SNP in secret attempt to challenge Supreme Court ruling on sex

If we're cherry-picking contentious statements in the arguments, can I volunteer this?

29: Gender reassignment or, more broadly, gender identity also comes within the scope of “equal opportunities” in L2 in the Scotland Act as one of the “other personal attributes”. A nontransman and a transman are different by reference to that characteristic or attribute. Similarly, a non-transwoman and a transwoman are different on the same basis. To treat a transperson and a non-transperson in exactly the same way in all circumstances only because of their common biology is unlawful discrimination in Convention rights terms but is the basis on which the petition proceeds.

WTAF are a nontransman and a non-transwoman?

The difference between a nontransman and a "transman" is that the first is a man and the second is a woman.

What a pile of rubbish!

In spite of the SC judgement, and in spite of NHS Fife getting things completely wrong by not also considering female employees when carrying out a risk assessment, and also considering that the recent ruling in the Darlington nurses case explicitly stated that the nurse's also had Section 8 rights to privacy...they come out with this product of legal illiteracy is astounding.

The only consistency here lies in the absolute zealotry of their ideological batshittery.

Well that's 2 hundred years of doing it the right way out of the window then. FFS 🤬

More callous than ever I see, Scottish government. What about women? Any concerns about their human rights? FFS. I'm almost relishing querying the person who comes to my door during election fever about this...

I've skimmed over the first document and it looks to me that, like their risk assessment forms, it's all about the poor trans prisoner.

"The risks which might be identified may include risks to the life or health of the prisoner arising from their transgender status."

"(2) Transgender persons have the right under Article 8 to respect for their choice of gender as an aspect of private life...""

"That Rule also permits prisoners of different sexes to be accommodated in the same part of a prison where it is not reasonably practicable to separate them. That would apply if the separation of a particular transgender prisoner was incompatible with their Convention rights"

It does say, "The risks considered are risks to the prisoner and risks to others, prisoners and staff." I then searched for the word "staff" and it only appeared twice, here and in "...That does not conflict with the rights of any
other prisoner or member of staff because the decision whether to place a
transgender prisoner in a prison for the opposite sex involves the conduct of the
balancing exercise instructed by the Prisons Guidance," so I don't see where the risk assessment to staff comes in. The second document seems similar.

I'll admit to not having read every word - am I missing something?

I saw a comment of the US Supreme Court case that it was not so much an argument for trans (aka men) inclusion in women’s sports but an argument against women’s sports. It seems the same here.

The Scottish government have now published their arguments. https://x.com/forwomenscot/status/2013556220699783222?s=46&t=AjtjSItRj-kgZwRzL-pdyQ

They seem to be arguing that prisons do not need to be segregated by sex at all. 🤔

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m002q26k

Cant listen, but seems relevant

True, but two points remain. First, people like that shouldn't have been anywhere near Parliament. Second, the time they spent in Parliament could have been used by more capable people. It's right to ensure that diverse views are represented. But the Greens (and this is emblematic of the radical left) have taken this further and said that your background gives you the right (or not) to speak. They've junked the idea that knowledge, excellence, wisdom, even truth, are objective and said actually it's all about power. Which plays into the hands of the radical right who then say 'well in that case we'll have all the power, thanks'.

I can't think of anywhere where the Greens are an environmentalist Party rather than a "Progressive" (the antonym annoys whenever I have to use it) hollowing out of the brand. I think it was in British Columbia that the Greens wound up voting in favour of tar sands extraction a few years ago, FGS.

The difference there is those Green MPs were ejected/left Parliament. There was some accountability.

There's nonsense on both sides though I find the right / Trump stuff much scarier.

But here's a counter-example. I live in NZ. The Green Party - as in the UK is now more of a 'progressive' than an environmentalist party.

They have had some trouble with their 15 MPs since the last election. One, Golriz Gahraman, was convicted for shoplifting. She was a former refugee from Iran and being a member of a minority that's why the Greens had her in Parliament. Gahraman blamed her crimes on historical trauma and the pressure of being a female member of a minority group in politics. She was ejected from Parliament.

Another, Darleen Tana, turned out to have been involved in illegally employing migrant workers and refusing to pay them. There was no real doubt about it but nevertheless she straight out claimed that her accusers were racists (she was also from a minority group). She was also ejected from Parliament.

One of the replacements was Benjamin Doyle.. He identified as takatapui, which would have originally had its own Maori meaning but has been co-opted into being a direct translation of 'queer', non-binary and having a disability (ie a bundle of minorities). Shortly after he entered Parlia a number of ill-judged social media posts he'd made came to light. They attracted the attention of of another politician who raised such a hue and cry that Doyle received death threats and he resigned from Parliament. Doyle's final speech slammed Parliament for being a colonialist institution, ie, one with no right to exist.

So among the Greens, who think they're the good guys, Gahraman was a thief and Tana was a fraud. Gahraman might genuinely have believed that past trauma made her do it. Tana, I think, was probably entirely cynical but who can know. The Greens' philosophy makes it harder to prevent this behaviour because one's background can excuse it and because they think they're the good guys, which makes them naive like Doyle.

Doyle was actually the one that annoyed me the most. Pro-Trumpers see no issue in ignoring the law / Parliament / whatever. But saying that the law or Parliament should be ignored because <insert intersectional reason> is absolutely no better yet that's where his logic leads. I can well understand why he'd say it out of anger but a politician should know better.

The Greens' fiscal policy is to introduce a hefty wealth tax on the rich and reduce income tax on everyone else. But the probable result of that would be capital flight, a reduced income tax take, meaning either a bankrupt state or reduced welfare provision. Their ideology is more important than assisting the needy

I guess my point in this long post is this: governing is serious, it's hard work and only the very best do it well. People like Reform and the Greens (described above) are fundamentally not serious, leastways in the way I think is needed, as they don't focus on what matters. Both of them are bulls in the china shop, just in different ways.

We have had some rubbish governments over the years but I think the SNP government in Holyrood and the current Labour government are up there. They are both determinedly breaking the law (on single sex spaces), they have sufficient guaranteed votes to avoid parliament on most things, their ministers seem to be unaccountable, they are both driven by ideologues, they both want to censure free speech, they both are supported by increasingly partisan police services and very partisan civil servants, they both seem very free to tax us.

The biggest issue to the lack of accountability.

Wings Over Scotland have a good take politics, the end being -

"So be careful who you vote for, readers, and try to have a better reason than that they’re “your” team. They’re not, and it isn’t a game."

Wings Over Scotland | Governing For Beginners

And when some politician on the right says they'll 'stop the boats', again, it's 'OK - how.' Politics is difficult and messy, and often objectives can only partially met, at best. But there's always a fresh cohort of fools who think it's easy to solve the world's problems.

Yes this. There is this idea going round that governing a state is easy and if we just get rid of the wokesters / cut the crap / spend less money on waste / etc all problems will melt away and happiness will reign supreme.

Back in the 2000s a bunch of BNP got elected to council in Stoke. They turned up to the first meeting in a black Cadillac. They missed the second one - when the annual budget was set - and then complained that the decision had been made without them. I'm not suggesting Reform are quite that bad but the point is that if people elect politicians who are ignorant or who don't give a shit about how governance works, or are corrupt, or aren't serious, or are ideologues are who are just a bit thick then things won't go well. The UK has, for the last two centuries, avoided having such people near power (with a few exceptions) except in the last ten years when there's been a right parade of them.

This isn't restricted to the right, btw. When some politician on the left says they'll 'end tax evasion' and 'make the rich pay' I think 'OK - how.'

Reform will be very unlike the current Labour Government in that they will find it difficult to do anything as their own MPs won’t vote for it. However one good thing that might come out of it is it might expose just how partisan the civil service now is and get change there, if only by left wing civil servants flouncing. I saw a tweet from civil servants threatening to do just that - they have no place in the civil service even now.

Thanks for the link to the Times article

" And so is this question: Is Scotland still a cautionary tale or is it now an example to be followed?"

I'd say the answer to this is the former. Scotland seems to have become the example to followed by Westminster, The Senedd and every other political party. 🤬

One things for certain Reform couldn't do a worse job than the current parties are doing.

I'll take that bet. They said that about Labour and look where we are.

Reform are amateurs. Not one of them has any experience in government (exactly the problem with the current Labour government)

(Not even going into the misogyny and racism problem of both parties.)

I dread the thought of them gaining power but I fear it's going to happen.

Sure, GC women in the majority. Ditto GC men.
But women showing real attitude, will vote against these vested interests? I'm not so sure.
So many I speak to will eventually show they're GC, but don't evidence much energy.
Obviously this doesn't apply to MN.
But maybe that's my point, we're the motivated ones.

I have to disagree, we GC women are in the majority, it’s simple common sense.

I mean, they're not. They just literally don't care. They want a stick to beat Elon with, that's all. It's ridiculously transparent.

If the males could all get over their dick-swinging contests we might actually be able to get on with sorting things out.

It's all Rah Rah Sex Work for this lot, and never mind the rape gangs. But OUTRAGE at an AI creating images of abuse - they seem to be more angry at that than at actual children being abused, for some reason.