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.

FML.
5 years of rolling back protection for women ahead. How long will it take after that to get back even to where we are now, 10? 15? Will it ever be possible?
FFS.

From the Telegraph article

Baroness Falkner of Margravine, the current chairwoman, has taken a forthright position on trans rights and advised the government to provide new legal protections for “biological” women in same-sex spaces.

She survived a concerted attempt to remove her from office after she faced an investigation into allegations of bullying and harassment, which were dropped. Allies said she was subject to a “witch hunt”.

Her contract is due to expire on November 30 and Kemi Badenoch, the women and equalities minister, was expected to extend it for another five years before the general election. However, Rishi Sunak’s decision to call an early election and delays in approving the contract mean that Falkner’s position is now at risk.

It's a political appointment in so much as it's in the gift of whichever party is in charge.

It's a political appointment in so much as it's in the gift of whichever party is in charge

This is true. However, Falkner came with no strong positions whatsover and it was my assumption that this was why (or a large part of why) she was chosen for the job. She hadn't courted controversy. She hadn't given opinions on areas that needed a cool head, technical precision and neutrality.

So it does seem at best illogical that anyone who's given strong views on the areas they'd be overseeing as the regulator, could reasonably be appointed.

I don't know the circumstances of her appointment, so I've no reason to doubt your explanation. She also survived complaints about her being partisan which speaks well of her that they were dismissed. Also, assuming she was appointed by Kemi Badenoche, if she was biased that would have reflected badly on Kemi(?) so they should be scrupulous.

So, why Harman is being considered beggars belief. Wasn't the current incumbent preceded by some guy late of Stonewall?

I went through her Hansard when she was announced. I found nothing. Didn't do other checks so could have missed things for sure but I'd have thought if there was any dirt on her, we'd have seen it now. The most we've had is maybe she rolled her eyes once. So to me the signs point to her being a safe pair of hands.

Plus she never championed a group whose aims were hardly hidden. The name was on the tin..!

(edited for typo)

Harman got involved with PIE back in the day, I can't believe she hasn't learnt anything from that.

Well that's fucking terrifying 😩

newsnight did a long interview with Harriet Harman when the PIE story broke 10 years ago. Worth watching in full.

Baroness Falkner seems scrupulously fair. I expect when it comes to a clash of rights and one side has become used to calling the shots, fairness can look like bias. My heart bleeds for they/them

Regarding Harman, her history demonstrates gullibility and an appalling lack of judgement. Neither of which would be strengths even if all she was running was a metaphorical whelk stall.

As far as I'm concerned this appointment (if it happens) brings her out, blinking rapidly, into the sunlight.

And we fight. We fight for our rights and for the liberty of public dignity. We carry on fighting and we will not wheesht.

I cannot imagine a worse choice for this role, it's appalling.

Its so appalling that it makes me wonder if Starmer is getting cold feet about a Labour landslide, and wants women to vote against him.

You couldn’t get much more of a political appointee than someone who has been a Labour MP for 40 years.

UtopiaPlanitia · Today 01:10

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

I'm rather surprised that the Daily Mail hasn't run with it. It's the sort of thing that's red meat to them. None of the MPs who supported PIE ought to be anywhere near an office, which can involve safeguarding issues.

The Mail did, 10 years ago, but it made no real impact. That's what the Independent article linked above is about. Hopefully they will run it again if this is likely to happen.

One starts to wonder if PIE is one of those things no one wants to start pulling at.

Eyes are wide open now. Labour are in for a very, very rough ride ahead, this won't be the walk over it would have been a few years ago. It may take seeing the really mad stuff trying to be actioned that gets enough articles, interviews and public awareness to push this to breaking point.

Same reason Peter Tatchell is still on telly and an elder statesman despite advocating for paedophilia?

You never get cancelled if you have The Right Opinions.

What on earth?!? Harman?!?

I cannot imagine a worse choice for this role, it's appalling.

I can but they wouldn't necessarily be Labour members.

Harman, rolling back the years, safeguarding and the rights of women.

If I was HH I'd be ashamed of my involvement with PIE and trying to force team it with gay rights. I'd be apologising every day for my naivety. I certainly would be aware of not going down the same path again with force teaming a movement onto gay rights again.

That Newsnight interview - if HH had spoken as a human being instead of as a lawyer, she could have dealt with the issue fairly effectively.

There is a context to PIE, I've spoke to some pesky rights-hoarding radical feminists who were around at that time, and who unreservedly condemned PIE, which surprisingly from today's perspective, was not universal.

There was a lot of “I may disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” going on, libertarian mind-dances around the limits of human rights. And PIE was probably a handful of men with a typewriter, and NCCL wasn't a quango yet.

So HH could have said, yes it was a terrible mistake, NCCL got caught up in wishy-washy late hippy 60s libertarianism, we let anybody with a grievance and ten quid join, the awareness around sexual abuse of children was not as developed then as it later, quite rightly became, in retrospect it was wrong to take their ten quid and let them join, even though that did not technically 'affiliate' PIE and NCCL, and I was never actually 'involved' with PIE.
Yes I should have been more critical, I shouldn't have just followed the anything-goes libertarian mindset of NCCL at the time, it was wrong, I was wrong, I accept that and apologise, full stop.

I still think it would disqualify her from being head of EHRC but she could at least have redeemed herself a bit as a human being who got it seriously wrong in the 70s and now sees that sometimes what is not, or not yet, illegal can still be morally wrong.

Just to clarify - when I said
if HH had spoken as a human being instead of as a lawyer, she could have dealt with the issue fairly effectively.
I meant 'effectively' in a politics-y sort of way, not 'effectively' as in ethically or morally exonerating her retrospectively.

Can we object to this? Is there a mechanism or is it a done deal?

Kuensberg did a good interview there and Harman is absolutely refusing to accept the horrific nature of PIE being affiliated with NCCL; she’s hiding behind procedural details.

It’s not a smear to point out her past actions that are on record. I hope the Daily Mail decide to report on this issue again if Harman is in the running for EHRC role because it’s important for the public to be reminded of Harman’s poor judgement and her resolute refusal to take responsibility for it.

There’s a distinct absence of discernment going around.

Like, and idiotic grinning ‘pleased to meet you’ handshake with whoever presents themselves to you.

This is so mindblowing it makes me wonder what is going on behind the scenes if this is what they are prepared to let out before the election.