The controversy has reignited debate over the chant after South Africa’s Constitutional Court ruled in March 2025 that the phrase does not amount to hate speech under South African law, following a case brought by AfriForum.

The Patriotic Alliance (PA) moved to back Bozell on the chant, even while rejecting claims of “white genocide.” In a statement after PA leader Gayton McKenzie met Bozell, the party said a chant calling for the killing of a specific group is “totally unacceptable” and “hate speech, pure and simple,” adding, “No historical context can justify repeating language that celebrates the killing of fellow citizens.”

But the ANC and EFF were among those who attacked Bozell’s intervention, arguing a foreign ambassador should not undermine South Africa’s institutions or weigh into domestic political disputes. Parliament’s justice committee chair Xola Nqola also supported Dirco’s rebuke, saying, “Contemptuous remarks regarding our judicial system undermine the rule of law that both South Africa and the US state they uphold.”

On the other side, the Freedom Front Plus (FF+) defended Bozell and said it agreed with what it described as US “ conditions ” for improved ties, including denouncing the chant and scrapping the Expropriation Act and BBBEE. Dirco said it would keep monitoring the ambassador’s public conduct, while the department’s director-general said Bozell had apologised and expressed regret, including for remarks that appeared to question the judiciary.

Here are five of their main objections:

1. Suppression of free speech and dissent

The coalition says the law has been used less for cybersecurity and more as a political weapon. They cited cases of bloggers arrested for “fake news,” an author detained for writing a presidential biography, and a developer targeted for building a Finance Bill monitoring tool. 

According to BAKE lawyer Mercy Mutemi, the law was a “panic response” to online dissent, not a genuine attempt to tackle cybercrime.

2. Abuse leading to harassment and even death

Perhaps the most shocking example is the case of teacher Albert Ojwang, who reportedly died in police custody after being arrested over a social media post. 

Lawyers argued the Act gives police sweeping surveillance powers, leading to harassment, abductions, and abuses that endanger lives.

3. Violation of constitutional rights

The coalition members claim the law infringes on freedoms of expression, privacy, and judicial independence. Section 50, for example, requires courts to automatically grant police access to digital data if “reasonable grounds” are claimed, a provision Mutemi said turns courts into “rubber stamps” instead of independent watchdogs.

4. Lack of public participation

Another key objection is procedural; significant amendments adding new “content offences” were introduced at the committee stage in Parliament without public consultation. Critics have therefore argued that this violates Kenya’s constitutional requirement for public participation in lawmaking, making the Act illegitimate.

5. Less restrictive alternatives exist

Lawyers insist that there are civil remedies, such as defamation suits, that can protect reputations without criminalising speech. As lawyer Dudley Ochiel argued, criminal provisions like those targeting false publications or cyber harassment are overly broad and open to abuse. Civil law, they say, would strike a better balance between protecting reputations and safeguarding free expression.

The state, represented by the Attorney-General, the DPP, and Parliament,  has urged the court to uphold a 2020 High Court ruling that declared the law constitutional, insisting that regulating digital activity is necessary in the age of technology. The ruling is set to be delivered in February 2026.

According to Xiangyang’s cyber police, Meng made “slanderous and derogatory remarks” on social media about the event, provoking anger online.

Police said his comments “insulted them and spread rumours, provoking strong anger among netizens,” but did not specify what he had written. 

They added that his remarks had “hurt people’s patriotic sentiments and caused severe negative social impact”.

“The great spirit of the war of resistance serves as the spiritual backbone of our nation,” Xiangyang cyber police said, referring to China’s fight against Japanese forces during the Second World War. 

“Any attempts to distort or smear the history, defame military personnel taking part in commemorating events or harm patriotic sentiments will be severely punished by public security authorities.”

Trump calls parade with Kim, Putin a ‘conspiracy’

The parade marked the anniversaries of the Second World War and the Second Sino-Japanese War. It was China’s largest military display in decades, lasting 70 minutes, and featured advanced weapons, tanks, missiles, fighter jets and domestically-built aircraft.

Leaders from 26 countries attended, with Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and North Korea’s Kim Jong Un joining President Xi Jinping on Tiananmen Gate as guests of honour. 

Other attendees included Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, and Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian.

Absent from the ceremony were leaders from the United States, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Poland and the Czech Republic. Poland and the Czech Republic, who attended in 2015, were replaced this year by Serbia and Slovakia.

U.S. President Donald Trump criticised the event, accusing Xi, Putin and Kim of conspiring against Washington.

“Please give my warmest regards to Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un as you conspire against the United States of America ,” Trump posted on Truth Social.

He also pointed to American sacrifices in the war: “Many Americans died in China’s quest for Victory and Glory. I hope that they are rightfully Honoured and Remembered for their Bravery and Sacrifice!”

Despite his criticism of the parade, Trump dismissed concerns that closer ties between China, Russia and North Korea could threaten Washington, saying they would not form a coalition against the U.S. because “China needs us.”

University student Muhibullah Al Mashnun, 23, expressed frustration over the political symbolism tied to the residence and past leadership.

"The statues of Sheikh Mujib that have been brought down, those were less the statues of Sheikh Mujib, they were more the statues of dictatorship. The dictatorship evolved here, keeping its statue in the front of us for the last 16 years," Mashnun said in an interview with AFP. "In the name of the spirit of liberation war , in the name of the spirit of Sheikh Mujib, this dictatorship stood still in the last 16 years."

Tanzim Wahab, who is overseeing the museum's conversion, outlined the site's intended purpose.

"It is supposed to be used as a forum for democratic thought. There will be a stage here, various events will take place here, and there will be conversations here. We want young people to become stakeholders in Gono Bhaban, to use it as a platform for discussing democratic ideas, new thinking, and how to build a new Bangladesh," Wahab said.

Human rights advocate and documentary photographer Mosfiqur Rahman Johan, 27, emphasised the symbolic importance of the site.

"Gono Bhaban is a symbol of fascism, and also the symbol of an autocratic regime. For me, this is the place where everything has been done by Hasina and her mercenaries," Johan said. Thousands of demonstrators entered the residence after Hasina and her sister, Sheikh Rehana, fled by helicopter on August 5, arriving in Delhi via Agartala. The walls of the palace remain marked by graffiti denouncing her leadership.

Iran has withdrawn a proposed internet censorship bill after political and public backlash. Introduced after a brief conflict with Israel, the bill aimed to penalise "false" online content but drew criticism for threatening civil liberties and expanding censorship. The move underscores tensions in Iran between national security and digital rights, with critics warning the bill's vague terms could worsen repression in one of the world’s most restrictive online environments.

Iran’s oil exports surge

Despite sanctions and military strikes, Iran’s oil exports soared in the first half of 2025, reaching nearly 1.7 million barrels per day in June, totalling over $3.6 billion in revenue, according to Tankertrackers. This marks a 30–37% increase compared to January 2025 levels, outpacing export figures at the end of the Biden administration. The rise challenges U.S. goals to curb Tehran’s oil revenue, which funds domestic repression and regional threats. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s pledge to cut exports to near zero remains unmet.

Iran slams US sanctions on Indian firms as ‘modern economic imperialism’

Iran's Embassy in India condemned U.S. tariffs on Indian imports and sanctions on six Indian firms trading Iranian petrochemicals, calling it “modern economic imperialism.” Tehran accused Washington of weaponising sanctions to pressure independent nations like Iran and India. The embassy urged resistance to such policies, framing it as support for a stronger Global South. Iran's foreign ministry also called the sanctions a “malicious act” against its economic development.

Iran insists on US compensation before talks

Iran reaffirmed its commitment to uranium enrichment and ruled out resuming nuclear talks unless the U.S. compensates for damages from its recent conflict with Israel, Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told the Financial Times. Araghchi cited deep mistrust of the Trump administration and strong domestic opposition to negotiations. He reiterated Iran’s stance on a peaceful nuclear program, referencing a longstanding fatwa banning nuclear weapons, and confirmed message exchanges with U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff during and after the conflict.

Russia voices concern over threat of new strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities

Following US and Israeli airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, Russia called for renewed dialogue to resolve the nuclear issue. Foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova expressed concern over further strikes and stressed that a deal with Tehran remains possible through diplomacy. The strikes came during a 12-day Iran-Israel conflict sparked by Israel’s June 13 aerial attack. The violence, which caused casualties on both sides, ended with a ceasefire on June 24. The US joined the conflict, targeting Iranian nuclear sites on June 22.