A/HRC/40/52 IV. Key effects on civil society 59. The serious impact of the combined measures to counter terrorism, prevent and counter violent extremism, and more broadly address threats to national security have complex, manifold and often underexamined negative impacts on civil society actors and on civic space. A. Chilling effect 60. Civic space is directly affected when overly broad definitions of terrorism and counter-terrorism are used to arrest, detain and prosecute peaceful members of civil society organizations. Similarly, the closure of such organizations, the impossibility to obtain registration or access funding, and an overload of bureaucratic requests, all limit civic space. The mere existence of these measures, and their use against some civil society actors, is sufficient to not only silence those that are directly targeted, but also to send a message to all civil society actors that they are at risk should they continue their activities. The result is a weakened civil space infrastructure and limited engagement in sites of most need.114 Women’s organizations, which tend to be smaller and more informal, have been significantly more affected by these increased administrative requirements. 115 B. Stigmatization 61. The stigmatization of civil society is a defining factor in closing down civic space as a result of the post-2001 security paradigms. The legitimacy of countering terrorism through the global counter-terrorism architecture has enabled some Governments to rebrand civil society as “terrorists”, “violent extremists”, “threats to national security” and “enemies of the State”, with de facto collusion by bodies responsible for the oversight of the frameworks. Effective negative labelling sends a clear signal that civil society actors are legitimate targets for attacks and then legitimizes the adoption of further restrictive measures. When civil society actors are negatively labelled, the stigmatization can extend into the ability to find work and housing and other socioeconomic rights. Family members can also be caught up and face similar stigmatization. C. Financial marginalization 62. Where financial institutions’ counter-terrorism regulations affect civil society organizations, the physical risk to staff and offices increases, because larger amounts of cash are transported and used to enable ongoing operations. 116 Where financial services were refused or delayed, NGOs have had to scale down or close altogether. Where bank accounts are refused or closed, the reputation cost for the NGO is severe. The effect of these measures ripples down, affecting in-country partner organizations through delayed funds and unpaid salaries, as well as the beneficiaries in need of assistance. Multiple examples confirm that such measures disproportionately affect Muslim charities and charities working in Muslim-majority areas or States.117 D. Co-optation into discriminatory government agendas 63. The new international focus on violent extremism means that programmes, policies and activities on preventing and countering violent extremism have become a donor 114 Kate Mackintosh and Patrick Duplat, Study of the Impact of Donor Counter-Terrorism Measures on Principled Humanitarian Action (2013), pp. 72 and 84. 115 Duke Law International Human Rights Clinic and Women Peacemakers Program, Tightening the Purse Strings: What Countering Terrorism Financing Costs Gender Equality and Security (2017). 116 A/70/371, para. 42. A/HRC/6/17, para. 42 and A/73/314, para. 40. 117 17