Times Article on All Women Shortlists and SNP rule breaking

[Alicethroughtheblackmirror]

"Mridul Wadhwa, a trans rights activist who has no gender recognition certificate, appeared at a Stirling hustings, prompting allegations that SNP headquarters was ruling “by diktat” and had broken the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act, 2002, designed to promote all-women shortlists."

Also links to the FWS Judicial Review:
"The SNP government already faces a legal challenge amid growing anger that a man who identifies as a member of the opposite sex will be legally recognised as a woman under the Gender Representation on Public Boards (Scotland) Act 2018.

For Women Scotland, the campaign group granted a judicial review of the 2018 legislation, said the Stirling case showed the SNP was “playing fast and loose with women’s rights and the very definition of what it is to be a woman”."

Afraid I don't have share token!

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/scotland/anger-over-trans-woman-on-all-female-snp-shortlist-092x6jw9t

I've given it another go :¬))

There seems to be a problem with the page loading for me, but the comments seem derailed into whether AWS are right or not. Anyone who can comment might want to suggest that regardless of the validity of AWS in readers minds, if they ARE allowed then surely they should be for women only..?!?

@Sexnotgender

The policy breached? I’d assume hurting men’s feelings? Or speaking the truth. Both are forbidden.

The Times is generally pretty robust on this, though.

It is coming through now and really opening people’s eyes. There are a lot of deletions and I can see that Jo March is carefully phrasing it and included a link to MW Facebook archive on taking the position. There is a factual post just stating what post they held so hopefully that will stay. There are a lot of people asking what position they held so even if it doesn’t stay they will google.

"An SNP councillor has hit out after she was quizzed on who would look after her children if she was elected to Holyrood"

www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/snp-councillor-asked-who-look-22864425.amp

The SNP have all women shortlists then pose questions like this

The comments that are coming through on the article are great - although I agree the censors do seem busy!

It is outrageous that the SNP refuse to comment! They are breaking the law and seem to think they are answerable to no one.

I hope FWS reach their target. If the JR can stop them on the public boards act, maybe they'll think twice about breaking equality law in other areas.

@MrsWooster

There seems to be a problem with the page loading for me, but the comments seem derailed into whether AWS are right or not. Anyone who can comment might want to suggest that regardless of the validity of AWS in readers minds, if they ARE allowed then surely they should be for women only..?!?

I made that exact point over an hour ago and my comment is not there; don’t know if it was deleted or they just didn’t post it at all.

Realised I just had a similarly benign comment removed - also pointed out that by allowing some legal males to stand but not others, SNP opened themselves up to discrimination suits from men who were not allowed to stand.

I think that is pretty tame! As well as factual...

This is actually a really interesting situation. MW is very well-known, very high-profile in feminist circles too and clearly does a specific job. To not admit MW to an AWS would bring the whole house of cards crashing down, including funding conditions put on women's services. There is no way MW wouldn't have been allowed to stand. ^^

This has been something that has been bothering me more and more recently - if the government, a political party or local council breaks a law then what can be done? Who holds them accountable? Do private citizens have to fund raise for a judicial review? Is there no more direct route for enforcing compliance?

@LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett

This is actually a really interesting situation. MW is very well-known, very high-profile in feminist circles too and clearly does a specific job. To not admit MW to an AWS would bring the whole house of cards crashing down, including funding conditions put on women's services. There is no way MW wouldn't have been allowed to stand. ^^

Great test case.

I just had a second comment removed, which is v similar to one left up. Confusing.

The electoral commission? Worth a complaint?

www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-enforcement-work

I expect this thread to be deleted, but wanted to express anyway why putting this male candidate on a female-only shortlist is wrong in my opinion:

Across Scotland a number of us have encountered this person at various events where their own words and behaviour amply demonstrated a profound inability to emphasise both with the very women and girls they are employed to serve and with the female sex in general; an attitude that showed that the needs of males who identify as trans to be validated as women trump the needs of female victims of male violence for a female-only service; an unwarranted focus on a minute number of victims, suggesting in my view at the very least an unfortunate ignorance of and at worst a callous disregard for the majority of their service users; and especially worryingly an inability to grasp how the insidious nature of male violence effects the lives of all women and girls in Scotland and the wider world.

It is of course possible that this person had a bad day on the day, didn't quite understand what was required or felt unjustly attacked and so couldn't refocus on the issue being addressed, but in my view this is someone who is not suitable to represent women and should not therefore take a space on an All Women Shortlist.

It is likely that apart from that, this person might otherwise be a suitable candidate for an elected position and I would have no issue with them standing in a seat not limited to female candidates.

It is likely that apart from that, this person might otherwise be a suitable candidate for an elected position and I would have no issue with them standing in a seat not limited to female candidates.

They certainly seem to have the makings of a politician along the current mould. But I would hope we would aim to have politicians who do not lie by omission, who follow the law, who do not seek to force women from roles set aside for them.

@Aesopfable

It is likely that apart from that, this person might otherwise be a suitable candidate for an elected position and I would have no issue with them standing in a seat not limited to female candidates.

They certainly seem to have the makings of a politician along the current mould. But I would hope we would aim to have politicians who do not lie by omission, who follow the law, who do not seek to force women from roles set aside for them.

We've had a court rule that it's perfectly normal for politicians to lie and that not even being caught in a big one disqualifies a candidate, so I now generally expect so little integrity that I didn't even consider that.

We should expect integrity from our representatives; lack of integrity should disbar them from political office. As the public we shouldn’t put up with the current poor quality of politicians. I am not sure how we should go about attracting better standard of candidates but we desperately need them.

Yes, you are right. Undeniably so. I shall rein in my cynicism and rephrase my previous to say that I would not oppose that person standing where an AWS is not in place but should hope they would find someone with more integrity.

And I'll try to believe that a better standard of candidates will be insisted upon in the future.

I mean it's doubtful given that this party considers a candidate worthy who openly admits to deceiving an employer in interview. This is public knowledge and part of the controversy around this person, so the party's standards seem to be as low as my expectations.

There is also a TW, Sarah Fanet, standing in Argyll and Bute, another AWS. They apparently have GRC. I'm not sure if that makes any difference?

Aesopfable
The electoral commission? Worth a complaint?

I spoke with them yesterday. They regulate finances and provide written guidance to political parties. It is not within their remit to investigate compliance with all-women shortlists.

So it would seem that other than complaining to the SNP at [email protected] (they don't seem to reply to anyone but it's still worth emailing), the only option for women is the legal route. Which looks like applying for an interdict to halt proceedings until the legality is established.

Does anyone know what happens if someone wants a grc but wasn't born in the UK? Is it possible for them? The UK government can only issue birth certificates for people born in the UK (I would have thought), and it gives the place of birth. Even if you are born abroad to British parents you get a certificate of registration of your birth at the consulate to go alongside your birth certificate, but not a UK birth certificate. So i'm guessing it wouldn't be possible to obtain a UK grc in that case. A bit off topic but her birth certificate must be Indian so it's probable that she wouldn't actually be able to change legal sex.

@Manderleyagain

Does anyone know what happens if someone wants a grc but wasn't born in the UK? Is it possible for them? The UK government can only issue birth certificates for people born in the UK (I would have thought), and it gives the place of birth. Even if you are born abroad to British parents you get a certificate of registration of your birth at the consulate to go alongside your birth certificate, but not a UK birth certificate. So i'm guessing it wouldn't be possible to obtain a UK grc in that case. A bit off topic but her birth certificate must be Indian so it's probable that she wouldn't actually be able to change legal sex.

There was some info in this thread on twitter:

twitter.com/hightreebud/status/1319251858574245891?s=20

"There is an overseas route to gender recognition in the UK, but it seems India is not on the approved countries list:
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/710998/t491-eng.pdf

"Interestingly, India has a 2-step process. Can self-id for a transgender certificate, but proof of surgery must be provided for full legal change to the opposite sex.
hrw.org/news/2019/12/05/indias-transgender-rights-law-isnt-worth-celebrating

"Makes you wonder why a certain person doesn't apply..."

Can someone talk me through legal aspects of AWS and trans people.

-AWS are allowed, because of the EA2010.
-EA2010 specifies sex. So biological sex, or potentially legal sex.
-A TW with no GRC is legally, and biologically male, therefore not eligible for AWS.
-In order to allow them to stand on a AWS, it's effectively saying "you don't have the required sex, however, because you have a different PC of Gender Reassignment, you can stand".

But, wouldn't this be the equivalent of, say, having a position specifically for (eg) a disabled person, and then employing someone not disabled but saying it's OK because they are black, thus they have the PC of Race/ethnicity instead? That wouldn't be OK, would it? Surely, if you make a space specifically for someone with a disability, it's because you are trying to address an imbalance specifically of people with disabilities. That imbalance isn't corrected hiring another non-disabled person, who happens to be B/ME, even though theat may also be an underrepresented group? That should, surely, have its own space made?

(Or is this all TBC, depending on the outcome of the Labour legal action?)

Spot on PearPickingPorky

I would say that even a TW with a GRC should not be on an AWS, but this might take a court case to establish.

There doesn't seem to be any doubt at all that a TW without a GRC should not be on a AWS - even the EHRC agree that "a trans woman who does not hold a GRC and is therefore legally male would be treated as male".

I'm wondering if there is a sufficiently pissed of male SNP member who would want to challenge the imposition of the AWS while allowing 2 male candidates who identify as women to stand in at least 3 posts (not sure if the TW standing in A&B is also standing in a 2nd post). AWS are effectively legal 'positive' discrimination to increase female representation. It'll take a man who feels aggrieved over this to challenge, on the basis that if other males (who claim to identify as women) are allowed, it discriminates against the rest of the males who would otherwise stand.

@WTFSeriously

I'm wondering if there is a sufficiently pissed of male SNP member who would want to challenge the imposition of the AWS while allowing 2 male candidates who identify as women to stand in at least 3 posts (not sure if the TW standing in A&B is also standing in a 2nd post). AWS are effectively legal 'positive' discrimination to increase female representation. It'll take a man who feels aggrieved over this to challenge, on the basis that if other males (who claim to identify as women) are allowed, it discriminates against the rest of the males who would otherwise stand.

That would be the best way to challenge this.

For the record, Edinburgh Central is not AWS, so I think MW is perfectly entitled to try there (up against Angus Robertson and Marco Biaggi, I think, so unlikely to get the nomination).

Would love to see some annoyed Stirling or A&B branch men challenge!