheid | Nelson Mandela

“Accused number one” had been speaking from the dock for almost three hours by the time he uttered the words that would ultimately change South Africa. The racially segregated Pretoria courtroom listened in silence as Nelson Mandela’s account of his lifelong struggle against white minority rule reached its conclusion. Judge Quintus de Wet managed not to look at Mandela for the majority of his address. But before accused number one delivered his final lines, defence lawyer Joel Joffe remembered, “Mandela paused for a long time and looked squarely at the judge” before saying:

“During my lifetime, I have dedicated my life to this struggle of the African people. I have fought against white domination, and I have fought against Black domination. I have cherished the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons will live together in harmony and with equal opportunities. It is an ideal for which I hope to live for and to see realised. But, my Lord, if it needs be, it is an ideal for which I am prepared to die.”

After he spoke that last sentence, novelist and activist Nadine Gordimer, who was in the courtroom on April 20, 1964, said, “The strangest and most moving sound I have ever heard from human throats came from the Black side of the court audience. It was short, sharp and terrible: something between a sigh and a groan.”

This was because there was a very good chance that Mandela and his co-accused would be sentenced to death for their opposition to the apartheid government. His lawyers had actually tried to talk him out of including the “I am prepared to die” line because they thought it might be seen as a provocation. But as Mandela later wrote in his autobiography, “I felt we were likely to hang no matter what we said, so we might as well say what we truly believed.”

Nelson Mandela and his fellow defendants from the Rivonia Trial in 1994 revisit the lime quarry where they worked while imprisoned at Robben Island after the 1963-1964 trial in Pretoria [File: Louise Gubb/Corbis Saba via Getty Images]

‘The trial that changed South Africa’

The Rivonia Trial – in which Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Govan Mbeki and seven other anti-apartheid activists were charged with sabotage – was the third and final time Mandela would stand accused in an apartheid court. From 1956 to 1961, he had been involved in the Treason Trial, a long-running embarrassment for the apartheid government, which would ultimately see all 156 of the accused acquitted because the state failed to prove they had committed treason.

And in 1962, he had been charged with leaving the country illegally and leading Black workers in a strike. He knew he was guilty on both counts, so he decided to put the apartheid government on trial. On the first day of the case, Mandela, known for his natty Western dress, arrived in traditional Xhosa attire to the shock of all present. He led his own defence and did not call any witnesses. Instead, he gave what has been remembered as the “Black man in a white court” speech, during which he asserted that “posterity will pronounce that I was innocent and that the criminals that should have been brought before this court are the members of the Verwoerd government,” a reference to Prime Minister Hendrik Verwoerd.

The 156 accused in the Treason Trial, Including Nelson Mandela (third row, eighth from the right), Walter Sisulu and Olivier Tambo. All 156 were acquitted after the state failed to prove they had committed treason [File: Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images]

The Rivonia Trial, which kicked off in October 1963, was named after the Johannesburg suburb where Liliesleaf Farm was located. From 1961 to 1963, the Liliesleaf museum website notes, the farm served “as the secret headquarters and nerve centre” of the African National Congress (ANC), the South African Communist Party (SACP) and Umkhonto we Sizwe (MK, the military wing of the ANC). On July 11, 1963, acting on a tip-off, the police raided Liliesleaf, seizing many incriminating documents and arresting the core leadership of the underground liberation movement. Mandela, who was serving a five-year sentence on Robben Island from his conviction in the 1962 trial, was flown to Pretoria to take his place as accused number one.

Nelson Mandela wore traditional Xhosa attire to his trial in 1962 [Eli Weinberg/Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images]

Instead of charging the men with high treason, State Prosecutor Percy Yutar opted for the easier-to-prove crime of sabotage – the definition of which was so broad that it included misdemeanours such as trespassing – and which had recently been made a capital offence by the government. Thanks to the evidence seized from Liliesleaf, which included several documents handwritten by Mandela and the testimony of Bruno Mtolo (referred to as Mr X throughout the trial), a regional commander of MK who had turned state witness, Yutar was virtually assured of convictions for the main accused.

In his autobiography, Mandela explains their defence strategy: “Right from the start we had made it clear that we intended to use the trial not as a test of the law but as a platform for our beliefs. We would not deny, for example, that we had been responsible for acts of sabotage. We would not deny that a group of us had turned away from non-violence. We were not concerned with getting off or lessening our punishment, but with making the trial strengthen the cause for which we were struggling – at whatever cost to ourselves. We would not defend ourselves in a legal sense so much as in a moral sense.”

The accused and their lawyers decided that Mandela would open the defence case not as a witness – who would be subject to cross-examination – but with a statement from the dock. This format would allow him to speak uninterrupted, but it carried less legal weight.

A view from the museum at Liliesleaf Farm In Rivonia, South Africa, which served as the headquarters of the ANC and was the namesake of the trial in Pretoria in 1963 and 1964 [View Pictures/Universal Images Group via Getty Images]

Mandela writes that he spent “about a fortnight drafting [his] address, working mainly in my cell in the evenings”. He first read it to his co-accused, who approved the text with a few tweaks, before passing it to lead defence lawyer Bram Fischer. Fischer was concerned that the final paragraph might be taken the wrong way by the judge, so he got another member of the defence team, Hal Hanson, to read it. Hanson was unequivocal: “If Mandela reads this in court, they will take him straight to the back of the courthouse and string him up.”

“Nelson remained adamant” that the line should stay, wrote George Bizos, another member of the defence team. Bizos eventually persuaded Mandela to tweak his wording: “I proposed that Nelson say he hoped to live for and achieve his ideals but if needs be was prepared to die.”

On the evening of April 19, Bizos got Mandela’s permission to take a copy of his statement to Gordimer. The respected British journalist Anthony Sampson, who knew Mandela well, happened to be staying with her and he retired to Gordimer’s study with the text. “What seemed like hours” later, Bizos wrote, Sampson “eventually returned, obviously moved by what he had read”. Sampson made no major changes to the text, but he did advise moving some of the paragraphs because he felt journalists were likely to read the beginning and the end properly and skim over the rest.

Gordimer does not seem to have suggested changes to the address, but she did see several drafts. She, too, was happy with the final version.

(Al Jazeera)

The statement from the dock

Yutar, who had been hoodwinked by the defence team’s constant requests for court transcripts into spending weeks preparing to cross-examine Mandela, was visibly shocked when Fischer announced that Mandela would instead be making a statement from the dock. He even tried to get the judge to explain to Mandela that he was committing a legal error. But the usually stone-faced judge laughed as he dismissed the request. Mandela, himself a lawyer, was represented by some of the country’s finest legal minds. He knew exactly what he was doing.

“My Lord, I am the first accused,” Mandela said. “I admit immediately that I was one of the persons who helped to form Umkhonto we Sizwe and that I played a prominent role in its affairs until I was arrested in August 1962.” Thanks to the recent recovery of the original recordings of Mandela’s statement, we now know that he spoke for 176 minutes, not the four and a half hours regularly cited.

As Martha Evans, author of Speeches That Shaped South Africa, explained, Mandela “candidly confessed some of the crimes levelled against him before giving a cogent and detailed account of the conditions and events that had led to the establishment of MK and the adoption of the armed struggle”.

Nelson Mandela gives a speech in 1961, three years before he was sentenced to life in prison during the Rivonia Trial [File: Keystone-France/Gamma-Keystone via Getty Images]

He spoke at length of the ANC’s tradition of nonviolence and explained why he had planned sabotage: “I did not plan it in a spirit of recklessness nor because I have any love for violence. I planned it as a result of a calm and sober assessment of the political situation that had arisen after many years of tyranny, exploitation and oppression of my people by the whites.”

The final section of the address focused on inequality in South Africa and humanised Black South Africans in ways that Mandela argued the country’s white population rarely acknowledged:

“Whites tend to regard Africans as a separate breed. They do not look upon them as people with families of their own. They do not realise that we have emotions, that we fall in love like white people do, that we want to be with our wives and children like white people want to be with theirs, that we want to earn money, enough money to support our families properly.”

