Michigan Democrat barred from state legislature for saying "vagina"

"And finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested my vagina, but 'no' means 'no.'"

The American state of Michigan is currently debating a law which would impose heavy new regulations on abortion providers and ban all abortions after 20 weeks. Speaking out against the law on Wednesday, Democratic representative Lisa Brown sought to highlight the hypocrisy of propounding religious arguments against abortion by pointing out that her Jewish faith allows abortions which save a mother's life to occur at any stage in a pregnancy. Brown told the State House of Representatives:

I have not asked you to adopt and adhere to my religious beliefs. Why are you asking me to adopt yours?

She followed up with a snappy sign-off:

And finally, Mr. Speaker, I'm flattered that you're all so interested my vagina, but 'no' means 'no.'

When Brown returned to the House on Thursday, she was told by State Republicans that she would not be allowed to speak about the next bill under consideration, on school employee retirement. Republican representative Mike Callton told the Detroit News:

What she said was offensive. It was so offensive, I don't even want to say it in front of women. I would not say that in mixed company.

A spokesperson for the state Republican party confirmed that they had decided that Brown's comments "violated the decorum of the house".

Michigan already has fairly harsh abortion restrictions. Public funding is only available in cases of "life endangerment, rape or incest", and a woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information explicitly designed to discourage her from having an abortion, then wait 24 hours, before she can have one.

Naturally, twitter leapt on the news. #vagina started trending shortly after the story broke, with people sharing alternate words Brown could use to get around the ban, and, naturally, that evolved into the trending topic #vaginamovielines. For some reason.

Brown wasn't the only Democrat banned from the House for speaking out. Representative Barb Bryum was also censured for "causing a disturbance" on Wednesday when "she wasn't allowed to introduce an amendment to the abortion regulations bill banning men from getting a vasectomy unless the sterilization procedure was necessary to save a man's life." 

Bryum told the Detroid News:

If we truly want to make sure children are born, we would regulate vasectomies.

Magnificent trolling, there.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Getty
Show Hide image

Q&A: Would Brexit really move “the Jungle” to Dover?

The 2003 Le Touquet treaty was negotiated outside the EU.

What is David Cameron’s most recent claim about Britain leaving the EU?

The Prime Minister is claiming that Brexit could result in France ending the agreement by which British immigration officials carry out checks on those seeking to enter the UK in France.  

More specifically, Cameron thinks that a vote to leave the EU would give the French government an excuse to revoke the Le Touquet treaty of 2003, and that this would cause refugee camps akin to the Calais “Jungle” to spring up along the English south coast.

What’s the Le Touquet treaty?

In February 2003, Tony Blair went to the northern French resort of Le Touquet to try and persuade President Jacques Chirac to support British and American military action in Iraq. (He failed). 

Blair and Chirac hogged the headlines, but on the summit’s sidelines, Home Secretary David Blunkett and his French counterpart, an ambitious young politician named Nicolas Sarkozy, negotiated a treaty establishing juxtaposed controls at each country’s sea ports.

This agreement meant that British border police could set up and run immigration checkpoints at Calais – effectively moving the British border there from Dover. The treaty also enabled French border police to carry out checks in Dover.

British border police had already been operating at French Eurostar terminals since 2001, and manning the French entrance to the Eurotunnel since 1994.

What’s all this got to do with the EU?

Technically, nothing. The Le Touquet treaty is a bilateral agreement between the UK and France. Both countries happen to be member states of the EU, but the negotiations took place outside of the EU’s auspices.

That's why eurosceptics have reacted with such fury today. Arron Banks, the co-founder of Leave.EU, said the Prime Minister was “resorting to scaremongering”, while Ukip’s migration spokesperson, in a surprising role-reversal, said that Cameron’s argument was “based on fear, negativity, and a falsehood”.

Cameron’s claim appears to be that Brexit would represent such a profound shift in the UK’s relationship with other European states that it could offer France an excuse to end the agreement reached at Le Touquet. That is debatable, but any suggestion that the treaty would instantly become void in the event of a vote to leave is untrue.

Does France actually want to revoke the treaty?

Local politicians in Calais, and in particular the town’s mayor, have been arguing for months that the treaty should be abandoned. Le Monde has also criticised it. The current French Interior Minister, Bernard Cazeneuve, hinted today that he agreed, saying that a British vote to leave “will always result in countermeasures”.

On the BBC's Today programme this morning, Rob Whiteman, a former head of the UK Border Agency, said that it was “almost certain” that the treaty would end if the UK left the EU. He said that France has benefited less from the deal than it expected:

“I think at the time the French felt there would be an upside for them, in that if it was clear that people could not easily get to Britain it would stop Sangatte building up again. The camp was closed. But history has shown that not to be the case. The French authorities still have a huge amount of pressure on their side.”

That said, the French government receives money from the British to help police Calais and its camps, and various French officials have acknowledged that their ports would receive even more traffic if refugees and migrants believed that it was easier to travel  to the UK than before.

If the treaty ended, would “the Jungle” just move to Dover?

There’s little doubt that because of linguistic and familial ties, and perhaps the perception that the UK is more welcoming than France, many refugees and migrants would come to the UK as quickly as they could to claim asylum here.

Whiteman also said on Today that since the 2003 agreement, the annual number of asylum claims in the UK had declined from 80,000 to around 30,000. So the UK could expect a significant spike in claims if the treaty were to end.

But the British asylum process makes it unlikely that anything like “the Jungle” would spring up. Instead, those claiming asylum would be dispersed around the country or, if authorities are worried they would flee, held in an immigration detention centre.

Why is Cameron saying this now?

This looks suspiciously like one of the Tories' election strategist Lynton Crosby’s dead cats. That is, in an effort to distract his critics from the detail of the renegotiation, the PM has provoked a row about migrants and refugees. Cameron is clearly keen to move the debate on from the minutiae of different European agreements to bigger questions about security and terrorism. Though getting bogged down in competing interpretations of a treaty from 2003 may not be the best way to move onto that broader terrain.