Mexican Government Ignores Inquiry from International Human Rights Body Into Politician Censored and Convicted for Twitter/X posts on Gender

Mexican Congressman Gabriel Quadri.
  • Former Mexican congressman and presidential candidate Gabriel Quadri was convicted as a “political violator against women” for Twitter/X posts on gender. 
  • ADF International represents Quadri before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights; Mexico has failed to respond, prompting expedited consideration before the body. 

WASHINGTON, DC (18 February 2025) Gabriel Quadri, a former congressman and presidential candidate from Mexico, was convicted in May 2022 as a “political violator against women” for posts on Twitter/X expressing concerns about gender ideology. Specifically, Quadri commented that it was unfair for men who identify as women to take spaces in Mexico’s Congress reserved for women. 

The highest electoral court in Mexico ruled that Quadri’s posts were discriminatory and ordered him to delete his posts, issue a compelled public apology, and be registered as a gender-based political violator—censorship measures that infringed on his civil and political rights as a Mexican citizen and breach his human right to free speech. 

Quadri appealed to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights with the legal support of ADF International, demanding that the Mexican state be held accountable for violating his freedom of expression. In March of last year, the Mexican government was prompted to respond to the case. Failing to do so, the Commission has announced that Quadri’s case will be moving forward without Mexico’s response.  

“Mexico’s failure to respond to Gabriel Quadri’s case before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights evinces a clear disregard for the basic human right to free speech. We are pleased that his case nevertheless will progress, and are hopeful that Mexico will be held accountable for its obvious human rights violations,” stated Julio Pohl, legal counsel for ADF International. 

“The Mexican government has seriously violated Quadri’s free expression rights, and it’s time for the Commission to act decisively for justice in his case and in defense of the free speech rights of all Mexicans.” 

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

“Gender based political violence” conviction  

Mexico has in place a law requiring equal representation of men and women in Congress. Quadri’s Twitter/X posts made the point that it is unjust for males to take advantage of the law to gain access to political positions designated for women.   

On February 8, 2022, Quadri posted on Twitter/X: “We should legislate to prevent that men that make themselves pass as women compete unfairly against women in organized sports, and that they do not usurp the political electoral positions that belong to women…”   

On February 16, 2022, he posted: “Let it be clear. In the House of Representatives of the 65th Legislature there is no parity between men and women. There are 252 men and 248 women, thanks to trans ideology and/or gender ideology. Men enter through the back door to (once again) displace women…”   

Salma Luévano, a MORENA then-member of Congress who identifies as a transgender woman, filed a complaint regarding the posts before the National Electoral Institute resulting in Quadri’s conviction. Luévano gained notoriety for fomenting unrest within Mexico’s Congress, including an incident where the president of the chamber was physically wrestled from his chair amidst calls to expel Quadri from the chamber.   

The Court ordered the following punitive measures following Quadri’s conviction: requirements to (i) delete the tweets, (ii) issue a public apology drafted by the Court and post a summary of the ruling on Twitter/X for 15 days, at two set times per day, (iii) complete two courses on gender-based violence and transgender violence, and (iv) be listed as a “gender-based political violator” on a national registry for two years and nine months.   

With the exhaustion of domestic remedies, ADF International petitioned the Inter-American Commission for justice for Quadri in December 2022. In January 2024, more than a year from the filing, the Commission called on the government of Mexico to respond. Now in 2025, after a failure by the Mexican government to respond, the case is moving forward within the Commission. 

Former Mexican Congressman Rodrigo Iván Cortés also was convicted for “gender based political violence” for social media posts. His case is pending before the Commission.     

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

As Rumble Returns to Brazil, International Free Speech Expert Investigates Brazilian Censorship Crisis with Visit

Brazil censorship
  • Rumble returns to Brazil just before Special Rapporteur for Free Expression meets with Brazilian lawmakers to investigate Brazil’s free speech violations.  
  • ADF International is representing five Brazilian lawmakers before the Inter-American Commission, asking the body to hold Brazil accountable for egregious censorship. 
YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

BRAZIL (17 FEBRUARY 2025): The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’ Special Rapporteur for Free Expression, Pedro Vaca, conducted an official visit to Brazil this week to investigate ongoing free speech violations by Brazilian authorities. The investigation follows multiple filings with the Commission as a result of escalating state censorship in the country, dating back to 2019, reaching a head in September with the suspension of X (Twitter). 

Vaca met with Brazilian lawmakers, whose censorship case is represented by ADF International before the Inter-American Commission. His visit follows the return of Rumble, a free speech video platform, to Brazil on February 9th. The platform had withdrawn its services in the country due to censorship demands.  

Julio Pohl, legal counsel for ADF International, stated:  

“Every Brazilian has the human right to free speech, but the fact is that millions of Brazilians have been subjected to unlawful censorship. The Special Rapporteur’s visit to Brazil signals that Brazil’s egregious human rights violations have not gone unnoticed. While the return of Rumble is an excellent step, there is significant work to be done. Censorship has no place in a free society, and it’s time for the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights to exercise its authority to hold Brazil accountable for the clampdown on free speech.” 

Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil and one of the legislators who filed the petition, commented:   

“We must continue to push back against censorship in our country, and put a stop to those who are abusing their power. What we have seen time and again in Brazil is an egregious silencing of political voices, citizens, journalists, or anyone who might share different viewpoints from Judge Alexandre de Moraes, President Lula da Silva, or others in control. We can’t afford to lose Brazil to authoritarianism, and I am grateful to the Special Rapporteur for taking an urgent look at this crisis. These attempts to silence and censor cannot be allowed to stand.” 

Brazilian lawmakers and freedom of speech advocates

Left to right: Senator Eduardo Girao, Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Ricardo Salles and Gilson Marques.

The Commission has jurisdiction over Brazil as a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights. The American Convention robustly protects freedom of speech. 

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

Brazilian legislators challenge unlawful state censorship at international body

Brazilian lawmakers and freedom of speech advocates
  • Senator Eduardo Girao & Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques & Ricardo Salles claim violations of their free speech rights following persistent state censorship in Brazil, including 39-day ban on X (Twitter) ahead of elections. 
  • ADF International, representing legislators before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, petitions international body to condemn Brazilian censorship and uphold free speech.  
Brazilian lawmakers and freedom of speech advocates

Left to right: Senator Eduardo Girao, Members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Ricardo Salles and Gilson Marques.

WASHINGTON, DC (20 December 2024) In light of the ongoing state-driven censorship crisis in Brazil, five Brazilian legislators, including Senator Eduardo Girao and members of the Chamber of Deputies Marcel Van Hattem, Adriana Ventura, Gilson Marques, and Ricardo Salles, are challenging the violations of their free speech rights before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, represented by ADF International.  

The Commission has jurisdiction over Brazil as a State Party to the American Convention on Human Rights. The American Convention robustly protects freedom of speech, including prohibitions on prior restraint (censoring expression before it has occurred) and special protections for political speech. Article 13 protects the “right to freedom of thought and expression” which includes “the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds… through any other medium of one’s choice… The exercise of the right…shall not be subject to prior censorship… [and] may not be restricted by indirect methods or means, such as the abuse of government or private controls … or by any other means tending to impede the communication and circulation of ideas and opinions.” 

The legislators claim violations of their rights under the Convention, including their freedom of expression and the equal protection of the law, as a result of escalating state censorship, dating back to 2019, which recently reached a head with the X (formerly known as “Twitter”) ban.  

In their legal challenge now filed with the Commission, the legislators note that state-sponsored censorship, including the 39-day ban of X, is “disproportionate and of dubious legal basis” and “has affected the conventional rights of the Victims in a direct, particular, and serious way.” 

The petition goes on to say that the country’s X blockade “violated the rights of more than twenty million people in Brazil who are users of the platform, having prevented them from accessing the dissemination and reception of information during that time.” 

Julio Pohl, ADF International’s lead legal counsel on the case, stated: “The world watched as Brazilian authorities blatantly clamped down on the free speech rights of over 20 million Brazilians by shutting down X ahead of the national elections. While the ban was eventually lifted, the fact remains that millions of Brazilians, including the five legislators now taking their case to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, were subjected to unlawful censorship during a critical time in their country. Censorship has no place in a free society, and it’s time for the Commission to intervene and condemn the vast and ongoing violations of free speech being perpetrated by Brazilian authorities.” 

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Julio Pohl & Marcel van Hattem

Marcel van Hattem, member of the Chamber of Deputies for Brazil and one of the legislators who filed the petition, commented:  

“What we have seen time and again in Brazil is an egregious silencing of political voices, citizens, journalists, or anyone else who might share different viewpoints from Judge Alexandre de Moraes or others in control. This is a major violation of all Brazilians’ free speech and expression rights. We can’t afford to lose Brazil to authoritarianism, which is why I am taking my case to the international level with the help of ADF International. These attempts to silence and censor cannot be allowed to stand.”  

Eduardo Girao, Senator for Brazil and party to the petition, stated:  

“Brazil is facing a very serious censorship problem. While our constitution protects our rights to speak and express ourselves freely as citizens of Brazil, Brazilians throughout the country are afraid to share their beliefs for fear of persecution and punishment. We must push back against censorship in our country, and it is my hope that the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights will fulfill its obligation to condemn the human rights violations that are taking place in our country.”  

YouTube

By loading the video, you agree to YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more

Load video

Julio Pohl & Eduardo Girao

State-sponsored censorship 

Censorship in Brazil has been a persistent and escalating problem in Brazil since 2019. The state has targeted conservative voices, including blocking pro-life messages during the 2022 election campaign, which contained views contrary to the pro-abortion position held by then-candidate Lula da Silva.   

On 30 August 2024, Justice Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court ordered the “immediate, complete and total suspension of X’s operations” in the country after the platform refused to comply with government orders to shut down accounts which it had singled out for censorship.  The ban was in effect for 39 days. 

ADF International petitioned the Commission to urgently intervene, stating, “The blocking of X in the country is symptomatic of an endemic problem…it has dragged on for more than six years and has caused real damage to Brazilian democracy, producing a chilling effect on the majority of the population who, according to recent surveys, are afraid to express their opinions in public.” 

Elon Musk thanked ADF International for its intervention.  

In September, over 100 global free speech advocates – including former UK Prime Minister Liz Truss, journalist Michael Shellenberger, five US Attorneys General and Senior UK, US, European and Latin American politicians and professors united in an open letter to call for free speech to be restored in Brazil. 

Even with the lifting of the X ban, the state of censorship in Brazil remains severe. 

Left to right: ADF International legal counsel Julio Pohl, Chamber of Deputies member Marcel van Hattem, Senator Eduardo Girao, & ADF International Director of Advocacy for Latin America, Tomás Henríquez

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.