Misinform, Misdirect and Malign

Taking Liberties

Is this the undoing of Liberty?

Call me a liberal and I will be gravely insulted. The ‘live and let live’ brigade are often oblivious to institutionalised power and assume a level playing field. For example, the vast majority of liberals will instinctively defend the sex trade, arguing that if an adult consents to sell sex, so should another be allowed to pay for it without suffering any adverse consequences. The fact that (in most cases) the person (almost always male) doing the buying has the most choice compared to the seller (almost always female) has the least. What does consent, or its close relative, choice, mean in situations where desperation and coercion is bound to be a key driver for the prostituted person?

That said, I of course recognise that civil liberties are an entirely different matter, and the need to protect those we have in the UK has rarely been greater.

Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act are now well underway. The Policing, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act, passed in April, imposed swingeing restrictions on protests. 

Who better to lead the pushback than Liberty, the UK's largest civil liberties group? And it has done so, with authoritative, well-reasoned, and respectful responses setting out just why the Government has got it so wrong on each occasion. Yet the organisation’s profile and influence is nothing like it once was under the vocal campaigner Shami Chakrabarti, once dubbed “the most dangerous woman in Britain” by a Sun columnist for her opposition to the then Labour government’s anti-terrorism measures.  

Chakrabarti went on to speak up on behalf of the columnist after he lost his job as a radio “shock jock” for calling a Tory politician a Nazi. Reflecting on her support for the DJ some years later, she said: “Everybody loves human rights – their own. It’s when it gets to other people’s human rights that things become difficult.” That dogged defence of people’s freedom to speak and do - however offensive and unpleasant they may be - arguably secured Liberty’s future, despite the organisation’s ill-judged affiliation with the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 70s and early 80s. 

As you can imagine, I have long been a vocal critique of some of the standpoints adopted by Liberty, in particular its defence of pornography, but have appreciated its work on crucial issues such as its robust defence of the rights of people caught up in the criminal justice system, and of course freedom of speech.

Today, with much of the left being far more likely to be leading demands for offensive speech to be punished, I would have expected Liberty to lead the way in challenging those that wish to silence individuals with opinions that may offend others. But when it comes to the transgender issue, Liberty has joined forces with so many other once fine organisations, such as the Index on Censorship and the Society of Authors, and appears to have abandoned its principles.

Like other supposed defenders of human rights, its approach to the conflict between the trans activists and women has been to try to silence women. Trans rights activists believe a self-defined, fictional quality called gender should trump biological sex when deciding who should access women’s facilities and sports, but many feminists and others on the left fervently disagree. The debate is bitter as there is a huge amount at stake. The most vulnerable - women in prison - are most at risk, finding themselves locked up with violent males, including sex offenders. Liberty stated in 2020 that the debate should not be happening as it was dangerous for trans people. “Trans women do not pose a threat to cis women,” its CEO Martha Spurrier tweeted, blithely ignoring the disproportionately large numbers of trans-identified sex offenders in prison and growing anger about a middle-aged male’s bid to compete in the Olympics as a woman weightlifter. 

In May 2022 Liberty amended its constitution to state that it is a “trans-affirming organisation”. It has never made a point of ‘affirming’ any other identity or ideological position, other than its own mission statement – being for the civil liberties of all.

But as the pushback against gender ideology becomes harder to ignore, Liberty has not shifted its stance an inch. Take its reaction to the Attorney General’s recent speech on human rights. Suella Braverman held forth on over-reach by the judiciary, the applicability of human rights to criminal damage offences and the rights of transgender people to access facilities and services reserved for the opposite sex.

Liberty’s response on Twitter was as follows:

“Not going to link to the article, because that's the only bit worth reading. Just know this:

Liberty will always do everything we can to protect our Human Rights, protect the Equality Act and protect the fundamental rights of trans people.” 

It later added: “The very least any of us expects from our Government is that our right to exist be respected. We will always stand with LGBTQ+ people.”

This is typical of what any casual observer will have come to expect from trans rights activists in response to statements that displease them: do not facilitate readers’ access to the original text, provide a hyperbolic or wholly misleading interpretation of what was said and state or imply appalling intentions on behalf of the author or speaker.

There is plenty to be concerned about in Braverman’s speech - not least the suggestion that the Equality Act, which has brought immeasurable benefits to women, is in her sights. But there is no hint that she believes LGBTQ+ people (or anyone else) have no right to exist or that she intends to attack their “fundamental rights”. Males, however they identify, have no “fundamental right” to access areas where females are undressed, sleeping or otherwise vulnerable. And it’s thanks to trans activism that the Equality Act is now on the table for reform. There’s a real risk Conservative supporters will see any proposed tweaks as a chance to water down its anti-discrimination provisions more generally.

Liberty acted with similar maturity and logic in response to the initial High Court judgement on Keira Bell’s case on whether the Tavistock GIDS (Gender Identity Development Service for children) should provide puberty blockers to under-18s presenting with problems relating to their biological sex.

“The ability for everyone to choose and receive healthcare is a human right which has repeatedly been upheld in international case law,” it announced. It provided no evidence to substantiate this assertion which if true would conflict with one of the basic principles of the NHS. The NHS does not provide healthcare on demand or because patients choose it. It provides treatment in response to patient needs as judged by clinical professionals.

Megan Goulding, Liberty’s lawyer who worked on the charity’s intervention in the Bell case, added: “Access to treatment is life-affirming for trans children and young people – without it the risk of serious, long-term harm dramatically increases”. Leaving aside the question of what “life-affirming” means in the context of puberty blockers, her statement completely ignores the court’s findings and the testimony of witnesses. Those findings, since confirmed by the interim findings of the Cass review, were that there was very little evidence of benefit in the treatments provided by the Tavistock and a clear risk of significant harm.

Trans rights charities Stonewall and Mermaids were early adopters of the three M approach - misinform, misdirect and malign - which can be credited with achieving several years of unthinking institutional adherence to gender ideology.

It will therefore come as no surprise that Liberty’s transformation from reasoned champion of unpopular causes to illiberal gender cleric has taken place alongside strengthened links with the two charities and an influx of gender activists to its staff.

Since 2019, two of Liberty’s communications directors have been former communications directors of Stonewall. The incumbent, Matt Horwood, tweeted in July that it is not safe for “queer and in particular trans folk” to exist in the UK. Josh Bradlow, who joined Liberty’s policy council in 2020, was until recently head of policy at Stonewall. Liberty’s non-binary advocacy director, Grey Collier, became a trustee at Mermaids in 2021. Helen Moulinos, who sits on the board of the Civil Liberties Trust, the charitable organisation that funds Liberty, was chief operating officer at Stonewall in 2019.

Many of Liberty’s other recent hires are committed trans activists. Jodie Beck, Liberty’s policy and campaigns officer tweeted in May: “Just in case it wasn’t clear: trans folks to the front ALL day EVERY day.” This was retweeted by three of her Liberty colleagues. Staff timelines are just as one might expect: rants about transphobia and LGB Alliance (a charity set up to campaign exclusively for same sex attracted people), abound. No staff member has at any point responded comprehensively to women’s concerns about gender self-identity.

If it acknowledged those concerns it might realise that highlighting the importance of the Human Rights Act in enabling trans people to change sex on their birth certificates isn’t the best example to quote to a Government hell bent on reforming the HRA. Liberty intervened for the trans woman applicant in Goodwin v UK in which the European Court of Human Rights held that “no concrete or substantial hardship or detriment to the public interest has indeed been demonstrated as likely to flow from any change to the status of transsexuals.” In light of this decision, the Government introduced the Gender Recognition Act 2004, opening the door for males to compete in women’s sports and demand entry to women’s prisons and other single sex-spaces. Robert Wintemute, professor of human rights law at King’s College London, now thinks the GRA was a mistake.

In short, women have been screwed over by Liberty. They will be screwed over again when the full weight of backlash against the gender cult arrives, because it will likely fall on any group perceived to be associated with identity politics, including women, racial minorities and LGB people. And indelibly tainted as they are, none of the existing civil liberties organisations will be in a position to lead a resistance.

“We do not use human rights or civil liberties arguments to support others that would oppress others or suppress rights,” says Liberty’s constitution. “We elevate considerations of relative power and collective rights above purist civil libertarianism…we welcome respectful challenge and feedback and we undertake to listen, reflect and learn and respond with respect rather than act defensively or with hostility.”

If only that were true. RIP Liberty.