Jacob Collier
Main Page: Jacob Collier (Labour - Burton and Uttoxeter)Department Debates - View all Jacob Collier's debates with the Wales Office
(1 day, 14 hours ago)
Westminster HallWestminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
I absolutely agree, and will touch on that later. As a community, we are always stronger when we are together, and we will always have T as part of the LGBT community.
Given the global attacks on our LGBT+ community, we need to find that fighting spirit again. The attacks on our community did not just start happening again; they were driven by far-right money from America, hate in this country and globally, the media and—yes—politicians, who should know better, continuing to demonise the LGBT+ community. Last year, I spoke about the increase in the lesbophobia that I faced: from being called a rug-muncher to being called a nonce, and having pride flags in my home town of Hebburn ripped down.
We have seen a rise in hate crime, and we must make active efforts to support our non-binary and trans community, who still face unique day-to-day challenges for simply being themselves and loving who they love. Under current hate crime legislation, hate crimes based on race or religion can attract a greater penalty because they are classified as aggravated offences. Our manifesto committed to ensuring that hate crime based on sexual orientation, gender identity and/or disability would also be classified as aggravated offences. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about moves towards that happening.
I sit on the Council of Europe and its committee on equality and non-discrimination. Part of my brief is reporting on the ban on so-called conversion practices across Europe. As part of that, I visit and speak to people in other countries about their legislation. One country was Italy. Outrageously, the official visit request was rejected, and I was unofficially told that this was because they did not want more of our finger-wagging critique. Thankfully, the very nice Maltese Government have offered us a visit instead.
Just last month, as I got off a train at King’s Cross, I was verbally abused by a man who shouted at me that I was obviously a lesbian, that I was a sexual deviant and that I was going to hell. I am frequently misgendered. I do not mean occasionally—it is a weekly occurrence. In January, I was misgendered three times during one two-hour train journey. I have been misgendered by staff of this House. I was misgendered while buying some jeans last week. This is genuinely a frequent issue for me and a number of my lesbian friends.
I note that Ministers said yesterday that there will be guidance regarding the Supreme Court verdict. That decision will have a huge impact on my life, on many other cis lesbians and, indeed, on heterosexual women. I suspect that I will get challenged even more now when accessing facilities. The impact on my life will be problematic, but the impact on my trans siblings’ lives will be significantly worse.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and for securing debate. I know that she has spoken passionately about these issues over many decades and that, like me, she will have received lots of correspondence from concerned trans and LGBT+ constituents over the last few days. Does she agree that it is for the Labour Government to get on with advancing the LGBT rights in the manifesto—things like the trans-inclusive conversion therapy ban, modernisation of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and making LGBT hate crime an aggravated offence?
Yes, I believe that only now, with a Labour Government, will we see the continued advancement of LGBT rights, as we have in the past.
While we are on the topic of the judgment, let me say that it does not offer clarity. I believe that it has sown division and caused contradictions in legislation. The ruling was made without a single contribution from trans people and leaves them legally and practically at a huge disadvantage. I believe that the judgment raises many more questions than it answers, and I will be writing to the Secretary of State to set that out.
As a woman, a lesbian, a feminist and a proud dyke, the Supreme Court judgment, for me, is a step backwards. The court should not be telling me what a lesbian is or is not or how I should identify. We need empathy in finding ways to support people and let everyone live their own lives. Of course, we need to protect single-sex spaces in the very limited situations that they are needed—which is, and was already, covered in legislation and has never been disputed—while maintaining clear protections for trans people, especially trans women.
To see an already marginalised community attacked even more and the use of the law to increase discrimination, not prevent it, is deeply upsetting. Those celebrating the impact the decision has on trans women—that of curtailing their protections—should not be surprised when the same people that funded and supported their attacks then push for rights to be rolled back for all women. Research from Just Like Us clearly highlights that young lesbians are more supportive of the trans community than any other part of the LGBTQIA+ community. They are most likely to know a trans person—92%—and to say that they are supportive or very supportive of trans people—96%.