It has been a trend over far too many years now for organisations to offer apologies to those “communities” who can claim historical maltreatment or indifference from that organisation. If this genuinely makes some people feel better about their interactions,  I suppose there is no harm in it, provided the organisation does not assume that public piety over historical wrongs is a substitute for present day effective action.

However, a recent example of this trend takes a darker turn — not merely for its content but for its provenance. On 24th July 2023 the Chief Constable of Sussex Police, Jo Shiner, replied to an email from Peter Tatchell.

Chief Constable Shiner recognised the historic discrimination faced by the “LGBTQ+” community from the police, and apologised, hoping to restore trust and emphasise that the police have changed for the better. 

But this paragraph stands out:

In 2023, Sussex Police has one of the highest proportion of LGBTQ+ officers and staff of any police force in UK, specialist liaison officers who listen and regularly engage with those in the community as well as an active LGBTQ+ external reference group which, in part, reflects that change. There is no place in Sussex Police for those who do not uphold these values.

This goes well beyond recognition of past injustice. It is a promise to root out all those who do not uphold “LGBTQ+” values within the police — which will inevitably impact those members of the public who have dealings with Sussex police and who fail to offer the appropriate enthusiastic support for such values. 

There are two significant problems here. First, the “values” of the community that the police will robustly uphold are unidentified — even the community itself. 40 years ago, when the police were routinely roughing up gay men, there was no such community. The “T”, the “Q” and the “+” are relatively recent additions. And while the “T” is fairly identifiable, it seems that no one at all has a clue who we will find under the “Q+” umbrella. Last year I attempted via Twitter to find out, asking 100s of individuals and organisations. Most simply ignored me or blocked me without comment. A handful of people answered; I was told “Q” stood for “queer” or “questioning” which took me no further forward. The “+” remained undefined. I was told it did not encompass paedophiles, zoophiles, coprophiles or necrophiles, but got no coherent explanation why these groups didn’t qualify for inclusion in the “+”. It is impossible to enforce values that you cannot identify. If the police are going to fly a flag for the “+” community then we are all entitled to know who is coming in when we open that door. 

The second objection is that the police continue to afford the “T” part of that community a veneration and protection that they simply do not have in law. It is a core “value” of the “T” community that a man’s gender identity is as important — or more important — than an actual woman’s sex. That people may legitimately object to this and hold that sex is real, important and it matters has been confirmed as a belief protected by the Equality Act 2010 in the Forstater judgment and also as protected political speech. Miller’s victory in the Court of Appeal in 2021 led to significant revision of the College of Policing Hate Crimes Guidance and yet the police continue to treat any challenge to gender identity ideology as if akin to the most foul racism. 

This puts the police in direct conflict with their public sector equality duty, quite apart from any actions in discrimination from their staff. Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010 requires public bodies, in carrying out their functions, to have due regard to the need to achieve the following objectives:

(a) eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under the Equality Act 2010;

(b) advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;

(c) foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it

It is difficult to see how Sussex Police can claim with a straight face that by promising to hold all members of its force to a set of unidentified “values” that emerge from an unidentified “community” they are fostering good relations between the gender critical and the “T”. We see time and time again that women risk male violence for simply attempting to meet in public and discuss their rights — and that the police response is often either lacklustre or entirely lacking. It took a social media storm of protest to get the Met to act after Sarah Jane Baker — out on licence for a 30 year sentence for kidnap, torture and attempted murder — urged a crowd in central London on July 8th to punch “Terfs” in the face. 

Fair Cop have already written to the CPS to ask for an explanation as to why it appears to be in significant breach of its statutory duty; we have been promised a reply by 8th August 2023. It looks as if we should be raising the same urgent inquiries of the Sussex Police. 

I politely suggest that what is required to have faith in public institutions is not pious apologies from those who did no wrong, to those who suffered no wrong, but action that achieves a meaningful result right here and right now. Deeds not words. A promise to enforce unidentified values is not merely incoherent, it risks dressing up discrimination as a moral virtue. This is particularly worrying and frightening from the police, who exist only to serve and protect the public, without fear and without favour.