Boycotting Twitter until it stops toxic abuse of transgender people.
- Tweets4.5K
- Following3K
- Followers2.3K
- Likes6.5K
ALT This picture is of the scales of justice with David Lammy MP in his Lord Chancellor Wig on one side of the scales weighing it down. On the other side of the scales is a wire frame bin with all the disabled access signs in it. The Caption Reads: "Make the Equal Treatment Bench Book Statutory - Restore the Balance of Justice"
ALT This afternoon, LGBT+ Labour's leadership informed the National Committee that they'll be delaying the AGM to an unspecified date, on the justification that it's unclear whether trans people will be allowed to run as their own gender. Make no mistake: the National Committee are doing this because they’re running scared and knew we would win a democratic vote next weekend. If they planned to make these changes to the elections, they would have done so before our slate was announced, not when our campaign was picking up steam. It’s beyond disgusting that an LGBT+ organisation is willing to betray its trans members in such a fundamental way just to cling on to committee positions. It is not, however, a surprise: it simply confirms what we already knew about the cliquey, careerist and top-down way in which the organisation has been operating. LGBT+ Labour has failed to speak up for trans members, and is now content to deny their existence. We fully intend to contest LGBT+ Labour AGM...
![The Court of Appeal is to determine if a Human Rights challenge on behalf of trans people and whistleblowers can proceed. I have sought a declaration of ECHR incompatibility of section 170(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 [DPA]. During the passage of the 2018 DPA, Liam Byrne MP and Stuart McDonald warned that s170(2) would deter whistleblowing because it invalidates PIDA and has different and harder tests to prove. These tests to prove turn out to be very subjective with the s170(2) whistleblowing defence more likely to be rejected if the whistleblowing was to protect minorities or demonised groups. In 2019, the Court of Appeal (criminal division) reserved its position on whether s170(2) was incompatible with ECHR Article 6. Since then, the Information Commission and Governments have had 6 years to produce statutory guidance or amend s170(2) to ensure it is compatible. The Government, MPs, or Lords could still use the Data Bill to amend s170(2) to make it compatible.](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GqVziboWsAAol8f.jpg?name=orig)
ALT The Court of Appeal is to determine if a Human Rights challenge on behalf of trans people and whistleblowers can proceed. I have sought a declaration of ECHR incompatibility of section 170(2) of the Data Protection Act 2018 [DPA]. During the passage of the 2018 DPA, Liam Byrne MP and Stuart McDonald warned that s170(2) would deter whistleblowing because it invalidates PIDA and has different and harder tests to prove. These tests to prove turn out to be very subjective with the s170(2) whistleblowing defence more likely to be rejected if the whistleblowing was to protect minorities or demonised groups. In 2019, the Court of Appeal (criminal division) reserved its position on whether s170(2) was incompatible with ECHR Article 6. Since then, the Information Commission and Governments have had 6 years to produce statutory guidance or amend s170(2) to ensure it is compatible. The Government, MPs, or Lords could still use the Data Bill to amend s170(2) to make it compatible.
ALT Legal Background Section 170(2) is the statutory criminal defence which whistleblowers rely upon if GDPR data is amongst the evidence they disclose. If a whistleblower's s170(2) statutory defence is rejected they lose their PIDA employment protection and could be prosecuted. The problem with the s170(2) statutory defence is that the whistleblower must prove (to the harder legal burden) both the subjective and objective elements of the defence (see below). There is no defence of “reasonably believing” you have met those tests. The effect of having no “reasonable belief” defence, is that conscious or unconscious bias of ICO staff affects whether they believe whistleblowing was: s170(2a): was necessary for the purposes of preventing or detecting crime, s170(2c): in the particular circumstances, was justified as being in the public interest. I provided evidence of crimes and GDPR breaches affecting 120 trans data subjects. ICO staff rejected my s170(2) defence and did not investigate.
