Pride Month

Debate between Charlotte Nichols and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Thursday 15th June 2023 Commons Chamber

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

Very good. There is competition looming for Brighton and Hove.

We now have Prides along the south coast in Seaford, Hastings, Eastbourne and Worthing, but it is a very recent development that we have seen such a huge number of public Prides. I lived in Bradford between 2005 and 2012 and, when I first arrived, our Pride events were held in basements. In fact, in 2008, we held one in a basement club with bouncers on the door to make sure we were safe.

The year after, many pioneers in Bradford—and I played only a very small role—decided that enough was enough and a public Pride would take place. The city centre square was secured and, as opposed to the protests in the 1970s and 1980s, the first public manifestation of Pride in Bradford celebrated diversity, and there was an awful lot of concern. Of course, we had had race riots only a few years before, and people were worried. Would Bradfordians really want something like this in their town square?

Well, the sun shone and the square was filled with families, friends and passers-by all joining in and wearing rainbow dresses. Drag queens mingled with people wearing football shirts because, of course, that year Bradford also got to the cup final. Everyone just got on and enjoyed the event. It seemed that Pride had not only come but had taken too long, because it was not an issue and people were enjoying themselves.

But, of course, when we talk about LGB, we cannot forget the T. Brighton has been at the forefront of acceptance and equality, and this year we are hosting our 10th Trans Pride on 14 July. It is the largest Trans Pride in Europe, and I have been a regular attender since its early years.

The trans community is under attack by fierce, hate-filled newspapers and right-wing culture warriors. For the trans community, Pride provides a sanctuary away from the hate, surrounded by fellow queers and allies, and stands as a beacon of political radicalism pushing against the political hate.

There is still a lot more to do. There are failures in the Commonwealth, and we have seen progress reversed. The asylum system lets down LGBT people too often, and it is intrusive in the answers and demonstrations that people need to show. We know that relationship and sexual health education is now under attack, only a few short years after it was introduced in our schools.

Conversion therapy has still not been banned, and I hope the Minister will give us reassurances. I am afraid the Government opened the trans Pandora’s box when they said they would review the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and then, for years, failed to bring forward concrete proposals on how it would be done. In those years, everyone’s worst fears and nightmares were put into a melting pot stirred by right-wingers who, of course, saw it as a great victory. They were able to question the very rights secured by the Act—that is the problem with opening up Acts without making positive proposals—and now we see the same happening with the Equality Act.

[Charlotte Nichols]

I am very mindful of what my hon. Friend says about the Pandora’s box that has been opened on transphobia by some of the debates in this place. I referred in my speech to the comments made by Brianna Ghey’s mother on the sickening trolling of her family on Mumsnet, Twitter and other places, with people making awful transphobic comments about her daughter. Does my hon. Friend agree it is incumbent on all of us to make sure that, in this place, we are not fanning the flames of that kind of hatred?

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

My hon. Friend is quite right. My thoughts are with Brianna’s family and friends. We came out in solidarity in Brighton, and it is terribly sad.

Unfortunately, those who welcome reviews of the Equality Act, no matter with what caveats, are fanning the flames of hate and they cannot call themselves allies to the community. We must be clear: the opening up of that Act is a retrograde step when it does not come with clear, concrete proposals that we can materially discuss and debate.

We see also the banning of puberty blockers for under 18s. Puberty blockers are deliberately designed to delay the process of puberty, not to prevent or stop it, so that those young people can be given more time to work out who they are and what they will become. The banning of puberty blockers for under-18s is a cruelty because it forces people to go through puberty when they might not and should not be ready for it. We know, because of the judgments in swimming and other sports, that if they go through puberty, they will be banned for life from certain activities, even if they change their gender. So the ban on those blockers is a particularly cruel and nasty form of discrimination that will last for those children’s lifetime. People who support that, in hand-wringing ways, saying, “Well, it is still a bit unsure” are not thinking about the wider consequences for those individuals. A puberty blocker does not stop someone changing their mind; they can revert back. A very small number of people might decide to do so. Of course we have seen huge cuts in sexual health services, which have ended up particularly targeting the LGBT community.

When I first arrived in this Parliament, only six years ago, relationships, sex and health education was normalised. It was being implemented by a Conservative Government and it seemed as though progress could only go forward. The Labour party even removed the Whip from one of its MPs and his ability to stand because he supported the anti-LGBT, RSHE protests outside schools, endangering children. The Labour party took a stand and the Conservative party was equally taking a stand. It apologised for section 28 and it felt as if we were united, all moving forward. But then the dirty money from the evangelical right in America started to flood in, often through Tufton Street, where extreme right-wing organisations are based. We have seen climate denial, the reckless economic policies from the right hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) and the LGB Alliance—all dangerous organisations that wish to roll back the progress we have made. We now have some Tory, Labour and SNP MPs—it is across the House—spreading fear and hatred about our community, and our parties seem unable to enforce any form of discipline and dignity for our community, instead allowing that to run amok. This is not one party or another; it has infected all our parties and they seem to be totally unable to stand up to hate.

We have MPs in this Chamber who sit on conversion therapy boards and then organise petitions to try to review RSHE. They are not neutral people, but they seem to have the ear of the Prime Minister and to have the Zeitgeist behind them. How do we turn that around? How did things get turned around in those six years? How do we move forward to start bringing dignity back to all of our parties and back to this place for LGBT people? A lot of this has been cheered on by those extremist backers, the same ones who have supported the Uganda reforms and who are supporting the reforms in the USA. They are the same people who advise people such as Putin and others in Russia who are pushing back against LGBT people there. There is a golden thread and, if our parties and our Parliament cannot see that, we are in dangerous territory.

Some politicians have stood as strong allies, with President Biden a good example in the US. He is a shining example when he says to trans kids, “You are loved, you have body autonomy and I, and we, will defend your rights.” I would love to see any of our party leaders be as unequivocal as him, and be clear that trans people have our support and that we do not get drawn into this parental consent nonsense, where people say that children should be outed to their parents, or that parents should know when they are going through these difficult times. Of course I would love parents to know, but it is not appropriate for all parents and for all children. The law must be written for the worst and there are some bad parents out there. We cannot send their children to parental arms that might be those of abusers.

As I was saying, that money has infected our politics and our political discourse. Pride is a celebration of our diversity, in all different forms, but it also says that we should be treated equally. That means many LGBT people will want to live in different ways, not just the 2.4 traditional monogamous family, although I recognise that many LGBT people will want to be the 2.4 traditional monogamous family. We celebrate all those sexual diversities that were once marginalised that are based on consent between adults and we celebrate them in Pride. Pride is a moment for us to remember where we have come from and to ensure that love conquers hate. So happy Pride Month. Let our hearts win over hate and, finally, Mr Deputy Speaker, in the words of Kylie, “Padam, Padam.”

Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill (Fifth sitting)

Debate between Charlotte Nichols and Lloyd Russell-Moyle

Wednesday 15th September 2021 Public Bill Committees

[Charlotte Nichols (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I want to follow up on my hon. Friend’s comments about what the Bill means in relation to the Equality Act 2010. As someone who is Jewish, one of my key areas of concern is what it would mean for Jewish students—an issue I have raised a number of times throughout the passage of the Bill. I have raised concerns about what it would mean for Holocaust denial, after the Minister appeared to suggest on the radio that that would be protected speech under the Bill. In fact, we heard from witnesses such as Professor Goodwin that he would invite a speaker from the National Front or the British National party, if they were available, to address his students. We have heard evidence that that is what some academics would seek to do, if the Bill were in place.

We need only look at the British National party. Nick Griffin, along with a number of members of the British National party and the National Front, has been repeatedly prosecuted for hate crimes, incitement to racial hatred and Holocaust denial. Inviting someone with those sorts of views to address students on campus—for example, in a politics lecture—might mean someone like Nick Griffin laying out all the reasons why he believes that anyone who is not white British should be repatriated to a different country, why he believes that the Holocaust did not happen, and so forth. Clearly, if he made those remarks outside a university setting, in a discussion that was not about an academic or scientific matter in a higher education setting, he could be prosecuted for that, as he has been repeatedly.

The amendment would allow a loophole for Nazis, fascists and people who hold absolutely objectionable views. As we have heard, those people have, in the public interest, always had their right to absolute freedom of speech, qualified by that public interest, libel laws, the Equality Act 2010 and so on. The unintended consequence would be to drive a wedge in the Equality Act. Our university campuses would become less safe spaces than the street outside them, where those rules would still be in place.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle, I have nothing but respect for the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, but if his amendment formed part of the Bill, it could have really adverse consequences.

[Lloyd Russell-Moyle]

I became quite fond of the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings during the evidence sessions, and during our discussions about the necessity for broader academic reform in our universities and about how tenure works. There is a lot of agreement on that. However, for three reasons, I am worried that the amendment creates an outcome that he is not actually seeking. First, Professor Stock described how her academic freedom and free speech was not limited just by—I would argue not at all by—the university and the institution, but by the harassment from colleagues, students and the academic community more broadly. They called her names such as TERF, which she found objectionable, and said that she was not academically rigorous. In effect, she described what we would call harassment, because she was exerting her right under sex protections to talk about sex, and they were harassing her for that. I disagree with her views on the sex agenda, but it is her right to express them without fear of harassment.

This amendment would be a harasser’s charter—a charter to harass her outside the university, making snide remarks online or in academic forums, degrading her and ridiculing her. We heard in the last evidence session—it feels like yesterday—how many academics feel mocked and ridiculed by their colleagues because of their activities, and that sometimes leads to harassment, because they have protected characteristics. This would be a charter for those academics to be harassed out of their practice. That would be very worrying. I do not think that is what the right hon. Gentleman wants, but I am worried that is what the amendment would do.

We also heard from Trevor Phillips, with whom I disagree on a number of matters, who said that the importance of the Bill is not about directing details but empowering a regulator to provide guidance about where these things need deliberation. Bizarrely, whereas the Minister has previously said, “This needs to be dealt with by the Office for Students”, and I have disagreed, on this issue I would take the line that the Minister has taken: this is an area where we need decent guidance from the Office for Students to ensure that universities are balancing that duty.

The right hon. Gentleman is right that sometimes universities incorrectly interpret the balance of where they should be on harassment and academic rigour. The clunky nature of this amendment might not fix that, but decent guidelines will change the way universities work, so I hope the Minister will say that she will push for them.