Attaboy, Clarence!
Update 426 Sall Grover Special #BeMorePorcupine
Given the judgment in Tickle v Giggle this is a long one, dear readers!
Firstly, next up from one of the wonderful readers mentioned below in the Heroes season is It’s A Wonderful Life.
The plot is far too convoluted to attempt a brief resumé. Even though the scene below is the end of the film, even if you haven’t seen it I don’t think it will give that much away.
James Stewart is George Bailey, Donna Reed is his wife Mary, Todd Karns is his brother Harry, and little Zuzu is played by Karolyn Grimes. And, though not present whilst being centrally mentioned in the scene, guardian angel Clarence Odbody was played by Henry Travers. An uplifting 1946 film, no doubt much needed one year after the end of the Second World War!
Thanks to one wonderful reader for suggested pieces. Liz is currently poorly. Get well soon, Liz!
Tickle v Giggle - Nil Desperandum
In the last update I mentioned that the judgment in this landmark case was about to be handed down. We now have it and Sall Grover has lost! However, don’t despair! Sall always said that she may well lose in this first instance decision. This is because it is only on appeal from any negative judgment that her case can actually challenge the latest version of the Australian Sex Discrimination Act itself which replaced ‘sex’ with ‘gender identity.' This will be on the basis of that version being in breach of CEDAW ( see Andrew Doyle’s piece below for a good explanation of CEDAW).
I am providing you with a selection of reports. Apologies for the repetition of the facts and findings but I thought you would find it useful to see this selection. A couple of them contain links to the (very long) judgment. So hopefully this will now go onwards!
I did start this piece with a You Tube clip of Justice Bromwich handing down a summary of the judgment. That clip has now been made private!!?? Interesting! I don’t know anything about Justice Bromwich but he will now forever be synonymous with one of the worst judgments I have ever seen ( I haven’t read it all yet - I’ll get there!).
In the reports below, I know you will note where the wrong pronouns are used! Starting with the BBC, of course!!
The BBC have reported on it!! Given that they still haven’t reported on the WPATH Files despite ( for example) Andrew Doyle pressing them on this, might this be because they are delighted that Sall Grover has lost??
Australian court rules in landmark case that asked 'what is a woman?'
Roxanne Tickle (centre) won a landmark discrimination case against a women-only social media app [ Dusty - glad you told us he was in the centre 😂].
Sofia Bettiza
23 August 2024
A transgender woman from Australia has won a discrimination case against a women-only social media app, after she was denied access on the basis of being male.
The Federal Court found that although Roxanne Tickle had not been directly discriminated against, she was a victim of indirect discrimination - which refers to when a decision disadvantages a person with a particular attribute - and ordered the app to pay her A$10,000 ($6,700; £5,100) plus costs.
It’s a landmark ruling when it comes to gender identity, and at the very heart of the case was the ever more contentious question: what is a woman?
In 2021, Tickle downloaded “Giggle for Girls”, an app marketed as an online refuge where women could share their experiences in a safe space, and where men were not allowed.
In order to gain access, she had to upload a selfie to prove she was a woman, which was assessed by gender recognition software designed to screen out men.
However, seven months later - after successfully joining the platform - her membership was revoked.
As someone who identifies as a woman, Tickle claimed she was legally entitled to use services meant for women, and that she was discriminated against based on her gender identity.
She sued the social media platform, as well as its CEO Sall Grover, and sought damages amounting to A$200,000, claiming that “persistent misgendering” by Grover had prompted “constant anxiety and occasional suicidal thoughts”.
“Grover’s public statements about me and this case have been distressing, demoralising, embarrassing, draining and hurtful. This has led to individuals posting hateful comments towards me online and indirectly inciting others to do the same,” Tickle said in an affidavit.
Giggle’s legal team argued throughout the case that sex is a biological concept.
They freely concede that Tickle was discriminated against - but on the grounds of sex, rather than gender identity. Refusing to allow Tickle to use the app constituted lawful sex discrimination, they say. The app is designed to exclude men, and because its founder perceives Tickle to be male - she argues that denying her access to the app was lawful.
But Justice Robert Bromwich said in his decision on Friday that case law has consistently found sex is “changeable and not necessarily binary”, ultimately dismissing Giggle’s argument.
Tickle said the ruling "shows that all women are protected from discrimination" and that she hoped the case would be "healing for trans and gender diverse people".
“Unfortunately, we got the judgement we anticipated. The fight for women’s rights continues,” Grover wrote on X, responding to the decision.
Known as “Tickle vs Giggle”, the case is the first time alleged gender identity discrimination has been heard by the federal court in Australia.
It encapsulates how one of the most acrimonious ideological debates - trans inclusion versus sex-based rights - can play out in court.
‘Everybody has treated me as a woman’
Tickle was born male, but changed her gender and has been living as a woman since 2017.
When giving evidence to the court, she said: “Up until this instance, everybody has treated me as a woman.”
“I do from time to time get frowns and stares and questioning looks which is quite disconcerting…but they’ll let me go about my business.”
But Grover believes no human being has or can change sex - which is the pillar of gender-critical ideology.
When Tickle’s lawyer Georgina Costello KC cross examined Grover, she said:
“Even where a person who was assigned male at birth transitions to a woman by having surgery, hormones, gets rid of facial hair, undergoes facial reconstruction, grows their hair long, wears make up, wears female clothes, describes themselves as a woman, introduces themselves as a woman, uses female changing rooms, changes their birth certificate – you don’t accept that is a woman?”
“No”, Grover replied.
She also said she would refuse to address Tickle as “Ms,” and that “Tickle is a biological male.”
The app's founder Sall Grover (centre) created Giggle for Girls in 2020 after experiencing online abuse by men
Grover is a self-declared Terf, which stands for "trans-exclusionary radical feminist". Typically used as a derogatory term for those considered hostile to transgender people, it has also been claimed by some to describe their own gender-critical beliefs.
“I’m being taken to federal court by a man who claims to be a woman because he wants to use a woman-only space I created,” she posted on X.
“There isn’t a woman in the world who’d have to take me to court to use this woman only space. It takes a man for this case to exist.”
She says she created her app “Giggle for Girls” in 2020 after receiving a lot of social media abuse by men while she worked in Hollywood as a screenwriter.
“I wanted to create a safe, women-only space in the palm of your hand,” she said.
“It is a legal fiction that Tickle is a woman. His birth certificate has been altered from male to female, but he is a biological man, and always will be.”
“We are taking a stand for the safety of all women’s only spaces, but also for basic reality and truth, which the law should reflect.”
Grover has previously said that she would appeal against the court’s decision and will fight the case all the way to the High Court of Australia.
A legal precedent
The outcome of this case could set a legal precedent for the resolution of conflicts between gender identity rights and sex-based rights in other countries.
Crucial to understanding this is the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). This is an international treaty adopted in 1979 by the UN - effectively an international bill of rights for women.
Giggle’s defence argued that Australia’s ratification of CEDAW obliges the State to protect women’s rights, including single-sex spaces.
Tickle said she hoped the case would be 'healing for trans and gender diverse people'
So today’s ruling in favour of Tickle will be significant for all the 189 countries where CEDAW has been ratified - from Brazil to India to South Africa.
When it comes to interpreting international treaties, national courts often look at how other countries have done it.
Australia’s interpretation of the law in a case that got this level of media attention is likely to have global repercussions.
If over time a growing number of courts rule in favour of gender identity claims - it is more likely that other countries will follow suit [ Dusty - the BBC LGBTQ+ department hopes].
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c07ev1v7r4po
Katrina Biggs deals with this on her substack, A B’Old Woman:
The judgement is out for Sall Grover’s ‘Tickle v Giggle’ court case, and it means that Australian women have NO female-only sanctuaries anymore.
Aug 23, 2024
It wasn’t unexpected, but it was still gut-wrenching to hear a judge decide that women in Australia can no longer have female-only sanctuaries. None whatsoever, not for any reason. No man can be refused entry to any women’s space if he says he’s a woman. It’s that simple - and absolutely unconscionable for a judge to condemn the entire population of women in Australia to that.
