

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.
Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Jonathan Jackson described Trump's blockade of the island as "effectively an economic bombing of the infrastructure of the country that has produced permanent damage."
After returning from a delegation trip to Cuba, US Reps. Pramila Jayapal and Jonathan Jackson on Sunday renewed calls for President Donald Trump to end his illegal fuel blockade of the island, which they described as "cruel collective punishment."
The pair of progressive lawmakers were the first to visit the island since Trump imposed the blockade in January in a bid to cripple the island's economy as part of an effort to overthrow its government, or, in the president's words, "take" the island.
Almost no oil has been allowed to enter for more than three months, which Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jackson (D-Ill.) described as "effectively an economic bombing of the infrastructure of the country—that has produced permanent damage."
"We witnessed firsthand premature babies in incubators, weighing just two pounds, who are at tremendous risk because their ventilators and incubators cannot function without electricity," they said. "Children cannot attend school because there is no fuel for them or their teachers to travel. Cancer patients cannot receive lifesaving treatments because of a lack of medications."
"There is a water shortage because there is little electricity to pump water," they continued. "Businesses have closed. Families cannot keep food refrigerated, and food production on the island has dropped to just 10% of the people’s needs."
The oil blockade is an escalation of more than 60 years of punitive economic warfare by the US against Cuba, imposed through an embargo that has limited Cuba's ability to trade with the rest of the world and hampered its economic development to the tune of trillions of dollars.
Jayapal had previously visited Cuba in February 2024 on a trip with other members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Since her last time in Havana, she said, "There's such a big difference."
"So many of the streets of this beautiful city were deserted. People were already lining up for food," she said in an interview with the Cuban outlet Belly of the Beast. "I don't think that any American wants to create this kind of devastation for the Cuban children, for the babies, for the moms, for the people."
She said the phrase "collective punishment," while accurate, almost felt "too technocratic" to describe what she witnessed.
"We are strangling the Cuban people," Jayapal said.
The United Nations General Assembly has voted 33 times to call for the end of the embargo since 1993.
In February, a group of UN experts condemned Trump's fuel blockade as "a serious violation of international law and a grave threat to a democratic and equitable international order" and an "extreme form of unilateral economic coercion."
Cuban President Miguel Diaz-Canel has acknowledged having talks with Trump in recent weeks in order to negotiate an end to the embargo and threats of further aggression.
The Cuban government has taken actions that the lawmakers described as "signs that Cuba is changing." It has released more than 2,000 prisoners, announced economic reforms to allow more involvement of American businesses, and allowed the FBI to investigate Cuban troops' lethal shooting of five armed Cuban exiles as they approached in a speedboat in February.
While hardly softening his threats to Cuba, which he continued to insist was “finished,” Trump last week allowed a Russian oil tanker to dock on the island without incident and deliver around 700,000 barrels of much-needed oil.
But the lawmakers said it's not enough. Jackson, noting the "generosity" of Cuba as a provider of medical treatment around the world, said the US must allow food and fuel to be allowed to return to the island "so that the Cuban people can continue to rise."
Jayapal said that when they spoke with Diaz-Canel, he expressed "a real desire for a real negotiation" with the US, but that he also expressed "sadness" and "frustration" at what was being done to his country.
"These kinds of sanctions, embargoes, they don't get to the government. They hurt the people," Jayapal said. "Perhaps the American people don't understand the violence of an economic sanction versus the violence of dropping a bomb."
Jackson—whose father, the late Rev. Jesse Jackson, took many trips to Cuba during his life—described America's treatment of the nation’s people as a “crucifixion.”
"Americans would not want to see what I saw in that hospital," Jackson said, describing a malnourished baby named Alejandro, whom he said was "fighting for life."
Due to the intermittent power surges caused by the lack of fuel, he said, "We didn't know when the incubator was going to start working."
"That's an act of war," he said. "We have to put an end to that."
He added that Secretary of State Marco Rubio, himself a Cuban-American who has long sought to bring about regime change, "should come before the Congress and explain his policy."
In late March, Jayapal introduced legislation that would block Trump from conducting military action against Cuba without congressional authorization. She said she'd continue to push for bills to block Trump from launching a war and to push for sanctions relief.
The Trump administration has portrayed its economic warfare as part of an effort to "liberate" the Cuban people from an oppressive government.
But the lawmakers, who met with wide swaths of Cuban society—including business and religious leaders, humanitarian groups, and civil society organizations—said that "Cubans across the political spectrum," including anti-government dissidents, expressed similar feelings.
"Across all sectors, there is agreement," they said. "This illegal blockade must end immediately."
Iran's first vice president called the attack a new "symbol of Trump's madness and ignorance."
A wave of US-Israeli airstrikes on Monday hit and extensively damaged Sharif University of Technology, a leading Iranian educational institution that is widely known as "the MIT of Iran" and seen as one of the world's top engineering schools.
The attack on the Tehran university—one of dozens of education sites bombed by the US and Israel since they launched their war on Iran in late February—sparked outrage inside Iran and around the world. Mohammad Reza Aref, an engineer currently serving as Iran's first vice president, said the attack on Sharif University "is a symbol of [US President Donald] Trump's madness and ignorance."
"He fails to understand that Iran's knowledge is not embedded in concrete to be destroyed by bombs; the true fortress is the will of our professors and elites," Aref wrote. "No barbarity in history has ever been able to strip science from the Iranian people. Science is rooted in our souls, and this fortress will not crumble."
The National Iranian American Council called the bombing "another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war."
"This was a center of learning, not a military target," the group wrote on social media, highlighting video footage showing a building in ruins. "The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in Iran is deeply disturbing and will only deepen insecurity for the US and Israel. End this war."
US Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), the lone Iranian American in Congress, noted that Sharif University has "produced a huge number of engineers who’ve gone on to Silicon Valley and founded some of the most successful American tech companies."
"Why are we bombing a university in a city of 10 million people?" Ansari asked.
Another outrageous, criminal act in an illegal war: U.S.-Israeli strikes have bombed one of the world’s most prestigious universities in Sharif University of Technology in Tehran. This was a center of learning, not a military target. The increasing use of the Gaza playbook in… pic.twitter.com/GE6J8WhgMC
— NIAC (@NIACouncil) April 6, 2026
Al Jazeera's Tohid Asadi reported from Tehran that the university was "severely hit, with extensive damage reported in the compound's mosque and laboratories."
Vira Ameli, an Iranian global health researcher and lecturer at the University of Oxford, decried the US-Israeli strike on Sharif University, where she spent time as a postdoctoral fellow.
"To wake to the news of this war crime, at a distance and unable to return, is difficult to articulate," Ameli wrote. "And yet history has made one thing clear: Iran is not a country undone by bombardment."
Iranian authorities say US-Israeli attacks have hit at least 30 of the nation's universities, including the Isfahan University of Technology and the Iran University of Science and Technology. The US and Israel have justified some of the attacks by claiming the universities were involved in military-related activities.
"Would American and Israeli leaders consider their own equivalent institutions fair game? Of course not," journalist Natasha Lennard wrote in a column for The Intercept last week. "By stated US and Israeli rationale, however, were Iran able to launch airstrikes on American soil, direct ties to the U.S. and Israeli military-industrial complex would make valid targets of at least the University of California, Berkeley; the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; and Johns Hopkins University, among dozens of other schools."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said "bare due diligence" would have exposed ICE officers' falsehoods.
Video footage obtained by The New York Times has exposed lies told by two federal immigration enforcement agents about the circumstances leading up to a non-fatal shooting in Minneapolis that occurred on January 14.
According to a Monday report from the Times, the video directly contradicts claims made by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials that they were attacked by assailants armed with a shovel and a broom for around three minutes before the agents opened fire and wounded one of the attackers.
"Instead, the confrontation depicted in the video lasts about 12 seconds and shows two men struggling with the agent," reported the Times. "It shows no sustained attack with a shovel."
Federal prosecutors had initially pursued assault charges against Venezuelan national Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was shot in the leg by the ICE officers during the January confrontation, and fellow Venezuelan national Alfredo Aljorna.
However, the government abruptly dropped charges against the two men in February, and ICE Acting Director Todd Lyons acknowledged that two federal officers appear “to have made untruthful statements” about the incident.
The Times noted that the government had access to the video of the shooting hours after it took place.
However, one source told the paper that prosecutors didn't watch the video until three weeks after they filed charges against Sosa-Celis and Aljorna, and instead relied on "the ICE agent’s statement and an FBI agent’s affidavit describing the footage."
This revelation prompted a rebuke from Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who told the Times that "bare due diligence would have shown that the agents were lying."
Trump administration officials have come under fire in recent weeks for lying about shootings involving federal immigration officials, such as when former US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem falsely claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was aiming “to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement."
In reality, video footage showed Pretti never drew his handgun during his confrontation with federal immigration officers, while also clearly showing that officers disarmed him before they opened fire.
Noem also falsely claimed that slain ICE observer Renee Good had attempted "an act of domestic terrorism" by trying to run over a federal immigration officer with her car, even though footage clearly showed Good turning her vehicle away from the officer in an attempt to get away from the scene.