February, 08 2011, 09:10am EDT
Egypt-Inspired Protests Across Middle East Meet Violent Clampdown
Palestinian Authority, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, UAE, Yemen Suppress Demonstrations
WASHINGTON
Governments in the Arab world have violently dispersed
demonstrations apparently inspired by or in solidarity with Egypt's
democracy protesters and have detained some of the organizers, Human
Rights Watch said today.
The security forces' clampdown is part and parcel of regular
prohibitions on public gatherings in Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Syria, the
United Arab Emirates, the West Bank, and Yemen. These governments
curtail free expression and assembly despite the fact that almost all of
the region's countries have signed international agreements protecting
both rights, Human Rights Watch said.
"Images of the uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt have mesmerized the
Arab public but have terrified their rulers," said Sarah Leah Whitson,
Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "They have
responded with their usual mix of repression and intimidation to nip the
buds of any wider democratic blossoming."
Palestinian Authority/Hamas
The Palestinian Authority's police used violence against
peaceful demonstrators during a rally in Ramallah on February 2, 2011,
to support the protesters in Egypt. Witnesses told Human Rights Watch
that regular police and "special forces," identifiable by their
uniforms, punched, kicked, and detained participants, as well as at
least two journalists and a Human Rights Watch research assistant.
On January 30, Palestinian Authority security had shut down a solidarity demonstration
in front of the Egyptian embassy in Ramallah, after calling in one of
the organizers for questioning multiple times on January 29 and ordering
him to cancel the event notice that he had created on Facebook.
Hamas authoritiesin the Gaza Strip quashed a
solidarity demonstration on January 31. The police arbitrarily arrested
six women and threatened to arrest another 20 people, who had responded
to a call on Facebook for a demonstration, as soon as they arrived at
the Park of the Unknown Soldier in Gaza City.
Syria
In Syria, security services detained five young demonstrators for a
few hours each during a series of protests in solidarity with Egyptian
protesters and to protest corruption and high cell phone communication
costs. One was arrested on January 29, the first day of the protests,
another on February 2, and three on February 3.
On February 2, a group of 20 people in civilian clothing beat and
dispersed 15 demonstrators who had assembled in Bab Touma in old
Damascus to hold a candlelight vigil for Egyptian demonstrators. Police
nearby failed to intervene, one of the gathering's organizers told Human
Rights Watch. When demonstrators went to the local police station to
file a complaint, a security official insulted and slapped Suheir
Atassi, one of the main organizers, and accused her of being a "germ"
and an agent of foreign powers. Syria's security services had summoned
more than 10 activists to pressure them not to demonstrate.
On February 4, the police detained Ghassan al-Najjar,
an elderly leader of a small group called the Islamic Democratic
Current, after he issued public calls for Syrians in Aleppo to
demonstrate for more freedom in their country.
UAE
The UAE's State Security arrested Hasan Muhammad al-Hammadi, an
active board member of the Teachers Association in the UAE, on February
4 at his house in Khour Fakkan, a city in the emirate of Sharjah.
Al-Hammadi had spoken out publicly in solidarity with the Egyptian
demonstrators earlier in the day during a mosque sermon. He remains in
detention.
Saudi Arabia
Saudi security forces briefly arrested between 30 and 50
demonstrators in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, after noon prayers on January 28,
Reuters news service and individual sources reported. A Saudi dissident
in London, Dr. Sa'd al-Faqih, allegedly called for the demonstrations
via his satellite TV program to protest the chaos caused by recent heavy
rains, which caused flooding in the city that led to deaths and cuts to
electricity. Police arrested demonstrators as soon as they gathered,
with dozens of others scattering.
Saudi Arabiahas no law regulating assembly and
bans political demonstrations through executive orders. On December 21,
Interior Ministry officials summoned Saudi citizens who had planned a
peaceful sit-in for December 23 to demand better jobs, health care,
education, and urge reform, including an end to corruption, ordering
them to cancel the protest, which they did.
Sudan
Sudanese authorities used excessive force during largely peaceful protests
on January 30 and 31 in Khartoum and other northern cities to call for
an end to the National Congress Party (NCP) rule and government-imposed
price increases. One student, Mohammed Abderahman, reportedly died from
injuries inflicted by security forces on January 30, activists said.
