Complicity

There are several things I like in today’s announcement on counter-terrorism.

The first two things we already had, but it’s been confirmed there is no intention to reintroduce them. Firstly, 28 day detention is out the window, down to 14 days as the previous legislation had a sunset clause in it that had lapsed. The government is drafting legislation to increase this to 28 days but not actually introducing it, basically reserving parliaments right to change it’s mind in future. (Which seems reasonable)

Secondly, section 44 stop-and-search powers were already gone as they were ruled a breach of Human Rights. (Although a photographer was stopped under these powers recently, apparently illegally. It’s being reworked but requires the consent of a “senior officer” where necessary, over a small geographic area and only for 14 days at a time.

Given that section 44 is effectively dead already, it seems trying to rework it so that it can be reintroduced is a backwards step. There doesn’t seem to be anything stopping the “senior officer” just renewing the consent every 14 days and there’s no change in the photography rules. “Guidelines” will be reworked, but that doesn’t stop front-line officers harassing photographers so I’m not convinced this will help. It depends on how tightly worded the new legislation is.

I’m cynical on this point because the review mentions “critical national infrastructure”. In my role as an ISP I’ve had various things inflicted upon me in the name of protecting this infrastructure and in general, they seem counterproductive.

Regulation of Investigatory Powers – Local government will need a magistrate to approve surveillance, interception or obtaining communications data. This is a big plus as although I haven’t seen any particularly hideous abuses to date, tapping lines and getting access to peoples email and phone records seems quite a major power for a city council who might just be investigating fly tipping.

The headline-grabber is control orders. It’s more liberal than the current system and as such should be recognised as a step in the right direction. But I don’t welcome it enthusiastically as it still mean there exists a system of punishing someone without even letting them know what they’ve done wrong, which I’m firmly against.

The recommendations seem like a reasonably light touch, sounding like a tough version of an ASBO – curfew, restrictions on going to some specified places, ban on overseas travel and restrictions on the use of the internet.

But it’s what isn’t in there that worries me. The restrictions on use of the internet effectively ban ownership of many electronic devices such as XBoxes, PS3s, iPhones etc and there are other “limited restrictions” on communication which could be anything. There’s also a maximum restriction of 2 years, unless someone does something again that indicates a possible terrorist connection which torpedos the whole point of putting a limit on it. Given that someone under a control order hasn’t been told what action they took made them subject to the order in the first case, how can they avoid doing it again?

And the home secretary only needs to “reasonably believe” – with no chance for anyone to present contrary evidence – that someone poses a threat. That’s a lower than the civil court when suing someone, “balance of probabilities” and it’s well short of the “beyond reasonable doubt” required to jail someone.

Better hope that you’re never in the wrong place at the wrong time. Someone might reasonably believe you’re a terrorist and you won’t even know why you’re suddenly subject to curfews and not allowed on the internet.

An anonymous commenter just put the following on the Livejournal copy of my blog. I thought it was worth sharing and probably doesn’t need much comment…

Thank you for this post. There is, however, at least one psychiatrist, Dr Alan Sanderson, who argues that exorcism or “spirit release therapy” is “crying for funded research on the NHS” in cases of “gender dyphoria”.

The following “paper” is hosted on the website of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (PDF link) and it is some comfort that he found some resistance to performing NHS exorcisms.

The relevant case study, “Roger the Physician” shows how it isn’t just politicians who are clueless.

And here’s an extract from the case study:

An internationally known 41-year-old physician with severe gender dysphoria, Roger was already being prepared for surgical gender re-assignment. He came at the insistence of his wife, who had read Fiore’s book.

…Three years later, Roger’s orientation was fully heterosexual. His marriage was happier than for years…

Gender dysphoria is a condition of particular interest for the assessment of spirit release therapy, since there is no known curative treatment. Surgery is the only available treatment in severe cases. The situation cries out for funded research within the NHS.

The paper is from 2003 and cites a 1977 paper co-authored by Blanchard, titled Gender identity change in a transsexual: an exorcism. It’s cited in turn by two other papers, but it appears that NHS funding for this research was not forthcoming.

Edited to add: Zoe Brain points out that it’s not the same Blanchard as the Bailey-Blanchard-Lawrence one.

I haven’t seen the text of this as 10-minute bills don’t get printed until their second reading, but from the title and debate alone it seems to me like Labour’s Keith Vaz is on to a good thing with this, the “Succession to the Crown Bill”. Although the debate is available online, there don’t seem to be any nice soundbites in it. Instead, I’ll just give you the bill summary that I believe says all that’s needed:” A Bill to remove any distinction between the sexes in determining the succession to the Crown.”

Hopefully the idea will go somewhere. Get those at the top so set the best example and all that. Sadly, random Wikipediaing the other day about the abdication of Edward taught me that the Statute of Westminster (1931) states that (sensibly) the line of succession must remain the same throughout the entire British Commonwealth.

There’s a whole host of nations in the commonwealth that are not exactly at the forefront of equality so this initiative may be doomed, but I still think it’s a good thing to at least try.

I think most people that read this probably also follow me on Twitter, but for those that don’t I’ve been asked by one of the Judges – David Allen Green – to put in a mention for The Orwell Prize.

In particular, he’s asked me to encourage anyone with a Trans-related blog to enter. So if you have one and you’re based in the UK, why not enter? It’s self-nominating only and the deadline is tomorrow. The only hard part is selecting which ten posts to put forward.

As David himself puts it, political blogs include any “by those on whom policy is inflicted“. I would say that anyone Transgender has probably had extensive experience of having policy inflicted upon them.

As a Trans person, I get quite used to the view from extremist quarters that I shouldn’t exist. Apparently, I somehow offend the natural order of the universe or some such nonsense. Fortunately, such idiotic comments are rare.

I find some perverse amusement that this time, I’m being told I (Or rather we) should somehow no longer exist as Liberal Democrats rather than as a Trans person. This is according to Tom Watson over at Labour Uncut:

The opulence of Carlton Gardens might calm his lieutenants tomorrow, but Clegg’s crisis will not go away. His party no longer has a reason to exist.

Tom wonders what Clegg’s approach would be “as the Lib Dem grassroots react to the result”. My reaction is this: Our vote held solid and was over 20 points above the national polls and, if I have my maths right, about 7 points above the by-election polls. Between us, the two coalition parties gained more votes than Labour.

I’d have preferred a win, but in the middle of cuts that all parties would know would hurt the party in power, this doesn’t strike me as the kind of disaster for the Liberal Democrats that Labour would have liked. Coverage on BBC Radio (1, 2 and 4) this morning was generally positive towards the Liberal Democrats and somewhat more negative towards the Conservatives.

According to Pink News, public bodies have been asked to report on LGBT staff numbers.

This on the same day that the Pink Paper report that workers in Bath have failed to provide these details when asked.

Oops.