Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome our guests who are in the Gallery, some of whom are interns. They are very welcome. I warmly welcome our guests who are online. We can always depend on Séamus Dooley to be present when we have a discussion on anything to do with the media. It is lovely to have him and Tim-----

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We see him more often than some of the committee members.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is lovely to have both Mr. Dooley and Mr. Tim Dawson here in person, and to have our guests who are online. The meeting has been convened to discuss the freedom and security of the press operating in areas of conflict. I warmly welcome the witnesses. On behalf of the committee, I welcome the-----

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Sorry, I should have said we are in public session for housekeeping purposes. I ask everyone to bear with me. I will have to repeat some of that. I warmly welcome everyone. Today's discussion is on the theme of freedom and security of the press operating in areas of conflict. I warmly welcome our guests, both those who are present and online. I welcome the esteemed Mr. Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, who is a member of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine and chairman of the Ukrainian parliamentary committee on freedom of speech. We look forward to hearing what he has to say. We also welcome Professor Tarlach McGonagle, who is professor of media law and information society at Leiden University and also works at the University of Amsterdam; Mr. Tim Dawson, deputy general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists, IFJ, who is joined by IFJ affiliate and National Union of Journalists assistant general secretary, Mr. Séamus Dooley; Ms Chantal Joris, legal officer with Article 19; and Ms Amelia Evans, deputy director of advocacy at the Committee to Protect Journalists.

The format of the meeting is such that I will invite our witnesses to deliver an opening statement, which is limited to three minutes. This will then be followed by questions from members. They are probably aware the committee may publish opening statements on its webpage. Is that agreed? Agreed.

Before we proceed to opening statements, I will explain some limitations to parliamentary privilege and the practice of the Houses as regards references witnesses make to other persons in their evidence. The evidence of witnesses physically present or who give evidence from within the parliamentary precincts is protected pursuant to both the Constitution and statute by absolute privilege. However, a number of today's witnesses are giving evidence remotely from a place outside the parliamentary precincts and as such may not benefit from the same level of immunity from legal proceedings as a witness physically present does. Witnesses participating in this committee session from a jurisdiction outside the State should also be mindful of domestic law and how it may apply to the evidence they give. Witnesses may think it appropriate to take legal advice on this matter.

Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not comment on or make charges against a person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable, or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of that person or entity. I expect the witnesses present are very familiar with the limitations to statements made publicly. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in relation to an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks.

Members, too, are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they shall not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses, or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I propose that we proceed to the opening statements. The chair of the Ukrainian parliamentary committee on freedom of speech has the floor. He has three minutes.

Mr. Yaroslav Yurchyshyn:

Ladies and gentlemen and esteemed members of the international community, I am head of the parliamentary committee for freedom of speech in Ukraine. Since the beginning of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014, at least 100 Ukrainian journalists have been held hostage by Russia. Currently, 30 journalists are being unlawfully detained. These journalists come from different regions of Ukraine, including the central part of Kyiv Oblast, the occupied Crimea, occupied parts of Zaporizhzhya, and many other regions. All the detained journalists are civilians. Russia falsely labels them as combatants to avoid recognising crimes against them. For example, Crimean journalist, Iryna Danilovich, has lost hearing in one ear due to lack of medical care. She was unlawfully detained by Russia and sentenced to seven years in prison on fabricated charges of possessing an explosive device. Journalist Dmytro Khilyuk, was taken to Russia during the occupation of Kyiv region and has been held in terrible conditions. There is only one reason for that; Russia aims to silence journalists documenting its crimes.

No mechanism exists for the return of civilian hostages, unlike military prisoners. Russia denies holding Ukrainian journalists but uses them in propaganda, branding them as terrorists and traitors. Ukrainian journalists face long prison terms, typically 15 or even 20 years. Both Ukrainian and international organisations have recorded reports of torture, abuse, and denial of medical care to the journalists who are civilian hostages of Russia. Families and lawyers often have no access to the detained journalists, which causes fear and uncertainty. The Institute of Mass Information, IMI, a well-known Ukrainian NGO that is a partner of Reporters Without Borders, interviewed former detainees who confirmed targeted abductions of journalists and activists.

For example, journalist Oleh Baturin, who was kidnapped by Russians in Kherson and held for eight days due to his work and civic stance, reported about torture. The treatment of detained journalists constitutes severe human rights violations, including torture and denial of medical care. These actions reflect a broader strategy by Russia to suppress dissent and control the narrative.

I would like to give the committee a broader context of Russian crimes. According to the Institute of Mass Information, more than 600 crimes against media and journalists have been committed by Russia since the beginning of invasion in 2022. For example, 82 journalists have been killed. Cybercrimes and interference with Ukrainian satellite broadcasts are also often committed. Russian forces dismantle Ukrainian broadcasting in occupied territories. They establish propaganda networks promoting hate speech and calls for violence against Ukraine.

I call on members to take action. Who knows better than them what civilian hostages are? First of all, conduct genuine international investigations to hold Russian officials accountable. We need legal and diplomatic efforts, which should focus on holding perpetrators accountable and ensuring the safety and freedom of journalists. Second, I call on members to put global pressure on Russia and spread information about the fate of detained journalists. By bringing these issues to light and calling for decisive action, we can work towards justice for those affected and uphold the principles of press freedom and human rights. Third, I call on members to use all possible international mechanisms to locate and improve the conditions of these journalists. We cannot remain indifferent to the violations of human rights and press freedom. It is essential to unite efforts to protect journalists and uphold the truth.

We need the help of the Chair and all who are taking part in this meeting in talking about this problem. I thank them for their attention and support.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will let all of our witnesses speak first then we will come to members for questions and further discussion. I thank the witnesses for their contributions today. I remind colleagues that we have to keep to the broader issue of media and democracy rather than getting into individual cases. I call Professor McGonagle from the University of Amsterdam.

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

Esteemed members of the joint committee and fellow participants, thank you for the invitation to contribute to the public hearing today. In my brief intervention, I wish to sketch how the Council of Europe's regulatory and policy frameworks seek to guarantee the safety and freedom of journalists and the media, including in the context of conflict situations. I hope this will bring a useful legal and policy dimension to the broader discussion that we are having today. As I progress, members will quickly notice that their framing of today's session, explicitly linking security and freedom, is consistent with the Council of Europe's approach. Freedom and security are indissociable dimensions of the topic of safe and accurate reporting on and from conflict situations.

It is often quipped that the first casualty of war is the truth, but regrettably, I think we have to acknowledge that the first casualties of war are truth and the purveyors of truth. We know all too well that parties to conflicts tend to do their utmost to prevent the truth getting out. All too often, their efforts involve insidious methods to prevent purveyors of truth, including public watchdogs such as journalists and the media, and increasingly other actors, such as bloggers, whistleblowers, NGOs, from investigating and reporting about conflicts in an accurate, reliable, independent and unbiased manner.

The European Court of Human Rights has developed strong principles to enable journalists and other media actors to carry out their vital role as public watchdogs and informing the public about matters of general interest to society. Journalists and the media cannot fulfil their public watchdog role if they fear for their safety; do not have effective protection; or are deprived of their liberty or freedom of movement. These baseline protections and freedoms must be secured as a precondition for securing their right to freedom of expression and freedom to report. That is why the European Court of Human Rights has stated firmly and repeatedly that states have a positive obligation to ensure a safe and favourable environment for everyone to contribute to public debate without fear, even when their opinions go against those of governments. This is a far-reaching and important principle. It means that it is not enough for states not to interfere with the right to life, liberty or freedom of expression, but that states are legally obliged to proactively take effective measures to secure the safety and freedom of expression of public watchdogs.

Examples of how this could work in practice include by putting security measures in place for journalists or media organisations once they are threatened or attacked. Another example is to conduct independent, effective investigations into crimes against journalists to ensure that all the perpetrators of violence or murders are brought to justice, not just those who are actually responsible for the act, but also the masterminds who bankroll and plan the whole operation.

The principles developed by the European Court of Human Rights are not enough on their own. Even strong principles have to be implemented. This is where the committee of ministers of the Council of Europe steps in. This is the decision-making body of the Council. It adopts political recommendations directed at the 46 member states, helping them to implement these principles in a practical way that works on the ground in national situations. I would like to focus on two recommendations today. One from 2016 focuses on protection and safety of journalists and other media actors and an older one from 1996 which focuses specifically on the protection of journalists in conflict situations.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are over time, Professor McGonagle. I assume you want to go through the seven-page document.

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

No. I can essentialise in two final comments about the recommendations.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not want to cut Professor McGonagle short but we will have time to expand and I am sure my colleagues have read the statement, if he wants to summarise.

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

I will do it as elegantly as I can. The 2016 recommendation is very general. It has a few provisions that are specific to conflicts, the importance of the media in conflicts and what media organisations should do to protect journalists in conflicts. The 1996 recommendation is specific. It is focused on physical safety and free movement and information. It does not take into account the psychological dimension to protection, nor does it take the specific gender-related nature of threats into account, or the Internet and digital communications and the threats that arise through the use of those communications. Those are the two reference points. There is more detail in the background statement. In the questions and answers, I would be happy to tease out what Ireland could do, flowing from its obligations and responsibilities, based on the Council of Europe's standards. I apologise for going over time.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Not at all. We want to hear more of what Professor McGonagle is talking about, because it is relevant to the work that we do. We will have lots of time, when we get through all the witnesses, to tease Professor McGonagle's ideas out further. I call Mr. Tim Dawson, deputy general secretary of the International Federation of Journalists.

Mr. Tim Dawson:

I am grateful for the time the committee has taken to consider this issue. It has been rendered vivid and immediate by the ongoing conflict in Gaza and the terrible loss of journalists' lives there. The wider issue of journalist safety is pervasive and worsening.

Democracy is among the defining ideals of modern life. Imperfect, infuriating and contrary as it can be, it is the agency connecting individuals to society and democracy without swift and accurate reporting is impossible. It is the means by which citizens understand what is being done in our name and can scrutinise those who lead us and hold institutions to account when actions fall short of the ideal. For journalism to happen, journalists have to be able to undertake their work in safety and security. Alas, all over the world, this is not the case. For the past 30 years, the International Federation of Journalists has tracked the number of journalists killed each year. It has averaged around 88 with some terrible peak years such as 2023, when nearly 130 lost their lives. To put this in context, journalism is a tiny profession. There are around 600,000 journalists in world. For comparison, there are 35 million school teachers.

To make matters worse, when journalists do lose their lives, it is rare that anyone is brought to justice for the crime. According to UNESCO, only one in ten murders of journalists result in prosecution let alone anything resembling justice. It is easy to think of examples of this. They include Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered in Turkey; Dom Phillips, who was murdered in Brazil; or closer to home, Martin O’Hagan and Lyra McKee in the North. None of their killers have been brought to justice.

There are already international plans in place to address this issue both at UN and Council of Europe level. The IFJ, however, believes that these do not go far enough. We are promoting a draft UN convention of the safety and security of journalists that would make existing legal remedies far easier to access when journalists suffer harm. We have been grateful for the interest of the Republic of Ireland has taken in this initiative and look forward to continuing to work with its diplomatic representatives to achieve this end.

We also need more intense national action to promote the safety and security of journalists, something I encourage the industry and national governments to devote greater resources to. Social media has broadened the sphere in which journalists can suffer abuse and it is clear that some groups of journalists suffer disproportionately from "trolling". Studies show that women journalists and those from ethnic minorities are far more likely to be the victims of this kind of abuse. I have seen in cases that my own union has dealt with where young women reporters have been effectively bullied out of the industry by prolific online abusers. For such abuse to go unchecked risks undermining diversity within the news media thereby reducing its ability to accurately reflect all of society. Whether abuse and harassment happens online or in person, we know from multiple studies and research that operating in such a climate has an impact on journalists that goes beyond the individual. Self-censorship and the wider chilling impact of the targeting of journalists matters to all who care about media freedom and its crucial role in underpinning democracies and society.

In saying this, I realise that I am probably extending the range of conflict zone. Flak jackets and bomb blasts might appear at first glance to be a long way from the parochial reporting of courts and local authorities but for those reporters who find themselves being pelted with online abuse, the impact can be devastating. The way that we deal with harassment in the digital space may not be quite the same as conflict-zone training but the need is no less great.

I worked as a journalist for 30 years and have former colleagues who will be deeply concerned to think of my becoming too cosy with politicians. They would refer me to an old metaphor that posits dogs and lamp posts as the appropriate starting for the approach that journalists should take to elected representatives but I do not think this is helpful. However robust the questioning of journalists with politicians might be, we are all part of the same democratic ecosystem and without each other, neither of us can work effectively, particularly at a time when there are swirling forces and challenges to democracy and civilised society that we must all take a stand against. For that reason, I thank the committee for its serious-minded interest in this area and am happy to render whatever help the IFJ can provide to aid the effectiveness of the committee's work.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I do not think anybody in the room would disagree. I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Dawson's concluding comments. I now invite Ms Joris to make her opening statement.

Ms Chantal Joris:

I thank the committee for its invitation to discuss the freedom and security of the press operating in areas of conflict. My name is Chantal Joris, and I am a senior legal officer at Article 19, an organisation that analyses the issue of protection for journalists in conflict zones - primarily from a legal and policy perspective.

Whether in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan or one of the many other conflict zones often overlooked by the media, the significance of press coverage in these areas cannot be overstated. By gathering and disseminating reliable and timely information about hostilities, journalists carry out a crucial mission. It is often thanks to them that serious human rights violations and war crimes are brought to light. This work comes at a great cost. Media workers often face extreme danger in areas of conflict. This also applies to citizen journalists, bloggers documenting conflicts through social media and other online channels or human rights defenders more broadly. We see killings, kidnappings and torture. They are also subjected to systematic harassment. Many of these attacks may constitute war crimes. We can talk about legal protections afforded by humanitarian law and human rights law in more detail after the opening statements. The threats extend beyond the physical to the digital realm. Journalists and those uncovering violations by warring parties increasingly face digital threats during armed conflicts, including identity fraud, organised doxing campaigns and targeting via spyware. Responses offered by humanitarian law are perhaps a little less clear in this area.

