Latest news with #humanrights
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump to press South African president about how his country treats its White minority
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump plans to discuss his concerns about South Africa's White minority with the country's president during an Oval Office meeting, a White House official said. Delving into the long dispute over South Africa's racial inequities could make for a tense meeting between Trump and South African President Cyril Ramaphosa. Trump has long raised such concerns. Trump cut off U.S. aid to South Africa for what he called 'egregious' accusations of genocide against Israel and for 'fueling disproportionate violence against racially disfavored landowners' – a claim widely disputed by human rights activists and South Africa's government. He also began accepting White people from South Africa − many of them descendants of Dutch colonists known as Afrikaners – as refugees fleeing alleged racial discrimination. In discussing the Afrikaners, Trump will encourage Ramaphosa's government to condemn what the White House official described as incendiary rhetoric against them by politicians. Trump has said the White South Africans are the victims of 'genocide' – an accusation the South African government and human rights experts say is not supported by evidence. Ramaphosa called accusations of racial persecution against Afrikaners a 'completely false narrative.' Although apartheid − a period during which South Africa was controlled by the country's White minority and Black South Africans were deprived of basic civil rights – ended in 1994, White people still own a large majority of the land and control a hugely outsized share of the country's wealth. Trump also plans to discuss U.S. trade with South Africa and the country's laws touching on race, the White House official said. Ramaphosa told reporters on May 17, ahead of his trip, that he wasn't worried about a hostile welcome at the White House. 'There is no genocide in South Africa,' Ramaphosa said. 'We are going to have good discussions on trade.' Ramaphosa, 72, led the negotiating team for the African National Congress – the party that now rules the country – in talks during the 1990s that led to the end of apartheid. He has been president since 2018. John Steenhuisen, the South African minister for agriculture, said on social media May 20 that he had a constructive meeting with U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer. 'Trade is essential between our two countries and we are determined to ensure that access for agricultural products remains open in a mutually beneficial way,' Steenhuisen said. 'Trade means jobs and a growing economy.' The United States had an $8 billion trade deficit with South Africa in 2024. Upon taking office, Trump immediately suspended the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program and ordered most potential refugees to remain in other countries. But an exception Trump ordered Feb. 7 was for 'Afrikaners in South Africa who are victims of unjust racial discrimination,' whom he offered admission and resettlement in the United States as refugees. The Trump administration warmly greeted 59 White people from South Africa upon their arrival on May 12, after granting them refugee status. But experts on South Africa say Trump's claims of anti-White discrimination − much less genocide − are baseless. "Genocide has a very clear definition and what is happening in South Africa with White South Africans does not fit the definition at all," said Mandeep Tiwana, chief officer of evidence and engagement at CIVICUS, a human rights advocacy organization headquartered in South Africa. "In fact, White South Africans are a privileged minority." "There is no White genocide. It is a story that has been sold," said Thapelo Mohapi, secretary general of Abahlali baseMjondolo, a South African poor people's movement. "It is very unfortunate, as a poor South African that lives in a shack, seeing somebody going abroad on a flight with gifts and clothing and receiving a warm welcome from the presidency in the U.S., with a lie that they are being persecuted," Mohapi said of the Afrikaners granted refugee status. "We, in fact, are the ones who are living in poverty," Mohapi said. Some White Afrikaners have praised Trump for highlighting what they say is the discrimination they face. Theo de Jager, an Afrikaner who chairs the Southern African Agriculture Initiative, wrote in a letter to Trump that "the opportunity you have extended" to enter the United States as a refugee could be the "only viable path forward" for some Afrikaners. But, he added, some Black families suffer "just as much – if not more." "It is critical for you to understand that the tensions in our country are not simply a black-and-white issue." Trump's admission of the Afrikaners also angered refugee assistance programs. The Episcopal Church announced it would shutter its refugee resettlement program on May 12 after Trump asked it to help resettle the group of Afrikaners, even as the flow of refugees from all other countries had stopped. "This is a corruption of the U.S. refugee program," Kenn Speicher, co-founder of Northern Virginia Friends of Refugees, said at Dulles Airport, where he was protesting the Afrikaners' arrival. Genocide is defined in the Genocide Convention, an international treaty that criminalizes genocide, as the killing of members of a group because of their race, religion or national origin, as in the Holocaust. "White farmers are being brutally killed," Trump told reporters May 12 in the White House Roosevelt Room. Ramaphosa has branded the claim a "false narrative." In South Africa, White people are much less likely to be murder victims than Black people. The group Genocide Watch has said that while South Africa's population is 7% White, White people make up just 2% of its murder victims. The South African government said on May 9 that "The South African Police Service statistics on farm-related crimes do not support allegations of violent crime targeted at farmers generally or any particular race." Allegations of a White "genocide" in the country have been bolstered by Elon Musk, Trump's close advisor, who was born in South Africa. Last week, users of X, the social media site owned by Musk, widely reported that its AI chatbot repeatedly spat out statements that the South African White genocide is real in unrelated conversations. Musk has also frequently used the platform to broadcast his accusations that White South Africans are victims of targeted racial violence. "When a farmer dies, then the whole world must know, because that farmer is White and the farmer is privileged," Mohapi said. "Black people can die anytime, like flies." The conflict over South African refugees erupted at a Senate hearing on May 20 between Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Virginia, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Kaine disputed that Afrikaners are refugees because their political party is part of the government. 'I assert that this claim that there is persecution of Afrikaner famers is specious,' Kaine said. Rubio said the Afrikaners who arrived as refugees felt persecuted because 'their farms were burned down and they were killed because of the color of their skin.' Rubio denied that the Trump administration favored Afrikaners as refugees because they are White. He said accepting refugees from additional countries would lead to millions more people arriving. 'It was acting as a magnet,' Rubio said of the refugee program. 'They can't all come here.' Trump's allegations of a White "genocide" in South Africa center on recent land reform legislation signed by Ramaphosa in January called the Expropriation Act. The bill, aimed at rectifying inequality in land ownership left over from South Africa's racial apartheid system, opens pathways for the government to seize private land for public use – sometimes without compensation. The White House's executive order slammed the bill as "in shocking disregard of its citizens' rights," and Musk branded it "racist." But South Africa's racial wealth gap leans starkly in the opposite direction. Whites make up just over 7% of the population, but own around 72% of the country's farms and agricultural land, according to a 2017 government report. The country's inequality levels – consistently rated by the World Bank as among the worst globally – impact its Black population at a vastly disproportionate rate. Last year, the unemployment rate hit 37.6% for Black South Africans, while 7.9% of Whites were without a job. Around 10% of Blacks had medical care in 2018, as compared to 72% of their White counterparts. "We are finding ourselves in a very tight and difficult situation," said Mohapi. "People celebrate when they get a meal a day." "We are defending White privilege rather than to actually talk about the real issues, the bread and butter issues," he said. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Trump to confront South African president amid trade, refugee talks
Malay Mail
an hour ago
- Health
- Malay Mail
Drug mules or victims? Confronting the legal dilemma of forced criminality — Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid
MAY 31 — Malaysia is facing a pressing human rights and legal crisis. We see a growing number of citizens being exploited by international drug syndicates as couriers, and many are ending up on death row in foreign countries. From 2021 to 2023, 77 Malaysians were arrested overseas for drug trafficking. In 2023 alone, 28 individuals were detained in various countries including the United Kingdom, France, China and the Maldives. As of early 2024, 74 Malaysians are reported to be on death row abroad, convicted for transporting narcotics across borders — often under circumstances that suggest coercion or deception. The majority were not hardened criminals, but individuals lured by false job offers, online romance scams, or the promise of quick money. Syndicates have used social media platforms to offer payments of RM5,000 to RM10,000 per trip to smuggle drugs, exploiting economic desperation and emotional vulnerability. In early 2024, British authorities noted a threefold increase in cannabis seizures at Scottish airports involving Malaysians, underscoring the scale of the problem. Closer to home, the Johor Bahru–Singapore trafficking corridor has become a known route for cross-border smuggling. In one high-profile case, Pannir Selvam Pranthaman was convicted in Singapore in 2017 for trafficking over 50 grams of diamorphine. He has consistently maintained he was unaware the parcel he was carrying contained drugs and alleged he was coerced by a trafficker known as 'Anand.' The late Kalwant Singh, executed in 2022, similarly claimed he was forced into transporting narcotics by an individual identified only as 'Anna.' These cases reveal a deeper systemic flaw, as drug syndicates exploit loopholes in Malaysia's legal framework and take advantage of jurisdictional boundaries that restrict foreign authorities such as Singapore from investigating trafficking operations within Malaysian territory. Despite the clear patterns of coercion and manipulation, Malaysia's current legal structure provides little to no protection for individuals caught in these scenarios. While the Penal Code does include defences such as duress/threat (s.94) and mistake of fact (s.76), these provisions are narrowly defined and often inapplicable in complex trafficking cases involving psychological pressure or deceit. More critically, Section 25 of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2007 (ATIPSOM) only grants immunity to victims for immigration-related offences — not for more serious crimes like drug trafficking, even when such acts were committed under coercion. Drug syndicates exploit loopholes in Malaysia's legal framework and take advantage of jurisdictional boundaries. — Unsplash pic This legal gap is at odds with international norms. Malaysia is a signatory to the UN Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (Palermo Protocol), which promotes a victim-centred approach and the principle of non-punishment — meaning victims should not be penalised for crimes committed as a direct consequence of their exploitation. Countries such as the United Kingdom have already translated this into domestic law through provisions in the Modern Slavery Act 2015, which provide statutory defences for trafficked persons compelled to commit offences. Malaysia, however, has yet to adopt similar legal safeguards. Without legislative reform, the government risks compounding the harm faced by victims. Trafficked Malaysians who are prosecuted abroad often lack adequate consular assistance, legal representation, or mechanisms for proper victim identification. The absence of guidelines or institutional support means that many are misclassified as criminals and denied access to justice, despite strong indicators of coercion. This reflects not only a failure of protection, but a fundamental failure of principle. Moving forward, ATIPSOM must be amended to include broader immunity provisions for victims of trafficking who are coerced into committing serious offences. Section 94 of the Penal Code, which governs duress, should also be revised to recognise psychological coercion and economic manipulation. Additionally, law enforcement, prosecutors, and consular officers must be trained to identify and support potential victims of forced criminality, particularly in cross-border contexts. Malaysia must also strengthen bilateral cooperation with destination countries to ensure the fair treatment, repatriation, and rehabilitation of its citizens who have been exploited by syndicates. Diplomatic intervention is crucial in cases where victims face the death penalty or life imprisonment without the opportunity to raise a trafficking defence. The time has come for Malaysia to move beyond a punitive approach and adopt a rights-based, victim-focused framework that reflects our international obligations and national conscience. Those coerced into crime should not be punished for their own victimisation. * Dr Haezreena Begum Abdul Hamid is a Criminologist and Senior Lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Malaya. ** This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of Malay Mail.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- Business
- The Guardian
More than €1bn in EU funds used in discriminatory projects, report says
Hundreds of millions in European Union funds have been used in projects that violate the rights of marginalised communities, a report alleges, citing initiatives such as segregated housing for Roma, residential institutions for children with disabilities and holding centres for asylum seekers. The report, based on information compiled by eight NGOs from across Europe, looks at 63 projects in six countries. Together these projects are believed to have received more than €1bn in funding from the European Union, laying bare a seemingly 'low understanding' of fundamental rights across the bloc, according to one of the authors of the EU-funded report. While the report focused on six countries, those behind the analysis suggested that similar projects were probably widespread across the EU. 'This is really just the tip of the iceberg,' said Ines Bulic of the European Network on Independent Living, describing it as 'unacceptable' that funds provided by European citizens could have been used to amplify the discrimination and segregation of communities that already ranked among the bloc's most marginalised. She pointed to a school in Greece for people with disabilities and special needs, which had been part of a wider EU investment in special vocational schools, as an example. 'What we would like to see is investment in inclusive education, which is very much needed in all of the EU, such as accessible schools, investments in support teachers and other services that allow children to attend regular schools,' she said. Another example she gave was of an institution for children with disabilities in Romania, which had received €2.5m in funding, where children were being sent to live rather than being provided with support to remain with their families. 'This of great concern. It is a right of all children, disabled or not, to grow up in their families.' Other examples highlighted in the report include the construction of social housing for Roma in Romania on the edge of a city. Far from any public service, the homes are built from shipyard containers and do not meet the minimum requirements for thermal or sound insulation and sanitation, the report notes. Several reception centres for asylum seekers across Greece were also flagged for their extremely remote locations and poor living conditions. Those behind the report cited several reasons to explain how millions of euros had ended up being allocated to projects seen as discriminatory. One was a seemingly 'low understanding' of fundamental rights across some governments and parts of the EU, said Andor Urmos of Bridge EU, the organisation that had worked with various civil society groups across Europe to prepare the report. 'That's what we need to tackle in the future,' he said. 'To have a common view, a common understanding that building a segregated school for Roma children is a violation of fundamental rights, as is building a residential institution for people with disabilities or locking up people in reception centres like what is happening in Greece.' The findings dovetail with a raft of recent reports. This week, the Council of Europe said that school segregation was resulting in lower-quality education for Roma, noting that the high concentration of Roma children in certain schools 'appears to be the result of residential segregation, but also of continuing practices by school authorities to educate Roma children in separate classes or buildings'. Last year an EU agency found that the number of people with disabilities who were living in segregated, at times harmful, settings had increased in many EU member states, while civil society organisations have repeatedly accused EU-funded refugee centres of violating people's rights. When contacted, the European Commission said it was aware of the findings of this week's report and was looking into it. 'It is important to highlight that the commission does not fund any organisation that does not fully respect fundamental rights and values,' a spokesperson said. 'In case of violation of the applicable conditions, we have means to terminate the cooperation and recover the money, as necessary.' The report listed projects that were under shared management, meaning the commission relied on national authorities to ensure the legality and regularity of operations, it said. 'Both the EU and its member states must continuously ensure that projects which are incompatible with European values or pursue an illegal agenda, do not receive support from government and European funds,' the spokesperson added. The report highlighted serious shortcomings in how EU funds are being managed and monitored, said Steven Allen of the Validity Foundation, a disability rights organisation that also contributed to the document. 'We can see that both the EU member states, as well as the European Commission, are failing to prevent EU taxpayers money from facilitating and financing serious violations of the rights of multiple marginalised populations,' he said. The report's release was carefully timed to come before planning takes place for the EU's next budget, set to take effect in 2028. Its findings made it clear that the voices of those who often go unheard needed to be included in the decision-making, said Allen. Doing so could help unlock the transformative powers of EU funding, offering the potential to build inclusive education systems or overhaul areas such as public housing, where grievances have been linked to the rise of the far right. 'EU funds do have the potential to be a powerful tool and to provide real, tangible benefits of the EU project to the most marginalised populations on the continent today,' he said. 'And they can indeed be used as an antidote against the rise of creeping nationalism and far-right extremist politics. The funds must be better targeted.'
Free Malaysia Today
2 hours ago
- General
- Free Malaysia Today
Ex-Guatemalan paramilitaries jailed for raping indigenous women
The former paramilitaries were found guilty of raping six indigenous women between 1981 and 1983. (EPA Images pic) GUATEMALA CITY : A top Guatemalan court today sentenced three former paramilitaries each to 40 years in prison after they were found guilty of raping six indigenous women between 1981 and 1983, the bloodiest period of the Central American nation's civil war. The trial against the former members of the so-called civil self-defence patrol, armed groups recruited by the army, began four months ago. 'The soldiers arrived late at night, threw me onto the ground and raped me,' Paulina Ixpata, a Maya Achi woman, said during the trial. Prosecutors presented more than 160 pieces of evidence against the men. 'That's how the whole night went,' Ixpata said, recounting how she was held for 25 days by the military patrol. Judge Maria Eugenia Castellanos sentenced the three for crimes against humanity in the form of sexual violence. 'The women recognised the perpetrators, they recognised the places where the events took place. They were victims of crimes against humanity,' she said. This is the second trial in the so-called Maya Achi case, and follows reports of sexual violence filed between 2011 and 2015 by 36 victims against former military personnel, military commissioners and civilian self-defence patrol members. The first trial, which took place in January 2022, saw five former patrol members sentenced to 30 years in prison. They remain incarcerated. In 2016, a Guatemalan court sentenced two former military officers for holding 15 women from the Q'eqchi community, who are also of Maya origin, as sex slaves at the Sepur Zarco military base, a landmark case that marked the first convictions in Guatemala of military officers for wartime rape. Both officers were sentenced to a combined 360 years in prison, where they remain incarcerated. The court also stipulated a reparations programme, whose progress remains limited despite advocacy by the 15 women who were at the trial, known as the 'Grandmothers of Sepur Zarco'.
Malay Mail
4 hours ago
- General
- Malay Mail
Trump wins Supreme Court ruling to strip legal protections from 500,000 migrants, exposing them to deportation
WASHINGTON, May 31— The US Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a major victory yesterday in his immigration crackdown, giving his administration the green light to revoke the legal status of half a million migrants from four Caribbean and Latin American countries. The decision puts 532,000 people who came from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua and Venezuela to the United States under a two-year humanitarian 'parole' programme launched by former president Joe Biden at risk of deportation. And it marked the second time the highest US court has sided with Trump in his aggressive push to deliver on his election pledge to deport millions of non-citizens, through a series of policy moves that have prompted a flurry of lawsuits. On Calle Ocho, a historic street in Miami's Little Havana neighbourhood, Johnny Cardona, 63, was saddened by the Supreme Court's decision. 'Since I'm American, it's not going to affect me, but I know it's going to affect many friendships, many families, many people I know,' Cardona told AFP. The ruling sparked a scathing dissent from two justices in the liberal minority who said the six conservatives on the bench had 'plainly botched' the decision and undervalued the 'devastating consequences' to those potentially affected. The revoked programme had allowed entry into the United States for two years for up to 30,000 migrants a month from the four countries, all of which have dismal human rights records. But as Trump takes a hard line on immigration, his administration moved to overturn those protections, winning a ruling from the Supreme Court earlier this month that allowed officials to begin deporting around 350,000 Venezuelans. The latest case resulted from Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem cancelling an 18-month extension of the temporary protected status of the migrants, citing in particular the 'authoritarian' nature of Nicolas Maduro's government in Venezuela. The department gave them 30 days to leave the country unless they had legal protection under another programme. 'Needless human suffering' 'The court has plainly botched this assessment today,' Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Sonia Sotomayor wrote in their dissent. The justices said the migrants face being wrenched from family and returning to potential danger in their native countries — or opting to stay and risking imminent removal. 'At a minimum, granting the stay would facilitate needless human suffering before the courts have reached a final judgment regarding the legal arguments at issue, while denying the government's application would not have anything close to that kind of practical impact,' Jackson said. None of the other justices gave reasons for their decision, and the court was not required to make the vote public. 'The ultimate goal of this policy is to leave these people without legal status, to make them subjects of deportation,' said Adelys Ferro, co-founder and executive director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, an advocacy group. The district court that barred the administration from revoking the migrants' status had argued that it was unlawfully applying a fast-track deportation procedure aimed at illegal immigrants to non-citizens protected by government programmes. At the Supreme Court, Justice Department lawyers said the 'district court has nullified one of the administration's most consequential immigration policy decisions' by issuing the stay. The high court's decision means the Trump administration can go ahead with its policy change, even as the litigation on the merits plays out in lower courts. Trump campaigned for the White House on a pledge to deport millions of undocumented migrants, claiming there was an ongoing 'invasion' of the United States by hordes of foreign criminals. But his programme of mass deportations has been thwarted or restricted by numerous court rulings, including from the Supreme Court and notably on the grounds that those targeted should be able to assert their due process rights. The Trump administration systematically accuses judges who oppose his immigration decisions of plundering his presidential national security powers. — AFP
