January, 23 2015, 11:00am EDT

Saudi Arabia: King's Reform Agenda Unfulfilled
New Leadership Should Prioritize Improving Country’s Human Rights Record
Beirut
King Abdullah's reign brought about marginal advances for women but failed to secure the fundamental rights of Saudi citizens to free expression, association, and assembly. Abdullah's successor, King Salman, should halt persecution of peaceful dissidents and religious minorities, end pervasive discrimination against women, and ensure greater protections for migrant workers.
Over King Abdullah's nine-and-a-half year rule, reform manifested itself chiefly in greater tolerance for a marginally expanded public role for women, but royal initiatives were largely symbolic and produced extremely modest concrete gains. The spread of internet and social media empowered Saudi citizens to speak openly about controversial social and political issues, creating a broader social awareness of Saudi Arabia's human rights shortcomings, but after 2011, Saudi authorities sought to halt online criticism through intimidation, arrests, prosecutions, and lengthy prison sentences.
"King Abdullah came to power promising reforms, but his agenda fell far short of achieving lasting institutional gains on basic rights for Saudi citizens," said Joe Stork, deputy Middle East director. "King Salman, the new ruler, should move the country forward by ending intolerance for free expression, rooting out gender and sectarian discrimination, and fostering a fair and impartial judicial system."
Early in his reign, King Abdullah promoted modernization of Saudi Arabia's state apparatus, making it more efficient and transparent; encouraged a modest public re-evaluation of the enforced subservient status of women and religious minorities; allowed greater debate in the media; and promoted some degree of judicial fairness. After 2011, the authorities subordinated the king's reform agenda to a campaign to silence peaceful dissidents and activists who called for religious tolerance and greater respect for human rights.
King Salman should take steps to prohibit discrimination against women and religious minorities and institute protections for free speech. A significant first step would be to repeal vague legislation used to prosecute Saudis for peaceful speech and create a written penal code that includes comprehensive human rights protections. He should also order the immediate release of Saudi citizens jailed solely for calling for political reform.
The most concrete gains for women under King Abdullah included opening up new employment sectors for women. In February 2013, King Abdullah appointed 30 women to the Shura Council, a consultative body that produces recommendations for the cabinet.
Systematic discrimination against women persists, however. Authorities have not ended the discriminatory male guardianship system. Under this system, ministerial policies and practices forbid women from obtaining a passport, marrying, travelling, or accessing higher education without the approval of a male guardian, usually a husband, father, brother, or son. Employers can still require male guardians to approve the hiring of adult female relatives and some hospitals to require male guardian approval for certain medical procedures for women. Women remain forbidden from driving in Saudi Arabia, and authorities have arrested women who dared challenge the driving ban.
"It is not enough for women to sit on the Shura Council if they can't even drive themselves to work," Stork said.
The government continues to control the appointment of newspaper editors and punish Saudis who criticize members of the royal family, government policies, or senior clerics. Under King Abdullah, Saudi authorities prosecuted human rights, civil society, and pro-reform activists for nothing more than exercising their right to freedom of expression. After 2011, Saudi courts began imposing prison sentences of over 10 years for speech-related crimes.
The government began to overhaul the justice system in 2007, but the country still lacks a written penal code, allowing judges wide discretion in certain cases to decide what behavior constitutes criminal offenses. Judges continue to jail and sentence people for "sorcery" and "sowing discord."
Some written laws promulgated during King Abdullah's reign curtailed basic rights, including vague provisions of the 2007 anti-cybercrime law, which prosecutors and judges used to charge and try Saudi citizens for peaceful tweets and social media comments. In 2014, Saudi authorities issued new counterterrorism regulations containing broad provisions that allow authorities to criminalize free expression and grant excessive police powers that are not subject to judicial oversight.
Saudi officials failed to pass an associations law under King Abdullah, leaving Saudi citizens with no legal avenue to set up non-charity nongovernmental organizations, and authorities prosecuted independent activists who set up unlicensed human rights organizations.
There have been no institutional gains in religious tolerance. In 2003, King Abdullah began a national dialogue series to bring Saudis together to discuss sensitive issues, including religious extremism and tolerance. In 2008, the Muslim World League, with the king's encouragement, began an interfaith dialogue initiative in Mecca and took it to Spain, the UN, and Switzerland. Neither of these efforts led to any improvement in the rights of religious minorities inside the kingdom, which does not allow public practice of any religion other than Islam.
Saudi Shia citizens continue to face systematic discrimination in public education, government employment, and in being allowed to build houses of worship. Shia citizens protested for an end to systematic discrimination in 2011 and 2012, but authorities used force to halt these demonstrations and arrested and tried many of those who participated.
"King Abdullah was a great champion of religious dialogue outside the kingdom, but these initiatives produced few benefits for Saudi Arabia's Shia minority, who continue to face systematic discrimination and are treated as second-class citizens," Stork 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
'Authoritarianism 101': Observers Decry DOJ's Lawsuit Against Maryland Federal Bench
"It's hard not to see this challenge as further escalation by the administration of its opposition to courts that have sought to check illegal government conduct," said one lawyer and director at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Jun 26, 2025
In an escalation of the Trump administration's tense relationship with the judiciary, the U.S. Department of Justice on Tuesday sued the entire 15-judge bench of Maryland's U.S. District Court over a recent immigration-related order, a move that was met with alarm by several observers.
The lawsuit comes in response to an order by Chief Judge George L. Russell III, who in May imposed a stay for a period of two days on the deportation of any immigration custody detainee in Maryland who files a petition for habeas corpus, which is a legal action challenging the lawfulness of a person's detention. The plaintiffs in the new case are the United States and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
According to The Washington Post, the complaint makes the case that the order was "unlawful" and "antidemocratic." It also alleges that the order runs afoul of Supreme Court precedent and intrudes "on core Executive Branch powers." Russell's order applies not only to cases before him, but also the 14 other district judges in Maryland, per the Post.
"President [Donald] Trump's executive authority has been undermined since the first hours of his presidency by an endless barrage of injunctions designed to halt his agenda," said U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in a statement announcing the lawsuit. "The American people elected President Trump to carry out his policy agenda: This pattern of judicial overreach undermines the democratic process and cannot be allowed to stand."
Adam Bonica, a political science professor at Stanford University, called the DOJ's core claim in the lawsuit "stunning." On his Substack, Bonica wrote that the DOJ is essentially arguing that the Trump administration is being injured "by the very existence of judicial oversight."
Several legal experts characterized the lawsuit as an attack on judicial independence, as did the watchdog group Project on Government Oversight.
"This isn't about process. It's about punishing judges for rulings the administration doesn't like. That's authoritarianism 101," the group said in a post on X on Wednesday.
Alicia Bannon, the director of the Judiciary Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, addedthat "if the administration's challenge is successful, it will be far easier to evade the courts altogether in future immigration cases."
"It's hard not to see this challenge as further escalation by the administration of its opposition to courts that have sought to check illegal government conduct," she said.
The judges named in the lawsuit have ruled on major cases involving the Trump administration this year. For example, Judge Paula Xinis, one of the defendants, is overseeing the high-profile case of a Maryland man who was wrongly deported to El Salvador earlier this year. He is back on U.S. soil now after the Trump administration delayed returning him to the country.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Wealth of Global 1% Has Skyrocketed by Over $33 Trillion Since 2015: Report
"Governments should heed widespread demands to tax the rich—and match it with a vision to build public goods from healthcare to energy," said the executive director of Oxfam International.
Jun 26, 2025
An Oxfam report published Wednesday estimates that the richest 1% globally have seen their wealth surge by more than $33.9 trillion over the past decade, with just 3,000 billionaires accounting for $6.5 trillion of that increase.
The report, released ahead of June 30 development financing talks in Seville, Spain, argues that the international community's plan to achieve the Sustainable Development Goals agreed upon in 2015 has failed utterly as global inequality has continued to expand, efforts to end poverty have stagnated, and the climate crisis has spiraled further out of control.
"There is glaring evidence that global development is desperately failing because—as the last decade shows—the interests of a very wealthy few are put over those of everyone else," said Amitabh Behar, executive director of Oxfam International. "Rich countries have put Wall Street in the driver's seat of global development. It's a global private finance takeover which has overrun the evidence-backed ways to tackle poverty through public investments and fair taxation."
"It is no wonder governments are abysmally off track, be it on fostering decent jobs, gender equality, or ending hunger," Behar added. "This much wealth concentration is choking efforts to end poverty."
According to Oxfam's analysis, the roughly $34 trillion wealth increase enjoyed by the global 1% since 2015 would be enough to eliminate annual poverty "22 times over."
"It's time we rejected the Wall Street Consensus and instead put the public in the driving seat."
The report argues that "a new agenda is needed" to break free from the private profit-centered global development model that has allowed international crises to run rampant while letting the ultra-wealthy continue growing their massive fortunes unabated.
The upcoming conference in Seville, the report states, represents a key opportunity for countries that are willing to "work together to tackle extreme inequality" and "reject the 'Wall Street Consensus' around financing development."
"They can start by taxing the very wealthiest—a new global survey finds 9 out of 10 people support taxing the super-rich to raise the revenue needed to invest in public services and climate action," the report notes. "Reforms to the international financial architecture and restoring aid are also key."
The report comes as the world's wealthiest countries, including the United States under President Donald Trump, are making unprecedented cuts to development aid spending, a surefire way to reverse any recent progress toward reducing global hunger, poverty, and disease.
Behar said Wednesday that "trillions of dollars exist" to tackle such emergencies, "but they're locked away in private accounts of the ultra-wealthy."
"It's time we rejected the Wall Street Consensus and instead put the public in the driving seat," said Behar. "Governments should heed widespread demands to tax the rich—and match it with a vision to build public goods from healthcare to energy. It's a hopeful sign that some governments are banding together to fight inequality—more should follow their lead, starting in Seville."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Alligator Alcatraz' Denounced as Epitome of GOP Dehumanization and Cruelty Toward Migrants
"There's no clearer illustration of the brutality of the Trump administration than robbing funds from cities supporting asylum-seekers to build... a f*up Floridian replica of one of our most notorious prisons to disappear, isolate, and abuse immigrants."
Jun 25, 2025
Rights advocates and Democratic officials across the United States this week are condemning the Trump administration and Florida Republicans' effort to construct a migrant detention facility in the Everglades dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz."
Republican Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier laid out plans to transform the Dade-Collier Training and Transition Airport—previously called the Everglades Jetport—into a temporary detention facility for undocumented immigrants in a video posted on the social media site X last week.
The site "presents an efficient, low-cost opportunity to build a temporary detention facility because you don't need to invest that much in the perimeter. People get out, there's not much waiting for 'em other than alligators and pythons," he said in the video. "Nowhere to go, nowhere to hide."
"Detaining immigrants at a remote airfield in the Everglades, with no clear legal framework or due process, is about fear, not safety."
Citing the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Reutersreported that "the Florida facility, estimated to cost $450 million annually, could eventually house up to 5,000 people."
According toThe New York Times, "A spokesperson for the attorney general said work on the new facility started on Monday morning." The effort is directly tied to President Donald Trump's push for mass deportations that critics denounce as devastating for families and the economy.
Trump's homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem, toldUSA Today that the facility will be partly funded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Shelter and Services Program. Her department said on X that "we are working on cost-effective and innovative ways to deliver on the American people's mandate for mass deportations. Alligator Alcatraz will expand facilities and bed space in just days, thanks to our partnership with Florida."
Responding to that post, Uthmeier wrote that "I'm proud to help support President Trump and Secretary Noem in their mission to fix our illegal immigration problem once and for all. Alligator Alcatraz and other Florida facilities will do just that. We in Florida will fight alongside this administration to keep Florida safe, strong, and free."
Florida turning airfield in the Everglades into "Alligator Alcatraz" to hold detained migrants
[image or embed]
— MSNBC (@msnbc.com) June 24, 2025 at 1:16 PM
The plan has been lambasted by some local environmentalists and Indigenous people, as well as Florida Democrats. José Javier Rodríguez, a Democrat running to be the state's attorney general, said in a Wednesday statement that Uthmeier's Alligator Alcatraz "isn't a serious plan, it's a reckless, rushed project that puts lives and resources at risk."
"Detaining immigrants at a remote airfield in the Everglades, with no clear legal framework or due process, is about fear, not safety," he continued. "The most obvious reason seems to be political theater, just trying to get attention in Washington, rather than looking out for the interests of our state and its people."
"Now they're funding it with FEMA dollars—money meant to help us prepare for hurricanes and natural disasters, especially in states like Florida," he added, also noting Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis' use of emergency powers to seize the site.
Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) also blasted the plan, saying in a Tuesday statement that "Donald Trump, his administration, and his enablers have made one thing brutally clear: They intend to use the power of government to kidnap, brutalize, starve, and harm every single immigrant they can—because they have a deep disdain for immigrants and are using them to scapegoat the serious issues facing working people."
"They would rather us point fingers at immigrants for the housing crisis, violence, lack of healthcare, and high costs that plague our nation rather than blame the inaction of politicians and greedy corporations," he argued. "This was never about public safety. It was never about putting America first."
Frost continued:
They target migrants, rip families apart, and subject people to conditions that amount to physical and psychological torture in facilities that can only be described as hell on Earth. Now, they want to erect tents in the blazing Everglades sun and call it immigration enforcement. They don't care if people live or die; they only care about cruelty and spectacle.
I've toured these facilities myself—real ones, not the makeshift tents they plan to put up—and even those detention centers contain conditions that are nothing short of human rights abuses. Places where people are forced to eat, sleep, shower, and defecate all in the same room. Places where medical attention is virtually nonexistent.
Anyone who supports this is a disgusting excuse for a human being, let alone a public servant.
Frost wasn't the only federal lawmaker who sounded the alarm this week. Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a fierce critic of the president's anti-migrant agenda, said Tuesday that "there's no clearer illustration of the brutality of the Trump administration than robbing funds from cities supporting asylum-seekers to build 'Alligator Alcatraz.'"
"Nope, that's not an island for bad-behaving alligators your family could visit after Disney," she wrote on social media. "It's a f*up Floridian replica of one of our most notorious prisons to disappear, isolate, and abuse immigrants."
Notably, Trump last month advocated for reopening the island prison of Alcatraz in California's San Francisco Bay.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular