Latest news with #ImraanBuccus
IOL News
11-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
The Global South Fights Back in Bogotá
The mass mobilisation of people against the genocide in the West has been critically important. So too has South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice, writes Imraan Buccus. Image: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek Imraan Buccus The decision by the United States to sanction Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, is a direct attack on international law and multilateralism. The world is in a perilous place. The ongoing genocide in Gaza, as well as recent unlawful military strikes on Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, are a profound threat to peace, justice, and the integrity of international law. In this context, some of those who have taken a stand for international law have, like Albanese, faced intense pressure. But the tide is now clearly turning. The mass mobilisation of people against the genocide in the West has been critically important. So too has South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice. It was met with widespread international acclaim by progressive forces across the world and many governments in the Global South — but also considerable hostility from the United States. After months of threatening talk, punitive tariffs have now been imposed on South Africa by the US home, South Africa's position at the ICJ has won wide support from within society, including popular organisations outside of the ANC like NUMSA, Abahlali baseMjondolo, and SAFTU, as well as the ANC-aligned trade union federation COSATU. The ANC's support is in steep decline at the polls, but its principled position on Palestine places it in tune with the sentiments of the vast majority of South Israel and the United States have received vociferous support from a small but strident white-dominated pro-Western lobby at home. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ That lobby has attempted to isolate and smear those who have stood up for justice. There have been character assassinations of a number of decent people, and considerable peddling of conspiracy theories, such as the entirely un-evidenced claim that Iran bribed the ANC to take Israel to the ICJ. With growing pressure abroad and an aggressive pro-West lobby at home, South Africa needed a smart and effective diplomatic strategy to ensure that it could hold the line on its principles without being isolated. In January, South Africa convened the first meeting of what is now called the Hague Group — a new bloc of states committed to the defence of international law. That meeting brought together nine countries from across the Global South, including Asia, Africa, and Latin America, that share a deep concern about what is now widely termed the genocide in Gaza. One of the most important immediate consequences of South Africa's ICJ action has been the widespread uptake of the term 'genocide' to describe what is happening in Gaza. For months, this word was taboo in diplomatic settings. Now, it is shaping how states and publics frame the conflict. That linguistic shift marks an increasingly effective challenge to the Western domination of the moral and legal Colombia and South Africa are co-convening the next high-level meeting of the Hague Group in Bogotá on 15–16 July. This is a major diplomatic coup for both countries. Colombia, under the leadership of Gustavo Petro, is home to one of the most progressive governments in the world. Together, these two countries are building a new axis of international cooperation, rooted in justice, legality, and human rights. The countries that have already confirmed participation in the meeting in Bogotá include: Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Serbia, Spain, Türkiye, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, and Palestine. More countries are currently discussing participation. The Hague Group is not simply reacting to the crisis in Gaza. It is attempting to build the institutional foundations for an enduring Global South capacity to intervene in multilateral processes. It is the crowning achievement of what has been an extraordinarily successful diplomatic strategy by South Africa. While our country is confronting serious domestic challenges — unemployment, mass impoverishment, crime, and out-of-control corruption — its stance in the international sphere has shown that a principled foreign policy, rooted in the traditions of the anti-apartheid struggle, still has the power to resonate globally and to win global support. As Ronnie Kasrils recently argued, the Hague Group carries the spirit of Bandung into the 21st century. In 1955, leaders of newly independent Asian and African nations gathered in Indonesia to affirm their commitment to sovereignty, non-alignment, and cooperation outside the Cold War binary. That historic conference laid the foundation for the Non-Aligned Movement. From the 1960s onwards, newly independent states sought to use the UN system to push for economic redistribution, anti-colonial enforcement, and disarmament. That effort was eventually thwarted by Western powers. But the memory of that unfinished project remains—and informs this new the end of the Cold War, the moral and legal authority of the international system set up after World War II has been held hostage by a small group of powerful states. The Hague Group insists that international law must apply consistently—to all countries, regardless of their power. It is this insistence that rattles Washington and its allies. The same international legal system that was brazenly ignored by the West during the invasions of Iraq, Libya and the bombing of Yugoslavia is now being invoked by the Global South to demand accountability and role in this process should not be underestimated. Once a key ally of US regional strategy in Latin America, Colombia has undergone a dramatic realignment under President Gustavo Petro. As I wrote in the Mail & Guardian earlier this year, Petro's government, which brought together students, workers, environmentalists, and Indigenous communities, is one of the most progressive in the world today. It has been outspoken in its support for Palestinian rights, regional peace, and climate justice. By co-convening the Bogotá meeting, Colombia is placing itself firmly in the camp of internationalist, law-based diplomacy. This marks a departure not only from past governments, but from the cynical realism that still defines so much of Hague Group's credibility also rests on the fact that it is not just the product of elite diplomacy. In South Africa, Colombia, and many other countries that are participating in the meeting in Bogotá, there is tremendous popular support for Palestine. This alignment between state policy and popular movements is rare—and it gives the group an authenticity that cannot be dismissed as political posturing. Moreover, the Hague Group has been warmly received by many Palestinian organisations, who see it as a rare and concrete gesture of solidarity in an era of global abandonment. Inevitably, the Arab states that have 'normalised' ties with Israel have been conspicuously silent, but others—like Iraq, Lebanon, and Qatar—have chosen to engage. Taking this stance is not without risk. Countries that challenge the West's narrative have faced the threat of aid withdrawal, diplomatic isolation, and investment flight. South Africa, Colombia, and many other countries that are taking a stand in support of international law and justice have pro-West blocs at home that do all they can to escalate the sense that standing up for principle is risky.
IOL News
11-07-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
The Global South Fights Back in Bogotá
The mass mobilisation of people against the genocide in the West has been critically important. So too has South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice, writes Imraan Buccus. Image: UN Photo/ICJ-CIJ/Frank van Beek Imraan Buccus The decision by the United States to sanction Francesca Albanese, the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories, is a direct attack on international law and multilateralism. The world is in a perilous place. The ongoing genocide in Gaza, as well as recent unlawful military strikes on Yemen, Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, are a profound threat to peace, justice, and the integrity of international law. In this context, some of those who have taken a stand for international law have, like Albanese, faced intense pressure. But the tide is now clearly turning. The mass mobilisation of people against the genocide in the West has been critically important. So too has South Africa's case at the International Court of Justice. It was met with widespread international acclaim by progressive forces across the world and many governments in the Global South — but also considerable hostility from the United States. After months of threatening talk, punitive tariffs have now been imposed on South Africa by the US home, South Africa's position at the ICJ has won wide support from within society, including popular organisations outside of the ANC like NUMSA, Abahlali baseMjondolo, and SAFTU, as well as the ANC-aligned trade union federation COSATU. The ANC's support is in steep decline at the polls, but its principled position on Palestine places it in tune with the sentiments of the vast majority of South Israel and the United States have received vociferous support from a small but strident white-dominated pro-Western lobby at home. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Next Stay Close ✕ That lobby has attempted to isolate and smear those who have stood up for justice. There have been character assassinations of a number of decent people, and considerable peddling of conspiracy theories, such as the entirely un-evidenced claim that Iran bribed the ANC to take Israel to the ICJ. With growing pressure abroad and an aggressive pro-West lobby at home, South Africa needed a smart and effective diplomatic strategy to ensure that it could hold the line on its principles without being isolated. In January, South Africa convened the first meeting of what is now called the Hague Group — a new bloc of states committed to the defence of international law. That meeting brought together nine countries from across the Global South, including Asia, Africa, and Latin America, that share a deep concern about what is now widely termed the genocide in Gaza. One of the most important immediate consequences of South Africa's ICJ action has been the widespread uptake of the term 'genocide' to describe what is happening in Gaza. For months, this word was taboo in diplomatic settings. Now, it is shaping how states and publics frame the conflict. That linguistic shift marks an increasingly effective challenge to the Western domination of the moral and legal Colombia and South Africa are co-convening the next high-level meeting of the Hague Group in Bogotá on 15–16 July. This is a major diplomatic coup for both countries. Colombia, under the leadership of Gustavo Petro, is home to one of the most progressive governments in the world. Together, these two countries are building a new axis of international cooperation, rooted in justice, legality, and human rights. The countries that have already confirmed participation in the meeting in Bogotá include: Algeria, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, China, Cuba, Djibouti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Malaysia, Namibia, Nicaragua, Oman, Portugal, Qatar, Serbia, Spain, Türkiye, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Uruguay, and Palestine. More countries are currently discussing participation. The Hague Group is not simply reacting to the crisis in Gaza. It is attempting to build the institutional foundations for an enduring Global South capacity to intervene in multilateral processes. It is the crowning achievement of what has been an extraordinarily successful diplomatic strategy by South Africa. While our country is confronting serious domestic challenges — unemployment, mass impoverishment, crime, and out-of-control corruption — its stance in the international sphere has shown that a principled foreign policy, rooted in the traditions of the anti-apartheid struggle, still has the power to resonate globally and to win global support. As Ronnie Kasrils recently argued, the Hague Group carries the spirit of Bandung into the 21st century. In 1955, leaders of newly independent Asian and African nations gathered in Indonesia to affirm their commitment to sovereignty, non-alignment, and cooperation outside the Cold War binary. That historic conference laid the foundation for the Non-Aligned Movement. From the 1960s onwards, newly independent states sought to use the UN system to push for economic redistribution, anti-colonial enforcement, and disarmament. That effort was eventually thwarted by Western powers. But the memory of that unfinished project remains—and informs this new the end of the Cold War, the moral and legal authority of the international system set up after World War II has been held hostage by a small group of powerful states. The Hague Group insists that international law must apply consistently—to all countries, regardless of their power. It is this insistence that rattles Washington and its allies. The same international legal system that was brazenly ignored by the West during the invasions of Iraq, Libya and the bombing of Yugoslavia is now being invoked by the Global South to demand accountability and role in this process should not be underestimated. Once a key ally of US regional strategy in Latin America, Colombia has undergone a dramatic realignment under President Gustavo Petro. As I wrote in the Mail & Guardian earlier this year, Petro's government, which brought together students, workers, environmentalists, and Indigenous communities, is one of the most progressive in the world today. It has been outspoken in its support for Palestinian rights, regional peace, and climate justice. By co-convening the Bogotá meeting, Colombia is placing itself firmly in the camp of internationalist, law-based diplomacy. This marks a departure not only from past governments, but from the cynical realism that still defines so much of Hague Group's credibility also rests on the fact that it is not just the product of elite diplomacy. In South Africa, Colombia, and many other countries that are participating in the meeting in Bogotá, there is tremendous popular support for Palestine. This alignment between state policy and popular movements is rare—and it gives the group an authenticity that cannot be dismissed as political posturing. Moreover, the Hague Group has been warmly received by many Palestinian organisations, who see it as a rare and concrete gesture of solidarity in an era of global abandonment. Inevitably, the Arab states that have 'normalised' ties with Israel have been conspicuously silent, but others—like Iraq, Lebanon, and Qatar—have chosen to engage. Taking this stance is not without risk. Countries that challenge the West's narrative have faced the threat of aid withdrawal, diplomatic isolation, and investment flight. South Africa, Colombia, and many other countries that are taking a stand in support of international law and justice have pro-West blocs at home that do all they can to escalate the sense that standing up for principle is risky.
IOL News
13-06-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Justice in Kashmir is the only path to peace for Indian and Pakistan
Tensions between India and Pakistan have escalated following a deadly attack in Kashmir. This article delves into the historical context of the Kashmir conflict and argues that true peace can only be achieved through justice for the Kashmiri people. Image: AFP Imraan Buccus Tensions between India and Pakistan soared following an attack On 22 April 2025, after militants opened fire on a group of mostly Hindu tourists in the Baisaran Valley near Pahalgam, killing 26 civilians. The Indian government swiftly alleged Pakistani involvement—a claim for which no evidence has been provided. The Indian media followed suit, stoking nationalist fervour. In the days that followed, both sides engaged in military posturing and cross-border exchanges of fire. Now that the immediate crisis has passed, it is time to take a deeper look at the unresolved tragedy of Kashmir—one of the longest-running and most dangerous conflicts in modern history. What makes the current moment especially dangerous is the ideological nature of the regime in New Delhi. Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP first came to power in 2014. Modi built his national standing with the far right following the anti-Muslim pogrom in Gujarat, where he was chief minister, in 2002. Under Modi's rule India has taken an openly authoritarian turn, built on a toxic cocktail of neoliberal economic policies and Hindu nationalism. The annexation of Jammu and Kashmir in 2019—stripping the region of its autonomy, dissolving its legislature, and imposing a sweeping military clampdown—was a key moment in the BJP's consolidation of power. It sent a clear message: for this government, Kashmiris are not equal participants in a democratic polity but a population to be subdued and ruled. The parallels with the occupation of Palestine are impossible to ignore. Like Israel, India seeks to dominate a territory whose people overwhelmingly reject its rule. It floods the area with soldiers and surveillance. It shuts down internet access. It detains thousands without trial. It promotes demographic change through settler policies, hoping to shift the region's character. And it silences dissent by branding it terrorism. This is not a project of democracy. It is a project of colonialism. One of the most searing literary accounts of Kashmir's anguish comes from Indian novelist and essayist Arundhati Roy, whose 2017 novel, The Ministry of Utmost Happiness, is partly set in the valley. Through the voice of a Kashmiri militant, she captures both the trauma of military repression and the clarity of defiance. Reflecting on the use of pellet guns—non-lethal weapons deployed by Indian forces that have blinded hundreds of young Kashmiris—Roy writes: 'One day Kashmir will make India self‑destruct in the same way. You may have blinded all of us, every one of us, with your pellet guns by then. But you will still have eyes to see what you have done to us… You're not destroying us. You are constructing us. It's yourselves that you are destroying.' This haunting passage speaks not only to the physical brutality visited upon the Kashmiri people, but also to the long-term moral corrosion inflicted on the Indian state. The attempt to crush dissent with overwhelming force is, as Roy suggests, a form of slow national suicide—one that eats away at democracy from within. South African journalist Azad Essa, whose excellent book Hostile Homelands: The New Alliance Between India and Israel was published in 2023, maps the deepening strategic ties between the two states—from arms deals to surveillance systems and demographic policies. In an October 2024 interview, Essa observed: 'For example, in 2019, India essentially annexes Kashmir... Later, the Indian ambassador to the US makes a statement saying that they're going to build settlements in the territory, just as Israel has built settlements in Palestine.' Essa's book explores how converging ethno-nationalist logics—Hindutva in India and Zionism in Israel—are driving policies in both regions, from annexation and surveillance to demographic engineering. In both cases, the occupying power claims that it is the victim. And in both cases, any call for justice—any demand that the people of the land be given their basic political and human rights—is dismissed as extremism. When a Kashmiri teenager throws a stone, or a Palestinian farmer defends his land, it is cast as an existential threat to a nuclear state. This absurd logic holds because it is backed by power: military, economic, and increasingly, diplomatic. India's international image has shifted dramatically in the last two decades. Once a leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, it now seeks to be a junior partner to Western powers in the emerging strategic contest with China. As such, it benefits from the same impunity that shields Israeli aggression. While Pakistan grapples with significant internal challenges across the economic, political, security and terrorism sectors, the oppression of Kashmir by India remains a paramount concern. India's refusal to recognise the political aspirations of the Kashmiri people is rooted in a narrow, majoritarian nationalism that sees Indian Muslims in general—and Kashmiris in particular—as suspect, as not fully Indian, as a fifth column. The rise of Hindutva, or Hindu nationalist ideology, has made it almost impossible for even liberal voices inside India to advocate for justice in Kashmir without being labelled as traitors. Hindu nationalism is not merely a cultural or religious identity. It is a form of fascism that seeks to define the Indian state in terms of an exclusionary ethno-religious ideal. It treats secularism and pluralism as threats. It rewrites history to suit its mythologies. It demonises minorities, especially Muslims, and it weaponises the media, the courts, and the police. In this context, Kashmir becomes both a real place and a symbol—a place to be crushed to prove the supremacy of what is now understood as a Hindu nation. In South Africa, we have learned that peace cannot be built on injustice. The apartheid regime tried for decades to impose peace without justice. It failed. Our transition, for all its compromises, was grounded in the recognition that a lasting future required recognition, inclusion, and dignity for the oppressed. In Kashmir, as in Palestine, peace will only come when justice is done. This means supporting the demand for self-determination. It means ending military occupation. It means releasing political prisoners, restoring civil liberties, and ending the project of demographic change. South Africa has an important role to play here. Our history gives us a particular moral voice in the international arena. We have used it in relation to Palestine—and rightly so. We should do the same for Kashmir, the Congo and other countries suffering oppression. ** Dr Buccus is a research fellow at ASRI and at the University of the Free State *** The views expressed here do not necessarily represent those of IOL or Independent Media IOL Opinion Dr Imraan Buccus Image: IOL
IOL News
13-05-2025
- Politics
- IOL News
Peaceful Protest Against Israel's Genocide Met with Police Repression
Five activists were arrested during a peaceful protest against Israeli apartheid at Loftus Versfeld Stadium, sparking outrage and calls for justice amid allegations of police brutality. Image: IOL By Dr Imraan Buccus On Sunday afternoon, during the Bafana Bafana vs. Malawi match at Loftus Versfeld Stadium in Pretoria, five Red Card Israel activists were arrested for peacefully protesting against Israeli apartheid. The activists wore T-shirts bearing the Red Card Israel logo and held banners calling for the exclusion of Israeli sports teams from international competitions. This was a peaceful protest, a protest fully protected by law as well as any basic sense of democratic decency. However, the police responded with aggression and openly authoritarian intent. According to eyewitness accounts, the police manhandled and pepper-sprayed the protestors, confiscated their banners and T-shirts, and detained four of them without justification. One of the activists who was arrested is 16 years old. Usually, activists arrested during non-violent protests are kept in the holding cells of a police station and then given police bail. They are often released the same day or the following day. However, the detained Red Card Israel activists, now referred to as 'the Loftus Five', have been denied bai. The four adults have been taken to the Kgosi Mampuru prison and the teenager to Shoshanguve Prison. Their case has been postponed to May 19 for a further bail hearing. Their lawyer asserts that the charges are unfounded and that the arrests represent a suppression of free speech and peaceful protest. The thuggish and authoritarian response to the protest by the police, the arrests, and the denial of bail have sparked outrage among progressive organisations around the country, including mass-based grassroots and working-class organisations, and steps are quickly being taken to build a solidarity network. South Africa, more than any other country, should know that sport is always political. The global boycott against South African sport by the anti-apartheid movement was an effective weapon in the struggle against the racist regime. The arrest of the Loftus Four has not only sparked outrage but also reignited memories of past struggles where sport and resistance intertwined. The 1981 Springbok tour of New Zealand was a high point of the boycott movement. Despite international condemnation, the New Zealand Rugby Union proceeded with the tour, triggering massive protests across the country. Over 150,000 people participated in more than 200 demonstrations, with activists arguing that allowing South Africa to compete on the international stage legitimised its apartheid regime. The protests were intense and sustained, including pitch invasions and clashes with police. One of the most dramatic moments came when activists stormed the rugby field during a game in Hamilton, forcing its cancellation. At Eden Park in Auckland, protesters famously dropped bags of flour from a light aircraft onto the rugby field during the final game of the tour. The flour bombs, which burst in clouds of white across the pitch, became an iconic symbol of global resistance against apartheid. Red Card Israel Red Card Israel is an international movement that calls for the exclusion of Israeli sports teams from international competitions due to the state's violations of human rights and war crimes in Palestine. The idea for Red Card Israel emerged in the early 2010s, directly inspired by the international sports boycott against apartheid South Africa. Football, as the world's most popular sport, became a key focus, given its international visibility and its historical role in anti-apartheid activism. The campaign quickly won support from former anti-apartheid activists, including Archbishop Desmond Tutu. Like the sporting boycotts that played a crucial role in isolating apartheid South Africa, Red Card Israel asserts that Israel's participation in global sports normalises its occupation and the violent suppression of Palestinian rights. The campaign is part of a broader movement which seeks to apply non-violent pressure on Israel to comply with international law. By targeting sports, Red Card Israel exposes the contradictions of international sports bodies that claim to uphold fairness and human rights while permitting a state long engaged in systematic oppression, and now perpetrating a genocide before the eyes of the world, to participate on the world stage. Red Card Israel gained momentum through high-profile campaigns targeting FIFA, UEFA, and other major sports bodies. Activists have lobbied for Israel's suspension from international competitions, citing its violations of Article 3 of the FIFA Statutes, which obligates member associations to respect human rights and combat discrimination. Global Solidarity The protest action at Loftus Versveld on Sunday is part of an ongoing global movement by football fans, with the most famous actions being taken by Celtic FC fans in Glasgow. The club has a long left-wing tradition and in August 2016, during a Champions League qualifier against Israeli club Hapoel Be'er Sheva, Celtic fans waved Palestinian flags, resulting in an £8,619 fine from UEFA. In response, the Green Brigade, a Celtic supporters' group, launched a fundraising campaign that raised over £170,000 for Palestinian charities. On October 25, 2023, during a UEFA Champions League match against Atlético Madrid at Celtic Park in Glasgow, Celtic FC fans displayed hundreds of Palestinian flags and banners reading 'Free Palestine' and 'Victory to the Resistance.' UEFA fined Celtic £15,200 for what it described as 'provocative messages of an offensive nature.' Similarly, FC St. Pauli fans in Germany have consistently shown support for Palestine. Known for their leftist politics and anti-fascist principles, St. Pauli supporters have displayed banners and flags expressing solidarity with Palestinians during matches. These actions underscore a broader movement within global football fan communities to use the sport as a platform for political expression and human rights advocacy. The activists from Red Card Israel who organised a peaceful protest at the game at Loftus Versfeld on Sunday were part of this global movement. They were also acting in the tradition of the anti-apartheid movement, and in line with the government's principled position on the genocide currently underway in Gaza. All this makes the response of the police to the protest at Loftus Versfeld particularly troubling, and the inaction by the government in response to the police action even more disturbing. We have a systemic problem of police abuse in South Africa, and the state needs to intervene swiftly and decisively to ensure that the Loftus Five are treated fairly and that the right to protest is clearly affirmed and defended. This is not the time for Cyril Ramaphosa to tell us that he is 'shocked'. The activists need to be released, and there needs to be an investigation into the conduct of the police, and the right to peaceful protest must be clearly affirmed. * Dr Imraan Buccus is a political scientist and research fellow at ASRI. ** The views expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of IOL or Independent Media.
