Kemi Badenoch appointed new Minister for Women and Equalities

@PomegranateOfPersephone yup, I’ve had a termination in the UK and going to a special clinic like that was horrible and dehumanising. We aren’t given exact appointments and so you sit there waiting, they were short a doctor that day so we all got there having not eaten and I waited from 9am till 12 to see the first person. We waited in a single room, facing inwards like at an AA meeting! I thought, should I stand up, hello I’ve been a naughty girl and that’s why I’m here’ I mean Jfc it’s very outdated and not at all respectful to women. Everyone knows why you’re there. The cab driver, the protestor outside I yelled at, every single person. The waiting seemed like punishment. Also I know people liked this, but doing it myself with tablets made me feel worse, alone and afraid and wondering if it was normal. We need to be treated like everyone else, in hospital and with proper appointments and supportive staff.

These websites have already been discussed - these sorts of generalisations are absolutely useless and generally meant for people like you who apparently just want to divide everyone into 'monstrous' and 'virtuous'.

I have actually been caught out by these websites before, where I have been shocked that an Mp voted a certain way, but then when I looked at it more closely, gained at least a little bit of an understanding as to why they voted that way.

Why don't you go and actually look into what these pieces of legislation were, the arguments for and against each one, and then perhaps even look at KBs thought process behind each vote. Then think about how your views compare to that.

Instead of looking at a website which tells you fuck all, and using that to confirm your own bias.

Tbh, would rather someone like KB who I think may have given some thought to something, that a Labour MP who thinks 'shit, I'm Labour, I'm supposed to be on the right side of history so I'm going to have to defend trans ideology to the end, even if that means saying out loud in public that babies are born without a sex/men can grow a cervix/I believe that male rapists should go to a female prison if that's where they want to go'.

This

It seems the obvious solution to me. Abortions should take place in hospitals in gynaecology departments.

It would be much harder to target and harass women there. Protesters could be moved off hospital grounds and women need never come into contact with them. There are so many comings and goings at hospitals for such a variety of reasons that protesters wouldn’t be able to work out which women to target for harassment.

It's not necessarily what I think, but others in the cabinet will.

In many respects I think she a useful idiot who can do the controversy and once complete is disposable.

Charming! I don't think anyone who has heard KB talk could honestly describe her as an idiot of any kind.

I've come across Fiona Bruce in real life. She's thorough but an avid Christian in many respects including in the workplace. (friend did work experience at her company many many years ago).

I don't dislike her but I'm also wary of the Christian element too.

In terms of where you are allowed to protest, I think you need to consider MPs banning protests outside Parliament 'for security reasons' and lesbians protesting at pride for every oil protester on a bridge and abortion campaigner outside a clinic.

Who decides what? The power of the censor is a scary one.

(FWIW oil protestors fall foul of other laws and lesbians have been treated outside the law...)

I think Badenoch's been very deliberately placed in the portfolio to unpick and repair the absolute mess made by Penny Mordaunt when she was in post.

In the original leadership hustings a few months ago, she demonstrated very clearly to me that she had the measure of Mordaunt, that she knew exactly how bad things were in the equalities office, and that she knew that Liz Truss knew it too. Rishi Sunak was listening to all of this. It's a bit of an easy win for Sunak to put Badenoch in as he knows that she knows what needs fixing.

And it's about bloody time.

Thanks Arabella. This is really interesting to see. My instincts were that the bill was a problem for free speech.

The fracking thing was massively more complex than you make out. The fact that there were MPs openly voting for it whilst saying they still opposed fracking but if they didn't vote for it (knowing there could be a later reversal of policy) they wouldn't have been able to take out Truss and vote for a new leader. So mentioning it is massively disingenuous.

The buffer zones around abortion clinics is much more concerning though.

I have hugely mixed feelings on her appointment. She's there to keep the head bangers in check and because Sunak needed her support to get rid of Johnson. She didn't get a promotion from Int Dev, which was interesting and wasn't a sign of confidence from Sunak but he did add the Equality Brief.

I suspect she's been total she needs to prove her worth. So she probably won't do much controversial apart from to work on women's rights, which was a necessity.

In many respects I think she a useful idiot who can do the controversy and once complete is disposable.

She does need to get this right though and stress the women, racism and homophobic side of the problem and the need to balance rights. And to firmly frame things like this and to stress the lack of medical evidence and need for safeguarding in a way that is difficult to reverse in a few years.

If she doesn't get the job done we are fucked for at least a generation with an even bigger and messy series of scandals that will eventually emerge.

So you have to back her to succeed but also be wary of what else she's pushing.

So far this debate isn't at all 'anti abortion'

No and that’s an important point. Voting against buffer zones is not anti abortion.

Fiona Bruce's further points are all useful. Long speech, but she's saying the bill is too vague, and risks making prayer a 'thought crime'.

So far this debate isn't at all 'anti abortion', but looking at the wider implications of banning protests (heathrow protests are mentioned, as are protests at political conferences).

Technical practicalities and implications of banning protests. I'll need to come back to read the rest later.

The ideology certainly generates a lot of jobs...

And a lot of single use plastic btw.

Fiona Bruce:

'I rise to oppose new clause 11 on the basis of its grave implications—indeed, threats—to freedom of thought, conscience, speech, belief and assembly. Let us be clear: new clause 11 flies directly in the face of those freedoms. It has far wider implications than on abortion alone; it potentially criminalises even those who simply stand peaceably near abortion clinics, and who do so mainly on the basis of their faith-based beliefs. I believe that the clause contravenes human rights. Notably, for example, article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

The broad wording of new clause 11 is open to such wide interpretation, particularly the words “seeks to influence”, that it could well catch virtually any activity. The proposed criminalisation of influencing is imprecise, unclear and unpredictable in its effect and potential impact, which contravenes the basic principle of certainty of the rule of law. Certainty is vital so that citizens can tailor their behaviour and remain within the law’s boundaries. Could a social worker advising a confused teenager going to an abortion clinic be seen as influencing within the meaning of this clause and therefore be at risk of criminal liability? This new clause fails the test of certainty and should be rejected for that reason alone.'

I think some people believe that because it’s ‘exclusionary’, it’s not progressive.

Don't you mean that because some people who don't agree with it have labelled it 'exclusionary', it's not progressive? It's anti-women activists who have labelled gender critical people 'terfs'.

The left is generally associated with progressive ideology, the right with traditional.

What do you mean by 'progressive'? What is this 'progressive ideology' progressing towards? What does this utopia look like?

The advancement of LGBT rights is mostly associated with the left, therefore the general public might be inclined to see GC thought as right wing.

There is nothing left wing about everyone doing what they want with no consideration for other groups. The communist party is one of the few political parties who agree with gender critical feminists about genderism.

However, the advancement of women’s rights is also associated with the left. Sex-based rights and gender-based rights are in conflict though. Maybe they’re both left wing but just opposing sides of an argument.

I can't see how you can argue that genderism is left wing. It's to do with the rights of the individual overriding the rights of women as a class. How is that in any way left wing?

Quite.

But I'm not surprised.

Debate is the bedrock of democracy.

If you can't debate you won't govern.

(so far no sign that Kemi spoke at the debate, though Joanna Cherry made some interesting points. Caroline Nokes and Stella Creasey also spoke)

"Gender based rights" are right wing.

It means you adhere to sexist capitalist ideas of sex/gender stereotypes; the ideology certainly appears to profit a lot from the sale of anything baring a rainbow or trans flag, pronoun badges, totes to life long medical care, mostly private.

Even those proclaiming to be non binary appear to have to adhere to an aesthetic and buy shit that signals their belief. I do get annoyed with GC flags and merch tbh too.

How many charities profit from lgbtqI+? (Fwiw the I has said they're missing out on funding if necessary support for those with or parenting people / children with dsds due to their inclusion.) I forget what the projected global growth amounts; mostly medical.

The ideology certainly generates a lot of jobs...

Sex based rights are female centred and socialist.

'Let us be absolutely clear: we are not debating the principle of whether these so-called protests should be banned; they already are banned in certain places, and the principle of that has been supported by the House. We are just asking whether the existing statutory arrangements—the public spaces protection orders—used by councils to introduce buffer zones around individual clinics are effective. Only five out of 50 targeted clinics are protected.

There are three issues relating to PSPOs: they create a random patchwork of protections, which is inadequate; they are expensive to introduce and very difficult to uphold in the courts; and crucially, they can be introduced only with evidence that harassment is taking place. I made this point to my hon. Friend the Minister last night, and it is a painful thing for him to have to accept, but it is the Government’s policy that women should be harassed outside abortion clinics before a PSPO can be issued. Can the House think of any other policy that requires women to be harassed before the Government or the local authority do something that is perfectly justified? That is an immoral basis for PSPOs.'
Bernard Jenkin

This from the debate, which I'm reading. It's long.

Yes, I disagree with the vote, but I'd like to understand the arguments for voting against it

I don’t know her own arguments, but based on a few things I’ve read about objections I think it’s the concerns around freedoms, protesting etc and if we do this for that, would it then happen elsewhere. I personally think the solution is that terminations should not be separate services and should be something that happens in hospitals.

Ah, I think it's part of the Public Order Bill:

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2022-10-18/debates/52B4111A-9C01-4FF0-A1CF-06721F589D61/PublicOrderBill#

Thanks Arabella. Nothing firm there, they refer to a review carried out in 2018 which seems to have influenced policy.

Re. the buffer zones. As much as I sympathise with not wanting a bunch of crazies yelling at women going into a clinic, I also agree with this: Writing for The Times, Anthony Horan, director of the Catholic Parliamentary Office, argued that the proposal “takes a sledgehammer to our civil liberties”, including “the right to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, as well as the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion”.

If they can ban anti-abortion protestors, they can also ban pro-choice protestors. I don't know if this was why KB voted against the bill, but it's why I would have, were I an MP.

2020 debate:

hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2020-11-09/debates/441A322B-2C2A-442C-98FB-083D6AF12889/AbortionClinicsBufferZones

www.theweek.co.uk/news/uk-news/958236/the-debate-around-abortion-buffer-zones

Debate here from 2019, I can't seem to find the latest one, can anyone point me to it?

hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2019-07-11/debates/AAC1AF02-E656-48FA-A33F-604D6568490A/AbortionClinicBufferZones