The “Nelson Mandela Rules” and Why They Matter
April 2, 2025
The post is being sent to all subscribers to this Substack. Typically, when I publish a piece containing extensive research, I put that content behind a paywall. This is hard work, after all! But I’m putting this research in front of the paywall because everyone needs to understand the extent to which the rights of female prisoners are being completely disregarded, globally.
If you are not already a paid subscriber and would like regular access to content that delves deeper into the movement to protect the sex-based rights of women and girls and to stop the abolition of sex, please consider becoming one today.
I recently came across a thread on X about mixed-sex prisons in Europe. The impetus was a story published by the feminist magazine Reduxx titled, “NETHERLANDS: Sadistic Pedophile Who Hoarded Over 8 Million Violent Child Rape Images Declares He Is A ‘Woman’ Following Conviction.”
This post is not specifically about the phenomenon of governments allowing men (including convicted pedophiles who hoard millions of violent child rape images) to be housed in women’s prisons, but it’s worth pausing for a moment to note the power of that headline.
This post is, instead, about the importance of the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules).
This is how Reduxx framed the story in an X post about it:
“Mixed-sex prison.”
Given that we live in a world in which men are frequently housed in women’s prisons on the basis of their alleged “woman gender identities,” a woman quite understandably wondered whether, in this case, “mixed-sex prison” was code for women’s prison, and the following exchange ensued:
What Serena is saying here is that there is a push in Europe to make all prisons mixed-sex. If she’s right (and I’m completely willing to assume that she is), this goes beyond governments allowing men to be housed in women’s prisons, which is bad enough. It goes to integrating all prisons in terms of sex.
One can have a variety of opinions about whether integrating all prisons in terms of sex is a good or a bad idea. I think it’s a terrible idea. But even if one thinks it’s a good idea, one must acknowledge that doing so is in complete disregard of international human rights principles—principles named after one of the most revered human rights advocates in history.
I am not an expert in international human rights law. However, a few years ago, I came across the Nelson Mandela Rules while researching the question of whether housing men in women’s prisons violates international norms. It turns out that it does.
Rule 11(a) of the Rules states:
Rule 11. The different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate institutions or parts of institutions, taking account of their sex, age, criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment; thus: (a) Men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate institutions; in an institution which receives both men and women, the whole of the premises allocated to women shall be entirely separate.
This is Rule 52(1):
Rule 52 1. Intrusive searches, including strip and body cavity searches, should be undertaken only if absolutely necessary. Prison administrations shall be encouraged to develop and use appropriate alternatives to intrusive searches. Intrusive searches shall be conducted in private and by trained staff of the same sex as the prisoner.
That research came in handy in late 2022, when the Scottish parliament voted to pass “Gender Recognition Reform” (the idea that anyone gets to be legally recognized as whatever sex he or she wants to be recognized as).
That law would have allowed men to be housed in Scottish women’s prisons on the basis of their alleged “woman gender identities,” which was quite controversial at the time because of a man named Adam Graham (Isla Bryson, if you like). Graham had been convicted of two counts of rape. During the trial, he decided that he’s a woman named Isla. For a while, he was housed in a women’s prison at the behest of the Scottish Government.
This is him:
Happily, the UK government eventually blocked the law from taking effect. The reasons for that are complicated, but here’s the gist:
In December 2022, the Scottish parliament passed the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill. This bill, if enacted, would reform the process by which people in Scotland can legally change their gender, including by removing the requirement for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
Gender recognition in Scotland is a devolved matter, but the legislation was blocked by the UK government after the secretary of state for Scotland issued a ‘section 35 order’, preventing the bill from proceeding to royal assent.
While all of this was going on, I joked with a Scottish TERF friend that since becoming a TERF, I have learned much more about Scottish law than I had ever planned to. It’s pretty weird that I understand the terms “Scottish devolution” and “section 35,” but here we are.
Anyway, shortly after the law passed in the Scottish Parliament (and before the UK blocked it from taking effect), a Member of the Scottish Parliament named Angus Robertson published an article in the Edinburgh News, stating:
We have heard evidence from women’s rights organisations; children’s rights organisations; sexual violence organisations; sporting bodies; academics; campaigners; world experts; and parliamentarians from across the globe. The final version of the Bill contained amendments both written and supported by members of all parties – it is owned by us all.
In the end, the overwhelming consensus in parliament was that the Gender Recognition Reform Bill should be passed.
To quote Nelson Mandela, “to be free is not merely to cast off one's chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others”. In passing this legislation, I fervently believe the parliament and the people of Scotland have taken one more step in doing just that.
Having researched the Mandela Rules, I thought it was mildly amusing that this MSP would quote Mandela in an article championing the rights of men to be housed in a women’s prison because the Nelson Mandela Rules call for the precise opposite.
I published a free and shareable piece on Substack titled, “Sometimes the genderists make it too easy.” I said:
Mr. Robertson, if you are going to vote to shred women’s rights at the altar of “gender identity,” that’s your business. But it’s another thing entirely to invoke the memory of a revered global icon who was an expert on this topic and who expressly called for the opposite result with respect to prisons and jails.
I rarely weigh in on legal matters happening across the pond because I’m aware that there’s always a relatively good chance that I have no idea what I’m talking about. But come on, this one was just too easy.
To my astonishment, J.K. Rowling reposted my post about the piece.
(Yes, I take screenshots when J.K. Rowling pays attention to me on social media, because I am that ridiculous.)
The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) have been in effect since 1955, and they have always called for sex-separation in prisons. You can read all about the history of the rules here.
In the original version, the provision on sex-separation fell under Rule 8:
8. The different categories of prisoners shall be kept in separate institutions or parts of institutions taking account of their sex, age, criminal record, the legal reason for their detention and the necessities of their treatment. Thus, (a) Men and women shall so far as possible be detained in separate institutions; in an institution which receives both men and women the whole of the premises allocated to women shall be entirely separate.
The original version contained no provision calling for intrusive searches to be carried out by members of the same sex.
In 2011, the UN General Assembly established an inter-governmental Expert Group to update the Rules for the 21st century (without lowering any of the existing standards). That group met from 2012 until 2015. Its final meeting was held in Cape Town, South Africa, from March 2-5, 2015. According to the UN:
In December 2015, following a revision process of more than five years, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners. It also approved that the rules should be known as the "Nelson Mandela Rules" in order to honour the legacy of the late President of South Africa.
The General Assembly also decided to extend the scope of Nelson Mandela International Day to be utilized in order to promote humane conditions of imprisonment, raise awareness about prisoners being a continuous part of society, and to value the work of prison staff as a social service of particular importance.
I assume (but cannot tell for certain) that it was in this 2015 adoption that the Rules were updated to include the provision calling for intrusive searches to be carried out by members of the same sex.
To be sure, the Rules are not mandatory anywhere. Again, according to the UN:
The Nelson Mandela Rules are “soft law”, which means they are not legally binding. National law takes precedence. But this does not mean they don’t matter. The UN General Assembly, which represents the international community, has adopted them as universally agreed minimum standards. Many UN Member States have incorporated the provisions of the rules into their domestic laws or are in the process of doing so. Furthermore, the judiciary in your country may use the rules as a secondary source when adjudicating the constitutionality of national prison practices.
No government entity—not Scotland, the Netherlands, or the state of California—is required by the Nelson Mandela Rules to maintain single-sex prisons.
However, if government entities are going to start integrating all prisons as to sex (which is what they are effectively doing when they house men in a women’s prison), they are going to have to acknowledge that they are doing so in blatant disregard of a set of international human rights norms named after one of the most revered human rights icons in world history.
For more on the fight to protect the sex-based rights of female prisoners in the US, follow @NoXY_USA, @ichinita310, and @womaniiwomaninc on X. Check out the Prison FOIA Project of Women’s Declaration International USA from 2023 and Chandler v. Macomber (a lawsuit filed by the Women’s Liberation Front challenging California SB 132).
I did not know this about mixed-sex prisons in Europe.
*facepalm*
I think maybe tight spandex leggings weren’t the best choice for Isla.