January, 24 2012, 08:28am EDT

For Immediate Release
Contact:
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7413 5566,After hours: +44 7778 472 126,Email:,press@amnesty.org
Egypt: Parties Pledge to End State of Emergency, Many Stop Short of Committing to Women's Rights
Most of the biggest Egyptian political parties have committed to delivering ambitious human rights reform in the country's transition, but have either given mixed signals or have flatly refused to sign up to ending discrimination, protecting women's rights and to abolishing the death penalty, Amnesty International said today.
LONDON
Most of the biggest Egyptian political parties have committed to delivering ambitious human rights reform in the country's transition, but have either given mixed signals or have flatly refused to sign up to ending discrimination, protecting women's rights and to abolishing the death penalty, Amnesty International said today.
Ahead of parliamentary elections which began in November, the organization asked political parties running in Egypt's elections to sign a "human rights manifesto" containing 10 key measures to signal that they were serious about delivering meaningful human rights reform.
Amnesty International wrote to 54 political parties and sought meetings with 15 of the main ones, nine of whom signed up to the manifesto, either in its entirety or to some of the pledges. Three others gave oral feedback.
The Freedom and Justice Party, which won the most seats in the new People's Assembly, was one of three parties not to respond substantively, despite considerable efforts by Amnesty International to seek its views.
"With the first session of the new parliament sitting this week, it is encouraging that so many of the major parties engaged with us and were prepared to sign up to ambitious pledges for change on combating torture, protecting slum residents' rights and ensuring fair trials," said Philip Luther, Amnesty International's interim Middle East and North Africa Director.
"But it is disturbing that a number of parties refused to commit to equal rights for women. With a handful of women taking up seats in the new parliament, there remain huge obstacles to women playing a full role in Egyptian political life."
"We challenge the new parliament to use the opportunity of drafting the new constitution to guarantee all of these rights for all people in Egypt. The cornerstone must be non-discrimination and gender equality."
While the only parties to sign up to all of the pledges contained in the manifesto were the Egyptian Social Democratic Party and the Popular Socialist Alliance Party, nearly all of the 12 parties who responded agreed to all of the first seven points of the manifesto.
These included commitments on civil and political rights. Key promises included ending the three-decade-old state of emergency, combating torture, upholding freedom of expression and association, ensuring fair trials and investigating abuses committed under the rule of Hosni Mubarak.
Amnesty International also secured pledges from nearly all the parties to address the rights of those living in slums and to deliver economic, social and cultural rights for all Egyptians.
Reservations
The eighth pledge, to end discrimination, was signed up to by most parties but several said they could not sign up to Amnesty International's call for an end to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Comments from at least two parties suggested that the issue of discrimination against Copts, including in building churches, has been exaggerated.
A number of parties had reservations over the ninth pledge, which called for women's rights to be protected, including for women to be given equal rights in marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance. Several parties invoked Islamic law to explain why they would not commit to this.
Most parties made reservations over the 10th point, which called for the abolition of the death penalty, either stating that this was in contradiction with Islam or that they were continuing to study the issue. Even the two parties inclined to abolish the death penalty said that this was a long-term goal not achievable in the coming years.
"The real test for political parties will be to translate these pledges into initiatives in parliament to abolish repressive Mubarak-era laws, reform the police and security services, and pass laws which protect human rights and break with the legacy of abuse," said Philip Luther. "One of the first measures should be the lifting of the much-decried state of emergency."
"Women and men stood side by side in the protests and have been instrumental in the movement that toppled President Mubarak and led to these elections. Denying equality would dash the hope that Egypt is entering a new era of respect for the rights and dignity of all."
The 10 pledges in Amnesty International's Human Rights Manifesto for Egypt are:
1. End the state of emergency and reform the security forces
2. End incommunicado detention and combat torture
3. Ensure fair trials
4. Uphold the rights to freedom of assembly, association and expression
5. Investigate past abuses
6. Realize economic, social and cultural rights for all
7. Uphold the rights of people living in slums
8. End discrimination
9. Protect women's rights
10. Abolish the death penalty
Responses by Egyptian political parties to the Human Rights Manifesto for Egypt:
In November Amnesty International sent letters to 54 Egyptian political parties inviting them to sign up to the manifesto. The organization sought meetings with the leaders of 15 of the biggest parties in November and December. Below are the responses obtained:
Egyptian Social Democratic Party (part of Egyptian bloc, which won 34 seats in parliament): signed up to all 10 pledges, but said it was premature to expect abolition of the death penalty in the absence of popular support.
