Jude Parker spent two days this week sewing a huge trans Pride flag with the help of Douglas, her much loved sewing machine. It’s pretty massive 15 metres and weighs 4.5 kg. She carried it to Brighton along with the rest of the merch for the LGBT+ Lib Dems stall. It was a real labour of love in response to the blow of hearing that an anti trans group had been allowed to have a stall at Liberal Democrat conference.
This flag will be unfurled outside the Brighton Centre at 1pm today in a show of solidarity with trans people in our country and in our party. Everyone who supports trans rights is welcome to show support.
We are proud of our history as a party that has always stood up for LGBT+ rights, as we’ve stood up for women’s rights, for racial equality and human rights generally. It’s in our core. So what on earth are we thinking allowing in a group that does not align with our values?
This group have been wanting to have a stall for some years and we have turned them down. In fact, the Federal Conference Committee turned them down again for this Conference. Unfortunately, the legal advice the party sought was apparently clear that we could be liable for significant costs and damages if, as was considered likely, this group sued us. They seem to have the resources to do so, and, unfortunately, LGBT+ people in the party do not have access to such deep pockets. So, FCC was over-ruled and they were given a stall.
There is surely an issue around access to justice in all of this. If only the rich can take action which sets legal precedents, there is a clear power imbalance which should worry us.
Some would argue that the party should have said, as Harry Willcock famously did in 1950 when asked to show his ID card “We’re liberals and we’re against this sort of thing.”
I can definitely see the logic in that and a bit of me wishes we had the courage to stand up against an unfair and illiberal law, even if the sums involved in defending a legal action makes me, as a recovering state party treasurer, wince with pain. Even if you win your case, you rarely get all your costs back and it’s expensive and time consuming.
Our conference exhibition is our shop window to the world. A law which compels us to include people who do not share our values on the grounds that they have a “protected belief” seems ridiculous. As a political party, we surely should have the right to choose who sits in our shop window.
Someone made the point to me last night that as an atheist, they have the right to hold that belief. Does this mean that they have the right to walk into a church and demand a stall at their jumble sale? A sermon on Sunday?
Even if it did, forcing yourself on on organisation that doesn’t want to be associated with you is surely counter-productive. If the law really does say that, then the law needs to change.
Every time that this organisation has brought something aimed at furthering the anti trans cause to the floor of Conference, whether it’s a constitutional or standing orders amendment or a policy issue, they have been resoundingly defeated. In fact, in York last year, a procedural motion to move next business had the support of 90% of people in a pretty packed hall.
They have been very vocal both on social media and by communicating with Councillors an activists on a regular basis. In fact, they have sent Christmas cards to many councillors. As I understand it, in one council group, everyone except the trans Councillor received one.
Some people might be wondering what the possible harm of giving this group a stall can actually be. Why some trans people don’t feel safe. Well, the most basic courtesy you can give a person is to respect their identity, even if you don’t understand it. It’s understandable to be apprehensive when you know an organisation whose aims conflict directly with your access to healthcare and your rights to be recognised in law are promoting their aims right next to you at an event you are at. Even worse, this decision came out a couple of days before Conference when people had already booked travel and accommodation.
This isn’t about people being offended. We’re liberals. Often we are in the minority. We are well used to our ideas being dismissed or disagreed with. We are well used to disagreeing with each other, robustly and viscerally. Our repeated debates on nuclear weapons are an excellent example of that. We have a right barney in the hall and then all go down the pub together.
It’s more difficult to do that when there is a complete clash of values. There is a limit to views that you should have to tolerate. Well funded anti trans organisations are just part of a movement to roll back so many social advances that have been achieved in the last half century. They complain that they are being silenced, usually from the pages of the Times or the Telegraph or Radio 4. They frequently misgender people, they do all they can to create a climate of suspicion around trans people. This has led to a huge increase in hate crimes against trans people.
The increase in hate crimes against trans people by 11% in a year, and by 186% in the last five years, comes against a backdrop of UK Government drawing back its support for trans people and the growth of divisive and demonising rhetoric about trans people in society.
Allowing this group to have a stall is unlikely to result in any physical attacks on trans people at Conference. Nor are the people who attend Conference likely to go out and commit hate crimes against trans people as a result of their presence. But allowing them in to our shop window means that we are contributing, however unwillingly, to that toxic atmosphere which makes many trans people fearful when they are out and about in public. We have to take responsibility for that and one way in which we can is to show our support for a group of people who are becoming increasingly marginalised and whose voices are not nearly heard enough.
It’s been heartening that so many stalls at Conference have been displaying trans flags and so many people are wearing pro trans badges, t-shirts and lanyards. The party is showing where its heart lies. Do come and join in with that show of solidarity at 1pm. If you are doing something else, please pop along to both the LGBT+ Lib Dem and Lib Dem Women stalls during conference and offer these organisations your support.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
14 Comments
I’ll be there
It’s a disturbing situation, isn’t it? I can’t help but see the irony in this. A group who claim their concern is to keep certain spaces for themselves are insisting that they have a right to go where they please and to inflict their views on whom the please, even to the exclusion of others. As a cis man, I find this disquieting. For a trans person, it must be terrifying.
If there was a group of white supremacists identifying as “race criticals” and advocated for racial segregation and the repeal of racial equality laws, perhaps with an Orwellian name like “Liberal Voice for Britain”, would we be legally required to give them a stand at conference?
Indeed why haven’t the Labour party been hit by crippling damages claims from all the people they’ve been clamping down on lately? At least a few of those don’t appear to have followed their rules and procedures to to the letter in the way that is demanded for transphobes.
Re energised by the strength of feeling made by our members. We showed them down with love.
Trans rights are human rights and as Liberals it’s our duty to always remind folx of that.
This legal advice sounds dubious. It should be published so that we can all see it.
@David As I understand it there is a limited “protected belief” that sex is immutable that has been mentioned in case law as “worthy of respect in a democratic society.” However the same case does put some caveats on how that belief is expressed.
The argument goes that you wouldn’t find racist beliefs being considered worthy of respect so that is why the legal advice is the way it is.
I agree with you that this is problematic. If this group got the outcome they want, it would mean that trans people could no longer be legally recognised so it is little wonder that so many of us find the advice perplexing. This is surely not what the Equality Act was intended for.
The belief that the Labour Party should govern the country is certainly worthy of respect in a democratic society. Is Lib Dem conference legally obliged to give the Labour Party a stall?
@iain, I think the argument would go that being the Labour Party isn’t a protected characteristic.
It seems bizarre that judges should get to decide entirely for themselves which beliefs should constitute both a protected characteristic and be “worthy of respect in a democratic society” it’s far too subjective for anyone to be able to do this without a clear definition within the legislation itself.
Sounds like the sort of legislating from the bench that goes on in America.
More to the point, they wouldn’t even be *asking* for legal advice in the first place if it was racism, or for that matter the Labour Party. If you ask a lawyer “can we get sued if we do this?” the answer will always be “yes”. And it is very, very, *very* obvious what questions the people who apparently have the power to override the party’s democratically-elected bodies ask, and what ones they don’t.
The concept of a protected belief is equality goes slightly beyond those beliefs that are worthy of respect of the in a democratic society. That if the 5th of a number of criteria to be met to establish a protected belief.
Sorry, my comment above posted itself while I was still typing… The criteria which a belief must meet to be a protected belief are set out in the case of Grainger v Nicholson. If you google the case name you will get a number of summaries. Grainger was an environmentalist. Another case, Forstater v CGD, applied the Grainger criteria to determine that gender critical beliefs can be protected beliefs.
The answer to the question posed by Iain is that the Liberal Democrats can (and I expect may well do) have a policy to decline stall bookings from other UK political parties. So you wouldn’t be declining Labour’s application for a stall on the basis of their protected belief(s). You would be declining it on the basis of the type of organisation they happen to be and you would apply that consistently to anyone else in the same position. As the Party President set out in the conference hall, you would be in a different situation to decline a booking “because this applicant disagrees with existing policy” as consistent application of such a policy would require refusal of many applications that you would want to accept.
I was so glad to be there with them to stand for transgender rights! Trans rights are human rights.