Secretary of State for Scotland looking at using Westminster powers to overule gender recognition bill

[fromorbit]

Alister Jack has said he is willing to consider blocking the Gender Recognition Reform Bill under Section 35 of the Scotland Act.
twitter.com/JournoStephen

Detailed Review of the Legal case that powers that could be used:
ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/12/21/michael-foran-sex-gender-and-the-scotland-act/

In short it seems there are potential good grounds to use Section 35 in this case due to contradictions in the legislation. [Lots of speculation that this was this Sturgeon's aim all along create legislation so bad it would be overturned and increase support for Indy? However I think this is just a case of pure ideology combined with incompetence.]

Writing into your MP especially if they are a Tory would be a good move at this point.

Oh probably, she’s like a stuck record. I think she’s played the wrong card here though - so many people are against this legislation that she’s going to have difficulty arguing why Westminster shouldn’t step in.

Yes I think she thought

• deal with the greens
• show how different Scotland is
• set up a fight with Westminster

But I don't think she got it done quickly enough & the public have "educated themselves" so Westminster will be welcomed

At no point did "feminist to her fingertips" consider actual women

Deeds not words.

By their deeds shall ye know them.

Sorry if it's been posted before but there's a link here from Yorkshire Women's Rights Network with a brief letter to send to your MP. I personalised mine and added a bit more. It is very quick to do.

twitter.com/wrnyorkshire/status/1608558599659491328?s=21

Agree @HopRockers I think Westminster really have to spell out exactly what this means for women and girls here in Scotland though - I think there are still too many (esp SNP voters) who haven’t fully grasped its ramifications.

Thanks for that link @FannyCann Ive sent it to my MP (SNP so I will get precisely nowhere, but at least she knows people are watching) and have also emailed my support to Alister Jack (now there’s 6 words I never thought I would say!)

I think this is good but it does seem to miss the other thing which is the international element of S35. I'm sure this Bill will interfere with data collection (on sex) that the UK needs, to demonstrate what we've done for CEDAW.

Which may well backfire on her if Scots say "if they're going to introduce this, then I want Westminster to be in charge.

Yes. There will be men who will jump on the 'bloody England, this is why we hate them, sticking their nose in when we're trying to enforce sex offending men's free access to injuring and violating trapped terrified women' bandwagon, as seen on Twitter and newspaper comments. However there will also at this point be many voters in Scotland who will see this as the cavalry arriving.

She's not done herself any favours at all, she's coming out of this grubby beyond all repair however it ends now.

Everyone I know here who truly sees the implications for women and kids are horrified at what was voted through re the six offenders amendments.
Honestly, right now I'd like Sturgeon to experience total powerlessness, just to have a taste of what life is like for us. She's fucking insane. I've absolutely no idea what she's playing at.

Sex offenders, not six.

If only it were just six....

Yes. I would like to see Sturgeon personally embrace the fate she is so happy to inflict on women.

She can lie back, think of Stonewall, and then come and tell us all about how it's no big deal and something any good (female type) woman would do for the Cause. Of male people not having any boundaries to their self expression.

I thought it had been confirmed, once you worked your way through the legalese that the Lady Haldane ruling does NOT change the way that a GRC interacts with the protected characteristics.

ie going back to when these were first introduced it was added to the EA that is certain circumstances (that women of course have to argue are vital) that a GRC can be disregarded in relation to single sex provision, and the example given is of support for victims of rape. (Which is why Sarah's case will be so important.)

So not only is it in the written judgement but Shona Robison has also confirmed it does not impinge of the workings for the single sex exemptions (which raises the issue of why the SNP uses funding to demand trans inclusion which is a breach of the EA).

Not saying I wouldn't want the EA to say sex always means biological females, but if this is able to happen it will mean that having a GRC is meaningless (ie may as well repeal the GRA).

Cant see all the MPs who have been Stonewalled letting that happen.

As far as I could tell, Lady Haldane's ruling did the opposite of clarifying anything.

It said protections for single sex spaces were maintained.

Then it also said that sex was not different from gender. Except when it is.

I didn't think it was clear either. Which is a good reason to find and sign the petition to update the Equality Act to make clear the characteristic “sex” is biological sex.

As to the Bill, it looks like S35 is required. That is here and you can write to your MP to support its use!

www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1998/46/section/35

Which is what the law has been since the GRA was originally passed.

In fact the single sex exemptions make it clear that biology is real, and in certain circumstances this biology takes precedent over a piece of paper.

But "for all other purposes" we have to pretend the piece of paper is more real than biology.

But given the Lady Haldane ruling this must gives women's groups in Scotland the oportunity to confront funders that they cant insist on trans inclusion. They can fund proportionally ie of a total amount to a RCC 1% to male victims of rape and .001 to trans victims of rape.

I hope some of the groups who have been intimidated by the Stonewalling will use thise and take heart from the setting up of Beira's Place.

@nilsmonilsmousehammer . Using the app and can't work out how to search for the post you wrote. Can you (or anyone else reading this) tell me the time it was written so I can use it to compose something. Thank you.

Well I could find the quotes for you, or you could read it yourself and see what you think but as both constitutional lawyers and SNP ministers accept that it doesn't change anything it seems silly not to capitalise on it.

Also, as I have said, given that changing the wording of the EA would nullify GRCs I cant see it happening.

I think we need to think more strategically. Basing a court case on Boards I dont think would ever have suceeded in a ruling that challenged how the EA interacts with GRCs.

So I really do hope that more women's groups in Scotland make use of the single sex exemptions, and really really hope, primarily for Sarah, that she wins her case. Because if she doesn't that the right to single sex provision under the EA will be being directly challenged by a court.

I think it was the one on pg 4 at 19.11pm

Sarah's case may well do it, but we are moving now at speed to the point where the conflict in law is now too big and problematic to go on being ignored in the hope it'll go away or sort itself out.

The only answer will be now that GRCs have to go. They should never have been created in the first place. More middle ground could perhaps have been found if the lobby shoving this had not been so very aggressive and misogynistic and utterly determined that it was about destroying women's rights rather than seeking for accessibility.

I dont think as it stands at the moment there is no conflict in law, it is just that women's rights have been curtailed by the GRA.

The shame is women either not knowing about or not being able to use the SSE. If there was a big campaign about this and why they are needed it could not only get more women's groups funding, but could alse raise awareness the EA says in some circumstance biology does trump certificates. If that is more widely known and used it would hopefully push more people to think, well if biology is real why are lawmakers saying sometimes it isn't.

But ideally yes, scrap the GRA - which politically party in any part of the UK is going to take that up?!

It may take years, like any campaign to repeal a law. That's not a reason not to try.

But nobody is trying to repeal the GRA, there is this sideways attempt by trying to change the wording of the EA.

There are at least two groups set up to work on exactly this, and a petition that is very nearly at 10k.

Now it's been made so direct a conflict, and it's flat that GRCs are incompatible with women's equality, inclusion and access?

Yes, there's only one way forward now and it will happen.