
Museums and auction houses should not hold human remains, UK lawmakers say
Lawmakers and campaigners in the United Kingdom are pushing for an end to the display of human remains in museums and the sale of human body parts in auction houses.
The All-Party Parliamentary Group on Afrikan-Reparations (APPG-AR), which is made up of parliamentarians, campaigners and community members, released a report Wednesday calling for a ban on the sale and display of ancestral remains, including Egyptian mummies.
At present, the law that regulates the storage and use of human remains in the UK only requires consent for acquiring and holding body tissue from people under 100 years old.
The Human Tissue Act 2004 also only prohibits people from buying, selling and possessing body parts for transplantation.
The report, titled 'Laying Ancestors to Rest,' outlined the distress caused to diaspora communities by British institutions holding ancestral remains, many of which were taken during colonial rule.
'The mummified person has historically been traded among the upper classes of Britain and France as a luxurious commodity, also featuring as entertainment in British 'mummy unwrapping parties' in the 19th century,' the report said.
'In more recent times, Egyptian mummified persons have been transformed to the popularised, haunted 'mummy' figure, which reduces Egyptian heritage to exoticised mystique for the Western audience,' it added.
The report made 14 recommendations, including that the sale of human remains should be made illegal; the Human Tissue Act 2004 should be amended to include the remains of people who died more than 100 years ago; the boards of trustees for national museums should be representative of the diasporas in society; and funders should dedicate resources to mapping the inventory of ancestral remains in the UK's cultural institutions.
Guidance for museums and other institutions on how to care for human remains was published by the British government back in 2005.
Under that guidance, museums can decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not to return human remains, if requested.
During a debate on the issue in the House of Lords, Parliament's upper house, on Thursday, Fiona Twycross, a junior minister in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, acknowledged that the guidance was dated and 'the world has changed substantially' since then.
She added that incomplete databases and collections also make it hard to know where human remains are being kept but said the recommendations put forward in the report 'will inform the government's consideration' of the issues.
In the debate, Paul Boateng, a peer from the governing Labour party, described the trade of human body parts as an 'abomination.'
'This abominable trade must stop, and the continued retention and objectifying of the remains of Indigenous peoples in our public collections, against the will of their descendants and the originating communities concerned, must cease,' he added.
He was among several politicians to praise the 'good practice' of the Pitt Rivers museum in Oxford, which removed 120 artifacts, including an Egyptian mummified child, Naga trophy heads and shrunken heads, from display in 2020 as part of its 'decolonization process,' because the items 'reiterated racial stereotypes.'
Professor Laura Van Broekhoven, director of the Pitt Rivers Museum, told CNN in a statement Friday that the museum is 'very supportive' of the calls to 'ban the sales of human remains and the display of human remains in public museums.'
She added that her museum's approach 'rehumanises our museums and our collections in unprecedented ways, bringing opportunities of true partnerships, that work towards global healing and peace building.'
During the parliamentary debate, Boateng criticized the British Museum in London for refusing to hand over several preserved Māori tattooed heads and the skulls of two named individuals from the Torres Strait islands.
He added that the museum was 'forever seemingly on the defensive and on the back foot' and in need of 'long-overdue reform.'
Twycross said ministers regularly meet with the museum and that she would ensure that this was raised as an issue.
The British Museum holds more than 6,000 human remains, according to its website, which it says 'furthers our understanding of the past' and advances research.
'The Museum is mindful of ethical obligations and closely follows the guidance set out by the Department of Culture, Media and Sports and the Human Tissue Act 2004 which ensures that human remains held in its care are always treated and displayed with respect and dignity,' a spokesman for the museum told CNN in a statement Friday.
Controversy surrounding the display and auction of human remains persists globally.
In October, the Swan auction house in Oxfordshire, England, was forced to withdraw more than two dozen lots of human remains, including shrunken heads and ancestral skulls, from sale after an outcry in the UK and India.
In 2023, the head of the Smithsonian Institution in the United States apologized for amassing a collection of tens of thousands of body parts, largely taken from Black and Indigenous people without their consent, during the first half of the 20th century.
The same year, London's Hunterian Museum stopped exhibiting the skeleton of an 18th-century man known as the 'Irish Giant,' who grew to be 7 feet, 7 inches tall and wanted to be buried at sea to prevent his body being seized by anatomists.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
32 minutes ago
- Axios
MAGA feasts on red meat as Trump escalates L.A. showdown
President Trump's MAGA allies are framing the Los Angeles protests as a once-in-a-generation opportunity to rewrite the rules of engagement with "the Resistance" — starting with the use of military force. Why it matters: As National Guardsmen and Marines descend on L.A., the loudest voices in the MAGA media ecosystem are urging Trump to make an example out of anyone who stands in the way of mass deportations. With protests spreading to other cities, the list of demands is growing: Deploy the military. Arrest Democrats. Expel not just undocumented immigrants, but even legal residents who oppose the crackdown. For Trump, who said Monday that California Gov. Gavin Newsom should be arrested, the vocal support of the GOP base will only fuel his maximalist instincts. Driving the news: MAGA activists were calling as early as Friday for Trump to deploy active-duty military personnel to L.A., where federal immigration officers were encountering resistance to their deportation raids. Now, many are clamoring for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act to authorize the troops to participate in law enforcement activities and immigration raids — a step he hasn't yet taken. "The only way to win here is to double and triple down. The media and left-wing apparatus and Deep State that run this country want us to blink, want us to back down," Steve Bannon said on his "War Room" podcast. Zoom in: MAGA views itself as fighting for nothing short of the survival of Western civilization, and images of protesters waving Mexican and Palestinian flags have exacerbated fears that the right is losing its country. Pro-Trump activists Charlie Kirk, Jack Posobiec and Matt Walsh all called, in unison, for a ban on "third world immigration, legal or illegal" — pointing to images from LA as evidence of civilizational decay. Other prominent MAGA accounts have called for shooting looters and deporting immigrant members of Congress who have criticized the administration's protest response. The intrigue: MAGA's army of online sleuths is working diligently to identify violent protesters in videos and flag them to the FBI, whose top two leaders hail from the same ecosystem of pro-Trump activism. What they're saying: "Almost exactly ten years ago to now, everything that we've been fighting for — every single battle — has all led to this," Posobiec said on his show Tuesday, recalling the moment Trump announced his presidential campaign in June 2015. "We have come too far and been through too much," Posobiec continued as he urged Americans to support their local ICE raids. "I don't care if it's Newsom, Pelosi, Harris, any of them: You know what, you might be on the next plane too."


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
How One Country's Left Halted the Far Right with Tough Immigration Stance
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. As fears of mass immigration have lifted the fortunes of right-wing populists around the Western world, one place that's not happening is Denmark. There, it is Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen's Social Democrat party that has implemented one of the strictest immigration systems in Europe in one of its most socially liberal countries. In so doing, Denmark has become an example for other nations seeking to strengthen immigration laws—not least the United States, where the perceived softness of the Democratic Party in this area was a key factor in the return of President Donald Trump last year. It also contrasts with much of Western Europe. "What I'm trying to convince most of my European colleagues about is that it has to be a democratic decision who will enter Europe," Frederiksen tells Newsweek in an interview in Copenhagen, a tolerant and cosmopolitan city where a religious group gifts Korans to shoppers barely 100 yards from the seat of power at Christiansborg Palace. Denmark gave asylum to 864 people in 2024—the lowest in 40 years with the exception of COVID-affected 2020—and the stated goal is zero. It is because of being a Social Democrat that she supports tougher immigration laws rather than in spite of it, Frederiksen says. Her argument is that the poor suffer most from overwhelmed schools, gang violence and insecurity resulting from those migrants who do not work or integrate with Danish society. The clearest testament to the success of Danish policies is the perception of would-be migrants themselves. 'People Would Rather Go to Sweden' Agob Yacoub is a Syrian of Christian origin who has been in Denmark for nearly 12 years after defecting from the army at the age of 23. He has worked as a social worker and a teacher and has learned Danish. But unlike family members who made it to nearby Sweden and became citizens four years ago, Yacoub's status is still temporary—and precarious. A few years ago, he had a map of Syria tattooed on one arm. He has no plans to get Denmark on the other. "The rules are somehow, like, designed to always make you fail," Yacoub tells Newsweek at his apartment in a diverse Copenhagen suburb where he lives alongside Sudanese, Iraqis, Palestinians and Albanians among others. "They are very good at sending a very bad picture of the system in Denmark that you will not get asylum," he says. "People will rather go to Sweden or Germany or elsewhere." Syrian asylum seeker Agob Yacoub shows the tattoo of an outline of Syria on his arm in Copenhagen, Denmark, May 16, 2025. Syrian asylum seeker Agob Yacoub shows the tattoo of an outline of Syria on his arm in Copenhagen, Denmark, May 16, 2025. Matthew Tostevin Now he is considering whether to return to Syria after the fall of former President Bashar al-Assad late last year—and Denmark would give him up to around $30,000 if he were to go back permanently. Eva Singer, head of asylum at the Danish Refugee Council, tells Newsweek there had been a surge of requests from Syrians looking at possible returns. There is a fundamental problem with the message delivered to asylum seekers in Denmark, she says. On the one hand they were told to learn Danish—not the easiest of languages—to work hard and integrate. On the other, they were told their residence permit must be renewed every year or two with no guarantee it will be. "These two different messages, they clash, and it makes it very difficult for the individual refugee to say, how much should I really put into trying to learn the language and get into the labor market?" she says, acknowledging the broad support the immigration policies have. One victim may have been Denmark's far-right. 'The Best Argument Wins' Morten Messerschmidt, leader of the right-wing Danish People's Party, accepts that its poor opinion poll showing compared with anti-immigration parties in Germany, France or Britain partly results from the Social Democrats adopting policies they once branded xenophobic. "That's not a bad thing," the tall, blond, neatly coutured Messerschmidt says. "It's essentially a very good thing in a political or a parliamentarian system that the best argument wins." For Messerschmidt, the argument has now shifted to the clash of cultures between Islam and traditionally Christian Denmark and to the question of whether people who are already in Denmark either integrate fully with Danish culture or leave. Morten Messerschmidt, leader of the right-wing Danish People's Party, with his dog at his office in Copenhagen, Denmark, May 15, 2025. Morten Messerschmidt, leader of the right-wing Danish People's Party, with his dog at his office in Copenhagen, Denmark, May 15, 2025. Matthew Tostevin In focus right now is the deportation of immigrants who have committed crimes but who cannot be expelled because of judicial rulings based on European human rights law. It is a challenge for Frederiksen that has echoes of Trump's judicially stymied efforts to deport criminals who entered the United States illegally. Alongside her Italian counterpart Giorgia Meloni, Frederiksen penned a letter calling on the European Court of Human Rights to make it easier to deport foreign criminals—drawing a backlash from the court's parent body, the Council of Europe, which said: "Debate is healthy, but politicizing the Court is not." Asked whether Denmark could withdraw from the court, Frederiksen says: "That's not what we want to do." She argues that it is a question of democratic control over immigration and that the situation has changed since legal texts on asylum and refugee rights were adopted. "It was all about protecting minorities after the Second World War, especially the Jewish population. And I don't think they had the imagination that the result could be that a person from Afghanistan would enter Denmark and then commit very serious crimes," she says. "Europe is not able to welcome everybody, and maybe most important now, we have to be sure that we can get rid of people again if they don't behave well. It's not a human right to enter Denmark and do a rape and stay. The court has, of course, the right to be a court, but not to be an activist."
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Israel's Smotrich could collapse Palestinian economy by ending bank waiver
Israel's far-right finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, has cancelled a waiver that Palestinian banks rely on to operate hours after five Western governments announced he faced sanctions, along with fellow ultra-nationalist Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, for inciting violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank. Warnings have previously been raised that Israel's ending of the waiver could have devastating consequences for the Palestinian economy, which is dependent on the Israeli banking system as the Palestinian Authority (PA) does not have its own central bank or currency. 'Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has instructed Accountant General CPA Yali Rothenberg to cancel the indemnity provided to correspondent banks dealing with banks operating in Palestinian Authority territories,' Smotrich's office said in a statement on Tuesday, announcing the changes. The statement also directly linked Smotrich's decision to the PA's international advocacy against the establishment of illegal settlements in the occupied territories, which the minister's office described as the 'delegitimisation campaign against the State of Israel internationally'. Smotrich's decision to end the waiver came hours after Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom announced sanctions against him, as well as against Israeli National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir for their 'incitement of violence' against sanctions were not publicly linked to Smotrich's targeting of the PA, which governs parts of the occupied West Bank and represents Palestine at international forums, including the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, Smotrich has a history of blaming the PA and punishing the 2.7 million Palestinians in the occupied West Bank in retaliation for international condemnation of Israel's illegal occupation. 'For every country that unilaterally recognises a Palestinian state, we will establish a settlement,' Smotrich said in July 2024, as he announced that Israel was 'recognising' five illegal Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank after five more countries – Norway, Spain, Ireland, Armenia and Slovenia – announced they were recognising Palestinian statehood. He has also called for Israel to annex the occupied West Bank if the ICJ ruled that Israeli settlements are end of the waiver could have a devastating impact on the finances of Palestinians, particularly in the occupied West Bank, which has already suffered multiple economic blows over the past two years. The overwhelming majority of exchanges in the West Bank and Gaza are in shekels, Israel's national currency, because Palestine is not allowed to have its own central bank or print its own currency, which means that Palestinian banks are reliant on Israeli banks to operate. But Israeli banks only continue to work with the Palestinian banks because of the government waiver, which protects them from potential legal action relating to transactions with their Palestinian counterparts. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government has repeatedly threatened to end the waiver in the past, prompting rebukes from even Israel's closest allies. Janet Yellen, the United States Treasury Secretary in former President Joe Biden's administration, warned in May last year that 'to cut Palestinian banks from Israeli counterparts would create a humanitarian crisis'. In July, G7 countries urged Israel to 'take necessary action' to ensure the continuity of Palestinian financial systems. The UN has also warned that 'unilaterally cutting off Palestinian banks from the global banking system would be a violation of the fundamental principles of international law'. Under this pressure, the Israeli government has agreed to extend the waiver for short periods. However, far-right ministers like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir have always objected. After one vote in November last year, Ben-Gvir, who has been convicted in Israeli courts of possessing a 'terror' organisation's propaganda material and supporting a 'terror' organisation, wrote in a post on X that he had a 'principled objection' to indemnifying the Israeli banks. The Palestinian Authority should be completely cut off and 'collapsed', he said.