MOJ Prison Policy JR TODAY

[ChazsBrilliantAttitude]

Just seen on Twitter.

Will post links

It’s interesting that the Karen Jones case was a year before the EA was passed. So at the time there was presumably nothing in law about single sex exemptions? Because obviously when the GRA was drafted there was no concern at all about the impact on women, beyond that of a few brave souls who were shouted down.

Why worry about women after all, when even if they do complain you can just dismiss them as “the sort of women who enjoy conflict”?

Hansard Gender Recognition Bill
HC Deb 23 February 2004 vol 418 cc48-108
(extract)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs(Mr. David Lammy) I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs was created in June last year to spearhead across government a coherent programme of constitutional reform. This programme is designed to improve the credibility and effectiveness of our constitutional arrangements, engage citizens in decision making and enhance trust in our public institutions.

The Bill is part of the Government's commitment to reforming the constitution so that it better meets the needs of all people. It reflects, too, our commitment to social inclusion. Transsexual people are a small and vulnerable minority in our society and the Bill addresses one of the key problems that they face. It is essential that no one is left behind as we create the conditions for a credible and effective modern democracy. (continues)

David Lammy "That is something that the Government should quite properly consider in line with the civil partnership legislation that we hope to introduce in this Session. In that sense, I do not want to prejudge the debate that we will have on that matter, but I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising an important issue.
The draft Bill was considered by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Although differences of opinion remain between the Committee and the Government, after a period of detailed scrutiny and receiving 47 separate submissions, it was on the whole satisfied that the Bill would bring the UK into compliance with its obligations under the European convention on human rights. I should say something about those obligations because they underline the importance of having UK legislation in this area. The European Court of Human Rights interpreted the convention, which is now a part of UK law, in the case of Goodwin v. UK, and its judgment stated that a system for recognising transsexual people in their acquired gender must exist and that transsexual people must be granted their rights under article 8, the right to respect for private life, and article 12, the right to marry. The Law Lords, in the case of Bellinger, concurred with the view that transsexual people ought to have a means of marrying in their acquired gender. Their lordships stated that transsexual people do not have that right at present and that legislation would be required to ensure that they do.

The Bill proposes to provide legal recognition in the acquired gender to those transsexual people who have taken decisive steps to live fully and permanently in that gender. The effect of legal recognition will be that a transsexual person gains the legal rights and responsibilities appropriate to the acquired gender.

§Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con) As we have not made much progress on the thorny issue of pension rights, may I ask the Minister about another practical implication of the Bill? Will prisoners be liable to apply for a gender change certificate if they started that exercise before they became prisoners? If so and they are granted a certificate, what will be the accommodation arrangements for that prisoner? Will he or she have to be moved, or is this something else that the Government need to think about but have not, as with pension rights?

§Mr. Lammy Prisoners can apply and that person will be subject to prison arrangements for their new acquired gender. We are talking about a very small group of people and the hon. Gentleman knows that that situation would arise in limited circumstances." (continues)

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/feb/23/gender-recognition-bill

@ArabellaScott

the MOJ is insisting that the Equality Act doesn’t apply to women if they are incarcerated (but does to men who identify as women)

Oh, that is chilling. That is exactly what they are doing. Unbelievable.

It is. And yes, chilling is the word.

Does anyone know if by not referring to the Equality Act and thus disregarding women's safety, that the MOJ/gov't could be sued as an accessory or enabler of sexual assaults on the women in prison?

No legal knowledge here but yes they bloody well should be.

And yes, I think it’s a blatant contravention of women’s human rights, not to have the right to single sex accommodation. The Geneva Convention demands that for prisoners of war, doesn’t it?

Does anyone know if by not referring to the Equality Act and thus disregarding women's safety, that the MOJ/gov't could be sued as an accessory or enabler of sexual assaults on the women in prison?

I'm interested in that question Cailleach1
Did it come up in the case that self interested individuals / groups are invited to consult with the MoJ about the placement of male born sex offenders /paedophiles in prison with women? I've always been curious about who these groups are and their qualification are in deciding which individuals should be placed in cells with women?

Does anyone know if by not referring to the Equality Act and thus disregarding women's safety, that the MOJ/gov't could be sued as an accessory or enabler of sexual assaults on the women in prison?

A former Mumsnetter I know IRL asked a QC she was working with about the possibility of a woman making a claim for sexual harassment where an organisation had let male cross dressers (under the trans umbrella of course) use female spaces where women expected privacy and dignity, such as toilets, not in the context of prison, but arguably it applies even more:

http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3520371-civil-service-trans-policy-what-can-i-do

I remember that thread Eresh. It was what alerted me to the levels of regulatory capture in the civil service and the intimidatory tactics being aimed at women in the workplace to force them to comply.

Hansard Second Reading of GRA 2004 House of Commons

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs(Mr. David Lammy)
(extract)
"I shall mention one vital aspect of the third section of the Bill. Clause 22 prohibits the disclosure of information about a person's application for gender recognition or about a successful applicant's gender history. That information is to be protected whenever it has been acquired in an official capacity. Changing gender is a difficult process. It is difficult in terms of the person's own identity and in terms of their relationships with others. Recognising the change of gender in law will produce benefits for transsexual people. Those benefits will be undermined if there remains open access to, and open disclosure of, the fact that the person was once of the other gender.

Gender dysphoria is, after all, a medical condition whereby a person feels driven to live in the opposite gender. To be reminded of the original gender, to be regularly confronted by it, and to have others knowing that one suffers from that medical condition and to know that they might be talking about it is not conducive to feeling secure and it makes it very difficult to live in the acquired gender in dignity. We do not believe, as a Government, that we are able to, or should seek to, prevent all rumour and gossip—that would require too great an encroachment into the private sphere—but we do believe that those with access to information about a person's gender history in an official capacity should play no part in any such activity. Clause 22 seeks to achieve that.

There will be instances of the individual's previous identity being relevant. All human rights legislation should try to balance the rights of one set of individuals with the rights and interests of others. To that end, clause 22 sets out the limited circumstances in which disclosure is permissible, for example, for prevention or detection of a crime or in pursuance of a statutory duty." (continues)

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/feb/23/gender-recognition-bill

api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/2004/feb/23/gender-recognition-bill

To that end, clause 22 sets out the limited circumstances in which disclosure is permissible, for example, for prevention or detection of a crime or in pursuance of a statutory duty

It's clear that the law is being interpreted not according to the original intent as shown by Parliamentary debate and not according to a reasonable common sense interpretation, but according to ideology where certain protected characteristics are paramount and others don't matter so much.

Oh that's a useful excerpt R0, thanks

This is why the court ordering production of stats is going to be interesting as disclosure pursuant to a court order is one of the limited circumstances.

It'll be interesting to see whether the MoJ are able to provide data they've previously said doesn't exist in response to FOI requests.

Yes it'll be interesting to see the quality of the data they produce. Presumably the moj are now contacting each prison governer asking for the data, and if they can't call it up as a list from the database someone will have to go through each inmate record looking for the info?

It's amazing that the government department who are responsible for absolutely every minute of every day of so many women don't even know basic numbers on something so crucial. And it's even more amazing that it's because they think they are not allowed to know.

Will the MoJ will try to submit their data as confidential and thus being useable only in the legal proceedings and not available to newspapers/the public?

@nauticant

Will the MoJ will try to submit their data as confidential and thus being useable only in the legal proceedings and not available to newspapers/the public?

I am expecting that this will be the case, certainly in relation to GRC holders.

Individuals, certainly. I was thinking of data without any information to identify individuals, top line numbers, locations, that kind of thing. The reason I'm interested is that the MoJ are going to be in such a hurry to construct something to hand to the court it's almost inevitable there'll be some sleight of hand and judges, however clever they are, would not necessarily see the tricks that others would see.

I found this quote from the parliamentary discussion interesting: The Law Lords, in the case of Bellinger, concurred with the view that transsexual people ought to have a means of marrying in their acquired gender. So it's not simply being able to marry a same sex partner but being able to be the bride or groom as they wish. So civil partnerships alone are not enough to make that element of the GRA irrelevant.

Please note this does not show my views on whether or not the GRA should be repealed, this is far too important a thread to disrupt, but I felt that line was worth drawing attention to and it needs the context of the earlier post.

Bingle

I think the Bellinger case is more about the impossibility of marrying as a transgender person. Now same sex marriage is legal it’s a different argument.
publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200203/ldjudgmt/jd030410/bellin-1.htm

I would certainly hope the MOJ can produce some anonymised aggregated statistics that can be referred to in the judgement. I think the judges will want to show they have considered the scale and nature of the risk.

I couldn't actually read it as it was paywalled

Here's an archive link to the Telegraph article about Paris Green jj.

archive.vn/AZfzo

It's always worth having a quick look in the archives if you can't see a paywalled article.

It’s interesting that the Karen Jones case was a year before the EA was passed. So at the time there was presumably nothing in law about single sex exemptions?

There were some single sex provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act. Also two amendments that introduced some (quite strange IIRC) rules about how those provisions should apply to trans people.

The 'let's go back to 2007' thread had some interesting discussion around this.

There's also a very old prison law that says men and women shall be housed separately.

Thanks, Old Crone

I did read that the surgeon has decided that he is unable do Paris' operation - he felt that having someone with a history like Paris' on a ward presents an unacceptable level of risk for the other patients and staff.

@TalkingtoLangClegintheDark

It’s interesting that the Karen Jones case was a year before the EA was passed. So at the time there was presumably nothing in law about single sex exemptions? Because obviously when the GRA was drafted there was no concern at all about the impact on women, beyond that of a few brave souls who were shouted down.

Why worry about women after all, when even if they do complain you can just dismiss them as “the sort of women who enjoy conflict”?

What men want, men get.

Before the EA there were single sex protections under previous anti-discrimination laws.

Loads of job adverts used to say that were5women-only and were exempt from the sex discrimination legislation of the time. I presume prisons were covered by same.
Maybe, just as now, they chose not to use them . Silly if so as any male could have applied to be transferred and claimed sex discrimination if they didn't accept his transfer.

did read that the surgeon has decided that he is unable do Paris' operation - he felt that having someone with* a history like Paris' on a ward presents an unacceptable level of risk for the other patients and staff*.

Probably would also want to be put on a female ward

Thanks LangClegsInSpace and WanderinWomb, you’re both right of course.