November, 24 2010, 01:04pm EDT
Egypt: Systematic Crackdown Days Before Elections
Mass Arrests, Intimidation, Campaign Restrictions Make Fair Outcome Questionable
CAIRO
Egypt has carried out mass arbitrary arrests, wholesale restrictions
on public campaigning, and widespread intimidation of opposition
candidates and activists in the weeks leading up to parliamentary
elections on November 28, 2010, Human Rights Watch said today. In a
report released today, Human Rights Watch argues that the repression
makes free and fair elections unlikely.
The 24-page report, "Elections in Egypt, State
of Permanent Emergency Incompatible with Free and Fair Vote," documents
the vague and subjective criteria in Egypt's Political Parties Law that
allow the government and ruling party to impede formation of new
political parties. Egypt remains under an Emergency Law that since 1981
has given security officials free rein to prohibit or disperse
election-related rallies, demonstrations, and public meetings, and to
detain people indefinitely without charge.
For this election, unlike others over the last 10 years, the
government has drastically limited independent judicial supervision,
following 2007 constitutional amendments that further eroded political
rights. The government has rejected calls for international observers,
insisting that Egyptian civil society organizations will ensure
transparency. As of November 23, however, the main coalitions of
nongovernmental organizations have yet to receive any of the 2,200
permits they have requested to monitor voting and vote counting.
"The combination of restrictive laws, intimidation, and arbitrary
arrests is making it extremely difficult for citizens to choose freely
the people they want to represent them in parliament," said Joe Stork,
deputy Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch.
"Repression by the government makes free and fair elections extremely
unlikely this weekend."
Human Rights Watch is not monitoring the voting or counting process
in the Egyptian elections. As it has elsewhere, it is focusing on
documenting systematic violations of the right to freedom of expression,
assembly, and association - rights that are fundamental to free and
fair elections.
Mass Arrests of Opposition Activists, Disruption of Campaigns
Since the Muslim Brotherhood announced on October 9 that its members
would run for 30 percent of the seats in the People's Assembly as
independents, security officers have rounded up hundreds of Brotherhood
members, mostly supporters who were handing out flyers or putting up
posters for the candidates. On November 24, Abdelmoneim Maqsud, the
group's chief lawyer, told Human Rights Watch that security forces had
so far arrested 1,306 Muslim Brotherhood members, including five
candidates, brought 702 before prosecutors, releasing the rest and
detained two under the emergency law. The government contends that the
group's activities violate Egyptian laws prohibiting political
activities with a religious reference point.
Human Rights Watch interviewed separately 14 Muslim Brotherhood
supporters from one Alexandrian and three Cairo constituencies. They
gave consistent accounts of having been arrested after taking part in
traditional election campaign activities - participating in a campaign
tour, distributing flyers in support of a candidate, or putting up
campaign posters. Uniformed police, often accompanied by plainclothes
State Security officers, have blocked or dispersed gatherings by
Brotherhood candidates, sometimes using force to break up marches and
rallies. The intimidation has been especially notable in Alexandria.
"Independent candidates have the same rights to campaign as those of
the ruling party," Stork said. "The timing of these arrests and the
blocking of campaign events make it clear that the purpose of these
arrests is to prevent the political opposition from campaigning
effectively."
Security forces have also targeted other political activists. In
Munufiyya, security officers arrested Khaled Adham, Mohamed Ashraf, and
Ahmed Gaber, three activists with the National Association for Change,
as they were collecting signatures for a petition in support of a
movement for political change led by Mohamed El Baradei, who has led a
coalition of activists demanding an end to the state of emergency and
legal reform. Authorities detained the three men for two-and-a-half
hours, then released them without charge.
Under international law, freedom of expression and association can be
limited only on narrowly defined grounds of public order, and the
restriction must be proportionate to the need. A ban on an organization
solely because of the political positions it holds, and the fact that it
uses a religious framework or espouses religious principles, is not a
legitimate reason to limit freedom of association and expression under
international human rights law.
A government may legitimately ban a party that uses or promotes
violence, but the government's allegations that such an action is needed
must meet a high standard of factual proof. In addition, authorities
may arrest and detain individuals responsible for specific criminal
acts, but not for mere membership in, or support for, a political
organization that the government has decided to outlaw.
Lack of Independent Supervision, Failure to Issue Monitoring Permits for Civil Society Groups
Constitutional amendments in 2007 drastically reduced judicial
supervision of elections that the Constitution had previously required. A
2000 Supreme Constitutional Court ruling had provided for full judicial
supervision of every polling place, but the 2007 amendment to article
88 reduced this to supervision by "general committees" in which judicial
presence is limited.
Although Egyptian officials say that Egyptian civil society groups
will monitor the parliamentary elections, a leaked report by the
quasi-official National Council for Human Rights on the June 1, 2010
Shura Council elections cast doubt on that contention. The report
criticized the High Elections Commission, which formally has
responsibility for running the elections, for refusing to issue 3,413 of
the 4,821 monitoring permits requested by Egyptian civil society
organizations for the Shura Council elections.
The High Elections Commission (HEC) announced on November 22 that it
would issue permits for the parliamentary elections, and some
organizations received a small percentage of the permits they had
requested. But as of November 24, one of the two main coalitions, which
includes the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights and the Centre for
Trade Union and Workers Services, has not received a response to its
request for 1,113 monitoring permits. Another coalition including the
Egyptian Association for Community Participation Enhancement, the Cairo
Institute for Human Rights Studies, and Nazra has received no response
to its request for 1,116 permits. The commission also stipulated that
the monitors' access to polling sites would be subject to the permission
of the person in charge of each polling place and that photography was
prohibited.
"The Egyptian government has repeatedly rejected calls to allow
international observers in as interference, insisting instead that
Egyptian civil society will monitor," Stork said. "Yet four days before
the elections, 123 organizations in two of the main monitoring
coalitions have yet to receive a single one of the 2,229 permits they
requested."
Failure to Carry out Court Orders to Reinstate Candidates
On November 16, an administrative court ordered the reinstatement of
dozens of candidates whose candidacies had been rejected by the
elections commission. On November 17, the commission said on its web
site that the decision should be carried out. But the Interior Ministry
would have to issue formal permission, which it had not done as of
November 23.
The Interior Ministry has refused to implement administrative court
orders while appeals are in process. Maj. Gen. Refaat Qomsan, an
official from the Interior Ministry's elections bureau, told Human
Rights Watch that it had reinstated 64 candidates overall. He said the
ministry "has no objection to executing any order" but that "there could
very well be an appeal by anyone with interests in the cases."
Ahmad Fawzy, from the Egyptian Association for Community
Participation Enhancement, told Human Rights Watch that the ministry
should implement these court orders immediately because only an
administrative court can order a stay, and appeals are being filed
before courts not competent to hear them. In his view this rationale
reflected an official strategy to delay implementation.
Hafez Abu Saada, of the Egyptian Organization for Human Rights, told
Human Rights Watch that, in all, 350 candidates had been eliminated and
reinstated by the court, but that he knew of only one of them who had
been given permission to run by the Interior Ministry. Of the candidates
left in limbo, about 14 are Muslim Brotherhood candidates. In
Alexandria, four of eight Muslim Brotherhood candidates reinstated by
the court have been unable to obtain a candidate number and symbol to
confirm that they are on the ballot, Sobhi Saleh, a member of parliament
associated with the Brotherhood, told Human Rights Watch.
Harassment of Journalists
On November 21, security officers detained for a half hour four
reporters covering a Muslim Brotherhood candidate's campaign walk in the
northern Cairo suburb of Shubra al-Kheima. A female journalist who
asked not to be named told Human Rights Watch that a state security
officer stopped the group and told her she needed permission to cover
any campaign activities and that she should check in with police when
out in the field.
Ashraf Khalil, a reporter for Al-Masry Al-Youm newspaper, told Human
Rights Watch that the officer told the group they needed special
permission to cover events in the street. Khalil later wrote in Al Masry
Al-Youm: "It was more annoying than intimidating, more bureaucratic
than bullying. But what happened to me and several journalistic
colleagues Sunday night was a clear window into the type of petty
harassment the regime routinely employs to shrink the local political
playing field and limit the activities of foreign journalists."
At a November 22 news conference in Cairo, Qomsan told journalists:
"When you involve yourself in the conflicts of the candidates and if
those conflicts breach the law, we will respond and you might get caught
up. We are keen on enabling everyone to do their jobs. However, we are
very cautious to prevent acts of violence that may be triggered by
supporters of candidates."
None of the reporters who were detained in Shubra said they were
threatened by campaign activists or supporters or that they needed
protection from security officials.
"Rather than theorize about reporters getting caught up in possible
conflicts, Egypt should give journalists open access to public events
without intimidation so they can do their jobs," Stork said.
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
Grand Jury Indicts Top Trump Aides, 11 Arizona Republicans Over 'Fake Electors' Scheme
Had it succeeded, said the state's attorney general, the scheme would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
Apr 25, 2024
A grand jury in Arizona on Wednesday charged seven aides to Donald Trump and nearly a dozen Republican officials over a "fake electors" scheme in the state that aimed to keep the former president in power after his 2020 loss to President Joe Biden.
Trump, who is currently facing nearly 90 charges across four criminal cases as he runs for another White House term, was described as "unindicted co-conspirator 1" in the 58-page indictment, which was announced by Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes.
"The people of Arizona elected President Biden," Mayes, a Democrat, said Wednesday. "Unwilling to accept this fact, the defendants charged by the state grand jury allegedly schemed to prevent the lawful transfer of the presidency. Whatever their reasoning was, the plot to violate the law must be answered for."
The indictment names former Arizona Republican Party Chair Kelli Ward, sitting state Republican Sens. Jake Hoffman and Anthony Kern, former U.S. Senate candidate Jim Lamon, and seven others as the "fake electors" who sought to declare Trump the rightful winner of the state's presidential contest.
The names of other individuals indicted by the state grand jury are redacted, but the document's descriptions make clear that former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani, and top Trump legal strategist Boris Epshteyn are among those facing felony charges—including fraud, forgery, and conspiracy.
"In Arizona, defendants, unindicted coconspirators, and others pressured the three groups of election officials responsible for certifying election results to encourage them to change the election results," the document reads. "Discussions about using the Republican electors to change the outcome of the election began as early as November 4, 2020. Those plans evolved during
November based on memos drafted by [an attorney for the Trump campaign, Kenneth Chesebro]."
Mayes said Wednesday that had the fake elector scheme succeeded, it would have "deprived Arizona's voters of their right to have their votes counted for their chosen president."
"It effectively would have made their right to vote meaningless," said Mayes.
A state grand jury, made up of everyday, regular Arizonans, has handed down felony indictments in the ongoing investigation into the fake elector scheme in Arizona. pic.twitter.com/Nu8GcD4ZqJ
— AZ Attorney General Kris Mayes (@AZAGMayes) April 24, 2024
Alex Gulotta, state director of All Voting Is Local Action Arizona, said Wednesday that "the indictment of the eleven fake electors is one of the first steps required in holding these election deniers accountable for their alleged attempts to take power away from voters by disrupting our free and fair elections."
"Arizonans deserve to trust the election officials responsible for administering our elections and preserving our democracy," said Gulotta, "and this is a positive step forward as we continue to strengthen the foundations of our democracy and restore faith in our elections."
The Arizona Republicreported Wednesday that "several of the Arizona electors have previously claimed they were merely offering Congress a backup plan, though nothing in the documents they sent to Congress and the National Archives backs up that assertion."
"The indictment includes several statements the false electors made on social media that contradict those claims," the newspaper observed.
Jenny Guzman, director of Common Cause's Arizona program, said the indictment "marks the start of a new chapter for the fake elector scheme that has plagued Arizona."
"Arizonans are still dealing with the fallout from the false electors and the Big Lie about the 2020 elections," said Guzman. "We are relieved that the investigation by Attorney General Mayes has concluded and Arizonans can now know that what comes next is accountability. These efforts by these fake electors to undermine the will of Arizona’s voters have had implications far beyond their failed attempt to overthrow the 2020 election."
"This indictment can reassure all Arizonans that if anyone, regardless of their political affiliation, attempts to undermine their vote, consequences will follow," Guzman added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Urges FEC to Investigate Trump Campaign Over Scheme for Legal Fees
"By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much."
Apr 24, 2024
A campaign finance watchdog on Wednesday filed a Federal Election Commission complaint accusing former President Donald Trump's 2024 campaign, affiliated political groups, and an accounting firm of violating U.S. law in a scheme "seemingly designed to obscure the true recipients of a noteworthy portion of Trump's legal bills."
The Washington, D.C.-based Campaign Legal Center (CLC) said that "evidence appears to show an illegal arrangement between several Trump-affiliated committees and a compliance firm named Red Curve Solutions that is designed to obscure the identities of those providing legal services and how much they are being paid."
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money."
CLC alleges that the Trump campaign, Trump's political action committee (PAC) Save America, and three affiliated organizations "violated federal reporting requirements based on a scheme in which the committees reportedly paid over $7.2 million—described as 'reimbursement for legal' costs or expenses"—to Red Curve.
The watchdog also said that Red Curve appears to be "making or facilitating illegal contributions that violate either federal contribution limits or the prohibition on corporate contributions."
According to CLC:
Red Curve is a domestic limited liability company that offers compliance and FEC reporting services but does not appear to offer any legal services. It is managed by Bradley Crate, who also serves as the treasurer for each of the five Trump-affiliated committees concerned in this complaint, as well as over 200 other federal committees.
According to filings with the FEC, Red Curve appears to have been fronting legal costs for Trump since at least December 2022, with Trump-affiliated committees repaying the company later. This arrangement appears to violate FEC rules that require campaigns to disclose not only the entity being reimbursed (here, Red Curve) but also the underlying vendor. By not disclosing the vendors that actually provided legal services, the Trump-affiliated committees effectively blocked the public from knowing which attorneys and firms are being paid—and how much they are being paid—through this arrangement.
"Voters have a right to know how the presidential campaigns and other committees supporting presidential candidates spend their money," CLC senior director of campaign finance Erin Chlopak said in a statement. "When campaigns and committees obscure that information from the public, not only do they make it difficult to determine if the law has been violated, but they deny voters the ability to make an informed choice when casting a ballot."
"The steps taken by the Trump campaign, its affiliated committees, and Red Curve Solutions concealed information about how campaign funds were used to pay former President Trump's legal expenditures, including the amounts and ultimate recipients of these expenditures—and the FEC must investigate immediately," Chlopak added.
Trump—who is the presumptive 2024 GOP presidential nominee—faces 91 federal and state felony charges related to his role in the January 6 insurrection and his organization's business practices. He is currently on trial in New York for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The twice-impeached former president has been open about his use of campaign donations to pay his legal costs.
The new CLC filing comes a day after the watchdog filed separate FEC complaints urging investigations into a pair of Trump-affiliated "scam PACs," which "pretend to fundraise for major candidates or issues while secretly diverting almost all of their donors' money back into fundraising or the fraudsters' own pockets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'One Step Closer': Arizona House Votes to Repeal 1864 Abortion Ban
"With a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever," one state campaigner said of a November ballot measure.
Apr 24, 2024
Three Republicans in the Arizona House of Representatives on Wednesday joined with Democrats to advance legislation that would repeal an 1864 ban on abortion—a development rights advocates welcomed while stressing that the fight is far from over.
The 32-28 vote on House Bill 2677—with GOP Reps. Tim Dunn (25), Matt Gress (4), and Justin Wilmeth (2) voting in favor—was the third attempt in as many weeks to pass repeal legislation since the Arizona Supreme Court upheld the ban.
"The state Senate could vote on the repeal as early as next Wednesday, after the bill comes on the floor for a 'third reading,' as is required under chamber rules," according toNBC News. Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs on Wednesday toldThe Washington Post that "I am hopeful the Senate does the right thing and sends it to my desk so I can sign it."
Applauding the House passage of H.B. 2677, Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona president and CEO Angela Florez said that "today, Arizona is one step closer to repealing the state's Civil War-era total abortion ban. While the repeal still must pass the Senate, this is a major win for reproductive freedom."
"We must celebrate today's vote in support of abortion rights and harness our enthusiasm to spread the word and urge lawmakers in the Senate to support this necessary repeal bill," she continued. "Despite this step forward, Arizonans cannot stop fighting."
Florez noted that "even with the repeal of the Civil War-era ban, the state will still have a ban on abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy that denies people access to critical care. And lawmakers continue to attack Arizonans' ability to access reproductive healthcare. Our right to control our bodies and lives is hanging on by a thread."
"Thankfully, voters will have the opportunity to take back control if the Arizona Abortion Access Act is on the ballot this November," she added. "Abortion bans are out-of-step with the will of Arizonans and will force pregnant people to leave their communities for essential healthcare. Planned Parenthood Advocates of Arizona will continue fighting to ensure everyone has the right to make decisions about their health and futures."
The Arizona Abortion Access Act is a proposed state constitutional amendment that would prevent many limits on abortions before fetal viability and safeguard access to care after viability to protect the life or physical or mental health of the patient.
The coalition supporting the amendment, Arizona for Abortion Access, highlighted on social media that the House-approved bill "did not include the emergency clause required to stop the 1864 ban from taking effect on June 8," meaning H.B. 2677 wouldn't apply until 90 days after the end of the legislative session.
Coalition campaign manager Cheryl Bruce said that "with a total ban still set to take effect June 8, the Arizona Abortion Access Act is needed now more than ever. We remain committed to taking these decisions out of the hands of extremist politicians."
Arizona is one of multiple states where rights advocates are promoting abortion rights ballot measures this cycle. Reproductive freedom is also dominating political races at all levels, including the presidential contest. Democratic President Joe Biden is set to face former Republican President Donald Trump in November.
"Donald Trump is responsible for Arizona's abortion ban. Women in the state are still living under a ban with no exceptions for rape or incest and have been stripped of the freedom to make their own healthcare decisions," said Julie Chávez Rodriguez, Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris' reelection campaign manager.
While the presumptive GOP nominee has tried to distance himself from the Arizona Supreme Court's reinstatement of a 160-year-old abortion ban, he has also campaigned on his three appointees to the U.S. Supreme Court who helped reverse Roe v. Wade.
"Trump brags that he is 'proudly' the person responsible for these bans and if he retakes power, the chaos and cruelty he has created will only get worse in all 50 states," Chávez Rodriguez said. "President Biden and Vice President Harris are the only candidates who will stop him."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular