

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Human rights conditions deteriorated across North Africa in 2009, with unfair trials in political cases the norm, and a narrowing space for independent journalists and associations to operate, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2010.
Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia are among the 15 North African and Middle Eastern countries, and more than 90 countries worldwide, covered in the 612-page World Report 2010, Human Rights Watch's 20th annual global review of human rights practices. The report argues that nations responsible for the worst human rights abuses have over the past year intensified a concerted attack against human rights defenders and organizations that document abuse.
"Morocco cracked down hard on those who broke the taboos against critical discussion of the monarchy, Islam, and Western Sahara," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "The presidents of Algeria and Tunisia, both re-elected after the constitutions were amended so they could run yet again, showed no signs of allowing greater space for dissent."
The report says there was backsliding on human rights overall in Morocco, undermining progress earlier in the decade. The government imprisoned a magazine editor and a human rights activist for raising sensitive topics, increased politically motivated travel restrictions against Sahrawi activists, and convicted political activists in unfair trials.
President Zine El-Abidine Ben Ali of Tunisia, re-elected a fifth time with no real opposition, tolerated almost no dissent, using unfair trials and omnipresent plainclothes police to stifle the ability of Tunisians to speak and associate freely.
President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of Algeria, also re-elected by a huge margin, maintained Algeria's state of emergency, under which civil liberties, such as the right to organize meetings and demonstrations, are tightly restricted.
MOROCCO
Repressive Legislation Punishes Government Critics
Morocco has a lively civil society and independent press. But authorities, aided by complaisant courts, use repressive legislation to punish and imprison peaceful opponents, especially those who violate taboos against criticizing the king or the monarchy, questioning the "Moroccanness" of Western Sahara, or "denigrating" Islam.
The government relies on laws providing prison terms for "defamatory" or "false" speech to prosecute critical reporting and commentary. Driss Chahtane, editor of al-Mish'al weekly, has been in prison since October for an article about the king's health. A human rights activist, Chekib el-Khayari from Nador, is completing the first year of a three-year sentence for "gravely insulting state institutions" because he accused state officials of complicity in illegal drug-trafficking. On November 14, Moroccan authorities summarily deported one Sahrawi activist, Aminatou Haidar, on the pretext that she had renounced her Moroccan citizenship by the manner in which she had completed a border entry form. The government allowed her to return home 33 days later under international pressure.
On July 28 the Rabat Court of Appeals convicted all 35 defendants in the so-called "Belliraj" case of forming a terrorist network, basing the verdicts almost entirely on the statements attributed to the defendants by the police, even though most defendants had repudiated those statements before the investigating judge and all repudiated the statements at trial. The court refused to investigate allegations of torture and falsified statements. The defendants included six well-known political figures, including two party leaders.
"Morocco's backtracking on rights became apparent to all during 2009," Whitson said. "Developments in 2010 will reveal whether authorities intend to reinforce this negative trend or put the country back on a path of progress on rights."
Human Rights Watch said that the two most significant steps Morocco could take to resume progress are to repeal laws that penalize nonviolent speech or protest that crosses the "red lines:" criticizing the monarchy, Morocco's claim to the Western Sahara, or Islam; and to implement King Mohammed VI's call for consolidating judicial independence by ensuring that courts respect the rights of defendants to challenge incriminating evidence, such as their statements to the police, and to present pertinent witnesses and other evidence in their own defense.
TUNISIA
No Space for Opposition Voices
President Ben Ali won a fifth term in a campaign that allowed no space for opposition voices on the critical issues. Authorities prevent Tunisian human rights organizations and independent journalists from operating freely, and the police impose heavy and arbitrary restrictions on the liberties of released political prisoners.
The country, which has one of the region's longest traditions of independent human rights activity, is today without a single human rights monitoring group that is allowed to operate both legally and freely. The year ended with journalists Taoufik Ben Brik and Zouhair Makhlouf behind bars for their critical reporting and commentary, and hundreds of young men serving prison terms on charges under the anti-terrorism law, even though they were never charged with preparing or carrying out specific acts of violence.
"Tunisia's intolerance for human rights dissent makes it a prime example of a worldwide trend among repressive countries to cover up abuses by trying to silence the messenger," Whitson said.
Tunisia's top priority for 2010 should be to strengthen judicial independence by ensuring that trials are fair, that defendants enjoy all their rights to present relevant evidence, and that judges issue verdicts based on the evidence presented before them in court, Human Rights Watch said.
ALGERIA
Restrictions Limit Civil Liberties
Algeria endured its 18th year under an emergency law that restricts civil liberties. Authorities banned public gatherings, such as outdoor demonstrations and even seminars organized by human rights organizations. The families of the thousands of Algerians whom state agents "disappeared" during the political strife of the 1990s received little or no information about the fate of their loved ones. Meanwhile, the 2006 Law on Peace and National Reconciliation provided a legal framework for the impunity enjoyed de facto by the perpetrators of "disappearances" and other atrocities committed during the 1990s, and for the penalization of criticism of the way the state handled political violence during that era. And, as in Morocco and Tunisia, journalists risked prison terms because of laws that chill free expression by providing penal sanctions for defamation.
"In Algeria, political violence is down compared to when President Bouteflika first took office in 1999," Whitson said. "But while Algerians are safer physically, they are less free when it comes to criticizing and challenging government policies."
Human Rights Watch urged Algeria to roll back the restrictions that muzzle independent media and civil society, and that criminalize questioning the state's handling of the political violence of the 1990s.
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.
"Violence can never lead to the justice, stability, and peace that the people are waiting for,” the pope said during a prayer.
Pope Leo XIV called for a ceasefire in the Middle East on Sunday, in his most direct appeal for peace since the US and Israel launched a war on Iran on February 28.
While the pope did not mention either US President Donald Trump or Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by name, he directly addressed those driving hostilities.
“On behalf of the Christians of the Middle East and all women and men of good will, I appeal to those responsible for this conflict,” Leo said, according to The Associated Press. “Cease fire so that avenues for dialogue may be reopened. Violence can never lead to the justice, stability, and peace that the people are waiting for.”
The remarks came following his recital of the Angelus Prayer from the Vatican at 12:00 pm local time.
“Some claim to involve the name of God in these deadly decisions, but God cannot be enlisted by darkness."
"The people of the Middle East for two weeks have been suffering the atrocious violence of war," he began.
He continued: “Thousands of innocent people have been killed, and many others have been forced to abandon their homes. I renew my prayerful closeness to all those who have lost their loved ones in the attacks that have struck schools, hospitals, and residential areas."
According to AP, the mentioned school strike likely referred to the US bombing of an elementary school in Minab, Iran on the first day of the war, which killed at least 175 people, the majority of whom were children.
Pope Leo also repeated concerns about the situation in Lebanon, and called for "paths of dialogue that can support the country’s authorities in implementing lasting solutions to the serious crisis underway."
Israeli attacks on that country have forced about 1 million people to abandon their homes and killed more than 800, The Guardian reported.
The pope's remarks came two days after a Israeli strikes killed 12 healthcare workers at the primary healthcare facility in Burj Qalaouiyah, Lebanon, an attack that the country's health ministry said "violated all international humanitarian laws.”
Director-General of the World Health Organization Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said in a statement Saturday: "WHO condemns this tragic loss of life and emphasizes that health workers must always be protected. According to international humanitarian law, medical personnel and facilities should never be attacked or militarized."
He continued: "The intensification of conflict in Lebanon and the broader Middle East increases the likelihood of such tragedies. Urgent action is required to de-escalate the crisis and protect the health of people throughout the region."
In Iran, meanwhile, US and Israeli attacks on the city of Isfahan killed at least 15 people Sunday morning, and the total death toll for the country is around 1,400, according to Al Jazeera.
Following his remarks during the Angelus Prayer, Pope Leo also addressed the war while conducting a pastoral visit to a suburb of Rome.
“Currently, many of our brothers and sisters in the world are suffering from violent conflicts, caused by the absurd claim that problems and differences can be resolved through war,” he said, as Agence France-Presse reported.
He also criticized those who use religion to justify violence: “Some claim to involve the name of God in these deadly decisions, but God cannot be enlisted by darkness. It is peace that those who invoke him must seek.”
"Targeting an entire family in this savage manner reveals the true nature of the Israeli occupation and its policies based on killing and extermination, destruction and displacement," the Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said.
The Israeli Defense Forces killed a Palestinian couple and two of their children in the West Bank on Sunday, on one of the deadliest days for Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank in weeks.
The soldiers opened fire on a car in the village of Tammun in which 37-year-old Ali Khaled Bani Odeh, his 35-year-old wife Waad, and their four sons Mohammad, Othman, Mustafa, and Khaled were traveling. Odeh, Waad, 5-year-old Mohammad, and 7-year-old Othman were shot in the head and died, leaving behind two injured children.
"We came under direct fire, we didn't know the source. Everyone in the car was martyred, except my brother Mustafa and me," one of the surviving children, 12-year-old Khaled, told Reuters from the hospital.
He said that after the shooting was over, the Israeli soldiers pulled him out of the car and began to beat him, telling him, "We killed dogs."
"These crimes occur within a systematic policy pursued by the occupation authorities using lethal force against Palestinian civilians."
The soldiers also beat his other surviving brother, according to Al Jazeera.
The Israeli military said that it had been operating in Tammun to make arrests on "terrorist" charges and that soldiers had fired on a vehicle when it accelerated toward them, according to Reuters. It said it was reviewing the incident.
Al Jazeera journalist Nida Ibrahim said that the family had been totally shocked by the shooting.
“The extended family says the father and the mother did not know that Israeli forces were there as they were in a Palestinian car,” she said.
The Palestinian Ministry of Foreign Affairs condemned the killing on social media as a "terrifying arbitrary execution crime that targeted an entire Palestinian family inside their vehicle."
The Israeli soldiers also prevented Red Crescent workers from reaching the family, the ministry said, leading to the families' "deliberate and cold-blooded execution."
The ministry continued: "The Ministry affirms that targeting an entire family in this savage manner reveals the true nature of the Israeli occupation and its policies based on killing and extermination, destruction and displacement, amid a systematic impunity, and it further affirms that these crimes, concurrent with the escalation of settler crimes and their organized terrorism in the occupied West Bank, are not isolated incidents, but part of a comprehensive and systematic aggression aimed at exterminating the Palestinian people and displacing them, in clear exploitation of the escalation occurring in the region."
In a statement issued on social media, the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights (PCHR) also blamed the deaths on the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, which has been deemed illegal by the International Court of Justice.
"This escalation in these crimes comes as a direct result of the expansion of shooting instructions in the Israeli army, the rising violence of settlers amid the prevalence of an impunity policy, and the entrenchment of ethnic cleansing amid unprecedented international silence," PCHR said.
It continued: "While the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights condemns the unjustified murder crimes committed by occupation forces and settlers, it affirms that these crimes occur within a systematic policy pursued by the occupation authorities using lethal force against Palestinian civilians, in flagrant violation of the principles of necessity and distinction that form fundamental pillars of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. Moreover, they come as part of a pattern aimed at terrorizing citizens, intimidating them, and entrenching ethnic cleansing policies, and replicating acts of genocide, albeit in a less overt manner."
Also on Sunday, Israeli settlers killed a Palestinian man in Nablus Governorate, making him the sixth man killed by settlers since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran. Movement restrictions imposed due the war have emboldened setters to attack, knowing that ambulances will be delayed in reaching their victims, human rights advocates and healthcare workers told Reuters.
In total, Israeli settlers and soldiers have killed 25 Palestinians in the West Bank since the beginning of the year, PCHR said.
In Gaza, where Israeli strikes at first declined following the beginning of the Iran war, the death toll is rising again. On Sunday, Israeli strikes killed nine police officers in Zawayda and a pregnant woman, her husband, and son in Nuseirat.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protest," one legal advocate said.
The government has largely won its first case bringing material-support-for-terrorism charges against protesters alleged to belong to "antifa," which President Donald Trump designated as a domestic terror group in 2025 despite the fact that no such organized group exists and the president has no legal authority to designate organizations as domestic terror groups.
A federal jury in Fort Worth, Texas agreed on Friday to convict eight people of domestic terrorism because they wore all black to a protest outside Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Prairieland Detention Facility in Alvarado, Texas on July 4, 2025, at which one of the protesters shot and wounded a police officer. Legal experts say the verdict could bolster attempts by the administration to stifle dissent.
"A case like this helps the government kind of see how far they can go in criminalizing constitutionally protected protests and also helps them kind of intimidate, increase the fear, hoping that folks in other cities then will think twice over protesting,” Suzanne Adely, interim president of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Associated Press.
The administration promised it would be the first such case of many.
"The US lost today with this verdict."
“Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization that has been allowed to flourish in Democrat-led cities—not under President Trump,” Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Friday. “Today’s verdict on terrorism charges will not be the last as the Trump administration systematically dismantles Antifa and finally halts their violence on America’s streets.”
The trial revolved around a nighttime protest at which participants planned to set off fireworks in solidarity with the around 1,000 migrants detained inside the Prarieland ICE facility. Some participants brought guns, which is legal in Texas, as The Intercept reported.
Sam Levine explained in The Guardian what happened next:
Shortly after arriving at the facility, two or three of the protesters broke away from the larger group and began spray painting cars in the parking lot, a guard shack, slashed the tires on a government van, and broke a security camera. Two ICE detention guards came out and told the protesters to stop. A police officer arrived on the scene shortly after and drew his weapon at one of the people allegedly doing vandalism. One of the protesters was standing in the woods with an AR-15 and hit him in the shoulder. The officer would survive.
At first, the federal government charged those arrested after the event with "attempted murder of a police officer," according to NOTUS.
However, that changed after Trump's designation of antifa as a terror group in September and the release of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7), which directs federal law enforcement to target left-leaning groups and activities. The next month, the government's case expanded to include terrorism charges.
“This wouldn’t be a terrorism case if it weren’t for that memo,” one defense lawyer told NOTUS on background.
The prosecution argued that the fact that the protesters wore black clothes to the protest was enough to convict them of material support for terrorism.
“Providing your body as camouflage for others to do the enumerated acts is providing support,” Assistant US Attorney Shawn Smith said during closing arguments, as The Intercept reported on Thursday. “It’s impossible to tell who is doing what. That’s the point.”
The defense, meanwhile, warned the jury about the free speech implications of the charge.
“The government is asking you to put protesters in prison as terrorists. You are the only people who can stop that,” Blake Burns, an attorney for defendant Elizabeth Soto, said, according to The Guardian.
"When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result."
Ultimately, the jury decided to convict eight defendants of material support for terrorism as well as riot, conspiracy to use and carry an explosive, and use and carry of an explosive. However, they dismissed attempts by the state to argue that the protest constituted a pre-planned ambush and charge four people who had not shot at the police officer with attempted murder and discharging a firearm during a crime. Only Benjamin Song, the alleged shooter, was charged with one count of attempted murder and three counts of discharging a firearm.
The jury also convicted a ninth defendant, Daniel Rolando Sanchez Estrada, of conspiracy to conceal documents. Sanchez Estrada, who was not at the protest, had simply moved a box of zines out of his wife's home after she was arrested for the protest, according to The Intercept.
"The US lost today with this verdict,” Sanchez Estrada’s attorney, Christopher Weinbel, said, as AP reported.
Support the Prarieland Defendants said in a statement, "Everything about this trial from beginning to end has proven what we have said all along: This is a sham trial, built on political persecution and ideological attacks coming from the top."
However, the group commended the solidarity that had sprung up among the defendants and their allies and vowed to continue to support them.
"We have a long journey ahead of us to continue fighting these charges along with the state level charges," they said. "What happens here sets the tone for what’s to come. We are here and we won’t give up."
Outside observers warned about the implication for the right to protest under Trump.
"Remember all the people who dismissed the alarm over NSPM-7 because 'ANTIFA isn't even a real organization'? We told you that didn't matter. When the villain is a made-up boogeyman then the target becomes 'anyone who disagrees with Trump'—and this is the result," said Cory Archibald, the co-founder of Track AIPAC [American Israel Public Affairs Committee].
Content creator Austin MacNamara said: "The Prairieland trial was given almost zero media coverage because of the blatant lies by DHS [Department of Homeland Security] and Police. This verdict now sets a precedent for criminalization of dissent across the board. Noise demos, Black-Bloc, pamphlets/zines/red cards, all of this can be used to imprison you."
Academic Nathan Goodman wrote that convicting people of terrorism based on clothing was a "serious threat to the First Amendment."
The verdict gives new poignancy to what defendant Meagan Morris told NOTUS ahead of the jury's decision: “If we win, I think it shows that Trump’s mandate is not working, that the people understand that you can’t criminalize, you know, First and Second Amendment-protected activities. And I think if we lose, then… a lot of the country is OK with what’s going on. And it will be a much darker time, it’ll just signify a much increased crackdown on political opposition and free speech."