Scotland’s Human Rights watchdog accused of failing women over prison trans policy

[WaterThyme]

In the Herald: Scottish Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has been urged to conduct a “thorough review” of the Scottish Prison Service’s (SPS) controversial Policy for the Management of Transgender People in Custody by the redoubtable MurrayBlackburnMackenzie. It’s part of a series on prisons.

MBM argue that women’s rights under various legal frameworks have been ignored in favour of trans identifying people on the basis of no legal justification at all.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/25062581.watchdog-pressed-review-transgender-prisoner-policy/

https://archive.ph/LOfsM

MBM are stars - continually fighting for the rights and safety of women in the light of the toxic Scottish government and civil service.

I'd just like someone from the sps to explain what they class as an acceptable risk to women I've repeatedly asked them but they won't answer

MBM needs to recognised as the Second Chamber that Scots Gov needs.

Which confirms that they dare not put their actual opinions and practice on paper where they could be held accountable for it.

Lack of accountability, honesty and transparency is the tetri dish in which this appalling mess has been grown.

MBM are amazing. Good on the Herald for having the courage and integrity to report on it.

Can you foi it?

They also don't care about their female staff.

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/trans-killers-jail-rammy-leaves-34912548

SPS just don't have a clue about women. When I was reading figures recently it struck me how the prison population is so vastly skewed male that women just barely register as a tiny blip.

4% of prison population are women.

And the offences/profiles are very different.

One of the starkest examples of sex difference, really. So it's unfathomable how anyone could fail to grasp that a violent man should not be housed in a women's prison just because he calls himself 'Paris'.

https://www.scotpho.org.uk/population-groups/prisoners/data/prison-population/

From 2020 SPS gender pay gap report:

66% of SPS employees are men.

Their 'gender pay gap' was around 15%.

They explain this thusly:

'For legal reasons related to same-sex searching and the significantly higher numbers of
men than women in custody, the majority of SPS’ employees are men working within the
Residential Officer role at the top of the D Band Salary.'

I did and they claimed not to hold that info, I requested they look again because if they allow men in the jail with convictions for violence who are assessed as not posing an unacceptable risk there must be a level for acceptable risk, the sps then came back with some case by case waffle, I pointed out that they couldn't have a case by case level of acceptable risk for all female prisoners being raped, sexually assaulted and/or physically assaulted cue more we don't hold that info. So I went to the ico whi told them to look again and I got the same case by case waffle having reminded them of my 1st points again and asking for another reconsideration they refused labelling me a vexatious requester so don't have to answer. It's now back with the ico.
I'm beginning to honestly believe that they really don't have a set level of harm to women that is/isn't acceptable and vary it for each male they put in there

Wow, thank you for your tenacity, Hoard!

Yes.

It would suggest that the starting point for considering if a man's placement is ok is after he's harmed a woman.

There needs to be clear definition of “vexatious” so that discomfited authorities can’t abuse it with politely and appropriately persevering enquirers such as the excellent Hoard.

I do agree. But there was a recent thread on here, but sadly I can't even place the context (possibly Civil Service?), where an enquirer was labelled as vexatious quite robustly by the organisation, as they wouldn't accept the reply. It was the thread where mumsnet user names were disclosed. I felt the organisation in that case was justified.

This? It was about a very large volume.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5240240-freedom-of-information-requests-about-seen-and-mumsnet

Thank you @RethinkingLifeit was that thread. So accusations or confirmations of vexatious do seem to be very wide ranging and open to interpretation. Glad I'm not the ICO!

From the Herald story:

<a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/LOfsM/claireob1.substack.com/p/letter-to-scotlands-first-minister" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Writing on her own blog in a personal capacity, SHRC commissioner Claire Methven O’Brien questioned the policy’s compliance with Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
“While the relevant human rights and equality impact assessment alludes to the human rights of ‘non-transgender’ women prisoners, it does not accurately reflect the risks posed to females by admission of biological males to the female estate, or their legal implications.

“Due consideration of potential impacts on women prisoners’ human rights under Article 3 is lacking; public authorities’ obligations under the Istanbul Convention are not even mentioned.

I think we're all aware of that, bug it's good that the press, in part, have finally cottoned on to the fact that the safety of women prisoners doesn't even get an afterthought.

but, not bug...