STATEMENT: Chilean Senate protects children, takes a stand against dangerous gender ideology

  • Chile joins a growing group of countries taking steps to reject gender ideology as Senate passes critical law prohibiting the use of public funds for “gender transition” for minors.  
  • Law to be confirmed unless challenged by the Constitutional Court in the coming weeks. 

WASHINGTON, DC (3 December 2024) Chile has joined a growing group of countries that are taking steps to reject gender ideology. 

The following statement may be attributed to Tomás Henríquez, Director of Advocacy for Latin America:  

“The Chilean Senate has passed a critical law that prohibits the government from spending any public funds on surgical or hormonal interventions for children under the age of 18 for so-called ‘gender/sex reassignment’.  

The first of its kind in Latin America, this sets a major precedent for the protection of children not just in Chile, but also in all Latin American countries. Chile is to be commended for taking an important step in saying no to the dangers of gender ideology.  

Now, other countries must do the same. Every child is precious just as they are and has the absolute right to be safeguarded from a radical ideology that promotes dangerous drugs and surgeries with devastating consequences.” 

BACKGROUND: 

The Senate vote took place following the release of a report from a Chilean Congressional investigative committee that strongly recommended the immediate suspension of all programs related to the so-called “gender transition” of children. 

The report investigated the PAIG program, or Growing with Pride, a government policy aimed at Chileans that expressed “gender identity” confusion. 

From the report: “The PAIG is implemented in 37 hospitals in the country and the psychosocial pairs have the power to carry out family interventions, within educational spaces, referral to hormone therapies, as well as the power to take legal action against ‘resistant parents’ who oppose the gender transition of their children or seek greater prudence when advancing in the different stages of it.” 

The report revealed that a combined 4,142 children and adolescents have entered or have been treated in the PAIG program, “despite the lack of consensus in the medical-scientific community and the setback in several European countries on applying treatments.” 

The law passed in the Chilean Senate on 20 November 2024. The government had communicated it would study mounting a challenge to the amendment at the Constitutional Court, which may materialize in the coming weeks. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

United Nations experts call for immediate release of Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, denounce blatant human rights violations in Nigeria

Nigerian prisoner Yahaya Sharif-Aminu
  • Experts with the United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention call for the immediate and unconditional release of Nigerian Yahaya Sharif-Aminu. 
  • Sharif-Aminu currently remains in prison while awaiting Supreme Court appeal following death sentence for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics on WhatsApp; ADF International is supporting his appeal to the Supreme Court of Nigeria. 
Nigerian prisoner Yahaya Sharif-Aminu

GENEVA (3 DECEMBER 2024) The United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (WGAD) has called for the immediate release and reparations for Nigerian Yahaya Sharif-Aminu in a just-published opinion. Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging in 2020 for sharing allegedly “blasphemous” song lyrics in a closed WhatsApp group. He is currently awaiting appeal at the Nigerian Supreme Court with the legal support of ADF International. 

In their opinion, the WGAD finds that Nigerian authorities deprived Sharif-Aminu of various fundamental human rights in international law, including freedom of religion or belief and freedom of expression, and urges Nigerian authorities to “take the steps necessary to remedy the situation” without delay. The WGAD also urges the government of Nigeria to “ensure a full and independent investigation into the circumstances surrounding the arbitrary detention of Mr. Sharif-Aminu and to take appropriate measures against those responsible for the violation of his rights.” The full opinion can be read here. 

“We are grateful to the members of the WGAD for speaking out on Yahaya’s behalf and for their denouncement of the blatant human rights violations he has been enduring,” said Sean Nelson, legal counsel for ADF International. “It is past time for Nigerian officials to heed the advice of human rights advocates across the globe, release Yahaya and abolish the blasphemy laws that have plagued religious minorities in Nigeria for far too long. No person should be punished, prosecuted, or threatened with death for their peaceful expression and their faith. We pray for Yahaya’s unconditional release and for all people worldwide to continue to raise their voices on his behalf.” 

Kola Alapinni, international human rights lawyer and lead attorney on Sharif-Aminu’s case, said: “The WGAD has reviewed the full facts of the unjust charges against Yahaya Sharif-Aminu, and have come to a clear and decisive statement that his rights have been violated grievously. I thank them for their call for his immediate release. Officials in Nigeria should listen—Yahaya’s ongoing detention is indefensible.” 

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

A video from ADF International features testimonies from Yahaya’s mother, father, and uncle, who recount the traumatic experiences endured by Yahaya and their family.

Death sentence for “blasphemy”   

In 2020, Sufi Muslim Yahaya Sharif-Aminu was sentenced to death by hanging for “blasphemy”. His alleged crime involved sending song lyrics on WhatsApp that were deemed blasphemous toward the prophet Mohammed.    

With support from human rights legal advocacy group ADF International, Sharif-Aminu has appealed his case to the Supreme Court of Nigeria and is challenging the constitutionality of Sharia-based blasphemy laws. He remains in prison awaiting the Supreme Court appeal. His case is far from an isolated incident. Together with minority Muslims, the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is especially severe. In 2022, approximately 90% of all Christians worldwide that were killed for their faith were in Nigeria.   

International pressure has been mounting to free Yahaya and end blasphemy laws. Last year, the European Parliament overwhelmingly called for the immediate release of Sharif-Aminu, and a group of 209 international and Nigerian human rights advocates wrote to then-Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari, calling for Sharif-Aminu’s immediate release. 

In addition, in May of this year, United Nations experts called for Sharif-Aminu’s immediate and unconditional release.  

Sharif-Aminu’s potentially landmark Supreme Court appeal could end blasphemy laws in his home state of Kano and across northern Nigeria. A positive decision could lead the way toward abolishing blasphemy laws around the world.  

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

WIN: Brazilian Supreme Court unanimously rejects attempt to ban religious symbols from public buildings

  • Win for religious freedom as country’s highest court rejected attempt to ban religious symbols such as crucifixes from public spaces on the basis of “hurt emotions”  

  • ADF International submitted a “friend of the court” legal brief which was cited in the court’s reasoning

Brasília (28 November 2024) – The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) this week unanimously voted to allow religious symbols in public spaces, in line with a legal brief filed by ADF International.

All 11 justices of the country’s highest court affirmed that displaying symbols such as crucifixes and images in public spaces does not conflict with the secular nature of the Brazilian state.

The plaintiff in the case had argued that removal of the symbols was necessary to protect religious freedom and that the symbols can cause emotional hurt.

A legal brief, known as an amicus brief, submitted by faith-based legal advocacy organisation ADF International, was considered by the court and directly cited as part of the concurring opinions.

Justice Alexandre de Moraes wrote: “It is also worth noting the lengthy statement submitted by ADF INTERNATIONAL… in which it demonstrates the real direction of the international courts’ statements on the matter, exactly along the lines proposed by the Honorable Rapporteur, that symbols in public spaces are allowed, as long as they do not go beyond the manifestation of the country’s history, culture and tradition.

“By the way, it is important to emphasize the correctness of the thesis of the judgment insofar as it associates the display of such symbols with the ‘objective of manifesting the cultural tradition of Brazilian society’.”

Tomás Henríquez, Director of Advocacy for Latin America & the Caribbean for ADF International, reacted to the decision: “This ruling is a resounding victory for religious freedom in Brazil. ‘Hurt emotions’ are no justification for banning religious symbols.

“We welcome this decision and commend the court for so clearly upholding religious freedom.”

In its expert legal brief, ADF International argued that any principle of “state neutrality” should not amount to hostility towards Christianity. Additionally, it demonstrated the relevance of the social, cultural, and historical context of Christianity in Brazil.

Finally, it reasoned that the law does not protect the “hurt emotions” the plaintiff alleged he experienced due to the presence of religious symbols in public places.

The decision has similarities to a case decided by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in 2011. In Lautsi v. Italy, the Grand Chamber ruled that Italy was within its rights under the Convention to allow the display of crosses in classrooms.

In that case, ADF International was given permission to provide legal expertise, submitting arguments on behalf of 33 Members of the European Parliament, representing 11 different nations.

Background

The Brazilian case stemmed from a Brazilian citizen who issued a complaint to the Federal Public Ministry (FPM), Brazil’s Public Prosecutor’s Office, alleging he suffered “hurt emotions” due to the presence of religious symbols in public buildings.

The FPM filed a civil action against the Brazilian Federal Union, requesting that all religious symbols be removed from Federal and State of São Paulo buildings.

The FPM argued it was seeking to promote and protect the religious freedom of all citizens who entered public offices across Brazil and that displaying religious symbols and images in public spaces violated the principle of non-discrimination.

The lawsuit was dismissed by both the trial and appeals court. The FPM filed an extraordinary appeal before the appellate court, which was not admitted.

The FPM then filed an extraordinary appeal before the STF, resulting in the latest ruling that upholds religious freedom. This decision binds all state and federal public entities in Brazil.

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

PICTURED: Tomás Henríquez, ADF International’s Director of Advocacy for Latin America & the Caribbean

Open Letter X Brazil

Brazil bans X

Say 'no' to government censorship of X in Brazil

What You Need to Know

  • On 30th August, Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court blocked access to Twitter/X within the country.
  • After a 39-day blockade, the ban was lifted—but our work is far from over.
  • Your support is crucial to guaranteeing the fundamental right to free speech.
  • On 30th August, Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court blocked access to Twitter/X within the country.
  • After a 39-day blockade, the ban was lifted—but our work is far from over.
  • Your support is crucial to guaranteeing the fundamental right to free speech.

Latest News

October 9, 2024

𝕏 back online in Brazil after a 39-day blockade

Justice Alexandre De Moraes lifts ban on social media platform following conclusion of national elections Brazilians prevented from engaging in online conversations during election period ADF International, who have filed
Read More
Open Letter On the Free Speech Crisis in Brazil
Dear Honorable Members of the Federal Senate and the Chamber of Deputies of Brazil,

We, the undersigned, condemn the recent attack on free speech in Brazil. We have witnessed increasing threats to this fundamental right worldwide over the past year. Brazil’s shutdown of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter), ordered by Supreme Court Judge Alexandre de Moraes, represents a dangerous escalation of this troubling trend of global censorship of speech.

On 8 August, X announced that Judge de Moraes had ordered the blocking of certain popular accounts—ranging from journalists to political figures—under the pretext of tackling “misinformation.” When X resisted the demand for censorship, the judge responded with threats of arrest, though the platform remained accessible. On 30 August, the judge ordered the immediate nationwide blocking of X and threatened fines of around $9,000 USD per day for anyone using a VPN to access the platform.

This act of judicial overreach punishes both the platform and its users, stifling free discourse and violating Brazil’s own constitution, which prohibits “[a]ny and all censorship of a political, ideological, and artistic nature.” The decision also violates international agreements like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

This situation extends far beyond Brazil, serving as a striking example of a growing trend of censorship by government officials, who are becoming increasingly aggressive in suppressing speech they find objectionable. If this censorship in Brazil is allowed to persist, it could set a dangerous precedent that quickly spreads. Recently, other world leaders have expressed pro-censorship sentiments, and there is no quicker path to the demise of democracy than the erosion of free speech.

We urge the Brazilian government to restore the free flow of information, and respect the rights of its citizens to express their views without fear of retribution.

Freedom of expression is not negotiable, nor is it a privilege — it is the cornerstone of every democratic society. We must defend it whenever it is under threat, whether in Brazil or anywhere else in the world.

Carta aberta sobre a crise da liberdade de expressão no Brasil
Excelentíssimos Membros do Senado Federal e da Câmara dos Deputados do Brasil,

Nós, abaixo assinados, condenamos o recente ataque à liberdade de expressão no Brasil. Temos testemunhado ameaças crescentes a este direito fundamental em todo o mundo no último ano. O fechamento da rede social X (antigo Twitter) no Brasil, ordenado pelo ministro do Supremo Tribunal Federal, Alexandre de Moraes, representa uma escalada perigosa dessa tendência preocupante de censura global à liberdade de expressão.

Em 8 de agosto, o X anunciou que o ministro Alexandre de Moraes havia ordenado o bloqueio de determinadas contas com amplo alcance popular – de jornalistas a figuras políticas – sob o pretexto de combater a “desinformação”. Quando o X resistiu à demanda de censura, o ministro respondeu com ameaças de prisão, embora a plataforma continuasse acessível. Em 30 de agosto, o ministro ordenou o bloqueio imediato do X em todo o país e ameaçou a imposição de multas de cerca de US$ 9.000 por dia para qualquer pessoa que usasse uma VPN para acessar a rede social.

Este ato de ativismo judicial pune tanto a plataforma quanto seus usuários, sufocando a liberdade de expressão e violando a própria Constituição brasileira, que proíbe “toda e qualquer censura de natureza política, ideológica e artística”. A decisão também viola acordos internacionais como a Declaração Universal dos Direitos Humanos e o Pacto Internacional sobre Direitos Civis e Políticos.

Tal situação se estende para muito além do Brasil, servindo como um exemplo impressionante de uma tendência crescente de censura por parte de autoridades governamentais, que estão se tornando cada vez mais agressivas na supressão de discursos que consideram questionáveis. Se for permitido que essa censura persista no Brasil, isto poderá estabelecer um precedente perigoso e que se espalhará rapidamente. Recentemente, outros líderes mundiais expressaram sentimentos pró-censura, e não há caminho mais rápido para o fim da democracia do que a erosão da liberdade de expressão.

Pedimos ao governo brasileiro que restabeleça o livre fluxo de informações e respeite os direitos de seus cidadãos de expressar suas opiniões sem medo de represálias.

A liberdade de expressão não é negociável, nem é um privilégio – é a pedra angular de toda sociedade democrática. Devemos defendê-la sempre que estiver ameaçada, seja no Brasil ou em qualquer outro lugar do mundo.

Carta abierta sobre la crisis de la libertad de expresión en brasil

Estimados Honorables Miembros del Senado Federal y de la Cámara de Diputados de Brasil,

Nosotros, los abajo firmantes, condenamos el reciente ataque a la libertad de expresión en Brasil. En el último año hemos sido testigos de crecientes amenazas a este derecho fundamental en todo el mundo. El bloqueo en Brasil de la red social X (antes Twitter), ordenado por el juez del Supremo Tribunal Federal Alexandre de Moraes, representa una peligrosa escalada de esta preocupante tendencia mundial de censura y supresión de la expresión.

El 8 de agosto, X dio a conocer que el juez de Moraes le había ordenado el bloqueo de algunas cuentas populares —desde periodistas a personalidades políticas— con el pretexto de combatir la “desinformación.” Cuando X se resistió a esta petición de censura, el juez respondió con amenazas de arresto; con todo, el acceso a la plataforma aún estaba disponible. El 30 de agosto, el juez ordenó el bloqueo inmediato de X en todo el país y amenazó con multas de unos $9.000 dólares por día a quienes accedieran a la plataforma utilizando un VPN.

Este acto de extralimitación judicial castiga no sólo a la plataforma sino también a sus usuarios, sofocando la libertad de expresión y violando la propia Constitución de Brasil, que prohíbe “toda y cualquier censura de carácter político, ideológico y artístico.” La decisión también viola acuerdos internacionales como la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos y el Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos.

Esta situación se extiende mucho más allá de Brasil; ella es un ejemplo desconcertante de una creciente tendencia de censura por parte de funcionarios de gobierno, quienes son cada vez más agresivos en la supresión de las expresiones que consideran objetables. Si se permite que esta censura persista en Brasil, se sentaría un peligroso precedente que se extendería rápidamente. Recientemente, otros líderes mundiales han expresado sus sentimientos favorables a la censura, y no hay camino más rápido hacia la defunción de la democracia que la erosión de la libertad de expresión.

Instamos a las autoridades brasileñas a que restablezcan la libre circulación de información y respeten el derecho de sus ciudadanos a expresar sus opiniones sin temor a represalias.

La libertad de expresión no es negociable ni es un privilegio —es la piedra angular de toda sociedad democrática. Debemos defenderla siempre que se vea amenazada, ya sea en Brasil o en cualquier otra parte del mundo.

Signatories*

The signatories of this letter are united in their commitment to free speech, and represent a diverse range of viewpoints. We affirm that it is only by free and open debate that we will be able to tackle the issues of our day — a prerequisite for a flourishing society. It is in this spirit that we join together with this letter to support a free and open public square.

David Agape, Brazilian independent investigative journalist

Alfonso Aguilar, Director of Hispanic Engagement, American Principles Project

Cristián Araya, Member of Chilean Congress for the Republican Party

Jamil Assis, Institutional relations director, SIVIS, Brazil

David Atherton, Journalist

Lucy Ana Avilés, Philanthropist & Free Speech Advocate

The Honorable Andrew Bailey, Missouri Attorney General

Stephen Nikola Bartulica, Member of the European Parliament

Megan Basham, Author & Commentator, Daily Wire

Dr. Peter Boghossian, Founding Faculty Advisor, University of Austin

Sam Brownback, Former US Senator, Former US Ambassador-At-Large for International Religious Freedom

The Honorable Hernán Darío Cadavid, Member of Chamber of Deputies, Colombia

Noah Carl, Editor, Aporia Magazine

Sara A. Carter, Investigative columnist & Host, the Sara Carter Show

Prof. Gerard Casey, Professor Emeritus, University College Dublin

Charles J. Chaput, OFMCap, Archbishop Emeritus of Philadelphia

Melissa Chen, co-founder, Ideas Beyond Borders & journalist at The Spectator

Adam B. Coleman, Founder, Wrongspeak Publishing

Paul Coleman, Executive Director, ADF International

Rodrigo Iván Cortés, Former Mexican Congressman & Civil Society Leader

Jamile DeSouza-Davies, Academic & Media personality

Seth Dillon, CEO, The Babylon Bee

Bryony Dixon, Director of Development and Events, Civilisation Works

Misa Djurkovic, Ph.D., Principal Research Fellow, Institute of European Studies, Belgrade

Andrew Doyle, Author & GB News Presenter

Rod Dreher, Author & Columnist

Steven Edginton, US correspondent, GB News

Chris Elston, “Billboard Chris”, Child Protection Advocate, Free Speech Activist

James Esses, Co-founder, Thoughtful Therapists

Alvino-Mario Fantini, Editor-in-Chief, The European Conservative

Ellen Kryger Fantini, Online Editor, The European Conservative

Mamela Fiallo, Ecuadorian journalist and influencer

Ján Figeľ, Former EU Commissioner & first Special Envoy for FoRB outside the EU

Paulo Figueiredo, Journalist

Nate Fischer, Founder, New Founding

Claire Fox, Baroness Fox of Buckley

David Frost, Lord Frost of Allenton

Prof. Frank Furedi, Director, MCC Bruxelles

Riley Gaines, Author

Nile Gardiner, Former Aide to Margaret Thatcher

Prof. Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University

Sara Gon, Director Free Speech Union of South Africa

Sara Gonzales, Host of Sara Gonzales Unfiltered

Prof. Matt Goodwin, Professor of Politics, University of Kent

Freddy Gray, Deputy Editor of The Spectator

Darren Grimes, Presenter, GB News

Prof. Wayne Grudem, Ph.D., Professor of Theology Emeritus, Phoenix Seminary

Prof. Dennis Hayes, Director, Academics for Academic Freedom

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Research Fellow Hoover Institution

Prof. Dr. Ralf Höcker, LL.M., Media Lawyer (Germany)

Kate Hoey, Baroness Hoey of Lylehill and Rathlin in the County of Antrim

Jacob Howland, Provost & Senior Vice President, University of Austin

Ladislav Ilčić, Former Member of the European Parliament

Sachin Jose, Journalist & Digital Marketing Consultant

Axel Kaiser, Author & Entrepreneur

José Antonio Kast, Former Chilean presidential candidate & Chair of the Political Network for Values

Prof. Eric Kaufmann, Professor of Politics, University of Buckingham

Birgit Kelle, Journalist & Author

The Honorable Kris Kobach, Kansas Attorney General

Dr. Kyriakos N. Kotsoglou, LLM, Associate Professor in Law, Northumbria University

Agustín Laje, Author & Political Scientist

Ezra Levant, CEO, Rebel News

James Lindsey, Ph.D., Founder, New Discourses

Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith fellow, Manhattan Institute

Michael Malice, Author

Paul Marshall, Baylor University, Hudson Institute, Religious Freedom Institute

Collin McMahon, Journalist, Kontrafunk

Dr. Calum Miller, Medical Doctor, Research Fellow, University of Oxford

R. Albert Mohler, Jr., President, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Rónán Mullen, Senator, Irish Parliament

The Honorable Liz Murrill, Louisiana Attorney General

Mario Nawfal, Serial Entrepreneur, Investor & host of the largest Spaces on 𝕏

Andy Ngo, Journalist

Brendan O’Neill, Chief Political Writer, Spiked

Julián Obiglio, President of the Latin American Parties Union

Mary Margaret Olohan, Author and Reporter, Daily Wire

Dr. James Orr, University of Cambridge

Prof. David Paton, Professor of Industrial Economics, Nottingham University Business School

Tony Perkins, President, Family Research Council

Tammy Peterson, Podcast Host

Andrea Piccioti-Bayer, Director, The Conscience Project

Jack Posobiec, Senior Editor, Human Events

Gabriel Quadri, Former Mexican Congressman

Boris Reitschuster, Journalist

The Honorable Sean Reyes, Utah Attorney General

Rob Roos, Former Member of the European Parliament

Prof. Abishek Saha, Professor of Mathematics, Queen Mary University of London

Patricia Santos, Editor for El Debate for the EU

Dan Schneider, Vice President for Free Speech, the Media Research Center

Andrea Seaman, President, Free Speech Union Switzerland

Sam Sey, Blogger & Public Speaker

Michael Shellenberger, CBR Chair of Censorship, Politics, & Free Speech at University of Austin & Founder, Civilization Works

The Honorable Jonathan Skrmetti, Tennessee Attorney General and Reporter

Phoebe Smith, Researcher, Civilisation Works

Craig Snider, Freedom Fighter, Philadelphia

Petr Sourek, Journalist

Ashley St. Clair, Author & Commentator

Robby Starbuck, Founder of Starbuck Studios & Free Speech Advocate

Dr. David Starkey, Historian and broadcaster

Mathew D. Staver, Esq., Founder & Chairman, Liberty Counsel

Dieter Stein, Publisher, Junge Freiheit

Joachim Nikolaus Steinhöfel, Freedom of speech-attorney, Author of the No. 1 Bestseller “Die digitale Bevormundung”

Prof. Nadine Strossen, Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School

Rupa Subramanya, Journalist, The Free Press

Prof. Andrew Tettenborn, Professor of Law, Swansea University

Connor Tomlinson, Podcast Host, Lotus Eaters

David Thunder, Political Philosopher and Jorunalist

Prof. James Tooley, Vice-Chancellor, University of Buckingham

Carl R. Trueman, Fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center

Liz Truss, Former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom

Zuby Udezue, Rapper, Author, Podcast Host, Public Speaker

Eli Vieira, Brazillian Biologist & Journalist, Gazeta do Povo

Eva Vlaardingerbroek, Political Commentator & Legal Philosopher

Kristen Waggoner, President & CEO, Alliance Defending Freedom / ADF International

Andrew T. Walker, Associate Professor of Christian Ethics and Public Theology, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary

Prof. Stephen Warren, Professor of Astrophysics, Imperial College London

Peter Whittle, Director, New Culture Forum

Dr. Joanna Williams, Academic & Author

Toby Young, Founder & General Secretary, Free Speech Union

Sergio Zaragoza, CEO Derechos Digitales

*Institutional affiliations are listed for identification purposes only, names are in alphabetical order.

What's happening

Governments across the world are imposing and enforcing laws to silence free expression, and even free thought.

Increasingly, we are seeing not only the failure to protect free speech, but also the introduction of measures by the state to actively silence and sanction free expression.

Learn more about these cases to see how ADF International is standing against global censorship:

Media

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

You are currently viewing a placeholder content from YouTube. To access the actual content, click the button below. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.

More Information
Unblock content Accept required service and unblock content

Governments should focus on protecting speech, not squashing it

Freedom of speech is a prerequisite for a free society, and a fundamental human right guaranteed by every major human rights treaty. Upholding this right is essential for the protection of all of our human rights. 

State-driven censorship fuels cancel culture and a climate of fear. Once the state starts censoring “unpopular” speech, there is no logical stopping point.

Without free speech, every human right is imperiled

While laws that punish speech often impose different punishments and occur in different contexts, the foundation is often very similar. For example, blasphemy laws and “hate speech” laws are both state-driven censorship grounded in the idea that some words are simply too offensive to be heard.

In a free society, ideas should be challenged with ideas, not censorship

As international human rights advocates with deep expertise in defending the right to free speech, ADF International is uniquely positioned to address the escalating censorship crisis in Brazil.

Our work focuses on the international institutions – including the Organization of American States – which were set up to ensure states respect their human rights commitments.

In Brazil, our work includes petitioning the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to intervene and protect the fundamental right to free speech in Brazil, holding the state to account for violating its international legal obligations.

Support our Work

Your gift can support fundamental freedoms like free speech across the world. Thank you for your generosity.

Donate

More Resources

ADF International on Global Censorship

News & Commentary

February 13, 2025

“Litmus Test” Court Case Against Government Censorship of Musk’s “X” to be Heard Next Month, Australia

Read More
February 2, 2025

Christian Convert From Islam Freed After Imprisonment Over Facebook Posts

Read More
January 28, 2025

How the EU Digital Services Act (DSA) Affects Online Free Speech in 2025

Read More

Stay Informed

Get involved! Sign up to receive updates:

"*" indicates required fields

Name*
Consent*
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

International body to rule on case of Canadian man who spent time in prison for holding sign outside abortion facility almost 30 years ago

  • Jim Demers was criminally convicted and spent almost two months in prison in 1996-97 for holding a sign quoting the American Convention on Human Rights: “Every person has the right to have his life respected” 
  • With no recourse left in Canada, Demers filed for redress with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2004 and has waited twenty years for justice.  
  • ADF International now representing Demers after 20-year wait: “As we grapple with the spread of censorship across the globe, this case presents an opportunity for a key human rights watchdog to reassert the very rights they were established to defend” 

WASHINGTON, DC (21 November 2024) Jim Demers, a lifelong resident of British Columbia, Canada, was criminally convicted and spent almost two months in prison in 1996-97 for standing silently on a public sidewalk outside of an abortion facility. He held a sign quoting Article Four of the American Convention on Human Rights: “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.”  

Demers was standing in a censorship zone around the facility, which bans expression critical of abortion. 

Demers was criminally convicted for his peaceful expression, for which he was given a suspended sentence of two years, subject to the condition of not returning to the public area surrounding the abortion facility. 

After failing to obtain redress from the Canadian Supreme Court, Demers took his case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in 2004. The Commission admitted his case in 2006, but almost 20 years later, has yet to rule.  In the face of this egregious failure to deliver timely justice, ADF International assumed representation of Demers.  

“I hope I’m never silent when bad things are happening, and I hope nobody else is silent either when bad things are happening. I have dedicated my life to speaking out in defense of the unborn, and because of this, I was criminally convicted and even spent time in jail,” said Demers.  

“I have waited for almost 20 years for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to rule on my unjust conviction over the exercise of my freedom, and that of all people, to stand up, speak truth, and defend those that cannot defend themselves. I am grateful to ADF International for its efforts to bring this ordeal to an end. I will continue to advocate for the right to life of every person and look forward to the day when I can speak up without fear of criminal prosecution and punishment in Canada.”  

“All human rights are in peril when the fundamental right to free speech is ignored,” stated Tomás Henríquez, lead lawyer on this case for ADF International. “For peacefully expressing his pro-life views on a sidewalk outside of an abortion facility, Jim Demers was convicted as a criminal and forced to spend time behind bars with serious felons. Even if you disagree with Jim’s beliefs, everyone should defend his right to voice them without fear of criminal prosecution and imprisonment. Now is the time for the Inter-American Commission to exercise its authority to deliver justice for Jim.” 

“All human rights are in peril when the fundamental right to free speech is ignored.” 

Demers stood outside of an abortion facility in Vancouver, British Columbia before Christmas of 1996, holding a sign quoting Article Four of the American Convention on Human Rights. The Access to Abortion Services Act of British Columbia, in force to this day, establishes so-called “bubble zones” around abortion facilities, creating a censorship zone that bans free expression. Notably, the law imposes viewpoint discrimination, as it only penalizes expressions that are critical of abortion, but not others.  

Demers stood silently on the sidewalk outside of the main entrance, never engaging verbally or otherwise with any member of the public or of the abortion facility, or impeding entrance to the facility in any way.  

For this peaceful expression, Demers was arrested, placed in jail pending trial for seven weeks, alongside violent criminals, and was ultimately convicted on criminal charges. 

Demers filed a petition against Canada in 2004 with the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission agreed to rule on the merits of his case in 2006 as to whether it was lawful to use criminal sanctions against Demers for his peaceful expression. Almost twenty years later, the Commission has yet to decide his case, in what is perhaps the most egregious case of alleged backlog at any international human rights body.   

“ADF International is proud to stand with Jim as he seeks justice in his case at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The Commission has slept on Jim’s case for almost 20 years. We call on the Commission to rule decisively that these actions by Canadian authorities violated Jim’s fundamental right to freedom of speech,” Henríquez continued.  

“Both international law and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee the fundamental right to freedom of expression. As we grapple with the spread of censorship across the globe, this case presents an opportunity for our human rights watchdogs to reassert the very rights they were established to defend.”

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

Barbados debates criminal law carrying 7-year prison sentence for online content causing “annoyance” or “emotional distress”

  • “The government aims to intimidate us into forced silence,” concerned citizens appeal to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights.

  • Cybercrime Bill before Barbados Senate would impose $70,000 BBD (approximately $35,000 US or £27,000) in fines and 7 years in prison for citizens that “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” for the purpose of causing “annoyance, inconvenience,” “embarrassment, anxiety” or “substantial emotional distress.” 

ADF International legal counsel Julio Pohl alongside Barbados citizens and presenters at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights hearing, including Donald Leacock, Shaquani Hunte, Timon Howard, and Ferdinand Nicholls 

WASHINGTON, DC (14 November 2024): A cybercrime bill currently being debated in the Barbados Senate threatens to significantly undermine freedom of speech in the country, so testified concerned citizens during a hearing before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights in Washington, D.C. on Monday, 11 November.  

The proposed law would make it a crime to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data that is offensive” or disseminate images or words that are “likely to cause or subject a person to ridicule, contempt, or embarrassment.” The bill lists “causing annoyance, inconvenience, danger, obstruction, embarrassment, insult, injury, humiliation, intimidation, hatred, anxiety or causes substantial emotional distress to that person” as criteria to be found guilty of an offence. 

Citizens convicted of these crimes could be subject to $70,000 BBD (approximately $35,000 US or £27,000) in fines and a 7-year prison sentence.  

Its adoption by the House of Assembly generated national criticism, prompting the bill to be sent to a Joint Select Committee for further review. Rather than improve the bill, the Committee recommended the penalty be increased up to 10 years and $100,000 BBD (approximately $50,000 USD). 

The bill introduces the ambiguous crimes of “malicious communications” and “cyberbullying,” weaponizing the state security apparatus to criminalize peaceful expression in the name of “cybersecurity”. 

At the hearing on the problematic elements in the legislation, Donald Leacock, a citizen of Barbados and social media influencer, stated: “Freedom of expression is blatantly being stripped from us in this draconian cybercrime bill that the government of Barbados is forcing onto the citizens. This is evidenced by the fact that section 20 of the bill seeks to criminalise internet use that is considered to have caused anxiety or emotional distress with potential fines of up to $50,000, prison terms of up to 10 years, or both. Should our citizens be thrown in jail for a decade simply for posting something online that the political elite can claim makes them ‘anxious’ or ’emotionally distressed’?”  

Leacock continued, stating: “The law’s deliberately vague language leaves it open interpretation, and therefore, abuse… the government aims to intimidate us into forced silence. The objections to this bill are evident and widespread.” 

Julio Pohl, legal counsel for ADF International, stated: “Any law that seeks to criminalize online content that is subjectively deemed annoying, embarrassing, or anxiety-inducing is absurd in a free society. Core to the free interchange of ideas is the ability to voice views in the digital marketplace that may offend someone. The sweeping criminalization of online expression will engender large-scale free speech violations for Barbados.” 

“While the Barbados government should protect its citizens from real issues online such as hacking and incitement to violence, it should not be wielding the state’s authority to police security online to restrict free speech in order to spare people from ‘annoyance’. Article 19 and 20 of the Cybercrime Bill violate the basic human right to freedom of speech, enshrined in international law and the Constitution of Barbados,” added Pohl. 

ADF International is conducting international advocacy, including at the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to oppose the adoption of the censorial bill.  

The bill has passed through the House of Assembly and is under consideration in the Senate. It defines criminal conduct in vague, broad, and indeterminate terms, making it a crime to “publish, broadcast, or transmit data” that is subjectively deemed offensive. Such an ambiguous definition of criminal conduct violates international human rights protections for free speech, including the American Convention on Human Rights. 

Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only.

Armenia – Surrogacy (49th Session)

This report, submitted jointly by Casablanca Declaration and ADF International, outlines how Armenia’s legalization of surrogacy undermines its international obligations regarding the rights of children and women under various international human rights instruments. In particular, it highlights the detrimental impact of this harmful practice on the health of surrogate mothers and children.”

Continue reading

Kenya (49th Session)

This report emphasizes the urgent need for Kenya to intensify its efforts to enhance access to maternal healthcare and fulfill its duty to protect every human being’s inherent right to life.

Continue reading

Spain (49th Session)

This report highlights the urgent need for Spain to comply with its obligations under international human rights law regarding the rights of the child and parental rights. Specifically, it calls for effective measures to safeguard children from experimental and life-altering medical procedures that are documented to have irreversible negative impacts on their physical and mental health and well-being.

Continue reading

Armenia – Sex Selection (49th Session)

This report highlights the persistent trend of prenatal sex selection in Armenia, resulting in one of the most skewed sex ratios in the world. Noting the significant gaps in the legislation prohibiting this practice, it stresses in particular the need to redouble efforts to tackle the root causes of son preference and daughter aversion.

Continue reading