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.
BEIRUT - Members of Lebanon's parliament should vote to end restrictions on
Palestinian refugees' rights to own property and work, Human Rights
Watch said today. The Progressive Socialist Party (PSP) introduced a
bill on June 15, 2010, that would cancel prohibitions on property
ownership and social security benefits for Palestinians, and ease
restrictions on their right to work.
Following a heated debate, the speaker of the house, Nabih Berri,
referred the bill to the parliament's Administration and Justice
Committee for further study. The full parliament will vote on it in a
month. The National Syrian Socialist Party (NSSP) says it plans to
introduce a second bill in the coming days that would go even further
in easing restrictions on Palestinian refugees.
"Lebanon has marginalized Palestinian refugees for too long,"
said Nadim Houry, Beirut director at Human Rights Watch. "Parliament
should seize this opportunity to turn the page and end discrimination
against Palestinians."
Lebanon's estimated 300,000 Palestinian refugees live in
appalling social and economic conditions - most of them in crowded
camps that lack essential infrastructure. In 2001, Parliament passed a
law prohibiting Palestinians from owning property, a right they had for
decades. Lebanese law also restricts their ability to work in many
areas. In 2005, Lebanon eliminated a ban on Palestinians holding most
clerical and technical positions, provided they obtain a temporary work
permit from the Labor Ministry, but more than 20 high-level professions
remain off-limits to Palestinians.
Few Palestinians have benefited from the 2005 reform, though. In
2009, only 261 of more than 145,679 permits issued to non-Lebanese were
for Palestinians. Civil society groups say many Palestinians choose not
to apply because they cannot afford the fees and see no reason to pay a
portion of their salary toward the National Social Security Fund, since
Lebanese law bars Palestinians from receiving social security benefits.
Many Lebanese employers are also unwilling to support Palestinian
workers in getting a work permit.
The proposed law would grant Palestinians the right to obtain
social security benefits and end-of-service compensation, and allow
them to bring complaints before the labor arbitration courts. However,
it would keep the work permit system for clerical jobs in place and not
address the ban on Palestinians working in certain professions,
including law, medicine, and engineering. For these jobs, membership in
the relevant syndicate is required - and most syndicates condition
membership for foreigners on reciprocity in their home country. This
effectively bars the stateless Palestinians.
The second bill expected to be introduced would go further to
address these exclusions. It would exempt Palestinian refugees
registered in Lebanon from the requirement of obtaining a work permit
altogether and would grant Palestinians the right to join all
professional syndicates organized by law.
Reforms to labor laws to end discrimination against Palestinian
refugees in all professions are essential to improving their dire
situation in Lebanon, Human Rights Watch said. According to the United
Nations Relief and Works Agency, the organization set up to address the
needs of Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and elsewhere, Palestinian
refugees in Lebanon have the highest proportion of special hardship
cases among those in any country in the region.
An extensive study by the Norwegian social welfare research
organization Fafo found that just 15 percent of adult Palestinians have
employment contracts. Forced to work illegally and without legal
protection, Palestinians face severe discrimination in wages and
hiring. Many employers pay them less than their Lebanese colleagues, or
refuse to hire Palestinians.
"If there is a work shortage, they will hire you, [but] because
you're Palestinian and it's not allowed, they will pay you half," one
Palestinian told Human Rights Watch. As Palestinians, he added, "We are
not asking for money, we are asking for the right to work, to live in
dignity."
Increasingly, Lebanese politicians have begun to voice support
for providing Palestinians their basic rights. In December, Lebanon's
unity government adopted a ministerial declaration that promised to
provide Palestinians' "humanitarian and social rights" in Lebanon. And
in January, Labor Minister Boutros Harb told a gathering at the General
Labor Federation that, "Palestinians must be granted their basic civil
rights in Lebanon until they return to their homeland."
"It is time to turn words into actions," Houry said. "The coming
weeks will make it clear whether Lebanon's politicians are engaging in
empty rhetoric or whether they are truly committed to the rights of the
Palestinians."
