Harman as head of EHRC

[lcakethereforeIam]

That's it, we're fucked

www.thetimes.com/article/harriet-harman-equality-human-rights-commission-head-wk87b9ktw

https://archive.ph/kxGY0 the Silence of the Stonewall

It's not definite but it might be one explanation for the silence from the usual suspects.

Someone remind me of the Harman/PIE connection.

Here are some links:

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/pie-controversy-harriet-harman-has-got-this-one-wrong-9162728.html

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedophiles-infiltrated-the-left-harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt

And this telling paragraphs from wikipedia:

Whilst PIE was affiliated with it, the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) argued that photographs of undressed children should not be considered "indecent" – and therefore illegal – unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered harm, or an inference to that effect could reasonably be drawn from the images. A document penned on the organisation's behalf by Harriet Harman (later deputy leader of the Labour Party), working as a legal officer at the time, placed the onus of proving harm on prosecutors and warned of the dangers of increasing censorship, although it did also argue that "it is none-the-less justifiable to restrain activities by photographer[s] which involve placing children under the age of 14 (or, arguably, 16) in sexual situations".[48] The issue of PIE's connection to the NCCL was controversial internally, with union affiliates lukewarm. At the spring 1977 NCCL conference, then general secretary Patricia Hewitt said that "public hostility to paedophilia was such that it damaged the cause of gay rights for the gay movement to be associated with it".[49]

In May 1978, according to Magpie, NCCL motions were passed supporting PIE's rights and the annual meeting went on to condemn 'attacks' against paedophiles and their supporters, saying "this AGM condemns the physical and other attacks on those who have discussed or attempted to discuss paedophilia, and reaffirms the NCCL's condemnation of harassment and unlawful attacks on such persons."[8] A spokesperson for Harman said: "PIE had been excluded from the NCCL before she became legal officer." However, press cuttings from 1983 make it clear that it was still considered an "affiliate group", according to The Daily Telegraph.[50] In August 1983, a Scotland Yard report on the activities of PIE was being sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions, following the 1981 arrest of Tom O'Carroll.[51]

In February 2014, Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, issued an apology for the previous links between the NCCL, as Liberty was then known, and PIE. She said: "It is a source of continuing disgust and horror that even the NCCL had to expel paedophiles from its ranks in 1983 after infiltration at some point in the seventies."[52]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

Also at that time NCCL advised politicians that it would be against men's human rights to fund women only groups. Sound familiar.

Just when I think things cant get worse.

How the hell does Harman never catch any consequences from her support of PIE?

I have wondered that for a long time, Teflon springs to mind.

How the hell does Harman never catch any consequences from her support of PIE?

Didn't look for a link for this, but her excuse was a bit like the dog ate my homework. ie it wasn't really her, she just happened to be part of the organisation.

A bit like Saint Hodge now endlessly promoting herself as spotless.

https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/hodge-tries-to-gag-bbc-6977567.html

Wow. Just wow. Labour are trolling us now.

I know it’s unlikely, but I am really starting to hope Labour don’t get an overall majority. They are going to remove all women’s rights.

Dreadful. How anyone involved with PIE could be brought back to public life is beyond me. Do children count for nothing?

Voters should know the reported background of key players:

x.com/bluskyeallison/status/1808257761341219313?s=46

The Times: in depth series on Starmer www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/5110619-the-times-in-depth-series-on-starmer

I really don’t get how any normal person faced with a grown man who thinks he should be able to rape children doesn’t go “oh dear god, get the fuck away from me”.

It betrays a willingness to jump on any damn bandwagon regardless of how creepy the driver is or where they are going.

Share token
https://www.thetimes.com/article/987acf34-0f53-423c-92e2-2155afd96983?shareToken=30f72864e1b96f941fc380f6bda96b73

Here we go.......it's going to be a hair-raising ride.

Oh God, that’s bad news. A political has been who wants to turn back the clock without having to acknowledge her own mistakes.

Harriet Harperson, as she used to be called. She’d reverse all of Faulkner’s progress.

These are the sort of backroom deals probably done with transactivist orgs. In return for Starmer and a few other Labour MPs sounding vaguely GC on the campaign they will stuff all these sorts of positions with true believers. Then the Labour leadership will pretend their hands are tied and it's nothing to do with them.

This.

The woman is utterly craven. I hope one day she's on the receiving end of her own luxury beliefs.

@Chickenuggetsticks 'It betrays a willingness to jump on any damn bandwagon regardless of how creepy the driver is or where they are going.'

Its really quite like the TWAW stance. Motivated by a kindness towards the oppressed - in the PIE case minor-attracted adults. Its very similar thinking ... these people are met with hostility, they cannot help what they are, I (and my progressive friends) understand them in ways that the majority of the (bigoted) public do not. We need to make them feel safe. There are only a few of them. They are the most marginalised, etc ...

and We will not look at or consider those who may suffer as a result of their actions as (see above) they cannot help what they are.

EDIT to add, this is not anti-trans or comparing trans people to paedophiles, This is seeing some of those who are allies and activists for trans people and MIAs as being deluded about what might be a suitable balance of protections.

“The fundamentals of the Gender Recognition Act (2004), and the Equality Act (2010), remain sound – that you should protect trans people from discrimination, and transphobia, but you should also have exceptions, which are able to be used but on a narrow basis, not on a blanket basis.”

"Harman says Scotland, which is moving faster than England over what the exact process for gender recognition should be, will provide helpful context to some of the debate, and she also anticipates court cases over access to single-sex services"

I think here she means court cases brought by men wanting to access women's spaces.

https://www.politicshome.com/thehouse/article/the-harriet-harman-interview-there-are-some-things-only-women-mps-can-do.

At the start of this interview she talks about how there are some things that only women can do, but she is referring to political positions and organisational roles. She knows how important making dedicated space for women is....but she fails when it comes to the most basic provision.

It is a collective madness

This.

Friends in high places?

Oh fuck.

Why are there no backroom deals for us?

I mean, I know the answer .. we are not powerful, they are not scared of us, they don't respect us, they don't care ..

I was hoping with things like WPUK we would have a seat at the table, seems not.

.......or even the 'Labour Women's Declaration'....those women who have stayed loyal to the party.

It is going to take the further unravelling in the U.S, most likley via expensive litigations and the growing groundswell that is opposed to genderism and its impact upon women and children. As countries around the world cite the Cass Review, in the context of their own internal reviews on child gender pathways, Britain turns its back.

We've a long way to go yet and there needs to be a re-grouping for the next stage of the battle.

So if this turns out to be correct, the task of revising the Equality Act guidelines - which I think is just about the single solitary bone Labour has thrown us - would be entrusted to Harriet Harman who has stated that 'women are women who are born women, but women are also women who are trans women.'
And who also, I imagine, feels personally invested in the Equality Act because, as that article points out, she oversaw its introduction in 2010.

Righto.

On a more positive note, and it's not often I've said this recently, well done to those reporters - I imagine Labour were hoping to keep this under wraps for a bit longer.

(Edited for typos)

I thought EHRC was not meant to be a political appointment as such? So why would the role be available?