Journalists' ability to raise awareness about conflict and report on crimes committed by warring parties enables the public and the international community to monitor conflicts and ensure respect for international norms. Attacks on journalists do not only violate their freedom of expression rights, they have profound implications for the public’s ability to stay informed, including in Ireland. Journalists reporting on wars do not merely face the constant threat of physical or digital attacks. Their work is impeded by the rising censorship we are witnessing during armed conflict. Preventing access to conflict zones, Internet shutdowns, bans on domestic and international media and the criminalisation of reporting allegedly "fake news" about armed forces are only some of the trends we are witnessing.

We believe that countries like Ireland should use their influence to encourage all parties armed conflicts to abide by international law. Crucially, this means refraining from targeting journalists, respecting their right to report safely and not engaging in censorious actions. They should also work towards strengthening international institutions that protect human rights and humanitarian law and that can bring accountability and end a long-standing pattern of impunity for all attacks on the press. I again thank members for inviting us to appear here today. I welcome any questions they may have.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I now invite Ms Evans to make her opening statement.

Ms Amelia Evans:

This briefing could not be more critical. It comes during what is the deadliest period for journalists since print journalists began gathering data on this issue in 1992. The Committee to Protect Journalists, CPJ, has documented at least 108 journalists and media workers who have been killed in the Israel-Gaza war since it began on 7 October 2023. Of these, 103 were Palestinian. We have evidence that three of these deaths were the result of Israel Defense Forces targeting journalists, which would amount to a clear violation of international humanitarian law. There are ten other cases of suspected targeting that require further investigation, which is being made difficult by the conditions of war. We have also documented 51 cases of journalist arrests, as well as multiple assaults, threats, cyberattacks, censorship and the killing of family members. The scale and impunity around these abuses are terrifying and risk creating a grave new precedent around the treatment of journalists in conflict.

Risks to reporting are not just confined to Gaza. At least 15 journalists have been killed since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, including Irish cameraman Pierre Zakrzewski. Active conflicts in Myanmar, Sudan and Ethiopia have also led to recent deaths or detention of journalists this year, to name just a few.

There are also alarming practices and precedents developing across the issue of access. Since 7 October, international media have been completely prohibited from crossing into Gaza - despite over 2,000 international journalists seeking accreditation – with just a handful of exceptions where a military escort was provided the entire time. This has put tremendous pressure on the Gazan journalists left struggling to survive, and has created a vacuum for propaganda, misinformation and disinformation. For a period, the military in Ukraine also restricted accreditation and access to the front line, although in February of this year loosened these restrictions.

There are many issues for us to discuss, and that I hope we can discuss: soaring insurance costs; unique local contexts of different conflicts; and the changing use of technology to target and silence journalists covering conflict. How the international community responds – or whether it will fail to respond – to these disturbing developments has never been more critical. Ireland understands this, having tragically lost journalists who were reporting in Saudi Arabia, Ukraine, Northern Ireland and the Republic in recent years. How Ireland can push for greater protection and accountability are questions that I hope this committee and the country keeps asking.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Evans, and that brings us nicely on to speaking slots for our colleagues. Some are online and some are present. I am going to begin with Senator Shane Cassells. The floor is his and he has eight minutes or thereabouts.

Shane Cassells (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I welcome all the witnesses on this really important topic. The breadth of experience of the witnesses we have here today is really appreciated by those contributing. From an Irish perspective, trust in the media, as indicated by the recent Reuters report, is extremely high and it is to be valued that we have that. As Mr. Dawson has said, the importance of the media in forging that democratic process should never be underestimated.

The targeting of journalists in conflict zones was always something that resonated personally with me because 20 years ago last month, being from Navan, we lost Simon Cumbers, who when working for the BBC was murdered in Riyadh when he was there covering the aftermath of a massacre. In his case, his killer was actually brought to justice and executed. Something which Simon's parents actually spoke against was the execution of his killer. Of course, we only have to look, in terms of the North, at the murder of Lyra McKee as well. I know Mr. Dooley has done extensive work in that whole sphere as well, and the threats by dissidents to the work of journalists in Northern Ireland.

Those attacks are not just in the conflict zones that have been mentioned, like Gaza or Ukraine. Looking at the website that maps media freedom, we see that just at the weekend, two journalists were physically attacked in Germany while covering a pro-Palestinian demonstration. One journalist was kicked in the head by demonstrators and a photographer was kicked in the face. In a western country, covering a demonstration, journalists were physically attacked as well. The threats are not just in the actual conflict zones but here in western European countries in response as well.

I will start with Professor McGonagle in respect of his detailed report and the recommendations he seeks in his report with regard to countries like Ireland and the role we have to play in bringing diplomatic and political pressure. Is that something the professor believes should be done just by individual states, or collectively by the European Union, with regard to the asks he has for the protection of journalists?

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

Would the Chair like me to answer that directly?

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes, please.

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

I thank the Senator very much for his pertinent question. If you team up with other countries-----

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Could I interrupt Professor McGonagle and ask him to put on his screen? He is blanked out, and we would like to see him as he speaks.

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

I thank the Chair. It is a pertinent question. If you have a united front on behalf of the EU or if you team up with other countries, you will be in a much stronger and much more persuasive position. However, that does not preclude individual initiatives by individual states. All the diplomatic, political and moral pressure that can be brought to bear in international fora and in bilateral relations could be very productive. I do not think one rules out the other, and the more strategies that are deployed, the better.

Shane Cassells (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

As things stand with regard to countries' actions and whether this is something on the agenda of national governments across Europe, where does Professor McGonagle see, first, Ireland within that context, and second, the wider European response to protection of journalists in conflict zones, and the protection of journalists full stop?

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

In my document, I referenced one recent example. I think it was about ten days ago, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had a specific call for the release of Ukrainian journalists who are in captivity in Russia. This is something that is getting a lot of traction at the Council of Europe, and it is a very important point of leverage to bring pressure to bear.

At the UN, there is also real scope for the EU to take a united front, as it has done on a number of issues over the years relating to freedom of expression and the safety of journalists. Ireland has a very strong voice and one that is well respected and listened to because of Ireland's long tradition of peacekeeping involvement and with the UN Security Council. Also, as the Senator himself has very helpfully referred to, there is the very good reputation Ireland has domestically for protecting the freedom and safety of journalists.

Shane Cassells (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am a member of the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly and just last month, the OSCE media freedom representative, Teresa Ribeiro, made the point that the failure to guarantee media freedom and healthy information space is increasingly disillusioning and disenfranchising people. The vista is not good at the moment, and that is within OSCE member states. These are states that have signed up to protecting it. It is disheartening to see that as well.

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

Again, that is a very pertinent point. One of the predecessors of the current mandate holder, Dunja Mijatovi, used to always say that the standards are there but what is missing is the consistent and firm political will to implement them. In that kind of pessimistic context, it is all the more important for countries like Ireland, the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands - countries that traditionally have a strong reputation and track record on freedom of expression issues - to stand up, step up to the plate and make their voices heard.

Shane Cassells (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I will turn to Ms Evans. In her concluding remarks, she made a point around how the international community responds to the disturbing developments. What are the kinds of things Ms Evans is looking for from the international community to take action on those responses?

Ms Amelia Evans:

Particularly around the precedents in Gaza, we have not seen enough attention, frankly, on pushing for access to international media into Gaza. It is one of the issues, with all of the other atrocities that have been occurring, that has not been getting as much attention. It is one that creates a really concerning precedent. It is place where I believe Ireland could exercise its strong standing in the international community, whether that is through the UN, through statements or through bilateral engagements, to try to bring this more to the fore.

Frankly, it is an issue that the public simply is not aware of, to begin with. Therefore, this question of how misinformation, or how much we really understand about what is occurring in Gaza, is able to percolate without the public having this real understanding that is really limited to Gazans. It is getting that information and relaying it out, and how that has obviously become increasingly difficult after this many months, with all of the lack of access to food and the literal decimation of the journalist community there. We understand that there were about 1,000 journalists in Gaza before 7 October, and we know that at least 100 have been killed. We suspect the number is much higher.

What pressure can be put to ensure there is greater access is a big issue for us that we feel it is being overlooked, and again, one we feel Ireland could be a major champion for.

Shane Cassells (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Evans.

I also thank Mr. Dawson for his frankness in what he set out today. As he said, the issues are not just those relevant to journalists who have to wear flak jackets but to those in the online space as well.

How big of an issue is this for NUJ members and journalists? Obviously, it is not a physical threat, but it is a threat nonetheless. I refer to trying to undermine the democratic process which is the glue that binds and holds, and members of the press play a fundamental part in it. They are the ones who disseminate what happens in parliaments and conflicts and bring that to the public. How big a threat is this for the members Mr. Dawson represents?

Mr. Tim Dawson:

Of the survey evidence we have seen, more than half of women journalists have experienced disturbing levels of online abuse. There is something weirdly enabling about the Internet that makes people feel they can sort of spew out their bile and, somehow, it has no consequences. I am not quite sure how this works in people's heads but the cumulative effect of it has a terrible impact. The cases I have seen that have come through the National Union of Journalists, by way of members under pressure, are clearly only the tip of the iceberg. If we were to start with the extent of the survey evidence and then look at the extreme cases that come before the union, it is deeply concerning.

I might just amplify something Ms Evans said about the situation in Gaza, although I know this is at the other end of the spectrum. In some ways, what has happened to journalists in Gaza is clearly a kind of black swan event. We have never seen anything like it, ever. To give a crumb of context, the Vietnam War lasted for 20 years, had 2 million combatants and 63 journalists died. In Gaza, the more than 10% mortality rate is quite extraordinary.

The Senator is asking what people can do. I agree with everything the CPJ has said, but I think it is also worth keeping pressure on the International Criminal Court. It has been mercurial. The committee will be aware that long before this current conflict, journalists have been killed in Palestine, most famously Shireen Abu Akleh who worked for Al Jazeera. It is worth looking at the evidence around that killing. That can be done on the Internet. It is very strong and compelling. The UN reported on the circumstances of her death. Its conclusion is very bald: either deliberately or accidentally, she was killed by Israeli soldiers in circumstances where there was no surrounding gunfire at all. That is the conclusion of the UN.

We complained to the International Criminal Court about her killing, and the killing of two or three other people, about nine months after Ms Abu Akleh died. So far as I can tell, nothing has yet happened. This is a case that precedes the current conflict but, my goodness, the ICC should be getting on with it. If it moved on that case, it would give some people hope that some kind of action might be taken on the subsequent complaints we also have made about killings in the current war. While for all-----

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I am sorry. I have to ask you to wrap up because we have gone way over time. We will have lots of time to come back to you but we will give everybody else an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Tim Dawson:

Okay. For all that, it is an extreme conflict where journalists are being treated in an extraordinary way. I think it sets an example for the world. For all those individual deaths that have been met with impunity, what is happening in Gaza legitimises and belittles them, actually, in a way that is quite troubling.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Considering we have gone four minutes over, I am going to give everybody 14 minutes.

Shane Cassells (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The mortality rates for the Gaza conflict versus and as book-ended against the Vietnam War are startling to hear. Going back to the trolling issue and the impact on female journalists in particular, I acknowledge the article written in the Sunday Independent at the weekend by Dr. Ciara Kelly, who is a print and broadcast journalist, on the impact of trolling on her. She said she considered walking into the sea because of the impact of trolling on her in the online space, particularly on Twitter. I acknowledge her bravery in saying that at the weekend.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all the witnesses. I especially thank our Ukrainian contributor who earlier outlined the tensions, torture and abuse the journalism community is facing in that region. I will ask a specific question straight off the bat just to get to those figures. Mr. Dawson outlined the average annual loss in terms of the journalism community in conflict areas is 80, while for 2023 it is in and around 130. I assume the increase in the figure is attributable to the conflict in Gaza.

Mr. Tim Dawson:

Yes.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have had nine months of the conflict in Gaza. Mr. Dawson compared it to the Vietnam War. Is it fair to say that in these last nine months more journalists have been killed in this conflict in Gaza than in any other conflict, including world wars, that we know of?

Mr. Tim Dawson:

Not quite, and actually figures are hard to find. I believe 140 journalists died during the decade-long Yugoslav wars, which is the only conflict I can find that is comparable in this regard. The death toll in Gaza is extraordinarily high. It is the mortality rate of 10% that is the most chilling.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Yes.

Mr. Tim Dawson:

To put that in context, in Vietnam, the US Marine Corps, the troops involved in the most intense fighting, had a 5% mortality rate. When we compare that to people who have only cameras and microphones, it is chilling.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is absolutely extraordinary. A figure of 140 in ten years is absolutely shocking, but we are approaching close to that figure in the ten months of conflict in Gaza. Something about this conflict is particularly horrifying, especially for journalists and the media community. Ms Evans mentioned in her contribution statistics showing that 108 journalists have been killed. Other figures suggest the total is even higher.

I called for this session many months ago especially because of what is happening in Gaza. The treatment of the domestic and international media community by Israel and the IDF is what sparked this conversation. That is why I think it is important that we talk about what is happening in Gaza, as well as Ukraine. There are 108 dead journalists, most of whom are Palestinian. Of the tens of thousands of innocent civilians who have been massacred by the Israelis and the IDF, it is shocking that 108 have been journalists. As I said, many more have been injured. We hear of the targeting of journalists by the Israeli army. We hear that the international media have essentially been banned from entering Israel. That is shocking and a disgrace. We hear that domestic and international journalists are facing assaults, attacks, intimidation and cyberattacks. The condition that all international media workers must be accompanied by the IDF is an absolute disgrace. How are we supposed to get impartial, independent and accurate coverage of what is happening in the region if journalists are being guided and told where they cannot go and, perhaps, where they can go? It is ludicrous. As was rightly pointed out, it leaves the situation open to propaganda.

Senator Cassells is right. We rely on the print media and TV and radio for accurate information. The only reliable information we have been able to get for a long period of this conflict has been on social media. Journalists stayed behind and were able to get out messages about what was happening. This was the only way that we in Ireland, in many instances, were able to get accurate pictures of the shocking and horrific scenes we were seeing on the streets of Gaza. I thank those brave men and women who put their lives at risk to paint those pictures and get those messages back to us, because we would not have the full picture if that had not happened.

I pose this question mainly to Mr. Dawson, but also to Ms Joris and Ms Evans. What will be the risks if Israel and the IDF are not held to account in terms of access for journalists and the way they are being treated? What would be the risks for conflict coverage going forward if we do not tackle this issue? We are not doing so. Israel has not been held to account for the actions it is taking in Gaza and the massacre there. Nor is it being held to account for the way journalists are being treated. If Israel gets away with this and no one is held to account, what will be the risks for coverage of other conflicts in future?

Finally, what more as a State and Government can we do? This conflict is still ongoing. As of last week, many more people have been massacred and killed in the Gaza area. What more can we do to ensure that journalists get access and are protected, free from harassment and targeted killings, that their families are free from being targeted and that they are free from cyberattacks? What more can we do? That is what this session is all about. What can we do to help the international media community?

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Who does the Deputy want to respond first?

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My questions are for Mr. Dawson, Ms Joris and Ms Evans.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will start with Ms Evans since Mr. Dawson finished up if that is okay.

Ms Chantal Joris:

One of the things I can think of to concretely keep up the pressure is to work through accountability mechanisms such as the ICC and ICJ.

If we look at Gaza specifically, it does seem like this is something about which Israel is concerned. They sent their best lawyers to the ICJ proceedings, for example. They announced an intervention perhaps on behalf of South Africa. Linked also is the committing of grave international law violations and how this is linked again to the killings of journalists, but also this broader sense of censorship measures, such as the Internet shutdowns, not allowing access to independent and international journalists and banning Al Jazeera. All these measures combined, as well as this cloak of impunity, contribute to this level of impunity. So far, we think accountability mechanisms have not necessarily paid enough attention to this link between closing the information space and what impact this can have on the commission on further human rights and humanitarian law violations.

Of course, we think that if these measures – the killing of journalists together with the other measures I mentioned – go without accountability now, of course it will be very difficult then in another conflict. We have seen double standards by many countries already. They advocate for something in one conflict - say, Ukraine - and say nothing when it comes to Gaza. This can set a very negative precedent and also undermine the role of these states that like to call themselves champions of freedom of expression and human rights if they do not push for better protection in Gaza now.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Ms Joris.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We will go to Ms Evans next as she is online.

Ms Amelia Evans:

It is an important question. The risk of not acting is that this becomes a precedent and a playbook. We have seen other versions of this occurring in different threats to journalists around, say, the Orbán playbook where we have Orbán sort of gaining political control of the public broadcaster and the national media, and then getting allies to buy up all the private media. Then, it is a monopoly. I can see a possibility of this becoming a similar playbook around conflict, which is to attempt to seal the borders to keep outside journalists out and conduct warfare that results in the targeting and decimation of journalists, which we discussed. Basically, people can control or at least very much limit the reporting of the conflict that is occurring. These stakes could not be higher in terms of precedent.

I want to double down on something Ms Joris mentioned, which is the use of the ICJ. There is an opportunity for Ireland to intervene as a third party. Something in particular that both Article 19 and the ICJ have commented on is that there is a potential hook around the interim measure that La Cour internationale de Justice issued on 26 January in which it stated that Israel must "take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence related to allegations ... of Genocide.”

As we all understand, it is journalists who play a critical function and have done historically - Mr. Dawson mentioned Yugoslavia as an example - around the documentation of war crimes. There is a very strong legal argument that both could and should be made, even if we do not get a decision on it, for five years from now about why it is critical that journalists should be both protected but able to access conflict zones. That would be a very powerful potential third-party argument at the ICJ for Ireland to consider and explore how it could galvanise both itself and others that are supporters of media freedom with outlets through the Media Freedom Coalition or elsewhere. Those would be my specific suggestions, but I am happy to explore others too if time allows.

Mr. Tim Dawson:

They both make interesting and valid points that I would support.

It is worth giving some thought to how this might have happened. This has happened against the fog of war. There is still dust hanging over Gaza and more being created. However, there are things we know about Israeli technical capacity. We know they have phone surveillance equipment that is more sophisticated than most countries have access to, and that they relentlessly use it to track journalists. We know they have the ability to programme killer drones, which during the course of this conflict have massively increased in speed. I cannot remember the figures, but they used to be able to target approximately five per day because it was quite complicated. They can now do hundreds per day. Therefore, it is technology of this kind, it would seem. This is all yet to be judicially tested. I am very keen to see it judicially tested, but it is hard to ignore the coincidence between having technology like Gospel, Lavender and Pegasus and this kind of apparent dial-a-death possibility they have targeting specific properties and houses where journalists live or, indeed, cars driving through barren territory. As well as prosecuting these specific instances, giving thought to how some of these technologies are controlled is also important.

I have for a long time had a concern about the worldwide possibility of surveilling journalists and the way that is used to undermine their work. Paying greater attention to that and adopting safeguards to ensure that is not possible is a small part, as well as prosecuting things through the ICC and ICJ, of trying to prevent this from becoming the new normal of how journalists are treated in conflicts. It is also worth bearing in mind that what state actors have the capacity to do now, non-state actors will quite possibly have the capacity to do in five years’ time.

Christopher O'Sullivan (Cork South West, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Do any of the other witnesses want to comment on that since I have one minute and a half left? If not, that is okay. I will finish on this comment.

Journalism in conflict areas is already an incredibly risky profession. People are putting their lives at risk straightaway. However, there was always that protection, or some element of protection, from international rules in terms of how journalists are treated or protected and the access they get. Clearly, with the numbers we are hearing with regard to Gaza of 108 or more dead, it has become a free-for-all. If there is no accountability, and if it is now open season on journalists with assaults, attacks, cyberattacks, surveillance, killings and murders, I do not know who is going to do it. I do not know who is going to cover these atrocities or who is going to go into conflict areas to cover these stories because it is a brave person who would do it without those protections. I want to finish by thanking those who do it and put their lives at risk, and those who have brought us the reports of the atrocities and massacres from Gaza. We really need to call for it to stop and call for a ceasefire immediately.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Does Ms Joris wish to come in for a brief moment?

Ms Chantal Joris:

Yes, I will briefly highlight in particular the role played not only by journalists but also by normal users of social media who upload evidence of what is happening on the ground in environments that are as much under a censorious regime. Connected to this, and it was touched upon a little bit earlier, is the role of online platforms specifically when it comes to protecting journalists’ accounts but also accounts from civilians who put their lives at risk to be able to document what is happening. We can maybe talk about this here a little bit later. Of course, social media has been severely criticised for overmoderating and restricting Palestinian content that could be vital, particularly in a context like this, in documenting and sharing with the world what is happening.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the witnesses very much. I thank Deputy O’Sullivan for his line of questioning. I now call Senator Hoey who I believe is online.

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank everyone for everything. It has been very interesting but it is very difficult to hear the realities faced by people. I only have one question and maybe it is one of those ones that is possibly up in the ether. In the context of the situation in Gaza, which is at the forefront, as well as Ukraine and other conflicts, what does justice, if that is the right word, look like for those journalists who have lost their lives? I should add, I do not think there can be justice. When a life is lost, a life is lost. What is the response by the country? Countries are quite good at saying things like something should not have happened. Is it that there is an international community response to it? Is it individual countries' response? What does justice look like on the other side, although I am loath to describe it like that because what is the other side of a war or conflict? We live in hope that all these conflicts will end sooner rather than later. What does justice look like? Are there examples of that justice piece or honour piece? I am not sure about a commitment for it to never to happen because obviously it is still happening. I do not know if that question is clear. It is a little bit vague. I am interested in what it is that people need to call for beyond-----

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that for anyone in particular or is it just a general question?

Annie Hoey (Labour)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is a general question. It is probably in an international context but it is open to anyone. That is my only question.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I point out that, unfortunately, the chair of the Ukrainian parliamentary committee, Mr. Yaroslav Yurchyshyn, cannot stay on the call but he is listening in and can respond through the chat with the committee. Because of the bombings there, the electricity is cut for half the day. I am so sorry to hear that.

I will open that question to the remaining guests. If anyone is online they may raise their hands.

Mr. Séamus Dooley:

One of the phrases I never use when someone dies is "justice for" because justice is denied. You cannot achieve justice for someone whose life has been taken. The most we can do is learn the lessons of history or try to learn the lessons of history. The IFJ focus on an international convention for the protection of journalists is the only way of securing a global response. At a practical level one of the issues I wish to raise is the support of the IFJ international safety fund. It is a huge means of contributing funds to enable journalists in conflict zones to do their work. The only way to respond to the extinguishing of a light is to light another candle and try to enable other people to do their work.

Ms Amelia Evans:

I wanted to echo those two lines of thought. The first is that the very beginning of justice begins with finding out what really happened and some truth telling. In May 2023, before the conflict started, the CPJ put out a report called Deadly Pattern. It looked at how 20 journalists had been killed by the IDF over the past 22 years and there had not been a credible concluded investigation that resulted in accountability in any of those cases. What you have is a pattern of impunity. Therefore, there is nothing for us to believe that there is going to be any change. We have not seen any cases since 7 October where there have been those investigations, which means it is up to the international community to ensure there are transparent, effective, credible and independent investigations into all these targeted killings and atrocities that are occurring. We are talking about journalists but obviously the issue is much wider than that.

I also want to pick up the other thread of what it is we can do to try to prevent some of this in the future. One thing that has not been discussed yet, and it is important, is the use of emergency visas where there is conflict. We think about conflict as a journalist going in and being able to get access to documents, but there is also a time when journalists need to flee and to be able to get out safely. That cannot happen in Gaza right now. Journalists are dying in Gaza right now because they cannot get out. Therefore, this is not necessarily about solving this for the Gaza situation but more generally about Ireland looking at what it is doing in terms of offering emergency visas to journalists as human rights defenders when they are at risk. Very interesting work is coming out of the Media Freedom Coalition on this. There is the potential to lead the EU in this space. I would love to see Ireland picking up the mantle. I know it was terrific on Afghanistan and the evacuation that happened there. Ireland could formalise that and encourage other countries to do likewise. That would be another example of how we try to take action to prevent.

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

I thank Mr. Dooley and Ms Evans for their eloquent contributions. I am not sure that you can get justice at a personal level, as Mr. Dooley mentioned. However, I recently read American Mother by Diane Foley and Colum McCann. It is a very powerful account of how Diane Foley dealt with the trauma of losing her son, James, at the hands of IS. There can be seen her need for truth telling, to hear what happened and to try to engage with one of the killers of her son. You see the power of her individual character to turn it around and try to do something for other journalists who are in captivity and who have been taken hostage around the globe. It is something very personal.

If I may tie it to Deputy O'Sullivan's very powerful intervention and this issue of the culture of impunity, in a very perverse way, as Deputy O'Sullivan mentioned, if the perpetrators of attacks on and murders of journalists get away with it, they and others are emboldened. This is what we absolutely must try to stop as a matter of urgency. That is why things like the Council of Europe recommendation CM/Rec(2016)4 and many other important international initiatives are doubling down on the need to eradicate impunity because that is toxic at a systemic level.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor McGonagle. I call Deputy Munster.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On the situation in Gaza, it must be unprecedented for journalists and media to have so little access to a war zone. It was reported previously that international media can only cover the conflict if the State of Israel has given the okay to coverage beforehand. That is madness if it is correct. Is that correct to the best of the witnesses' knowledge?

Mr. Tim Dawson:

Yes, unequivocally. From the outset of the conflict, Israel banned foreign reporters from being in Gaza and it has maintained that ever since. Large numbers of journalists have gathered at the Rafah crossing and have petitioned daily to try to get through it. Journalists tend to be quite determined and devious but, as far as I am aware, none have managed. A few journalists have been embedded with the Israeli forces, allowed to go in, see what they are shown and come out. I am not against embedding absolutely but if the only reporting is embedding, then it is completely hopeless.

Israel has also been down on its own media, taking advertising away from the liberal daily Haaretz, for example, and expelling Al Jazeera from the country altogether. The Deputy is absolutely right. No journalists have been allowed in. There have been very significant restrictions on other aspects of reporting of that conflict.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

A total of 108 journalists have been killed and quite possibly more. The families of journalists have also been killed. One cannot comprehend how Israel has been allowed to behave.

Listening to the witnesses' suggestions, whether it is keeping pressure on the International Criminal Court, ICC, or Ireland intervening as a third party to the ICJ, are there sanctions for this outrageous behaviour that are currently available to the international community that have not been enacted?

Mr. Tim Dawson:

Not that I am aware of. The ICJ is obviously available and it states that the ICC is open to individual complainants but it is then at the discretion of the chief prosecutor how quickly things are progressed. He seems somewhat mercurial. He was very interventionist during the early months of the Ukrainian war, visiting several times and taking cases there. He has been much slower in respect of complaints about Gaza and Israel, although in recent times he seems have been slightly more active.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

This question is for any of our witnesses. Is there a particular reason that we know of for him to act so slowly regarding Gaza?

Mr. Tim Dawson:

It would be speculation on my part. Clearly the ICC is a politicised environment and I imagine there is considerable lobbying about what is and is not proceeded with. I am sure the chief prosecutor will have his own considerations about how he acts and responds to whatever pressures he is placed under.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I want to ask a question of Ms Joris and Ms Evans. Ms Joris mentioned in her opening statement that countries like Ireland need to use their influence to ensure conflict parties are bound by international law. Can she comment on how we are doing at present and what we can do to improve this? I ask the same question of Ms Evans. I had raised the issue of journalists in Gaza and our Minister said it was nothing to do with her and did not answer the question. I felt at the time that if everyone adopted that attitude, nothing would be done. The witnesses talked about pressure on the ICC but for every day that we watch the genocide in Gaza, is it not astounding that world powers watching it too? If we single out the topic today of journalists and the international media and how they cover a conflict and get the news out of the conflict and if we look at how journalists report on the atrocities, the genocide, the breaching of international law and the war crimes, world powers are silent when it comes the killing of journalists. It is a depressing situation to find ourselves in but if others in positions of power are slow to act and allow or ignore this, where do we turn to next?

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is that directed to Ms Joris?

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is directed to Ms Joris, Ms Evans and anybody else.

Ms Chantal Joris:

I agree that the situation is indeed depressing. As Deputy Munster said, in my opening statement I said we should focus on the conflict parties. Maybe Ireland could focus more on those nations that have an influence over the conflict parties, such as the United States or the European Union as a whole. They have a level of leverage that individual states may not. Another angle that has been mentioned before, particularly when it comes to Gaza, is that we have seen severe freedom of expression violations outside of the conflict zone also. People in the United States are prevented from protesting. There are severe crackdowns, so there is a limit on the pressure that can be put domestically on the government there to then apply pressure on the conflict party. This is an angle. We could focus on the freedom of expression violations and limitations of press freedom in states outside of the conflict zones.

One thing to consider when we talk about international accountability mechanisms is the avenue of exercising universal jurisdictions on the domestic level. We have seen in many cases, for example, in Switzerland where I am from where they have increasingly accepted and opened cases based on universal jurisdiction and have brought accountability through that avenue. Again, specifically linking these cases of attacks on freedom of the press or freedom of expression violations more broadly, can be an interesting manner of continuing this conversation and keeping the pressure up.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Evans was indicating to respond.

Ms Amelia Evans:

I understand it is difficult when the United States, for example, has a special relationship to Israel and has not stepped up around these issues in the way that we so drastically need. There is an opportunity for other countries to work potentially in a more collaborative fashion and to speak up and take action. Embracing the opportunity for third party intervention at the ICJ would be a strong message that Gaza is not alone in this. I am from New Zealand. I can see a kind of grouping of countries like New Zealand, Ireland and Canada sending a powerful message. Even if the message is ultimately one of solidarity to begin with, that is an important message too.

We should not lose sight of what it means to speak up, to be vocal, to demonstrate and articulate how unacceptable what is occurring is. I say that as a counterpoint to what is happening in the United States. As we are specifically talking about Gaza, on 13 October of last year there was clear targeting of journalists from Reuters and AFP in southern Lebanon. Someone died named Issam Abdallah. Six others were injured and one was American. This is a fact that has been largely under-reported in the United States and elsewhere. Earlier this year, I had meetings with United States Senators on this. There is video footage of the attacks and the journalists were in their press vests and were shot out nowhere. When the Senators saw this, they were moved and there were tears. You could see that people were moved. It is also not as simple as the blanket statement that United States is not acting. There are definitely people who are trying to push. The more pushing, the more vocal and active that Ireland can be in supporting that, the more this contributes to the erosion. I would love to see action around the ICJ in particular as a place where that could be a clear watermark for others to be galvanised around.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

My apologies to Deputy Munster but if she does not mind, Professor McGonagle has indicated that he wishes to respond.

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

Ms Evans has made the point well that voices can be raised in different ways, at different levels and in different forums. The NGO community is well familiar with a mechanism within the Council of Europe, that is, the so-called rule 39 of the European Court of Human Rights. It is not so much about raising a voice but taking an initiative to try to put a stop to ongoing grave violations of human rights by calling for interim measures.

Typically, when journalists are dealing with so-called life and limb situations where there is a real threat to their physical well-being, this is a mechanism that could be triggered to get an immediate arrest for the violating activities. That would not work in the Gaza war because it is outside the jurisdiction of the court. It is, however, a useful tool to activate where possible and to build up experience with using that mechanism.

Another way of using a voice could be in financial terms. Providing financial support to different capacity building or support mechanisms which could be financial, legal aid, counselling, training and what not. It could also be collaboration with partners in the conflict areas to try to support them in a practical way by sharing expertise or financially supporting them also.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

With regard to the third-party intervention to the ICJ, we can sit here day in, day out and be sickened by what we witness in Gaza. Particularly with regard to today's topic, I propose rather than just listening and being sickened by it all that the committee write to the Minister and ask her to carry out that third party intervention on behalf of the Government and state the committee would favour doing so. I hope committee members agree. At least it would be a start. If every country or government did something small such as this to initiate a response or try to get some action taken, it may well end up being worthwhile. I propose that the committee writes to the Minister and requests this intervention.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We are short on numbers but I do not see anyone dissenting from the idea. We will absolutely take it on board and discuss it further. It may require a private session but I am happy with the suggestion.

Imelda Munster (Louth, Sinn Fein)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank the Cathaoirleach.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Deputy Munster for her contribution and her suggestions.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank all of our witnesses. I particularly acknowledge Mr. Yurchyshyn who is joining us from Kyiv. Even the fact the electricity is going off there shows us the ongoing challenges faced by politicians and journalists. I want him to be assured of Ireland's ongoing solidarity with the people of Ukraine in the face of the most appalling aggression by Russia and particularly given the events of this week. It is important that we continue to speak out loudly and show this solidarity. I know Mr. Yurchyshyn can hear us but I do not know whether I can ask him a question.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Senator Byrne can certainly ask questions but Mr. Yurchyshyn has suggested that he can only respond via the chat function.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I was going to ask him to outline-----

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He will respond in writing after the event.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It might be useful for us to hear first-hand about some of the challenges for media reporting in Ukraine.

I will touch on some of the issues regarding digital threats. Colleagues have spoken a lot about the challenges we see in conflict zones but there are also digital threats. As much as we as politicians see it, there are rising threats of violence online against journalists. This is not only in conflict zones; it is happening in countries, including Ireland. How do we protect the very important role that journalists have in the new digital environment? Journalists have a vital role in combating misinformation and disinformation. Increasingly for all of us, this is an uphill struggle. I will ask Mr. Dawson first and then I will ask some of our other witnesses to outline some of these challenges and what we can do to address them.

Mr. Tim Dawson:

There are number of strands. Journalists need to be trained and prepared for how they deal with these situations. It is important that when it is possible for the perpetrators to be prosecuted that they are prosecuted. It is important that the platforms take more steps to prevent the abuse happening at source. It is important that we track the problem, so we know where it is happening. With this combination of taking the issue seriously, it should be possible to make a significant difference.

The overarching thing is to create an atmosphere in which people understand. Some of the perpetrators are very bad people who wish to cause harm. Some are foolish people who think it does not matter. Where the bad people transgress the law they need to be prosecuted. The foolish people need to be taught that personal criticism in any sphere, whether it is name-calling in a pub or being done online, can be deeply damaging to the intended victim and is something we should all trying to rein in.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Ms Evans also made reference to this. Does she want to comment?

Ms Amelia Evans:

I am so sorry but I ask Senator Byrne to repeat the question. I may or may or may not have accidentally been multitasking during that moment.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is perfectly fine, do not worry. We are speaking about online threats to journalists and some of the challenges. Ms Evans made reference to it earlier. What can we do to address some of these challenges?

Ms Amelia Evans:

These online threats are real. We are speaking about it in the context of conflict but more generally I want to speak about the threats and trends of national repression that we are documenting so that Senator Byrne is aware that they exist. A lot has already been discussed with regard to trolling and threats to privacy. There are also ways in which these can be taken from the offline to the online and the relationship between the two. With regard to specific concrete steps, we have not yet seen the media freedom council take this issue more seriously and we would like to see this. It could be an opportunity for Ireland to raise this, document it and explore the ways in which there can be good practice in codes of conduct. There is also the perennial question of stronger engagement with the tech companies and pushing beyond a code of conduct into regulatory measures.

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

This is the third time in a row I am piggybacking on the comments of Ms Evans. The responsibilities of big tech are absolutely crucial because so many of the digital threats take place through the privately-owned networks with global reach. With the new Digital Services Act, which is applicable to EU member states, at least we have a regime of trusted flaggers. These are designated parties that can flag problematic or illegal content to the platform operators. Since they have this status as trusted providers their notifications are fast-tracked or expedited. Perhaps Mr. Dooley or Mr. Dawson could provide more information on this. At the national level, lots of unions of journalists are engaging with the tech companies on their operations in their countries to see what kind of working relationships can be developed to strengthen and speed up the notification channels when it comes to threats against journalists, including gender-specific threats.

Mr. Séamus Dooley:

In my experience of tech companies they do not recognise trade unions, so the notion of engaging with us on safety to make themselves look good is something on which, as usual before the committee, I seem to be the one throwing cold water. One element of the use of social media, particularly in the area of journalism but also in other areas, is that employers and managers have a responsibility. Obviously I am very familiar with the abuse of female journalists. We are speaking about conflict zones but in many respects the social media landscape is a conflict zone for many women in particular. The trouble is that journalists, by definition, require an ego. They require a platform. They enjoy the attention. Increasingly, companies require journalists to have their own social media presence but are not always responsive when the same journalist becomes targeted. There is a real challenge. I recognise the challenge exists. The only way it can be solved is through the tech companies accepting full responsibility. Frequently, the experience has been the tech companies adopting the attitude that they only provide the platform and how people use it is a matter for someone else. This cannot be done by broadcasters or publishers.

It is being addressed in some respects by the online safety commissioner.

I acknowledge the work of the media engagement committee that was established by the assistant Garda commissioner on the initiative of the NUJ, RTÉ and Mediahuis. That has been useful in bringing media operators together to share experiences. That has been interesting. We have had representatives of Irish-based tech companies and we need to remember they are headquartered in Ireland. The engagement to date has not been, to put it politely, enthusiastic, but to get them in the room and start the conversation is an important first step.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

When we talk about conflict zones, we frequently think of conflicts and wars between states. We might draw a parallel with gangland crime. Crime is international for criminal journalists. There are a number of high-profile criminal investigations relating to Irish gangs. Does Mr. Dooley want to comment on challenges facing journalists in those circumstances?

Mr. Séamus Dooley:

In a sense, the challenges are the same across all fields. It struck me listening to all this about the deaths of journalists or the threats to journalists that they occur for a very good reason. They occur because journalists exist to expose inconvenient truths. Whether you are covering gangland crime or attempting to cover the actions of a state showing contempt for international law, the challenges are pretty much the same.

I am always conscious when talking about international conflict or the death of journalists that we can sound like we are engaging in special pleading. The blood of journalists is the same colour as that of aid workers and other citizens but the dimension making it different is the fact journalists are targeted for a reason. They are targeted in order to stop the terrible truth about other murders coming out.

Here in Ireland we need to remember the murder of Martin O'Hagan and the fact the UK Government has consistently refused to reopen the investigation into that killing. We as a union have called on the Irish Government with limited success to call for an independent investigation. There is an opportunity now, given the background of the new Prime Minister, the interest of the Northern Ireland secretary and the support we have witnessed from the Minister for Foreign Affairs, to revisit the murder of Martin O'Hagan. It is much easier to occupy the high moral ground in other situations when you address the questions in your own situation. It is only fair to use this opportunity to mention that.

Malcolm Byrne (Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is fair and I agree. There is that opportunity with the new Government. The Tánaiste has raised this before so it might be appropriate for the committee to raise it with the Tánaiste.

We sometimes take our free press for granted. Mr. Dooley has been in here regularly. It is healthy we have these public debates around the role of media in society and about quality, trusted journalism. We are fortunate to have it and blessed to have so many excellent journalists in Ireland. I am also particularly thinking of journalists from here and around the world who go into conflict zones, bring back stories and speak truth to power. It is a critical part of understanding the conflict and moving towards resolution. I thank them for all the work they have done and I thank our witnesses.

I always ask if there is one thing the committee or the State can do. Regarding supporting journalists, what is the witnesses' one ask?

Mr. Tim Dawson:

The Irish State has a very good story to tell. Its interventions on a number of fronts are making a significant difference. I encourage it to continue supporting our convention and the state of Palestine and to continue making a noise when it is concerned about journalists in peril. I do not come here with criticisms. Continuing on the trajectory the State is on is a course of action we would be grateful to see.

Ms Amelia Evans:

I echo everything Mr. Dawson said. Ireland has an incredible track record to stand on. I double down on the proposal made already to push for Ireland and write to the Minister to see if there can be the opportunity for third party intervention in the ICJ case around requiring and ruling the presentation of evidence in suspected war crimes means the protection of journalists. That is a powerful precedent and a concrete, tangible thing that allows Ireland to use its public platform to speak about the fact there is not access to Gaza right now. On top of all the atrocities we have heard about and the mistreatment of journalists, that is a key piece missing from public discourse and there is an opportunity for Ireland to speak to it.

This is an amazing, beautiful room and conversation and I am moved by it. When conversations get into talking around the sensitivities of this conflict, it is not often we can focus on the harm that has occurred and paths forward. I acknowledge the work the committee is doing to create that space. I thank the committee.

Ms Chantal Joris:

I support Ms Evans' call on bringing the intervention and focusing on preservation of evidence and protection of journalists. We said the ICC has taken a long time to take action, partly for political reasons but it is also very complicated to bring cases about atrocities happening in Gaza when Gaza is not accessible to, for example, the ICC.

There are, according to the ICRC, about 120 armed conflicts happening now. Many do not make the media spotlight and are not at quite the scale we see in Ukraine, Sudan and Gaza but they exist. Before, during and after the conflict, those are generally volatile situations so focusing on conflict in and of itself might not be sufficient. The protection of journalists during conflict has to start before the conflict does, before the bombs start dropping. Support of local media and initiatives that strengthen independence of and respect for the media can begin before the unfortunate moment when armed conflict breaks out and when parties will be less inclined than ever to care about freedom of the press.

Professor Tarlach McGonagle:

All of the strategies we have discussed, both existing and proposed, are more than the sum of their parts. It is important to pursue all of them in different ways. There is an important complementarity there because of the enormity of the problem we face. In pursuing these strategies, it is important to remember journalists need 360 degree protection; that is physical, psychological, legal, financial, political and so on. There are different ways to ensure the different dimensions of protection are secured. There are also different phases of prevention and protection in practice. There is prosecution, ensuring impunity is eradicated or at least reduced, and also promotion of best practices.

I will piggyback on Ms Joris for a change. She made an important point about the different stages involved: conflict prevention; resilience during the conflict; and looking ahead post-conflict.

Perhaps the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities and the Tallinn guidelines with their emphasis on conflict prevention would be useful reference points for the committee.

I thank the committee for holding this discussion and for the excellent questions and engagement.

Niamh Smyth (Cavan-Monaghan, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Professor McGonagle, my colleague Senator Malcolm Byrne for his questions and all our witnesses for participating today.

That concludes our business in public session. I thank everyone sincerely for being with us. It was an important and appropriate discussion that will continue long into the future. Gabhaim buíochas le gach duine.