Labour bars feminist groups from conference

[PearlClutch]

Filia and the Labour Women's Declaration have been refused permission to have stands at the Labour party conference.

Although the group had had their application approved in March, this was reviewed and subsequently rescinded. Labour claim on 'purely commercial' grounds.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jul/03/labour-accused-of-silencing-women-in-row-over-sex-based-rights-group

I should add Labour denies the groups were barred. See 'purely commercial', above.

Filia on Facebook:

'FiLiA was also refused a stall. This represents a continuation of the attack on organisations and individuals who value and defend sex-based rights.'

Well that's them losing the election yet again 🙄 they just don't get it do they

Is that a fair-ish article from the Guardian? Very odd.

Yes, Plasmodesmata - I thought the article was balanced. I had to scroll up twice to make sure it was a Guardian piece and not The Observer!

Sunlight

I wasn't that impressed with the article, apparently BJ is stoking division in the Labour Party by pointing out KS can't define what a woman is. Perhaps KS could say what a woman is to shut BJ up.

Labour have made their position clear, any statement about upholding the EA is undermined when they can't define what a woman is and party members like Stella Creasy say a transwoman is an adult human female and women can have penises.

I posted about this on my Labour policy thread but I think it deserves its own thread.

They also refused a stand to LGBA - no surprise.

Guardian article was pretty good but omitted the fact that the “commercial” justification is bollox because there were and remain available stands (and apparently LWD has the screenshots to show it).

Ah, tis the Observer. Published today.

Guardian article was pretty good but omitted the fact that the “commercial” justification is bollox because there were and remain available stands (and apparently LWD has the screenshots to show it).

Thanks, Delurking, I thought it sounded like bullshit; that would seem to prove it.

Labour Women's Declaration have been tweeting about it. They have screenshots that show there were still unsold stands at the point when Labour turned them down. They describe it as 'a strategic and political decision' which is pretty strong stuff coming from them.

twitter.com/LabWomenDec/status/1543489837348560900

It’s all in LWD’s statement in response. They say they were told stalls were basically on a first come first served basis, so reserved early.

I don’t understand what the “commercial” justification would be anyway. Anyone who’s ever been to a Labour conference knows that the stands aren’t just prominent ones for unions and large socialist societies. There’s also a range of smaller and sometimes very fringe organisations that can’t be paying much for their stands and seem not to have many visitors.

Ah sorry, DelurkingLawyer beat me to it!

Ffs, I am so so desperate for Labour to improve their act on this so I can vote for them in confidence and they continue to pull shit like this.

Hard to see how it's anything other than a 'strategic and political decision'.

I'm just curious why, if htis is Labour's position, they're not happy to own it.

Surely they'd be coming out telling us what exactly they find issue with when it comes Filia, LWD, and LGBA?

I mean, fine, you consider women lesser than men. Own it. Say it out loud and proud!

Every day it becomes clear that Labour are doubling down on science denial and oppressing women. I really want to vote Labour again - but it seems unlikely.

Theres no-one left to vote for. Its tantamount to erasing the women's vote.

Good job I didn't get excited by recent Labour committment to uphold the Equality Act then. I really can't see me being able to vote for them again in my lifetime.

They won’t own it for three reasons, I think:

1. there is probably some dim awareness that denying a stand to LWD for holding protected beliefs is not a good look.

2. they want our votes.

3. a lot of what goes on at conference is dictated by delegates nominated by local labour parties to the Conference Arrangement Committee. As with so much in the LP, there is a mad striving by factions to gain control of the party machinery. Real life experience of organising such events is very much not an essential requirement, so CAC (apt acronym) is a fertile source of clusterfucks at the best of times. If CAC had anything to do with this, therein lies the explanation for both the decision and the terrible “justification”

More and more glad I left Labour.

I'll never vote Labour again. I was already pretty dead-set against them after seeing the shambles they've made of Wales, where they've been in majority power for over 100 years, but the way they're dealing with this is abominable.

Even if KS came out in support of women's rights at this point it would be a cynical ploy for votes.

If you want to see what would happen under Labour, look to Wales, where gender identity ideology is compulsory learning from age 3.

Do they have funding ties to TRA specifically?

Or is it just not wanting to look transphobic - overriding women as an easy target

I actually loathe them right now, how can Labour disregard women so much

I’m never voting for them again. The contempt they have shown for female interests is sickening.

The so called 'Labour party' which is supposed to be from socialist roots, turning down women because of 'commercial' reasons.

Labour. For the Men.

I hadn't seen it that way before, but yes, you could say that.

I imagine that the reason they didn’t allow them to have a stand was partly political loathing by CAC and/or the Labour staffers responsible for the decision, and partly a fear of TRAs picketing the stall.

After Rosie not feeling safe to attend last year and Keir drivelling on to Andrew Marr about how she was in fact safe, it would not look great if all the “kill **s” people showed up to abuse the women running the stall. It would demonstrate pretty clearly how many of these people are within the Party, and that the Party has no control over them, or no desire to control them. Smoke bombs in the conference venue? It would dominate the news cycle for the entire conference.

Of course they can’t admit that, but they could have said something closer to it like “security concerns.”