Elephant kills two female tourists from the UK and New Zealand in Zambian national park
Eastern Province Police Commissioner Robertson Mweemba said the victims – 68-year-old Easton Janet Taylor from the United Kingdom and 67-year-old Alison Jean Taylor from New Zealand – were attacked by a female elephant that was with a calf.
Safari guides who were with the group attempted to stop the elephant from charging at the women by firing shots at it, police said. The elephant was hit and wounded by the gunshots. The guides were unable to prevent the elephant's attack and both women died at the scene, police said.
It happened at the South Luangwa National Park in eastern Zambia, around 600 kilometers (370 miles) from the capital, Lusaka.
Female elephants are very protective of their calves and can respond aggressively to what they perceive as threats.
Last year, two American tourists were killed in separate encounters with elephants in different parts of Zambia. In both cases, the tourists were also elderly women and were on a safari vehicle when they were attacked.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News24
2 hours ago
- News24
Lessons from Indonesia in fighting SA's drug scourge
The writer asks if South Africa should go 'full Indonesia' on drug laws. Be among those who shape the future with knowledge. Uncover exclusive stories that captivate your mind and heart with our FREE 14-day subscription trial. Dive into a world of inspiration, learning, and empowerment. You can only trial once. Show Comments ()
Yahoo
11 hours ago
- Yahoo
Protests against surging mass tourism in Mexico City end in vandalism, harassment of tourists
MEXICO CITY (AP) — A protest by hundreds against gentrification and mass tourism that began peacefully Friday in Mexico City neighborhoods popular with tourists turned violent when a small number of people began smashing storefronts and harassing foreigners. Masked protesters smashed through the windows and looted high-end businesses in the touristic areas of Condesa and Roma, and screamed at tourists in the area. Graffiti on glass shattered glass being smashed through with rocks read: 'get out of Mexico.' Protesters held signs reading 'gringos, stop stealing our home' and demanding local legislation to better regulate tourism levels and stricter housing laws. Marchers then continued on to protest outside the U.S. Embassy and chanted inside the city's metro system. Police reinforcements gathered outside the Embassy building as police sirens rung out in the city center Friday evening. It marked a violent end to a more peaceful march throughout the day calling out against masses of mostly American tourists who have flooded into Mexico's capital in recent years. Tension had been mounting in the city since U.S. 'digital nomads' flocked to Mexico City in 2020, many to escape coronavirus lockdowns in the U.S. or to take advantage of cheaper rent prices in the Latin American city. Since then, rents have soared and locals have increasingly gotten pushed out of their neighborhoods, particularly areas like Condesa and Roma, lush areas packed with coffee shops and restaurants. Michelle Castro, a 19-year-old college student, was among the flocks of people protesting. She said that she's from the city's working class city center, and that she's watched slowly as apartment buildings have been turned into housing for tourists. 'Mexico City is going through a transformation," she said. "There are a lot of foreigners, namely Americans, coming to live here. Many say it's xenophobia, but it's not. It's just that so many foreigners come here, rents are skyrocketing because of Airbnb. Rents are so high that some people can't even pay anymore.' The Mexico City protest follows others in European cities like Barcelona, Madrid, Paris and Rome against mass tourism.
Washington Post
14 hours ago
- Washington Post
Trump administration preparing to deport detainees to South Sudan
A federal judge in Boston on Friday rejected an 11th-hour plea to spare eight immigrants from imminent deportation to conflict-ridden South Sudan, saying the U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the transfers. U.S. District Judge Brian E. Murphy's brief ruling followed frantic efforts from the migrants' lawyers to block the Trump administration from sending them to a nation that has been on the brink of civil war — and to which none of the men has citizenship. In May, Murphy had halted a U.S. government flight with the men headed to South Sudan, saying the administration could not send them to the African nation without giving them a chance to argue that they could face persecution there. Since then, the men have been marooned in a shipping container on a U.S. Naval base in the East Africa nation of Djibouti awaiting their fate. The Supreme Court last month cleared the way for Trump officials to deport immigrants to third countries where they do not have citizenship, when it temporarily blocked a decision by Murphy that said migrants must have a 'meaningful opportunity' to contest their removal. On Thursday, the court clarified that its order covers the detainees headed to South Sudan. The court's majority did not provide any reasons for their ruling, which is typical for emergency orders. Trina Realmuto, executive director of the National Immigration Litigation Alliance, which has helped represent the men in court, called the legal outcome 'deeply troubling' and said the Trump administration's move to send the men to South Sudan is 'unconstitutionally punitive' Murphy's ruling Friday capped an extraordinary legal saga that has stretched on for weeks and left the men in legal limbo. Though the Supreme Court appeared to settle the matter Thursday, lawyers for the men led a final attempt afterward that spilled over into the Fourth of July holiday to block their transfer to South Sudan by arguing in a federal court in Washington, D.C., that they would face imminent danger. The lawyers asked U.S. District Judge Randolph D. Moss to declare the deportations 'punitive' and block the deportations, arguing that federal law bars the United States from sending anyone — even criminals — to nations where they could have a reasonable fear that they could be tortured or killed. Moss, who held two hearings on the matter Friday, expressed concerns for the men's safety and transferred the case to Murphy, where it had begun in May. The eight men are not citizens of South Sudan and have no ties to that country, their lawyers said. They said the men come from Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Myanmar, Sudan and Mexico. The Justice Department argued in court Friday that the detainees are among the 'worst of the worst,' most with convictions for violent crimes, including murder. 'We have planes that are imminently going to go,' Justice Department lawyer Hashim Mooppan told Moss during an afternoon hearing. Lawyers for the migrants said it is illegal and immoral for the U.S. government to deport people to places where they could be killed. Most of the men cannot speak the language in South Sudan, their lawyers said, and the Trump administration has publicized the men's names and photos — potentially putting them in greater jeopardy. The men had served criminal sentences in the United States for their crimes and were being deported by the Department of Homeland Security under civil immigration laws. The State Department has urged people not to travel to South Sudan because of the risk of 'crime, kidnapping, and armed conflict.' 'The idea of sending human beings into a place where they may be tortured and harmed … cannot be sustained,' said Mary Sameera Van Houten, an attorney representing the detainees. 'That can't possibly be the law in this country.' Mooppan said the South Sudan government has agreed to accept the detainees temporarily, and he added that he does not expect them to be incarcerated. He said they are expected to be granted an immigration status with permission to stay temporarily in the country. 'We certainly haven't asked for them to be detained,' he said. The case centers on one of the most sacred provisions in federal immigration law: the principle that the U.S. government will not deport people to nations where they might face persecution. But the Trump administration has been frustrated in its attempts to ramp up deportations, in part by countries that delay or refuse to accept the return of their citizens deported from the United States. In the case of the eight migrants being sent to South Sudan, Mexico has said it would accept the return of the man from that country. Murphy, the judge in Massachusetts, had ruled in April that the government could not deport immigrants to countries other than their own without giving them a meaningful opportunity to challenge it based on their fears of persecution. But the absence of an explanation left judges and lawyers grasping for direction from the highest court on what lawyers for the immigrants consider a life-and-death issue. DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said Thursday that the eight men had been convicted of violent offenses — including homicide, attempted murder and sexual assault. At least one has a lesser conviction of robbery and other offenses. 'These sickos will be in South Sudan by Independence Day,' McLaughlin said in a statement Thursday. She called it a 'win for the rule of law, safety and security of the American people.' Jennie Pasquarella, a lawyer for the immigrants, told Moss on Friday that what set the case apart is that the men could face dangerous consequences — even death — if they are sent to South Sudan. Deportation is not supposed to be punitive, the lawyers argued. Moss agreed, temporarily halting the deportations and then transferring the case to the Boston court, saying that was the proper venue. Moss said that based on State Department's warnings, 'it does appear that placing people in South Sudan does pose or could pose significant risks to their physical safety' and that it would 'shock the conscience' to send even criminals to a country where they might be harmed or killed. He said even people convicted of a 'terrible crime' cannot be punished after they have served their sentences. But Moss ruled that the men's lawyers had filed in the wrong court. Moss gave the men's lawyers until 4:30 p.m. — less than 90 minutes from his ruling — to contact the judge in Boston and ask the court to halt the removals. Murphy denied the request a few hours later. Ann E. Marimow contributed to this report.
