As a former judge, I used to defend Britain's rights – mine are now at risk
Before being a judge, I represented a rape victim who was deaf and unable to speak. She was so badly traumatised that, in a cry for help, she took a kitchen knife out in public and tried to kill herself. She was arrested and brought to court. She did not get bail.
The probation officer – before even meeting me – told me she had decided to oppose bail. A cruel pre-judgment: custody would immediately end her job and change her life. Law has no feeling; it embodied the passive-aggression of society to disabled people and women: it processed her, like meat for dogs.
Two weeks ago, the UN Special Procedures group – 19 specialists in fields including freedom of peaceful assembly and association, freedom of opinion and expression, and violence against women and girls – issued a statement of human rights concern about the UK, towards transsexual and other trans people.
It came in response to the infamous, deeply confused decision of the UK Supreme Court in April in For Women Scotland, where trans people and the vast bulk of women and lesbians were not heard. We were judged by a court packed with non-trans pressure groups, and human rights were scarcely mentioned.
In my opinion, the Supreme Court's decision forced on women the notion that they are inescapably defined by biology, presumably basic urges and wandering wombs, for sexual relationships, free association and equal rights. It reversed more than 20 years of peaceful co-existence between the trans community and others.
The UK is beyond crisis: the economy is down, inflation is up; electricity and gas are unaffordable. Violence against women is up. Men are discarded, angry. Such a country becomes vulnerable to extremism and minority-blaming.
In 2021, European parliament research revealed how foreign actors use media to stir LGBT+ hate. It is in Russia's interest to damage our social fabric, rendering us dysfunctional and divided, as there is evidence it did, too, with Brexit.
This LGBT+ emergency is ripping apart tolerant British values. It follows the rise of the Gender Critical Ideology Movement (GCIM). I need not go into suggestions that GCIM is sometimes used as cover for people seeking LGBT+ conversion practices – or that some groups oppose banning conversion therapy towards trans people. Let us note, however, that GCIM did not seem to exist until around 2016, when UK-US movements arose preaching traditional sex roles.
Let me concentrate on the immediate UK human crisis. The government ruled that people like me, previously legally female and (still!) having female anatomy, at risk of assault as with all women, must henceforth change in men's changing rooms, use men's loos in pubs and be excluded from female rape services. Despite my female birth certificate, I am apparently a 'man'. The EHRC followed suit.
The police confirmed that people who are (or seem to be, one assumes) 'trans' shall be strip searched only by men, anatomy be damned. Such sexual assault of 'unfeminine' women may now be the law on the ground.
Women with mastectomies are confronted, accused of 'transness'. Trans people not 'out' at work face disclosure of pariah status. Non-feminine women are confronted by other women in loos. A database has been proposed to enforce segregation. A fund has been created support civil legal enforcement of the new 'sex-based' rights. Wes Streeting, the health secretary, wants to segregate trans people in hospitals. Bridget Phillipson, our equalities minister, is MIA.
I formed the Trans Exile Network for those leaving the UK now.
Heterosexual families with kids, where, say, the husband is trans, have been re-designated as 'lesbian' because the court redefined 'lesbians' as well as 'women'. Nobody asked them, of course – unlike the 2004 Act, which was with national consent and consultation.
Trans people are now two sexes at once: one for equalities law (I am now unable to claim equal pay rights as a woman) and one for everything else. Nobody at the top cares: it is 'clarification', says Keir Starmer, ignorantly. Now the GCIM want this rolled out across Europe. Next stop: Ireland.
I've been contacted by suicidal people and the parents of kids who have been denied medical treatment. Parents fear for the future of their kids: if not helped now, they face forced puberty against their medical best interests and a harder life. Puberty delaying hormones are reversible and have been used upwards of 20 years to 'buy time' until kids are adults and can make decisions.
The court must have assumed that the EHRC is neutral. More fool the court.
