April, 30 2012, 08:57am EDT
United Arab Emirates: End Arrests; Free Political Activists
Stop Crackdown on Freedom of Expression, Association
LONDON
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) authorities should immediately and unconditionally release nine political activists held in the context of a widening attack on dissent, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said today. The government should stop threatening to revoke the citizenship of seven of them because of their political activity.
The authorities are holding the men solely on account of their affiliation with a non-violent political group and their peaceful criticism of the government, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch said. The nine men belong to the Reform and Social Guidance Association (al-Islah), a non-profit organization that advocates greater adherence to Islamic precepts, which has been engaged in peaceful political debate and discussion in the UAE for many years.
"The UAE authorities need to end this wave of arbitrary arrests," said Ann Harrison, Amnesty International's deputy Middle East and North Africa programme director. "These men, who have not used or advocated violence, are held solely for exercising their right to freedom of opinion and expression. They are prisoners of conscience and should be released immediately and unconditionally."
The most recent arrest was on April 20, 2012, when plainclothes officials from the UAE Amn al-Dawla (State Security) agency detained the chairman of al-Islah, Sheikh Dr. Sultan Bin Kayed al-Qasimi. His son, Abdullah Sultan, told Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that his 54-year-old father is being held, apparently without a detention order or charge, in the palace of the ruler of the Ras al-Khaimah emirate, who is his father's cousin. The ruler has told family members that the basis of the detention relates to a "family matter."
The government claimed through its official news agency in December 2011 that it had stripped six al-Islah members of their UAE citizenship. On April 9, the authorities detained the men - Dr. Ali Hussain al-Hammadi, Dr. Shahin Abdullah al-Hosni, Hussein Munif al-Jabri and his brother Hassan Munif al-Jabri, Ibrahim Hassan al-Marzouqi, and Sheikh Mohammad Abdul Razak al-Sediq - when they responded to a summons to appear at an Abu Dhabi office of the Interior Ministry. One of the lawyers for the detained men told Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch that the authorities said they arrested the six for refusing to sign a pledge to seek another nationality.
All six are now held in the al-Shihama deportation centre in Abu Dhabi along with the seventh man, Ahmed Ghaith al-Suwaidi, detained since March 26.
The whereabouts of the ninth man, Dr. Ahmed al-Zaabi, a former judge who was also detained on March 26, is not clear. He was initially held at al-Rahba Police Station in Abu Dhabi, and was granted bail on April 15 but has not been released.
None of the men are known to have been charged with any criminal offense.
Some of the men were among 130 people who signed a petition in March 2011 seeking political reforms in the UAE.
"This wave of detentions against peaceful dissent is a telling indicator of UAE's deepening abuses of human rights," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch. "Their latest action, against these nine men, has once again shown the UAE government's intentions to silence anyone who peacefully expresses political opinions."
The December announcement via the government-owned news agency WAM said that a presidential order had stripped six of the men currently detained of their citizenship for "acts posing a threat to the state's security and safety."
The UAE authorities have also confiscated the six men's UAE identity papers, including their national identity and health insurance cards, which enable them to work and enjoy rights as UAE nationals. Earlier in 2011 the authorities had also confiscated the identity papers of the seventh man, al-Suwaidi, who is currently in detention. Lawyers for the seven men have submitted a legal challenge in the country's federal court system contesting the confiscation of their clients' documents.
At a hearing before a Federal Court of First Instance in Abu Dhabi on April 18, the government submitted a memorandum asserting the right of the interior minister to strip UAE citizens of their citizenship in accordance with the law.
The seven men acquired UAE citizenship as children and have never had any other. The UAE authorities' threat to strip them of their UAE nationality would leave them stateless, and mean they could no longer work or reside legally in the country.
Under UAE law, to strip a person's citizenship, the Interior Ministry is first required to set out the intention and reasoning in a letter to the Council of Ministers. If the Council of Ministers approves the reasoning, the letter is passed to the UAE president. If he approves, he issues a decree setting out the measures taken, which are then formalized with publication in the official gazette. Although the law does not provide for an automatic right to appeal, the decisions may be challenged in court.
