GRC changes dropped?

[WishThisWasLangClegGin]

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/d19ad4fe-54d9-11ea-a869-24971f770bf3?shareToken

Bloody hell if that's true, that's fantastic!

I assumed that the Scottish Government were referring to the Yogyakarta Principles Chatty which were drawn up by international human rights lawyers in 2006 and extended in 2017 to include provisions relating to gender identity. However, I do not know for sure.

Thanks Katy, but I’m confused because that can’t be it, if in good faith the minister in Scotland is saying in the consultation, ‘ To comply with international human rights law, Scotland must have a system for obtaining legal gender recognition ‘

Yogyakarta isn’t binding, so that ‘Scotland must have’ must mean something actually binding on Scotland though, mustn’t it. Like an actual confirmed obligation under ECHR, surely.

Littl thank you, I will definitely fill out the consultation.

Yogyakarta isn’t binding, so that ‘Scotland must have’ must mean something actually binding on Scotland though, mustn’t it. Like an actual confirmed obligation under ECHR, surely.

Would that be the original ruling which resulted in the GRA2004? Or one of the later ECHR cases? Although I think that would mean that all European countries are obliged to have a 'system for obtaining legal gender recognition', and some of them don't.

I’m another not understanding how an English person using a temporary residence in Scotland to obtain a GRC via self ID won’t be able to use it in England. Once they have all their documents listed as the opposite sex & people aren’t supposed to ask for a GRC (assuming a Scottish GRC will look different) how exactly will they be stopped?

Delighted that the juggernaut has been slowed in England but please please make sure you complete our consultation! Doesn’t need to take long Guidance here forwomen.scot/
#binthebill

I’m not sure Crone. I have to say with the authoritarian politicisation and flights of fancy presented as fact by the lobby and various governments around all this, it has made me a bit cynical..if something is a ECHR ‘must’ then you would think it could be easily pointed to. Maybe someone will come along who knows and can set us straight though...

Once they have all their documents listed as the opposite sex & people aren’t supposed to ask for a GRC (assuming a Scottish GRC will look different) how exactly will they be stopped?

All documents can be changed without a GRC apart from the birth certificate, although to change the sex marker on a passport requires (I think) a letter from a doctor if the person doesn't have a GRC, so is not completely self-ID.

In situations where proof of legally recognised sex is required (like in prisons), the sex will be that shown on the person's birth certificate. Unless there is some agreement with the UK government about changing the sex marker on a birth certificate issued outside Scotland using a Scottish GRC, then people born outside Scotland won't be able to obtain a birth certificate with their changed sex, and to change their passport will still require a doctor's letter.

Thank you oldcrone that makes sense.
What about Scottish self ID’d people - I assume their new birth certificate will have to be recognised in England just like a Scottish 16 yr old’s marriage certificate is?

So what's meant to happen when a self IDd Scottish teenager moves to England? Or anywhere else for that matter.

ChattyLion I'm not a lawyer, but from reading some of the ECHR judgements, it appears that the court ruling is binding on the country which has been taken to the European Court, but not necessarily on other countries.

So the Goodwin v UK ruling was binding on the UK, to find a way in which a transsexual male could marry his male partner. This could have been solved by legislation allowing same sex marriage. There was another element about not being 'outed' at work as the same person who had previously worked for the same company as a man due to their NI number being the same. Again, another solution could have been found to this without the need to falsify the birth record.

This is from the most recent ruling I could find on gender recognition in the ECHR.

We note that it appears clearly from the factual findings made by the Court in the above-mentioned case of Hämäläinen v. Finland that there is no consensus among the European States on the question whether there is a right to have a new sex legally recognised and which conditions have to be fulfilled for such recognition.

It appears that there is no obligation on a European state to have a process for people to change their legally recognised sex.

It appears that there is no obligation on a European state to have a process for people to change their legally recognised sex

Right. That makes a grim kind of sense. Why am I no longer surprised that even a government presenting fundamental legal change proposals for public comment, aren’t even presenting the full accurate representation of legal and political facts to us?

(There’s also the bit in their impact assessment where they say there’s no evidence that Male people in women’s spaces are a threat or something - I will dig it out later. Shocking.) I haven’t read the full consultation paper yet.

Thank you very much Crone for taking the time to dig through these cases, that’s a really key point you’ve clarified for me. I’ll be pointing out that claims to human rights necessity are being made which could now be handled in a completely different way than allowing this GRA legal fiction. It shows the extreme politicisation inside captured governments and the sleight of hand that is being used here to lobby and compel.. If we all point it out in our responses hopefully they can’t just gloss over it. It would be feasible to repeal the GRA then provided the wrongs of Goodwin have been righted.

I cancelled my Times subscription because it was too expensive. But if its paying for them to shine a light on this nonsense, I will start it up again. Well done The Times.

I was going to cancel after a trial subscription but the lady on the phone asked me for my reason and I said I couldn't afford it. She then offered me a reduced price which I accepted. So I'm still a subscriber, but I don't pay the full price. Try it!

Thanks lamahaha I'll try that

@KatySun

Yes it’s a difference of emphasis. Scotland can pass laws within its devolution settlement powers.

But it cannot pass laws which have the effect of binding the UK. It’s not up to Westminster to say no. It just won’t be legally valid.

Scotland has lots of laws which don’t extend to the rest of the UK. If they want those effects that has to be agreed with Westminster unless they are literally so tiny as to be consequential.

This is not one of those things.