Much is being made this week of a Restriction Order put in place by the nation’s Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse, which effectively bans participants of the Inquiry’s Truth Project from speaking about the sessions. Some are calling it a gagging order of sorts and others a muddled policy which didn’t seem to include Victim and Survivor Panel Member participation, but are we right to view the Order in this light, and what does the Order actually mean for survivors and their stories?
On first inspection, it does seem as if the Inquiry is trying to suppress survivors – this has more to do with the muddled language used in the Questions and Answers document, than within the Order itself. In one paragraph in the Q&A page we are told:
“The Restriction Order is a legal ruling that prohibits public access to the Truth Project private sessions and prevents anyone from making public…
the details of the experiences shared with the Inquiry.”
That gives the distinct expression that survivors will not be able to talk about their own cases to others. And yet, further down the Q&A page, we have this paragraph:
“The Restriction Order does not prevent you from:
talking about your experience of sexual abuse with anyone else;
telling others that you wrote to the Inquiry or attended a Truth Project private session; discussing how you felt about sharing your experience with the Inquiry.”
and
“There is an exception in the Restriction Order that allows you to discuss all the details of what happened as part of the Truth Project with a therapist, counsellor or doctor.”
It’s easy to see how survivors, or anyone for that matter, might get confused about what can, and can’t be said. Jump over to the actual Order itself, and things become clearer. The Order states:
“Disclosure or publication of the identity, or any details tending to indicate the identity, of any person who has provided or intends to provide an account within the scope of the Truth Project, is prohibited, except in the following circumstances:
i. where the person making the disclosure or publication is the same person as the person who is providing or has provided the account of child sexual abuse to the Inquiry.”
Clearly then, the Order is designed to protect other survivors from having their stories discussed in the media and elsewhere without their consent.
The Order goes further – it says disclosure is also allowed where that victim or survivor consents to the Inquiry publishing an anonymous summary of what they reported to the Inquiry. The Order also says that a survivor can disclose what they said during the session to a third party, as long as they don’t also mention that they made, or did not make, the same disclosure during the Truth Project session.
And whilst this is understandable, and an attempt at allowing survivors the freedom to express themselves as far as possible without compromising other survivors, it does pose one problem in relation to the transparency of the meeting itself.
What if survivors end up discussing a visible flaw within the Inquiry? Or they challenge the Inquiry on a point of operation that could be of public interest? Or worse still, an Inquiry member says or does something wrong?
Under the Inquiries Act 2005, which is where the current Inquiry gets its power to create a Restriction Order, the legislation makes it clear that any restriction on reporting must not “inhibit the allaying of public concern.”
And yet, public concern must exist in this context, without any reassurance from the Inquiry at this time that confidentiality is to be balanced properly with an appropriate level of transparency.
Nevertheless, the Inquiry could create that balance by ensuring that all meetings are recorded formally, and sign off from every participant in each meeting given once they have read the Minutes of those meetings. It is also crucial that the Inquiry details clearly what can be reported in such meetings, for example comments relating to Inquiry process or matters likely to be of public interest beyond survivor testimony.
We have tried to ask the Inquiry whether they will be doing this, via their Twitter account, however they don’t seem to have a clear understanding of how social media works, and their engagement level with the public on this platform is non existent, so we are unlikely to get a response. If any team member from the Inquiry is reading this, please do at least consider writing an update on the IICSA website, giving us an indication of how the Inquiry will be recording the sessions and what kind of involvement Victim and Survivor Panel Members have had in this process.
Good luck.
Jonathan West said:
My reading of the Restriction Order is much as yours, in that it prevents a survivor from confirming what he or she said to the Truth Project (but as you say, doesn’t prevent anybody from repeating their account of abuse elsewhere).
The restriction in section 4(d) is on “Disclosure or publication of all or any part of an account of child sexual abuse made to the Inquiry within the scope of the Truth Project”. However as far as I can see, there’s nothing in the Restriction Order that prevents a survivor from describing what the inquiry staff said or asked during a Truth Project private hearing. In other words the order affects the evidence given to the Trust Project but not the questions asked or the inquiry’s apparent reaction to the evidence.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Jonathan, I’m not sure. The wording to my mind isn’t clear enough to be able to make that distinction, so I’m being cautious. Given that the Order is confusing a lot of people though, there clearly needs to be some clarification, one way or the other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Natasha said:
Sorry Jonathan, just to add, I agree with you about the terms in the Order appearing to refer only to experiences, but there is no mention of what can actually be reported outside of that scope, so it would be good to know.
LikeLike
Jonathan West said:
The 2005 Inquiries Act is quite clear that everything is public except where specifically restricted. The Restriction Order has to be read in the context of the Act.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Jonathan, as I explained to you on Twitter, the Act is not the problem. The Inquiry needs to make sure that it is very clear about the scope and remit of everything it puts out. To a lawyer it may be obvious, but this Order is not for you and me. It is for people who have had some of the most terrible experiences imaginable and who more often than not do not have legal training. The reality is that many of the problems the Inquiry currently has stems from its inability to understand survivors and their needs. That the Inquiry is filled with lawyers, may well be part of the problem.
LikeLike
Jonathan West said:
I agree that the non-legal explanation of the order providd by IICSA leaves a lot to be desired, and the quality of communication from the inquiry is overall pretty poor.
But if we actually look at the wording of the order itself, I’m not sure that your conclusion that it “reduces transparency” is all that justified.
In your article you asked “What if survivors end up discussing a visible flaw within the Inquiry? Or they challenge the Inquiry on a point of operation that could be of public interest? Or worse still, an Inquiry member says or does something wrong?”
You mention that the order is silent on the subject, but you don’t draw the correct conclusion from that silence, which is that the order doesn’t restrict people from discussing these issues. In other words you are suggesting a reduction in transparency where none in fact exists.
If you’re going to provide commentary, it would be better if it isn’t misleading commentary.
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Jonathan, you’re choosing to interpret my words a certain way, and that’s your prerogative. I still believe the Order affects transparency, precisely because it is not clear enough, and until we have confirmation from the Inquiry itself that the Order does not affect the areas I mention, any assumption anyone makes about that remit is just that, an assumption.
LikeLike
l8in said:
Reblogged this on L8in.
LikeLike
Dana said:
I am interested to know what sanctions if any will occur if someone falls foul of these “rules”
LikeLike
Natasha said:
Hi Dana, the matter can go to the High Court but the info says the Inquiry will take all incidents on a case by case basis.
LikeLike
crossofchangeorg said:
Thankyou Natalie, as i read through, i understood much the same, having seen quite a few worrying tweets, this may help clarify things. I agree about the lack of social media savvy, true of most of the recognised CSA groups, they hardly engage, therefore hardly know the breadth and depth of CSA survivors presence on social media.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: The Inquiry’s Restriction Order Doesn’t Gag Survivors But It Does Affect Transparency | Sheva's Cross of Change Blog
daveyone1 said:
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Forced Adoption said:
Britain ,the democratic land of free speech? All gagging orders should be illegal unless National Security is involved.Our laws of libel and slander already protect citizens from others who publicly defame them.
Freedom of Speech used to mark the difference between democracies and dictatorships but no longer alas in the case of poor old Britain…………….
LikeLike
Sabine Kurjo McNeill said:
Reblogged this on National Inquiry into Organised, Orchestrated & Historic Child Sexual Abuse.
LikeLike
Maggie Tuttle said:
The child rape assembly.
If all can read the info in the link then you are a braver person then I am, I have no idea how we can put a stop to child abuse that has gone on for centuries in the world and my honest opinions are that this so called British Empire has always lead the way and now with more forced adoptions. Perhaps when the Nation comes together and march perhaps then the kids in care will have a voice and will no longer be screaming to be heard. please see all research on http://www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com then prepare your self to read the link of the child rape.
http://www.vice.com/read/the-child-rape-assembly-line-0000141-v20n11
LikeLike
Pingback: #childrenfirst : What Part of Family Justice & Child Welfare Reform Don’t You Understand? | World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum.
Pingback: Anonymous