

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Uganda's parliament should amend a proposed law on HIV/AIDS to remove
punitive and discriminatory provisions and to ensure that the rights of
people living with HIV/AIDS are protected, Human Rights Watch said
today, after the controversial bill was introduced.
The 2010 HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Act was introduced on May
19, 2010 by the Honorable Beatrice Rwakimari, Chairperson of the
Committee on HIV/AIDS and Related Matters, following months of debate
about provisions that mandate HIV testing, force disclosure of HIV
status, and criminalize behavior that might result in transmission among
those who know they are HIV-positive. HIV prevalence has increased in
Uganda in recent years, with over a million people living with HIV and
more than 100,000 newly infected each year. It is estimated that 80
percent of those living with HIV in Uganda are unaware of their HIV
status.
"The bill contains measures that have been proven ineffective against
the AIDS epidemic and that violate the rights of people living with
HIV," said Joe Amon, Health and Human Rights director at Human Rights
Watch. "The HIV epidemic in Uganda is getting worse, and this bill is
another example of misguided, ideological approaches and lack of
leadership."
The bill as currently written codifies discredited approaches to the
AIDS epidemic and contains dangerously vague criminal provisions.
Contrary to international best practices, the bill would criminalize HIV
transmission and behavior that might result in transmission by those
who know their HIV status.
The bill would discourage voluntary HIV testing, while making testing
mandatory for pregnant women, their partners, suspected perpetrators
and victims of sexual offenses, drug users, and prostitutes, in
violation of fundamental principles of consent. The bill also allows
medical practitioners to disclose a patient's HIV status to others,
breaching confidentiality standards. These provisions could potentially
endanger those who are infected by exposing them to stigma,
discrimination, and physical violence.
Human Rights Watch and 50 Ugandan and international organizations
commented on an earlier draft of the bill and released a 10-page analysis of it in
November 2009. UNAIDS also released a 23-page critique of the bill, and a
coalition of Ugandan civil society groups published a joint position
statement that criticized many provisions of the draft bill. Since then,
the law was partially improved by removal of criminal penalty for the
transmission of HIV from mother to child through breastfeeding.
Reflecting these changes, Human Rights Watch released an updated analysis of the bill
this month.
Uganda's government has recently received international criticism for
a proposed "anti-homosexuality" law mandating the death penalty for
individuals living with HIV who engage in homosexual sex, regardless of
the use of HIV prevention, and including a requirement that individuals
report suspected homosexuals to the government within 24 hours.
"Like the anti-homosexuality bill, the HIV/AIDS bill tramples on
rights and encourages stigma and intolerance," Amon said. "The
international community and Ugandan civil society have been vocal and
clear about the problems in the bill. It is time for Uganda's parliament
to listen and amend these damaging provisions."
One consequence of the law would be to require all HIV testing
programs in the country to amend their pre-test counseling to inform
individuals of the law and its potential consequences, Human Rights
Watch said. Those being tested would need to understand that the
consequences of a positive test result could include disclosure of their
HIV status without their consent by medical personnel and criminal
liability for failure to adopt HIV prevention measures. International
research projects in Uganda that conduct HIV testing may also have to
modify and resubmit their protocols to ethical review boards, Human
Rights Watch said.
International guidelines issued by UNAIDS, the UN Development
Program, and the World Health Organization oppose criminalization of
transmission because it deters people from getting tested and
stigmatizes people with HIV. In contrast to the Ugandan bill, a pending
East African model law on HIV/AIDS provides broad protections for people
living with HIV and does not include provisions for criminalization of
transmission.
Mandatory testing undermines the rights of women and girls to
security of their person, does not meet the consent requirement set out
in medical ethics and international human rights law, and is
discriminatory. Under the provisions of the bill, for example, if a
woman tested positive, she could be liable for prosecution unless she
abstained from sex with her husband or partner or was able to ensure
that any partner used a condom. Combined with the bill's grant of
discretion to medical practitioners to disclose an individual's status
to other parties, the law exposes women in particular to intimate
partner violence and abandonment.
The bill also would criminalize a wide and ill-defined range of
conduct, such as breach of safe practice, obstruction, and making
misleading statements. A vague catch-all "general penalty" clause in the
bill would allow for criminal prosecution resulting in up to 10 years
imprisonment for contravening any provisions in the bill.
"For Uganda to address its HIV epidemic effectively, it needs to
partner with people living with HIV, not blame them, criminalize them,
and exclude them from policy making," Amon said. "Recognizing that
rights-based approaches are critical, and that people living with HIV
will prevent transmission if they are empowered and supported, would
allow Uganda's HIV response to get back on track."
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
The court said the actions of Sudan's Rapid Support Forces, who are backed by a US ally in the UAE, "may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity."
The International Criminal Court said it is collecting and preserving evidence of war crimes in Sudan's Darfur region following a massacre committed by a militia group and amid reports of widespread starvation.
In a statement published Monday, the ICC—the international body charged with prosecuting crimes against humanity—expressed "profound alarm and deepest concern over recent reports emerging from El-Fasher about mass killings, rapes, and other crimes" allegedly committed by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), which breached the city last week.
According to the Sudan Doctors Network (SDN), a medical organization monitoring the country's brutal civil war, the militants slaughtered more than 1,500 people in just three days after capturing El-Fasher, among them more than 460 people who were systematically shot at the city's Saudi Maternity Hospital.
The ICC said that "such acts, if substantiated, may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute," the court's founding treaty, which lays out the definitions for acts including genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes.
The court said it was "taking immediate steps regarding the alleged crimes in El-Fasher to preserve and collect relevant evidence for its use in future prosecutions."
The announcement comes shortly following a new report from the UN-affiliated Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC), the world's leading authority on hunger crises, which found that famine has been detected in El-Fasher and the town of Kadugli in Sudan's South Kordofan province. Twenty other localities in the two provinces—which have seen some of the civil war's worst fighting—are also in danger of famine, according to the report.
The two areas have suffered under siege from the RSF paramilitary, which has cut off access to food, water, and medical care. The IPC says it has led to the "total collapse of livelihoods, starvation, extremely high levels of malnutrition and death."
According to the UN's migration authority, nearly 37,000 people have been forced to flee cities across North Kordofan between October 26 and 31. They joined more than 650,000 displaced people who were already taking refuge in North Darfur's city of Tawila.
Sudan's civil war, which began in 2023, has created the world's largest humanitarian crisis, with potentially as many as 150,000 people killed since it began. Over 12 million people have been displaced, and 30.4 million people, over half of Sudan’s total population, are in need of humanitarian support.
The recent escalation of the crisis has led to heightened global scrutiny of RSF's chief financier, the United Arab Emirates. In recent days, US politicians and activists have called for the Trump administration to halt military assistance to the Gulf state, which it sold $1.4 billion in military aircraft in May.
On Tuesday, Emirati diplomats admitted for the first time that they "made a mistake" supporting the RSF as it attempted to undermine Sudan's transitional democratic government, which took power in 2019 after over three decades of rule by the Islamist-aligned dictator Omar al-Bashir. Those efforts culminated in a military coup in 2021 and an eventual power struggle for control over the country.
However, as Sudanese journalist Nesrine Malik wrote in The Guardian on Monday, the UAE "continues to deny its role, despite overwhelming evidence."
"The UAE secures a foothold in a large, strategic, resource-rich country, and already receives the majority of gold mined in RSF-controlled areas," Malik wrote. "Other actors have been drawn in, overlaying proxy agendas on a domestic conflict. The result is deadlock, quagmire, and blood loss that seems impossible to stem, even as the crisis unravels in full view."
"Sudan’s war is described as forgotten, but in reality it is tolerated and relegated," she continued. "Because to reckon with the horror in Sudan... is to see the growing imperialist role of some Gulf powers in Africa and beyond—and to acknowledge the fact that no meaningful pressure is applied to these powers, including the UAE, to cease and desist from supporting a genocidal militia because the UK, US, and others are close allies with these states."
"If I have money left over, then I will eat."
Beneficiaries of federal food aid are expressing anger and bewilderment at the Trump administration's efforts to use the program as a hostage to end the current shutdown of the federal government.
On Monday, the Trump administration said that it would partially restart funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) in the wake of two district court rulings mandating that the administration use emergency funds set up by Congress to continue the program.
The administration said that it would only fund around 50% of the $8 billion in total monthly benefits, while also warning that there could be delays before SNAP beneficiaries are able to access the funds.
In interviews with The Guardian, several SNAP beneficiaries fumed that their ability to access food for themselves and their families is being used as a political football by the administration.
Wisconsin resident Betty Standridge, who had been relying on SNAP to afford food after being hospitalized, told The Guardian that, without the funds, "I will not be able to replenish my food for the month, therefore I will do without things like fresh produce, milk, eggs."
Donna Lynn, a disabled veteran who lives in Missouri, also said that she would have to make significant cuts to her budget if SNAP benefits were not replenished.
"It comes down to paying for my medications and my bills or buying food for myself and for my animals," she said. "So I pay for my medications and bills and get what food I can for my animals, and if I have money left over, then I will eat."
A Wisconsin retiree named Sandra, meanwhile, told The Guardian she feared that the administration was angling to permanently end SNAP even after the end of the government shutdown.
"I'm dumbfounded by the cruelty," she said.
Before the administration allowed more than 40 million people—nearly 40% of whom are children—to go without food assistance on November 1 and refused to use a contingency fund to keep SNAP running, the Republican Party passed roughly $186 billion in cuts to the program in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act this summer.
The bill expanded work requirements, shifted some of the cost of SNAP to the states, and restricted benefit increases, leaving millions of people vulnerable to losing their benefits.
Betty Szretter, a New York retiree whose daughter depends on SNAP benefits, told NBC News that she regrets voting for President Donald Trump in 2024, and said she's worried that his focus appears to be elsewhere—like the corporate-funded construction of a ballroom at the White House—rather than on helping people like her family.
“I think deep down he wants to help the country with things like food insecurity,” she said. “But now he is busy out of the country and demolishing the White House. I know that is being paid for with private funds, but those could be used to help people... It all seems very selfish."
CBS News on Tuesday interviewed a Baltimore resident named Kelly Lennox, who has been relying on SNAP for the last year-and-a-half after a car accident that required multiple surgeries left her unable to work. She said the halt of SNAP payments was a particularly harsh blow given that she's deep in medical debt in the wake of the accident.
Now, she says she'll have to rely on local food pantries to keep from going hungry.
"I'm going to have to make use of the pantries and work with their schedule, because if I use actual money for food, it takes away money I need to pay for my residential parking permit, gas, and union dues," she said.
Roughly 42 million people living in the US currently receive SNAP benefits, and The Washington Post estimates that SNAP payments account for 9% of all grocery sales in the US.
"I don't know how a DC jury would convict," said one resident who was not selected to serve on the jury.
The trial of Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department employee who threw a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection agent in protest in early August, began Monday, weeks after US Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office failed to secure a felony indictment.
Dunn, who is now facing a misdemeanor assault charge, has become a symbol of public resistance to and disdain for President Donald Trump's deployment of masked federal immigration agents to the streets of US cities.
DC residents who were not chosen to serve on the jury for the trial expressed deep skepticism that the latest attempt to indict Dunn would end any differently than the first.
"How is that an assault?” one DC woman asked of Dunn's sandwich throw, which was caught on video. Before hurling the sandwich, Dunn screamed at the agents and called them "fascists."
Another person who was not selected to serve on the jury told CNN that they "don't know how a DC jury would convict."
The trial is expected to be quick. The judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, called it "the simplest case in the world" and predicted a two-day trial.
Dunn's lawyers have argued in court that the Trump administration's prosecution attempts amount to "a blatant abuse of power."
"The federal government has chosen to bring a criminal case over conduct so minor it would be comical—were it not for the
unmistakable retaliatory motive behind it and the resulting risk to Mr. Dunn," Dunn's lawyers said. "Mr. Dunn tossed a sandwich at a fully armed, heavily protected Customs and Border Protection officer. That act alone would never have drawn a federal charge. What did was the political speech that accompanied it."