I was surprised how little people knew about a subject they held a passionate view about. For example, some people were keen to denounce the Cass report, but, no, they hadn’t read it, and had no knowledge of the actual effects of puberty blocking drugs, apart from believing they simply “paused” puberty. They were taking a lot on trust. We hope that with our input, and with a greater flow of information, the party can apply greater rigour to this area of policy.
I’m reminded of a line from Helen Joyce’s speech at our fringe: “What matters isn’t that I was able to get satisfaction, what matters is the other end of free speech, it’s actually free listening.” Hopefully Lib Dems will have their right to free listening respected at future conferences to come.
Judith
By mid-afternoon on Tuesday, everything on the stall was packed up, from the banner to the biros. Looking back on the weekend my main feeling was how exhilarating it had been, from start to finish. Our biggest team ever, with so many of us meeting face-to face for the first time, working together with such enthusiasm. And having several people always available was crucial, as there was rarely a time when there wasn’t at least one conversation going on with visitors to the stand, and more often several. It was so welcome finally to be able to give our own account of what we actually believe and why, rather than being misrepresented and vilified by others.
Away from the stand, there was our excellent and well-attended (in person and online) fringe meeting on the silencing of women in academia. Many of us made sure to go into the hall to hear and vote for the good motion on maternity care put forward by Lib Dem Women (not our biggest fans), and we were sorry to see at least one trans activist urging delegates to vote against hearing our motion on the appalling oppression of women in Afghanistan, purely to spite us.
It was unpleasant and upsetting for us to hear ourselves disowned and disparaged by the President of the party, who is supposed to represent all its members, but who suggested that it was reasonable for others to feel unhappy and potentially unsafe by our presence at Conference, and deplored the fact that the party’s legal advice precluded them from keeping us out. But if I’d been in his position, with a clear warning from his lawyers that by treating us less favourably than other members the party is breaking the law, I’d have been more careful about attacking the Equality Act itself, as well as boasting that the party had still discriminated against us in the terms on which we were allowed in. His lawyers will also have spotted that the way he publicly attacked us clearly created a hostile and intimidating environment for people with our protected beliefs, defined as unlawful harassment under the Equality Act. You’d think Mark Pack was trying to strengthen the case against the party, and in front of plenty of witnesses.
So, huge thanks to everyone who contributed through the Conference period, to a great team effort and a brilliant experience. And – cheers, Mark!
