J v B Blog

“I find this a very troubling case. These children are caught up between two apparently incompatible ways of living, led by tiny minorities within society at large. Both minorities enjoy the protection of the law: on the one hand the right of religious freedom, and on the other the right to equal treatment. It is painful to find these vulnerable groups in conflict.” (para 162)

These are words of Mr Justice Peter Jackson in the judgment of J v B (Ultra-Orthodox Judaism: Transgender) [2017] EWFC 4. As a simple overview, this case concerned a MtoF transgender father was seeking direct contact with his 5 children who were members of an Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community. The application was refused and only indirect contact allowed.

The judgment holds some improvement in relation to understanding what gender dysphoria and what being transgender is and means:

“People who experience gender dysphoria are in no way mentally ill, but they often suffer great stress from hiding their identity.” (para 14)

“The law, however, recognises the reality that one’s true sexuality and gender are no more matters of choice than the colour of one’s eyes or skin.” (para 179)

Of course, these are points that have long been known to millions of people for thousands of years, and it is relieving to finally see them starting to be acknowledged properly in our case law.

However, as relieving as some of the commentary was, the judgment stopped short of giving this transgender parent any direct access to the children on the basis that the children would be ostracised and rejected by their Ultra-Orthodox Jewish community, and further described by Rabbi Oppenheimer that the effect would be “so much more” than this (Para 96). There are obvious, and understandable concerns in relation to how the subject children would be treated by the other families in the community should the children have direct contact with their father and these are clearly described in the judgment and absolutely needed to be properly considered.

We hear that the mother said that ‘there was no way that direct contact will work out for the children, for their identity, for their culture and for their whole environment.” Now, the Judge rightly pointed out that the law provides legal protection against victimization but still concluded that, ‘The impact on the family in such circumstances in terms of social isolation will be devastating.’(Para 95) We heard that the evidence of Rabbi Oppenheimer explain that, ‘There is therefore an obligation to protect the children from finding things out that are likely to damage them and cause them pain and suffering, likely to damage their growth and spiritual well-being.’ (para 97)

Even reading all the concerns in relation to how the children would be treated should the father be granted direct contact, I was deflated when I read the decision. This is not because I think one ‘right’ is more superior than the other, but because it felt as though intolerance won, rather than a specific right. This decision continues to allow children to be exposed to intolerance and suppression, that could lead them to further suppression and personal conflict later down the line. What if one of the children are gay? Transgender? Non-binary? This decision seems like the easy short-term answer and the long-term consequence was left ill-considered.

Indeed, our rights as individuals often have to be weighed against one another in cases and when any judge has to add weights to each side of the scale and decide which drops, it is, no doubt, ever easy. However, drop it must and where it does is always a powerful declaration. We have such a complex and wonderful variety of communities within this country, but we must not be afraid to notice when there are practices and conventions within those communities that do not allow for the basic principle

of dignity. For example, domestic violence is never tolerated in law (whatever the cultural context) in this country and this is absolutely right. So why should we allow for the discrimination and prejudice to be perpetrated against the transgender community? We would not allow it in the street, so why in a private home?

I am and will forever be an advocate for everyone’s human rights, and freedom of religion is a human right that must be respected – it brings a lot of beauty to the world – however, in this case I feel as though the scale has been tipped the wrong way.

These children are now being raised having been told by the court that having contact with a transgender parent is not in their best interest. Indeed, the judgment qualifies the decision and seems to make the decision with regret, but the majority of society won’t read the full judgment and the children may not for several years. And until they are of an age they can make their ‘own decision’, (which is suggested as being 18), they continue to be taught that to be ‘gay or transgender is to be a sinner’ (Para 97). And I fear, whatever the outcome when they reach the age of autonomy, it will be too late: either the children will feel an abhorrence to transgenderism, decide to not see their father and continue to live with the prejudices they were taught in relation to a community that have a right to be treated equally, or they will decide they do want to see their father and have missed out on having a direct relationship with them for years – either way – have they not been let down?

I don’t agree that these children have been protected from a harm. It is worrying to still see that the educating of children in respect of transgender issues and allowing them to be exposed to transgender lives can still be deemed harmful.

As Mr Justice Jackson rightly said, “the truth is that for the children to see their father would be too much for the adults.” (Para 181) … Well, the last time I checked the paramount consideration in children cases, were children?

Full judgment here: http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed175661

 

Written by Lui Asquith

Ben Hoare Bell, LGBTIQ Family Law Solicitor

February 2017

What’s in a Name: An Introduction

I on Friday 2 October 2016 made the decision to change my name to Lui. When born, I was called Louise you see, but my work, my sexuality and my LGBT+ activism have secured my opinion that no one should assume how anyone identifies, with regard to either their gender or sexual orientation, just because they know someone’s name.

‘Louise’ does not mean I identify as a female, (although I may,) nor does it mean I want to be constrained to the social roles that are still imposed on women today. I therefore chose Lui as it would mean those who did not know me, would not automatically know whether I was ‘male’, ‘female’ or whether I identified as either (‘non-binary’).

Too often stereotypes and assumptions are made simply by knowing someone’s name and too often people are subject to years of confusion, upset and mental health issues due to having to grapple with the concept that one may actually be the gender that is opposite to that which their name suggests, or that they have no affiliation to any gender at all.

I therefore, on Friday 11 November 2016, witnessed by my friend and colleague (and outgoing author for this very blog), Cris McCurley, signed a Change of Name Deed in solidarity against assumption, against stereotypes, and in solidarity with the crusade against global gender discrimination we see imposed in societies every day.

Now, I am not suggesting that everyone should change their name to a non-binary name or otherwise be accused of not acting in solidarity – this is simply something that felt right in me. There are many ways each and every one of us can and do, do ‘their bit’, and every single act we all do is no small thing.

The firm I work at, Ben Hoare Bell Solicitors, have just founded two new family units: the ‘LGB Family’ Unit and the ‘Trans Family’ Unit. These are family units dedicated to LGBT communities – we offer a bespoke and unique service to all LGBT people; this is something I am so proud and excited to be part of and is a huge step for the region. Now, one thing that has made itself very clear, very quickly is that names are a powerful thing; I have the pleasure of working with a lot of trans people who change their name to one that finally illustrates their gender identity – always a milestone and always a powerful moment. Names – and the gender therein – can be just as important to some, as it was for me not to have a gender assigned to mine.

The law in relation to the trans community, and the LGB community, is fast moving and I look forward to providing you with (hopefully, interesting) legal updates and discussion in relation to different aspects of ‘LGB and T’ family law.

If you ever have anything you want me to discuss, let me know and I’ll do my best to answer to it (find my email at the Ben Hoare Bell website: http://www.benhoarebell.co.uk ).

I’ll look forward to hearing from you and until then, I hope you enjoy reading my contributions.

Lui

L Asquith, Solicitor at Ben Hoare Bell LLP

Religious Colours : Spiritual LGBT

LGBT History Month Event hosted by The LGBT Fed

In February The LGBT Fed held an event for people of all faiths and none, to meet and discuss spirituality; ‘an evening of free public debate and discussion on Religion, Belief and Philosophy’ to be precise. Five speakers from organised religions were willing to offer their brief thoughts on the subject one evening during LGBT History Month and discussion groups and snacks would follow their thoughts. The intentions being to hold a respectful and open discussion; to learn more about a wide variety of views, thoughts and feelings; to hear about peoples experiences and solutions to problems; all in an atmosphere of acceptance tolerance and dare I say communion.

For some this was and is a hot topic.

It seems some of the invited speakers had more pressing things to attend to and at the last minute couldn’t attend. This was unfortunate as it changed the flavor of the evening, however it meant that we were able to spend more time talking with each other which was lovely, and dare I say possibly better? Our ‘lone voice’ was Rev Cecilia Eggleston from Northern Lights MCC. Not one to crumble in the light of a challenge, she gave us some of her thoughts about spirituality, organized religion, and a compassionate god, but mostly about a loving approach to all peoples. Stop laughing. I know it’s not what you usually hear. But we did, we had a religious leader (female as it refreshingly happened) who was more interested and concerned about whether I felt cared for and loved in my life, than whether I believe the same as her. Cecilia spoke about her interest in people i.e. “who are you?” and “are you ok”, rather than “what do you believe?” A cool drink in this dry land of oppression.

Cecilia gave the view that perhaps an immense god can decide for him/her self whether you and I were good enough, on the right side, in or out, etc. and doesn’t really need our help to make that judgment thank you (I précis). Good point I think. I for one wouldn’t want to presume to know as much as, or better than, an all-seeing omnipotent originator of life, whatever shape he/she/it takes. I know better than to take on more than I can chew, so to speak.

One of the key things I heard people say during the evening was how important one person can be, the importance of individuals, individual people, and the impact one person can have on the whole of another person’s life. In discussions, I heard people comment that any religion or belief or dogma only has an influence if one person makes it so, and more importantly, that the person can make it a positive or negative influence on others. Basically, that what you as an individual say matters, how you treat people matters, what you believe about the other person matters. During the discussion groups we shared some stories of hard and hurtful times at the hands of individuals from many ‘religions’, and I heard that some of us are yet to heal from those experiences. The pain for some people was palpable to the rest of us, and tears were shed. Some people talked of having walked away from strongly held spiritual beliefs, giving up what they considered a life long core part of themselves, serious and long term commitments, unable to continue in the organized religious groups they held so dear. Some of us have yet to find a spiritual home.

Whatever you think of religion in any of its various forms, many of us have a wish to be part of something existentially bigger than ourselves. I heard some people (and it was the majority but not all) have had dreadful and life changing experiences. Some of us have had doors slammed in our faces – literally, some have been accused of evil influences on others, some that we need to change our sexuality (or at the least not practice it) to stay belonging. Because of our honesty about our innate and unchangeable sexuality, we have suffered.  ‘Honesty’, isn’t that core to all religious and spiritual teaching? During the evening we were a bit short of people voicing broader spiritual approaches, rather than religious thinking (mainstream organized), but perhaps another time….

Personally, I’m with the rainbow, I want all the colours, all the tones and all the interpretative varieties, oh and a pot of gold at the end too if there is one.

Some of us have been subject to fundamentalism in one form or another, and in brutal ways, and took a few minutes to tell us about some of those experiences. The evening took me back to the time I was called ‘possessed’. So not just wrong, not just bad, not just the sugar coated ‘sinful’, not even just in need of some kind of ‘redemption’… But actually on the Other Side. The evil, bad, degenerate, malevolent, inherently embodying or associated with the forces of, wickedness.  Heavy. I’d forgotten just how flattening the weight of all that is, how damaging to a sense of wellbeing, and of fundamental worth. This still happens.

In general the evening’s discussions were positive and supportive, and people were clear about the hurt that they had experienced and the path beyond that hurt.  Clear that ‘the religious group’ of whatever flavour (or colour) was not the main problem. It’s the people, the individuals, their individual misuse of power, the focusing on private intimacy between consenting couples (sex), the selective choosing of texts to the ignorance of others, the creation of dogma. Thankfully we also had solutions as part of our experience. We all knew one person who didn’t condemn or exclude but who ‘got to know the individual’, ‘cared about who and how they were’, and ‘acknowledged that their god being so powerful and massive will therefore be more than able to see and decide a persons religious credibility for him/herself.’

Some of us touched on the positives, and the liberties LGBT people now have in most of Britain. I.e. to be in a civil partnership, to be married, to have joint house tenancies, to be legally (if not always automatically) consulted about a partner’s illness or death, etc.. Reminding ourselves of how change has come about, even in our own lifetime. About the results of battles our elders have fought (lets not forget that folks) so we can walk down the street hand in hand if we want to (do we do that often enough?), so we can book a hotel room as a couple, so we have rights even if we come across discrimination. Religious groups may have a long way to go, but the secular have taken ages, literally, to get to the point we’re at now, I think maybe we can be a little patient as some groups catch up?

It’s a tricky one, religion. Like politics I take the view never to discuss it late in the evening or after alcoholic beverage has been imbibed, as this hot potato inevitably raises strong emotions and often upsetting experiences. But, it was refreshing to spend an evening talking about our spirituality, beliefs, philosophies, and religions, with LGBT friends. I hazard a guess it’s not something many of us have discussed at length very often, perhaps due to a tendency towards political and practical immediacies. It was completely invigorating to be able to link two parts of my life, sexuality and spirituality, not diametrically opposed after all.

And later, driving home I heard Susan Calman on the radio. It seems there are lesbians everywhere, visible in every sphere of life, in major religious groups, in professions, in the headlines and the corners of society.  It’s good to know, and excellent news that some of us manage to maintain a positive outlook on life, despite, rather than because of our experiences.

So mote it be.

Ruby

Quotes from the evening:

“I remember how scared I was and how hard it was to come out to my religious parents. the stakes were high. I had to be very very sure. There would be no going back. There would be no family.”

“I remember being told I was demon possessed, and believing them.” 

“I remember people I knew and loved, close friends, walking round me on the street, crossing the road, not answering even ‘hello’.”

“I remember not wanting to say nothing to anyone about my girlfriend. I knew some people wouldn’t like me. I knew it would be the end of our friendship, I didn’t want that so I was careful what I said. I was right.”

“I remember someone asking me if I was gay. I was terrified. I didn’t think I was going to get out of the room without being hurt. I didn’t tell them, but they presumed which was just as bad.”

”I remember not telling anyone. I was always alone. I wanted to be part of the church group more than I wanted a partner. I regret that now”.

“I remember the day I found a vicar who said it was ok that I was gay. It was such a relief I cried for days. I can have both parts of my life, my beliefs in a kind god and my sexuality.”

For anyone interested our speaker was : Rev. Cecilia Eggleston Northern Lights Metropolitan Community Church. http://mccchurch.org

‘Carol’

‘Oh romance romance romance!’

This film is a delicious tale of desire, of yearning, of discretion, of things unspoken but definitely understood. A classic love story so beautifully portrayed that I challenge you to leave the cinema without a lump in your throat.

It’s not just aesthetically beautiful, it also incorporates issues of politics, law, social pressure, childcare, relationships, power, visibility, and there’s fun! Not to mention the cars! Something for everyone then.  The warning at the start ‘infrequent strong sex’, brought a snort from my neighbour in the cinema which I took to be ‘I wish’.  And of course there was also ‘that which dare not speak its name’, yes, there’s smoking!

At last a major film about feminine emotion. ’Carol’ is the project of screenwriter Phyllis Nagy (based on Patricia Highsmith’s novel of 1952) who has fought to get it made since writing her first draft 19 years ago. What a wait! What a result! It is a phenomenally exquisite portrayal of two womens lives, set in an era that’s fraught with significant risks for anyone being demonstrative, and is performed magically by Blanchett and Mara. They expertly show us the lives of women having to negotiate love through the thorny discriminations of social convention, social ostracism, hatred and misunderstanding, and yet still hold on to what they know is honest in a world that wants them to lie and conform.  Worth remembering for some people I’ve heard saying they couldn’t believe in the womens relationship! There’s no ‘in your face, brash, overt, explicit’ communications here, far too risky (remember the days of violence and discriminatory laws?) but there is definitely precise, measured, restrained and dignified ‘goings on’.

Parts of this film are touchingly familiar to many of us today. Have you ever had someone splinter a conversation that was tantalizingly and desperately meaningful? And surely I’m not the only one who can relate to the struggle these women had to express their tender delicate feelings, especially in these modern days of instant and ungainly communication.  ‘Carol’ is a film of powerful subtleties, careful nuance, and a deeply brief script. So many scenes are beautifully crafted, yet cleverly and accurately reflect the experience of women from both inside and outside various social groupings. The sometimes sad characters gentleness, passion, and strong strong feelings, slide around metaphorically in the raindrops we see on sodden windows or steamy glass, and in snapshot views looking into or out of cars and buildings. You are held in speculative suspense, waiting for the characters to reveal what they are thinking or feeling.

The spoken words often have more than one meaning, and veiled messages often hang in the air, this film asks you to tease out what’s happening by using your own perceptions of people. The almost invisible signals between Carol and Therese exude tension, as they search each other’s face for a sign of the words they cannot speak, and wait for synchronicity to expose their thoughts. Such an exquisite dance between two people is beautifully presented.

This portrayal of discretion between two women during a time not that long ago, is in high contrast to me sitting openly in a generic cinema during daylight hours watching an essentially lesbian film, something not possible some 20 years ago. I heard someone use the word ‘sumptuous’ about this film. I agree. There are so many layers to it, it will no doubt be used in academic and educational studies in the future.

‘Carol’ set in 1950’s, is within the life experience of women we know, women who have had to be subtle and careful about who they are, living with the social attitudes that lesbian women can be ‘cured’, and gay men will be imprisoned. Thankfully today the idea of a medical cure for these women’s sexuality is officially abhorred by major therapist organisations (2014), and the ideas that  ‘there must be a reason for ‘it’’, ‘I know what you need…’, ‘should they be allowed to have children’, are less commonly heard today.  It’s a relief that our country is safer for us all now, thanks to those who were concerned enough to make the effort and fight for changes in rights and laws.

Did anyone else notice a certain Audrey Hepburn look of Therese in this film? Think it will catch on?  And as for Carol’s daughter Rindy, what cuties the Heim twins are. That childrens hairstyle was around for a long time; I have pictures that need to be destroyed….

The times yes they have changed but oh how they haven’t, sometimes. How many of us have also waited in a car for a lover to deliver/ pick up/ negotiate children, trying to keep the children from being ‘in the middle of it all’. Control and vitriol is still out there from people struggling to accept reality. As for the scene with Carol and the solicitor, I heard this in the cinema; “Carol with the solicitors, what a woman! Going for what’s right and for her child in those times; and getting the best she can for her; and for them both for later. How strong a woman is she.” True feminism, a dignified woman balancing her decisions to minimize the fallout. More please.

I know some of us left the cinema haunted by this film, and walked the city streets afterwards in a romantic bubble believing that all things are possible. I’d choose this luxurious film over the hysteria in others such as ‘Wonderful Life’ any day.

If I was to be critical, I wonder about the awkward level of discomfort if one looks at this story as a parallel narrative of Carol and her child. Thinking of it as an example of a woman playing out her lack of relationship with her daughter, through a relationship with a younger woman, however kindly. There is an age difference between the women. There is a power difference. I’m willing to ignore any possible psychological distaste on the basis that in the real world don’t all relationships include power differences of some kind? Whether we ab-use the differences is surely what really matters.

The cars by the way are all gorgeous and I want one, any of them. Carol’s, 1949 Packard Super Deluxe 8, oyster colour, also had a rare Egyptian style hood ornament. Abby’s, 1950 Packard Convertible, forest green. Taxi’s, 1950 Chevrolet and a 1949 Dodge. Harge’s,1952 Cadillac. Yum yum.

I won’t even try to mention the costumes, on the basis that my (tired and disheveled) wardrobe will leave home if I do, just to say, they are also gorgeous, tailored, and classy. I’m sure some of that has already caught on.

As for the soundtrack, it is tasty on its own. It’s smoky, moody and musically accomplished, and brings to mind the fullness and accuracy of modern day sultresses Alison Moyer and Adele. ‘Easy Living’ sung by Billy Holliday sets the scene for the year we are in and sums up the women’s situation; they don’t write music like that anymore. The choice of tunes melts the viewer into the story, and warms a cold winters night. As a result, I’m suggesting that next time we give someone a gift we give music, specially chosen, tunes that have a message, or if you receive some, listen up!

So, join me, put on your big winter coat, or wear your best lipstick, or take a stroll in the city, or cuddle up with one you love, or take tea at the best restaurant you can, or drive with care on a long road.… you’ll see the attraction.

And finally; I have a train set. I have a car. I can paint walls. I take photographs. I like music. I can accidently leave gloves, all I need to know is where…

Ruby

P.S.  Don’t take it from me, see what the professionals say about it :

Tim Robey, The Telegraph;

“understanding love as the riskiest but most necessary gamble in anyone’s experience.” 

Peter Bradshaw, The Guardian;

“The movie finds something erotic everywhere.” 

Carrie Lyell, DIVA;

DIVA focused on the responses of reporters, which bares out the thought that things haven’t completely changed.

 “A ‘clumsy’ reporter asked both actors, he said: ‘What I love so much about this film is the love story between the two of you and how it didn’t feel like it was homosexual love story; it felt very heterosexual, if I may…’ “

And got short shrift:

“Blanchett was having none of it, and interrupted the reporter to say, ‘It felt normal’. Mara then joined in and said: ‘People are allowed to watch it for what it is, which is a love story between two humans.’ “ 

Quite.

Social Media Training with The LGBT Fed

Andrea, tell me about the Big Assist and the Fed’s social media project. I understand the Big Assist helped by funding the project. How did this help?

I think being able to get funding for projects like this is of great benefit to the LGBT community. Learning about social media and the basics of the technology behind it allowed us to think about how to gain the interest of members and others using social media skills. We are aiming to build the profile of the Fed.

Who did you want to reach out to, using this funding?

Members of the LGBT community, allies and supporters of LGBT people and issues, hopefully worldwide. Bringing members of the community together is important because being part of a minority group can sometimes feel lonely; people can be quite isolated especially in some communities. Sparking up conversations with people who have different views and perceptions of life is a good thing; it helps to break down barriers and connect us.

Can you give any examples of the kind of work you did on the project?

We learned about social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Pinterest, and ways to get noticed, how important reach is and how random response to posts and tweets can be. You never know if you are going to get 12 hits or 2000. For example, a blog which was posted by one of our members on the Fed webpage was then shared on Facebook and Twitter, linking it to other social media groups which had an interest in the subject matter (a music review). These links attracted comments from as far afield as the USA, and helped the Fed grow its profile internationally.

How was the project delivered?

Carolyn Reid was the course tutor. It was delivered in weekly evening sessions to a group of us. There were 10 of us involved directly, but we also disseminated the information to our contacts too.

Tell me more about the group and the people who were involved.

It was a very diverse group. There were members of all ages, male and female. We had deaf members too, so a signer was provided. I would say we were a socially and ethnically mixed group.

It sounds very inclusive and that members needs were considered, and that barriers to participation were addressed.

Without a doubt. Speaking personally, it was a very comfortable place to be.

What did you most enjoy about the course?

I enjoyed the social interaction, we all got on well, the way it was presented and received by the group. Carolyn has a passion for this kind of work and her enthusiasm and belief in the group was uplifting.

What could be improved upon with the course?

What I would like to see is a follow up course, with more in depth training. I don’t think the course we did needed to be improved.

What were the outcomes from the training?

I am now able to post to social media as an administrator for the Fed. I have also passed on the knowledge I gained to other members of the LGBT community, raising their awareness of the power of social media and how to be more effective at spreading information across other social media sites.

Finally, what would you say about the course to any future participants?

Just that they would benefit from doing it. Knowing that you are in a safe space helps the learning process. Everyone is at a different level, the course leader is aware of this and works with you at your own pace. And it was a lot of fun, with a great group of people, doing something very worthwhile!