Labour Party confirm that all women shortlists are open to anyone who IDs as a woman

www.votenone.org.uk/protest_votes_count.html

This is an interesting read on how to spoil your ballot correctly so that it is counted as a protest vote.

I am fluctuating between anger and sadness. I so hoped that the announced delay was because they were re thinking their stance on this. I had taken on board that this might just have been a STFU policy to get over the local elections, but was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt one last time.

I don’t think I can vote Tory, and there is no one else. Women are being blocked from voting, in the sufferage anniversary year. Fuck, I’ve decided. I’m Angry.

Candidates in elections DO see spoilt ballot papers. They are usually shown them by the returning officer.

Yes, that's more mature than my idea, Barracker.

I'll be spoiling mine with #SexNotGender

Ffs.

Just need to decide how to spoil my ballot

Italian, local council elections in England and Wales. On May 3rd.

The Labour Party put off an announcement last month about their current position on men being able to self-ID onto All-Women Shortlists. They stated that they would give clarification in June.

There was the general feeling they didn't want to risk people being pissed off with Labour at the polls in May.

As I said I don't support AWS anyway.

I see them as a necessary evil (because in an ideal world we wouldn't need this sort of engineering to get anywhere near to 50:50 elected
representation), but if we are going to have them, they should at least be fit for purpose

AFAIK the rules around who can be a Women's Officer are purely subject to internal party policy, rather than legislation

All this being a precursor to dropping AWS (in a ‘look what you made me do’ kind of way) did cross my mind tbh.

The grassroots conservative statement was from last October so it's not related to that.

It was originally in the Sex Discrimination Act (Election Candidates) 2002, and then extended in the Equality Act (2010). So actual law

So it is. Extended to 2030 after which AWS will go. As I said I don't support AWS anyway.

Do you think they released this now as a virtue signal in response to the grassroots conservatives statement against self ID?

Have the conservatives said in any way that they are not for self ID?

Because if they have I will vote for them, hands down. I’m no longer even emotionally conflicted about it.

@Popchyk "They were supposed to STFU until after the May elections. What was the point of the whole "We'll report back in June" thing then?"

Are these local elections or internal labour party ones? I feel like I really don't know what is going on!

How is it legal?

Barrister: What did you see on ?
Witness : I saw a man running away. I saw him dispose of in a litter bin.
Barrister: You saw a ...man?
Witness: Yes.
Barrister: But my client is a woman! Are you sure of what you saw? Do you usually wear spectacles?
Witness:
Disclaimer: all I know of criminal trials is from reading crime fiction.

I think you are conflating actual law as created by Parliament by statute and the internal rules of an organisation

It was originally in the Sex Discrimination Act (Election Candidates) 2002, and then extended in the Equality Act (2010). So actual law.

researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/SN05057

I don't think they care about breaking the law.

If it goes to court and the judgement is against them they will just drop AWS (intended purpose in the first instance IMO) and say if women lack proportional representation it's their own fault for being mean bigots.

I also think there is a chance it won't go to court because they will enact the above before it gets to a hearing. Although maybe there would be a legal case against dropping AWS without taking a party vote on it.

But in this case I think the law is very clear that AWS are for women only and the Equality Act is very clear that only TIM with a GRC are considered legally women

The Labour Party's AWS will only have a status as defined and referrable to Labour Party internal rules. I don't think they are "breaking the law" by permitting self ID.

I think you are conflating actual law as created by Parliament by statute and the internal rules of an organisation.

I don't personally care. I am no longer a member of the Labour Party and I don't support AWS anyway.

I suspect that they know which way the judgement will go, but that is exactly what they want! So, they get all the benefits of saying they are wonderfully inclusive, AND feeling even more virtuous when they are stopped from being so virtuous

YY. If labour lose this it will be used as ammunition for why we must have self ID now because current laws outdated etc etc.

I'm still glad it's going to court though.

"But in this case I think the law is very clear that AWS are for women only and the Equality Act is very clear that only TIM with a GRC are considered legally women. So I don't know what on earth the Labour lawyers are saying....."

I suspect that they know which way the judgement will go, but that is exactly what they want! So, they get all the benefits of saying they are wonderfully inclusive, AND feeling even more virtuous when they are stopped from being so virtuous................

Because otherwise they would have to admit they were wrong when they blithely steamrollered this through without debate/consultation/lying to us all. Instead make the courts the bad guy.

Oh, and cost women time/money/effort to fight it, but we already know they don't give a fuck about us cunts...............

I will vote tactically for women's rights. At the moment the conservatives look like they will keep sex based exemptions and are more open to debate (low bar compared to the competition, but still).

Am keen to meet canvassers too. It will be a good chance to raise awareness of the actual issues - many of the front line members don't know about this yet in my experience.

Will be trying my best to appear to be a reasonable human being.

I wonder if this has come now while Syria is going on and they hope the AWS issue can slip in under the radar.
The court action is now incredibly important. Although the legal issue may be peculiar (as the EqA allows for AWS but choosing to pre empt) the case will be relevant for other issues of women's spaces.

could Labour’s legal argument, assuming it gets to court, be that they and the Lib Dems have used self id for selection purposes for some time, so some sort of precedent has already been set?

Not a lawyer, but breaking the law for a length of time doesn't mean it's OK to carry on breaking the law.

I'm genuinely flummoxed, as I can usually see some kind of legal counter argument to most situations. But in this case I think the law is very clear that AWS are for women only and the Equality Act is very clear that only TIM with a GRC are considered legally women. So I don't know what on earth the Labour lawyers are saying

They've lost my vote then.
No consultation.
They've made their feelings about the rights of biological women pretty clear lately.
Still can't believe vile male Labour members get away with calling women who question this ideology 'c*ts'. Shouldn't someone be sanctioning that behaviour?
Such a perfect demonstration of why meaningful change is still light years away.

Thanks Sarah!

Tell me if I’m way off, could Labour’s legal argument, assuming it gets to court, be that they and the Lib Dems have used self id for selection purposes for some time, so some sort of precedent has already been set?