Human Rights Watch could not independently confirm the death, but called
on the Sudanese government to investigate the allegations immediately.
The protesters, organized by youth and student movements using Facebook
and other electronic media, rallied in public places and on university
campuses in Khartoum, Omdurman, El Obeid, and other towns.
Witnesses in Khartoum and Omdurman reported that armed riot
police and national security personnel dispersed groups of protesters
using pipes, sticks, and teargas, injuring several people and preventing
some people from joining the protests. Some protesters threw rocks at
riot police, but most were peaceful, witnesses said. The majority of
those arrested were released within hours, but more than 20 are still
missing and believed to be held by national security forces.
Sudanese authorities also targeted journalists and censored
newspapers covering the protests. On February 2, security officials
arrested more than a dozen staff of al-Maidan, the communist
newspaper, and they have arrested more student activists and opposition
party members in an apparent crackdown on opponents of the ruling party.
Yemen
In southern Yemen, where security forces have violently suppressed
large protests against the central government and for secession for over
three years, police and military forces used live and rubber bullets to
disperse protesters on February 3.
Six people were injured and 28 arrested, the Yemeni Observatory
for Human Rights reported. The Observatory also reported that government
supporters had attacked protesters. Among those arrested was a
journalist, Abd al-Hafith Mu'jib. Six people remain detained at the
Criminal Investigation Department. A Yemeni human rights activist
identified them as: Abd al-Alim al-Quds, Fatah Mahdi, Muhammad Ali
'Ubud, Mahmud Yasin al-Saqqaf, Mushir Abd al-Malik, and Nasir 'Ashal.
Bahrain
In Bahrain, a new group on Facebook has issued a call for a "Day of
Rage," the term used in Egypt, on February 14. The government shut down
the Facebook page.
Human Rights Watch called on Arab governments to guarantee their
citizens the right to assemble peacefully to express their views, and to
abolish laws that restrict speech and assembly.
"Rather than learn the lessons of Cairo and Tunis, Arab leaders are
keeping their heads in the sand, insisting on stifling even the smallest
public gatherings," Whitson 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
'Seismic Win for Workers': FTC Bans Noncompete Clauses
Advocates praised the FTC "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
Apr 23, 2024
U.S. workers' rights advocates and groups celebrated on Tuesday after the Federal Trade Commission voted 3-2 along party lines to approve a ban on most noncompete clauses, which Democratic FTC Chair Lina Khansaid "keep wages low, suppress new ideas, and rob the American economy of dynamism."
"The FTC's final rule to ban noncompetes will ensure Americans have the freedom to pursue a new job, start a new business, or bring a new idea to market," Khan added, pointing to the commission's estimates that the policy could mean another $524 for the average worker, over 8,500 new startups, and 17,000 to 29,000 more patents each year.
As Economic Policy Institute (EPI) president Heidi Shierholz explained, "Noncompete agreements are employment provisions that ban workers at one company from working for, or starting, a competing business within a certain period of time after leaving a job."
"These agreements are ubiquitous," she noted, applauding the ban. "EPI research finds that more than 1 out of every 4 private-sector workers—including low-wage workers—are required to enter noncompete agreements as a condition of employment."
Although the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has suggested it plans to file a lawsuit that, as The American Prospectdetailed, "could more broadly threaten the rulemaking authority the FTC cited when proposing to ban noncompetes," Democratic commissioners' vote was still heralded as a "seismic win for workers."
Echoing Khan's critiques of such noncompetes, Public Citizen executive vice president Lisa Gilbert declared that such clauses "inflict devastating harms on tens of millions of workers across the economy."
"The pervasive use of noncompete clauses limits worker mobility, drives down wages, keeps Americans from pursuing entrepreneurial dreams and creating new businesses, causes more concentrated markets, and keeps workers stuck in unsafe or hostile workplaces," she said. "Noncompete clauses are both an unfair method of competition and aggressively harmful to regular people. The FTC was right to tackle this issue and to finalize this strong rule."
Morgan Harper, director of policy and advocacy at the American Economic Liberties Project, praised the FTC for "listening to the comments of thousands of entrepreneurs and workers of all income levels across industries" and finalizing a rule that "is a clear-cut win."
Demand Progress' Emily Peterson-Cassin similarly commended the commission "for taking a strong stance against this egregious use of corporate power, thereby empowering workers to switch jobs and launch new ventures, and unlocking billions of dollars in worker earnings."
