Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

JR of ScotGov's Section 35/GRR bill - next week

135 replies

ArabeIIaScott · 11/09/2023 19:11

MBM have shared info on the 'interveners': Scottish Trans/Equality Network, Stonewall, Gendered Intelligence, and the ICDR:

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/09/11/who-are-the-interveners-in-the-judicial-review-of-the-uk-governments-use-of-section-35/

'Robin Moira White, Adam Wagner, Sam Fowles and Stephanie Davin are also assisting in the proceedings'

Who are the interveners in the judicial review of the UK Government’s use of Section 35? - Murray Blackburn Mackenzie

The judicial review of the UK Government’s decision to invoke Section 35 of the Scotland Act 1998 in respect of the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill will be heard in the Outer House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh from 19-21 September. La...

https://murrayblackburnmackenzie.org/2023/09/11/who-are-the-interveners-in-the-judicial-review-of-the-uk-governments-use-of-section-35

OP posts:
Thread gallery
20
nauticant · 19/09/2023 11:47

DB: 'an increase in numbers [of GRC holders] is a problem'

The reality of course is that the problem comes from expanding the cohort of people far beyond those for whom the GRA was enacted. Especially when no one knows the characteristics of such people. (That's "no one knows" in the Three Wise Monkeys sense.)

Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 11:44

https://twitter.com/lnmackenzie1/status/1704081201043042702

'The Lord Advocate has cited the Stonewall submission three times in the first 90 minutes of her oral submission' - Lisa Mackenzie

Is DB basing her whole case on Stonewall law?

https://twitter.com/lnmackenzie1/status/1704081201043042702

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 11:42

Igneococcus · 19/09/2023 11:39

Dorothy Bain KC, the Scottish government's Lord Advocate, says it was never intended to be used to settle a policy dispute

Then why are Stonewall et al. involved in this case?

IANAL but the whole show case so far seems to be a masterclass in doublethink and holding two contradictory positions at once.

OP posts:
Apollo441 · 19/09/2023 11:41

ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 11:19

Article from a Scottish Green:

https://greens.scot/blog/its-one-struggle-one-fight-for-democracy-and-trans-rights

Jeez, that whole article is a dystopian nightmare, let's hope it never comes to pass.

Igneococcus · 19/09/2023 11:39

Dorothy Bain KC, the Scottish government's Lord Advocate, says it was never intended to be used to settle a policy dispute

Then why are Stonewall et al. involved in this case?

Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 11:39

'the purpose of this bill is to change the procedure of obtaining a GRC ... to make it simpler ... '
'the intention of this bill is that it should be different, it should allow more people to apply'

Lady Haldane. paraphrased.

I'm confused at how DB is apparently arguing that this Bill doesn't actually change anything. What the fuck is it for if it doesn't change anything?

Hearteningly I feel that Lady Haldane is a bit confused, too.

Unfortunately, D Bain seems very certain.

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 11:34

'This case will hinge on the proper interpretation of Section 35 of the Scotland Act, which sets out the conditions under which the Scottish Secretary can veto a Holyrood bill.
The Scottish government is arguing that this power is narrowly defined, and should only be used in very specific circumstances.
Dorothy Bain KC, the Scottish government's Lord Advocate, says it was never intended to be used to settle a policy dispute - although the UK government insist their concerns are strictly legal ones.
What makes this case difficult is the complete lack of precedent.
There has never been a case testing the interpretation of S35 - so there is no case law or prior judgement to look to, in terms of understanding what an “adverse impact” on reserved law might be, or what could constitute “reasonable grounds”.
The lawyers and indeed the judge are in uncharted territory here - which also means this case will SET precedents, and could even have a impact on the balance of powers between Holyrood and Westminster.'

Philip Sim, BBC.

OP posts:
OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 11:31

DB: 'the Sec of State has not properly understood the law ... he's just wrong'

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 11:23

LH: 'the consequences [of obtaining a GRC using the new Scottish Bill] for the individual, subjectively, are the same, but objectively, the wider impacts, are different'

paraphrase

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 11:21

DB: 'an increase in numbers [of GRC holders] is a problem'

OP posts:
OP posts:
OP posts:
OP posts:
OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 10:34

You can also follow https://twitter.com/hashtag/Section35?src=hashtag_click&f=live

On Twitter, #Section35

https://twitter.com/hashtag/Section35?f=live&src=hashtag_click

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 10:33

Comment from Cherry:

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1704063532063478016

'Whilst it’s gratifying to hear the Cherry prorogation case quoted in support of the important constitutional principles of Separation of Powers & Parliamentary accountability.'
'I don’t think these principles are in play here. This case is going to be about whether Alastair Jack’s exercise of the s.35 veto was reasonable in the circumstances. Imho lord advocate is clutching at straws with Cherry. If you will pardon the mixed metaphor'

https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1704063532063478016

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 10:29

paraphrasing: DB: This is a political issue and therefore inappropriate for the courts to intervene.

'The SA allows veto that goes against the separation of powers. Parliamentary accountability is a constit principle that recently made clear in para 46. Having largely transferred powers to the SG and constit means parl responsibility [missed] UK govt veto shouldnt be allowed' (tribunal tweets)

It's all about the technicality of whether a Section 35 is workable/appropriate/legal.

I'm hoping we're going to get some emotional support animals at some point.

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 10:26
  • sorry, Cherry's challenge to prorogation!
OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 10:26

Bain is referring to Cherry's prorogation of Parliament.

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 10:25

'It's a veto on the grounds of policy disagreement'

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 10:25

Oh, that's odd. It's showing for me, on the link I posted above. Maybe try clearing cookies/cache, or something?

OP posts:
vivariumvivariumsvivaria · 19/09/2023 10:24

I'm trying to watch it but the link is only giving me them setting up the room and then blank page about don't record. I'm blaming Nicola Sturgeon for that.

Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 10:17

Excellent, Tribunal Tweets are live tweeting:

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1704057005596405858

https://twitter.com/tribunaltweets/status/1704057005596405858

OP posts:
Original poster
ArabeIIaScott · 19/09/2023 10:15

Most of Bain's speech so far has been constitutional, and laying out whther the Bill is within competence, separation of powers etc.

OP posts: