5
#000000
#FFFFFF
For Immediate Release
May, 22 2012, 08:33am EDT
Contact:
Tel: +1-212-216-1832,Email:,hrwpress@hrw.org
Azerbaijan: Authorities Violently Disperse Peaceful Rallies
Police Beat, Kick Protesters on Eve of Eurovision Song Contest
BAKU
Azerbaijan sent an ominous message about the government's commitment to fundamental freedoms as the police violently dispersed two peaceful protests on May 21, 2012, Human Rights Watch said today. Police rounded up dozens of peaceful demonstrators, forcing them onto buses and beating many of them in the process.
The crackdown on the peaceful protests took place the day before the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest is to begin in Baku.
"The Azerbaijani authorities have gone to great lengths to prepare and polish Baku ahead of Eurovision, but police roughing up peaceful protestors casts a very dark shadow on all the festivities," said Giorgi Gogia, senior South Caucasus researcher at Human Rights Watch. "If the authorities want the world to see a modern Azerbaijan as they tune in to see their favorite performers, they need to protect free expression in the country, and that includes allowing peaceful demonstrations."
At approximately 1 p.m., about 100 opposition activists gathered in front of the "Icheri Shaher" [Old City] metro station in central Baku, chanting slogans such as: "Freedom," "No to Corruption, and "Resign," referring to President Ilham Aliyev. A Human Rights Watch researcher monitored the protest. The activists then marched a short distance to the Baku municipal building and continued to chant slogans at the entrance. There was heavy police presence in the vicinity of the metro station and the municipal building.
Soon after protesters arrived at the municipal building, several dozen uniformed and plainclothes police officers moved toward the crowd. Police announced over a loudspeaker that the demonstration was unsanctioned and called on demonstrators to disperse immediately. The protesters refused and continued to chant slogans.
Police made a second announcement calling for the crowd to disperse, but then immediately rushed at protesters without giving them a chance to disperse voluntarily.
Some police officers beat and kicked demonstrators, pushing them away from the municipal building. The police forced about a dozen protesters onto a nearby bus, one of many brought by police to detain protesters. Several policemen used rubber truncheons to beat protesters who resisted being put on the bus. Police then locked arms to form a line and pushed the remaining protesters into a nearby subway station.
At the same time, another group of activists gathered several hundred meters away at Fountain Square, a pedestrian walking area in downtown Baku. A Human Rights Watch researcher spoke to several witnesses and journalists who attended this protest and examined journalists' video footage showing that the events developed there in a similar pattern.
Police used force to disperse the protest, rounding up protesters and forcing them onto buses. Video footage also showed three police officers violently dragging one woman away from the protest site, at which point she fainted. Other demonstrators came to her aid and helped revive her. The police made no effort to assist her, and no ambulances were waiting in the vicinity of the protests.
Police transported several dozen protesters from both protest locations to the outskirts of Baku and released them on the side of the road.
Azerbaijan is a party to a number of human rights treaties, including the European Convention on Human Rights, which imposes obligations on the government to respect the right of assembly and to refrain in all circumstances from engaging in prohibited ill-treatment of protesters. The government also has a duty to investigate and remedy violations.
The 2012 Eurovision Song Contest will be held in Baku May 22 through 26. The contest is overseen by the European Broadcasting Union (EBU), an association of public broadcasters. The EBU has publicly committed to promoting freedom of expression in the countries where its member broadcasters operate and has made recommendations for governments, including the government of Azerbaijan, to improve freedom of expression and freedom of the media. The EBU held a one-day workshop in Geneva on May 2 on freedom of expression in Azerbaijan, attended by government officials, Azerbaijani NGO representatives, and representatives from international organizations, including Human Rights Watch.
But both at the event and at other opportunities, the EBU has been reluctant to take a strong public stand against the government's record on freedom of expression. The EBU has repeatedly stated that it sees the Eurovision Song Contest as an apolitical event.
Ahead of the 2012 Eurovision Song Contest, the Azerbaijani authorities promised publicly to guarantee freedom of speech for contestants, fans, and foreign journalists who would attend the song contest but did not make the same guarantees for local activists or others.
"The government imposed a double standard for whose rights to free speech would be protected during Eurovision, and local activists got the raw end of the deal," Gogia said. "The EBU should speak up publicly and make it clear that it expects Azerbaijan to uphold the same free expression protections for everyone, without exception."
