On 28th April 2025, our webinar “Safeguarding Freedom of Expression against Attempts to Curtail Public Participation: Lessons for France from Canada, Mexico, and Indonesia” convened practitioners, legal experts, and human rights defenders to address the rising threat of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) across multiple global contexts.
The webinar featured interventions from Fiona Houdin, Legal Adviser at the French National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (France), James Turk, Director of the Centre for Free Expression at Toronto Metropolitan University (Canada), Lady Nancy Zuluaga Jaramillo, Senior Legal Researcher & Project Coordinator at the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre (Mexico), and Yogi Bratajaya, legal consultant with expertise on freedom of expression and human rights in the context of climate change, as well as Member of the Asia-Pacific Youth Advisory Group on Environmental and Climate Justice (Indonesia), with moderation by Zuzanna Nowicka, lawyer at the Freedom of Speech Programme of the Helsinki Foundation for Human Rights (Poland).
Focusing on both civil and criminal tactics used to suppress dissent, this session aimed to draw lessons from Canada, Mexico, and Indonesia, countries with extensive experience in combating SLAPPs and safeguarding public participation. Through a comparative analysis of conceptual reference points, legal strategies, institutional configurations, and case studies, the event sought to identify good practices to inform legal and policy reforms in France.
France: An Escalating Misuse of Civil Law – Fiona Houdin
Fiona Houdin kickstarted the webinar by introducing the French National Consultative Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH)’s newly adopted Opinion on Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, a significant document that aims to shape how France will transpose the EU Anti-SLAPP Directive into national law by May 2026. The opinion proposes a broader definition of SLAPPs, inclusive of lawsuits intended to harass or intimidate rather than resolve genuine legal disputes. It also calls for recognising a wider range of indicators to identify such cases, such as power imbalances, personal attacks, and the use of public relations campaigns to amplify pressure on defendants. Furthermore, the CNCDH’s opinion expands the reading proposed by the European Union, by stressing that protections should not be limited to transborder civil cases, andshould instead extend to domestic and criminal proceedings as well.
To strengthen the legal response to SLAPPs, the CNCDH recommends more effective procedural tools, including early dismissal mechanisms and the advanced payment of legal costs for those targeted by these abusive lawsuits. It also supports increasing financial penalties against those who file SLAPPs to bolster dissuasion. If these measures were to be implemented, France would play a pioneering role in developing a comprehensive and inclusive legal framework to resist SLAPPs, potentially setting a standard not only across Europe but also on a global scale.
Canada: Legislative Models and Judicial Training – James Turk
James Turk followed with insights from Canada, where the legislative fight against SLAPPs has been a longstanding commitment, with several Canadian provinces, including Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia, having adopted specific anti-SLAPP laws that enable early dismissal of frivolous lawsuits and shift the burden of proof to the claimant.
Turk further explained how Canada’s legal model could offer inspiration globally, particularly for what concerns the “motion to dismiss”, a mechanism that allows courts to reject cases that unduly restrict public debate. He also stressed the need for judicial training opportunities, noting that legal tools are only effective if courts understand and apply them consistently. Drawing on examples such as Serbia’s whistleblower protection mechanisms, Turk argued for more structured training programmes for the judiciary, which could be equally valuable in SLAPP cases.
Mexico: Criminalisation and Collusion – Lady Nancy Zuluaga Jaramillo
Lady Nancy Zuluaga Jaramillo offered an analysis of the situation in Mexico, where SLAPPs are not only civil, but frequently take the form of criminal charges against journalists and environmental defenders. She detailed how laws intended to protect public order or reputational costs are routinely abused, particularly by state or corporate actors with vested interests in silencing criticism of extractive and infrastructure projects.
Lady Nancy Zuluaga Jaramillo notably identified structural impunity and a lack of political will as major obstacles to combating SLAPPs in Mexico and stressed that, even when international legal frameworks offer some protection, national enforcement is often weak, and human rights defenders face both legal threats and extrajudicial violence. Her call to action was clear: legal reform must be matched by institutional accountability and robust protections on the ground.
Indonesia: SLAPPs Through Criminal Law and Environmental Defence – Yogi Bratajaya
Closing the webinar, Yogi Bratajaya spoke from Jakarta, offering an in-depth look at how SLAPPs manifest in Indonesia. In contrast to the civil-heavy approaches of France and Canada, Indonesia sees criminal law as the main tool of repression. Defamation, “false information,” and “hate speech” provisions, particularly in the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (ITE Law) and the new Criminal Code (KUHP), are regularly used to target those who speak out against environmental harm or corruption.
Yogi Bratajaya discussed landmark cases, including that of Haris Azhar and Fatia Maulidiyanti, who were prosecuted for criticising a government minister, and Daniel Tangkilisan, convicted (and later acquitted) for exposing illegal prawn farms polluting Lake Toba. In both cases, the process was the punishment, dragging defenders through lengthy trials despite weak legal grounds.
However, Yogi highlighted promising legal tools as well: Article 66 of Law No. 32 of 2009 protects environmental defenders from prosecution, and the Supreme Court’s Regulation No. 1 of 2023 provides guidelines for judges to identify and dismiss SLAPPs. Though implementation is still inconsistent, these represent important steps in building a legal shield for public participation.
Key Takeaways
- While SLAPPs are a global phenomenon, their legal form and procedural characteristics vary widely across jurisdictions, appearing in both civil and criminal contexts depending on the national legal framework. The primary aim of a SLAPP is not to succeed in court, but to intimidate, exhaust resources, and suppress public participation, particularly on issues of public interest.
- Effective responses require a combination of legislative protections, judicial training, and civil society resilience.
- Early dismissal procedures, reversal of the burden of proof, and damages for defendants are key features of robust anti-SLAPP mechanisms.
As moderator, Zuzanna Nowicka noted in her closing remarks that these efforts are not only about legal reform, but about defending democratic participation itself. The fight against SLAPPs is the fight for the right to speak, to protest, and to protect one’s land, health, and community.
This webinar underscored that while SLAPPs manifest differently across contexts, they share a common goal: shutting down dissent and undermining accountability. Whether in France’s evolving legal framework, Canada’s courtroom safeguards, Mexico’s resistance to criminalisation, or Indonesia’s grassroots response, the fight against SLAPPs is a fight for democracy.
With the EU directive as a new baseline and strong voices emerging worldwide, real momentum for coordinated action is being recorded in the fight to ensure that those who speak out on matters of public interest are not silenced, but protected.
For more information, you can access the full recording on our YouTube channel.
