Law mustn’t silence

In a recent interview with Indian shooter and Olympic medallist Manu Bhaker, a news platform came into controversy because of the nature of some of the questions posed by the interviewer. These questions focused not on her efforts or achievements, but her appearance, calling her “a beautiful, attractive female” and asking if there was any possibility of a romance with fellow Olympian Neeraj Chopra.Several social media users described the questions as sexist, and were sued for defamation by the interviewer, who also sought that the posts be taken down during the pendency of the suit. Delhi HC passed a circumspect order, opining that the plaintiff was justified in his request and ordered the removal of the posts. Reportedly, the court was persuaded by public the fact that Bhaker herself did not express any discomfort with the interview. But is this correct?The first question is whether it is relevant that Bhaker did not claim that the questions were offensive. It is not. For one, the issue was not the impact of the questions on the interviewee, but the nature of the questions, which is open to anyone to discuss. Secondly, sexism is not a private harm, but a public one, and all members of society have a legitimate interest in rooting it out from our public discourse.Part of the problem is that verbal comments, stereotyping, inappropriate compliments are seen as innocuous, and therefore falling in the category of personal issues rather than requiring serious public attention. This needs to be corrected.Stereotyping is the ascribing of certain general characteristics to individuals based on their membership of a particular group, and gender stereotyping is particularly pernicious and difficult to address, as it starts from birth and is often justified with superficial references to biology even where it is clear that socialisation has a much greater role to play. Women are not genetically drawn to kitchens just as men are not naturally incapable of picking up after themselves.One may think this is nothing more than harmless banter, fodder for stand-up comedians to get a few laughs about things many of us recognise in our lives. But it’s important to remember that it’s a very short and slippery slope from a joke to an assumption, and an assumption to an expectation. The perfect wife or mother is nothing but a stereotype, held up as an ideal, and used to punish women who don’t meet it in very real ways – whether through social condemnation, domestic abuse, or in custody and matrimonial disputes. The old joke – that the difference between being aggressive and assertive is your gender – is based on a stereotype, one that has penalised countless women in the workplace. Victim-blaming is again rooted in stereotypes that have serious consequences for survivors in trials.Male athletes would not generally be subjected to questions about their looks or relationships. Doing so with female athletes pigeonholes them and limits the way in which we see women. It sends the message that no matter what a woman achieves, she will only be interesting and valued as a pretty face or as someone’s girlfriend.Gender stereotyping hurts both men and women, but it can be especially harmful to women who are already in an unequal social position. Perceptions of women’s interests, abilities, goals, natural behaviour, and preferences are all rooted in sexist stereotypes that are used to justify and reinforce gender discrimination and inequality, and this is very much a matter of public interest.Some commentators have questioned the movement against sexist discourse as curtailing free speech. This is deeply flawed. Being able to express an opinion on journalistic output that is in the public domain is a basic element of the right to free speech. It is squarely covered by the “fair comment” defence to the law of defamation, being an honest criticism based on accurate information. The statements referring to the questions as “sexist” were based in fact, in public interest, and made in good faith. Moreover, the interviewer made the comments in his capacity as a public personality, and cannot expect to be shielded from public opinion.Moreover, the defendants are not restricting anyone’s speech simply by opining on it. The restriction is the other way around, with the growing weaponisation of defamation law to clamp down on voices for women’s equality. The chilling effect of this trend cannot be overstated, that too in an area where more and not less voices are needed. In MJ Akbar vs Priya Ramani, the court recognised this issue and held that the right to reputation cannot be protected at the cost of women’s right to dignity and equality. This needs to be appreciated by all courts, and we need clear exceptions to defamation law in this regard, if not from the legislature then as a judicial norm, otherwise no woman would ever be able to speak freely about their lives or call out discriminatory behaviour.The writer is a lawyer and scholar in the field of women’s rights