WHO Pandemic Agreement: free speech experts welcome progress as negotiations near conclusion

Giorgio Mazzoli in front of the UN in Geneva. The WHO pandemic treaty is negotiated by UN member states.
  • Earlier versions of the text required parties to “combat” or “prevent” undefined concepts like “misleading information”, “misinformation”, and “disinformation”.  
  • ADF International spearheaded global advocacy to ensure pandemic treaty upholds freedom of expression. 
  • Latest negotiating text addresses free speech concerns – vigilance against potential regression crucial as negotiations resume today. 
Giorgio Mazzoli in front of the UN in Geneva. The WHO pandemic treaty is negotiated by UN member states.

GENEVA (30 April 2024) – The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) Pandemic Agreement, a new international treaty due to be adopted in June, has drawn worldwide criticism for its potential crackdown on freedom of expression as part of pandemic prevention, preparedness, and response. An earlier version required the “management” of so-called “infodemics,” defined as “too much information … during a disease outbreak” causing “confusion” as well as “mistrust” in health authorities, regardless of the veracity of the information in question. A more recent version of the agreement included language mandating parties to “cooperate, in accordance with national laws, in preventing misinformation and disinformation,” essentially granting individual states the discretion to define which information fits within these categories, and potentially censor it.    

Global advocacy efforts to protect free speech yielded fruits as the latest proposal for the WHO Pandemic Agreement removed the vague mandates for parties to “prevent” misinformation and disinformation. In a significant shift, the current text no longer contemplates the imposition of potentially sweeping restrictions on freedom of speech to address these phenomena. Instead, it recognizes the importance of building trust and ensuring timely, transparent, accurate, science- and evidence-informed information.  

"It is vital that the Pandemic Agreement safeguard freedom of expression against potential censorship threats. We commend WHO Member States for acknowledging the critical importance of government transparency and accountability in sharing pandemic-related information, rather than endorsing arbitrary speech suppression."

- Giorgio Mazzoli, Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International

“Long-awaited development” 

“It is vital that the Pandemic Agreement safeguard freedom of expression against potential censorship threats. We commend WHO Member States for acknowledging the critical importance of government transparency and accountability in sharing pandemic-related information, rather than endorsing arbitrary speech suppression. We trust that these advances will be consolidated in the final text without any rollbacks on language protecting fundamental freedoms,” said Giorgio Mazzoli, human rights expert and Director of UN Advocacy at ADF International, who led the legal organisation’s global advocacy effort.   

Negotiations continue today 

Today marks the resumption of negotiations on the draft text, scheduled to conclude on May 10th. Later next month, the World Health Assembly (WHA) is expected to adopt the agreement, aimed inter alia at strengthening the WHO’s role in preventing, preparing for, and responding to future pandemics. 

Over the last months, ADF International warned that the agreement could severely restrict freedom of expression, a fundamental human right that encompasses the right to impart, seek and receive information under international law. ADF International has highlighted the potential human rights implications of the WHO Pandemic Agreement and offered legal advocacy to key stakeholders. 

“Freedom of expression, especially during pandemics, is essential to ensure scrutiny and accountability over critical public health decisions. It is imperative that the Pandemic Agreement does not lead to a lowering of existing standards by promoting incursions into free speech in the name of public health, when it is possible for both to be upheld in careful balance. As negotiations near their final stages, Member States must steer clear of any regression in this area,” concluded Mazzoli.  

 

Further information: 

  • October 2023: Negotiating text which required states to combat so-called infodemics: https://t.co/wdrlqG1pHO 
  • March 2024: Negotiating text which demanded that parties cooperate “in preventing misinformation and disinformation”: https://t.co/wdrlqG1pHO 
  • April 2024: new draft without vague mandates and the confirmation of the importance of freedom of information: https://t.co/vtmrw4elmv 
Images for free use in print or online in relation to this story only

Germany plans to unveil censorship zones which violate freedom of speech and free assembly

Pavica Vojnovic standing outside of a facility which is inside of a censorship zone.

All of Germany must reject this bill because whether pro-life or not, censorship zones would ensnare everyone

Pavica Vojnovic outside of an abortion facility where censorship zones silence pro-life speech.

The German government is planning to introduce so-called censorship zones in certain locations – just like the UK. These censorship zones around abortion facilities are established to silence the pro-life view. These zones are not “pro-choice”, they’re no-choice.

And their actions deliberately ignore recent rulings by the Federal Administrative Court. Several weeks ago, the federal government approved a draft law on censorship zones to be established in certain locations in front of and around German abortion-related facilities in which certain opinions can no longer be expressed and certain peaceful activities prohibited.

What are censorship zones?

Censorship zones are areas defined by the local administration or even the legislature where specific opinions, actions or gatherings are prohibited. These zones censor certain expressions of opinion, hence the name ‘censorship zone’.

A look at Great Britain shows where restrictions on peaceful prayers can lead. In recent months, several people have been arrested there due to local censorship zones. The arrests occurred because individuals were quietly praying on a public street. The zones there have led to even silent prayer and, thus, thoughts being criminalized. We must not stand for this. Here’s why: 

Censorship zones violate fundamental freedoms

Censorship zones are advanced under the guise of protecting women, but they are levied against peaceful individuals who in no way condone the harassment of women. After all, harassment is already prohibited under German criminal law.

What is most dangerous, however, is the fact that certain opinions are banned because they’re unpopular. Even if we disagree on abortion, we should agree that basic human rights—like free expression and free thought—are too important to throw out the window. 

We all have the basic human right to think, act, and pray in accordance with our convictions.

Only recently, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed the right to freedom of assembly and freedom of opinion of a pro-life prayer group.

They gathered across the street from an abortion facility and quietly prayed. The police did not find harassment while observing the group in Pforzheim.

Similarly in the UK, A pro-life activist is being investigated for a third time for praying silently in a censorship zone.

She had nothing with her, did not prevent women from entering the abortion facility, and did not even speak to anyone. A silent prayer in her mind was enough to bring her to court – a serious violation of freedom of thought.

Censorship zones are clearly having serious consequences for fundamental freedoms in the UK and we cannot let the same thing happen in Germany. 

These zones silence without offering help

Censorship zones do nothing to protect women. Rather, they block women from hearing about the offers of help available to them.

The sad reality is that these zones fail the women who choose abortion out of a sense of helplessness. By banning peaceful offers of help and alternative options, many women will feel even more alone.

Shouldn’t women in crisis pregnancies have access to help and alternative options to abortion?

If the state can ban freedom of expression and assembly in front of certain establishments, why not in other places?

There is no logical endpoint for such censorship

Freedom of expression, assembly, and freedom of religion benefit all people. These fundamental rights cannot be restricted under the pretext of harassment – which is already a criminal offence.

This bill is aimed at silencing pro-life views, to get those who stand up for the lives of the unborn to self-censor and remain silent. That’s why we’re pushing back against these censorial laws – will you help us?

The bill, which was approved by the cabinet on January 24th, 2024, will now be forwarded to the Bundesrat, which can already introduce amendments. This will be followed by the legislative process in the Bundestag, which will end with a vote on the law.

As the legal impact of these zones becomes clear, we must remain committed to defending the basic human right to free expression, including preventing the proliferation of “thought crimes” where people can even be prosecuted for silent prayer.  

Will you stand alongside us for the protection of freedom of expression and freedom of assembly?

We must stand up for our fundamental rights together.