MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

Yes I thought assessment too.

Claimants case has closed
KM
“ Court can conclude that a policy is unlawful - effects of policy are unlawful & encourage unlawful acts, exposes persons to risk prohibited by article. Say yes in the present case.”

KM: These are my submissions.
Law does not require that a TW with GRC be placed in female estate.

Short break then Defendant’s case

@MichelleofzeResistance

It continues to stun and appall me: the hard reality of how the establishment and society view women as subhuman, while they regard male people as the real humans with value, importance, feelings, rights etc. This is a bloody awful time to have been born female in the UK, it really is.

Same

@fairplaywomen
Counsel for the defend now speaks /6

SH - Sarah Hannett

“if the Equality Act really should have been considered, it doesn't matter what the Secretary of State for Justice thought about it. If it should have been considered and wasn’t, then this was wrong.” Lord Justice Holroyde

Seminal moment in a sentence, in a case, in a court and in a democracy.

It's only an 'if', though, Find

True Popper. as someone said up thread, please let sense prevail

This is significant
*KM is talking about articles 3, 8 and 14 of the human rights act.

Article 3 - the right not to be tortured or subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment*

I have seen quite a few ppl on here & twitter saying that the prison policy is against the Geneva conventions. Those only relate to armed conflict so are not applicable. But international human rights law is relevant & it's v interesting that monaghan has cited this.

We have had a law against 'cruel & unusual punishment' in this country since the 1689 bill of rights & maybe before (1603?). Article 3 is more relevant now but we have had a presumption against being unnecessarily cruel to ppl who are found guilty of crimes for a v long time.

@lottiegarbanzo

Bit off topic (sorry) but this reminds me of that case a few years ago, when a known violent, racist prisoner was put in a cell with a black or Asian prisoner, whom he them beat to death.

In that case it seemed to be a deliberate, depraved act on the part of some prison officers. But, at an institutional level, the faux naivety and deflection that surrounded that case feels very similar here; 'A racist you say? Might have an unwholesome interest in a black man you think? Oh deary me, that doesn't sound too good. Hey, Harry, this lady thinks our new prisoner here might not feel too sympatico about his new cell-mate, might not hit it off together. What do you think? Oh you've asked him and he's happy about it? That's all right then, nothing to worry yourself about here, madam.'

I remember that case. It was absolutely horrific.

The Validation Protocol at work again: TW be validated at all costs.

The Most Oppressed Protocol at work again: TW mental and physical health must be prioritised above everyone else.

When the new proposed head of the equality and human rights commission was being interviewed by cross party people, before she got the post, she was asked about equality and she said something like there isn't a hierarchy of rights in the equality act - the different rights are equal.

Wonder what she'd make of this travesty?

@FindTheTruth

True Popper. as someone said up thread, please let sense prevail

🤞🤞

Counsel for the defend now speaks /6

Discussing initial allocation of a prisoner. They must be allocated according to their legal gender. This policy is aimed to stop an incident lie Karen White happening again (remanded in women's prison despite being legally male /7

However, this means that a transwomen with a GRC WILL be initially allocated into the female estate. Defence counsel argues that this is a proportion policy. It would be wrong to allocate a transwomen with a GRC into a male prison prior to risk assessment /8

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

... and the legitimate aims of facilitating the rights of women to live in and as their actual sex, and women's mental and physical health.

Right?

Bueller?

Bueller?

this is the defence?

Prison governor would have to make sure all 'risks should be managed'. Judge asks which staff would be making that risk assessment. Counsel doesn't know for sure and takes instruction /9

@RedDogsBeg

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".

The Validation Protocol at work again: TW be validated at all costs.

The Most Oppressed Protocol at work again: TW mental and physical health must be prioritised above everyone else.

The privileges afforded are truly stunning, the legitimate aim is flat out approval of state sanctioned rape and sexual abuse of incarcerated women to appease a particular demographic.

It's also back to the question of what is transgender?

wonder if this is like the Keira case where Counsel didn't know many things....🙄

However, this means that a transwomen with a GRC WILL be initially allocated into the female estate. Defence counsel argues that this is a proportion policy. It would be wrong to allocate a transwomen with a GRC into a male prison prior to risk assessment

I don't understand why it would be "wrong". If the law allows for discrimination in the case of single-sex services then how can it be wrong? This is such a weak argument.

@Signalbox

However, this means that a transwomen with a GRC WILL be initially allocated into the female estate. Defence counsel argues that this is a proportion policy. It would be wrong to allocate a transwomen with a GRC into a male prison prior to risk assessment

I don't understand why it would be "wrong". If the law allows for discrimination in the case of single-sex services then how can it be wrong? This is such a weak argument.

It's the obfuscation of language doing the heavy lifting again. If everyone could speak plainly in the language of correct sex there would be a lot less confusion. What was it Barracker said about pronouns again...certainly is true in the case of male rapists in the female estate.

@Signalbox

However, this means that a transwomen with a GRC WILL be initially allocated into the female estate. Defence counsel argues that this is a proportion policy. It would be wrong to allocate a transwomen with a GRC into a male prison prior to risk assessment

I don't understand why it would be "wrong". If the law allows for discrimination in the case of single-sex services then how can it be wrong? This is such a weak argument.

Yes, it's nonsense. The GRC panel doesn't assess risk from the pov of women in single-sex spaces. No surgery (or even hormones) required. The female estate is not the only alternative.

This will be another anxious wait for judgment won't it