Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
21 March 2025 Photo Supplied
Siyanda Magayana
Siyanda Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, UFS.

Opinion article by Siyanda Magayana, Senior Officer: Gender Equality and Anti-Discrimination Office, Unit for Institutional Change and Social Justice, University of the Free State.


The world is experiencing a surge in backsliding on human rights, particularly for women and marginalised individuals and communities. Across the continent, hard-won freedoms are being stripped away, raising the question – whose rights really matter? From Iran to Africa, to Afghanistan to the United States, we are witnessing a systematic erosion of rights for women and gender-diverse persons under the guise of culture, religion, sovereignty, tradition, and political convenience.

 

In Afghanistan, for instance, the Taliban’s return to power has led to the near-total eradication of women from the country’s public life, i.e., banning them from the workplace, from getting an education, restricting how they dress, and even banning them from public spaces without a male guardian. In addition, in Iran, we see the brutalisation of women protesting for bodily autonomy following the death of Mahsa Amini, highlighting the deadly consequences of gender oppression. Even in so-called liberal democracies such as the US – the repeal of Roe vs Wade, which highlighted the fragility of women’s rights as governments roll back on reproductive rights and freedoms.

Africa, as a continent, is not exempt from this wave of regression. For instance, in Sudan, the continuing conflict has disproportionately affected women, with various reports of sexual violence growing. Even in stable democracies, restrictive abortion laws and patriarchal traditions continue to suppress women’s agency and autonomy. This regression is not just a legal one, but also cultural, as it is sustained by prevailing societal norms and standards that uphold gender inequality.

A justification for these setbacks is often the manipulation of culture and religion, seeking to enforce outdated and discriminatory gender roles. Followed by arguments such as ‘our forefathers had no problem with women not working because they supported them’, or ‘men are the heads of the household, as stated in religious and cultural teachings’, are used to defend and justify the systemic oppression of women’s and other vulnerable groups’ rights. These endemic narratives not only ignore the varying socio-economic realities that demand women’s and other diverse groups’ economic participation but also dismiss their agency. When culture and religion are weaponised to justify oppression and violence, they stray far from their true essence, which is compassion, mutual respect, and justice.

LGBTQI rights under threat

Beyond the regression in women’s rights, the LGBTQI+ community faces escalating persecution. For instance, Uganda’s anti-homosexuality act, which includes harsh penalties – even the death sentence – for same-sex relationships, reflects an alarming trend of state-sponsored homophobia. Similarly, this can be seen in Ghana, where proposed legislation seeks to criminalise LGBTQI+ identities entirely. These policies not only deny people their basic right to humanity but also embolden violence and discrimination against non-heterosexual individuals.

This regression is not limited to African nations. In countries such as Russia, for instance, LGBTQI+ activists are silenced through outdated laws, while in the US, there is an evident rise of anti-trans laws. These laws and targeted attacks on marginalised communities are evidence of a broader and more insidious attempt to control, erase, and dictate identity, behaviour, and personal rights and freedoms.

The question of masculinity, fear, and the regression of rights

A key driver of this regression and repression is the ‘masculinity anxiety’ or ‘crisis of masculinity’, which is the perception that traditional masculinity is being challenged, threatened, or devalued in modern society. This anxiety may stem from global cultural shifts regarding gender roles, the advancement of women’s rights, and the protection of gender-diverse people, which are often framed as attacks on traditional masculinity and male authority. Many men, for instance, conditioned by patriarchal systems, feel displaced when women gain independence and when gender roles evolve beyond rigid binaries.  This fear manifests in resistance to gender equality, as well as the vilification of LGBTQI+ individuals.

However, this perception is deeply flawed and problematic. Masculinity does not and should not rely on the oppression of others. Men are not made weaker by women’s empowerment or by the protection of LGBTQI+ rights, as is the current rhetoric; on the contrary, societies that support gender equality and inclusivity are more stable, humane, and safer. The discourse around masculinity must shift from one of dominance and control to one of mutual respect, partnership, and shared progress.

Therefore, instead of clinging to outdated notions of manhood, we need conversations that redefine masculinity in a way that embraces emotional intelligence, care, and the ability to exist alongside women and gender-diverse individuals without feeling threatened. Initiatives promoting positive masculinity, mentorship for (young) men, and education on gender equity are critical to dismantling these harmful fears and replacing them with a framework and discourse that sees strength in equality rather than opposition to it.

The impact of rights regression

The regression in human rights has profound consequences, both at a local and global level. When women are denied access to education, reproductive rights, and economic opportunities, the entire economy is susceptible to stagnation and/or collapse. And, where LGBTQI+ rights are criminalised, there is a risk of repealing the freedom of expression, leading to increased systemic and individual violence, discrimination, and harassment. The Global South, in particular, is vulnerable to these backward shifts, as weakened legal protections and entrenched conservative ideologies and practices make it difficult to push back against state repression.

In South Africa, for example, the regression of women’s rights is manifesting in a particularly violent manner. GBV and sexual violence have reached crisis levels, threatening the very existence of women; femicide incidents are also among the highest globally. The failure to address these crimes reflects a broader societal problem, which is the normalisation of violence against women and gender- and sexually diverse individuals, and subsequently, the lack of accountability for perpetrators. When women and other vulnerable groups live in constant fear for their safety, their freedoms are curtailed, and the promise of gender equality becomes hollow rhetoric.

What can be done?

As a nation, we must refuse to be silent and to be silenced; human rights are critical to the prosperity of not just the nation’s economies, but also its people. Civil organisations, institutions of education, grassroots movements, and other relevant stakeholders must continue to resist the removal of the rights of women and marginalised groups. Additionally, we need to change the narrative; the rights of women, children, LGBTQI+, and other marginalised groups are not foreign or ‘Western’ concepts imposed on Africa, they are universal human rights. By framing equality and freedom within African values and discourse, we can challenge regressive ideologies from within.

Equally, education remains our most powerful tool, therefore we must continue to invest in teaching about creating an equal, safe, just, and tolerant society that ensures that the next generation does not repeat the mistakes of the past. The global retreat of human rights is a warning sign to all of us; if we do not act now, the freedoms and rights we take for granted today may not exist tomorrow.

News Archive

Council on Higher Education LLB qualification review not yet complete
2017-05-16

The reaction from various stakeholders following the ‘Outcomes of the National Review of the LLB Qualification’ by the Council on Higher Education (CHE) on 12 April 2017 requires the CHE to clarify that the national review process has not been completed and is ongoing.

The peer-review process conducted under the auspices of the CHE is based on the LLB Standards Document which was developed in 2014-2015 with input from higher-education institutions and the organised legal profession. Following self-review and site visits by peers, the process is now at the point where commendations and shortcomings have been identified, and the statement of 12 April reflects those findings. All law faculties and schools have been asked to improve their LLB programmes to meet the LLB Standard, and no LLB programme has been de-accredited. All institutions retain the accreditation they had before the Review process began and all institutions are working towards retaining their accreditation and improving their LLB programmes.

The South African Law Deans’ Association (SALDA) has issued a set of responses regarding the LLB programme review. The following questions and answers were published to give more clarity on the questions raised.

1.    What is the effect of a finding of conditional accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

(“Accreditation refers to a recognition status granted to a programme for a stipulated period of time after an HEQC evaluation indicates that it meets minimum standards of quality.”)

The institution must submit a progress report by 6 October 2017 that indicates how short-term aspects raised in the HEQC reports have been addressed and an improvement plan to indicate how longer-term aspects will be addressed.

2.    What is the effect of a finding of notice of withdrawal of accreditation?
The programme remains accredited.

The institution must submit an improvement plan by 6 October 2017 to indicate how the issues raised in the HEQC report will be addressed, including time frames.

3.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect current students?
Students currently enrolled for the LLB programme at any institution are not affected at all. They will graduate with an accredited qualification.

4.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect new applicants?
The programmes remain accredited and institutions may enrol new students as usual. This also includes students completing BA/BCom (Law) programmes who wish to continue with the LLB programme.

5.    How does the finding of notice of withdrawal affect prior graduates?
Degrees previously conferred are not affected.

6.    What happens when the improvement plans are submitted in October 2017?
The CHE will evaluate the plans when they are submitted, and the programmes remain accredited until a decision is taken whether the improvement plan is sufficient and has been fully given effect to or not. The institutions will have to submit progress reports to the CHE indicating implementation of measures contained in the improvement plan.

Should a decision at some stage be taken that a programme’s accreditation must be withdrawn, a teaching-out plan would be implemented so that all enrolled students would have the opportunity to graduate with an accredited degree.

For more information on the CHE’s pronouncement please contact Moleboheng Moshe-Bereng on MosheBerengMF@ufs.ac.za.

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept