Why did @dAaronovitch agree to review - and celebrate - a book promoting the anti-trans movement, when he admits to knowing nothing about Bilek, the anti-semite celebrated by the anti-trans movement, who promotes the conspiracy theory of trans-humanism? Why didn’t he do his job?
On the same day Aaronovitch paraded his ignorance, the gender critical Proud Boys and QAnoners protested at Wi Spa, because a Christian activist invented a tale about a trans woman.
The anti-trans campaigners attacked a Guardian journalist. See thread.
If you “don’t see anyone saying that transsexuals shouldn’t exist or are lesser or worse people” then, as @RozKaveney said “you are not paying attention”.
And you should not be reviewing anti-trans texts for the Observer.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
From its creation in 1801 until 1962, the UK had no legal controls on free movement from the British colonies / empire to the UK, when *limited* controls were introduced 2/3
On 1 Jan 1973 UK ended this partial free movement for the colonies, and replaced it with free movement for the EEC. Until 30 Dec 2020. 3/3
Everyone granted leave to remain under UK’s EU Settlement Scheme is told by the Home Office that the “leave is issued in accordance with … the Withdrawal Agreement”. So is Colin right here? 1/
Law can be complex, but much complexity is avoidable, done by lawyers maybe well-meaning to “protect” clients from it / don’t want to use limited resources explaining. But egalitarian, public interest lawyering means making law comprehensible & accessible.
I know that very often my clients don’t think they will “get it”. But when I take time to explain it - they often do. Ofc, explaining may have to go beyond the law, to the motivations / biases of Gov decision-makers and judges. +
I spent time yesterday apologising to a client about how, a long time ago, when they were the partner of a client I didn’t take the time to make sure they understood the legal arguments we were making for them. +
Napier Barracks was deliberate. Immigration Ministers deliberately created a shortage of dispersal accomm during the pandemic, then used that as an excuse for urgently placing people in a barracks. Without safeguards.
In March 2020, senior civil servants urged Ministers to use the pandemic to drop their policy of allowing local authorities to veto placing asylum-seekers in empty flats and houses.
Ministers didn’t accept that advice. +
Instead, Ministers used their powers to create new temporary accommodation sites - regardless of local authority wishes.
Suitable for stays of days at most, asylum-seekers were forced to stay for months. +
1 million people just left the UK. And it wasn’t because they care about vERy HiGh iMMigrATion.
There’s no data linking relative high levels of immigration to worsening housing. House building in recent decades in UK (and many other places) depended on immigrant labour.
Housing, green space, public services are determined primarily by Gov regulation and spending. Levels of immigration are irrelevant. Compare high immigration Luxembourg, Switzerland & Netherlands with low immigration Greece, Portugal and Croatia…