radiofree.asia

Author: Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Support for trans-inclusive policies in the UK among the lowest in the world, according to Ipsos poll

    Recent international research says that the UK ranks amongst the lowest in the world in terms of support for gender-affirming care, and trans people living according to their gender. That’s according to market research company Ipsos’ 2023 Pride Survey.

    Between 17 February and 3 March 2023, Ipsos interviewed a total of 22,514 adults in 30 different countries. These included countries on every continent, although Africa was notably under-represented. The sample from the UK was large enough to be considered representative of the general population.

    This comes shortly after the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association’s most recent ranking showed that the UK had plummeted to 17th place in terms of its friendliness towards queer people.

    Discrimination

    The Ipsos survey reported that:

    Support for pro-transgender measures varies by age, gender, and especially by country. It tends to be higher among younger adults and women. It is generally highest in Thailand, Southern Europe, and Latin America, and lowest in South Korea, Eastern Europe, Great Britain, and the United States.

    In general, the UK respondents’ support for pro-trans measures was among the lowest in the countries surveyed.

    Regarding perceptions of anti-trans discrimination, 64% of Brits believe that trans people face a fair-to-great amount of discrimination in our society. This is compared to the 19% who disagree. Notably, this comes during a time of rapidly rising transphobic hate crimes.

    We can consider this alongside another question. It asked whether trans people should be protected from discrimination in “employment, housing, and access to businesses such as restaurants and stores”.

    Here, Britain avoided ranking in the lowest group. 77% of respondents believed that trans people should receive protections. However, somewhat stunningly, 15% seemed to think that discrimination against trans people should be permitted.

    It should be noted that, even before the current wave of anti-trans panic, one in three UK employers said that they would be less likely to hire a trans person. A 2018 survey said that 43% of employers were unsure that they would hire a trans person at all.

    Britain ranked among the lowest in terms of support for the inclusion of gender markers other than ‘male’ and ‘female’ on passports and official documents. 47% of Brits were in support, placing the UK in the company of Poland and Romania. However, the agreement still outnumbered the 38% who disagreed with the measure.

    UK respondents were at a dead tie for support on trans people using gendered facilities like toilets that correspond to their gender identity. 40% were in favour, and 40% were opposed. This put only the US below Britain, and South Korea three places above it.

    Healthcare

    Likewise, just 36% of Brits agreed that:

    Health insurance systems should cover the costs of gender transition no differently than the costs of other medical procedures.

    This was compared to 48% – almost one in every two people – who disagreed.

    So, 64% of the UK believes that trans people face discrimination, but 48% believe that trans people should be discriminated against directly in terms of their receipt of healthcare. Fantastic. And, all of this is before we come to the hot-button issue of trans healthcare for minors.

    The survey posed the question:

    With parental consent, transgender teenagers should be allowed to receive gender-affirming care (e.g., counseling and hormone replacement treatment).

    47% of UK respondents agreed. By contrast, 35% disagreed, and 18% were unsure. Whilst the agreement vastly outweighed the disagreement, we should bear two things in mind.

    First, we ranked above only Hungary and the US. In the latter, extreme-right politicians are currently whipping up moral panic and enacting sweeping bans on puberty blockers.

    Second, this question wasn’t about just surgery, hormone therapy, or even puberty blockers. It explicitly included counselling. As such, 35% of the UK is apparently opposed to trans youth even talking to a therapist who might agree that they are trans.

    Media influence

    If you want to know how we got into this mess, look no further than the UK’s relentlessly transphobic corporate media. The Guardian chose to report on the Ipsos survey using the headline:

    Less than half in Britain back gender-affirming care for trans teenagers

    Britain also ranks low in 30-country poll on support for access to public facilities matching gender identity

    This is, at best, deeply disingenuous. To a casual reader, it would sound as though the majority of the public is in opposition because it conveniently omits the fact that 18% were unsure. Crucially, it also completely glazes over the fact that the supporters outnumber their opponents by 12%.

    In turn, this relentless trans-hostility is playing directly into the hands of queerphobes across the board. For example, the survey also showed that support for gay marriage has fallen in Britain. It dropped by 4% since just 2021. Now, support stands at 64% in favour. This is mirrored by the fact that homophobic hate crimes have increased every year in England and Wales from 2016 to 2021.

    This current atmosphere of hatred may well have started with trans people. However, it will not stop with them by any means. Even well-established rights like gay marriage hang in the balance. For now, the UK – miserable little country that it is – has fitting bedfellows in Hungary and the US.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Ted Eytan, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Support for trans-inclusive policies in the UK among the lowest in the world, according to Ipsos poll

    Recent international research says that the UK ranks amongst the lowest in the world in terms of support for gender-affirming care, and trans people living according to their gender. That’s according to market research company Ipsos’ 2023 Pride Survey.

    Between 17 February and 3 March 2023, Ipsos interviewed a total of 22,514 adults in 30 different countries. These included countries on every continent, although Africa was notably under-represented. The sample from the UK was large enough to be considered representative of the general population.

    This comes shortly after the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex Association’s most recent ranking showed that the UK had plummeted to 17th place in terms of its friendliness towards queer people.

    Discrimination

    The Ipsos survey reported that:

    Support for pro-transgender measures varies by age, gender, and especially by country. It tends to be higher among younger adults and women. It is generally highest in Thailand, Southern Europe, and Latin America, and lowest in South Korea, Eastern Europe, Great Britain, and the United States.

    In general, the UK respondents’ support for pro-trans measures was among the lowest in the countries surveyed.

    Regarding perceptions of anti-trans discrimination, 64% of Brits believe that trans people face a fair-to-great amount of discrimination in our society. This is compared to the 19% who disagree. Notably, this comes during a time of rapidly rising transphobic hate crimes.

    We can consider this alongside another question. It asked whether trans people should be protected from discrimination in “employment, housing, and access to businesses such as restaurants and stores”.

    Here, Britain avoided ranking in the lowest group. 77% of respondents believed that trans people should receive protections. However, somewhat stunningly, 15% seemed to think that discrimination against trans people should be permitted.

    It should be noted that, even before the current wave of anti-trans panic, one in three UK employers said that they would be less likely to hire a trans person. A 2018 survey said that 43% of employers were unsure that they would hire a trans person at all.

    Britain ranked among the lowest in terms of support for the inclusion of gender markers other than ‘male’ and ‘female’ on passports and official documents. 47% of Brits were in support, placing the UK in the company of Poland and Romania. However, the agreement still outnumbered the 38% who disagreed with the measure.

    UK respondents were at a dead tie for support on trans people using gendered facilities like toilets that correspond to their gender identity. 40% were in favour, and 40% were opposed. This put only the US below Britain, and South Korea three places above it.

    Healthcare

    Likewise, just 36% of Brits agreed that:

    Health insurance systems should cover the costs of gender transition no differently than the costs of other medical procedures.

    This was compared to 48% – almost one in every two people – who disagreed.

    So, 64% of the UK believes that trans people face discrimination, but 48% believe that trans people should be discriminated against directly in terms of their receipt of healthcare. Fantastic. And, all of this is before we come to the hot-button issue of trans healthcare for minors.

    The survey posed the question:

    With parental consent, transgender teenagers should be allowed to receive gender-affirming care (e.g., counseling and hormone replacement treatment).

    47% of UK respondents agreed. By contrast, 35% disagreed, and 18% were unsure. Whilst the agreement vastly outweighed the disagreement, we should bear two things in mind.

    First, we ranked above only Hungary and the US. In the latter, extreme-right politicians are currently whipping up moral panic and enacting sweeping bans on puberty blockers.

    Second, this question wasn’t about just surgery, hormone therapy, or even puberty blockers. It explicitly included counselling. As such, 35% of the UK is apparently opposed to trans youth even talking to a therapist who might agree that they are trans.

    Media influence

    If you want to know how we got into this mess, look no further than the UK’s relentlessly transphobic corporate media. The Guardian chose to report on the Ipsos survey using the headline:

    Less than half in Britain back gender-affirming care for trans teenagers

    Britain also ranks low in 30-country poll on support for access to public facilities matching gender identity

    This is, at best, deeply disingenuous. To a casual reader, it would sound as though the majority of the public is in opposition because it conveniently omits the fact that 18% were unsure. Crucially, it also completely glazes over the fact that the supporters outnumber their opponents by 12%.

    In turn, this relentless trans-hostility is playing directly into the hands of queerphobes across the board. For example, the survey also showed that support for gay marriage has fallen in Britain. It dropped by 4% since just 2021. Now, support stands at 64% in favour. This is mirrored by the fact that homophobic hate crimes have increased every year in England and Wales from 2016 to 2021.

    This current atmosphere of hatred may well have started with trans people. However, it will not stop with them by any means. Even well-established rights like gay marriage hang in the balance. For now, the UK – miserable little country that it is – has fitting bedfellows in Hungary and the US.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Ted Eytan, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The remote Scottish community of Knoydart unites to oppose construction of environmentally-damaging 4G masts

    The Knoydart peninsula is nestled on the west coast of the highlands of Scotland. It forms part of the ‘Rough Bounds’ – an extraordinarily remote and mountainous section of countryside in West Inverness-shire. No roads connect it to the main body of Scotland. Rather, it can be accessed via boat or a 16-mile walk. Because of this, it is also known as “Britain’s last wilderness”.

    However, this last wilderness is under a new threat. The government has proposed to install a network of 4G masts to cover the peninsula.  But the plans are being met with fierce defiance from the tight-knit local community.

    The Shared Rural Network

    The project – called the Shared Rural Network (SRN) – aims to hit 90% mobile coverage in Scotland by 2025. It will run a bill of some £1bn, which the government plans to split with the country’s four largest mobile network providers. The catch is that this could necessitate a swathe of 4G mast sites.

    The local community has owned most of the peninsula since 1999. The Knoydart Foundation oversees the area and its wildlife on their behalf. Finlay Greig, one of the Foundation’s rangers, said:

    The Knoydart Foundation was contacted by Gateley/Hamer earlier this year and we accompanied them during an on-the-ground survey of potential sites in March.

    What was instantly striking was the scale of the project and the sites being discussed for potential masts. It was difficult to see any possible benefit for the community.

    Gateley/Hamer is a consultancy that advertises services specialising in the management of compulsory purchase orders (CPOs). CPOs allow the government to obtain land without the owner’s consent, usually on the grounds of serving the greater public.

    Following the survey visit, the locals learned that the project was pursuing 11 locations for mast installations. No fewer than three were on community-owned land.

    Huge costs, little gain

    The SRN’s website claims that it will provide coverage for 16,000km of roads and 280,000 premises. Further, it also indicates a range of potential benefits for these areas, such as reducing health, economic and social inequalities.

    However, the sites which have been explored on Knoydart would play only a tiny part in this. It has a population hovering around just 130 people in total, and some 26km of roads.

    One of the sites – identified as a potential hub for the network – is located near the village of Inverie. However, the others are in remote, unpopulated glens. Because of this, there is no infrastructure nearby to support the 4G masts.

    In turn, this has led to strong speculation that they would need to be constructed and maintained using helicopters and fossil fuel generators that could devastate the environment.

    Forester Grant Holroyd stated that:

    There’s no justification for mobile coverage in the proposed areas where people don’t live.

    I think this is a totally unjustified waste of money and a gross unnecessary contribution to carbon emissions.

    These structures will require regular maintenance. For example, if they have diesel generators they will need to be refuelled every 500 hours and these masts will need to be maintained by helicopter which is an outrageous source of carbon emissions.

    Already served, thank you

    On top of all this, the recent Scottish 4G Infill programme already installed a 4G mast on the peninsula. It grants EE mobile coverage to most of the area where signal was previously unavailable, and boosts emergency services coverage.

    A community consultation of the Knoydart residents regarding the proposals for the SRN masts received 104 responses. The opposition to the plans was unanimous.

    Stephanie Harris, a manager of the community-owned pub The Old Forge, said:

    I have been involved in many community engagement activities over the years, and the level of response we received for this consultation was the highest and most unified I have seen from our community.

    Our community has stated very clearly that we do not want or need more masts, and that position must be respected.

    It would be an outrage if contractors were to pursue legal action.

    The Knoydart Foundation wrote to the Scottish and UK governments, informing them of the locals’ position. It stressed that they would not support building any masts on community-owned land.

    Stephanie added that:

    We have consulted with our community and the opinion is clear – over 100 residents signed a declaration against these proposals and this must be taken seriously by the Government and mobile network operators.

    Our declaration summarises all the reasons we think this project is ludicrous, but for me there is the overarching issue of this being imposed on us, and we’re just supposed to accept it.

    Moving forward, we welcome constructive dialogue with those implementing SRN, and will do what we need to to make sure that our voices are heard.”

    Knoydart: a community united

    Over a hundred members of the Knoydart community joined together to sign a declaration of the reasons behind their opposition. The list stated that the scheme:

    • will not provide any additional benefit to the inhabited areas of the peninsula, now that the S4G Infill mast at Loch Bhraomisaig is operational.
    • is disproportionate in terms of population and landscape.
    • is a wasteful use of public funds.
    • will have a hugely negative impact on the environment and aesthetics of Knoydart’s National Scenic Area and Wild Land Area.
    • will likely become defunct in a short period of time, due to technology advancements.
    • is not necessary to improve safety in the remote areas of the peninsula, and actually has the potential to increase unsafe roaming and accidents.
    • conflicts with the net-zero aspirations of our community and government, requiring extensive use of carbon fuels for construction and operating remote equipment.
    • conflicts with one the Unique Selling Points of the peninsula – “remoteness” – and has the potential to harm our vital tourism economy.

    When the BBC approached the UK Government for comment, a spokesperson stated that:

    Reliable connectivity is fundamental to making sure all the UK can access the growth and opportunity offered by a digital economy. Delivering this, the Shared Rural Network (SRN) programme tackles the digital divide across the UK – including all of the most remote parts of Scotland – by providing high-speed 4G connections for the first time, supporting the economy while also opening up access to key services like 999 calls.

    The location of sites is determined by operators to ensure they are able to reach their coverage objectives, and they will continue to work closely with local communities and planning authorities to ensure new masts go through the proper planning process, and are considerate to areas of natural beauty.

    The situation regarding the construction of the 4G masts is far from resolved. However, the locals look set to put up a fight before any further construction threatens their remote wilderness home.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/ Subarite, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, resized to 1910 * 1000.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Oxfam caves to pressure and deletes Pride video containing the supposed likeness of JK Rowling

    Oxfam has come under fire on Twitter for a short animation it posted as part of its #ProtectThePride campaign. Critics claimed that a red-eyed, snarling figure wearing a TERF (trans-exclusionary radical feminist) badge resembled author J.K. Rowling. In recent years, Rowling has become increasingly known for her anti-trans opinions.

    Oxfam’s video

    Oxfam quickly took down the video and issued a statement of apology. However, the charity denied that the likeness was intentional.

    As Pink News reported:

    Created by Falana Films, a Bangalore-based, women-led studio, the minute-long cartoon looked at the various ways queer people are denied basic human rights, as well as the means by which people can protect and champion safety for LGBTQ+ communities.

    The video became the source of criticism for showing a character wearing a TERF badge alongside two other characters, meant to represent the hate groups that attack LGBTQ+ communities online and offline.

    Cue the inevitable pile-on from the various transphobic corners of Twitter. We’ll leave aside for a moment the irony of seeing a demonic redhead cartoon character growling at an LGBT group and immediately assuming that it must be Rowling.

    Sure enough, Oxfam quickly caved to the pressure. It first posted that it had taken the video down:

    Then, the charity also shared an edited version of the video. It removed references to TERFs as a hate group, along with the supposed likeness of Rowling. This came with a lengthy apology:

    Oxfam’s statement accompanying the new video read:

    Oxfam believes that all people should be able to make decisions which affect their lives, enjoy their rights and live a life free of discrimination and violence, including people from LGBTQIA+ communities.

    In efforts to make an important point about the real harm caused by transphobia, we made a mistake.

    We have therefore edited the video to remove the term TERF and we are sorry for the offence it caused. There was no intention by Oxfam or the film-makers for this slide to have portrayed any particular person or people.

    We fully support both an individual’s rights to hold their philosophical beliefs and a person’s right to have their identity respected, regardless of their sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and sex characteristics.

    Rowling and the TERFs

    The thing is, though, it’s somewhat difficult to ascertain the transphobic crowd’s motivation in objecting to the video. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the figure in the video was Rowling.

    There are problems with the ‘TERF’ label, to be sure. There’s very little that’s radical about the idea of excluding trans people. Many mainstream politicians share it – Boris Johnson, Rishi Sunak, and Kemi Badenoch amongst them – along with some distinctly anti-feminist figures and a whole bunch of literal Nazis.

    That aside, ‘TERF’ is a label that Rowling has very much associated herself with. For example, she posted a lengthy diatribe on her website. When she shared the same post on Twitter she did so by calling it ‘TERF wars‘. Likewise, she posted a tweet wishing people a “Merry Terfmas”.

    If the objection is that Rowling isn’t opposed to trans people and their rights, that doesn’t hold much water either. Her lengthy diatribe mentioned above included “five reasons for being worried about the new trans activism”. She famously likened the trans rights movement to the death eaters, the villains from her own book, calling it a “powerful, insidious, misogynistic movement”. And, she flat-out ignored trans men’s existence in her rant on the use of the phrase “people who menstruate”.

    Of course, Rowling did insist that she isn’t transphobic, and would “march with [trans people] if [they] were discriminated against on the basis of being trans”. However, during a time of rising transphobic hate crime, such support hasn’t been forthcoming.

    #OxfamHatesWomen

    Now, despite taking down the video, the hashtag ‘Oxfam hates women’ has gained a flood of transphobic support on Twitter. Except, it isn’t women that Oxfam depicted in a negative light, is it? It’s transphobes, who are not synonymous with women. In fact, on average, women are far more likely to be trans inclusive than men.

    Oxfam’s capitulation is as predictable as it is disappointing. We are already seeing brands quietly walking back their support for queer causes as transphobic and homophobic hatred mounts.

    Charities, brands, and all public-facing organisations must learn one thing very rapidly. Support for LGBTQ+ people no longer comes for free. The slings and arrows aimed at trans people will also be levelled at their allies – now, we will see who stands firm, and who quietly walks away.

    Featured image via screenshot Twitter/OxfamInternational

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Scathing federal injunction blocks Florida ban on trans youth healthcare

    On 6 June, a federal district court issued a preliminary injunction blocking the enforcement of Florida’s recent law – SB 254 – banning healthcare for trans youth. It also prevents Florida State Boards of Medicine and Osteopathic Medicine from putting the laws into practice.

    The order is a victory for the parents of trans kids challenging the ban. It allows their children to access necessary medical care while the legal challenge is ongoing.

    Statements of relief

    The parents are claiming that SB 254 and the Boards of Medicine rules effectively remove their constitutional rights to make informed decisions regarding their children’s healthcare. They also argue that the laws impinge on the equal protection rights of trans adolescents to access necessary and effective medical treatment.

    Jane Doe, the lead plaintiff, is fighting the ban on behalf of her daughter. She said:

    My husband and I have been heartbroken and worried sick about not being able to care for our daughter in the way we know she needs. I’m sure most any parent can imagine the sense of powerlessness that comes from being unable to do something as basic as get medical care for your child. Today my entire family is breathing a huge sigh of relief knowing we can now access the treatment that we know will keep Susan healthy and allow her to continue being the happy, confident child she has been.

    The plaintiffs are being represented by Southern Legal Counsel, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, and the Human Rights Campaign. Together, they stated that:

    Today’s ruling is a powerful affirmation of the humanity of transgender people, the efficacy of well-established, science-based medical care, and of the rights of parents to make informed healthcare decisions for their children. The court recognized the profound harm the state of Florida is causing by forcing parents to watch their kids suffer rather than provide them with safe and effective care that will allow them to thrive. We are incredibly relieved that these Florida parents can continue to get healthcare for their children while we proceed to challenge these bans and eventually see them fully overturned.

    Florida court slams trans ban

    The case against the SB 254 and Boards of Medicine healthcare bans will now proceed to trial. This process should be quite rapid – and the court indicated that the plaintiffs are likely to succeed. What’s more, the court was searing in its dismissal of the motives behind the ban itself.

    For a start, the court outright refused attempts to deny the fact that trans people exist:

    Any proponent of the challenged statute and rules should put up or shut up: do you acknowledge that there are individuals with actual gender identities opposite their natal sex, or do you not? Dog whistles ought not be tolerated.

    Likewise, when the defendants repeatedly resorted to blatant falsehoods, the court rebuked them:

    The defendants have asserted time and again that Florida now treats GnRH agonists and cross–sex hormones the same as European countries. The assertion is false. And no matter how many times the defendants say it, it will still be false.

    ‘GnRH agonists’ are, in this context, more commonly known as ‘puberty blockers’. Their use is, as the court recognised, not under a blanket ban in Europe.

    More subtle arguments: still wrong

    Moreover, when the state’s side tried to argue that the use of puberty blockers and hormones is wrong because they are ‘off label’, the court was having none of it. ‘Off label’ here refers to the fact that puberty blockers are primarily used for other purposes, such as cancer treatment. The injunction retorted:

    That the FDA has not approved these drugs for treatment of gender dysphoria says precisely nothing about whether the drugs are safe and effective when used for that purpose. Off–label use of drugs is commonplace and widely accepted across the medical profession. The defendants’ contrary implication is divorced from reality.

    The district court also addressed – and outright dismissed – an argument against puberty blockers which has become regrettably familiar in the UK. The Cass Review of UK trans youth healthcare questioned the use of puberty blockers because an overwhelming majority of users go on to take hormone replacement therapy.

    The injunction noted that this effect was likely a demonstration that the treatment was prescribed appropriately. It stated:

    The defendants note that 98% or more of adolescents treated with GnRH agonists progress to cross–sex hormones. That is hardly an indictment of the treatment; it is instead consistent with the view that in 98% or more of the cases, the patient’s gender identity did not align with natal sex, this was accurately determined, and the patient was appropriately treated first with GnRH agonists and later with cross–sex hormones.

    There’s the catch

    The court’s conclusion was simple and powerful:

    Gender identity is real. Those whose gender identity does not match their natal sex often suffer gender dysphoria. The widely accepted standard of care calls for evaluation and treatment by a multidisciplinary team. Proper treatment begins with mental–health therapy and is followed in appropriate cases by GnRH agonists and cross–sex hormones. Florida has adopted a statute and rules that prohibit these treatments even when medically appropriate.

    Here’s the catch both for Florida legislators and for anyone working to oppose trans healthcare: trans people exist. Many trans people have gender dysphoria. Some of those trans people are children. There is a broad consensus among actual healthcare professionals regarding the appropriate treatment for gender dysphoria.

    Anyone seeking to oppose those treatments will have to come equipped to tackle established, evidence-based science. Courts of law have a far higher standard of evidence than the court of public opinion. It will take far more than emotive language to successfully strip healthcare from the young people who need it.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Elsa Paulson, made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication, resized to 1910*1000

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Elon Musk loses another high-up Twitter exec over his support of transphobic ‘What is a woman?’ video

    On Friday 2 June, Twitter’s head of trust and safety – Ella Irwin – confirmed she had quit the company. Her departure came after owner Elon Musk endorsed an anti-transgender video shared on the platform. At least one other high-level Twitter executive – A.J. Brown – also left after the incident.

    A day after Irwin’s resignation was reported in US media, she posted to Twitter:

    I know there’s been a lot of speculation regarding what happened… I did resign but this has been a once in a lifetime experience.

    Twitter: a company in chaos

    Irwin is the second head of trust and safety to quit Twitter since Musk bought the platform. He has now reduced content moderation to essentially permit anything allowed by law.

    Since taking over Twitter in late October, Musk has seemingly run the company into the ground. Although he bought the site for $44bn, its value has plummeted.

    Moves made by the billionaire included sacking most of his staff, readmitting banned far-right accounts to the platform, suspending journalists, and charging for previously free services. This spooked advertisers, many of whom left the platform due to concerns over their products being associated with troubling content.

    Musk said during a CNBC interview in May that he will continue to tweet his unfiltered thoughts even if it hurts his businesses. When asked what he thought of his controversial tweets making it harder to sell ads on Twitter or hurting the share price of Tesla, he said:

    I don’t care… I’ll say what I want to say and if the consequence of that is losing money, so be it.

    Musk: courting the far right

    Irwin’s departure came after Twitter was put under pressure by backers of an anti-transgender video called ‘What Is A Woman?’. They claimed that Twitter went back on a deal made with the Daily Wire to distribute the content free on the platform.

    The video was created as the pet project of self-described “theocratic fascist” Matt Walsh. Walsh’s extreme hate speech against all members of the LGBTQ+ community is well known.

    For example, on the subject of gay marriage, he claimed that “a union between two homosexuals is not, never has been, and never will be a legitimate marriage”, and stated that it would become “an institution populated by all forms of depravity and corruption”.

    Pink News also thoroughly documented – and debunked – his claims that the increase in the number of queer kids was because:

    The media, Hollywood and the school system actively recruit children into the LGBT ranks.

    ‘What is a woman?’

    The film itself is little better than its creator. For a start, Walsh apparently attempted to trick trans people into appearing in it by masquerading as a queer-friendly organisation.

    Whilst obviously transphobic, it also dabbled in regular old misogyny – even though it notably won praise from the likes of J. K. Rowling and other ‘gender critical’ pseudofeminsts. For example, Gawker reported on the damning conclusion to its titular question:

    As his wife confirms at the end of the film in the family kitchen, a woman is “an adult human female, who” — here she hands him an apparently woman-proof jar — “needs help opening this”.

    The film also contains a speech given by Walsh at a school board meeting concerning the rights of trans pupils. In it, he said:

    You are all child abusers. You prey upon impressionable children and indoctrinate them into your insane ideological cult, a cult which holds many fanatical views but none so deranged as the idea that boys are girls and girls are boys.

    Hate speech: apparently fine now

    So, obvious misogyny and queerphobia from a hatemongering fascist whom we can all agree is best ignored? Sure enough, users flagged the video for its sensitive content and promotion of hate speech.

    But no! There’s a free pass, so long as you’re bashing trans people along the way.

    Musk said in a Twitter exchange with the creators that people had made a mistake. The video was reinstated on the platform. A post for the video reading “Every parent should watch this” was pinned to the top of Musk’s Twitter account.

    This whole sorry saga is a microcosm of the political climate around trans people at the moment. Transphobia is a gateway issue. So long as you start by saying “aren’t those transes awful?”, you can get people to nod along with pretty much any hateful shite you care to say afterwards.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse. 

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Debbie Rowe, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, resized to 1910*1000

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Rainbow capitalism was always going to fold if anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment rose: now, we’re at that moment

    The months running up to Pride have seen right-wing shitheads whipping themselves into a frenzy regarding rainbow branding – particularly in the US. In turn, shops such as Target have begun to quietly drop their Pride merchandise.

    My problem here isn’t the potential of seeing less queer branding in shops, per se. They’re a cash grab, and always were. This is called ‘rainbow capitalism‘:

    Rainbow capitalism, aka pink capitalism, is the action of companies claiming to support LGBTQ+ causes and communities, but are actually making merchandise for-profit and capitalize on the trend. In other words, it centers on corporate interests and profit.

    The rise of rainbow capitalism was never a sign that companies themselves support queer people. Companies support anything that makes them money. For a while, slapping the Pride colours on t-shirts, vodka bottles, and dog leashes was an easy way to do that.

    Now, as homophobia, transphobia, and all the rest are once again on the rise, we’ll see more and more companies quietly shrink their Pride displays and merch lines. This, in itself, I don’t give a shit about. But it is a fucking terrifying sign of the times.

    Bud Light

    Back in April, Dylan Mulvaney – a trans actress and influencer – posted a video to her Instagram. In the video, Mulvaney revealed that brewing company Anheuser-Busch InBev sent her a personalized Bud Light can with her face on it to celebrate the anniversary of her gender transition.

    Though Mulvaney has some 10 million followers on social media app TikTok, she isn’t exactly a household name. However, the gift was enough for some conservatives to declare Bud Light a ‘trans beer’. They even called for a boycott against the company – and other brands that Mulvaney has worked with – for going ‘woke’.

    But that obviously wasn’t enough. Trump-loving musician Kid Rock filmed himself shooting cans of Bud Light with an assault rifle. A man went on a rampage in a Kansas Walmart store, hurling cans of Bud Light and Busch Light across the floor. Anheuser-Busch factories reported bomb threats being made against them.

    In response, the company CEO issued a lukewarm statement that:

    We never intended to be part of a discussion that divides people.

    LGBTQ+ campaigners pointed out that the company was trying to weasel its way out by distancing itself from Mulvaney.

    Target

    More recently, on 23 May, big-box retailer Target said that it had removed products to commemorate Pride month. It cited threats to employees in the wake of criticism by social conservatives. The giant US chain has showcased rainbow-colored items celebrating Pride for more than a decade.

    Conservative activists have filmed themselves at stores expressing outrage at “tuck friendly” swimsuits designed for trans customers. In a now-familiar pattern, they also destroyed displays and sent bomb threats to stores.

    Target said in a statement:

    Since introducing this year’s collection, we’ve experienced threats impacting our team members’ sense of safety and well-being while at work.

    Given these volatile circumstances, we are making adjustments to our plans, including removing items that have been at the center of the most significant confrontational behavior.

    Our focus now is on moving forward with our continuing commitment to the LGBTQIA+ community and standing with them as we celebrate Pride Month and throughout the year.

    Except, they’re doing the opposite of ‘continuing commitment’, aren’t they? Right-wing tools threw their dummy out the pram, got violent, and were promptly given exactly what they wanted.

    Not the only ones

    Bud Light and Target are by no means alone, either. Pink News put together a list of over 40 brands that are being targeted for their perceived support of Pride and LGBTQ+ people. These include Hershey’s, Disney, and even Tesco.

    Daniel Korschun, associate professor of marketing at Drexel University, stated that executives:

    are becoming much more skittish about taking these stands and making strong statements…The pendulum is swinging a bit back… toward a more conservative approach, where they’ll be less vocal.

    Professor Sophie Bjork-James of the US-based Vanderbilt University, who works on white nationalism, pointed out that this reticence from companies was exactly what the right is after. She said in an interview:

    I think this will embolden alt-right actors, who now are going to believe that with social media campaigns and targeted actions against retailers that they can proceed in limiting visibility of LGBTQ people.

    Remember your Pride

    I didn’t like it when more and more shops started slapping the Pride flag on their stuff. But now, removing the rainbow because it might hurt a brand’s image or some shit is only going to add insult to injury.

    I’ve got two points that I want to leave off on here. Select whichever seems most appropriate.

    If you consider yourself an ally, over the coming month while you’re out shopping, pay attention to the Pride merch you see around you. I don’t care if you don’t buy it: I wouldn’t. But ask – are the shops going as hard as they did in previous years? Take note of those that’ve put their rainbow shite to the back aisles like a shameful little secret.

    And, for my fellow queers, it is – as ever – a great time to remember that Pride is a protest. The most important item of Pride merchandise is, and will always be, a brick. They’re very cheap. You can paint it yourself if you really want to.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Missvain, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, resized to 1910×1000. 

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The misconduct investigation into the EHRC’s Kishwer Falkner was over before it even began

    Before it had even begun, a misconduct investigation into Kishwer Falkner – the chair of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – has been halted. The EHRC issued a statement on 26 May, saying that:

    This investigation has been paused. This is while we seek legal advice on the impact of leaked confidential information. We must ensure its integrity and that it is fair to all parties concerned.

    Staff at the equalities watchdog had put together a dossier of 40 alleged instances of their boss’s discrimination, harassment, bullying, and transphobia. These include referring to Emma Laslett – a trans disability activist and Mastermind contestant – as a “bloke in lipstick” during an official EHRC board meeting.

    The news of the pause came just hours after 54 cross-party peers voiced support for Falkner. They called the claims “vexatious” and a “political chess game”.

    Bullying and harassment in the EHRC

    More broadly, the EHRC itself has also come under fire. Channel 4 collected statements citing a “lack of trust in the impartiality and independence of our Board” and “an increase in bullying, harassment and discrimination”. Marcial Boo, EHRC chief executive, responded by saying:

    We treat allegations of bullying and harassment with the utmost seriousness, following the proper process, and instructing independent investigators where appropriate, in order to provide assurance to all parties concerned. It would be wrong to comment on specifics when investigations are ongoing.

    She also claimed that the commission’s “annual turnover is in line with the average across the public sector”. This, however, may be difficult to believe. Fully one-quarter of staff left in 2022 alone, according to leaked figures.

    VICE originally broke the story of the mass EHRC resignations back in April. In particular, the article highlighted seven high-profile figures leaving the organisation. These included a commissioner, an executive director, four directors, and a committee member.

    One staff member told VICE:

    It’s not difficult to draw a line between the letter that was sent by the commission to the government and employees leaving. People have been involved in the current publications, and been very unhappy, and they’ve been expressing their discomfort for a while, so clearly now enough is enough.

    There has been no effort made to look for evidence on any actual real-life issues in relation to the policy of rights between (cis) women and trans people. And it just seems to be a case of going full-steam ahead without considering any evidence, and I think the commission is inflaming a culture war.

    Another ex-staffer later said:

    One paper was so heavily edited by Falkner that it left people speechless. She changed the case studies, the language… It was so transphobic, there was no way it would get published.

    Independence under question

    The claims that the EHRC lacks independence from the government echoed criticism levelled at the watchdog recently by Stonewall and other queer advocacy groups. In answer, an EHRC spokesperson stated:

    We take all decisions impartially, based on evidence and the law, both in the UK and internationally.

    Our independence is guaranteed in statute.

    The way the EHRC is governed, and Commissioners appointed, is set out in the Equality Act and has not changed since the Commission was established.

    However, this assertion is questionable at best. In recent years, the EHRC has been toeing very close to the Tories’ distinctly transphobic party line. Coincidentally, Falkner took over the commission in 2020. According to research collective The Trans Safety Network, she quickly made opposing trans rights an “early priority” in her work.

    Most recently, at the behest of Kemi Badenoch, the organisation offered advice on removing a huge swathe of protections from the Equality Act.

    Regarding this advice, an independent UN expert accused the EHRC of offering the government a ‘formula to discriminate’ against trans people. The EHRC replied:

    It is disappointing that trans people are being given the message that the potential change would make it impossible for them to live their day to day lives safely and with dignity. Such unfounded remarks simply generate more fear and concern among a community that already experiences too much discrimination.

    Again, though, the criticisms were far from “unfounded”. The potential effects on trans people’s lives are both clear and wide-ranging. Most obviously, it would strip the legal protections provided to trans people according to their lived genders.

    Spot the trans activist

    The Telegraph reported the pausing of the investigation as following:

    a growing backlash over an attempted coup by trans-activist civil servants.

    It should not be forgotten that these civil servants signed up to work at the Equality and Human Rights Commission. When they did so, they presumably thought that their labour would contribute to the advancement of those same human rights. Though it is increasingly clear that many members of the UK government disagree, trans people are included among the category of humans.

    The fact that human rights workers can be brushed off wholesale precisely because they are trying to advance human rights would be laughable, were it not so sickening. British society has reached a point where any attempt to prevent the destruction of existing trans protections makes one a trans activist. Then, in turn, being a trans activist means that one can be ignored.

    A foregone conclusion

    This applies across over and over. The results of the consultation on self-ID were ignored because they were overwhelmingly favourable. Officials claimed they were “skewed by an avalanche of responses generated by trans rights groups”.

    The census says there are too many trans people, so the census must be wrong.

    Trans activists are a “savage… mob” when they criticise a singer online. On the other hand, a hate campaigner who attracts literal salute-snapping Nazis to her rallies is a “women’s rights activist”.

    And, of course, critics of trans clinics like Tavistock are reported as “whistleblowers”. But the whistleblowers at the EHRC are partisan trans activists.

    You know what? Keep your fucking investigation. Even if it had found that Falkner was a bully and a transphobe, the government that appointed her would have clapped anyway. There can be no fair hearing for trans people or their allies in the UK.

    All of this was a foregone conclusion.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Roger Harris, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported license, resized to 1910*1000. 

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • DeSantis announces White House bid following long campaign of discrimination

    On 24 May, Florida governor Ron DeSantis launched his 2024 presidential campaign. The Republican said in a video posted to Twitter:

    I’m Ron DeSantis and I’m running for president to lead our great American comeback.

    He released the footage moments before the scheduled start of a chaotic livestreamed Twitter chat with Elon Musk, during which he was planning to make his formal announcement.

    In his speech, DeSantis vowed to lead Americans into a new era of success and fight for their freedoms. However, his recent streak of lawmaking shows that his commitment to ‘freedom’ is far from the actual case.

    Campaign of discrimination

    Back in April, DeSantis brought in a 6-week abortion ban. This makes his state one of the most restrictive in the US regarding abortion rights. The same law also requires that survivors of rape and incest show ‘proof’ of what happened to them in order to qualify for a termination.

    On May 10, he signed what he called the “strongest anti-illegal immigration bill in the nation” to bar undocumented workers from jobs in the state. Starting July 1, businesses will be required to use the federal E-Verify system to check the legal status of all new employees. They would also face heavy fines for defying the law and employing undocumented people.

    Likewise, healthcare providers would be required to collect immigration status in order to provide treatment. This would be a strong deterrent to undocumented individuals, massively restricting their access to healthcare.

    Then, on May 15, the governor signed legislation regarding diversity in universities. It prohibits Florida’s public higher education institutions from spending federal money on diversity and inclusion initiatives. He also placed limits on courses and materials teaching critical race or gender theories in both schools and universities.

    And none of this is to mention the prolonged campaign of discrimination he has launched against queer, and particularly trans, people in his state.

    Travel warnings

    In fact, the situation for minorities in Florida has become so dire that two separate human rights bodies have issued travel warnings. They are advising people to take extreme caution in visiting the state.

    The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) is the US’ largest LGBTQ+ organisation. It issued a joint statement with Equality Florida warning on the risks of movement to or within the Florida. It stated that:

    Taken in their totality, Florida’s slate of laws and policies targeting basic freedoms and rights pose significant risk to the health and safety of many considering relocation and/or temporary travel to the state. We deeply regret that these attacks have already led LGBTQ families and others to flee the state and are driving more to consider relocation. And, in a state whose economy is fueled by visitors from around the world, it is with great sadness that Equality Florida has had to take the extraordinary step of responding to inquiries by issuing an official advisory warning of the risks associated with travel to the state.

    Nadine Smith – director of Equality Florida Executive Director – added that:

     Governor Ron DeSantis has inflicted deep and lasting damage upon our state, eroding the fundamental rights of our residents and visitors while exploiting the word ‘free’ as a hollow campaign slogan.

    In a similar move, the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People) also took the drastic measure of issuing a travel advisory. The NAACP is a major campaign group which advocates for the civil rights of Black people in America. It’s statement warned that:

    Florida is openly hostile toward African Americans, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals. Before traveling to Florida, please understand that the state of Florida devalues and marginalizes the contributions of, and the challenges faced by African Americans and other communities of color.

    NAACP president Derrick Johnson added that:

    Under the leadership of Governor Desantis, the state of Florida has become hostile to Black Americans and in direct conflict with the democratic ideals that our union was founded upon.

    The warnings issued by these campaign groups are stark. But, more than that, they are so intensely disheartening. Marginalised people should not need to be scared when moving about a country, but this is the point that America has reached.

    If DeSantis’ treatment of the people in his own state is anything to go by, we should all be worried about the prospect of him becoming president of the US.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Office of Governor Ron DeSantis, public domain, resized to 1910*1000. 

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Florida’s DeSantis issues slew of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation ahead of presidential campaign

    Republican governor Ron DeSantis recently passed a slew of legislation restricting the lives of trans people living in the state of Florida. The new laws join a host of similar anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced across the US in recent months. At least 500 repressive bills have been proposed, and 48 were passed.

    However, Florida is drawing particular attention because of its governor’s impending presidential bid. Though DeSantis has not yet confirmed whether he will actually run, he is widely tipped to do so.

    He may launch his campaign as early as next week. However, inside sources claimed that he plans to launch his campaign within Pride month, June. This would be a further twist of the knife for the queer Floridians impacted by his lawmaking, which itself may appeal to conservative voters.

    Meanwhile, on a visit to the UK, the Republican governor praised the work of equalities minister Kemi Badenoch – and told the Telegraph that she approved of his actions, too. So what exactly has DeSantis been doing?

    DeSantis: targeting trans kids

    On 17 May, DeSantis signed his latest set of anti-LGBTQ+ laws. Amongst other things, Senate Bill 254 bars physicians and health workers from offering transition-related medical care to minors. It also makes it a first-degree misdemeanor for healthcare providers to give any such treatments.

    This includes the use of puberty blockers and hormone therapy. It comes in spite of the widespread consensus on the effectiveness and medical necessity of these treatments from the medical and scientific communities responsible for their use.

    The Republican majority in the state legislature gave him its full support, despite condemnation from Democrats. The vote drew the ire of associations such as Equality Florida, which advocates for the rights of the LGBTQ+ community. Director of public policy for the group Jon Harris said in a statement:

    It’s an assault on medical freedom and the freedom to parent… This crusade is about political aspirations, but it has real world consequences for Florida families.

    The new legislation also allows state courts to obtain custody of a child who is “being subjected to sex-reassignment prescriptions or procedures”. In turn, this would place the child at the mercy of the state’s custody system. which has been found to be complicit in child sex trafficking.

    Repression in Florida

    Part of the legislation has misleadingly been dubbed the ‘Let Kids Be Kids’ package. However, although it is cloaked in a language of protecting children, it’s by no means limited to minors in its scope or impact.

    For example, it tightens access for adults by prohibiting any public funding of trans treatments. It also prevents doctors from offering them through telehealth rather than in-person care.

    Further, trans adults would have to obtain written consent from the Board of Medicine and Board of Osteopathic Medicine for their treatment. Both boards are appointed by DeSantis, and have already begun stripping trans healthcare provisions.

    The World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) joined in condemning the legislation. The organisation stated that it would have:

    a chilling effect on the medical community by inserting politics into healthcare.

    Outside of healthcare, a ‘bathroom bill’ – HB1521 – will restrict access to all public toilets and facilities to “biological sex”. This severely limits general public life for the majority of trans people. For many, it will force them either to out themselves or break the law.

    Another law, this time titled ‘Protecting Children’s Innocence’, threatens businesses with losing their licences if they allow children to watch drag shows. It defines these performances flatly as “adult live performances”, and feeds into the current moral panic around drag in both the US and UK.

    Echoes of Section 28

    On top of this, Florida schools are no longer allowed to teach on sexuality or gender identity – in a stark echo of the UK’s Thatcherite Section 28. This originally became law in March 2022 as the ‘Parental Rights in Education Bill’. However, it became infamous under the moniker ‘Don’t Say Gay’. Now, DeSantis has expanded it to apply up to the 12th grade.

    The bill requires deeply heteronormative and trans-exclusionary teaching at its core. It states:

    that sex is determined by biology and reproductive function at birth; that biological males impregnate biological females by fertilizing the female egg with male sperm; that the female then gestates the offspring; and that these reproductive roles are binary, stable, and unchangeable.

    Likewise, teachers are no longer permitted to share their pronouns with students, or to allow students to do the same. This effectively prevents any trans teacher from working in the state without being constantly misgendered.

    In turn, this is already forcing queer educators in the state to consider fleeing. One such trans teacher, Micah Desiante, said:

    I don’t really feel like I have a choice but to leave if I need to be safe… I don’t think I could stay for my mental health. I don’t think that I could be effective the way that I am and my passion if I’m constantly watching what I say, second-guessing what I’m teaching, worried about a student misperceiving my lesson.

    Meanwhile, in the UK

    DeSantis has not gone unnoticed by fellow right-wing politicians in the UK – and vice-versa. In particular, he visited London as part of a world tour in late April. There, he met with women and equalities minister Kemi Badenoch and foreign secretary James Cleverly.

    Chillingly, he later told the Telegraph that:

    She complimented what we are doing in Florida. She committed that it is what they are trying to do in Britain… She pointed out, and I think it’s true, that some of the woke has been exported from the United States. I commend her and her efforts to make sure that this is not corrupting British society.

    Badenoch is already known for her transphobic views and policymaking. However, this seems a step further – more open, more brazen. DeSantis claimed that she voiced approval of his nakedly discriminatory actions. Likewise, he clearly likes what she is doing in the UK.

    The endorsement of a man like DeSantis should be career ending. It should be a neon ‘do not vote for me’ sign. Hell, it should make any decent human being turn and run.

    That fact that DeSantis’ words saw none of these consequences is proof – if ever it was needed – of how far Britain and the Conservatives have slid towards right-wing authoritarianism.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, public domain, resized to 1910*1000.

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • UK sued after refusal to accept all Windrush scandal reforms

    On 6 April, Britain’s government faced legal action by campaigners over its refusal to accept key recommendations made by an inquiry into the Windrush scandal, which affected thousands of Black post-war immigrants.

    Interior minister Suella Braverman in January refused to accept three of the changes previously promised by the Conservative government.

    The group Black Equity Organisation, created last year to campaign for the civil rights of Black Britons, said it was seeking a judicial review of the home secretary’s decision.

    The group’s chief executive Wanda Wyporska said in a statement:

    The Home Office must be opened up to independent scrutiny and forced to honour the promises made in its name.

    Windrush survivors have been through enough and this latest twist in a shameful story adds insult to injury.

    The group will also present a petition with some 50,000 signatories to PM Rishi Sunak’s offices at 10 Downing Street.

    Windrush

    The MV Empire Windrush ship was one of the vessels that brought workers from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, and other Caribbean islands to help fill UK labour shortages after World War II.

    As the Canary previously stated:

    The Windrush scandal refers to the Home Office‘s unlawful detention, deportation and denial of hundreds of Commonwealth citizens’ rights, having destroyed thousands of immigration records. At least 21 people have died before receiving the compensation they applied for.

    Five years ago, campaigners revealed that thousands of the British citizens had been wrongly detained or deported. This was under the Conservative government’s hardline immigration policies.

    Many lost homes and jobs, and were denied access to healthcare and benefits. Some died before their names could be cleared.

    The subsequent independent inquiry issued 30 recommendations, which Braverman’s predecessor agreed to adopt in full.

    However, Braverman rejected more powers for Britain’s independent chief inspector of borders. She also refused a commissioner to safeguard migrants’ interests, and the holding of reconciliation events. There was no immediate comment from her ministry as to the legal action.

    In their open letter to the government campaigners wrote:

    Instead of scrapping key commitments, we urge your government to stick to the promises made – there is still an opportunity to show that you and your ministers are serious about righting past wrongs.

    To do anything less sends a clear message that the suffering of the Windrush generation was in vain and the hostile environment still exists.

    Featured image via Youtube/Sky News

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Bold talk, slow walk as Brazil’s Lula sets out to save Amazon

    When it comes to what some call his most important job – saving the Amazon rainforest – president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva has been talking the talk, vowing “Brazil is back” in the fight against climate change.

    Now, environmentalists say it is time for him to walk the walk. It’s also time for the international community to put its money where its mouth is by ramping up funding to protect the Amazon, a vital resource in the race to curb global warming.

    Lula, who marks his 100th day in office on 10 April, has made a radical break with the environmental policies of far-right predecessor Jair Bolsonaro. The new president vowed to fight for zero deforestation in the Amazon after a surge of destruction over the past four years.

    On his first day in office, Lula signed decrees to undo Bolsonaro’s environmental legacy. These created an inter-ministerial anti-deforestation task force and revived the suspended Amazon Fund, an internationally financed initiative to protect the rainforest.

    However, environmentalists say they are still waiting for the next step from him and respected Environment Minister Marina Silva. Brazil needs concrete actions to stop the destruction of the Amazon by land-grabbers, cattle ranches, and illegal gold mines. Cristiane Mazzetti of Greenpeace Brasil told Agence France-Presse (AFP):

    We’re finally back to having a quote-unquote ‘normal’ government.

    Now we’re just waiting for it to enter the implementation phase.

    We need to see results.

    Show me the money

    Despite receiving a warm welcome on the world stage, Lula has struggled to get wealthy countries to fund the fight to protect the Amazon.

    He came away from a high-profile White House visit with Joe Biden in February with a vague promise of US “intent” to support the Amazon Fund. However, the US provided no date or specific amount.

    In January, Germany pledged 200m euros for the rainforest. This included 35m euros for the Amazon Fund, which was launched in 2008 with a $1 billion commitment from Norway.

    But Brazil’s efforts to get the European Union, Britain, France, and Spain to contribute have yet to pan out.

    Environmentalists say Lula’s cash-strapped government is in a bind. It needs more money to reduce deforestation, but needs to reduce deforestation to attract more money. Rodrigo Castro of environmental group Solidaridad said:

    There are so many fronts where the government simply can’t do anything because it doesn’t have the resources.

    There is, however, one notable exception. A massive police and army operation was launched in February to wrest back control of Brazil’s biggest Indigenous reservation, the Yanomami territory, from thousands of illegal gold miners who had invaded it. As the Canary previously reported:

    A recent investigation by Forensic Architecture and the Climate Litigation Accelerator found a doubling of illegal gold mining activity in their [the Yanomami] region under Bolsonaro, leading to human rights violations and deforestation.

    No time to spare

    Years of impunity for destroying the forest mean that the problem’s roots run too deep for an instant fix. This became clear when Lula’s second month in office set a new record for February deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.

    Activists say Lula’s government needs to fight all-out on multiple fronts. It must counter organised crime groups that profit from destroying the forest, invest in the “green economy”, and keep its promise to resume creating new Indigenous reservations.

    They describe it as a government with good intentions, but overwhelmed by the magnitude of the mess it faces. Raul do Valle of the World Wildlife Fund-Brazil said:

    The administration’s main mission so far has been just disarming the traps left by the Bolsonaro government.

    But the issue is urgent, with a slate of recent studies showing the Amazon’s ability to absorb humans’ carbon emissions is flagging. As Vox reported:

    About 17 percent of the Amazon rainforest is now gone, according to a report from 2021. Scientists estimate that if that number reaches 20 to 25 percent, parts of the tropical ecosystem could dry out, threatening the millions of people and animals that depend on it.

    The largest rainforest on Earth, the Amazon is home to a truly remarkable assemblage of species, including 14 percent of the world’s birds and 18 percent of its vascular plants. Many of them are found nowhere else.

    Losing organisms to deforestation erodes essential functions including the production of oxygen and storage of carbon, on which we all depend, and undermines scientific discovery. 

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Youtube/ El Pais

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • After the EHRC’s latest ‘gender critical’ proposal, a reminder that one watchdog organisation has already named similar acts as genocidal

    On Monday 3 April, the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) – the UK’s equalities watchdog – issued a letter advising on changing the legal definition of ‘sex’ in the Equality Act 2010 (EA). It was in response to a February letter from notoriously transphobic Women and Equalities minister Kemi Badenoch.

    Redefining ‘sex’

    The proposed change would redefine ‘sex’ in the EA as ‘sex assigned at birth’. The EHRC stated that any possible redefinition has:

    advantages and disadvantages for one group or another. There is no straightforward balance, but we have come to the view that if ‘sex’ is defined as biological sex for the purposes of EqA [Equality Act], this would bring greater legal clarity in eight areas.

    Trans people across the UK have been understandably fearful. This potential re-definition could have massive detrimental effects on their rights, removing a large portion of protections under the law.

    The Canary will publish a more in-depth article next week, after some time to digest this distressing news. However, this is a prudent moment to point out the fact that one genocide-prevention organisation has already named so-called ‘gender critical’ moves – like this one from the EHRC – as acts of genocide.

    The Lemkin Institute

    The Lemkin Institute grew from the Iraq Project for Genocide Prevention and Accountability. Its intended mission is to “fill a gap in the global prevention protocols”. It was named for Raphael Lemkin, the Polish lawyer who coined the term ‘genocide’ after World War II.

    Back in November 2022, the Institute turned its sights to the transphobic ‘gender critical’ movement. It stated that:

    The Lemkin Institute believes that the so-called “gender critical movement” that is behind these laws is a fascist movement furthering a specifically genocidal ideology that seeks the complete eradication of trans identity from the world.

    Here, the Institute was talking about the recent raft of anti-trans laws in America. However, the same analysis can easily be applied to the rights removal proposed by the EHRC.

    ‘Centerpiece of right-wing ascendency’

    Just as the EHRC letter talked about balancing the rights of women and trans people, the Lemkin Instuitute warned earlier last year that:

    Many gender critical ideologues identify themselves as feminists and believe themselves to be protecting women from men. They accuse transgender women of being stealth men and of transgender men of being self-hating women. The movement, a centerpiece of right wing ascendancy in the Western world, calls for discrimination against and harrassment of transgender individuals and the transgender community through laws and policies that criminalize trans identity and trans life.

    And, sure enough, the Institute’s statement even foresaw the EHRC’s focus on sex-assigned-at-birth:

    The movement alleges that people cannot determine their own sex or gender, and that the genitalia observed by doctors at birth are the final determinants of biological sex as well as the permanent markers of gender belonging.

    The gender critical movement is not liberatory anywhere in the world. It does little to protect women or other marginalised people. Instead, as the Institute pointed out, it seeks to have “control over the bodies of marginalized people”.

    A dangerous distraction

    Finally, the Lemkin Institute chose to leave off with a warning:

    The real challenges to human life, to safe and secure families, and to healthy communities are historical injustices and structural inequalities, not people attempting to live full lives in their true identities.

    Both main political parties in the UK are waging a culture war against trans people. In doing so, they’re carrying out sustained violent attacks on the very existence of trans people. In reality, there are a whole other set of issues they’re trying to move attention away from. The Tories have no answers to the cost of living crisis. They are exacerbating the climate crisis. Attacking trans people will do nothing to solve the real issues in people’s lives – but it does take attention away from the failings of a useless political class.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Ehrc123, via CC 4.0, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • World Athletics is policing the borders of womanhood by tightening regulations for the female category

    World Athletics president Sebastian Coe announced on 23 March that his organisation was amending regulations governing women’s sport. Alongside a wholesale ban on trans women’s participation in women’s sporting events, Coe also targeted athletes classified as DSD, i.e. having ‘differences of sexual development’.

    It’s easy, as a spectator, to read things like ‘tightening restrictions’ without considering their real meaning, impact, or implications – but let’s examine a little.

    Case in point

    Caster Semenya of South Africa is the most high-profile DSD athlete. She’s a double Olympic champion and triple world champion in the 800m. However, instead of her extraordinary achievements, the sporting world has chosen in recent years to focus on questions about her hyperandrogenism. This is a condition which causes an elevated level of testosterone.

    Two years after Semenya’s win at the 2009 world championships when she was 18, the IAAF (International Amateur Athletic Federation, as World Athletics was previously known) introduced new rules for the first time. They stated that hyperandrogenic athletes could compete on the condition that they display androgen levels below those recorded for cis men.

    Then in 2018, the IAAF made it mandatory for athletes to lower their testosterone levels via drug treatments to under 5nmol/l. Competitors would have to do this for six months in order to compete in international events from 400m to the mile. Notably, these are Semenya’s main distances.

    World Athletics: new regulations

    It is these mandatory drug treatments, using anti-androgen medication, which World Athletics is now ramping up. Under the new regulations, DSD athletes will have to reduce their blood testosterone to an even lower level, less than 2.5nmol/l, in order to compete in the female category.

    Competitors must also remain below this threshold for two years, rather than just one, as was the case before. The average level of testosterone in cis women is between 0.5 and 2.4 nmol/l.

    World Athletics also removed the principle of restricted events for DSD athletes, i.e., 400m to one mile. This means the regulations now cover all events, rather than just the previously monitored ones.

    Two years is a long time in terms of any sporting event. Athletes in sports which are based on power and speed are in their prime in their mid-20s. This is obviously a very small window. Mandatory waits to demonstrate ‘acceptable’ hormone levels eat into this precious time.

    Anti-androgens

    More importantly, we should bear in mind that this is medication we’re talking about. And more than that, it is completely unnecessary medication. It’s not being prescribed to DSD athletes like Semenya because they are ill. Far from it – Semenya is fit, powerful, and, above all, healthy. Drugs are being prescribed to these athletes because they’re performing ‘too well’ for the women’s event, based on a difference in their bodies’ makeup.

    Anti-androgens are the class of drug used to lower testosterone, an androgenic hormone. There are several types of anti-androgens, and all carry risks and side effects:

    • Spironolactone is usually used to treat fluid build-up due to organ failure. Because it affects the body’s fluid balance, it often has strong diuretic effects (increased urination). This in turn can cause electrolyte imbalances, which are undesirable for athletes.
    • Cyproterone acetate lowers testosterone, but also lowers progestins. These are part of a cis woman’s baseline hormonal makeup – lacking them can cause infertility. Cyproterone also carries risks of blood clots and kidney failure.
    • Finasteride is used to treat enlarged prostates and hair loss in cis men. It’s safety for cis women is untested.
    • Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH agonists) stop all natural hormone production. This would require the use of supplemental estrogen to make up the body’s deficit.

    Again, all of these side effects are completely avoidable – by not taking the medication. There is no good, medical reason for DSD athletes to have to take these drugs unless their doctors say so. World Athletics is not a doctor, it’s a sports council.

    Border wars

    This is what the issue boils down to. It is yet another example of the coercive policing of the borders of womanhood. Height, weight, muscle mass, lung capacity – the men’s competition allows any natural advantage you care to name. However, DSD women are required to take drugs they don’t need in order to lower their performance to an arbitrary baseline.

    World Athletics is in charge of amazing, inspiring, extraordinary levels of sport, but sport nonetheless. It is not the sheriff of the border of the category of woman. It would do well to remember that.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/ Mohan, Doha Stadium Plus Qatar, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic license, resized to 770*403

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Starmer says schools should out trans kids to their parents – without caring how dire the consequences might be

    Last Friday, 31 March, marked another international Trans Day of Visibility. However, as the Canary tweeted, trans people aren’t struggling for visibility right now. What they *are* struggling for is a non-hostile mainstream press and politicians that aren’t happy to throw them under the bus. Kier Starmer – we’re looking at you.

    With the above in mind, lets take a quick look at what everybody’s favourite opposition leader has been up to.

    Starmer in the Times

    Well, as a true man of the people, Starmer is once again speaking to his public from behind a Times paywall. The Times ran with the headline “Keir Starmer: Trans rights can’t override women’s rights”. But to give the man his due, he doesn’t control the headline – let’s have a look at what he actually says.

    Most of the article isn’t about trans people or women. It’s a hollow puff piece about moving on from Jeremy Corbyn and reforming the party. However, in the relevant portion, on the definition of ‘woman’ Starmer did manage to squeak out:

    For 99.9 per cent of women, it is completely biological . . . and of course they haven’t got a penis.

    So, first up, his maths is a bit faulty there. The 2022 census told us that there are 30,420,202 women in England and Wales. About 48,000 of those are trans women. So that’s closer to 99.84% of women being cis. But that’s not the worst of it.

    ‘Safeguarding’

    The truly bloody stupid bit comes later. It was in reference to a recent piece of ‘research’ from right-wing think tank Policy Exchange which criticised the fact that some schools don’t routinely inform a child’s parents if they choose to socially transition at school. Here, ‘social transition’ means using a different name, pronoun, or presentation.

    When asked about the topic, Starmer replied:

    Look, of course I’d want to know. I say that as a parent. I would want to know and I think the vast majority of parents would want to know. That’s why we have to have national guidance on it and they should try to make it cross-party, because it’s not helpful to parents or schools to have this as just a toxic divide when what’s needed is practical, common sense advice.

    I fear that ‘common sense’ is sadly lacking here. Although Starmer got the ‘cross-party’ bit correct – his answer is remarkably similar to Rishi Sunak’s:

    we will make sure that we publish guidance for schools so that they know how to respond when children are asking about their gender.
    These are really sensitive areas, it’s important that we treat them sensitively, and that parents know what’s going on, and we’ll make sure that that happens.

    So, that’s the PM and the leader of the opposition in agreement, isn’t it? Except there are two problems here. Firstly, we already have guidance on this issue. It’s just being ignored because bullying trans kids is the mainstream media’s flavour of the day.

    And second – and I can’t believe I need to say this – outing queer kids to their parents is potentially incredibly dangerous.

    Existing guidance

    Only last year, in September 2022, the Department of Education (DoE) issued the last update of its guidance on pupil safeguarding. As a general guideline, the DoE stated that:

    Where there is a safeguarding concern, governing bodies, proprietors and school or college leaders should ensure the child’s wishes and feelings are taken into account when determining what action to take and what services to provide.

    Further than this, the document included more specific guidelines for queer children. It recognised that the danger for them is often magnified:

    Risks can be compounded where children who are LGBT lack a trusted adult with whom they can be open. It is therefore vital that staff endeavour to reduce the additional barriers faced and provide a safe space for them to speak out or share their concerns with members of staff

    So, far from Policy Exchange’s framing, schools are not failing in their so-called duty to inform parents of their child being trans. Instead, if a child has chosen – for whatever reason – not to come out to their parents, then that wish must be respected. If a child knows that speaking to staff members automatically means that their parents will be informed, then they lose a vital point of trust and contact.  The enforced outing of children would therefore breed more secrecy, not less.

    The dangers

    This brings us to the second issue. If a child is choosing not to come out to their parents, they probably have good reason for that. In a best-case scenario, this might be because they are simply unready to do so. This, in itself, should be enough.

    But it could also be the case that the child believes they would be unsafe if they came out to their parents. This belief is borne out in statistics. Research from the Albert Kenny Trust suggests that:

    • LGBT young people are disproportionately represented in the young homeless population. As many as 24% of young homeless people are LGBT
    • 69% of homeless LGBT young people had experienced violence, abuse or rejection from the family home
    • 77% state that their LGBT identity was a causal factor in them becoming homeless

    So, work with me for a second here. A trans child thinks that they will be beaten or thrown out of their home for coming out. However, they think their school will be more accepting. They choose to use a different name at school. Then, their school is compelled to out the child to their parents – that is if Policy Exchange, Starmer, and Sunak get their way.

    This is a clear safeguarding risk. What’s more, it should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of care for the children they’re speaking of. But apparently this goes out the window where trans kids are concerned.

    Hollow man

    To provide the benefit of the doubt, it could be the case that people imagine a set of loving parents who simply want to know what is happening to their child. But, as many queer adults know to their detriment, this is far, far from a guarantee. Schools cannot, and should not, make this assumption.

    Starmer, I’m at least vaguely sure, is not a fool. I struggle to think that it has not occurred to him that the forced outing of vulnerable children will put them in danger. The man was a lawyer, for Christ’s sake. Yet this doesn’t seem to matter one jot.

    Our leader of the ‘opposition’ is a man who will happily parrot conservative talking points like Sunak’s. He will accept – without criticism – the framing used by right-wing thinktanks like Policy Exchange. He’ll join in monstering the mainstream media’s demon of the day and dress it up as concern.

    I genuinely can’t tell what Starmer believes in, if anything. He’s not a leader of the opposition. He’s barely even a Labour politician. That right there is just a Tory with a ten second delay.

    Featured image via Youtube/Sky News

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • European rights court hears landmark climate cases against governments for first time

    Cases against France and Switzerland opened before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) on 29 March. They concerned alleged failings to protect the environment. This marks the first time governments are in the court’s dock for alleged climate change inaction.

    The case against Switzerland is based on a complaint by an association of elderly people who call themselves the ‘Club of Climate Seniors’. They’re concerned with the consequences of global warming on their living conditions and health, the ECHR said.

    The Club accuses Swiss authorities of various climate change failings. These amount to a violation of the government’s obligation to protect life and citizens’ homes and families.

    “We’ve been fighting for years,” said 81-year-old Bruna Molinari, adding:

    I hope the court will find in our favour so that Switzerland does better than it has done so far.

    The average age is 73 in the Swiss club, which is backed by Greenpeace Switzerland. Around 50 of its 2,000 members were expected in Strasbourg for the hearing.

    ‘Heat kills’

    Alain Chablais, representing the Swiss government, told the court that it was “baseless to claim or suggest that Switzerland is doing nothing”. He added that the ECHR:

    has no business becoming the place where national climate protection policy is decided.

    However, the plaintiffs’ lawyer Jessica Simor said her clients were “already suffering the effects of climate change” that Switzerland was not doing enough to stop. She added that temperatures were rising “twice as quickly” in the Alpine nation as the global average:

    Heat kills… increasing the risks of kidney problems, asthma attacks, cardiovascular difficulties… and causes particularly acute symptoms in elderly people, more especially elderly women.

    And France, too

    Damien Careme brought the case against France. Careme is a former mayor of Grande-Synthe, a suburb of Dunkirk in northern France. He also argues that the central government has failed to meet its obligation to protect life by taking insufficient steps to prevent climate change.

    When he was mayor, Careme brought his case to the French judiciary on behalf of his town but also on his own behalf. He said that climate change was raising the risk of his home being flooded.

    France’s highest administrative court ruled in favour of the town against the central government in 2021. However, it threw out the individual case brought by Careme, which he then took to the ECHR.

    Corinne Lepage, a former French ecology minister, is one of Careme’s lawyers in the case. She told Agence France-Presse:

    The stakes are extremely high… If the European court recognises that climate failings violate the rights of individuals to life and a normal family life, then that becomes precedent in all of the council’s member states and potentially in the whole world.

    The European Court of Human Rights acknowledged in a statement that the European Convention on Human Rights does not actually include a right to a healthy environment. It is this Convention on which it must base its judgements. This includes the right to life:

    Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.

    However, its decision to take the cases was based on the fact that the exercise of the convention’s existing rights could be undermined by harm to the environment or exposure to environmental risks.

    A third case

    A third pending case, without a date for a hearing so far, was brought by young Portuguese applicants. They’re claiming that climate inaction by dozens of states had contributed to heatwaves in Portugal. Crucially, they also claim that this heat is affecting their other rights.

    Although the cases are a first for the ECHR, people have previously taken their governments to court in their national jurisdictions. For example, in 2019 the Dutch Supreme Court ordered the government to cut greenhouse gas emissions. This followed a complaint by an environmental organisation, Urgenda. As the Guardian reported:

    After multiple appeals, in December 2019 the Dutch supreme court issued an extraordinary ruling upholding lower courts’ decisions that obliged the government to cut emissions by 25% below 1990 levels by the end of 2020. It was the first time a court anywhere in the world had ordered a government to mitigate global heating by reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

    Then, two years later, a court in Paris found the French government guilty of climate inaction. It ordered them to pay for the resulting damages after four NGOs filed a case.

    Wednesday’s hearings are only the start of proceedings. The process is likely to take several months before the court hands down its verdicts.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse
    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/ CherryX, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture highlights ‘inhuman’ treatment of migrants in latest report

    On 30 March, Europe’s top rights body blasted the “inhuman” treatment of migrants who were brutally turned away at its borders. This is especially true of the external borders of EU territory.

    The Council of Europe’s Committee for the Prevention of Torture’s (CPT) annual report said that border forces had beaten migrants. They also suffered:

    punches, slaps, blows with truncheons, other hard objects… by police or border guards…

    Other forms of inhuman and degrading treatment were also deployed, such as firing bullets close to the persons’ bodies while they lay on the ground.

    It said other tactics included:

    pushing them into rivers (sometimes with their hands still tied), removal of their clothes and shoes and forcing them to walk barefoot and/or in their underwear and, in some cases, even fully naked across the border.

    The CPT said it found “increasing numbers” of people who claimed they were pushed back from the European frontier by force.

    CPT head Alan Mitchell said:

    Many European countries face very complex migration challenges at their borders, but this does not mean they can ignore their human rights obligations. Pushbacks are illegal, unacceptable and must end.

    The committee visited police, border and coastguard posts, detention centres, and transit areas on the main migratory routes to Europe.

    The CPT called on the Council of Europe’s member states to guarantee migrants’ rights. This would involve registering each individual, providing medical and vulnerability assessments, and offering people the opportunity to apply for asylum. Moreover, the CPT added that:

    Detention should only be used as a measure of last resort

    46 countries make up the Council of Europe. The watchdog excluded Russia after its invasion of Ukraine last year. However, it remains a party to the European Convention for the Prevention of Torture.

    More than a million people arrived in Europe during the 2015-16 refugee crisis. The number of attempts by migrants to enter Europe hit 330,000 in 2022. This is up 64% from the previous year, the EU’s border agency Frontex said. And, as NGO Climate Refugees reported, this situation is only going to become more urgent:

    Every day vulnerable people are forcibly displaced due to impacts generated by climate change. This isn’t something that will happen, this is something happening now.

    Numerous studies, like The World Bank, forecast a grim picture of internal displacement in the millions, as the adverse effects of climate change induce more extreme weather, rising sea levels, threaten food security and impact livelihoods.

    As we are seeing play out now, it is the poorest and most vulnerable communities – those who contributed the least to global warming – that are paying the price and are hit hardest by this crisis.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse
    Featured image via YouTube

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Homophobia in Uganda is a horrifying demonstration of colonialism and evangelism at work

    Last week, on 21 March, Uganda’s parliament passed draconian homophobic and anti-LGBT+ legislation. MP Fox Odoi-Oywelowo warned that this would mean life imprisonment or even the death penalty for “aggravated” offences.

    On top of this, much of the rest of East Africa is currently in the grip of a concerted campaign of state-sponsored homophobia. Njeri Gateru, executive director of the Nairobi-based National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (NGLHRC), warned that:

    There is a concerted effort in peddling misinformation and disinformation…

    The sentiments that have been carried over in the public space inspire and justify violence against LGBTQ.

    Much of the mainstream media has (rightfully) reported on the horrifying laws being passed in Uganda. However, any conversation about homophobia in Africa would be incomplete without two acknowledgements. First, homophobia as it is seen on the continent today is largely a product of Europe’s colonialism. And second, the new wave of homophobic sentiment is itself also fuelled by American Christian evangelism.

    Colonialism and homophobia

    When European countries invaded and brutally colonised Africa, they brought with them a whole host of conservative social mores. Among these was the taboo against homosexuality, which was itself a product of Christianity.

    Prior to their subjugation, many African countries had far more accepting attitudes towards LGBT+ individuals. But these more relaxed treatments didn’t survive the rule of the UK and other European countries. This subjugation was not only legislative – the growth of Christianity in Africa helped to perpetuate the notion of homophobia as a value native to many African nations. Subsequently, the end of colonial rule did not lead to the end of Christianity’s influence, as Stonewall pointed out:

    While many of the countries under British rule are now independent, the majority who still criminalise homosexuality, including Jamaica and Uganda, have carried over these laws from the colonial era. Generations later, many Africans now believe that an anti-gay attitude is one that is a part of their culture. So much so, that former Zimbabwean President Mugabe labelled homosexuality as a “white disease”.

    In fact, this legacy of homophobia is particularly prominent across Commonwealth countries:

    There is a direct correlation between countries which belong to the Commonwealth, and therefore have previously been under British rule, and countries that still have homophobic biphobic and/or transphobic legislature in their constitutions. 25 per cent of the world’s population (2.4 billion people) currently live in a country belonging to the Commonwealth, however they make up a disproportionately large 50 per cent of countries that still criminalise homosexuality.

    American evangelism

    However, colonialism was by no means the last time that nations from the Global North would push homophobia in Africa. American conservative Christians began to flock to Uganda after the fall of Idi Amin in 1979. Amin had previously banned Christian evangelism, but the country was now ripe to claim in the name of a fundamentalist understanding of the bible.

    American groups like Mike Bickle’s International House of Prayer spent millions on schools, orphanages, and hospitals. This essentially bought the goodwill of the Ugandan people. Along with this charity, they also began preaching an extremely hardline form of Christianity.  Here, homophobic sentiment could find more purchase than it did in an increasingly accepting America.

    Then, in 2009, pastor Scott Lively came to Uganda. Lively was previously most famous for his book The Pink Swastika, which claimed that many prominent Nazis were gay and that homosexuality inspired their nationalism. In Uganda, Lively delivered a series of immensely popular sermons denouncing the ‘gay agenda’. He warned that the “evil institution” of homosexuality sought to “defeat the marriage-based society” and would “prey upon” Ugandan children.

    This casting of homosexuality as predatory – and particularly targeting children – was key to what would follow. As Minority Africa co-founder Caleb Okereke explained for Foreign Policy:

    This recasting of homosexuality as akin to pedophilia, alongside the widespread use of similar language, is meant to legitimize the response and crackdown by governments and institutions. If gay people are not successfully framed as predators, then extreme measures against them could be questioned. However, the violence that LGBTQ+ people experience in Africa has been justified by these anti-gay groups through the construction of a narrative of intent by “them” to target children.

    The endless money of the Global North

    In the run-up to the passage of Uganda’s 2014 Anti-Homosexuality Bill, evangelical NGOs accounted for 20% of all nonprofit groups in Uganda. They also held $2bn in wealth. Whilst secular NGOs were required to refrain from political advocacy, church groups suffered no such restrictions. They also made powerful politicians a priority target. As MP Fox Odoi-Oywelowo told Open Democracy:

    Their initial point of entry was the [Ugandan] National Prayer Breakfast, a collection of religious and radical people here who introduced that ideology of hate. They sit over breakfast and pray and make radical hate speeches. They also introduced some money. They hold fellowships in expensive hotels, attended by MPs. They also sponsor trips for MPs – to Jerusalem, for example – and basically indoctrinate them.

    Odoi-Oywelowo added that radical US Pentecostal communities had specifically sponsored homophobic and anti-LGBT+ lawmaking in Africa. He claimed that, in 2022, they spent $26m to promote the new anti-homosexuality law. This is an extraordinary amount of money in any case. However, it’s even more astounding given that Uganda’s average gross domestic product was just $884 in 2021.

    Doubly colonised

    In this way, Uganda – and Africa more broadly – finds itself colonised twice over. Europeans brought and enforced Christian-inflected homophobia. This was normalised so effectively that it is now spoken of as a Ugandan value and framed in opposition to the decadent homosexuality of Europe and America. In fact, Okereke explained that:

    For Ugandan and African homophobes, the reverse is the case. It gives them a premise for absolution—an anticolonial veneer that allows them to say, “This was brought here from abroad, and we need to eradicate it.”

    Second, American evangelists losing their battles on the home front shifted their focus to Africa. The same poverty inflicted by colonisation made nations like Uganda ripe for exploitation by seemingly endless supplies of US money.

    The homophobic and anti-LGBT+ rhetoric sweeping East Africa is monstrous. This fact is only made worse by the knowledge that it is a monster created by Europe and the US, and it represents a Christian fundamentalist vision of society.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/ Fiktube, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International licence, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • LGBTQ+ Ugandans will pay for a new law with their lives

    On 21 March, Uganda’s parliament passed sweeping anti-LGBTQ+ legislation. It imposes extreme new penalties for same-sex relationships. Parliamentary speaker Annet Anita Among stated that the “bill passed in record time”.

    Legislators amended significant portions of the original draft law, with all but one speaking against the bill. Homosexuality is already illegal in the conservative East African nation. As such, it was not immediately clear what new penalties had been agreed upon.

    Life in prison, or death

    MP Fox Odoi-Oywelowo spoke to Agence France-Presse (AFP) about the bill. Odoi-Oywelowo belongs to president Yoweri Museveni’s National Resistance Movement party, and spoke against the bill. He said that under the final version of the legislation, offenders would face life imprisonment or even the death penalty for “aggravated” offences.

    The bill will go to president Museveni next. Crucially, he can choose to use his veto or sign it into law. The president has consistently signalled he does not view the issue as a priority. He added that he would prefer to maintain good relations with Western donors and investors.

    Nevertheless, the legislation has broad public support in Uganda. The reaction from civil society has been muted after years of the erosion of civic space under Museveni’s increasingly authoritarian rule. In recent months, conspiracy theories accusing shadowy international forces of promoting homosexuality have gained traction on social media in Uganda.

    Homophobic rhetoric also laced discussion of the bill in parliament. For instance, lawmakers conflated child sexual abuse with consensual activity between adults.

    ‘Deviants’

    Museveni last week referred to gay people as “these deviants”:

    Homosexuals are deviations from normal. Why? Is it by nature or nurture? We need to answer these questions.

    We need a medical opinion on that. We shall discuss it thoroughly.

    Analysts and foreign diplomats interpreted this latter maneuver as a delaying tactic. For example, Kristof Titeca – an expert on East African affairs at the University of Antwerp – told AFP:

    Museveni has historically taken into account the damage of the bill to Uganda’s geopolitics, particularly in terms of relations with the West, and in terms of donor funding.

    His suggestion to ask for a medical opinion can be understood in this context: a way to put off what is a deeply contentious political issue.

    Arrests in Uganda

    On 18 March, Uganda’s attorney general Kiryowa Kiwanuka told the parliamentary committee scrutinising the bill that existing colonial-era laws “adequately provided for an offence”.

    Meanwhile, police said they had arrested six men on Friday 17 March for “practising homosexuality” in the southern lakeside town of Jinja. Then, another six men were arrested on the same charge on Sunday 19 March.

    Uganda is notorious for intolerance of homosexuality. It was first criminalised under colonial-era laws. However, since its independence from Britain in 1962 there has never been a conviction for consensual same-sex activity.

    In 2014, Ugandan lawmakers passed a bill that called for life in prison for people caught having gay sex. The legislation sparked international condemnation. Some Western nations froze or redirected millions of dollars of government aid in response. Later, a court struck down the law on a technicality.

    ‘Deeply troubling’

    Britain’s Africa minister Andrew Mitchell said he was “deeply disappointed” with the passage of the bill. Meanwhile, Rishi Sunak’s special envoy on LGBTQ+ rights, Nicholas Herbert, warned that it risked increasing the “discrimination and persecution of people across Uganda”. Herbert added on Twitter:

    While many countries, including a number on the African continent, are moving towards decriminalisation this is a deeply troubling step in the opposite direction.

    US Secretary of State Antony Blinken joined calls for the government to reconsider the legislation. On Twitter, he said that it would:

    undermine fundamental human rights of all Ugandans and could reverse gains in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

    The White House on Wednesday warned Uganda of possible economic “repercussions” if a law imposing severe new restrictions on LGBTQ+ rights takes effect. National Security Council spokesman John Kirby said:

    We would have to take a look at whether or not there might be repercussions that we would have to take, perhaps in an economic way, should this law actually get passed and enacted.

    Kirby said implementation of the law remains a “big if,” but said Washington is “watching this real closely.” He added that financial repercussions:

    would be really unfortunate because so much of the economic assistance that we provide is health assistance.

    Amnesty International

    Amnesty International stated that the new law is “a grave assault” on LGBTQ+ people. Tigere Chagutah, Amnesty International’s regional director for East and Southern Africa, said:

    This ambiguous, vaguely worded law even criminalizes those who ‘promote’ homosexuality or ‘attempt to commit the offence of homosexuality’. In reality, this deeply repressive legislation will institutionalize discrimination, hatred, and prejudice against LGBTI people, including those who are perceived to be LGBTI and block the legitimate work of civil society, public health professionals, and community leaders.

    It went on:

    Instead of criminalizing LGBTI people, Uganda should protect them by enacting laws and policies that align with the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined not only in Uganda’s Constitution, but also the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.

    Furthermore, UN high commissioner for human rights Volker Turk also urged Museveni not to promulgate the bill into law:

    The passing of this discriminatory bill -– probably among the worst of its kind in the world –- is a deeply troubling development,” he said in a statement.

    If signed into law by the president, it will render lesbian, gay and bisexual people in Uganda criminals simply for existing, for being who they are. It could provide carte blanche for the systematic violation of nearly all of their human rights and serve to incite people against each other.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Javiramk16, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license, resized to 770×403

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The US military will remove the Confederate name of nine of its bases – but the legacy of Confederacy goes far deeper

    Fort Pickett military base in Virginia formerly took its name from a pro-slavery Confederate general. However, on 24 March, the US will rename it after an American soldier decorated for heroism during World War II.

    The Virginia National Guard installation is the first of nine American military bases slated to drop the names of figures who served the Confederate States of America. The base will be renamed to honour Van Barfoot, a veteran of World War II, Korea, and Vietnam.

    Barfoot received the Medal of Honor – the highest US military award for valour – for his actions against fascists in WWII. This included taking out two German machine gun nests, capturing 17 enemy soldiers, and destroying a tank.

    Confederate echoes

    Fort Pickett was previously named for Confederate major general George Pickett. He graduated last in his class from West Point and served in the Mexican-American war. Then, he resigned his commission to join the Confederacy. In an ill-fated attack at Gettysburg called “Pickett’s charge”, he was responsible for the deaths of more than half his own men.

    Calls to rename the bases gained momentum during nationwide protests against racism and police brutality that were sparked by the 2020 murder of George Floyd.

    In the National Defense Authorization Act for 2021, Congress required the establishment of a commission to plan for the removal of Confederate-linked “names, symbols, displays, monuments, or paraphernalia” from Defense Department property. It gave the secretary three years to carry out its recommendations. Then-president Donald Trump opposed the renaming effort. He vetoed the defense bill, but Congress overrode it.

    More than nothing, less than enough

    It is, of course, a good thing that a Confederate name is being dropped from a military base. It’s ludicrous that it took until 2023 to recognise that fighting to defend slavery should not be lauded. The same applies to all Confederate monuments in the US as it does statues honoring slavers in the UK. These are not ‘marks of history’. Rather, they are proof that our governments do not, or did not, believe that trading in Black lives should disqualify someone from honoured memory.

    Bree Newsome was an activist who rose to prominence for removing the Confederate flag from South Carolina’s statehouse. Her words are just as applicable to this situation as they were then:

    We can’t think just because we removed these things then the problem is solved. We have to have an honest conversation about history and the history of slavery. Removing the flag in South Carolina was one thing, but racism exists in South Carolina as policy and social practice. We have to look at policy and how we are interacting with each other if we are going to address racism.

    Indeed, as the Canary’s own Afroze Fatima Zaidi recently wrote:

    There is indeed a fundamental difference between ‘diversity and inclusion’ work and anti-racism. The former, in effect, allows institutions to appear to be doing something about racism without actually addressing it in a way that might cause those in power any great discomfort.

    The renaming of Fort Pickett is merely an example of these easy, comfortable actions. They are a fig-leaf offering – and necessary – but they are by no means enough.

    Confederate legacy

    We must recognise that moves like this are easy for governments to perform. They do no real work to counter the very present racism in society at large, or the military in particular. The US army has distinct and pronounced racism within its ranks. As Associated Press reported:

    The military said it processed more than 750 complaints of discrimination by race or ethnicity from service members in the fiscal year 2020 alone. But discrimination doesn’t exist just within the military rank-and-file. That same fiscal year, civilians working in the financial, technical and support sectors of the Army, Air Force and Navy also filed 900 complaints of racial discrimination and over 350 complaints of discrimination by skin color, data from the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission shows.

    This racism extends as far as white supremacist extremism. As the Conversation reported regarding military participation in the 6 January 2021 insurrection:

    Of the 884 criminal defendants charged to date with taking part in the insurrection, more than 80 were veterans. That’s almost 10% of those charged.

    More remarkable, at least five of the rioters were serving in the military at the time of the assault: an active-duty Marine officer and four reservists.

    Service members’ involvement in the insurrection has made the spread of extremism – particularly white nationalism – a significant issue for the U.S. military.

    In light of these facts, it is plain that the Confederate legacy of the US military is not present only in the names on its bases. Rather, it is riddled throughout the whole institution. The work to counter this deep-seated racism is far harder, far more necessary, and sadly far less likely from any government.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Idawriter, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 license, resized to 770×403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Workers in France are still refusing to back down to Macron’s pension reforms

    On Thursday 23 March, French unions staged a new day of disruption against president Macron’s pension reforms. Workers brought refineries to a standstill, along with mass transport cancellations.

    Interrupted supply from refineries has raised concern over fuel shortages for planes at Paris airports. This adds to a growing list of headaches in the crisis that include piles of rubbish in Paris.

    Macron, on 22 March, said he was prepared to accept unpopularity. He stated that raising the minimum retirement age from 62 to 64 was “necessary” and “in the general interest of the country”.

    Protests were planned across the country on 23 March in the latest day of nationwide stoppages that began in mid-January against the pension changes.

    Some 12,000 police, including 5,000 in Paris, were to be deployed for Thursday, Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin said.

    Plummeting approval

    Earlier in the day, protesters blocked road access to Terminal 1 at the capital’s Charles de Gaulle airport, French television footage showed. Half of all high-speed trains nationwide were cancelled, SNCF said, as a union source said one fourth of staff was striking. At least half the suburban trains into Paris were not running.

    Paris municipal garbage collectors have pledged to uphold a rolling strike until Monday, as thousands of tonnes of rubbish rot on the streets.

    Acting on Macron’s instructions, Prime Minister Elisabeth Borne invoked an article in the constitution a week ago to adopt the reform without a parliamentary vote.

    The government on Monday narrowly survived a no-confidence motion, but the outrage has spawned the biggest domestic crisis of Macron’s second term.

    A survey on Sunday showed Macron’s personal approval rating at just 28 percent, its lowest level since the height of the anti-government “Yellow Vest” protest movement in 2018-2019.

    Airport fuel ‘under pressure’

    Around a fifth of schoolteachers did not turn up for work on Thursday, the education ministry said.

    Blockades at oil refineries will also continue. In particular, one TotalEnergies site in four is working in the country. The ministry of energy transition warned that the kerosene supply to the capital was becoming “critical”.

    The Directorate General of Civil Aviation has warned that its fuel stocks at the two main Paris airports are “under pressure”. It urged planes to fill up at foreign stopovers.

    Spontaneous protests have broken out on a daily basis in recent days. This has lead to hundreds of arrests and accusations of heavy-handed tactics by police.

    Amnesty International has expressed alarm:

    about the widespread use of excessive force and arbitrary arrests reported in several media outlets.

    On Wednesday evening, hundreds again took to the streets in Paris, Lyon, and Lille.

    ‘No legitimacy’

    France’s Constitutional Court still needs to give the final word on the reform. However, Macron told French TV channels that the changes needed to “come into force by the end of the year”. He also backtracked on earlier comments that the crowds demonstrating had “no legitimacy”. Instead, he said that organised protests were “legitimate”, but violence should be condemned and blockages should not impede normal activity.

    Undeterred, hundreds of protesters in Paris flooded onto train tracks on 23 March in the Gare de Lyon. They interrupted traffic and caused a delay of at least half an hour, according to national railway operator SNCF (Société nationale des chemins de fer français). They chanted:

    And we will go on, we will go on, we will go on till revocation

    Featured image via YouTube screenshot/Global News

    Additional reporting by Agence France-Presse

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Fascists attended an anti-trans ‘Let Women Speak’ rally in Melbourne – and it wasn’t out of a shared love of feminism

    On Saturday 18 March, around 400 anti-trans protesters gathered in Melbourne, Victoria for a ‘Let Women Speak’ (LWS) event. Of these 400, 30 were members of the fascist ‘National Socialist Movement’ (NSM), who gave Nazi salutes and yelled slurs at counter-protesters.

    The day was organised by Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, a.k.a. Posie Parker, a British transphobic activist. Keen-Minshull is known for extreme, often violent, rhetoric regarding trans people. She also organised a similar LWS event in Glasgow on 5 February during the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) reform debates. This, too, was attended by assorted Holocaust deniers and anti-abortionists. Pink News reported that:

    The counter-protest included a reading of a Jewish prayer in response to Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf being quoted at a Let Women Speak rally in Newcastle last month (January 16)

    Some people might find themselves confused by the frequent presence of the far right at events which bill themselves as women’s rights protests. However, this will come as less of a surprise for anyone familiar with the history of transphobic ideologies.

    Melbourne

    At the event in Melbourne on 18 March, NSM members chanted “white power” and carried a large banner reading “Destroy paedo freaks”. They marched down Spring Street clad in a uniform black, wearing characteristic black bucket hats. Then, on the steps of Victoria’s parliament building, they stood in a line and performed a Nazi salute.

    Keen-Minshull was also joined by failed Liberal Party candidate Katherine Deves. Deves is notorious for likening anti-trans activism to the French Holocaust resistance.

    Additionally, private security grabbed a counter-protester by the throat and threw her to the ground. Keen-Minshull stood by and watched impassively. One Twitter account reported that:

    Hate preacher Kellie-Jay Keen (aka Posie Parker) stands by and watches as a woman is strangled and manhandled by her security. “I have been asked if I’m ok with this” she says after, when questioned about their disgusting handling of a woman…. “Yes I am!”.

    Certainly, this lines up with Keen-Minshull’s past rhetoric. Previously, she posted a video rant threatening that:

    Each and every one of you women who stand in my way… will be annihilated.

    The opposition

    Thankfully, counter-protesters outnumbered the transphobic side 2:1. They chanted:

    “Posie Parker you can’t hide, you’ve got Nazis on your side”.

    Melbourne Activist Legal Support (MALS) provided legal observers for the counter-protest. MALS noted distinct police bias against the pro-trans side, including:

    1. not intervening in or preventing highly distressing, provocative, prejudice-motivated behaviours and messaging by anti-trans, neo-Nazi groups and individuals;
    2. failing to consider the effect of the presence of known neo-Nazi groups and their provocative hate speech and behaviours upon crowd dynamics, or the need to consider existing state and federal anti-discrimination protections in their response to these groups;
    3. allowing and facilitating the free movement of neo-Nazi groups within highly visible, prominent, and central positions within the protest area and directly in front of opposing counter-protesters;
    4. concentrating police resources and cordons almost exclusively toward trans rights protest groups, increasing the likelihood of these groups experiencing direct police-protestor contact and use of force, and;
    5. deploying the use of force, including punches, grabs, pushes, horses, and OC spray against trans rights protesters in ways likely to substantially increase stress and tension, escalating the likelihood of arrests.

    After the events of 18 March, Victoria’s state premier Dan Andrews issued a message of support for trans Victorians. He posted on Facebook:

    I wish it didn’t have to be said, but clearly it does: Nazis aren’t welcome. Not on parliament’s steps. Not anywhere.

    Andrews went on:

    They were there to say the trans community don’t deserve rights, safety or dignity. That’s what Nazis do. Their evil ideology is to scapegoat minorities – and it’s got no place here. And those who stand with them don’t, either.

    So to every trans Victorian, I say this: Our government will always support you. And we’ll always respect you. Because your rights are not negotiable.

    Transphobia’s Nazi history

    So why, one might ask, does the far right keep turning up to these ‘women’s rights’ events, as they did last week in Melbourne? Why do direct quotes from Mein Kampf not draw horrified reactions from assembled transphobes? Why do Holocaust deniers turn up in support? Surely, it can’t be a shared belief in women’s liberation.

    When I say that transphobia has its roots in Nazi ideology, I am not making a flippant comparison. This is not an “everybody who disagrees with me is Hitler” situation. Rather, it is a historical fact.

    In 1919, a German-Jewish named Magnus Hirschfeld established the Institut für Sexualwissenschaft (Institute for Sexual Science) in Berlin. Along with issues like impotence, unwanted pregnancy, and sexually transmitted diseases, Hirschfeld treated transgender patients. This included some of the earliest work on gender-affirming surgeries.

    The far right in Germany at the time frequently targeted Hirschfeld for his work, his Jewish ancestry, and his gay sexuality. This came to a head when the Nazis took power; they declared Hirschfeld’s work an affront to German ideals. Next, the Holocaust Encyclopedia reported that:

    On May 6, 1933, a Nazi student group marched to the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. With members of the SA, they ransacked the institute and looted its library and archives. Days later, the stolen books, artifacts, and clinical files were destroyed in one of several public book burnings organized across Germany. A bust of Hirschfeld was paraded through the streets on a stick before being thrown onto the bonfire. Within months, Nazi authorities forced the Institute for Sexual Science to close.

    Many people are unaware that, when they see photos of the Nazi book burnings, they are looking at volumes swollen with some of the very earliest medical accounts of trans experiences. Only this year, the German parliament for the first time chose to focus on Holocaust victims targeted for their sexuality and gender identity. Regarding the queer victims of the concentration camps, the Canary previously reported that:

    Between 6,000 and 10,000 were sent to concentration camps and given uniforms emblazoned with a pink triangle designating their sexuality. Historians say between 3,000 and 10,000 gay men died and many were castrated or subjected to horrific “medical” experiments. Thousands of lesbians, transgender people, and sex workers were branded “degenerates” and also imprisoned at the camps under brutal conditions.

    A plea

    Modern transphobia draws the far right for the same reasons that transphobia has always attracted fascists. It provides an excuse to hate on queer people, to hate on minorities. However, today, this often comes with a fig leaf of ‘standing up for women’. The events in Melbourne were merely an increasingly common mask-off moment when the fascism of this movement was on full display.

    Now, I don’t want to sound like I believe every anti-trans activist is a Nazi, or even ideologically rooted in fascism. I’m sure some are genuinely moved by left-wing ideals of ‘standing up for women’. Obviously, I think that their target is dangerously wrong – I’m trans, and I’m not a threat to women’s liberation. But still, I’m sure these left-wing (or even centre-right) transphobes are out there.

    So, it’s these people I’ll finish by speaking to. Have you noticed the growing, openly fascist presence in your movement yet? Do you see how few of your ‘sisters’ blink at their actions? Have you heard the violent rhetoric of your demagogues, and do you think it proportionate? Do you believe these people will stop after they’ve won against trans people? At this point, do you even care?

    I’m trans. There’s no way in which I can be otherwise. You, on the other hand, are ‘gender critical’ by choice. At any point, you could walk away from your openly far-right allies. The distinction between people giving Nazi salutes and those who merely stood next to them is a razor’s edge. Ask yourself: is opposing trans rights worth everything you thought you stood for?

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Tcm1707, resized to 770 x 403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • Roadblocks and a no-confidence vote as Macron pushes French pension reforms without a vote

    French President Emmanuel Macron is now facing intensified protests and a no-confidence motion in parliament. This comes after he pushed through a contentious pension reform without a vote in the lower house.

    Despite two months of strikes and some of the biggest protests in decades, Macron’s government imposed the bill on 16 March to hike the retirement age from 62 to 64.

    Prime minister Elisabeth Borne invoked article 49.3 of the constitution to impose the pension overhaul by decree, causing anger in parliament and moves to file a motion of no confidence in the government.

    The situation presents Macron with one of his biggest challenges less than one year into his second and final mandate.

    Jeers and boos

    Macron put the pensions reform at the centre of his re-election campaign last year. The changes also seek to increase the number of years people have to work to receive a full pension. However, he lost his parliamentary majority in June after elections for the lower-house National Assembly.

    As she invoked article 49.3, PM Borne told parliament:

    We can’t take the risk of seeing 175 hours of parliamentary debate come to nothing.

    She was met with jeers and boos from opposition lawmakers. Borne has used the controversial constitutional loophole 11 times since becoming head of government last year. It means that a bill is then considered adopted unless lawmakers vote no confidence in the government.

    The move amounted to an admission the cabinet lacked a majority in the lower house to make the changes. This was despite appealing to the right-wing opposition Republican party for support.

    Several opposition parties, including the hard-left France Unbowed (LFI) and far-right National Rally (RN) of Marine Le Pen, were set to call the no-confidence vote by the afternoon of 17 March.

    Jean-Luc Melenchon of the LFI urged for “spontaneous rallies across the country”.

    Roadblocks

    The move sparked furious demonstrations across the country. On the morning of 17 March, some 200 protesters blocked traffic on the ring road outside the capital.

    Soumaya Gentet, a General Confederation of Labour (CGT) union member, said she was incensed and would continue to protest until the bill was revoked. She said:

    They’re not taking into account what the people want.

    Her colleague Lamia Kerrouzi agreed:

    Macron doesn’t give a fig about the people.

    He doesn’t understand the language of the people. It needs to be repealed.

    In the energy sector, strikers are planning to halt production at a large refinery by this weekend or Monday at the latest. This was according to CGT union representative Eric Sellini. He also added that strikers are continuing to deliver less fuel than normal from several other sites.

    Unions have called for another day of mass strikes and protests for next Thursday, 23 March. They’re branding the government’s move “a complete denial of democracy”.

    ‘Wreaking havoc’

    According to polls, two-thirds of French people oppose the pension overhaul. Since January, trains, schools, public services, and ports have been affected by strikes against the proposed reform. A rolling strike by rubbish collectors in Paris has caused about 7,000 tonnes of trash to pile up in the streets. Additionally, thousands of protesters massed opposite parliament on the night of 16 March.

    Police used tear gas and water cannon against protesters after a fire was lit in the centre of the Place de la Concorde. Meanwhile, similar scenes unfolded across the rest of France.

    The ensuing unrest saw 310 people arrested around the country. This included 258 in Paris, Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin told RTL radio.

    The head of the CGT union, Philippe Martinez, warned this week that Macron risked “giving the keys” of the presidency to far-right Le Pen at the next election in 2027. At that point, Macron himself will be barred from seeking a third term.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse
    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Jacques Paquier, Creative Commons Attribution 2.0, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • An anti-gay crackdown is gripping East Africa

    Kenya, like its neighbours, is in the grip of a brutal cost of living crisis, and is facing its worst drought in four decades. However, activists say those issues have been pushed to the back-burner. Instead, leaders across the political spectrum unite to unleash a campaign of “state-sponsored homophobia“.

    Njeri Gateru, executive director of the Nairobi-based National Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (NGLHRC), a nonprofit group, told Agence France-Presse (AFP). She warned that:

    There is a concerted effort in peddling misinformation and disinformation…

    The sentiments that have been carried over in the public space inspire and justify violence against LGBTQ.

    Colonial legacy

    Homosexuality is illegal in many East African countries, which have a history of stigmas against gay people. This is often encouraged by conservative religious elements.

    In Kenya and Tanzania, gay sex remains a crime under colonial-era laws. The penalties include prison terms of up to 14 years. Convictions are rare, however. Despite the legal threats against homosexuality, gay rights groups have been allowed to operate in Kenya, unlike in neighbouring nations such as Somalia.

    However, the laws have made LGBTQ+ people in Kenya easy prey for police harassment and online attacks. And conditions have worsened since the most recent wave of homophobia took hold. NGLHRC recorded 117 attacks in Kenya against people seen to be LGBTQ+ last month. This is up from 78 in January.

    ‘Living in fear’

    The latest outburst came to a head last month after Kenya’s Supreme Court ruled against a petition seeking to bar LGBTQ+ lobbying groups. This sparked a torrent of condemnation including from the attorney general, who vowed to challenge the verdict.

    President William Ruto, a born-again Christian elected last August, declared that same-sex marriages could “happen in other countries but not in Kenya”.

    He said homosexuality was a Western import that Kenya’s “customs, traditions, Christianity and Islam cannot allow”.

    His deputy, Rigathi Gachagua, went even further, calling the court’s decision an example of:

    repugnant morality and injustice in our way of life.

    In a rare show of unity, opposition leader Raila Odinga agreed with the government. Despite spending months contesting Ruto’s election victory, Odinga joined in accusing the court of overstepping its mandate.

    Uganda

    Across Kenya’s western border, lawmakers in Uganda introduced a bill in parliament last week that would punish anyone who identifies as gay or engages in same-sex activity with a 10-year prison term.

    Uganda has long been known for its intolerance of homosexuality. In 2014, president Yoweri Museveni drew international condemnation after signing a law that promised life in prison for homosexual relations. It was struck down by Uganda’s constitutional court on a technicality.

    In recent months, online conspiracy theories accusing shadowy international forces of “promoting homosexuality” have flooded social media.

    Frank Mugisha, executive director of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMU), said that “Community members are living in fear”. SMU is a leading gay rights organisation whose operations were suspended by the authorities last year. It has already been inundated with calls from LGBTQ+ people over the new bill.

    Gay people an ‘easy target’

    Attacking gay rights while speaking of evangelical Christian values is an easy win for politicians in many African nations, campaigners say.

    Oryem Nyeko, a researcher for Human Rights Watch, called it a “very intentional and coordinated effort.” He added that homosexuals are an “easy target”:

    They are a vulnerable group, they are a minority, they are misunderstood.

    In Burundi, homosexuality has been criminalised since 2009. There, 24 people were charged with “homosexual practices” last week after attending a seminar organised by a nonprofit focussing on HIV/AIDS prevention.

    The crackdown has also expanded into schools. The governments of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania have vowed to stop the alleged spread of LGBTQ+ awareness among students.

    Earlier this month, Burundi’s president Evariste Ndayishimiye urged citizens to:

    curse those who indulge in homosexuality, because God cannot bear it…

    They must be banished, treated as pariahs in our country.

    Scapegoats

    Tanzanian activist Fatma Karume said gay, lesbian and trans people were scapegoats for political leaders struggling to address economic crises.

    She told AFP:

    It’s unfortunate… they want to use this minority group to distract people.

    The timing is not lost on gay rights campaigners.

    “We are being taken for a ride,” said NGLHRC’s Gateru, adding that regardless of the motives behind the onslaught, the message was clear:

    Being an LGBTQ person is being a second-class citizen.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Ludovic Bertron, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic licence, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Cyclone Freddy returns, killing over 100 in Malawi and Mozambique

    Cyclone Freddy killed more than 100 people in Malawi and Mozambique on its return to southern Africa’s mainland. It tore through southern Africa at the weekend for the second time within a few weeks. In total, at least 136 people have so far been killed. This includes 99 in Malawi, 20 in Mozambique and 17 in Madagascar. Malawi bore the brunt, counting at least 99 deaths after mudslides overnight washed away houses and sleeping occupants. 

    “We expect the number to rise,” Charles Kalemba, a commissioner at the Department of Disaster Management Affairs. Another 134 people were injured, and 16 are reported missing. Malawi’s commercial capital Blantyre recorded 85 deaths. According to the UN, more than 11,000 people were affected by the storm.

    Deadly loop

    The UN’s World Meteorological Organization has stated that Freddy is set to become the longest-lasting tropical cyclone on record. It formed off north-western Australia in the first week of February. Then, it crossed the entire southern Indian Ocean and hit Madagascar from 21 February before first reaching Mozambique on 24 February.

    Following what meteorologists describe as a ‘rare’ loop trajectory, Freddy then headed back towards Madagascar before moving once more towards Mozambique. There, at least 10 other people died and 14 were wounded. The Mozambique National Institute for Disaster Management said the fallout from the storm’s second landfall in the country was worse than expected.

    Meteorologists say that cyclones that track across the entire Indian Ocean are very infrequent. The last such occurrences were in 2000 – and Freddy’s loopback is even more exceptional.

    Professor Coleen Vogel, climate change expert at South Africa’s University of the Witwatersrand, said:

    It’s a very rare thing that these cyclones feed themselves over and over again.

    People aren’t expecting them to come back again once they’ve hit already.

    Vogel added that climate change is “starting to show impacts over these systems”. However, more research was needed to say this with greater certainty.

    Disaster response

    President Lazarus Chakwera declared a “state of disaster in the Southern region” of the nation. The government was responding to the crisis while appealing for local and international aid for affected families, his office said.

    Malawi has ordered schools in ten southern districts to remain closed until 15 March. Rains and winds are expected to keep battering the nation’s south.

    National carrier Malawi Airlines said all flights to Blantyre have been cancelled until further notice. An inbound plane ran into the bad weather and was forced back to the capital, Lilongwe.

    The country’s energy utility also warned that electricity generation would be unstable. This is because it would have to temporarily shut down hydropower stations to prevent muddy water from damaging turbines.

    Compounding the situation

    The impact of the cyclone has piled more woes on Malawi, which is grappling with the deadliest cholera outbreak in its history. The disease has killed over 1,600 people since last year. Worse still, UN children’s agency UNICEF warned that:

    Severe weather events such as these are likely to exacerbate the spread of waterborne diseases like cholera.

    Guilherme Botelho, Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) emergency project coordinator in Blantyre, states that:

    We have moved the cholera treatment centres close by to the hospital to ensure the safety of the patients… The rain hasn’t stopped yet and there is a lot of damage, which really worries us on many levels.

    Indeed, another rise in cholera cases is one of our concerns in the aftermath of this storm, especially since the vaccine coverage in Blantyre is very poor.

    He went on:

    The situation is very dire. There are many casualties, either wounded, missing or dead, and the numbers will only increase in the coming days.

    The Queen Elizabeth Central Hospital in Blantyre is overwhelmed with the influx of casualties coming from different areas, so we have put together a team of nurses and clinical officers to provide medical and logistic support. We are also donating medical supplies and will assess if food needs to be provided to patients.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Lauren Dauphin/Wikimedia Commons, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Italian PM gathers ministers at recent shipwreck site as EU meets on migrants once again

    Far-right Italian PM Giorgia Meloni gathered her ministers on 9 March for a meeting near the site of a recent fatal shipwreck. At least 72 people died when their overcrowded boat sank in stormy weather just off the coast of Calabria on February 26. Many of these people were children.

    Protesters accused Meloni’s right-wing government of risking lives with its hard line on migration. Ahead of the cabinet’s afternoon meeting in Cutro, several dozen protesters surrounded by riot police gathered in the town centre. They yelled “Step down, assassins!”

    Protestor Antonio Viterutti told Agence France-Presse (AFP) the visit by Meloni was an attempt to deflect attention from criticism. He said:

    I want to denounce the hypocrisy of the Italian government that leaves a boatload of people fleeing hunger, war and misery to die at sea and comes here today to do a political stunt…

    Local resident Maria Panebianco said:

    I hold them in my heart — all these children, these women who came to find peace and instead found death. It pains me. It pains me a lot.

    Returning the dead

    The interior ministry said it has begun the process of sending back the bodies of migrants to their home countries. This includes a planned operation to return 16 bodies to Afghanistan. The body of one Afghan migrant was buried at the Crotone cemetery this week. Meanwhile, the bodies of seven others were transferred to the Muslim cemetery in Bologna.

    Meloni’s far-right Brothers of Italy party won elections last year on a pledge to curb sea arrivals. Her governing coalition, which includes Matteo Salvini’s far-right League, has clamped down on charity rescue boats. The government’s policy of treating migrant boats in the Central Mediterranean as a law enforcement issue, rather than a humanitarian one, may have fatally delayed the rescue last month.

    Furthermore, Meloni and interior minister Matteo Piantedosi have rejected accusations that they failed to intervene to save the boat. It set off from Turkey and was carrying Afghan, Iranian, Pakistani, and Syrian nationals.

    Prosecutors have opened an investigation into the disaster. It occurred despite European Union border agency Frontex saying it had alerted Italian authorities to the heavily overcrowded boat.

    ‘Not warned’

    Piantedosi told his parliament on 7 March that Frontex had not said the boat was in any danger. However, he was fiercely criticised for blaming the victims for trusting their lives to traffickers.

    But opposition leaders insist the coastguard is supposed to rescue all vessels. Those carrying migrants and run by human traffickers are inevitably dangerously overcrowded and ill-equipped.

    They have also asked why a rescue operation was not launched once police boats that had been sent out to meet the vessel were forced to turn back in increasingly rough seas.

    A member of parliament who visited some of the 80 survivors told La Repubblica Daily that they had been kept in poor conditions. They were without even enough beds or special provisions for families and minors.

    Unabashed, Meloni has called for the EU to further bolster efforts to tackle the issue. She says that it penalises Italy. The country records tens of thousands of arrivals by sea yearly, mainly from North Africa.

    EU response

    Meanwhile, EU ministers met on 9 March to wrangle once again over who should take responsibility for migrants arriving in Europe. Last year, asylum claims in the EU reached a level not seen since the 2015-2016 refugee crisis. In turn, this ramped up long-standing tensions between member states.

    Countries with Mediterranean coasts used for arrivals from Africa and the Middle East, such as Italy and Greece, are demanding other states take in more migrants.

    The subject was expected to dominate a meeting of interior ministers in Brussels. Currently, the bloc is making a fresh push this year to reform the asylum system.

    Ahead of the talks, several ministers urged Italy to respect the so-called ‘Dublin Regulations’. Under this, irregular migrants should be registered in the EU country where they first enter.

    Bloc strains

    Swiss Justice Minister Elisabeth Baume-Schneider urged the Italian government to respect the rules. Switzerland is not an EU member but is a part of the Dublin rules. Baume-Schneider insisted:

    I am not the only one to say that we need to maintain dialogue with Italy and ask Italy to honour the Dublin pact.

    Germany’s interior minister Nancy Faeser blamed “those states that do not want to re-admit” asylum seekers for the dispute. She said:

    I will try to make sure that states are aware of their responsibility. It is the law, they are obliged to readmit. I will remind them very strongly today.

    France, Germany, and Switzerland signed a joint statement on 8 March with Austria, Belgium, Denmark, and the Netherlands. It expressed their concern over asylum seekers coming to their countries from the EU countries in which they first arrived.

    They called for the existing rules to be respected and “reaffirmed their commitment to structurally reform” the Dublin Regulations.

    The ministers in January wanted to focus on how to speed up the process of returning undocumented migrants to their country of origin in cases where their asylum bid fails.

    The Canary’s Alex/Rose Cocker argued:

    As the climate crisis and wars continue to create refugees desperately fleeing their homes, attempted crossings will keep taking place. However, increasingly far-right governments are more invested in ‘tough on immigration’ posturing than saving human lives. More than this, as Meloni has shown, they are criminalising civilian rescue efforts that plug the gaps left by governments.

    The lives of (overwhelmingly Black and brown) refugees hold no value at European borders. It is therefore imperative that we stand together to speak out against the callous disregard for human life shown by European governments.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Youtube screengrab

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

  • EU home affairs chief warns Braverman’s asylum plan may be illegal

    Britain’s plan to refuse to allow asylum seekers arriving in small boats the right to claim asylum may breach its international obligations. This was according to the EU’s home affairs commissioner, Ylva Johansson, on 9 March. Johansson said she had spoken to home secretary Suella Braverman to discuss the planned legislation, which may breach European and UN conventions.

    On 8 March, Braverman told ITV News that she had invited Johansson to study the UK proposal in more detail. However, she stressed:

    We are no longer members of the European Union and so we are free to determine our own borders and migration policy.

    PM Rishi Sunak also threatened to “take back control of our borders once and for all” by detaining and deporting any migrants caught crossing the Channel from France or Belgium in small boats.

    Due to the UK’s already-unfit asylum system, the backlog of asylum claims now exceeds 160,000. The crossings, many organised by smuggling gangs, are incredibly dangerous. In November 2021, at least 27 people drowned in a single incident.

    Macron-Sunak summit

    Opponents, rights groups, and the United Nations say the new draft law would turn Britain into an international pariah under European and UN conventions on asylum.

    Unperturbed, Sunak hopes to strike a deal with France to halt the asylum seekers on its coast. The PM will meet President Emmanuel Macron at a summit in Paris on Friday. An aide to the French leader told reporters the pair were working on a deal to increase the border-policing resources.

    However, arriving at the Brussels meeting, French Interior Minister Gerald Darmanin warned the proposed UK law could harm relations. He also stressed that Britain should work with the EU to better co-ordinate migrant policy.

    Darmanin said Macron and Sunak would discuss the legislation on Friday. He stressed that the goal should be a treaty between the UK and the EU to provide legal access routes for migrants. Further, Britain also needs a system to return those refused asylum.

    The EU ministers, meanwhile, were to discuss their own differences about how to better divide the task of sharing migrant arrivals and managing asylum claims

    ‘A clear breach’

    On Tuesday the UN refugee agency UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) said the plan removes:

    the right to seek refugee protection in the United Kingdom for those who arrive irregularly, no matter how genuine and compelling their claim may be.

    By denying protection to asylum seekers and even the opportunity to put forward their case, the plan “would be a clear breach” of the international Refugee Convention, it said.

    Campaign group Refugee Action also pointed out that the plans are unlikely even to reduce the number of refugees. It stressed that:

    These deterrence policies will never work because a tiny minority of people fleeing war and persecution around the world will always want to come to the UK to seek safety.

    Most have powerful reasons to want to come here that we can all understand – they have family here, or friends here, or community here. The Home Office’s own research has backed this up.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Youtube screengrab

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A Republican talking head called for the ‘elimination of transgenderism’ – but the UK beat him to it

    On 4 March, American commentator and media host Michael Knowles called for the elimination of “transgenderism” at a Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Knowles hosts a podcast for the right-wing media outlet Daily Wire. His comments rightfully drew intense scrutiny and pushback from commentators and publications on the internet.

    In particular, Knowles called Rolling Stone’s chosen headline “libelous” and demanded a retraction:

    CPAC Speaker Calls for Transgender People to be ‘Eradicated’

    Knowles said:

    For the good of society … transgenderism must be eradicated from public life entirely — the whole preposterous ideology, at every level.

    He called for the eradication of “transgenderism”, as if this is not synonymous with the eradication of trans people. However, the problem from a UK standpoint is that transphobic ‘gender critical’ activists have used similar rhetoric here for years. You might have heard it on our national broadcaster or in the halls of our government.

    What’s more, it hasn’t received anywhere near enough pushback.

    Eliminationist rhetoric

    The argument from Knowles and his ilk is that trans people do not exist. We are merely confused people afflicted by ‘gender ideology’ or ‘transgenderism’. Our detractors frame this ‘ideology’ as a set of beliefs and practices, rather than a state of being.

    Knowles has made statements similar to his CPAC speech on his podcast. In 28 February’s installment of the Daily Wire‘s The Michael Knowles Show, he said:

    I don’t know how you could have a genocide of transgender people because genocide refers to genes, it refers to genetics, it refers to biology. And the whole point of transgenderism is that it has nothing to do with biology.

    He went on:

    But furthermore, nobody’s calling to exterminate anybody because the other problem with that statement is that transgender people is not a real ontological category. It’s not a legitimate category of being.

    It is easy to recognise this wording as fascist. Stating that being trans is not “a legitimate category of being” is dehumanisation. This is one of the hallmarks of fascism. A genocide cannot take place against trans people because there aren’t any trans people, he says. Exactly how Knowles intends to eliminate ‘transgenderism’ is left to the listener’s imagination.

    What does elimination look like?

    The most obvious course of action would be to make trans people cis. However, so-called ‘conversion therapy’ – the attempt to convince a trans person that they are not trans – doesn’t work. What’s more, it is actively dangerous to the people it is inflicted upon – it doubles the rate of suicide in recipients.

    So if a trans person cannot be made cis, what does our eradication look like?

    You might try to convert me anyway, and damn the fact that it might kill me. After numerous u-turns, the UK government only saw fit to outlaw this two months ago.

    Alternatively, you could take away my healthcare. The British public, at least, believes that trans healthcare should be the purview of the rich, who can afford private access. Just 33% think that the NHS should provide hormone replacement therapy.

    Failing this, you might simply try to make trans lives unlivable. Just removing equalities protections would be enough to enable bigots to freely abuse trans people. PM Rishi Sunak has already indicated that he wishes to remove trans protections from the equality act, which would enable this abuse.

    Eliminationism in the UK

    Of course, there is always the option of outlawing ‘being trans’ altogether. Even if you can’t stop a trans person being trans, you could stop them from saying that they are trans, from participating in public life as a trans person. The UK already treats the recognition of our gender as a reward for compliance; our genders are recognised until that becomes inconvenient, until we become inconvenient. But some transphobes want to go even further.

    Back in 2021, the Women’s Human Rights Campaign (WHRC) submitted a response to a government inquiry into the Gender Recognition Act. Referring to a UN convention on discrimination against women, the WHRC declaration said:

    The convention calls for the ‘elimination of prejudices and customary and all other practices which are based on the idea of the inferiority or the superiority of either of the sexes or on stereotyped roles for men and women’ (Article 5).

    We can all get behind that, right? The elimination of prejudice and stereotypes based on sex – sign me up. However, the document continued:

    We consider that the practice of transgenderism clearly falls under this article because it is based on stereotyped roles for men and women.

    If this sounds familiar, it should. The reference to “transgenderism”, its framing as a “practice”, the call for its “elimination” – all of it beat Knowles to the post two years ago. UK transphobia recycled in the US: who’d have thought it?

     …And the condemnation?

    As reported by Pink News, the signatories to the declaration include the LGB Alliance, Transgender Trend, Labour Women’s Declaration, WoLF (Women’s Liberation Front), Standing For Women, Safe Schools Alliance UK, and For Women Scotland.

    However, rather than being widely recognised as calling for trans elimination, supporters of the WHRC have been granted media attention and government influence. The Tory Party conference has hosted the LGB Alliance two years in a row. Stephanie Davies-Arai, founder of Transgender Trend, was awarded the British Empire Medal in the Queen’s birthday honours. For Women Scotland appeared before Scottish parliament to argue that new hate crime laws might do too much to stop it from being transphobic.

    The eliminationism supported by these groups is the same as that spat out by Knowles to Republican applause. Both work towards the destruction of my way of life, and that of my trans siblings.

    I am trans. We are trans. We cannot be stopped from being trans. However, without something fundamental changing in the UK’s attitude to trans people, we can and will be stopped from being.

    Featured image via Wikimedia Commons/Gage Skidmore, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0, resized to 770*403

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Trans women prisoners policy update bars nearly all from the female estate – but that was already the case

    Content warning: This article contains discussion of genitals and sexual assault.

    On 25 January, the government announced an update to its transgender prisoners policy. Under the new rules, trans women who have “male genitalia” or who have been convicted of a sexual offence will no longer be held in women’s prisons. This follows plans announced on 4 October of last year by former justice secretary Brandon Lewis.

    So what, exactly, is going to change? Currently, there are 230 trans prisoners being held in England and Wales. Of these, 168 are trans women, 42 are trans men, 13 are non-binary, and a further seven did not specify. This is from a total population of 79,800 prisoners.

    Before January’s update, however, it was by no means the case that trans women were sent to the female estate as a matter of course. Individual trans prisoners were assessed for risk – both to and from other prisoners.

    As things currently stand, there are six trans women housed in the women’s estate. It’s regarding these six women, and the potential for others like them, that the government has felt the need to update its policy wholesale.

    The implicit assumption is that a trans woman in possession of a penis is a danger to cis women. However, this does not line up with current statistics. Of the six trans women in the women’s estate, precisely none had committed sexual assaults in prison. According to prisons minister Damian Hinds:

    Since the 2019 strengthening of our policy there have been no assaults or sexual assaults committed by transgender women in women’s prisons and last year we further strengthened that policy.

    Typical reporting

    The Guardian saw fit to report the policy changes with the headline:

    Trans violent offenders banned from women’s prisons in England and Wales

    But there’s a conflation going on here, both in the reporting and in the policy itself. The other group of trans women the announcement affects squeaks in on the subheader:

    New rules also cover transgender women ‘with their male genitalia intact’, says Dominic Raab

    The choice in this framing is indicative of the level of the discussion here. “Trans violent offenders are banned” is the headline, while ‘and nearly all the rest, too’ slips in in smaller print.

    For trans people living in the UK, this will be quite familiar. The fact of having a penis is treated as synonymous with the threat of sexual assault. The very worst that trans people can be is routinely placed at the front of peoples’ minds. This makes it acceptable to do whatever the public pleases to all trans people.

    Falling figures

    According to 2022 polling by research group More in Common, 46% of Britons believe that trans women are women. This is compared to 32% who disagree, with the rest being unsure. However, this belief is conditional – but any trans person could tell you that.

    That 46% who deign to recognise this basic fact of who trans women are, drops as soon as they are asked whether trans people should be granted rights according to their gender. For example, 39% of people believe that trans women should be able to access women’s domestic violence services when they are raped.

    38% of the public think trans women should be able to socially and legally change their genders. The difference between those two figures is 8%. The 8% believe trans women are women until they wish to marry, or die – then they become men, or something else. A similar 38% believe trans women should be able to use women’s toilets. So, another 8% believe trans women are women up until they need to piss outside their homes. Then they become men again.

    The number falls again when considering where the public believes trans women should be imprisoned. Just 24% of Britons believe that a trans woman convicted of a non-violent, non-sexual crime should be sent to the women’s estate. To clarify, that means that 22% of people believe that trans women are women, but they should be locked up in prisons with men anyway. They are women provided that they do not steal, take no illicit drugs, and pay their taxes.

    Well-behaved women

    All of this is to say that, in the public imagining, the trans woman is a special kind of woman. She is a conditional woman. She is a woman provided she remains unnoticed and unobtrusive. Trans women are women until they’re a bit too loud. They’re women until they take up space. Provided that they shrink themselves, that they behave, they are permitted their gender.

    For a cis person, gender is inalienable; it can’t be taken away. For trans people, however, this fundamental aspect of humanity is treated as a reward for compliance.

    The new prisons policy changes little in reality; there are vanishingly few trans women in the female estate already. What it does do, however, is deepen the conflation of trans women’s genitals with the threat of sexual assault in the public consciousness. It exacerbates a manufactured culture war against trans people during a time of increasing violence against LGBTQ+ people.

    Most of all, it confirms a fundamental truth of Britain’s tolerance of transness. Trans people can have their gender, provided that doesn’t have to mean anything at all.

    Featured image via Unsplash/Jonny Gios

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Ofgem cuts energy price cap by nearly a quarter, but bills will still rise

    UK regulator Ofgem has announced a lower cap on sky-high energy bills from April. However, buyers will still pay more for gas and electricity because the government is also reducing financial assistance.

    Ofgem said the annual amount suppliers are able to charge an average household would be cut by nearly a quarter. It will fall to £3,280 from £4,279. This new figure shows how much consumers would pay on their suppliers’ most basic tariff if the government’s Energy Price Guarantee (EPG) was not present.

    Ofgem CEO Jonathan Brearley said that the fall mirrors a shift in the price of “wholesale energy for the first time since the gas crisis began”. However, he also warned that:

    prices are unlikely to fall back to the level we saw before the energy crisis.

    As BBC News has reported, the government’s EPG is indeed set to drop. It stated that:

    The typical annual household bill is set to rise from £2,100 to £3,000 in April because government help – known as the Energy Price Guarantee (EPG) – will become less generous and a £400 winter discount on all bills ends.

    ‘Not enough to help’

    Rocio Concha, of consumer pressure group Which?, noted:

    The price cap is coming down, but not by enough to help people who will face a sharp spike in their energy bills in April when the government reduces its financial help

    Market energy costs have slumped in recent months, leading to ludicrous profits for energy companies. Meanwhile, annual inflation in the UK remains above 10%. This is fives times the rate targeted by the Bank of England.

    Rising energy bills will always affect the poorest members of society most profoundly. Think tanks like the Resolution Foundation have pointed out that any increase in price without an increase in wages will result in more households plunging into fuel stress. This means that they spend more than 10% of their income on energy.

    As the Canary’s Steve Topple previously said:

    The level of difference between how hard energy companies are hitting the richest and poorest, coupled with the fact the government knows this and is barely acting is class war. That is, the rich and powerful are knowingly doing things that will suppress the poorest people and keep them in their poverty-stricken place…

    Decisions made by those at the top of society that will plunge 7.5 million families at the bottom into further poverty is class war.

    ‘Out-of-touch government’

    Soaring energy and food bills, coupled with rising interest rates, have triggered a cost of living crisis for millions of households. This has been accompanied by some of the most intense strike action in decades.

    Sharon Graham, general secretary of Unite, said:

    Ofgem’s latest manoeuvres on the energy price cap do next to nothing to ease the pressure on workers and communities already haunted by… their fuel bills

    This out-of-touch government is clearly preparing to pull the plug on protecting consumers and is totally abdicating any responsibility for dealing with the runaway profiteering of energy companies.

    Meanwhile, Rishi Sunak is resisting calls to offer inflation-matching pay rises for public-sector workers, notably thousands of nurses and teachers who are planning more strikes next month.

    The Tories in power can see that households are hurting. They know that bills will go up but plan to cut the EPG subsidy anyway, even though the reasons it was needed in the first place haven’t gone away.

    Nothing has changed. Except the government seems to simply be giving up the pretense that it cares about people being able to afford necessities such as cooking and staying warm.

    Additional reporting via Agence France-Presse

    Featured image via Flickr/ climatejusticecollective, cropped to 770*403 pixels

    By Alex/Rose Cocker

    This post was originally published on Canary.