Well
www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/human-rights/what-are-human-rights/human-rights-act/article-10-freedom-expression
Our freedom of expression – protected by Article 10 of the Human Rights Act – is fundamental to our democracy.
It means we’re free to hold opinions and ideas and share them with others without the State interfering – which is crucial to keeping our Government accountable and transparent.
Article 10 may be limited in certain circumstances. Any limitation must:
be covered by law
be necessary and proportionate
for one or more of the following aims:
national security, territorial integrity or public safety
preventing disorder or crime
protecting health or morals
protecting other people's reputation or rights
^preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.^
When considering whether free expression should be limited, courts will question whether doing so could have a ‘chilling effect’ on expression, the value of the particular form of expression and the medium used.
Limiting free expression usually involves restrictions on publication, penalties for publication, requiring journalists to reveal their sources, imposing disciplinary measures or confiscating material.
I do wonder if this is on very rocky ground legally given the above.
The exact text of the 1998 HRA says:
Freedom of expression
1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
If wearing one of those local government mandated badges restricts an individuals ability to freely express gender critical thoughts or opinions does this restrict their rights and freedom? Its a constant reminder that they can not be gender critical.
I'm not convinced the grounds for limitation of freedom is sufficient in this case.
It certainly is questionable because it might have a chilling effect on people who don't feel able to challenge certain situations or scenarios because it creates a culture where to do so, is very difficult. Both in public and in private.
Could you be gender critical in private, and hold a job in government?
Would it put you at risk of being reported if you didn't wear it?
Given there is a court ruling where a 4 year old boy was forced to live as a girl for the mothers benefit (effectively child abuse) this is effectively saying that you can't challenge that.
Imagine the council employee wearing that badge. Would that aid a child speak out and say, I'm being force to say I'm the opposite gender? Would it help the council employee being bullied by a transgender superior?
They perhaps unwittingly, perhaps deliberately create a culture where trans is untouchable. That raises fundamental questions about the transparency of local government.
Also worth considering:
Article 9 - Freedom of thought, belief and religion
The Act protects the rights of people to have their own thoughts, beliefs and follow religions of their choice; it also includes the right to change their religion or belief at any time. Religion and belief is one of the protected characteristics within the Equality Act and it is unlawful to discriminate against workers because of their religion or belief or lack of religion or belief.
Now, that could really make for an interesting case. The idea of being born in the wrong body could legally be defined as a belief. Belief is 'an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof'.
I think EU law, makes a distinction here stating the right to have a religion, to hold a belief or not to believe, with the terms “belief” and “religion” to be broadly construed and not be limited to traditional religions or to religions and beliefs with institutional characteristics or practices analogous to those of traditional religions. States should not restrict the freedom to hold any religion or belief. Coercion to change, recant or reveal one’s religion or belief is equally prohibited.
Just pondering...