Popular Socialist Alliance Party (part of Revolution Continues bloc, which won 7 seats in parliament): signed up to all 10 pledges, but said it was premature to expect abolition of the death penalty in the absence of popular support.
Egypt Youth Party: sent a letter with the signed manifesto, stating its commitment to human rights in general, but without giving details on the 10 pledges.
New Al Wafd Party (38 seats in parliament): signed with the exception of the abolition of the death penalty.
Democratic Front Party: signed with the exception of the abolition of the death penalty.
Reform and Development Party (10 seats in parliament): signed with the exception of the abolition of the death penalty.
Al Karama Party: agreed orally to all pledges with the exception of the abolition of the death penalty.
Al Nour Party (125 seats in parliament): agreed orally to all pledges with the exception of the abolition of the death penalty and protection of women's rights.
Revolution's Guards Party: sent a letter agreeing to the manifesto, with the exception of the abolition of the death penalty and protection of women's rights, stating that they follow directions from Al-Azhar religious institutions on such issues.
Egyptian Liberation Party: signed with the exception of the abolition of the death penalty and protection of women's rights, stressing its opposition to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW); agreed to commit to ensuring non-discrimination, with the exception of non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.
The Al-Wasat (Center) Party (10 seats in parliament): signed but expressed strong reservations to the abolition of the death penalty, the protection of women's rights and ensuring non-discrimination. Expressed reservations on non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and according equal rights for Muslims and Copts in building houses of worship.
Egypt Revolution Party: party representatives raised concerns in a meeting over the need for "security" and the obligation to respect "Islamic values", justifying the continuation of the state of emergency, although pledging to combat torture. They also said freedom of expression, association and assembly were important but only as long as they do not "threaten public security". They said women's rights should not be in contradiction with religion and that discrimination against Copts was an issue blown out of proportion. The party did not raise reservations over other pledges.
Free Egyptians Party (part of Egyptian bloc, which won 34 seats in parliament): did not respond to meeting request nor give feedback on manifesto.
Freedom and Justice Party (234 seats in parliament): did not respond to meeting request nor give feedback on manifesto. Amnesty International did not receive a substantive response to its last attempt to contact them in January 2012.
Justice Party (1 seat in parliament): did not respond to meeting request nor give feedback on manifesto.
Amnesty International is a worldwide movement of people who campaign for internationally recognized human rights for all. Our supporters are outraged by human rights abuses but inspired by hope for a better world - so we work to improve human rights through campaigning and international solidarity. We have more than 2.2 million members and subscribers in more than 150 countries and regions and we coordinate this support to act for justice on a wide range of issues.
LATEST NEWS
Watch 60 Minutes 'Inside CECOT' Segment Blocked by CBS News Chief Bari Weiss
"Watch fast, before Corus gets a call from Paramount Skydance."
Dec 22, 2025
A social media user on Monday shared at least part of a "60 Minutes" segment about a prison in El Salvador—where the Trump administration sent hundreds of migrants—after CBS News editor-in-chief Bari Weiss controversially blocked its release.
"Canadians, behold! (And Americans on a VPN.) The canceled '60 Minutes' story has appeared on the Global TV app—almost certainly by accident," Jason Paris wrote on Bluesky, sharing a link to download a nearly 14-minute video of the segment, which has since been uploaded here.
The segment is titled "Inside CECOT," the Spanish abbreviation for El Salvador's Terrorism Confinement Center.
"Watch fast, before Corus gets a call from Paramount Skydance," Paris added. Corus Entertainment owns Global TV. Paramount and Skydance merged earlier this year, after winning approval from the Trump administration. Weiss, a right-wing pundit, was then appointed to her position.
In a leaked email, "60 Minutes" correspondent Sharyn Alfonsi wrote that "Bari Weiss spiked our story," and "in my view, pulling it now, after every rigorous internal check has been met, is not an editorial decision, it is a political one."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Senate Dems Stop Permitting Talks Over Trump's 'Reckless and Vindictive Assault' on Wind Power
"By sabotaging US energy innovation and killing American jobs, the Trump administration has made clear that it is not interested in permitting reform," said Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse and Martin Heinrich.
Dec 22, 2025
The top Democrats on a pair of key US Senate panels ended negotiations to reform the federal permitting process for energy projects in response to the Trump administration's Monday attack on five offshore wind projects along the East Coast.
Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and Energy and Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Martin Heinrich (D-NM) began their joint statement by thanking the panels' respective chairs, Sens. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah), "for their good-faith efforts to negotiate a permitting reform bill that would have lowered electricity prices for all Americans."
"There was a deal to be had that would have taken politics out of permitting, made the process faster and more efficient, and streamlined grid infrastructure improvements nationwide," the Democrats said. "But any deal would have to be administered by the Trump administration. Its reckless and vindictive assault on wind energy doesn't just undermine one of our cheapest, cleanest power sources, it wrecks the trust needed with the executive branch for bipartisan permitting reform."
Earlier Monday, the US Department of the Interior halted Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind off Virginia, Empire Wind 1 and Sunrise Wind off New York, Revolution Wind off Rhode Island and Connecticut, and Vineyard Wind 1 off Massachusetts, citing radar interference concerns.
Governors and members of Congress from impacted states, including Whitehouse and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), condemned the announcement, with Whitehouse pointing to a recent legal battle over the project that would help power Rhode Island.
"It's hard to see the difference between these new alleged radar-related national security concerns and the radar-related national security allegations the Trump administration lost in court, a position so weak that they declined to appeal their defeat," he said.
This looks more like the kind of vindictive harassment we have come to expect from the Trump administration than anything legitimate.
— Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (@whitehouse.senate.gov) December 22, 2025 at 12:59 PM
Later, he and Heinrich said that "by sabotaging US energy innovation and killing American jobs, the Trump administration has made clear that it is not interested in permitting reform. It will own the higher electricity prices, increasingly decrepit infrastructure, and loss of competitiveness that result from its reckless policies."
"The illegal attacks on fully permitted renewable energy projects must be reversed if there is to be any chance that permitting talks resume," they continued. "There is no path to permitting reform if this administration refuses to follow the law."
Reporting on Whitehouse and Heinrich's decision, the Hill reached out to Capito and Lee's offices, as well as the Interior Department, whose spokesperson, Alyse Sharpe, "declined to comment beyond the administration's press release, which claimed the leases were being suspended for national security reasons."
Lee responded on social media with a gif:
Although the GOP has majorities in both chambers of Congress, Republicans don't have enough senators to get most bills to a final vote without Democratic support.
The Democratic senators' Monday move was expected among observers of the permitting reform debate, such as Heatmap senior reporter Jael Holzman, who wrote before their statement came out that "Democrats in Congress are almost certainly going to take this action into permitting reform talks... after squabbling over offshore wind nearly derailed a House bill revising the National Environmental Policy Act last week."
That bill, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, was pilloried by green groups after its bipartisan passage. It's one of four related pieces of legislation that the House advanced last week. The others are the Mining Regulatory Clarity Act, Power Plant Reliability Act, and Reliable Power Act.
David Arkush, director of the consumer advocacy group's Climate Program, blasted all four bills as "blatant handouts to the fossil fuel and mining industries" that would do "nothing to help American families facing staggering energy costs and an escalating climate crisis."
"We need real action to lower energy bills for American families and combat the climate crisis," he argued. "The best policy response would be to fast-track a buildout of renewable energy, storage, and transmission—an approach that would not just make energy more affordable and sustainable, but create US jobs and bolster competitiveness with China, which is rapidly outpacing the US on the energy technologies of the future.
Instead, Arkush said, congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump "are shamefully pushing legislation that would only exacerbate the energy affordability crisis and further entrench the dirty, dangerous, and unaffordable energy of the past."
Keep ReadingShow Less
War Crime, Murder, or Both? Dems Demand DOJ Probe Into Hegseth Order to Kill Shipwrecked Sailors
"Giving a general order to kill any survivors constitutes a war crime," wrote Reps. Jamie Raskin and Ted Lieu. "Outside of war, the killing of unarmed, helpless men clinging to wreckage in open water is simply murder."
Dec 22, 2025
Making clear that the Trump administration's "entire Caribbean operation," which has killed more than 100 people in boats that the US military has bombed, "appears to be unlawful," two Democrats on a powerful House committee on Monday called on the Department of Justice to investigate one particular attack that's garnered accusations of a war crime—or murder.
House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi four weeks after it was reported that in the military's first strike on a boat on September 2, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered service members to "kill everybody"—prompting a second "double-tap" strike to kill two survivors of the initial blast.
A retired general, United Nations experts, and former top military legal advisers are among those who have warned that Hegseth and the service members directly involved in the strike—as well as the other attacks on more than two dozen boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific—may be liable for war crimes or murder.
Raskin and Lieu raised that concern directly to Bondi, writing: "Deliberately targeting incapacitated individuals constitutes a clear violation of the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, which expressly forbids attacks on persons rendered helpless by shipwreck. Such conduct would trigger criminal liability under the War Crimes Act if the administration claims it is engaged in armed conflict, or under the federal murder statute if no such conflict exists."
The administration has insisted it is attacking the boats as part of an effort to stop drug trafficking out of Venezuela, and has claimed the US is in an armed conflict with drug cartels there, though international and domestic intelligence agencies have not identified the country as a significant source any drugs that flow into the US. As President Donald Trump has ordered the boat strikes, the administration has also been escalating tensions with Venezuela by seizing oil tankers, claiming to close its airspace, and demanding that President Nicolás Maduro leave power.
Critics from both sides of the aisle in Congress have questioned the claim that the bombed boats were a threat to the US, and Raskin and Lieu noted that the vessel attacked on September 2 in particular appeared to pose no threat, as it was apparently headed to Suriname, "not the United States, at the time it was destroyed."
"Deliberately targeting incapacitated individuals constitutes a clear violation of the Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual, which expressly forbids attacks on persons rendered helpless by shipwreck."
"Congress has never authorized military force against Venezuela; a boat moving towards Suriname does not pose a clear and present danger to the United States; and the classified legal memoranda the Trump administration has offered us to justify the attacks are entirely unpersuasive," wrote the lawmakers.
Raskin and Lieu emphasized that Hegseth's explanations of the September 2 strike in particular have been "shifting and contradictory."
"Secretary Hegseth has variously claimed that he missed the details of the September 2 strike because of the 'fog of war,' and that he actually left the room before any explicit order was given to kill the survivors," they wrote. "Later reporting suggests that he gave a general order to kill all passengers aboard ahead of the strike but delegated the specific order to kill survivors to a subordinate."
The facts that are known about the strike, as well as Hegseth's muddled claims, warrant a DOJ investigation, the Democrats suggested.
"Giving a general order to kill any survivors constitutes a war crime," they wrote. "Similarly, carrying out such an order also constitutes a war crime, and the Manual for Courts-Martial explicitly provides that 'acting pursuant to orders' is no defense 'if the accused knew the orders to be unlawful.' Outside of war, the killing of unarmed, helpless men clinging to wreckage in open water is simply murder. The federal criminal code makes it a felony to commit murder within the 'special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States,' which is defined to include the 'high seas.' It is also a federal crime to conspire to commit murder."
Raskin and Lieu also emphasized that two memos from the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) "do not—and cannot—provide any legal protection for the secretary’s conduct."
A 2010 OLC memo said the federal murder statute does not apply "when the target of a military strike is an enemy combatant in a congressionally authorized armed conflict," they noted. "In stark contrast, in the case of the Venezuelan boats, Congress has not authorized military force of any kind."
A new classified memo also suggested that “personnel taking part in military strikes on alleged drug trafficking boats in Latin America would not be exposed to future prosecution," and claimed that "the president’s inherent constitutional authority in an undeclared 'armed conflict' will shield the entire chain of command from criminal liability."
The Democrats wrote, "Experts in criminal law, constitutional law, and the law of armed conflict find this sweeping, unsubstantiated claim implausible, at best."
They also noted that even the author of the George W. Bush administration's infamous "Torture Memo," conservative legal scholar John Woo, has said Hegseth's order on September 2 was clearly against the law.
"Attorney General Bondi, even those who condoned and defended torture in the name of America are saying that the Trump administration has violated both federal law and the law of war," wrote Raskin and Lieu. "We urge you to do your duty as this country’s chief law enforcement officer to investigate the secretary’s apparent and serious violations of federal criminal law."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


