The Tories broke the EHRC with Falkner because they want it to fail. She bullied staff, who were forced out. But the Labour government wants the EHRC to succeed, so won't employ such tactics. It is only politically possible if you want the EHRC to stop working.
You do realise that Labour gave Falkner another year in the role...
I am aware of that. This is Bluesky. We can be pure here. But I am a Green, and personally disposed to reconciliation. How many mad hating anti-trans were radicalised by too pure responses to their ignorance? Then they doubled down on their ignorance, and radicalised, and were love-bombed by haters.
It's amazing how so few people learn the lessons of history and still buy into the "actually, it's the fault of for being too uppity" line. Labour have signalled over and over again that they're transphobic bigots. Why are the ones who should be coddled?
The other point that merits discussion is that Labour's pick for Falkner's replacement has a history of membership of transphobic hate groups.
FFS. I am not saying, don't be uppity. I am saying, this is the politics behind the issue, and, be uppity writing to MPs rather than grandstanding on Bluesky. Here, you will get agreement for the pure view. I don't think MAS should be chair either. How can she be stopped?
You do realise that people are actually capable of arguing in more ways than one, right? There are plenty of Labour MPs on here, so dismissing the value of publicly complaining about stuff is a bit weak. If you agree that she's bad, why are you suggesting Labour have good intentions for the EHRC?
We all wrote loads of letters to the Women and Equalities and Joint Committee on Human Rights committees while you were grandstanding on Bluesky, and they refused to endorse her appointment. Many of us have also written to ministers and the PM.
Yep, and Jolyon Maugham's campaign through GLP which was spread very widely here on Bluesky played a really important role in that.
What do you know of my involvement? What do you know of what my MP is doing, and how I assisted her? Congratulations on whatever you do- I hope it works. And what on my Bluesky posts do you consider grandstanding?
Exactly my point by repeating your words back at you. 😂
The difference is, your grandstanding was, "I imagine a new trans-positive chair would work to undermine them and force them out." Pie in the sky, Cobie. Your fantasies impress nobody worth impressing.
Um... I cited a recent historical precedent for regime change of this kind. Namely, how the current chair changed the EHRC. It literally shows a change of direction is capable within a few years.
You keep talking like somehow appeasement and "accepting that the thing that needs to happen, won't happen" is going to improve the situation, and that discussing it is pointless. TO what point are you doing any of this?
Meanwhile, they claim diversity of thought whilst insisting only people who agree with them are hired, and they go nuts when challenged.
E.g., look at the demands of purity at the EHRC - Badenoch and Falconer have both admitted that they reshaped the organisation to ensure everyone was anti-trans. Why is it less important to give a crap about how they've made trans people and our allies mad at this?
All this "purity test" stuff from a wing of political thought currently demanding people sign loyalty pledges in America and demanding purity of thought on threat of being purged in the UK is chilling, and the right are only accusing the left of this to distract from them doing it.
And, historically, it's part of an evolving right-wing suppression strategy. For example, during the civil rights movement, there were constant attacks on black people for demanding rights in an "uncivil" way, and that their requests were unreasonable and encouraged racism. They were propaganda.
Probably very few. It's a right-wing lie that trans people asking to be treated decently radicalised anti-trans people. Both Linehan and Rowling had a history of questionable takes that skewed that way prior to their radicalisation. It's victim-blaming.
I sort of agree but think the Tories wanted to neuter the EHRC. I doubt they would have wanted it to lose an A rating for example. Instead they wanted it to be less effective & also mainstream a transphobic narrative. They were enabled in this by the media who flattered Falkner and avoided scrutiny.
Labour is harder. Yes a trans positive/neutral chair would get a kick in from a lot of the media but is this all they’re trying to avoid? Or are they believers? The latter seems likely & while I think they do see EHRC in a more key role than the Tories, mainstreaming transphobia is still their goal.
What can we draw from this? That Starmer has all the hallmarks of someone who isn't in control or acting on his values, whatever they are, and who is being very badly advised. Which we knew, anyway. The worst thing is that, five-and-a-half years in, no-one has a clue what the point of him is.
It seems unlikely the Labour Party is entirely transphobic. But Starmer refused to sign that he would stand up for trans rights during the leadership election. But, since then, there have been instances where he stood up for trans rights. Overall, he's been inconsistent, more bad recently.