NHS Scotland defied Supreme Court ruling to uphold trans policies

Yes it is.
What the Scottish government spends on NHSS is entirely up to the Scottish government and even when they get extra due to an uplift given to NHS England they don't have to spend it on the NHS

If only there was some sort of campaigning legal group who would be able to run a crowd funder...

You never know, they might just do us all a favour like when they confirmed the FWS ruling!

I always think with the blundering interjections of so many TIMs or other trans allies on this site, that it's like men in women's toilets.
They wander in, creating their local chaos, and then bugger off again.
I remain impressed the women here calmly argue their way past the disruption.
It's like local performative art, gives these no marks something to cackle about collectively on Reddit Trans.

The ECtHR has no power to overturn rulings of the UK Supreme Court. That's not how it works. In the UK Parliament is supreme. If the UK is found to be in breach of her commitments under the European convention a document of discrepancy is drawn up and passed to government, which is then expected to draw up legislation to fix the problem. The ECtHR has to power to enforce this.

I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice.

The running of it might be but the funding isn't.

I expect we’ll see more of Masha now the school holidays have begun!

The NHS is devolved in Scotland and under SNP control unfortunately

One of the interesting things in the illegal migrants debate.
UK law has primacy, we could choose to deport illegals and foreign criminals without leaving the ECHR.

Correct. The UK government has disregarded ECHR rulings before. The world hasn’t ended. UK law has primacy over ECHR law. This was different to EU law which did have primacy

The ECrtHR does not have the power to overturn UK law or rulings nor can it force a sovereign nation to change their laws.
The supreme court rulling was already tested in FWS vs SPS where the SPS put forward human rights claims of trans identifying males under articles 2 and 8. The SPS had their arses handed to them it is not a human right to use opposite sex spaces or facilities and women have human rights too.

the ECrtHR have recently refused to get involved in multiple "trans rights" cases that have failed in the UK supreme crt including the American man who wanted to force the uk to recognise nonbinary gender and allow passports and birth certificates to be issued with an X and the woman with a GRC who wanted to be registered as her children's father on their birth certificates.

Even the multiple attempts to have the ECHR lose its A rating failed.

You really need to understand that the time of trans activists being able to bully, lie, misrepresent the law and use threats of a higher crt are over. Women have human rights too and everybody now knows that women's human rights are incompatible with the demands of trans activists.

your only way forward now is with primary legislation that strips women of all their human rights and you will have to campaign for that and explain why the wants of trans identifying males should override the need of women and girls not to have grown men in their single sex spaces.

But UK law isn’t against the ECHR. UKSC addressed these issues in their judgment. It may surprise you to know that women as well as men who claim to be women have rights too and UK law is allowed to recognise that fact. There’s no human right to expect to be treated as the opposite sex in all circumstances

It's about time the people who decide that the company/public body should break the law be prosecuted. There is no point taking NHS Scotland to court when it has deep pockets. Who is deciding on following this illegal path? Is it the board of directors, their lawyers or their diversity department? Name and fucking shame the individuals.

I also agree with pp. We need to stop centering the me, me, me crew as it is the attention they are after just like toddlers. No thought or decent arguments are behind the majority of the posts anymore.

I was thinking that NHS Scotland rely on funding from Westminster, so if the new Health Secretary meant what he said about obeying the law, he should withhold funding until NHSS develop policies that reflect the law. Then I remembered that there's been a regime change and the new, new HS is Yvette Cooper, so bang goes that idea. 😠

Yes, I suspect it's a push from the Unions. The private sector has mostly moved away from this ideology due to the legal liabilities and reputational damage but the public sector has no fear of legal challenges because WE pay for it.

There must be accountability for the money especially if they had legal advice they were likely to lose.

“staff should treat trans people according to the gender role they present”.

Perhaps they mean that nurses should all be treated as girls, and doctors as men (especially if they are surgeons).

confirmed that men who identify as women were not allowed to access single-sex spaces, including lavatories and women-only hospital wards

wasn’t it more that a space that includes men and women is mixed sex? This has implications for building design and may discriminate against women who require single sex provision.

“staff should treat trans people according to the gender role they present”.

Generally employers should not be treating anyone ‘as a gender role’as this implies unlawful sex discrimination. However, I would love to hear an explanation of how they intend to tell an employee that they can’t use a particular (now mixed sex) service because they aren’t presenting properly. Sounds much more of a HR minefield than just providing unisex or single sex services.

Still here but not all there

Good grief

Masha is still here?!?!

😃

That article seems to show that NHS Scotland seemed to lived in terror of reactions from their trans staff and patients. It must have come as a huge surprise that they picked the wrong side to fear legal action from.

Please don't let just one post derail the thread. It makes loads of diverse threads all turn into one thing, a centering of one person. This is ironically similar to what happens in so many women's groups: their actual function (knitting, reading, whatever) is displaced by the project of trans inclusion. Just because, in this case, it is a critical centering, that doesn't mean that the dynamic of the group is any less skewed.

You have equal rights.

You just don't have the rights of women, because you aren't one.

I'm sorry if that offends you but it offends me even more that people like you want to see women battered by men in Olympic boxing rings and don't give a shit about the extreme activities of the "late developer" and cissy porn fan end of your community who want to be in my changing room.

MashaPav's s post is profoundly ill-informed

TBF I have never seen anything from this poster that was not ill-informed or just plain nonsense.

If the ECHR overturn the supreme court ruling then the next government will take us out of the ECHR quicker than a rat up a drainpipe.

MashaPav's s post is profoundly ill-informed. The definition of sex in English law, with specific consideration of trans people, was settled in 2003, Bellinger vs. Bellinger. Substantial medical evidence was considered. The issue here was whether people with a GRC were their biological sex as far as the Equality Act 2010 was concerned.

The ECHR will not rule that because the SC's decision did not violate the HR's act.
Did you know that most of the Human Rights legislation was developed by lawyers from the UK?