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A justification for these setbacks is often the manipulation of culture and religion, seeking to enforce outdated and discriminatory gender roles.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

Heart diseases a time bomb in Africa, says UFS expert
2010-05-17

 Prof. Francis Smit

There are a lot of cardiac problems in Africa. Sub-Saharan Africa is home to the largest population of rheumatic heart disease patients in the world and therefore hosts the largest rheumatic heart valve population in the world. They are more than one million, compared to 33 000 in the whole of the industrialised world, says Prof. Francis Smit, Head of the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery at the Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of the Free State (UFS).

He delivered an inaugural lecture on the topic Cardiothoracic Surgery: Complex simplicity, or simple complexity?

“We are also sitting on a time bomb of ischemic heart disease with the WHO (World Health Organisation) estimating that CAD (coronary artery disease) will become the number-one killer in our region by 2020. HIV/Aids is expected to go down to number 7.”

Very little is done about it. There is neither a clear nor coordinated programme to address this expected epidemic and CAD is regarded as an expensive disease, confined to Caucasians in the industrialised world. “We are ignoring alarming statistics about incidences of adult obesity, diabetes and endemic hypertension in our black population and a rising incidence of coronary artery interventions and incidents in our indigenous population,” Prof. Smit says.

Outside South Africa – with 44 units – very few units (about seven) perform low volumes of basic cardiac surgery. The South African units at all academic institutions are under severe threat and about 70% of cardiac procedures are performed in the private sector.

He says the main challenge in Africa has become sustainability, which needs to be addressed through education. Cardiothoracic surgery must become part of everyday surgery in Africa through alternative education programmes. That will make this specialty relevant at all levels of healthcare and it must be involved in resource allocation to medicine in general and cardiothoracic surgery specifically.

The African surgeon should make the maximum impact at the lowest possible cost to as many people in a society as possible. “Our training in fields like intensive care and insight into pulmonology, gastroenterology and cardiology give us the possibility of expanding our roles in African medicine. We must also remember that we are trained physicians as well.

“Should people die or suffer tremendously while we can train a group of surgical specialists or retraining general surgeons to expand our impact on cardiothoracic disease in Africa using available technology maybe more creatively? We have made great progress in establishing an African School for Cardiothoracic Surgery.”

Prof. Smit also highlighted the role of the annual Hannes Meyer National Registrar Symposium that culminated in having an eight-strong international panel sponsored by the ICC of EACTS to present a scientific course as well as advanced surgical techniques in conjunction with the Hannes Meyer Symposium in 2010.

Prof. Smit says South Africa is fast becoming the driving force in cardiothoracic surgery in Africa. South Africa is the only country that has the knowledge, technology and skills base to act as the springboard for the development of cardiothoracic surgery in Africa.

South Africa, however, is experiencing its own problems. Mortality has doubled in the years from 1997 to 2005 and half the population in the Free State dies between 40 to 44 years of age.

“If we do not need health professionals to determine the quality and quantity of service delivery to the population and do not want to involve them in this process, we can get rid of them, but then the political leaders making that decision must accept responsibility for the clinical outcomes and life expectancies of their fellow citizens.

“We surely cannot expect to impose the same medical legal principles on professionals working in unsafe hospitals and who have complained and made authorities aware of these conditions than upon those working in functional institutions. Either fixes the institutions or indemnifies medical personnel working in these conditions and defends the decision publicly.

“Why do I have to choose the three out of four patients that cannot have a lifesaving operation and will have to die on their own while the system pretends to deliver treatment to all?”

Prof. Smit says developing a service package with guidelines in the public domain will go a long way towards addressing this issue. It is also about time that we have to admit that things are simply not the same. Standards are deteriorating and training outcomes are or will be affected.

The people who make decisions that affect healthcare service delivery and outcomes, the quality of training platforms and research, in a word, the future of South African medicine, firstly need rules and boundaries. He also suggested that maybe the government should develop health policy in the public domain and then outsource healthcare delivery to people who can actually deliver including thousands of experts employed but ignored by the State at present.

“It is time that we all have to accept our responsibilities at all levels… and act decisively on matters that will determine the quality and quantity of medical care for this and future generations in South Africa and Africa. Time is running out,” Prof. Smit says.
 

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