Lesbian Visibility Week
Debate between Katherine Fletcher and Joanna Cherry(7 months, 4 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Lesbian Visibility Week should be about lesbians, but the website put up this week says it is about
“celebrating the power of sisterhood by uplifting incredible LGBTQIA women and non-binary people”.
I think it is a real shame that, in the week about our visibility, the lesbian identity is being subsumed into a number of other identities that have nothing to do with being a same-sex-attracted woman.
Many lesbians fundamentally disagree with this, and I want to speak up for them today. They need someone to speak up for them. It is a mark of how marginalised lesbians have become in our society that so few hon. Members have turned up today. It is the reason I am speaking from the SNP Front Bench, despite having been removed from it several years ago, partly for being the wrong sort of lesbian and one who does not believe that the rights of men who say they are women should trump those of lesbians.
Before I go any further, I declare an interest as a supporter of LGB Alliance and a member of the advisory boards of both the Lesbian Project and Sex Matters. But my main interest in this issue is that I am a lesbian. I came out in the 1980s, when homophobia and lesbophobia were still rife across the UK, and my first activism was against clause 28. In those times, like many other lesbians, I was physically assaulted in the street and mocked for being a lesbian. Lesbians of my generation also faced losing our jobs and our children.
For a long time, we thought that lesbophobia had gone, but lesbophobia is back, and it has been created by those who think that the rights of lesbians are conditional on them accepting gender identity ideology. They are not. Lesbians are same-sex-attracted women, and we are protected on that basis from discrimination, bullying and harassment under the Equality Act, under which our protected characteristic is sexual orientation. Our protection is on the basis of our sex, not our gender. And as J. K. Rowling has said, without sex there can be no same-sex attraction. That is why lesbians like me fight the replacement of the biological reality of sex with the nebulous concept of gender.
I said a moment ago that the rights of lesbians are “not conditional” on accepting gender identity theory. That is a direct quote from my friend Allison Bailey. As some Members will know, Allison Bailey is a black lesbian barrister who nearly lost her job for standing up for the rights of lesbians. Other lesbians have faced similar persecution.
My friends Kate Harris, Bev Jackson and Eileen Gallagher had to fight a lengthy court battle to protect their charity, LGB Alliance, from being removed from the charity register as a result of malicious legal action. Justice prevailed and they won the case but, shamefully, those who sought to destroy a charity run by lesbians for lesbians included Members of this House, and it was not the first time that Members of this House have displayed hostility towards lesbians.
As the Father of the House said a moment ago, when I was invited to speak on a cross-party panel at the first LGB Alliance conference back in October 2021, I faced the challenge of crossing a picket line that included a heterosexual female MP who, together with self-styled trans rights activists, was protesting against the rights of lesbians to organise a conference to talk about lesbian and gay rights. Just let that sink in. That is where we have got to—heterosexuals telling lesbians that we cannot hold a conference.
Many lesbians have been persecuted for refusing to bend their knee to gender identity ideology. Some have faced losing their job and their livelihood, and some have also faced violence or the threat of violence. I will name a few of them this afternoon. All are or have become my friends as a result of our struggle: Lucy Masoud, Professor Kathleen Stock, Julie Bindel, Professor Jo Phoenix and my dear friend Dr Shereen Benjamin, a Labour activist who has been treated appallingly by the University of Edinburgh.
There are many other lesbians whose lives have been severely restricted by gender identity zealots. We are not allowed to have lesbian-only social events. The only venues left for lesbians say that they are inclusive, which means that men are included. Women’s sports are also now inclusive, which means that they include men while excluding lesbians who want to play on women-only teams.
Recently, a lesbian coming to view democracy in action at the Scottish Parliament was told by security that she could not enter the building wearing a small pin badge reading “Scottish Lesbians.” I am wearing that same badge today in solidarity with Scottish Lesbians, which is an excellent grassroots lesbian collective.
Across the United Kingdom, lesbians have been intimidated at Pride marches, spat on and assaulted for simply asserting their right to say that lesbians are same-sex attracted. At a recent event for women in Edinburgh, men counter-protesters held up vile, abusive lesbophobic signs. The police did nothing because, for all the furore in Scotland about hate crime, it seems that hate directed at lesbians does not count.
I do not believe that the interests of lesbians are being properly represented by organisations such as Stonewall and the organisers of Lesbian Visibility Week because, in their determination to promote gender identity ideology and to keep themselves in a job by doing so, not only do they fail to represent lesbians but they actually promote lesbian invisibility and lesbian erasure.
Most people think it is absurd to say that a man can be a lesbian, or to say that lesbians can have penises, and they are right. It is absurd. I am proud to be able to stand up in Lesbian Visibility Week in the House of Commons and say so. I am proud that I can stand up to speak for the lesbians who reject the forced teaming of lesbians with other groups that have completely different issues from us. I say: stop lumping us together with those other groups, as it has the effect that our interests are obscured or overlooked altogether, and it renders us invisible.
Interestingly, back in 2021 the “Inclusive Britain” report found that aggregate terms such as BAME were “no longer helpful”, took no account of the differing needs and outcomes of those included under that umbrella, and should be dropped. The report’s findings were adopted and the acronym BAME is no longer used in government. I, like many other lesbians, think that the same principles should be applied to acronyms such as LGBTQIA+, so that lesbians are not force-teamed with other identities.
Katherine Fletcher (South Ribble) (Con)
I am reflecting on the speech we heard from the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), and what we could all benefit from in this debate is a bit more love and compassion. Anybody who is setting out to do anything other than demonstrate love to people who do or think differently perhaps needs to think again.
Joanna Cherry
Yes, but there also has to be room for difference and for someone such as me to speak up on behalf of some lesbians who feel the way that I do—we are quite large in number. I do not pretend to speak for all lesbians, but none of the other lesbians in this House speak for all lesbians either. I am putting forward what I consider to be a valid viewpoint. Most importantly, it is one backed by the law of this land.
I am constrained by not having as much time as I would have liked. I would have liked to have talked about the Cass report and how it has identified that a large percentage of girls presenting with gender dysphoria are same-sex attracted young women. I would like to have had time to talk about how important it is that we do not shut down holistic talking therapy for such young women. However, I am going to bring my comments to a close by saying this: in my belief, in the view of many lesbians and in the eyes of the law, a lesbian is a woman whose sexual orientation is towards other women. Those who think lesbians include men are deluded. You cannot be a responsible lawmaker if you believe that any man can be a woman just by saying so. That is an old joke worthy of the worst nights in student union bars back in my youth, with drunk testosterone-fuelled men telling me and other lesbians that all we needed was the right man. In future, let us try to retain our grasp on what a lesbian is. Many lesbians are sick of being bossed about by all those who promote their cult beliefs that gender trumps sex—it does not; it never has and it never will.
Draft Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Border Security) Regulations 2023
Debate between Katherine Fletcher and Joanna Cherry(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joanna Cherry
That is what happens in many other European countries. Of course, any interference with the article 11 rights has to be proportionate, and given the extent of these regulations, there is a very real argument as to whether the interference is proportionate. I believe that it is not.
I note—and the TUC drew to my attention—that the Government estimate that the regulations will mean staffing levels of around 70-75% of Border Force. Only one out of four people working for Border Force will be able to exercise their right to strike; that strikes me as rather disproportionate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central said, this is all because the Government say
“all ports and airports should remain open on a strike day.”
As I understand it from the TUC, the Government are committing that they will agree to engage in conciliation for national disputes in relation to border security. Where the relevant unions agree, that would be helpful, but it is not written into the regulations. I wonder why that is not written into them; will the Minister address that?
The impact assessment for the border security minimum service levels warns, not surprisingly, that some people’s rights to strike will be effected. It says:
“As Border Force staff numbers based at some smaller ports and airports are very low, Option 2”
—the one the Government opted for—
“could mean that staff based at these locations are more likely to receive work notices, thus they are less likely to be able to undertake strike action, when compared with other staff. Similarly, the requirement to maintain particular border security functions during strike action could mean that officers trained in critical functions are less likely to be able to undertake strike action than those who have not taken the training.”
The point the TUC made to me is that it is unacceptable that such a profound effect on a fundamental right—that of the right to strike—should not be subject to a more detailed analysis than it has been in the impact assessment.
I have already raised a couple of questions that I want the Minister to address, and I will add two more. The Minister said in response to my earlier intervention about the law that the Government are satisfied that border security workers, particularly those at small ports and airports, will be able to exercise their article 11 rights if these regulations are passed, and the minimum service levels contained in them are imposed. Having regard to the points I have made about the numbers of people who would be prevented from exercising their right to strike—it looks like 75%, and indeed 100% at small ports and airports—will the Minister explain—
Joanna Cherry
I will just finish the point.
Will the Minister explain how he is satisfied that preventing 75% of workers across the force, and all workers in certain ports and airports, from striking is a proportionate interference with the right to strike?
Katherine Fletcher
I am listening carefully to the hon. and learned Lady’s exposition on the rights of the workers of Border Force. I am just wondering where she thinks the balance is with the right of the British public to be safe. We know that we have some problems with criminality in the UK. Perhaps, for example, a drug dealer realises Border Force is on strike, and he thinks, “Fantastic, I will go to that small port and put 20 kg of children-killing heroin through it.” How can we find the balance of everybody’s rights?
Joanna Cherry
It is not for me to say what the balance should be; that is for the law. For the time being—thank goodness—this country is a signatory to the European convention on human rights. For the time being—thank goodness—we still have the Human Rights Act. The jurisprudence of the Court is pretty clear. As I said, it is normally countries such as Russia and Hungary that are taken to the European Court of Human Rights, not this country. We actually have a pretty good record in the European Court of Human Rights—[Interruption.] Let me just expand on this point. That will not continue to be the case if we pass these regulations.
It is a question of proportionality. The right to strike is not absolute; it can be restricted in accordance with law, but it has to be a proportionate interference. My point—
Joanna Cherry
The hon. Lady is going on about the rights of the public. Yes, of course the public have rights. The public have the same rights as the workers—in fact, many members of the public are workers. There is not some sort of strange grouping called “trade union members” and “workers”, and then the “public”. Many members of the public in this country are still trade union members. Many of my constituents are trade union members. Many of the hon. Lady’s constituents will be trade union members. These rights are rights of members of the public.
I think the hon. Lady is talking about the rights of the service users. Yes, the law does balance the rights, but it has to be a proportionate interference. My point is that when some workers are being prevented from striking altogether, and when in other cases 75% of the workforce are being prevented from striking, that is not a proportionate interference. We will not see such interference in other European democracies unless we care to dignify countries like Russia and Hungary with the word democracy—I do not think many of us would. That is the company we will be keeping. This is draconian. To suggest otherwise is simply, factually incorrect.