Pat McFadden grilled on the 'protection' of Labour MPs
We use your sign-up to provide content in ways you’ve consented to and to improve our understanding of you. This may include adverts from us and 3rd parties based on our understanding. You can unsubscribe at any time. More info
Labour Party MP Pat McFadden was challenged on how his party expects to be elected to lead the UK when its own MPs are reporting concerns about their safety. Canterbury MP Rosie Duffield announced she would not attend Labour’s annual conference later this month after receiving threats because of her stance on trans rights. Sky News host Trevor Phillips said: “It’s reported today that the MP for Canterbury, Rosie Duffield, has said she’s not going to the Labour Party conference because she doesn’t feel that her safety is assured because of comments and threats from activists who object to what she has to say, that biological sex is a fact.
“The first duty of a government is to protect its people.
“How can we believe Labour can be in government when it can’t even protect its own MPs?”
Mr McFadden admitted to being “appalled” at Ms Duffield facing abuse and harassment, and insisted solutions should be found to promote freedom of speech
He said: “Well, I’d be appalled if Rosie thought she couldn’t go to the Labour Conference. Every MP should be safe at Labour Conference, at their party conference.
JUST IN: ‘Keep your nose out of it!’ Britons rage as Nancy Pelosi issues US deal ultimatum
“We had this a few years ago with Luciana Berger, I was appalled then and I think…first of all, I want Rosie to be able to go to conference.
“But more broadly here, I think there’s an important cultural point on how we discuss things.
“Difficult issues have to be able to discuss in a way that doesn’t result, if someone says something that someone else disagrees with, them being placed completely beyond the pale and subject to terrible online abuse or threats…
“We’ve got to find a way to work through issues where people say things someone else might disagree with, without the consequence that we’re taking about.”
MORE TO FOLLOW…
Source: Read Full Article