Latest news with #HumanRightsGroups
The Independent
6 days ago
- The Independent
Photos of funeral of Kenyan civilian shot dead by police during protest
The burial of a Kenyan civilian who was shot at close range by a police officer during an anti-government demonstration in June has taken place at his parents' farm in Kangema. Boniface Kariuki was selling face masks at an anti-police demonstration on June 17 when he was shot in the head during a confrontation with two officers. On Thursday, an officer was charged with his murder. Human rights groups have called for restraint among police officers following violence at similar protests captured by photographers on June 25 and July 7. __ This is a photo gallery curated by AP photo editors.
Globe and Mail
19-06-2025
- Politics
- Globe and Mail
Leader of Tanzania's main opposition party could face death penalty
The security at the court building was extraordinary: a rooftop sniper, police with dogs and tear-gas launchers, vans with darkened windows, and a small army of black-masked guards with armoured jackets and submachine guns. But the defendant in the courtroom is not a dangerous terrorist. He is a politician, a leader of Tanzania's main opposition party who faces a highly organized operation to prevent him from running in this year's election. Tundu Lissu, chairman of the Chadema party, is on trial for treason − a charge that carries the death penalty. His prosecution, protested by human-rights groups around the world, exposes the sharp decline of democracy in a country that Western donors have long favoured with billions of dollars in aid. Mr. Lissu has endured countless arrests and attacks over the past decade. In 2017, gunmen with assault rifles sprayed dozens of bullets at his vehicle, nearly killing him. After three years in exile and a long recovery in hospital from 16 bullet wounds, he returned fearlessly to politics, contesting Tanzania's 2020 election as an opposition candidate and finishing second in official results. This year, Tanzania's authoritarian government seems determined to prevent him from running again. His party has been banned from the October election after authorities accused it of failing to accept an electoral code of conduct. Many of its top officials, along with other activists, have been arrested or harassed in recent weeks. And now, Mr. Lissu faces a potential death sentence. He was arrested in April after he called for reforms in Tanzania's electoral system. 'This is not a normal trial,' the 57-year-old politician told the judge at his latest hearing on Monday. 'I have not been sentenced, yet I am held in the death-row block. I am watched night and day. I cannot speak to my lawyers in private. Not a single private conversation has been allowed.' From 2020: Gunshots and tear gas fail to deter Tanzanian opposition leader Tundu Lissu He described how two guards keep him under constant watch, day and night. He is even barred from joining other detainees in the prison's exercise yard. Instead, he is required to walk alone in a dirty drainage-ditch area. Because his conversations with his lawyers are closely monitored, Mr. Lissu told the court that it is impossible for him to discuss strategy with them and he will be obliged to defend himself without any lawyers. Wearing a shirt emblazoned with the opposition slogan – 'No reforms, no election' – he smiled and flashed a victory sign at local reporters. Outside the court, his supporters chanted his name and waved placards demanding justice, but their voices were nearly drowned out by police sirens. Most of his supporters were denied permission to enter the crowded courtroom. A senior Tanzanian official told The Globe and Mail that the government's goal is to keep Mr. Lissu in prison until after the October election, to prevent him from running. After the vote, he will be quietly released, the official said. The Globe is not identifying the official because he could face retribution from the authorities for speaking out. Tanzania has been governed by a single party since its independence in 1961. The ruling party, today known as Chama Cha Mapinduzi (CCM, the Revolutionary Party), has dominated all aspects of Tanzanian life and rarely tolerates much dissent. Its opponents have accused it of rigging recent elections to deliver huge majorities to CCM. Freedom House, a U.S.-based democracy and rights group, recently announced that it had downgraded Tanzania's status from 'partly free' to 'not free' because of the government's repressive measures. Despite this, Tanzania has remained a Western aid darling, and one of the largest recipients of Canadian foreign aid. Canada has provided $3.4-billion in international assistance to Tanzania since its independence, including $141-million in 2023-24, according to data from Global Affairs Canada. As the election approaches, a growing number of opposition politicians and activists have been kidnapped in what amount to 'enforced disappearances,' according to a report by United Nations human-rights experts. They described it as 'a flagrant tactic to suppress dissent.' In one of the most shocking cases, two activists from Kenya and Uganda who tried to attend Mr. Lissu's treason trial were arrested and disappeared for days. They were later dumped in remote border towns. Both gave detailed accounts of how they were tortured and sexually assaulted by Tanzanian security agents. Even churches have fallen victim to the crackdown. This month, authorities ordered the shutdown of a prominent church and arrested a dozen of its worshippers after its bishop criticized the disappearance of opposition activists. The bishop, Josephat Gwajima, is an outspoken MP who has complained of 'creeping authoritarianism' in the country. Witnesses described how police raided the church, even arresting a disabled woman in a wheelchair, dragging her away and throwing her into a police vehicle. Mr. Gwajima has fled into hiding, leaving a prerecorded sermon in which he says: 'They can shut down the church, but they cannot shut down the people's spirit.' Last Sunday, hundreds of his followers held a defiant outdoor service. 'We are not criminals,' said Rehema Moses, a long-time congregant. 'We are citizens exercising our right to believe.'
Arab News
13-06-2025
- Politics
- Arab News
Philippines' former leader Duterte seeks interim release from ICC
MANILA: Former Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte's defense team at the International Criminal Court has filed a motion for his interim release to an unnamed country, stating the prosecution would not 80-year-old stands accused of crimes against humanity over his years-long campaign against drug users and dealers that rights groups say killed a filing posted to the court's website late Thursday, defense lawyers said the involved country – the name of which was redacted – had expressed its 'principled agreement to receive onto its territory.'ICC prosecutors have agreed not to oppose the request, according to the filing, which said discussions about an interim release had been under way since Duterte's first court appearance at The Hague on March 14.'The Prosecution has confirmed its non-opposition to interim release to (REDACTED) (REDACTED) State Party' as long as certain conditions were met, the filing annex spelling out the conditions for Duterte's release was not publicly available, but the defense team's filing noted that the octogenarian posed no flight risk and cited humanitarian concerns around his representing relatives of those killed in Duterte's drug war condemned the application for release, citing threats made against victims' families, and saying they had legal avenues to oppose it.'There is still a procedure within the ICC that requires the prosecution to comment and the ICC Pre Trial Chamber (PTC) to decide on the application for provisional release,' lawyer Neri Colmenares said in a an interview with local radio, lawyer Kristina Conti said she believed it was '50-50' the former president would be released.'I hope the (drug war) victims can weigh in but that would be difficult if (the release is based on) humanitarian grounds, and he is reportedly sick,' she was arrested in Manila on March 11, flown to the Netherlands that same night and has been held at the ICC's detention unit at Scheveningen Prison deputy prosecutor Mame Mandiaye Niang is currently overseeing the case against Duterte after Karim Khan stepped aside during an investigation into alleged sexual for comment sent to the ICC prosecutor's office were not immediately returned.
BBC News
05-06-2025
- General
- BBC News
President Trump bans people from some countries from travelling to USA
US President Donald Trump has signed a ban on travel to the United States for citizens from twelve mostly African and Asian by people from seven other countries will be restricted in Trump says the ban, which comes into effect next week, would keep America human rights groups have criticised his plans, calling them "cruel," and some experts say it is likely to be challenged in US is the second time President Trump he has ordered a ban on travel from certain countries - he signed a similar order in 2017, during his first term in office. What has Donald Trump announced? From 9 June, citizens from 12 countries will be blocked from travelling to the countries are Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Nationals from another seven countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela - will face a partial there are a few situations when the new rules won't include some dual citizens - people who are citizens of two countries at the same time - as well as for athletes travelling to America to compete in major sporting tournaments are due to be held in the US over the next few years including the 2026 World Cup and the 2028 Olympics in Los order also says the American government may grant exemptions on a "case-by-case" White House said these were "common sense restrictions" which would "protect Americans" and help keep the country US president made immigration a big issue in last year's election campaign. What has the reaction been to the ban? Sone people and organisations have criticised President Trump's plan and it is expected to be challenged in from President Trump's rival Democratic Party in the US said the ban "betrayed" the ideals of the USA's founders and warned it would "only further isolate" America on the world rights groups have also spoken out against the International USA described it as "discriminatory, racist, and downright cruel." There has also been reaction from some of the countries named in President Trump's promised to work with the United States to address any security Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello warned that "being in the United States is a great risk for anyone, not just for Venezuelans." Has this happened before? President Trump ordered a similar travel ban during his first term in the White House in featured some of the same countries as his latest order, including Iran, Libya and gathered at airports around the US to protest against the ban, including lawyers who offered their services for free to help those 2021, when Joe Biden became US President after Donald Trump, he scrapped the travel ban.
