Thelma Takes Charge Part 2

Update 316

Welcome to Part 2 , dear readers.

In which Thelma continues to take charge of matters - as you will see from the clip below.

Thanks for lots of excellent suggestions re leading women in films but please keep the suggestions coming 😎

Louise, shoot the radio.

BANG!

The police radio, Louise!

Gender Critical Beliefs

Thanks to wonderful Feminist Legal Clinic for directing me to this piece from the Guardian - and a very reasonable and useful piece it is too! What’s going on??

The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening? | Susanna Rustin | The Guardian (11 February)

[A] series of court cases, most recently those of academic Jo Phoenix and social worker Rachel Meade, shows that workplace discrimination against those who don’t support self-ID or believe that “trans women are women” continues.

If Phoenix and Meade were the only examples of this kind of persecution they might be dismissed as one-offs. Some discrimination lawyers are sanguine that employers will soon catch up with a dynamic area of case law. But other gender-critical people have faced similar mistreatment.

Allison Bailey, a barrister and one of the founders of the LGB Alliance, was discriminated against by Garden Court Chambers.

Also in the pipeline are three separate claims against the Green party, and two more against the Open University. A constructive dismissal case brought by a former employee of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre is under way. Other women, including the dancer Rosie Kay and children’s author Rachel Rooney, have talked and written about losing work opportunities due to their beliefs, but have not taken employers to court.

None of these women was accused of harassing or discriminating against a transgender person in their workplace – which is, of course, illegal, since gender reassignment, like religion or belief, is a personal characteristic protected in law. Each was targeted on the basis of the belief they hold. Outside courtrooms as well as within them, gender-critical women will continue to seek accountability for what has gone on. Yes, there are other problems in the world to worry about. But we won’t forget the 18 months during which our long-held feminist beliefs about sex were officially deemed “not worthy of respect in a democratic society” – or stop being grateful for the courage of women such as Jo Phoenix and Rachel Meade.

Source: The law is now clear: you can’t be punished for having gender-critical views. So why does it keep happening? | Susanna Rustin | The Guardian

State Sponsored Sexual Assault - MP update

The excellent Women’s Rights Network newsletter is out today and I am taking just one important piece from there about strip searching by the police.

WRN raised concerns about the Policing Minister, Nick Philip, who claimed at a Select Committee hearing that a GRC entitles police officers to search members of the opposite sex. Nick Fletcher MP replied, confirming that he shares our concern and asserts that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) is clear about same-sex searches, and he says a violation of that "is a degrading violation. For this to be accepted in guidance, regulation or law; I would regard as state-sanctioned sexual assault. Something indefensible." He says, "Section 23 of  the Gender Recognition Act also makes provision for Ministers to disapply the impact of the GRA from other enactments or legislation” and says the move would be an uncontroversial use of the provision. 

Mr Fletcher goes on to say that the Public Sector Equality Duty and Equality Act prioritise 'fostering good relations', and sees that when women's concerns about the loss of female-only services, spaces and sports are not "taken seriously", they, “are not having due care for ‘fostering good relations’.”

One of the revelations from Avon and Somerset's recent response to the FoI requesting information about the implementation of the unlawful searching policy, is that their 2019 policy was “Agreed” by Stonewall and implemented - without an Equalities Impact Assessment.

In 2022 their policy was reviewed by their Equality, Diversity and Inclusion officer Lead, and agreed by their LGBT+ Network and Legal Services. No mention is made of any women’s groups. The Equalities Impact Assessment carried out has Stonewall’s name all over it, so it’s hardly surprising they found ‘no adverse impact’ on sex. 

We told Avon & Somerset Police, “You seem to have forgotten the impact on women. You have forgotten the impact on your own female police officers. You have forgotten the impact on female members of the public. You have forgotten your purpose. You've been #Stonewalled”

And Avon & Somerset are not alone. Claire Loneragan has written a fabulous blog about the situation at Staffordshire Police - read it here. We’re certain there will be more soon!

Conversion Therapy Bill

There are currently two private members’ bills on this Trojan Horse issue, one in the Commons and one in the Lords though it is clear that neither is going to go anywhere and they certainly won’t reach the statute book. But the Lords’ Bill did get to a second reading debate and a really excellent debate it was too! And to be fair, it wasn’t just Tory Peers who were on our side of the argument.

Owen Evans in The Epoch Times ( Tory Peers Warn ‘Dangerous’ Conversion Therapy Ban Bill Would Create ’Thought Crime’ 09 February) reports:

The Houses of Lords in London in an undated file photo. (PA)

A proposed “dangerous” conversion therapy bill would create a “thought crime,” Tory peers have warned.

On Friday the House of Lords discussed a Private Member’s Bill tabled by Liberal Democrat Baroness Burt of Solihull that would make it an offence in the UK for any person to practise, or to offer to practise, conversion therapy linked to sexual orientation and gender identity.

She said in a statement that her bill “seeks to be as comprehensive as possible, to make sure that all LGBT+ people are protected and no loopholes can persist. And it will focus on the intended purpose of the practice - ensuring that genuine psychological or religious support without a predetermined goal isn’t caught up in a ban.”

Baroness Burt said her bill was designed to stop people trying to “coerce” someone into changing their behaviour and police would be required to “demonstrate both action and motivation” when attempting to prosecute under the proposed offence.

‘Dangerous Piece of Legislation’

However, the bill drew the ire of Conservative peers who claimed it would limit the ability of parents, teachers, psychiatrists, and religious practitioners from discussing matters with children and others.

Conservative former minister Lord Forsyth of Drumlean said he had “never seen a more badly drafted or dangerous piece of legislation” in his 40 years in Parliament.

Lord Forsyth said the bill allows for unlimited fines for those convicted, while a separate proposal in Scotland could result in jail time, adding, “The world has gone mad.”

He said: “It seems to me we normally, in this House, introduce legislation in order to fix a problem, not create new ones, and this [bill] undermines the family, attacks free speech, freedom of thought, and even religious belief.

“It is a dangerous, crude piece of legislation in a hugely complex and controversial area which is not suited to private legislation.

“It has all the characteristics of something written on the back of a beer mat after an unruly discussion in a pub. I very much oppose it.”

Conservative Lord Sandhurst added, “This bill is in no way suitable, creating as it does a far-reaching criminal offence—thought crime comes to mind.”

‘Abhorrent’

Crossbench peer Baroness Hunt of Bethnal Green, a former chief executive of the LGBT lobby group Stonewall, said: “We need clarity on exactly what constitutes conversion practices and what doesn’t. In similar legislation across the world, the law states explicitly what is to be included and what is excluded; our legislation must do the same.

“We may not immediately agree on where conversion practices begin and end, but given since 2017 that three consecutive Conservative prime ministers have all stated that conversion practices are abhorrent, I’m hopeful we can confirm this position.”

Women and equalities minister Kemi Badenoch has previously insisted a ban on conversion therapy was “needed,” though the Conservative Party is reportedly split down the middle on the subject and has changed course numerous times.

In 2018 then-Prime Minister Theresa May promised to end the practice of conversion therapy but she was later replaced by Boris Johnson who, in 2020, reiterated the plan to forbid it, only to backtrack and rule out including therapies which targeted people who identify as transgender.

In January 2023, the government said it would set out how it would ban conversion therapy for “everyone” including people who identify as transgender, in England and Wales.

‘Already Illegal’

Last year, MP Miriam Cates wrote in The Telegraph that a ban could result in a “series of dreadful unintended consequences.”

Ms. Cates wrote: “Canadian parents who want to seek help for children experiencing distress about their gender could now risk prosecution and jail sentences. In Victoria, Australia, it is now a criminal offence for a parent to refuse a child’s request for puberty blockers or ‘gender-affirming’ care.”

In her article, she said such legislation was unnecessary.

“The sorts of things that people think of as ‘gay conversion therapy’ include electric shock treatment and physical abuse, appalling practices that were shamefully and indefensibly used against homosexuals in the past. But these abuses are, thankfully, already illegal through existing legislation that covers sexual abuse, coercion, and grievous bodily harm,” she added.

EDI Jester has supplied an excellent selection of the speeches:

Shahrar Ali Wins His Case!

Thanks to a wonderful reader for alerting me to this. I was a bit worried about this one but yet another great result albeit this was about procedural unfairness:

Stewart Carr and Lauren Haughey in The Mail Online ( Green Party sacked its deputy leader because he believed 'biology was real': Court rules party discriminated against Dr Shahrar AIi over his gender rights views and must pay him £9,100 as he hails 'landmark case' 09 February) report:

The Green Party has been defeated in court after a tribunal found they discriminated against their former deputy leader over his views on gender.