But the biggest victim is our country – which I served as a judge for more than 18 years – and truth and humanity in public life.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE Keir Starmer and Labour are accused of standing in the way of a ban on cousins marrying each other - after poll shows British people want it axed
Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour party are standing in the way of a ban on cousins marrying each other, after a new poll showed an overwhelming majority of Britons want to see it axed, a Conservative MP has claimed. Conservative MP Richard Holden last year introduced a private members' bill to ban the practice, which would bring cousin marriages into the same bracket as marrying a parent, child, sibling or grandparent. Now a new YouGov poll has revealed the British communities that are most likely to back first cousin marriages, with a large majority thinking the practice should be outlawed. The former Cabinet Minister and Conservative Party Chairman told MailOnline: 'This YouGov poll is clear. 'The overwhelming majority of Brits, including those of Pakistani heritage, want to see first cousin marriage banned. 'The fact Sir Keir Starmer and the Labour Party are standing in the way of ending an outdated practice rooted in misogynistic cultural practices shows that he's more interested in promoting cultural relativism than in ending practices that have no place in our country and isolate both individuals and communities from each other. 'If Starmer really believed in British values he'd back my bill, just like every community in Britain does.' Pakistani and Bangladeshi Britons are most likely to support the first cousin marriages, with 39 percent of those polled saying it should be legal. While 47 percent of the community say the practice should not be legal, this compares to just eight percent of white Britons who support first-cousin marriage. Six percent of black Britons say marrying a cousin should be legal, with nine percent of Indian Britons holding the same view. While marrying close relatives including siblings and half-siblings is illegal in the UK, marrying a first cousin is technically legal. Some 77 percent of white and Indian Britons believe marrying a cousin should be made illegal, compared to 82 percent of black Britons. Currently the UK follows the practice of 'genetic counselling', in which first cousins who are in a relationship are offered education about the risk of having children together and encouraged to receive extra checks during pregnancy. It is estimated that children of a first-cousin union have a six percent chance of inheriting a recessive disorder such as cystic fibrosis or sickle cell disease - double the risk of the general population. But some have warned that outlawing the practice completely risks stigmatising those already in first cousin marriages in the UK. Amongst these was Independent MP Iqbal Mohamed, who drew huge criticism last year for defending cousin marriage. Instead of banning it outright, he said a 'more positive approach' involving advanced genetic tests for prospective married cousins would be more effective in addressing issues around it. One of Britain's foremost experts on child health also defended the right for first cousins to marry, dismissing concerns about inbreeding. Professor Dominic Wilkinson, an NHS neonatologist and ethics expert at the University of Oxford, argued a ban would be 'unethical'. Instead, Professor Wilkinson backed calls for such couples to be offered special screening on the NHS to help them decide if they should have children. Such tests can cost £1,200 privately. They are designed to spot whether prospective parents are carriers for the same genetic conditions, such as cystic fibrosis and spinal muscular atrophy. It comes as data from 2023 showed in three inner-city Bradford wards, 46 percent of mothers from the Pakistani community are married to a first or second cousin, according to data published in 2023. The overall estimate for the cousing marriage capital of the UK in Pakistani couples was 37 percent ten years ago, and this figure has since dropped. Reasons behind the fall are thought to include high educational attainment, stricter immigration rules and changes in family dynamics. It compares to just one percent of white British couples. YouGov's data also revealed that those in London are most likely to support first cousin marriage, at 15 percent. The north followed at 12 percent, while in the Midlands it was ten percent. The south of England and Wales were the least likely to support it being legal, at six and seven percent respectively. Historically, first cousin marriages were extremely common amongst royalty and the British upper classes. It was seen as a way of firming up alliances and keeping wealth and land in the family. MailOnline recently revealed that no-one is tracking the rate of cousin marriages in the UK, with councils not recording any data on the issue. Studies have put Pakistan as having one of the highest rates globally at 65 percent of unions. This is followed by Saudi Arabia (50 percent), Afghanistan (40 percent), Iran (30 percent) and Egypt and Turkey (20 percent).
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
As Labour risks a civil libertires backlash by hinting ID cards are in the pipeline, the party's former Home Secretery argues... All our digital fingerprints are everywhere, so giving a national identity card to every citizen is a no-brainer
Much ink has been spilt over the Labour Government's shelving of the Rwanda deportation plan. This hopelessly impractical and eye wateringly expensive project was to deter the small boat migrants from making the perilous crossing of the Channel, and after much toing and froing between the courts and Parliament, the first deportation flights were scheduled for July 24 last year. However, the General Election intervened and at his first press conference as Prime Minister Keir Starmer witheringly confirmed that the 'gimmick' scheme was 'dead and buried'. Since then – with some 1,200 migrants making it to English shores in one day alone last week – the numbers of people entering the country illegally have ticked up and up. With each day's figures, the supporters of the Tory's Rwanda plan cry: 'I told you so.'
Daily Mail
2 hours ago
- Daily Mail
20 years on from the febrile aftermath of London's 7/7 bombings, a heart-stopping minute by minute account of the day Scotland Yard's first ever shoot-to-kill operation ended in the... CATASTROPHIC death of an innocent man
Twenty years ago, London was a city under attack, living on its nerves. Out of the blue that summer of 2005, the capital's transport system was hit by a murderous wave of al-Qaeda bombers, with devastating results. Ordinary folk going about their everyday lives died in the onslaught. Hundreds were mutilated. London knew all about terrorist bombs from years of enduring attacks by various Irish factions. But here was something new to these shores and infinitely more terrifying – the suicide bomber hell-bent on martyrdom. To Commissioner of Police Sir Ian Blair it was a door opening into a new kind of terrorism. 'The IRA and the Loyalists never did anything the size of this. This was a step change.'