The government has not provided any evidence that it has taken any of the legally required steps to revoke the seven men's citizenship, however. The men's lawyers told Amnesty and Human Rights Watch that the seven men received no formal notification that their citizenship had been revoked. No notice has appeared in the official gazette. The next court session is expected on or around May 9.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch are concerned that the UAE authorities are threatening to strip these men of their UAE nationality as a way of punishing them simply for peacefully expressing dissent and to intimidate others from exercising their right to freedom of expression.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that "no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of [their] nationality." Depriving someone of nationality for having exercised the right of peaceful expression would be a disproportionately punitive measure, as leaving them stateless would amount to arbitrary deprivation of nationality.
Background
Independent political activity in the UAE is severely restricted. In the wake of the popular protests since 2011 across the Middle East and North Africa region, a small number of people in the UAE have called openly for greater accountability, transparency, and democratization, but have faced repression in a widening crackdown on freedom of expression and association.
In April 2011, the Ministry of Social Affairs took action against two nongovernmental organizations that had signed a joint letter earlier that month calling for reforms. It replaced the executive board members of the Jurists' Association and the Teachers' Association with government appointees.
In early April 2011, the authorities arrested five activists who came to be known as the "UAE 5," after they allegedly posted statements on UAE Hewar, an internet forum that the authorities blocked. The messages on UAE Hewar that have been attributed to the UAE 5 contained peaceful criticism of government policy or political leaders.
The state charged the five men in early June 2011 under articles 176 and 8 of the UAE Penal Code, which punish public "insults" of the country's top officials. Held throughout the pre-trial and trial process, they were convicted on November 27 and sentenced to between two and three years in prison. Shortly afterward the UAE's president commuted their sentences and they were released. Their passports, which had been confiscated, have not been returned to them.
On November 22, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, which had looked into the case of Ahmed Mansoor, one of the five, found that he had been arbitrarily detained as a result of his "peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression" and that the trial proceedings, which had, at the time, just concluded, did not comply with international fair trial standards. It called on the government to release him and provide him with adequate compensation.
In late March 2012, the UAE authorities closed the local offices of two international organizations, the National Democratic Institute, a body linked to the Democratic Party in the United States, and the Konrad Adenauer Stiftung, linked to Germany's Christian Democratic Union. Both bodies promote the exchange of ideas and political debate as the foundation of democracy.
Following a review of the human rights situation in the UAE by the UN Human Rights Council under the UN's Universal Periodic Review in December 2008, the government pledged in January 2009, among other things, to "take concrete measures to limit the number and extent of restrictions on the right to freedom of expression."
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
Climate Crisis to Cost Global Economy $38 Trillion a Year by 2050
"This clearly shows that protecting our climate is much cheaper than not doing so, and that is without even considering noneconomic impacts such as loss of life or biodiversity," a new study's lead author said.
Apr 18, 2024
The climate crisis will shrink the average global income 19% in the next 26 years compared to what it would have been without global heating caused primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, a study published in Nature Wednesday has found.
The researchers, from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), said that economic shrinkage was largely locked in by mid-century by existing climate change, but that actions taken to reduce emissions now could determine whether income losses hold steady at around 20% or triple through the second half of the century.
"These near-term damages are a result of our past emissions," study lead author and PIK scientist Leonie Wenz said in a statement. "We will need more adaptation efforts if we want to avoid at least some of them. And we have to cut down our emissions drastically and immediately—if not, economic losses will become even bigger in the second half of the century, amounting to up to 60% on global average by 2100."
"I am used to my work not having a nice societal outcome, but I was surprised by how big the damages were."
Put in dollar terms, the climate crisis will take a yearly $38 trillion chunk out of the global economy in damages by 2050, the study authors found.
"That seems like… a lot," writer and climate advocate Bill McKibben wrote in response to the findings. "The entire world economy at the moment is about $100 trillion a year; the federal budget is about $6 trillion a year."
This means that the costs of inaction have already exceeded the costs of limiting global heating to 2°C by six times, the study authors said. However, limiting warming to 2°C can still significantly reduce economic losses through 2100.
"This clearly shows that protecting our climate is much cheaper than not doing so, and that is without even considering noneconomic impacts such as loss of life or biodiversity," Wenz said.
The damages predicted by the study were more than twice those of similar analyses because the researchers looked beyond national temperature data to also incorporate the impacts of extreme weather and rainfall on more than 1,600 subnational regions over a 40-year period, The Guardian explained.
