European Convention on Human Rights

Yes the government could withdraw from the ECHR, but that would likely take an act of Parliament with no challenge from the UK Supreme Court…

As it hasn’t happened yet, the UK is currently still under obligation to abide by the ECHR and to implement any rulings by the ECtHR.

Those transgressing are likely be subject to verbal & physical abuse & if significant numbers of men dressed as women refuse to follow the social convention established for over 100 years then use of wrong-sex facilities will be criminalised.

Or leave it.

Which is much easier if you aren't in the EU.

The hinge word there is "convicted".

Previously "people in prison" weren't always prisoners. They could be on remand (for example) and therefore their inability to vote was indeed taken as an infringement of their rights as interpreted by the court.

So with a little administrative flourishes, a law was passed that allowed "people in prison" who were not prisoners (i.e not under sentence of law) to vote.

It wasn't the principle that was objected to. It was the fact that the right to vote should only be removed by (or as) the verdict of a court. And this because all rights are qualified.

I'm no lawyer, but that is my understanding.

As an aside, the UK has myriads of international treaties it has signed over the years. And (just ask the Chagos islanders) it hasn't always abided by them either.

I don’t know how many, but in response to the 2005 ruling that the UK’s blanket ban stopping all convicted prisoners from voting the UK changed the law to allow the following prisoners to vote:

• Unconvicted (also called ‘on remand’).
• Convicted but not yet sentenced.
• A civil prisoner.
• Serving a default term for non-payment of a fine.
• Committed to prison for contempt of court.
• In the community on home detention curfew (HDC) or released on temporary licence (ROTL).

The ECtHR has yet to rule on whether this overturning of the blanket ban to restricted voting was insufficient. Given it has been 20yrs, I would presume they were happy with the changes the UK implemented in response to the ruling which ended the blanket ban on convicted prisoners not being able to vote.

It's easy to mix up
the ECHR = European Convention on Human Rights which is not 'The EU' or 'Europe', it predates the EU and was founded by the UK amongst others;

the EC[t]HR = European Court of Human Rights which enforces the ECHR; and

the EHRC = the UK's national Equality and Human Rights Commission.

Well exactly, the ban is merely a public statement that we should all follow social convention.

We know for a fact there has never been any checks on the rate of compliance with social conventions and that no one has ever been prosecuted for using the wrong bathroom.

It can’t be enforced, so it’s never going to be criminalised.

In 2005 the ECtHR ruled that the UK was in breach for not allowing prisoners to vote. Do you know how many convicted prisoners have been able to vote in the last twenty years?

The EU has nothing to do with the ECtHR or the ECHR and I am not a “TRA” for correcting misinformation on legal obligations.

I have posted the UK Government webpage stating that the UK, as signatory to the European Charter on Human Rights (ECHR) [not to be confused with the UK’s own Equality and Human Rights Commission] is obligated to implement any ruling by the ECtHR. Here is is again.

The UK is bound to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means that if the Court finds a violation of rights, the UK must implement the Court's judgments. GOV.UK bihr.org.uk

Why should there be a need to check or screen people? We have had public toilets for over 100 years & there has never been any need to police who uses which facility. It's entirely a social convention that no males are permitted in the Ladies & no females in the Gents. Everybody knows this & all decent people respect the social convention.

I don't recall there being much of a problem with men going into women's spaces before the Equality Act 2010. Why should we expect there to be a problem now? Is it that respect for the law has dwindled? Or perhaps that in some circles respect for women has all but disappeared?

I don’t know. I have asked the same question as you earlier on the thread,
I asked on what basis? To the poster that claimed it was only a matter of time before they struck down the ban.

Other posters replied by saying the court has no authority over the UK - which is incorrect misinformation and what I was clarifying.

So what human right article states men must be allowed into female spaces if they claim to be women? I must have missed that bit?

YOU are ignorant of UK law. The UK is under NO obligation to follow ECTHR. It can consider what the ECTHR says but it is under NO obligation to follow it. The UK is its own country with its own laws. It is not part of the EU. Stop spreading misinformation. You are just another TRA grasping at straws but too bad, you are on the losing end. Deal with it.

Yes they should, but that doesn’t take away from the fact that it is a ban that cannot be enforced. It is a bad law because it is impracticable. There is no way to check or screen people to see if they are obeying it or not without violating privacy (strip searches).

Yes it has.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/countries/hungary

As with any country, they have the opportunity to make a case they are not violating any human rights charters or treaties to the ECtHR. It is a judicial process. Formal rulings have to date, been accepted and implemented by Hungary.

Men, whatever their self-declared identity, should use facilities for men, or facilities provided for anyone to use. If they use facilities supplied for women, they are at best disrespectful to women. We do not only have laws that are universally enforced.

Yes I agree with you completely that many people have irrational hatreds, but I'm not one of them.

I have based all my comments on reason and fact - show me where you think I expressed hatred.

The only emotional element in my comments has been regret that young people are being misled into believing - as you apparently still do - that they can change sex, and using surgery and hormones in a fruitless attempt to do the impossible.
You're just going to end up a different kind of man, a transgender man, a transsexual man, but a man, not a woman.

It's very revealing that you haven't even attempted to respond to any of the facts I put forward, falling back instead of the Old Reliable 'irrational hatred' line.

Scientific facts are a bit of a problem for you, apparently, so your only solution is to ignore them.

It cannot be enforced by the state and vigilante citizens attempting to enforce it are illegal.

It's worked well with Hungary hasn't it?

lol you don’t know your own country’s legal obligations

The UK is bound to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means that if the Court finds a violation of rights, the UK must implement the Court's judgments. GOV.UK bihr.org.uk

On what basis? The right to privacy doesn’t extend to everyone having bathrooms just for their special demographic. Like we don’t have child free bathrooms, or religiously segregated bathrooms.

The segregation by sex is based on biology not privacy

Not the case. The UK is bound to follow the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as it is a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This means that if the Court finds a violation of rights, the UK must implement the Court's judgments. GOV.UK bihr.org.uk

Argentum Ad Hominem

Surely you can muster some sort of facts based rebuttal?

Homophobia started losing ground as gay people came out and those around them realised that gay people as a group were as diverse as straight people and the only difference was who they were sexually attracted to.

A much darker explanation is that old people died.