August, 17 2009, 12:37pm EDT
Iraq: Stop Killings for Homosexual Conduct
No Protection by Authorities from Widening Murder Campaign
BEIRUT
Iraqi militias are carrying out a spreading campaign of torture and
murder against men suspected of homosexual conduct, or of not being
"manly" enough, and Iraq authorities have done nothing to stop the
killing, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Human
Rights Watch called on Iraq's government to act urgently to rein in
militia abuses, punish the perpetrators, and stop a new resurgence of
violence that threatens all Iraqis' safety.
The 67-page report, "'They Want Us Exterminated': Murder, Torture, Sexual Orientation and Gender in Iraq,"
documents a wide-reaching campaign of extrajudicial executions,
kidnappings, and torture of gay men that began in early 2009. The
killings began in the vast Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, a
stronghold of Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army militia, and spread to many
cities across Iraq. Mahdi Army spokesmen have promoted fears about the
"third sex" and the "feminization" of Iraq men, and suggested that
militia action was the remedy. Some people told Human Rights Watch that
Iraqi security forces have colluded and joined in the killing.
"Iraq's leaders are supposed to defend all Iraqis, not abandon them
to armed agents of hate," said Scott Long, director of the Lesbian,
Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Rights Program at Human Rights Watch.
"Turning a blind eye to torture and murder threatens the rights and
life of every Iraqi."
Silence and stigma surrounding sexuality and gender in Iraq make
placing a precise figure on the number killed almost impossible, but
indications are that hundreds of men may have died.
One man told Human Rights Watch that militiamen kidnapped and killed
his partner of 10 years in April: "It was late one night, and they came
to take my partner at his parents' home. Four armed men barged into the
house, masked and wearing black. They asked for him by name; they
insulted him and took him in front of his parents. ... He was found in
the neighborhood the day after. They had thrown his corpse in the
garbage. His genitals were cut off and a piece of his throat was ripped
out."
The killers invade homes and pick people up in the street, witnesses
and survivors said, interrogating them before murdering them to extract
names of other potential victims. They practice grotesque tortures,
including gluing men's anuses shut as punishment. Human Rights Watch
spoke to doctors who said that hospitals and morgues have received
dozens of mutilated bodies, living and dead.
"Murder and torture are no way to enforce morality," said Rasha
Moumneh, Middle East and North Africa researcher at Human Rights Watch.
"These killings point to the continuing and lethal failure of Iraq's
post-occupation authorities to establish the rule of law and protect
their citizens."
Consensual homosexual conduct between adults is not a criminal
offense under Iraqi law. Although many militias in Iraq claim to be
enforcers of Islamic law, the Human Rights Watch report also shows how
the killings - committed without evidence or trial, on the basis of
prejudice and whim - violate standards in Sharia law for legality,
proof, and privacy.
International human rights law forbids all forms of torture and
inhuman treatment and guarantees the right to life, including the right
to effective state protection. In its 1994 decision in the landmark
case of Toonen v. Australia, the United Nations Human Rights
Committee held that the protections against unequal treatment in the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) extend to
sexual orientation as a protected status.
The report also documents how fears that Iraqi men's masculinity is
under threat propel the killings as much as prejudices about sexuality.
Many men told Human Rights Watch that their parents or brothers have
threatened them with honor killings because their "unmanly" behavior
threatens the reputation of the family or tribe. In a provision left
over from the Saddam Hussein era, Iraqi law allows mitigated penalties
for crimes committed "with honorable motives." This exception
encourages gender-based violence.
Many Iraqis who fear being attacked have sought safety in
surrounding countries, but those countries are no safe haven, the
report says. Consensual homosexual conduct is criminalized in most of
these countries, and prejudice based on sexual orientation and gender
identity fosters violence and discrimination in all of them. Human
Rights Watch urges the United Nations High Commission for Refugees
(UNHCR), as well as governments that accept Iraqi refugees, to offer
rapid resettlement to these endangered people.
Accounts from the report (all names are aliases, to protect the speakers)
"[The killers'] measuring rod to judge people is who they have sex
with. It is not by their conscience, it is not by their conduct or
their values, it is who they have sex with. The cheapest thing in Iraq
is a human being, a human life. It is cheaper than an animal, than a
pair of used-up batteries you buy on the street. Especially people like
us. ... I can't believe I'm here talking to you because it's all just
been repressed, repressed, repressed. For years it's been like that -
if I walk down the street, I would feel everyone pointing at me. I feel
as if I'm dying all the time. And now this, in the last month - I don't
understand what we did to deserve this. They want us exterminated. All
the violence and all this hatred: the people who are suffering from it
don't deserve it."
- Hamid, in Iraq, April 24, 2009
"We've been hearing about this, about gay men being killed, for more
than a month. It's like background noise now, every day. The stories
started spreading in February about this campaign against gay people by
the Mahdi Army: everyone was talking about it, I was hearing about it
from my straight friends. In a coffee shop in Karada, on the streets in
Harithiya [Baghdad neighborhoods], they were talking about it. I didn't
worry at first. My friends and I, we look extremely masculine, there is
nothing visibly "feminine" about us. None of us ever, ever believed
this would happen to us. But then at the end of March we heard on the
street that 30 men had been killed already."
- Idris, in Iraq, April 24, 2009
"They did many things to us, the Mahdi Army. ... They kidnapped [my
partner] for six days. He will not talk about what they did to him.
There were bruises on his side as if he was dragged on the street. They
did things to him he can't describe, even to me. They wrote in the dust
on the windshield of his car: 'Death to the people of Lot and to
collaborators.' They sent us veiled threats in text messages: 'You are
on the list.' They sent him a piece of paper in an envelope, to his
home: there were three bullets wrapped in plastic, of different size.
The note said, 'Which one do you want in your heart?' ... I want to be
a regular person, lead a normal life, walk around the city, drink
coffee on the street. But because of who I am, I can't. There is no way
out."
- Mohammad, in Iraq, April 21, 2009
"At 10 a.m., [Ministry of Interior officers] cuffed my hands behind
my back. Then they tied a rope around my legs, and they hung me upside
down from a hook in the ceiling, from morning till sunset. I passed
out. I was stripped down to my underwear while I hung upside down. They
cut me down that night, but they gave me no water or food. Next day,
they told me to put my clothes back on and they took me to the
investigating officer. He said, 'You like that? We're going to do that
to you more and more, until you confess.' Confess to what? I asked. 'To
the work you do, to the organization you belong to, and that you are a tanta'
[queen]. For days, there were severe beatings, and constant humiliation
and insults. ... It was the same form of abuse every day. They beat me
all over my body; when they had me hanging upside down, they used me
like a punching bag. ... They used electric prods all over my body.
Then they raped me. Over three days. The first day, 15 of them raped
me; the second day, six; the third day, four. There was a bag on my
head every time."
- Nuri, on April 15 and 27, 2009
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Critics Blast 'Reckless and Impossible' Bid to Start Operating Mountain Valley Pipeline
"The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over," said one environmental campaigner.
Apr 23, 2024
Environmental defenders on Tuesday ripped the company behind the Mountain Valley Pipeline for asking the federal government—on Earth Day—for permission to start sending methane gas through the 303-mile conduit despite a worsening climate emergency caused largely by burning fossil fuels.
Mountain Valley Pipeline LLC sent a letter Monday to Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese seeking final permission to begin operation on the MVP next month, even while acknowledging that much of the Virginia portion of the pipeline route remains unfinished and developers have yet to fully comply with safety requirements.
"In a manner typical of its ongoing disrespect for the environment, Mountain Valley Pipeline marked Earth Day by asking FERC for authorization to place its dangerous, unnecessary pipeline into service in late May," said Jessica Sims, the Virginia field coordinator for Appalachian Voices.
"MVP brazenly asks for this authorization while simultaneously notifying FERC that the company has completed less than two-thirds of the project to final restoration and with the mere promise that it will notify the commission when it fully complies with the requirements of a consent decree it entered into with the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration last fall," she continued.
"Requesting an in-service decision by May 23 leaves the company very little time to implement the safety measures required by its agreement with PHMSA," Sims added. "There is no rush, other than to satisfy MVP's capacity customers' contracts—a situation of the company's own making. We remain deeply concerned about the construction methods and the safety of communities along the route of MVP."
Russell Chisholm, co-director of the Protect Our Water, Heritage, Rights (POWHR) Coalition—which called MVP's request "reckless and impossible"—said in a statement that "we are watching our worst nightmare unfold in real-time: The reckless MVP is barreling towards completion."
"During construction, MVP has contaminated our water sources, destroyed our streams, and split the earth beneath our homes. Now they want to run methane gas through their degraded pipes and shoddy work," Chisholm added. "The MVP is a glaring human rights violation that is indicative of the widespread failures of our government to act on the climate crisis in service of the fossil fuel industry."
POWHR and activists representing frontline communities affected by the pipeline are set to take part in a May 8 demonstration outside project financier Bank of America's headquarters in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Appalachian Voices noted that MVP's request comes days before pipeline developer Equitrans Midstream is set to release its 2024 first-quarter earnings information on April 30.
MVP is set to traverse much of Virginia and West Virginia, with the Southgate extension running into North Carolina. Outgoing U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and other pipeline proponents fought to include expedited construction of the project in the debt ceiling deal negotiated between President Joe Biden and congressional Republicans last year.
On Monday, climate and environmental defenders also petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging FERC's approval of the MVP's planned Southgate extension, contending that the project is so different from original plans that the government's previous assent is now irrelevant.
"Federal, state, and local elected officials have spoken out against this unneeded proposal to ship more methane gas into North Carolina," said Sierra Club senior field organizer Caroline Hansley. "The time to build more dirty and dangerous pipelines is over. After MVP Southgate requested a time extension for a project that it no longer plans to construct, it should be sent back to the drawing board for this newly proposed project."
David Sligh, conservation director at Wild Virginia, said: "Approving the Southgate project is irresponsible. This project will pose the same kinds of threats of damage to the environment and the people along its path as we have seen caused by the Mountain Valley Pipeline during the last six years."
"FERC has again failed to protect the public interest, instead favoring a profit-making corporation," Sligh added.
Others renewed warnings about the dangers MVP poses to wildlife.
"The endangered bats, fish, mussels, and plants in this boondoggle's path of destruction deserve to be protected from killing and habitat destruction by a project that never received proper approvals in the first place," Center for Biological Diversity attorney Perrin de Jong said. "Our organization will continue fighting this terrible idea to the bitter end."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes."
Already, the tax services and software provider Ryan has filed a legal challenge in federal court in Texas, arguing that the FTC is unconstitutionally structured.
Still, the Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers." Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular