Lord Keen disputing the language of the spousal 'veto'

[midclegs]

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2020/02/the-minister-who-politely-refused-to-play-the-trans-language-game/

I have to admit to struggling to get my head around this, Lord Keen is that there is no such thing as the veto.

James Kirkup writes;

"Mary marries Paul; Paul decides that he will transition to become Pauline. To complete that process, he will either require the consent of Mary or he will have to secure a declarator of nullity of marriage—so there is no actual veto. [James Kirkup's bold] The point of the present situation is this: Mary who married Paul should not find herself married to Pauline without her consent.’

So in plain English the law currently states that the consent of the husband/wife NOT transitioning has to be gained before the other can transition, or the transitioning partner has to nullify the marriage.

He is always so clear and straightforward. Why are there not more like him?

So in plain English the law currently states that the consent of the husband/wife NOT transitioning has to be gained before the other can transition, or the transitioning partner has to nullify the marriage.

If you understand 'transition' to mean the gender recognition certicate, then yes.

I guess Lord Keen, a former QC, is not interested in vague concepts like social transition, or what hormones or surgery people elect to have. Good for him.

James Kirkup is a

So the term ‘spousal veto’ is just campaigning language and not real. It is in fact describing a person’s right to end their marriage under specific circumstances.

Thanks for posting. Interesting article.

I really don’t understand how the TRAs have managed to paint this as an injurious veto.

Lord Keen makes it crystal clear that Mary who married Paul shouldn’t be forced to be married to PaulIne without her consent. On what planet is this right?

I assume he switching it back to the example if husband who transitions from Ruth Hunt’s dubious obfuscation example of the wife who transitions was deliberate.

@tinselangel has spent some time explaining this on FWR.

Nov 24, 2019 'Make More Noise article':
Trans Widows and the Spousal “Veto”: a modern fable of male entitlement
(extract)
"Google “Spousal Veto” and you will find pages and pages of articles telling you what a terrible thing this part of the Gender Recognition Act (GRA) is, and how it allows the spouses of trans people to veto their transition in cruel and unusual ways. You’ll never see any evidence presented that the mythical abusive wife, who prevents her husband’s transition out of spite, exists, but that doesn’t stop her being mentioned in every article. After all as any feminist will tell you, when was the truth allowed to get in the way of anti-women propaganda?

What you won’t find, is anything explaining the effect that abolishing the “veto” would have on trans widows. So here goes.

First of all it is not a veto to transition, and it is gaslighting to suggest that it is. Who could have predicted that trans widows would be treated by the politicians in almost exactly the same way that we were treated by our ex-husbands? Why, those of us with a rudimentary understanding of patriarchy, that’s who!

Under the GRA, the transitioning spouse (usually the husband) has to have the consent [for the change of marriage status] of the non-transitioning spouse (usually the wife) before he can obtain a Gender Recognition Certificate. Whilst that consent remains outstanding, an interim certificate is issued. This gives any woman who does not consent, the space to get the marriage annulled/dissolved before her husband legally changes sex and becomes her wife. It prevents her being in a same sex marriage that she didn’t sign up to." (continues)
makemorenoisemanc.wixsite.com/mysite/post/trans-widows-and-the-spousal-veto-a-modern-fable-of-male-entitlement

So in plain English the law currently states that the consent of the husband/wife NOT transitioning has to be gained before the other can transition, or the transitioning partner has to nullify the marriage.

If they can't wait to transition they have the option to apply for an interim GRC while they wait for their divorce to come through.

No one is denying anyone the right to transition, and no one should have the right to retrospectively alter a contract.
A new contract can be made if the old one is no longer useful, but only with the consent of both parties.

James Kirkup,
(extract)
"Lord Keen of Elie, the advocate general for Scotland and a justice minister. Before becoming a minister, Keen was a working QC at the English and Scottish bars. In other words, he’s a senior and serious lawyer.

And this is what he had to say on the ‘spousal veto’: there is no such thing.

Here’s the relevant bit of his speech:

‘The noble Baroness, Lady Burt of Solihull, raised the question of transgender people, or persons who wish to transition, which she acknowledged was outwith the scope of the Bill—which it certainly is. However, if and when we come to address that, I think that we would have carefully to approach her use of the unqualified term “veto” in respect of this matter. (continues)

And that, I think, is significant and worth noting here. One of the interesting characteristics of the transgender debate is how trans advocates have used language with care and deliberation and repetition to create an orthodoxy that few people in public life will analyse let alone question. Hence the phrase ‘transwomen are women’, a proposition that raises some big philosophical and legal questions but ones that are barely even acknowledged; anyone in politics who does not say those words is at risk of being accused of transphobic bigotry. And so an important issue goes without proper scrutiny or debate.

The ‘spousal veto’ is another example, or at least, an attempt to create another bit of the orthodoxy, and one that, for instance, the Lib Dems have signed up to in full (even though they were part of the Government that passed the relevant legislation).

And so the fact that Keen, a serving government minister, has – on the basis of fact and knowledge – very politely rejected that attempt to capture language and use it to misrepresent reality is, I think, quite important." (continues)

relevent threads:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3792495-spousal-veto

LibDems
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3691928-How-to-make-policy-hide-it-in-other-policy-Layla-moran-and-the-lib-dems-at-conference

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3717872-Trans-Widows-the-Liberal-Democrats-and-the-Spousal-Veto

Labour
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3787357-Jess-Phillips-championing-the-removal-of-asking-the-consent-of-a-woman-before-her-marriage-changes

Stonewall
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3815432-Ruth-Hunt-uses-maiden-speech-to-make-wildly-misleading-claims-about-the-spousal-veto

I would hope my cowardly Tory MP would take heed of "Hence the phrase ‘transwomen are women’, a proposition that raises some big philosophical and legal questions but ones that are barely even acknowledged; anyone in politics who does not say those words is at risk of being accused of transphobic bigotry. And so an important issue goes without proper scrutiny or debate."

I really don’t understand how the TRAs have managed to paint this as an injurious veto.

Yes, its effective manipulation/lobbying which has been going on for many years.

Lord Keen makes it crystal clear that Mary who married Paul shouldn’t be forced to be married to PaulIne without her consent. On what planet is this right?

The same point has been made to many MPs & members of the HoL by women.

Oh joy! The rest of the world starts to catch up!

I'm bewildered that there is anybody on MN who is surprised to hear it's not a veto given the amount I've banged on about it.

I cannot for the life of me understand how anyone, who is not a blatant supporter of domestic abuse, would be against a spouse’s right to consent.

Is it simply because the so-called ‘veto’ furthers the narrative of ‘the poor, oppressed trans people’?

It's because it stands in the way of self ID so has to go before self ID can be pushed through.

Also male entitlement - see the Make More Noise article quoted by R0, above.

I'm bewildered that there is anybody on MN who is surprised to hear it's not a veto given the amount I've banged on about it.

I have a feeling James Kirkup has been following you Tinsel

Interestingly, Lord Keen recently answered a written question in the HoL re trans prisoners, and sadly the answer does contain some burble about 'assigned sex'.

I've done you a complete disservice Tinsel by not reading your threads properly - esp knowing a little of the context, sorry

Removal of the 'veto' is effectively the same as forced marriage. No one should have to remain in marriage if they don't want to. Gay, straight, trans, not-trans. If you don't want to remain married you shouldn't have to.

I have a feeling James Kirkup has been following you Tinsel

Funnily enough I did email him about this before Christmas!

I've done you a complete disservice Tinsel by not reading your threads properly - esp knowing a little of the context, sorry

Genuine question- and trying not to sound arsey- why did you only start to listen when a man said it?

Everyone should be paying attention to this issue. It's currently the one area of legislation where the genderists can push another change through on the sly, and it's not a coincidence that Ruth Hunt brought it up in her maiden speech.

I don't know why Tinsel - I will have to about that.

I do subscribe to the Spectator though because of an article he wrote (around about the time I cancelled my Guardian subscription). So in part I think it was because I like his clear clever writing so I search for them.

It might be a case of me not thoroughly paying attention to things not directly relevant to me though. I only fell down this rabbit hole last autumn because of 2 personal situations - I am still waking up!

*Have to think about that

An excellent article by James Kirkup which highlights the manipulative language used by the trans lobby to misrepresent reality. The spousal 'veto' is nothing of the sort, despite Ruth Hunt's inflammatory rhetoric. It is great that Lord Keen has deconstructed the 'Jack and Jill ' example and made clear the inequity of changing the fundamental structure of marriage without consent.

One of the interesting characteristics of the transgender debate is how trans advocates have used language with care and deliberation and repetition to create an orthodoxy that few people in public life will analyse let alone question. Hence the phrase ‘transwomen are women’, a proposition that raises some big philosophical and legal questions but ones that are barely even acknowledged; anyone in politics who does not say those words is at risk of being accused of transphobic bigotry. And so an important issue goes without proper scrutiny or debate

So the term ‘spousal veto’ is just campaigning language and not real. It is in fact describing a person’s right to end their marriage under specific circumstances.

Yes. It is in fact the spousal ability to exit a marriage in which the fundamental terms under which they entered into that marriage are being changed by the other party. It's the "you don't have to stay married to this person if you don't want to" clause. Which makes it very interesting indeed that so many people are determined to remove that ability to leave a marriage that one party no longer wants to be in.

Also I note that Baroness Hunt is attempting to spin this as "gender neutral". It isn't. How many marriages are there where it's the female partner transitioning in middle age? Not many. So again, it's interesting that Ruth chose to frame her comments as if that was not the case. Perhaps because what's actually being proposed would if obvious receive very little public support.

It’s not a veto at all. Why lie about it?