Latest news with #IreneKhan
The Guardian
07-03-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Defamation law means the rape allegations you hear about in the media are just the tip of the iceberg. But we can limit that silencing effect
We are seeing an epidemic of violence against women. In early 2024, a woman was murdered every four days. But it's not just Australia, it's everywhere. UN Women has described violence against women and girls as one of the most prevalent human rights violations in the world. It's a problem that affects all of us. Whether or not we know about it, whether or not we want to acknowledge it, the statistics tell us it has happened to women we know – and it's perpetrated by men we know. And we should talk about it. My courageous grandmother, Philipa Cracknell, left my violent grandfather at a time when women only received state support if they were abandoned – not when they chose to leave violence – and she struggled to make ends meet as a single mother. She later worked in refuges in Sydney for women fleeing domestic violence and helped women and children access services to rebuild their lives. I spent time with her in the refuges as a child and saw first-hand the pervasive, harmful effects of male violence, the life-saving impact of her work and how crucial well-funded frontline services are. It was a conversation with her some years ago that inspired my work on gender-based violence and free speech. She was lamenting the fact that, in the two decades since she had retired, the statistics on violence had not improved. For all the advances made towards equality in the last century – suffrage, women's ability to work, reproductive autonomy, controlling our finances – women are still vulnerable in the intimate spaces where we should feel most safe, not to mention our workplaces, schools, universities and even on the streets. My grandmother had done her bit. What was I doing about it? Soon after in 2017, the #MeToo movement gained worldwide prominence: women were breaking cultural silence to speak about their experience of violence. The power of women speaking out en masse brought about a reckoning. Many powerful men were finally brought to account by the sheer number of accusers coming forward, encouraged by each other. In some cases, criminal convictions and professional consequences followed. The police and the criminal justice system so often fail women – for example, in the UK only 2% of rape cases are ever successfully prosecuted; in NSW, just 6% of reported sexual assaults result in conviction – so by speaking out about their abusers, women were warning other women and holding men to account for their violence. But what soon followed was the weaponisation of the law to silence women and maintain the status quo – making visible the legal tools men used, from defamation claims to non-disclosure agreements. The UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, Irene Khan, has since described this legal backlash as the 'perverse twist' of the #MeToo movement. It was this legal backlash that prompted me into action – and showed me how I could continue my grandmother's work in my own way. In our book, How Many More Women?, Dr Keio Yoshida and I document what we were seeing in our legal practice – how the law was being weaponised globally to silence public-interest speech about gender-based violence and how this is a violation not only of freedom of expression, but of women's rights to equality and to live free from violence. Our research showed it was happening everywhere, including Australia. (The only reason I can write here about my grandfather being violent without the risk of being sued is because he died years ago – and in Australia you can't defame the dead.) If we cannot talk about male violence against women, then we cannot understand the extent of it, and we cannot even begin to address the problem. Many have questioned whether Australia's defamation laws stifled the burgeoning #MeToo movement here, pointing to the claims we have seen against women and the media. It wasn't until 2021 that the mass March4Justice protests took place across Australia, spurred by a series of young women coming forward, including Brittany Higgins. Brittany's brave decision to speak out resulted in a suite of important reforms in parliament and elsewhere to improve workplace safety for women. But it has also spurred no fewer than 14 defamation claims – including Bruce Lehrmann's unsuccessful claim against Lisa Wilkinson and Network 10, in which he claimed Higgins lied. But in April 2024, Justice Lee found it was Lehrmann who had told 'deliberate lies', that his account of the night in question was 'risible' and 'nonsense' and that, on the balance of probabilities, he had raped Higgins.. But it took three years, Higgins being cross-examined live online about her rape in front of tens of thousands of people, and millions in legal costs, for the media to be able to defend Higgins' truth and for her to receive vindication. Lehrmann has always denied the allegations and is appealing this defamation ruling. How many women are going to come forward when they see what Higgins has been put through? How many in the media will report on violence against women when they see the millions in costs and scrutiny that Lisa Wilkinson and Network 10 faced?The result is a deterrent for anyone else to speak out – or report on it. And that is not in the public interest. But it's the cases we don't hear about that we should also be worried about. We simply don't have data about the number of defamation claims being threatened to silence victim-survivors and stop the media from reporting their stories. Defamation-threat letters are common, but private – and often result in self-censorship that the public does not see. Our research, and my legal practice, shows that cases you read about in the media, like that of Brittany Higgins, are merely the tip of the iceberg. There is a way we can limit the silencing effect in Australia: anti-SLAPP legislation. SLAPPs are 'strategic lawsuits against public participation' – that is, lawsuits designed to silence activists and journalists, often brought by the rich and powerful to cover up wrongdoing. The threat of a lawsuit and crippling legal costs is often enough to silence. Until recently, SLAPPs were often associated with stifling environmental activism and advocacy and silencing reporting on environmental or financial crimes. For example, at the time of the assassination of the courageous investigative journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia in Malta, there were 47 defamation suits pending against her. These were all SLAPPs – lawsuits designed to silence my client's fearless public-interest reporting on political corruption. As Dr Yoshida and I argue in our book, defamation claims aimed at silencing journalists and women speaking out about gender-based violence are also SLAPPs – they are limiting women's public participation, shutting down public-interest discussion about violence against women, and perpetuating abuse, providing abusers with impunity. Anti-SLAPP legislation has long existed in the US. It empowers judges to stop claims that are an abuse of the legal process, that is, where the claims seek to silence speech in the public interest. And it can protect women speaking about their experience of abuse. For example, it could have protected my client Amber Heard from the defamation claim brought against her by her ex-husband, Johnny Depp, in the US. We had already proven in a British court that Depp had been repeatedly violent towards her. But he also sued her for defamation in Virginia – a state where neither of them lived – because, unlike in California where they lived, Virginia had no anti-SLAPP laws that would have protected her – and her speech. Heard was almost bankrupted by that US defamation claim, which she lost after what was, in my opinion, a problematic and fundamentally flawed jury trial. Earlier this year, those same anti-SLAPP provisions in California were used to dismiss Marilyn Manson's defamation suit against his ex-partner, Evan Rachel Wood, who had alleged he was sexually violent. Manson has denied engaging in any non-consensual sexual acts and has not been charged over the allegations. In 2024, the European parliament introduced anti-SLAPP legislation ('Daphne's law') in honour of Daphne Caruana Galizia. The UK is debating similar laws. But in Australia this isn't even a conversation – and it needs to be. The ACT is the only jurisdiction with laws resembling anti-SLAPP protections, but defamation claims are not covered. As a country that now beats London as the libel capital of the world – and with so many claims being filed in relation to women's speech about alleged violence – it is vital that lawmakers consider anti-SLAPP legislation to deter litigation which stifles public-interest discussion about gender-based violence. We cannot begin to deal with or end violence against women if we can't talk about it or report on it. Jennifer Robinson would like to thank Dr Keio Yoshida and Phoebe Cook for their contributions to this piece. This is an adapted extract of her essay Free Her Speech in What's the Big Idea? 34 Ideas for a Better Australia (Australia Institute Press)
Voice of America
27-01-2025
- Politics
- Voice of America
UN special envoy in Zambia to assess freedom of expression
A United Nations special rapporteur is on a 10-day visit to Zambia to assess accusations that the government is stifling dissent. According to the U.N., Irene Khan will also focus on Zambia's legal and policy framework and the safety of journalists, activists and human rights defenders in the country. Upon her arrival in Lusaka on Friday, the special rapporteur on freedom of expression and opinion told journalists that her visit to Zambia will give her the chance to hear from all sides and make recommendations. 'I can also discuss … recent developments or legislative developments, other issues of how to strengthen your government's commitment to human rights, especially freedom of opinion and expression,' Khan said. In May of last year, police in Zambia arrested two opposition lawmakers, two opposition party leaders and an activist on espionage charges. This followed their accusation that the government played a role in the alleged abduction of an independent lawmaker, Emmanuel Jay Jay Banda. The government has denied that accusation. Meanwhile, Zambian journalist Thomas Zgambo has been arrested three times in 13 months after writing articles critical of the government. He is facing sedition charges. And last August, the government warned it would tighten cybersecurity laws to curb online hate speech, propaganda and defamation. The ruling party later withdrew the bill after it was denounced by human rights groups. Zambia's Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mulambo Haimbe, told VOA that his government has nothing to hide and invited the special rapporteur to Zambia. Haimbe defended his government's record on human rights, saying it has upheld rights guaranteed in the Zambian constitution. 'We have Article 11, which protects the freedoms of individuals, protection of fundamental rights of individuals. And in particular, with regard to freedom of expression, Article 20 is very clear that all citizens and all persons in Zambia will enjoy an inalienable right to the freedom of expression and opinion,' he said. Chishala Kateka, leader of the opposition New Heritage Party, told VOA that Khan's visit is very timely. 'We are experiencing arbitrary arrests and transfer of individuals to distant provinces without due process,' she said. 'There's also a systematic denial of our right to assemble and express ourselves freely. We have selective application of the law where opposition members are unfairly targeted while those from the ruling party are above the law.' Juliet Chibuta, a human rights activist, told VOA the visit of the U.N. special rapporteur is an opportunity to hear from both sides and offer solutions. 'The special rapporteur will offer an independent scrutiny and provide unbiased analysis of the situation on the ground, as she is not affiliated to any institution in Zambia. Her visit will also raise awareness on issues regarding censorship, harassment of journalists, restrictions on online expression and other threats of freedom of speech,' Chibuta said. In August, U.N. experts expressed concern about the allegations of arbitrary arrests of political opponents in Zambia. The experts said the arrests and restrictions in Zambia have had a chilling effect on freedom of opinion, expression, association and assembly, which are critical for a functioning democracy.
Yahoo
26-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
UN experts decry arrest of pro-Palestinian American journalist in Switzerland
GENEVA - U.N. human rights experts and activists on Sunday condemned the arrest of an American, pro-Palestinian journalist in the Swiss city of Zurich, saying it raised concerns about freedom of speech. Ali Abunimah, the executive director of online publication Electronic Intifada which calls itself "Palestine's weapon of mass instruction", was arrested by Swiss police on Saturday afternoon ahead of a speech in Zurich, the organisation said in a statement. Swiss police confirmed that a 53-year-old American had been arrested, citing an entry ban, and said further measures under its immigration law were being considered. UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression Irene Khan called it "shocking news" and urged Switzerland to investigate and release him in a post on X. "The climate surrounding freedom of speech in Europe is becoming increasingly toxic, and we should all be concerned," said Francesca Albanese, U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Territories. Pro-Palestinian advocacy group Swiss Action for Human Rights launched a petition to release Abunimah on Sunday. The U.S. mission in Bern could not immediately be reached for comment.
Yahoo
26-01-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
UN experts decry arrest of pro-Palestinian American journalist in Switzerland
GENEVA - U.N. human rights experts and activists on Sunday condemned the arrest of an American, pro-Palestinian journalist in the Swiss city of Zurich, saying it raised concerns about freedom of speech. Ali Abunimah, the executive director of online publication Electronic Intifada which calls itself "Palestine's weapon of mass instruction", was arrested by Swiss police on Saturday afternoon ahead of a speech in Zurich, the organisation said in a statement. Swiss police confirmed that a 53-year-old American had been arrested, citing an entry ban, and said further measures under its immigration law were being considered. See for yourself — The Yodel is the go-to source for daily news, entertainment and feel-good stories. By signing up, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy. UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression Irene Khan called it "shocking news" and urged Switzerland to investigate and release him in a post on X. "The climate surrounding freedom of speech in Europe is becoming increasingly toxic, and we should all be concerned," said Francesca Albanese, U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Territories. Pro-Palestinian advocacy group Swiss Action for Human Rights launched a petition to release Abunimah on Sunday. The U.S. mission in Bern could not immediately be reached for comment.
Reuters
26-01-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
UN experts decry arrest of pro-Palestinian American journalist in Switzerland
GENEVA, Jan 26 - U.N. human rights experts and activists on Sunday condemned the arrest of an American, pro-Palestinian journalist in the Swiss city of Zurich, saying it raised concerns about freedom of speech. Ali Abunimah, the executive director of online publication Electronic Intifada which calls itself "Palestine's weapon of mass instruction", was arrested by Swiss police on Saturday afternoon ahead of a speech in Zurich, the organisation said in a statement. Swiss police confirmed that a 53-year-old American had been arrested, citing an entry ban, and said further measures under its immigration law were being considered. UN Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression Irene Khan called it "shocking news" and urged Switzerland to investigate and release him in a post on X. "The climate surrounding freedom of speech in Europe is becoming increasingly toxic, and we should all be concerned," said Francesca Albanese, U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights in the Occupied Territories.