And: “Above all, my Lord, we want equal political rights because without them our disabilities will be permanent. I know this sounds revolutionary to the whites in this country because the majority of voters will be Africans. This makes the white man fear democracy. But this fear cannot be allowed to stand in the way of the only solution which will guarantee racial harmony and freedom for all.”

Interestingly, Gordimer noted that the speech “read much better than it was spoken. Mandela’s delivery was very disappointing indeed, hesitant, parsonical (if there is such a word), boring. Only at the end did the man come through.”

The ANC’s Freedom Charter preamble is written on the wall at the Palace of Justice in Pretoria, South Africa [Theana Breugem/Foto24/ Gallo Images/Getty Images]

Hanging by a thread

After Mandela’s address, several of the accused subjected themselves to cross-examination. Gordimer was particularly impressed by Walter Sisulu: “Sisulu was splendid. What a paradox – he is almost uneducated while [Mandela] has a law degree! He was lucid and to the point – and never missed a point in his replies to Yutar.”

The defence team enjoyed a number of minor victories with Judge de Wet fairly regularly telling the court that Yutar had failed to prove one point or another. After final arguments were heard in mid-May, court was adjourned for three weeks for the judge to consider his verdict.

For the main accused, that verdict was always going to be guilty. Avoiding the noose became the defence team’s number one priority. In the courtroom, this entailed asking Alan Paton, a world famous novelist who was leader of the vehemently anti-apartheid Liberal Party, to give evidence in mitigation of sentence.

But the real action happened outside the court, Sampson wrote in his authorised biography of Mandela: “The accused had been buoyed up by the growing support from abroad, not only from many African countries but also, more to Mandela’s surprise, from Britain. … On May 7, 1964, the British Prime Minister, Alec Douglas-Home, offered to send a private message to Verwoerd about the trial. But Sir Hugh Stephenson [Britain’s ambassador to South Africa] recommended that ‘no more pressure should be exerted’ and, contrary to some published reports, there is no evidence the message was sent. When the South African Ambassador called on the Foreign Office that month, he was told that the government was now under less pressure to take a stronger line against South Africa, though death sentences would bring the matter to a head again.”

The recordings of the Rivonia Trial seen stored in a file. In 2016, the Department of Arts and Culture reached an agreement with France’s National Audiovisual Institute to digitise the court proceedings of the proceedings [File: Theana Breugem/Foto24/ Gallo Images/Getty Images]

A week before the verdicts, Bizos visited British Consul-General Leslie Minford at his Pretoria home. “As I was leaving, Leslie put his arm around my shoulders and said, ‘George, there won’t be a death sentence.’ I did not ask him how he knew. For one thing, he had downed a number of whiskies. Certainly, I felt I could not rely on the information nor could I tell the team or our anxious clients.”

Upping the stakes further was the decision by Mandela, Sisulu and Mbeki to not appeal their sentence – even if it were death. As he listened to sentencing arguments, Mandela clutched a handwritten note that concluded with the words: “If I must die, let me declare for all to know that I will meet my fate as a man.”

Paton and Hanson spoke in mitigation of sentence on the morning of June 12, 1964. Bizos noted, “Judge de Wet not only took no note of what was being said but he appeared not to be listening.” He had already made his mind up, and when the formalities were over, he announced: “I have decided not to impose the supreme penalty, which in a case like this would usually be the penalty for such a crime. But consistent with my duty, that is the only leniency which I can show. The sentence in the case of all the accused will be one of life imprisonment.”

Professor Thula Simpson, the leading historian of MK, told Al Jazeera, “There is no evidence that De Wet was leaned on by the state. I don’t believe there’s any evidence for this being a political rather than a judicial judgement.”

Professor Roger Southall, author of dozens of books on Southern African politics, agreed. “At the time, there was a lot of speculation about whether there was pressure on the SA government to ensure that capital punishment was not imposed,” he told Al Jazeera. “But there is also no proof that the SA government intervened. That remains an unanswered question. We have to presume that the judge knew the international and local climate.”

President Jacob Zuma, third from right, and former South African President Nelson Mandela during a lunch for Rivonia Trial defendants and political veterans in 2010 in Cape Town, South Africa [File: Foto24/Gallo Images/Getty Images)

Business as usual?

“Rivonia got a lot of global publicity,” Southall said. “But once the trial ended, it seemed like Mandela had been forgotten.” Mandela and other senior ANC figures were either locked up on Robben Island or were living in relative obscurity in exile. “Capital came pouring into South Africa at a rate that’s never been equalled since,” Southall continued. “The apartheid government seemed totally in control. The resistance was dead. It was a thoroughly grim period for the ANC.”

This only started to change in 1973, Southall said, “with the Durban strikes and the revival of the trade union movement”, which had been battered into submission. The rebirth of the Black trade union movement signalled the beginning of a new phase of opposition politics. Things ratcheted up several notches on June 16, 1976, when apartheid policemen opened fire on a peaceful protest of schoolchildren in the Black township of Soweto, killing 15 people. In the eight months that followed, violence spread across South Africa, killing about 700 people.

The resuscitation of Black opposition to apartheid under a new band of leaders coincided with the decline of the economy. After the Soweto uprising, foreign investors fled South Africa in their droves, laying bare the fundamental flaws of the apartheid government’s dependence on cheap labour and mining and its point-blank refusal to meaningfully educate people of colour. The apartheid government spent about 12 times more per child on white schoolchildren than it did on Black ones.

Police horse-whip demonstrators to break up a march to Nelson Mandela’s prison in 1985 [File: David Turnley/Corbis/VCG via Getty Images]

By the 1980s, even the apartheid government could see something had to change, and in 1983, Prime Minister PW Botha announced plans to include multiracial and Indian South Africans, but not Black South Africans, in a new “tricameral” parliament. His plan backfired spectacularly, uniting the opposition like never before under the newly formed United Democratic Front (UDF). One of the UDF’s key demands was the unconditional release of all political prisoners, especially Mandela. Soon after its launch in August 1983, the UDF numbered almost 1,000 different organisations from all segments of South African society. Botha didn’t know what had hit him.

When, in 1984, Oliver Tambo, the ANC’s exiled leader, asked his supporters to “make South Africa ungovernable”, the townships rose up. Things got so bad in 1985 that Botha declared a state of emergency – but this was also the year in which tentative secret talks with Mandela began.

An icon re-emerges

“In the late 1970s, you started getting occasional demands that Mandela be released,” Southall said. By the mid-1980s, “Free Nelson Mandela” became a constant and global refrain with the “I am prepared to die” statement being quoted at rallies and emblazoned on T-shirts. “On one level, the ANC ‘invented’ this version of Mandela,” Southall said. “Until 1976, the apartheid government had done a very good job of erasing him from public memory.”

What might have happened if Mandela had been sentenced to death at Rivonia? One does not need to look far for a possible answer. The other poster boy of the global anti-apartheid movement in the 1980s was Steve Biko (subject of the Peter Gabriel hit song), the young leader of the Black Consciousness movement, who had been tortured to death by apartheid police in 1977. “You can also have myths develop when you execute people,” Simpson said. “If they had executed Mandela, he would have been a different icon in a different struggle.”

Nelson Mandela gives a speech on his release from prison in South Africa in 1990 [File: Lily Franey/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images]

A dream realised

On February 11, 1990, Mandela was released from prison. From the balcony of Cape Town City Hall, he addressed his supporters for the first time since Rivonia. He opened his speech by saying: “I stand here before you not as a prophet but as a humble servant of you, the people. Your tireless and heroic sacrifices have made it possible for me to be here today. I, therefore, place the remaining years of my life in your hands.”

He ended by quoting the final lines of his 1964 statement from the dock, explaining that “they are true today as they were then.” Over the course of the next decade, as Mandela first navigated the treacherous path to democracy and then served as the country’s first democratically elected president, he lived out his vision of a “democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities”.

When the ANC’s Chris Hani was assassinated by an apartheid supporter in 1993, Mandela assumed the moral leadership of the country by urging his incensed supporters not to derail the peace process. After becoming president, he engaged in numerous public shows of reconciliation: He went for tea with the widow of slain apartheid Prime Minister Verwoerd, and he donned the Springbok rugby jersey (for many, a symbol of white supremacy) when he presented the almost entirely white South African team with the World Cup trophy in 1995.

Former President Nelson Mandela visits a memorial for Hendrik Verwoerd, the slain apartheid prime minister whose widow Mandela visited for tea in 2009 [File: Media24/Gallo Images/Getty Images]

Postscript

When Mandela died in 2013, US President Barack Obama spoke at his memorial, famously – and predictably – quoting the final paragraph of the statement from the dock at Rivonia. By that stage, there were already some in South Africa who felt that Mandela was a “sellout” because he had been too forgiving of whites during the transition.

Now, more than a decade later as inequality continues to plague the country and South Africa stands on the cusp of its most competitive general election in 30 years of democracy, it is common to hear young Black South Africans accuse Mandela of selling out. Southall does not take such claims too seriously: “People who say he’s a sellout are either too young or too forgetful to appreciate how close we came to civil war. Mandela played a huge role in pulling off the peaceful transition.”

“Now, after 30 years of democracy, there is still a tension between white domination and Black domination,” Simpson said. “South Africa is not what Mandela dreamed of. He might be turning in his grave, but we can’t forget that many of the policies that have gone wrong were introduced by him. He might have turned things around, but he might have not.”

“You can’t blame Mandela for where we are now,” Southall said. “There are individual things he got wrong. But he also got a lot of things right.”

Mandela’s is one of the 12 remarkable lives covered in Nick Dall’s recent book, Legends: People Who Changed South Africa for the Better, co-written with Matthew Blackman.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Fears of discrimination in Thailand despite looming same sex marriage bill | LGBTQ News

Bangkok, Thailand – Thanadech Jandee is thrilled that Thailand’s marriage equality bill, allowing same-sex couples to marry, is moving closer to becoming law.

Thanadech, who was born biologically female and had gender reassignment surgery to identify as male last year, lives with his girlfriend and her son from a previous relationship.

“I want the equal marriage law to be passed. It will make my family complete like any other family of men and women,” the 34-year-old Grab delivery driver in Bangkok told Al Jazeera.

But along with many LGBTQ activists, Thanadech worries about the bill’s terminology.

Activists say using “parents” and “mother and father” in legal terms will affirm those who identify as LGBTQ on equal terms with other couples.

But efforts to get the wording into the bill have so far been unsuccessful.

The proposed marriage equality law will label marriage as a partnership between two individuals, instead of a man and a woman or a husband and a wife. Couples will have full rights, including receiving medical treatment, tax initiatives, inheritance rights and the right to adopt children.

“I just want to do whatever it takes to have rights that normal men and women have,” Thanadech said.

Thailand’s parliament moved closer to legalising same-sex marriage after the Senate approved the bill at its first hearing on Tuesday. The previous week, Thailand’s lower house approved the bill nearly unanimously – only 10 of the 415 sitting lawmakers did not vote in its favour.

The marriage equality bill passed the lower house with almost unanimous support. It also passed its first reading in the more conservative upper house with the next readings scheduled for July [Manan Vatsyayana/AFP]

The bill will be examined by the Senate vetting committee before two more readings, scheduled for July. The final step is for Thailand’s king to sign and approve it.

“It’s a cause for celebration,” Mookdapa Yangyuenpradorn, a Thailand human rights associate at Fortify Rights, told Al Jazeera.

“[But] it is important to ensure that the more inclusive and gender-neutral language “parents” is included in future revisions to prevent any discriminatory application of the Civil and Commercial Code. We remain steadfast in our call for full protection and recognition of LGBTI+ rights,” Mookdapa added.

In contrast to many other Asian countries, Thailand has long allowed for same-sex celebrations, including Pride. It also holds international transgender beauty pageants and is a global leader in gender reassignment surgery. In 2015, it passed the Gender Equality Act, aiming to protect all people from gender-based discrimination.

But despite having one of the most open LGBTQ communities in the Asian region, Thailand still provides no legal protection to transgender people.

Ariya Milintanapa was born biologically male but identifies as a trans woman. The 40-year-old is a parent to two boys with her husband Lee, whom she married in the United States in 2019. Ariya was the guardian for her younger brother and because of her birth gender as male, was allowed to adopt her now eight-year-old brother as his “uncle”. Their eldest son is a 10-year-old from her husband’s previous relationship.

She says the law makes it “difficult” for them to live as a family.

“It causes a lot of problems like travelling and insurance. We applied for one school but they kept asking for [legal proof] that we were “mum” and “dad”. Even bullies say [to our children] that their mum is different,” Ariya told Al Jazeera.

“We hope to hear the next move where the focus is mainly about the child’s benefit more than the concern of birth gender,” Ariya added.

Bullying risk

Without identifying same-sex and LGBTQ couples as “parents”, there could be a rise in discrimination and bullying between children, according to Nada Chaiyajit, a LGBTQ advocate and law lecturer at Mae Fah Luang University.

“If the law does not recognise “parents” status, it would potentially create discrimination in a form of social bullying,” Nada told Al Jazeera. “Your mother is not your real mother and is a f*****, something like that.”

Nada says it is unclear what other legal rights those who identify as LGBTQ will receive if they are not legally identified as parents and campaigners remain determined the term be described in the law.

“A lot of work is needed to be done. At least we still have some chances to work with the Senate to bring back the word “parents” to complete our rights to family establishment. We will keep pushing,” Nada added.

Thailand has one of the most open LGBTQ communities in the Asian region, hosting Pride parades and transgender beauty pageants [Chalinee Thirasupa/Reuters]

Emilie Palamy Pradichit, the founder of the Manushya Foundation, a human rights organisation in Bangkok, say the wording means the proposed law is not truly for marriage equality.

“It means only people of the same sex recognised as father or mothers will be allowed to marry, because it is a same-sex bill, not a truly marriage equality bill. For example, if a transgender woman wants to marry a non-binary person… they won’t be able to. Thailand does not have a legal gender identity law – that’s a core issue,” she told Al Jazeera.

That could change in the future though. According to one Thai MP, a draft gender recognition law is in the works.

“Draft gender recognition law… Intentional gender identity… I’m working on it. To allow people to define themselves in various ways to define their own gender. It is something that must be continuously pushed forward,” Tunyawaj Kamolwongwat, a lawmaker with the Move Forward Party posted on the X platform.

For now, Thailand’s focus remains on the marriage equality bill.

It has taken more than a decade of campaigning to get to this point and the draft legislation holds widespread political support. Prime Minister Srettha Thavisin, who became leader after elections last year has championed it.

“It is considered the pride of Thai society that together [we] walk towards a society of equality and respect diversity,” the Thai Prime Minister wrote on Twitter, formerly X, last week.

If the bill does become law, Thailand will become the first country in Southeast Asia to legalise same-sex marriage – and the third in the wider Asian region after Taiwan and Nepal.

Thailand has a population of more than 71 million people and market research firm Ipsos Group says about 9 percent of Thai people identify as LGBTQ.

Since the first reading of the law in December, enquiries about wedding ceremonies by the community have surged.

“There’s definitely an increase of interest. So that would be about like 25 percent of all the bookings. A lot of couples are looking to celebrate,” Wannida Kasiwong, the owner of Wonders and Weddings in Thailand, told Al Jazeera earlier this year.

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Why is India’s Citizenship Amendment Act so controversial? | India Election 2024 News

The Indian government on Monday announced the implementation of the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), a law that was passed by parliament in 2019 but was not enforced until now.

This decision on the CAA – whose passage in parliament had set off protests across the country five years ago over allegations of an anti-Muslim bias – comes weeks before Prime Minister Narendra Modi seeks a third term in office through national elections.

So what is the law about, and why is it so controversial?

What is the Citizenship Amendment Act in India?

The Act, which was an amendment to the 1955 Citizenship Act, was first introduced in the parliament in July 2016 and passed in December 2019.

Before the CAA, any foreign national seeking Indian citizenship through naturalisation needed to have spent 11 years in India to become eligible.

The CAA expedites Indian citizenship applications of Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians who escaped to India from religious persecution in Muslim-majority Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Pakistan before December 31, 2014. They become eligible for citizenship in five years. Applicants from these faiths are eligible even if they are currently living in India without valid visas or other required paperwork.

Home Minister Amit Shah, a close confidant of Modi, posted on X that the law will enable minorities persecuted on religious grounds in neighbouring countries to acquire Indian citizenship.

But what about Muslim asylum seekers?

Before the CAA, India’s citizenship law did not make religion a determinant of a person’s eligibility for an Indian passport. All those seeking naturalisation had to show that they were in India legally, and needed to wait for the same period – 11 years – to become eligible for citizenship.

That’s what the CAA changes – introducing for the first time in independent India’s history – a religious test for citizenship.

Muslim victims of religious persecution in Pakistan (like the Ahmadiyya), Afghanistan (the Hazara) or other neighbouring nations (such as the Rohingya in Myanmar), will still need to wait for 11 years before they become eligible for Indian citizenship. And unlike Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians, they need valid documentation to justify their presence in India.

This, many legal experts have argued, violates Article 14 of the Indian Constitution, which says: “The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.”

In 2019, Human Rights Watch (HRW) published a statement describing the law as discriminatory against Muslims.

But other communities – including many who have long sought refuge in India – have also been denied the benefits of the law.

Human rights watchdog Amnesty India said in an X post on Monday that the law goes against the constitutional values of equality and “legitimizes discrimination based on religion”. Amnesty India added that the act also denies benefits to Tamils from Sri Lanka, and immigrants from countries like Nepal and Bhutan.

In 2019, after the law was passed, large protests broke out across India. Violent clashes erupted in New Delhi. More than 100 people were killed across the country, mostly Muslims. Hundreds of others were injured.

How can beneficiaries get faster citizenship?

The Indian government announced that those eligible under the CAA can apply for Indian citizenship using an online portal, launched by Shah’s home ministry on Tuesday.

A committee headed by the Director of Census Operations will review applications, a government notification on Monday said. The panel will have seven other members.

What’s next?

There are more than 200 petitions against the law still pending before Indian courts even as the CAA has come into effect.

Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party government has denied that the law is discriminatory towards Muslims, arguing that it only seeks to protect those escaping religious persecution. A statement released by the Home Ministry said “many misconceptions have been spread” about the law and its implementation was delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

At the same time, critics fear that the Hindu majoritarian BJP will also seek to implement another initiative, the National Register of Citizens (NRC), which aims to identify and deport immigrants in India without valid papers.

Combined, the CAA and NRC could allow the government to expel all of those deemed “illegal” migrants – and then allow Hindus, Parsis, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains and Christians to re-enter, while denying the same opportunity to Muslims.

BJP leaders have previously made remarks discriminating against Muslim refugees. Home Minister Shah has, in the past, called Bangladeshi immigrants “termites”, “infiltrators” and a threat to national security.

What is the NRC and how is it linked to the CAA?

The NRC is a register that is meant to identify and deport “illegal” immigrants.

It has only been implemented in India’s northeast state of Assam so far, where nearly two million people, including Hindus and Muslims, were left out of the citizenship list in August 2019. The BJP has declared its intent to implement the NRC nationwide.

What has the response been so far?

Protests have erupted in parts of India as a result of the CAA implementation.

Students of Jamia Millia Islamia, a university in New Delhi, told Al Jazeera that protests broke out in the institute and police arrived. Security forces conducted flag marches in areas near Delhi’s Shaheen Bagh, which became a hub of protests over the CAA in 2019 and 2020.

Critics have also pointed out how the law has deliberately been implemented right as elections are about to take place. Yogendra Yadav, a political scientist and activist who was closely associated with the anti-CAA protests, told Al Jazeera that this move of voter polarisation by the BJP before elections is unsurprising.

Jairam Ramesh, spokesperson for the opposition Congress party posted on X: “After seeking nine extensions for the notification of the rules, the timing right before the elections is evidently designed to polarise the elections, especially in West Bengal and Assam”.

The opposition Communist Party of India (Marxist), which governs the southern state of Kerala, called for state-wide protests on Tuesday against the CAA.

Activists from several organisations in Assam, including the All Assam Students’ Union (AASU), burned copies of the law, calling for a statewide shutdown on Tuesday. Different student groups are organising similar protests in other regional states, including Meghalaya and Tripura. Many of these groups are opposed to the CAA not because of its allegedly discriminatory nature but because they oppose the legalisation of citizenship status for any foreign nationals.



Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Ghana’s parliament passes anti-LGBTQ bill | LGBTQ News

Rights activists condemn the law that would punish LGBTQ people as well as those who promote gay rights with years in prison.

Ghana’s parliament has voted to pass a controversial bill to severely restrict LGBTQ rights, in a move that has been condemned by rights activists.

A coalition of religious and traditional leaders sponsored the legislation that is favoured by most lawmakers and that passed in parliament on Wednesday.

The bill would punish those who take part in LGBTQ sexual acts, as well as those who promote the rights of gay, lesbian or other non-conventional sexual or gender identities with time in prison.

The bill, one of the harshest of its kind in Africa, still has to be validated by the president before entering into law, which observers believe is unlikely before a general election in December.

Activist groups have called the “Human Sexual Rights and Family Values” bill a setback for human rights and urged President Nana Akufo-Addo’s government to reject it.

But the legislation is widely supported in Ghana, where Akufo-Addo has said gay marriage will never be allowed while he is in power.

Commonly referred to as the anti-gay bill, it received sponsorship from a coalition comprising Christian, Muslim, and Ghanaian traditional leaders, finding substantial backing among members of Parliament.

Gay sex is already illegal in the religious West African nation, but while discrimination against LGBTQ people is common no one has ever been prosecuted under the colonial-era law.

Under the provisions of the bill, those who take part in LGBTQ sexual acts could face imprisonment ranging from six months to three years.

The bill also imposes a prison sentence of three to five years for the “wilful promotion, sponsorship, or support of LGBTQ+ activities”.

Parliamentarians and members of the public listen as Ghanaian President Nana Akufo-Addo delivers his annual state of the nation address to the parliament in Accra, Ghana, March 30, 2022 [Francis Kokoroko/Reuters]

‘Violates human rights’

A human rights coalition known as the Big 18, an umbrella group of lawyers and activists in Ghana, has condemned the bill.

“You cannot criminalise a person’s identity and that’s what the bill is doing and it’s absolutely wrong,” said Takyiwaa Manuh, a member of the coalition.

“We want to impress on the president not to assent to the bill, it totally violates the human rights of the LGBT community,” Manuh told the AFP news agency.

Opposition lawmaker Sam George, the main sponsor of the bill, called on Akufo-Addo to assent to it.

“There is nothing that deals with LGBTQ better than this bill that has been passed by parliament. We expect the president to walk his talk and be a man of his words,” George said.

Members of Ghana’s LGBTQ community are worried about the implications of the bill.

Founder and director of the organisation LGBT+ Rights Ghana Alex Donkor said, “The passing of this bill will further marginalise and endanger LGBTQ individuals in Ghana.”

“It not only legalises discrimination but also fosters an environment of fear and persecution,” he said.

“With harsh penalties for both LGBTQ individuals and activists, this bill threatens the safety and wellbeing of an already vulnerable community.”

Check out our Latest News and Follow us at Facebook

Original Source

Exit mobile version