Suzanne Nossel headshot

Photo by Beowulf Sheehan

Every Friday, we discuss tricky questions about free speech and expression with our CEO Suzanne Nossel, author of Dare to Speak: Defending Free Speech for All, in our weekly PEN Pod segment “Tough Questions.” In this week’s episode, we discuss protests in the United Kingdom in response to the killing of a young woman in London, proposed U.S. legislation that could curb protest rights, alarmingly high rates of vaccine hesitancy, as well as Suzanne’s testimony before a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Human Rights in Saudi Arabia, and how the Biden-Harris administration will be measured in terms of its professed commitment to center human rights and its foreign policy in relation to Saudi Arabia. Listen below for our full conversation (our interview with Suzanne is up until the 13:16 mark).

There’s a big story out of the United Kingdom this week where the killing of a young woman in London has led to massive protests that, in turn, has led to a police crackdown. It is now leading to some proposed legislation that could curb protest rights. This is something we’ve documented extensively in the U.S.: attempts to criminalize protest. Does it worry you to see this kind of legislation cropping up in the U.K. and potentially elsewhere?
 It does. We issued our report Arresting Dissent last spring. It came out just on the eve of the murder of George Floyd and the protest movement centered on Black Lives Matter that swelled up over the summer. Our report documented this really disturbing pattern of the introduction of laws and bills restricting protest in dozens of states across the country.

They were overwhelmingly introduced by Republican legislators in the wake of protests against Trump administration policies. The Women’s March, the airport protest against the Muslim ban, protests in relation to gun violence and pipelines are progressive causes that people were rallying to express their grievances with. In response, these Republican legislators tabled proposal after proposal constricting those rights, increasing penalties, expanding the set of places where you are not allowed to assemble—really disturbing encroachments on free speech rights.

One that seemed pretty unmistakably, ideologically motivated was the American Legislative Exchange Council. This Koch brothers-funded group that coordinates state-level legislation was behind many of these proposals. What we saw in the U.K. over the last week is something that has its parallel in the U.S. In the wake of this horrific murder of a young woman, which was done by a police officer, there was a protest in her name and a vigil in the park where she disappeared, and the police reacted harshly and were rounding people up and knocking people to the ground and shoving them into police vans. It mirrored some of the horrifying scenes we saw last summer, in terms of the overly aggressive police response to the Black Lives Matter protests.

“When protests target the police or police conduct, it provokes this intense—almost reflexive—response that is disproportionate and is motivated by the sense of particular aggrievement by the police. . . The introduction of this sweeping anti-protest legislation that restricts where you can protest, if your protest is creating any kind of disturbance—even if it’s just one person—it can be shut down, if it interferes with any activities, that can be a basis to suppress it, which really runs counter to freedom of assembly rights.”

In both instances, it was a parallel dynamic at work, which is when protests target the police or police conduct, it provokes this intense—almost reflexive—response that is disproportionate and is motivated by the sense of particular aggrievement by the police, that they are being targeted and are in the crosshairs. The introduction of this sweeping anti-protest legislation that restricts where you can protest, if your protest is creating any kind of disturbance—even if it’s just one person—it can be shut down, if it interferes with any activities, that can be a basis to suppress it, which really runs counter to freedom of assembly rights. The very nature of protest is somewhat disruptive. People have to see it and it has to present itself in a place where you don’t expect it, and force people to have a reaction.

There’s also a specific reference to the protection of monuments, because there were some incidents in the U.K. where people tore down monuments as part of protests over the last year. The timing is dubious at best. There’s no reference in the government’s reaction to the problem of sexual assault, even by a police officer, and more broadly against women. It really landed poorly, and I think runs counter to the U.K.’s professed obligations and commitments to uphold freedom of assembly rights.

I want to switch over to the United States. President Biden has set ambitious plans to vaccinate all eligible adults by the summertime. Meanwhile, a new CBS news poll this week suggests alarmingly high rates of vaccine hesitancy, particularly among self-identified Republicans, as well as other groups. I’m curious, what does that tell you about truth, trust, and disinformation breaking on party lines in the U.S. right now?
 It’s really not too surprising when you have the wake of a presidency where Donald Trump spent four years trying to discredit science, government officials, and government policy, which worked. Now you have a substantial segment of his support base dubious about the route to what I think everyone wants, which is a return to normalcy in society. It’s not surprising.

“Now you have a substantial segment of his support base dubious about the route to what I think everyone wants, which is a return to normalcy in society. It’s not surprising. I think former President Trump put out a message last week wanting to take credit for the rollout of the vaccine, saying, ‘If you get the vaccine, you should give the kudos to me.’ What he really could do that would be far more constructive is to urge and implore his supporters to go out and get vaccinated.”

I think former President Trump put out a message last week wanting to take credit for the rollout of the vaccine, saying, “If you get the vaccine, you should give the kudos to me.” What he really could do that would be far more constructive is to urge and implore his supporters to go out and get vaccinated. He’s been vaccinated for months. He takes pride—and I think some of the pride is justifiable—in the speed with which the vaccines were developed and approved, thanks in good part to government support, which he helped make happen. He should be a champion of getting every American vaccinated, and yet we don’t hear that.

The result, of course, is that the process is slowed down, and you have to worry about these pockets of people who may be resistant and be locuses of disease after the rest of us hopefully get to the verge of herd immunity. I think it’s important to draw a distinction between that population and other populations that have vaccine hesitancy, for historical reasons or because of their own experience with the healthcare system. I think a lot of valuable work is being done within those communities to try to make people feel comfortable to bring them around, to work with effective messengers, churches, and community organizations who can be heard, with their message that the vaccine is safe and we all need to get it as soon as we are all eligible.

Suzanne, yesterday you had the opportunity to testify before a subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Human Rights in Saudi Arabia. I think we talked on this podcast about some big progress as we’ve seen a new administration, we’ve seen the release of one of our PEN/Barbey Freedom to Write honorees who had been imprisoned in Saudi Arabia—although she’s not fully free—and also some breakthroughs on accountability for the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. What more does the Biden-Harris administration need to do to ensure accountability, and what can we all be doing to support human rights in Saudi Arabia?
 What I said yesterday in my testimony is that a good part of how the Biden-Harris administration will be measured is in terms of its professed commitment to centering human rights and its foreign policy in relation to Saudi Arabia, where these trade-offs are very palpable. The one that came up most recently, of course, is in relation to the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, where the Biden administration rightly made good on its promise to release the Director of National Intelligence report that essentially found that Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud (MBS) culpable for having directed the murder.

“What the question comes down to is what those further steps are [from the Biden administration], and whether they’re seen to be meaningful. There are proposals in Congress to impose a travel ban on [Mohammed bin Salman] (MBS), something that we would support. I think it’s extremely important that MBS not be anytime soon—and not before some dramatic actions to address human Saudi’s human rights record—be welcomed into these international fora where he clearly likes to indulge and hobnob in, and that he remain a stigmatized, discredited leader, notwithstanding the decision to not implement sanctions alongside the rest of those held responsible.”

In the wake of that, the U.S. government ordered sanctions on 76 people who are associated with that crime, but stopped short of sanctioning MBS. That was very controversial among the human rights community. There’s a strong feeling that when it came to the person at the highest level, who clearly was behind this, the administration couldn’t see its way through to extending the sanctions there. The explanation that was given, informally—and what people understood—is that there are too many equities in the bilateral relationship. There was a feeling that sanctioning MBS would just blow up the bilateral relationship, but also that for the administration, this was not the end of the line and that there would be further steps.

I think what the question comes down to is what those further steps are, and whether they’re seen to be meaningful. There are proposals in Congress to impose a travel ban on MBS, something that we would support. I think it’s extremely important that MBS not be anytime soon—and not before some dramatic actions to address human Saudi’s human rights record—be welcomed into these international fora where he clearly likes to indulge and hobnob in, and that he remain a stigmatized, discredited leader, notwithstanding the decision to not implement sanctions alongside the rest of those held responsible.

I also talked about other venues where the U.S. could press for accountability in Saudi Arabia, including the UN Human Rights Council. Saudi Arabia has been a member of the council for 12 of the last 15 years. They clearly care about it. When they make their case for membership, they’ve pledged to consider adopting various UN treaties, including the Seminal Treaty of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). Saudi Arabia is not a party to either of those, so that’s a set of actions that they could take.

Originally, there was a claim that the ICCPR was inconsistent with Sharia law, but many Muslim countries have now signed on to it. I think there are a lot of points of leverage that the United States and the Biden administration has, and it’s going to be extremely important for them to exercise them, because the idea that Mohammed bin Salman is let off the hook really undercuts any message of accountability for others, for a crime that just shocked the conscience of the world. The last time you heard the term “bone saw”—you’ll never hear that again without thinking about the fate of Jamal Khashoggi.