Its A Little Bit Funny, This Feeling Inside….

That’s what we have: Feelings inside. No matter what we do, no-one can see them. No matter how we explain, no-one can feel them. Not a single person on this earth can understand how any of us feel. We cannot understand how someone else feels either. This is the biggest problem we have as trans people. We cannot show people how we feel, how we suffer, how society denigrates us as less than human.

I consider myself one of the lucky ones. I pass through life with barely a passing glance or comment. I work in the public view yet rarely rate anything outside of the normal “ma’am”, “miss” or, at worse “excuse me young lady” (although I’m 47). Some of us, though, have problems getting a job, getting somewhere to live, even getting something to eat. These problems are purely based on people’s perception of gender, their view on how it is supposed to be presented and their knowledge based solely upon what they have been told, mainly by the media or, in many cases, their religion.

Much of what we suffer from stems from the “How can anyone feel differently to me?” attitude. Amazingly, we still feel the full range of emotions that everyone else feels! I know this may come as a shock to some but, yes, we do feel emotions. We do hurt, cry, jump for joy, feel happy, and we even bleed when we are cut, slashed and stabbed. We also feel pain when we are beaten, kicked, assaulted and, yes, raped.

There are certain segments of the population who disagree that trans people, especially trans women, can be raped. According to this small segment of the population (TERFs), this can only happen to cis-women but, believe me, it can happen to trans women, and trans men.

One of the biggest problems that trans people face is the questioning of the validity of what they know. I have known since I was at least four, that I was different. I knew that my body was wrong, that a mistake had been made somewhere but, without the words, there was no way I could tell anyone. It wasn’t until I saw one of my female cousin’s bodies, (I was about age 5), that I realised what was wrong and something ‘clicked’ in my mind. My body was wrong. According to what was in my head, it should have looked like hers, but didn’t, and there was nothing I could do about it. That sparked off forty years of torment, self-hatred, depression, and multiple suicide attempts. For many trans women, this is a familiar story, and the range of emotions will be familiar.

Another problem we face is the potential destruction of family, friendships and other social circles. We face the loss of any form of support, except that we form amongst ourselves. Some, like myself, have the support of family and friends. Others do not. They face ostracisation and loneliness, with no support or help. This potential loss is the greatest obstacle to transition that many face. This has to stop. How many of my sisters have to die before people realise we are human? How many lives have to be lost before people realise that we are not a threat, just people trying to live their lives?

There is no other reason for this I can think of other than lack of knowledge. People fear what they do not know. Unfortunately, many people just do not want to learn new things and cling to what they think they know, frightened to change, even when what they know has been proven wrong.

Sometimes it’s like banging one’s head against a brick wall. In the words of the almighty Pink Floyd:

Banging your heart, against some mad bugger’s wall

As an aside: Here is a trans emotional timeline:

1) Sad: I feel different.
2) Depressed: No-one around understands how I feel.
3) Happy: There are others like me.
4) Joyful: There is something that can be done about it.
5) Angry: No-one around me wants me to do anything about it ie (4).
6) Depressed (further): Because of (5).
7) Angry: Fuck (5) and (6)
8) Fuck everyone! I’m me.

Usually transition occurs between 7) and 8), although it can occur earlier.


Human Rights? Yes, But Who’s?

The death of Margaret Thatcher has, of course, dominated the news. This has pushed many news stories into the background over the last two days. I was thinking of writing about her and her policies but a little nugget of news caught my eye while I was digging through the papers (online of course), being the news junkie that I am. It concerns an issue of human rights abuse, perpetrated by Her Majesty’s Government, against a certain Mustafa Abdi, formally of Somalia.

Mr Abdi arrived in the UK from Somalia on the 7th May 1995, and immediately claimed asylum. His claim was rejected but, being the kind souls the government are, he was granted exceptional leave to stay until February 2000. Mr Abdi repaid this kindness by committing the most heinous criminal acts, namely rape and indecency with a child, for which he was convicted on 23rd May 1998, and sentenced to eight years in prison.

On the 22nd May 2002 the Home Secretary authorised Mr Abdi’s detention until a deportation order could be issued. 2nd July 2002 saw Mr Abdi appeal against the deportation order and make a fresh claim for asylum. These were denied and his appeal right exhausted on 4th December 2003. Earlier in 2003 a probation panel interviewed him and found that he was unsuitable for parole on the grounds that during his time in prison he had received fourteen charges relating to offences against prison discipline. Six of these offences involved fighting. Moreover, he was assessed as presenting a high risk of sexual offending and a medium risk of general offending on release.

In September 2003 Mr Abdi’s release became automatic but, because of the Home Secretary’s authorisation issued in 2002, his detention continued until a deportation order could be issued. This was issued on 5th April 2004 and also contained a paragraph authorising the continued detention of Mr Abdi until his deportation.

Unfortunately, in August 2004, the last carrier willing to take “enforced returns” withdrew, meaning the government could not deport anyone without their permission. Carriers were willing, however, to take anyone provided they went voluntarily. Something that Mustafa Abdi was not willing to do. In 2005 he made another application for asylum which was refused. Bail was also refused by the Chief Immigration Officer.

In 2006 the government reached an agreement with African Express Airlines making enforced removals to Somalia possible. By this time, Mr Abdi was given leave to apply for a judicial review of his case. In 2007 his case went before the Court of Appeal who ruled that his detention had been lawful because he could have returned to Somalia voluntarily. He was release on bail in 2007 but was returned to prison in April 2008 due to breaking his bail conditions. He has now taken his case to the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds that his detention until 2007 violated his Article 5 rights:

“1. Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person. No one shall be deprived of his liberty save in the following cases and in accordance with a procedure prescribed by law: … … …

(f) the lawful arrest or detention of a person to prevent his effecting an unauthorised entry into the country or of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition.”

His attempts to include Article 3 were dismissed. However, the ECHR have upheld his appeal on the basis that monthly review by the government, during his incarceration, were not carried out.

I know this has taken a long time to explain but it seems that it was needed. This is a simplified version. The full case can be accessed here.

This, then raises the question:

Why is it allowed that a criminal, convicted of a crime so serious it is just short of murder, committed against an under-age citizen of  a country he himself is not a citizen of, can raise a legal challenge against the government of that country over his lawful detention?

It appears that this case solved no useful purpose other than to gain this man approximately £7,000, and possibly set a dangerous precedent, opening doors up for similar cases. This man is still in jail awaiting deportation, therefore I very much doubt that he did this as a crusader for his fellow illegal immigrants. No, the government and the courts, in allowing this spurious case to go ahead, have possibly allowed a crack to appear in its ability to detain illegal immigrants, into which a good lawyer can put his legal jemmy and prise open. I may be completely wrong about this and, if I am, then I apologise but, it does seem to me, that this case is one that should never have been allowed to be put to the test. I can see others now looking at their detention and whether their monthly reviews have been carried out to the letter. Its not a case of whether illegal immigrants who commit atrocious crimes should be protected by the Human Rights Convention or not, but whether those rights should be placed over those of of their victims.