Something deeply troubling is happening here in Bonn at #SB64 — and we need to talk about it. A thread on the systematic shrinking of civic space at climate negotiations. 🧵 For 30 years, @CANIntl has held a daily 11:30am press conference throughout UN climate talks. Every single day. Rain or shine. It's how over 2,500 civil society organisations share a collective assessment of what's actually happening inside these rooms.

His rights were TRUMPed, but he still triumphed. Thanks, UEFA.

Politics aside (though let’s not pretend I’m naïve enough to miss the fact that much of the outrage over Duale’s remarks is deeply political), this episode raises a broader issue that deserves attention, & that’s the complexity of language, translation & political communication Anyone who has worked across languages knows that words rarely travel intact. Meaning is not simply carried by vocabulary; it is shaped by history, culture, idiom, context, & shared experience. Translation is therefore as much an act of interpretation as it is of finding equivalent words. Strip an expression from its linguistic & cultural setting, and it can end up meaning something entirely different from what the speaker intended That is particularly true of African languages, whose richness owes much to centuries of oral tradition. Across the continent, proverbs as the one used by Duale are repositories of history, philosophy, morality, & social commentary. They compress complex ideas into vivid metaphors, allowing difficult truths to be expressed with economy and elegance. Their meanings have always depended on context rather than the literal images they employ The expression in question is one such proverb. It is widely understood among native speakers as a way of questioning entitlement or the assumption that certain privileges should remain beyond challenge indefinitely. That is the cultural meaning carried by the phrase, & that is the context in which it was used This, of course, leads to two straightforward questions. First, is it legitimate in a political debate to question attempts to preserve long-enjoyed privileges when others believe those privileges are unjust? Of course it is. Politics is fundamentally about contesting ideas, interests, & competing visions of fairness Second, is it legitimate to express that argument through a proverb rooted in our oral traditions? Again, yes. That is precisely the role proverbs have always played in African political and social discourse They allow speakers to communicate layered ideas through familiar metaphors that their audiences readily understand The reference to a hyena, or, in some versions of the same proverb, a lion, is neither an insult nor a description of any individual. It is simply the vehicle of the metaphor. Anyone familiar with the language recognises that immediately. The symbolism belongs to the proverb, not to the people being discussed This is why translation demands intellectual honesty. A literal rendering without cultural context often distorts meaning just as easily as a poor translation can. That is a lesson linguists, interpreters, & political communicators have long understood. Languages are nuanced systems of meaning; they do not surrender those nuances because a political controversy makes literal readings more convenient That is why I find it unfair to condemn Duale merely for using the proverb. Criticise his politics if you wish. Challenge his reasoning if you disagree. That is the essence of democratic debate. But recasting a culturally familiar proverb as something it was never intended to mean simply because it serves a political narrative does little to advance honest public discourse Healthy democracies depend on vigorous disagreement. They also depend on good-faith interpretation. Deliberately stripping words of their cultural meaning, manufacturing outrage through mistranslation, or encouraging ethnic division by misrepresenting linguistic traditions serves neither democracy nor public understanding Finally, to those fluent speakers who have knowingly reinforced inaccurate interpretations for political convenience, I want you to know that our languages deserve better. So do our politics. If we are going to invoke culture, let us do so faithfully. If we are going to disagree, let us disagree honestly That’s my contribution to the convo. Feel free to disagree, but let us at least begin from an honest understanding of what was actually said. @HonAdenDuale

What a disgrace, that @FIFAcom has allowed Trump to ban Omar Artan, one of the best referees, from officiating at the World Cup simply because he is Somali. This reflects the structural bias against black & brown people. Instead of conceding to the discrimination Fifa could have moved him to games played in Mexico or Canada & called out the outright racism. The problem isn’t just Trump, it’s also Fifa President Gianni Infantino. It is galling that they (rightly) banned Russia for invading Ukraine, but then go onto reward Trump’s US as hosts which are now denying one of Africa’s best officials. Banning an official for simply his nationality in what should be a unifying global moment, underscores the sorry state of world governance, not just of football. It is a slap in the face & must be called out. Racism.