Chapter 8
Women, violence and protest in times of COVID-19
Introduction
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought issues of gender and violence – domestic and political – to the forefront, alongside issues of women’s rights to reproductive health care and choices. This is coupled with, of course, the right to protest to protect these freedoms and choices. The large-scale impact of domestic violence during the pandemic – to take one example – highlights this. Cumulatively, however, these issues have been thrown to the front of the public conscience, highlighting the acutely gendered nature of the pandemic itself and its long-lasting gendered impacts.
There are a wealth of issues concerning women’s rights in times of COVID-19. Whilst the predominant focus has fallen on the reporting of domestic violence, there are ‘untold’ narratives about how laws and regulations are used to further restrict women’s rights in times of pandemic; the role and remit of emergency legislative measures; women’s activism – including online (and offline) protest – to protect their rights in times of pandemic; and the role of women politicians in drawing attention to these issues, not to mention the backlash that is received as a result. The increased dependency on online tools for communication and access to everyday essentials during varying and numerous periods of restricted physical movement has given rise to significant tranches of online violence and abuse that have been directed at women for daring to raise issues connected to women’s rights in the midst of a global pandemic.
Whilst progress pre-COVID was being made towards gender equality, the pandemic has disrupted both this progress and the broader gender equality agendas – not least, the commitments expressed in the Sustainable Development Goals. That said, it has also presented a unique opportunity to ‘challenge’ both the ways in which things are done and how rights have been used – and abused. The pandemic has shown a regression in terms of women’s rights, yet at the same time it has illustrated that some women are much more prepared to fight for their rights, irrespective of the health and personal risks involved. Consequently, whilst the pandemic is a marker in time for the damage done to gender equality, it is also an indicator of the resilience of women and their commitment to fighting for their rights – and fundamental rights, too.
Drawing on experiences of the pandemic, this chapter explores the gendered dimensions of violence and protest during COVID-19, focusing on the activism of women and the resultant backlash, all considered from perspectives of violence against women. It brings together three distinct but interconnected themes: women’s rights; protest; and the impact of COVID-19 on both rights and protest. Whilst the predominant focus of the chapter falls on law and rights, we situate the discussion within the broader socio-political and global context of the events which took place during the COVID-19 pandemic. We examine examples of (mis)uses of the law as well as women’s activism in response to them across the UK, in Poland, Argentina, Namibia, Malta and on social media. We illustrate women’s role in advocating for their rights in times of unprecedented disruption (COVID-19) which exacerbated other phenomena such as the global rise in online violence against women and anti-gender propaganda. As such, the discussion presented here positions legal developments during the COVID-19 pandemic not only within the discipline of legal studies but also in politics and gender studies.
Women’s rights and COVID-19: gendering the pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant detrimental impact on the progressive realization of women’s rights and gender equality, putting a halt to the – admittedly limited – progress made towards realizing these goals. According to the United Nations (UN) Population Fund (UNFPA 2020), the pandemic is likely to cause a one-third reduction in the progress towards ending gender-based violence (GBV)1 by 2030 – a target set by the UN Sustainable Development Goals agenda – with a predicted additional 15 million cases involving GBV globally for every three months of lockdown.
It is undoubtedly true that the pandemic has impacted on everybody – albeit in different ways and to varying degrees. However, it is essential to emphasize that the impact of the pandemic is highly gendered, showing a clear gender differential and disproportionate impact on women (Eurofound 2020). Whilst emerging sex-disaggregated data suggests higher mortality rates amongst men infected by COVID-19 (Global Health 50/50 n.d.), gendered dimensions of COVID-19 are far from limited to this perspective alone. The International Labour Organization (2020, 9) has noted the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on women’s employment, especially in sectors affected by the crisis (e.g. retail, hospitality, arts and entertainment, domestic work), whilst highlighting the additional risks of exposure and burdens placed on health and social workers, the majority of whom (more than 70 per cent) are women (10). Furthermore, the closure of schools and childcare services, as well as disruptions to long-term care provision, have reportedly heightened care burdens for women who, even outside the time of pandemic, carry out approximately three-quarters of all unpaid care work (Bahn, Cohen and van der Meulen Rodgers 2020; Eurofound 2020, 23–4; International Labour Organization 2020, 10). For instance, a study by Eurofound (2020, 23) suggests that on average across EU Member States (EU27), women have been more involved in housework and childcare than men, with the largest difference in hours spent on childcare being reported in the Netherlands – forty-nine hours for women compared to twenty-three hours for men.
Violence against women and the COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the global problem of violence against women (VAW), especially intimate partner violence and/or domestic violence, but also femicides. Alarmingly, between 28 February 2020 and 13 April 2020 more women were murdered in Mexico than died due to COVID-19 (Castellanos 2020), with many other Latin American countries reporting similar rises in femicide (Lopez 2020). Whilst VAW – and gender-based violence generally – was a significant problem prior to the pandemic, the notable rise in reported cases of VAW and domestic violence across the globe which coincided with periods of lockdown has prompted the UN Women (n.d.) to refer to it as a ‘Shadow Pandemic’.
Domestic and intimate partner violence
The Coronavirus restrictions on movement have put women who have already been in abusive relationships (intimate partner or domestic) in a position where they are forced to be in isolation with their abuser(s), making it more difficult to seek support and report the abuse. Combined with exacerbating factors such as restrictions on movement, likely reduction in income and limited access to support services, this has put many women in a particularly precarious and vulnerable position, frequently with reduced ability to leave their abusers (Council of Europe 2020). The significant rise in cases of domestic and intimate partner violence is far from anecdotal, with emerging data strongly supporting the existence of heightened patterns of violence since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and during periods of lockdown. In the UK alone, the 24-hour National Domestic Abuse Helpline, run by Refuge, reported a 65 per cent increase in logged reports of domestic violence between April and June 2020, with a further 700 per cent increase in visits to their Helpline website (Office of National Statistics 2020). A notable rise has been recorded in other countries not only across Europe (Gunka and Snitsar 2020) but also worldwide (UN Women n.d.), prompting the UN Secretary-General to call on states to adopt measures to address the ‘horrifying surge in domestic violence cases’ affecting women and girls (UN News 2020).
The role of technology in the context of domestic and intimate partner abuse has also been highlighted (UN Women n.d.). The increased reliance on the Internet, online services and smart devices during the pandemic has resulted in the growth of technologically facilitated violence against women (TFVAW) (Barker and Jurasz 2020a). Technologically facilitated forms of coercion, control and abuse (e.g. monitoring online communications, disabling location services) have been on the rise since the start of the pandemic. For instance, the Web Foundation (2020) noted the increase in non-consensual sharing of images – mostly within the intimate partner violence context – which aims at threatening and controlling women. Whilst using image-based abuse as a means of intimidating, coercing, controlling and shaming was common prior to the pandemic outbreak, the socioeconomic conditions which have arisen as a result of it have been a significant aggravating factor in exacerbating abusive behaviours. This is echoed by reports from charities and helplines, which have noted a large increase in reported cases involving such abuse (Price 2020). However, TFVAW during the pandemic has not been limited to domestic/intimate partner contexts. A number of other forms of TFVAW – including death and rape threats, stalking, harassment and hostile, often misogynistic (Barker and Jurasz 2019) violence, which saw heightened levels before the pandemic – have manifested themselves in a backlash against those women campaigning for women’s rights during the pandemic (Phillips 2020). We discuss this further below.
Furthermore, the surge in cases involving online abuse and TFVAW exposed the precarity of support services available to the victims of such abuse. The majority of these services – including online chat services, domestic violence hotlines and domestic violence apps – by their very nature require access to a phone, smartphone or another electronic communications device (Barker and Jurasz 2020a, 4). In many cases, the sole reliance on technology as a means of accessing support services has also highlighted the issue of pre-existing economic inequalities, the digital gender divide and digital exclusion, which are particularly felt by women.2 In addition, given lockdown restrictions around the world, support services have also altered the ways in which they provide some of their support – specifically including online provision3 – making situations where there are digital transgressions (such as digital coercion and control) even more difficult to address.4 The combination of these factors has had the very real effect of cutting off digital support services for victims of domestic violence, meaning that the technology once relied upon as a means of support in turn became a further tool of the violence.
Sexual and reproductive rights
Violence against women during the pandemic was particularly visible in the severe limitations on – and abuse of – their sexual and reproductive rights. Women’s reproductive choices during the COVID-19 pandemic have been disrupted on an unprecedented scale, with changes in the access to and provision of health care (Barker and Jurasz 2020b). For instance, emerging studies (Kotlar et al. 2021) suggest that COVID-19 has had a significant impact on women’s health (UNFPA 2021), especially in maternal and perinatal contexts. A decline in maternal outcomes has been reported on a global scale (Chmielewska et al. 2021). Sexual and reproductive health needs have been severely affected, limiting women’s access to reproductive health care and their ability to exercise their reproductive rights, including complete and regular provision of antenatal care (UN General Assembly 2020, para 73). Whilst some governments have prioritized continuation of adequate access to sexual and reproductive health services, others have not only deprioritized this objective, but also taken proactive measures to change the law to further restrict women’s (already fragile) rights in this domain. This was particularly observed in relation to abortion, especially in countries that already had restrictive laws concerning termination of pregnancy. As noted by the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences, ‘some Governments have sought to take advantage of the crisis by restricting those [reproductive] rights and are creating new barriers to access to abortion services by deeming it a non-essential medical procedure’ (para 72). For instance, in countries such as Malta, where abortion is illegal, travel restrictions caused by COVID-19 further exacerbated the existing barriers to women exercising their reproductive rights and being able to travel abroad for abortion. In March and April 2020 alone, the UK-based charity Abortion Support Network noted a 2.3 times increase in the number of requests for help from women in Malta, with Women on Web (a Dutch charity providing abortion pills) reporting that at least sixty-three women from Malta contacted the organization to seek help in the same period (Doctors for Choice 2020).
In the UK, the outbreak of the pandemic prompted consideration of how to provide easy and safe access to abortion for women. However, the provision of access to abortion differed between devolved jurisdictions. In England, the circumstances of the pandemic resulted in a change of regulations allowing women to receive abortion pills via the post for terminations up to ten weeks after gestation (Department of Health and Social Care 2020). The decision of the Department of Health and Social Care was welcomed with enthusiasm by leading human rights organizations (Margolis 2020) and was further endorsed by leading expert bodies such as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (2020). This decision was mirrored by the Welsh Government (2020). In Scotland, similar measures were put in place for termination of pregnancy up to eleven weeks and six days, enabling women to carry out early medical abortions at home and, notably, at a more advanced time of gestation than in England and Wales (Scottish Government 2020a). In Northern Ireland, in contrast, despite abortion being legalized as of 31 March 2020, the impact of the pandemic meant that effective access to abortion for women in Northern Ireland has been further delayed. Unlike the rest of the UK, taking mifepristone at home is not allowed under the NI Regulations, making it impossible for women to carry out early medical abortions at home (Bracke 2021). Although the UK experience of ensuring access to abortion amidst the pandemic outbreak has been largely positively received, in the vast majority of countries this aspect of women’s reproductive rights has not received similar attention. To the contrary, women have not only faced yet another battle to protect their existing reproductive rights but also an unforeseen fight against arbitrary decisions by authorities to use the pandemic to further restrict this aspect of their rights.
The backlash
The time of the COVID-19 pandemic has been characterized by a huge backlash against women’s rights worldwide. The UN Secretary-General, António Guterres, has encapsulated this widespread and significant detrimental impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on women and girls by calling it ‘a crisis with a woman’s face’ (Guterres 2021). As global attention has been focusing on tackling the virus and combating complex crises arising from it, more insidious tactics have been deployed by some governments to capitalize on the fragility of the situation and to curtail women’s rights. This once again demonstrates the power of law to encroach upon women’s rights and freedoms.5
In a number of countries, the law (including pandemic-related emergency powers) has been used to oppress women and limit their rights. For instance, the far-right populist government in Poland has been attempting to use the COVID-19 situation not only to force through new laws severely restricting women’s access to abortion, but also to withdraw from the Council of Europe Istanbul Convention. This is a leading treaty on violence against women ratified by Poland in 2015, which Deputy Justice Minister Marcin Romanowski called ‘neomarxist propaganda’ and ‘gender gibberish’.6 In England and Wales, the introduction of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 (hereafter PCSCB 2021) saw a public outcry over the curtailment of rights to peaceful protest and extension of police powers. For instance, the Bill introduced higher sentences for criminal damage to a statue than those applicable to cases of sexual assault or rape. The protests from a number of women’s groups and the general public were particularly strong given that the introduction of the Bill coincided with the tragic death of Sarah Everard – a young woman abducted, raped and murdered by a police officer whilst walking to her home in London.
The pandemic has also unveiled other forms of backlash against women organizing and protesting. Zoombombing of events – such as those to celebrate International Women’s Day – has become a relatively common occurrence, with pornographic, misogynistic and sexist comments and images disrupting online meetings (Little 2021; Elmer, Burton and Neville 2020) and even university classes (Redden 2020). Furthermore, women’s organizing efforts, especially in relation to protests concerning limitations on sexual and reproductive rights during the pandemic, have been subverted by the appropriation of the slogan ‘my body, my choice’ by anti-vaccination and anti-masks protesters. The hijacking of this landmark reproductive rights movement slogan is particularly detrimental in the specific context of the pandemic. Not only does it undermine decades of women’s fight for securing sexual and reproductive rights, but it also depreciates the current struggle to secure such rights amidst pandemic-related restrictions by spreading vaccine misinformation both online and offline.
Protest and the COVID–19 pandemic: a new normal of disruption?
The UK government made amendments to the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 (hereafter PH(CD)A 1984) on 5 March 2020, enshrining a legal obligation on doctors to report cases of COVID-19. These changes seemed, if not innocuous, then precautionary at that point in the unfolding of the global pandemic. What was – and remains – less innocuous is the profound impact of the pandemic, and the resultant legal restrictions the UK government and devolved legislatures would introduce in the eighteen months following that day in early March.
Pandemic disruption to freedoms: violence and protest during COVID-19
The raft of emergency legislation ostensibly driven by the need to manage the COVID-19 outbreak with a singular focus impacted numerous freedoms that have rarely been at the forefront of everyday thinking in the UK. The resulting powers granted under the PH(CD)A 1984 are all designed to allow for – or, more cynically, circumvent – the usual routes of legislative (and governmental) scrutiny (Barker, Uribe-Jongbloed and Scholz 2021, 125–6) in the pursuit of responding to something representing a ‘serious and imminent threat to public health’ (PH(CD)A 1984 s 45C). These necessary measures allowed relevant government ministers to table legislative regulations without the usual parliamentary scrutiny in the interests of speed.
This included, in England,7 legislation that imposed movement restrictions8 and limited the number of people permitted to meet, both indoors and outdoors. Similar legislation was tabled in Scotland to impose equivalent limitations, preventing people from leaving their homes without ‘reasonable excuse’,9 and again limiting the number of people permitted to meet.10 As the pandemic unfolded, permitted gatherings and numbers of people allowed at gatherings continued to be limited. For instance, the Scottish government position was to consistently categorize protests and demonstrations as outdoor organized events (Scottish Government 2020c). In categorizing these events as ‘outdoor’, and introducing a numbers cap on attendees, the Scottish government was able to mandate separate guidance for protests and demonstrations (Scottish Government 2021). Consequently, only when the pandemic limitations reached the stage of easing, and reduced limitations were imposed, were demonstrations, protests and ‘organized’ outdoor events permitted. Even then, they were only permitted in areas in which limitations on movement had been eased.11 These restrictions had an impact on all manner of planned protests, but included gatherings organized by women to advocate for women’s rights. To take but one of many examples, the Women’s March Foundation’s annual LA Women’s March was cancelled in January 2021 because of COVID-19 concerns (CBSLA Staff 2021). Similarly, in England (and Scotland) the movement restrictions prevented leaving home for protest. This was not one of the ‘reasonable excuses’ for leaving home, and as such was illegal. This approach was controversial, with numerous MPs and non-profits Liberty and Big Brother Watch all calling for the right to protest to be protected, even during lockdown (Stone 2021).
The disruption of the norms of being able to meet, move and gather in large numbers is something that has sparked much debate, not least because of the interference with the human rights and fundamental freedoms that have become established parts of everyday life. The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) provides protection for both freedom of expression (Article 10) and the right to assembly (Article 11), but both of these rights were ‘interfered with’ during the most critical stages of the pandemic. The justification for this was in terms of prioritizing the competing right to life (Article 2) given the public health crisis. That said, there is a clear need to balance the Article 10 and 11 rights with those of Article 2. This balance is arguably more pressing given the need to protest, share opinion – including criticism – and demonstrate to protect other fundamental freedoms during periods in which the usual routes for scrutiny and accountability are not available. Hickman, Dixon and Jones (2020), for instance, suggest that there are elements of the Coronavirus Regulations that are unlawful, making the legitimacy of the interference with fundamental rights questionable. These concerns resonate with the outcry from Human Rights Watch (2021a) over the abuse of free speech rights and protections that have been bundled up with overreaching legislation and restrictions. They also accord with the views of Amnesty International (2020b, 2020c), which has reported on the significant number of human rights violations facilitated under the guise of COVID-19 law enforcement. In at least ten countries, government authorities have banned or dispersed protests targeting COVID-19 restrictions, or have used such restrictions to prevent gatherings unrelated to COVID-19 on the basis of social distancing requirements (Human Rights Watch 2021a). The disrupted normality of COVID-19 emergency powers and public health justifications provides a convenient reason for interfering with protest, COVID-related or otherwise.
While not the only measures introduced to prioritize public health, restrictions on gatherings and movement are two of the most obstructive and restrictive for everyday life that have been endured in the periods of lockdown during the pandemic. This is especially the case for women, given the resulting consequences for unpaid labour and for women’s safety – both inside the home and elsewhere – as well as the restricted access to health care and reproductive choices.
The combination of disrupted normality and a significant regression in women’s rights is directly attributable to the pandemic. This is combined with the way in which the restrictions are rooted in pre-pandemic structural inequalities. The impact on women has been profound, with increased inequalities undoing decades of work to enhance women’s rights, a point highlighted by the UN Secretary-General on International Women’s Day: ‘even as women have played critical roles during the pandemic, we have seen a roll-back in hard-won advances in women’s rights. This regression harms women and girls above all’ (UN Women 2021). More fundamentally, the impact on women during COVID-19 has been twofold: first, the restrictions have impacted exercising and benefitting from the advances in women’s rights, but second, there has also been a significant interference with the ability to protest against limitations on women’s rights, and to campaign for changes to enhance them. At the very time when rights have been at the heart of discussions in the UK and beyond, the ability of women to contribute to that dialogue, and challenge the narrative around them, has been removed by the limitations on protest and gathering.
These limitations have, necessarily, forced women and women’s groups to mobilize in different ways and through different channels. The increased time spent at home and connected to the Internet, for example, has provided additional and alternative means of protesting for those with the economic power to utilize them, albeit not without risk.
Women, protest and violence: a COVID-19 cocktail?
The killing of Sarah Everard by a serving police officer not only triggered an outcry over VAW, but also a national outpouring of broader concerns about the ways in which women’s and girls’ safety is a constant theme. While this was not pandemic-specific, it quickly became embroiled in discussions about protest and women’s public safety, as well as about VAW. The gatherings, vigils and protests that followed, as part of what has been described by government adviser on VAW Nimco Ali as ‘collective grief’ (Dodd et al. 2021), highlight not only the difficulty women face when campaigning for their safety in everyday situations, but also the challenges of doing so during the pandemic itself. Everard’s killing also sparked an outcry about the policing of VAW, given that it was a serving police officer who was charged with her murder. This was exacerbated through the (mis)handled policing of the vigils and gatherings planned in her memory, with an initial attempt to obtain a ruling (from the High Court) indicating that a gathering was not in contravention of the Coronavirus Regulations and was permitted as an exercise of fundamental rights. While the High Court refused to say it could proceed, it also refused to confirm that the Metropolitan Police’s policy of prohibiting all protests was unlawful (Dodd et al. 2021). The judicial ‘fence-sitting’ by Mr Justice Holgate did little to ease the feeling that women were being silenced, although it did not entirely prevent the vigil from being held (BBC News 2021a; Dearden and Dalto n 2021).
Despite the official cancellation of the vigil, members of the public nonetheless exercised their right to protest, and gathered as initially planned, with nine women being arrested for breaching Coronavirus Regulations once the police intervened (HMICFRS 2021). Media coverage of the arrests and dispersal of the women gathered at the vigil reinforces the impression that arresting and moving attendees was not done to enforce the movement and gathering restrictions, but rather to silence women and to change the narrative of the debate, thus subverting broader debates about women’s rights and safety. The imagery of male police officers using force to arrest women who were commemorating a woman murdered by a male police officer is a stark reminder of the safety concerns triggered by the Everard killing initially. The fallout from the policing of the vigil, the silencing of women and the prevention of them exercising their fundamental rights drew significant outcry, with calls for Cressida Dick, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police Service, to resign over the management of the gathering. The Joint Committee on Human Rights (2021) criticized the law and the handling of the policing days later, and sixty MPs advocated for an amendment to the legislation to allow protests, irrespective of COVID-19 limitations (Stone 2021).
The difficulties of protest during the pandemic, especially because of the ways in which it has been policed, have inevitably led to alternative modes of gathering. In Scotland, for instance, online vigils (BBC News 2021b) rather than physical ones were arranged to ensure the safety of women when marking the safety of other women. While this protects the physical safety (at least temporarily) of women in preventing the physical spread of COVID-19, it does little to prevent a different pandemic – that of online violence – from spreading rampantly, and with significant impacts. The use of technology as a ‘default’ alternative causes significant problems, too, exposing women to different risks, including those of online abuse, of Zoombombing, of being traced and digitally stalked and of being monitored through smart technologies in the home. It is therefore something of a myth to suggest that protesting online is safer than offline, given the significant harms arising from online attacks and the persistent tranches of abusive comments being received. The impacts of online and digital violence are also significant, and have also increased during the pandemic.
The interplay between protest, restriction, violence against women and the resulting outcry was particularly evident at the peak of the lockdown period in England during March 2021. The restrictions on movement were prolonged but also coincided with other factors: the ongoing heightened nature of risks of violence to women, as well as parliamentary moves to amend protest rights in non-emergency times. These issues all came together at the time of the fallout from the Sarah Everard killing and resultant vigil (Dodd et al. 2021), combined with the passage through Parliament of the PCSCB 2021.
The debates over the PCSCB 2021 were profound, more so because of the Everard killing, vigil and policing, and the stark warnings of the impact and scale of VAW. The combination of the events, together with the timing of law reform to further restrict protest (PCSCB 2021s 59), reflects a staggering lack of sensitivity, not just for women’s safety, but for the damage to women’s rights too. While the timings of the PCSCB 2021 and the Everard killing were inadvertent, one has compounded the other at the very time when women’s rights and safety were at the forefront of national debate.
These concerns were particularly prevalent in the debates in Parliament concerning the Bill, not least because of the lack of consideration of women, and women’s safety within it. MPs from all political parties were critical of the Bill, especially for the lack of protections for the right to protest, and for women’s rights within the criminal justice system. Stephanie Peacock MP highlighted the shortcomings, remarking that: ‘It [the PCSCB 2021] does not mention violence against women once. It fails to address the issue, yet it proposes to give the police extra powers and the right to limit peaceful protest.’12 This point was reiterated by Charlotte Nichols MP13 and others, with Apsana Begum MP remarking that: ‘The impact of this Bill will be felt ... by women, unable to protest at the everyday violence they face.’14 Anne Mclaughlin highlighted the more pervasive problems of legislation designed to limit the ways in which protest can be held, reflecting on the Everard vigil and the dangers that exacerbated that debacle:
Given the context of Clapham Common on Saturday night, surely sensitivity should have been the watchword. I cannot imagine how frightened some of the women must have been, particularly given the circumstances. They have just had an alarming reminder that the police uniform does not give a cast-iron guarantee of safety and some of them find themselves on the ground, handcuffed, with knees on their back, flowers for Sarah [Everard] trampled on, legs held down and unable to move at the hands of the police. Sarah Everard was just walking home; these women were just expressing their grief. If the current powers to curb protest can lead to what happened on Saturday night, imagine how much worse it will get if this legislation goes through.15
The cocktail of police aggression, women’s safety and protest limitations combined potently here to highlight the impact of the pandemic on women’s rights and equality – not only offline, but also online. The proposed s 59 of the PCSCB 2021 was designed to replace the common law offence of public nuisance.16 However, it had remarkable similarities to the limitations imposed through the Coronavirus restrictions – invoking a ‘reasonable excuse’ defence where there was a prosecution under the proposed new offence (PCSCB 2021 s 59(3)). Given the parallels to the pandemic restrictions on protest, and the striking similarity in their application, it is little wonder that there was significant outcry. That said, the PCSCB 2021 went further than the Coronavirus Regulations limitations because it was not time-limited. Rather, it was reflective of a more permanent change. Rozenberg (2021) suggested the proposed reform was ‘In principle, a good thing’, yet others, including Liberty (2021, 1), described it as a ‘concerted attack on the right to protest’. The breadth of the proposed new offence suggested that these powers can – and will – be used to stifle any kind of protest. Given the damage which was caused to fundamental rights, to protest, to policing and to women in March 2021, the legislation was particularly problematic. It offers nothing in the way of protection for women’s rights and women’s campaigning, serving instead to echo notions of ‘disaster patriarchy’ (p. v).
Gendering protest during the COVID-19 pandemic
In spite of the difficulties posed by the (ab)use of law to curtail women’s rights, the pandemic and periods of lockdown have also been marked by remarkable resilience on the part of women across the world, as evidenced by their efforts to mobilize and organize to fight for and defend rights, freedoms and democratic values. Women’s protests – both online and offline – have rapidly become a key tool in holding governments to account for their actions and ensuring scrutiny for heightened powers, especially in light of many parliaments shutting down due to the pandemic. Although many of the protests had a clear focus on women’s rights – such as anti-femicide protests in Namibia (#ShutItAllDown) (Ossenbrink 2020) or protests in Argentina to pressure the government to decriminalize abortion (Fernández Anderson 2020) – women’s protests have also become symbols of resistance and have embodied the fight for democratic values and freedoms of others. For example, the Polish Women’s Strike (Ogólnopolski Strajk Kobiet17), which started as a pro-abortion/reproductive rights movement, has become a much broader movement with a strong social mission and increasing social support across the political spectrum.18 Whilst equality and women’s rights remain central to the work of the Polish Women’s Strike, the organization has adopted a thematic approach to its demands and proposals directed at the Polish government. This includes (but is not limited to) access to health care, discrimination against LGBTQI+ persons, labour conditions, climate change, education and a free media.19
The pandemic has also prompted different ways of mobilizing and organizing protests – especially online. Expanded online mobilization, as well as use of social media including Twitter, Instagram and Facebook, has enabled women to more efficiently organize both locally and globally, especially amidst various pandemic-related restrictions on physical protest (see, e.g., Alcoba 2020). The use of hashtags on social media (e.g. #NiUnaMas, #ReclaimTheStreets), often accompanied by short videos, pictures and messages expressing support for women’s strikes, have been a testament to the scale of women’s movements and the contemporary significance of this work. However, protesting during the pandemic has also come at a significant personal cost to the protesters. For example, in Poland many protesting women have been harassed, threatened (both online and offline), subjected to hate20 and even detained on bogus charges for taking to the streets to oppose governmental policies and proposed changes to the law (Human Rights Watch 2021b). The continuous attempts of the authorities to suppress protests through the use of excessive force, detention and various harassment measures (Amnesty International 2020a) highlight the threats faced by protesters and human rights defenders. It also demonstrates the authorities’ determination to crack down on the right to peaceful protest (Human Rights Watch 2021b).
Conclusion
The experience of the COVID-19 pandemic has undoubtedly brought to the fore the scale of social inequalities and their continuing impact on the lives of women. It has also reaffirmed points which have been made by feminist movements for decades with regard to the ‘hidden’ value (and cost) of women’s work, especially in care, as well as the need to address structural causes of inequalities and violence against women. The unprecedented times of COVID-19 have highlighted the amount of work and the interventions – at international, regional, state and local levels – that still need to be done to ensure that women’s rights are effectively protected at all times.
Furthermore, the striking differences in states’ approaches to women’s rights and tackling violence against women in times of pandemic highlight the gendered dimensions of law and politics, and the power of law in curtailing women’s rights. One of the key ‘lessons learned’ during the pandemic is the duality of the power of law. Whilst the law is crucial in upholding rights and liberties (especially in times of crisis), it can equally be abused by authorities and governments to curtail the rights and freedoms it is empowered to protect in the first place. Women’s rights occupy a very frail place within this dynamic.
As such, the right to protest as a tool for accountability against the abuse of power by governments is more important than ever. Women’s mobilization, organization and protests throughout the pandemic (and in spite of it) have been crucial in upholding women’s rights and minimizing the negative impact on gender equality. That said, women’s protests have become much more than just a fight for women’s rights. They have become a lasting symbol of the fight for freedoms and democracy for everyone.
Notes
1. Throughout this chapter, the terms gender-based violence and violence against women are used. Violence against women is understood here as a form of gender-based violence, as categorized by the CEDAW Committee and the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence 2011 (the Istanbul Convention: Preamble and Article 3(a)).
2. For example, in low- and middle-income countries, 234 million women are unable to connect to the Internet and 143 million fewer women own a mobile phone compared with men. See: GSMA (2021).
3. For instance, Women’s Aid is using online chat options. See: Women’s Aid (2020).
4. This problem is something that is not exclusive to the UK or Europe, and has been widely witnessed elsewhere: Marganski and Melander (2020).
5. The argument presented here draws on the critique of the law and legal system put forward by Carol Smart (1989).
6. https://twitter.com/MarRomanowski/status/1260469909189988353?s=20.
7. Legal regulations having equivalent effect were introduced through devolved legislatures.
8. The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020, ss 6–7. These regulations came into force on 26 March 2020, at 1pm.
9. The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (revoked) SI 2020/103, s 6.
10. The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (revoked) SI 2020/103, s 8.
11. In Scotland, demonstrations, protests and mass gatherings were permitted only once a locality reached one of levels 0–3 in terms of restriction. See Scottish Government (2020b).
12. Hansard, HC Col 90, 15 March 2021.
13. Hansard, HC Col 109, 15 March 2021.
14. Hansard, HC Col 106, 15 March 2021.
15. Hansard, HC Col 80, 15 March 2021.
16. The PCSCB 2021 received Royal Assent on 28 April 2022.
18. Social support for the Polish Women’s Strike reached nearly 70 per cent in January 2021, including approximately 1 in 3 supporters of the ruling far-right Peace and Justice party. See Karwowska (2021).
19. https://www.loomio.org/osk.
20. For example, Marta Lempart, Polish activist and the founder of the Polish Women’s Strike, has openly spoken about the harrowing wave of online and offline hate received due to her involvement with the movement as well as the significant personal and economic consequences of her activism (IPPF 2021).
References
Alcoba, N. (2020) ‘Argentina’s abortion campaign launches virtual events to revitalise movement’ (The Guardian, 28 May) https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/may/28/argentina-abortion-activism-coronavirus-government.
Amnesty International (2020a) ‘Poland: the extraordinary wave of protests across the country should be protected not attacked’ (20 November) https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur37/3370/2020/en/.
Amnesty International (2020b) ‘COVID-19 crackdowns: police abuse and the global pandemic’ (17 December) https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/act30/3443/2020/en/.
Amnesty International (2020c) ‘COVID-19: authorities commit human rights abuses in 60 countries under pretext of controlling pandemic – new report’ (17 December) https://www.amnesty.org.uk/press-releases/covid-19-authorities-commit-human-rights-abuses-60-countries-under-pretext.
Bahn, K., J. Cohen and Y. van der Meulen Rodgers (2020) ‘A feminist perspective on COVID-19 and the value of care work globally’ 27 Gender, Work and Organisation 6959.
Barker, K. and O. Jurasz (2019) Online Misogyny as a Hate Crime: A Challenge for Legal Regulation? London: Routledge.
Barker, K. and O. Jurasz (2020a) ‘Submission of evidence on COVID-19 and the increase of domestic violence against women to the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Its Causes and Consequences’, Dr Dubravka Šimonović’ (June 2020) http://oro.open.ac.uk/78667/.
Barker, K. and O. Jurasz (2020b) ‘Women’s rights and COVID-19’ (OU News, 18 July) http://law-school.open.ac.uk/news/women.
Barker, K., E. Uribe-Jongbloed and T. Scholz (2021) ‘COVID-19 and the “myriad”: a comparative assessment of emergency responses from Europe and South America’ 1(1) Legalities 116–43.
BBC News (2021a) ‘Sarah Everard vigil organisers lose court challenge’ (12 March) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56379248.
BBC News (2021b) ‘Sarah Everard vigil at Holyrood cancelled after Covid warnings’ (12 March) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-56380121.
Bracke, S. (2021) ‘Current abortion provision in Northern Ireland’ (BMJ Sexual & Reproductive Health Blog, 13 January) https://blogs.bmj.com/bmjsrh/2021/01/13/current-abortion-provision-in-northern-ireland/.
Castellanos, L. (2020) ‘Opinión: México abandona a las mujeres violentadas en esta contingencia’ (The Washington Post, 13 April) https://www.washingtonpost.com/es/post-opinion/2020/04/13/mexico-abandona-las-mujeres-violentadas-en-esta-contingencia/.
CBSLA Staff (2021) ‘Women’s March LA cancelled due to COVID-19 pandemic and national unrest’ (CBS Los Angeles, 12 January) https://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2021/01/12/womens-march-la-canceled-covid/.
Chmielewska, B., I. Barratt, R. Townsend, E. Kalafat, J. van der Meulen, I. Gurol-Urganci et al. (2021) ‘Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and perinatal outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis’ (The Lancet, 31 March) https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(21)00079-6/fulltext.
Council of Europe (2020) ‘For many women and children, the home is not a safe place’, Statement by the president of GREVIO, Marceline Naudi, on the need to uphold the standards of the Istanbul Convention in times of a Pandemic (24 March) https://rm.coe.int/grevio-statement-covid-24-march-2020/pdfa/16809cf55e.
Dearden, L. and J. Dalton (2021) ‘Sarah Everard: High Court refuses to intervene over police attempt to ban Reclaim These Streets vigils’ (The Independent, 12 March) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sarah-everard-vigil-reclaim-streets-court-police-b1816611.html.
Department of Health and Social Care (2020) ‘Temporary approval of home use for both stages of early medical abortion’ (30 March) https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/temporary-approval-of-home-use-for-both-stages-of-early-medical-abortion--2.
Doctors for Choice (2020) ‘Exclusive: requests for abortion help from Maltese women surge during pandemic’ (11 May) https://www.doctorsforchoice.mt/post/exclusive-requests-for-abortion-help-from-maltese-women-surge-during-pandemic.
Dodd, V., A. Topping, H. Stewart and L. Brooks (2021) ‘Police told they cannot waive Covid rules for Sarah Everard vigils’ (The Guardian, 12 March) https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/mar/12/police-told-they-cannot-waive-covid-rules-for-sarah-everard-vigils.
Elmer, G., A. G. Burton and S. J. Neville (2020) ‘Zoom-bombings disrupt online events with racist and misogynist attacks’ (The Conversation, 9 June) https://theconversation.com/zoom-bombings-disrupt-online-events-with-racist-and-misogynist-attacks-138389.
Eurofound (2020) ‘Living, working and COVID-19’, COVID-19 series, Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg www.eurofound.europa.eu/sites/default/files/ef_publication/field_ef_ document/ef20059en.pdf.
Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare (2020) ‘RCOG and FSRH press statement on government’s decision to reinstate telemedicine for abortion care’ (30 March) https://www.fsrh.org/news/rcog-fsrh-press-statement-telemedicine-abortion-covid19/.
Fernández Anderson, C. (2020) ‘Activists keep Argentina’s abortion reform on the agenda despite Covid19’ (nacla, 9 July) https://nacla.org/news/2020/07/08/argentina-abortion-reform-covid.
Global Health 50/50, ‘The COVID-19 Sex-Disaggregated Data Tracker’ https://globalhealth5050.org/the-sex-gender-and-covid-19-project/.
GSMA (2021) Connected Women. The Mobile Gender Gap Report 2021 (February) https://www.gsma.com/r/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/The-Mobile-Gender-Gap-Report-2021.pdf.
Gunka, C. and M. Snitsar (2020) ‘The shame or the shining: Covid19’s trap of domestic violence in France and Russia’ (International Bar Association, 6 August) https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=74b42fab-a8ba-4edd-8543-d97c2496c32f#1.
Guterres, A. (2021) ‘A crisis with a woman’s face’ (UN Secretary-General, 4 March) https://www.un.org/sg/en/content/sg/articles/2021-03-04/crisis-womans-face.
Hickman, T. QC, E. Dixon and R. Jones (2020) ‘Coronavirus and civil liberties in the UK’ (Blackstone Chambers, 6 April) https://coronavirus.blackstonechambers.com/coronavirus-and-civil-liberties-uk/#_edn4.at34.
HMICFRS (2021) ‘The Sarah Everard vigil – an inspection of the Metropolitan Police Service’s policing of a vigil held in commemoration of Sarah Everard on Clapham Common on Saturday 13th March 2021’ (Justice Inspectorates, 30 March) https://www.justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmicfrs/publication-html/inspection-metropolitan-police-services-policing-of-vigil-commemorating-sarah-everard-clapham-common/.
Human Rights Watch (2021a) ‘Covid19 triggers wave of free speech abuse – scores of countries target media, activists, medics, political opponents’ (11 February) https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/02/11/covid-19-triggers-wave-free-speech-abuse.
Human Rights Watch (2021b) ‘Poland: escalating threats to women activists’ (31 March) https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/03/31/poland-escalating-threats-women-activists.
International Labour Organization (2020) ‘ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. Fifth edition’ (30 June) https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/documents/briefingnote/wcms_749399.pdf..
IPPF (2021) ‘Marta: the freedom fighter – “the only thing I have left is to keep running”’ (IPPF Blog, 16 July) https://europe.ippf.org/stories/marta-freedom-fighter-only-thing-i-have-left-keep-running.
Joint Committee on Human Rights (2021) ‘The Government response to Covid19: freedom of assembly and the right to protest’ 17 March, HC 1328, https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/5153/documents/50935/default/.
Karwowska, A. (2021) ‘Ochronić prawa kobiet, zakończyć rządy PiS – po to Polacy popierają Strajk Kobiet’ (Gazeta Wyborcza, 26 January) https://wyborcza.pl/7,162657,26718112,ochronic-prawa-kobiet-zakonczyc-rzady-pis-po-to-polacy.html?disableRedirects=true.
Kotlar, B., E. Gerson, S. Petrillo, A. Langer and H. Tiemeier (2021) ‘The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternal and perinatal health: a scoping review’ 18 Reproductive Health 10.
Liberty (2021) ‘Liberty’s briefing on the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill for second reading in the House of Commons’ (March) https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Libertys-Briefing-on-the-Police-Crime-Sentencing-and-Courts-Bill-HoC-2nd-reading-March-2021-1.pdf.
Little, S. (2021) ‘B.C. group’s International Women’s Day event hit by racist, sexist “Zoom bomb”’ (Global News, 7 March) https://globalnews.ca/news/7682309/womens-day-zoom-bomb-sexist/.
Lopez, O. (2020) ‘Femicides in Argentina reach 10-year high under coronavirus lockdown’ (Reuters, 19 May) https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-women-trfn-idUSKBN22V05H.
Marganski, A. J. and L. Melander (2020) ‘Domestic abusers use tech that connects as a weapon during coronavirus lockdowns’ (The Conversation, 18 June) https://theconversation.com/domestic-abusers-usetech-that-connects-as-a-weapon-during-coronavirus-lockdowns-139834.
Margolis, H. (2020) ‘England leads way in UK after u-turn on COVID-19 abortion access’ (Human Rights Watch, 31 March) https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/03/31/england-leads-way-uk-after-u-turn-covid-19-abortion-access.
Office of National Statistics (2020) ‘Domestic abuse during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, England and Wales: November 2020’ https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/articles/domesticabuseduringthecoronaviruscovid19 pandemicenglandandwales/november2020#calls-for-service-for-domestic-abuse-incidents.
Ossenbrink, L. (2020) ‘Why are anti-femicide protesters taking to Namibia’s streets?’ (Al Jazeera, 13 October) https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/10/13/why-are-anti-femicide-protesters-demonstrating-in-namibia.
Phillips, J. (2020) ‘A man has been sentenced for threatening to kill me – abuse of MPs is getting worse but I don’t want to shy away from my job’ (The Independent, 22 June) https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/deaththreats-mps-abuse-democracy-coronavirus-prison-a9579571.html.
Price, H. (2020) ‘Coronavirus: “revenge porn” surge hits helpline’ (BBC News, 25 April) https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/stories-52413994.
Redden, E. (2020) ‘“Zoombombing” attacks disrupt classes’ (Inside Higher Ed,26 March) https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/03/26/zoombombers-disrupt-online-classes-racist-pornographic-content.
Rozenberg, J. (2021) ‘More than a nuisance – cause “serious inconvenience” and you’ll face 10 years in prison’ (A Lawyer Writes, 14 March) https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/more-than-a-nuisance.
Scottish Government (2020a) ‘Abortion – Covid19 – approval for mifepristone to be taken at home and other contingency measures’ (31 March) https://www.sehd.scot.nhs.uk/cmo/CMO(2020)09.pdf.
Scottish Government (2020b) ‘Strategic Framework Protection Levels’ (October 2020) https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2020/10/coronavirus-covid-19-protection-levels/documents/covid-19-protection-levels-summary-information-on-what-you-can-and-cannot-do/covid-19-protection-levels-summary-information-on-what-you-can-and-cannot-do/govscot%3Adocument/COVID-19%2Bprotection%2Blevels%2B-%2Bsummary%2Binformation%2Bon%2Bwhat%2Byou%2Bcan%2Band%2Bcannot%2Bdo.pdf.
Scottish Government (2020c) ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19): protests and demonstrations. Guidance for people organising and taking part in protests and demonstrations during the coronavirus pandemic’ (6 November; updated 6 May 2021) https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-protests-and-demonstrations/.
Scottish Government (2021) ‘Coronavirus (COVID-19) stadia and live events guidance. Guidance for local authorities and event planners’ (14 May; updated 6 August) https://www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-stadia-and-live-events-advice-for-event-organisers/.
Smart, C. (1989) The Feminism and the Power of Law. London: Routledge.
Stone, J. (2021) ‘MPs and peers call on Priti Patel to lift lockdown ban on protests’ (The Independent, 20 March) https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lockdown-protest-law-priti-patel-b1819998.html.
UNFPA (2020) ‘Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on family planning and ending gender-based violence, female genital mutilation and child marriage’ (27 April) https://www.unfpa.org/resources/impact-covid-19-pandemic-family-planning-and-ending-gender-based-violence-female-genital.
UNFPA (2021) ‘Studies show severe toll of COVID-19 on sexual and reproductive health, rights around the world’ (21 April) https://www.unfpa.org/news/studies-show-severe-toll-covid-19-sexual-and-reproductive-health-rights-around-world.
UN General Assembly (2020), Report of the Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences, Dubravka Šimonović. Intersection between the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic and the pandemic of gender-based violence against women, with a focus on domestic violence and the ‘peace in the home’ initiative (24 July) UN Doc A/75/144.
UN News (2020) ‘UN chief calls for domestic violence “ceasefire” amid “horrifying global surge”’ (6 April) https://news.un.org/en/story/2020 /04/1061052.
UN Women (n.d.) ‘The shadow pandemic: violence against women during COVID-19’ https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/in-focus-gender-equality-in-covid-19-response/violence-against-women-during-covid-19.
UN Women (2021) ‘UN Secretary-General’s message for International Women’s Day 2021’ (8 March) https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2021/3/statement-sg-international-womens-day.
Web Foundation (2020) ‘There’s a pandemic of online violence against women and girls’ (14 July) https://webfoundation.org/2020/07/theres-a-pandemic-of-online-violence-against-women-and-girls/.
Welsh Government (2020) ‘Wales approves home abortions during coronavirus crisis’ (31 March) https://gov.wales/wales-approves-home-abortions-during-coronavirus-crisis.
Women’s Aid (2020) ‘Covid19: safety advice for survivors’ (24 March) https://www.womensaid.org.uk/covid-19-coronavirus-safety-advice-for-survivors/.
Legal sources
Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul, 11 May 2011, in force 1 August 2014).
European Convention on Human Rights (Rome, 4 November 1950, in force 3 September 1953).
The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 No. 350.
The Health Protection (Coronavirus) (Restrictions) (Scotland) Regulations 2020 (revoked) SI 2020/103.
Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill 2021 (UK).
Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 c 22 (UK).