Prisons Judicial Review: Judgement

[KeepPrisonsSingleSex]

It's finally here...
The judgement in the prisons judicial review R (FDJ) v SSJ
will be handed down by email at 10.30 am today...

Here is a reminder of what it was about:

www.keep-prisons-single-sex.org.uk/judicial-review-campaign-update

Helpful response from Sex Matters

sex-matters.org/posts/prisons/prison_jr/

State sanctioned rape. Pure and simple.

This is the bit I don't get:

The judgement makes clear that these policies do impact on women in prison and that policies that seek to accommodate prisoners of the male sex who identify as transgender in women's prisons may discriminate against female prisoners.

How can it be legal if those policies discriminate against female prisoners?

@Tibtom

This is the bit I don't get:

The judgement makes clear that these policies do impact on women in prison and that policies that seek to accommodate prisoners of the male sex who identify as transgender in women's prisons may discriminate against female prisoners.

How can it be legal if those policies discriminate against female prisoners?

They're arguing the 'legitimate aims' argument. The one women attempt to use when we want single sex spaces. Except nobody cares when we use it. It's another example of not all people recognised as women in law being equal. Some are more equal than others. We may have moved on from 1984 to Animal Farm.

The thing is that it is about the law being applied.

Remember that woman who was refused a divorce and the 3 (I think it was) judges said they took no pleasure at all in their decision but their job was to apply the law. They said the law needed changing asap in their opinions.

This case though some of the comments are very cavalier about the impact on a group of very vulnerable women having a male offender in with them, irrespective of gender ID.

Bigger, stronger than most or all of them, most likely.

They have to have communal showers I think there was something from a ? prison officer saying that (understandably) made the women really uncomfortable.

Even that thing where there was a fitness competition and the prize was a goody bag with things valued in prison. Makeup nice soap stuff like that. The transwoman in the prison took part and won by a mile which understandably felt unfair. I think one woman said there wasn't l hadn't really been any point in the women competing it was clear they would lose.

And anyway. Writing all that. All the threads on here etc.

Having to argue what pretty much every ordinary person asked would know the answer to. Should males be in women's prisons? No obviously not goes without saying.

Oh and the other thing.

He said the thing often said that tw will be at risk in men's prison.

1. That is not a reason to put them in with women!
2. If it is then shouldn't all the other men at risk in men's prisons go in the women's as well?
3. Why is addressing violence in prisons hardly ever raised?
4. Why is the women's prison and mixing in the only solution? There's others!

Who defends the women? As in, who's job is it to ensure their rights are respected and safeguarding is enforced?

Is it the justice minister? Is there one person who oversees policy for all prisons?

I have googled, but I can't figure it out. Am writing emails, obviously.

Just abominable, but because of those comments made by the judge (admitting that there are serious questions to answer) maybe winnable by appeal?

@PIKNIK20

Just abominable, but because of those comments made by the judge (admitting that there are serious questions to answer) maybe winnable by appeal?

I doubt it (although IANAL). It seems to me that the issue isn't the application of the law, it is that the law is inadequate and unequipped to cope with the state of the world as it is now.

In short, the law is an ass.

If change is going to happen, is it going to have to be by parliamentary statute or case law (from individual cases where harm will already have been caused).

It's shite.
I also think the MoJ needs they're knuckles wrapping until they bleed for the lack of data. There shouldn't be a situation where the defendant can say 'no evidence, Gov, never gathered anyway' and that result in a judgement of: 'no data, no idea what's actually happening, can't judge.' That should be a crime. It's pulling the wool over people's eyes and 'surprising' judges with poor data is no defence.

We're seeing repeatedly demonstrated in all situations including this one, the whole reason for women having single sex provision. When female people are in mixed sex spaces and provisions those spaces and provisions are always unfairly dominated by and subordinated to the needs, voices, interests and representation of male people, to the point that female needs are not met.

Look at the fact that we're talking about 31 serious sex offenders being in women's prisons. Now considering how very, very hard it is to get a conviction for rape, we're not talking about minor offences here to have ended in a prison sentence, never mind one long enough to transfer to the women's estate. And yet there is a great deal of reproach and scolding that in discussing female people being locked up with these male serious sex offenders whose victims were female people, that this implies a hurtful and unfair belief on the part of women that TW as a group may include those who are unsafe towards women.

It defies sane belief.

The statement by Sex Matters is very good. I agree with them that the judges clearly thought this was a perverse outcome.

The judge has also shied away from being honest (as does the government). TW being unsafe in male prisons is a serious problem. There are many possible solutions and ways forward to it, which could be achieved without simply using the women's estate as an extension of the male estate's resources.

This is not about TW's safety in prison. This is solely about the right of TW to association with and access to female people to confirm their gender identity, regardless of the impact that this has upon female consent, interests, accessibility and equality, and actual bodily safety.

Was this about the equalities act or a different law?

When considering whether it's proportionate to exclude anyone who isn't female (even if they have a GRC) it was intended (and has been confirmed to mean) full stop for a certain role or service.

The issues.

It's been widely circulated that it's about consideration on a case by case (individual by individual) basis. Not a blanket thing.

The prison service i seem to recall (maybe Scotland if so different) made the argument that the EA didn't apply to prisons as they aren't a service... FFS. So cowardly.

Why are so many people indeed so enormously concerned about the safety of one group of men in prison but not any of the other men who are at risk/ being victimised etc?

I've read so many articles about the lack of care, the massive problems with drugs, the understaffing. The violence. The MH issues and so on. In the male estate. And the issues in young offenders institutes resulting in addiction, worsening MH, despair, suicide.

There are problems in the women's estate as well. They are an entirely different type of population though, with very different types of crimes etc.

There are some good charities if anyone is interested I can post s couple of links.

Anyway my point is that the people who are so concerned about male convicts who identify as trans and the risk of harm to them. That they can only think that prison with women is the right thing to do, even if they have been convicted of violence/ sex offences against women.

Why don't they care about all the others at risk?

This is a massive massive glaring hypocritical neon sign which says. It's not about risk at all, not really. Because that makes no sense. It's something else.

And yet again, it's not about the space. None of it is about the space. Because the separate space has communal areas. The vulnerable prisoner section, isn't wanted, either. It's about the women in the space. The vulnerable, incarcerated women, where it is actually officially acknowledged that many are already victims of male violence. They are up front about sanctioning them being used to validate the gender identity of sex offenders.

@NiceGerbil

Was this about the equalities act or a different law?

When considering whether it's proportionate to exclude anyone who isn't female (even if they have a GRC) it was intended (and has been confirmed to mean) full stop for a certain role or service.

The issues.

It's been widely circulated that it's about consideration on a case by case (individual by individual) basis. Not a blanket thing.

The prison service i seem to recall (maybe Scotland if so different) made the argument that the EA didn't apply to prisons as they aren't a service... FFS. So cowardly.

The way I read it is similar to Ann Sinnott’s case: the judge is simply determining whether what has happened/the policy is legal. They both found that yes it was BUT that it doesn’t follow that to do it the other way is illegal. It’s not a case of one way is legal and the other is not, they both are. It seems as well, that both judgements have said that if anything comes from doing it this way, then other cases may be brought, which would have more chance of succeeding.

Just saying, tho, campaign to shore up the EA2010 all you like. While the GRA exists, it will drive a truck through the foundation of any argument made for women using the EA2010.

While it is still a legal fiction that a male can be a female, women's rights will always be subsumed by men's demands.

Work it through. Be logical and brave. Make the connections. Because if we don't, we are in for years and years more crowdfunded failures while wicked men abuse women with impunity and claim it's legal. Because it will be, every time. Because of bad law.

James Kirkup in the Spectator

www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-court-judgement-that-confirms-women-pay-for-trans-rights

archive.vn/M2zuO

James's article is the best one I've read so far from a media outlet.

:(

Men who need respite from men are offered refuge in women's spaces, meaning women who need respite from men have literally nowhere to go.

I've got a feeling there will be even more extreme incidents in women's prisons than the Karen White affair but nothing will change because women are expendable.

@OvaHere

James's article is the best one I've read so far from a media outlet.

Consistently excellent on this matter. I hope he's right:

I’m not going to bother saying what I think of this situation, because I suspect I don’t need to. I also note that the Ministry of Justice is already reviewing the policy in question, so I think this won’t be the last word on the matter.

@OvaHere

James's article is the best one I've read so far from a media outlet.

He's fuming.

And where does this leave all the governmental hand wringing over rape statistics, the appallingly low conviction rate, and the sexual assault and harassment of girls in our schools?

When they have implemented a situation where women can be raped and sexually assaulted specifically through their own government sanctioned rules.

The court confirmed that in some circumstances, accommodating the interests of male-born transwomen means imposing costs and burdens on women.

And that raises a question that society as a whole still needs to answer: why should women pay and suffer to serve the interests of people who were born male?

Nailed it.

Thank you for the link.