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
Trump Admin Readies Big Gift for Wall Street While Waging War, Gutting Aid Programs
“At a time of extreme and growing inequality," said one critic, "today’s proposals will drain lending away from Main Street families’ needs and priorities and further enrich the already wealthy on Wall Street."
Mar 19, 2026
The Trump administration and Federal Reserve unveiled proposals Thursday that would significantly reduce capital requirements for the largest banks in the United States, potentially setting the stage for another financial industry collapse as the US-Israeli war on Iran destabilizes the global economy and jacks up prices for consumers.
Under the new rules proposed by the Fed, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, large banks would have to hold nearly 5% less capital on average. The advocacy organization Better Markets noted that the proposals—combined with other deregulatory actions taken by the Trump administration and the Fed over the past year—would return Wall Street banks' capital requirements "to the irresponsibly low 2007 levels they had just before the 2008 crash."
“At a time of extreme and growing inequality, when tens of millions of Americans are struggling to pay their bills, today’s proposals will drain lending away from Main Street families’ needs and priorities and further enrich the already wealthy on Wall Street and the top 10% of Americans they focus on serving," Dennis Kelleher, the president of Better Markets, said in a statement. "The banking agencies’ proposals to loosen capital rules are a victory for Wall Street lobbying, and claims to the contrary are nothing more than an attempt to mislead the American people."
Fed Gov. Michael Barr, who was nominated by former President Joe Biden, was the central bank board's lone dissenting voice against the new rules, a product of years of aggressive Wall Street lobbying for less stringent regulations in the wake of the Great Recession.
"Today's proposals, if adopted, would harm the resilience of banks and the US financial system," Barr warned in a statement. "There are suggestions that liquidity requirements could also be reduced. Additionally, Federal Reserve supervisory staff have been cut by over 30%, and supervisory practices have been weakened. Banking is built on trust. I worry greatly that these actions are rapidly eroding that trust."
The new deregulatory package, which will be subject to a 90-day public comment period before it's finalized, comes as President Donald Trump is waging an expensive and deadly war on Iran with no end in sight and attacking social programs at home, from Medicaid to nutrition assistance.
“With private credit markets cratering, AI transforming the workforce, and Trump’s Iran war threatening the world economy, we need healthy, resilient, well-capitalized banks," said Bartlett Naylor, an economist for the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "Lessons learned after millions lost their jobs, homes, and savings following the 2008 megabank crash must not be ignored."
"Trump’s bank regulators propose to tear at the already tissue-thin layer of solvency levels at the nation’s banks," said Naylor. "Lowering solvency standards won’t generate more loans; it will only send banks closer to failure."
Matt Stoller, an anti-monopoly researcher and author of the BIG newsletter, wrote that the juxtaposition of a quagmire in Iran, Wall Street deregulation, and millions of Americans losing health insurance "tells the story" of the Trump administration.
Today's WSJ front page tells the story of the Trump admin.
#1: Hegseth Says ‘No Time Set’ on Ending Operations in Iran
#2: U.S. Regulators Propose More Lenient Capital Rules for Big Banks
#3: Millions of Americans Are Going Uninsured Following Expiration of ACA Subsidies pic.twitter.com/26jKsQuNc4
— Matt Stoller (@matthewstoller) March 19, 2026
The effort to curb banks' capital requirements was spearheaded by Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman, a Trump appointee whose nomination last year was criticized by watchdogs as a "gift to the banking industry."
Kelleher of Better Markets said Thursday that "such counterproductive, shortsighted, and wrongheaded rulemaking isn’t a surprise given that the interests of Wall Street’s biggest banks are driving the priorities at the banking agencies, rather than facts, merit, and the public interest."
"The worst is at the Federal Reserve, where the senior regulatory staff comes from Wall Street’s top DC lobbyist (the Bank Policy Institute), Goldman Sachs, and one of Wall Street’s top law firms (a former partner is now the director responsible for supervising and regulating his recent Wall Street clients)," Kelleher observed. "That’s why mindless deregulation, especially for the biggest Wall Street banks, is at the top of the agenda, just as it was in the years before the 2008 crash."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Watchdog Blasts Mullin’s Self-Enrichment as Fetterman Joins GOP to Advance Trump DHS Pick
"Mullin’s long list of conflicts of interest even as he seeks this next level of public office is reprehensible."
Mar 19, 2026
Government watchdog Public Citizen on Thursday slammed the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee for voting to advance the nomination of Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin to be the next US homeland security secretary.
Shortly after the committee delivered an 8-to-7 vote to advance Mullin's (R-Okla.) nomination out of committee, Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert described the move as "simply inappropriate."
"It is inappropriate because of his self-enrichment," Gilbert said. "Mullin’s long list of conflicts of interest even as he seeks this next level of public office is reprehensible."
The New York Times reported on Sunday that Mullin has grown significantly wealthier throughout his tenure first as a US congressman then as a US senator, in part because he is "one of the most prolific stock buyers in Congress."
According to financial disclosure forms cited by the Times, Mullin's net worth in 2024 was between $29 million and $97 million, a massive jump from the estimated net worth of $2.8 million to $9 million he reported in 2012.
In addition to citing Mullin's self-enrichment during his political career, Gilbert decried the senator's past statements defending actions taken by federal immigration enforcement officials, including the fatal shootings of Minneapolis residents Renee Good and Alex Pretti.
"It is inappropriate because Mullin has consistently defended ICE agents involved in fatal shootings," said Gilbert, "and justified the use of lethal force in enforcement operations, rather than calling for accountability or reform of use-of-force policies. It is inappropriate because he treats protest against ICE operations as a prosecutable offense rather than a legitimate exercise of First Amendment rights and an expression of community concern."
While Mullin on Wednesday walked back his past attack on Pretty as "deranged," he stood by his claim that the shooting of Good was entirely justified.
Mullin's nomination advanced to the Senate floor after Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) broke with his party, canceling out the "no" vote on the committee delivered by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who got into an angry spat with Mullin on Wednesday over past comments the Oklahoma Republican made justifying a 2017 assault on his colleague from Kentucky.
In a social media post defending his vote to advance Mullin, Fetterman argued that "we need a leader" at the US Department of Homeland Security and said his vote in favor of the nomination was "rooted in a strong committed, constructive working relationship with Senator Mullin for our nation’s security."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Nearly 70% of US Voters Oppose Iran Ground Invasion as Trump Weighs Troop Surge
A majority of those polled in a new Data for Progress survey also said that the war "is not worth the risk."
Mar 19, 2026
As President Donald Trump says he's "not afraid" of a Vietnam-style invasion of Iran and is reportedly considering sending thousands more US troops to the Middle East, polling published Thursday reveals that most American voters strongly oppose boots on the ground in a war a majority believe isn't worth it.
Just over two-thirds—68%—of respondents to the Data for Progress survey said they oppose deploying US ground troops to Iran, while just 26% support such action. Among Democratic respondents, 86% were against a ground invasion, which is also opposed by 71% of Independents. Republicans were split, with 48% supporting and 48% opposing sending troops into Iran.
Slightly more than half (52%) of those polled said they agree with the statement "going to war with Iran is not worth the risk because it will cost billions of dollars and result in the deaths of civilians and more American service members," 13 of whom have been killed during a war whose globally defining moment thus far has been the massacre of around 175 children and staff at a girls' school bombed by the US.
Among Democrats, 77% of survey respondents said the war isn't worth it. Conversely, 64% of Republicans said the war on Iran is worthwhile.
NEW: A strong majority of voters (68%) would oppose the U.S. putting boots on the ground in Iran.This includes 85% of Democrats, 71% of Independents, and about half of Republicans.
[image or embed]
— Data for Progress (@dataforprogress.org) March 19, 2026 at 8:38 AM
The Data for Progress survey follows Wednesday's publication of a Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft poll revealing that nearly 8 in 10 people who voted for Trump in 2024—when he campaigned heavily on a "no new wars" platform—want a swift end to the war on Iran.
Nearly three weeks into the US-Israeli war that Trump said was "won" more than a week ago, Iran remains undefeated, launching missiles and drones at targets throughout the Middle East, paralyzing international shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, and demonstrating continuity of government as Israel assassinates one of its leaders after another.
As the war grinds on with no clear objective or exit strategy, the Pentagon is reportedly seeking more money and more troops for the fight. Democratic senators have warned that the US is "on a path" to a land invasion of Iran. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has reportedly approved the deployment of more warships and thousands of Marines to the region.
Asked Wednesday by a reporter if he is afraid of "another Vietnam"—where more than 58,000 US troops and around 50 times as many Vietnamese, Cambodians, and Laotians were killed over two decades—Trump replied, "I'm really not afraid of anything."
The Pentagon is now reportedly asking Congress to authorize another $200 billion for a war that's already costing taxpayers around a billion dollars a day.
This, as American workers and families struggle to make ends meet as the price of gas and other consumer goods spike amid an expensive betrayal of Trump's campaign promise to "make America affordable again."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular