Return to Transcripts main page


Interview with Yale Law School Lecturer in Law and Slate Political Gabfest Co-Host Emily Bazelon; Interview with Former NATO Deputy Secretary General and Stanford University Lecturer Rose Gottemoeller; Interview with British Labour MP Harriet Harman; Interview with "Down Girl: The Logic of Misogyny" Author and Cornell University Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies Professor Kate Manne. Aired 1-2p ET

Aired April 25, 2024 - 13:00:00   ET



CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR, CNN CHIEF INTERNATIONAL ANCHOR: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Amanpour." Here's what's coming up.

Trump versus the law. Will the Supreme Court agree to his claim of presidential immunity? As his New York trial over alleged hush money

payments continues. I speak to legal expert, Emily Bazelon.

Then --


just requires the funds to be available.


AMANPOUR: -- $61 billion in American Aid is finally on its way to Ukraine. How will it turn the tide? I asked former NATO Deputy Secretary General

Rose Gottemoeller.

Plus --


HARRIET HARMAN, BRITISH LABOUR MP: We protected other people's children from them, but we didn't protect their own.


AMANPOUR: -- new U.K. legislation strips pedophiles of their parental rights. Labour member of Parliament Harriet Harman talks about working

across the political aisle to protect children.

Also, ahead --



ideology is so deep rooted that we don't even notice. It's everyday adherence and policing and enforcement.


AMANPOUR: Sydney, Australia reeling from the shopping mall stabbing two weeks ago that left six people dead. Five of them were women. Gender

studies professor Kate Manne tells Michel Martin. The attack was rooted in misogyny.

Welcome to the program, everyone. I'm Christiane Amanpour in London. America's legal system is again being tested by Former President Donald

Trump, accused of breaking multiple laws in multiple jurisdictions.

In New York, his trial over alleged hush money payments continues today, and at the same time, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments over his claim

of presidential immunity.


DONALD TRUMP, FORMER U.S. PRESIDENT AND REPUBLICAN PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: We have a big case today in the Supreme Court on presidential immunity. A

president has to have immunity. If you don't have immunity, you just have a ceremonial president.


AMANPOUR: But as Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said, she laid out that many fear the potential dangers of allowing anyone to be above the



KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, ASSOCIATE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE: If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world, with the

greatest amount of authority could go into office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes, I'm trying to understand

what the disincentive is from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.


AMANPOUR: Now, Trump's lawyers are maintaining that he's immune from prosecution in the January 6th case and the stakes are huge, not just for

Donald Trump, but for the presidency itself. So, let's get the latest from a legal expert, Emily Bazelon. She's a lecturer at Yale Law School and

writes for "New York Times" magazine, and she's joining me now from New Haven to help us through what is complicated.

Emily, welcome to the program. Can I start by asking you to break down, does a president or a former president have any immunity ever? Any limited

immunity ever?


related, you know, to the president's core functions that he should have immunity for even after he holds office, right? We are talking here about

former presidents.

And so, what the government said is there are certain duties related to being commander of chief or his pardon power, things that are really core

to how he exercises his office that he would be immune for. And then there is a lot of other activity that is subject to regular criminal statutes.

AMANPOUR: So, what you're saying is immunity for certain civil situations, but this is the first time they are dealing with criminal allegations,


BAZELON: Yes, exactly. There is a former Supreme Court case about President Nixon which said that a former president could not be sued by

ordinary citizens for his acts in office. And the idea here is that there are lots of people who can bring lots of different kinds of lawsuits that

could be incredibly distracting or even a form of harassment for a former president, but that a criminal charge brought by a law enforcement official

has different kinds of guardrails around it. And so, this is the open question. In this case, can a former president be criminally charged?


AMANPOUR: Now, this is the first former president to be criminally charged, which is why whatever happens here is a precedent setting matter.

Give me the stakes, before we get into the nitty gritty of what happened inside the Supreme Court today.

BAZELON: Well, the stakes are enormous. You know, one way of thinking about this is the president, a former president, subject to the rule of

law. Do we worry that if you take criminal charges off the table for every official act a president could do, that that invites lawbreaking, that such

a president would feel completely unconstrained by the law? And that could be quite alarming. That was one side of the equation today.

The other side, which Trump's lawyer was arguing, and some of the conservative justices seemed quite sympathetic to, is that if a president

is constrained by future criminal prosecution, that could weaken him in office or even make him decide to pardon himself in advance as a way of

forestalling any criminal liability.

AMANPOUR: OK. So, clearly, it appears that the definition of what is presidential duty, i.e., official act as president has to be established.

Because Trump says, and his lawyers say, all these things that he's been accused of were in connection with his official duties. Was that addressed

in court?

BAZELON: Yes, there was a lot of discussion about this, and one way to draw the line, which some justices seem interested in, which the Biden

administration was arguing, one way would be to separate the things you do because you're holding the office of president versus the things you do

because you're seeking to continue to hold that office.

So, in other words, there are things you do because you're the president or because you're a candidate. And in this case, when we're talking about

these allegations against Former President Trump related to January 6th, a lot of them were because he was trying to stay in office by subverting the

results of the election, according to the prosecutors.

AMANPOUR: And let's face it, these are, you know, crimes that have been alleged by, you know, state officials, by federal and et cetera. And, you

know, Trump has said this is a Biden, you know, criminal witch hunt against him, but none of it obviously has come from this White House.

So, what did you hear in court today, particularly maybe regarding the January 6th trial? Did he, you know, conspire to subvert and to encourage

the insurrection at the -- you know, at the Capitol January 6? What did you hear in court that might lead to some kind of decision on that?

BAZELON: You know, the government obviously is very concerned. These are serious charges. This is about the core of American democracy and some of

the justices, I think, want to make sure that a former president could be criminally charged in such a situation and even try to clear the path for

Former President Trump to be tried before the election in November. Right.

Timing is very crucial here because if Trump wins in November, he'll have the power to replace the attorney general, change the Justice Department

and make these charges go away. So, some of the justices I think are primarily concerned with accountability and other justices seemed very

interested in potentially sending this case back to the lower courts for more proceedings, which would prevent a trial from happening before


AMANPOUR: Is it, you know, sort of -- is it sort of falling out along the conservative and more liberal lines? I read in a wire report that we've

confirmed that Justice Samuel Alito, conservative, pressed Special Counsel Smith's lawyer on whether his claim that Trump was acting outside the

bounds of legality would not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?

BAZELON: Right. Justice Alito pressed really hard on this point, this idea that if a president thought he could be criminally charged later, then he

would abuse his powers in office to make sure that did not happen later. He didn't seem interested in the political constraints, which you would think

would apply, right? If a president starts just pardoning himself, he's telegraphing that he thinks he committed a crime, and maybe for political

reasons, you wouldn't want to do that. Justice Alito, not going down that path.

The question is whether there is a majority of the court that is so concerned about those questions or just interested in sending this case

back for more proceedings, that that will delay a trial before November or prevent one from happening at all. And there were definitely conservative

versus liberal splits, but it was hard to tell where the majority lay because there were also a couple justices who seemed to not completely

signal in their questions where they stood.


AMANPOUR: And now, the hearing is a one-day affair and it's wrapped up. So, what happens next?

BAZELON: Now we wait. Potentially we wait until the end of June for a decision from the Supreme Court. And of course, the timing has already

subjected the court to criticism. They could have heard this case in December and dispensed with it by now. Instead, they let the lower courts

hear it first. They took their time getting to this hearing, and there's no particular reading to -- and reason to think that they are in a hurry to

issue this decision. So, I think realistically we are probably looking toward the end of their term at the end of June.

BAZELON: Now, Liz Cheney wrote in "The New York Times," if delay prevents this Trump case from being tried this year, the public may never hear

critical and historic evidence developed before the grand jury and our system may never hold the man most responsible for January 6th to account.

What's your view on this? Should the Supreme Court even have taking this case?

BAZELON: I think the Supreme Court could have taken this case much earlier. And then this whole question of timing, these doubts that are

swirling, which I think are a problem for the court's own credibility, the court could have addressed.

Instead, yes, we are in a situation where the clock is running. And if Former President Trump wins election in November, and this trial is not

wrapped up, then it is entirely possible that the country will never find out the answers to the questions that the prosecutors have raised about

Former President Trump's guilt in trying to subvert the 2020 election.

AMANPOUR: And a question about one of the justices, Clarence Thomas. Now, his wife supported efforts to overturn the 2020 election. Do you think he

can be impartial in this case? And should he even have recused himself?

BAZELON: That's a great question. It is between Justice Thomas and his own conscience, because the way Supreme Court decisions are made in these cases

is that the justices get to decide for themselves whether to hear the case. There's no oversight. It's not up to a majority of the court. They're

actually not bound by the same ethical rules that bind all the other American judges in the federal system.

There have been a lot of questions about whether that's the case. That's the best way to do things, but that is where we stand for the present. So,

this is really up to Justice Thomas.

AMANPOUR: And very quickly, very finally, there's been a lot going against Trump recently. Of course, what's going on in his hush money case, he's

been today affirmed that he has to pay the $83 million to E. Jean Carroll for the defamation. His associates have been indicted in Arizona. I mean,

there's just a lot going on.

How do you think things are falling around him, around these legal cases now they're coming to trial?

BAZELON: It's a great question because, you know, one of the things that matters the most is the political implications. It's hard to see how this

swirl of legal controversy can be good for his candidacy. You know, it doesn't seem to be dissuading his core followers. They've been giving him

lots of money for his legal bills. But he also has to persuade some centrist voters in the United States, and I think that becomes a heavier

lift when you're in the shadows of these criminal and civil cases.

AMANPOUR: Emily Bazelon, thank you so much indeed.

Now, after months of being held up in Congress, a $61 billion aid package is finally being sent to Ukraine. President Zelenskyy called the move a

vital step to protecting the nation's sovereignty, writing in a tweet that the key now is speed, which he reiterated in his nightly address.


VOLODYMYR ZELENSKYY, UKRAINIAN PRESIDENT (through translator): Now, we will do everything to compensate for the six months that have passed in

debate and doubt. What the Russian occupiers have been able to do during this time, what Putin is planning now, we must turn against him. All their

actions at the front, all their attacks on our energy and infrastructure, all the terror against our cities and villages, all this should mobilize

us, everyone in the world who really values life, to put more pressure on Russia.


AMANPOUR: As Ukraine continues to suffer a barrage of Russian bombs and missiles, what can this aid do right now? Former NATO Deputy Secretary

General Rose Gottemoeller joined me to explain how it can best be used.

Rose Gottemoeller, welcome back to the program.


MONTGOMERY (voice-over): When we last talked, the aid was log jammed, blocked in Congress. Now, they've passed it. The question is, is it late or

is it too late?

GOTTEMOELLER: I think it's late, there's no question about that. It's been months that the House of Representatives has been dithering over this. But

I do think that they'll be able to get the aid going very quickly. There's a lot of attention to air defenses and getting more air defenses to Ukraine

in addition to long-range, highly accurate missiles like ATACMS.

So, I think everything's locked and loaded, so to say, and it just requires the funds to be available.


AMANPOUR: What do you think is the most important thing Ukraine can do with this new aid?

GOTTEMOELLER: First of all, there's a missile duel going on now between Russia and Ukraine. They're exchanging long-range missile strikes, Ukraine

striking oil refineries in Russia, and Russia going after the energy infrastructure in Ukraine. By the way, also killing a lot of civilians into

the bargain (ph).

And so, I think for Ukraine to have that kind of air defenses that can shoot down fast-moving ballistic missiles that the Russians are shooting at

it will be very, very helpful. And so, I think the Patriots are at the top of my list and I think at the top of President Zelenskyy's list as well.

AMANPOUR: This week, we had a foreign policy expert from Europe on who said that, to be frank, these air defense systems are available in Europe.

They need to be moved there. Yes, Europe lacks ammunition and artillery shells and the like, but they don't lack air defense systems. Europe needs

to step upright and send these.

GOTTEMOELLER: Yes, and I was just seeing that again European capitals, NATO capitals are hesitating to send some of their own Patriot systems to

Ukraine. I think we'll work through this in coming days. I know the secretary general of NATO, Mr. Stoltenberg, and Rishi Sunak has been

talking to Zelenskyy about getting more air defenses. So, I think the moral drive will really bring the Europeans together.

It's not all about Patriots though. I do note that there are some less modern air defenses, like the S-300 systems that the Greeks deploy, these

are Soviet built, also very effective, very good old-fashioned technology. So, there are other kinds of systems out there that the Europeans could

bring to the table, and I hope we'll see more of that.

AMANPOUR: Rose Gottemoeller, when we last spoke you had sort of mapped out a path for victory. One of the things you spoke about very impressively was

about Ukraine's success in the Black Sea. But I wonder what you think now, given that Russia has had so much opportunity to slam so many missiles,

obviously they -- you know, they've been able to because there hasn't been enough antiair defense systems, into factories, into Kharkiv cities, you

know, into energy plants and the like.

And I wonder what you think Russia's aim is right now as Ukraine believes there's going to be a Russian offensive in June or July?

GOTTEMOELLER: Clearly, they want to undo the electricity infrastructure of Ukraine and put Ukrainians into the dark, highly demoralizing, of course,

but also forces the economy to grind to a halt. The Ukrainians have been incredibly clever, once again, about building up more distributed

capabilities. So, they're not so dependent with -- they've had a good amount of assistance from the E.U. and others to do this.

So, they have the ability to generate power, not with their huge Soviet air plants, but with some smaller distributed capability, but it's not enough

because the Russians have been so unrelenting in these attacks. So, I do think, again, air defense is all important at this moment.

I will note that as far as the Black Sea is concerned, the humanitarian transit route still remains open. The Ukrainians have denied the Russian

navy sea control in the Western Black Sea. But the Russians have been pounding the storage facilities for grain and the port facilities in Odessa

and in other ports on the Black Sea. So, they are remorseless in these attacks, but the sea remains open.

AMANPOUR: So, do you think it's said by a different analyst that Ukraine is unoccupiable as Russia would like it, but they are trying to make it

uninhabitable? Do you see that?

GOTTEMOELLER: Ukraine is an enormous country. It's the size of France. And I think that making it uninhabitable could -- well, I hesitate even to say

it, Christiane, but, you know, with a nuclear attack, but that would be in no one's interest, including Russia's because the radiation from such an

attack would destroy Russia as well. So, it's not that kind of thing.

I think it really is an attempt to demoralize not only the Ukrainian population, but also its western backers. There's been a kind of line among

the Republicans on Capitol Hill, oh, we're just pouring money down a sinkhole and it's not going to help and the Russians are going to win

anyway. So, why are we doing this?

So, it's that kind of narrative, I think, that these remorseless attacks are trying to feed and that's what I think we need to press back against.

AMANPOUR: Well, interestingly, I wasn't going to go down the nuclear hole, but you raised it. And actually, I wonder whether you think the Republicans

did show that they were not going to be intimidated in the end by President Putin dangling that threat around as he's tried to stop this -- the passage

of this bill. I mean, kicking and screaming, it did eventually go through.


GOTTEMOELLER: Absolutely. And it had a significant majority as well. I was very pleased. You know, there is a bipartisan support for Ukraine in the

Congress, and that's very clear. So, I do think that Putin's attempt and his government's attempts to rattle the nuclear saber around this vote

backfired and clearly, they are going ahead on Capitol Hill. And that is a very, very good thing.

It was more about U.S. domestic politics, frankly, and whether President Trump would be helpful in this regard. In the end of the day, I have to say

his encouragement to Johnson, the speaker of the House, was very important in getting the vote through.

AMANPOUR: Putin must be quite confused, because there are a lot of mixed messages coming from Donald Trump right now. Another question, do you buy

into what a lot of people have focused on, and certainly President Zelenskyy, over the last couple of weeks, when the United States and its

allies, a big coalition, frankly, helped keep Israeli skies safe from an Iranian missile barrage. And, you know, Zelenskyy said, see, you can do it,

but you never do it for us. I mean, I'm paraphrasing.

Is there, do you think? Does he have a point?

GOTTEMOELLER: Well, sadly, I know that we are also hearing this from the Palestinians in Gaza. So, it's a similar point being made by them. There

are so many factors here at work. One that's so interesting that the Iranians actually gave diplomatic warning to the United States of the

upcoming barrage against Israel. And so, in that way, both U.S. and U.K. were able to get their seaborne defenses ready to go as well as the

Israelis, of course. And so, there was an effective defense against this attack.

In Ukraine, President Biden from the outset has been very, very firm that the Ukrainians were going to have to fight their own battle, but we would

render every single bit of assistance that we could. No NATO boots on the ground and no NATO air support, including air defenses. And so, for that

reason, it is up to the Ukrainians. But I want to say once again, how incredibly clever they've been as well as effective once they have the

resources they need to fight back against the Russians.

AMANPOUR: So, to pick up on the no NATO boots on the ground, and actually, the Ukrainians say, we are fighting for you. You know, you are not sending

your men and women to a fight that you may one day have to join if it doesn't stop with us.

But as you know, there's a new suggestion by some analysts in a recent publication saying, too many politicians and pundits in the U.S. and Europe

echo Putin's own talking points by warning that any kind of external intervention in Ukraine would lead to World War III. In reality, sending

European troops would be a normal response to a conflict of this kind. Russia's invasion disrupted the regional balance of power, and Europe has a

vital interest in seeing the imbalance corrected.

What are your thoughts on this, on European not calling themselves NATO?

GOTTEMOELLER: Well, this has been, you know, the point that President Biden made from the outset is that it's not worth the risk of World War III

to bring NATO troops into the fight by any means, and I think you know, the same for European troops.

I know that there's been a notion somehow that trainers on the ground in uniform could be there helping the Ukrainians. And, you know, there's

obviously going to be arguments back and forth about that. But I do think that the escalatory danger is such that we have to be super cautious here.

And for that reason, I do agree that we continue to help, we continue to support, but we do not actually join the fight.

And we'll see how this debate unfolds. But to be honest with you, I continue to be very worried about the escalatory pressures. The deterrence,

the interwar deterrence in Ukraine has been quite fragile, but it has had a weird kind of stability to it, and the Russians have been deterred from

attacking NATO throughout this period. NATO has been sending tons of equipment and materiel and weapon systems to Ukraine. The Russians have not

touched that that supply chain on NATO territory. We need to keep it that way.

AMANPOUR: Well, let me just ask you, because the latest from the Russian defense ministry is that we are going to start attacking storage facilities

for these weapons, and I'm not sure whether he means in NATO countries or in Ukraine.

GOTTEMOELLER: I saw the same report, Christiane, from Minister Shoigu, the minister of defense. He was very clear in his remarks that they would

attack NATO supplied equipment once it arrives in Ukrainian storage facilities. So, of course, it behooves us once again to make sure that the

air defenses are up and running so that the storage is protected. But also, I know the Ukrainians are pretty savvy about keeping that stuff hidden and

hidden in a clever way.

AMANPOUR: Rose Gottemoeller, former NATO deputy secretary general, thank you for joining us.

GOTTEMOELLER: Thank you so much.


AMANPOUR: And next, a reminder of the possibilities of bipartisan cooperation and journalistic investigations. Until now, a father convicted

of child sexual offenses in the U.K. was barred from contact with any child except his own. That's changing. After the BBC reported the case of a

mother who spent tens of thousands of pounds in legal fees trying to prevent her former partner, convicted of pedophile offences, from

contacting their child. It caught the attention of Labour Party Lawmaker Harriet Harman, whose work to change the law.

When we spoke recently, I asked about her career as a woman in the halls of power, helping influence this important legislation.


AMANPOUR: Harriet Harman, welcome back to the program. I wanted to ask you about this new pedophilia law. You were very clear about taking this across

and adding teeth to something that really -- you know, there was a big, big pitfall in the law. First of all, tell me about this law and what you did,

and then we'll get into the origin story.

