Pride continues to crumble
In the canteen of the House of Lords last week, a friendly server asked me if I'd like some 'Pride pudding'. This turned out to be a rainbow-coloured crumble created in honour of Pride month. 'Er, no thanks,' I said, and then noticed a large 'Progress Pride' flag behind the counter. Oh dear, I thought. That'll set the cat among the pigeons.
Sure enough, a couple of hours later the GC Cons Peers' WhatsApp group erupted. This is made up of those dinosaurs who style themselves 'gender critical' – i.e. they believe sex is biological, binary and immutable. For the uninitiated, the Progress Pride flag features a large, multicoloured chevron superimposed on the standard rainbow layout. The colours correspond to different groups that don't feel adequately represented by the common or garden Pride flag, and include the colours of the trans flag. (Yes, there's one of those, too.) Among the embattled armies facing off on the red benches, this flag is the banner of those who believe that trans women are women and should be granted unfettered access to women's spaces.
That's long been an issue of heated debate in the Lords, but it's reached fever pitch following the recent Supreme Court ruling. We GC Cons naively thought this would settle the matter in our favour, but naturally the same progressives who during the Brexit wars condemned those who questioned the wisdom of the Supreme Court justices as rabble-rousing populists are now quick to condemn them as 'bigots' and 'transphobes'.
Scarcely a week passes without the two sides locking horns over the judgment, with the LGBTQQIP2SAA Lab Peers arguing that it's meaningless until the Equality and Human Rights Commission has issued official 'guidance' about how to interpret it. Baroness Falkner, the EHRC's chair, is sympathetic to the GC cause, but she's due to step down in November and our opponents' plan is to delay the 'guidance' until they've managed to install a stooge in her place. Meanwhile, they're not about to lower their banner.
So for the Progress Pride flag to be planted in the Lords' canteen was, for the GC Cons, a major defeat. The common parts of the House are supposed to be neutral ground. And, of course, another tactic of the pink-haired radicals (even some nonagenarian Labour baronesses have pink hair) is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled, like climate change. In other words, this was a double blow – they'd parked their tanks in the demilitarised zone and succeeded in disguising them as electrically-powered UN peacekeeping vehicles. This could not stand!
A tactic of the pink-haired radicals is to present their highly contentious views on gender as politically settled
Several GC Cons immediately fired off letters to the Lords' bewigged officials. The doughty Baroness Nicholson was first over the top, quickly followed by Baroness Jenkin – the Boadicea of our tribe – and yours truly. My argument was that under the Equality Act the Lords has an obligation to foster good relations between those who have a particular protected characteristic and those who don't. Believing that sex is real is a protected belief and allowing the banner of those who think sex is 'assigned at birth' to fly in the canteen is hardly fostering good relations.
No doubt the same peers who've rejected the Supreme Court ruling would dispute this interpretation of the Act and refer the matter to the EHRC, with judgment delayed until Falkner has gone. But, amazingly, the powers that be appear to have been convinced – not just by my letter, I'm sure – and over the weekend the flag was removed. Pride pudding is still on sale, but that's fine; it was the flying of the trans colours that was the issue, not the celebration of Pride Month.
I even said in my letter that I had no problem with the Pride flag, which isn't strictly true. I'd prefer it if public institutions remained impartial when it comes to all political battles, even those the progressive left can justifiably claim to have won. No objection to gay rights obviously, but the Pride flag has come to mean much more than that and I find its ubiquitous presence in June oppressive, as if you're being ordered what to think about a whole cluster of issues. But one battle at a time and for now I'll take the win.
