MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

Maybe all the women in prison should say they're actually trans men, they might get some damn protection that way...

Do Transmen go to the men's estate? If there are any Transmen prisoners. I also wonder how many state they are Transmen after being arrested or imprisoned and if it is comparable to the Transwmen stats.

[quote Manderleyagain]Archived version of the telegraph article. Very clear summary. A few readers will boggle over their toast.
<a class="break-all" href="https://web.archive.org/web/20210302193130/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/02/female-prisoners-greater-risk-sexual-assault-transgender-inmates/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">web.archive.org/web/20210302193130/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/03/02/female-prisoners-greater-risk-sexual-assault-transgender-inmates/[/quote]
A lot of people will read that article and get the impression that these are woman-on-woman assaults.

some of the trans women they have placed with female prisoners are exactly the kind of prisoner (violent, sex offender etc) that they try & keep trans men safe from by not allowing them in with the men.

Manderley - good point. I can't recall if the judges asked about Transmen yesterday?

Do you an foi work that asked the MoJ what research they have carried out to establish that TW are in greater danger in the make estate than any other vulnerable male group?

Where is the evidence that says the level of risk to them in male prisons is unacceptable?

Ref pps comments - what level of excess risk of harm is acceptable to TW in the male estate against the level of risk of harm that is acceptable for women?

The tweeting has started.

Do you know fat fingers

@Cailleach1

Do Transmen go to the men's estate? If there are any Transmen prisoners. I also wonder how many state they are Transmen after being arrested or imprisoned and if it is comparable to the Transwmen stats.

There's probably a very low arrest and incarceration rate. The small number that might be in that position and have only socially identified as the opposite sex might (wisely) choose to desist and not mention it.

I remember that strange case from a few years ago where a young woman (Gemma?) groomed another young woman into blindfolded sex with whom she believed to be a man. I was surprised at the time that a defence of gender dysphoria was not put forward as mitigating circumstances especially as it was around the time that trans rights rhetoric was really ramping up. It's entirely possible that fear of being put in the male estate was why.

@WanderinWomb

However, the MoJ argues that both of its policies pursue legitimate aims, including "facilitating the rights of transgender people to live in and as their acquired gender (and) protecting transgender people's mental and physical health".

How angering that zero aim to right to live and protect women's mental and physical health.
If seven sexual assaults have been proved that means there are possibly hundreds more unreported or not proved Isn't prosecution rate for rape only one and a bit percent? One assault is too many.
Even with no assaults, no physical contact at all, just being looked at up and down, stared at with him licking his lips etc by a male offender is abuse, this is mental torture imposed on incarcerated women, it's a sign that the whole nation thinks they are worthless and I will not stand for that.

This. The very presence of a male is enough. And they are completely relying on all those males to be absolutely saintly, and putting women ahead of themselves in their day-to-day dealings.

A glance, a smirk - damage done.

In the court case, Karen Monaghan for the claimant is explaining that no medical changes required for ‘transition’

It’s all looking s hut confusing atm but she is setting the scene for the judge I think to remove assumptions

Discussion is centred on what is needed for GRC.

Twitter link for Keep Prisons Single Sex. I'd been refreshing FPFW but they haven't started tweeting yet.

twitter.com/NoXYinXXprisons/status/1367061920621199361

Judges now realise no physical transition required.
Policy of E wing at Downview raised including association with female prisoners.

Human rights concerns raised by KM.

Is it unusual to have 2 judges? I thought judges sat in odd numbers. What if they disagree?

Sunlight. in a court. judges can't be no platformed for asking questions and hearing facts.

@gardenbird48

Case by case is problematic and doesn't stand up if there are cases which have been allowed but issues have occurred. Which we know is the situation.

I was of the understanding that case by case looks at a type of provision as a case ie. is is considered that ALL hospital wards should be segregated by sex - it is hospital wards that are the case.

Stonewall et al have managed to twist it to imply a case refers to an individual person but I've heard other legal explanation that this is not true at all (and I think it states it clearly in the EA 2010).

'Case by case' isn't in the EA at all.

EHRC added it to the statutory code and made it clear they mean 'person by person'.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/services-public-functions-and-associations-statutory-code-practice
(page 198)

The effect of this additional requirement is that if a women-only service wishes to use this exception and is legally challenged by a tw, the case becomes personal.

The test is no longer whether it's justified and proportionate for women to have female only space in a specific circumstance. The test is now whether this particular tw is 'woman enough' for female service users to be expected to turn a blind eye to their maleness and accept them personally into what was a female only space.

'Case by case' means that no-one has the right to run women only services any more. You can have it as a policy but 'case by case' overrules your policy so you can never guarantee female only space to your service users. Little wonder that women's organisations are afraid to use this exception.

This is what Ann Sinnott's proposed JR is about - challenging EHRC's unlawful guidance (digging still needed).

uncommongroundmedia.com/the-2010-equality-act-is-being-undermined-by-official-guidance/

She has managed to get some of EHRC's non-statutory guidance changed but it's still there in the statutory code which is a really big deal. Statutory code does not have the same legal standing as the EA itself but it's passed into law by a statutory instrument:

www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2011/857/contents/made

Anybody not following the statutory code would have to be able to show a very good reason if they ended up in court.

And surprise surprise, EHRC added this unlawful guidance following consultation with TRA groups. Not Stonewall this time (they were part of the consultation but this was 2011, before they turned into a TRA org), but a:gender, Gires and Press For Change.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/publication-download/equality-act-codes-practice-post-consultation-report

You have to be able to define something in order to create laws around it. Hence the hoo haa around the 'erasure' of women and our anatomy, health-based terminology and parameters for segregation and protection from those who would harm us (men).

This is why the TRA lobby are so keen on that erasure (and are leaving men alone). If you can't define something you can't legislate around it. This is the issue they're now facing, having based an identity around shifting sands that are as nebulous, vague and indefinable as 'gender'. How do you legislate on the basis of someone when no one can tell you what it is, other than a 'feeling' and the outward embracing of 'girly' paraphernalia like glitter and unicorns?

The judiciary have got the last couple of judgment calls right. Let's hope that continues.

Live Tweets from day 2 in Court
LJH - Lord Justice Holroyde
KM - Claimants barrister - Karon Monaghan QC
Swift - Mr Justice Swift.

@Signalbox

Is it unusual to have 2 judges? I thought judges sat in odd numbers. What if they disagree?

They will come to an agreed position. Swift is in the administrative court and an ex Treasury counsel so should be familiar with Government process and duties. LJH is the more senior judge and has worked on some big cases (He was the judge in the Dale Cregan case and sentenced him to a whole life term).

They have started tweeting but I don't know how to do links

Discussions happening around whether a policy decision taken without knowledge of all relevant information can be lawful
FPFW
Was it unlawful that SSJ approved the trans prison policy without being made aware than the single-sex exceptions could have been included/1

Sorry for random formatting-treat from FPFW

Tweet even arrghhh

twitter.com/fairplaywomen/status/1367070669725384704?s=21