Starmer: "trans-inclusive" conversion therapy ban, "modernise" the GRA, all hate crime to be aggravated offences as part of making every child "proud and confident"

[ResisterRex]

Exclusive in Diva, following a reception at a LGBT+ Labour event in Parliament on 29 Jan:

https://diva-magazine.com/2024/01/29/exclusive-keir-starmer-lgbtqia-rights/

"“We’ll strengthen the law, so every category of hate crime is treated as an aggravated offence,” Starmer said. “We’ll cut NHS waiting lists for LGBT+ people waiting for urgent physical and mental health care. We’ll modernise the Gender Recognition Act. We’ll implement a full, trans-inclusive, ban on all forms of conversion therapy. We fully support the view that conversion therapy is psychologically damaging abuse.”

“We are committed to a decade of national renewal and will work with all the organisations in this room tonight so every child can feel proud and confident in who they are, to stand up for LGBT+ rights at home and abroad and to get Britain’s future back.”

The mention of children is unclear but must have a background to the full speech? LGBT Labour hasn't tweeted about it but others have. Rayner and Dodds also in attendance.

https://x.com/djrm94/status/1752057964767101041?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

https://x.com/stevenatkins/status/1752256944843162016?s=46&t=WHoOZZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

x.com/anuox/status/1752094930074325420?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

I'm not sure what's right and left now anyway? Pro grass-roots government? Skeptical about movement of labour? Pro-free-trade? Pro-systemic discrimination? Pro-mother? It's all very higglety pigglety.

NoWordForFluffy · Today 18:43

...I think you've mistaken supporting one element of what a Tory politician is doing with being 'very pro right wing politicians and policies.'

That cannot be emphasised enough!

The amount of times we've said it though. 🙄

Victim blaming. Gosh you really are textbook @AdamRyan

.

NeighbourhoodWatchPotholeDivision
If women's right to be free from male violence is contingent on our political and religious beliefs, then it's not a right. It is explicitly conditional.

This states it so succinctly I felt worth repeating

I'll get my ouija board out.

I can forsee a rush of applications from Beyond The Veil. 🙄

🤣🤣

@AdamRyan , where are you ? I'm waiting for your explanation of why transing dead people is another one of Labour leading policies

Buggeration. Not voting Labour this time around then.

Remember everyone, if you express dismay at being unable to vote for the Labour sex fudge shitshow, you are a Tory-Supporting, Right-Wing, Religious Fundamentalist, Trumpian, Lying Bad Person.

The Good People can read between your lines and see into your Evil Soul and they Know what you Really Mean.

It really is quite bizarre. Most of my political views are centre-left - solid social safety net, progressive taxation, controls on business, fair conditions of employment, living wage, equal rights before the law etc etc.

But - woe is me - I am an occasional churchgoer, spend a chunk of my free time on FWR, garden regularly for GC women embroiled in court cases and tribunals. I was horrified by October 7th.

So obviously I am a fascist.

I won't be voting for Labour or spoiling my ballot paper this time either. As much as I detest the Tories, it's muck or nettles now.

I've only spoilt my ballot in local elections here, never a GE. I really don't want to spoil it either.

While we have a rumoured indie, I've a feeling he's more right wing / less palatable than the Tories (yes, I know!), so I will likely have to make a difficult choice.

This issue really isn't as mainstream as it could be yet, I don't think (as in, I'm not sure the electorate is paying huge amounts of attention to those stories in the MSM and understanding the implications). It's bound to be focussed on more during campaigning, however. That's when we will see what the electorate really think about it, IMO.

I agree. It really doesn't register as a big issue, certainly not one that would define voting positions, for the vast majority of men, and many women. But every daft story coming out peaks a few more, I suppose.

In my opinion its just the daily mail overstating a case. Its not "a leading labour policy".

If you read the article, Ms Nichols is the MP for Brianna Gheys constituency and was raising a petition started by constituents, that asked if "Gender Recognition Act (GRA) 2004 could be edited 'to allow transgender people who are deceased to be legally remembered by the gender they lived by'."

I'm not sure what the issue is with an MP raising an issue on behalf of constituents, I'd think it was her job?

What would really help would be if the Conservatives did what they promised and strengthened single sex provision in the EA. Labour have already said they would back that but the Conservatives don't seem to actually want to do it for some reason 🤔

If you go to Penis News, who will be reporting to the opposite end of the spectrum to the DM, they are saying its so the family can apply to have gender transition recognised posthumously.

I'm not sure what I feel, I think the families wishes should come first in these cases and can see a scenario where biological sex and gender identity are both recorded.

https://www.thepinknews.com/2024/02/05/british-lawmaker-gender-recognition-act-uk/

Here's a bit more:
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/movies/brianna-ghey-petition-made-change-183000640.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAACvB_RCbuHUPoKhchFwpf7_anIod0h10r2jok2UcH02CWuBSHudcuS5FauKxM0eYjO9cg6pCSdZSR8N3CqMWtdNn3k45bCQvLK-MJDDiXasljJ5XfYXxjrTO4SMJ2cjgiL9Snf9c-AoOTWvIEmopwWcQ3p41DeAQuB5jevMIhZg6

I do think MPs should be representing their constituents as much as possible so I'm not sure it's possible to link what Nichols asked to "official" Labour position in this case. And really, shame on the DM for reporting on this in such a divisive way just as we are finding out a bit more about Ghey's killers. Very distasteful.

Labour

Moreover, let me be clear: we are proud of the Equality Act and will oppose any Conservative attempt to undermine it.

They will not agree with the change, even if they said it earlier this shows flip flop Starmer

and also rest of the statement the weak reliance on lawyer level shite that a pp was praising

Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services..

Anyone want to list which spaces Labour have clarified as reasonable?

You'd not sign your house up to that lack of clarity in a room of lawyers not on your side. Bogus buggers

Come on Eastern, you know that's not the full story.

https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/labour-welcomes-government-review-equality-act-over-defining-sex-biological

LABOUR said today it welcomes government plans to review the Equality Act, potentially defining sex explicitly as “biological sex.”
“Clarification is a good thing,” the party said, adding it would wait on specific proposals.

You may not trust them, that's a different thing to being accurate about their position though

I know the full story it includes a massive flip flop

Your story is April 2023

The more recent statement is July 2023

Moreover, let me be clear: we are proud of the Equality Act and will oppose any Conservative attempt to undermine it.

Classic hide it under the carpet lawyer shite. And people doing their work for them as you are

On what level does we will oppose mean we will agree?

What a joke

Anyone want to clarify which single sex spaces are reasonable for Labour?

Until then sort it out and write it up so what you say is clear.

That's nearly a year ago and it's a maximally weak statement - they welcome a review, and think "clarification" is a good thing but they aren't going to take a position until they see what the review says.

So has there been a review? Why should we think that old statement has anything to do with Labour's position now? Especially now they have just said something that takes a different position.

I loathe Trump but there might be something in this. He’s completely unhinged and unpredictable. The normal rules of engagement were binned during his last stint as president. If I was another world leader I would think very carefully before provoking a loon like Trump.