stavvers

Fears for the future of queer liberation

So, we’ve done it. We’ve won. Everything is OK, let us cheer from the rooftops and celebrate.

Same sex marriage has been voted into UK law, and apparently I’m supposed to feel happy about this.

And yet it leaves a fairly bitter taste in my mouth, niggling anxieties about the future, a deep unease that far from this being better it may actually make things worse for a lot of us.

I get that some of you are delighted by this, and I’m happy for you. Your kink is not my kink, but your kink is OK. If that’s what you want to do, that’s fine. Just please think about the consequences, both concrete and mere possibilities.

First things first, let’s not call what passed into law “marriage equality”. It means that a relationship between two people of the same sex can be legally recognised as the same as a relationship between two people of the opposite sex. To some, this might sound like equality. These people are not recognising the vast and complex forms that human interaction may take, the sheer breadth of family structures that are possible (and, for many, a lived experience). Marriage is still as inaccessible today as it was yesterday to so many of us–and the resulting perks.

It gets even worse for some trans people. Included in the law is a clause which can spell disaster for trans people: the spousal veto. In order to have your gender legally recognised, you need permission of your spouse. These statistics from@zoejrobinson, via the Coalition For Equal Marriage should demonstrate why this is such a problem. Marriage requires signing over a basic human right to a spouse, and grants the spouse a power to deny you the right to legal recognition of your gender, if they don’t like it. And this problem only applies to a certain set of the population. Yet they are ignored and thrown under the bus, utterly erased by the complete misnomer of pretending this thing is “equal marriage”. No matter how many times they say it’s equal, it doesn’t become so.

And yet, there is a pervasive mentality that we’ve won. It is being treated by many as a glorious victory in the last great battle. For some, it is exactly this, and they are the lucky ones. I fear that we will lose momentum entirely now that same sex marriage is law, having lost these loud voices who have got what they wanted. I fear that there will be no further demands made with the level of resources that were poured into achieving this demand, which is on a par with getting a cat to shit in the litter tray: something which should have been happening all along.

I fear that any movement towards queer liberation will halt. Examine this tweet and image from charity Stonewall. Many prefer to call the organisation S’onewall, due to its complete erasure of trans people. Look at them eagerly thanking the lovely kind state for throwing them a pitiful scrap which they have climbed over a mountain of fellow queers to grasp at. Remember what they named themselves after, and laugh a bitter, hollow chuckle as you remember whose name they appropriated, whose history they all but deny.

There was once a time when we demanded liberation rather than equality. We demanded expression rather than assimilation. The chorus of celebration of same sex marriage rings loudly, and silences these demands that some of us still wish to make. I don’t want equality within a fundamentally flawed system. I want to be free. I want to be able to be myself, to live and love without constraints. I want to exist free from coercion into a certain living arrangement which does not suit me, one which the state is increasingly attempting to force me into. I want to live without fear.

I worry that same sex marriage may have devastating consequences for those of us who choose not to marry. There will be financial and material consequences: machinations are underway to further incentivise marriage with a carrot in among the sticks. There will likely also be social consequences. It is hardly news to people in marginalised groups that those who are able to assimilate are those who are most accepted. Legally speaking, there is now nothing standing in our way of riding the relationship escalator in exactly the same way as straight people. Will those of us who do not be penalised? I don’t doubt that we will, and it frightens me that I am one of these freaks of society, one of those who will not be grudgingly accepted by the heterosexist mainstream because I am not marching to the beat of their monotonous drum.

And I fear that many of my GLb comrades will no longer care about those that have been left behind in this relentless pursuit of assimilation at the expense of liberation. I fear a loss of solidarity, of being told to swallow what I was given because this was my choice just as countless bigots have told us before. Heterosexuals and gay people alike have, all along the way, policed my articulation of my concerns. I do not feel like they would support those of us who have been left behind in their journey. I fear that everything will stop, even as there is so much more to do both locally and globally.

I would love to be proved wrong. I would love for this to have been just a muster in a bid for liberation. Yet again and again history has proved that things do not happen like this. So I remain unrepentantly unhappy with this state of affairs, groping in the dark for comrades who will have my back. Plotting revolution, plotting freedom and fervently hoping that in this broken world that I stay safe and survive.

Things I read this week that I found interesting

Ooh, I’ve had such a lovely week in the sun, but I still read some things. Perhaps you’ll find them interesting, too.

‘Open season on black boys after a verdict like this’ (Gary Younge)- A powerful response to the Zimmerman verdict, pulled from the Guardian’s CiF section.

Justice for Jasmine (sometimesitsjustacigar)- A raw and moving response to the murder of Jasmine.

Further Materials Toward a Theory of the Man-Child (Moira Weigel and Mal Ahern)- Witty challenge to sexism in an iconic Tiqqun piece, with a lot of good points about the feminisation of labour.

Two Key Points for 21st Century Marxism (There Is No Alternative)- Some questions we really need to address.

Kinky assumptions (Rebel’s Notes)- Analysis of assumptions made about kinky people.

Al Vernacchio: Sex needs a new metaphor. Here’s one … (TED Talks)- Discussion of US baseball metaphors for sex, and introducing a pizza metaphor for how we should be looking at sex.

Living Life By A Rape Schedule (Emmy Fisher)- On the dance we perform daily to avoid rape.

Changing The Creepy Guy Narrative (Chris Brecheen)- One man’s intervention against a creepy guy harassing a woman in public.

The Uterus Issue (Amber Trafficlight)- A timely discussion of where trans rights fit into reproductive justice.

Consent With Disabilities Introduction (Yes, that too)- Exploration of communication issues which should be considered with consent.

Body Politics and the Curious Case of the Page 3 Girl (jaythenerdkid)- One of the good things to have come out of the No More Page 3 nonsense is the quantity of good blogs explaining aspects of why it’s bollocks.

A personal look at Ramadan (tintinnytins)- Want to learn all about Ramadan? Tinny explains what it means to him.

You can’t just add-colour-and-stir to make a movement inclusive (Nishma Doshi)- A timely call to action.

And finally, meet Buttercup the duck, who had a poorly leg, then got a new leg and looked absurdly happy. As if that’s not heartburstingly lovely enough, there’s video of him walking for the first time and quacking with delight.

Response to Home Office consultation on stop and search

The Home Office is running a consultation on stop and search powers. You can get involved by filling in the online form here. Yes, I am inciting you to engage with the government. I participated. I didn’t even swear. Here’s my responses.

Q1.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the use of police powers of stop and search is effective in preventing and detecting crime and anti-social behaviour?

Strongly disagree

Recent data show that stop and search has a 9% arrest rate, which suggests that the overwhelming majority of stop and searches have no ability whatsoever to detect crime and anti-social behaviour. Furthermore, as I understand it, stop and search powers were granted to stop crime rather than anti-social behaviour so I fail to understand why you have included it in this question.

Q2.

What are, in your view, the types of crime and anti-social behaviour that can be tackled effectively through the application of stop and search powers? Please give reasons.

This provocative tactic does nothing to alleviate problems caused by social conditions which are often constructed by the privileged as “crime and antisocial behaviour”. In fact, it may exacerbate these conditions.

Q3.
To what extent do you agree that the arrest rate following stop and search events is a useful measure of the power’s effectiveness? (please select one)

Neither agree nor disagree.

It is abundantly clear this question was included to merely attempt to smooth over the fact that stop and searches very seldom result in an arrest, a major indicator of their ineffectiveness. However, it is also true that there are less tangible consequences of stop and search, which also point to how utterly damaging this tactic is: for example, many people who participated in the riots considered police stop and search to be a provocation and incitement, and how many people, particularly people of colour, who view stop and search powers to be abused to harass and intimidate them.

Q4.

In your view, what other things, beyond the number of resulting arrests, should be considered when assessing how effective the powers of stop and search are? Please give reasons.

The impact on communities of stop and search should be considered, in particular racial harassment perpetrated by a predominantly white and institutionally racist police force.

