Lord Herbert: Royal Commission to remove trans debate from politics?

[tabbycatstripy]

Nick Herbert, Johnson’s LGBT advisor, suggests a Royal Commission ‘led by a senior judge, [to] comprise members who are “truly neutral”, and be founded with “cross-party support and without predetermination of its direction or outcome”’ to make decisions on the trans debate.

In the Twitter discussion below this announcement, there are four or five male members of the HoL discussing whether this would work (some for, some against).

I am absolutely against this. These issues aren’t for ‘neutral’ anyone to decide in secret. As Lord Lucas says, they need full transparency and democratic engagement. They are the stuff of politics, not questions to be removed from the unwashed masses and dictated to us by Stonewall-trained judges.

Could he look more out of touch?

I don't see how you can remove it from politics when political parties are so captured. Stonewall made it political.

There is also an article in the Times about him but I can't get sharetokens to work at the moment

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/johnsons-lgbt-adviser-says-take-the-politics-out-of-transgender-debate-dbz52mvmm

Nice try Nick but hell no. It’s just trying to carry on the “let’s all agree this behind closed doors with stonewall” approach

Now that we've trained the judges to be handmaidens. Yeah, great idea.

They’ve tried to do it all behind closed doors, it failed.

It’s just undemocratic. We have bodies to make decisions about which laws we should make, and we have bodies to enforce the law. Let’s not mix them up.

Reading between the lines of The Sunday Times article it looks like Nick Herbert realises that the trans activists and allies have screwed up through overreaching beyond what was significant power and influence and he's aiming for a reset to preserve the remaining power and influence before it erodes away even more. These early signs of panic are really good to see.

A good companion piece in The Sunday Times is the Sarah Ditum one:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/4526097-the-logic-of-trans-activism-leads-to-surreal-debate-but-the-grown-ups-are-fighting-back-times-article

Nick Herbert is pals with Crispin 'Backroom Deal' Blunt MP (Con).

In fact Herbert is one of the Vice-Chairs that are drawn from the Lords of the All Party Parliamentary Group ('APPG') on 'Global LBGT+' that is chaired by Crispin Blunt.

I rest my case.

Royal commissions are public inquiries aren't they? Yes led by senior figures such as judges but taking evidence from all parties

A royal commission simply means appointing some 'experts' to take a consider, non political, view on a subject and then make recommendations. It's like a go paid for think tank.

Politicians then chose whether to accept, amend or reject these recommendations.

It's not subverting or avoiding democracy. The decisions remain with parliament.

I actually think it's a sensible approach to find a way to consider these subject matter in a non toxic way.

Really sinister. As other posters have said above, they managed to get this far by avoiding public scrutiny and accountability and relying on an online army of blue hairs to intimidate and doxx and fire and defund those mostly women and women's organisations who raised concerns about child safeguarding, women's rights and safety.

How can a Royal Commission operate when the evidence base for decision-making, or in the case of an RC recommendations, is currently so under developed and conflicted?

‘It's not subverting or avoiding democracy. The decisions remain with parliament.’

But the so-called ‘neutral body’ appointee gets to hold a private debate and then have a huge input into the decision-making, rather than (he suggests) having the debate in the open.

I reject this idea. This is too important. We have the right to hear and participate in the arguments in the usual way (a right that has been suppressed already by lobby groups, and which we are entitled to have back).

But Herbert is taking fire from both sides, it’s fair to say.

What do we mean by 'politics'? I take it to mean relating to the government or affairs of a country. Women fighting to maintain our rights is intrinsically political. I have no idea what else Herbert thinks it is. And yes, as others here have said, it's the government and other public institutions' capitulation to Stonewall that has got us into this mess

I'll be charitable towards Herbert, who lives up to his name I see, and assume he means party political.

Exactly. ‘Political’ isn’t a bad thing. If he means the government just trying to stick it to Labour, then unfortunately that’s because Labour made this issue political. They didn’t listen to their voters but to their activists.

I don't think he understand what politics is, or democracy. How can you remove an issue from politics when it's subject to heated debate, strong views and affects many people's lives? The idea of 'neutrality' here is arrogant, patronising nonsense. You might just as well remove poverty, education, taxation or criminal justice from politics.

I’ll be charitable to him as well. He’s put forward a long thread telling his own allies some unpalatable facts. A culture war is a war they won’t win. Public opinion isn’t behind them. Talking about biology isn’t transphobic. It’s imperative that this issue doesn’t follow the direction the debate has taken in the US.

He’s a smart man. I just don’t agree with his conclusion. There’s been enough secrecy and back-room deal-making. Women don’t trust that that will work.

And he says LGBT organisations have been “shouty”.

The man’s right about that.

The replies to his thread highlight exactly why discussion seems to be impossible

I’m going to do what I don’t do often and change my mind (provisionally). He seems serious. Maybe it’s worth doing.

Do we think there’s a chance that the Royal Commission will have 50% female representation? Or would that not be considered neutral?

It would need to be led by a woman for me to feel it wasn’t same-old men deciding in women’s rights.

The matters are inherently political, so it’s inappropriate to suggest to ‘take politics out of it’.

Oh my god, the replies. Can’t they see they are not convincing people? “No common ground with extremist terfs...” [who want women to have the right to refuse a cavity search from a male officer]