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A justification for these setbacks is often the manipulation of culture and religion, seeking to enforce outdated and discriminatory gender roles.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

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

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