

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.

Thousands of protesters in Cairo and Alexandria defied a heavy
deployment of riot police and other security forces and government
warnings not to participate in demonstrations on January 28, 2011, Human
Rights Watch said today. The government shut down access to the
internet and most mobile phone networks and ordered the army onto the
streets of Cairo ahead of a curfew.
Witnesses described dozens of demonstrators being injured by the
police. Reports say security forces are restricting the movements of the
opposition leader Mohamed el-Baradei and have arrested several leaders
of the Muslim Brotherhood. Police briefly detained several journalists
covering the protests.
"The Egyptian people are on the streets demanding reform and a
government whose police no longer attack them," said Joe Stork, deputy
Middle East director at Human Rights Watch. "After decades of torture
and brutality, the Egyptian government is all too comfortable beating
and shooting at its own citizens. But the government and its security
forces should heed the message that the people have had enough."
Protesters in Cairo tried to force their way towards Tahrir Square,
the scheduled meeting point for the January 28 protest. Human Rights
Watch researchers observed demonstrators as they made their way across
Qasr al-Nil Bridge toward the central square, only to be turned back, at
first with water cannons and teargas fired at close range, and then
with rubber bullets fired by riot police. Protesters also attempted to
cross the 6 October Bridge, but riot police there also fired teargas
into crowd.
At approximately 3:15 p.m., riot police at Qasr al-Nil Bridge started
shooting rubber bullets into the crowd and beating them with batons,
eventually leading to the retreat of demonstrators back across the
bridge. Eyewitnesses said that dozens were injured. Human Rights Watch
researchers near the bridge counted nine bloodied victims as other
demonstrators carried them out. One appeared to be unconscious, another
had what appeared to be a dozen bullet wounds, and a 67-year-old man had
a bullet wound to his neck.
An eyewitness, an elderly female demonstrator who said she was at the
front lines of the demonstrators on the bridge, said that the police
fired both the teargas and the rubber bullets at extremely close range.
Another demonstrator, a 62-year-old retired army officer who said he was
a veteran of the 1973 war with Israel, said police beat him with
batons.
Meanwhile in the northern port of Alexandria, Egypt's second largest
city, a Human Rights Watch researcher witnessed security forces shooting
teargas canisters and rubber bullets at about 600 peaceful protesters
after the Friday noon prayer at the Sidi Beshr mosque. The protesters
left the mosque with banners and started marching, shouting, "We are
peaceful, we are peaceful." After an hour of sporadic clashes a large
column of protesters came from the other direction and blocked in
police, holding up their hands and repeating, "We are peaceful." Police
later withdrew from the area and thousands of protesters marched down
the Alexandria seafront. Later in the day Human Rights Watch saw police
cars and trucks burning on the city streets.
International human rights standards on the use of force by law
enforcement agents, as set out in the UN Basic Principles on the Use of
Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials, state that force can
only be used when "unavoidable" and when it is used it must be applied
proportionally. Arbitrary and abusive use of force by law enforcement
officials must be punished. Similarly the Egyptian authorities are have a
duty to recognize and protect everyone's right to peaceful assembly,
including permitting demonstrations to move freely.
Human Rights Watch urged the government to reverse its decision to
shut down most communications in Egypt, saying the blackout poses a
major threat to human rights. The shutdown of the internet came in
apparent response to the demonstrations, which began as protests against
police torture and quickly escalated into calls for an end to President
Mubarak's three decades of rule.
"Egypt's information blackout is an extreme step designed to disrupt
planned marches, to block images of police brutality, and to silence
dissent once and for all," said Stork. "Attacks on journalists are also
intended to censor reporting. The government should order police to let
reporters work freely."
According to media reports, on January 28 police yesterday at least
four journalists, beat a BBC reporters, and seized a camera from a CNN
crew. Starting January 25, they briefly detained at least 10 other
reporters.
Mubarak has ruled Egypt since 1981under emergency laws which give his
security forces the power to arbitrarily arrest and detain thousands
without charge for unlimited periods of time, and to ban demonstrations.
A culture of impunity has enabled systematic torture. Against this
backdrop, determined young internet activists have increasingly taken to
the internet and used it to organize street protests and share
information about cases.
Human Rights Watch said that the internet and mobile communications
are essential tools for rights of expression, to information, and of
assembly and association. The United States, the European Union, and
influential regional governments should take immediate steps to press
Egypt to end the nationwide telecommunications blackout. Companies and
internet service providers in and outside of Egypt should act
responsibly to uphold freedom of expression and privacy by pressing
Egypt to stop censoring their products and services.
"A state-directed shutdown of all internet access is deeply
chilling," said Stork. "The international community should respond
swiftly to put an end to Egypt's information blackout and human rights
abuses."
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.
"These are refugees who fled persecution... refugees who had been more thoroughly vetted than any other population before entering our country," said the head of the Refugee Council USA.
The Trump administration has halted the distribution of green cards to around 235,000 refugees admitted during the Biden administration, requiring all their claims to be reassessed, according to a memo obtained by the Associated Press.
The AP reported on Tuesday that the abrupt change will not only apply to refugees awaiting green cards, but that some who have already received them could have their permanent residency status revoked.
The memo, signed by the director of US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Joseph Edlow, claims that during the previous administration, “expediency” and “quantity” were prioritized over the “detailed screening and vetting" of those who applied for refugee status.
Refugee status can be claimed by those outside the United States who fear persecution on the basis of race, religion, nationality, political opinion, or membership in a social group. Most refugees who have entered the US in recent years come from nations in the midst of severe upheaval from civil war or other forms of political instability.
Between October 2021 and September 2024, the Biden administration admitted 185,640 refugees. Last year, more than 100,000 were admitted, with the largest numbers coming from the Democratic Republic of Congo, Afghanistan, Venezuela, and Syria.
The memo states that these refugees will be subject to new investigations into their claims of past persecution or fear of persecution in their home countries. It also says USCIS will review the possible grounds for inadmissibility, which could place them at risk of losing their status. Those the agency determines did not meet the criteria for admission will have "no right to appeal."
In addition to reassessing the validity of their claims of persecution, the review process will also reportedly involve an assessment of a refugee's potential for "assimilation" into the United States.
The Refugee Council USA (RCUSA) said the directive violates the Refugee Act of 1980, which states that refugees shall be considered for a green card after one year of residence in the US.
"By ordering reinterviews and halting permanent residence processing for those admitted during the previous administration, the Trump administration is placing the entire resettlement system into legal limbo," the group said.
The AP reports that the lives of many refugees in the US have been thrown into chaos by the rule change. One Syrian refugee who fled the nation's deadly civil war roughly a decade ago said he now feared that he and his family would be sent back.
“It was, and it still is a dream to be in America,” said the man, who remained anonymous for fear of being targeted by US authorities. “If they start sending back people to their home countries, you don’t have the rights that you have here and the opportunities.”
Despite the administration's claims, refugees already undergo an extraordinarily long and thorough vetting process to enter the US, which can take up to 36 months. The process involves screening of biographic and biometric information, extensive interviews, and security screenings by the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Defense.
“This administration’s disdain for refugees and newcomers is well-documented, yet it continues to find new ways to outdo itself," said Rick Santos, president and CEO of Church World Service (CWS), which provides support for refugees around the globe. "The decision to review and reinterview resettled refugees—who have already passed through the most stringent of vetting processes—is not merely a relitigation, but a retraumatizing of individuals who were assured of their safety and a chance to live free of persecution."
“Just the threat of this is unspeakably cruel," said Mark Hetfield, the president of the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society, in a comment to CNN. "To threaten refugees with taking away their status would be retraumatizing and a vicious misuse of taxpayer money."
CWS argued that "the resources it will take to relitigate refugees’ cases could be much better spent addressing USCIS’s backlog of approximately 4 million cases."
As Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted, "The same administration that redefined refugee status to cover white South Africans is now going to drown in red tape tens of thousands of refugees approved years ago, potentially even seeking to strip some of their status and deport them."
In October, the Trump administration announced that it would limit the number of refugees accepted during this fiscal year to a historic low of 7,500, down from over 100,000 under former President Joe Biden, with most spots going to the white descendants of the Europeans who subjected South Africa's majority Black population to apartheid for decades. The first of those refugees was admitted to the US earlier this week, just before the green card freeze was announced.
“The latest refugee policy announcement from the Trump administration is astounding, unprecedented, heartbreaking, and cruel,” said John Slocum, executive director of RCUSA. "These are refugees who fled persecution on account of their religion, race, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. Refugees who had been more thoroughly vetted than any other population before entering our country. Refugees who had been promised, not a temporary sojourn, but a permanent grant of freedom, safety, and opportunity."
"Big Oil took its playbook directly from the minds of Big Tobacco and think they can get away with the same deliberate disinformation campaign, coercing the public to pay for the very harms they suffer."
Efforts to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for the climate emergency continued in Washington state this week as homeowners sued oil giants and a trade association over their decades of lies and rising insurance premium rates.
"As natural disasters become more costly, homeowners foot the bill," explains the complaint, filed on Tuesday in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington against the American Petroleum Institute, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil, and Shell and its subsidiary Equilon Enterprises.
"In 2023, a significant number of natural catastrophes... impacted the United States, at an estimated cost of $114 billion, of which approximately $80 billion was insured," the filing notes. "In the state of Washington alone, homeowners' rates have increased by a total of 51% over the past six years. But climate change has driven insurance premium increases throughout the country because insurance generally operates by pooling risks."
There are two named plaintiffs in the proposed class action suit. Margaret Hazard lives in Carson, an "area that is very dry and prone to forest fires." Since she began paying for home insurance in 2017, her premiums have doubled, and she recently had to switch to a policy with less coverage. Richard Kennedy of Normandy Park has also paid for homeowner's insurance since then; his premiums have gone from $1,012.10 to $2,149.18, an increase of nearly 113%.
"This case is about holding the fossil fuel defendants accountable for the increased homeowners' insurance premiums that their coordinated and deliberate scheme to hide the truth about climate change and the effects of burning fossil fuels has brought about and for their conduct contributing to climate change; a cost the highly profitable trillion-dollar industry can easily afford, and one that it should not be permitted to simply pass along to the everyday people who are presently bearing the burden of these increased premiums," the complaint states.
The document highlights that "defendants have known since at least the 1960s, based on their own internal scientific research, that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas pollution caused by the unchecked sales of its highly profitable petroleum products would inevitably lead to 'catastrophic' weather-related consequences with 'considerable significance to civilization' and that only a narrow window of time existed in which to act before severe consequences would result."
Big Oil "took this internal calculus seriously," the filing details, but "rather than inform the public, or... undertake meaningful remedial steps, defendants chose instead to protect their profits by engaging in a massive, deliberate, decadeslong misinformation campaign intended to sow doubt in the minds of the media [and] business leaders, and deceive the public and consumers about the conclusions they themselves had reached about the substantial consequences that the sale of their products would have."
As journalists and academic researchers have revealed what fossil fuel companies knew, and when, over the past decade—while extreme weather, from rapidly intensifying hurricanes to historic wildfires, ravaged US communities—various climate liability lawsuits have been filed across the country by states, municipalities, tribes, and individuals.
According to the Center for Climate Integrity's national tracker, in Washington state alone, there are at least three other cases: two brought by tribes in December 2023 and a wrongful death suit filed in May by the daughter of Juliana Leon, who died during the extreme heatwave that plagued the Pacific Northwest in 2021.
The cases have often drawn comparisons to the tobacco industry's deception, and the one filed this week is no exception. In fact, the plaintiffs for the new federal suit in Washington are represented by the law firm Hagens Berman, whose managing partner and cofounder, Steve Berman, served as special assistant attorney general for 13 states against Big Tobacco.
"Big Oil took its playbook directly from the minds of Big Tobacco and think they can get away with the same deliberate disinformation campaign, coercing the public to pay for the very harms they suffer," Berman said in a statement. "We see a direct correlation between Big Oil's lies and the alarming increase of homeowners insurance due to the rising threat of natural disasters."
"All those responsible for this mass slaughter must face accountability," said one campaigner in response to the new figures, "starting with Netanyahu and other members of his openly racist, genocidal, and warmongering regime.”
Israel's two-year assault on Gaza has left a catastrophic death toll that is even worse than most official estimates, according to research from European researchers.
A study released on Tuesday by the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Germany and the Center for Demographic Studies in Spain found that "the current violent death toll" in Gaza "likely exceeds 100,000" since the start of the war in October 2023.
In fact, the researchers estimate that the total death toll from the war among Palestinians in Gaza is between 99,997 and 125,915, with a median estimate of over 112,000 killed. Even the lowest death toll estimate in the study is significantly higher than the death toll estimates in most media reports, which as of this week totaled roughly 70,000 Palestinians killed.
The researchers said that the wide range of death toll estimates is a reflection of "distorted and incomplete data from conflict zones" that make precise estimates difficult.
Researcher Irena Chen, who co-led the project, told Turkish publication AA that "we will never know the exact number of dead" and added that "we are only trying to estimate as accurately as possible what a realistic order of magnitude might be."
The study also found that the two-year Israeli assault led to a precipitous plunge in life expectancy. According to researcher Ana Gómez-Ugarte, life expectancy in Gaza "fell by 44% in 2023 and by 47% in 2024 compared with what it would have been without the war—equivalent to losses of 34.4 and 36.4 years, respectively."
The study's final estimates were based on data from multiple public sources, including including the Gaza Ministry of Health (GMoH), the Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (B'Tselem), the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the United Nations Inter-Agency Group for Child Mortality Estimation (UN-IGME), and the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics (PCBS).
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) said that the new study was "further evidence of genocide" being carried out by the Israeli government.
Edward Ahmed Mitchell, deputy executive director for CAIR, called the study "only the latest reason why our government must stop sending American taxpayer dollars to Israel and why international courts must hold Israel accountable for its crimes." Mitchell added that "all those responsible for this mass slaughter must face accountability, starting with Netanyahu and other members of his openly racist, genocidal, and warmongering regime."
A report released by UN Conference on Trade and Development earlier this week found that Israel's genocidal assault has had a devastating impact on Gaza's economy, finding that its entire population is now living below the poverty line, with per-capita gross domestic product falling to just $161, one of the lowest figures in the world.
Additionally, the report found that the unemployment rate in Gaza was as high as 80%, while inflation in the exclave surged to nearly 240%, as the Israeli military blockade caused a widespread famine by preventing basic necessities from reaching Gaza residents.