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

[quote FlyPassed]I've woken up furious. Is it time to revisit the Hansard debate and demand answers directly from the MPs and Lords who hand waved away concerns about women's rights? We can't let them get away with this, they need to be held personally accountable

mobile.twitter.com/HairyLeggdHarpy/status/1049289194370002945[/quote]
I've read this thread several times and it always gives me the chills. It was all laid out there by a few people with very clear foresight. How horrified they must now be by their own prescience.

I think back to what I was doing in 2003/4 and why I didn't notice. Clearly it all went somewhat under the radar but also I was a young pregnant mum with two other children juggling work and daily life.

Much like the lives of millions of other women who had no idea about what politicians were cooking up to unleash on us, in part to avoid marriage equality.

I can't think of a worse piece of legislation currently in existence.

@toffeebutterpopcorn

I remember when there was a trend of inmates converting to Islam (in the belief of getting a cushier life). Apparently a tv show cause a trend of Jewish converts.

That was mentioned in Porridge, the conversation went something like:

"I'm CofE, I suppose"
"That's no use, CofEs don't get any perks, everyone's CofE. You could say you was Muslim and get special food sent in from outside"
"What food do Muslims eat?"
"I dunno but it's got to be better than what they serve in here. Stands to reason, otherwise Muslims wouldn't eat it."

This judgement could be good. I have been angry at the trampling on women's rights, but I have never been as angry as I am right now. This has been over 24hrs and I'm still absolutely livid.

I am hating what Parliament has been doing. Did any of them from say 2000 onwards have the reduction of women's rights at the expense of trans rights in their manifestos. Did they tell us specifically what they intended to do. Given the link to vulvas twitter feed from Hansard, it is clear all the risks were known. The conflict in our rights was known. This has been aggressive misogyny of the worst kind. What's worse is that the times article about the new LGBTIQ+++++ advisor is about to make it even worse by saying Stonewall is wonderful and only make minor errors.

They have bloody destroyed women's rights - can you tell I'm just a bit annoyed

It's made me more hardline about the GRA actually. Now I think it needs re-working or replaced with something else. And anyone who's seen my previous posts about the GRA knows this is a turnaround for me.

Same here ScreamingMeMe. If the law allows women to be put at risk in a situation where their safety is entirely at the mercy of the state, then the law (or laws) must be changed.

1. Amend the GRA, specifying that holders do not change sex and that it isn't valid for all purposes, beyond peerages and sport. The Hansard records demonstrate unequivocally that the unintended consequences of the GRA as predicted by several prescient Lords and Ladies did not just happen, but they are now happening so frequently and in a way the government back then assured them they would not. Indeed could not. That means, it is clear that the intention of parliament was not this outcome, therefore the law must be changed to account for these unintended this-will-never-happen outcomes.

1. Alternatively repeal the GRA, as it's raison d'être no longer exists. It was passed to enable same-sex marriages for fully post-op transsexuals and achieve pension equality for them. These are now facilitated by other means. So repeal the GRA if it cannot be amended to protect women.

1. Amend the Equality Act 2010. Strengthen the sex-based exceptions. Make them opt-out instead of opt-in, i.e. do not make the protection of women optional but mandatory. Guarantee our dignity and privacy in situations where we are naked or vulnerable. Do not allow anyone to opt-out without providing thorough risk assessments as well as equality impact assessments.

Explicitly acknowledge that women are disadvantaged on the basis of their sex, which therefore forms the basis of all equality, inclusion and diversity measures aimed at women.

DdraigGoch - funny how jokes made back in the day are now... not so funny...

Nearly 900 comments on the bbc news twitter post, veering from outraged to flabbergasted. Lots of sunlight, lots of people finally waking up and realising what this really means. Male feelings over female safety.

Still sucks though, I'd have rather had a judgement that would have protected those women and prevented further attacks

Or more realistically, instead of guaranteeing our privacy and dignity, which isn't really possible, explicitly acknowledge that our privacy and dignity are legitimate aims for single-sex provisions.

It's made me more hardline about the GRA actually. Now I think it needs re-working or replaced with something else. And anyone who's seen my previous posts about the GRA knows this is a turnaround for me.

Same here.

Because James Barrett and (implicitly Karen Jones who ended up being invited to speak at the HoL) were present in the review - a primer for those unfamiliar with it:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3370661-2009-case-of-a-judge-ordering-an-intact-male-rapist-into-a-female-prison-because-he-had-a-GRC

@toffeebutterpopcorn

I remember when there was a trend of inmates converting to Islam (in the belief of getting a cushier life). Apparently a tv show cause a trend of Jewish converts.

Same, I remember hearing a former Scottish prison officer speak about a sudden increase in prisoners identifying as Jewish. They later realised it was because kosher food was of better quality. She also mentioned a case where a prisoner tried to change his name to 'God Almighty' so that the officers would have to address his as such .

These male prisoners will do whatever it takes to make their lives easier, they will play the system in whatever way they can. Many of them are serving long sentences and have nothing to lose.

Unfortunately, in this case women are the collateral damage.

And I would hazard a guess that sex crime prisoners are possibly more manipulative and duplicitous than say, your average mugger or shoplifter?

@OldTurtleNewShell

I haven't read it yet but I don't get it. How did we get to a point where it's legal to lock women in with sex offenders? Fuck me, but women's rights have a long way to go.

This. I actually cried when I saw the result. Women locked up with male sex offenders, to pander to mens feelings. That is how much women matter in this supposedly progressive society.

@toffeebutterpopcorn

DdraigGoch - funny how jokes made back in the day are now... not so funny...

Like with Monty Python.

Yes. Safeguards need strengthening. Urgently. Liz Truss needs to stop talking about protecting our single sex spaces and make it happen.

Truss's problem is the same one the judge identified: the need to 'balance' the best interests of female people with the requirement to permit people born male the freedom to choose their sex.

And while 'no' is not something anyone is afraid to say to female people, regardless of how appalling a PR move it is to have in the papers 'no, you cannot have privacy, dignity, freedom from fear, freedom from assault, or refuse to be imprisoned with someone convicted for severe sexual assaults and violence towards women', it is definitely something government and law appears very afraid to say to the other sex class.

What's really boiling my piss is that there have been numerous judges now that have expressed sympathy for transgender sex offenders and paedophiles. These brave poor poppets would be unsafe in prison, and so have been spared it.

There was a paedophile in court for the third time IIRC, for breaching the court order in place to protect children from the absolute danger. The judge said ''she'd have to send him to prison if there was a next time, even though she didn't want to have to do that'' .

Fucking paedophiles and sex offenders are spared jail and shown a great deal of sympathy because of 'safety concerns', yet it's fine for abused, vulnerable women convicted of low level crimes to be put in danger?! It's perfectly fine to sentence these women to a risk of sexual assault or rape by males that shouldn't even be there?! Tell me, what crime is deserving of that punishment? Failure to pay the TV licence? Stealing to feed and clothe the kids? What?

Fuck this. Fuck.This.Shit

Why are the rates of sex crimes disproportionate for transwomen inmates?

can any of our transactivists answer that question?

Fuck this. Fuck.This.Shit

Why are the rates of sex crimes disproportionate for transwomen inmates

Yes I'd like to know the answer to this.

Although I can guess the answer tbh.

@Etorih

Why are the rates of sex crimes disproportionate for transwomen inmates

Yes I'd like to know the answer to this.

I think we all want to know the reason for this

Actually, we know that sex crimes are significantly higher for transwomen compared to biological women.

How do they compare to sex crime rates for men?

@merrymouse
But this is actually a step forward because it acknowledges that competing rights exist. This is not ‘TWAW’.
This is true.
But it's batshit that we ended up in this situation in the first place. Women said that putting natal males into the female estate as a bad idea, and lo and bloody behold...

@BatmansBat

Actually, we know that sex crimes are significantly higher for transwomen compared to biological women.

How do they compare to sex crime rates for men?

Almost fifty per cent of transgender males in prison are there for sex crimes. Around 18% of non trans identifying males are in prison for sex crimes.

@BatmansBat

Actually, we know that sex crimes are significantly higher for transwomen compared to biological women.

How do they compare to sex crime rates for men?

They're higher than men.

The judge also acknowledged this in his judgment.

Why are transwomen more likely to be sex offenders than men?

I wonder of there's a clue in the "ignoring women's boundaries of single-sex spaces" issue.

But it's batshit that we ended up in this situation in the first place.

Yes, but women have been putting up with batshittery for centuries!