Important article from @cathosx on the scandal of thousands of #IntimateImages being shared w/out consent & possible new criminal law.
My concerns in #thread below on real risk that Ireland going to waste this opportunity by #RushToLegislate https://twitter.com/irishexaminer/status/1330824824080437250
Most importantly, the offences require proof that the acts of non-consensual taking/sharing 'seriously interfere with the peace and privacy of the other person' OR proof of actual alarm, distress or harm #CoreWrong #NonConsent
https://data.oireachtas.ie/ie/oireachtas/bill/2017/63/eng/initiated/b6317d.pdf
How is 'serious interference with peace and privacy' to be proven? If shared with small number of people it's not serious? As this abuse is often minimised and trivialised, is there a risk it won't be seen as a 'serious interference'? More here:
http://www.probation.ie/EN/PB/0/12D6F4D1961C4695802581D0003D92D9/$File/ClareMcGlynn_ErikaRackley_IPJ.pdf
Evidence from England & Wales shows thresholds like this hinder prosecutions - police and prosecutors are reluctant to take cases forward as they become more difficult to evidence, as described in my report with colleagues #ShatteringLives https://claremcglynn.files.wordpress.com/2019/10/shattering-lives-and-myths-revised-aug-2019.pdf
Alternatively, requiring proof of actual victim harm is also serious concern. New Zealand shows such a requirement re-traumatises victims, makes them reluctant to report & case law shows judicial reluctance to recognise the serious harms of this abuse, eg
https://ojs.aut.ac.nz/new-zealand-criminal-law-review/index.php/tewharenga/article/view/36
All acts of non-consensual taking/sharing infringe an individual's sexual autonomy & sexual expression - the law should be based on these principles, not also require 'serious' interference, or proof of consequential harms. See more w @erikarackley
here: https://claremcglynn.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/mcglynnrackley-ojls-offprint-jan-2017-image-based-sexual-abuse.pdf
Back to current scandal, would be possible to prosecute offenders using the proposed basic offence not requiring proof of intention/recklessness - but only carries max 6 months. Is that the 'serious criminal sanctions' the Minister @HMcEntee envisages?
https://www.euronews.com/2020/11/20/irish-justice-minister-proposes-new-laws-to-tackle-revenge-porness,
Because convictions under offence carrying max 7 years prison would be unlikely due to difficulties of proving perpetrators had intention or awareness of their acts seriously interfering with peace and privacy of victims - as they likely didn't want the victims to even find out.
There are good alternatives - New South Wales has clear law prohibiting all non-consensual distribution/taking of sexual images #CoreWrong #NonConsent https://www.legislation.nsw.gov.au/view/html/inforce/current/act-2017-029
Too many countries have introduced #IntimateImageAbuse laws immediately following scandals-but many such laws are limited. So much great work has been done by orgs advocating change inc @Womens_Aid @RCNIreland @SVCCork @ICCLtweet - we must not waste this opportunity #Hope #Action
You can follow @McGlynnClare.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled: