Connect with us

World

What’s South Africa’s new school language law and why is it controversial?

Published

on

What’s South Africa’s new school language law and why is it controversial?

A new education law in South Africa is dividing lawmakers and sparking angry emotions in a country with a complex racial and linguistic history.

Last Friday, President Cyril Ramaphosa signed the Basic Education Laws Amendment (BELA) bill into law but suspended the implementation of two hotly contested sections for at least three months for further consultations among opposing government factions.

Authorities insist that the law will make education more equitable. Stark economic inequalities in South Africa have contributed to lower literacy and post-school opportunities for the country’s Black majority. By 2022, even though 34.7 percent of Black teenagers had completed secondary school – up from 9.4 percent in 1996 – only 9.3 percent of Black people had a tertiary education. By comparison, 39.8 percent of the white population had a tertiary education.

“The law that we are signing today further opens the doors of learning. It lays a firm foundation for learning from an early age … It will ensure young children are better prepared for formal schooling,” Ramaphosa said during the signing event in Pretoria.

But critics of the law, mainly from the Afrikaans-speaking community, argue that clauses strengthening the government’s oversight over school language and admission policies would threaten mother-tongue education.

Advertisement

Here’s what to know about BELA and why some groups disagree with parts of the law:

What’s BELA and why is it controversial?

The new amendment modifies older school laws in the country: the South African Schools Act of 1996 and the Employment of Educators Act of 1998.

It includes new provisions, such as a ban on corporal punishment for children, jail terms for parents who fail to send their children to school, compulsory grade levels for children starting school, and increased scrutiny for homeschooling.

However, Sections 4 and 5, which regulate languages of instruction in school, and school admission policies, are causing upheaval among Afrikaans-speaking minority groups.

The clauses allow schools to develop and choose their languages of instruction out of South Africa’s 11 official languages, as well as their admissions policy. However, it also gives the National Department of Basic Education the final authority, allowing it to override any decisions. Until now, school boards had the highest authority on languages and admissions.

Advertisement

Authorities in the past have cited how some schools exclude children, especially from Black communities, based on their inability to speak Afrikaans as one reason for the policy update.

Following South Africa’s break from apartheid, Black parents were allowed to send their children to better-funded, previously white-only schools where Afrikaans was often the main instruction language.

Some Black parents, however, claimed their wards were denied placements because they did not speak Afrikaans. Accusations of racism in school placements continue to be an issue: in January 2023, scores of Black parents protested in front of the Laerskool Danie Malan, a school in Pretoria that largely uses Afrikaans and Setswana (another official African language), claiming their children were denied for “racist” reasons. However, the school authorities rejected the claim, and other Black parents confirmed to local media that their children attended the institution.

Members of the South African Teachers Union, the African National Congress, and the Congress of South African Students march against the language and admission policies at a majority Afrikaans-speaking school they claimed were discriminatory in 2018 [File: Gulshan Khan/AFP]

Why are some Afrikaans speakers upset over BELA?

Some Afrikaans speakers say the new law threatens their language and, by extension, their culture and identity. Afrikaans-speaking schools also accuse the authorities of pressuring them to instruct in English.

Afrikaans is a mixture of Dutch vernacular, German and native Khoisan languages, which developed in the 18th century. It is predominantly spoken in South Africa by about 13 percent of the 100 million population. They include people from the multiracial “coloured” community (50 percent) and white descendants of Dutch settlers (40 percent).

Advertisement

Some Black people (9 percent) and South African Indians (1 percent) also speak Afrikaans, particularly those who lived through apartheid South Africa, when the language was more widely used in business and schools. It is more commonly spoken in the Northern and Western Cape provinces.

Of a total of 23,719 public schools, 2,484 — more than 10 percent — use Afrikaans as their sole or second language of instruction, while the vast majority teach in English. Some Afrikaans speakers argue that giving locally elected officials more power to determine a school’s language will politicise the matter and could lead to fewer schools teaching in Afrikaans. Many also fault the section of the law that allows government officials to override admissions policy.

“There is only a government of national disunity,” one commenter posted on the website of the South African newspaper Daily Maverick on Friday about the divisions within the coalition Government of National Unity (GNU) that have emerged amid the language row.

“By opting to destroy Afrikaans and Afrikaans schools and universities, the ANC and Cyril are making a mockery of unity. This is what happens if the provincial department can unilaterally control the admission of learners and language mediums at schools,” the commenter said, referring to Ramaphosa and his party, the African National Congress (ANC).

Last week, Agriculture Minister John Steenhuisen, who is the leader of the Democratic Alliance (DA), the second-largest party in the GNU, condemned the government’s decision to move ahead with the bill despite reservations among the ANC’s coalition partners.

Advertisement

The politician, who is Afrikaner, also threatened a tit-for-tat response if the law is eventually signed as is.

“The DA will have to consider all of our options on the way forward … Any leader who tries to ride roughshod over their partners will pay the price – because a time will come when the shoe is on the other foot, and they will need the understanding of those same partners in turn,” he said.

Education Minister Siviwe Garube, a Black member of the DA, did not attend the signing ceremony in Pretoria in a show of defiance.

Youth day
Children at the Hector Pieterson Memorial in Soweto observe the iconic image taken by photographer Sam Nzima on June 16, 1976, when apartheid police shot dead Black schoolchildren protesting against Afrikaans as a medium of instruction in their schools [File: Themba Hadebe/AP Photo]

What is the history of school language controversies in South Africa?

Afrikaans is historically emotive in South Africa, dating back to British colonial rule.

To some, Afrikaans represents self-determination, but to many more, particularly in the Black community, it evokes memories of the brutal days of segregation and apartheid.

Originally, Afrikaans was regarded as an unsophisticated version of Standard Dutch. It was called “kitchen Dutch”, referencing the enslaved Cape populations who spoke it in the kitchen and to their settler masters. In the late 1800s, after the first and second Boer wars that saw Dutch settlers or “Boers” fight their British colonists and win independence, Afrikaans came to be regarded as a language of freedom for the white population. In 1925, it was adopted as an official language.

Advertisement

During the apartheid years, however, Afrikaans became synonymous with oppression for the majority Black population which faced the worst forms of subjugation under the system. Some scholars note (PDF) that the apartheid government uprooted Black families from urban areas to destitute self-governed “Bantustans” (homelands) partly based on their inability to speak the two official languages at the time, Afrikaans and English.

Most Black schools in South Africa at the time taught in English, as it was regarded as the language for Black emancipation. However, the government attempted to impose both English and Afrikaans as compulsory medium languages in schools starting from 1961.

That move ignited a series of student protests in June 1976 in the majority-Black community of Soweto, where the policy was meant to be implemented first. Between 176 and 700 people were killed when apartheid security forces used deadly force on schoolchildren in what is now known as the Soweto Uprising.

Apartheid authorities rescinded the language policy in July 1976. When Black schools were allowed to choose their medium of education, more than 90 percent opted for English. None chose the other African languages, such as Xhosa or Zulu, which the apartheid government had also pushed: it was seen as a measure to promote tribalism and divide the Black community. In addition to those, the country’s other official languages are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, Siswati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga and Ndebele.

What’s next?

Authorities say the different arms of government will debate Sections 4 and 5 for the next three months. However, barring a resolution, the law will fully be implemented as is, President Ramaphosa said.

Advertisement

Meanwhile, Afrikaner rights groups such as the AfriForum, have declared they will contest the decision in court. The group has been described as having “racist” leanings, although it denies this.

“Afrikaans has already been eroded in the country’s public universities in a similar way,” Alana Bailey, AfriForum’s cultural affairs head, said in a statement last week.

“The shrinking number of schools that still use Afrikaans as a language of instruction now is the next target. AfriForum is therefore preparing for both national and international legal action to oppose this,” she added.

World

War breaking news. Trump postpones decision: nothing after two hours in Situation Room

Published

on

War breaking news. Trump postpones decision: nothing after two hours in Situation Room

Iran, Trump shares draft agreement with Israel and other allies

US President Donald Trump has circulated the draft peace agreement for the war with Iran among allies, including Israel, while attempts are underway to prevent new ceasefire violations from escalating and derailing any agreement. Meanwhile, in an effort to accelerate negotiations, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Mohammad Ishaq Dar, will be in Washington today to meet with his US counterpart, Marco Rubio.

Yesterday, Tehran targeted a US air base in Kuwait after Washington struck what it called an Iranian drone operation near the Strait of Hormuz, highlighting the fragility of the situation as both negotiating parties refuse to give in on the final points of disagreement. On Wednesday, Trump’s cabinet was scheduled to discuss the deal, but Axios – which reported on the terms of the deal reached – reported that the US president needed a few more days to reflect on the eventual go-ahead.

The draft shared by Trump is not much different from the one that has been circulating in the Middle East for days, according to which the Strait of Hormuz would be reopened to commercial shipping, the US blockade of Iranian ports would be lifted, and Iran would be granted access to some $12 billion (£9 billion) in frozen assets.

Advertisement

The goal would be to restore cross-strait commercial traffic to pre-war levels within 30 days and to begin negotiations, expected to last up to 60 days, on the future of Iran’s nuclear programme. These would include discussions on the stockpile of highly enriched uranium, a temporary suspension of further enrichment, and supervision by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog. Iran would renounce the use of nuclear weapons.

US Vice-President JD Vance said yesterday that both sides were close to an agreement, but that a couple of sticking points persisted in talks with Tehran concerning enriched uranium stockpiles and the enrichment issue. “It is difficult to say exactly when, or if, the president will sign” the memorandum of understanding. “We are still discussing a couple of points related to the wording,” Vance said.

China is lobbying the UN Security Council to ratify any agreement. The current scope of the deal would be deeply unacceptable to Israel because it postpones any final nuclear commitment by Iran and requires a permanent ceasefire that includes Lebanon, the Guardian reported

Direct military negotiations between Israel and Lebanon start today at the Pentagon

Advertisement

The first direct meeting between Lebanese and Israeli military delegations opens today at the Pentagon as part of the negotiations promoted by the United States after the truce that came into effect, at least on paper, in mid-April. The talks take place while Israel intensifies raids and bombardments in Lebanon, including the southern suburbs of Beirut. The Jewish state has issued several forced displacement orders to Israeli civilians in Nabatiye and Tyre, the two main Lebanese cities in the south of the country. Beirut’s armed forces come to the table with a position defined by President Joseph Aoun, who is considered close to the United States: a complete ceasefire, an end to Israeli operations, withdrawal from the occupied areas in the south, and increased army deployment along the border. Beirut also demands the release of Lebanese prisoners, the return of displaced persons, and international support for reconstruction. The meeting follows two previous negotiating sessions held in Washington on 14 and 15 May, which led to the extension of the ‘truce’ for 45 days. The United States, engaged in large-scale negotiations with Hezbollah supporter Iran, is aiming to strengthen direct military coordination between the two sides. In this sense, a new political round at the State Department is scheduled for 2 and 3 June. However, the most delicate knot remains on the table: Israel claims the right to conduct preventive operations against threats considered imminent, a formula contested by Beirut and at the centre of internal Lebanese tensions. At the same time, Washington continues to exert pressure on the Hezbollah disarmament dossier, while the Shiite movement reiterates its rejection of direct negotiations and continues its operations against the Israeli occupation forces in southern Lebanon. According to data gathered from Lebanese sources, more than 4,500 Israeli violations, more than 5,500 homes destroyed, and direct or indirect Israeli military control over more than 65 locations in South Lebanon have been recorded since the start of the mid-April ‘truce’.

Emir Qatar hears Trump, ‘priority to political and diplomatic solutions’

Qatar’s Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani has asked US President Donald Trump to “prioritise political and diplomatic solutions” in the Middle East, in the context of negotiations between Washington and Tehran for a possible agreement. The request came during a phone call between the two leaders, during which international efforts to reduce tensions in the region were addressed. This was reported by the Qatari state agency Qna. Al Thani emphasised ‘the need to prioritise political and diplomatic solutions, as well as dialogue between all parties, to consolidate regional security and stability and avoid further tensions and escalation’. Washington meanwhile confirmed an agreement in principle with Iran to extend the 60-day truce and guarantee shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, but the understanding remains pending Trump’s approval and has not yet been confirmed by Tehran.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Pentagon hosts first-ever Israeli–Lebanese military talks aimed at curbing Hezbollah

Published

on

Pentagon hosts first-ever Israeli–Lebanese military talks aimed at curbing Hezbollah

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Israeli and Lebanese military delegations opened Pentagon-mediated talks Friday morning in Washington, launching a new U.S.-brokered security coordination track aimed at preventing renewed escalation along the Israel–Lebanon border and shoring up a fragile ceasefire reached in mid-April.

A State Department official told Fox News Digital that, “As we have continuously stated, the only path to lasting peace is through direct negotiations between the two sovereign governments.”

The discussions mark a shift from diplomatic negotiations into direct military coordination, with talks expected to focus on ceasefire enforcement, border stability, Israeli withdrawal from parts of southern Lebanon and the role of the Lebanese Armed Forces in containing Hezbollah.

ISRAEL MOVES TOWARDS CEASEFIRE DEAL WITH HEZBOLLAH: REPORTS

Advertisement

Michael Needham, counselor for the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, U.S. Ambassador to Lebanon Michel Issa, Lebanese Ambassador to the U.S. Nada Hamadeh Moawad, and Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Yechiel Leiter pose for a photo before a meeting at the State Department in Washington, D.C., on April 14, 2026. (Jacquelyn Martin/AP Photo)

The talks come weeks after a U.S.-brokered ceasefire first reached during the broader regional conflict tied to the U.S.–Iran war. While large-scale fighting has eased, Israeli forces continue operating inside parts of southern Lebanon and Hezbollah maintains drone and rocket capabilities, keeping tensions high along the border.

The ceasefire was extended on May 15 for another 45 days, creating pressure on both sides to show progress before the current arrangement expires.

But analysts say the central question overshadowing the talks is whether Lebanon can realistically curb Hezbollah’s military power without risking internal collapse.

“This will be the first meeting between representatives of the militaries since the start of the negotiation process between Lebanon and Israel,” Ahmed Sharawi, a research analyst at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, told Fox News Digital.

Advertisement

Representing Lebanon in the talks is Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) commander Gen. Rodolphe Haykal, who previously served as commander of the Lebanese Armed Forces in southern Lebanon, an area where Hezbollah maintains a strong presence. Hezbollah is the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist organization designated by the United States as a foreign terrorist organization. 

“What we should expect is talks regarding de-confliction and what the expectations are for the LAF in terms of the broader disarmament plan against Hezbollah’s weapons,” he said.

Sharawi said the chances of a broader breakthrough remain limited so long as Hezbollah remains heavily armed and politically entrenched inside Lebanon.

“The biggest obstacle here is that the Lebanese state is yet to present a feasible plan to disarm Hezbollah,” he said.

LAWMAKERS QUESTION WHETHER US MOVING FAST ENOUGH TO CAPITALIZE ON HEZBOLLAH’S WEAKENED STATE

Advertisement

But analysts say the central question overshadowing the talks is whether Lebanon can realistically curb Hezbollah’s military power without risking internal collapse.  (Ibrahim AMRO / AFP via Getty Images)

He pointed to the terms of the November 2024 ceasefire agreement, which placed responsibility for disarming Hezbollah on the Lebanese state.

“We are yet to see the confiscation of one single bullet from Hezbollah,” Sharawi said.

He also warned that Hezbollah’s deep support among Lebanon’s Shiite population complicates any attempt to move toward normalization with Israel.

“There’s a fear of a civil war,” he said. “That also accounts for the Lebanese state’s unwillingness to disarm Hezbollah.”

Advertisement

The talks opened as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu signaled Israel intends to maintain military pressure on Hezbollah despite the negotiations.

Sharawi argued the Trump administration nevertheless appears determined to push the process forward as part of a broader effort to weaken Iranian influence in the region.

“The reason behind these meetings is that President Trump is really trying to push for a peace agreement between Israel and Lebanon,” he said. “Peace between these two countries could really undermine Hezbollah and its influence in Lebanon.”

WALTZ SAYS TRUMP HAS CREATED ‘BEST CHANCE IN OUR LIFETIME’ TO BREAK HEZBOLLAH’S GRIP ON LEBANON

Churches in the southern Lebanese town of Rmeish remained standing throughout the conflict, as residents say the community resisted Hezbollah attempts to launch rockets from the area. (Jusoor News)

Advertisement

Israeli analysts similarly described the talks less as a breakthrough and more as a strategic signal aimed at Hezbollah.

“The war between us and Hezbollah is continuing,” Yossi Kuperwasser, senior project manager at the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security and former head of the Research Division of Israeli Military Intelligence, told Fox News Digital.

“There is no doubt the Lebanese government does not have a monopoly on the use of force in Lebanon,” he said.

‘OVERBLOWN’ REPORTS ON ISRAEL–LEBANON NORMALIZATION RISK HINDERING BORDER TALKS BEFORE THEY BEGIN: OFFICIAL

IDF troops discovered a Hezbollah weapons cache near a UNIFIL post in southern Lebanon in 2024. (IDF Spokesman’s Unit)

Advertisement

Kuperwasser said expectations for an immediate diplomatic breakthrough should remain low, but argued the talks themselves send an important political message.

“The purpose of these talks is first and foremost to send a message to Hezbollah and also to the Americans,” he said. “Both sides are prepared to sit together against Hezbollah and signal that they are moving, even if slowly, toward normalization between Israel and Lebanon.”

He argued Hezbollah has been weakened politically and militarily by the ongoing conflict and by growing frustration among Lebanese civilians displaced by the fighting.

“For years Hezbollah portrayed itself as the defender of Lebanon,” Kuperwasser said. “Now many Lebanese see Hezbollah as responsible for the suffering Lebanon is experiencing.”

Kuperwasser added that while Israel supports strengthening the Lebanese army, Beirut fears direct confrontation with Hezbollah could ignite another civil war.

Advertisement

“The Lebanese government fears military action against Hezbollah would lead to civil war,” he said. “That fear shapes everything.”

The talks also come amid mounting domestic pressure inside Israel, where critics of Netanyahu have accused the government of pursuing containment rather than decisive military victory against Hezbollah.

Speaking Friday during a visit to Israel’s northern front, Netanyahu said Israeli forces had crossed the Litani River and were operating across multiple parts of Lebanon. 

“We are operating in Beirut, in the Bekaa Valley, across the entire front and striking Hezbollah hard,” Netanyahu said.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

A woman holds her dog as she walks past burned cars a day after an Israeli airstrike in Beirut, Lebanon, on April 9, 2026. (Emilio Morenatti/AP)

Meanwhile, Lebanon’s leadership is attempting to balance growing American pressure with fears of internal instability and renewed sectarian conflict.

Neither the Israeli Embassy in Washington nor the Lebanese Embassy in Washington immediately responded to requests for comment. The Pentagon did not have anything to add when asked to comment. 

Continue Reading

World

Israel, Russia among new additions on UN sexual violence ‘blacklist’

Published

on

Israel, Russia among new additions on UN sexual violence ‘blacklist’

The United Nations has confirmed it placed Israel on a blacklist of countries suspected of committing sexual violence against civilians, and pushed back on accusations made by Israel regarding its inclusion.

The list, part of a “conflict-related sexual violence” report released on Friday, prompted Israel’s foreign ministry to say it would sever all ties with UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

Last August, the UN cited “credible information” regarding sexual violence committed by Israeli security forces against Palestinian detainees in prisons and other detention centres, and said UN inspectors had been denied access to the facilities.

“We invited the representative of the UN to come to Israel to check those ridiculous allegations. They chose not to come,” Israel’s UN Ambassador Danny Danon posted on X on Thursday.

“I never received an iota of information on measures taken by the government of Israel on implementation of the preventive measures,” Pramila Patten, the UN official who authored the report, told reporters on Friday at a briefing at the UN’s New York headquarters.

Advertisement

“I have made several requests in writing, and sometimes during meetings, for details about initial steps, including the issuance of orders of command information on access and information on accountability measures, but I did not get any response on the substantive aspect of the preventive measures,” she added.

Patten did confirm that there had been an invitation from Israel, but referred also to disagreements about the scope of the visit and related issues of access and cooperation, and said it ultimately had to be suspended due to Israel’s war on Gaza.

‘Multiple incidents’ in Gaza and occupied West Bank

This year’s report ⁠said that in 2025 “the United Nations verified multiple incidents of conflict-related sexual violence, including as a form of torture, inflicted against 14 men, seven women, nine boys and one girl from the Gaza Strip and the [occupied] West Bank.”

It said 13 of the attacks happened last year, and 18 in 2023 and 2024.

“Violations consisted ⁠of rape, including with objects, gang rape, attempted rape, physical violence to the genitals, instances of targeted shooting of the genitals, touching ⁠of breasts and genitals, strip and cavity searches conducted without apparent security justification, forced nudity and threats of rape,” it said.

Advertisement

“Rape and gang rape, in some cases repeated, were perpetrated against nine victims, the majority Palestinians from Gaza,” it said, adding that perpetrators included Israeli armed and security forces. The assaults occurred primarily during detention and interrogation in several sites, including military camps, at checkpoints and during Israeli military operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory.

It said survivors included journalists and human rights defenders and in some cases, the violations were filmed or photographed, including one case of rape.

The report added that sexual violence against female detainees included mostly threats of rape, forced nudity, unwanted touching, and humiliating or degrading strip searches without justification, while men and boys were targeted with rape, attempted rape and violence to the genitals.

This resulted in five male victims suffering severe rectal bleeding or swelling for multiple days or ‌weeks, ‌it added.

Russia added to list alongside Israel

The latest UN report also contains harrowing descriptions of abuses at the hands of Russia’s military after “findings of continued patterns of sexual violence documented”.

Advertisement

The UN human rights monitoring mission in Ukraine had verified 310 cases of conflict-related sexual violence perpetrated by Russian armed and security forces.

It said the cases, including rape, gang rape, genital mutilation, electric shocks and beatings to the genitals, injured 280 men, 26 women and four girls.

The report’s annex lists 77 parties deemed responsible for patterns of conflict-related sexual violence, including 62 non-state actors.

New additions include three non-state armed groups operating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Nearly 10,000 cases of conflict-related sexual violence were recorded worldwide last year – more than double the previous year’s figure, the report said.

Advertisement

Being added to the list does not automatically carry specific punitive measures such as sanctions, although public naming and shaming can cause significant reputational damage for the ‌states involved, and those repeatedly listed are barred from UN peacekeeping operations.

Patten said the increase in cases of conflict-related sexual violence verified by the United Nations marks a very disturbing trend that was still only the “very tip of the iceberg”.

“This number can ⁠be attributed to the fact that we are going through a time when we have a record number of extremely violent conflicts, and the fact that perpetrators are feeling emboldened by a context of impunity, where this crime is almost cost-free,” she said.

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending