I don’t know if this has been mentioned elsewhere, but I noticed CEDAW was mentioned towards the end of this meeting, Sarah Phillimore has written an interesting article about the CEDAW People’s Tribunal and it’s definition of women.
“The Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) is an international human rights treaty adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979. Although the UK signed up to CEDAW in 1986, it has not yet been implemented into UK domestic law.”
“TheCEDAW “People’s Tribunal”was set up in July 2020 by founder Joanne Welch to examine the failure to integrate CEDAW into UK legislation and make recommendations as to how CEDAW can be given full effect with UK law. The “Tribunal” will start on 22nd June and is due to take three days. Despite its official-sounding name it has no recognised legal standing and is not part of the UK system of courts and tribunals that produced binding judgments.”
“On the face of it, this “People’s Tribunal” would appear to have a very noble aim—to improve protections for women and girls. However, the difficulty for many is that from its social media postingthe “Tribunal” is not operating from a legal framework that acknowledges the definition of woman. For instance, “a female of any age” as provided in theEquality Act 2010, but instead defines “women” as including “transgender women.” This arguably subverts the original intent of the Convention which was to recognise and protect women as a sex class and should be made clear to all those who support this venture, financially or otherwise.”
“Supporting changes to the term “woman”— to be defined by self-proclaimed “gender identity” rather than from sex—is exacerbated by the continued failure of this “People’s Tribunal” to answer any requests made over recent months via email and social media to confirm what definition of “woman” underpins their activities. Last week, Iemailedthe “Tribunal” directly requesting a response within 14 days while urging others to do the same. If we are ignored, then we will escalate this matter.”
“The aim of the “Tribunal” appears to be clear—to gather presumed “legitimacy” as a statement of legal intent by involving a number of high profile barristers and academics. The “ruling” of the “tribunal” will then be presented to law and policymakers as having some kind of binding or persuasive force that in reality it does not, and to cement the meaning of “woman” as being simply anyone who identifies as a woman on any given day.
This is precisely the strategy that has underpinned the “stealth” adoption of the “Yogyakarta Principles” as some kind of legally binding document, rather than simply the conclusions of a political lobby group... continues”
savageminds.substack.com/p/this-tribunal-cannot-define-woman