It also means that men can’t have their own sanctuaries, either, but the ramifications of that are vastly different than they are for women, of course.
Today, I watched the Australian Federal Court livestream where the judgement was handed out re: Sall Grover’s ‘Tickle v Giggle’ legal case¹. A man who says he’s a woman, and who goes by the name of Roxanne Tickle, took Sall Grover to court for not allowing him access to her women-only multi-purpose app called Giggle. The judge decided that Sall was guilty of indirect gender-identity discrimination against the man who says he’s a woman – i.e. Tickle - and ordered her to pay AUD$10K to this man, as well as court costs capped at AUD$50K.
Staggeringly, the judge – who I daresay has seen many times exactly the how the physical differences between women and men can play out – stated that, according to several other court cases from around the world, sex is changeable. I doubt he has ever seen a person change their sex to back up the veracity of this statement in any way, shape, or form. However, if legal paperwork can be obtained to say a person now considers themself a different sex to that which they were born, this judge decreed that they have actually changed their sex.
Sall did the wholly human thing of looking at Tickle’s photo on her Giggle app after he had gained access to it, ascertained he was male from his face, so removed him. Who knows what filters Tickle used to fool the initial facial recognition software, but he didn’t fool Sall once she spotted him. She used her human software to clock him as the man he is. Humans have looked at faces since the dawn of time for clues and cues on who we are. This is wired into us. The judge, though, considered that Sall only decided Tickle was a man because he didn’t “appear to be a cisgendered female in photos”. Yes, the judge not only used the terms ‘cisgender’ and ‘transgender’ throughout his judgement, but appeared to have no, or little, understanding of how we are wired to process faces to determine women from men.
(I would hazard a guess that this isn’t the photo Tickle used to gain access to the Giggle app :-) )
This travesty of justice for women is what we can expect here in New Zealand if the word ‘gender’ is put into our Human Rights Act, so we must all do all we can to resist that².
I can only imagine the devastation that Sall is feeling right now, as many of us are, both for her and what it means for women on a wider scale, even if the judgement wasn’t entirely unforeseen. After having made this tweet, I hope she’ll take some time out to restore her energy and spirits. She deserves it.
Naturally, transactivists will be crowing at Tickle’s win in court. However, Sall always made it clear that she’ll take this fight to the High Court if she lost in Federal Court. Here is her crowdfunder to help her, and all of us, with that if you’re able to give anything -
GiveSendGo | Reclaim sex based rights for women and girls
¹Tickle v Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 960 (fedcourt.gov.au)
Over to Andrew Doyle on his substack:
The words of the judge in the “Tickle Vs Giggle” case should be a reminder that even the judiciary can be ideologically captured.
Aug 23, 2024
A judge in Australia has just ruled that “sex is changeable”, an utterance that flies in the face not only of common sense but also of incontestable biological facts. For those of us who have been concerned about the ongoing capture of our major institutions by an ideology that demands acquiescence in the denial of reality, we had hoped that the judiciary might be immune. In Australia at least, this is evidently not the case.
The story began when Sall Grover, a former Hollywood screenwriter, established a new social media platform for women only in 2020 called “Giggle”. One of the innovations of the app was the introduction of facial recognition software to ensure that men could not participate. In the wake of #MeToo, this seemed like an uncontroversial notion.
The software wasn’t foolproof. A man who identifies as a woman and calls himself “Roxanne Tickle” was somehow accepted, and when the mistake was noticed he was barred from the app. …
Affronted at being denied access to a women’s only space, Tickle took Grover to court claiming discrimination. And now the Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has ruled [ Dusty - actually the Federal Court has ruled] that this was indeed an instance of indirect discrimination (as opposed to direct discrimination, as it was not proven that Tickle’s “gender identity” was the discriminating factor). The ruling puts it this way:
“A necessary part of proving that action has been taken by reason of a person’s gender identity, and therefore amounts to direct discrimination, is establishing that the alleged discriminator was aware of the person’s gender identity. The evidence goes no further than establishing that Ms Tickle’s exclusion was likely to have been a byproduct of excluding those who were perceived as being men, by the use of visual criteria that failed to distinguish between cisgender men and transgender women.”
We can all see the problem. A women-only app quite obviously will discriminate on the basis of sex, otherwise it will cease to be a women-only service. The law in Australia insists that “gender identity” is a protected characteristic, even though the overwhelming majority of people do not believe that such a thing exists. This is due to amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act that were passed by the federal parliament under the Labour government in 2013. Fast forward eleven years, and a judge has determined that one man’s belief that he has a gendered soul should automatically grant him the right to access women’s only spaces. Tickle has been awarded $10,000 and Grover will have to pay his legal costs.
Grover had relied on the definition of “women” in the UN’s Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW). As it happens, this case has not tested this definition, as the judge explained:
“I was not satisfied that the kind of gender identity discrimination alleged by Ms Tickle under s 22 would be supported as an enactment of the Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (1979) (CEDAW). The respondents contended that this was because CEDAW grants protections only to women, and the word ‘women’ in CEDAW only means adults who were female sex at birth. I do not need to decide whether that is correct or not, because the way in which the term ‘discrimination against women’ is defined in CEDAW means it refers only to discrimination that places women in a less favourable position than men. It therefore does not cover the kind of discrimination that Ms Tickle alleges in this case, which is discrimination that placed her in the same position as men.”
At the very least, we can say that in the wake of this judgement the international definition of “women” still holds firm. And yet if a man can successfully take legal action for being denied access to a women’s service, this effectively means that single-sex spaces for women can no longer exist. The Australian judiciary has decided that it is illegal for women to organise in their own interests.
We have seen countless instances of men identifying their way into women’s spaces, from sports to hospitals and, perhaps most disturbingly, prisons. Most lesbian dating apps are now mixed-sex, and the option to filter out men is not permitted because this is considered “transphobic”. In other words, lesbians are being shamed for being same-sex attracted by the very organisations that are meant to support them.
All sexuality is discriminatory. It could hardly be otherwise. To suggest that women who are attracted exclusively to other women should include men in their dating pool is about as homophobic as it gets. That this is now codified into law should surely be a cause for concern for anyone who believes in the rights of minorities. And when it comes to women more generally, it is a clear-cut matter of safeguarding. Women’s spaces exist because 99% of sex crimes are committed by men and 91% of victims of sex crimes are female. This really shouldn’t be difficult to understand.
Of course Tickle is entitled to equal protection under the law. But he should not be entitled to enter spaces where women have decided to gather with their own sex. There will hopefully now be an appeal to the High Court, and with any luck the 2013 amendments to the Sex Discrimination Act will be deemed unlawful. There is a strong case here, as many have pointed out that it is unconstitutional to redefine “woman” as a matter of identity rather than biology.
Above all, we should all be chilled by that phrase “sex is changeable”, uttered by the judge as though any of us could possibly believe it. The law might well seek to upend reality, but that does not make it true. Not even the most senior judge in the world can simply decide that human biology no longer exists. Yet such is the power of this new religion of gender identity that even the judiciary will state falsehoods in its name. If nothing else, this ruling has settled once and for all the question of whether this ideology has seized control of our society. Case closed.
https://substack.com/@andrewdoyle/p-148030860
Genevieve Gluck of Reduxx deals with this on the Women’s Voices substack:
AUS: CEO of Female-Only Social App Ordered to Pay $10k to Trans-Identified Male for ‘Indirect Gender Identity Discrimination’
Aug 23, 2024
In a landmark decision, an Australian court has ruled that the CEO of a female-only networking application intended as an “online refuge” for women committed “indirect gender identity discrimination” by rejecting the membership of a male who “identifies” as a woman.
Aussie women’s rights advocate Sall Grover has been subject to a lengthy litigation process over the past three years after trans-identified male Roxanne Tickle filed a discrimination complaint against her with the Australian Human Rights Commission. Tickle had been barred from using the female-only platform Giggle for Girls after Grover identified him as male based on a photo he submitted during the membership application process.
While reading out the verdict and reasons for his decision at the Federal Court of Australia Friday morning, Justice Bromwich referred to Tickle with feminine pronouns.
“Roxanne Tickle is a transgender woman whose female sex is recognized by an official updated Queensland birth certificate… I have found that Ms. Tickle’s claim of direct gender identity discrimination fails but that her claim of indirect gender identity discrimination succeeds.”
The court case, known as Tickle v. Giggle, tested the meaning and scope of the Sex Discrimination Act (SDA), which was altered in 2013 under the government of prime minister Julia Gillard.
The revisions to the SDA made it unlawful under federal law to discriminate against a person on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity or intersex status. The case has the potential to set a precedent in regards to whether a self-declared gender identity, or a legally fictitious recording of sex, will take priority over biological sex in the law.
Australian Human Rights Commission barrister Zelie Heger told the court that sex was no longer defined in the Sex Discrimination Act but that “importantly the Act recognises that a person’s sex is not limited to [being a man or a woman]”.
Tickle, a man who claims to be both intersex and transgender, claimed he attempted to join the female-only app in February 2021 but found that his membership was revoked in September that year. The Giggle app utilizes a screening process which uses AI to determine the sex of an applicant based on a selfie. Tickle was initially granted access to the female-only digital community by the AI.
During an interview with The Australian in April 2022, Grover explained that she took it upon herself to remove Tickle after seeing his photo and identifying him as male. “The person was removed from the Giggle app because they are male, no other reason. The removal was manual. I looked at the onboarding selfie and saw a man. The AI software had let them through, thereby making a mistake that I rectified.” Lawyers defending Grover said that she had been unaware that Tickle identified as transgender during the screening process.
Tickle … therefore was booted from the community, and then made several attempts to contact Grover to complain. He sent Grover multiple emails and called her at her home in October 2021. Tickle first filed the discrimination complaint … with the Australian Human Rights Commission against Giggle creator and CEO Grover in December 2021.
“I believe that I am being discriminated against by being provided with extremely limited functionality of a smartphone app by the app provider compared to that of other users because I am a transgender woman,” Tickle wrote in the complaint. “I am legally permitted to identify as female… I believe that Giggle and Sall Grover have decided in error that I am male.”
Tickle bizarrely went on to compare Grover to a white supremacist group, saying, “I have been unable to locate a Facebook page or website for the Ku Klux Klan in Australia. Yet groups that favor discrimination against people based on their gender identity appear to have no need to hide their face.” He then went on to list several Australian women’s rights groups which are critical of males being permitted to identify as female, and referred to this position as “bigotry”.
Tickle had, in his first complaint, sought damages from Grover of up to $200,000, alleging that her “persistent misgendering”, or referring to him as male, had prompted “constant anxiety and occasional suicidal thoughts”. He also requested that Grover be made to “seek out education” regarding the concept of gender identity.
In July of 2022, Tickle, being unable to bear the costs of pursuing the matter further, filed a Notice of Discontinuance with the court, and the complaint was dropped. But five months later, Tickle filed another complaint, having received a $50,000 grant from the University of New South Wales (UNSW) Sydney, and assistance from Barry Nilsson lawyers, who run a multimillion-dollar pro bono program.
In contrast, Grover was left with no other option than to crowdfund an incredible $500,000 in order to defend herself against the discrimination claim.
A statement provided with the appeal for donations highlights the importance of the ruling: “The decision by the Federal Court will have far-reaching implications, likely influencing not only the Australian legal system but also international law and policy regarding the intersection of gender identity and sex-based rights. It will serve as a crucial reference for future legal frameworks and discussions on sex discrimination and sex-based rights, and their direct conflict with gender-identity ideology worldwide.”
The argument made by Grover’s legal team was that Tickle was discriminated against on the basis of his sex, which is not prohibited, rather than on the basis of gender identity, as he claims. Justice Bromwich’s verdict stated that “these arguments failed” due to a “long history of cases decided by courts going back over thirty years” which he said established that, “in its ordinary meaning, sex is changeable.”
“In relation to the direct discrimination claim, the evidence did not establish that Ms Tickle was excluded from the Giggle app by reason of her gender identity, although it remains possible that this was the real, but unproven, reason,” Justice Bromwich told the court.
Justice Bromwich went on to say that “that indirect gender identity discrimination did take place” on the basis that “Tickle was excluded from the use of the Giggle app because she did not look sufficiently female according to the respondents.”
Throughout the court proceedings, Grover refused to refer to Tickle with feminine honorifics or pronouns. “I don’t think it’s kind to expect a woman to see a man as a woman,” she said at a hearing in May.
In addition to his attempts to access the female-only social networking app, Tickle has been playing field hockey on a women’s team. He has opposed proposed legislation which would have prohibited men from identifying into women’s sports, while boasting of using the women’s change rooms.
On his personal Instagram account, Tickle has also shared photos of his underwear, jokes about sex toys, and several cartoons drawn by Canadian transgender diaper fetishist Sophie Labelle. Recently, Tickle took to X to reveal that the youngest girl he competes with on the field hockey team is just 15 years old.
Grover, a former Hollywood screenwriter, created the Giggle app after experiencing “horrific” sexism in the industry, including both sexual harassment and assault.
Speaking with feminist author and activist Julie Bindel, Grover defended the right for women to gather without the presence of men. “The reasons for female-only spaces have not gone away. So we should not be in a position to have to justify them. We do not have to relive the trauma we have gone through at the hands of men every time we want to defend why we want to be away from them occasionally.”
Grover told Reduxx that in her perspective, gender identity ideology is used as a political tool against women. “Trans activism targets women unlike anything I have ever witnessed,” she said. “Once you have studied it, you cannot unsee that it is a toxic male supremacy movement, made up of many men who are not even trans-identifying, who simply hate women. The evidence is all there, in writing.”
News of the decision has been met with disappointment and outrage by women’s rights campaigners and politicians both nationally and abroad. Senator Claire Chandler, who has also been vocally opposed to gender identity policies for several years, expressed her dismay by saying, “The Sex Discrimination Act which is supposed to protect women and girls is now a tool to punish women trying to offer female-only spaces… This is a disgraceful and dangerous situation.”
Liberal Member of Parliament Moira Deeming, who was suspended from her own party for nine months after attending a women’s rights rally organized by UK campaigner Kellie-Jay Keen, and who has been fighting her own legal defamation battle, shared a supportive statement saying, “We’re with you all the way.”
Similarly, UK barrister Allison Bailey, who sued trans activist organization Stonewall for discrimination, warned, “This should be a wake-up call if one were needed. Gender identity legislation leaves women with no enforceable boundaries against any man.”
The UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, Reem Alsalem, also weighed in on the verdict and promised to provide a more “detailed reaction” in the week to come. “Not only disappointed but also very concerned about this dystopian ruling on #TickleVGiggle , which distorts key concepts like sex and discrimination while dodging Australia’s international human rights obligations vis-à-vis women. If unchallenged, this decision would set a dangerous precedent.”
The Australian government has recently come under fire for censoring citizens critical of gender identity ideology. Multiple women have experienced retaliation for speaking out. Last year, Kirralie Smith was visited by New South Wales Police after speaking to media about Riley Dennis, a trans activist who had been the subject of mass complaint after injuring female players while competing in a women’s football league. Smith’s public Facebook page was also removed at the request of Australia’s eSafety Commissioner, Julie Inman Grant.
EDI Jester also deals with the case, saying “Truth and goodness will win in the end.”
Two Tier Keir
In recent updates we have been discussing two tier policing. Related to this is the release of criminals to make more space in the prisons. While we can all understand those who have been violent being sent down, several people who have just sent offensive tweets have also been sent down, some of those sentences being excessive and inclined, it would seem, to quell free speech. All thoughts gratefully received.
Rachel Roberts in Epoch Times ( Criminals Reoffending After Being Released Early, Inspector Finds 20 August) reports:
Criminals being released early in a bid to cut prison overcrowding are frequently recalled to jail after reoffending, according to a report by the prison’s inspectorate.
The early release scheme—known as End of Custody Supervised Licence (ECSL)—was brought in by the Conservative administration last year in a bid to ease prison overcrowding.
More than 10,000 prisoners were released in England and Wales up to 70 days early between October 2023 and June this year under the emergency plan, according to Ministry of Justice (MoJ) figures published last month.
The scheme has changed several times, with prisoners initially eligible to be freed 18 days before their conditional release date before this was increased to 35 days in March this year, and then to 70 days in May.
If prisoners are released from jail on licence, they have to adhere to certain conditions including not committing further offences. If they do, they risk being recalled to finish their sentence.
Quarter Classed as Homeless
Chief inspector of prisons, Charlie Taylor, said a quarter of prisoners freed from HMP Nottingham under the previous government’s early release scheme were homeless when they left the category B male facility, resulting in “inevitable recalls.”
In a report published on Monday, Taylor said preparation for release at the East Midlands prison was “often chaotic and rushed,” although staff “did their best” under challenging circumstances.
“The prison was operating under considerable strain with constant pressure to accommodate new arrivals, move sentenced prisoners on and operate the early release scheme (ECSL) which was now on its 18th version since it had been introduced at the end of 2023.
“A quarter of prisoners released on this scheme (ECSL) were homeless and although data was not clear, it resulted in inevitable recalls,” the report said.
‘Enormous Churn’
Inspectors described an “enormous churn of prisoners” at the jail which would typically see more than 180 inmates released each month. At the time of the unannounced inspection in May, 924 prisoners were being held there.
The early release scheme was “putting considerable pressure” on prison bosses and the “understaffed offender management unit,“ the report found, by undermining ”the preparation of effective, practical and safe release planning work, in spite of the prison and community probation teams’ determined efforts.”
The report added that the scheme often resulted in “last-minute flurries of activity, only to be compromised further by updated policy changes which came into effect during the inspection.”
Taylor branded the number of inmates released early when they were homeless as “astonishing,” but said it was uncertain how many or what percentage of prisoners had been recalled.
Inspectors also said they were “disappointed” that arrangements put in place to protect the public were “still not good enough, with not enough focus on riskier prisoners coming up to release,” despite this being raised as a “priority concern” in a previous inspection.
“Overall, Nottingham is a jail that is coping with the many challenges that it faces, but it remains a fragile institution that carries a lot of risk within its constantly churning population,” Taylor added.
The full article is here:
Meanwhile, over to Leo Kearse:
Great discussion on Talk TV with Sarah Phillimore and Isabel Oakeshott:
Over to Rita Panahi on Sky News Australia interviewing Douglas Murray:
Free Speech
We have also been discussing free speech in recent updates. In a speech from a couple of years ago which he has just re-posted, Andrew Doyle reaches back to John Milton and it is amazing how much of this remains totally relevant today.
“You are laying the groundwork for future tyranny, if you grant people the power to silence those they disagree with.”
‘Gender’ Challenge
In the last update, in a ‘stop press’, I reported on a case that has just obtained permission to go through to the Court of Appeal in the UK. In Gender Clinic News, Bernard Lane provides more detail about this case ( which I have also reported on before if it is ringing bells https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/the-french-lieutenants-woman-part?utm_source=publication-search):
Cass on trial
Aug 22, 2024
GCN in brief
No ordinary treatment
United Kingdom | The UK Court of Appeal has agreed to take a case where the mother, Ms A, seeks to prevent her 16-year-old daughter, Q, who identifies as male, from accessing a private clinic, London’s Gender Plus, for cross-sex hormones. Ms A invokes England’s Cass report in arguing that a judge should override the normal medical autonomy of a 16 year old to protect her daughter from poorly evidenced and irreversible hormone treatment. In May, the High Court trial judge in the case, Mrs Justice Judd, declined to intervene in this way, but left open the possibility of such oversight where a child is “extremely vulnerable” or where a clinic, such as GenderGP, operates outside UK regulation. Q is living with her father and step-mother and is in a relationship with the stepmother’s daughter, who also identifies as a boy.
