David Cameron Defends Human Rights Deal With Saudi Arabia

It's currently the Conservative Party Conference, yesterday we heard that equality is vitally important to the Conservatives from an Equalities Minister who voted against marriage equality, and today David Cameron has stated that 'gay equality is at the core of the Conservative Party mission'.  

After seeing how people who vote against LGBT+ rights get assigned to positions vitally important to equality that statement seems untrue, however, when you find out about a deal Cameron made with Saudi Arabia it becomes frankly absurd.

Last month Saudi Arabia was elected to head the United Nations Human Rights council, a position that they were only able to achieve after a deal with Britain, and David Cameron, to secure them a seat in the council last year.

This appointment as the head of the council is nothing short of appalling, and to find out that they were only able to get into that position due to the government of my own country makes me feel physically sick to my stomach.

For those not in the know, Saudi Arabia are one of the worst abusers of Human Rights in the entire world.  Torture is legal and used frequently.  Women have little to no rights and are frequently segregated in what many refer to as 'gender apartheid'.  LGBT+ people and their rights are completely unrecognised and frequently punished with imprisonment and even death.  Freedom of press does not exist.  Anyone who speaks out against the government and their oppression are almost always arrested, tortured and killed.

This is the kind of country that Britain makes deals with.  These are the kind of people that a political party that says equality is core to them and that LGBT+ rights are 'at the core' of their mission want to work alongside.  A country that does not believe in equality, a country that kills people for loving the 'wrong' person.

In a sit down interview aired on Chanel 4 news yesterday news presenter Jon Snow challenged David Cameron with his links with Saudi Arabia.

Mr Snow asked, 'In November we did a deal with the Saudis that we would back them into joining the human rights council of the United Nations, providing they backed us.  Now that sounds a bit squalid for one of the most human rights abusing regimes on earth.'

The Prime Minister replied, 'Saudi Arabia is a member of the United Nations, but we completely disagree with them.  We completely disagree with them about their  punishment routines, about the death penalty, about those issues.'

Not happy with the response Mr Snow pressed on, 'So why did you do this deal then?  They're not the right sort of people to be doing any sort of deal on human rights.'

Cameron continued to try and dodge giving a straight answer, insisting that 'we have issues with their policies' was adequate explanation as to why he made a deal with them.  He eventually caved to the questioning and admitted that 'We have a relationship with Saudi Arabia, and if you want to know why, I'll tell you why.  It's because we receive from them some very important intelligence and security information that keeps us safe.'

The interview can be viewed below, with the questions on Saudi Arabia beginning at 5:26.

One of the things Jon Snow mentions in the questions is about a young boy, still a teenager, who is facing execution for peacefully speaking out against the Saudi regime. This child is going to be executed.  He is going to be beheaded and his corpse will be crucified and put on public display for three days.  That's the country our equality loving government works with and makes deals with.  

That horrifies me, and it should horrify you.  If I'm being completely honest, writing about what that young man is going to face has left me in tears.  It's horrific, and the British leader is working with a government that wants to do that.  It's reprehensible. 

We all know his reasoning, that we are provided with 'intelligence' is only part of it.  Oil and money are a bigger part.  Britain has made a deal with a monster for profit.  And personally, if it is for intelligence to keep us safe, the price for that safety is too high.  We shouldn't be working with people like this, we should be stopping this from happening.  Instead of that though our government is putting a price on freedom and human life, they're saying that as long as they're profiting from it they'll allow atrocities and support those committing them.

No matter what David Cameron or his party says I will never, never, believe for one moment that they believe in equality.  Their actions are speaking louder than any speech they can give.  Right now I'm ashamed to be British.

Amy.
xx


Follow Amy on Twitter
Join Amy on Facebook

Add Amy on Tumblr

Join Her Fans on Facebook

Trans Woman's Murder Case Enters Court, Husband Blamed

A UK court has been hearing evidence today about a young transgender woman, who was found with wounds consistent of being beaten to death, with the husband accused of causing her death.

Vanessa Santillan, aged 33 at the time of her murder, was beaten to death by her husband Joaquin Gomez-Hernandez after being found sleeping with another man according to prosecution at The Old Bailey this week,

Media outlet The Daily Mail has claimed that Vanessa worked as an escort, and after walking in on Venessa having sex with a client Gomez-Hernandez killed his with with trauma to her head and neck.

According to statements given by Gomez-Hernandez to police after finding Vanessa having sex with a client he left their flat to go shopping, returning later in the day to find the flat locked and his wife failing to answer the door.

Gomez-Hernandez states that he proceeded to break into the flat with a group of friends, where they found Vanessa dead.  After finding his wife's body he phoned 999 to call for an ambulance, but was later arrested under suspicion of murder.

Court Prosecutor Brendan Finucane QC said, 'Although their is evidence they were loving towards each other, there is some evidence of discord.'

Joaquin Gomez-Hernandez continues to deny the charge of murder.

The trial is currently ongoing.

Amy.
xx


Follow Amy on Twitter
Join Amy on Facebook

Add Amy on Tumblr

Join Her Fans on Facebook

Nicky Morgan Claims Equality Is A Core Conservative Policy

It would appear that anti-equality Equality Minister Nicky Morgan is even more deluded than we already thought.  Making a speech today at the Conservative Party Conference the Secretary of State For Education and Minister For Women and Equalities made claims that the Conservative Party believes strongly in equality whilst simultaneously bashing the Labour Party.

Morgan said in her speech 'I hold not one but two jobs in government.  You know what they say - if you want a job done well, ask a busy man.  If you want two jobs done well, ask a busy woman.  it's the same philosophy - the belief that everyone  should have the same chances in life, that underpins my other job as Minister for Women and Equalities.

'Equality for us isn't about quotas, pink vans or separate train carriages.  Instead, it's about that core Conservative philosophy, which says the fact that you happen to be a woman, to be gay, to be from an ethnic minority, you should never have a barrier to you achieving your all.

'Unlike the Labour Party, we practice what we preach - because women are the backbone of this party, and unlike Jeremy Corbyn, we have put them at the forefront of this government.  That belief in equality of opportunity has been our guiding principal for the past five years.'

I've already made some of my views and opinions on Nicky Morgan clear in a previous article, that I believe having a Minister for Equalities who actively voted against marriage equality and publicly proclaimed that she stands by that vote should not hold the position that she does.

Her complaints that people can't 'get over' her vote have been falling on deaf ears, and her claim that equality is a core Conservative principal is sure to be met with the same level of scepticism and outright dismissal.  But perhaps she's correct, perhaps putting women 'at the forefront of this government' is key to the Conservative.  Maybe it's that important that one particular woman has been put in a position she clearly has no right to be in.  Yes Nicky, I'm talking about you.

Amy.
xx


Follow Amy on Twitter
Join Amy on Facebook

Add Amy on Tumblr

Join Her Fans on Facebook

Transgender Woman Targeted in Pipe Bomb Attack

On Saturday 3rd October 27 year old transgender woman Rachel Keys was sitting at home alone watching television when an explosion rocked her home and left her covered in shattered glass.  It transpired that her Belfast home was the target of a pipe bomb attack in what police are calling a 'sectarian hate crime'.

'I was just watching TV in my living room,' Rachel described, 'suddenly the window came through, there was glass everywhere and there was a big bang and a flash.  I was covered in glass.

'To be honest I was completely dazed, I didn't know what was happening.  It scared the life out of me.  I just ran out of the house screaming to my neighbours.  I didn't even have time to get my poor cat, Jessie, who was sleeping in the bedroom.  I was terrified, shaking and upset.

'The police came and cordoned the place off and evacuated us all to the local community centre.  I was totally dazed.  One of my neighbours is epileptic and I was worried about her not being able to get her medication.  Another neighbour has a child who is autistic, another is a pensioner.  It was awful for them, just awful.

'I just moved to my home in December, it's a quiet area.  I liked living here.  I was getting my place done up bit by bit.  It was my home.  You think you'll be safe in your home.  You think you'll be safe in your home, that it is a sanctuary, but this has just shown me that it isn't.

'The police have told me that I can't go back home.  They said I have to be moved to emergency housing.  It makes me really sad that people won't allow others to get on with their lives, to live in peace.  It makes me sad and angry.  It's not fair, it's not right.  I don't deserve to live like this, I've done nothing wrong.'

Police are investigating possible motives, but Rachel feels that she was targeted for the attack due to her being transgender.

Amy.
xx


Follow Amy on Twitter
Join Amy on Facebook

Add Amy on Tumblr

Join Her Fans on Facebook

Doctor Who's Deaf Character Is A Great Step Forward

Saturday saw the third episode of series nine of Doctor Who 'Under The Lake' air.  As a fan of the show I though that it was a good episode.  We're in an underwater base with a group of survivors being chased through small dark corridors by ghosts with black holes where their eyes should be.  It was tense, it was creepy and it was fun.  Everything that makes a good Doctor Who story.

What immediately jumped out at me about the episode though was the inclusion of the character Cass, who after the death of the team leader in the opening minutes of the episode becomes the De facto leader of the group (well, as much as you can be when The Doctor is around).  You see, what's interesting about Cass is the fact that she's deaf.

With an episode set in the not too distant future it would be easy for the show runners to create some kind of sci-fi device that made the characters deafness something minor, hell, we have hearing aids now so there's no reason to think the technology wouldn't progress far enough by 2119 to help people hear.  Instead of any hearing devices though, the character communicated only through sign language via her interpreter Lunn.

For the first time in the show's history we're given a deaf actress, Sophie Stone, playing a deaf character that communicates in a very real and everyday way, rather than something that feels far removed or alien.

Cass isn't once treated as 'handicapped' or 'disabled' during the episode.  No one treats her with pity or acts differently around her because she's deaf.  Despite the fact that she has Lunn interpreting all of what she says and what characters say to her people talk to her directly, not her interpreter.  In a world where so many deaf people are treated differently or ignored in our society it is refreshing and amazing to see Doctor Who embrace the fact that having a disability doesn't in any way change who someone is.

Sophie Stone was the first deaf actress to study at RADA, and the first deaf
actress to appear on Doctor Who.

Cass is strong, passionate and brave, she puts the lives of her crew first and takes action when it's needed, not because she's deaf, not to balance out that she can't hear, but because she's a real person.  She would act the same way whether she could hear or not, and the show knows that in they way that she's written and the way that she acts.

Her deafness has even come into play in an important way, allowing her to lip-read the silent muttering ghosts and giving The Doctor the chance to figure out a part of the bigger picture.  Her relationship with her signer Lunn is also quite important, her intuition at something being wrong with the strange alien writing the crew finds in the sunken space ship makes her stop Lunn from going inside.  This has already been shown to make him immune to the ghosts wanting to kill him, something that could come to be massively important in the second episode that could help to save the day.

I've seen a lot of incidents where people in real life are treated as less able or less competent because of what other people would see as a disability, so to see a television program showing audiences that being deaf doesn't mean that you're less able, that you can't be a leader is a great thing.  It might not mean much, it's only light entertainment after all, but if this show can take even a tiny step towards influencing people to see people with disabilities as regular people, to be treated equally and fairly, then it's only a good thing.

Amy.
xx


Follow Amy on Twitter
Join Amy on Facebook

Add Amy on Tumblr

Join Her Fans on Facebook

Nicky Morgan Angry That She's Still Held To Account For Anti-LGBT Views

Last week I was in the same room as Nicky Morgan, the Secretary of State for Education and Minister for Women and Equalities.  The experience was not a pleasant one.  I didn't speak to her in person, she left the venue before anyone was able to get the chance to leave their seats, practically running from the building, which is unfortunate because I wanted to ask her some very specific questions.  It would appear, however, that I'm not the only person with these questions on their minds.

The question would be, 'why would someone who is a Minister for Equalities vote against marriage equality?'

I appreciate that some people will say that this is a non-issue, that the vote happened in 2013, and the vote passed despite her voting against it.  Some could also go on to say that Morgan has tried to explain her actions already, stating that she believed because she received criticism about marriage equality from 'a lot' of people in her constituency it was the views of the people she represented that it should be opposed.

There are many excuses that she could make towards why she voted against equality, but so far none of them have adequately explained why a person who voted against equality should hold the position of Equalities Minister.

Pink News are reporting that Morgan has 'slammed' people who cannot accept that she has changed her mind on the subject and can't accept that she 'got it wrong'.  It would appear that the age old 'I stood against a marginalised group but am now receiving criticism for doing so, I'm being oppressed/bullied' response has come into play.

Personally I don't care if Nicky Morgan feels that people can't 'get over' her vote in 2013, because it's not just her vote that is an issue, following the vote in 2013 she spoke to press the following year and stated on record that 'I stand by my vote in 2013.  But yes, obviously, since then, having spoken to lots of different people, and realised quite how excluded people in same-sex relationships felt from the institution of marriage, and marriage is a pretty important institution in our society, I have realised that yes, if the vote were to be re-run, I would probably vote in a different way'.

Is this the sign that someone went on to change their mind?  No, not really.  Look closely at what she says.  First of all, 'I stand by my vote in 2013', straight off the bat she's saying that she believes that she was right to vote against marriage equality and saw nothing wrong with doing so.  Despite whatever else she says beyond this point she has already said that she believes she was in the right to vote against it.

But why would she feel that it's okay to have voted against marriage equality?  Her personal faith.  Like so many other people who stand against LGBT+ rights she has used her personal faith as a shield to her bigotry.  'I have a personal faith, but that's not going to dominate every decision I make in relation to my constituency or to my ministerial post.  But I also think people should be free to be open about their own personal faith.'

I'm sorry, but saying that you stand by being against marriage equality, then stating that it's because of your faith is wrong.  Saying that it's 'not going to dominate every decision' isn't enough, not only is that quite clearly saying that it's already colored your choice against LGBT+ rights, but that it factors into some of your decision making is appalling.  Faith should have no bearing what-so-ever on political decisions.

I'm not saying that people cannot have faith, I have no issue with people having faith or following religious tenets, but when those views interfere with the way someone is supposed to perform their job it becomes an issue.  When someone's job is to shape the way the country is governed, those views become even more problematic.  What separates Nicky Morgan voting against Marriage Equality because of her religious views and what Kim Davis is doing because of her religious views?  Government backing and spin doctors.  That's all.  It's the same kind of anti-gay views, but where Kim Davis has kept on going Nicky Morgan had the sense to shut up and try to have people forget.

Go back to that quote of her saying she may vote differently in the future.  She's saying that it's because of the backlash from people who don't think the same way as her that she could vote differently if called to do so again, not because she has come to believe that her initial choice was wrong.  If she believed that herself she would not 'stand by' her initial vote.  And pay close attention to the fact that she says she would 'probably vote a different way'.  Probably, not even 'I would vote differently, but 'probably'.  She's not even saying she would vote in favour for marriage equality.  Political double talk if I've ever seen it.

Her complaints that people still haven't let it go, that she's still being held accountable because of that vote mean nothing to me.  I don't believe your claims that you've changed your mind, because every time you talk about it you always say that it's because of the backlash you've recieved or the letters you've been sent that you 'might' vote in favor of marriage equality.

You're not sorry for standing against equality, you're not pro-equality, you're just upset that you're being held accountable for your faith based bigotry.  And someone who has acted like that has no place what-so-ever being a Minister for Equalities.

I listened to your speech last week at the HeForShe launch and it just sounded like empty rhetoric.  I didn't believe a single word of what you said, I don't believe for a second that equality is something that you care about.  That's the damage that your stand against marriage equality has done.  People no don't think that you stand for equalities, it's not a position that you actively believe in, but one you were just assigned to.

Then again, you do work for the same political party that wants to scrap Human Rights in Britain, despite numerous experts and millions of citizens telling you that you shouldn't do so.  So maybe a Equalities Minister who votes against equality is exactly the kind of person this government wants in that position.

Amy.
xx


Follow Amy on Twitter
Join Amy on Facebook

Add Amy on Tumblr

Join Her Fans on Facebook

Assassin's Creed to Introduce First Transgender Character

The long running action adventure assassination game series Assassin's Creed is due to make a progressive step in its next console release.  The game, 'Assassin's Creed: Syndicate', is going to introduce the first transgender character the series has seen.

The game is set in Victorian era London the game will follow the assassin twins Evie and Jacob Frye as they engage in organised crime and gang wars in an attempt to fight against the established order of the Templars.  the game allows you to play as both Evie and Jacob, choosing which character to take on certain missions, missions given to you in part by Ned Wynert, the series first trans character.

'Inclusiveness is something that's super important to us as a team,' Assassins Creed: Syndicate creative director Marc-Alexis Cote said in an interview.  'We've made a good push towards diversity and how we approach different subjects in the game.'

There have been a few video games over the years that have presented transgender characters, with most of these being trans women, so to see a trans male presented is a nice change.  With Bioware introducing us to the wonderfully well portrayed character of Cremisius 'Krem' Aclassi in 'Dragon Age: Inquisition' last year and now Ubisoft giving fans Ned I'm hoping that we're starting to see the use of trans people in video games being used beyond objectification.

Poison and Bridget both represent a sexualised version of trans women in games

By that I mean characters unlike Poison from 'Final Fight' and Bridget from 'Guilty Gear', who are incredibly sexualised women.  If Ned can follow the same frame work as Krem, of being a well rounded and respected character, whose status as transgender is only a tiny fact of who they are instead of the core factor, then perhaps the trans community has started to become represented correctly in the video gaming medium.

Amy.
xx


Follow Amy on Twitter
Join Amy on Facebook

Add Amy on Tumblr

Join Her Fans on Facebook

Prince William First Royal To Publicly Condemn Homophobia

During a visit to Hammersmith Accademy Prince William, and future king, took part in a group session with pupils that discussed practical tips for preventing anti-LGBT+ bullying.

The visit was organised through the Diana Award, named after the princes late mother, whose specialist staff run bullying workshops across the country.  It should be noted that despite backing numerous charities and good causes the Royal Family have almost never been seen backing LGBT causes.

It is worth noting that the Royal Family are head of the Commonwealth, of which 90% of its citizens still live under anti-gay laws.  As such the Royal Family tend to avoid references to LGBT+ equality, and no royal has ever spoken in favour of marriage equality.

During the visit to Hammersmith Accademy, however, Price William spoke out against homophobia, along with the Education and Equalities minister Nicky Morgan.

During a discussion with students about homophobic bullying, where they were asked how they would go about tackling such bullying, Prince William indicated that he would confront such bullying.  Agreeing with one of the student comments he said, 'As the young man said, I would try to confront.'

A Kengsington Palace spokesperson commented, saying 'He hopes it will help de-stigmatise bullying issues in schools.  He particularly likes the idea of a peer-led support network to prevent any child or young person suffering in silence.'

To many this statement might not seem like much of a gesture, but the future king will one day be in a position to challenge anti-gay leaders from across the Commonwealth and promote positive change for many people.  It should also be noted that during his time in the RAF he served alongside transgender pilot Ayla Holdom.

Amy.
xx


Follow Amy on Twitter
Join Amy on Facebook

Add Amy on Tumblr

Join Her Fans on Facebook

Labour's New Shadow Cabinet All Voted For Marriage Equality

Now that Jeremy Corbyn has taken over leadership of the Labour Party their has been some major reshuffling and a new shadow cabinet has been selected.  As to be expected with Corbyn being a left-wing politician their is a definite left-wing bent to the new shadow cabinet, and specifically all of the 26 members of the cabinet are politicians who voted for marriage equality in 2013.

This makes the Labour Party the only party in the UK-wide political party in which every MP and peer voted for marriage equality.

Interestingly seven members of the Conservative Party voted against the bill, including Defense Secretary Michael Fallon, Culture Secretary John Wittingdale and unfortunately Education Secretary and Equalities minister Nicky Morgan.

With an Equalities Minister who voted against marriage equality this is yet another blow to the Conservative Party that the new left-wing Labour Party has delivered.

Amy.
xx


Follow Amy on Twitter
Join Amy on Facebook

Add Amy on Tumblr

Join Her Fans on Facebook

Trans Inquiry - Transgender Hate Crime With Professor Neil Chakraborti

Tuesday 8th September saw the first day of the Trans Inquiry being led by parliaments women's and equalities committee, where they took evidence from healthcare professionals, criminal experts and members of the trans community.

I've seen some criticism over the inquiry, about the reasons why it's being held or the people involved (or rather the lack of trans individuals).  Whilst some of these criticisms may be well formed, I think a lot of the complaints are misplaced.  I also feel that a lot of the focus of the inquiry has been given over to the first half of what was spoken about, health care.

Whilst I acknowledge that these issues are massively important, and as I've written about in the past their are some serious issues faced by trans people when trying to access health care, ranging from denial of those services to discrimination, the second part of Tuesdays inquiry is also massively important.  Crime against transgender people.

We all know it happens, all over the world.  We've seen the headlines of trans people suffering verbal and physical abuse, people attacked and hospitalised, and the increase in the murder rate of trans women.  Yes, healthcare is important, but I believe that our protection under the law is a hugely important issue, especially when you realise that in the UK their are no laws that protect against transphobic hate crime.

One of the experts called on to speak at the inquiry was Professor Neil Chakraborti, a professor of criminology and the head of the Leicester Centre for Hate Studies.  Neil kindly agreed to speak to me a little about the topics that were brought up at the inquiry and go over some of the information raised.

Both yourself and the other witnesses were asked to describe what you would define as transphobia and both active transphobia and as Helen Belcher brought up Cissexism were described, through the research the Centre For Hate Studies has performed have you found that one is more prevalent than the other or that the two would go hand in hand?

I think they both go hand in hand actually, from Helens prospective and the work she does through Trans Media Watch she would have seen a different side to it, in therms of offensive material incitement or derogatory stereotypes that have been presented over the years.  The work that I've done has been more directly related to victimisations, peoples actual experiences of harassment, abuse and targeted hostility so with that in mind I've probably seen more of the physical expressions of hostility.  Don't think that means that transphobia is simply about that, I think it's simply from the fact that because of my work focusing on hate crimes against people who have been targeted because of their physical characteristics so invariably I've seen more of those physical experiences.

Helen also spoke in length about poor media representation and even in some cases where media pieces are quite aggressive towards trans people.  Some people find that this kind of media representation promotes that kind of thinking and normalises transphobic opinions and views, through your research have you found anything that would tend to agree with that?

Yeah, I would, i think those media representations as you say reinforce those negative views and stereotypes and normalise them.  Those people we've spoken to through our research who've experienced transphobic hate crime have talked about their being a driect relationship between media representation and their experiences of hostility, discrimination and even violence.  I think that's where real problems where it comes to media reporting can have some serious consequences for people so I do definitely believe that there's a correlation between representations through the media and even political representations, the language we use, the normalisation of stereotypes, I think there's a direct link between that and experiences of hostility.

At one point during the inquiry you said that there were no provisions against aggravated offenses for transphobic incidents and no criminal offenses for the stirring up of hatred towards trans people and spoke about the legislation when they looked at it recently but chose not to update it because they didn't feel that their was a need for it.  Do you feel that that kind of lack of understanding for why it's needed is sending a message, even from the Law Commission, that people shouldn't find transphobia wrong, that it's okay top target trans people?

I don't think that was a deliberate message the law commission was sending, but that is the unintended consequence isn't it?  If you have an opportunity to use parity across all stands but don't take that opportunity, and their may be valid reasons for that in you own minds, but if you don't take that opportunity then of course you're going to be conveying a message to those people who don't have parity that somehow they're not deserving of the equivalent protection of other monitored groups.  

As i said to the inquiry it just seems like a missed opportunity.  Also, not so sure it was thought through in as much depth as it could have been, if your saying as a Law Commission that there's not a practical need for such legislation what do you do when it comes to the stirring up of hatred online?  There's no legal provisions to guard against that.  I just find that baffling, was that not considered by the commission or was it considered to be not a big enough problem?  Or was it felt that there were existing provisions that would cover that? It's just not clear from what i can see, and i think irrespective of the rights and wrongs of that decision the unwitting message that it sends is again, one that reinforces the marginalisation for trans people.

So from what I understand of the law, if there was someone standing the middle of the town centre with a megaphone in their hands calling trans people the worst possible slurs and saying any number of horrific things that's not punishable by law.  Also, is it not true that if they encourage others to do trans people harm and someone acted upon that the person committing the actual assault or murder could be charged under those particular laws, but nothing could be done against those who are encouraging or inciting that.  Is that correct?

That's exactly it yes.  So at the moment if I stood in the town centre and started saying horrible things about trans people that isn't an offense in itself, now that might not be problematic because if I went out and said horrible things about faith communities or about gay people that in itself isn't a criminal offense, what makes it a criminal offense is if I decided to make threatening comments about a group or encouraged citizens to go an throw bricks through peoples windows.  That, as the law stands wouldn't be a criminal offense if it's towards trans people, there are no incitement provisions around the stirring of hate towards trans people, but yet there are those provisions for other groups.  Interestingly there aren't provisions for disabled people either, so it's very much the trans community and people with physical and learning disabilities  who are left out of the equation when it comes to the incitement of hate.

There might be other laws in place that would come into practice, so if somebody chose to speak out that way in the city centre this afternoon they might be charged under public order legislation, they might be committing a public order offense but that isn't really the point for me.  We either call this hate crime or we don't, it's frustrating that on the one hand we tell the trans community that we're their for you, come and report your incidents and somebody will listen to you and that we want to learn from your experiences, but on the other hand we don't have equivalent hate crime provisions as we do for the other monitored strands.  It's very contradictory in therms of the message it sends out.  So you're right in terms of the analogy that it wouldn't be a criminal offense.

You also spoke about the barriers to reporting, do you find that the normalising of transphobic hate speech along with hostility from police when reporting seems to be a problem many trans people face?  And is that lack of legislation adding to that also, because there's no laws protecting against it people are being left to believe that it's just something that they have to put up with?

Absolutely, I was going to make the connection but you've done it for me.  There's absolutely a connection there as you got this message that's coming out in the law that's saying perhaps you're not quite as equal as other groups of hate crime victims, but we're also saying to the trans community come and report your experiences.  So it does come across as contradictory and leads a lot of people to suffer in silence as they feel that those experiences aren't taken seriously.  It 's certainly been what we've been hearing from many of the trans victims we've been speaking to.  So like I said to the inquiry, a lot of people normalise their experiences.  They see it as a routine part of being different.

I remember quite a lot of victims I spoke to said they'd be in and out of a police station all day every day if they reported each and every hate incident they experienced.  It's an ongoing process, it's a part of everyday life for a lot of people, and a lot of this is unrepeatable, or felt to be unrepeatable.  How do you report somebody just staring at you in such a hostile manner, or a stranger making derogatory remarks about you in the street?  how do you in practice report being bullied on the bus or just being made to feel unwelcome in the workplace or social setting?  

That's the kind of day to day verbal harassment and hostility people were experiencing, but often that escalated into more serious violence and if you're uncomfortable about reporting those lower level incidents at what stage do you draw the line and say okay, this is something that I'm going to report?  If you're brave enough to report those experiences how do you feel confident that the authorities will take those experiences seriously if as we've already discussed there's a question mark over equality and legal protection?

That normalisation process is a real worry, it's a worry across the whole strand of hate crime victims but it's a real worry within the trans community.

What would you feel needs to be done both from within the trans community and from the legal system to help towards the reporting and eventual stamping out of transphobic hate crime?

It's hard to boil down, I think there's a number of steps that should be taken to increase reporting and we did some research for the Equalities and Human Rights Commission earlier this year where we  actually asked trans people what are your specific recommendations and it was really interesting.  For instance, it was felt that there was a need for greater contact between front line practitioners and the trans community.  at the moment is feels like engagement is quite narrow and tokenistic and may be only one trans activist per city or even county and that is't really engagement.  

I think there's a need for much wider engagement as that would help develop trust, and would also make front line practitioners more aware of the day to day challenges of being trans and those barriers to reporting.  So certainly much more engagement between practitioners and the trans community.  

I think many trans people want third party reporting options, so if you're uncomfortable going to the police station there are other options available to you for reporting those incidents.  At the moment most areas in the UK there are third party reporting options but they're not very well known, for example in Leicester you can go to the library to report.  Who goes to their Library, who knows they can report at the library?  I think it needs more engagement with the trans community to find out what would work for them.  Also, what works for trans victims in one are might not work in another, more rural area for example, so that whole communication process would really help to find out what works when it comes to reporting.

A couple of other things I'd say when it comes to barriers to reporting, many victims say they want to see positive things come from campaigns around reporting, so more positive reporting on successful real life stories of people being brought to justice.  This could really help to encourage others to come forward with their own reports.

Other than that I think some of the needs and requirements are very similar to other strands of hate crime victims, they want regular updates from reports as there is very little followup, sometimes victims want an independent advocate as it can be quite daunting during the process.  So there's  number of steps that can be taken, and we presented a lot of these to the Equlaities and Human Rights Commission in our report.

Social media was briefly spoken about and the prevalence of hate speech on there along with the difficulty of policing that.  Did you find through your research when speaking to trans people that this was a problem they spoke about with you?

Not as much as I thought it would be.  That's not to say it isn't a problem but it didn't come up in the report as much, but I do know that online hate and hostility through social media is a huge problem.  I think that there's a lot of confusion around who should tackle these incidents, who should be the ones reacting to it.  In our own research I've not spoken to that many victims who've faced those kinds of problems through social media but it's something that I;d love to explore more.

One of the things you said in the inquiry that seemed to grab a lot of peoples attention and was quoted on Twitter during the inquiry was that the legal system within the UK seems to wait for a tragedy to occur before going and enacting changes.  I know it's not a straight forward comparison as it's not just talking about the UK, but like in America the numbers of trans women murders is on the rise, we're already 50% higher than the whole of last year with three months of the year left to go.  

Transphobic hate seems to either be reported more or possibly happening more, so I guess my question is what more is going to happen before these changes come into effect?  It's costing lives already, when do you think people are going to start seeing this as an issue or do you think that's already started now with the trans inquiry?

The fact that a trans inquiry is taking place is a good sign for sure, so it's something we shouldn't over look or underestimate, there's much more academic literature when it comes to transphbic hatred and more policy engagement on these issues so they're all really positive signs, and they weren't there ten years back.  There is most definitely progress.  Is that progress far reaching enough?  No, of course not.  We still have a shocking level of transphobic hostility and transphobic hate crime taking place.  We have massive level of under reporting, we have disparity within levels of legal protection and we have concerns within the trans community so there are massive problems.  Obviously we've had progress, though I don't thin its come quick enough.

In answer to the first part of your question, I don't know what else could happen, we've had so much tragedy that effects the trans community so I'm not sure we need any more to hurry things along or things will hurry along any more then they already are.  

The reason I made that point to the inquiry is because that is how our law has developed.  We didn't have much by way of hate crime legislation until the Lawrence Case, and then people lobbying on behalf of ethnic minority communities for tighter laws on racist hate so those laws started to develop.  9/11 happened and we saw a backlash against Muslim communities in particular then we saw the creation of racially aggravated offenses.  we saw the murder of Jody Dobrowski and the introduction of laws covering homophobic hatred.  

We've seen tragic cases around cases of disability and we've seen legislation there, so it seems like there's this piecemeal approach, that is better than in some countries where they don't make these kinds of legislation, but it does seem like a very odd way of lawmaking where we wait for problems to occur before we do anything about them.  That's one of my biggest concerns where it comes to hate crime laws, and particular the trans community, and it's like you said, what more needs to happen before people start taking this seriously?  And when I say take it seriously I mean we need to do more than just have inquiries about the issues, we actually need to make people feel safer and that isn't happening just yet.

What would you like to see come from the trans inquiry?

What I'd like to see, rather than saying specific things I'd like to see because ultimately it's not my call whether I want to see changes to the law or any of the specific recommendations the inquiry might make, what I would like to see is for the inquiry to reduce a report and findings that are fed back to the trans community and for the trans community to consider that report and feed back to the inquiry.  

So rather than it being a done deal where people give evidence and a report is compiled and published and that box is ticked and we move on to the next issue, I really want this to be the first step in a dialogue where a report can be fed back to the people effected, not people like me, but people who are actually effected by these issues whether within the health care system or criminal justice system.  

I'd like to see that opportunity and hope that that opportunity is given, I'm just worried that this is a situation where  something's produced and we just move on from there.  It's better than having no inquiry at all, but I'm hoping that it can be used as the first step in an open dialogue with the trans community itself.


Professor Neil Chakraborti works for the University of Leicester Criminology department and runs the Leicester Centre For Hate Studies.

Amy.
xx


Follow Amy on Twitter
Join Amy on Facebook

Add Amy on Tumblr

Join Her Fans on Facebook