Legal researcher, writer, journalist | Trans Rights Lead @ Good Law Project | PhD student @ University of Leeds
Views my own. Not your lawyer; not legal advice.
They/them
[email protected]
Jess O'Thomson
Loading...
Have to say, this is not the lightest start back from being quite unwell I could have chosen.
Sex Matters submit that the trans person in detention might eg deliberately take longer removing their clothing to humiliate the police officer.
A great post from Jess explaining GLP's approach to fighting for trans rights, and a good reminder for all of us.
None of us can win the battle alone - there is no one magic bullet to fix transphobia, or one lone hero coming to save us.
But every single person - every action - makes a difference.
They rely on the coercive nature of state power as a reason for not conducting searches outside of the statutory scheme, and then in the same breath say that the legislation exists to protect the rights of state actors. Not sure that knits together particularly cleanly.
From what I can grasp, Sex Matters' argument seems to rely on the idea that the relevant legislation limiting the scope of the power of police searches actually exists to protect the rights of *police officers* – not just detainees.
"Akua Reindorf KC, for the University of Cambridge, suggested Evans’ emotional testimony in court about the suicide of a former colleague amounted to 'crocodile tears'. 'No, and that is an offensive thing to say,' Evans replied."
In the High Court today for a challenge by Sex Matters to police strip search guidance. They say even if female officers consent, strip searches of trans women have to be done by male officers.
Part of their submitted evidence is a "table of trans-identifying males who have committed sex crimes".
