AIBU to be concerned about the potential wider implications of the ongoing injunction request currently in the news?
My understanding is that "PPT" is arguing that if ITN and The Guardian publish the story and identify him, the consequences could be so severe that he may take his own life. He is relying on Article 2 of the ECHR, the right to life, to support his argument for maintaining anonymity.
But I can't help thinking about the message this potentially sends, particularly to those of us who have experienced, or are experiencing, abusive relationships.
Threatening suicide is something that is frequently used as a tool of coercive control. It's a way of shifting responsibility, silencing the other person and controlling the narrative. It can make victims feel that speaking out, seeking help or holding someone accountable could make them responsible for that person's death.
My concern is where this argument takes us. Could it establish a precedent, or at least provide a further justification for men who seek to silence those speaking about their abuse? Could the right to protect someone's life increasingly be used as a reason to prevent accountability for their actions?
Of course, threats of suicide must always be taken seriously, and nobody is suggesting otherwise. But there surely has to be a distinction between protecting someone's life and allowing the threat of self-harm to become a mechanism for suppressing information, silencing victims or avoiding scrutiny.
I worry about the wider implications of this, particularly for those who already know what it feels like to have someone else's threats used to control what they say, what they do and whether they feel able to speak out.
Am I alone in thinking this is a really concerning line of argument?