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

Why We Need to Champion the Life, Purpose, and Dignity of Every Person, Not Euthanasia or the UK Assisted Suicide Bill

Growing euthanasia practice in Canada spells a deep crisis of meaning

Is there truly such a thing as ‘the right to die’ or ‘dying with dignity’ as euthanasia advocates claim?

Few issues cut to the heart of human dignity and ethics, like (voluntary and involuntary) euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Both continue to ignite intense global debate, raising critical ethical, legal, and societal questions that we must address.

While there’s a technical distinction—assisted suicide involves the patient self-administering a lethal substance rather than a medical practitioner—the outcome is the same. For simplicity, this article uses the terms interchangeably.

At its core, assisted suicide involves the killing of a human being, mostly under the banner of “compassion” and relief from suffering. However, as this article explores, the line between compassion and callousness in euthanasia is perilously thin.

Back in 1826, physician Carl Friedrich Marx asserted that a doctor should never intentionally hasten a patient’s death, whether out of compassion or external pressure. This view mirrored long-standing beliefs, particularly in Christian and Western societies, where assisted suicide was equated with murder and strictly forbidden.

This view shifted in the late 19th century as euthanasia movements gained traction. Fast forward to 2001 and 2002, when the Netherlands and Belgium became the first countries to legalise euthanasia, spurring a growing list of countries to follow suit. The UK, however, remains deeply divided, with a contentious assisted suicide bill currently under parliamentary debate.

The UK Assisted Suicide Bill

UK parliamentarians are set to vote on a new assisted suicide bill at the end of November. If passed, this catastrophic proposal—the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill—would allow terminally ill people with an estimated prognosis of 6 months or less to end their own lives.

This bill inevitably raises a plethora of problems. While Kim Leadbeater MP, who proposed the legislation, has told the public that the bill includes strict safeguards, the reality is far more ambiguous. These safeguards can still contain flaws. Take the criteria that the patient must be within 6 months of the end of their life. How can that be reconciled with the copious research showing that doctors very often get this prognosis wrong?

The bill marks the first time that UK law would allow medical practitioners to actively end their patient’s life, redefining the boundaries of medical ethics and healthcare.

While two medical practitioners must sign off on allowing the patient to end their life—the second, “independent” practitioner is chosen by the first. If they refuse, the first may ask a second choice.

Notably, 90% of palliative care specialists in the UK oppose legalising euthanasia. This reflects the broader commitment among medical professionals to provide unwavering support and reassurance to patients rather than helping them to end their lives.

These specialists have seen that when patients receive compassionate, high-quality care, the desire to end their lives almost always fades. The concerns voiced by palliative care experts remind us that euthanasia, despite intentions, is not the compassionate solution it’s made out to be.

Historical Intellectual Reasoning for Euthanasia

The early euthanasia movement was shaped by several trains of thought.

One driving force was Utilitarianism, a philosophy that prioritises pleasure and the minimisation of pain. In this view, ending lives could be justified if it relieved suffering or contributed to a perceived greater good.

Another was Neo-Lockeanism, which posited that only those capable of rational thought should be considered full people. This perspective devalued the lives of those with mental health disorders or cognitive disabilities.

Then came Social Darwinism, a controversial offshoot of Darwin’s theory of evolution. It argued that humanity could be “improved” by selecting desirable traits and eliminating “undesirable” ones from the gene pool. This meant encouraging the procreation of the “fit” and preventing or ending the lives of those deemed “unfit”.

Charles Goddard, an early advocate of euthanasia, echoed these views. He suggested euthanasia for people he described as “idiots” lacking the capacity for joy or purpose. This was not a fringe idea in the early euthanasia movement—it was a foundational one, closely tied to the eugenics movement. Both saw Social Darwinism as justification for selecting which lives were worth living.

The most infamous application of these ideas was Nazi Germany’s eugenics program, which fully implemented euthanasia as a state policy. The program required the reporting of any disabled child under the age of three, many of whom were euthanised. By 1945, around 250,000 people were killed as part of this program, a troubling reality where ideological justifications for “purity” and “utility” led to these atrocities.

Euthanasia and the Nuremberg Trials

Reflecting on the roots of the Nazi euthanasia program, psychiatrist Leo Alexander noted in the New England Journal of Medicine that it all started with one troubling idea: the notion that certain lives were “not worthy of being lived”.

Initially, this idea was applied to the severely and chronically ill. But gradually, the net widened to include anyone deemed “socially unproductive”, ideologically undesirable, or racially “unwanted”. Alexander highlighted how this “infinitely small lever” of thinking—dismissing the value of certain lives—ultimately set the stage for the horrors that followed. Combined with a lack of respect for human dignity and compounded by economic pressures, this perspective enabled one of the 20th century’s darkest chapters.

Thankfully, the aftermath of World War II cast a long and damning shadow over the euthanasia movement. Public outrage surged, and rightfully so, as the world grappled with the reality of how easily the notion of “mercy” could be weaponised. What began as an ostensibly compassionate act for the incurably ill had devolved into a horrifying eugenics agenda, exposing the fragility of moral boundaries when life-and-death decisions are placed in human hands.

By the end of the war, the so-called pursuit of alleviating suffering had instead led to unspeakable suffering itself. The movement’s association with such widespread and calculated brutality revealed its susceptibility to abuse, eroding public trust. This highlighted the inherent dangers of presuming authority over the value of individual lives, leading to a sharp decline in the movement’s credibility and support.

Today’s Arguments for Assisted Suicide

Economic Factors

Historically, some proponents have openly linked euthanasia to economic concerns. Jacques Attali, a prominent European statesman, once argued that as people age beyond their productive years, they become costly for society, suggesting that euthanasia could be a necessary tool for future economies.

Similarly, Baroness Mary Warnock, a major figure in British politics, framed euthanasia as a rational choice for those who feel they are a burden on their families or the state, even suggesting a moral obligation to consider it.

Today, explicit economic arguments are rare and mostly hidden. However, we must stay aware that economic concerns remain a powerful factor. While most advocates of euthanasia are motivated by supposed compassion, the practice can still be influenced by economic interests. As the taxpayer base shrinks and the elderly population continues to grow, the financial pressures to offer or even encourage euthanasia will likely intensify.

In fact, economic influences on euthanasia are already visible. In Oregon, for instance, financial constraints have been cited as a reason for choosing euthanasia. In some jurisdictions, the practice has even created a pathway for organ harvesting.

As these trends develop, the risk of economic pressures overtaking compassionate motives in the practice of euthanasia is a very real and pressing concern.

Compassion as Motivation

Another angle, and probably the most supported one, is compassion. But compassion doesn’t involve supporting someone’s decision to end their life. If a healthy friend were contemplating suicide, we wouldn’t consider it compassionate to assist them. Instead, we would do everything possible to remind them of their worth, showing them that their life has dignity and purpose. True compassion involves guiding someone back from the edge, not pushing them over it.

Even if someone accepts the flawed premise that euthanasia can be “compassionate”, legalised euthanasia brings broader consequences. Thousands of people may feel pressured to end their lives—not out of personal choice, but because they feel they are a burden or because the state finds it less costly than providing care.

What may appear compassionate to some can, in practice, result in far-reaching and profoundly uncompassionate consequences for many.

And if we use compassion to justify euthanasia, where does that rationale end? Why should it only apply to those who request it? Shouldn’t it also include involuntary euthanasia for children or disabled individuals who are suffering, as permitted under regulations in the Netherlands?

This slippery slope shows that once euthanasia is allowed, limiting or strictly regulating it becomes increasingly difficult. What begins as compassion risks becoming a doorway to decisions that erode the very dignity and respect for life that compassion aims to uphold.

Autonomy as an Argument

We must first ask: why is autonomy important, and is it the ultimate value, outweighing all others? If autonomy were absolute, euthanasia would need to be permitted in all cases—for anyone, at any time, in any condition—simply because they choose it. Yet, most people reasonably feel troubled with such an unrestricted approach.

Even strong advocates of euthanasia usually argue for limits—no euthanasia for children, healthy people, or people with certain mental disorders, for instance. Yet, if autonomy is the sole justification, these boundaries become difficult to defend. Moreover, increasing one person’s autonomy can, in some cases, restrict the autonomy of others.

Evidence from Oregon shows that over half of euthanasia requests cite feelings of being a burden as a primary reason. This highlights how legalised euthanasia can undermine the authority of those who are vulnerable to outside pressure. Assisted suicide risks creating subtle (or explicit) pressure on people, especially those with serious illnesses, to choose death over costly care, effectively diminishing autonomy rather than preserving it. There is a high risk that the “right to die” could evolve into a perceived duty to.

Furthermore, we often limit autonomy in areas where it might lead to exploitation or where vulnerable people might feel forced into choices they wouldn’t otherwise make. We restrict autonomy to prevent self-harm or degradation; we never permit people to randomly amputate their limbs, even if they choose or want to.

A Look Around the World

In countries where assisted suicide is legal, there’s a suggestion that not all lives are equal—some lives are seen as “worthy” while others, particularly those of the vulnerable, are seen as expendable, building on the early intellectual bases for euthanasia. Let’s look at the Netherlands and Belgium, for example.

The Netherlands faces criticism for insufficient palliative care. In contrast, the UK, which has resisted euthanasia for many years, has significantly improved the quality of life for patients who, in other countries, might instead have been steered toward euthanasia.

In these countries, the boundaries of assisted suicide have expanded over time. People suffering from mental health disorders such as depression, schizophrenia and anorexia nervosa are now eligible for euthanasia.

The age criteria for euthanasia have also broadened. In Belgium, children of any age can request euthanasia if they are deemed capable of understanding their decision. Similarly, the Netherlands allows euthanasia for children aged 12 and older and is discussing the possibility of lowering this age threshold further. In the Netherlands, the ‘Groningen Protocol’ allows for the euthanasia of ill newborns. And there is now momentum toward allowing euthanasia for anyone over a certain age who feels their life is “complete”.

This shift in the Netherlands suggests a growing acceptance of euthanasia based not on medical need, but on subjective quality-of-life judgments that devalue the natural aging process and erode respect for the sanctity of life. There have also been cases where transgender people were granted euthanasia due to psychological distress, either before or after “transitioning”. This shows how the criteria of these laws can quickly expand to include anyone.

Conclusion: Euthanasia Should Never Be Legalised

As these trends illustrate, the logic of assisted suicide opens the door to a progression of ever-widening boundaries, which puts many at risk, regardless of age, gender, or ability. While supporters of euthanasia argue for the compassionate choice, the real-world consequences reveal a troubling trajectory that risks prioritising economic and social interests over inherent human dignity, equality, and life.

Will you write to your MP to ask them to say NO to assisted suicide and support the lives of the vulnerable?

Contact your MP quickly and easily using Right to Life’s handy tool.

‘Tsunami of censorship’: US congressional committee criticises UK’s abortion centre ‘buffer zones’ and online censorship

Isabel Vaughan-Spruce in 2022.
  • Influential committee makes intervention on alarming state of free speech in UK and Europe
  • Abortion centre ‘buffer zones’ and Online Safety Act in UK criticised
Isabel Vaughan-Spruce in 2022.

LONDON (22 November 2024) – An influential US congressional committee has criticised abortion centre “buffer zones” and the Online Safety Act in the UK as part of a “tsunami of censorship headed towards America”.

“This intervention from the House Judiciary Committee shows the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices."

- Paul Coleman, Executive Director of ADF International

The X (Twitter) account for the Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, who are the majority on the cross-party House of Representatives standing committee, called out this censorship in a thread on the alarming state of free speech in the UK and Europe.

The House Judiciary Committee interviewed Isabel Vaughan-Spruce, a Catholic woman who, supported by ADF International, recently won a payout of £13,000 from West Midlands Police for her two unlawful arrests for silently praying in an abortion centre “buffer zone” in Birmingham. ADF International is a faith-based legal advocacy organisation.

The committee’s X thread also critiqued the Online Safety Act for requiring “platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content”.

ADF International Executive Director Paul Coleman commented: “This intervention from the House Judiciary Committee shows the UK is fast becoming notorious around the world for its censorious practices.

“The incoming administration has made its commitment to free speech clear. If British politicians do not act to protect free speech, all other considerations aside, the UK will continue to suffer severe reputational harm on the world stage.” 

Congressman Darrell Issa, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said: “The growing attacks on free speech in the US – as well as the UK and EU – pose a direct threat to free people on both sides of the Atlantic. We know that legislation like the Online Safety Act that is said to combat ‘hate speech’ empowers regulators to censor free speech.

“Congressional Republicans understand that these threats to free speech are part of a broader global push by the Censorship Industrial Complex, which includes not only the EU, UK, and other nations but also malign actors here at home. We are committed to confronting this growing threat alongside the incoming Trump Administration to fight against these assaults on free speech within our borders and around the world.”

Reform UK Leader, Nigel Farage MP said: “The crackdown on free expression within the UK is becoming very sinister.

“Our police and government now withhold vital public information and we get censored simply for demanding the truth.

“I will continue to fight this.”

Critique of “buffer zones”

In its post, the House Judiciary GOP said: “What could posting a Bible verse or praying in front of an abortion clinic get you in Europe? A visit from the police—or worse…

“Isabel Vaughan-Spruce was arrested and prosecuted for silently praying. She won her case. Yet still, she receives tickets and other forms of intimidation by police.”

The intervention came shortly after “buffer zones” were introduced around all abortion centres in England and Wales at the end of last month as part of the Public Order Act.

These ban “influencing” someone regarding abortion within 150 metres of an abortion facility. Thankfully, the Crown Prosecution Service has issued guidance saying silent prayer is “not necessarily” a crime and that there must be evidence of overt activity.

However, army veteran Adam Smith-Connor last month became the first person to be convicted for silent prayer in a “buffer zone”. With the support of ADF International, he is appealing his conviction.

Medical scientist Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt also faces trial for holding a sign in a “buffer zone” that said “Here to talk if you want”. 

Critique of Online Safety Act and Digital Services Act

The House Judiciary GOP post critiqued UK online speech legislation and the Digital Services Act, an EU regulation: “Two major pieces of online speech legislation were passed in Europe over the last two years: The EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) & the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA).

“Generally speaking, they require platforms to censor alleged hate speech and harmful content… The UK’s laws mirror or go beyond the EU’s laws & include Orwellian practices to investigate speech.”

The committee’s post explained that because of the population and economic size of the UK and EU, regulations that censor speech in those areas can affect the US. For example, companies change their global policies to match anti-speech EU regulations.

Financial penalties also play a role: “What do platforms risk if they don’t comply? Penalties are as high as 6% of GLOBAL revenue from the EU’s DSA and 10% of GLOBAL revenue from the UK’s OSA. Billions of dollars for most major platforms.

“The Digital Services Act and Online Safety Act enable bureaucrats in the EU and the UK to put platforms out of business. So now, social media companies and their employees are strongly incentivized to overregulate speech on their platforms to preserve their business.

“The fight for free expression online is a global fight. The Biden-Harris Administration has stood by silently as foreign countries try to render the First Amendment obsolete.”

Dr Päivi Räsänen

The thread from the congressional committee also highlighted the case of Dr Päivi Räsänen, a Finnish parliamentarian on trial for a tweet expressing her Christian views on sexuality.

With the support of ADF International, Dr Räsänen faces trial at Finland’s Supreme Court for alleged “hate speech”, despite being unanimously acquitted of the charges on two previous occasions.

The House Judiciary GOP added: “If she [Dr Räsänen] loses her case, it could serve as a precedent for other European countries.

“Meaning posting a Bible verse could be soon considered ‘hate speech’ across the EU.”

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

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.

The Race to Save Girls’ and Women’s Sports is Worth Running

Save girls' sports

We must keep female sports for women and girls only

Save girls' sports UN and ADFI

Ensuring equal opportunity and fairness is the cornerstone of all sport.

However, local, national, and international policies increasingly allow males who identify as female to compete in sports reserved for women and girls. The whole reason sex-based sports categories exist is to ensure fair competition by accounting for physiological differences, therefore enabling sports to reward genuine merit and excellence. 

And yet, gender ideology is playing a significant role in the attempt to erode this biological foundation by claiming that gender identity—how one personally experiences one’s gender—may not necessarily align with one’s biological sex.

This radical ideology argues that each person should be permitted to compete on a sports team that aligns with their gender identity rather than biological sex, contributing to egregious violations of the rights of female athletes when males are allowed to invade their sports and spaces.

Gender Ideology’s Role in Undermining Women and Girls’ Sports

When laws and policies lose touch with the biological reality that men and women are inherently different, it’s women and girls who suffer the most.

Every woman and girl, from aspiring young athletes to seasoned professionals, deserves fair and safe access to spaces dedicated to female athletes. The future of women’s sports—and the opportunity for every girl to dream and compete—depends on this vital commitment to fairness.

A recent story out of San Jose State University in California illustrates the growing concerns around fairness in women’s sports. The university’s women’s volleyball team added a male player to its roster, prompting several other teams to cancel their matches against SJSU. While no official reasons for these forfeits have been given, the implications are clear.

A Matter of Fairness

Dr. Gregory Brown, an exercise science professor, has extensively explored the topic of male advantages in sports. In a white paper, he highlights that male athletes generally have a jumping advantage of approximately 15-20 percent over female athletes. Additionally, males spike the ball with greater speed, giving them a 29-34 percent edge in this area. Moreover, men generally possess greater height and muscle mass, providing clear benefits on the volleyball court.

It’s abundantly clear why female volleyball players wouldn’t want to compete against male athletes.

According to a recent UN report from August 2024, no less than 600 female athletes in 29 different sports have lost in competitions to male competitors. And we know the issue is not simply about medals. It’s about the countless opportunities, including academic and professional, a female athlete forfeits when a male displaces her. It’s also about basic safety, both on and off the playing field.

When female-only spaces such as locker rooms and restrooms are open to males, the privacy, safety, and security of women are compromised at the most basic level.

As debates over fairness and safety in women’s sports intensify, legal and policy frameworks worldwide are being scrutinised more closely. And the demand for clear, principled policies safeguarding female athletes is growing urgent. Thankfully, a bold response is emerging on the international stage.

Calling on Leaders to Ensure Fairness in Girls’ and Women’s Sports

ADF International, alongside our colleagues at Alliance Defending Freedom in the United States, is advocating for the rights of female athletes, standing up for the truth that female sports must be female-only if they are to be safe and fair.

In October, ADF International convened a panel to bring this critical conversation to the UN. Addressing government leaders and UN officials, the event brought together prominent advocates for protecting women and girls’ sports. Among the speakers were former West Virginia State University athlete Lainey Armistead, British Olympian swimmer Sharron Davies, CEO and President of Alliance Defending Freedom Kristen Waggoner, and the UN Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls Reem Alsalem.

Armistead joined a lawsuit to defend a law in West Virginia ensuring that only women compete on women’s sports teams. That lawsuit has passed through the court system, and Alliance Defending Freedom asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Joining Waggoner at the UN, Armistead said: “I’m here today because we’ve all seen what happens when males are allowed to compete on women’s teams.

From track to boxing to swimming, it’s demoralising and unfair—and just plain wrong.” Armistead recounted stories of women being sidelined and even injured in these situations. She highlighted that just one male athlete had already displaced nearly 300 female athletes in West Virginia.

Davies underscored that the biological differences between men and women put female athletes at a distinct disadvantage, stressing the need for safety measures in women’s sports. Waggoner, alongside the athletes, affirmed that equality and non-discrimination—especially regarding sex—are core principles of international human rights law. “When female sports aren’t protected,” Waggoner warned, “it does grave harm to women and girls.”

Waggoner concluded with a plea: “Our hope at ADF is that the international community will turn its attention to this critical issue—ensuring women and girls can pursue sporting opportunities should they desire, and protecting female athletes… Our plea to the world is to learn from the mistakes that have been made and that are now being corrected, so that your daughters, so that my daughter, can walk into a future of fairness and safety in sport.”

The International Implications

In 2021, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) revised its guidelines on transgender athletes, aiming to adopt a “more inclusive” approach to sports. However, this shift inevitably raised serious concerns about fairness and safety for female athletes.

In response, several international and national sports federations—including the World Aquatics, World Athletics, World Rugby, and the International Cycling Union—have decided to protect female-only categories. These organisations affirm that biological and physical differences remain relevant to fair competition in sports, so they’ve reinforced these categories to protect competitive balance and safety.

What the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Says

Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” Article 3 of the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women affirms that women are entitled to fully enjoy and be protected in all human rights and fundamental freedoms—whether in political, economic, social, or civil spheres. This includes specific rights such as freedom from discrimination, access to the highest attainable standards of physical and mental health, and protection from torture or any cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment.

While the Universal Declaration does not directly mention sports, activities related to sports are widely recognised as part of the broader rights to education and cultural participation, as outlined in Articles 26 and 27. These rights affirm that everyone should be able to engage in sports and cultural activities that foster personal growth, community, and equality.

How We Can Ensure Girls’ and Women’s Sports Remains Fair

Establishing female categories has never been about division; rather, it’s about empowering women and girls and creating a fair playing field.

By raising this issue on an international stage, we’re bringing crucial attention to the challenges women and girls face as their sporting opportunities are impacted by the inclusion of males in female sports.

Conclusion: Laws Must Reflect Basic Fairness

We aim to uphold laws that recognise the fundamental biological differences between men and women. Through global alliances and strategic advocacy at both national and international levels, we believe meaningful change is within reach.

At its core, this issue is about protecting the dignity and respect female athletes deserve. We must ensure that the future of women’s sports remains a fair arena where women can compete without facing disadvantages from biological disparities or gender ideology. Protecting these principles is essential to preserving the integrity of female sports for generations to come.

This is a matter of basic human rights, and we must reaffirm, without hesitation, the imperative of safety and fairness in sports for women and girls.
Will you stand alongside us?