Did a judge really say that

[Totallyrandomname]

Just did the Amnesty International “did a judge REALLY say that” quiz on Facebook. Basically a series of questions about how women are treated by different legal systems (eg how long a woman might be jailed for having a miscarriage in some countries).

I thought it was a really clever way to engage people with women’s human rights and to highlight a continued news to focus on the rights of women.

I consider myself fairly interested in women’s rights and I found the information shocking. So I can imagine people who don’t actively think about women’s rights much might also find it shocking.

Do you think there needs to be more like this to engage people who might otherwise not be that interested or aware of dangers to women’s rights?
I know you’d hope that people would just read articles or seek information themselves but in reality a lot of people need something to spark their interest or their desire to find out more.

Amnesty?
Facebook?
It's like two of the world's biggest trolls are trying to play a trick on you by the sounds of it

@GNCQ

Amnesty? Facebook? It's like two of the world's biggest trolls are trying to play a trick on you by the sounds of it

What trick (sorry I’m not always good at reading between the lines 😂)

When I saw the title of this thread I assumed it would be about the comment made in the judgement in Maya's case, that understanding the fact that biological sex is real and immutable is "a belief unworthy of respect in a democratic society".

Sounds really interesting op. I think anything that gets girls and women engaged with thinking about women's rights is a good thing.

@OhSister

When I saw the title of this thread I assumed it would be about the comment made in the judgement in Maya's case, that understanding the fact that biological sex is real and immutable is "a belief unworthy of respect in a democratic society".

Sorry....that sounds like a much more interesting thread!

Though all the examples in the AI quiz were examples of human rights violations of women based on their biology (having a miscarriage, biological women being forced to wear head scarves etc).

Found the link that OP is presumably talking about.
OP, it's always helpful if you can link to the source itself so we can see for ourselves!

didtheysaythat.amnesty.org.uk/

(you don't have to go on/be on facebook)

What trick (sorry I’m not always good at reading between the lines 😂)

Amnesty haven't covered themselves in glory recently re Women's rights. They promote sex work as work for instance.
I expect PP was referring to that.

(and on a similar note, when you reach the end of the quiz, Amnesty don't provide any links to sources for you to read up on yourself. Would much rather they did this rather than assuming everyone will believe what they say to be true).

@Totallyrandomname
Sorry....that sounds like a much more interesting thread!

Though all the examples in the AI quiz were examples of human rights violations of women based on their biology (having a miscarriage, biological women being forced to wear head scarves etc).

Another example of women's human rights violations would be the locking up of women prisoners with male sex offenders in Ireland. Literally trapping them with males who are known to be sexual predators.

Amnesty Ireland (and all who sail in her) would be backing the males in that one, though, i.e. supporting the violation of women's human rights.

@FannyCann

What trick (sorry I’m not always good at reading between the lines 😂)

Amnesty haven't covered themselves in glory recently re Women's rights. They promote sex work as work for instance.
I expect PP was referring to that.

Ah I was aware of that. I’ll do a bit of reading!

Sorry I mean wasn’t aware of that

[quote Cailleach1]@Totallyrandomname
Sorry....that sounds like a much more interesting thread!

Though all the examples in the AI quiz were examples of human rights violations of women based on their biology (having a miscarriage, biological women being forced to wear head scarves etc).

Another example of women's human rights violations would be the locking up of women prisoners with male sex offenders in Ireland. Literally trapping them with males who are known to be sexual predators.

Amnesty Ireland (and all who sail in her) would be backing the males in that one, though, i.e. supporting the violation of women's human rights.[/quote]
Ah really. That’s interesting. Much of the examples of quite severe/extreme violations (not sure how best to phrase that because all violations of rights are obviously wrong) seem to be biologically based - FGM etc.

Never the less the idea of presenting information in an engaging way I think is good (even if AI wasn’t a great example). I think sometimes reading around women’s rights issue can be quite laborious or difficult for people who find long text/words difficult to access or who might just not yet realise they’re interested in the topic.

I agree OP it’s good to give people an ‘in’ even if it isn’t perfect as it might encourage their outrage and inspire further self-discovery on the topic.

Wasn't it amnesty who said in ireland that gender critical women should lose their suffrage?

@Tibtom

Wasn't it amnesty who said in ireland that gender critical women should lose their suffrage?

Did they?! I really need to look more into AI as I have generally been a supporter of them.

Tbh, i cant talk about the world. But I feel that women get joke sentences compared to men in the UK. I am ex law enforcement...just my opinion.

Amnesty Ireland (and all who sail in her) would be backing the males in that one, though, i.e. supporting the violation of women's human rights.

Iseult White wrote a letter to the Irish Times about Amnesty and how Freedom of Conscience defends 'legitimate representation to people of conscience'. She is a speaker in a recent WHRC webinar that is awaiting upload.

It was tricky to get her letter printed but she prevailed because she's the granddaughter of one of the founders of Amnesty in Ireland.

I am a member of the LGTBI family, and in 2015 I supported legislation that gave trans people the right to self-identify without medical gatekeeping. I have seen the pain and distress trans people suffer through medicalisation and pathologising.

Nonetheless, the convictions I hold around the importance of freedom of speech and the necessity of affording people with differing views and beliefs legitimate representation, dictates that I could never have signed or supported this letter.

I believe that when an international human rights organisation with the reach and influence of Amnesty International signs a letter that seeks to deny legitimate representation to people of conscience, it has a chilling effect on society.

www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/amnesty-and-freedom-of-conscience-1.4419263

You might find this article enlightening, OP. Last year AI in Ireland suggested that women who fighting to retain their sex-based rights in Ireland should be denied political and media representation: ie, that they should be silences and ignored.

spectatorworld.com/topic/amnesty-international-travesty-trans-rights-ireland/

@EmbarrassingAdmissions thanks. I’ve given that a read.

@Shedbuilder I’ve read it. Thanks for sharing.

So disappointed in AI.
I can’t in all honesty understand an organisation such as AI not recognising the biological aspect of women’s rights violations. It just doesn’t make sense to me.

@Tibtom

Wasn't it amnesty who said in ireland that gender critical women should lose their suffrage?

Yes, and it was the decision by the head of Amnesty Ireland to sign the open letter calling for the withdrawal of political representation for people who don't share his ideology which brought Iseult into the fray. Her pinned tweet here has the details mobile.twitter.com/iseult/status/1333048896243847168

I was just listening to radio 2, Jeremy Vine, discussing why there are so few rape convictions. He read out a comment by a father of a girl who was raped by a colleague who was found nearby, and the CPS refused the case because ‘she didn’t fend him off strongly enough’ (can’t remember exact words but almost exactly that).

@CardinalLolzy

Found the link that OP is presumably talking about. OP, it's always helpful if you can link to the source itself so we can see for ourselves!

didtheysaythat.amnesty.org.uk/

(you don't have to go on/be on facebook)

Thanks for that.

I’m surprised it was a UK judge who said: “I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife” – UK, 2019

I mean that goes against the law here.

www.amnesty.org.uk/LGBTQ-equality/gender-identity-beginners-guide-trans-allies

AI are referring people to Stonewall for answers to frequently asked questions about ‘gender identity’.

So I suppose that says a lot.

This has been a learning day!

I’m surprised it was a UK judge who said: “I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife” – UK, 2019

The judge did say that but you have to understand the context. It was not meant as 'Every married man should be able to have sex with his wife whether or not she consents'. It was a case about legal capacity (of the wife). If I remember correctly, they had been married a considerable period of time (20 years?) but there were now doubts over her capacity and therefore whether the man could be prosecuted, for the act of having sex (presumably which his wife wanted) because she now may not be able to consent.

It is a very important issue, but the judge meant it more in the sense of 'the court should be very careful not to intrude on the right of consenting adults to have sex'.

Can anyone link the case?