

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

Lebanon's religion-based personal status laws discriminate against women across the religious spectrum and don't guarantee their basic rights, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today. Lebanon has 15 separate personal status laws for its recognized religions but no civil code covering issues such as divorce, property rights, or care of children. These laws are administered by autonomous religious courts with little or no government oversight, and often issue rulings that violate women's human rights.
The 114-page report, "Unequal and Unprotected: Women's Rights Under Lebanon's Religious Personal Status Laws," found that, across all religions, personal status laws erect greater barriers for women than men who wish to terminate unhappy or abusive marriages, initiate divorce proceedings, ensure their rights concerning their children after divorce, or secure pecuniary rights from a former spouse. The laws also violate children's rights, most significantly the need to consider their best interests in all judicial decisions concerning their welfare.
"Not only are Lebanese citizens of various religions treated unequally under the law, but women are treated unfairly across the board, and their rights and security go unprotected," said Nadim Houry, deputy Middle East and North Africa director. "Passage of an optional civil marriage code, alongside badly needed reforms to existing personal status laws and religious courts, are long overdue."
Human Rights Watch analyzed 447 recent legal judgments by religious courts adjudicating divorce, custody, and spousal and child support, and interviewed lawyers, judges, social workers, activists, and women who went through divorces or custody battles in religious courts.
Lebanon's constitution explicitly guarantees respect for the "personal status and religious interests" of the individual, whatever their religion. This constitutional protection has often been used as a justification to keep personal status laws under the exclusive realm of religious authorities, block attempts to adopt a civil code or ensure greater oversight over Lebanon's religious courts and laws.
The 1936 decree that established the basic personal status order and that remains operational recognized freedom of belief, granting each person the right to opt out of their religion's personal status laws and marry under a civil code. But Lebanon has yet to adopt a civil code despite numerous campaigns since independence to do so.
The 1936 decree required each religious group to submit its personal status code and trial procedures to the government and the parliament for review and ratification to ensure compliance with the constitution and public order. But while the Christian and Jewish confessions submitted their laws for review, the Sunni confession objected to the requirement, and a later decree was issued stating that the provisions of Decree 60LR did not apply to Muslims. In the vast majority of cases, the Court of Cassation, the country's highest court for all civil cases, will not consider the substantive decisions of the personal status courts.
"I forced myself to bear beyond what a human being can take, all the injustices and violence," said Mireille, a Maronite woman who endured years of physical abuse but only sought a divorce after her children became adults because of discriminatory custody provisions. "My daughters, who are my soul and my life, were the main reason... I couldn't even bear the idea of losing them."
Human Rights Watch reviewed 243 divorce cases and found systematic discrimination against women, including because of their disadvantaged access to divorce or court procedures that burdened women financially and created barriers to ending their marriage and protecting their rights.
Under Lebanon's Shia, Sunni, and Druze laws, men can demand a divorce at any time, unilaterally, and without cause, while a woman's ability to access divorce is limited, and often at great cost and after lengthy court proceedings. In principle, these laws allow women to have an explicit clause inserted into the marriage contract stating that husband and wife have an equal right to unilateral divorce, but this right is rarely exercised due to social pressure and customs. Only 3 of the 150 divorce judgments before Islamic courts that Human Rights Watch reviewed included such clauses.
Divorce is difficult for both men and women under Christian laws, but two key aspects of the Christian laws impact women differently and disproportionately. Christian men can convert to Islam and remarry without divorcing - Muslim men are legally allowed up to four wives, while a Christian woman may not enter into a new marriage without terminating her first marriage. And although spousal violence is grounds for desertion, short of attempted murder it is insufficient to end a marriage quickly.
Seven of the 27 women who wanted to end their marriage that Human Rights Watch interviewed said they did not approach religious courts for a divorce because they could not afford the costs of court proceedings or they feared losing primary care responsibility for their children.
Religious courts do not recognize joint custody of children, usually granting custody to the woman until a certain age, after which the father gets custody. But the father remains the child's legal guardian, passed to their male relatives in some cases if the father dies.
In reviews of 101 decisions in Christian, Islamic, and Druze courts, Human Rights Watch found that while religious judges often applied the maternal custody age cut-offs without examining what would be in the best interest of the child, some judges, particularly in Christian courts and more recently Sunni courts, were willing to consider that factor. But the religious courts rarely looked at the father's behavior in deciding custody issues, while scrutinizing the woman's conduct in ways that reflect social prejudice or stereotypes. The result was a greater likelihood that the mother would be stripped of custody than the father.
Of 27 women interviewed, 23 said that their principal obstacle to divorce was their vulnerable economic position. A major contributing factor is the failure of personal status laws to recognize a wife's economic and non-economic contributions to the marriage, including the value of her unpaid domestic labor, or the concept of marital property. In addition, cultural, religious, and traditional expectations and norms undermine a woman's economic independence and contribute to her financial dependence on her husband.
This system means that for example women can contribute, financially and otherwise, to assets in their husband's name but receive no compensation at the time of divorce. Women also frequently gave up their financial rights to get out of bad marriages.
