Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

The Times: Westminster poised to intervene over gender bill assent

121 replies

ResisterRex · 07/01/2023 19:47

Begins:

"UK ministers are willing in principle to take the unprecedented step of blocking a bill passed by Holyrood after receiving legal advice on Nicola Sturgeon’s contentious gender recognition reforms.

Informed sources say that Rishi Sunak’s administration has the political appetite to intervene in the controversy over self-ID, opting for direct action to deny the Scottish parliament royal assent rather than referring the matter to the Supreme Court.

It follows concern about possible risks posed to safe spaces for girls and women by cutting the waiting time for legally changing gender, making the option available to 16-year-olds and eliminating the need for a medical diagnosis of gender dysphoria."

More here:

Westminster poised to intervene over gender bill assent.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/9864f1e4-8ea9-11ed-a321-77184a1c82e4?shareToken=9342e07f5c59124eb13d7c1a93f40d5ee_

OP posts:
BettyFilous · 08/01/2023 07:23

It’s good to see the practical implications of self-ID spelled out so clearly in that Telegraph article. If clear language was used like this every time self-ID was discussed, this whole debate would be concluded by now (a bad idea, let’s drop it).

Original poster
ResisterRex · 08/01/2023 06:35

There's a bit more detail in the Telegraph, including a quote from Maya:

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/01/07/nicola-sturgeons-trans-law-will-hurt-english-womens-rights-government/

archive.ph/thQi3

OP posts:
Abccde · 07/01/2023 23:00

ArabellaScott · 07/01/2023 22:58

An exercise of power stopping something outside the scope of power, challenged by the institution that is supposedly doing that thing outside its power!

Yes. Sounds messy. And incredibly technical.

It also sounds like something that can be easily manipulated by the SNP.

That is why the messaging from the UK government is so key here. They need to spell out exactly what this means to woman and children.

They have public support. They have right on their side for the 1st time ever.

They better not mess it up.

ArabellaScott · 07/01/2023 22:58

An exercise of power stopping something outside the scope of power, challenged by the institution that is supposedly doing that thing outside its power!

Yes. Sounds messy. And incredibly technical.

Original poster
ResisterRex · 07/01/2023 22:39

It's really interesting. I never knew about this before and I'm going to find the time to read that Scotland Act for sure.

OP posts:
aseriesofstillimages · 07/01/2023 22:23

I assume the basis of the challenge would be that the conditions for exercise of the s35 power weren’t satisfied - it can be used in relation to a Bill:
”which make modifications of the law as it applies to reserved matters and which the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters,”

Original poster
ResisterRex · 07/01/2023 22:19

Hmmm. An exercise of power stopping something outside the scope of power, challenged by the institution that is supposedly doing that thing outside its power! Imagine live tweeting that!

OP posts:
aseriesofstillimages · 07/01/2023 22:16

ResisterRex · 07/01/2023 22:13

But if - if - the route is parliamentary, how can that be JR'd? Isn't something via Parliament or not? It can't be both routes.

Any exercise of a statutory power by government can in principle be challenged in the courts - eg on the basis that what was done was outside the scope of the power

Original poster
ResisterRex · 07/01/2023 22:13

But if - if - the route is parliamentary, how can that be JR'd? Isn't something via Parliament or not? It can't be both routes.

OP posts:
aseriesofstillimages · 07/01/2023 22:12

ResisterRex · 07/01/2023 22:07

I thought the route for S35 was for a motion against to be tabled in Parliament - and then a vote? Meaning Labour or the SNP would have to effectively say "yes we want this". That would split Labour, wouldn't it?

Or there could be no motion.

But I read about the JR route too. It can't be both, can it?

I think the point is that if UKG use the s35 power, Scot gov will JR it

Britinme · 07/01/2023 22:11

TvGorge · 07/01/2023 21:51

Personally I'd rather Sunak just locked down the definition of biological sex in relation to the sex-based exemptions in the EA2010. Denying Royal Assent will play into Sturgeon's narrative of big, bad Westminster and Scotland's absolute need to break ties. She's already rehearsing in the mirror as we speak.

Be far better just to show up how unworkable and unjust a piece of law the GRR Bill is by removing any wriggle room in the EA.

I agree with this.

Original poster
ResisterRex · 07/01/2023 22:07

I thought the route for S35 was for a motion against to be tabled in Parliament - and then a vote? Meaning Labour or the SNP would have to effectively say "yes we want this". That would split Labour, wouldn't it?

Or there could be no motion.

But I read about the JR route too. It can't be both, can it?

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 07/01/2023 22:05

If WM do a Section 35 then there will be a court case/JR, I believe.

It's going to be an interesting year.

Original poster
ResisterRex · 07/01/2023 22:03

I'd rather that they do both. There have to be international implications here because of collecting data on sex, and how we report on CEDAW progress. Also it does seem quite arguable that Scotgov has overreached and I don't think that can be allowed to go by. Today it's this, what's tomorrow? Is the rest of the UK to submit to Holyrood?

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 07/01/2023 21:57

TvGorge · 07/01/2023 21:51

Personally I'd rather Sunak just locked down the definition of biological sex in relation to the sex-based exemptions in the EA2010. Denying Royal Assent will play into Sturgeon's narrative of big, bad Westminster and Scotland's absolute need to break ties. She's already rehearsing in the mirror as we speak.

Be far better just to show up how unworkable and unjust a piece of law the GRR Bill is by removing any wriggle room in the EA.

That's a very good point.

If they brought in the Reality Act (thanks to a recent visitor to this board) to make it 100% crystal clear that the Equality Act pc relates to sex, biological sex, not gender, then this would fix everything.

TvGorge · 07/01/2023 21:51

Personally I'd rather Sunak just locked down the definition of biological sex in relation to the sex-based exemptions in the EA2010. Denying Royal Assent will play into Sturgeon's narrative of big, bad Westminster and Scotland's absolute need to break ties. She's already rehearsing in the mirror as we speak.

Be far better just to show up how unworkable and unjust a piece of law the GRR Bill is by removing any wriggle room in the EA.

DFSsale · 07/01/2023 21:31

<rubs hands in anticipation>

ArabellaScott · 07/01/2023 20:39

Agree, Resister. If all Scotgov have got to show for the past few years is a series of increasingly unpopular and unworkable laws, what on earth use are they?

Original poster
ResisterRex · 07/01/2023 20:25

I'm not sure devolution comes out of this very well. The lack of a second chamber is really showing. You need a safety valve.

OP posts:
ArabellaScott · 07/01/2023 20:08

Squeaky bum time.

Abccde · 07/01/2023 20:04

That's really good news.

As big a supporter if Devolution as I am, this is an example of it being used to pass very bad law, and law that makes woman a lesser citizen.