Forbes
29-05-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Is The U.S. Still Safe? Canada Ponders Safe Third Country Agreement
When Canada signed the Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) with the United States in 2004, it was widely viewed as a reasonable policy. The agreement, still in force today, requires refugee claimants to seek asylum in the first 'safe' country they arrive in—typically the United States. Because of this agreement, most individuals arriving at the Canadian border from the U.S., whether at border crossings or through irregular crossings such as at Roxham Road, are ineligible to make a refugee claim in Canada unless they meet narrow exceptions. But the assumption of American 'safety' is now under renewed scrutiny. Ironically, the good intentions of those advocating to repeal the STCA in Canadian courts on the grounds that the U.S. no longer meets the legal threshold of a 'safe' country could lead to Canada being overwhelmed by demands it is ill-prepared to meet. Donald Trump's administration's initiation of mass deportations could once again open up a new humanitarian and logistical crisis at Canada's southern border. The more extreme President Trump's actions, the more probable the STCA will be struck down by the courts and the more plausible the likelihood that Canada could be overwhelmed with escaping migrants from America. Human rights groups and immigration advocates in Canada argue that U.S. asylum protections have deteriorated dramatically. They cite American policies such as illegal deportations of Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador, the arrest of students protesting the events in Gaza, the 'Remain in Mexico" policy, summary expulsions of migrants, and the rise of detention without due process as reasons for their concerns. Yet, Canada continues to regard the U.S. as a safe haven for refugee claimants. This, despite Canada not having publicly revealed its annual reviews of U.S. asylum practices since 2009. While it is true, there is no formal requirement for the federal government to make those reviews public, still failing to do so is inconsistent with transparency and best practices for enforcing human rights. That being said, the cracks in that foundation are now becoming even more visible. As Trump follows through on his pledge to deport all of the 11 million undocumented immigrants, it is increasingly apparent that the effort will require using military-style raids, expanded detention camps, and massive expedited removals. With each step, the U.S. is increasingly no longer a practical haven for those fleeing violence or persecution. The more robust the deportation efforts, the more likely the result is that more undocumented immigrants will look north, seeing Canada as a last refuge. Until now, Canada has benefited from its geographic isolation. That has served as a natural barrier to massive inward migrations. With the change in the U.S., Canada's image as a welcoming country is increasingly at odds with the reality of Canada's absorptive capacity limits. A sudden, unruly inflow of tens of thousands of refugee claimants fleeing deportation from the United States could overwhelm Canadian institutions. Canada plans to admit 385,000 immigrants as permanent residents this year. Under Canada's Immigration Levels Plan for 2025, the target for refugees, protected persons, and individuals admitted on humanitarian and compassionate grounds is set at 68,350. This figure encompasses both resettled refugees and successful asylum claimants. That being the case, what would happen if say, even 100,000 more people attempted to cross the border in the wake of a U.S. increased crackdown on unauthorized immigrants? It is not difficult to foresee the outcome. In terms of housing, cities like Toronto and Vancouver are already grappling with housing shortages, with thousands awaiting affordable housing. Encampments have become a visible part of the urban landscape—an emergency could make them a permanent fixture. In healthcare, Canadian hospitals are experiencing record wait times. An influx of newcomers, many of whom have untreated health issues, could further compromise service delivery. Regarding education and social services, school boards would struggle to accommodate children facing trauma, language barriers, and diverse learning needs. Food banks, shelters, and social workers are already functioning at capacity. Legally, Canada is in a bind. The STCA was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2023, but the justices sent the case back to the Federal Court to assess whether the agreement violates equality rights under Section 15 of the Charter. The current challenge, launched by refugee advocacy organizations, argues that Canada's ongoing reliance on the STCA—without a current, transparent safety assessment is unconstitutional. The core paradox remains: if the U.S. is genuinely safe, then those fleeing Trump-era deportations should not be admissible to Canada. But if the U.S. is not safe, then Canada's continued rejection of claimants may breach its domestic and international legal obligations. Canada cannot have it both ways. Despite fears of a mass northward migration, most undocumented immigrants in the U.S. do not meet Canada's legal definition of a refugee. Deportation, while distressing, does not itself constitute persecution. Unless claimants can prove a well-founded fear of persecution in their country of origin, they are unlikely to succeed in Canada's asylum system. While some may have valid claims based on new risks or deteriorating conditions in their home countries, the number eligible to stay would be only a fraction of those who might attempt to do so. Canada's broader immigration programs—such as Express Entry and Provincial Nominee Programs—require education, skilled work experience, language proficiency, and financial resources, all of which present significant barriers for most undocumented migrants. However, it's important to note that two-thirds of the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the USA, that is to say, 7 million, have been there for over 10 years. Given this, many of these immigrants are likely to have accumulated sufficient resources to enable them to seek refuge in Canada. If the STCA is repealed and a surge of asylum seekers follows, the political consequences in Canada could be severe. A country proud of its humanitarian values could see its social cohesion put to the test. As services are stretched and the housing crisis deepens, public support for immigration could erode. Populist calls for tighter border control and reduced immigration levels could gain traction, challenging decades of liberal consensus. What was once an obscure bilateral treaty could become the most consequential piece of immigration policy in Canada. Repealing the Safe Third Country Agreement with America without preparing for its consequences would be reckless. However, maintaining it without a genuine re-evaluation is equally untenable. Canada must brace itself for the prospect that the United States may no longer be a reliable partner in refugee protection. Two primary considerations arise. Firstly, what specific actions will President Trump undertake in the coming months concerning immigration in the United States? Will he intensify his current efforts, or will the courts and opposition to his initiatives stem the tide? Secondly, how long will it take for Canada's Supreme Court to revisit this issue? There remains time to plan and prepare for what lies ahead. Yet Canada must also maintain a clear-eyed perspective on what it can reasonably absorb. The path forward will necessitate not only compassion but also prudence—and a firm grasp of the limits of what even a generous nation can achieve.
