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
Supreme Court Urged to 'Rule Quickly' After Trump Immunity Arguments
"It'd be a travesty for justices to delay matters further," said one legal expert.
Apr 25, 2024
After about three hours of oral arguments Thursday on former President Donald Trump's immunity claims, legal experts and democracy defenders urged the U.S. Supreme Court to rule swiftly, with just over six months until the November election.
Trump—the presumptive Republican candidate to challenge Democratic President Joe Biden, despite his 88 felony charges in four ongoing criminal cases—is arguing that presidential immunity should protect him from federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 loss to Biden, which culminated in the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.
Justices across the ideological spectrum didn't seem inclined to support Trump's broad immunity claims—which critics have said "reflect a misreading of constitutional text and history as well as this court's precedent." However, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) shared examples of what it would mean if they did.
"Trump could sell pardons, ambassadorships, and other official benefits to his wealthy donors, members of his clubs, or cronies who helped him commit other crimes," CREW warned. "Trump could sell nuclear codes and government secrets to help pay back crippling debts."
"But this isn't just about what Donald Trump could do. It's really about how total immunity for the president would threaten our democratic system of checks and balances," the group continued. "The president could order the military to assassinate activists, political opponents, members of Congress, or even Supreme Court justices, so long as he claimed it related to some official act."
After warning that a president could also order the occupation or closure of the Capitol or high court to prevent actions against him, CREW concluded that "the Supreme Court never should have taken this appeal up in the first place. They should rule quickly and shut these ludicrous claims down for good."
The organization was far from alone in demanding a quick decision from the nation's highest court.
"In the name of accountability, the court must not delay its decision," the Brennan Center for Justice said Thursday evening. "The Supreme Court's time is up. It needs to let the prosecution move forward. The court decided Bush v. Gore in three days—it should act with similar alacrity in deciding Trump v. U.S."
In Bush v. Gore, the case that decided the 2000 election, the high court issued a related stay on December 9, heard oral arguments on December 11, and issued a final decision on December 12.
On Thursday, the arguments "got away from the central question: Is a former president immune from criminal prosecution if he tried to overthrow a presidential election, using private means and the power of his office to do so?" the Brennan Center noted. "The answer is simple: No."
"It is not an 'official act' to try to overthrow the peaceful transfer of power or the Constitution, even if you conspire with other government officials to do it or use the Oval Office phone," the center said. "Trump's attorney was pushing the court to come up with a sea change in the law. That's unnecessary and a delay tactic that will hurt the pursuit of justice in this case."
In a departure from previous claims, Trump's attorney, D. John Sauer, "appeared to agree with Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is leading the prosecution, that there are some allegations in the indictment that do not involve 'official acts' of the president," NBC Newsreported, noting questions from liberal Justice Elena Kagan and conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee.
Barrett summarized various allegations from the indictment and in three cases—involving dishonest election claims, false allegations of fraud, and fake electors—Sauer conceded that Trump's alleged conduct sounded private, suggesting that a more narrow case against the ex-president that excluded any potential official acts could proceed.
Due to Trump attorney's concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there's now a very clear path for DOJ's case to go forward.\n\nIt'd be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further.\n\nJustice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.\u2b07\ufe0f— (@)
According to NBC:
Matthew Seligman, a lawyer and a fellow at the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford Law School who filed a brief backing prosecutors, said Sauer's concessions highlight that Trump is "not immune for the vast majority of the conduct alleged in the indictment."
Ultimately, he said, the case will go to trial "absent some external intervention—like Trump ordering [the Justice Department] to drop the charges" after having won the election.
At the same time, Sauer's backtracking might have little consequence from an electoral perspective. Further delay in a trial, which Sauer is close to achieving, is a form of victory in itself.
Slate's Mark Joseph Stern pointed out that when Barrett similarly questioned Michael Dreeben, the U.S. Department of Justice lawyer arguing the case for Smith, it seemed like they "were trying to work out some compromise wherein the trial court could distinguish between official and unofficial acts, then instruct the jury not to impose criminal liability on the former."
"It was fascinating to watch Barrett nodding along as Dreeben pitched a compromise that would largely preserve Smith's January 6 prosecution but limit what the jury could hear, or at least consider," Stern added. "That, though, would take months to suss out in the trial court. More delays!"
Stern and other experts signaled that the decision likely comes down to Barrett and Chief Justice John Roberts, with the three liberals seemingly supporting the prosecution of Trump and the other four conservatives suggesting it is unconstitutional.
People for the American Way president Svante Myrick said in a statement that "today's argument brought both good and bad news. It was chilling to hear Donald Trump's lawyer say that staging a military coup could be considered part of a president's official duties."
"Thankfully, the majority of the court, including conservative justices, did not seem to buy that very broad Trump argument that a former president is absolutely immune from prosecution under any circumstances," Myrick added. "On the other hand, it's not clear that there is a majority on this court that will quickly reject the immunity arguments and let the case go forward in time for a trial before the election. That's a huge concern."
Trump was not at the Supreme Court on Thursday; he was at his trial in New York, where he faces 34 counts for allegedly falsifying business records related to hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 election cycle. The are two other cases: a federal one for mishandling classified material and another in Georgia for interfering with the last presidential contest.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Just the Beginning': 50+ Arrested for Blockading Citigroup Bank Over Climate Crimes
"Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet," said one Indigenous campaigner.
Apr 25, 2024
Twenty more demonstrators were arrested Thursday, the second day of Earth Week protests targeting Citigroup's Manhattan headquarters in what organizers called "the beginning of a wave of direct actions to take place over the summer targeting big banks for creating climate chaos that is killing our communities and our planet."
Protest organizers—who include Climate Defenders, New York Communities for Change, Planet over Profit, and Stop the Money Pipeline—said 53 activists were arrested over two days of demonstrations, which included blocking the entrance to Citigroup's headquarters, to "demand that the bank stop funding fossil fuels."
Organizers said this week's demonstrations "were just the beginning" of what they're calling a "Summer of Heat" targeting big banks for their role in the climate emergency and for "polluting our land, air, and water, and threatening the health of children, families, and our planet." Citigroup is the world's second-largest fossil fuel financier.
"We're holding Citi accountable for financing dirty fossil fuels from Canada to Latin America and beyond," said Chief Na'moks of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of several Indigenous leaders who took part in the action. "Through people-powered resistance, we can give money a conscience and stop Citi's destruction of our planet."
Jonathan Westin, executive director of Climate Defenders, asserted that "Citigroup's racist funding of oil, coal, and gas is creating climate chaos that's devastating communities of color across the country."
"We're taking action to tell Citi that we won't put up with their environmental racism for one more day," Westin continued. "Our communities have reached the boiling point. Our children have asthma, our city's sky was orange, and our air polluted because of the climate crisis caused by Citi and Wall Street."
"We're going to keep organizing and taking direct action until Citi listens to us," he vowed.
Stop the Money Pipeline co-director Alec Connon said: "To have any chance of reigning in the climate crisis, we must stop investing in fossil fuel expansion. Yet, Citibank is pumping billions of dollars into new coal, oil, and gas projects."
"We're here to make it clear: If they're going to fund the companies disrupting our climate and our lives, we're going to disrupt their business," Connon added.
Activists have repeatedly targeted Citigroup in recent years as the megabank has pumped more than $300 billion into fossil fuel investments around the world since the Paris climate agreement.
According to the protest organizers:
Citi has provided $668 million in funding to Formosa Plastics between 2001-2021, which is trying to build a $9.4 billion plastics facility in a majority Black community in the heart of Cancer Alley in Louisiana.
Citigroup is also one of the biggest funders of state-run oil and gas companies in the Amazon basin, pumping in over $40 billion between 2016-2020, and a major backer of Petroperú, which has been involved in oil spills and Indigenous rights violations.
"From wildfires, heatwaves, and floods to deadly air pollution and mass drought, Citi's fossil fuel financing is killing us," said Alice Hu of New York Communities for Change. "We've sent polite petitions and had pleading meetings with bank representatives, but Citi refuses to stop pouring billions each year into coal, oil, and gas."
"That's why we're fighting for our lives now with the best tool we have left: mass, nonviolent disruptive civil disobedience," Hu added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
No Outside Probe, US Reiterates as Gazans Reportedly Buried Alive in Mass Grave
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself?" asked one incredulous reporter.
Apr 25, 2024
A Biden administration spokesperson once again brushed off calls for an independent investigation into how hundreds of Palestinians found in mass graves near Gaza hospitals died when asked Thursday about new reports that many of the victims were tortured, summarily executed—and in some cases, buried alive by Israeli invaders.
During a Thursday U.S. State Department press conference in Washington, D.C., a reporter noted Gaza officials' claim that mass grave victims "including children were tortured before being killed" and that "some even showed signs of being buried alive, along with other crimes against humanity."
"What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Noting calls by Palestinian officials and United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk for an independent probe into mass graves, the reporter said that "this administration repeatedly said that it asks... the Israeli government to investigate itself."
"How does it ever make sense that the United States asks the accused party to examine itself and provide reports that you have previously said that you actually trust?" the reporter asked State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Vedant Patel. "What's wrong with an independent, scientific, forensic investigation?"
Patel replied: "We continue to find these reports incredibly troubling. And that's why yesterday you saw the national security adviser for this to be thoroughly investigated."
While National Security Adviser Jake Sullivan on Wednesday called reports of mass grave atrocities "deeply disturbing" and said that "we want answers" from Israel, he did not call for an independent investigation.
When the reporter pressed Patel on the legitimacy of asking Israel to investigate itself, Patel said, "we believe that through a thorough investigation we can get some additional answers."
Thursday's exchange followed a similar back-and-forth on Tuesday between Patel and Said Arikat, a journalist for the Jerusalem-based
Palestinian news outlet al-Quds who asked about the mass graves.
At least 392 bodies—including numerous women and children—have been found in mass graves outside Nasser Hospital in Khan Younis, southern Gaza, where Palestinian Civil Defense and other workers have been exhuming victims for nearly a week. Officials believe there are as many as 700 bodies in three separate mass graves.
Based on more recent exhumations, local Civil Defense chief Yamen Abu Sulaiman said during a Wednesday press conference that "we believe that the occupation buried alive at least 20 people at the Nasser Medical Complex."
"There are cases of field execution of some patients while undergoing surgeries and wearing surgical gowns," he stated, adding that some victims showed signs of torture and 10 bodies had medical tubes attached to them.
Gaza Civil Defense official Mohammed Mughier told reporters that "we need forensic examination" to definitively determine the causes of death for the 20 people believed to have been buried alive.
Previous reporting on the mass graves quoted rescue workers who said they found people who were apparently executed while their hands were bound, with some victims missing heads, skin, and internal organs.
Other mass graves have been found in Gaza, most notably on the grounds of al-Shifa Hospital, where Israeli forces last month committed what the Geneva-based Euro-Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor called "one of the largest massacres in Palestinian history."
It's also not the first time there have been reports of Israeli troops burying victims alive during the current war, in which Palestinian and international officials say Israeli forces have killed or wounded more than 122,000 Gazans, including at least 11,000 people who are missing and feared dead. Israeli forces attacking Kamal Adwan Hospital in Beit Lahia last December reportedly bulldozed and buried alive dozens of injured patients and displaced people.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular