Baroness Nicholson and Liberty

How can they fight for human rights without giving a shit about women?

And they really don't give a shit about women. After I wrote to them cancelling my membership and explaining why self-ID was a bad idea, their reply contained this:

It is also important to note that men are already perpetrating violence against women and girls daily and are not looking to the Gender Recognition Act to enable them. We refer you to our work on the upcoming Domestic Violence and Abuse Bill, which further details the prevalence of male violence in the UK.

The 'men will hurt women anyway, so why bother to put any barriers in their way?' statement that we've seen elsewhere. They provided a link to their work on the Domestic Abuse Bill, where they said "Domestic abuse is a ‘driver’ of women’s offending, with 57 per cent of women in prison reporting having experienced abuse at the hands of a partner or family member."

I wrote back saying: "If male prisoners are allowed to declare themselves women and share accommodation with female prisoners it is inevitable that some women will be subjected to more violence, including sexual violence, whilst in prison. These are vulnerable women who deserve protection. Are you in favour of female prisoners being put at risk of rape whilst serving their sentences?"

No reply from them, obviously.

The cognitive dissonance must really hurt their heads.

Good god. Liberty are shocking. How can they supposedly fight for human rights without using the law and knowing the law?
How can they fight for human rights without giving a shit about women?

I am so grateful to Emma Nicholson for her doing all this important work of pointing out the law.

She may know how to use a semicolon, but she ought also to know that it's the Equality Act, not the Equalities Act.

Can't Stonewalls be sued?

Surely the "advice" they are giving is against the law.

I’m a huge fan of her semicolon use. We don’t see enough of the semicolon imo.

'have you been hacked?'

I love the Baroness's sly sense of humour!

I thought this was an interesting thread on PIE: https://mobile.twitter.com/PankhurstEM/status/1283703787992109056

For me, it's the uncritical acceptance of something coming from adults when it is obviously something that harms children, which is the moment.

It was a campaign for "paedophilia" and now it's the idea we're meant to just accept giving kids unlicensed drugs, or (back to the OP) ignore a part of the law that protects us from discrimination on the basis of sex.

It gets me that we are just meant to accept these creeping, undemocratic changes. I don't accept them(!).

Thank you (I think!) Scrimpshaw .

P*edophile Information Exchange. A group set up to lobby for the rights of said Ps, in the 70s. Got horrifyingly close to having the whole thing accepted by various people/bodies - some of whom are still campaigning.

Have tried googling but could someone please explain what PIE stands for? Tia.

It's so disappointing to see organisations that really and truly should have changed (in this case, into one that understands the law when that's their core job), having not done so.

Baroness Nicholson is going sterling work for women and girls. Thank you Mumsnetters or alerting me to this issue and then thank you to JKR and Baroness Nicholson for clarifying the argument.

TBH, we need a new civil liberties/ human rights pressure group. It was only after the GRA fiasco that I found out about Liberty and PIE. That's twice they've managed to support fucking appalling stances. Two times too many, in my view.

That's three members they lost, then, just off this board. Does nobody ever get a lot of letters/complaints about this kind of thing and think, oh, you know, maybe our supporters who care enough to join are not all raging bigots but might have a point?

I just had a wee look back at the emails then. I'd asked how they'd arrived at their batshit stance.

'As with all our policy positions, our position on the Gender Recognition Act took into account domestic and international human rights standards, and involved conversations with other human rights groups – including, but not exclusively, Stonewall.'

That was 2018.

I'm amused at the way that suggests she's been locked up.

Shami Chakrabati is not at Liberty anymore.

I stopped my Liberty membership over the GRA too. It was when they said "the GRA won't affect you unless you are trans". I complained and got the kind of response you'd expect so I stopped my membership.

Is Shami Chakrabarti still in charge there? Or did she move on when she became a Baroness?

But yes, an organisation that is about fairness under the law should know what the law is and not misrepresent it.

Oh that Liberty - phew! For moment I thought I was going to have to boycott posh scarves.

EN is doing a great job - but if she is going to contact every organisation that misrepresents the law, she's going to be exhausted!

That, I think, is the intention. The Baroness is very keen that the law is used correctly & she has staff😁