Widespread hate speech against trans people means we now rank - according to the world's leading international human rights organisation - alongside Hungary, Poland, the Russian Federation and Turkey. pace.coe.int/en/files/29418…
This state of affairs has come about, in large part, because our media elites come from a narrow, unrepresentative, pool of people who have largely homogenous (and hostile) attitudes towards trans people. vice.com/en/article/889…
That the Mail, The Times and the Sunday Times should have a high tolerance, if not enthusiasm, for hate-speech against a minority should surprise no-one. That that tendency should also be found at the BBC is really shocking.
If you have ever wondered to yourself, 'what sort of a person would I be in a society that targeted a minority for political purposes?' wonder no more. Just ask yourself: 'do I publicly stand against how our media speaks of trans people - or do I remain silent?'
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
So, earlier this week I was cleared by my professional regulator following a complaint. Complaints from people who don't like my politics are pretty commonplace* so I don't usually bother to tweet when I am cleared.
*E.g. I have actually been cleared on two complaints this week.
This complaint related to my work arguing for greater respect for trans people. But it was notable because it was made by a BBC journalist who wrote to my regulator from his BBC email address.
That journalist has written some of the many pieces the BBC chooses to carry that are hostile to the trans community. And he sought to bounce my regulator into issuing a statement condemning me for an interview I gave about the Bell case.
Interesting question whether Cressida Dick will have to obtain and hand over Sue Gray's evidence pursuant to Ms Dick's duty of candour in Good Law Project's judicial review... theguardian.com/politics/2022/…
A non-Defendant department which holds relevant material is subject to analogous disclosure obligations to those of the Defendant department (extract from Govt guidance on the duty of candour). Can't immediately see why the situation should be different here...
If that's so, I think the only question is relevance and if we're saying (amongst other things) that the decision not to investigate is irrational that casts a wide net on relevance. Anyway: watch this space, I guess.
Here's the response from Government lawyers to our pre-action claim on 23 November that they were blackmailing MPs to vote to exonerate Owen Paterson. Not remotely a denial.
You can read the exchange of correspondence here (the crowdfunder remains closed for the time being). crowdjustice.com/case/tell-no-1…
It's been, I am afraid, the pattern since 2016. Contempt for our constitution. Contempt for the rule of law. Contempt for the truth. And contempt for the public.
You can see the Terms of Reference for her enquiry here.
Her primary purpose is to investigate whether there were breaches of the guidance. She isn't asked to look at whether a criminal offence was committed.
In a way, what the Met has permitted, parallel criminal law regimes, a normal one for normal people, and a special one for special people, is as profound an attack on the rule of law as Johnson's suspension of Parliament was on democracy.
I use the word "permitted" because I believe the Met is carrying out the will, be it expressed or just understood, of others, likely others in Cabinet.
The Met is gathering evidence in relation to a party attended by one of these two people but not the other. Why might that be?
"Sue Gray is an immensely capable investigator but one has to recognise that two of the principal actors here – the PM and the cabinet secretary, effectively her bosses – are now deeply implicated in the inquiry." theguardian.com/politics/2022/…
If the Met was investigating you for a criminal offence they would not agree to suspend their enquiry because you told them 'don't worry, I have asked a subordinate to look into it.' So why have they agreed to do it for Johnson?
Sue Gray ought to say 'given the elevated public interest I cannot conduct a truly independent investigation into whether the Cabinet Secretary and PM have broken the law.' And kick the matter back to the Met which is, notionally, independent.