HARRIET HARMAN, BRITISH LABOUR MP: Well, in about the 1990s, we took a lot of steps recognizing that those who commit sex offenses against children

often are quite devious and manipulative and are repeat offenders. So, what we did is that when people were convicted of serious sex offenses against

children, we would put them on something called the sex offenses register and they would have to register where they lived and report in, but also,

they were barred from working with children.

So, we protected other people's children from them, even after they were out of prison. So, they wouldn't be able to volunteer in a play group or

work in a youth club or be a teacher or work in child health or anything. So, we said these men are dangerous. They've been convicted by the courts.

The danger goes on beyond the sentence. We know that from experience. So, we will protect children from them. But there was a carve out for fathers.

So, we protected other people's children from them, but we didn't protect their own. And that was the gap in the law. And the reason why it was like

that is because the idea was fathers' rights should transcend the issue. And actually, what we're saying now is, no, it's actually protection of

children that should be the priority and that the father's rights to his parental rights should take second place.

AMANPOUR: So, what I find so interesting about this as a journalist is that you're talking about in the '90s, you created this initial law to

protect other people's kids. Now, a journalist doing an investigation found this loophole to be actually dangerous for their own children. Talk to me

about how the journalism and how breaking this story, how it came about and how it then became something you took up and made into law.

HARMAN: What it took to put it into the public domain was a little bit of opening up of the family courts, which had previously been very much behind

closed doors to protect confidentiality and anonymity. This very experienced BBC journalist Sanchia Berg, she sat in on a case in Cardiff

and reported on it whilst keeping all the names anonymous, changing the names.

And what she showed was a case of where a mother had gone to the family court to protect her child from a pedophile father. And it was quite

obvious that it should not be the responsibility of the mother to protect the child from the sex offender father. It should be the law that protects.

It's a big change because father's rights are now being challenged.

And, you know, we've challenged a husband's rights. We've said you cannot rape your wife, that's a criminal offense. You cannot beat your wife,

that's not just keeping her in order, that's a criminal offense. And we're now actually saying, you don't have rights over your own children. They are

a privilege and you forfeit that privilege if you are a sex offender.

AMANPOUR: It is a really interesting and very, very positive confluence of journalism and politics. You though are in the opposition, and this is a

Tory government. You're a Labour MP. You were able to work across the aisle on this.

HARMAN: Well, I -- once I raised the issue, I immediately got the support of woman, former conservative cabinet minister Maria Miller, and also the

chair of a select committee, a conservative Caroline Nokes. They immediately supported it. And that sort of sent the message to the

minister, the lord chancellor, that actually this wasn't just a Labour thing, this is something that, you know, women seriously concerned about

protection of children were working together on.

And you know, in the past, we didn't use to work together so much across the House of Commons as women because we were rather on the margins of our

own party.

AMANPOUR: As women?

HARMAN: As women.


HARMAN: And we didn't want our own side to say, see, this is what happened when you get a woman elected. She works with the other side. So, it's --

AMANPOUR: God forbid.


HARMAN: So, it's taken us to know our rightful place and be confident to talk to each other and say, do we think the government might be getting

this wrong and might they need to do a change and to actually work together? And so, I think that that's really a coming of age of women's

place in the House of Commons, which hopefully after the next election, we'll see another boost.

AMANPOUR: Well, interesting because this leads me to a whole load of other stories and points. And I want to ask you about them. So, you're stepping

down. You're the mother of the house. You're the longest consistently elected woman MP in the house. But after more than 40 years, you were

elected in 1982, you have decided to step down at the next election.


AMANPOUR: Right. So, I just want to quote another woman. This is, you know, on the other side and was a prime minister, Theresa May. She said

last month, over my time in parliament, I've seen a coarsening of our debates and less respect for others' views. Democracy depends on us being

able to debate key issues that affect people's everyday lives seriously and respectfully.

So, she is stepping down. And we just talked about, you know, debate and cross aisle, you know, engagement. Do you also see, despite what just

happened, which is positive, a toxicity in -- between the political parties? Is it going to become like, in the United States, Democrats versus

Republicans can barely talk to each other, let alone legislate?

HARMAN: Well, I think there's certainly a danger of a toxic misogyny. And I think that women members of parliament are urging the party leaders to

actually agree together. They will not resort to misogyny in their campaigning. They will not default to that in order to stir up what's

called the culture wars in order to get an electoral advantage because that actually makes women candidates unsafe. It actually stirs up hatred and

abuse on social media. And therefore, we want all the party leaders not to resort to that.

And there is a general concern about toxic masculinity affecting not just politics, but all walks of life. But we don't want politics to amplify it.

And we do feel concerned that somehow the kind of aura of Donald Trump oxygenates a kind of anti-woman, misogynistic tone, and conversation, which

legitimizes the idea that women could be disrespected and treated with contempt.

So, there is an issue right now about how we behave with each other, and democracy depends on everybody being able to stand for election, nobody

having to look over their shoulder when they stand for election and have them to put up with masses of abuse. And also, once they become MPs, to

know that they can say what they think without it being subject to toxic misogynist abuse. So, I think Theresa May is absolutely right. This is a

moment partly because of the advent of social media.

AMANPOUR: Can I ask you, I don't know whether you see any -- not similarities, but potential risks, a fallout from the very divisive

abortion debate that's under -- you know, underway in the United States. And we saw that in March France, which does have a written constitution,

enshrined the right for a woman to choose in their constitution, worried that right-wingers may -- you know, may crop up there and threaten it,

those family values, like we're seeing in Italy even under a female prime minister.

Is there any threat to a woman's right to choose how she controls her own body in this country?

HARMAN: I don't think so, and I think the politics of it in this country has always been very different. It's regarded as a free vote, as a

conscience issue. And the parties forbear from campaigning on it. They won't campaign on it in the general election. They won't have a position on

it in their manifesto because it's regarded as a matter of conscience.

We might well have a vote on abortion, on liberalizing abortion in the next couple of weeks, attached to this criminal justice bill, as it's called,

that might happen, but it will not be a party-political moment.

AMANPOUR: In America, they do campaign on it, and the language from some, I mean, it's just really wounding, really accusatory. I mean, you know,

Donald Trump accused Hillary Clinton in 2016, in a public presidential debate, of the most awful, practically of murder, in terms of her attitudes


What do you think those kinds of very heated and often wrong -- you know, factually wrong arguments in public around this issue, what does it do to

women in general and women's rights?


HARMAN: Well, I think it's quite interesting looking at how in the different states in the U.S. that women have had to mobilize, but it's a

painful and difficult mobilization. Nobody really wants to be campaigning on this. We need for a consensus to be reached and it to be regarded as,

you know, a health care process, which nobody really wants to engage in because they'd rather not have a pregnancy that they don't go -- want to go

ahead with.

So, I think it's terrible to see it reduced to a party-political stump issue and accusations thrown around. And hopefully, we won't get there in

this country. But I know that it's always been something that has been partisan in the states, and I've seen it being playing out in individual

states, often in a way which surprises people where the traditional party lines have sometimes been confounded by women in states who would be

expected to be Republicans, nevertheless defending a right to choose.

AMANPOUR: And that's happening more and more in fact. So, I want to ask you about immigration, the Rwanda bill. Months of opposition from the

opposition party, from within the conservative party as well. You know, it was first announced, I don't know, about two years ago, and not one flight

has taken off.

What is your take on this bill and the idea of flights to Rwanda, in any event, being a constructive way to deal with whatever immigration issue the

country might have?

HARMAN: The idea of sending people on flights to Rwanda, which the government themselves say probably maximum will be 300 a year. If people

are prepared to risk their lives, they're not going to not take the risk. They'll expect that they perhaps won't be one of the 300.

So, in a way, it's supposed to be a deterrent, but how you could have a deterrent, which only applies to 300 people when people are prepared to

risk their lives there so desperate. So, we think it's wrong constitutionally. We think it won't work as a deterrent, and it siphons

money off from other measures, which we really do need to be taking.

AMANPOUR: Harriet Harman. Thank you very much indeed.


AMANPOUR: Now, if misogyny often goes unrecognized, it can certainly be deadly, just as we saw on April 13th in Sydney, Australia, where a man

killed six people at a busy shopping mall, five of them women. And while police say the attacker may have targeted women, our next guest says

there's no doubt about that. Kate Manne is an associate professor at Cornell University and author of the book "Down Girl: The Logic of

Misogyny." She tells Michel Martin why we must all reckon with this dangerous ideology.


MICHEL MARTIN, CONTRIBUTOR: Thanks, Christiane. Professor Kate Manne, thank you so much for joining us.


for having me.

MARTIN: So, I want to mention that you are a scholar, a college professor, you teach at Cornell, but you are also from Australia. So, I just wanted to

start by asking what went through your mind when you heard about that terrible attack at that Sydney shopping mall?

MANNE: It was just such harrowing events. And I, of course, thought about the people who were just out buying a new pair of jeans, trying to buy an

outfit for a wedding, a loaded baked potato, and then were just confronted with this horrific violence in the form of this knife attack. And one

mother died after trying to protect her baby daughter, who fortunately pulled through. But it is a horrific tragedy. And my heart just goes out to

all of the families affected.

MARTIN: Initially in the news reports, you know, one did not know whether there was a motivation, whether there were any words spoken. And then it

emerges that -- from the police chief, a police commissioner, who said that, it's obvious to me, it's obvious to detectives that seems to be an

area of interest that the offender had focused on women and avoided the men.

And when you heard that, what went through your mind?

MANNE: Yes, I was, of course, like everyone, as these events unfolded, not sure are even making a guess or speculation about the motivations, but that

did confirm that that seems to be a misogynistic massacre. We know that five of the people of the six who died were women, and that he also

attacked women who were wounded disproportionately.

And that together with the context that was helpfully provided by the killer, Joel Cauchy's father, Andrew, in the aftermath, suggested that this

was one of the attacks that we have sadly been seeing not uncommonly around the world that stems from a place of misogynistic resentment. His father

said that his son was frustrated out of his brain, that he didn't have social skills and wanted a girlfriend, and he suggested that the attack was

motivated by this sense of resentment at not having the social and sexual services of women.


MARTIN: One of the things, I think, was interesting to note is that the authorities said that they -- there was no indication that ideology was a

motive or rather that this was a terrorist attack. But if you consider that a particular group of people were targeted for their identity, right, if

you take the notion that, you know, terrorism is not just directed at the bystanders to send a message, but terrorism is also directed to sort of

punish a group of people for being who they are, right, then it would seem like it would be terrorism.

I'm just wondering why it is that, you know, we very rarely hear that. Why is it that these kinds of things are rarely framed in that way as terrorism

directed at women?

MANNE: Yes, absolutely. That comment of police that it didn't appear to be motivated by ideology is so striking because, in fact, patriarchal ideology

is so deep rooted that we don't even notice it's everyday adherence and policing and enforcement.

And the ideology is roughly that a man, particularly a racially privileged man, a white man like Joel Cauchi deserves to have a girlfriend and

deserves sexual and social companionship. And that if that doesn't work out, then he's not merely disappointed, he is aggrieved. He has a sense of

entitlement to have that kind of relationship and he feels entitled to lash out violently when that doesn't come to fruition in what I believe is

absolutely an act of terrorism.

It creates terror in girls and women and rightly so that we may be targeted because of our gender. So, I think there is a kind of racist reluctance to

call something terrorism when it comes from a white man who feels entitled to women, but we are very quick to label something terrorism when it comes

from a brown skinned Muslim perpetrator.

And in fact, in the immediate aftermath of these horrible events, there were various Australian commentators who assumed that this was an act of

Islamic terrorism, which was completely false. In fact, the one Muslim person who was involved in this incident was the brave, courageous security

guard who was also the only man involved for us to hear who was one of the murdered victims when he tried to intervene in this misogynistic attack and

lost his life as a result of that.

MARTIN: When the father of the killer expressed these thoughts, he said he wanted a girlfriend and he has no social skills and he was frustrated out

of his brain, some people thought that he was blaming the victim -- victims, but I felt that he was just describing what he saw, and I just

wonder -- I thought that was helpful information to know that he -- that that was what was in his mind.

MANNE: I admit that when I initially saw the remarks taken out of context, I worried that it was an example of what I call himpathy, where sympathy is

extended to a male perpetrator of violence and misogyny over his female victims.

But when I saw the entire interview of this grieving father, my reaction was very different. I think he was just trying to explain, not excuse or

justify his son's actions. I think he was horrified by what his son did. His statement had a recognizably both (ph) and form. He said, I am loving a

monster. And to you he's a monster, to me, he's a sick boy. He's a very sick boy. Believe me, he's a sick boy.

And that is not inaccurate. Joel Cauchi was a diagnosed schizophrenic who had recently, according to his family, discontinued medication, and he was

living in a way that was largely itinerant. He was on the fringes of society. We don't have to sympathize with him whatsoever to recognize that

when it comes to a particular question, why did this man, who was aggrieved and lonely, snap on this day, then we can invoke the fact that he had a

particular kind of mental illness that unlike most kinds of mental illness does result in an increased rate of violence.

But I think we can recognize that when it comes to that question of why he targeted girls and women and why it is invariably a Joel rather than a

Jane, a man rather than a woman, who has this kind of horrifically violent eruption after romantic or sexual disappointment, then we can recognize

that his father's explanation is, again, helpful that he was motivated by the sense of entitlement to women's labor and to be ministered to and cared

for by women.


MARTIN: The word that many people use to describe this is somebody who is an incel or an involuntary celibate. Do you think we're seeing more

incidents like this or do you think that we're just more willing to acknowledge it?

MANNE: I think we are seeing a rise in these incidents and a rise in incel ideology. What has happened since the crimes of Elliot Rodger in May 2014

is there has been a proliferation of these incel communities online, which have often treated Elliot Rodger as a kind of patron saint of the movement.

MARTIN: So, say more about that, who was he, what happened if you would.

MANNE: Yes. He was a 22-year-old man who felt that he was being deprived of sex, love, admiration, and affection from women. He had a long so-called

manifesto, really more of a memoir, if you ask me, in which he recounted these disappointments. And he also had a number of YouTube videos, the last

of which was entitled "Elliot Rodger's Retribution", where he uploaded this video to YouTube immediately before driving to UCSB on Memorial Day

weekend, May 2014, and knocking loudly at the door of a sorority house at the University of California, Santa Barbara.

And luckily, the women inside decided not to answer the door, because the knocking sounded unusually loud and aggressive. And that saved their lives,

because he had a loaded gun in hand and was planning to eviscerate all of them.

He then turned and shot at three young women, also UCSB students, walking outside around the corner, killing two and wounding one of them severely,

and then he went on a random -- seemingly random drive by shooting spree and also ended up killing another young man. He had previously stabbed to

death his three roommates and that was immediately before uploading the YouTube video and he then shot himself as authorities closed in on him on

that day.

So, those horrific acts were one of these early striking examples of, to me, very clear misogynistic violence. Although it was often denied in the

press that this was a misogyny, it was said instead that this was mental illness, even though in this particular case, there was rather little

evidence that Rodger, despite extensive psychological evaluation, it doesn't seem that he was mentally ill.

It seems he was aggrieved and entitled and had this sense that the world owed him a, as he put it, hot blonde woman who would turn up on his

doorstep, ready and willing to date him and have sex with him. And when he was denied this, he didn't perceive himself as a criminal, he thought he

was enforcing justice. He thought he was enacting revenge, retribution, because the world had not given him what he thought he was owed.

MARTIN: Some people feel like there's kind of a worldwide movement of trying to sort of reclaim male dominance. Like, for example -- like in

South Korea, for example, there's like a whole political movement to kind of fight feminism, right? The argument that there are like political

parties and political leaders whose main organizing principle is that. And I'm just wondering, do you see something worldwide? And if so, what is it?

MANNE: Yes, we are absolutely seeing a rise in anti-feminist leaders worldwide who are basically capitalizing on the fact that between men and

women, particularly what we see this when it comes to young men versus young women, there is a real disparity in attitudes towards feminism. And

we see this in the U.S. context too where almost half of young Democratic men in a recent study by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2022 showed

that nearly half of Democratic men believed, when they were young, that feminism was a backward step and that it was a mistake and a negative for


And that is in marked contrast to women's attitudes where young women, it was less than a quarter who said that. And we also see that these attitudes

are very common -- more common, unsurprisingly, in young Republican men and to some extent, women.

MARTIN: Why do you say unsurprisingly?


MANNE: Well, I do think that anti-feminism and conservatism are in lockstep, partly because conservative ideology is often invested in

patriarchal roles and expectations being maintained, particularly for people who are also invested in white supremacy and racist ideals and

values being promulgated and maintained in society.

We're seeing a lot of feminist social progress. We're seeing women educated in record numbers, and women being able to achieve positions of power and

prestige and leadership and having a voice in new ways, we're seeing women tell their stories as in the MeToo movement in ways that are unapologetic

and unashamed.

But it's not in spite of that, but I think precisely because of that we also simultaneously see anti-feminist backlash where patriarchal forces are

trying to re-entrench and re-establish the status quo, and that you often see people who are influenced by those social forces being caught in the

grip of misogynist ideologies, and also those misogynistic ideologies being used and exploited to elect certain people who are anti-feminist positions

of power worldwide.

MARTIN: What do you think would make a difference?

MANNE: So, I think we have to go right to the root of it and really start with education. Parents and educators need to be teaching people in

general, children in general, but young boys in particular, that they are not entitled to social and sexual services from girls and women, and that

they need to be obligated to other people and reciprocating forms of care that we all owe to each other, but not because of our gender, rather, just

because we're decent human beings.

I think we need to address intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and also forms of incel ideology in our education systems. And I think that

there is a real call for not just teaching the nuts and bolts of sex, but also what coercive and misogynistic sexual practices look like. One example

of this is there has been an alarming rise as a recent "New York Times" report by Peggy Orenstein showed in the rates of strangulation by men upon

women during sexual encounters, and that is not a safe practice from the perspective of brain health.

So, we need to be teaching young people that this is not a sexual practice that is safe. And it is one that is rooted in a form of domination and

control that is deeply misogynistic.

I think that some of the answers also have to do with having better mental health care available for victims recovering from these kinds of assaults

and traumas and even just the everyday weathering that we suffer as the result of street harassment. And also, yes, potential perpetrators also

need access to better mental health care in America and Australia alike.

MARTIN: How do you talk about this with your students?

MANNE: So, I like to begin our discussions of this horrifying kind of event by analyzing Elliot Rodger. And one of the reasons why I think that

is a useful example is that it crystallizes a lot of the ideological drivers of this kind of action and also makes it clear that it can be a

case where there are real denials of what has happened in terms of the misogyny that obviously motivated an Elliott Rodger in the popular press,

in the discourse, in ways that point to people's reluctance to acknowledge and censure female victims.

So, one of the things that we look at is the responses to the Isla Vista shootings and the ways that many people in the popular press said, this

isn't misogyny, it's mental illness. He wasn't really a misogynist because he loved his mother, and various ways of minimizing the misogyny that

unfolded and cost two women their lives that day.

So, analyzing those kinds of statements is a good exercise in critical thinking, because it makes the point that many people who perpetuate

misogyny do love their mothers, they even love beautiful girlfriends, loving wives, good secretaries, et cetera. What they don't love is when

women have ideas beyond their station or don't stay in their lane, or don't deliver the goods to which a misogynist feels entitled.

MARTIN: Professor Kate Manne, thank you so much for talking with us.

MANNE: Thanks so much for having me, Michel. It's been a privilege and a pleasure.



AMANPOUR: And disturbing too. And finally, this week is also about reckoning with our impact on the planet as we mark 54 years since the first

Earth Day.

These black and white pictures showing the 20 million Americans, according to organizers, who took to the streets that day in one of the largest

movements the country has ever seen. Or it had, until then. Adults, children, standing shoulder to shoulder, offering nature a helping hand. As

people still do, like today in Western Australia after 160 whales were stranded on a beach, rushing to join rescue teams in a race against time

with most whales, fortunately, being returned to the sea. It's a reminder of what we can all achieve. When we do stand together

And that's it for now. Thank you for watching. Goodbye from London.