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.

Well, quite. If I was a Labour spin-doctor, I don't think I'd have wanted this story coming out today. The Man Next Door would say, don't mention PIE!

So HH could have said, yes it was a terrible mistake

Yes and, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who's not prepared to say as much has demonstrated that they're not fit for public office.

Yes.

Which is fairly convincing that she thinks there was nothing wrong with PIE and should have been passed through, and that she was right to support it.

And yes, I agree: if this is how they're prepared to look the day before an election and are on their absolute best behaviour, wtaf will they be dumping on us by next week?

The Newsnight report upthread really is worth watching. She's unapologetic, dances on the head of a pin about the ins and outs of being "affiliated", and then goes on to attack the Mail. But I don't think she took legal action against the Mail(?).

Here to save posters searching:

Omg I remember all this
I remember the child abuse scandal and all the shady goings on
A timely reminder for those who think Labour are as pure as the freshly fallen snow 😉

The story has been picked up by the DT too:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/03/harriet-harman-is-no-champion-of-womens-rights/

"Women’s rights have figured far more prominently in this election campaign than Labour would have liked. Now, in what should cause considerable alarm, the issue seems to be gathering momentum, with rumours swirling that Harriet Harman, who is retiring as an MP, is set to be appointed as the new chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

This will be unwelcome news indeed for feminists who have been campaigning to protect women’s rights to privacy and safety. Harman has long been an advocate of Stonewall ideology that holds that “trans women are women”.
It’s a controversy that Labour would much prefer not to have been raised at all, and, lest we forget, it wouldn’t have been had it not been for the efforts of the likes of author J.K. Rowling – a former Labour supporter and donor – and the party’s own candidate in the marginal seat of Canterbury, Rosie Duffield."

I am reluctantly going to have to vote to try and save our Tory MP who is usless but not a TRA.

" Balancing equal rights" is all very nice and an airy idealistc concept; but certain groups have protections on account of their particular characteristics - which cannot be "balanced' with those of other groups - without compromising those protections.

I recall my daughter got into a written communication with our local Police and Crime Commissioner ( Labour) over the conflict of rights involved between transgenderism and women's protections and child safeguarding. The PCC suggested that there needed to be a balance and a compromise....to which my daughter responded that she was shocked that the PCC would think that child safeguarding should ever be compromised.

@ChristinaXYZ Thanks for posting the article link - it was very thoughtful and well-analysed. I’m relieved to see that some journalists understand the problems involved in this area.

Thanks for that article @ChristinaXYZ

Archive link here: https://archive.ph/2NBkp

I think we're going to need our most curious, fearless, thick skinned and sheer bloody minded journalists to be on top of their game for the next few years.

There has to be a full recruitment process and the decision has to formally agreed by house of Lords and Commons human rights Committees . I remember watching Kishwer being grilled.

Appendix B: The appointment process
Selection process for a new Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission
(EHRC)
The recruitment campaign for a new Chair of EHRC was launched on 29th June 2020, the Minister for Women and Equalities having previously written to the Women and Equalities Committee and the Joint Committee on Human Rights to notify them about
the campaign.
The vacancies were initially advertised until Monday 3rd August, however the Minister for Women and Equalities decided to extend the deadline until Sunday 9th August to increase the quality and diversity of the field. The opportunity was promoted widely via HMG Public Appointments website and was shared with the Commission
and other interested stakeholders with connections to diversity networks.
We received 32 applications for the role of Chair.
The Advisory Assessment Panel (Panel) was chaired By Lord Kakkar, Senior Independent Panel member. The other Panel members were Antonia Romeo, Permanent Secretary at
the Department for International Trade, and Pamela Dow, Director in the Cabinet Office. Catherine Vaughan, Director General and Chief Operating Officer for the Department for International Trade sifted the applications on behalf of Antonia Romeo.
No panel member declared a conflict of interest except a routine professional knowledge of some of the candidates.
The Panel carefully assessed the candidates against the essential criteria outlined in the job specification at the Panel sift meeting on 21st August. The Panel members assessed the evidence of relevant up-to-date experience and skills presented in the candidate’s CV and
supporting statement, and compared these with other candidates. The Panel only selected for interview candidates who were clearly able to demonstrate meeting all essential criteria and whose applications were particularly strong. The Minister for Women and Equalities was content with the short list of candidates.
On 7th September, the Panel interviewed the four shortlisted candidates.
(Annex B). Taking account of performance at interview together with all other evidence obtained, the Panel identified two candidates appointable for this post. The Panel’s assessment was objective,
impartial and evidence based, and they assessed the candidates solely on merit.
The Minister for Women and Equalities decided to appoint Kishwer Falkner, Baroness Falkner of Margravine due to her significant leadership experience and commitment to equality. Her decision was published on GOV.UK on 15th October and the Minister for
Women and Equalities wrote to both Committees on the same day.
The process was conducted in accordance with the Governance Code for Public Appointments

I'm just hoping KS would see it as a step too far to slot her in. Smacks too much of corruption.

Worth noting that this is just a rumour, and interesting that the Times chose to highlight this now. (I'm glad they have!)

I suspect it is part of not outrightly condeming Labour but making it clear that the idea that Labour is squeaky clean compared to the Tories is complete nonsense.

Isn't there one of those sayings that the Tories always get found out for money scandals and Labour for unsavoury associations?

As said up thread her position and that of NCCL (her husband was also part of NCCL and claimed he never voted for it) were at that time very much of a strand of socialism which had effectively been contaminated with queer politics.

And as I said late last night, NCCL was against women only organising because it discriminated against men. So if a way that for "socialists" with a class analysis to try and pretend we are all of equal power and choice just seemed bizarre - and dangerous.

And at the time women's groups were just taken aback that a group promoting itself as having legal expertise in civil liberties, would have ever have thought this was acceptable. But they were probably the first crop of students educated under queer "philosophy".

And as mentioned up thread, at the same time but with less publicity, transgender groups were working with (but not affiliated ie early trans were NOT supporting sex with children) PIE to get entry into "respectable" organisations. ie that as "outsiders" they needed to lobby to get political respectability.

It is only a tiny victory, and in fact one that as we know is now a huge pitfall, given the attitude of NCCL (which was very influential) with the left, it was a tiny victory that when Labour did come to draft the EA they even thought of, let alone allowed, that there might be occassions when biological women had the right to only be with biological women.

Off topic, but related. I shouted with derision when I saw one of the commentators on newsnight last night was the at the very young Gordon Brown policy wonk who wrote the SSE and think they are brilliant. She is now in the House of Lords ... I didn't know whether to laugh of cry.

Hazarika was nominated for a life peerage by Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer and was created Baroness Hazarika, of Coatbridge in the County of Lanarkshire, on 14 March 2024.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayesha_Hazarika,_Baroness_Hazarika

Well, well, I see she also used to work for Harman ............

You don't get much further from squeaky clean than child sex offender apologia.

This is not good news; am now wondering what else they're plotting behind our backs.

Labour 'plots to put ex-minister Harriet Harman in charge of equalities watchdog' despite her support for controversial gender ideology and positive discrimination
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13595451/Labour-plots-ex-minister-Harriet-Harman-charge-equalities-watchdog-trans-election.html

Trans ally Harriet Harman ‘in line to run the Equality and Human Rights Commission’
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/trans-ally-harriet-harman-in-line-to-run-the-equality-and-human-rights-commission/ar-BB1plcS1

The Times have followed up today with a piece critical of Harman and rightly praising Baroness Falkner.

Harman isn’t equal to task of leading on women’s rights

https://www.thetimes.com/article/51d97c2c-67fc-4563-a109-5a71161ef3bd?shareToken=cf063ae61aeb911d6001860c9d2e163c

Well I hope more of the media take it up.

But the problem will be (based on memory, often faulty) is that the appointment is care of the Women and Equality Commission (or they have a part in the assessment process) and who knows what sort of Yes Starmer whatever you say Starmer, this Committee will be made up of.

Not sure that hope is enough. From what we’ve seen and read about Starmer is that he’s out to win, is quite ruthless, and is in it for at least two terms. He’s already apparently planning on loading up HoL with Labour peers and placing Labour yes men in key political appointments is no great stretch.

It is my impression that he genuinely believes in TW are HR and that GC women are responsible for the toxic side of the debate. If no one with close access to him is laying out in detail our concerns then it’s easy for those concerns to be dismissed. It’s more the reverse in that SW and TRAs have been carefully and cleverly positioning themselves inside Labour for years.

So Starmer is unlikely to experience a damascene type insight anytime soon. Just like so so many of my colleagues, highly intelligent and thoughtful feminist women, are in the #bekind mindset and won’t budge, neither will Labour. Cognitive dissonance and all that. So I’m very concerned that we’re in for a rough ride.

And no chance of Hartman facing any repercussions of her luxury beliefs. She’s well past that now. I hope one day she's on the receiving end of her own luxury beliefs.

HH was on Women's hour this morning

Woman's Hour - Harriet Harman and election reaction, Sports Day, France Me Too - BBC Sounds

From around 12.30 she talks about women's spaces. During the discussion HH seems to use 'gender based' and 'sex based' interchangeably. At one point HH uses the term 'biological gender' then corrects herself to 'biological sex'. It all seemed a bit confused.

It was positive that the interviewer (Nuala McGovern) asked about women's spaces but disappointing that she did not push HH a little to explain her position fully.

Given the heat around these terms I had hoped that both HH and Nuala would be better prepared.

It's almost like ambiguity was the desired outcome.

Just watched the video of 2014. Thanks for posting.

Cannot believe that someone so duplicitous and with such disdain about where the money comes from or where affiliations take you can have any official post! Less of all the EHRC.
She cannot claim impartiality, even if we believe her “I knew nothing. Nothing to see here” stance.

It’s a shame for her, but no thank you.