Afghan women UN staff forced to work from home after threats
Afghan women working for the United Nations in Kabul have been threatened by unidentified men because of their jobs, the organisation and several women told AFP on Thursday.
Multiple women working for various UN agencies told AFP on condition of anonymity they had been threatened on the street and over the phone by men warning them to "stay home".
UN staffer Huda -- not her real name -- said that for weeks she has been bombarded with messages abusing her for "working with foreigners".
"The messages keep coming and they are always harassing us... saying, 'Don't let me see you again, or else'," the young woman told AFP.
She said her office had advised her to work from home until further notice.
The United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) confirmed that UN staff had been threatened.
"Several United Nations female national staff members in the Afghan capital Kabul have been subjected to threats by unidentified individuals related to their work with the UN," it said in a statement.
Considering the threats "extremely serious", the UN has taken "interim" measures "to ensure the safety and security of staff members", it added.
The Taliban government, accused by the UN of imposing a "gender apartheid" against women since returning to power in 2021, has denied any involvement.
Interior ministry spokesman Abdul Mateen Qani said such threats were a "crime" and that police would take action.
UNAMA said the authorities had opened an investigation.
- 'You are not allowed' -
Since seizing power in 2021, the Taliban authorities have severely restricted Afghan women from working and it is the only country in the world where women are banned from education beyond primary school.
The government in 2022 banned women from working for domestic and international NGOs, which was extended to include the UN's offices in the country the following year.
The policy has some exceptions including for women working in healthcare and education, and has not been consistently enforced.
The UN has previously called the policy "deeply discriminatory".
Selsela, in her 30s, said while returning from the office last week she was approached by unknown men who told her she should be "ashamed" and that she must "stay home".
"They said, 'We told you nicely this time, but next time you'll have another thing coming'," she told AFP.
"I was very scared," she said, explaining how she struggles to work efficiently from home in a country where electricity and internet are unreliable.
"The situation for women is getting worse every day."
Another woman, Rahila, said she and two other women colleagues were stopped by men while travelling home in a UN vehicle and told not to go to the office anymore.
"They said, 'Don't you know that you are not allowed?'," Rahila said, adding that she has also received threatening messages from unknown numbers.
"I am very worried, I need my job and my salary," she said.
Three-quarters of Afghanistan's population of some 45 million people struggle to meet their daily needs, according to the UN, with the country facing one of the world's worst humanitarian crises.
bur-sw/ecl/rsc
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
AG faces criticism for call to remove Afghan refugees from Oklahoma
Attorney General Gentner Drummond, pictured Feb. 28, 2024, on Thursday called for Afghan refugees in Oklahoma to be removed. (Photo by Janelle Stecklein/Oklahoma Voice) OKLAHOMA CITY — Oklahoma's attorney general said Thursday he 'demands' the removal of Afghan refugees who were resettled in the state in 2021 with Gov. Kevin Stitt's support. Gentner Drummond, who is also a Republican candidate for governor, said the thousands of Afghan refugees were not properly vetted in 2021 and pose a threat to public safety. His statement followed a travel ban from President Donald Trump on 12 countries, including Afghanistan. Stitt and the organizations who helped resettle around 1,800 refugees from Afghanistan in Oklahoma pushed back. They said Drummond's statement was inaccurate and creates unnecessary fear about the Afghan population in the state. The Republican governor said in a statement Friday that the Biden administration had failed to secure a safe exit from Afghanistan, costing American lives and left Afghani citizens in danger. 'They aided our troops in some of the most dangerous combat situations,' Stitt said. 'It is unconscionable that anyone would suggest that we should have left them at the mercy of the Taliban. Individuals using their official platform to campaign for a higher office are using prejudice and fear tactics to sow discord. If the attorney general can identify laws being broken, he should use his existing authority to prosecute criminal activity. Oklahomans see through the political rhetoric.' Drummond rebuffed Stitt's statement. He said Friday his top focus as attorney general is to ensure 'law and order,' adding that it was a public safety issue. 'We greatly value the Afghan friends and allies who assisted US forces, but federal investigations have clearly borne out that vetting was woefully insufficient,' Drummond said. Drummond on Thursday referenced two acts of violence involving Afghan refugees, including one threat to Election Day in Oklahoma City. Tax dollars are being used to pay for resettlement efforts and 'foreign nationals' who are not properly vetted pose a threat, he said in his statement. 'Adding insult to injury, Gov. Stitt illegally directed millions of our tax dollars to pay for resettlement expenses,' Drummond said Thursday. 'Now that President Trump has acted in the best interests of the United States by fully restricting Afghan nationals, I am demanding that Gov. Stitt reject the approval he gave to the Biden Administration so all Afghan refugees can be removed from Oklahoma.' SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX But leaders of community organizations who helped with resettlement efforts said Drummond's statement is inaccurate and sows unnecessary fear about a vulnerable population. Patrick Raglow, executive director at Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, said it's 'ludicrous' to say this population is a threat for having not been vetted. 'His beef is not with the Afghan arrivals so much as it is with the governor, and this just happens to be the shape of the rock he's throwing at the governor,' he said. 'That's my personal opinion, but the statement itself is most unfortunate and factually flawed. It creates a little bit of hostility and animus in our community for those who are here, who fled violence and were not brought here to import violence.' Raglow said in 2021, Catholic Charities was approached by Stitt to aid in the resettlement efforts after the fall of Kabul to the Taliban. Catholic Charities has been involved in refugee resettlement for decades. He hopes that people draw a distinction between refugees and asylum seekers and immigrants. 'Every refugee is an immigrant. 99% of immigrants are not refugees,' Raglow said. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE Veronica Laizure, executive director of CAIR Oklahoma, said refugees undergo some of the more strict security screenings. She said she's disappointed in Drummond's words. CAIR Oklahoma is a nonprofit advocacy group working to 'enhance the understanding of Islam, protect civil rights, promote justice, and empower American Muslims.' 'We are pretty dismayed and disappointed that (Attorney General) Drummond feels it's appropriate to hold an entire population accountable for the actions of a very, very small minority, and that he's willing to generalize and paint all of our Afghan neighbors with the same brush,' she said. 'We live in Oklahoma, which is a state that's very familiar, painfully familiar, with the impact of domestic terrorism, and yet we don't assume that everyone who looks like Timothy McVeigh holds his same views or would commit the same actions that he did.' Afghan refugees who came to the U.S. were individuals, or family members, who worked with the U.S. military at high risk to themselves, resulting in violence and death, Laizure said. Islamophobia is at a high level right now, Laizure said, which puts this community on edge. She said she encourages people to reach out to people and organizations who have real experience before 'operating based on stereotypes and prejudice.'
Vox
an hour ago
- Vox
The big reason why Republicans should worry about an angry Elon Musk
In the November 2026 midterm elections, Elon Musk could have much more impact for much less money. Allison Robbert/AFP via Getty Images How the Musk-Trump blowup ends, nobody knows. Most commentary gives President Donald Trump the advantage. But Elon Musk's willingness to spend his fortune on elections gives him one distinct advantage — the ability to drive a brittle party system into chaos and loosen Trump's hold on it. Thus far, Musk has raised two electoral threats. First, his opposition to Trump's One Big, Beautiful Bill has raised the specter of his funding primary challenges against Republicans who vote to support the legislation. Second, he has raised the possibility of starting a new political party. There are limits to how much Musk can actually reshape the political landscape — but the underlying conditions of our politics make it uniquely vulnerable to disruption. The threat of Musk-funded primaries might ring a little hollow. Trump will almost certainly still be beloved by core Republican voters in 2026. Musk can fund primary challengers, but in a low-information, low-turnout environment of mostly Trump-loving loyal partisans, he is unlikely to succeed. However, in the November 2026 midterm elections, Musk could have much more impact for much less money. All he needs to do is fund a few spoiler third-party candidates in a few key swing states and districts. In so doing, he would exploit the vulnerability that has been hiding in plain sight for a while — the wafer-thin closeness of national elections. The Logoff The email you need to stay informed about Trump — without letting the news take over your life, from senior editor Patrick Reis. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In a straight-up battle for the soul of the Republican Party, Trump wins hands down. Not even close. Trump has been the party's leader and cult of personality for a decade. But in a battle for the balance of power, Musk might hold the cards. Currently, the US political system is 'calcified.' That's how the political scientists John Sides, Chris Tausanovitch, and Lynn Vavreck described it in their 2022 book, The Bitter End: The 2020 Presidential Campaign and the Challenge to American Democracy. Partisans keep voting for their side, seeing only the reality that makes them the heroes; events may change, but minds don't. In a 48-48 country, that means little opportunity for either party to make big gains. It also means a small disruption could have massive implications. Elon Musk doesn't have a winning coalition — but he may not need one to hurt Trump Let's imagine, for a moment, that Musk is serious about starting a new political party and running candidates. He will quickly find that despite his X poll, a party that 'actually represents the 80 percent in the middle' is a fantasy. That mythical center? Being generous here, that's maybe 15 percent of politically checked-out Americans. Realistically, the coalition for Musk's politics — techno-libertarian-futurist, anti-system, very online, Axe-level bro-vibes — would be small. But even so, a Musk-powered independent party — call it the 'Colonize Mars' Party — would almost certainly attract exactly the voters completely disenchanted with both parties, mostly the disillusioned young men who went to Trump in the 2024 election. Imagine Musk funds his Colonize Mars Party in every competitive race, recruiting energetic candidates. He gives disenchanted voters a chance to flip off the system: Vote for us, and you can throw the entire Washington establishment into a panic! Practically, not many seats in the midterms will be up for grabs. Realistically, about 40 or so House seats will be genuine swing seats. In the Senate, there are realistically only about seven competitive races. But that means a small party of disruption could multiply the targeted impact of a precision blast with a well-chosen 5 percent of the electorate in less than 10 percent of the seats. Quite a payoff. The short-term effect would be to help Democrats. Musk used to be a Democrat, so this is not so strange. If Musk and his tech allies care about immigration, trade, and investment in domestic science, supporting Democrats may make more sense. And if Musk mostly cares about disruption and sending Trump spiraling, this is how he would do it. Musk is an engineer at heart. His successes have emerged from him examining existing systems, finding their weak points, and asking, What if we do something totally different? From an engineer's perspective, the American political system has a unique vulnerability. Every election hangs on a narrow margin. The balance of power is tenuous. Since 1992, we've been in an extended period in which partisan control of the White House, Senate, and the House has continually oscillated between parties. National electoral margins remain wickedly tight (we haven't had a landslide national election since 1984). And as elections come to depend on fewer and fewer swing states and districts, a targeted strike on these pivotal elections could completely upend the system. A perfectly balanced and completely unstable system It's a system ripe for disruption. So why has nobody disrupted it? First, it takes money — and Musk has a lot of it. Money has its limits — Musk's claim that his money helped Trump win the election is dubious. Our elections are already saturated with money. In an era of high partisan loyalty, the vast majority of voters have made up their minds before the candidate is even announced. Most money is wasted. It hits decreasing marginal returns fast. The very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat. But where money can make a difference is in reaching angry voters disenchanted with both parties with a protest option. Money buys awareness more than anything else. For $300 million (roughly what Musk spent in 2024), a billionaire could have leverage in some close elections. For $3 billion (about 1 percent of Musk's fortune) the chance of success goes up considerably. Second, disruption is possible when there are enough voters who are indifferent to the final outcome. The reason Ross Perot did so well in 1992? Enough voters saw no difference between the parties that they felt fine casting a protest vote. Election after election, we've gone through the same pattern. Throw out the old bums, bring in the new bums — even if 90-plus percent of the electorate votes for the same bums, year in and year out. But in a 48-48 country, with only a few competitive states and districts, a rounding-error shift of 10,000 votes across a few states (far fewer than a typical Taylor Swift concert) can bestow full control of the government. Think of elections as anti-incumbent roulette. The system is indeed 'calcified,' as Sides, Tausanovitch, and Vavreck convincingly argue. Calcified can mean immovable. But it can also mean brittle. Indeed, the very thing that makes our politics feel so stuck is exactly what makes it so susceptible to Musk's threat.
New York Post
3 hours ago
- New York Post
Huge pro-Israel summit in Texas canceled over threats
A massive pro-Israel conference in Texas has been canceled over 'threats from violent Jihadists' — even after changing venues over security concerns, organizers said. The Israel Summit, scheduled for next Monday through Wednesday in Dallas, switched locations due to 'indirect and direct threats made by American, pro-Hamas, Jihadist groups, who issued calls to 'target' the Israel Summit,' the organizers said in a statement. But anti-Israel activists outed the new venue and planned to protest the event, according to Luke Hilton from the Israel Guys, which was co-hosting the event. 'This is America in 2025,' former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who was one of the slated speakers for the event, wrote on X. AFP via Getty Images 'Honestly, it feels like it's no longer safe for Jews and Christians who support Israel to publicly,' he said. He said law enforcement uncovered other threats on the dark web to 'target' the event — which was set to host some 1,000 attendees. 'After the two Israeli embassy staffers were murdered in Washington, DC, two weeks ago and then last week people were firebombed in Colorado, to me and to all the rest of us on our team, the word 'targeting' — that's a call to violence,' Hilton said. The three-day summit is run by pro-Israel Christian organizations and was expected to feature former US officials, members of the Israeli government and survivors of Hamas' Oct. 7 terror attack. Ten days before the Israel Summit was set to kick off, Dallas authorities said the threat level had been elevated, said Josiah Hilton, also of Israel Guys, according to Jewish New Syndicate. That forced the event's organizers to come up with 'a mandatory security plan with a substantial budget estimated in the hundreds of thousands of dollars,' leaving them to find a new location. They then found a 'new and significantly safer location just north of Dallas' with 'top-tier private security, with additional support from local law enforcement and coordination with the Texas governor's office.' But ultimately they had to cancel after the Palestinian Youth Movement Dallas outed the new spot as 'an isolated compound owned by staunch Israel ally evangelical televangelist Kenneth Copeland' under the campaign 'Texas un-welcomes the genocide summit.' 'This is America in 2025,' former US Ambassador to Israel David Friedman, who was one of the slated speakers for the event, wrote on X. He added: 'Law enforcement was completely cooperative but the threats were of a nature that required cancellation. When @POTUS says we need to take our country back, this is a good example of what he means!'
