Special Rapporteur to the Human Rights Council: the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression is a Catalyst and Ingredient of Sustainable Development

Council Concludes Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, its Causes and Consequences

The Human Rights Council this morning began an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression.  It also concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences.

Irene Khan, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said that in her third report to the Council in the thirtieth year of the mandate, she focused on the role of freedom of expression in promoting sustainable development.  The right to freedom of opinion and expression was a catalyst and ingredient of sustainable development.  It facilitated a range of economic, social and cultural rights and generated significant social and economic dividends.  The free flow of information and public debate empowered individuals, communities and civil society, promoted accountability, allowed Governments to be better informed and more responsive to the needs of their people, and made institutions and markets more efficient and effective. 

Ms. Khan said that there had been some notable achievements in advancing information and participation as key ingredients of development.  Despite this progress, there remained major gaps, challenges and failures that made the reality grim.  Requests for information were often denied because of a culture of official secrecy, serious gaps in the scope and implementation of laws, lack of capacity, resources and independent oversight, and inadequate or non-existent appeals.  However, there was hope for change.  Good practices and good results were emerging where multi-stakeholder partnerships had built transparency and trust, the media had been able to operate with freedom and independence to expose corruption and wrongdoing, and civil society had participated in development processes and contributed with ideas, opinions and information. 

In the discussion, many speakers said the right to freedom of opinion and expression was an essential foundation of peaceful and just societies, and a catalyst for social change.  Undue restrictions to this right put the health of people and society at risk.  Free, diverse expression was essential for sustainable development.  It was deeply troubling that attacks against journalists and human rights defenders were on the rise, a number of speakers said, raising concerns about restrictions to the civic space.  Some speakers noted that the voices of environmental defenders and academics were also often censored.  States needed to protect journalists, media workers, human rights defenders including environmental defenders, academics and civil society, and counter misinformation and disinformation.

Speaking in the discussion on the right to freedom of opinion and expression were Lithuania on behalf of a group of countries, European Union, Latvia on behalf of a group of countries, United Nations Development Programme, Egypt, United Nations Children's Fund, Burkina Faso, Israel, Armenia, Netherlands, Costa Rica, Czech Republic, Belgium, Paraguay, Luxembourg, Timor-Leste, France, United Nations Economic, Social and Cultural Organization, Indonesia, United States, Iraq, Canada, Maldives, Malaysia, Malta, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Cameroon and Ireland.

At the beginning of the meeting, the Council concluded its interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, which began in the previous meeting.  A summary can be viewed here. 

In closing remarks, Reem Alsalem, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, said the custody of children was being given to their abusers, and this phenomenon needed to be addressed.  Parental alienation was misused against fathers, but was predominantly misused against mothers.  The majority of domestic violence was male violence.  Also, fathers who refused to contact their children should not be attributed to the concept of parental alienation.  Ms. Alsalem said that she did not consider the phenomenon of parental alienation in relation to transgender parents, but would consider doing so in the future. 

In the discussion, many speakers thanked the Special Rapporteur for her report, which shed light on the link between custody cases and violence against women and children, including the concept of parental alienation and its harmful use.  Many speakers expressed concern over parental alienation and its link to domestic violence, which was highly gendered and frequently instrumentalised against mothers to deflect attention away from allegations of domestic violence, including child sexual abuse.  It was essential to train professionals in the judicial system on gender bias and the relationship between custody and domestic violence and its impact on children.  One speaker said it was important to acknowledge the different situations where the parental alienation concept could be improperly used to bolster the abusive parent’s position in legal proceedings. 

Speaking in the discussion on violence against women and girls were Oman on behalf of the Gulf Cooperation Council, Lebanon on behalf of a group of Arab States, Cyprus on behalf of a group of countries, Luxembourg on behalf of a group of countries, Sierra Leone, Ukraine, United Nations Women, Egypt, Republic of Korea, Armenia, Burkina Faso, Costa Rica, Belgium, Peru, Italy, Czech Republic, Slovenia, Ecuador, France, United States, Mauritius, Australia, Indonesia, Iraq, Mexico, Canada, Morocco, Maldives, Brazil, Malaysia, United Kingdom, Venezuela, Ireland, South Africa, Jamaica, Gabon, India, Malawi, Tanzania, China, Djibouti, Republic of Moldova, Iran, Chile, Afghanistan, Sudan, Marshall Islands, Georgia, Mali, Benin, Cuba, Russian Federation, Romania, Algeria, Nigeria, Kenya, Montenegro, Azerbaijan, Saudi Arabia, Philippines, Côte d'Ivoire, Liechtenstein, Panama, Lebanon, Cambodia, Hungary, Jordan, Netherlands and Senegal.

Also speaking were the National Human Rights Commission of India and Commission nationale indépendante des droits de l'homme (Burundi), as well as the following non-governmental organizations: Equality Now, Women for Women's Human Rights - New Ways, Swedish Federation of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Rights, Make Mothers Matter, Iraqi Development Organization, Lutheran World Federation, Peace Brigades International, International Catholic Child Bureau, British Humanist Association, and International Volunteerism Organization for Women, Education and Development.

The webcast of the Human Rights Council meetings can be found here.  All meeting summaries can be found here.  Documents and reports related to the Human Rights Council’s fifty-third regular session can be found here.

The Council will next meet this afternoon at 3.p.m to continue the interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, followed by an interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the elimination of discrimination against persons affected by leprosy and their family members.

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, its Causes and Consequences

The interactive dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, started in the previous meeting and a summary can be found here.

Discussion

In the discussion, many speakers among other things, thanked the Special Rapporteur for her report, which shed light on the link between custody cases and violence against women and children, including the concept of parental alienation and its harmful use.  The report highlighted post-COVID surges in domestic violence cases and capacity gaps within justice systems hindering the full implementation of legal and policy frameworks.

Many speakers expressed concern over parental alienation and its link to domestic violence, which was highly gendered and frequently instrumentalised against mothers, to deflect attention away from allegations of domestic violence, including child sexual abuse.  The impacts of the misuse of parental alienation, including double victimisation and removal of custody rights, particularly on minority women, was highly concerning.  There was also concern about the impact of parental alienation on the best interests of the child, as the views of minors were not taken into account in judicial decisions.  It was essential to train professionals in the judicial system on gender bias and the relationship between custody and domestic violence and its impact on children.  Speakers highlighted the critical need to address harmful gender bias and gender stereotyping in legal systems and institutions, which posed a grave impediment to women’s equal access to justice, especially for domestic violence survivors. 

Sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls had alarmingly increased worldwide, amplified during the COVID-19 pandemic.  In 2021, over five women and girls were killed by someone in their family, every hour.  Some speakers said that the gender-related killing of women and girls, also known as femicide, constituted the most extreme and brutal manifestation of violence against all women and girls and was prevalent worldwide.  States needed to acknowledge its existence, define gender-related killings in national legal frameworks, and develop prevention strategies to address it, including through the education and training of law enforcement, judicial officials, educators and health system workers.  Efforts by United Nations Women and the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to improve data collection on the gender-related killing of women and girls was commended.  Some speakers described violent crimes being committed against women in conflict-afflicted regions.

Many speakers affirmed the central position of women in society and stressed the importance of providing health, psychosocial support, and legal assistance to women and girls who were victims of violence, helping them reintegrate into society and access justice.  It was important that the Council's mechanisms took different cultural and religious backgrounds into account, and adopted an approach that dealt with the family as part of the solution.  The importance of exerting all efforts to provide legal, social and psychological support to women, girls and children, especially in the context of parental separation, was emphasised.  The issue of domestic violence needed to recognised as one of importance, specifically in the context of divorce, in terms of consolidating best practices to deal with it, and exerting legal and cultural efforts to address violence against women and girls. 

Some speakers called on States to improve their measures in preventing gender-based violence.  Many described initiatives being undertaken in this regard, including deterrent national laws; awareness raising programmes; strengthening and developing deterrent protection frameworks; quotas for representation of women in both public and private employment; gender-responsive education that challenged harmful gender stereotypes; training for youth to become gender advocates; the establishment of specialised courts to fast-track domestic violence cases; 24-hour country-wide helplines; comprehensive training plans for judicial servants dealing with cases of violence against women and children; and services which offered psychological care, legal advice and social work to victims of gender violence, among others. 

Speakers asked what concrete actions could be taken to address the specific and disproportionate impacts of parental alienation on women with multiple and intersecting identities?  What could be done by States in law and in practice to better protect women and children from violence and how could civil society assist?  What measures could be implemented to ensure courts did not dismiss allegations of intimate partner violence and violence against children in custody decisions?

Intermediary Remarks

REEM ALSALEM, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, thanked the Libyan Government for allowing her visit, but noted that she was not prepared for the level of disengagement shown by authorities in Libya.  She thanked the Government of Türkiye for its cooperation and called on it to continue to strengthen measures for women and girls. 

It was important for all States to obtain better disaggregated data and incorporate the stories of victims in policy review processes.  It was important to implement the Istanbul Convention to ensure, among other things, that visitation and custody rights did not jeopardise the rights of children.  Several international and regional human rights mechanisms had drawn attention to the issue of violence against women and girls.  Ms. Alsalem presented best practices in Member States’ legislation, including criminalisation of coercive control in Australia and Canada.  She also presented good judicial examples where judges factored in previous histories of domestic violence, such as a case in Mexico.  It was important for States to share good practices.  The bill ratified into law in Colorado that prevented family groups from participating in reunification camps was another good practice.  States should limit the use of reunification camps, use child-centred approaches, and factor in histories of domestic violence in child custody cases. 

Femicide remained high on the agenda, and Ms. Alsalem called on countries to establish femicide observatories.  Sustainable development could not be achieved without achieving gender equality.  States needed to ensure protection and assistance for victims and address the issue of impunity.  Grassroots and women’s organizations needed to be supported and involved in decision-making processes.  The use of sexual violence against women in war settings was very concerning, and this phenomenon needed to be addressed.

Ms. Alsalem said that she looked forward to her official visit to Brazil, where she would consider, among other topics, the issue of parental alienation. 

Discussion

In the continuing discussion, many speakers thanked the Special Rapporteur for her objectivity and the presentation of her report, which focused on parental alienation.  Speakers noted the definition of parental alienation contained in the report, and the interpretation by the courts that could place children in dangerous environments.  It was essential to address the fight against discrimination against women and girls practically, by focusing on the root causes of such violations, particularly within the family.  Speakers also recognised the importance of considering the prevalence of domestic violence in judicial proceedings related to child custody, and recognising the invocation of parental alienation as an extension of domestic violence.  In any discussion on this subject, the principle of the progressive autonomy of the child and their best interests needed to take precedence.  Women victims of parental alienation suffered from violence, isolation and denial, which could be aggravated by the social support given to the aggressor. 

One speaker drew attention to the right of the child to communicate with both parents, saying there were many cases where mothers accused fathers of such violations as a form of manipulation.  Only when the State was objectively involved could the rights of all be fully respected.  The Special Rapporteur was asked to respect the principle of the division of labour.  Another speaker said it was important to acknowledge the different situations where the “parental alienation” concept could be improperly used to bolster the abusive parent’s position in legal proceedings.  There needed to be caution against any approach that systematically disregarded or discredited any allegation coming from fathers just because they were fathers.  A child could in some cases be emotionally manipulated so they ended up resenting their father, even if this father was not abusive.

Some speakers outlined steps being taken to combat violence against women and girls, including revisions of the Penal Code; the construction of national protection systems; the creation of institutional mechanisms; training on the best interest of the child for the judiciary; strengthening legislation; mechanisms to protect women and children against violence; and setting up special shelters for women victims of violence, among others. 

Among questions, speakers asked the Special Rapporteur how future reports would focus on the issue of the systematic recognition of domestic violence in family law proceedings to prevent all forms of discrimination against women and girls?  How could the rights of women and girls from ethnic and minority groups be protected?   Could the Special Rapporteur provide further recommendations concerning legal and practical norms to encourage women reporting gender-based violence?

Concluding Remarks

REEM ALSALEM, Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, its causes and consequences, thanked all States for their engagement.  Ms. Alsalem said her recommendation on the Hague Convention was an important recommendation.  The custody of children was being given to their abusers, and this phenomenon needed to be addressed.  Parental alienation was sometimes misused against fathers, but was predominantly misused against mothers.  The majority of domestic violence was male violence.  Parental alienation was not a scientific theory.  There were many parents who lost contact with their children post-separation due to one parent cutting off contact with the other.  However, this was a form of coercive control, rather than part of the concept of parental alienation.  There needed to be a different name for this phenomenon.  Also, fathers who refused to contact their children should not be attributed to the concept of parental alienation.  Ms. Alsalem said that she did not consider the phenomenon of parental alienation in relation to transgender parents, but would consider doing so in the future. 

Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur on the Promotion and Protection of the Right to Freedom of Opinion and Expression

Report

The Council has before it the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/53/25), on Sustainable development and freedom of expression: why voice matters.

Presentation of Report

IRENE KHAN, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, said that in her third report to the Council in the thirtieth year of the mandate, she focused on the role of freedom of expression in promoting sustainable development.  The right to freedom of opinion and expression was a catalyst and ingredient of sustainable development.  It facilitated a range of economic, social and cultural rights and generated significant social and economic dividends.  The free flow of information and public debate empowered individuals, communities and civil society, promoted accountability, allowed Governments to be better informed and more responsive to the needs of their people, and made institutions and markets more efficient and effective. 

There had been some notable achievements in advancing information and participation as key ingredients of development.  Over 90 per cent of the world’s population now lived in countries that had adopted laws on access to information.  Environmental impact assessments had become a standard tool to engage affected communities in large development projects.  Many civil society organizations and social movement networks, activists and human rights defenders had proactively forged spaces in sustainable development processes at the global, regional, national and local levels.

Despite this progress, there remained major gaps, challenges and failures that made the reality grim.  Requests for information were often denied because of a culture of official secrecy, serious gaps in the scope and implementation of laws, lack of capacity, resources and independent oversight, and inadequate or non-existent appeals.  Accessing information from companies on their human rights record was problematic.  States had spectacularly failed to reach the target to provide universal and affordable access to the Internet in least developed countries by 2020.  An estimated 2.7 billion people worldwide were not online.  A majority among those who had access did not have meaningful connectivity.  Internet access among women was significantly lower than men. 

Gendered censorship was pervasive, with women’s voices being suppressed by States, communities, and religious and private actors.  Online gender-based violence was a serious barrier to women’s ability to speak, engage and organise online.  Many States failed to respect the participatory rights of indigenous people set out in international and regional instruments.  Free, prior, informed consent was often an empty promise; environmental impact assessments were an ineffective tool for engagement.  Journalists, environmental activists, trade unionists and human rights defenders were censored, threatened, intimidated, prosecuted, attacked or killed with impunity.  Impunity thrived because of the powerful vested interests behind the crimes.

However, there was hope for change.  Good practices and good results were emerging where multi-stakeholder partnerships had built transparency and trust, the media had been able to operate with freedom and independence to expose corruption and wrongdoing, and civil society had participated in development processes and contributed with ideas, opinions and information.  The report provided some concrete recommendations to States, companies and development finance institutions.  Several of the recommendations focused on enhancing the participation of those being left behind, on the safety of journalists and activists, and on strengthening access to information and proactive disclosure by States.  The voices of the most disadvantaged in society needed to be heard and heeded, and civil society and media needed to be free to hold the powerful to account.

Ms. Khan urged States to follow the good practice of multistakeholder partnerships to build transparency and trust, uphold media freedom to report corruption and wrongdoing, and protect civic space and ensure meaningful engagement with communities in development processes.  She called on companies, including the digital technology sector, to undertake human rights due diligence across their value chain and disclose the impact of their activities on human rights and sustainability.  States, the private sector and international organizations needed to redouble their efforts to ensure universal and meaningful access to an open, free, interoperable and secure Internet, and pay particular attention to the gender digital divide.  Information, media and digital literacy should become part of all national school curricula and adult learning programmes and an indicator of the Sustainable Development Goals on education and gender equality.  To realise the promise to leave no one behind, States needed to invest in sustainable development.  One of the most impactful investments that States could make was in freedom of expression.  Ms. Khan called on the States which most vocally professed their support for the Sustainable Development Goals to invest in the rights to expression, information and participation, which the 2030 Agenda clearly endorsed.

Discussion

In the ensuing discussion, many speakers, among other things, said the right to freedom of expression and opinion was an essential foundation of peaceful and just societies, and a catalyst for social change.  Undue restrictions to this right put the health of people and society at risk.  Free, diverse expression was essential for sustainable development. 

It was deeply troubling that attacks against journalists and human rights defenders were on the rise, many speakers said, raising concerns about restrictions to the civic space.  They noted that the voices of environmental defenders and academics were also often censored.  States needed to protect journalists, media workers, human rights defenders including environmental defenders, academics   and civil society, and counter misinformation and disinformation.  States also needed to bridge digital divides and promote digital connectivity.  Societies needed to embrace the principles of accountability and openness, and ensure easy, prompt access to Government information. 

Some speakers condemned threats against freedom of expression, including censorship of journalists and human rights defenders.  These speakers said that some of the States that were most vocally supporting the 2030 Agenda were often the ones that were most severely censoring civil society.  Authorities needed to be held accountable for their censorship activities.

A number of speakers said digital technologies had evolved rapidly, allowing for increased opportunities to communicate but also allowing for the dissemination of hate speech and disinformation.  Speakers condemned the prevalence of misinformation on major digital platforms, calling for action to address online misinformation and hate speech.

More needed to be done to ensure that the voices of disadvantaged groups were heard, some speakers said.  Children had the right to freedom of expression and assembly.  States needed to provide child-friendly information for children, safe spaces for children to communicate online, and protections for child human rights defenders.  The voices of women and other marginalised groups were also essential for a healthy democracy.  Women had limited access to education, which was slowing down development globally.  Inequalities in access to information between States and societal groups needed to be addressed. 

Some speakers said that irresponsible expression could lead to hate speech and intolerance.  Such expression could hinder social cohesion.  It was important to strike a balance between promoting freedom of expression and preventing hate speech. 

Speakers elaborated on national steps being taken to protect digital rights; promote access to information and the Internet; promote freedom of expression; protect and support journalists and human rights defenders through legislation; ensure access to public information; promote media literacy; promote international cooperation on ensuring the right to freedom of expression and access to information; and construct safe online spaces for communication.

Questions were asked on further steps to protect journalists from threats; on ways of promoting freedom of expression within the Sustainable Development Agenda; on how freedom of expression could promote sustainable development in the context of fundamentalist movements that incited hate speech and hate crimes; on how States could protect the right to freedom of expression for women; on reasons for the rise in gender-based violence online; on opportunities for developing multi-stakeholder initiatives; on consultations held on developing an international instrument to promote freedom of expression; on means of preventing the misuse of digital platforms to spread misinformation by malicious parties; on ways that States could re-enforce commitments to uphold freedom of expression and opinion; on international cooperation for promoting access to information; on means of increasing access to information for socio-economically disadvantaged communities; and on methods of assisting developing countries to promote freedom of opinion and expression.

 

Link: https://www.ungeneva.org/en/news-media/meeting-summary/2023/06/morning-special-rapporteur-human-rights-council-right-freedom
  

___________

 

Produced by the United Nations Information Service in Geneva for use of the media;
not an official record. English and French versions of our releases are different as they are the product of two separate coverage teams that work independently.