UN ‘concerned' as Afghan women arrested over Taliban dress code
The United Nations expressed its 'concern' on Monday over a series of arrests of Afghan women in the capital Kabul who were accused of breaching the Taliban government's strict dress code, with officials denying such detentions.
Since their return to power in 2021, the Taliban authorities have imposed a severe interpretation of Islamic law and require all women to be covered from head to toe.
The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) said it was 'concerned by the arrest of numerous women & girls in Kabul between 16-19 July due to their alleged non-compliance with the de facto authorities' hijab instructions'.
'These incidents serve to further isolate women and girls, contribute to a climate of fear, and erode public trust,' the agency wrote on X, adding that they had contacted the authorities about the matter.
A witness told AFP last week that while driving in central Kabul, he saw a unit of the Ministry for Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice (PVPV) 'telling two women to go with them in the car'.
The women were wearing flowing abaya robes and wearing make-up. They resisted getting into the vehicle but were forced to do so by a PVPV official who was holding a gun, the witness said on condition of anonymity.
The Taliban authorities denied the arrests and said they have 'only campaigned for (the) hijab' dress code.
'But there's nothing like arresting someone or taking anyone to jail,' PVPV spokesman Saiful Islam Khyber told AFP.
Over the past four years, women have been progressively isolated by the Taliban authorities, which have banned them from universities, public parks, gyms and beauty salons, in what the UN has denounced as 'gender apartheid'.
The Taliban government says that their interpretation of Islamic law 'guarantees' everyone's rights and that allegations of discrimination are 'unfounded'.
On Monday, UNAMA called on the Taliban authorities 'to rescind policies and practices that restrict women and girls' human rights and fundamental freedoms'.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
National Observer
4 hours ago
- National Observer
Landmark court ruling a stark rebuke of Canadian position on climate change
A landmark finding from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on Wednesday is reshaping international law by confirming that countries are legally bound to slash carbon pollution or risk paying billions in compensation to communities bearing the brunt of climate change. David Boyd, an associate professor with the University of British Columbia and former UN Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, told Canada's National Observer those findings 'should send shivers down the spine' of the fossil fuel industry and governments that support it. 'It's the clearest statement we've had from an international court that we have to get off fossil fuels,' he said. While the advisory opinion itself is non-binding, it is an authoritative statement on international laws which are binding on countries including Canada. 'Failure of the state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system from GHG emissions including through fossil fuel production, fossil fuel consumption, the granting of fossil fuel exploration licenses, or the provision of fossil fuel subsidies may constitute an internationally wrongful act which is attributable to that state,' Judge Iwasawa Yuji said Wednesday as he read the court's advisory opinion. The ICJ findings mean that countries' legal obligations to respond to climate change reach further than their duties under climate treaties like the Paris Agreement, reflecting a strong rebuke of Canada's position. At the hearings in December, Ottawa argued that countries' obligations to respond to climate change start and end with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Paris Agreement, agreed to in 1992 and 2015 respectively. The UN framework convention broadly commits countries to stabilize warming temperatures at safe levels, while the Paris Agreement more specifically aims to limit warming to as close to 1.5 C above pre-industrial temperatures as possible. Those agreements commit countries to voluntary action, but do not effectively hold them accountable for failing to cut emissions at the pace and scale required to avoid catastrophic warming. Vulnerable countries, which have contributed the least to the crisis yet face the brunt of damages, argued this amounts to a violation of their human rights and undermines their sovereignty. Wealthy, high-emitting countries like Canada, however, did not want to see international law rewritten in a way that could hold them liable for climate damages — expected to total in the tens of trillions of dollars. 'Canada's pursuit of mega fossil fuel expansion projects stands in stark defiance of the ICJ... This historic ruling is not merely a legal opinion; it's a global mandate that shatters any illusion of continued fossil fuel impunity." The crux of Canada's argument was that states cannot be held responsible for failing to address climate change because there is no international law recognizing it as a wrongful act. That has now changed. Climate reparations In plain language, the ruling confirms that under international law, by which Canada is bound, countries are required to take more than voluntary action to address climate change. Major historic polluters like Canada are not just morally bound to cut emissions, but legally required to — or risk charges to compensate communities most harmed. The economic costs from climate change are estimated in the hundreds of billions per year, with one study pegging the figure at US$400 billion per year by 2030, while another estimates it between US$290 billion and US$580 billion per year in developing countries alone. Damages could reach US$38 trillion per year by 2050, according to the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. The court's findings suggest major polluters could be held liable for those damages. For context, Canada is responsible for about 2 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, which implies being responsible for $760 billion annually, based on $38 trillion in global damages per year by 2050. 'Today, we've entered a new era of climate accountability. The world's highest court has made it clear: climate-harming activities violate international law and people's rights,' said Elisa Morgera, UN Special Rapporteur on Climate Change and Human Rights in a statement. 'Governments must cut emissions to protect people's lives and they must provide redress for the damage they've already caused.' 'Profound irresponsibility' The findings could upend Prime Minister Mark Carney's plans to nation-build. As recently reported by Canada's National Observer, several fossil fuel megaprojects are actively being considered to receive the greenlight from the federal government — paving the way for their construction, which would boost global greenhouse gas emissions and inflict harm on communities here and abroad by violating international laws requiring the prevention of transboundary harm. Among the projects Canada's National Observer identified as priorities for Carney's government, based on discussions with multiple government sources, are LNG Canada Phase 2, Cedar LNG and a potential revival of the Northern Gateway oil pipeline. 'Canada's pursuit of mega fossil fuel expansion projects stands in stark defiance of the ICJ's clear pronouncements,' said Harjeet Singh, a strategic advisor with the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty Initiative and member of the United Nations' Technical Expert Group on Comprehensive Risk Management. 'This historic ruling is not merely a legal opinion; it's a global mandate that shatters any illusion of continued fossil fuel impunity,' he said. 'For Canada to advance LNG expansion or a major oilsands project while the world's highest court demands states compel drastic and immediate action on the fossil fuel industry's capacity to inflict further harm is an act of profound irresponsibility.' Boyd said the ICJ's findings strengthen the case for a fundamental rethink of the Canadian economy, away from building more fossil fuel infrastructure. 'I know that's a bitter pill for Mark Carney to swallow, but that's a direct conclusion stemming from today's ruling,' he said. Global Affairs Canada did not return a request for comment by deadline. Trickle down legal opinions In Canadian courts, the ICJ ruling is expected to influence climate litigation. Fraser Thomson, a lawyer with Ecojustice representing seven young people suing Ontario in a case called Mathur v. Ontario, said Canadian courts would be paying close attention to Wednesday's opinion. In Mathur v. Ontario, the seven youth are alleging that the Ontario government violated their Charter rights by weakening the province's 2030 emission reduction targets from 37 per cent below 1990 levels by 2030 to 30 per cent below 2005 levels by the same year. In practice, the revised target would allow an additional 200 megatonnes of greenhouse gas pollution by decade's end, comparable to 47 million gas powered cars driven for one year. The youths' argument is that a weakened target would dangerously expose people to higher levels of emissions, putting their health at risk while exacerbating extreme weather, and is therefore a violation of their Charter rights to life, security of person and equality. That court battle is the first Charter-related climate case, and has bounced between courts for years. In 2022, it was heard at the Ontario Superior Court, which did not find the decision was a Charter violation — but in October the Court of Appeal struck the lower court's decision down and sent it back to be heard again. Thomson said his clients will be back in court in December 'with the wind in their sails with the ICJ's opinion.' 'We believe it's really a matter of time before a court in Canada finds there is a violation of our Charter rights when governments fuel the climate crisis,' he said. Beyond the Mathur case, the ICJ's advisory opinion is poised to influence thousands of climate related lawsuits around the world. The vast majority of cases are occurring in Global North countries. According to a Global Climate Change Litigation database
6 hours ago
UN's top court says failing to protect planet from climate change could violate international law
Advocates immediately cheered the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion on nations' obligations to tackle climate change and the consequences they may face if they don't. "Failure of a state to take appropriate action to protect the climate system … may constitute an internationally wrongful act," court president Yuji Iwasawa said during the hearing. He called the climate crisis "an existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet." The non-binding opinion, which runs more than 500 pages, was hailed as a turning point in international climate law. Paves the way for other legal actions Notably, the court said a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a human right. That paves the way for other legal actions, including states returning to the ICJ to hold each other to account, as well as domestic lawsuits, along with legal instruments like investment agreements. Judges are seated as the ICJ opens a hearing to deliver an advisory opinion on what legal obligations nations have to address climate change on Wednesday. Photo: Associated Press / Peter Dejong The case was led by the Pacific island nation of Vanuatu and backed by more than 130 countries. All UN member states, including major greenhouse gas emitters like the United States and China, are parties to the court. Climate activists had gathered outside the packed court with a banner that read: Courts have spoken. The law is clear. States must ACT NOW. Afterward, others emerged laughing and hugging. Today, the tables have turned. The world's highest court provided us with a powerful new tool to protect people from the devastating impacts of the climate crisis — and to deliver justice for the harm their emissions have already caused, former UN human rights chief Mary Robinson said in a statement. The ICJ's decision brings us closer to a world where governments can no longer turn a blind eye to their legal responsibilities. It affirms a simple truth of climate justice: Those who did the least to fuel this crisis deserve protection, reparations and a future, said Vishal Prasad, director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change. A brief history of the court case After years of lobbying by vulnerable island nations who fear they could disappear under rising seas, the UN General Assembly asked the ICJ for an advisory opinion in 2023, an important basis for international obligations. A panel of 15 judges was tasked with answering two questions: What are countries obliged to do under international law to protect the climate and environment from human-caused greenhouse gas emissions? And what are the legal consequences for governments when their acts, or lack of action, have significantly harmed the climate and environment? The stakes could not be higher. The survival of my people and so many others is on the line, Arnold Kiel Loughman, attorney general of the island nation of Vanuatu, told the court during a week of hearings last December. In the decade up to 2023, sea levels rose by a global average of around 4.3 centimetres, with parts of the Pacific rising higher. The world has also warmed 1.3 C since preindustrial times because of the burning of fossil fuels. The agreements being made at an international level between states are not moving fast enough, Ralph Regenvanu, Vanuatu's minister for climate change, told The Associated Press. Activists could bring lawsuits against their own countries for failing to comply with the decision. What makes this case so important is that it addresses the past, present and future of climate action. It's not just about future targets — it also tackles historical responsibility, because we cannot solve the climate crisis without confronting its roots, said Joie Chowdhury, a senior lawyer at the Center for International Environmental Law. The United States and Russia, both of whom are major petroleum-producing states, are staunchly opposed to the court mandating emissions reductions. But those who cling to fossil fuels could go broke doing it, the UN secretary general told The Associated Press in an exclusive interview this week. Simply having the court issue an opinion is the latest in a series of legal victories for the small island nations. Earlier this month, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights found that countries have a legal duty not only to avoid environmental harm but also to protect and restore ecosystems. Last year, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change. WATCH | European court forces Switzerland to strengthen climate policies: In 2019, the Netherlands' Supreme Court handed down the first major legal win for climate activists when judges ruled that protection from the potentially devastating effects of climate change was a human right and that the government has a duty to protect its citizens. The presiding judge on Wednesday acknowledged that international law had an important but ultimately limited role in resolving this problem, and said a lasting solution will need the contribution of all fields of human knowledge to secure a future for ourselves and those who are yet to come.
Toronto Sun
10 hours ago
- Toronto Sun
Outgoing antisemitism envoy calls out business, religious leaders for lack of action
Published Jul 23, 2025 • 1 minute read Deborah Lyons attends a press conference, at the European headquarters of the United Nations (UN) in Geneva, Switzerland, Tuesday, Nov. 24, 2020. Photo by Valentin Flauraud / THE ASSOCIATED PRESS OTTAWA — Ottawa's outgoing envoy for tackling antisemitism is accusing Canada's business sector and civil society of failing to call out a rising tide of hate against Jews and other minorities. This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below. THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLY Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Subscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada. Unlimited online access to articles from across Canada with one account. Get exclusive access to the Toronto Sun ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition that you can share, download and comment on. Enjoy insights and behind-the-scenes analysis from our award-winning journalists. Support local journalists and the next generation of journalists. Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword. REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLES Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account. Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments. Enjoy additional articles per month. Get email updates from your favourite authors. THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK. Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience. Access articles from across Canada with one account Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments Enjoy additional articles per month Get email updates from your favourite authors Don't have an account? Create Account In an extensive interview with The Canadian Jewish News, Deborah Lyons also says she could not get a meeting with Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre during her nearly two-year term. She says Canadian society faces a growing gulf over violence in the Middle East and Canadians are 'listening and hearing on different frequencies' instead of trying to find common ground against hate. Lyons says she lacked the energy at times to bridge that gap and reveals that both her and Canada's Islamophobia envoy faced pushback from their own constituencies when they worked together. She says Canadian society is 'weakening' as business and religious leaders avoid calling out the rise in hate crimes, and as multiple levels of government fail to adequately co-ordinate their responses. Lyons says she is leaving her job three months early not for health reasons, but rather to restore 'a little bit of the joy back into life.' The Canadian Press has asked Lyons for an interview and Poilievre's office for comment. Golf Canada Toronto & GTA Ontario World
