January, 28 2011, 02:26pm EDT

Egypt: Demonstrators Defy Riot Police, Censorship
Internet Blackout Threatens Rights
CAIRO
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.
LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular