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’

I acknowledge that Labour have not specifically pledged to amend the Equality Act.

That’s useful as some do seem to believe they have

Extremely knowledgeable about British laws, more so than any other poster I’ve seen here. And very clear that it’s a complex issue with no easy answers.

Honestly, I find it difficult to reconcile your expressed knowledge of the law with the fact that you continue to take issue with the EHRC’s guidance that changes to the Equality Act might violate Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, if not sufficiently targeted. Was this within your practice area?

Could you also please point out where I have been unsympathetic to the consequences for British women of the current ambiguity?

Lol.

She's got no idea about UK laws.

Only from a theoretical view point. Reads like a student lawyer to me.

But great, she's got you convinced. But you were always going to be because you agree with her that the rights of men should come first.

Lol.

Expressed knowledge of the law. I'm a lawyer from the UK and you are?

Just to balance that post below @lifeturnsonadime I appreciate your legal analysis of the U.K. situation

There's a few on FWR who take the time and I’m grateful you and they do

Not answering any more personal questions.

But you’re free to tell us about your practice area if you would like to, and to explain why the Commission’s views re. Art 8 are flawed.

you agree with her that the rights of men should come first.

I don’t think either of us think that. And I can’t imagine what either of us have ever said to give you grounds for asserting it either.

You are not going to answer personal questions but seek to ask them.

Righty ho.

I've had enough of discussions with a person who doesn't comprehend the laws of the country they are commenting on. Good luck to you. Genuinely I mean it. You are bright. But you haven't a clue what you are talking about in relation to this issue when it comes to UK law and the position that the Labour Party has adopted.

More stunning legal analysis from the country’s leading human rights lawyer.

My goodness, I don't claim to be that.

You are making things up.

I think @lifeturnsonadime cares a lot about women’s rights and has legal insight

Probably not the sarcastic version

No shit!

But I do think that, if you’re going to play the “I’m a lawyer” card, then your area of practice is absolutely relevant, particularly when you don’t want to explain why Art. 8 is of no concern, and just insist that you’re correct.

You keep harping on about art 8 just like a good law student.

You do realise that art 8 and the right to family and domestic life applies equally to women as it does to men with gender identity.

So when it comes to the amendments of the Equality Act that are required to protect women, prey tell me, with your expert knowledge, how article 8 supports a proposition that men with a gender identity should have the right to be in single sex spaces reserved for women when women need that for their dignity and safety.

You are telling me, with absolute clarity, (based on an article you once read that it does) so stun me with how it helps?

After you have done that tell me on what legal basis a person in the Uk could bring a claim in the European Court of Human Rights against the government for a breach of article 8 for amending the PC of sex to mean only biological women.

I await YOUR expert legal analysis.

Again, not a shred of analysis from you. Just “I’m a lawyer so I don’t have to justify my opinion”.

But yes, of course I recognize the Art 8 rights also apply to women - I have referenced as much several times, in the specific context of the weighing of the rights of the two groups.

I am not professing to have particular insight in this area, other than going down a couple of rabbit holes, this week but, again, when the EHRC say:

”It is also important to consider the human rights implications. There is a question whether defining ‘sex’ as biological sex would engage the right to respect for private and family life in Article 8 of the European Convention on HumanRights(readwithArticle14). Inconnectiontochangestolegalsex,the courts have found violations of Article 8 if what is at stake is simply an individual’s right of recognition. This includes the right to marry and the right to a pension in their acquired gender. However, in cases where a state is balancing competing rights, for instance the rights of trans women and of biological women, Strasbourg has allowed a wider margin of appreciation. Indeed, human rights law may require the statutory recognition of biological sex. For instance, the enjoyment of separate sex and single sex spaces or sporting activities (see 8.6 and 8.7), when closely related to biological sex, is likely to fall within the material scope of Article 8. The more targeted any change is, the less likely it is to be a violation of Article 8 rights.“

and you say little more than “No, I’m a lawyer, they’re wrong”, then I’m more inclined to listen to them than I am to you.

I know that I’m quoting the same para, again and again, but you’re going to need to tell me what about it is wrong.

This is why there is zero point.

You don't appear to even understand the basic relationship between Human rights law and domestic legislation.

We are not beholden to Strasbourg decisions. When we make laws we have to have regards to the principals. Where I struggle is your belief that women's rights independently of men with gender identity fall foul of human rights laws.

You have based this on an interpretation from a number of years ago.

It would be very interesting to see a test case appear in the European Court of Human Rights, perhaps one is necessary.

Women are human it is clear that woman sex is very different from a man with woman gender.

But where I do agree with you @ThatQuickFinch is that politically it is difficult for governments to do the right thing by women.

So , in that respect, we do agree.

So your legal analysis consists of going down rabbit holes.

Anyway.

Back to reality. Times are a changing in respect of how the world is viewing the activities of the trans activists vis a vis women's rights. This is starting to happen globally. In Spain the government are, I think, taking action against men who are taking advantage of their version of self ID to be women gender when it comes to pension benefits etc.

The EHRC has previously given advice from the slant of men's rights to identify as trans because of the activities of lobby groups like Stonewall.

Over time when the harms to women and children become increasingly apparent it will be more and more clear that the current laws do not work to protect vulnerable minority groups. So there are 2 possibilities.

Either the Human rights institutions such as the European Court of Human rights will consider women as equal to men and step up to protect us or they will not.

IN the meantime domestic leglislation can do as it sees fit. If the Labour party wants to protect women and doesn't feel that the ECHR back it up then it can challenge the ECHR on it's misogyny and sexism if it wants to . If the ECHR is confused about trans issues then it might take a decent government that backs women to take it on.

Sorry I do need to qualify when I say challenge I mean a domestic law can make laws that are contested by the echr. This will then lead to proper consideration of the human rights implication rather than academic or ideologically based ones.

Of course the UK can pass whatever domestic law it wishes.

However, so long as it’s a signatory to the European Convention on Human Rights, then, if it found to have violated the convention, it will need to rectify the incompatibility in its laws - i.e, how we ended up with the GRA in the first place.

Presumably, that’s a situation that lawmakers will want to avoid and is the reason that the EHRC has raised the Art 8 issue.

Yes, perhaps you could go the whole hog with respect to simply changing the definition of sex to biological sex throughout the EA, and make it a test case, but given the ECtHR has been moving towards allowing people to change their gender on an unconditional basis (my understanding from commentary) then I wonder how welcoming they’d be to a change in law that essentially renders GRCs functionally meaningless (particularly as we only have GRCs as a result of the ECtHR’s prior ruling).

So your view is change the law as we’d like it, then see if it sticks.

Whereas I would think that trying to ensure that the law will stick, before it is passed, is more important (not least because you could still introduce further laws).

When Kemi Badenoch called Truss’s bill “unworkable”, what do you think she meant?

Your last point is unexceptional because presumably you would need to look at the human rights act to ensure domestic legislation met that requirement @lifeturnsonadime. I think you have given @ThatQuickFinch a hard time and been conspicuous in how general you are. Yes a government, even this one, could legislate in the way you suggest. And arguably it is doing just that for the Immigration Bill right now.

The angst at Labour seems to be this; that they won't in principle legislate in the broadest terms which given they are in not actually in power is a silly argument legally but it is a respectable political position.

It equally applies to the Conservatives who are in a position to do so. A government that sits on its hands is communicating it does not want to take the legal risk of any litigation. It remains to be seen what a Labour Government would actually do and their attitude to legal risk. It would seem to me quite sensible to have a series of test cases in particular matters; that's often what governments do.

I acknowledge that Labour have not specifically pledged to amend the Equality Act.

and

These are buzz words.

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

Is the main issue. The statement is a collection of buzzwords due to this.

No my view is that you are wrong about this and that women exist as a group independent of men defined by our sex and as a group we have human rights.

Your hypothesis based on a letter where the UK was told it should have regard to males in drafting law doesn't mean, as you are trying to suggest, that the rights of males are more important than the rights of women and that laws that define women by virtue of sex (laws based in reality) would fall foul of human rights laws.

Your hypothesis doesn't mean that Sex can't or should be defined in national laws on the basis of biology which is the meaning it has had through the ages.

I am quite baffled that you think that Men should have more human rights than women on the basis of gender. But you clearly do.

These issues need ironing out.

But to yet again revert to point it would have been useful to have an open debate in parliament but Labour decided to talk about ferrets instead.

Reader note this deflection tactic.

This poster doesn't want to talk about it.

This poster is trying to argue that male humans are more important than female humans and that human rights laws support this to the point that there is no point in any government defining sex by biology.

I don't know on what basis Badenoch said that Truss's bill was unworkable, do you?

But I doubt it was on the basis that any bill that defines women by sex would fall foul of human rights legislation.