November, 29 2010, 09:08am EDT
Egypt: Elections Marred as Opposition Barred from Polls
Violence, Arrests and Fraud Allegations Widespread
CAIRO
Elections to Egypt's People's Assembly on November 28, 2010, were marred by reports that opposition supporters were barred from polling stations and subjected to violence, Human Rights Watch said today. There were reports of numerous irregularities including arrests and harassment of journalists, denial of access for opposition candidate representatives to 30 polling stations visited by Human Rights Watch across the country and widespread allegations of voter fraud.
"The authorities promised that Egyptian civil society could monitor the elections without the need for international observers," said Joe Stork, deputy director of Human Rights Watch's Middle East division. "Unfortunately the repeated exclusion of opposition representatives and independent monitors from polling stations, along with reports of violence and fraud suggest that citizens were not able to partake in free elections."
Human Rights Watch did not monitor the voting or counting process and did not seek access to polling stations. Human Rights Watch representatives went to 30 polling stations in six governorates and interviewed voters, candidate representatives, as well as civil society observers and journalists outside polling stations in order to assess the human rights environment surrounding the elections.
Denial of Access for Candidate Representatives, Voters and Independent Observers
Human Rights Watch met with representatives of independent and opposition candidates outside most of these polling stations. They consistently reported that in the vast majority of cases, polling and security officials denied representatives access to polling stations when they did not have a police stamp on the notarized form identifying them as a candidate's proxy, and in many cases even where they did have such a stamp from a police station.
By law, each candidate has the right to one representative in every polling station in his or her district and candidates had provided representatives with notarized proxies. But on the morning of voting day, polling station officials told candidate representatives that this document was insufficient and that they would need to get it stamped by the local police station. An administrative court ruling in November determined that it was sufficient to have a general proxy, that has been notarized, and that the additional authentication by the police station was not necessary.
In Hadayik el Kobba, in the east of Cairo, the Hadayik police station refused to stamp the proxies of representatives of independent candidate Amr Zaki. As a result none of the candidate's representatives were able to enter the polling stations.
In Alexandria, Human Rights Watch observed independent candidate Osama Kamal try to enter the Mustafa Kamel polling station. Officials at the door turned him away and told him he needed another stamp from a police station.
A number of polling stations were closed for at least several hours during the day, in violation of regulations issued by the Higher Elections Committee, which ordered polls open between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. In the Cairo neighborhood of Dokki, Human Rights Watch observed the Hoda Shaarawy polling station for women, which opened at 8 a.m. At 9 a.m. security officers forcibly removed representatives of opposition candidates. At 9:30 a.m. they closed the polling station, though a large crowd outside called on them to "open the doors." Security officers there told Human Rights Watch representatives and a local journalist to stop filming and ordered them to move away. They did not give a reason for the closure. Around midday officers finally opened the gate again and slowly started allowing people in.
Arwa Abd al-Rahman, the representative for the Wafd party candidate at that polling station, told Human Rights Watch:
I had the right proxy, signed and stamped by the police station, and they still wouldn't let me in. The head of the polling station sent me to the State Security officer, who threw my permit away and told me "you're not going in," giving me a painful shove on my back to make me leave.
In Karmouz, in Alexandria, women voters who had planned to vote for the Muslim Brotherhood candidate running as an independent said that officers denied them access to the polling station. In the Delta city of Samanoud, Mustafa Nashar, 44, a lawyer and spokesperson for another independent candidate, Saad Ismat al-Husseini, told Human Rights Watch that poll officials arrived at Sayyida Zainab polling station at around 8:30 a.m., a half hour after the scheduled opening, and that police officers with them preventing voters from entering. "When I explained who I was," Nashar said, "one of the officers verbally abused me and hit me on my shoulder, saying, 'There are no elections today'."
Voters waiting to enter Sayyida Zainab, a women-only polling station, pushed their way in at that point and, Nashar claimed, found some see-through ballot boxes that already contained several hundred ballots, an indication, Nashar claimed, that ballot-stuffing had started early.
One female voter who did not wish to be named, told Human Rights Watch that at 3.30 p.m. at Sayyida Aisha, another women-only polling station in Samanoud, a police officer and colleagues, all without uniforms but wearing sidearms, entered the school from a rear door and expelled all the candidate representatives unrelated to the ruling National Democratic Party - as far as she knew these representatives were all associated with independent candidates.
Human Rights Watch encountered other instances where groups of young men, and sometimes women, entered polling stations in substantial numbers for the apparent purpose of disrupting polling and intimidating voters supporting opposition candidates. Ahmad Noh, a candidate for the legally-recognized leftist opposition party Tagammu` in the Gharbiyya village of Shubra Babil, in Mahalla, told Human Rights Watch that his representatives were also barred from polling stations.
At the Um al-Abtal polling station in Tala, in the governorate of Munufiya north of Cairo, Bashwat Hamed, a lawyer and proxy for independent candidate Muhammad Anwar Sadat said that at 11 a.m., having had to argue her way inside, officials kicked out the representative of an independent candidate affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. She said she then went into a room where she saw the head of the polling station stuffing ballots into a voting box.
When Human Rights Watch visited the Um al-Abtal polling station shortly before the 7 p.m. close of voting, several dozen opposition supporters tried to prevent poll workers from loading boxes of what they believed were fraudulently stuffed ballot boxes onto trucks. At that point the crowd was charged by a handful of uniformed Central Security officers along with several dozen young men in plain clothes swinging large sticks. Several Central Security armored vehicles escorted the ballot trucks to the main counting headquarters.
Human Rights Watch observed at that point another organized column of men with sticks approaching the polling station. When they arrived outside the polling station, Human Rights Watch overheard a uniformed officer tell them they were "no longer needed" and sent them to another location - a clear indication that the plain clothed men were being directed by police.
At the ballot counting center for Tala, several hundred Central Security troops and riot police formed a security cordon. Human Rights Watch observed inside the counting center dozens of uniformed security personnel as well as a similar number of men in plainclothes still carrying sticks. At that point counting had not yet begun.
Violence, arrests and the role of security services
According to Muslim Brotherhood lawyer Abdelmoneim Abdelmaqsud, security forces arrested a total of 186 members from in front of polling stations in Port Said, Ismailiya, Damietta, Beheira and Dakahliya.
In Abu Sulaiman neighborhood in El Raml of Alexandria, independent candidate Subhi Saleh told Human Rights Watch that he was roughed up during a visit to the polling station in the Alexandria suburb of Abis to hear voters' complaints. No representatives of candidates from parties other than the ruling NDP were inside, Saleh said. At about 1:30 p.m. in the street outside the station, several dozen young men attacked Saleh and a dozen of his supporters with fists and sticks. Saleh, who was running against Abd al-Salam al-Mahgoub, a former governor of Alexandria, said that someone grabbed him by the throat and choked him. Six witnesses confirmed his account to Human Rights Watch. Human Rights Watch met with Saleh about an hour later, at about 2:30 p.m., in a car on a highway at the edge of the village. "This all happened under the eyes of police," he told Human Rights Watch. His collar was torn and stained with blood.
Human Rights Watch spoke with several supporters of opposition candidates who were victims of election-day violence in the Delta city of Samanoud. Muhammad Awad, 37, a representative of independent candidate Abd al-Halim Hilal, was at the Sadat Secondary School polling station at around 9:30 a.m. when a large group of young men with knives and machetes came inside the school and pulled him and a colleague, 47-year-old Sayid Ibrahim Muhammad al-Wakil, out into the schoolyard. Awad had a large wound on his head above his left temple, dressed in bandages, from what he said was a knife attack. Al-Wakil had a vivid gash at least six inches long on his forearm, which he said he got when he raised his arm to shield his head from a blow with a wooden stick studded with nails. The two men told Human Rights Watch that they recognized some of their attackers, whom they characterized as low-level neighborhood criminals and drug-dealers. They claimed they also recognized in the schoolyard some men whom they said were with the Ministry of Interior's State Security Investigations division.
Mahmud Abd al-Wahhab Khalil, the 21-year-old nephew and also the driver of the same independent candidate, Abd al-Halim Hilal, was lying on a hospital bed in the Samanoud hospital when Human Rights Watch met with him. He said that a large group whom he characterized as "thugs" entered the yard of the Mubarak Educational Complex polling station, shouting that they were closing the school on behalf of Muhammad al-Berberi, an NDP candidate and also a former high-ranking police official. Khalil said when some of the men discovered his association with the opposition candidate they surrounded him and began beating him on the legs with large sticks. Khalil said then when he solicited assistance from uniformed security forces "they shooed me away."
Human Rights Watch met briefly with a local police official in Samanoud When asked about reports of violence against opposition candidate supporters, the official claimed to be unaware of any such incidents.
Attacks on Journalists
Security officers arrested and briefly detained at least 10 journalists and harassed and restricted dozens of others on voting day. Adam Makary, from Al Jazeera English, told Human Rights Watch that polling station officials denied him accesses to the six polling stations he had visited despite the fact that he had the required permits.
Photojournalist Bassem Mortada from Al- Masry al-Youm English told Human Rights Watch:
I was in Helwan, standing on the street outside a polling station taking pictures as five large buses arrived and large group of civil servants descended and went into the polling station. After a while an officer saw me and came over ordering me to stop. He made me go into the polling station with him, took my camera away and wiped off all the pictures. He questioned me for around 20 minutes and finally let me go after telling me that I was not allowed to take any pictures for the rest of the day.
In Shubra, officers arrested Ahram English Portal journalist Yasmine Fathy for half an hour. Jano Charbel, a journalist with Al-Masry al-Youm English, told Human Rights Watch:
In Mahalla, I had been filming outside and went inside the gate to the polling station. When I went inside a police officer stopped me and questioned me for about 20 minutes about who I was and what I was covering. They told me that I had to leave Mahalla immediately and go straight back to Cairo without visiting any other polling stations.
"The evidence suggests that Egyptian officials made a concerted effort to prevent opposition candidates from exercising their rights during voting," 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
'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."
Although 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," 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
Biden Labor Department Finalizes Pro-Worker Rules on Overtime, Retirement Savings
"Democrats are delivering for working people!" declared Rep. Pramila Jayapal as the AFL-CIO noted that GOP ex-President Donald Trump "gutted the rules that required overtime pay for millions of workers."
Apr 23, 2024
Roughly 4.3 million U.S. workers will now be eligible for overtime pay under a new rule finalized Tuesday by President Joe Biden's Labor Department—in stark contrast to his Republican predecessor's rules that severely limited the number of workers who were eligible for required compensation when they worked more than 40 hours per week.
Under the new rule, employers will be required to pay overtime premiums to salaried workers who work more than standard full-time hours if they earn less than $1,128 per week, or about $58,600 per year.
Former President Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, may now have to defend his 2020 rule that set the overtime pay threshold at just $35,500 per year, leaving out millions of workers.
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) noted that the updated rule was "a major piece" of the Executive Action Agenda released by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which she chairs.
"This is a HUGE pro-worker initiative by President Biden," said Jayapal. "Democrats are delivering for working people!"
Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, who Biden has nominated to fill the role permanently, said it is "unacceptable" that lower-paid workers "are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay," while hourly workers are eligible for overtime pay.
"This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time," said Su. "The Biden-Harris administration is following through on our promise to raise the bar for workers who help lay the foundation for our economic prosperity."
The Labor Department posted a chart on social media showing how under Trump's policy, only workers who earn less than $688 per week are eligible for required overtime pay. The full rule is set to go into effect in January 2025.
The chart offers a "good split screen with the GOP," saidSlate reporter Mark Joseph Stern.
"It isn't just that Trump's Department of Labor fought overtime pay—it's also that Trump appointed anti-labor judges who are about to block Biden's new rule," he said.
The former Republican president's appointed judges could also block a new Federal Trade Commission rule introduced on Tuesday, which blocks companies from including noncompete clauses in workers' contracts.
"Both reforms happened because of Biden and in spite of Republicans," said HuffPost labor reporter Dave Jamieson.
Along with the overtime rule, the Labor Department announced a new policy aimed at safeguarding people's retirement savings from their financial advisers' conflicts of interest.
The finalized retirement security rule requires "trusted investment advice providers to give prudent, loyal, honest advice free from overcharges," said the department. "These fiduciaries must adhere to high standards of care and loyalty when they recommend investments and avoid recommendations that favor the investment advice providers' interests—financial or otherwise—at the retirement savers' expense."
"Under the final rule and amended exemptions, financial institutions overseeing investment advice providers must have policies and procedures to manage conflicts of interest and ensure providers follow these guidelines," the agency said.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said the nation's largest labor federation has "been pushing for the fiduciary and overtime rules since the Obama administration."
"It's really this simple," said Shuler. "Every worker deserves their fair share of the wealth they help create and every worker deserves to make sure their hard-earned money is secure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular