{"id":463,"date":"2017-12-19T04:47:45","date_gmt":"2017-12-19T04:47:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/projects.itforchange.net\/e-vaw\/?p=463"},"modified":"2017-12-19T05:05:55","modified_gmt":"2017-12-19T05:05:55","slug":"equality-dignity-and-privacy-are-cornerstone-principles-to-tackle-online-vaw","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/projects.itforchange.net\/e-vaw\/2017\/12\/19\/equality-dignity-and-privacy-are-cornerstone-principles-to-tackle-online-vaw\/","title":{"rendered":"Equality, Dignity and Privacy are cornerstone principles to tackle online VAW"},"content":{"rendered":"

Authors: Anita Gurumurthy and Amrita Vasudevan<\/em><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

As technology becomes a real and unfragmentable part of social interaction, a global crisis is evident in the form of widespread normalisation of online violence against women (VAW).<\/p>\n

It is vital that laws on online VAW draw from the foundational ideas that have informed interpretations of gender-based (in)justice, recognising the immersion of human society in digital experiences.<\/p>\n

Equality with dignity<\/strong><\/h3>\n

Non-discrimination and equality comprise the cornerstone of legislation on violence against women in both international and domestic laws. We have seen these ideas in judicial decisions across the world. Feminist legal traditions recommend using the framework of \u2018substantive equality\u2019 \u2013 which accounts for the specific needs of women, rather than of \u2018formal equality\u2019 \u2013 wherein policies that appear to be non-discriminatory may not really be responsive to the systemic discrimination women face. Gender inequality therefore must be seen as a historical-social experience that erodes human dignity. The Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women\u2019s (CEDAW\u2019s)\u00a0position<\/a>\u00a0on discrimination against women, which is seen as an affront to human dignity and equality, is rooted in such a discursive legacy that acknowledges a historical imbalance in power relations between men and women. The\u00a0model framework for legislation on violence against women<\/a>, proposed by UNDAW\/DESA also interprets violence as a form of discrimination and a violation of women\u2019s human rights.<\/p>\n

Harm as a violation of dignity and privacy<\/strong><\/h3>\n

\u2018Harm\u2019- to the body, mind or both is often seen as \u2018proof\u2019 that violence has occurred. The UN\u00a0Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women<\/a>\u00a0<\/em>defines VAW as \u2018any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women\u2026\u2019. While most States have sought to protect women from violence, at least in the language of the law, the treatment of harm in many instances continues to be problematic. The Indian Penal Code retains Victorian and patriarchal language, and phrases such as \u2018outraging the modesty of women<\/a>\u2019, continue to feature, despite a major law reform in 2013. This approach of the law tends to put women on the stand for their\u00a0\u2018morality\u2019 to be\u00a0<\/a>assessed<\/a>, adopting a benign protectionism, at best, or condemning women\u2019s ineptitude for \u2018attracting harm\u2019, at worst. Similarly, Indian courts\u2019\u00a0interpretation of obscenity<\/a>\u00a0has fixated on sexual content. The law\u2019s intent on \u2018protecting society from depravity<\/a>\u2019 has ended up treating women as objects that law must govern, rather than as subjects who have the right to legal recourse. A feminist critique would call attention in these approaches to the denial of women\u2019s agency and the disregard of sexist content that may not necessarily be sexual.<\/p>\n

We posit the need for\u00a0an alternate theory<\/a>\u00a0\u2013 one that addresses harm as a discriminatory act that impinges upon a woman\u2019s dignity and a violation of her right to privacy\u00a0seen as the triumvirate of bodily integrity, personal autonomy and informational privacy.<\/em><\/p>\n

Courts have used this progressive theorisation of harm to redress violence against women. For example, the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights\u00a0found that<\/a>\u00a0sexual abuse was not only a violation of physical and mental integrity but also a woman\u2019s dignity.\u00a0I<\/strong>n a case involving the restitution of conjugal rights before the Supreme Court of India, Justice Choudary\u00a0<\/strong>noted that<\/strong><\/a>\u00a0vacating of a woman\u2019s agency to that of the state is a violation of her bodily and mental privacy and consequently, an affront to her integrity.\u00a0<\/strong>The European Court of Human Rights, in a case of forced sterilisation of a woman, affirmed her right to personal autonomy\u00a0h<\/a>olding\u00a0<\/a>that<\/a>the perpetrators had disregarded the woman\u2019s dignity, by denying her the necessary information to make a free and informed decision. In NM and Others v Smith, the Constitutional Court of South Africa held in favour of three women whose HIV status had been revealed without their consent.\u00a0The court observed that<\/a>\u00a0\u2018the personal and intimate nature of an individual\u2019s health information, unlike other forms of documentation, reflects delicate decisions and choices relating to issues pertaining to bodily and psychological integrity and personal autonomy\u2019, thereby affirming their informational privacy.<\/p>\n

Dealing with the here-and-now reality of online VAW<\/strong><\/h3>\n

How do we bring these core principles into remedies for online VAW? That the online has become a space of misogynistic and sexist vitriol is undeniable.\u00a0Seven in ten women<\/a>\u00a0have faced online violence against women. \u2018Cyber-touch\u2019, as the UN Broadband Commission for Digital Development, puts it,\u00a0is as harmful<\/a>\u00a0as physical touch. Survivors of online violence recount feeling vulnerable and unable to participate in life online or offline. Not only depression, fear and anxiety, but even suicides, among women who face sexual violence online,\u00a0ar<\/a>e\u00a0<\/a>routinely reported<\/a>. The dissociation characterising online interactions is seen to\u00a0result in disinhibition<\/a>, prompting \u2018toxic\u2019 masculinities, with tangible, corporeal consequences for women victims.<\/p>\n

Just as in the case of offline violence, in instances of online violence as well, women experience a breach of dignity and a violation of privacy. This is true when videos of rape are\u00a0circulated through WhatsA<\/a>pp<\/a>, or intimate pictures shared by a woman with a man are\u00a0leaked online<\/a>\u00a0by him<\/a>, or when\u00a0morphed pictures<\/a>\u00a0of women are posted on social media.<\/p>\n

CEDAW\u2019s General Recommendation No. 19 and General Recommendation No. 35 acknowledge that freedom from violence is\u00a0essential for the enjoyment<\/a>\u00a0of all other human rights of life, liberty, health, security, etc by women. 74 per cent of countries covered by the Web Index\u00a0lack an adequate mechanism<\/a>\u00a0to tackle online violence against women. Along with failures in law enforcement and justice delivery, current legal frameworks are unable to deal with the nature and extent of VAW mediated through technology.<\/p>\n

However, some countries have started taking steps to broaden the ambit of law to include online violence. Methods adopted in this regard include:<\/p>\n