Rights

New Delhi, India – On a searing hot afternoon in a dense working class neighbourhood of the Indian capital, Shehnaz Bano sits on the dilapidated floor of her one-room home, deftly stitching pieces for a new leather jacket.

To make each piece – a sleeve, a front or back panel or a shoulder yoke – the 38-year-old mother of two teenage sons spends hours, but is paid a mere 100 rupees (about $1) for each piece.

“Imagine if I was a regular employee and I did the same work for the same hours, but on a factory floor. I would have been paid more, right?” Bano asked.

“Just because I work from home, I don’t get equal pay or rights.”

That is because Bano, like nearly 260 million others across the world, is a home-based worker (HBW) – people employed to produce goods or services in or near their homes. The HBWs are part of what is referred to as the global informal economy. Such a form of employment is characterised by low wages, denial of workers’ rights, lack of social security or established hours of work, or paid leave.

The HBWs are also a highly-feminised workforce, with nearly 57 percent being women, according to a 2024 estimate by Women in Informal Employment: Globalising and Organising (WIEGO), a United Kingdom-based global research organisation focused on improving conditions for the working poor, especially women, in the informal economy.

On this day 30 years ago, however, an effort was made to change the condition of the HBWs – with little success so far.

The International Labour Organisation (ILO), a United Nations’ body, during a conference at its headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland, adopted the landmark “Convention 177”, or the Home Work Convention on June 20, 1996, recognising HBWs at the same level as traditional wage earners.

It was the first comprehensive call to set an international standard for the HBWs. The convention called upon ILO members to adopt and implement policies that promote equality of treatment between HBWs and other wage earners.

Convention 177 officially came into force on April 22, 2000.

However, only 13 countries have ratified it so far and none from South Asia. That is despite Asia and the Asia-Pacific regions accounting for the largest concentration of HBWs, as well as being the hub of global fashion and manufacturing supply chains.

Renana Jhabvala was in the room in Geneva – along with hundreds of government and non-government delegates – when the home-based worker Convention was adopted.

As a member of the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA), a prominent Indian trade union of women workers, the 73-year-old activist was at the ILO’s International Labour Conference (ILC), and still remembers the exhilaration and optimism in the room.

“Discussions had gone on for nearly 21 days, but none of us knew whether the Convention would get adopted or not. We were all in a really big hall at the ILC… There was a majority in the final vote and the Convention got passed,” she told Al Jazeera.

But labour rights activists, experts and labour economists say a lack of recognition of the HBWs despite three decades of adopting the ILO convention has deepened structural inequalities among the workers, especially in a developing country like India.

According to them, the HBWs, especially women, remain largely “invisible” to the policymakers, while they are forced to work for inadequate wages under unsafe and exploitative working conditions.

“Convention 177 has been instrumental in recognising home work as ‘real work’ and home workers as workers entitled to labour rights,” Deepa Bharathi, a senior specialist of gender and non-discrimination at ILO’s Bangkok-based Decent Work Team, emailed Al Jazeera.

“In South Asia, home-based work is often embedded in complex subcontracting arrangements, making employment relationships difficult to identify and regulate. Challenges in labour inspection, gaps in data and the invisibility of home workers in policy frameworks have also slowed progress,” Bharathi said in response to a question on the low ratification of the Convention, particularly in South Asia.

With most home-based workers in the region being women, their work is often seen as an extension of household responsibility, Bharathi said. “This undervaluation, combined with broader gender inequalities, has been a significant barrier to ratification and implementation,” she added.

When asked about the ILO’s priorities for strengthening the Convention’s implementation, Bharathi said: “For women home-based workers in particular, the focus must remain on visibility, fair pay, social protection, safe working conditions, access to training and childcare and a stronger collective voice.”

‘I cannot go out and work’

Bano lives in New Delhi’s Kapashera area, a settlement of mainly migrant workers on the city’s southwestern edge whose name literally translates to a “cotton settlement” in English. The area is known for its cotton and leather garment manufacturing units.

In its congested alleys lie buildings that rent out single room units to informal worker families. In one such room lives Bano with her sons and her husband who works as a lift operator in an upscale mall in Gurugram, a business district housing several Fortune 500 companies on the outskirts of New Delhi.

Bano epitomises the arc of a typical HBW in India. She began working as a beedi (a tiny, hand-rolled cigarette) roller in her village in neighbouring Uttar Pradesh state’s Azamgarh district. After marriage, she joined her husband in New Delhi and took to stitching leather jacket pieces from home.

The move from her rural employment as a beedi roller to a piece-rate worker in the city did not change her continuing precarious situation: long hours, irregular work, low wages and work that leaves her eyes strained and fingers aching.

She is paid barely one dollar for her work on each piece of a leather jacket that is sold in a foreign market for $200 or more – more than double Bano’s average monthly income. Moreover, to cut costs and maximise profit, the contractors often split such work among several workers.

“Only those who are in distress do this kind of work. We have rent, bills, grocery and school fees to pay. How much will my husband do alone?” Bano told Al Jazeera.

The HBWs fall into two categories: own account workers with direct access to markets and piece rate workers who are usually employed through intermediaries. Bano belongs to the latter, which is considered more vulnerable due to low and arbitrary piece rate payments.

In another corner of Kapashera, Sangeeta Devi, 30, puts the final touches – buttoning, repairing, finishing – before the garments she makes return to the factories.

She is doing all this inside an 8×8 foot (2.4m) room, where her family of six, including four schoolchildren sleep, eat, work and study. She cooks, cleans and even bathes in the same room.

“I cannot go out and work because then who will take care of my children?”

“On any given day, there are 100 pieces of clothing in this tiny room. Each time, I have to keep them aside while doing household chores,” the migrant worker from Bihar, one of India’s poorest states, told Al Jazeera.

Sangeeta Devi gets a dollar for every 100 garment pieces she completes.

“I really want to do a job where I can work easily from home, take care of my children and get paid well. I don’t know if that’s even possible,” she told Al Jazeera.

Her neighbour, Putul Devi, does similar work and earns about $20 a month.

“I have been cooking on firewood because of high fuel costs. And when it rains, I don’t know what to save from spoiling – the firewood or the cloth pieces that I bring home,” she told Al Jazeera.

Shalini Sinha, home-based work sector specialist at WIEGO, said female HBWs in India face “continued invisibility” even after three decades of recognition of their work.

“Home continues to be seen as a place of habitat and not as a place of work,” Sinha told Al Jazeera.

“There is also the broader issue of women’s economic work not being adequately recognised in labour discourse when it is done from home. It is often seen as an extension of her care work,” she added.

From an Indian perspective, said Sinha, there is an “urgent need for better statistics and a dedicated policy or law for home-based workers, which still does not exist”.

Elizabeth Khumallambam, who works for Community for Social Change and Development (CSCD), an NGO that works with women HBWs in Kapashera, said a social security code introduced in India in 2020 mentions HBWs, but “no one knows” how it will be implemented on the ground.

Introduced as part of India’s labour reform laws, the code consolidated nine social security-related laws into a single framework to ensure social security protection for all workers, including those in the unorganised sector.

“Frankly, for us the challenge begins at making workers understand the value of their own work. Many don’t consider this as work and so they do not think it needs due rights and protection,” Khumallambam told Al Jazeera.

Alakh N Sharma, a labour economist and director at New Delhi-based non-profit, the Institute for Human Development, said there is a “bias in the system”, due to which women’s work is being left behind in statistics and official counting.

According to him, technology-aided counting, probing questions and sensitivity among investigators, could help in addressing the statistical blind spot.

“Safety concerns, mobility constraints and social norms – all these factors stop women from joining formal workplace-based employment. But the single biggest reason is often care work responsibility, particularly childcare,” Sharma told Al Jazeera.

In 2022, Sandosh Kumar P, a Communist Party of India (CPI) parliamentarian moved a legislation aimed at the welfare of the BHWs, but the parliament did not take it up for discussion.

In December 2024, India’s ministry of labour and employment was again asked in parliament whether it has an official assessment of the HBWs, and if it was proposing to enact a law on them. It replied that the Code on Social Security 2020 provides social security to the unorganised workers, including the HBWs. It also said the government has created a national database of such workers.

Looking back at the 30 years since the historic recognition of HBWs, Jhabvala said she did not view such Conventions or laws from the lens of success or failure.

“It is like a weapon, a tool of change. If we want to fight, this option is available,” she said.

Former US President Barack Obama opened his presidential centre in Chicago, using the occasion to call for unity, urging Americans to reject division and invest in the next generation.

WASHINGTON  — A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Thursday for gun rights and against drug laws.

In a 9-0 ruling, the justices struck down part of the longstanding federal gun control law that makes it a crime for an “unlawful user” of illegal drugs to possess a gun.

The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the conviction of a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.

Rejecting that claim, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, speaking for the court, said the law was far too broad and overly harsh.

“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”

And it can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.

He noted, however, the court was not ruling on “addicts” or people who were under the influence of drugs when they were arrested.

The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.

“Today’s unanimous 9-0 decision makes it clear that the government cannot make it crime for people to own a gun, which the Supreme Court has held is a fundamental constitutional right, simply because they use marijuana,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the American Civil Liberties Union. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”

Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and other persons deemed to be dangerous. Included was anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a Texas case this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”

Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.

“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society—especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” said Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer.

He asked the court to rule in the case of a Pakistani native who was investigated by the FBI for his suspected ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps.

In 2020, Ali Danial Hemani and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.

The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home.

Agents found a Glock 9mm pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.

Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.

A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.

Toronto, Canada – When Diana Gallego listened to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney’s widely touted speech at the World Economic Forum at the start of this year, she couldn’t help but feel a disconnect.

Carney had made an impassioned plea to the world’s “middle powers” to break with a United States-led international order that he said was no longer working, and his words found receptive audiences around the world.

But for Gallego, co-executive director of FCJ Refugee Centre, an organisation that supports refugees and asylum seekers in Canada’s largest city, the prime minister’s statements rang hollow amid his government’s hardening approach to immigration.

“We saw the [prime] minister going to Davos [with] this beautiful discourse, saying we should not copy our neighbours … But internally, the policies are telling us another story,” Gallego told Al Jazeera. “Canada is closing the doors now.”

Gallego is among more than a dozen experts – from lawyers to professors, rights advocates and former government officials – who told Al Jazeera that Canada is at a “troubling” crossroads in its policies towards migrants and refugees.

As Canadians have grappled with rising economic and social pressures in recent years, a decades-old consensus on the benefits of immigration has frayed.

Hostile rhetoric blaming newcomers for Canada’s ills has intensified, and Carney’s government has slashed temporary visas and restricted access to asylum. Experts say a “generational shift” is under way.

“The general rhetoric is, ‘We don’t want you here’,” said Gallego.

Influx in temporary migration

A settler-colonial state, Canada has encouraged successive waves of immigration throughout its history, from largely European settlement in the early to mid-1900s to specialised programmes that brought refugees and high- and low-skilled workers to Canadian shores.

For decades, that influx of newcomers was widely viewed as a positive thing: immigration was fuelling the country’s economy, staffing key job sectors and counteracting a rapidly ageing population.

But over the past few years, Canada has seen one of the most dramatic shifts in how the public views immigration – and the government has tapped into increasingly negative sentiment to cut programmes and pass new, restrictive laws.

The policy changes began under former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose Liberal Party government had dramatically increased temporary immigration during the COVID-19 pandemic to fill labour market gaps.

The figures shot up rapidly and, by October 2024, there were nearly 3.15 million non-permanent residents in Canada, accounting for roughly 8 percent of the population, according to official figures.

At the same time, systemic issues – from a shortage of affordable housing to high grocery costs and long hospital wait times – were putting the squeeze on many Canadian households.

Public attitudes quickly hardened, and a 2024 poll (PDF) found a majority of Canadians saying for the first time in decades that there was “too much immigration”.

Since then, several incidents of xenophobic violence have been reported, including in some of Canada’s largest cities, where the influx of migrants has been among the most visible.

Under pressure as angry discourse soared, the Trudeau government promised in 2024 to get immigration back to “sustainable” levels, and the cuts began, including most notably to international student visas.

“The reality is that not everyone who wants to come to Canada will be able to – just like not everyone who wants to stay in Canada will be able to,” Marc Miller, Canada’s former immigration minister, said in September that year.

‘Erroneous beliefs’

The numbers of arrivals dropped quickly as student and work visas were cancelled, forcing thousands of people to leave Canada or remain without legal status. By the start of this year, non-permanent residents totalled about 2.67 million, according to government figures, a 15 percent drop from the peak in October 2024.

“I don’t think you can blame the housing crisis in Canada on immigration, but there’s no doubt that the radically increased numbers under Justin Trudeau’s regime had a political effect,” Allan Rock, a former Canadian justice minister and Liberal lawmaker, told Al Jazeera.

The government, Rock explained, has been “reading the room and sensing that Canadians were connecting local economic and financial difficulties with migration”.

At the same time, right-wing politicians have seized on those public attitudes, with the opposition Conservative Party earlier this year pushing the governing Liberals to cut healthcare for people it described as “fake refugees”.

The Conservatives, also, have echoed US President Donald Trump in advocating for changes to “birthright citizenship”, claiming that the “outdated rule” that grants citizenship to anyone born in Canada “presents yet another strain on our immigration system that Canada can’t handle”.

“With over 7 per cent of Canada’s population here on temporary status – and arrivals massively outpacing the capacity of our housing, healthcare and jobs markets – something needs to change,” the party said.

Rights advocates have denounced that rhetoric while accusing policymakers of falsely linking migrants and refugees to social problems to absolve themselves of responsibility for a years-long failure to properly fund healthcare, education and other services.

On the housing issue, for instance, experts have found (PDF) that, while immigration increases demand for housing stock, its effect on prices is far less important than public discourse would have people believe.

“Leadership means not simply caving into public opinion when it’s based on erroneous beliefs,” Rock told Al Jazeera. “We’re buying into, and we’re supporting, a growing international trend to tighten borders and build walls and validate erroneous beliefs about refugees and migrants.”

“It’s a betrayal of values that this country has always stood for, and I find it troubling.”

Carney doubles down

Yet, since taking office in April 2025, Carney – the prime minister – has continued where his predecessor Trudeau left off on immigration.

In late March, Carney’s Liberal government passed a sweeping new law that grants Ottawa the power to cancel visas en masse, including for permanent residents, if it deems it in the “public interest” to do so.

The law, known as Bill C-12, also restricts access to Canada’s refugee status determination system in ways that lawyers told Al Jazeera are “arbitrary” and likely run counter to the country’s constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The government has justified the measure – which is expected to face a constitutional challenge in court – as part of an effort to streamline a backlogged asylum system and prevent “fraud”.

At the end of last year, nearly 300,000 cases were pending at the independent tribunal that adjudicates refugee claims in the country, known as the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (IRB).

A spokesperson for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC), the federal immigration department, told Al Jazeera that it had introduced Bill C-12 “as global migration pressures intensify”.

The law introduces “measures to address challenges such as sudden increases in asylum claims and situations where existing processes may be used to circumvent regular immigration pathways”, the spokesperson said in an emailed statement.

“This means we can provide faster protection for those in need,” they said, adding that Bill C-12 also respects Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Refugee Convention as well as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But experts say the law will do little to address the backlog at the IRB. They have also accused lawmakers of failing to dispel – and even of playing into – xenophobic rhetoric rather than addressing the real concerns of Canadians or structural problems in the asylum system.

The government is “creating this sense in the public that people are scamming us, they’re taking advantage of the system [and] there’s something broken that needs to be fixed”, said Julia Sande, a lawyer at Amnesty International Canada.

“People’s struggles are real. People are facing a housing crisis, inflation and unemployment, wage stagnation and widening inequality,” she told Al Jazeera.

“Then, instead of taking responsibility or making the changes needed to address these things, governments look for a group to blame – and who’s better to blame than people who don’t have the right to vote and can’t vote you out?”

Carney’s ‘honeymoon’ phase

Despite such concerns raised by rights advocates, Canada’s changing immigration policies do not appear to have drawn much attention – or pushback – from the wider public.

A wide-reaching effort by civil society groups earlier this year to get the government to make amendments to Bill C-12 failed to secure any meaningful changes.

In addition to that law, the Carney government also has rolled back a healthcare programme for refugees, extended a freeze on refugee resettlement applications, and announced significant funding cuts to several ministries, including the immigration department.

Planned cuts at the IRB – the board that adjudicates refugee claims – have also been reported, fuelling concerns that delays may get worse.

“The fact that there is no real plan in place to deal with this backlog [at the IRB] then contributes to negative opinion by the public about refugees,” said Maureen Silcoff, a refugee lawyer who previously served as a member of the tribunal.

“I think the government has a responsibility to proactively undo some of the myths that are circulating,” Silcoff told Al Jazeera. “This is especially important in times where we see in other countries that there’s a surge of anti-immigrant and anti-refugee rhetoric.”

Nevertheless, Carney continues to enjoy high approval ratings as he has justified government policies during his first year in office as part of an “elbows up” response to pressure from the Trump administration.

“The Carney government still seems to be [enjoying] a honeymoon of sorts,” said John Carlaw, an assistant professor at Toronto Metropolitan University who specialises in Canadian politics and immigration.

“We’re seeing a major withdrawal of social spending and then an investment in militarism and border enforcement,” Carlaw told Al Jazeera, describing it as a “troubling period” in Canada.

“I think C-12 really showed the government is not interested in hearing from communities that work with migrants and immigrants to make policies that are consistent with a human rights framework. They just don’t want to listen to dissent.”

‘Not immune’ to backsliding on human rights

Despite that, rights advocates say they will continue to push back against the direction Canada is heading on immigration.

“We can’t stop fighting,” Luisa Ortiz-Garza, a migrant rights organiser at Parkdale Community Legal Services, told a packed gymnasium at Trinity-St Paul’s United Church in downtown Toronto in late April.

Several dozen people joined the event, dubbed “No More Divide and Rule”, to denounce xenophobia and urge the government to grant legal immigration status for all migrants and refugees in Canada.

“What [the government is] doing is actually just putting people against each other,” Ortiz-Garza told Al Jazeera in an interview at her organisation’s office a few days before the gathering.

“It’s citizens against migrants [and] migrants against migrants because there is this idea that some migrants did things right and other migrants just jumped the queue or abused the system,” she said.

“We’re trying to have these conversations and bring people together: allies, citizens, migrants … so that we can actually talk about this and remind people about unity.”

That was echoed by Sande at Amnesty International, who warned that Canada is “not immune” to a backsliding on human rights. “Things will just continue to get worse until governments feel they’re held to account,” she said. “Yes, scapegoating may start with migrants, but it never ends there.”

THE EU is in the midst of making huge changes when it comes to air travel and all of them will greatly benefit passengers.

These include no extra fees, better compensation rights and families heading on holiday can sit together at no extra charge – but now we’re out of the EU, the new rights will only carry weight for Brits on certain flights.

The new regulations were agreed by the EU Council and Parliament yesterday, making it the first overhaul in over 20 years and will come into play in 2027.

Some of the biggest changes include allowing families to sit together at no extra cost, as well as passengers having a free personal item to take onboard.

There also won’t be penalties for missing one leg of a booking, and hand luggage costs will be shown upfront in the fare.

There will also be a ban on additional fees for alterations like name correction.

JUST THE TICKET

Bag UK’s CHEAPEST Drayton Manor tickets & little-known tips on best rides

CHEAP DATE

Our fave cheap European destinations with flights under £20 & hotels from £24pp

It will be easier for passengers to get money back for delays or cancellations too.

Airlines will need to immediately acknowledge a claim and then reply within 30 days.

For those who experience delays, there is a right to assistance which includes refreshments every two hours of waiting time, a meal after three hours, internet access and phone calls.

When passengers need overnight stays, they should be given the hotel free of charge and get free transport from the airport to the accommodation and back.

After a cancelled flight or denied boarding, passengers who choose to reroute must be given an alternative journey within three hours.

This all sounds great doesn’t it? Well, there is some bad news – this won’t count for all British travellers leaving the UK.

As a result of Brexit, British holidaymakers won’t necessarily benefit from this as in some cases their flights will fall under passenger rights called UK261.

Whereas for those living in the EU, the new regulations count for all.

For Brits heading on holiday, taking advantage of these EU changes will depend on the route and the airline.

For example, a flight leaving the UK for Malaga with Ryanair will fall under EU rules as Ryanair is an EU airline.

The Malaga to UK return leg will also be under the EU rules – on the return journey, it doesn’t matter if the airline is EU or non-EU, because the flight departs from the EU.

Along with Ryanair, the likes of Wizz Air, easyJet and Lufthansa are all EU-airlines so the new rules automatically count for Brits on both journeys to EU countries.

There will however, be a gap on flights leaving the UK on a non-EU airline.

For example, if a British passenger flies from London to Madrid on a UK airline like British Airways, that outbound leg would remain under UK261 rules rather than the new EU regulations.

But the return would fall under the EU rules because it departs from Madrid in the EU.

So Brits heading on holiday will only get the new benefits if they are travelling on EU-covered flights.

They will not get them automatically on all flights from UK airports.

UK-airlines like British Airways, Virgin Atlantic and Jet2 won’t fall under the new EU rules.

But these do have their own guidelines and policies regarding families sitting together and luggage costs.

AirAdvisor CEO Anton Radchenko, a renowned aviation lawyer, added: “This agreement is a meaningful step forward for European passengers, and it throws the position of UK travellers into sharp relief.

“For the first time since Brexit, we are looking at a real divergence in the
everyday rights of passengers flying from the UK versus those flying
from the EU.

“The headline compensation amounts remain broadly aligned,
but on the things passengers deal with on every single trip, being
penalised for a missed leg, paying to sit next to your own child,
comparing fares that hide the cost of a bag, EU travellers are about
to pull ahead, and UK travellers are at risk of being left behind.”

June 10 (Asia Today) — Senior U.S. human rights officials visiting South Korea met over two days with families of South Koreans detained or abducted by North Korea, civic groups said Wednesday.

The meetings included families of South Korean missionaries detained in North Korea, wartime and postwar abductees and prisoners of war who were not repatriated after the Korean War.

Riley M. Barnes, assistant secretary of state for democracy, human rights and labor, met Tuesday with Choi Jin-young, the son of South Korean missionary Choi Chun-gil, who is being held in North Korea, according to civic groups.

Julie Turner, acting deputy assistant secretary in the State Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, and Belsis Romero, a White House faith liaison, also took part in the visit.

On Wednesday, U.S. officials met representatives of groups representing families of Korean War abductees, postwar abductees and prisoners of war.

The U.S. officials told the families that Washington continues to pay attention to the issue and that its position has not changed on supporting efforts to confirm the detainees’ status and seek their return, according to the groups.

Choi thanked Barnes for calling for the release of South Koreans detained in North Korea, including missionaries Kim Jung-wook, Kim Kuk-gi and Choi Chun-gil, during a video message last month for an international conference announcing the formation of the Republic of Korea Hostage Family Association.

Choi also delivered a letter addressed to President Donald Trump asking the United States to make the safe return of South Korean detainees, including the three missionaries, part of its North Korea diplomacy.

He also delivered 10,000 signatures gathered online and offline, largely through Korean churches in Los Angeles, calling for the detainees’ repatriation and confirmation of whether they are alive.

Kim Jung-sam, the older brother of missionary Kim Jung-wook, also sent a letter asking Trump to speak out during his presidency on detainees and religious freedom.

Choi said he asked U.S. officials to send a message that Washington has not forgotten the detained missionaries.

“I asked that the U.S. ambassador, the secretary of state or the president meet from time to time with families of South Korean abductees, detainees and prisoners of war,” Choi said. “In that context, I also requested that the U.S. ambassador to South Korea attend an event for Abductees Remembrance Day.”

Lee Sung-eui, head of the Korean War Abductees’ Family Union, Choi Sung-ryong, head of the Association of the Families of Postwar Abductees, and Sohn Myung-hwa, head of a group representing families of prisoners of war, met Turner on Wednesday and urged continued U.S. attention to the abduction issue.

Lee delivered a letter asking Washington to place humanitarian issues first in any future U.S.-North Korea talks, including the return of detained South Koreans, confirmation of the fate of abductees and visits by bereaved families to graves in North Korea.

Lee said he emphasized that wartime abductions during the 1950-53 Korean War were “the root of all forced disappearance crimes committed by North Korea.”

Barnes and Turner also met Saturday with Son Hyun-bo, pastor of Segero Church, who led rallies opposing the impeachment of former President Yoon Suk Yeol. The U.S. officials discussed religious freedom issues in South Korea and attended a Sunday worship service.

On Monday, the U.S. delegation also met Chang Wook-jin, director-general for global multilateral diplomacy at South Korea’s Foreign Ministry, to discuss bilateral efforts to promote democracy and human rights.

A South Korean Foreign Ministry official said the U.S. State Department regularly communicates with a wide range of stakeholders inside and outside South Korea while preparing annual reports on human rights, trafficking in persons and international religious freedom.

The official said the delegation’s visit to South Korea was part of that regular outreach.

A civic group official who recently visited the United States and met State Department officials said the bureau’s meeting with families of North Korean detainees appeared connected to Washington’s recent attention to religious persecution.

The official said U.S. officials also asked questions during a recent meeting about religious freedom and human rights issues involving the South Korean government.

— Reported by Asia Today; translated by UPI

© Asia Today. Unauthorized reproduction or redistribution prohibited.

Original Korean report: https://www.asiatoday.co.kr/kn/view.php?key=20260610010003179

The Delhi High Court grants bail to Kashmiri rights activist Khurram Parvez, jailed in India for nearly five years.

New Delhi, India — A prominent Kashmiri human rights activist who has been imprisoned for nearly five years has won a partial legal victory after being granted bail in a “terror funding” case, but remains in jail over a second case.

The Delhi High Court granted Khurram Parvez, 49, bail in a November 2021 case on Wednesday, according to legal website LiveLaw. However, he will remain in jail in a separate case from March 2023.

Parvez was first arrested about five years ago by India’s main counterterrorism law enforcement bureau, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), over accusations of “terror funding”, recruitment of rebels in Indian-administered Kashmir and mobilising protesters during a civilian uprising. The second case is also related to alleged “terror funding”.

International rights groups have widely condemned Parvez’s arrest and continued imprisonment.

His lawyer, Swati Khanna, said she hoped Parvez could be freed from jail soon if there was a “positive result” in the second case.

“We are hoping, in a month or two, he could be out,” she told reporters.

The trial has not begun in either of the cases – an issue highlighted by international rights organisations, which say the process becomes the punishment for political prisoners in India who have to wait years behind bars before even facing trial.

The conviction rate in the counterterror law, the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), remains low at 5 percent nationally. It dips further, to less than 1 percent, when it comes to Indian-administered Kashmir.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Hindu nationalist government has been criticised for persecuting dissent and criminalising expression in Kashmir, the country’s only Muslim-majority region.

“Khurram’s arrest proved to be the last nail in the coffin of any meaningful rights activism in Kashmir, one of the world’s most militarised zones,” said a political analyst based in Srinagar, Kashmir, who requested anonymity fearing repercussions from the authorities.

“This bail comes in a completely shallow, and nearly fictitious, trumped-up case after years in jail, and Khurram would still not walk free.”

Kashmir remains disputed between India, Pakistan, and China, which control parts of the region. Pakistan controls the northern and western portions – Azad Kashmir; and Gilgit and Baltistan. India controls the southern and southeastern parts – the Kashmir valley, including its biggest city, Srinagar; Jammu; and Ladakh. China controls the Aksai Chin area in the northeast.

The two neighbours have fought three major wars over Kashmir since the end of British colonial rule and their partition in 1947 led to the creation of Muslim-majority Pakistan and Hindu-majority India. Both countries continue to assert claims to the entire region of Kashmir.

At least 11 people were killed on Sunday during clashes between police and protesters in Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s Rawalakot city, capital of Poonch district, before a major demonstration scheduled by a banned civil society group for Tuesday.

Authorities in Pakistan-administered Kashmir deployed federal paramilitary troops and issued a strict travel advisory before the Tuesday protest, which has gone ahead despite the restrictions.

Here is what we know about the latest unrest.

What’s happening in Pakistan-administered Kashmir?

Eleven people have been killed in clashes between the police and protesters, while more than 70 have been injured. The ban on the organisation, alongside regional grievances, set off the protests.

On Tuesday, Sardar Waheed Khan, commissioner of the Pakistan side of the Poonch district, a militarised region shared between Indian-administered and Pakistani-administered Kashmir, told the news agency Reuters that four police officers and a passer-by died “after miscreants shot at them”. Six protesters were killed, he said.

Police Chief Liaqat Malik said 23 security officials and 50 protesters were among those injured in Sunday’s clashes.

On Friday, local authorities issued an advisory urging visitors to avoid travelling to the area.

“The measure is advised to save intending visitors from any unexpected situation or inconvenience,” an unnamed official said in a statement issued by the region’s Press Information Department (PID).

“The government also requests those already in the territory for sightseeing or any other purpose to leave by Friday evening so that they do not confront any unpleasant situation,” the statement added.

Kashmir is a disputed Himalayan region which is claimed in full by both India and Pakistan, with China also controlling a portion of the territory. Pakistan-administered Kashmir – known locally as Azad Jammu and Kashmir (AJK) – is governed under a semi-autonomous system, with its own prime minister and legislative assembly, but ultimate authority resting with Islamabad. Its population exceeds four million people, according to the 2017 census. It is separated from India-administered Kashmir by what is known as the Line of Control (LoC).

The LoC is the 740km (459-mile) military border dividing the disputed Kashmir region between Indian-administered and Pakistan-administered territories.

Who is behind the protests?

The Jammu Kashmir Joint Awami Action Committee (JAAC) is a grassroots umbrella organisation that emerged in 2023 as the leader of a protest movement across the Pakistani-administered part of the region. The JAAC, led by activist Shaukat Nawaz Mir, represents traders and civil society groups.

On Friday, the local government proscribed the JAAC under a regional legislative framework in Pakistan-administered Kashmir called the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2014.

In a circular, the government’s home department claimed the JAAC “is engaged in terrorism, acted in a manner prejudicial to the peace & security of the State, involved in creating anarchy in the State by intimidating public, promoting hatred & creating sense of insecurity in society and public at large, etc”.

In the past, protests organised by the JAAC have led to violent clashes between protesters and security forces, leading to casualties.

In a video message on X responding to Sunday’s incident, Mir accused the authorities of unleashing violence in Rawalakot, saying, “The state has begun a massacre of our people in Rawalakot.”

In response, Khan, the commissioner of Pakistani Poonch, said, “The JAAC leadership is misleading the masses by terming it a massacre. The state’s action was meant to restore law and order.”

On Tuesday, the internet monitoring group NetBlocks said that its data showed that access to the web remained severely restricted in Pakistan-administered Kashmir for a third day in a row.

What is the trigger behind these protests?

These protests are against the reservation of 12 seats in Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s legislature for refugees from Indian-administered Kashmir who now live in other parts of Pakistan. If the refugees live in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, they are not eligible to contest for these reserved seats.

The region votes on July 27 to elect its next legislature, which has 45 seats in all — including the 12 reserved ones.

The JAAC is calling for the abolition of the reserved seats, arguing that all seats in the legislature must go to those who actually reside in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and not those living in other constituencies scattered across Pakistan.

Abdul Jabbar Nasir, a journalist currently based in Karachi, but originally from a village near the LoC in the Gilgit Baltistan area, which is the majority of the Pakistan-administered Kashmir region, told Al Jazeera that the seats are reserved for those who migrated from Indian-administered Kashmir to Karachi or any other part of Pakistan in 1947.

Nasir explained that the reserved seats have existed in various forms since the late 1940s and were formalised in Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s 1974 interim constitution, which treats the region as a self-governing, autonomous state, with its own prime minister, president and courts, while defence, foreign affairs, currency and communications remain under Pakistan’s control.

“If the constitutional protection provided begins to be changed by these protesters, then I don’t think things can function,” Nasir said.

“It is essential for these seats to exist. If we abolish them, on one hand, Pakistan’s own case for Kashmiri statehood in the United Nations will be weakened, and India’s case will be strengthened,” he added.

He drew a parallel with India, noting that New Delhi historically kept a number of seats vacant in its parliament and the former Jammu and Kashmir assembly as a way of asserting that those bodies represented the entire former princely state, including areas under Pakistani control. If Pakistan now dismantles refugee representation in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, he warned, India could argue that both countries have effectively “regularised” their control over their respective portions of the disputed region.

Marathon talks between a federal ministerial team, including leaders from Pakistan and Pakistan-administered Kashmir, and JAAC leadership in late May failed to yield a breakthrough. This resulted in the JAAC announcing that the protest on Tuesday would proceed as planned.

On Sunday, a top court in Pakistan-administered Kashmir, called the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, ruled that the 12 reserved seats are constitutionally protected, and a constitutional amendment would be needed to abolish the reservation.

“This ruling effectively closed the legal route for groups seeking to challenge the existing arrangement and intensified calls for protest by the [JAAC],” Raja Qaiser Ahmed, director for the Area Study Centre for Africa, North and South America at the Islamabad-based Quaid-i-Azam University, told Al Jazeera.

What are the deeper issues?

Experts say the current crisis is part of a deeper, long-running debate about governance, political representation, resource allocation and regional autonomy in Pakistan-administered Kashmir. The protest on Tuesday is the fourth such protest led by the JAAC.

“The current crisis reflects a broader and longer-term debate about governance, political representation, resource distribution, and regional autonomy in AJK,” Ahmed said.

“While the refugee-seat issue has become the focal point of the present mobilisation, it is intertwined with wider grievances that have surfaced repeatedly over the past several years.”

In September and October 2025, the JAAC officially released a comprehensive 38-point charter of demands and initiated a lockdown. The government, in response to a lockdown initiated by JAAC, imposed a complete communications blackout.

The protests had their roots in May 2023, when residents first protested skyrocketing electricity bills alongside widespread flour smuggling and acute shortages in subsidised wheat supplies. The movement hit its first major flashpoint in May 2024, when protesters set off on a long march towards Muzaffarabad. The ensuing violent clashes left at least five people dead, among them a police officer.

The 38-point charter remains the focal point of current tensions. The demands of the charter include economic subsidies, investigation of corrupt officials, social welfare and infrastructure, as well as the abolition of the 12 reserved seats.

Bilawal Bhutto-Zardari, chairman of the Pakistan Peoples’ Party (PPP), the party with the most seats in Pakistan-administered Kashmir’s Legislative Assembly, said on Sunday that he would meet Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to discuss the ongoing tensions in the region.

“Thirty-five out of 38 demands have been implemented,” Bhutto-Zardari said during a news conference in Islamabad, explaining that the rest of the demands are not feasible or have court orders barring their implementation.

“More fundamentally, the protests reveal an ongoing tension between constitutional arrangements linked to the broader Kashmir dispute and growing demands for greater local accountability and political participation,” Ahmed said.

“The debate is therefore not only about a specific set of assembly seats but also about competing visions of representation, governance, and the future political trajectory of the region.”

SACRAMENTO — Disability rights advocates on Monday gathered outside the state Capitol to push back on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed cuts to in-home supportive services.

“These aren’t just numbers in a budget; these are real people,” said Assemblymember Jeff Gonzalez (R-Indio). “These are children, seniors, veterans and individuals with disabilities whose independence and quality of life depend on these services every single day.”

The In-Home Supportive Services program helps disabled and elderly people remain in their houses by providing in-home care. It pays assistants to help with tasks such as showering, cooking or attending doctor appointments. Newsom’s revised budget proposal, which was unveiled last month, would cut $367.7 million from the program and shift some of that financial burden onto counties.

Gonzalez explained that the issue hits close to home for his family. He said his son has cerebral palsy and a seizure disorder, and relies on assistance to live with dignity.

“Families should not have to wonder every budget season whether the support they rely on will be taken away,” Gonzalez said. “These services should not be treated as bargaining chips in budget negotiations.”

Assemblymember Laurie Davies (R-Laguna Niguel) questioned why a successful state like California would need to enact such cuts.