On August 13, the Court of Appeal agreed there is “a compelling reason” to hear Ms A’s appeal, and highlighted the question whether a judge should override the decision of an adolescent older than 16 with capacity to consent in circumstances where treatment “is being offered privately [in the UK], whilst not lifesaving or sustaining, is irreversible, highly controversial and could not be provided in accordance with some of the recommendations contained in the Cass review.”
Ms A’s legal arguments take issue with court decisions—predating April’s Cass report—which did not regard hormonal treatment of a gender-distressed minor as requiring more judicial oversight than any other medical treatment. Ms A’s lawyers point out that, following the Cass review, puberty blockers have been placed in a special category, being restricted to clinical trials. And in line with Dr Cass’s advice to use “extreme caution” in prescribing any cross-sex hormones for minors, England’s National Health Service (NHS) has imposed a pause on all under-18 appointments for this intervention.
Ms A argues that private providers such as Gender Plus operate with fewer safeguards than the post-Cass NHS. On her crowd-funder webpage Ms A says: “In the appeal I have argued that cross-sex hormones should not be provided in a private clinic or where there is a disagreement between parents, unless there has been authorisation by the court. This applies even if the child is 16 years old because of the lifelong risks of this controversial treatment, concerns about the clinical guidelines provided by [the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, WPATH] and the requirement in the NHS for an independent second opinion from a multi-disciplinary team.”
Lawyers for Ms A recommend the Australian approach set out in the 2020 re Imogen ruling of federal family law judge Garry Watts, presenting it as a doctor’s duty to check that both parents agree before any gender medical treatment of a child under 18 and, in the event of disagreement, for the court to decide what is in the best interests of the minor. The re Imogen decision has been criticised by state Supreme Court judges in Australia as gender clinicians seek to avoid this constraint imposed by federal family law.
In his, as ever, excellent round up, Bernard also provides us with updates on ‘gender health’ issues from Finland, the USA, Australia, Spain and Scotland.
The Presidential Election
I admire Kara Dansky’s optimism in trying to win round the Democrats!! ( See the Endpiece 😊).
Thanks to Feminist Legal Clinic.
Tim Walz owes Democrats some answers on ‘gender identity’ and children ( 22 August)
I have some questions for Minnesota Governor and Vice Presidential candidate Tim Walz (D), and I hope journalists will start demanding answers from him.
Specifically, does he stand by his 2023 decisions turning Minnesota into a “trans refuge,” especially given the overwhelming evidence that what is euphemistically referred to as “gender-affirming care” harms children?
So the effect of this law is that Minnesota courts have the power to remove children from their own parents’ custody if the parents (inside or outside of Minnesota) wish to protect their children from harmful hormones or surgeries.
The phrase “gender-affirming care” sounds nice, but as investigative journalist Gerald Posner explained in the Wall Street Journal last year, such interventions are more like a human experiment that borders on child abuse.
This follows on the April 2024 publication of the Cass report, a nearly 400-page report commissioned by the UK’s National Health Service. It found that there was only “remarkably weak evidence” to support the use of puberty blockers and opposite-sex hormones for minors, concluding that such “care” is “built on shaky foundations.” In the face of the evidence, five European countries have already severely restricted the use of such interventions.
I say all this as a lifelong Democrat, feminist and leftist who is active in the group Women’s Declaration International, and who until recently served as the president of its U.S. chapter.
Rank-and-file Democrats all over this country want to vote Democrat in the November presidential election to defeat Donald Trump but feel uneasy doing so because of Democratic Party leadership’s insistence on sacrificing children on the altar of “gender identity.”
Those Democrats deserve some answers from the governor. I hope journalists will start asking the tough questions and getting us the answers we deserve.
Source: Tim Walz owes Democrats some answers on ‘gender identity’ and children
Endpiece by Liz
#BeMorePorcupine
#XX
#SaveWomensSport
This from Amy Sousa, provides another angle on the Giggle ruling.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=v2UWEGtKRms&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Thanks Dusty, a great round up and record of the madness, including the free speech issue happening here. I can only say…what the f*** is going on.
Love the endpiece and get well soon Liz. 💜🤍💚