"Strong income reductions are projected for the majority of regions, including North America and Europe, with South Asia and Africa being most strongly affected," PIK scientist and first author Maximilian Kotz said in a statement. "These are caused by the impact of climate change on various aspects that are relevant for economic growth such as agricultural yields, labor productivity, or infrastructure."
However, Wenz told the paper that the paper's projected reduction was likely a "lower bound" because the study still doesn't include climate impacts such as heatwaves, tropical storms, sea-level rise, and harms to human health.
Unlike previous studies, the research predicted economic losses for most wealthier countries in the Global North, with the U.S. and German economies shrinking by 11% by mid-century, France's by 13%, and the U.K.'s by 7%. However, the countries set to suffer the most are countries closer to the equator that have lower incomes already and have historically done much less to contribute to the climate crisis. Iraq, for example, could see incomes drop by 30%, Botswana 25%, and Brazil 21%.
"Our study highlights the considerable inequity of climate impacts: We find damages almost everywhere, but countries in the tropics will suffer the most because they are already warmer," study co-author Anders Levermann, who leads Research Department Complexity Science at PIK, said in a statement. "Further temperature increases will therefore be most harmful there. The countries least responsible for climate change, are predicted to suffer income loss that is 60% greater than the higher-income countries and 40% greater than higher-emission countries. They are also the ones with the least resources to adapt to its impacts."
Wenz told The Guardian that the results were "devastating."
"I am used to my work not having a nice societal outcome, but I was surprised by how big the damages were. The inequality dimension was really shocking," Wenz said.
Levermann said the paper presented society with a clear choice:
It is on us to decide: Structural change towards a renewable energy system is needed for our security and will save us money. Staying on the path we are currently on, will lead to catastrophic consequences. The temperature of the planet can only be stabilized if we stop burning oil, gas, and coal.
McKibben, meanwhile, argued that the findings should persuade major companies to embrace climate action for self-interested reasons. He noted that most corporate emissions come from how company money is invested by banks, particularly in the continued exploitation of fossil fuel resources.
"If Amazon and Apple and Microsoft wanted to avoid a world where, by century's end, people had 60% less money to spend on buying whatever phones and software and weird junk (doubtless weirder by then) they plan on selling, then they should be putting pressure on their banks to stop making the problem worse. They should also be unleashing their lobbying teams to demand climate action from Congress," McKibben wrote.
"These people are supposed to care about money, and for once it would help us if they actually did," he continued. "Stop putting out ads about how green your products are—start making this system you dominate actually work."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Congressional Progressives Unveil 'Bold' Agenda for Second Biden Term
The Congressional Progressive Caucus says its legislative blueprint for 2025 and beyond aims to "deliver equality, justice, and economic security for working people."
Apr 18, 2024
The Congressional Progressive Caucus on Thursday published a "comprehensive domestic policy legislative agenda" for U.S. President Joe Biden's possible second White House term that seeks to "deliver equality, justice, and economic security for working people."
The CPC's Progressive Proposition Agenda is a seven-point plan aimed at lowering the cost of living, boosting wages and worker power, advancing justice, combating climate change and protecting the environment, strengthening democracy, breaking the corporate stranglehold on the economy, and bolstering public education.
"Progressives are proud to have been part of the most significant Democratic legislative accomplishments of this century. We have made real progress for everyday Americans—but there's much more work to be done," Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) said in a statement.
"That's why the Progressive Caucus has identified these popular, populist, and possible solutions," she added. "Democrats in Congress can meet the urgent needs people are facing; rewrite the rules to ensure majorities of this country are no longer barred from the American promise of equality, justice, and economic opportunity; and motivate people with a vision of progressive governance under Democratic majorities in the House and Senate and a Democratic White House."
Progressive lawmakers have already introduced bills for many items on the agenda, including a Green New Deal for Public Schools, expanding the Supreme Court, comprehensive voting rights protection, and legalizing marijuana.
Critics noted the conspicuous absence of Medicare for All—once a top progressive agenda item—and foreign policy issues including ending Israel's genocide, apartheid, occupation, settler colonization, and ethnic cleansing in Palestine.
Jayapal toldNBC News that the CPC is focusing its blueprint exclusively on domestic goals—especially ones it feels can be achieved.
"The way we came to this agenda is to say that we were going to put into this agenda things that were populist and possible... and affected a huge number of people," she said. "We haven't taken a position on particularly Israel and Gaza in the progressive caucus, and so that's not on here."
The CPC agenda is backed by a wide range of labor, climate, environmental, civil rights, consumer, faith-based, and other organizations.
"The Congressional Progressive Caucus is leading the way for Congress to address the major issues affecting working families, from reducing healthcare and housing costs to strengthening workers' rights to join unions, earn living wages and benefits, and have safe workplaces," Service Employees International Union president Mary Kay Henry said in a statement.
"SEIU is proud to partner with the CPC to move these priorities forward and build a more equitable economy in which corporations are held accountable for their actions," she added.
Mary Small, chief strategy officer at Indivisible, said: "House progressives were the engine at the heart of our legislative accomplishments in 2021 and 2022. They've continued that momentum to be true governing partners to the Biden administration as those laws and programs are implemented."
"That's why Indivisible is so supportive of the CPC's Proposition Agenda, a bold vision for progressive governance in 2025 and beyond. From reproductive rights to saving our democracy to economic security for all, the CPC is driving forward exactly the sort of legislative goals we want to see in our next governing moment."
That moment is far from guaranteed, with not only the White House hanging in the balance as Biden will all but certainly face former Republican President Donald Trump in November's election but also the Senate Democratic Caucus clinging to a single-seat advantage over the GOP. Republicans currently hold the House of Representatives by a five-seat margin.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'McCarthyism Is Alive and Well': Google Fires 28 for Protesting Israel Contract
"These mass, illegal firings will not stop us," said organizers. "Make no mistake, we will continue organizing until the company drops Project Nimbus and stops powering this genocide."
Apr 18, 2024
The peace coalition No Tech for Apartheid accused Google of a "flagrant act of retaliation" late Wednesday night as the Silicon Valley giant announced it had fired 28 workers over protests against its cloud services contract with the Israeli government.
The firings came after Google organizers held two 10-hour sit-ins at the company's offices in Sunnyvale, California and New York City, demanding the termination of Project Nimbus, a $1.2 billion contract under which Google and Amazon provide cloud infrastructure and data services for Israel—without any oversight regarding whether the Israel Defense Forces uses the services in its occupation of Palestinian territories and bombardment of Gaza.
Workers have denounced Project Nimbus since it was announced in 2021, but Israel's killing of at least 33,970 Palestinians in Gaza since October and its intentional starvation of civilians led employees to escalate their protests.
No Tech for Apartheid said in a statement that Google officials called the police to both offices to arrest nine protesters—dubbed the Nimbus Nine—on Tuesday morning, before utilizing "a dragnet of in-office surveillance" to fire nearly two dozen other employees on Wednesday.
"They punished all of the workers they could associate with this action in wholesale firings," said the coalition, which includes Jewish Voice for Peace and MPower Change, a Muslim-led anti-war group.
Google accused the workers of "bullying," "harassment," defacing property, and physically impeding other employees—allegations No Tech for Apartheid rejected as it noted organizers "have yet to hear from a single executive about" their concerns over Google's collaboration with Israel.
"This excuse to avoid confronting us and our concerns directly, and attempt to justify its illegal, retaliatory firings, is a lie," said the workers. "Even the workers who were participating in a peaceful sit-in and refusing to leave did not damage property or threaten other workers. Instead they received an overwhelmingly positive response and shows of support."
The organizers staged the sit-ins on the heels of reporting in Time magazine about new negotiations between Google and the Israeli government regarding further potential tech contracts.
Kate J. Sim, a child safety policy adviser at Google who said she was among those fired this week, said the terminations show "how terrified [executives] are of worker power."
Google employees have a history of harnessing worker power to change policies at the company. In 2018, Google terminated a deal with the U.S. Defense Department to develop drone and artificial intelligence (AI) technology through a contract called Project Maven. The decision followed the resignations of several employees and the condemnation of thousands of workers.
Calling Google CEO Sundar Pichai and Google Cloud CEO Thomas Kurian "genocide profiteers," No Tech for Apartheid said Wednesday that they will not stop demonstrating against Project Nimbus until they get a similar result.
"The truth is clear: Google is terrified of us," said the group. "They are terrified of workers coming together and calling for accountability and transparency from our bosses... The corporation is trying to downplay and discredit our power.
"These mass, illegal firings will not stop us," No Tech for Apartheid added. "On the contrary, they only serve as further fuel for the growth of this movement. Make no mistake, we will continue organizing until the company drops Project Nimbus and stops powering this genocide."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular