The Guardian - can you Reverse Ferret a Reverse Ferret?

[NotBadConsidering]

Articles published since that editorial calling for balance:

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/22/rapid-onset-gender-dysphoria-is-a-poisonous-lie-used-to-discredit-trans-people

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/21/gender-recognition-act-reform-trans-people

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/19/gender-recognition-act-feminist-self-identification-consultation

www.theguardian.com/society/2018/oct/21/transgender-rights-equality-human-rights

So what’s the plan, Guardian? Is it going to be week on-week off in terms of “balance”? You’re lining up all your GC opinion pieces and articles now, just readying them for the next few days?

Or can you indeed Reverse Ferret a Reverse Ferret?

EHCR or EHRC?

The French and other countries are way behind the UK on this...

Too many initials!
GRA was introduced because of a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights.

Red the fact that the US and Canada are so far ahead in this makes me seriously doubt that the ultimate driver in this are the European courts and not some Anglo-American factors/influencers/agenda.

The Equalities and Human Rights Commission can only advise based on law. However they do not create law nor do they enforce law. They only advise on it.

This also doesn't mean they are necessarily 'right'.

A legal case they support could, in theory go through the court system and the courts could rule AGAINST what the EHRC have been saying and set a legal landmark which the EHRC then have to work into the advice they give.

In the absence of significant legal ruling in this area, the EHRC are fumbling somewhat in the dark on this. They haven't got a lot of landmarks to refer to. There are multiple human rights lawyers who are interpretating in different ways.

Unintended consequences may well also fall under the radar and they are often the outlying issues for small numbers of particularly vulnerable people. Ironically it's these type of groups who often end up being the ones who have to actually use the law because they have been forgotten in advisories or best practice guidelines who are put out by... yeah you've guessed it, the EHRC.

They aren't infallible and they are at the mercy of this vacuum of a lack of legal landmark. 10 lawyers could say this is right but it only takes 1 lawyer to take it to court to prove them wrong.

Don't forget this.

EHRC = Equalities and Human Rights Commission
ECHR = European Court of Human Rights

Incredibly confusing.

Different bodies though.

The first reference on this thread was EHRC. Plus you get rulings from the ECHR which come from actual cases, you get advice and interpretation from the EHRC.

I think there is a certain amount of interest to confuse people about the difference between the two in this particular case. Which is a political act in itself.

Make sure you know the difference

Also.

So far thus issue HASN'T ended up in court.

Why is that?

Important question, Red.

I worry that the excesses of transactivism will give fuel to those who want to leave the Convention (ECHR), a key demand from some sections of the pro-Brexit camp. Government has said this is not on the table, regardless of Brexit, but that doesn't mean those folk won't keep trying.

Karen White in a women's prison is as good, if not better, than a terrorist not being deported because he's got a cat - not least because Karen White is actually true and the terrorist's cat business was exaggerated beyond sense.

It's not a coincidence that the recent GC piece in the Daily Express specifically tied transactivist excesses in with ECHR judgements - the Express has always wanted us to leave the Convention and is the most pro-Brexit of all the national newspapers.

Potplant2

I get what you’re saying and I agree. It just seems to me they’re doubling down on their prevailing view. I know it’s topical this week, but it does seem to be a flurry.

I guess the more philosophical question is why do I care. I can’t really explain it. I know some people here give it short shrift but I guess I just hope sense will prevail everywhere!

I worry that the excesses of transactivism will give fuel to those who want to leave the Convention (ECHR), a key demand from some sections of the pro-Brexit camp. Government has said this is not on the table, regardless of Brexit, but that doesn't mean those folk won't keep trying.

I'm way ahead on you on concerns on that LangCleg.

In a word yes you should be shitting bricks about this. Especially with what Dominic Cummings (Head of Vote Leave) has said about the thing that should be the next referendum. In truth it wouldn't need a ref. Its certainly in the crosshairs of the Leave.Eu camp.

The EU were trying to put a clause into our exit from the EU / any new deal which requires the UK to be signed up to the ECHR.

Over reach by TRAs and Stonewall will fuel a public backlash along these lines, because they haven't effectively sort a public consensus on this issue and are trying to force it through.

From what Lisa Muggeridge has said, I suspect she is also thinking along these lines, along she hasn't mentioned membership of the ECHR.

Rights are the product of public consenus. They exist because there is public consensus. Once they are signed into law, they are, in effect, set in stone purely because the act of 'revoking a right' sets the precident that any right can be revoked.

Thus the process of 'creating a right' is hugely important. It MUST seek proper public 'approval'. The act of forcing or otherwise getting a right passed in an underhand manner which is not consistent with liberal democratic principles is EXTREMELY dangerous to us all for this reason.

Its also worth pointing out there are other ways to make it difficult for the ECHR to, in practice, not have relevance to UK citizens. These largely revolve around intimidate to prevent cases going to court or through the prohibitive cost of launching a case that ultimately ends up in the ECHR. This is partly why TRAs are trying to conflate the Christian Right with Radical Feminism because of the dynamic in the US too.

I have been concerned since the referendum about the role of the ECHR in the UK WITHOUT the issue of extreme Trans Rights Militancy. The two issues combined are a complete disaster.

Liberal Democracy and Human Rights are conjoined twins. If one dies, so does the other.

I am gobsmacked that no one in politics or the media is talking about any of this, in these terms.

NO ONE.

No one is promoting the concept of Liberal Democracy. And its scaring me. REALLY scaring me.

Everyone is too preoccupied with Brexit to understand the severity of this threat.

I think everyone took it as read. It just goes with Brexit and us being part of Trump's offshore empire with no regulation about anything including humans rights. More fool Stonewall and friends.

Liberty and Amnesty too.

First they came for the women. And I did not notice that they were undermining freedom of speech, freedom from coerced speech, academic freedom, freedom of the press, scientific method, equality and human rights legislation and representative democracy, because I was not a woman.

Agree, Red. One of the major concerns I have about the trans argument coming right now, in the midst of Brexit, is that the overreach of its supporters is inviting a massive backlash from the British establishment right currently in charge. And the Brexit-related changes to UK law - Henry VIII powers, leaving ECHR - gives them enormous opportunity to do so.

I have been concerned since the referendum about the role of the ECHR in the UK WITHOUT the issue of extreme Trans Rights Militancy. The two issues combined are a complete disaster.

A lot of people understand that trans extremism might cause a right wing backlash. But I think they imagine the EDL gobbing off on demonstrations. I don't think they realise this is what it will actually look like.

Have you noticed a certain amount of sympathy for the gender critical position from Jewish circles? There's a reason.

It's all about the breakdown of checks and balances to power. Both liberal democracy and rights relay on them to maintain balance.

Have you noticed a certain amount of sympathy for the gender critical position from Jewish circles? There's a reason.

Yes. Very perceptive of you.

The thing is that 'liberals' are now talking about 'winning'. Actually that's unhealthy because that by its nature suggests suppression of other views. It should be about putting things into balance and then moving forward together. That's progress.

First they came for the women. And I did not notice that they were undermining freedom of speech, freedom from coerced speech, academic freedom, freedom of the press, scientific method, equality and human rights legislation and representative democracy, because I was not a woman.

^This. With glittery bells on

Red, I seem to be in a minority of one, but my concerns during the Brexit campaign centred around Europe's lurch to the right, and the seeming inability of European leadership to understand the gap between their priorities and public opinion. Society by its nature is conservative, which is not always a bad thing.

I did not raise my head above the parapet, not least because to do so would be to accused of being racist, and in the end I decided that I had no idea which path would, in hindsight, prove to be the right one so did not vote. Regardless I became surprisingly upset by the shrillness of social media and the frantic virtue signalling by some who had at best a tenuous grasp of the facts. (No, as we tried to explain to the wokest...India is not in the EU; just as DD has had to explain to friends that no, you can't change sex.)

My real hope on this debate (as well as getting the right result) is that a light is shone on the #nodebate tactics, the bullying and the intimidation. Whatever the issue, respect and intelligent debate are needed. Not least because not allowing people to express (legal) views is the fastest way to dictatorship. (Stonewall/Momentum/Guardian or EDL - take your pick as we would be in danger of bouncing around between reaction and counter-reaction.)

I believe that the British are on the whole decent and that we have sufficient democratic history to find an acceptable direction. I worry about the complete schism in US politics - I really wish the Democrats would focus on social inequality rather than on Trump. I don't know if EU democratic mechanisms are robust enough. I also think the progress on this issue is reassuring, though there is a long way to go. You don't make a career from opposing self-ID: yet James Kirkup, Trevor Phillips and David Davies, to name but three have joined a number of brave and impressive women in saying what they believe to be the right thing, with Twitter and other comments largely replicating views on this board.

And if it all goes belly up, they can come for me, as an other-ID'd racist and terf, first. I will sit in that Deptford cafe waiting.

It should be about putting things into balance and then moving forward together. That's progress.

When even Ed Balls is on record worrying that no politicians are seeking consensus-based solutions, you know there is a big, big, problem.

Red, I seem to be in a minority of one, but my concerns during the Brexit campaign centred around Europe's lurch to the right, and the seeming inability of European leadership to understand the gap between their priorities and public opinion.

I happen to think that there is a good argument to be made for at least some of that point. Its a complex one. I wish there had been discussion along those lines, because actually it would have been helpful to the EU in the long term regardless of how the UK voted. It was a missed opportunity.

I have learnt a huge amount since the referendum, and I think my thinking now, is very different to my thinking prior to the ref. I am not proud of all of it.

It frustrates me, because such debates were never enabled because the entire debate was dumbed down to the point of crapness and outright lies through sloganising.

If there is one thing I have learnt more than any other its this; People don't think something for no reason.

They will generally have a concern or a grievance to which they then attach an ideology which explains it. Politicians seek to create a narrative that fits the grievance which people then attach to. Few people tend to seek out an explanation of their own or to get properly to the bottom of why they feel the way they do. Its often time consuming and/or effort to do so.

Politicans do not seek to understand the nature of problems and issues within society because they can get the same reward of power without doing so. So its become a game of just creating a situation where you kick the pebble of a problem as far down the road as you can rather than confront it. Confronting problems can be costly and upset the public.

Ultimately though there is a point at which all those pebbles can no longer be kicked down the road. Thats when it all comes to a crashing halt and you are forced to deal with a crisis rather than a problem.

We've got rather a lot of them going on right now.

I am of the belief that most people are decent. The problem is its the few who aren't that are the ones who abuse power most. If you are decent it can be hard to comprehend that not everyone is decent. There are also a lot of people who do things in good faith without properly thinking about an issue, and that can have really negative consequences too. Everyone has a political blindspot. Plus when it comes to the crunch, decent people still remain selfish too.

Its all about thinking and listening. People don't do enough of it. Its not particularly valued in British society. Our culture often doesn't like people who ask questions or seek knowledge. People like the sound of their own voices and their own opinions more than they like to hear things that challenge them. Thats why people like to live in twitter echo chambers.

When I started to view things through this lens, I think it made sense of a lot of things that didn't necessarily previously.

This is a gender critical response from a lawyer on what the EHRC has said

Lady Justice @ radfemlawyer
The resounding message of the EHRC in their GRA consultation response has to be this -
The Equality Act exemptions must:
- remain;
- be clarified; and
- be widely known/understood.

“We recommend that the UK Government considers including a provision in the legislation reforming the GRA to put beyond doubt that having a GRC is not a determining factor in how the exceptions relating to gender reassignment discrimination apply.”

“We consider that clear, practical guidance and other forms of assistance to help trans people, single- sex and separate-sex service providers should accompany reform of the GRA.“

MsDemocracy @ DemocracyMs
What about helping other stakeholder groups in society like biological women? Do EHRC even recognise us as a distinct category in their groups of stakeholders?

Lady Justice @ radfemlawyer
They don’t use the word cis, for one. I think it’s been carefully worded. It’s not overt either way.

Here's the EHRC document itself
t.co/pretNsBs8C?amp=1

So it sounds like claims that the EHRC may have been somewhat over stated...

On almost any other contentious issue - Brexit, Israel, etc - they will try to publish views across the spectrum.

I was just thinking today that it’s a strange day when biological reality is more controversial than your views (whatever they are) on the Israel/Palestine conflict. Previously that was one of the ultimate hot potatoes that people avoided talking about.