Laurent Soucaille wrote on 2 March 2026 for the New African Magazine that “African press cartoonists are making greater use of social media. While this allows them to escape certain forms of censorship, they are still subject to threats.“
These are difficult times for cartoonists and press caricaturists concludes a report published on 2 March 2026 under the authority of UNESCO and compiled by various press freedom organisations, including Cartooning for Peace and Reporters Without Borders. The report highlights violations of the right to caricature, even in countries that were previously considered ‘free’, foremost among them the United States. Of course, the most serious violations are found in the Middle East, Russia and China, not to mention the specific cases of Gaza and Ukraine. The situation has deteriorated particularly badly in Turkey and India, the authors lament.
In Africa, the situation is more mixed: a multitude of online media outlets have emerged in recent years, opening up new space for cartoonists, while opportunities are becoming scarcer in the traditional press. ‘In addition, many cartoonists have been able to use social media as a means of dissemination, notably by creating memes,’ notes Kenyan journalist Patrick Gathara, himself a cartoonist.
However, he acknowledges that over the past two years, the situation for African cartoonists has become tense, particularly in East and Southern Africa. In Kenya, in December 2024, the mysterious disappearance of Kibet Bull, who was released a month later, ‘marked a dangerous escalation in the state’s response to online reaction’. The case of the cartoonist, who was admittedly not very complimentary towards President William Ruto, ‘fits into a broader context of abductions targeting online influencers during a period of heightened political tension’.
Other cases are symptomatic, such as that of Jimmy Spire, known as ‘Ssentongo’, in Uganda. The cartoonist echoed a campaign denouncing the deterioration of public services in Kampala, attracting both the hostility of the authorities and the support of human rights defenders in his country and in the West. The cartoonist became both an influential civil society actor and a journalist vulnerable to pressure and threats.
The report also mentions Congolese cartoonist Kayene, who died in Rwanda in 2024. ‘His case highlights the precarious situation of cartoonists working across borders in a region where protection frameworks for artists at risk remain weak, informal and unreliable,’ comments Patrick Gathara.
In South Africa, legal and institutional pressures are the main threat. In a country where freedom of expression is protected, cartoonists are less exposed to violence but remain vulnerable to defamation lawsuits, political intimidation, editorial caution or ‘fabricated public outrage’.
This phenomenon affects many countries around the world, where the intended effect of cartoons aimed at a select readership is exaggerated and distorted on social media. ‘It takes a lot of determination to be a satirical cartoonist today. It’s no longer enough to have talent and ideas, you also need the energy to defend them and endure being insulted and vilified by thousands of internet users,’ says Riss, editor-in-chief of Charlie Hebdo, the French satirical weekly magazine.
With regard to North Africa, it is not surprising that the report expresses concern about threats to press freedom, and therefore to cartoonists, in Egypt. ‘Pre-trial detention is becoming a new weapon for the regime to silence those who inform and debate, through the abuse of anti-terrorism laws,’ the report states indignantly.
Across the continent, the document – which does not claim to be exhaustive – summarises three major trends that characterise a ‘rapidly changing’ landscape. First, cartoonists are increasingly seen as political actors. From Kenya to Nigeria to Zimbabwe, ‘the majority of political elites view visual satire as a form of mobilisation rather than commentary’.
As online youth movements organise, cartoons often become ‘symbols of rallying, making cartoonists early and visible targets of repression,’ the report summarises.
Secondly, it notes that ‘soft censorship’ is developing more rapidly than open violence; while kidnappings and threats persist, governments and institutions are increasingly turning to bureaucratic or reputation-damaging tools. These threats relate to accreditations, take the form of investigations by professional bodies, bans and suspensions of newspapers, defamation lawsuits and online smear campaigns. Not to mention very broad interpretations of laws relating to ‘insults’ or ‘cybercrime’. As a result, “these more discreet control mechanisms create a climate of fear and self-censorship while avoiding the scrutiny of the rest of the world, which is more sensitive to physical repression. ”
Thirdly, the report points out, digital platforms have both increased the reach and the risks. Most African cartoonists now publish mainly on social media. While this allows them to bypass traditional editorial filters, it also exposes them to direct state surveillance, harassment by bots and political control. In this context, ‘virality promotes influence, but also vulnerability’ for press cartoonists.
By publishing mainly on social media, African cartoonists bypass traditional editorial filters, but are nonetheless exposed to direct state surveillance, harassment by bots and political control.
A woman holds up a blank sheet of paper during a demonstration against China’s strict COVID-19 lockdown measures following the deadly apartment fire in Urumqi, Xinjiang. (Photo by Frederic J. BROWN / AFP via Getty Images)
Democracy activists often face arrest, exile, harassment, or retaliation against their families. This essay explains why NED protects sensitive information about grantees, how that duty of care supports the people advancing freedom, and how NED balances discretion with accountability.
Imagine living in a place where a knock at the door in the middle of the night could mean imprisonment, or worse. This is the daily reality for countless democracy and human rights activists around the world. Their bravery makes their work not only meaningful, but also deeply consequential.
The National Endowment for Democracy (NED) supports those working to strengthen fundamental freedoms in transitional and fragile democracies, as well as those bravely advancing freedom in closed societies. Our grantmaking focuses on the building blocks of democratic life—free elections, independent media, and the freedoms of association, speech, and belief. Just as important, however, is our responsibility to protect the individuals who make that work possible.
This primer offers an overview of why NED carefully manages information about its grantees, including what is shared publicly, what is provided to Congressional oversight bodies, and how discretion underpins the safety and viability of those we support. Activists face vastly different risks depending on their location, visibility, and the tactics of the regimes they confront. Supporting democracy means protecting those who fight for it, including respecting their choices about public visibility to ensure their safety.
Why Public Exposure Can Be Dangerous
Speaking out in many parts of the world can mean risking arrest, exile, or death. According to Freedom House, only about one in five countries around the world is rated “free,” while The Economist’s Intelligence Unit has found that only 25 countries today qualify as full democracies. For the vast majority living under authoritarian or hybrid regimes, even symbolic acts of dissent, like holding up a blank piece of paper, can lead to life-disrupting consequences.
Authoritarian regimes understand the power of dissent and the threat posed by those who dare to speak. That’s why they’ve developed increasingly sophisticated methods to target activists, journalists, human rights lawyers, and civil society leaders, both inside their borders and abroad. Their reach extends across continents, threatening those in exile through transnational repression and those at home through direct prosecution.
The following stories from grantees illustrate why NED’s approach to protection must adapt to the risks posed by both transnational repression and direct prosecution.
Rushan Abbas at the 2025 Democracy Awards. (Photo: M.K. Mindful Media)
Case Study: Rushan Abbas and the CCP’s Hostage Diplomacy
Rushan Abbas, founder of Campaign for Uyghurs and a NED grantee, gave her first public speech about China’s abuses in Xinjiang in 2018. Her husband’s entire family had already vanished in the 2017 crackdown. Just six days after her speech, her sister, Dr. Gulshan Abbas, a retired medical doctor with no political ties, also disappeared.
“She was being targeted because of my advocacy,” Abbas said. “Every day I wake up with her eyes in my mind. Of course, I feel guilty. Speaking out in the United States as an American citizen cost my sister her freedom.”
To this day, Dr. Gulshan Abbas remains missing in China’s vast detention system—her only ”crime” being related to someone who exposed the CCP’s abuses. This brutal form of hostage diplomacy forces exiled activists into an impossible choice: stay silent or risk their loved ones’ safety.
Case Study: Natalia Arno and the Kremlin’s Transnational Reach
Natalia Arno (Photo by THOMAS SAMSON/AFP via Getty Images)
Natalia Arno, president of the Free Russia Foundation and a longtime NED partner, was forced into exile from Russia in 2012. Since then, she’s been a leading voice in exile activism, advocating for political prisoners, supporting democratic leaders, and coordinating programs to hold the Putin regime accountable.
But in May 2023, after a private event in Prague, she returned to her hotel to find the door ajar and a strange scent inside the room. Hours later, she experienced numbness, pain, and blurred vision. Doctors in Washington, D.C. confirmed exposure to nerve toxins.
“I never could have believed the scale and brazenness and how long the Kremlin tentacles are into the West,” she said. Despite years of surveillance and intimidation, Arno continues her work. “You could lose your life,” she said, listing examples of poisoned, tortured, and murdered activists. “I have been in this game for 20 years, and I can write a book about all the kinds of attacks against me in Russia.”
Activism in Exile and Under Authoritarian Rule
Authoritarian regimes target democracy advocates in two primary ways. Activists working inside authoritarian states face direct repression: denial of employment, education or housing to surveillance, interrogation, imprisonment, or death. Activists living in exile, such as members of the diaspora, confront transnational repression: intimidation, harassment, cyberattacks, and retaliation against relatives still living under dictatorship.
While both forms of courage are vital to the cause of freedom, they require different kinds of protection. For activists in exile like Abbas and Arno, visibility can be both a tool and a vulnerability—they use their public platforms to build international support while enduring harassment and threats from afar. For those working quietly inside repressive states, even the faintest association with democracy support can result in severe consequences. NED’s Duty of Care and Do-Not-Disclose policies reflect this spectrum of risk, providing flexible protections appropriate to different contexts, roles, and levels of exposure.
Visibility and Risk in Democracy Activism
Activists face difficult decisions about how visible they can afford to be. For some who live in exile, like Abbas and Arno, activism is essential to raising awareness and building international support. As public figures in free societies, they can testify before lawmakers, engage journalists, and speak on behalf of silenced communities. But even in freedom, visibility comes with the danger of transnational repression.
Abbas has faced smear campaigns, online harassment, and death threats requiring FBI involvement. Her family in China has been targeted. “Those kinds of things actually became so normal because we face this almost weekly or monthly,” she said. “And we just laugh at it and take it as the impact of our work.”
Arno’s risks didn’t end after fleeing Russia. “Being in NATO or EU countries doesn’t save us from this huge Kremlin machine,” she said. “Surveillance is still huge, cyberattacks are huge, but also physical attacks.”
These cases illustrate the first front of transnational repression: authoritarian regimes projecting power beyond their borders to intimidate, threaten, or attack critics abroad.
Iran has become one of the clearest examples of how far authoritarian regimes are willing to go to silence dissent beyond their borders. Iranian democracy activists, journalists, and human rights defenders living in exile have faced kidnapping plots, assassination attempts, surveillance, and harassment across Europe and North America. Multiple Western governments have linked Iranian intelligence services to plots targeting exiled dissidents, leading to disrupted operations, criminal prosecutions, and sanctions. Iran’s efforts to pursue critics abroad underscore the growing reality of transnational repression and the need for democracy organizations to extend duty-of-care protections even to partners living in open societies.
At the same time, this external pressure is inseparable from the repression activists face at home. For those still inside authoritarian states, the threat is direct and unrelenting. These activists continue their work at great personal risk, operating under surveillance, harassment, and the constant threat of arrest or imprisonment while pushing for democratic change.
In response to these dangers, many activists adopt a lower profile. How public they are in their work is an intentional choice to protect themselves, their families, and their networks from retaliation. While the steps they take to remain safe in authoritarian environments may mean their activism lacks the visibility of public campaigns, it is no less vital. Activists in authoritarian environments take great risks to build the infrastructure of democracy movements—documenting abuses, organizing communities, and informing international action.
In China, the Chinese government has systematically stigmatized international democracy funding. Even tenuous connections to external support and collaboration can carry severe consequences. As one activist working with international human rights and democracy organizations explained, “Me, myself, my family members, were interrogated by police officers in China.” Others have been detained and prosecuted for similar work. The Chinese government has also targeted the family members of human rights defenders in an effort to deter continued activism.
As a result, discretion is essential. “We prefer NED to not mention our names publicly,” the activist said, “in order to protect staff members and board members and even former colleagues, former members, and our families.”
Public activism draws global attention and builds coalitions, but it also brings heightened risk. Regimes often target public figures to intimidate or silence them—and to send a warning to others.
Activism that seeks to engage in quieter and less confrontational forms of engagement, by contrast, can provide greater security and sustainability, particularly in repressive settings. “While of course it’s much more dangerous for those activists who are inside Russia to speak out,” one Russian activist explained, “it’s much safer for those working in exile and most continue their work quietly.”
Human rights work in authoritarian environments demands different operational and political strategies. While the work often seeks to expose gross human rights abuses and expose corrupt networks, the ability to gather and verify the information requires close cooperation between groups that are in exile and networks that are in country.
In Tibet, NED-supported partners have documented China’s campaign to erase Tibetan identity through colonial-style boarding schools. In Venezuela and Cuba, investigative journalists have exposed corruption and human rights violations while keeping low profiles to stay safe. While international and exile organizations are often the face of the work, the networks on the ground are equally essential to what they achieve.
As Arno put it, “People are our biggest value, our biggest treasure. When activists are facing such dangerous things like imprisonment, torture, murder, we have to protect them with all possible measures.”
Supporting Activists Safely and Effectively
Since its founding in 1983, NED has supported democracy activists and citizen leaders—whether operating in exile or inside closed societies—to advance human rights and democratic values in some of the world’s most repressive contexts. NED’s Founding Statement of Principles and Objectives notes that in “societies where even [these] independent institutions are prohibited or severely restricted, the immediate objective is to enlarge whatever possibilities exist for independent thought, expression, and cultural activity. … [The Endowment] will not neglect those who keep alive the flame of freedom in closed societies.”
As a congressionally mandated independent nonprofit, NED was designed to provide support to its partners in a way that is impactful, secure, and accountable. Few donors are structured to do this work with the same level of care and discretion, which is why frontline democracy advocates consistently place their trust in NED.
Key to NED’s approach is the principle of protection through discretion. As NED’s Board of Directors approve grantmaking strategy and individual projects, the identifying details of grantees are made available to them. However, we avoid public disclosures that could expose partners to government reprisal. This is not only an ethical commitment—it is a key operating principle rooted in NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure Policies, which obligates the organization to do no harm.
Without this policy of protection, many activists could not safely engage with international support. “It’s very difficult to build reputation and trust” one democracy activist said. “How you treat your grantees, with special care and understanding of the particularities of each region, should be the gold standard that all donors take as an example.”
NED’s Approach to Public Disclosure of Grantees
NED publishes listings of its current grantees twice a year on its website and includes a comprehensive listing of grantees in its annual report, complete with grant descriptions, grant amounts, and grant durations, organized by country and region. However, we do not publicly disclose personally identifiable information in these listings to avoid placing individuals at risk, now or in the future.
Some have asked why NED does not publish the personally identifying details of its grantees on its website. The reason is simple: in many cases, doing so would put a target on the backs of those we support and compromise their ability to do their work.
NED’s Duty of Care and Public Disclosure policies seek to balance the ability of our partners to operate as freely and securely as possible with our transparency requirements. At the same time, our relationship with our grantees is fully transparent. Organizations must take the initiative themselves to seek support from the Endowment. They know who we are, where our funds come from, and the values that guide our support. Activists seek out NED’s assistance precisely because it is open, accountable, and trusted.
NED respects the agency of its grantees to decide whether it is safe to publicly disclose their relationship with NED. Organizations regularly and proudly share their partnership with NED as a mark of credibility and support. Others, particularly those operating in hostile environments, often request confidentiality to safeguard their security and effectiveness. In all cases, NED ensures our partners are aware of our policies and procedures so that they can make informed decisions about their own public posture.
This approach is an ethical obligation as much as it is a matter of organizational policy. We know about the persecution of Uyghurs and underground Christians in China, the protests in Cuba and Iran, the continued repression in Belarus and Nicaragua, and human rights abuses in Burma and North Korea because courageous individuals risk their lives to report them. Supporting democracy means more than funding programs or issuing statements—it means protecting the people behind the work.
With that responsibility comes a duty: to minimize risk, not add to it through careless exposure. In a world where authoritarian regimes are increasingly sophisticated, coordinated, and ruthless in targeting dissent, discretion becomes an essential safeguard.
Transparency and Accountability
Even as NED protects grantee confidentiality in public settings, it maintains rigorous transparency and accountability to the NED Board, Congress, and U.S. oversight bodies. The NED Board reviews and approves both grantmaking strategy and individual grants. As outlined in our Duty of Care, we submit comprehensive annual plans and updates to congressional committees that outline our strategy and grantmaking priorities. We maintain active communication with Members and their staff, respond promptly to official requests for information, and create opportunities for elected officials to engage directly with our grantees—both in Washington and abroad—to better understand the real-world impact of NED-supported efforts. We likewise provide an annual report to the executive branch as a formal accounting of our work, priorities, and impact. NED consults regularly with representatives of the legislative and executive branches on our work, both in Washington and in the field, and responds to Freedom of Information Act information requests.
NED upholds strict due diligence and financial oversight procedures to ensure that resources are used responsibly and for their intended purpose. Our grantmaking is governed by the standards of all federal spending, with clear agreements, financial reporting requirements, and independent audits to ensure funds are used for their intended purpose.
In addition, the Endowment is subject to comprehensive oversight, including Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigations, State Department Inspector General reviews, and annual independent audits.
By combining discretion abroad with transparency at home, NED fulfills its dual responsibility: protecting those who advance freedom in repressive environments while remaining transparent and accountable. As authoritarian threats grow more complex and far-reaching, we will continue strengthening our Duty of Care so those who defend democracy can pursue their work safely, effectively, and with confidence in the support behind them.
The 24thedition of the Geneva International Film Festival and Forum on Human Rights (FIFDH) took place in Geneva from 6-15 March 2026. The Right Livelihood team attended several screenings and debates and shared the experience in this text.
Ellynn Del Perugia, Administrative Officer, wrote on 26 March 2026 about this:
Each year, the FIFDH offers the opportunity to watch documentaries and movies from all corners of the world. Some echoed the work and values of Right Livelihood Laureates or the proposals currently under research, others expanded our understanding of the broader human rights landscape.
More than providing an opportunity to learn, these films act as living memories and testimonies. They make public what power would prefer to keep hidden. In some cases, placing a camera in someone’s hands becomes an act of resistance in itself. As 2024 Laureate Issa Amro did when he initiated a camera distribution project in Hebron, Palestine, to document and collect video evidence of abuses and injustices committed by Israeli settlers and the military against Palestinians.
The festival opened with “A Fox Under a Pink Moon”, which won the Grand Award of the festival. This self-portrait follows a 16-year-old Afghan artist as she attempts to escape multiple forms of violence in Iran and join her mother in Austria, using her mobile phone as both a tool of survival and a means of artistic expression.
Over the following days, the programme moved across different geographies and contexts: Argentina grappling with fifty years of memory since the dictatorship in the documentary “Identidad”; China’s expanding surveillance state and its repression of the Uyghur population, in “Eyes of the Machine”; Pakistan’s environmental and human crisis in “Black Water”; and the fragile future of multilateralism explored in “Solidarity” alongside a debate on the future of International Geneva. The latter raised important questions for Right Livelihood, which uses international platforms to support the Laureates. Are we witnessing the end of a rules-based international order? And if so, what replaces it? An order based purely on the interests of the most powerful? What would a future without International Geneva look like?
Across these very different stories and regions, one theme kept returning: the suppression of memory as a tool of power. “Identidad” follows one man’s quest to rediscover his origins and identity. The documentary explores the importance of remembrance in countering the erasure of memory, a tactic often employed by repressive governments to conceal their own crimes.
“Eyes of the Machine” raises a similar question, documenting the silencing of the Uyghur population’s culture, language and collective memory. Here too, some individuals have chosen to keep these memories alive and share their stories, often at great personal risk.
This is something we recognise deeply at Right Livelihood. The Laureates we support are often people who choose to speak, act and organise in contexts where doing so comes at great personal cost.
Held alongside the 61st session of the Human Rights Council, several Laureates and partners present in Geneva also participated in this festival. It is difficult to leave these films feeling indifferent. They unsettle, as they should. They raise questions about the direction of the world and the future that lies ahead. But they also remind us that memory, when kept alive, can be a form of hope.
A blog post by Matilde Da Luz on 18 March 2026 of Columbia University is not directly related to human rights defenders but so interesting that it is reproduced here in full:
By now, most women recognize the script. Raise a point about sexism, feminism, or gender equality and the response is often predictable. You are “angry.” You are “too woke.” You have, somehow, made things awkward. The figure of the angry feminist woman has become so familiar that it no longer feels like an accusation so much as a reflex – a shorthand for dismissing political discomfort without engaging it. You become labelled, often unconsciously, as the “killjoy.”
What is striking is that this stereotype persists at a moment when anger is hardly in short supply. Much of it belongs to men, and is increasingly confident, public, and political. It circulates online, where terms like incel and manosphere emerge in everyday vocabulary. It is surfacing in dating culture, classrooms, and family conversations, where feminism is framed less as a demand for equality than as a provocation. And it is showing up in electoral politics.
According to a recent study that analyzed the 2024 European Parliament elections, more than 21 percent of young men aged 18–29 voted for far-right parties, compared to around 14 percent of young women. This marks one of the clearest gender gaps in far-right support among younger voters across Europe. The more interesting question, then, is not why women continue to be frustrated by patriarchy, but why so many young men appear increasingly angry – and why that anger seems to be so easily mobilized by populist language.
These questions matter since they sit at the intersection of two developments that have often been discussed separately: the rise of far-right populism and the growing difficulty of human rights discourse in reaching young men. Analysts tend to explain young men’s support for the far right through conditions such as economic anxiety, cultural backlash, or online radicalization. However, while these explanations are not wrong, they often miss something central. Far-right populism offers, very compellingly, a way of making grievance feel politically intelligible. At the same time, the language of human rights, which is ostensibly universal, egalitarian, and moral, consistently fails to resonate with this same group. Why is that?
Put differently: why do young men gravitate toward far-right populism, and why does human rights language so often fail to reach them? In truth, populism’s success and human rights’ struggle with this demographic turn out to be two sides of the same affective and gendered coin.
Far-right populism works, in part, because it is emotionally economical. It is successful in offering a pretty clear story about who has been wronged and who is to blame. So-called “ordinary people” are portrayed as betrayed by the elites and threatened by outsiders, which usually results in a moral landscape drawn in bold lines. Hence, politics becomes a struggle between betrayal and redemption, insiders and outsiders, rescue and decline. Interestingly enough, the subject at the center of this story is often presented as implicitly masculine: the sidelined worker, the disrespected citizen, the young man who feels displaced by feminism, multiculturalism, or economic change.
The appeal here, instead of ideological, is primarily affective. Populist narratives do not ask people to manage resentment, or to adapt their anger into appropriate language or tone. Instead, they expertly validate it. Woundedness is treated as evidence that something is wrong, and the emotion can no longer be overcome. Consequently, anger becomes legible, even reasonable.
The manosphere provides the perfect illustration of how this emotional logic can take shape well before it reaches the ballot box. These online spaces are frequented by men who successfully reframe their personal frustrations into a collective grievance of sorts. Incel culture, in particular, offers men a way to interpret loneliness, rejection, or economic insecurity as structural and systemic injustices that are, in turn, blamed on women and feminism. The appeal lies, then, in the comfort of certainty – the reassurance that their frustrations have an identifiable cause.
This anger, however, is also material. Masculinity has long been bound up with material arrangements that once offered stability and recognition, especially waged labor. As these arrangements erode, insecurity is no longer experienced only as an economic loss. Rather, it becomes existential. When economic institutions no longer sustain the forms of masculine authority they once did, insecurity is lived as a disruption of gendered meaning which, in turn, produces an affective opening for populist recruitment. Loss demands explanation, and far-right populism is efficient at providing one.
Human rights discourse, on the other hand, speaks in a very different register. It tends to be careful, professionalized, and abstract, emphasizing universality, dignity, and legal principle. It often assumes a rational subject – someone capable of setting aside their own personal grievances in favor of universal principles. In fact, contemporary human rights talk has increasingly framed itself as a project of restraint, focused on preventing the worst harms rather than focusing on articulating a substantive vision of justice.
Arguably, human rights language can be emotionally compelling for those already disposed toward empathy. The difficulty is that, in a political moment marked by an erosion of empathy and an intensification of hostility – increasingly directed at women and feminism – this association can have the opposite effect. In truth, human rights discourse is often perceived by young men as “feminized”, not because of its commitments to gender equality, but because of its association to empathy, vulnerability, protection and care – traits that patriarchal orders frequently characterize as feminine. This can further alienate young men who already feel dismissed, blamed, or morally lectured.
The contrast is, therefore, stark. At the same time that populism validates and valorizes woundedness, human rights seek to neutralize it. In this sense, populism animates emotional life, whereas human rights assume a rational subject who is willing to rise above it. For young men whose political identities are boomingly shaped by feelings of loss and displacement, far-right populism feels personal. Human rights feel procedural.
This does not mean that human rights lack emotional appeal. Contrarily, humanitarian campaigns have long relied on images of suffering to mobilize concern. But these appeals typically work through pity rather than grievance, and compassion rather than anger. They usually frame people as victims in need of protection, not as political subjects whose injuries demand some sort of structural change, much like populists do. In a political moment increasingly organized around resentment, this framing can feel misaligned.
This dynamic essentially reshapes the terrain of political identification itself. As grievance grows more consistently recognized and organized through populist frames, hostility toward feminism is structurally reinforced, and, at the same time, equality is emergently experienced by young men as loss. In this context, human rights struggles to appear as a credible site of recognition in a political scene where belonging is produced through exclusionary ideologies.
Within these circumstances, deeper questions arise. If contemporary politics is increasingly organized through fear, anger, and the pleasures of moral certainty, what kind of ethical and political subject can human rights still presume, and cultivate? In other words, in a world where resentment so efficiently creates “the people,” how can empathy win without becoming naïve, moralizing, or politically empty?
The Right Livelihood Foundation and partners have gone into the problems faced by Human Rights Defenders in exile:
Leaving your country means more than crossing a border. It means stepping into uncertainty, a place where language falters, futures blur and belonging must be rebuilt. But exile can also open doors. It can broaden perspectives, forge new alliances and inspire people to rebuild on their own terms.
Through the project “Reconceptualising exile”, Right Livelihood together with theGlobal Campus of Human Rights, work with a group of 14 fellows living in exile to rebuild life, regain identity and purpose while the ground they left behind remains too dangerous to return to. This visual story challenges what you think exile means. It invites you to see how it feels and how people rebuild from fragments, carrying language, memory and conviction across borders.
What forces someone into exile? Behind those numbers are real people punished for what they believe in:
For Natallia Satsunkevich, a human rights defender from Belarus, it was fighting for democracy in the face of the dictatorship.
For Viacheslav (Slava) Samonov, a Russian lawyer and LGBTQ+ activist, the dissolution of his NGO amid the post-invasion crackdown and the rapidly escalating repression against LGBTQ+ people.
For Askold Kurov, a Russian documentary filmmaker, it was promoting free media and LGBTQ+ rights.
For Helen Mack Chang, it was challenging the rampant corruption in Guatemala.
For Abdul Rahman Yasa, it was standing up for human rights, women’s issues and youth advocacy under the Taliban.
The purpose of Front Line Defenders Rest & Respite Programme is to enable human rights defenders to take some time out and to recharge their batteries in a safe environment while at the same time enhancing their skills so that they can work more effectively when they return home.
The programme has a flexible approach and tries to respond to the needs of the HRD. Some human rights defenders are hosted in Ireland, others choose a destination closer to home, where they have a particular interest or existing contacts. It is generally for short stays ranging from one week to three months.
Human rights defenders can take some well-earned rest and escape the stressful and difficult circumstances in which they work for a short time. They can focus exclusively on their health and well-being or spend some quality time with their family. They can also choose to work on a specific project, learn about digital security or improve other skills relevant to their work.
Rest & Respite opportunities are offered on an invitation-only basis.
“This programme is great for women human rights activists who have been subjected to stressful, tense and often dangerous and threatening situations in their work.“ – HRD, Afghanistan, Rest & Respite Programme
“Before the support, I had serious burnout caused by the stress from my work, especially from a domestic violence case I was working on when I was attacked and my computer and phones taken. I had a constant headache and was very stressed, but I’m feeling well again and am back to work.“ – HRD, Cameroon, Rest & Respite Programme
My ordeal started at about 2am one morning in February 2018, when I was arrested by the Greek police. People were fleeing conflicts at home and coming to Europe seeking safety in unseaworthy boats and I was helping the Emergency Response Center International to conduct search and rescue activities.
I was detained without understanding what exactly was happening; we were provided neither a lawyer nor an interpreter. After two nights, we were released “pending further investigation.” We continued to do search and rescue. After all, we had done nothing wrong. In fact, we continued to cooperate with the very authorities that had arrested us.
Then, in August 2018, six months after our initial arrest, my colleague and I were detained again. This time, we were charged with serious crimes, including forgery, the illegal use of radio frequencies, espionage, money laundering, being members of a criminal organization, and facilitating illegal entry….Finally, on 15 January this year, I was acquitted. The prosecutor at trial stated there was no evidence of criminality, and the panel of judges unanimously agreed that my 23 co-defendants and I were motivated by, and engaged in, legal humanitarianism.
Whilst I am delighted not to be returning to prison, it has taken far too long for this absurd prosecution to collapse. In the interim, the damage has already been done. EU states’ authorities have obstructed civilian rescue efforts, and over 32,000 lives have been lost at Europe’s borders since 2014. Meanwhile, dozens of humanitarians across Europe face similar prosecutions, obstruction, intimidation and harassment. Sadly, my case was not the exception but part of a wider pattern of states criminalizing humanitarian work.
The current effort to reform EU anti-smuggling legislation, the so-called “Facilitators Package” offers an opportunity to address some of the issues that have led to our baseless prosecution. However, the proposed revisions to the legislation might inadvertently increase the risk of criminalizing rescue workers – meaning future prosecutions will still be possible and may not end in acquittals like mine. They will also impact migrants, people of migrant origin and racialized people who all too often suffer from these policies.
As Amnesty International has highlighted, the proposal’s broad and vague provisions risk perpetuating the criminalization of refugees, migrants and human rights defenders. Any reform should clarify explicitly and in a binding manner that acts of humanitarian assistance or solidarity should be exempted from prosecution or punishment. Migrants who may have been smuggled themselves, or people assisting their family members should also be protected from criminal liability.
Through this reform, the EU has an opportunity to align with the EU Charter, UN Conventions and Smuggling Protocols, and treaties on maritime search and rescue, and to explicitly protect the right to life, the right to seek asylum, and the duty to render assistance.
As it stands, the proposal tries to expand the avenues to pursue humanitarian workers by introducing the crime of “public instigation” of irregular migration. This vague new provision could be misconstrued to harm refugees and migrants, advocates and activists protesting unjust migration laws or professionals providing legal information or assistance.
Prosecutors should focus on exploitation and violence, including by authorities summarily force people across land or sea borders.
Last year, the European Court of Human Rights found “serious evidence” of systematic pushbacks in Greece. Evidence of similar practices has been mounting across European borders. Without border monitoring, this already opaque crime becomes ever more obscure. Finally, trafficking, another cross-border crime, is arguably exacerbated by EU policy. A UN report published in 2018 found that asylum seekers in Libya face “unlawful killings, torture, arbitrary detention, gang rape, slavery, forced labour and extortion,” with apparent complicity by State actors. Nevertheless, the EU has for years financed the so-called Libyan Coast Guard.
Whether in the Facilitators Package or in its wider border policies, the EU must respect the rule of law and human rights.
The way to stop people taking dangerous journeys is providing safe and legal pathways for protection, commensurate in scale with the need for protection, and channels for regular migration for those seeking a better life. By denying safe routes, the EU pushes people into the arms and boats of smugglers and traffickers.
All the while, EU laws and narratives on stopping smugglers continue being used to criminalize migrants and people doing what they can to save lives or offer assistance. Unless the reform of the Facilitators package takes serious steps to uphold the duty to rescue and defend humanitarians, people will continue to risk jail for doing what is normal, human behaviour: helping others at risk.
Watch Seán as he discusses his case, his reflections and hopes for the future.
Listen to Séan’s full story in the first season of Amnesty’s podcast ‘On the Side of Humanity’.
ISHR is launching two new interactive tools to strengthen diplomatic initiatives to support human rights defenders.
one tool designed for diplomats and
the other for defenders;
The resources provide practical guidance on how to enhance diplomatic support for defenders to prevent risks, respond to threats and better protect those working to promote and defend human rights. The tools will be available in English, French and Spanish.
Human rights defenders (HRDs) play a vital role in promoting accountability and advancing justice. Yet defenders around the world increasingly face harassment, criminalisation, surveillance, detention and reprisals because of their work. Diplomatic missions can play an important role in the overall protection strategy for defenders, including by addressing risks, monitoring cases, engaging authorities, or providing emergency support when defenders face serious threats. Some countries or region have adopted specific ‘Diplomatic Guidelines’ on the protection of human rights defenders (HRDs), including Switzerland, Canada, the European Union, Norway, Finland, and the UK.
To help strengthen the effective use of diplomatic protection measures, ISHR has developed two new interactive tools aimed at two complementary audiences: diplomats and human rights defenders themselves.
The first tool provides practical guidance for diplomatic and permanent missions on how to better provide quality, consistent and targeted support and protection to defenders including through the implementation of existing ‘diplomatic guidelines’ (40 minutes to complete). It outlines key principles for diplomatic engagement, including applying a “do no harm” approach, consulting closely with defenders, and adopting flexible and context-specific responses. It also highlights forms of diplomatic support, from regular engagement with defenders to trial observation, public advocacy, and emergency measures such as facilitating visas or temporary relocation.
The second tool is designed for human rights defenders and civil society organisations (20 minutes to complete). It is intended to help defenders better leverage diplomatic support by developing understanding of diplomatic guidelines, how they work, and what defenders should consider to safely engage with embassies and diplomatic missions. It also outlines the types of support that may be available, from meetings with diplomats and public advocacy to targeted or emergency assistance in situations of risk.
The content is grounded in the needs and lived experiences of HRDs, as documented by ISHR and other international organisations, and is informed by international human rights norms and standards. It draws in particular from the UN Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and its recent supplement, the Declaration+25.
By enhancing understanding of diplomatic initiatives and making them more accessible, ISHR aims to strengthen collaboration between diplomats and defenders and help ensure that defenders can continue their essential work in safer conditions. We also hope these tools may serve to catalyse action by States that have not yet adopted specific diplomatic guidelines.
The two interactive tools are available on the ISHR Academy in English, French and Spanish.
If you want more information or provide feedback on those initiatives, please contact us at: training@ishr.ch
The Human Rights Council President has proposed that States select Bolaños Vargas as the Special Rapporteur on human rights defenders by the end of the body’s ongoing 61st session.
The Office of the President of the United Nations Human Rights Council has made public a letter in which it presents 15 candidates to fill mandates within the UN human rights system. This includes the key position of Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders, for which the President has proposed Andrea Bolaños Vargas.
In selecting a new mandate holder, we urge States to commit to fully cooperating with the Special Rapporteur to promote and enable the work of human rights defenders everywhere. The work under this mandate is central at this time where we urgently need the voices of individual activists and civil society to reinvent multilateralism.
A Colombian national, Andrea Bolaños Vargas is a human rights expert with experience as a researcher and advisor for UN agencies, regional bodies, international, regional civil society and grassroots organisations across Latin America, particularly on migration, gender, and human rights protection issues.
Should the Council approve this nomination in the closing days of its 61st session, Bolaños Vargas will succeed Mary Lawlor, who has held the position of Special Rapporteur since 2020.
On 5 March 2026, Front Line Defenders expressed deep concern over the escalating hostilities across the Middle East and their devastating impact on civilians following US and Israeli air strikes on Iran and subsequent retaliatory strikes by Iran against Israel and several Gulf states. In line with our mandate, we are particularly alarmed by the heightened risks faced by human rights defenders across the region, including those arbitrarily detained for their peaceful human rights work…
Human rights defenders deprived of liberty are particularly vulnerable in such contexts. During periods of conflict, detained defenders may face increased risks of ill-treatment while access to medical care, family contact, legal representation, and independent monitoring may become further restricted. The risk of such violations increases if hostilities occur in close proximity to detention facilities.
Human rights groups are expressing concern over the deteriorating situation in Evin prison in Iran, where many human rights defenders are currently detained. Based on reports these groups have received from prisoners “the Security Ward 209 has been evacuated” and “anti-riot forces are stationed in the surrounding buildings.” Food distribution has reportedly also been disrupted. On the evening of 2 March 2026, the Israeli military forces reportedly issued an urgent evacuation order to people in the Evin neighbourhood. On 23 June 2025, during the twelve-day Israel-Iran conflict, Israeli forces attacked the Evin compound and Evin prison. Prisoners, including human rights defenders, were evacuated from the prison following the attacks. Iranian officials reported over 70 people killed from this attack on the Evin compound..
In Bahrain, there have been reports of strikes only kilometres from Jau prison where human rights defender Abdulhadi Al-Khawaja continues to serve a life sentence for his peaceful human rights work alongside fellow human rights defender Dr Abduljalil Al-Singace. Front Line Defenders is also concerned over reports of arrests of defenders linked to anti-war protests in Bahrain and calls on the authorities to respect the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.
All parties to the conflict must uphold their obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law, including the protection of civilians and those deprived of liberty. Hospitals, schools, and other sites protected under international humanitarian law, where human rights defenders and other civilians carry out essential work and provide humanitarian assistance, must not be targeted. Authorities should also immediately release detained human rights defenders and ensure they have access to adequate healthcare, contact with family members and legal counsel, and independent monitoring.
Front Line Defenders call on the international community, states, and multilateral organisations to remain attentive to the situation of human rights defenders in the region, raise protection concerns with the relevant authorities and provide concrete support and protection measures for human rights defenders at risk, if necessary through support with temporary relocation and emergency visa support.
Front Line Defenders stands in solidarity with human rights defenders across the region who continue their work under extremely difficult and dangerous circumstances.
Hans Thoolen on Human Rights Defenders and their awards 