In late breaking news, Labour has announced its preferred candidate to succeed Baroness Falkner – Mary-Ann Stephenson – and stone me if she isn't a bit GC herself. Was that a cock-up? I suspect not. My impression is that Sir Keir and his cronies recognise that prolonging this battle is a vote-loser, just as it was for the Democrats in the US election. The GC Cons may think we've succeeded in forcing the trans zealots to lower the Progress Pride flag. But in reality it's Labour that has abandoned this fight.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
26 minutes ago
- The Independent
‘Massive step forward' for post-Brexit youth visa scheme
The European Union has given approval to begin detailed discussions with the UK regarding post- Brexit youth visas. Campaigners have hailed this decision as a "massive step forward" for young people in the UK, aiming to restore opportunities lost after Brexit. The proposed scheme would allow 18 to 30-year-olds from the UK to work in EU countries and young EU citizens to work in the UK for short periods. Conditions for the youth visa scheme include no access to benefits, no accompanying family members, and payment of an immigration health surcharge. This development follows a recent poll indicating that a majority of Britons now desire the UK to rejoin the European Union.
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
In a scathing dissent, Justice Jackson says the Supreme Court gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests'
WASHINGTON — Liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson criticized her colleagues on Friday in a scathing dissent on a case involving vehicle emissions regulations. In her dissenting opinion, she argued that the court's opinion gives the impression it favors 'moneyed interests' in the way they decide which cases to hear and how they rule in them. The court had ruled 7-2 in favor of fuel producers seeking to challenge the Environmental Protection Agency's approval of California clean vehicle emissions regulations. She also said she was concerned that the ruling could have "a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests." With the Trump administration reversing course on many of Biden's environmental policies, including on California's electric vehicle mandates, the case is likely moot, or soon to be, Jackson wrote, making her wonder why the court felt the need to decide it. "This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this court than ordinary citizens," Jackson wrote. The case said that the producers had legal standing to bring their claims, resting on a theory "that the court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs," she added. The decision has little practical importance now, but in future, "will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act," she said. "Also, I worry that the fuel industry's gain comes at a reputational cost for this court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests," she added. The court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, has often faced claims that it is particularly receptive to arguments made by big business. The conservative justices have been especially skeptical of broad government regulations and they have consistently made it harder for consumers and workers to bring class action lawsuits. Last year, the court overturned a 40-year precedent much loathed by business interests that empowered federal agencies in the regulatory process. Some legal experts have pushed back, saying such allegations are misleading. Jackson concluded her dissent by noting the court's "simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others." Conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who authored the majority opinion, responded to her claims, saying that a review of standing cases "disproves that suggestion." He mentioned several recent rulings in which liberal justices were in the majority, including one last year finding that anti-abortion doctors who challenged the abortion pill mifepristone did not have standing to sue. The bottom line, he added, is that the government "may not target a business or industry through stringent and allegedly unlawful regulation, and then evade the resulting lawsuits by claiming that the targets of its regulation should be locked out of court as unaffected bystanders." The underlying case stems from the EPA's authority to issue national vehicle emissions standards under the federal Clean Air Act. In recognition of California's historic role in regulating emissions, the law allows the EPA to give the state a waiver from the nationwide standards so that it can adopt its own. The case focused on a request made by California in 2012 that EPA approve new regulations, not the state's 2024 plan to eliminate gasoline-powered cars by 2035 for which it also sought a waiver.
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Diane Abbott's masterful Assisted Dying speech will come back to haunt us
If yours is a sentimental bent, you'll have been terrifically moved by the spectacle of Jess Phillips MP giving Kim Leadbeater a big hug after the Assisted Dying Bill was passed. Ms Leadbeater has a tendency to look agonised at the best of times. When MPs paid tribute to her in the course of the debate for her compassion, she looked as if she was on the verge of bursting into tears. Now, it'll be tears of joy – at least for her. I should right now retract all the unkind things I have ever said about Diane Abbott Quite how this reaction, and the hugs, can be elicited by a measure which will mean people can be given lethal drugs courtesy of the state is beyond me – because that's actually what it entails – but you can dignify almost anything in our politics if you designate it as being motivated by compassion. There was one contribution to the debate which will stay with me. It was made by Dr Neil Hudson, one of those Tory MPs who looks as if he'll never rouse a rabble; he was in his previous incarnation, a vet. Almost apologetically, he declared that he had been involved in participating in euthanising various animals, large and small, in that job, and while he absolutely wasn't comparing human beings with animals, he wanted to make the point that the substances and procedures were very similar to those used for humans. 'The final act,' he said, 'doesn't always go smoothly'. What a vista that conjures up. All very different from the talk in the chamber, which was all about dignity. Hudson isn't the first person to make this point. Several months ago, I talked at some length to parliament's premier palliative care practitioner, Professor Ilora Finlay. Her verdict? Assisted suicide 'was not a Hollywood death'. Not clean, not quick. Or as she observed, the length it takes actually for the drugs to work – from the experience of those countries which have euthanasia – varies enormously, from under half an hour to over a day. The debate has glossed over this kind of gritty stuff. In the Lords at least, where the bill goes to next, Finlay will have the chance of pointing out how the thing works in practice. She can also say that the agonising deaths that pro-euthanasia MPs described graphically, as a sort of clincher, during the debate are not necessary with proper palliative care. It took the daughter of a male hospice nurse, Labour's Lola McEvoy, to point out that this choice, between dying with hospice provision or without it is not universally available. Making assisted suicide a ready option will, she said, 'deprioritise good palliative care'. Masterly understatement there. It was, moreover, the odd philosophical basis of Leadbeater's speech as the bill's sponsor which was most striking. Passing over her insistence that this bill wouldn't mean more deaths (yes, Kim, we all know that everyone must die eventually, one way or another), she waxed lyrical about the way some patients could already, all by themselves, without any supervision, opt to have their life support or ventilation turned of. Yet, she suggested, MPs were making a fuss about euthanising people who did have the benefit of a supervisory panel. Look, if we can't tell the difference between not doing something (like not opting for artificial life support), and actually – and actively – giving someone drugs that would kill them, it's hard to know how to argue about these things at all. But the MPs who really undermined the cant about choice were those who talked about coercion. I should right now retract all the unkind things I have ever said about Diane Abbott, Mother of the House. She was brilliant, even though she was panicking a bit when she couldn't read her speech on her phone (go for paper!). She was utterly convincing when she dismissed witheringly the notion that, in approved cases of assisted suicide, there would have to be no police evidence of coercion. 'There wouldn't be!' she said. 'In the family the most powerful coercion is silent.' Abbott went on to observe that 'if the police can't spot coercion dealing with domestic violence, why should they spot it in assisted dying?' Her most powerful point was to look at the assembled parliamentarians and observe that every single one of them was 'confident in dealing with authority and institutions. But what about choice for all those who all their lives have lacked agency, particularly in a family situation?' That needed saying. It's one thing for Esther Rantzen to say that she'll die in a fashion of her choosing; quite another for some poor put upon individual being made to feel that they're selfishly taking up other people's time and money (if we're sinking to the level of emotional anecdote, my mother, with Parkinson's, said just that about herself). But it's the wretched Rantzens who dominate this debate, people who've never been pressurised by anyone. There was another unexpectedly brilliant contribution on coercion, Labour's Jess Asato, who works with victims of domestic abuse. She declared that coercion was 'a certainty' – it would be 'the most vulnerable people who will experience wrongful death…as a self-perceived burden'. As she pointed out, other family members will only find out about these deaths when it's too late. She warned that 'there can be no room for doubt, and no room for error'. Except there will be errors, but who'll be complaining, and how? On a Ouija board? It's been quite the week in parliament for life and death. The vote earlier this week – for Tonia Antoniazzi's amendment to allow mothers to abort unborn babies up to birth without criminal sanction – was to do with one end of the life spectrum; the victims being the foetuses who will die. Today's vote was about the end, rather than the beginning of life. But allowing doctors to give drugs to ill people to bring about their death is a similarly warped notion of choice. It's been a good week though for the hooded man with the scythe.
