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’

@bombastix

The quick finch is trying to argue that women are not equal to males when it comes to human rights laws as a reason not to make domestic laws tighter to protect women. Who , the last time i checked, are equally human to men (even those with a gender identity. It's just nonsense and it deserves to be given a hard time.

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.

I don't really follow what you are saying here, do you mean that not taking steps to ensure the safety and dignity of women wrt to single sex spaces and not protecting children from harm is a respectful political position? I apologise if I have misunderstood but if you think that then I don't agree at all. Any government which fails to protect 51% of its population and children is not a government to respect.

I say that as much about the current government who are not prioritising pushing this through to protect women and children as i do about Labour who don't intend to.

Either way it's a fine mess. There ought to be cross party resolve to address these things, as it is no one cares about women and children enough.

If a test case is brought it will be very entertaining (horrific) if the ECHRs did determine that women don't exist as a biological group sufficient to have natinoal laws to protect us as a group in discrimination or in respect of spaces. It will be proof once and for all that the Western World has taken leave of its senses and has adopted male rights activism wholesale.

It seems the way to go is to amend the EqA

It isn’t fast but based on various statements KB might and Labour show no indication

@lifeturnsonadime / no, I'm saying what you have classed as a legal argument is actually a political one. That is respectable to me. I don't think you have dealt with @ThatQuickFinch fairly because her posts have all been regarding the limits of the law as it stands. You have tipped over into making her answers a personal political statement and attributed that to her. I read them factually, they make sense as a reflection of the legal position as it is now. I really think you ought to apologize because of it. No one doubts your engagement on this. But I do think as a matter of debate you might consider that your political view (reasonable to have one) doesn't determine what the law provides now.

@ThatQuickFinch says it will take time

Were you one of the few posters who claimed it could be done ‘easily’ or overnight?

A different thread but there seems to be some inconsistency here

Yes thank you from me too. Your posts are so much appreciated lifeturnsonadime and also yours EasternStandard.

Those posters arguing with tiresome mediocrity over and over than men should have more rights than women are eclipsed by your intelligence, persistence and understanding of this gruesome situation we women find ourselves in.

@EasternStandard - as previously stated, you would need a government with a bold risk appetite. This one does not.

Governments can change legal positions in a very short time. If they do, they accept high levels of legal risk.

And btw that is the reason for so many of the issues below. You have a serious political issue is that is not matched by legal intent by any party. The issues @ThatQuickFinch describes would apply to any party. No one seems to have the appetite to make any change. For some issues, there is (cf immigration, leaving the EU which engage substantially the same issue re the UK's international legal position).

So is Dominic Raab...

because her posts have all been regarding the limits of the law as it stands

they make sense as a reflection of the legal position as it is now

There seems to be agreement that the limit of the law exists

Either way only one party has so far proposed looking at the amendment, KB in the press this or last week

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

In terms of risk and what is proposed Labour are behind

what risk ?

That some men will be really pissed off?

And some men might have the gall to try to argue in a human rights court that they should have more human rights than women?

@lifeturnsonadime - is that political? I think so. Men being pissed off is a reason to sue. This government does not have the appetite to take them on. Whether Labour does remains to be seen, does it not?

I don't think you have dealt with@ThatQuickFinchfairly because her posts have all been regarding the limits of the law as it stands.

But that's not quite right is it?

She is trying to say that laws can't be changed in the future to protect biological sex, citing article 8 of the Human Rights Act and some commentary of that as evidence.

This analysis is wrong.

@lifeturnsonadime - and you are a lawyer; you have to accept surely that usually in any case there will be more than one option, particularly when a government is a law maker? The government sits on its hands! This is not like an individual matter. They have power.

Those posters arguing with tiresome mediocrity over and over than men should have more rights

So this is the new shtick is it? Where’s this one suddenly emerged from? Repeating the same tired old stuff about anyone not slavishly agreeing with you not caring has moved on to supporting more rights for men. Where’s this going to end up?

@lifeturnsonadime she explained the current limitations. You may not accept them but it is on you I think to explain, beyond saying a general remark about changing domestic legalization, as to what could be done.

There may well be other ways of achieving fairness in law for women. I'm not sure that any would make more sense than going back to accurate descriptors of Sex in the Act which is supposed to protect women when it concerns discrimination relating to our sex, but there could be.

Wouldn't it be lovely though if there was the political appetite for a discussion about this?

But when MPs from the current government tried to discuss this MPs from the labour party thought they would focus on ferrets instead?

Thanks I appreciate posters who find themselves taken on by the pro Labour on here but continue to post good analysis

@lifeturnsonadime I know you won’t but ignore any suggestion you should alter just because it’s not positive for their party

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is not a limitation on the governments power to amend national legislation.

It's impact is a consideration to take into account .

The limitation is the reluctance to put the harms to women and children which have derived from bad laws right.

Where is this going to end up?

Hopefully with amended laws to give women the intended protection under protected characteristic of Sex.

Possibly in the EHRC if men with gender identity believe they should have more human rights than women.

Very good. And then your argument was that the government should legislate and there will be;

A) no legal risk of loss
B) accept risks?

And if so, why?

government with a bold risk appetite. This one does not

As Labour stand on this their’s is lower.

And I’d argue more aligned to the angry lobbyists who would challenge

You know perfectly well that’s not what I meant. Disingenuous to the last.

Again I'm not really following your question.

All new statute laws are open to litigation. So if that's is what you mean by risk, yes there is a risk.

Of course a decent government who thinks that women should have rights based in our sex/ biology, as has always been the case, should see that risk as acceptable.

I mean really the alternative is that more and more women get harmed or self exclude from society. What government would want women to be put to that kind of risk?

@lifeturnsonadime - I'm walking you through the decisions a minister will have to take to change matters.

A minister has to say; I accept the legal risks in making these changes.

It is of course the reason the EHRC told the relevant Minister to get an analysis done and then decide to change the law.

@bombastix I don't disagree with you about the need for the government to take legal advice.

I would be amazed if any balanced legal advise settled that by law women should have less human rights than males with gender identity.

I don't know who the government / labour party advisers are. I should imagine they might come from different ideological viewpoints.

But back to the same, wouldn't it be nice for an open discussion to happen?

But some Labour MPs actively prevented that.