to ensure that those reporting on corruption, including journalists, can exercise their function without fear of any harassment or threat or of private or government legal action for reporting in good faith<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The report found that, while there had been real improvement over the past decade, serious shortcomings remained in the legal systems of most G20 countries \u2013 and those shortcomings affected most of the areas potential whistleblowers would be concerned about. Provisions for whistleblowers to remain anonymous when using internal channels to express their concerns were identified as a particular weakness across the G20, as were the rules around disclosure to third parties \u2013 including, where appropriate, the media.<\/p>\n
The provision of independent bodies and mechanisms to deal with whistleblower complaints and to report on how legal protections were being used were also seen as poor across the countries surveyed. In addition, the authors note that where regulations exist, they tend to apply to the public sector only \u2013 governments have been much less active in ensuring that private sector whistleblowers can speak out in confidence.<\/p>\n
Some G20 countries, like the UK and Canada, explicitly exclude military and intelligence personnel from their \u2018whistleblower\u2019 definition and all the protections in law that derive from that (the report calls this \u201ca glaring gap\u201d). Others, like the United States, have a legislative framework that is well rated \u2013 and in theory extends to its intelligence agencies \u2013 but in practice apply very different rules, and extreme anti-whistleblower measures, when classified information is involved.<\/p>\n
Germany\u2019s poor score in the report might come as a surprise to some, given the country\u2019s renowned worker representation laws and positive reaction to Edward Snowden\u2019s revelations.<\/p>\n
The case was brought by Brigitte Heinisch, a nurse who brought the systematic mistreatment of elderly patients to the attention of the healthcare company she worked for. When appeals to management proved ineffective, Heinisch brought legal action against her employers and wrote a leaflet to explain what was happening in the case. The European Court ruled that the public interest in Heinisch\u2019s disclosures outweighed her employers\u2019 right to protect their business reputation and that her summary dismissal had been \u201cdisproportionately severe.\u201d She was later awarded compensation by a German court.<\/p>\n
In fact, the German legal code only offers limited protection for public officials who are reporting suspicions of corruption \u2013 and this came only after a change of the law in 2009. Germany\u2019s employment courts offer limited redress to those who report wrongdoing in good faith, but there remains a strong bias against anonymous reporting and public disclosure. None of the legislative proposals made since the 2011 judgment have attracted the support necessary to secure a change in the law.<\/p>\n
A new report on the state of whistleblower protection in some of the world\u2019s richest countries has found that Germany ranks alongside Argentina, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Italy, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey as one of the countries that does … Continue reading ![\"Whistleblowing?\"](\"http:\/\/www.w-t-w.org\/en\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/04\/Whistleblowing.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"