Amina, who wed under Sunni personal status laws, gave up her financial rights even though her husband had abused her, because her husband demanded it in return for granting her a divorce. Amina said that the judge's only involvement was to advise her to accept the conditions.
Lebanon's current system of personal status laws violate women's human rights, including to non-discrimination, equality in marriage, and at its dissolution, physical integrity, and health. These rights are all guaranteed in several international human rights treaties that Lebanon has ratified. Under international law all children are entitled to have their best interests be a primary consideration in all decisions made by official bodies concerning their welfare.
The Lebanese parliament should adopt an optional civil code that would ensure equal rights for all Lebanese who wish to marry under it, Human Rights Watch said. The government should exercise oversight over religious courts and authorities to ensure compliance with human rights obligations and bring them in compliance with Lebanon's international human rights obligations, guaranteeing women and men equal rights in all personal status matters.
"Ending a marriage or determining who a child should live with after divorce are often difficult decisions," Houry said. "Lebanon should ensure a level playing field between men and women."
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.
One human rights lawyer said the centrist Pennsylvania governor was trying to stop Rabb because he's "anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-labor."
Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro is working behind the scenes to derail progressive state representative Chris Rabb in his bid for a seat representing the state's 3rd Congressional District in the US House—reportedly putting his thumb on the scale to drag pediatric surgeon Dr. Ala Stanford, the Israel lobby’s preferred candidate, over the finish line.
Axios reported this weekend that the Democratic governor, who has sought to punish boycotts and other activism against Israel, was seeking to quietly influence the race to defeat Rabb, who has been an outspoken supporter of Palestinian rights on the campaign trail and a critic of Shapiro’s centrist stances.
Rabb has called for an arms embargo against Israel amid the genocide in Gaza and endorsed the right of return for Palestinian refugees. But he's also pressured Shapiro to end what he says is "state collaboration" with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
While still considered an underdog in the three-way primary, which takes place on May 19, Rabb has gained steam in recent weeks with key endorsements from progressive leaders, most notably Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has raised funds and plans to visit Philadelphia to campaign with him on Friday, days before voters head to the polls.
Shapiro has not publicly weighed in on the race and has not endorsed a candidate. But according to Axios, he and his team "privately told allies that he disapproves of Rabb and has taken steps to block his path, according to three people familiar with the discussions."
The report continued:
Shapiro has privately advised Philadelphia's building trades unions to avoid inadvertently helping Rabb, the lone progressive in the race, by attacking one of his center-left opponents, two of our sources told us.
The sources said Shapiro suggested that the building trades, which are backing another candidate, Sharif Street, avoid running negative ads against a third contender, Ala Stanford.
Street and Stanford are seen as traditional Democrats who share similar voters.
Stanford led the race with 28% of the vote, ahead of Rabb’s 23%, in a poll conducted in April by the 314 Action Fund, a super PAC backing Stanford.
However, that very PAC has proven a liability for Stanford in the stretch run of the campaign. Last month, Drop Site News revealed that 314 Action Fund had acted as a shell organization for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and had covertly received $500,000 from the lobbying group, which Democratic voters have come to overwhelmingly view as toxic.
The revelation has proven a public relations disaster for Stanford, who had said she “did not accept money from AIPAC” back in March. When confronted by voters about her views on the conflict, she has struggled to answer their questions and has faced heavy criticism for her statements that accusing Israel of "genocide," an opinion held by many leading human rights organizations and UN experts, is "hurtful" to Jewish people in the same way that using a racial slur is hurtful to Black people.
Amid other embarrassments, including her failure to explain her plan to "abolish" ICE and her rollout of what was described as a "comedically amateurish" policy platform on social media, Stanford dropped out of an April 29 debate just hours before it was set to take place, citing unspecified “misogynistic attacks and lies from both of my opponents.”
There have not been any public opinion polls on the race since Stanford's crash. But PoliticsPA.com now gives Street a 61% chance of winning, Rabb a 33% chance, and Stanford a distant 5% chance, citing prediction markets.
Axios suggested that Shapiro's primary goal is to prevent the votes from splitting between the two centrists, thereby allowing Rabb to win. But the piece suggests that Stanford is Shapiro's preferred horse.
Stanford has the backing of PA-03’s outgoing occupant, Rep. Dwight Evans (D), who is described as a close ally of Shapiro. Street is also described as having a “strained relationship” with Shapiro, who backed his rival in a 2022 struggle for leadership of the Pennsylvania Democratic Party.
Shapiro's push to blunt Rabb's momentum casts Philadelphia as yet another battleground in the broader war over the Democratic Party's identity, especially surrounding support for Israel, but also with other issues like immigration and healthcare, where leadership is out of step with voters' demands.
" Josh Shapiro is trying to derail the congressional run of Democratic PA State Rep Chris Rabb because Rabb is anti-genocide, anti-AIPAC, pro-universal healthcare, and pro-labor," said human rights lawyer Qasim Rashid.
Will Bunch, a columnist for The Philadelphia Inquirer, said the governor's effort to defeat Rabb was “one more reminder that Josh Shapiro is who we thought he was.”
“Just a question to the BBC,” said the documentary's executive producer. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?”
The makers of a documentary about Israeli attacks on healthcare workers and infrastructure in Gaza won a prestigious BAFTA award on Sunday—and they used their acceptance speech to lash out at BBC for refusing to air their work.
The film, "Gaza: Doctors Under Attack," was originally scheduled to be aired by the BBC in early 2025 before the network announced in June that it would not be releasing the documentary because it had "come to the conclusion that broadcasting this material risked creating a perception of partiality."
Shortly after, the documentary was picked up by the UK-based Channel 4 and aired in July.
UK journalist Ramita Navai, the main reporter of the documentary, criticized the BBC for declining to show the film, which she denounced as a political decision.
“Israel has killed over 47,000 children and women in Gaza so far," Navai said. "Israel has... targeted every single one of Gaza’s hospitals. It’s killed over 1,700 Palestinian doctors and healthcare workers. It has imprisoned over 400 in what the UN now calls a ‘medicide.’ These are the findings of our investigation that the BBC paid for but refuses to show. But we refuse to be silenced and censored."
🇵🇸🇬🇧 A Gaza documentary the BBC paid for and refused to air just won a Bafta.
The filmmakers used their acceptance speech to call out the BBC directly.
Presenter Ramita Navai:
"We refuse to be silenced and censored."
The BBC then edited portions of her remarks from its own… https://t.co/xLRLfdLV6W pic.twitter.com/K8pYhOzJTd
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) May 11, 2026
Ben de Pear, the film's executive producer, also pointed the finger at the BBC as he accepted the BAFTA award for best current affairs television program.
"Just a question to the BBC,” said de Pear, according to The Hollywood Reporter. “Given you dropped our film, will you drop us from the BAFTAs screening later tonight?"
As reported by Al Jazeera, de Pear after accepting the award also praised Palestinian journalists Jaber Badwan and Osana Al Ashi, who contributed on-the-ground footage for the documentary at the risk of their own lives.
"[We] woke up every day wondering if the two journalists on the ground were still alive," de Pear told reporters backstage.
The Trump administration has conducted more than two dozen surveillance and reconnaissance flights off Cuba's coast since early February, according to CNN.
US surveillance and reconnaissance flights off the coast of Cuba have surged in recent months as President Donald Trump has issued increasingly belligerent threats to seize the island nation by force.
CNN reported Sunday that the US Navy and Air Force have conducted more than two dozen surveillance flights—mostly of them near Havana and Santiago de Cuba, the country's largest cities—since early February, after the Trump administration invaded Venezuela and kidnapped its president. The outlet noted that "similar patterns, in which ramped-up rhetoric by the Trump administration coincided with an uptick in publicly visible surveillance flights, occurred in the lead-up to US military operations in both Venezuela and Iran."
"The flights are notable not only for their proximity to the coast, which puts them well within range of gathering intelligence, but for the suddenness of their appearance—prior to February, such publicly visible flights were exceedingly rare in this area—and for their timing," CNN reported.
CNN published its story days after US Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced new sanctions targeting a conglomerate operated by Cuba's military and a natural resources firm, intensifying the United States' decades-long economic war against the island nation.
"Our people already know the cruelty behind the actions of the US government and the viciousness with which it is capable of attacking us," Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel said in response to the sanctions. "They understand, just as the rest of the world does, that this is a unilateral aggression against a nation and a population whose sole ambition is to live in peace, masters of their own destiny and free from the pernicious interference of US imperialism."
In a New York Times op-ed on Monday, US Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.) wrote that the Trump administration's "blockade of fuel to Cuba, on top of the longest embargo in modern US history, defies the norms of international law that provide for state sovereignty, nonintervention in domestic affairs and the right of nations to trade freely."
"It amounts to an economic assault on the basic infrastructure of Cuba, designed to inflict collective punishment on the civilian population by manufacturing a humanitarian crisis in which healthcare, running water, agriculture and transportation are no longer available," wrote Jayapal and Jackson, who visited Cuba in April and witnessed firsthand the devastating impact of US economic warfare.
"During our visit, we spoke with a wide range of Cuban citizens—political dissidents, religious leaders, entrepreneurs, and members of civil society organizations and humanitarian aid groups," the Democratic lawmakers wrote. "We also met with the families of Cuba’s political prisoners. Everywhere, there was agreement: America’s blockade must end, and a US invasion must not take place."
Trump has repeatedly threatened a military assault on Cuba in the months since his administration illegally attacked Venezuela and abducted its president.
"Cuba is next, by the way," Trump declared at a Saudi-backed investment summit in Miami in late March. "Pretend I didn't say that, please."
Citing unnamed US officials, The Associated Press reported last week that the Trump administration "is not looking at imminent military action against Havana" as the two sides continued to negotiate a diplomatic agreement.
AP added that the administration officials cautioned "that Trump could change his mind at any time and that military options are still on the table."