“It’s hard to go a day without hearing the governor or the administration brag about how we are the fourth-largest economy in the world and yet we can’t fully fund [this program for] the most vulnerable?” Davies said.

The governor has previously explained that difficult decisions must be made as the state could soon face an economic downturn. The budget proposal relies on a tax windfall, largely attributed to the stock market success of artificial intelligence companies, to erase California’s deficit — but some analysts have warned that the AI bubble could burst.

H.D. Palmer, deputy director for external affairs for the California Department of Finance, on Monday said some of the proposed cuts are a byproduct of the federal government’s changes in funding and eligibility for health and human services programs.

The so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” signed by President Trump last year shifted federal funding away from safety-net programs, he said.

Palmer stressed that state budget negotiations are ongoing.

“Until we land on an agreement, speculation regarding the resolution of any specific differences between the Governor’s budget plan or the Legislature’s respective budget proposals would be premature,” he stated by email.

Monday’s event drew some bipartisan support. Brody Fernandez, communications director for Assemblymember Esmeralda Z. Soria (D-Fresno), said the legislator had been fighting for In-Home Supportive Services funding since she was elected.

Fernandez said his daughter has special needs and her mother had to give up her career to become a full-time caregiver. “This is personal for us and for many of the incredible individuals standing behind me,” he said.

Graham Knaus, chief executive of the California State Assn. of Counties, told The Times that he appreciated efforts to raise awareness about the burden these changes would place on counties.

“We applaud the Senate and Assembly for recognizing counties’ concerns and rejecting this proposal,” he said. “We ask them to hold the line in final negotiations.”

Elizabette Guecamburu, a bookkeeper who has a rare neuromuscular disorder, spoke at Monday’s rally and implored the governor to remember the teachings of their shared alma mater Santa Clara University, a Jesuit-led private school.

“I want him to remember where he came from,” she said, adding that students were taught to value compassion and community. “Don’t forget your Jesuit roots.”

Volker Turk, the high commissioner for human rights at the United Nations, has issued some of his harshest criticism yet of the recent sanctions the United States has imposed on Cuba.

On Monday, Turk drew a line between the increasing restrictions on the Cuban economy and reports of heightened death rates, particularly among children.

“The fuel restrictions imposed since early 2026 and recent tightening of extraterritorial sanctions, taken together, are directly harming Cubans, especially the most vulnerable,” Turk said in a statement.

“Children are dying because doctors lack access to essential medical supplies and medicines. This is unacceptable.”

Such “severe sanctions”, he added, run contrary to the “basic principles of international human rights law”. He called for them to be “lifted immediately”.

Turk’s comments are a direct response to the suite of actions taken under US President Donald Trump to tighten pressure on Cuba, a Caribbean island that has already weathered a decades-long US trade embargo.

Starting in January, the Trump administration moved to cut off Cuba’s foreign oil supply, a linchpin for its ageing energy grid.

First, it severed supplies of oil and funds from Venezuela. Then, on January 29, Trump issued an executive order declaring Cuba to be an “unusual and extraordinary threat” to US national security. As such, he said, any country that supplied it with oil would be subject to steep tariffs.

In the months since, the Trump administration has continued to layer sanctions on Cuba. In May, for instance, penalties were announced against Cuba’s Interior Ministry, its National Police and its Directorate of Intelligence.

Those were followed this month by sanctions targeting Cuba’s president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, as well as members of his family.

The sanctions are designed to penalise those “responsible for repression” in Cuba, an island whose communist government has been accused of stifling dissent, as well as imprisoning and torturing activists.

Turk on Monday acknowledged Cuba’s human rights record and called on the country to “release all those arbitrarily detained”.

But he also pointed to the mounting death toll associated with the US sanctions, which have isolated the island country from much of the world.

The sanctions freeze any US-based assets the target may have, but they also prohibit entities from conducting business with the sanctioned parties. That can result in difficulties accessing global financial systems and other international platforms.

The de facto oil blockade has also resulted in the increasing frequency of power outages, and essential services like public transportation and medical care have faced reductions. Turk pointed to those downstream effects in his remarks.

“Cuba faces increasing isolation,” he said. “Companies are leaving. Fewer airlines fly to the country. It is almost disconnected from international payment systems.”

Turk’s office has also highlighted the human costs of the sanctions. According to the statistics it cited, infant death rates have doubled, reaching 9.9 for every 1,000 births. The survival rate for childhood cancer, meanwhile, has declined from 85 to 65 percent.

In March, the Cuban government also warned of medical needs going unanswered as a result of the energy shortage. It estimated that there was a backlog of 96,387 people awaiting surgery, 11,193 of whom were minors.

It also underscored that 16,000 patients needed radiotherapy, and another 2,888 required dialysis, two treatments that depend on steady electrical supplies.

Turk’s remarks also pointed to the risks posed by the Atlantic hurricane season and other natural disasters. Within hours of his remarks, western Cuba was rattled by a powerful 6.1-magnitude earthquake. Summer heat alone could cost lives, he explained.

“Rising summer temperatures risk increasing the spread of vector borne and waterborne diseases,” Turk said.

“The hurricane season further increases exposure. This creates a perfect storm for social and economic deterioration and suffering for the Cuban people.”

Trump has repeatedly suggested that he is considering military action in Cuba to remove its leadership after the US-Israel war on Iran reaches an end.

Since January, only one Russian oil tanker has been allowed to reach the island, leaving its foreign fuel supplies largely depleted.

Of the complaints made to the Citizens Advice Consumer Service, 42% involved all-inclusive packages abroad

More than four million people had problems with a package holiday in the past year, a survey for Citizens Advice suggests. The survey found 76% of adults had been on a package holiday before, and 34% of them had experienced a problem. Some 8% had suffered an issue within the last 12 months specifically, equating to an estimated four million travellers, it said.

The charity said it received about 14 complaints a day about package holidays, including issues such as unexpected changes to the hotel, denied refunds, and poor customer service. Of the 3,500 package holiday complaints made to the Citizens Advice Consumer Service in the past year, 42% involved all-inclusive packages abroad.

A third of complaints (33%) related to the quality of the holiday falling short of the agreed deal, such as hotels being misdescribed, bad food or unavailable facilities. Customer service failures made up 19% of complaints, including long waits on the phone, ignored complaints and administration errors made by firms.

As a result, one in four of those who experienced an issue with a package holiday (25%) said they suffered stress, anxiety or upset, while 17% had to pay extra for daily expenses. Citizens Advice encouraged holidaymakers to check what protections were included within their booking.

One complainant, Zorana, a semi-retired NHS doctor from north-east England, reported spending £6,300 on an all-inclusive, seven-night trip to Lanzarote with her daughter through a UK holiday operator. Torrential rain on the second day resulted in “nightmare” flooding, leaving hotel guests without electricity, water, food or internet.

However the woman said she received no on-site support from their operator, causing them considerable stress. Zorana, 66, said: “We spent the morning on the beach and planned the sauna for later. But when we were eating lunch the rain started and didn’t stop.

“By the time we got to the spa, the hotel told us we couldn’t go in because it was flooded. Half an hour later the electricity had gone. Without electricity, everything stopped. There was no more internet and no more water because the pumps were not working.

“We all gathered in the hotel lobby, to hear what was going on. It was the weekend and reps from all the other travel companies were there, talking with people, reassuring them, giving them information. Some were already distributed to other places. We asked, ‘Where is our rep?’ And we were told he doesn’t work on weekends.

“We were very angry. Hotel staff told us our travel company was always a problem and never helped people. We came home after five days and I started to chase the travel company for a refund. But the customer service adviser said they can’t deal with it because compensation was offered. But their offer was not adequate.

“I mentioned the lack of support, the delay, the value of the holiday, that I had to find and pay for another hotel, and because of this it was reasonable that they should give me all my money back. I feel a victim twice over because I had the stress of our holiday being ruined, and then months of trying to get compensation.”

Citizens Advice consumer spokeswoman Jane Parsons said: “Too often, people are left stressed and disappointed when their dream holidays are spoiled because they’re not getting what they paid for. To make matters worse, they’re having to spend a lot of time and effort trying to resolve issues, sometimes with no luck.

“A record of any issues that occur and evidence should be kept – like clear details of what went wrong and when, photos and receipts. If something goes wrong with your holiday you might be able to get compensation from the company you booked with. You should tell them about any issues as soon as possible – if you don’t say anything until you get home you might get less compensation, or none at all.”

Chartered Trading Standards Institute chief executive John Herriman said: “This research highlights the real impact poor practice in the travel sector can have on consumers, specifically the problems for consumers booking holidays online, particularly through social media.

Left out of pocket

“Too many people are left out of pocket or dealing with stress when holidays don’t meet what was promised. What should be a time to relax and unwind can turn into the opposite. While it’s vital consumers understand their rights, check the protections included and keep clear records if something goes wrong, businesses must meet their legal obligations and ensure they deliver the standard of service people have paid for – and resolve issues raised quickly.

“Strong consumer protection depends on both informed consumers and responsible traders.”

Consumers are entitled to compensation for a holiday if it was lower in value than the one booked, spending extra money was required because of a problem, a large part of the booked services were not provided, something goes wrong that causes distress or disappointment or if the holiday was completely ruined.

Yonder surveyed 2,018 adults between April 17-19 about their experiences with package holidays, including problems. Respondents were asked to exclude issues outside the operator’s control, like geopolitical events or natural disasters.

Emergency Lawyers said dozens were also wounded in the strike that came less than 24 hours after similar drone attacks.

A drone strike on a market in central Sudan has killed at least 11 people and injured dozens more, according to a local rights group, as escalating aerial attacks further increase the death toll of one of the world’s worst humanitarian crises.

The attack on Saturday targeted the main market in Abu Zaeima, a paramilitary-controlled town in North Kordofan state, according to Emergency Lawyers, which has documented abuses since fighting erupted in April 2023 between the army and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF).

The group said the casualty figures could rise, but did not specify who carried out the attack. Neither side has claimed responsibility.

Emergency Lawyers said the strike came less than 24 hours after similar drone attacks struck nearby villages and a civilian vehicle.

Condemning the attack, it said the repeated targeting of civilians, villages and public transport reflected a blatant disregard for human life and the basic principles of international humanitarian law.

The group added that the continued loss of civilian life should not be treated as routine and called for an end to such attacks, as well as accountability for those responsible.

Two witnesses told the AFP news agency that another drone hit a fuel station later on Saturday in el-Obeid, the capital of North Kordofan, which the RSF has partially encircled for months.

A medical source at a hospital there said four wounded civilians had been brought to the facility.

Drone warfare

Nearly 70 people were killed in two separate drone strikes in the West and North Kordofan states over the past week, according to Emergency Lawyers and a local leader.

Drone warfare has become increasingly more common in Sudan’s conflict.

The United Nations said in May that at least 880 civilians were killed in drone strikes nationwide between January and April.

Fighting has intensified in Kordofan and Blue Nile State near the Ethiopian border since the RSF captured el-Fasher last October, the military’s last major stronghold in western Darfur.

Since then, more than 300,000 people have fled front-line areas, including el-Fasher and parts of Kordofan and Blue Nile, according to the UN.

Kordofan, rich in oil and arable land, is strategically significant, linking RSF strongholds in the neighbouring Darfur region to the country’s army-controlled east. The region remains largely contested between the army and the RSF.

Now entering its fourth year, the war has killed tens of thousands of people and displaced nearly 13 million others, creating what the UN describes as the world’s largest displacement and hunger crises.

Hundreds marched in Tunisia’s capital demanding press freedom and the release of political prisoners detained during President Kais Saied’s crackdown on dissent, which has jailed opposition figures including Ennahda party leader Rached Ghannouchi.

French activists who took part in a Gaza-bound foreign aid flotilla accuse Israeli forces of abuse and torture.

French anti-terrorism prosecutors say they have opened a preliminary investigation into suspected “torture” and “war crimes” over Israel’s alleged mistreatment of French activists who took part in a Gaza-bound aid flotilla last month.

The probe was opened on Friday following a referral from the foreign ministry late last month, said the national counterterrorism prosecutor’s office (PNAT), after activists on the Global Sumud Flotilla accused Israeli authorities of severe mistreatment during their detention.

Israel abducted and detained some 430 activists from about 40 countries after intercepting them in international waters on May 18 as they made the latest in a string of attempts to break the blockade on Gaza, which the United Nations and human rights organisations say is illegal, describing it as a form of collective punishment.

Israeli far-right National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir attracted widespread condemnation after he posted a video mocking the flotilla activists while they were bound.

France banned Ben-Gvir from entry and, like several other allies of Israel, summoned the Israeli ambassador over the incident.

Several French activists described what they said was a violent and humiliating ordeal when eight of them returned to France on May 22.

Two of the more than 30 French people who were on board the flotilla were still hospitalised in Turkiye, they told reporters.

One returnee described a soldier groping and slapping her in a dark container, and being terrified that she would be raped.

Another recounted detained activists being put in what she called a “stress position”, on their knees with their foreheads on the ground for several hours, while the Israeli national anthem played on repeat.

‘Most severe case of ill-treatment’ in a decade

Speaking to Al Jazeera late last month, Suhad Bishara, legal director at Adalah, the Israeli legal centre for Palestinian rights, said that without accountability, Israel will continue to use violence against activists.

“Based on accounts received, and drawing on over a decade of representing flotilla participants, this appears to be the most severe case of ill-treatment documented in the past 10 years, potentially amounting to torture,” said Bishara.

Adalah lawyers have been informed of repeated physical violence resulting in serious injuries, prolonged stress positions, and sexual humiliation and harassment.

The Global Sumud Flotilla said it has documented at least 15 cases of sexual abuse.

Lawyers for French flotilla activists have said they plan to file a separate complaint on behalf of their clients over allegations of rape, torture and humiliation.

The activists have refused to meet with the French government to discuss their experiences, accusing it of supporting Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Asked by the AFP news agency to respond to the claims of mistreatment, the Israeli prison service said the accusations were “entirely without factual basis”.

Francesca Albanese, an outspoken UN expert on the Palestinian territory, has said the treatment of the flotilla activists “is a luxury compared to what is inflicted on Palestinians in Israeli prisons”.

Palestinian journalist and mother Aya Shamaa wrote about how an Israeli strike killed her children, newborn Ryan and seven-year-old Yaman. Like countless mothers in Gaza, she saw her children as gleams of hope amid a fragile ceasefire. Narrated by Al Jazeera’s Al Anoud Al Aqeedi.

While it might be true that the cases are progressing, families of the missing argue they are moving at a snail’s pace.

Since early December, Fault Lines has spent time with families who are pushing for accountability and pleading with the government to learn what happened to their loved ones.

In some cases, they have spent years without receiving any direct response.

“It gets harder every time my nephew asks when his father will come home and I don’t have any answers,” said Rosario Villon, whose brother, Jonathan Villon, has been missing for almost a year and a half.

The 31-year-old father of three was last seen on December 9, 2024, when he left to pick up groceries in his hometown of Guayaquil.

Addressing a vigil for Jonathan last December, Rosario explained the toll his disappearance has taken on her family.

“Seeing my mother cry for her son, not knowing what to do next to bring him home — it isn’t easy,” she said.

Fault Lines has reviewed footage of the day Jonathan was detained. Security cameras show soldiers patrolling Jonathan’s neighbourhood, Nueva Prosperina.

A neighbour’s mobile phone video also captures the moments after Jonathan was forced into the truck’s bed, under a wooden bench. The truck then drives off, and he has not been seen since.

The family recorded the licence plate numbers of the municipal vehicle the soldiers were using, but the military has refused to respond to requests about Jonathan’s case.

“We have the evidence, we have videos, we have the licence plates of the truck, and they won’t give us a concrete and exact answer. What happened to my husband?” asked Jonathan’s partner, Yadira Bohorquez.

Lawyers representing the family say the military simply declared that it had no operations in that area on that date, despite the video evidence.

“The case of Jonathan Villon is completely paralysed by the refusal of the Ministry of Defence to cooperate in handing over information that the Prosecutor’s Office has already requested,” said Fernando Bastias, a lawyer with CDH Guayaquil, a human rights nonprofit representing the family.

It has been more than four years since Russia launched a full-scale invasion of Ukraine, expanding its occupation of Ukrainian lands, which started in 2014. In the chaos and violence of the first months of the invasion, families were separated, and childcare institutions were cut off from the control of the central authorities in Kyiv. As a result, the occupation forces forcibly transferred more than 20,000 Ukrainian children to Russia.

Russian officials claimed that they did not abduct Ukrainian children, but “saved” them through humanitarian evacuations. However, international investigations have since found that many such transfers were unlawful under international humanitarian law. In many documented cases, transfers were carried out without the consent of the living parent or legal guardians of the child.

International humanitarian law prohibits all forcible transfers and deportations of protected people from occupied territory, except for evacuations strictly required to ensure the population’s safety. Even then, evacuation must happen within occupied territory, be temporary, preserve family unity and return evacuees home as soon as hostilities cease.

Today, the lives of thousands of Ukrainian children are devastated by this forcible transfer. Instead of abiding by international legal obligations and returning them to their homeland, Russia has transformed the issue into yet another bargaining chip against the Ukrainian people.

But Ukraine refuses to abandon its children. For the past four years, there have been intense efforts from families, NGOs and the Ukrainian government to bring them back.

Take the case of Lesya (the name has been changed to protect her identity), whose testimony was recorded by The Reckoning Project— a global team of journalists and lawyers documenting and publicising atrocities committed in the war. Lesya was 15 years old when Russian forces occupied her village in the Kherson region in 2022. When the occupation authorities imposed a mandatory evacuation, she was put on a truck with more than 30 other children and was sent to a rehabilitation centre in Feodosia, Crimea. A woman accompanying the children told her that her mother would join her shortly.

At the facility, Lesya and other Ukrainian children were subjected to a strict routine, forced to do chores and study in Russian, using Russian textbooks. They were kept under surveillance indoors most of the time in a building with windows that could not be opened. Two days a week, the children underwent military training.

Eventually, a relative located her, and with the help of Save Ukraine, a Ukrainian NGO facilitating children’s return, her mother managed to bring her back.

But Lesya’s case is the exception rather than the rule. More than 2,000 Ukrainian children have been brought back thanks to efforts by NGOs, the government and foreign mediators.

Pressure through international institutions has also been pursued, but that has not accelerated the process of return.

In March 2023, the International Criminal Court issued warrants of arrest for Russian President Vladimir Putin and Commissioner for Children’s Rights Maria Lvova-Belova for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.

In July 2025, the European Court of Human Rights, in Ukraine and the Netherlands v Russia, found Russia responsible for a number of human rights violations, including the organised removal of children. The court also required Russia to cooperate in establishing a mechanism to find and safely return children.

In March this year, the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Ukraine concluded that Russia’s deportation and forcible transfer of Ukrainian children amount to crimes against humanity. The report identifies the removal of Ukrainian children as a part of a well-planned and systematically executed policy, conceived at the highest level.

On May 11, the European Union sanctioned 16 individuals and seven entities, while the United Kingdom sanctioned 29 individuals and entities responsible for the deportation, forced transfer, forced assimilation, indoctrination, militarisation and unlawful adoption of Ukrainian children. Overall, the EU has sanctioned more than 130 people and organisations for these actions. The United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Switzerland and several other countries have introduced similar measures.

The lack of progress on this issue has driven families to desperation. Some have tried to bring their children back on their own or through often-daring missions by Save Ukraine and five other Ukrainian NGOs.

There should be no need for these risky missions. Under international humanitarian law, Russia is obligated to identify and register Ukrainian children in their care, facilitate family reunification, and permit access to neutral actors assisting Ukrainian children.

As negotiations for the end of the war have stalled and other global events have displaced Ukraine from global headlines, we urgently need to put the issue of the abducted Ukrainian children back in the spotlight.

There are several areas in which existing efforts can expand.

First, a comprehensive tracing mechanism needs to be established and financed to track abducted Ukrainian children and prevent their disappearance into dispersed care and adoption systems.

Second, ongoing legal efforts to hold to account Russian officials involved in the abduction should be intensified. This means coordinated prosecutions in states where the universal jurisdiction principle can be applied, as well as joint investigation strategies supported by Eurojust, the EU’s judicial hub. Ukraine’s partners should support its judicial processes launched against Russian officials and cooperate where needed, including through extraditions where legally applicable and other lawful transfer mechanisms. While justice may be slow, the prospect of accountability can have a deterrent effect.

Third, states can and should fully implement sanctions, trade restrictions and other obligations they assumed but did not consistently observe in practice. The sanctions regime on Russia has severely hurt its economy, but it has also seen continuous evasion. A strict implementation can help put more pressure on the regime in Moscow.

While stories of family reunions are heartening, they are just a drop in a bucket compared with the number of children who continue to be separated from their families and absorbed into a system of indoctrination and militarisation.

We must not allow the issue of returning Ukrainian children to be yet another negotiating chip for Moscow. It cannot be put on hold because negotiations have stalled or because other priorities have captured the world’s attention.

Four years is a long time in a child’s life. Each passing day further erodes their national identity and deepens the pain of separation, as they grow up in a hostile environment. There is no principle more universal than the belief that children belong with their parents and loved ones, and Ukrainian children deserve this basic human right today, not at some point in the future.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

Syrian commission confirms the deaths of Rania al-Abbasi’s six children, missing since 2013 under Bashar al-Assad’s rule.

Syria’s National Commission for Missing Persons (NCMP) says the children of dentist and former chess champion Rania al‑Abbasi, who disappeared with their parents more than a decade ago under then-President Bashar al-Assad, are likely dead.

“We have reached reliable and corroborating results that allow us to conclude with a high degree of professional certainty that Dr Rania al-Abbasi’s children are deceased,” the NCMP said in a statement on Saturday.

The fate of the children, unknown for years, became a symbol of the plight of other missing children of detainees and those forcibly disappeared during al-Assad’s rule, which ended with his ouster in 2024.

Al-Abbasi went missing along with her husband, Abdul Rahman Yasin, and their six children, aged three to 15, in March 2013 after government forces raided their home in Damascus, according to rights groups.

The commission, set up by the country’s new rulers in May 2025 to investigate missing and forcibly disappeared people, said its findings were “based on multiple verification and analysis procedures” conducted in coordination with national authorities.

“Efforts to find the remains … are still ongoing,” it added.

Hassan al-Abbasi, Rania’s brother, confirmed the children’s deaths in a video posted on Facebook.

He said the family had been able to view video recordings linked to the main suspect in a 2013 massacre in a Damascus district, including one showing him accusing children in a dark room of being “major financiers of terrorism”.

“They turned out to be our children,” Hassan al-Abbasi said. “We finally saw them … but they were martyred.”

The fate of Rania and her husband remains officially unknown after all contact with them was lost following their arrest on accusations linked to opposition to the Assad government.

Rights groups and media reports suggest they may have died, though their bodies were never found.

The issue of missing people remains one of the most pressing in Syria. They include detainees who vanished in government prisons as well as people who went missing during fighting, at checkpoints or while fleeing their homes over the years of civil war.

Tens of thousands of people were detained or disappeared during the war, which erupted in 2011 after a brutal crackdown on antigovernment protests by al-Assad.

The NCMP said last year that the number of people who went missing over decades of al-Assad family rule may exceed 300,000.

Notorious al-Assad regime figure linked to killings

Separately on Saturday, the Syrian Ministry of Interior said its investigation into the disappearance of al-Abbasi’s children had uncovered evidence linking Amjad Youssef – a notorious figure during al-Assad’s rule and the perpetrator of the 2013 Tadamon massacre – to their killing.

In a statement, it said interrogations of detainees, together with videos and information shared by the NCMP, had helped strengthen the case.

Youssef was arrested in April, prompting many Syrians to demand “just punishment” for a man they say carried out the massacre in cold blood.

The Tadamon case drew international attention after footage surfaced documenting the killings.

In 2022, The Guardian newspaper in the United Kingdom published footage it said had been leaked by a conscript in a pro-government militia showing members of the Assad-era Military Intelligence Branch 227 killing at least 41 people and burning their bodies.

The video showed an intelligence officer, identified as Youssef, shooting blindfolded and bound detainees.

The charges stem from the January 14 shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge.

An Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent charged with shooting a Venezuelan man during a controversial immigration raid in Minnesota has been arrested in Texas, according to United States authorities.

Agent Christian Castro, 52, was taken into custody on Friday after investigators from Minnesota tracked him down in the southern state, where he was arrested with assistance from the Texas Rangers and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) inspector general’s office. He faces four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime.

The charges stem from the non-fatal shooting on January 14 of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis in Minneapolis during Operation Metro Surge, a large-scale immigration enforcement campaign that drew widespread criticism for its aggressive tactics.

Prosecutors allege Castro fired through the front door of a residence, striking Sosa-Celis in the leg.

“Mr Castro was charged earlier this month with four counts of second-degree assault and one count of falsely reporting a crime for an incident on January 14, 2026, when he discharged his weapon through the front door of a home knowing there were people who had just run inside,” the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office said in a statement.

“The bullet travelled through the door and struck one victim in the leg before making its final impact in the wall of a child’s room.”

Minnesota officials welcomed Castro’s arrest, saying federal agents should be held to the same legal standards as everyone else.

“In Minnesota, we believe in equal justice under the law. That means nobody is above the law, including agents of the federal government,” said Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison. “I am pleased to hear Christian Castro has been taken into custody and will stand trial for the crimes he allegedly committed in Minnesota.”

Operation Metro Surge faces increasing legal scrutiny

The case became a flashpoint after federal authorities initially claimed Sosa-Celis and another man had assaulted ICE officers.

Those allegations later unravelled when video and other evidence emerged that contradicted agents’ accounts, prompting prosecutors to drop charges against Sosa-Celis and his housemate, Alfredo Aljorna.

The DHS later acknowledged that officers involved in the incident had provided false information about the shooting.

The outgoing director of ICE, Todd Lyons, also indicated a federal investigation was under way. “Lying under oath is a serious federal offense,” he said.

But through a spokesperson, ICE rejected Minnesota’s effort to prosecute the agent involved, calling the case “unlawful” and “a political stunt”.

Castro is the second federal officer charged this year in connection with Operation Metro Surge, an unusual step that reflects growing scrutiny of federal agents’ conduct during the immigration crackdown.

Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty is also pursuing investigations into other incidents linked to the operation.

Operation Metro Surge began in Minnesota in December 2025. By the time Sosa-Celis was shot on January 14, hundreds of federal agents had been deployed across the Minneapolis-St Paul area in what officials described as the largest DHS operation in US history.

The crackdown ultimately prompted intense controversy, particularly after the fatal shootings of two US citizens: Renee Good on January 7 and Alex Pretti on January 24.

Against that backdrop, the investigation into the Sosa-Celis shooting further intensified scrutiny of federal agents’ tactics and conduct during the operation.

The Trump administration has sought to pressure international officials who scrutinise reported abuses by Israeli forces.

The United States government has returned UN human rights expert Francesca Albanese to a list of sanctioned individuals after a judge had granted a temporary injunction against the designation.

On Wednesday, an update appeared on the US Treasury Department’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) website, indicating that Albanese had been added to the agency’s list of Specially Designated Nationals (SDN), without offering further details.

Albanese serves as the UN’s special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territory, and her criticism of Israeli policies has made her a target under US President Donald Trump.

In July 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement announcing sanctions against Albanese, accusing her of “lawfare” and “biased and malicious activities” against Israel.

He also cited her recommendation that the International Criminal Court (ICC) should issue arrest warrants against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former Minister of Defence Yoav Gallant, which it ultimately did in November 2024.

The announcement was one in a series of actions the Trump administration has taken against critics it sees as hostile to US and Israeli interests.

The sanctions barred Albanese from entering the US and froze her assets in the country. They also prevented any US-based entity from doing business with her.

Albanese, an Italian citizen, has close ties to the US: Her daughter is a US citizen, and the family maintains a residence in the country.

In February, members of Albanese’s family filed a lawsuit on her behalf, stating that the sanctions had disrupted her life, even preventing her from accessing her bank account.

The lawsuit also accused the Trump administration of trying to intimidate those who speak out against Israeli rights abuses.

Albanese has been vocal in her assessment that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, a view echoed by leading human rights experts around the world. More than 75,000 Palestinians have been killed in the territory since 2023, when Israel launched its genocidal war on the Strip.

Albanese is not alone in facing economic penalties for her work. Since taking office for a second term, Trump is estimated to have issued sanctions against nine ICC judges, as well as prosecutors for the court.

The judges and prosecutors were reportedly involved in probes into abuses by US and Israeli forces.

Legal experts have condemned the sanctions as an assault on international law and an effort to shield the US and its allies from scrutiny.

On May 13, US District Judge Richard Leon, an appointee of former President George W Bush, ruled in favour of the Albanese family’s lawsuit, granting a temporary injunction against the sanctions.

Leon found that the Trump administration had used the penalties to curtail Albanese’s constitutionally protected speech. He also stated that Albanese could not be blamed for the ICC’s actions.

“It is undisputed that her recommendations have no binding effect on the ICC’s actions,” Leon wrote. “They are nothing more than her opinion.”

As a result of the ruling, Albanese was removed from the sanctions list this month.

But the Trump administration appealed Leon’s order. It also said it would restore her to the sanctions list as soon as it was able, though it is unclear what prompted Wednesday’s change.

Indonesian authorities have shut down several screenings of a new documentary about alleged human rights abuses in Papua, including Indigenous land seizures. Al Jazeera’s Jessica Washington explains the controversy.

On May 7, Zimbabwe’s Agriculture Minister Anxious Masuka announced in parliament that the government would return 67 farms seized during the country’s land reform programme to European nationals from Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. The farms, he said, were protected under bilateral investment protection agreements signed between Zimbabwe and the four European states before the land seizures.

The measure forms part of President Emmerson Mnangagwa’s effort to restore relations with Western governments and international financial institutions after more than two decades of crisis, sanctions, isolation and debt default linked in part to the fast-track land reform programme of the early 2000s.

Zimbabwe is trying to restructure about $11.7bn in external debt, including $7.7bn owed to multilateral and bilateral creditors. On May 20, the International Monetary Fund approved a staff-monitored programme to support reforms and debt restructuring.

Resolving disputes linked to land reform has become central to that re-engagement process. In July 2020, Zimbabwe signed a $3.5bn compensation agreement with former white commercial farmers for infrastructure and improvements on acquired land. Last year, it began compensating treaty-protected foreign farmers, including claimants from Germany, Switzerland and Belgium.

But this development also exposes a deeper contradiction embedded in the global order governing land and property rights in former settler colonies: European claims arising from postcolonial redistribution are treated as urgent, enforceable and respectable, while African claims arising from colonial dispossession remain largely outside the same legal and moral framework.

The colonial dispossession that created white land ownership in Rhodesia never received the same urgency as the one now directed at restoring European claims after postcolonial redistribution. At independence in April 1980, no comparable mechanism forced Britain, Rhodesia or settler beneficiaries to compensate Africans dispossessed through conquest, racial legislation and forced removal. Yet once postcolonial Zimbabwe attempted to redistribute that land, its protection suddenly became tied to legality, investor confidence and international respectability.

In October 1889, Cecil John Rhodes’s British South Africa Company (BSAC) received a royal charter from the British Crown, accelerating white settler expansion across the territory that became Southern Rhodesia. The 1893 war against King Lobengula’s Ndebele kingdom opened vast areas of land to settler occupation, while the crushing of the 1896-97 First Chimurenga, led by resistance figures such as Mbuya Nehanda, consolidated British control across the colony.

Early dispossession was not only territorial. After 1893, BSAC forces seized cattle on a large scale in Matabeleland, weakening the economic foundations of local communities. By 1958, Southern Rhodesia’s European population of roughly 207,000 controlled almost 48 million acres of prime agricultural land, while about 2.55 million Africans had 41.95 million acres of poorer, overcrowded and less arable land.

From the 1890s onwards, colonial land seizures in Rhodesia were enforced and legitimised through the selective application of British imperial law and BSAC decrees. African ownership of land was never recognised with the same standing granted to settler occupation.

That legal order survived the expansion of settler rule through the Land Apportionment Act of 1930 and continued to shape later legal frameworks.

That lopsided inheritance still shapes the global response to Zimbabwe’s land question decades after independence.

Bilateral investment treaties signed between Zimbabwe and foreign states gave protected investors the right to seek compensation when property covered by those agreements was expropriated. In practice, certain foreign-owned farms seized during fast-track land reform entered an international system backed by arbitration mechanisms, treaty enforcement and diplomatic pressure, even though the land itself had been acquired through conquest and war. The 67 farms covered by Masuka fall into that category.

Africans dispossessed under colonial rule were never granted comparable access to international reparations or protected claims against empire.

Part of this asymmetry is structural: European farmers can invoke treaties their governments signed and a compensation deal Zimbabwe itself agreed, while the dispossessed have no counterparty to sue, no instrument to enforce and, in Rhodesia, no surviving state to hold to account. But that is precisely the point. The legal architecture was built to recognise one kind of loss and not the other.

In April 2009, Dutch farmers protected under a bilateral investment treaty brought Funnekotter and others v Zimbabwe before the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), and the tribunal ordered Zimbabwe to compensate them for expropriated farms. In 2015, another ICSID tribunal ruled in favour of European claimants linked to Swiss and German property interests in von Pezold and others v Zimbabwe after land seizures under fast-track reform.

The contrast is stark for everyday Zimbabweans.

My maternal grandparents lived in what was the Seke Reserve in Mashonaland, a place where most people were settled on small plots of land with “rather poor sand veldt with a lot of bush”. The reserve was created in 1899 along a boundary that ran roughly along the Hunyani River to the north and northeast, separating African-occupied land from areas soon to be claimed by white settlers.

On the other side of that line, colonial authorities allocated fertile, riverfront and midslope land to white commercial farmers, while families who had once farmed across that broader landscape were confined to a narrow, overcrowded reserve with low-grade soils and limited water.

This was part of a wider colonial regime that, from 1894, also pushed many Ndebele communities into the dry, low-rainfall and tsetse-fly-infested Gwaai and Shangani reserves in Matabeleland North.

Their subsequent, imposed impoverishment and losses, of land, cattle, livelihoods, political authority and economic autonomy, were absorbed into colonial history rather than treated as enforceable claims demanding compensation from the imperial system that created them.

They all died landless and economically broken, largely invisible to the global legal order and without meaningful redress, much like countless Indigenous communities around the country.

Yet Zimbabwe’s compensation framework, shaped largely by external pressure and Western imperatives, recognises losses arising from fast-track land reform and treaty-protected commercial farms. It does not recognise losses like those experienced by my grandparents, or by countless families whose land, cattle and livelihoods were taken under colonial rule.

For years, Zimbabwe’s debt re-engagement process has been tied to arrears clearance, economic reforms and the settlement of land-related disputes. The restoration of treaty-protected European claims has therefore become intertwined with Zimbabwe’s attempts to regain access to international finance and repair relations with Western creditors, chiefly the IMF and World Bank.

Compensation agreements and investor protections are presented as proof that Zimbabwe is becoming governable, predictable and safe again for international capital. In effect, Zimbabwe is being asked to rehabilitate confidence in settler-derived property rights as part of its return to global financial legitimacy.

Launched in 2000, Zimbabwe’s fast-track land reform programme was characterised by widespread economic disruption and violence against Black farmworkers, white farmers and opposition MDC supporters. Those failures do not erase the history of land theft that made redistribution a central political question in the first place.

The unresolved collision between colonial property systems and African restitution claims extends far beyond Zimbabwe. In former settler colonies such as Zimbabwe and Namibia, it is overwhelmingly Black Africans who are expected to absorb mass land dispossession without compensation.

Colonial seizure is treated as inconvenient background history, while postcolonial attempts to restructure ownership are framed as threats to “markets” and “investor confidence”.

African efforts to recover land face more obstacles than the colonial systems that stole it.

Land reform should be lawful, accountable and economically productive. Nonetheless, international law cannot treat property rights created through settler colonialism as morally untouchable while dismissing African compensation as dangerous or illegitimate.

The 67 farms are standing remnants of an old and unresolved colonial atrocity.

My grandmother’s people also have rights.

Zimbabweans are still waiting for justice.

The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.