To think that Labour have just shot themselves in the foot?

[Redrosetat]

https://twitter.com/KemiBadenoch/status/1768647056111861760?s=19&t=wqgtbWPG_X1xZDMhuF871A

‘Just now Labour MPs prevented debate on a new law to protect children and single sex spaces.

Instead they used parliamentary time to discuss ferret name choices.

@Keir_Starmer is terrified of debate on safeguarding & his MPs actively work to ignore the concerns of constituents’

just popping back from slow horses to say that by law in the UK,

the only people who need to carry out the fulsome analysis (that's not a UK term) of who should benefit from a single sex space is the provider of that space under the sex exemptions.

This cannot properly happen while we have the befuddlement of the current lesiglation which allows a man to have the sex of a woman if they have a piece of paper which says so.

So Labour doesn't need to overly concern itself over the issue of spaces before it concerns itself over the issue of sex.

It will be interesting to see how it intends to do that in a way women are protected whilst simultaneously protecting the rights of males who identify as women under the GRC.

By the way I"m not ignoring your last question, just got to give it a bit of thought as it was a good question.

Also Slow Horses is very good.

How odd?

You would have thought that the minister would have explained by now. Isn't that why she was on the media round on Monday morning?

I am beginning to wonder whether it is related to that other big answered question of our time.
Why did a 56year old need to have an illegal birthday party having banned millions of children from having their own.

If there’s no answer on which spaces I fully support the pp not to reply ever again. Don’t give up yet, it hasn’t been long

There can't be under the Equality Act as currently drafted as that's not in the gift of the Act,

It's up to the service provider.

This is why this issue is being thoroughly fudged by Labour.

The service provider can't under Haldene deny legal females (men), and Labour can't specify spaces where legal females can't be.

Yet they have said no amendments were necessary which is patently untrue.

I should have watched the next episode.

Very interesting thank you

To come to this question, why does it matter which Act the confusion 'stems from'?

The fact is that men have unfettered access to women's single sex spaces as a result of bad laws.

When a section of society is being harmed by bad laws, in this case women and vulnerable children (in respect of being convinced that they are trans gender), then society normally looks at amending those laws to redress the balance.

The problem for women , in a misogynistic society is that no one cares so much.

So why did the EHRC say the following:

“A change to the Equality Act 2010, so that the protected characteristic of ‘sex’ means biological sex, could bring clarity in a number of areas, but potential ambiguity in others.

Our response to the Minister’s request for advice suggests that the UK Government carefully identify and consider the potential implications of this change.

Should they wish to pursue work in this area, we recommend detailed policy and legal analysis be undertaken, in compliance with the Public Sector Equality Duty and with due regard to any possible disadvantages for trans men and trans women.”

Is your objection that I used “fulsome” instead of “detailed”?

Yet they have said no amendments were necessary which is patently untrue.

@ThatQuickFinch why doesn’t this strike you as problematic?

With your continued responses I find it hard to believe you are in favour of women's rights.

The EHRC were asked a specific question, I spoke about that upthread.

Ambiguity hasn't been defined by EHRC so I am guessing but I think what they mean by that is that it causes issues for the people who have 'legal sex' under the other bad law the GRC. Alternatively it might mean that it causes ambiguity for those who are of one sex but have adopted the gender of the other sex. (which seems quite binary when you think about it).

Ultimately the EHRC was asked to look from all perspectives which it did. It wasn't asked to give a value judgement.

I agree that proper legal advice should be sought and I really believe that care needs to be given to males who have been sold a lie. But ultimately women are human and redress will happen at some point.

With your continued responses I find it hard to believe you are in favour of women's rights.

I think that is immensely unfair.

Everything I have read on the topic suggests that changes to the law are not going to be easy or straightforward, particularly in the context of the European Court of Human Rights.

According to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, that is indeed an issue, though the European Court are more amenable to limits to Article 8 rights (such as the right of recognition that trans people have) when balancing two competing rights (here, the rights of women to single sex spaces ).

I know you do not agree but I think the following statement of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, on this topic, is important: “The more targeted any change is, the less likely it is to be a violation of Article 8 rights.”

Which I understand to mean that specific and precise changes to the EA are more likely to survive a legal challenge than wholesale, sweeping ones.

The Commission offered to provide more guidance on these issues but I don’t know that the government has sought it yet.

My hope is that, if they win the election, Labour will continue this process, which they have indicated they support, and provide more detail after completing the detailed policy and legal analysis that the Commission recommended.

If the changes to the law are expected to be bogged down and delayed by legal challenges, then I think it’s desirable to make the changes as challenge-proof as possible (while making sure they are still adequate, of course).

😀😃😄

With respect to the Equality Act, I don’t see how current issues stem from it - rather (it seems to me but I’m happy to consider otherwise) they stem from the GRA and were not mitigated by the Equality Act

You keep saying this, i'd be very interested in your explanation of why this is especially relevant to UK laws. Go ahead. kill me with your analysis.

My hope is that, if they win the election, Labour will continue this process, which they have indicated they support, and provide more detail after completing the detailed policy and legal analysis that the Commission recommended.

Which process has the Labour party said they will continue to support? Please be specific?

Why if the Labour Party is supportive of that process , did it see fit to talk about ferrets rather than it's policy position when those issues were raised in parliament?

It depends when it was said.

Last July, Anneliese Dodds (Shadow Minister for Women and Equalities said:

“We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces, providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.”

And, also last year, Labour said that it welcomed the government’s plans to review the Equality Act (re. including the definition of biological sex).

@ThatQuickFinch - it is unfair! You have articulated the problem well. The EHRC told Kemi Badenoch to do her own legal work on this; they outlined what her lawyers needed to take account of, and asked her to do her job in terms of an actual policy.

She has conspicuously not done it. The Labour Party may engage in a similar exercise and then have to build a public policy case by means of judicial review.

“We need to recognise that sex and gender are different – as the Equality Act does. We will make sure that nothing in our modernised gender recognition process would override the single-sex exemptions in the Equality Act. Put simply, this means that there will always be places where it is reasonable for biological women only to have access. Labour will defend those spaces,providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.”

Mmmm tell me you don't understand UK laws without telling me you don't understand UK laws.

These are buzz words.

with no relevance to current legislation which the Labour Party say doesn't need amending.

You keep saying this, i'd be very interested in your explanation of why this is especially relevant to UK laws. Go ahead. kill me with your analysis.
No, I’ve said it once, and you said that it was a good question, you’d think about it, and get back to me. You seem to be quoting this from my older post. Did you accidentally copy paste the wrong para from the wrong post?

Which process has the Labour party said they will continue to support? Please be specific?
They have said that they welcomed the governments’ review of the Equality Act, wrt biological sex, and have said that they would provide legal clarity for same sex service providers.

with no relevance to current legislation which the Labour Party say doesn't need amending.

I agree on buzzwords

Can any pro Labour answer the question on no amendments by Labour?

providing legal clarity for the providers of single-sex services.

This does not refer to an amendment?

Me or Ms. Dodds?

I acknowledge that Labour have not specifically pledged to amend the Equality Act. How recently have Labour said that they won’t amend it?

Say what?

So far as I am aware Labour are still saying that no amendments are necessary.

When they patently are.

Quick Finch you puzzle me, you have some horrendous issues over women's rights over the pond, you lost abortion rights, you have men in women's spaces over there too, yet you are fixated on issues in the UK.

It's interesting.

It’s because she’s British. It’s really not that difficult.

Ah right, but not living in Britain, not terribly understanding of British laws and not sympathetic to the consequences to British women of bad laws that we are currently living under!

But seemingly in favour of all things Labour especially where men's rights activism is concerned.

As I said. Interesting.