(re: section 1 and section 23) Q5.
To what extent do you agree or disagree that the ‘with reasonable grounds’ stop and search powers, described in the paragraphs above, are used by police in a way which effectively balances public protection with individual freedoms? (please select one)

Strongly disagree

“Reasonable grounds” needs to be clearly-defined, as at present it appears to be merely applied to groups of people who are already on the receiving end of harassment by police. It ought to be specified. As it is currently defined, it is left up to the judgment of the institutionally racist police force.

(re section 60) Q6.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the ‘without reasonable grounds’ stop and search powers described in the paragraphs above are used by police in a way which effectively balances public protection with individual freedoms? (please select one)

Once again, this “reasonable grounds” must be specified. Furthermore, it is concerning how frequently section 60s are imposed in situations wherein people are dissenting against the state, giving the appearance that they are merely used to quash criticism.

Q7.

To what extent do you agree that it is right that the police are under a national requirement to record the information set out above in respect of each stop and search? (please select one)

Strongly agree

If anything, the police must be required to go further in setting out their reasons for conducting the stop and search, going into detail as to why they chose to target that specific individual. It ought to be a time-consuming process in order to discourage police from abusing their power.

It is also important that the confidentiality of people who are stop and searched is maintained, and therefore it is important that police conducting stop and searches are honest that people are not required to give names or identifying details. At present, they often lie about this, which can be seen as a method of surveillance.

Q8.

In your view, should government require police forces to record stop and search events in a certain way (for example, using particular technology) or are individual forces better placed to make this decision? Please give reasons.

As described above, police should be required to give exhaustive reasoning every time they are tempted to conduct a stop and search to discourage abuse of power. Use of technology would be unwelcome, however, as this would further contribute to the view that they are using stop and search as an elaborate data-gathering exercise.

Q9.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: “I am confident that the police use stop and search powers fairly to prevent and detect crime and anti-social behaviour?” (please select one)

Strongly disagree

Given the discrepancy of how many people of colour are searched compared to how many white people are searched, it would appear that stop and search powers are racially-motivated. Furthermore, section 60 powers appear to be used largely to harass dissenters rather than prevent crime. They appear to be provocative rather than preventive.

Q10.

What would give you greater confidence in the police’s use of stop and search powers? Please give reasons.

If they stopped using them, as apparently they cannot be trusted with this power.

Q11.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the current requirement to explain the reasons for the stop and search make the use of the power more fair and transparent? (please select one)

Strongly disagree

As operationalised, police fail to give adequate explanation and also fail to inform citizens of their rights in the face of these searches. Many citizens emerge from stop and searches none the wiser as to why they were targeted and with the strong suspicion they were chosen because the police had taken against them.

Q12.

Before today, had you heard of the police.uk website? (please select one)

No.

Q13.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that police.uk should contain information on stop and search in your local area? (please select one)

Strongly agree

The site should contain data on how many people were stop and searched, and how many of these stop and searches resulted in a complete lack of finding anything, so that citizens have better information to make up their own minds about how ineffective at its stated purpose stop and search power is. Broken down at a local level, citizens may also be able to see trends in why searches are conducted in their area and who is targeted and draw conclusions about any possible racial bias.

Q14.
To what extent do you agree or disagree that local communities should have direct involvement in deciding how the police use their stop and search powers? (please select one)

Neither agree nor disagree

It is an unfortunate fact of life that those who are more likely to participate in such civic processes are also those who are least affected by police violence. I agree that those who are most likely to find themselves victims of the police should have a greater say, but in practice, it is likely that it will merely be white middle-class people making these decisions with no knowledge of the realities of how the police behave towards people who are not like them.

Q15.

In your view, how might local communities be directly involved in decisions concerning the use of stop and search powers? Please give reasons.

In general, the police must be held to account better. It can take decades for accountability to happen through the IPCC: the process is repeatedly stalled and shrouded in secrecy. This must change in order to give communities the ability to get better involved in decisionmaking.

Q16.

Are there are any other views or comments that you would like to add in relation to stop and search powers that were not covered by the other questions in this consultation?

Ask yourselves: why do so many people think that all coppers are bastards?

Things I read this week that I found interesting

I read things. Much of it was written this week, but some of it wasn’t. Here are some things. Perhaps you, too, will enjoy them.

The Coalition Government’s New Policy: Blame the Immigrants (Justinthelibsoc)- Exploration of the frankly terrifying way the government are acting regarding immigration.

At the crossroads of disability and abortion: My body, my life, my choice. (halfagiraffe)- On the intersection of disability issues and abortion access.

An introduction / a recent epiphany (Tara)- How one feminist managed to consolidate her black, queer and feminist identities.

Why Being a POC Author Sucks Sometimes (Ellen Oh)- Some staggering figures and excellent analysis of diversity in writing here.

Trans 101, Upgoer Five style (Planting Rainbows)- Explaining trans through only the most commonly-used words.

Romantic love: an agent of change? (Niki Seth-Smith)- Interesting examination of love and revolution, urging interrogation of romantic individualism.

Romance, misogyny and near misses (Elisa)- On misogyny in “romance”.

Still a Child (Maggie McNeill)- On infantilising sex workers, with reflections on what makes someone an adult

If You Look A Little Closer, These People Might Surprise You (Upworthy)- Ad campaign attempting to destigmatise sex work in Argentina. I hope they expand this to a broader selection of roles.

Framed: Butches, Mannish-Women and Female Masculinity As Represented in Photography, 1920-1970 (Kristin Kurzawa)- An absolutely gorgeous set of photos from a history nearly erased.

Real Life Tron on an Apple IIgs (Daniel Wellman)- Programmers, in making a Tron-style game, accidentally have an AI escape into the computer’s memory and cause havoc. For reals.

Straight Pride UK: Lol. Nice Try Guys (Charlie Sarson)- Why the Straight Pride movement (which actually probably consists of one guy) is rubbish.

Occupy Gezi: (non-)(re-)memorialisation of the Armenian Genocide ((Un)free Archaeology)- On Turkey, the occupation and memorialising the Armenian genocide.

And finally, have some very literal stock photos which made me IRL LOL.

Hetero cunnilingus: apparently it’s to stop you cheating

I read a paper. It left me in convulsions of laughter. It is, of course, an evolutionary psychology one.

The paper “Is Cunnilingus-Assisted Orgasm a Male Sperm-Retention Strategy?” sets out to answer the all-important question which has apparently been bugging the evolutionary psychology community since it evolved the gene to apply a just-so explanation to every aspect of human behaviour: why do heterosexual couples engage in something fun?

They ponder that it must be a strategy for either keeping sperm in there to make sure it all swims the right way, or maybe it’s to stop women cheating. I was surprised to note no mention of the bonobo, a closely related ape which tends to use oral sex as a greeting and fuck everything that moves, presumably because the authors had already ruled out the alternative hypothesis of “oral sex is fun.”

Anyway, following a very short questionnaire where they asked some dudes how hot their girlfriends were, and how hot other men found their girlfriends, whether their girlfriend came, and when they spaffed in relation to going down, the authors concluded that cunnilingus definitely didn’t evolve to keep the jizz in the right place. Therefore, they decided, it must be to stop cheating.

I promise I am not exaggerating this paper. This is a literal, actual paper which was literally, actually published in a literal, actual peer-reviewed journal. And if any of it is correct, I’m damn glad I’m not heterosexual, because their sex lives sound joyless.

Irene Adler: how to not butcher a brilliant woman character

Spoiler warning: this post contains MASSIVE HONKING SPOILERS FOR ELEMENTARY. If you haven’t watched season 1 to the end yet, turn back now, because it’s actually really good and I don’t want to ruin it for you. You have been warned.

A year and a half ago, I wrote a little blog about how badly Stephen Moffat had fucked up the character of Irene Adler in his Sherlock. I complained that he had stripped Irene of everything that made her cool, removing all of her agency and turning her into a mere piece in a game between two men. I ejaculated with despair when this woman had to be rescued (by a man, obviously). I expressed dismay about how a story over a century old had better gender politics than something that was on the telly recently.

So when I started watching Elementary, I was slightly worried about how Irene Adler might be fucked up and fucked over by a writer, yet again. I probably needn’t have, as Elementary had managed, with a great deal of success, to not piss me off. It had a very strong female character who wasn’t a Strong Female Character™, and portrayed a non-sexual friendship between a man and a woman in a really touching way.

When Irene Adler finally emerged as a victim needing rescue, I had my palm ready to apply to my face. And fuck me, I didn’t need to.

See, as an audience, we’re conditioned to be surprised at a twist, even a twist that was pretty obviously foreshadowed. Dramatically, we needed a twist. And my goodness, it was a brilliant one.

Having Irene Adler as Moriarty was a delight. This Irene is not a passive pawn, but an agent. It goes beyond placing Irene Adler as the woman who outsmarted Sherlock once and elevates her to the status of Sherlock’s equal, a more than worthy adversary. While Moffat’s Adler ended her story with needing to be rescued by Sherlock, Elementary’s began this way, using her apparent rescue as a manipulation.

This Irene holds the cards at all times. This Irene Adler very nearly wins.

Dramatically, she can’t win, because Sherlock always wins. However, Sherlock’s victory was on points this time, atop a trail of bodies.

And yes, we might say something about her weakness being her love for Sherlock, but let us not forget that the only reason Sherlock fell for her gambit was that she was his weakness. Even here, they are equals. Even here, they have both used it as leverage.

And I don’t doubt we’ll be seeing more of this rather brilliant villain.

(apologies for all the squee, this is what happens on the rare occasion I actually like something. Fully concede that Elementary isn’t perfect, particularly in their fuck-ups on Miss Hudson, but Irene Adler is kind of a pet favourite character of mine)

Poly means many: Challenging assumptions

Poly Means Many: There are many aspects of polyamory. Each month, the PMM bloggers will write about their views on one of them. Links to all posts can be found at www.polymeansmany.com. This month, our topic is “assumptions”.

I was thinking recently about the overlap between negative assumptions made about poly people, and those made about bisexuals. In some places, these assumptions are nigh-on indistinguishable.

A fairly common stereotype of bisexuals and poly folk alike is that we’re promiscuous. It’s assumed that we are thoroughly unable to hold down a relationship, that our lives are a non-stop disco of wild orgies, a parade of disconnected genitalia flailed around willy-nilly. Sometimes this is couched in a concern for our health (or, more likely, the health of the community, because if a proper person accidentally has sex with one of us sinful sluts then it’s game over for them and their nice normal life). Other times it’s just a massive moral outcry. But it’s rooted in the thing: we have a lot of sex and we kind of suck at relationships.

Now, I could write a passionate screed about how this is categorically untrue about me, and how this whole assumption is a vicious smear on our communities, except I’d be lying if I did.

I do have a lot of sex. And I am not interested in having a domestic partnership relationship. I kind of suck at those sort of relationships, because they’re really not for me.

Now, it’s all too easy for the poly and bisexual communities to denounce people like me, those who live up to the negative stereotypes that people hold about us, except this is throwing us under the bus. It’s saying “oh, don’t be silly, we’re as normal and nice as you, let’s forget about those aberrant hussies over there”. In doing this, it’s easy to perpetuate exactly the same negative assumptions.

Instead of taking the easy route, what we need to do is examine exactly where the negativity in these assumptions comes from and then smash all of that. Unfortunately, there’s rather a lot of smashing to do.

Some of the negativity comes from biphobia, a general societal negative attitude towards bisexuals. This is simply plain bigotry, dressed up as a number of other readily-available prejudices ingrained in society. Biphobia is grindingly present from both heterosexuals and gay people, and both groups need to stop doing it.

Some of it comes from the dominant “relationship escalator” model of relationships, wherein relationships that do not follow a prescribed course are devalued. The relationship escalator in turn is likely rooted to some extent in ownership of property–marriage is, after all, historically a legal arrangement to help sort out who owns what. While we are no longer necessarily expected to marry, it’s no coincidence that a relationship isn’t considered meaningful until you’re both sharing possessions and a house, which is a patent nonsense.

Some of it comes from slut-shaming. Our society does not like it when people are having a lot of sex. There is nothing more threatening to a misogynist than a woman who is mistress of her own sexuality (and, likewise, anyone who is not a heterosexual man).

All of this leads to an environment wherein if we do not conform to a fairly rigid set of behavioural expectations, we are hung out to dry. We are punished for not marching to a beat that never sounded right to us.

The fact is, I’m happy. I’ve found what works for me and I am living and loving. I know full well that negative assumptions are made about what I do, even by people within my community, but do you know what? Fuck that shit. In failing to challenge the negativity inherent in these assumptions, we will find ourselves stuck at merely being tolerated rather than liberated and being truly able to love freely. Even when one does not experience it, the constraints that lead to negativity bind us all, pointing many of us in a direction which we see as the only choice there really is.

So let us smash the negativity and challenge these assumptions right from their root. It’s a hell of a lot more work, but it is work that is ultimately worth doing.

Things I read this week that I found interesting

Yeah, that. (oh god I have a hangover oh god oh god)

MLH On Racism (Lauryn Hill)- Everything you ever need to read about racism.

Left for dead (Automnia)- On why the left is dead. Uncomfortably brilliant analysis.

You’ve had your anti-hipster fun, now get organised. (bidrohi blog)- Yeah, we were all grossed out by an egregious example of hipster gentrification. Now do things.

History Lesson: what happened when Canada enacted a feminist anti-porn law? (Glasgow Sex Worker)- Bad things. Bad things happened. Remember.

Why is sterilisation still being forced on transgender people? (Marie le Conte)- A reminder of a generally shitty situation for trans people.

The Equal Marriage Act and transgender rights. The prejudice below. (image not available)- Another reminder.

Your Body Is A Market (gaelick)- On why Dublin Pride is quite, quite terrible.

Sex work and stigma (Laura’s Diary)- On the stigma associated with sex work.

Pride (anonymous)- A heartbreaking first-person account of exactly what that stigma can do to a person.

The WHO stats tell us the extent of violence against women. Now what are we going to do about it? (sian and crooked rib)- VAWG. Still shockingly, but unsurprisingly prevalent.

Call things by their proper names (zetkin)- Everything you need to read on feminism and porn.

And finally, here’s a really angry baby genet and a possibly-murderous baby quoll.

We need to talk about rape, “deception” and trans people

Content note: this post discusses sexual violence and systematic transphobia

The Court of Appeal has codified into UK law that trans people who do not disclose their trans status could be considered sex offenders. For full commentary and exploration of this ruling I urge you to read this whole post on Complicity, but to summarise:

The judgement goes on at length beyond this and is also concerned with the accuracy of legal advice given, but there appears to have been some doubt as to how aware M was about the gender situation. Given they were both teenagers, possibly confused about sexuality and on one side gender, this perhaps isn’t surprising.

Essentially it goes on to say that although the burden of proof is with the prosecution, if you’re trans and out yourself to someone prior to any sort of sexual act – even touching – then it would be best if you can prove it, in case they (or their parents) later try to prosecute. A Gender Recognition Certificate would, I hope, be a defense – but having read the judgement, I’m not certain.

Quite how you prove you told a partner without outing yourself to all and sundry, putting yourself at risk of physical violence, loss of employment, homelessness etc is not addressed in the judgement.

As zoeimogen points out on Complicity, similar precedents do not exist for not disclosing, for example, marital status. They do not even exist for not disclosing whether or not one has HIV. It is a really, really bad ruling with potentially horrifying implications for the trans community. It creates a climate of fear, a hostile environment. Ultimately, it means that if a trans person is raped by a cis person, the cis rapist could turn the tables and declare that actually their survivor was the rapist for not disclosing.

If you think this is some kind of exaggeration, I invite you to look around the world to see other examples of how legislation has been set up to stop trans people from being able to seek justice through legal channels, and cis people claiming trans people are rapists. In Singapore, in the US, in Sweden, in India where they recently rewrote their rape laws so only cis women could be raped. They are legislating away the possibility of a group of people–already more vulnerable to rape–to be raped.

This is common, and this is systemic. It grows from a combination of factors making it sadly inevitable. The general attitude of dehumanisation towards trans people. The notion that it is genitals that are gender. That “trans panic” is considered a valid defence. The insistence that trans people are some sort of intruder and deceiver, sneakily infiltrating the dominant cis supremacist order. And yes, we cis feminists are complicit in this. When trying to make change, we sometimes forget our trans sisters, accidentally throwing them under the bus. Then there’s the actively bigoted feminists, who want to see this happen. It’s not just feminists, generally social justice activists are very poor on remembering that trans people exist, and bigoted when they do.

Tomorrow, the Pride celebrations are going on in London. Ostensibly a celebration our pride in being LGBT, the whole thing is built on a history of throwing trans people under the bus. The role of trans women in kicking off the Pride movement is all but erased from memory, and tomorrow we shall be celebrating the passage of the UK same sex marriage law which throws trans people under the bus.

We look away, far too often, but for trans people the option of looking away is not there. And if we are to make things right, we must not look away. We must look and talk about these horrors, because our silence has allowed them to grow and grow. We must address cissexism, within ourselves and within society. We need to talk about this ruling, because it is an entirely logical extension of a system that many of us have unwittingly contributed to. We must look, and we must work to unpick every thread which wove this vile cloth.

We need to talk about all of this, because it is not OK.

Thanks to @metalmujer for the links to worldwide instances of similar cases.

ETA: some shit I’ve cocked up on. Link to what I did wrong. Unedited post in the interest of honesty and transparency.

All undercover cops are a special kind of bastard

All over the news today is the revelation that undercover police were instructed to infiltrate and smear the family and supporters of murder victim Stephen Lawrence in order to discredit them. It seems the porcine party had a precarious problem: everyone had noticed they were massive fucking racists for completely failing to investigate a racially-motivated murder. Rather than deal with the increasing mound of excreta accumulating in their lair, they felt it might be somewhat easier to try to ruin the lives of a grieving family in the hope that they’d shut up, or the public would stop listening to them.

Of course, this putrid plan failed to work out as well as the cops would have liked, but thanks to all sorts of other dicking around and failing to do anything, it still took the best part of two decades to achieve anything resembling justice (and even that was inadequate). This heel-dragging is par for the course, an attempt to make people forget just how awful they are.

Undercover policing in a particularly vicious and especially bastardly category of policing. While most policing relies on the use of physical force–or threats of physical force–to coerce, undercover policing is a more insidious beast, an emotional violation. The undercover cop slips in, distorting reality around himself, fucking shit up from the inside and selling the secrets of those whose trust he stole.*

It is not just grieving families these bastards decide to worm into. It is absolutely anyone who stands against the social order the state would prefer to silence. Eight activist women from various projects are currently taking legal action against the police as undercover police slipped in and insinuated their way into a position of trust by engaging in romantic relationships with them. They were tricked into sex, into pregnancy by liars who were tasked with gaining information on them and their friends.

All of this was found out after it had happened, after it had been happening for years. Who knows how many other women were abused in this fashion? Who knows how many other groups of people who made the terrible error of dissenting the status quo have been infiltrated in such a fashion?

And the effect of knowing all this has an impact, and it is one which I don’t doubt that the police had hoped for. Sometimes it makes us paranoid. Sometimes there’s a little shadow of concern, it becomes a little harder to trust our comrades, just in case they, too, are police spies. It can make activist circles exclusionary and cliquey, because of rightful safety concerns. Undercover policing is a violation which ripples throughout a community.

Make no mistake. This has not stopped, and it will not stop in the near future. If you listen closely, you can hear the echoes from the future of all of this happening again and again. We don’t hear about it very often, because they hide it well. It’s rare the covers get blown. We must just be vigilant, and not let the bastards keep getting away with it. Let the face of every undercover cop discovered be distributed far and wide so they cannot abuse again. Support campaigns like that for women victims of undercover police. Be critical of the police as an institution, and the role that they serve; not just undercover, but in all they do. And never, never let them get away with it.

*Using he/him pronouns here because in all the cases that came to light, those were the pronouns used. Also, the pigs still have a massive gender problem because they’re an oppressive institution.