Proudman: “Misogynistic” attacks
Four special rapporteurs appointed by the United Nations’ Human Rights Council have told the UK government about their concerns over the “ongoing harassment” of barrister Charlotte Proudman.
They also criticised the absence of specific references to misogyny and sexism in Bar Standards Board (BSB) rules.
“We express our deep concern about the misogynistic and sexist nature of the alleged attacks that Dr Proudman is being subjected to online,” they said.
“The insulting and degrading remarks to which she has allegedly been subjected underline the gender dimension of the discrimination to which women who are active and visible in the public sphere, such as lawyers, women judges and women politicians, are disproportionately victims.”
The letter was signed by Reem Alsalem, special rapporteur on violence against women and girls; Irene Khan, special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression; Mary Lawlor, special rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders; and Dorothy Estrada-Tanck, chair-rapporteur of the working group on discrimination against women and girls.
Dr Proudman specialises in representing survivors of rape, domestic abuse and controlling behaviour in the family courts, and is a high-profile activist for the rights of women and children. She set up the non-profit Right to Equality.
The letter said that, “according to the information received”, since 2020 Dr Proudman “has been the subject of a relentless campaign of abuse, bullying and harassment on social media, reportedly by male senior barristers”.
It continued: “She has been the subject of derogatory comments using obscene language and accused of being a feminazi, misandrist, vile, narcissist and ‘mentally ill’ with calls for her to be disbarred. She has been accused of lacking integrity and bringing the profession into disrepute.”
It recited many of the events of recent years, including multiple complaints to the BSB and her chambers, Goldsmith Chambers in London, her own complaints to the BSB about abuse received from male barristers, and the dismissal last year of a police inspector who sent her and other women malicious and abusive tweets.
Most recent was the news that Dr Proudman was facing disciplinary proceedings instigated by the BSB over a series of tweets criticising a judgment of Sir Jonathan Cohen – a Garrick Club member – over remarks he made in a family case two years ago.
The rapporteurs cited the Legal Services Board’s regulatory performance assessment earlier this year, which they said found “the decision making in respect of the BSB’s regulatory risk lacked clarity; the timescales for investigating bullying and harassment at the bar were limited; and the way in which the investigations are processed, and their impact evaluation are ‘not readily apparent’”.
While stressing that they did not wish to prejudge the allegations against her, they went on: “We are concerned that the ongoing harassment of Dr Proudman, combined with the BSB’s decision to take disciplinary proceedings, may send a disconcerting message that legal professionals who dare to challenge alleged systemic gender bias against mothers in custody cases and women who are survivors of domestic violence, will be punished.
“It may also lead to fear within the community of women human rights defenders, academics and practicing lawyers and barristers who are working to defend the rights of women within the UK, that such decisions will significantly deter victims further from reporting and/or voicing their abuse; thus placing women and children at further risk of significant harm.”
The letter questioned whether international standards entitled lawyers to protection so they could perform their professional functions were being breached, and argued too that some of the problems were facilitated by the absence of specific references to misogyny and sexism, “as well as gender-based discrimination perpetrated by barristers”, within the BSB’s code of conduct.
“There is a similar gap in the BSB social media guidance of 20 September 2023. It is concerning that such gaps exist despite the objectives outlined in the Legal Services Act of 2007 which aims to protect and promote the public interest and improve access to justice.
“A gender-responsive approach to these objectives would prompt more sustained approach to addressing gender-based violence against barristers particularly in relation to the representation of cases of violence against women within the justice system.”
The authors concluded by asking the government for views on the issues raised and measures being taken by the BSB in relation to them.
In its response, the UK government declined to comment in relation to the BSB and its investigations, saying it would be “inappropriate for government ministers or officials to comment or intervene on any individual cases, complaints or disciplinary proceedings, such as Dr Proudman’s”.
It said merely that “anyone desiring information about a case” could email the BSB, while Dr Proudman could submit a complaint to the regulator if she was unhappy with how her case was being handled.
On the broader question raised in the letter of strengthening the protection of women and girls from online violence, the government sought to reassure the rapporteurs that it has taken “a firm approach and multiple courses of action to tackle violence against women and girls, including crimes perpetrated online” through the Online Safety Act 2023.
Leave a Comment