European Court of Human Rights

That's how we got the GRA though

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

I don’t have a good grasp of this, but have listened to some opinion stating that the ECHR requires a process for gender recognition. We have that via the GRA. RMW’s claim is that the process the ECHR requires needs to incorporate someone with a certificate being entitled to the same rights as the sex the certificate says they are. Other’s aren’t convinced this to be the case

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

The hypothetical transwoman. I know real life is more complex, but, if SC has said black is not white, how can they bring a case based on an assertion that it is?

Or is it that they have to prove that black not being white has adverse human rights consequences and therefore EA needs rewriting?

That's what I was thinking. Only the Scot Gov could make the appeal. Anyone else would need to start at the appropriate courts.

The thought of Mr Upton trying to appeal the ET findings when they are publish is like the gift that keeps giving.

Nebulous dogwhistle - is one of the funniest expressions ever

I thought we were out of that now.

I think I’ll become a plumber specialising in third spaces - make a fortune!

They wouldn’t be able to appeal this judgement to the ECtHR as only the parties could do that.

However if a transwomen considers that their ECHR rights have been violated (for example by being turned away from a single sex space because they are not a biological woman) then they could bring that case. It would be a new case. It would start in the appropriate court for the type of claim and, once all domestic routes had been exhausted, go to Strasbourg.

I don’t know about anyone else, but I would pay good money to see Upton try and run a discrimination case using the “not a robot” argument through all the levels of the court system.

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

I'm not sure what you mean by "such a case", can you clarify? (It's probably my own fault as I mentioned a lot of cases in my post! 🙏😂)

I think bringing a claim to the ECHR is a plausible option. I would love to see Dr Upton as claimant and RMW as counsel. Better than Netflix!

I also think it’s pretty much a dead cert that that ECHR would say this falls within the UK’s margin of appreciation and send them back home with nothing to show for it.

How would anyone get such a case heard though? Surely any case based on the premise that an existing SC decision was wrong would be summarily dismissed.

That isn't how the ECtHR works. Cases are brought by individuals, or very occasionally by other states, against states, on the basis that X events happened, Y legal process took place, and Z verdict which the appellant doesn't like was returned from the top level of the process. Check out Article 35 of the convention here. https://www.coe.int/en/web/compass/the-european-convention-on-human-rights-and-its-protocols

So what would have to happen would be that a trans person would have to want to do something (e.g., use a changing room reserved for the opposite sex), and then they would be turned down (or arrested for going in anyway), and then they would sue the leisure centre (or be taken to court and charged with whatever the actual legal offence is), and it would then go through the UK courts, and end up at the Supreme Court which would say "the leisure centre was within its rights to not allow access to the women's changing rooms to someone who is not a biological woman, per our April 2025 judgment", and then the trans person would submit their case to Strasbourg.

The case last week on which the Supreme Court ruled can't go on to the ECtHR because it was a win for a group of citizens (For Women Scotland) and a loss for the NHS board (although the actual respondents were the Scottish government ministers). A government organisation can't appeal to the ECtHR more or less by definition, because nobody in the management of the East Fife Health Board or the Scottish government has had their human rights reduced by this decision. Jolyon Maugham can announce that he's going it for the shiggles, but it won't get anywhere.

(In fact, had the SC verdict gone the other way it probably wouldn't have been appealable to the ECtHR either, because FWS brought the case in the civil courts against the ministers. Sandy Peggie, the person whose rights were directly affected, wasn't on the docket as far as I know. However, I think I'm right in saying that her employment tribunal case is still going. In the event that she were now to lose that, she could then go through the rest of the legal process and ultimately it might end up at the ECtHR. But in view of the SC ruling this seems vanishingly unlikely, and I assume the health board/Scottish NHS/government will now fold.)

It may also be worth remembering that the SC decision is strictly only about people with a Gender Recognition Certificate. Even if the decision had been appealable to Strasbourg, any verdict in favour of the trans side could only have been valid for people with a GRC, which the majority of trans-activist people don't have because TRAs are all about self-id.

I think they might be able to go straight to the ECHR because the existence of the SC ruling is evidence that all alternative remedies have been exhausted.

Jolyon's got a fighting fund.
The Supreme Court’s decision this week to not include trans women in the definition of women in the Equality Act isn’t just wrong, it’s extremely harmful.
The Supreme Court can kid itself all it likes about this decision not being bad for trans people, but trans people know it is the latest savage blow against a community that is already reeling.
We are committed to stand with the trans community and fight these rollbacks, whatever it takes. We’re creating a fighting fund to look at both domestic and international cases, all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights.
This fight will be long – and it’ll be expensive. But as the world becomes a more hostile place for trans people, it’s a fight that becomes increasingly more important. If you are able to, your support means more now than ever.
Details
Funds raised will support our cases fighting for trans rights in the UK.
Ten per cent of the funds raised will be a contribution to the general running costs of Good Law Project. It is our policy only to raise sums that we anticipate could be spent on the work we are crowdfunding for. However, if there is a surplus it will go towards our work fighting for a fairer, greener future for all.

The UK very rarely loses at the ECtHR (court) since the HRA basically transcribed the ECHR (convention) into UK law. (Prior to that, the Law Lords — at the time the supreme legal body — regularly passed judgments that they must have known would go down in flames in Strasbourg, because UK law was out of step with the convention.) You can bet your mortgage that the SC will have had the relevant paragraphs of the HRA and the ECHR open on their desks as they were writing their judgment.

It's also worth remembering that the ECHR was written around 1950 and hasn't changed much since, and it reflects the political and social priorities of the immediate post-WW2 period. In fact it has been criticised over the years for not being socially progressive enough — for example, it takes no position on the right to abortion (which was illegal in every member state then) or on same-sex marriage, which is still not allowed in several member states. As such, it seems vanishingly unlikely that the court would get involved in trans rights issues, and even less so that it would come down in favour of the trans side.

And I thought GLP weren't taking on any more genderism cases.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womensrights/5157261-good-law-project-to-cease-taking-on-trans-legal-cases-from-2025-onwards-according-to-angry-trans-reddit

On that thread there was a screenshot of a message, so it wasn't just based on posts on Reddit or Twix.

Or has Jolyon decided that the grift still has legs after all.

Edited for splung.

I think this is more about keeping it going and not letting the angry people come to terms with it and move on.

Mate they are fleecing you. It's a grift!