Local media reported Abdelli was charged with insulting state officials and offending public morals.

The decision comes amid heightened criticism from the performer toward Kais Saied, whom he has mocked in recent satirical content.Speaking from Paris, where he now resides, Abdelli said the verdict was intended to intimidate artists and suppress critical voices.

“This ruling is aimed at intimidating artists, silencing free and critical voices. It is a political verdict,” he said, adding that being sentenced over his work reflected broader concerns about freedom of expression.A court spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment.

Abdelli, 56, has long been known for his political satire and caricatured portrayals of Tunisia’s leaders. His performances gained prominence after the Tunisian Revolution, which led to expanded civil liberties following the ousting of former president Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

However, rights groups say freedoms have eroded since 2021, when Saied consolidated power and began ruling by decree. Critics argue that these measures have weakened democratic institutions and enabled prosecutions targeting journalists, activists and opposition figures.

In recent years, several opposition leaders, along with journalists and business figures, have been detained on charges including conspiracy against state security, corruption and money laundering.Saied has rejected accusations of authoritarianism, saying that freedoms remain guaranteed while emphasizing that no individual is above the law regardless of their status.

The case underscores ongoing tensions in Tunisia over the boundaries of free expression and the role of satire in political discourse more than a decade after the uprising that triggered the wider Arab Spring.

A United Nations human rights report has warned that conditions in Afghanistan continue to deteriorate sharply under the country’s de facto Taliban authorities, with women and girls facing the most severe restrictions and millions struggling amid a deepening humanitarian crisis.

The assessment, presented by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk at the latest session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva, covers developments between August 2025 and January 2026. It highlights a convergence of economic decline, reduced international aid, environmental stress, and governance policies that have significantly constrained civil liberties.

According to the report, approximately 21.9 million people around 45 percent of Afghanistan’s population—are expected to require humanitarian assistance in 2026. The situation has been exacerbated by a reduction in external funding, the return of nearly three million Afghans from neighboring countries during 2025, and persistent drought conditions affecting livelihoods and food security.

Türk said a series of directives issued since the Taliban’s return to power in August 2021 has had a “crushing impact” on the population, particularly women and girls. These measures, the report states, have effectively excluded women from most areas of public and professional life.

Since September 2025, Taliban security forces have barred Afghan women, including United Nations staff and contractors, from entering UN premises across the country. The restriction remained in place as of late January 2026, significantly limiting the organization’s operational capacity and its ability to deliver humanitarian assistance.The report also details the formal dismissal of women civil servants.

After being instructed to remain at home following the Taliban takeover while receiving a reduced monthly salary of 5,000 Afghanis, women were informed in January 2026 that their employment had been terminated without due process or compensation. The UN noted the absence of transparency and mitigation measures in this decision.

Educational restrictions remain in place, with girls excluded from schooling beyond the sixth grade and barred from higher education since December 2022. The report notes that medical graduation examinations were conducted in November 2025 without female candidates for a second consecutive year, following a ban on women attending medical institutes imposed in December 2024.

Additional measures have further limited women’s participation in public life. Authorities have enforced dress codes under the “Law on the Propagation of Virtue and Prevention of Vice,” and although the requirement for full-body covering appears to have been relaxed in some areas, women not adhering to prescribed attire continue to face denial of access to public transport, markets, and services.

The closure of beauty salons and the removal of books authored by women from libraries and bookstores, regardless of subject matter, have further restricted cultural and intellectual expression.“The de facto authorities have, in effect, criminalized the presence of women and girls in public life,” Türk said, adding that these policies affect access to healthcare, civic participation, and freedom of movement and expression.

The report also identifies broader human rights concerns, including the use of public executions and corporal punishment. Since 2021, authorities have carried out 12 public executions, including two during the reporting period, often in sports stadiums. Public floggings are reported to occur on a weekly basis.In late September 2025, Afghanistan experienced a nationwide shutdown of its fibre optic network, resulting in a 48-hour blackout of internet and mobile services.

The disruption affected healthcare delivery, emergency response systems, aviation operations, and financial services, according to the report, which noted that no official explanation was provided.Media freedom has also come under increased pressure. Journalists face arbitrary detention and restrictions on content, while live political talk shows have been banned since February 2025.

Broadcasting of music and drama has also been prohibited. Women journalists who remain active in the profession encounter additional barriers, including reported incidents of being silenced during official briefings.Türk described the overall situation as severe, citing widespread poverty and limited access to essential services.

“Millions of Afghans live in utter poverty, deprived of their right to adequate food, clean water, and access to education, healthcare and employment,” he said. He added that natural disasters, including two earthquakes in late 2025, have compounded existing challenges, while funding cuts have weakened humanitarian response efforts.

Security conditions along Afghanistan’s borders have also contributed to instability. The UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan documented 70 civilian deaths and 478 injuries attributed to Pakistani military actions during cross-border incidents in the final quarter of 2025.

The report notes that these figures exceed annual civilian casualty levels recorded in previous years, with the most intense period occurring between October 10 and 17, when more than 500 civilians were affected.In response to these developments, the UN has called on Afghanistan’s de facto authorities to reverse policies that restrict fundamental rights.

Recommendations include restoring women’s access to education and employment, halting executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty, ending arbitrary detentions, and ensuring fair trial standards. The report also calls for respect for freedom of expression and unimpeded humanitarian access.

The UN has urged member states to suspend forced returns of Afghan nationals, warning that deportees face credible risks of persecution, torture, and other serious harm. It has also emphasized the importance of supporting a newly established Independent Investigative Mechanism mandated to collect evidence of potential international crimes.

Türk noted that accountability efforts have gained some traction, referencing arrest warrants issued by the International Criminal Court in July 2025. He called on states to cooperate with ongoing investigations and provide financial support for accountability mechanisms.

Separately, a civil society-led People’s Tribunal for Women of Afghanistan delivered a symbolic judgment in December 2025, finding the Taliban and associated authorities responsible for crimes against humanity, including gender-based persecution and arbitrary detention.

The tribunal also called for the recognition of “gender apartheid” as a distinct international crime.Türk endorsed efforts to formalize this concept in international law, stating that defining gender apartheid would be a critical step toward addressing systemic discrimination. He urged Afghan authorities to reconsider policies excluding women from public life, emphasizing their central role in the country’s future.

“Women and girls are the present and the future, and the country cannot thrive without them.”

In a report titled “Humanity Must Win,” the London-based rights group urged FIFA and host governments to take “urgent action” to ensure the safety and rights of players, supporters and local populations during the tournament, which begins on June 11.

Amnesty said FIFA’s pledge to deliver a tournament where everyone feels “safe, included and free to exercise their rights” contrasts with conditions in host nations, particularly the United States, which will stage the majority of the 104 matches.

The organization described the U.S. as facing a “human rights emergency” under Donald Trump, citing mass deportations, arbitrary arrests and what it characterized as “paramilitary-style” operations by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). It noted that ICE officials have indicated the agency will play a central role in World Cup security arrangements.

The report also referenced public backlash following the killing of two U.S. citizens during protests against ICE raids in Minneapolis earlier this year.Gaps in fan protection measuresAmnesty said host city plans published so far do not clearly address how fans or residents would be shielded from immigration enforcement during the tournament.

It added that supporters from some participating nations, including Ivory Coast, Haiti, Iran and Senegal, could face travel restrictions to the United States.LGBTQ+ fan groups in Europe have also indicated reluctance to attend matches in the U.S., citing concerns over protections for transgender individuals.

FIFA has said the expanded 48-team tournament the largest in World Cup history will proceed as scheduled, with all qualified teams expected to participate. The governing body has not publicly responded to Amnesty’s latest report.

The organization expects to generate around $11 billion in revenue from the 2026 World Cup cycle, drawing renewed scrutiny from rights groups over its responsibilities toward stakeholders.

Steve Cockburn, Amnesty’s head of economic and social justice, said that while FIFA stands to benefit financially, “fans, communities, players, journalists and workers cannot be made to pay the price.

”The tournament is set to open in Mexico City and conclude on July 19 at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey.

In a statement released late on Saturday, the ministry’s Hong Kong office said Commissioner Cui Jianchun met U.S. Consul General Julie Eadeh on March 27 and conveyed “strong dissatisfaction and firm opposition” to the alert, calling on the United States to stop intervening in Hong Kong matters “in any form.

”The dispute follows recent amendments to Hong Kong’s national security enforcement rules, which make it an offence in national security cases to refuse to provide passwords or other assistance to access electronic devices.

In response, the U.S. Consulate General in Hong Kong issued a public alert on March 26 advising U.S. citizens to contact the consulate if they are arrested or detained in connection with the updated rules.

The alert highlighted concerns over the expanded scope of enforcement powers under the revised framework.The U.S. Consulate General did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside business hours.

The exchange underscores ongoing tensions between Beijing and Washington over Hong Kong’s governance and legal environment, particularly since the introduction of national security measures that foreign governments have said could affect civil liberties and legal protections.

Chinese authorities have consistently defended the measures as necessary to safeguard stability and national sovereignty, rejecting external criticism as unwarranted interference.

Large crowds gathered in major cities including New York, Washington, Dallas and Los Angeles, while organizers said nearly two-thirds of events took place in smaller communities, marking a sharp expansion beyond urban centers.

The protests come months ahead of November’s midterm elections that will determine control of Congress.The rallies, the third in a series since last year, follow earlier demonstrations that drew millions of participants. Organizers linked the surge in turnout to opposition against Trump’s immigration crackdown, U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict, and broader concerns over democratic institutions.

In St. Paul, Minnesota, a key focal point amid immigration enforcement tensions, thousands gathered outside the state capitol. Governor Tim Walz told demonstrators their actions reflected “compassion” and “democracy,” while Senator Bernie Sanders warned against what he described as a drift toward authoritarianism.

In New York, actor Robert De Niro, one of the rally organizers, addressed a crowd stretching across multiple city blocks, saying no previous U.S. president had posed a comparable threat to civil liberties.

Musician Bruce Springsteen performed at the Minnesota event, debuting a protest ballad criticizing federal immigration actions.Participants cited a range of concerns, including deportation policies and recent military operations involving Iran.

Demonstrators in Washington gathered on the National Mall with pro-democracy slogans, while smaller groups, including elderly residents in Maryland, staged roadside protests urging resistance to what they termed “tyranny.”In Dallas, clashes broke out between demonstrators and counterprotesters, including a group linked to Enrique Tarrio.

Police reported several arrests after minor scuffles and street blockages.Authorities in Los Angeles also detained multiple individuals after protesters refused to disperse near a federal facility, with law enforcement deploying tear gas after objects were thrown.

Democratic support for the protests, describing them as extreme, while organizers defended the rallies as peaceful expressions of dissent.political stakes riseThe protests coincide with declining approval ratings for Trump, which fell to 36 percent, the lowest level since his return to office, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll.

Organizers say participation is rising even in traditionally Republican states, signaling broader political engagement ahead of the midterms.Leah Greenberg, co-founder of the Indivisible movement that organized the protests, said suburban districts critical to national elections are seeing heightened activity, reflecting growing mobilization among opposition voters.

The demonstrations were also framed by organizers as a response to ongoing military action involving Iran, now in its fourth week, adding a foreign policy dimension to domestic unrest.

The measures expand enforcement powers under the Hong Kong national security law, introduced by Beijing in 2020 following large-scale pro-democracy protests in the financial hub.

The latest amendments mandate that individuals hand over “any password or other decryption method” needed for police to access electronic devices believed to contain evidence.

The rules apply not only to those under investigation for national security offences but also to individuals who own, possess, or are authorized to access the relevant devices, as well as anyone with knowledge of the required passwords or decryption tools.

Failure to comply constitutes a criminal offence, marking a shift from previous practice, where refusal to unlock devices was not treated as obstruction.The amendments were formulated under the direction of Chief Executive John Lee in coordination with the National Security Commission.

A government spokesperson said the measures aim to ensure that activities endangering national security can be “effectively prevented, suppressed and punished,” while safeguarding the lawful rights and interests of individuals and organizations.

Hong Kong has further strengthened its legal framework with an additional security law enacted in 2024, complementing the broader legislation imposed after the 2019 unrest.

Ultimately, it raises questions of profound importance: Is it possible to transform a nation without resorting to bloodshed? 

The movement to ban the Awami League was hardly an isolated event; rather, it traced its origins to the student unrest that erupted in July 2024. Initial grievances focused on education policy, persistent corruption, and the burdens of economic hardship, but the agitation rapidly escalated into violence. 

The coalition of dissent widened as Islamist organizations and right-wing groups joined the mobilization, their rhetoric coalescing with that of newly formed student parties, National Citizen’s Party. The public discourse became saturated with serious allegations: both the Awami League and its student affiliate, the Chhatra League, faced blame for violent reprisals and the deaths of hundreds during the previous year’s protests. Over time, the demonstrators’ demands intensified. Calls emerged for the party to be designated a terrorist organization and for its leadership to be prosecuted before the International Crimes Tribunal.

This pressure culminated in a significant government response. Chief Advisor Muhammad Yunus declared the party banned under the Anti-Terrorism Act, pledging that the prohibition would remain until all charges had been legally examined. While many protesters celebrated this outcome, the broader atmosphere in Dhaka remained charged with anxiety and uncertainty. The Awami League, a party whose history is deeply intertwined with the founding of Bangladesh in 1971, now found itself the subject of condemnation and legal scrutiny by the very populace it once liberated from Pakistan. 

A Unique Protest to ban

The demonstration against the Awami League rapidly escalated into a deeply unsettling display of extremist fervour. Islamist groups, including those reported to have connections with organizations such as Al Qaida, became highly visible among the protesters. Notably, Mufti Jashimuddin Rahmani—a cleric widely recognized for his radical ideology—publicly brandished the flag of Islam, a symbol that, after years of association with violent acts, now carries significant and troubling connotations.

Representatives from Hizb ut-Tahrir, Hefazat-e-Islam, and associates of Rahmani with criminal convictions gathered, their collective presence casting an unmistakable pall over the city’s atmosphere. The demonstration fragmented with Jamaat E Islami and Islami Chatra Shibir; both groups chanted slogans like, “No Awami League in the land of Nizami, no Awami League in the land of Golam Azam,” referencing individuals convicted of war crimes in 1971 as if they were figures worthy of admiration and they owned Bengal. Another segment of the crowd escalated the rhetoric further, openly issuing death threats: “Catch and slaughter Awami League one by one.”

The environment became saturated with hostility—a manifestation not of peaceful political dissent, but of incitement to violence. At this point, the gathering ceased to resemble a lawful protest; rather, it devolved into a perilous spectacle in which the boundaries between legitimate calls for justice and extremist violence were dangerously obscured, seemingly fuelled by both state endorsement and radical zeal.

The Controversial Ban

The international community observed the unfolding events with marked concern. Human rights organizations, like Human Rights Watch characterized the ban on the Awami League as arbitrary, raising questions regarding the government’s intentions—was this a pursuit of justice, or an attempt to suppress dissent? The United Nations previously expressed alarm over banning what it described as diminishing civil liberties, while India openly voiced apprehension on democratic future as a response to the ban. 

The government justified its actions under the pretext of national security. Yet, this raised a crucial issue: who defines the parameters of security when the opposition is excluded from participation? Many questioned the legitimacy of a democracy that outlaws its oldest political party. The ban’s reach extended beyond politicians—it affected students, women, and entire communities. Such measures prompted debate over whether this constituted justice or amounted to collective punishment.

Tensions escalated throughout Dhaka; the disappearance of protestors and the retreat of supporters into clandestinity reflected the climate of fear and uncertainty. While some framed the crackdown as a necessary purge, most observers interpreted it as symptomatic of broader societal anxiety.

International actors, including foreign governments and NGOs, called for transparency, adherence to legal norms, and meaningful reforms. The interim government promised stability, yet the cost of such “order” remained ambiguous and contested.

This situation provokes reflection: Is this the outcome for which Bangladesh’s founders struggled in 1971, or does it represent a cyclical return to past traumas under new guises? When national symbols are suppressed and political expression is stifled, what remains of democratic governance?

Critics drew a distinction between punishing an organization and addressing criminal behaviour, underscoring the dangers of conflating the two. The world now watches closely, questioning who ultimately benefits from the absence of opposition, and who might be targeted next.

What’s next for Awami League?

The recent ban is undeniably severe, and the authorities’ response has been rigorous, even unyielding. Yet, as reported by Voice of America, public sentiment does not overwhelmingly align with the ban. Notably, in district bar elections, lawyers affiliated with the Awami League performed unexpectedly well. However, in many districts the interim Government forced them not to participate. Online surveys continue to indicate that the party retains substantial support, frequently leading in popularity. So, is this a conclusion, or merely another episode in a protracted political journey?

Historically, the party has confronted similar obstacles. After 1975, the Awami League operated clandestinely but ultimately re-emerged, playing a pivotal role in the 1990 movement for democracy. At present, many of its leaders are in hiding; their residences have been ransacked and their financial assets frozen. Some face threats of violence, torture, and live under persistent fear. Nevertheless, history offers important lessons. The Awami League was conceived in resistance, matured in secrecy, and spearheaded the independence war of 1971. The critical question is whether such resilience can be summoned once again.

Arguably, this period represents one of the most formidable challenges the party has faced. Growing anti-incumbency sentiment and the ban itself are compelling the organization to reassess its strategy and reconnect with foundational principles. This moment calls for a renewed study of Mujib’s legacy, the pre-independence struggle, and the dynamics of political survival. Operating covertly, the party must reorganize, adapt, and remain patient heading for a Non-violent cultural revolution. 

A non-violent cultural revolution, at its core, does not emerge through slogans or public altercations. Instead, it finds its genesis in artistic expression—music, poetry, and the collective act of remembering. Such change germinates in intimate gatherings, within the retelling of stories about figures like Mujib and the struggles of founding leaders, and in the songs that once served as a unifying force for the nation.

Both the young and the elderly revisit historical narratives, not for the sake of lamentation, but to derive lessons about resistance that is devoid of animosity. Art, within this context, evolves into a vehicle for protest, while protest, conversely, assumes the qualities of art. This form of revolution proliferates in educational spaces, in casual conversations at tea stalls, and within the quiet but resolute refusal to embrace violence. Ultimately, it raises questions of profound importance: Is it possible to transform a nation without resorting to bloodshed? 

The Awami League has demonstrated a remarkable capacity for cultural and political resurgence in the past. Whether it can transform present adversity into renewed opportunity is a new challenge. Ultimately, as has so often been the case in Bangladesh, the outcome will be difficult, but the grand return is far from over. 

Disclaimer: Views expressed by writers in this section are their own and do not reflect Milli Chronicle’s point-of-view.

The Brotherhood’s double game — peaceful reformist by day, radical ideologue by night — is not new, but it’s growing bolder.

By all measures, the recent arrest of 16 individuals linked to the Muslim Brotherhood in Jordan marks a seismic shift in how the group operates — and how seriously it must be treated. The foiled plot wasn’t a back-alley operation by a fringe group.

According to Dalia Al-Aqidi, executive director at the American Center for Counter Extremism, it was a coordinated network with training and funding allegedly sourced from Lebanon. The arrests unearthed a drone manufacturing site and even a rocket ready for launch — right inside the Kingdom.

This wasn’t just a domestic security scare. It’s a flashing red light to the international community: the Muslim Brotherhood is neither dormant nor defeated. It is evolving.

For Jordan, a country that has maintained a delicate balance of internal stability despite a turbulent neighborhood, this plot comes with chilling implications. Even more so because it arrives just months after the Brotherhood’s political arm, the Islamic Action Front, gained traction in the 2024 parliamentary elections. That coincidence is not lost on observers.

Al-Aqidi is blunt in her assessment: the same organization that runs for office with talk of reform is preparing to launch attacks behind the scenes.

The Brotherhood’s double game — peaceful reformist by day, radical ideologue by night — is not new, but it’s growing bolder. It has long perfected the art of political shapeshifting: invoking religion to gain street-level credibility in the Middle East, while adopting the language of democracy and civil rights in the West.

But as Al-Aqidi argues, this is not benign activism. The Brotherhood’s true objective remains unchanged since its founding: a society governed by Islamist Shariah law. The only difference is that, increasingly, it chooses ballots and influence operations over bombs — until, of course, it doesn’t. Violence remains on the table, as Jordan’s recent near-miss shows.

In the U.S., Canada, and Europe, Brotherhood-linked organizations have taken root in civil society — as charities, student groups, lobbying arms and community voices.

According to Al-Aqidi, these groups silence moderate Muslim voices and weaponize terms like “Islamophobia” to deflect scrutiny. It’s not just rhetoric, she insists — it’s a strategy, one that undermines the foundations of liberal democracy from within.

Even more alarming is what she describes as a “convenience coalition” forming between radical Islamists and far-left activists. Their ideologies may differ wildly, but their shared animosity toward the West — particularly America and Israel — provides a common enemy and fertile ground for coordinated disruption.

Yet, despite mounting evidence and repeated warnings from Middle Eastern allies, the West — particularly the United States — has hesitated to act. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE have designated the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization. Washington has not.

Al-Aqidi argues this is due to “willful ignorance and political convenience” — a misplaced hope that the Brotherhood is a “moderate” firewall against more extreme terror groups.

But history says otherwise. The ideological DNA of terror groups like Hamas, Al-Qaeda, and Daesh can be traced directly back to the Muslim Brotherhood. It is not a firewall — it is the foundation.

The time for diplomatic hedging is over, Al-Aqidi urges. She calls on the U.S. government to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as a foreign terrorist organization and to investigate the network of nonprofits and advocacy groups that operate as its front. The aim, she says, is not to stifle religion but to confront a radical ideology masquerading as reform.

Jordan’s discovery was not just a domestic police action — it was a siren call for the global community. The Muslim Brotherhood remains highly organized, deeply ideological, and dangerously underestimated.

The West cannot afford to keep its eyes shut. Inaction isn’t just apathy — it’s surrender.