Dr Shahrar Ali, 54, who served as deputy between 2014 and 2016, took legal action against the party over what he described as a 'fanatical clampdown on legitimate debate' by trans rights activists.

The case represents the first instance in which a political activist has sued their own party after being persecuted for having gender critical beliefs.

Dr Ali has now been awarded £9,100 in damages by the Mayor's and City County Court.

Reacting to the ruling on X, formerly Twitter, he wrote: 'Wow! Just wow! This is HUGE!! Our gender critical beliefs are worthy of respect in a political party!! Thank you!'

Dr Shahrar Ali

This trial followed Dr Ali's removal as the party spokesman in February 2022, with officials ruling that his 'controversial' views on trans rights did not align with the role. 

The politician believes that gender should not be confused with biological sex which he states is 'immutable'. 

The ruckus began with a Twitter post in July 2020, in which Dr Ali issued a statement titled 'What Is A Woman?' detailing his thoughts on the rights of women and girls.

He wrote: 'A woman is commonly defined as an adult human female and, genetically, typified by two XX chromosomes. These facts are not in dispute nor should they be in any political party.

'We campaign for the rights of women and girls to be treated equally on the basis of the protected characteristic of biological sex, as enshrined in the Equality Act 2010.' 

While this led to uproar among trans activists in the Green Party, Dr Ali was not sacked until 2022 once he had become the policing and domestic safety spokesman.

In the ruling, Judge Hellman stated: 'I find that by removing him as spokesperson in a procedurally unfair way, The Green Party discriminated against Dr Ali because of his [gender critical] protected belief contrary to section 101 of the Equality Act.

'Dr Ali's removal was, in summary, procedurally unfair in that he was dismissed for breaches of the SGCC [the Green Party's Spokespersons' Code of Conduct] although the Green Party failed to identify, consider, or make findings in relation to any such breaches.

'Dr Ali also seeks a declaration that he has been subjected to unlawful discrimination. I grant the declaration sought, although it does not obviate the need for damages.'

The bitter legal battle saw the party draw up plans last September to increase membership fees by an enormous 50 per cent in order to cover legal costs - estimated at between £200,000 and £400,000, the BBC reports. 

The Equality and Human Rights Commission

The excellent Sex Matters newsletter Memo is just out and one piece from there:

We call on GANHRI to stand up for the EHRC (09 February)

Along with 38 other organisations, Sex Matters has written to the Global Alliance of National Human Rights Institutions (GANHRI), calling on it to stand up for the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

Together with other trans-activist organisations, Stonewall had complained about the commission to GANHRI. In response, GANHRI ordered a review of the EHRC that could see the watchdog stripped of its UN accreditation as an “A”-status national human-rights organisation.

We believe that EHRC’s chair, Baroness Kishwer Falkner, has been targeted by Stonewall and other organisations, as well as by internal activists, for the same kind of unreasonable, vexatious complaints used to harass and intimidate so many ordinary women at work. This has happened precisely because the EHRC acted, within its mandate, to protect such women from being targeted in this way.

Read our letter, or make yourself a cup of tea and read our full submission.

The Stadium Stasi

My last report on this was here:

https://dustymasterson.substack.com/p/la-marseillaise-part-2-as-time-goes

Harry Miller of Fair Cop has written a letter that includes a petition which I would encourage you to sign if you have not done so already.

I'm Harry Miller, founder of Fair Cop, a group advocating for free speech, especially against police overreach and their attempts to criminalise people for expressing opinions that don’t contravene any laws.

My journey to becoming a vocal advocate for free speech began with a landmark legal battle against Humberside Police, who investigated my tweets about transgender issues. Despite not being criminal, police told me to “check my thinking” and recorded my tweets as a "non-crime hate incident." I challenged this, and in 2020, the High Court sided with me, marking a significant moment for the rights of speech. 

The fight for free speech and the recording of ‘non-crime hate incidents’ continues, especially as mad cases like Linzi Smith’s continue to emerge.!

Linzi, a lifelong fan of Newcastle United Football Club fan, finds herself in the crosshairs of a draconian crackdown on free speech not too dissimilar to my own. 

The devoted Toon supporter has been banned from attending matches at St James’ Park until 2026, following a 'secretive' four-month 'Stasi' probe conducted by the Premier League.

Linzi’s ordeal began when NUFC contacted her via email to tell her she was being investigated by the police for a possible hate crime and that she was being suspended from the club as a result. This caused Linzi considerable alarm and distress as she had not been contacted by the police at that point.

Days after receiving the email from Newcastle, two police officers interviewed Linzi and warned her she could be guilty of “malicious communication”.

Her alleged ‘crime’?

Linzi dared to share her lawful view that “trans women are men” on X (formerly Twitter), a view that is shared by the vast majority of the UK and – ironically – the Saudi owners of NUFC.

However, just two hours after interviewing Linzi, police told her that no further action would be taken because she had not committed any offence.

Despite never being charged and police stating Linzi had done NOTHING wrong, in a move that defies logic and justice, NUFC maintained their ban, effectively exiling her from St James' Park.

With the Free Speech Union’s help, Linzi attempted to appeal the ban. The appeal process turns out to be a farce masquerading as due diligence. The club's brass, acting as judge, jury, and executioner, reaffirms the club's initial cruel and unfair judgment.

But there’s an additional shocker! During her appeal, Linzi is sent a cache of documents which includes a covert report compiled by the Premier League’s very own intelligence unit.

The 11-page dossier dug into Linzi’s personal life as if she were a national security threat and included data on where she lives, works, and even where she walks her dog, along with her “associated aliases” and “vulnerabilities”.

This isn't merely about a ban from football matches; it's a declaration of war on free speech. The beautiful game has been hijacked, turned into a battlefield where dissent is quashed, and fear and punishment are wielded to keep the masses in line.

But here's where we draw the line. Linzi's battle is our battle. We're not just defending a fan's right to cheer for her team; we're standing up for the fundamental right to speak our minds, free from persecution.

The time to act is now. Join the fight by signing the petition to overturn Linzi's unjust ban. Let's send a thunderous message to the powers that be: We will not be silenced. We will not bow down. Our voices will be heard, loud and clear.

Share Linzi's story and encourage others to sign the petition – together, we can turn the tide, demonstrating the power of unity and support in standing up against injustice.

In solidarity, in defiance, and in unwavering support of freedom,

Harry Miller, co-founder of We Are Fair Cop.

Australia

Sorry, but more bad news from Australia. Thanks as ever to Feminist Legal Clinic.

Schools told to prioritise trans students’ needs (12 February)

Child protection rules quietly introduced by the Labor government have forced some of Victoria’s most elite schools to prioritise the needs of transgender students ahead of their classmates.

Former education minister James Merlino signed a ministerial order shortly before he left office requiring schools and boarding schools to “pay particular attention” to the needs of students who are trans and gender diverse.

The order means schools will not normally tell parents if their child is sharing a room on a school camp, or a dorm at a boarding school, with a transgender child.

The Herald Sun last week revealed the family pulled their daughter out of Geelong Grammar after a student who was born male but identified as female was placed in her dormitory at the prestigious Timbertop campus.

The Sunday Herald Sun can reveal a gender fluid student was also placed in female dorms at the Timbertop campus five years ago.

The mother of a student who attended the school said her daughter “had no rights” when she questioned the behaviour of that student, who was biologically male but who sometimes identified as female.

“My daughter would wake up at night and this student was standing at the end of the bed staring at her,” she said.

Source: Schools told to prioritise trans students’ needs

Health and Equality Acts (Amendment) Bill

This is Liz Truss’ Private Member’s Bill and it is coming up for second reading on 15 March. It is described as ‘a Bill to regulate access to hormone therapy for children under the age of 18; to make provision relating to social transition practices in schools and other settings; to make provision regarding the meaning of the protected characteristic of sex; and for connected purposes.’ If the Tories are sincere about their commitment to our side of the argument then why don’t they back this Bill?

Please urge your MP to support this bill.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3560

Puberty Blockers

In case you have not caught up with it, EDI Jester has done an excellent video about the harms caused by puberty blockers:

Endpiece

OK I really had to follow on from the above Thelma and Louise film clip with the next scene, didn’t I? Couldn’t find an English language version but language is not important in this scene 😎

I am having a few days off, Terven. Next update on either Friday or Saturday. I will be keeping an eye on developments, of course. Maybe it will be a quiet week on the gender wars front? Hahahaha!

If you like this update, please send to a friend. Until next time, Terven. This isn’t over yet! Please subscribe for free, like and comment.