• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Fair Play For Women

Fair Play For Women

  • Prison
  • Sport
  • GRA
  • Language
  • Changing rooms
  • Resources ▼
    • Take action! Here’s how
    • Key facts
    • UK law
    • Science
    • Sex vs gender
    • Consultation submissions
    • Materials
  • About Us ▼
    • Review of 2022
    • Our aim
    • Our beliefs
    • Our spokeswoman
    • Our history and achievements
    • Our supporters
    • News
      • Newspapers
      • TV Interviews
      • Radio interviews
    • Contact
    • Donate
You are here: Home / Silencing women / Liberal Democrats sanction parliamentary candidate to apologise for calling women ‘terfs’.

Liberal Democrats sanction parliamentary candidate to apologise for calling women ‘terfs’.

16th December 2020 by FPFW

On 2 December 2020 the Liberal Democrats held an official complaints hearing after receiving multiple reports from members of the public about the unacceptable behaviour of one of their prospective parliamentary candidates (PPC) on social media.

The issue before the Adjudication Panel was whether a tweet posted by Dan Schmeising, their parliamentary candidate for Cardiff South and Penarth, during the run-up to the 2019 General Election brought the party into disrepute.

The tweet said “Save yourself the stress and just block them mate, TERFs aren’t worth the hassle”.

The Panel upheld the complaint and imposed a number of sanctions. Mr Schmeising was required to apologise, and to seek guidance and mentoring from a more experienced parliamentary candidate if he wished to remain on the approved list of PPCs.

The Panel also endorsed a recommendation that the Party should consider training for men in their 20s and 30s to educate them on the use of misogynistic language.

The facts and reasoning in the complaint:

We have obtained a copy of the Complaint Hearing Outcome sent to the complainants. The facts found by the Panel include that:

TERF is used to describe feminists or women in general who “do not accept that trans women should in all circumstances and for all purposes be treated as women. It is a term that can be used and understood as being insulting, degrading or even threatening”.

Mr Schmeising “used the term in a way that was insulting and dismissive, though not threatening. A reasonable reader could have felt insulted or degraded if they perceived the tweet as being directed at them”.

The tweet “was intended to suggest that the arguments of women who do not accept that trans women should in all circumstances and for all purposes be treated as women were not worthy of debate and should be dismissed out of hand”.

By posting the tweet the Respondent had “brought the party into disrepute and breached the provisions of Article 3.7 of the Federal Constitution of the Liberal Democrats”.

As part of their reasoning the Panel said:

We agree with [complainant x] that, regardless of the use of the term itself, the tweet was intended to dismiss and delegitimise the point of view of those with whom Mr Schmeising disagreed.

While we understand the argument used by Mr Schmeising that it is appropriate to not be drawn into debate with those, like racists, whose views are abhorrent to right-thinking people, we do not agree that discussion about the interaction of trans rights with the concerns of those who hold the same views as [complainant x] can be characterised in the same way. 

Parliamentary candidates ought to anticipate a significantly higher level of attention and scrutiny from members of the public, the press and political opponents than other party members, particularly during an election campaign. (It is acknowledged that on November 2, parliament had not been dissolved, but the election campaign had de facto begun.)

As a parliamentary candidate, Mr Schmeising would inevitably be seen as a representative of the party, not merely as a member. Posting a tweet that can reasonably be read as insulting those holding a particular opinion and delegitimising their right to be heard would be read as being the view of the party.

The sanctions

Sanctions were considered necessary because the decision to post the tweet was “the result of political naïveté and a genuine concern with the rights of trans women” but that he “failed to exercise a measure of self-control and expressed himself in terms and in a manner that we hope he will, on reflection, recognise as being regrettable and inappropriate.

The Panel set out the form that such an apology should take:

Following a disciplinary panel meeting held on 2 December 2020, I have been asked to apologise to you for the tweet posted by me on November 2 2019. I have agreed to apologise because, on reflection, I accept that I should not have used the term “TERF”, and I should not have used language capable of suggesting that views held by women who do not accept that trans women should in all circumstances and for all purposes be treated as women should not be heard.

I believe passionately in the rights of trans women to be treated as women, and that those rights should be upheld notwithstanding the concerns mentioned above. But I also believe passionately in liberalism and the need to debate and understand opposing positions. In posting in the way I did, I made a serious misjudgement, and I apologise for that misjudgement and the offence it caused.

Two weeks on (16th December) we understand that the complainants are yet to receive such an apology.

It was also sanctioned, that should he wish to continue as an approved parliamentary candidate for the Lib Dems, he should seek guidance and mentoring from an experienced candidate. The Panel said this would “enable him to improve his political judgment and willingness to engage appropriately with those with whom he disagrees”.

Women must be free to stand up for their rights

Accusations of transphobia are designed to shame and silence women. Women get called transphobic for simply asking questions. Women are afraid to speak out, and fear for their jobs and reputation if they do.

Last year Fair Play For Women found twenty one parliamentary candidates standing in the 2019 General Election who have labelled women as ‘terfs’ or ‘transphobes’ simply for not accepting that transwomen should be treated as women in all circumstances and for all purposes. This is despite the fact that current UK law agrees with us. Nine were representing the Liberal Democrat party, two of whom dismissed women as ‘terfs’ during the run up to the General Election.

Mr Schmeising is another example of a parliamentary candidate who thought it was acceptable to dismiss women’s opposing views in this way. Only on this occasion he was reported to the Party by members of the public for his behaviour and found in breach of Party standards.

Election 2019: Twenty one candidates seeking election call women ‘terfs’

It is not acceptable to insult and dismiss women who hold the view that sex-based rights matter …. and it appears that the Liberal Democrat Party agrees.

This is not the first time a Lib Dem representative has been found to be in breach of Party standards for failing to treat members of the public with respect. Lib Dem Councillor Matt Downey has recently been forced to apologise for calling Fair Play For Women a ‘transphobic hate group’ and women ‘terfs’ on twitter, behaviour that was found to be in breach of the party’s constitution.

Lib Dem Councillor Matt Downey forced to apologise for calling Fair Play For Women a ‘transphobic hate group’

 

Filed Under: Language, Silencing women

Primary Sidebar

Categories

  • Biological sex
  • Children
  • Gender Identity
  • Male violence
  • Scottish GRA reforms
  • Silencing women
  • Policy guidance

Our materials

  • Our factsheets
  • Our short films and animations
  • Our memes
  • Our research

Our latest articles

  •  Man or woman? This sex offender is both
  • A welcome announcement from British Rowing
  • Fair Play For Women and the international campaign for women’s sport
  • World Cycling – better late than never
  • British Cycling bows to the inevitable

Archives

Footer

Prisons, crime and protecting women

  • The facts about transgender prisoners
  • Prisons timeline – how did we get here?
  • Karen White & prison review
  • Sex attacks in female prisons
  • Refuge shelters deeply worried
  • How do women in prison feel about sharing with transgender prisoners?
  • Can you believe what you read about sexual and violent crimes?
  • The judicial review of prisons policy
  • Factsheets

Sport and the human body

  • A progress report on the fight to restore fairness in female sport
  • Sport timeline: how did we get here?
  • Biological sex differences
  • Chromosomes, sex and gender
  • The science and statistics behind the transgender debate
  • Testosterone suppression in “elite athletes” – what do we know?
  • Safeguarding in sport still matters
  • Male inclusion leads to female exclusion
  • What you can do

Making policy and the law

  • Scottish government is forcing sex self-ID on whole of UK.
  • The Equality Act 2010 and women’s rights
  • GRA reform
  • Advice and guidance for policy makers
  • Changing room policy advice
  • What can I do now?
  • Take Action: Say NO to letting Sex Self-ID in through the back door.
  • Public opinion on the tension between women’s rights and trans demands

© 2023 · Fair Play For Women

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt out if you wish. Read More

Accept Decline Cookie Settings
I consent to the use of following cookies:
Cookie Declaration About Cookies
Necessary (2) Marketing (1) Analytics (4) Preferences (0) Unclassified (4)
Necessary cookies help make a website usable by enabling basic functions like page navigation and access to secure areas of the website. The website cannot function properly without these cookies.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
wpl_user_preference fairplayforwomen.com WP GDPR Cookie Consent Preferences 1 year HTTP
YSC youtube.com YouTube session cookie. 52 years HTTP
Marketing cookies are used to track visitors across websites. The intention is to display ads that are relevant and engaging for the individual user and thereby more valuable for publishers and third party advertisers.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
VISITOR_INFO1_LIVE youtube.com YouTube cookie. 6 months HTTP
Analytics cookies help website owners to understand how visitors interact with websites by collecting and reporting information anonymously.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
_ga fairplayforwomen.com Google Universal Analytics long-time unique user tracking identifier. 2 years HTTP
_gid fairplayforwomen.com Google Universal Analytics short-time unique user tracking identifier. 1 days HTTP
vuid vimeo.com Vimeo tracking cookie 2 years HTTP
IDE doubleclick.net Google advertising cookie used for user tracking and ad targeting purposes. 2 years HTTP
Preference cookies enable a website to remember information that changes the way the website behaves or looks, like your preferred language or the region that you are in.
We do not use cookies of this type.
Unclassified cookies are cookies that we are in the process of classifying, together with the providers of individual cookies.
Name Domain Purpose Expiry Type
_gat_UA-109881507-1 fairplayforwomen.com --- Session ---
GASessionCookie fairplayforwomen.com --- Session ---
rtc linkedin.com --- Session ---
_wpfuuid fairplayforwomen.com --- 11 years ---
Cookies are small text files that can be used by websites to make a user's experience more efficient. The law states that we can store cookies on your device if they are strictly necessary for the operation of this site. For all other types of cookies we need your permission. This site uses different types of cookies. Some cookies are placed by third party services that appear on our pages.
Cookie Settings