Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Whose rights really matter? The global war on rights regression

21 March 2025 Photo Supplied

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A justification for these setbacks is often the manipulation of culture and religion, seeking to enforce outdated and discriminatory gender roles.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

Questions about racial integration in residences answered

2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply. What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations. You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?)

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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