Kemi Badenoch appointed new Minister for Women and Equalities

[Manteiga]

And International Trade Secretary. I'd have preferred to see her as Secretary of State for Education in addition to Minister for Women and Equalities, but this is good news.

twitter.com/Conservatives/status/1584957913059454976

I think Badenoch's been very deliberately placed in the portfolio to unpick and repair the absolute mess made by Penny Mordaunt when she was in post.

In the original leadership hustings a few months ago, she demonstrated very clearly to me that she had the measure of Mordaunt, that she knew exactly how bad things were in the equalities office, and that she knew that Liz Truss knew it too. Rishi Sunak was listening to all of this. It's a bit of an easy win for Sunak to put Badenoch in as he knows that she knows what needs fixing.

And it's about bloody time.

I've come across Fiona Bruce in real life. She's thorough but an avid Christian in many respects including in the workplace. (friend did work experience at her company many many years ago).

I don't dislike her but I'm also wary of the Christian element too.

In terms of where you are allowed to protest, I think you need to consider MPs banning protests outside Parliament 'for security reasons' and lesbians protesting at pride for every oil protester on a bridge and abortion campaigner outside a clinic.

Who decides what? The power of the censor is a scary one.

(FWIW oil protestors fall foul of other laws and lesbians have been treated outside the law...)

In many respects I think she a useful idiot who can do the controversy and once complete is disposable.

Charming! I don't think anyone who has heard KB talk could honestly describe her as an idiot of any kind.

It's not necessarily what I think, but others in the cabinet will.

This

It seems the obvious solution to me. Abortions should take place in hospitals in gynaecology departments.

It would be much harder to target and harass women there. Protesters could be moved off hospital grounds and women need never come into contact with them. There are so many comings and goings at hospitals for such a variety of reasons that protesters wouldn’t be able to work out which women to target for harassment.

These websites have already been discussed - these sorts of generalisations are absolutely useless and generally meant for people like you who apparently just want to divide everyone into 'monstrous' and 'virtuous'.

I have actually been caught out by these websites before, where I have been shocked that an Mp voted a certain way, but then when I looked at it more closely, gained at least a little bit of an understanding as to why they voted that way.

Why don't you go and actually look into what these pieces of legislation were, the arguments for and against each one, and then perhaps even look at KBs thought process behind each vote. Then think about how your views compare to that.

Instead of looking at a website which tells you fuck all, and using that to confirm your own bias.

Tbh, would rather someone like KB who I think may have given some thought to something, that a Labour MP who thinks 'shit, I'm Labour, I'm supposed to be on the right side of history so I'm going to have to defend trans ideology to the end, even if that means saying out loud in public that babies are born without a sex/men can grow a cervix/I believe that male rapists should go to a female prison if that's where they want to go'.

@PomegranateOfPersephone yup, I’ve had a termination in the UK and going to a special clinic like that was horrible and dehumanising. We aren’t given exact appointments and so you sit there waiting, they were short a doctor that day so we all got there having not eaten and I waited from 9am till 12 to see the first person. We waited in a single room, facing inwards like at an AA meeting! I thought, should I stand up, hello I’ve been a naughty girl and that’s why I’m here’ I mean Jfc it’s very outdated and not at all respectful to women. Everyone knows why you’re there. The cab driver, the protestor outside I yelled at, every single person. The waiting seemed like punishment. Also I know people liked this, but doing it myself with tablets made me feel worse, alone and afraid and wondering if it was normal. We need to be treated like everyone else, in hospital and with proper appointments and supportive staff.

I’m from nz so I just looked up latest laws and changes, after 20 weeks and you need a clinical reason and two doctors… but the page on it all didn’t say ‘ woman’ once. Pregnant people! Oh but isn’t it soooo progressive!

I agree. But I am struggling to get the evidence or formulate the arguments as to why.

Obviously one reason is that hate crimes are a farce if misogyny isn't a hate crime.

Even more farcical is the idea that we could potentially end up in a position where a woman who calls out a man doing a misogynistic parody of a woman is committing a transphobic hate crime, yet by that same ideology the trans identifying male is actually a woman, so really it would end up with a woman being guilty of a misogynistic hate crime by virtue of claiming that a man is not a woman, even though misogyny is not a hate crime and the "victim" is not a woman.

The idea that a violent man randomly separately attacks two other men on a drunken night out, hurting both equally, and one crime is more serious because it was perceived to have a racial element, risks increasing white resentment and increasing racism. I note that I am increasingly coming to the view that a lot of supporters of positive discrimination are clueless middle class white people, and a lot of the opponents are people from ethnic minorities who simply want a fair chance and to be treated just like anyone else.

Anyone who can point me to articles about the issue would be appreciated.

Quick google of some WH discussions around misogyny as hate crime

Pros and cons

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0bb6zng

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000td0m

The whole concept of hate crimes and protected characteristics making any crime worse should be abolished. Everyone should be treated equally

Perhaps. I had an abortion in a mixed gynae ward. It was quite hard mixing with other women, answering the 'why are you here' question. I expect it may have been hard for them, too.

YouSirNeighMmmm

For me there are a number of issues. The first is which characteristics get to be included as hate crime strands. If we are to have hate crime strands then why exclude for example age or sex from this?

Second, it doesnt achieve what its set out to achieve. If you believe the stats, hate crimes are increasing.

Non crime hate incidents require no evidence nor investigation, just a person's perception and, bang, you have a non crime hate incident recorded against you. Currently the only way to challenge this is though judicial review which most people can't afford. If I recall correctly non crime hate incidents were introduced so the police could take preemptive action to prevent and actual crime taking place, evidence in the miller case however was the police do nothing at all with them. They serve no purpose

Non-crime hate incidents should be completely scrapped, immediately. One of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, and so open to abuse I'm astonished they were ever suggested.

For one thing, they render the entire 'hate crime' idea worthless. If a NCHI means anything at all, requires no evidence and isn't a crime, and is counted in the same category as a racist assault, then the former makes a mockery of any law trying to deal with the latter.

Yes, I think all of this nails it very well.

Another well explained and very interesting post.

I was a supporter of making misogyny a hate crime until it became apparent that it was intended to include men.

Then the proposal became a danger to actual women.

And so of course the proposal needs to be paused and re-scrutinised. We can't have women being carted off by the police, accused of misogynistic hate crimes, because they inadvertently insulted a bloke.

I know a number of Police and Crime Commissioners are working hard to get their constabularies to drop the whole 'non-crime hate incident' fiasco and return to proper policing. This is popular with the public. I think Harry Miller and Fair Cop really highlighted the madness and unfairness of it all.

It was quite hard mixing with other women, answering the 'why are you here' question. I expect it may have been hard for them, too.

Usually you don’t need to be on a ward and can go straight home, but in cases where a hospital stay is necessary they don’t need to put them on the same ward as women giving birth etc I do think it’s odd to ask anyone why they’re there though!

More from the Public Order Bill on buffer zones:

'I am surprised we are debating this again. It was only in 2018 when the Home Office concluded there was no need to introduce so-called buffer zones. I am referring here to new clause 11. Buffer zones are disproportionate in the restrictions they impose on freedom of expression, and unnecessary in that there remains a lack of evidence that they are needed. The Government have recently affirmed this position, and rightly so given that existing laws enable the police and local authorities to deal with protests that are harmful. Before we rush to create new laws, it is only right that the Government expect the police and local authorities to use their current powers appropriately and where necessary.

The 2018 review showed that

“it would not be proportionate to introduce a blanket ban”

as the evidence found that protests occurred at less than 10% of abortion clinics. That is a very small number. Of course—we emphasise this point—any kind of harassment is absolutely wrong. It should be dealt with by the law and can be dealt with by existing laws. We have heard much in the debate about how we should turn to existing laws, rather than create new ones. Any remedy must be proportionate to the problem. The review—not my
Toggle showing location of Column 585
review, but an objective Government review—concluded that most of the activities during these protests were passive in nature. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce), in a very powerful speech, described just how passive they can be. They can be standing there and praying silently, not even holding up a banner of any nature or saying anything. It could include praying or handing out leaflets. The review found that disruptive or aggressive behaviour was the exception, not the norm. Crucially, it also confirmed that the police have the necessary powers already to take action and protect the public when protests become harmful or disruptive. A blanket ban of the kind proposed in new clause 11 would be disproportionate in the face of those facts. The law must be proportionate.'

Edward Leigh

'this is not primarily a debate about abortion. We all have our views on that. This is a debate and an amendment about public order. A thorough review of this subject, including the public order aspect, found that buffer zones would be an excessive response to protests or vigils outside abortion clinics. There is no need to change the law with the new clause.

I support the Bill, but if new clause 11 is included in it, I could no longer support it. Many pro-life MPs will be in the position I am in.'

Victoria Atkins - this is long, but seems to be very relevant. I'll highlight most important points:

'I rise to speak in favour of new clause 11.

In a perfect world, no woman or girl would be raped; no foetus would have life-shortening, agonising conditions or endanger the life of the mother; and every baby born would be yearned for and cherished. But we do not live in a perfect world, and that is why Parliament has settled laws for the regulation of the provision of abortion services. This is what new clause 11 concerns. It is not about the form of those laws, or their details; it is about the provision of those services in day-to-day life.

I had the responsibility for looking after abortion clinic buffer zones from 2017 until I was promoted from the Home Office last year. It was, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) says, an issue with which I grappled, because there is a real balancing skill involved in weighing up not only the concerns of those women seeking medical services and those who support them, but the sincerely held beliefs of those who do not agree with abortion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), who is no longer in his place, has set out some of the history of this, and I was an active part of it, so I really am trying to help the Minister when I try to explain some of the shifting of that balancing operation.

In 2017 Amber Rudd was Home Secretary, and in response to concerns voiced by parliamentarians she commissioned a review into demonstrations and protests outside abortion clinics. We announced the results of that review in, I think, 2018, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) was Home Secretary. At that point I stood at the Dispatch Box and I signed letters to say that we had looked at the number of clinics and weighed up the power of PSPOs. At that point, from memory, one council—maybe two—had
applied for a PSPO, and we felt that the balance was in favour of PSPOs being using on a targeted basis for those clinics affected.

The review continued... Indeed, only last summer we looked at this again in the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill. At that point, although the number of clinics affected by demonstrations had increased since the initial review, we felt that in the interest of balancing both sets of interests, PSPOs were the right way to go.

Today, however, five councils have applied for these orders, and happily the imposition of those orders has been upheld by the Court of Appeal as being lawful. We have heard in the course of this debate the concern that the five PSPOs cover five clinics out of some 50 that have been the subject of protests and demonstrations. My right hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke made the important point that this is not just about the number of clinics; it is about the number of women who go to the clinics for these services. I think I am right in remembering that she cited the statistic that around half of women who seek these services had attended clinics where there had been protests and demonstrations.

So I find myself in the position of agreeing with new clause 11, not because I like banning things or because I am against the legitimate and sincerely held beliefs of those who cannot support the provision of abortion services, but because I come back to the point about the provision of services to women who need them and the circumstances in which they find themselves as they walk that long and lonely path to the doors of the clinic, hospital or surgery providing those services. I know from speaking to women who have been through these protests that they have made a difficult decision. There may be many factors surrounding the decision, involving their home lives, the circumstances in which the pregnancy came about and the concerns for what might happen if their friends, families or the wider society found out that they had had these operations. These are fundamental healthcare services that we provide, rightly and lawfully, in the 21st century. We must surely enable women to access these services as and when they need them so that they get the right help and advice.'

Non crime hate incidents are an abuse of state power. If a citizen has committed no crime, nor even been accused of a crime, I fail to see any justification for holding a record against that person.

There may be interesting / useful social analyses possible using the data (number of incidents; how many are substantiated; are there any patterns in time, geographical area, age of victim or “perpetrator”; how the patterns and number incidents correlate to other sources) but there is no need for the name of the “perpetrator” to be recorded in order for that analysis to take place. And it isn’t really the purpose of the police to record data for social analysis.

Hate crime legislation is more complicated though. I’d want to see a proper review of existing legislation and how it is used in practice before seeing any additional strands.

Key points were that the majority of violence and crime against women and girls wouldn't be seen as "hate" motivated and few really understand what the word misogyny means.

It doesn't actually get to the root of the problem. Porn also mentioned

Thank you to those posting extracts from the MPs debating the buffer zone/free speech issue, and to those describing their personal experience of abortion clinics and suggestions for improvement. This is an example of nuanced, informed debate making me think more about a subject.

Compare and contrast with the approach from the Ladybird Book Of Politics:

This is Kemi. She is a Tory. Tories are baddies.