Under the title: “When States Use Legislation Against Women Human Rights Defenders” AWID  discusses the recent report by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights Defenders (UN Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights Defenders’ 2012 report).

In her report, the Special Rapporteur reviews the types of legislation affecting the work of HRDs, including laws relating to: anti-terrorism and national security; public morals; the registration, functioning and funding of associations; access to information and official-secrets; defamation and blasphemy; and  Internet access. While all of these categories are relevant, the AWID document looks at how four of these practices affect Women Human Rights Defenders (WHRDs).

Anti-terrorism and national security WHRDs in Zimbabwe have continually denounced arbitrary arrests and violations of the right to peaceful assembly. The increase in Governments that use anti-terrorism and/or national security laws to detain, prosecute, convict, and harass WHRDs is a worldwide concern. According to the Special Rapporteur, this type of legislation is “so broad that any peaceful act expressing views of dissent would fall under the definition of a terrorist act, or an act facilitating, supporting or promoting terrorism”.

Public morals In Meso-America, WHRDs working to promote women’s sexual and reproductive rights and the decriminalization of abortion[3] are the ones who most often experience criminalization and defamation by the State, private groups and the media. The Special Rapporteur’s report strongly emphasises how vital sexual health and reproductive rights (SHRR) defenders are for the promotion, protection and respect of women’s human rights, highlighting that “ these activities should not be subject to criminal sanction”. Zero tolerance for judicial harassment against SHRR defenders is called for, and States with legal frameworks guaranteeing SHRR should “ensure that such legislation is enforced without discrimination”.

Legal restrictions on operations Increasingly, States are issuing special regulations that affect the legal operation of women’s organizations in ways that are intended to inhibit their work. The 2005 report Written Out: How Sexuality is Used to Attack Women’s Organizing states that “after the attacks of 9/11, the US government put into place a set of supposedly terrorism-related legal and financial restrictions for any organization that funds groups outside the US. Under these policies, such funding organizations now have to prove that the groups receiving funds are not in any way engaging in terrorist activities”.

Defamation Although defamation legislation is intended to protect a person’s reputation from false and malicious attacks, legal frameworks under the umbrella of defamation tend to hide political or economic interests in order to retaliate against criticism and public denouncement of corruption. While defamation laws rarely protect WHRDs from defamation, they are often used to limit the freedom of expression of WHRDs. The Meso-American Assessment of Violence against WHRDs states that defamation is “one of the most repeated forms of violence against WHRDs in the region, either by the state, private groups and the media”. The Special Rapporteur’s report highlights that penalties are imposed on WHRDs who criticize Government representatives or religious laws.  Under penal codes for defamation or blasphemy penalties vary from fines to months of imprisonment.  These provisions prevent WHRDs from holding public officials or religious leaders accountable.

The Special Rapporteur raises concern about the development of legislation that allows authorities to supervise the activities of civil society organizations (CSOs). The report refers to confidential information received by the Special Rapporteur that points to how reporting requirements have been imposed on CSOs to retain their licence to operate, placing surveillance on CSOs, demanding documentation without prior notice, and restricting access to foreign funding and limiting this to up to 10% of their total annual income. Similarly, restrictions on certain areas of work have been imposed on women’s rights organizations, in particular those related to defending political rights and those that use human rights language in their organizations’ objectives. Excessive requirements for operating legally make it difficult for WHRDs to comply, and in some instances the required documentation puts WHRDs at risk. This trend of legal control and restriction undermines and delegitimizes the work of WHRDs and their organizations, as the resources and time required to respond to such demands deter women’s rights advocates from forming organizations.

Recommendations The 26 recommendations presented in the Special Rapporteur’s report aim at ensuring that national legislations comply with basic human rights enshrined in their constitutions – and consistent with the Declaration on HRDs – to create favourable working environments for HRDs. Special attention is needed regarding legislation that responds to the needs and situations of WHRDs, in particular those working on SHRR. The report makes an important call for States to “repeal all legislation that, with the declared objective of preserving public morals, criminalizes the activities of HRDs working on sexual orientation and gender identity issues”. Importantly, the Special Rapporteur’s recommendation to “ensure that civil society, national human rights institutions and other stakeholders are involved in a broad consultative process to ensure that the drafting of new legislation is in compliance with the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders and other applicable international human rights instruments”, is critical to guarantee the inclusion and full participation of WHRDs in civil society.

for details see: http://www.awid.org/News-Analysis/Friday-Files/When-States-Use-Legislation-Against-Women-Human-Rights-Defenders