Politicians from several parties have echoed these calls. During
the debate in parliament on June 15, Prime Minister Saad Hariri said,
"We have a historic opportunity to vote on the proposal; there are
people in need."
Critics of the bill, even as they urged caution, agreed. Lebanese
Forces member George Adwan said, "It is unacceptable for Palestinians
not to get their rights, on the basis of our humanity and commitment to
their cause, as well as the situation in the camps."
And a Free Patriotic Movement member, Alain Aoun, agreed, saying, "We cannot deny anyone in Lebanon their human rights."
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.
"The Trump administration seeks to divide, isolate, and intimidate our cities, and make Americans fearful of one another," wrote Wu.
Boston Mayor Michelle Wu on Tuesday came out swinging against US Attorney General Pam Bondi amid the Justice Department's threats to prosecute local officials for not helping the administration carry out its mass deportation program.
In a letter sent to Bondi, Wu defended Boston's right to not participate in federal deportation operations, and she cited court rulings in favor of the city's Boston Trust Act, which she noted has been upheld by courts as "valid exercises of local authority and fully consistent with federal law."
Wu took a hammer to the administration's attacks on American cities and its actions that she said have hurt Boston's economy.
"This federal administration's false and continuous attacks on American cities and millions of our residents are unprecedented," she wrote. "You have eliminated healthcare and food assistance for our families; unlawfully cancelled grants for our schools and roads; slashed funding for our universities, hospitals, and research institutions; and deployed military personnel to occupy our streets. These attacks all come back to a common aim: The Trump administration seeks to divide, isolate, and intimidate our cities, and make Americans fearful of one another."
Wu then linked the Trump administration's current actions to those of the British crown before the American Revolution, which she described as "the attempted coercion of Boston by an unaccountable and distant monarch."
However, Wu also emphasized that the Boston Police Department has cooperated with federal law enforcement officials where appropriate, and she cited the department last week arresting "thirteen people as the result of a joint human trafficking investigation with the FBI and Massachusetts State Police" as an example.
Wu closed her letter with a note of defiance against attempts by the Trump administration to take control of cities across the United States.
"On behalf of the people of Boston, and in solidarity with the cities and communities targeted by this federal administration for our refusal to bow down to unconstitutional threats and unlawful coercion, we affirm our support for each other and for our democracy," she wrote. "Boston will never back down from being a beacon of freedom, and a home for everyone."
Wu's letter comes at a time when Trump and several Republican governors have deployed National Guard forces to Washington, DC for the purported goal of reducing crime in the nation's capital. Trump has also threatened to deploy the National Guard to other cities, including Boston, New York, Chicago, Oakland, and Baltimore.
"It's clear that Trump doesn't want the public weighing in on these dangerous deregulatory initiatives," said Katie Tracy of Public Citizen.
The Trump administration has made it more difficult for consumers, advocacy groups, and small business owners to raise complaints about bad regulations.
On Friday, the General Services Administration—an independent agency that supports the functioning of the government bureaucracy—quietly eliminated a tool known as the POST Application Programming Interface (API) from the Regulations.gov website.
Last Monday, organizations that had previously used the POST system received an email from GSA informing them that "as of Friday, the POST method will no longer be allowed for all users with the exception of approved use cases by federal agencies."
As tech reporter Matthew Gault explained on Friday for 404 Media, which first obtained the email:
POST allowed third-party organizations like Fight for the Future, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Citizen to gather comments from their supporters using their own forms and submit them to the government later.
Regulations.gov has been instrumental as a method for people to speak up against terrible government regulations. During the fight over Net Neutrality in 2017, FFTF gathered more than 1.6 million comments about the pending rule and submitted them all to the FCC in one day by POSTing to the API.
While it is still possible to lodge complaints through the website, Katie Tracy, senior regulatory policy advocate at Public Citizen, says that "the tool offered an easier means for the public to provide input by allowing organizations to collect and submit comments on their behalf."
"Now," Tracy says, "those interested in submitting comments will be forced to navigate the arduous and complicated system on Regulations.gov."
Gault put it more plainly: "The site's user interface sucks. Users have to track down the pending regulation they want to comment on by name or docket number, click the 'comment' button, and then fill out a form, attach a file, provide an email address, provide some personal details, and fight a CAPTCHA."
The GSA has not provided any rationale for why it decided to eliminate the POST system. But Tracy says that making the reporting process more cumbersome is no accident.
"Notice and comment is one of the few opportunities most Americans and small businesses have to shape regulations by telling agency officials how proposed rules benefit or hurt them," Tracy said. "This decision hurts individuals and small businesses–and rewards major corporations and their lobbyists who play the inside game to influence policies outside of the notice and comment process."
"This decision is especially significant amid the Trump administration's efforts to curtail public participation and slash hundreds of safeguards that guarantee clean air and drinking water, safe consumer products, and prevent predatory lending and bank fraud," Tracy added. "It's clear that Trump doesn't want the public weighing in on these dangerous deregulatory initiatives."
"Trump himself, as well as top Republicans, will say the goal is to stop Mamdani... and you'll be wasting your vote on Sliwa. So I feel good about that," Cuomo said in a leaked recording.
Democratic New York City mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani on Tuesday pounced on a report about top rival, disgraced former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, saying that he expects US President Donald Trump will help him win in the coming general election.
Politico obtained a leaked audio recording of Cuomo speaking at a fundraiser in the Hamptons over the weekend in which he expressed confidence that Trump and other Republicans would send signals to their voters that they should back him instead of Republican nominee Curtis Sliwa.
"Trump himself, as well as top Republicans, will say the goal is to stop Mamdani... and you'll be wasting your vote on Sliwa," Cuomo said, according to Politico. "So I feel good about that."
During the fundraiser, Cuomo also suggested that he would have a better relationship with the president than Mamdani, and that there would be opportunities for the two of them to work together.
"Let's put it this way: I knew the president very well," Cuomo said. "I believe there's a big piece of him that actually wants redemption in New York. He feels that he was rejected by New York. We voted for Hillary Clinton. Bill de Blasio took his name off things. So I believe there will be opportunities to actually cooperate with him. I also believe that he's not going to want to fight with me in New York if he can avoid it."
Shortly after Politico's report was published, Mamdani fired off social media posts condemning his rival for welcoming the help of a president whose far-right, anti-immigrant, anti-free speech agenda has threatened the city he wants to lead.
"At (another) Hamptons fundraiser with Republican donors on Saturday, Andrew Cuomo said it plainly: He's expecting Trump's help to defeat us in November," wrote Mamdani. "'I feel good about that,' Cuomo said. New Yorkers won't."
Mamdani then pointed to an earlier report from The New York Times that detailed a call that Cuomo had with Trump about the mayoral race.
"Now we're seeing the results of that collaboration," Mamdani remarked. "But as we showed in the primary, our hustle can defeat their money. Let's get organized and win even bigger. Eleven more weeks."
A spokesman for Cuomo insisted that the former New York governor wasn't seeking Trump's assistance in the race despite openly discussing it at a private fundraiser.
"We're not asking for or expecting help from anyone," he told Politico. "Governor Cuomo is the only chance to beat Mamdani and ensure the greatest city in the world stays the greatest city in the world."
Mamdani is centering the city's affordability crisis in his campaign and has pledged to implement fare-free buses, universal free childcare, a network of city-run grocery stores, and a rent freeze on rent-stabilized apartments. Cuomo and other centrist Democrats have sought to portray Mamdani as "unrealistic" and have attacked his support for Palestinian rights—but the attacks have been unsuccessful thus far, with the state assembly member winning the Democratic primary in June by a significant margin.
Polling from the general election has shown Mamdani with a hefty lead over his rivals in a four-way race that includes Cuomo, Sliwa, and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams. However, the same polling also shows that advantage narrows significantly should Sliwa and Adams exit the race.