While such agreements are common across various industries, Teófilo Reyes, chief of staff at the Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, said that "many restaurant workers have been stuck at their job, earning as low as $2.13 per hour, because of the noncompete clause that they agreed to have in their contract."
"They didn't know that it would affect their wages and livelihood," Reyes stressed. "Most workers cannot negotiate their way out of a noncompete clause because noncompetes are buried in the fine print of employment contracts. A full third of noncompete clauses are presented after a worker has accepted a job."
Student Borrower Protection Center (SBPC) executive director Mike Pierce pointed out that the FTC on Tuesday "recognized the harmful role debt plays in the workplace, including the growing use of training repayment agreement provisions, or TRAPs, and took action to outlaw TRAPs and all other employer-driven debt that serve the same functions as noncompete agreements."
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at Open Markets Institute, highlighted that the addition came after his group, SBPC, and others submitted comments on the "significant gap" in the commission's initial January 2023 proposal, and also welcomed that "the final rule prohibits both conventional noncompete clauses and newfangled versions like TRAPs."
Jonathan Harris, a Loyola Marymount University law professor and SBPC senior fellow, said that "by also banning functional noncompetes, the rule stays one step ahead of employers who use 'stay-or-pay' contracts as workarounds to existing restrictions on traditional noncompetes. The FTC has decided to try to avoid a game of whack-a-mole with employers and their creative attorneys, which worker advocates will applaud."
Among those applauding was Jean Ross, president of National Nurses United, who said that "the new FTC rule will limit the ability of employers to use debt to lock nurses into unsafe jobs and will protect their role as patient advocates."
Angela Huffman, president of Farm Action, also cheered the effort to stop corporations from holding employees "hostage," saying that "this rule is a critical step for protecting our nation's workers and making labor markets fairer and more competitive."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Discriminatory' North Carolina Law Criminalizing Felon Voting Struck Down
One plaintiffs' attorney said the ruling "makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society."
Apr 23, 2024
Democracy defenders on Tuesday hailed a ruling from a U.S. federal judge striking down a 19th-century North Carolina law criminalizing people who vote while on parole, probation, or post-release supervision due to a felony conviction.
In Monday's decision, U.S. District Judge Loretta C. Biggs—an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama—sided with the North Carolina A. Philip Randolph Institute and Action NC, who argued that the 1877 law discriminated against Black people.
"The challenged statute was enacted with discriminatory intent, has not been cleansed of its discriminatory taint, and continues to disproportionately impact Black voters," Biggs wrote in her 25-page ruling.
Therefore, according to the judge, the 1877 law violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
"We are ecstatic that the court found in our favor and struck down this racially discriminatory law that has been arbitrarily enforced over time," Action NC executive director Pat McCoy said in a statement. "We will now be able to help more people become civically engaged without fear of prosecution for innocent mistakes. Democracy truly won today!"
Voting rights tracker Democracy Docket noted that Monday's ruling "does not have any bearing on North Carolina's strict felony disenfranchisement law, which denies the right to vote for those with felony convictions who remain on probation, parole, or a suspended sentence—often leaving individuals without voting rights for many years after release from incarceration."
However, Mitchell Brown, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, said that "Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to reengage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
"It also makes our democracy better and ensures that North Carolina is not able to unjustly criminalize innocent individuals with felony convictions who are valued members of our society, specifically Black voters who were the target of this law," Brown added.
North Carolina officials have not said whether they will appeal Biggs' ruling. The state Department of Justice said it was reviewing the decision.
According to Forward Justice—a nonpartisan law, policy, and strategy center dedicated to advancing racial, social, and economic justice in the U.S. South, "Although Black people constitute 21% of the voting-age population in North Carolina, they represent 42% of the people disenfranchised while on probation, parole, or post-release supervision."
The group notes that in 44 North Carolina counties, "the disenfranchisement rate for Black people is more than three times the rate of the white population."
"Judge Biggs' decision will help ensure that voters who mistakenly think they are eligible to cast a ballot will not be criminalized for simply trying to re-engage in the political process and perform their civic duty."
In what one civil rights leader called "the largest expansion of voting rights in this state since the 1965 Voting Rights Act," a three-judge state court panel voted 2-1 in 2021 to restore voting rights to approximately 55,000 formerly incarcerated felons. The decision made North Carolina the only Southern state to automatically restore former felons' voting rights.
Republican state legislators appealed that ruling to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which in 2022 granted their request for a stay—but only temporarily, as the court allowed a previous injunction against any felony disenfranchisement based on fees or fines to stand.
However, last April the North Carolina Supreme Court reversed the three-judge panel decision, stripping voting rights from thousands of North Carolinians previously convicted of felonies. Dissenting Justice Anita Earls opined that "the majority's decision in this case will one day be repudiated on two grounds."
"First, because it seeks to justify the denial of a basic human right to citizens and thereby perpetuates a vestige of slavery, and second, because the majority violates a basic tenant of appellate review by ignoring the facts as found by the trial court and substituting its own," she wrote.
As similar battles play out in other states, Democratic U.S. lawmakers led by Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts and Sen. Peter Welch of Vermont in December introduced legislation to end former felon disenfranchisement in federal elections and guarantee incarcerated people the right to vote.
Currently, only Maine, Vermont, and the District of Columbia allow all incarcerated people to vote behind bars.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Biden Labor Department Finalizes Pro-Worker Rules on Overtime, Retirement Savings
"Democrats are delivering for working people!" declared Rep. Pramila Jayapal as the AFL-CIO noted that GOP ex-President Donald Trump "gutted the rules that required overtime pay for millions of workers."
Apr 23, 2024
Roughly 4.3 million U.S. workers will now be eligible for overtime pay under a new rule finalized Tuesday by President Joe Biden's Labor Department—in stark contrast to his Republican predecessor's rules that severely limited the number of workers who were eligible for required compensation when they worked more than 40 hours per week.
Under the new rule, employers will be required to pay overtime premiums to salaried workers who work more than standard full-time hours if they earn less than $1,128 per week, or about $58,600 per year.
Former President Donald Trump, now the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, may now have to defend his 2020 rule that set the overtime pay threshold at just $35,500 per year, leaving out millions of workers.
U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) noted that the updated rule was "a major piece" of the Executive Action Agenda released by the Congressional Progressive Caucus, which she chairs.
"This is a HUGE pro-worker initiative by President Biden," said Jayapal. "Democrats are delivering for working people!"
Acting Labor Secretary Julie Su, who Biden has nominated to fill the role permanently, said it is "unacceptable" that lower-paid workers "are spending more time away from their families for no additional pay," while hourly workers are eligible for overtime pay.
"This rule will restore the promise to workers that if you work more than 40 hours in a week, you should be paid more for that time," said Su. "The Biden-Harris administration is following through on our promise to raise the bar for workers who help lay the foundation for our economic prosperity."
The Labor Department posted a chart on social media showing how under Trump's policy, only workers who earn less than $688 per week are eligible for required overtime pay. The full rule is set to go into effect in January 2025.
The chart offers a "good split screen with the GOP," saidSlate reporter Mark Joseph Stern.
"It isn't just that Trump's Department of Labor fought overtime pay—it's also that Trump appointed anti-labor judges who are about to block Biden's new rule," he said.
The former Republican president's appointed judges could also block a new Federal Trade Commission rule introduced on Tuesday, which blocks companies from including noncompete clauses in workers' contracts.
"Both reforms happened because of Biden and in spite of Republicans," said HuffPost labor reporter Dave Jamieson.
Along with the overtime rule, the Labor Department announced a new policy aimed at safeguarding people's retirement savings from their financial advisers' conflicts of interest.
The finalized retirement security rule requires "trusted investment advice providers to give prudent, loyal, honest advice free from overcharges," said the department. "These fiduciaries must adhere to high standards of care and loyalty when they recommend investments and avoid recommendations that favor the investment advice providers' interests—financial or otherwise—at the retirement savers' expense."
"Under the final rule and amended exemptions, financial institutions overseeing investment advice providers must have policies and procedures to manage conflicts of interest and ensure providers follow these guidelines," the agency said.
Liz Shuler, president of the AFL-CIO, said the nation's largest labor federation has "been pushing for the fiduciary and overtime rules since the Obama administration."
"It's really this simple," said Shuler. "Every worker deserves their fair share of the wealth they help create and every worker deserves to make sure their hard-earned money is secure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular