dangers to journalists

Le traitement médiatique des violences faites aux femmes OUTILS À L’USAGE DES JOURNALISTES

Chaque année, plus de 216.000 femmes sont victimes de violences de la part de leur ancien ou actuel conjoint, et 84.000 femmes sont victimes de viols ou de tentatives de viols. Les violences faites aux femmes sont un fait de société. Le collectif Prenons la une a établi quelques recommandations pour permettre un traitement journalistique le plus juste possible.

Une dizaine de médias ont déjà signé. Les signataires : France Télévisions et France Medias Monde, France info, France inter, Mediapart, L'Humanité, Elle, Causette, Libération, Les Nouvelles News, Alternatives économiques, Pleine de vie, Magazine 50-50.

1 - Bannir les termes «crime passionnel» ou «drame familial». Ils minimisent l’acte de l’agres- seur en le considérant comme emporté par l’amour et la passion. Si ces termes sont employés par les avocats de la défense ou la police, le journaliste doit les employer entre guillemets et les présenter comme un argument d’une des deux parties. En tant que journaliste, nous privilégions les termes de «meurtre conjugal», ou «meurtre par le parte- naire intime».

2 - Préférer les termes juridiques consacrés quand un procès est en cours («plaignante», «partie civile»). En l’absence de plainte (et donc de terme juridique consacré), il est préférable d’utiliser les termes de «victime déclarée» ou «d’accusatrice» plutôt que «victime présu- mée», qui met en doute la parole de la victime.

3 - Écarter les verbes «avouer» et «reconnaître» lorsque l’on rapporte les déclarations d’une victime. Ecrire ou dire «elle avoue avoir été violée» laisse croire à un rôle joué par la victime dans son agression, et une forme de culpabilité. Préférer l’expression «a été violée» ou «a subi un viol».

4 - Ne pas confondre «harcèlement sexuel», «agression sexuelle» et «viol». Les deux pre- miers sont des délits. Un viol est un crime défini par le code pénal comme «tout acte de pénétration sexuelle, de quelque nature qu’il soit, commis sur la personne d’autrui par violence, contrainte, menace ou surprise». Les peines encourues ne sont pas les mêmes, et employer le terme «agression sexuelle» pour décrire un viol le minimise.

5 - Eviter les précisions sur les vêtements, le physique ou les habitudes de vie de la victime, qui induisent qu’elle peut être responsable de son agres- sion. Si ce sont des informations qui sont délivrées dans le dossier d’instruction ou par le procureur, elles n’ont pas la même signification sous la plume d’un journaliste. Il convient d’y être attentif, d’utiliser des guillemets. Rappelons que le fait que la victime soit en état d’alcoolémie au moment des faits est une circonstance aggravante pour l’agresseur au regard du droit.

6 - Ne pas donner des conseils ou des leçons tels que «ne pas sortir le soir» ou «faire preuve de discrétion». Les femmes ne sont pas responsables des violences qu’elles subissent.

7 - Protéger l’identité et la dignité de la victime. Révéler son identité peut la mettre gravement en danger. Les journalistes peuvent intégrer les témoignages de victimes de violences uniquement quand celles-ci ne se trouvent pas dans une situation d’urgence ou sous l’influence de tout type de pressions extérieures.

8 - Mettre en avant le contexte ayant précédé un meurtre conjugal ou une tentative de meurtre, dès que possible. Ces homicides s’inscrivent souvent dans une longue série de violences subies par la victime.

9 - Traiter le meurtre conjugal et les violences sexuelles comme un problème de société et non seulement comme des faits divers. Il est pertinent de recontextualiser, en rappelant le nombre de meurtres conjugaux et/ou des violences conjugales ou sexuelles comptabilisés chaque année. 216.000 femmes par an sont victimes de violences de la part de leur ancien ou actuel conjoint.

10 - Ne pas oublier que les mutilations, dont l’excision, sont considérées par les Nations unies comme une violation des droits des filles et des femmes. Il est recommandé de le rappeler.

11 - Intégrer le numéro de téléphone national de référence pour l’écoute et l’orientation des femmes victimes de toutes violences [3919] dans la mesure du possible. 

Just as we wished

Note: Fair warning - unnecessary angst… Based on the au in my gifset.

Barry nuzzles further into the back of Iris’ neck and wraps his arms a little more around her waist when her alarm rang.

“Don’t go.” Barry whines when Iris moves to loosen his arms. She sighs and instead of using the opportunity to get out of bed, turns around to face him. Barry’s nose almost touched the bridge of hers.

Keep reading

To those going on about Trump being a threat to US democracy for saying the election is rigged, that no one has ever refused to accept defeat in an election before and doing so is a threat to our democracy, I have three words for you:

Bush v. Gore.

How soon we forget even recent history. To say that a candidate has never refused the outcome of an election is purely false. Gore did refuse. A recount was administered in Florida, which was within his legal right since the vote came down to a mere 327 vote lead for Bush. After the Secretary of State refused to accept the recounts in various counties in Florida that had voting malfunctioning because the recounts were taking too long, Gore took the issue to court. Then, when Gore sued in Florida courts and Bush appealed the decision, bringing the case to the Supreme Court, conservative leaning court justices at the Supreme Court declared the recounts “unconstitutional” because they were “treating the votes unequally.” In a stinging statement of dissent, Justice Paul Stevens stated that the real loser in this election was the integrity of American democracy.

And now, ironically, many of the same liberal media commentators who declared that election rigged, claim Trump is the first to ever question an election’s results, and that doing so is “unAmerican” and a “threat to our democracy.” 

It’s not only hypocritical to act this way in reaction to make these statements, but it’s in and of itself dangerous. One of the worst outcomes of this election is that, in the face of an admittedly terrible candidate who doesn’t fit the traditional framework of a US politician, so many left-leaning progressives are falling in defense of politics as usual. In some ways, I get it. What Trump represents is so disgusting and so against the pale of the basest decency expected in even today’s political climate, that it makes sense that people might try to save any perceived integrity in our politics by defending the status quo.

But that’s not the answer. Because a major reason Trump got this far is due to the corruption in our political system, the massive divide between politicians and everyday Americans. Many of Trump’s supporters feel alienated from the Republican Machine, and rightfully so. Their anger is dangerously misplaced, but it stems from something legitimate and real. 

Do I think the election is rigged against Trump? No. If anything, the failings in our political system and those of the funding and media coverage around it are what gave him a chance in the first place. But if you ask me whether or not I worry that Trump is tarnishing the US’s reputation as a beacon of democratic freedom, with our voter ID laws and gerrymandering, with our PAC dollars and convenient voting malfunctions, I ask you to remember the “hanging chads” of 2000, the shock and dismay throughout the country as the election results were postponed and postponed. I ask you to recall how Americans watched on as the results of our election came down to a court decision–and the incredible damage done to our country and the world during the Bush Administration in the wake of that. 

The very same liberals decrying that system back then are, in fifteen years’ time, not only defending its virtues but acting as if the very criticism of that system is in and of itself undemocratic and dangerous. As journalist Matt Taibbi states, “the only thing that could get in the way of real change – if not now, then surely very soon – [is] a rebellion so maladroit, ill-conceived and irresponsible that even the severest critics of the system would become zealots for the status quo.” And I fear that is what is happening in the wake of Trump.

anonymous asked:

I am sorry, I actually really don't like Benedict telling paparazzi to just go to Egypt. Egypt is very important, but it is also the most dangerous place for journalists. Paparazzi and journalists are also different. Paps don't necessarily work for anyone, they just take pictures and sell them. They don't make much of a living, most of them. I think it's rather insensitive to tell Paparazzi to go risk their lives and be at high risk to be kidnapped, tortured and murdered because they annoy you

I don’t think he meant for them to literally change jobs and go out there into Egypt. I think he meant to focus attention on the issues that really matter today, and not simply what celebrities are eating, drinking, wearing, etc. and other insignificant stuff. In my eyes, what he did was really important, and I think it gives people an opportunity to reevaluate where their priorities lie, and just realize that there are important things happening out there in the world. 

Israel shoots at Al Jazeera’s Gaza bureau

Al Jazeera’s bureau in Gaza has come under fire. Al Jazeera correspondents have collected large bullets from around the building, with other nearby buildings left untouched. No one has been injured.

The attack comes after Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s incendiary and threatening comments about Al Jazeera yesterday.

An Al Jazeera spokesman said:

“The foreign minister’s comments were a direct threat against us and appear to have been taken as a green light for the targeting of our journalists in Gaza. We hold the Israeli authorities fully responsible. They have put the lives of journalists in danger.

Keep reading