Labour candidate suspended for 'transphobia'

[Imnobody4]

Labour’s London region has suspended the party’s candidate for a closely-contested council by-election in Hackney following allegations of “transphobia“.
Party members were told by email early this morning by Hackney’s borough organiser that “all planned campaign sessions” in the Cazenove ward had been cancelled, including those that were to have taken place today.
A Labour source has confirmed that the candidate, Laura Pascal (front right in photo), has been “administratively suspended”, which means a complaint has been made about her by another party member and a decision taken to investigate it.
The timing of the suspension means there is not enough time to nominate a different candidate in time for the by-election, which will be held next Thursday. This means that if Pascal wins, she will sit as an independent councillor. The source confirmed that Labour will do no further campaigning for her.

https://www.onlondon.co.uk/hackney-labour-cazenove-candidate-for-council-by-election-suspended/

About time KS got a grip.

And no, I don't prefer Boris Johnson. I think it was a huge act of self harm for the Conservative Party to choose someone with a track record of dishonesty as their leader, and then cling to him when the inevitable happened. I think they lost the right then to have a single word they say taken seriously. But this thread isn't about the Conservatives, it's about the sheer fuckwittery of a party that I've supported all my life but that I now despise a little more with every passing day.

I hear you.

And I haven’t even tried. It’s annoying enough that posters do it.

“And that we might have more influence over a future Labour government if we hadn't convinced the party that we were going to try and undermine it whatever it does?”

So the way it works is that…

• a Labour MP’s TRA researcher shouting “fascist” at a dad and baby doesn’t count as undermining the Labour Party / undermining TRAs’ influence over a future Labour government
• a TRA male Labour MP visibly trying to intimidate a female MP in the House of Commons doesn’t count as undermining the Labour Party / undermining TRAs’ influence over a future Labour government
• a TRA activist sticking up “don’t vote Labour” flyers on lampposts doesn’t count as undermining the Labour Party / undermining TRAs’ influence over a future Labour government
• a sub-Reddit entitled “UK Labour” slagging off the Labour Party leadership doesn’t count as undermining Labour / undermining TRAs’ influence over a future Labour Government

But in contrast…..

• a female branch secretary who has spent countless weekends doorstep campaigning for Labour for at least seven years is undermining women’s influence over a future Labour government by saying that biological sex is real.
• a forum - which is entitled “feminism”, not entitled “Labour” - is jeopardising Labour women’s/ all women’s influence over a future Labour government by expressing disappointment and concerns about malicious TRA targeting of a female candidate just before the by-election.

In other words: you supplicants had better not do the wrong kind of supplicating or your supplicating will be ignored and if that happens ON YOUR OWN HEADS it will be.

I’m not sure that’s the winning argument in favour of Labour’s attitude to women you think it is, tbh.

👏👏

I really think all this 'if we just do the right things, then Labour leadership will eventually listen' is really disturbing to be honest. It reminds me of the 'women don't need the vote because they have influence over their husbands votes' argument and the 'if I'm just a nicer person then maybe he'll be nicer to me' argument. It's really anti-woman.

Rapists in women's prisons isn't something to be negotiated. It's a breach of women's human rights, it's cruel and unusual punishment, a woman prisoner got a coil fitted ffs so blatant was the rape threat. It's morally wrong and Labour need to pull their finger out and stop with the 'yes, you can have single 'sex' spaces with Karen White / Katie Dolatowski / Amy Miller allowed because they have a £5 GRC'and '99% of women don't have a penis'.

Labour have been pretty openly anti-women. I can't believe they did nothing about the very blatant male display of aggression to Miriam Cates that LRM displayed - so blatant that another male MP felt he had to go and sit nearby. You have to wonder what would have happened had there NOT been cameras there and it NOT been in the HoC.

You have to wonder if people arguing that we're putting off Labour leadership with our uncompromising stance on women being entitled to human rights and single sex spaces also feel that women in Afghanistan just need to try harder to be nicer to the Taliban too.

The issues are very simple and clear cut. The biological fact of mammalian reproduction and binary sex is clear.

Labour politicians are pretending the emperor has new clothes and are trying to force the population to believe that too via totalitarian control (somewhat limited to Labour councils and certain organisations at the moment as they're not in power), which means they have the capacity to pretend anything and try and impose any anti-science, anti-reality belief on the population as long as they think it's in their own interests. That's dangerous, and we need to speak up as forcefully as we can NOW because once they get into power the harassing of women (and their children) by the police for stating the earth ISN'T flat will only get worse.

I really think all this 'if we just do the right things, then Labour leadership will eventually listen' is really disturbing to be honest.

Same. And the rest of your post

All of the above. But I also think that they will not listen to us whatever we say. I think that the LP is lost and I have given up on it.

People know. They say they don’t care

Many women have spoken up and if people have hooked up to the gravy train or don’t want to hear about it it’s not on me. Or other women who have tried.

I canvassed for Labour in 83 , 87 and 92 . Many a slip twixt cup and lip.

Some stonking posts on this page, I wish the LP read here.

Rapists in women's prisons isn't something to be negotiated.

This. It is all operating from a starting point of 'it is appropriate in some situations to sacrifice a non consenting woman to be used and abused (including sexually) by a man with enough needs'. They just want to argue about which men and in which circumstances on the basis of 'be reasonable, you have to let at least some women be sacrificed'.

And we all know it's salami tactics: say yes to any man and it's all men and the circumstances stretch endlessly, we've seen it. The TQ lobby have proved it .

The fight we have is to get any party with the guts to stand behind no, no women. Ever. Women are not ever resources for men. On a binary sexed basis, because that's what this is, regardless of all the frantic lies. Tears, sad men, medical needs, whatever, no, the answer is never 'have a woman to use'. And men can just bloody deal with that.

And to me it is bloody evil that no party in the UK would currently dare to say this to a small group of men, who by their very desires and behaviours indicate their difficulties, because decent men don't treat others like this. They don't even treat they ones they can think they can get away with like this.

You have to wonder if people arguing that we're putting off Labour leadership with our uncompromising stance on women being entitled to human rights and single sex spaces also feel that women in Afghanistan just need to try harder to be nicer to the Taliban too.

The biggest ball and chain that we are carrying in this and have from the start is female socialisation and a belief (one of the good historic sides of the left) that bad behaviour comes from need, that harm comes from need and hurt, and if you listen, understand, care, include, meet the needs of.... you can solve this social ill and we dance we sing we go home happy.

If you look on the relationships board, if you read the literature for abused women, you see it over and over. You cannot be reasonable with someone incapable of reasonability. When someone shows you who they are, believe them. All the stuff we know.

It's time to start separating caring and compassionate from soggy sentiment and weak boundaries. And it's time to stop hoping that if we just explain long enough, in our nice voices, and are good girls who aren't shrill and don't talk to anyone smelly, and make it as win win as we can, and keep repeating that we really care about the people snatching our rights but can we just mention that we need them, that our betters might just deign to listen.

This. It is all operating from a starting point of 'it is appropriate in some situations to sacrifice a non consenting woman to be used and abused (including sexually) by a man with enough needs'. They just want to argue about which men and in which circumstances on the basis of 'be reasonable, you have to let at least some women be sacrificed'.
**
They don’t have needs, Frood. They have wants. They have desires. They have demands.

No male needs to have access to non-consenting women and girls in a state of undress. Plenty of males want access to women and girls in a state of undress.

No male needs to have access to lesbians’ social spaces. Plenty of males want access to lesbians’ social spaces.

No male needs to opportunity to participate in contact sport with women and girls or to take sporting opportunities away from women and girls.

No male needs to take training and coaching places designed for women, because the over-representation of males in senior roles in pretty much every sector you can think of, including those with a majority female workforce, somehow doesn’t apply to this particular male.

I completely agree. But they're going from the cultural history that underpinned the marital rape law that hung on into the 1990s.

We live in a country where many, in particular the establishment, were raised in a belief that 'a man has needs' that include access to a woman's body. A phrase so well known and used it was a joke.

Everything you say to make very clear the difference between this 'need' perception and actual reality has be battered into their deaf sexist little ear holes. It and asked of them every time a microphone is put in their face.

that bad behaviour comes from need, that harm comes from need and hurt, and if you listen, understand, care, include, meet the needs of.... you can solve this social ill and we dance we sing we go home happy.
And I wish it were so.
But some people, even with the best of circumstances, turn out as arseholes. And some can have a shit time of it but apply some self-reflection and behave well.

Someone today was trying to persuade me to vote Labour next election. But ultimately

1. I can't vote for a party that still seems to think that 'truth' is just a fluffy concept and that biological reality can be ignored
2. Women's rights really matter to me, and I can't vote for a party that doesn't seem to understand the concept, never mind how important it is.

Can we play them at their own game - can a party member make a formal complaint against the Hackney LP complainer that they are not respecting Laura’s right to hold GC views. Let’s see if there is parity (ha ha).

Statement here on the situation from the Labour Women's Declaration who are the only reason I've not yet told the party to fuck the fuck off. Yes they try to influence from the inside.

https://labourwomensdeclaration.org.uk/lwd-statement-about-cazenove-ward-hackney-by-election-14th-january-2024/

That’s a very good statement by LWD.

This point caught my eye….

” If and when a female Labour candidate is being widely slurred online, for example by the local Green Party, for her adherence to Labour party policies, we urge the party to consider carefully whether complaints emanating from that party are vexatious before deciding to mount an investigation and suspend our candidate.”

And they mention the Rachel Meade tribunal judgment.

Yes I agree LoobiJee - a good statement from women with a lot more patience and tenacity than I have.

I can’t see why the Meade case doesn’t change things

But I guess we’ll see. I’d love to see another payout

The article in the OP says that it was Regional Labour that stepped in and suspended her, and wrote to the local branch / membership to say there would be no campaigning.

This is exactly what happened when it became obvious that a local Labour councillor was being investigated by the police.

Regional Labour closed down the authorised networks of communication, eg calling local meetings etc..

The idea that Labour is in any way a democratically run party is not possible to defend.

It doesn't seem to matter which person is the Leader, it just means one In Group is swapped for another. And whatever their particular politics are, are then the ones that local Labour Parties are supposed to abide by.

And inevitably when policy is based on personal networks, women get isolated and excluded from the "discussion", ie ignored.

What is so astonishing is that some people in the Labour Party are so convinced of their view being the right side of history, that they would sabotage a local candidate with only a few days to polling.

Party politics just seems to be the most poisonous structure to be part of.

Have just read the Labour Women's Declaration statement (thanks for the link).

From anything that has been written / published, is it clear that the complaint came from someone in the Labour Party, or someone outside of Labour making a complaint, whether they genuinely believe there is an issue, or just tor derail the election?

The link in the article in the OP goes to a tweet by someone called David Duffield, but I couldn’t read his tweets. There was a photo of a flyer stuck to lampposts. If you’re on Twitter you might be able to work out what happened?

Well not sure that twitter helps but if anyone interested:

David Duffield
Product Manager #product #gaymer enjoy writing and pretending I know anything about politics (He/Him)
@duffster84

If you're in Hackney, don't vote for Laura Pascal, and shame on Labour for selecting her. I can't hear about Keir Starmer fixing the bigotry in Labour without thinking about this new wave of horrific transphobia that they have seemingly completely embraced. twitter.com/CazenoveLabour/status/1745135543740936531 (*)

https://twitter.com/duffster84/status/1745383937118003390

Posted on January 11th – suspect something must have been said earlier, if not really quick response to ONE tweet

(*) Whatever was said in the Cazenove tweet cant say as it has been deleted.

Laura Pascal’s pinned post is:

My embodied reality as a member of the oppressed sex class is experienced in a world where biology has a significant impact. You can believe what you want but I believe that biological sex is a real thing and neither law or some kind of new scientific concensus wld change that

https://twitter.com/LauraPascal81

And was original made last July.

But did find this tweet but cant see date

Helen
@mimmymum

After Laura Pascal is called out for her ‘gender critical’ transphobia, she goes campaigning in Cazenove ward wearing a scarf as a BLATANT dogwhistle taunt to trans people!

GC bigots use the suffragette colours as their ‘brand’ to try and hide their transphobia!

If that Dave fella is a Labour member that tweet (campaigning against a Labour candidate) is Compliance report-worthy.

Good statement. I wish I had any faith that Labour would listen.

I cant remember who mimmymum is but this twisting of women's genuine beliefs is such a corrupt way of working:

she goes campaigning in Cazenove ward wearing a scarf as a BLATANT dogwhistle taunt to trans people!

GC bigots use the suffragette colours as their ‘brand’ to try and hide their transphobia!