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.

This was sent to me by a man

It's not an attack on devolution. It's a devolved power acting ultra vires. Today it's this, what's next? It can't be allowed to stand.

I think in the USA there are problems with teenagers going to different states to access what they can't get access to in their own state.
16 year olds heading to Gretna is very concerning.

Realistically, it always takes time to sort out the limits of political structures like this. Even in established federal type systems where roles are laid out questions arise from time to time and they have to go through processes to work it out. Which is to say there need for processes to do that, and it shouldn't be seen as an attack on the system, but a function of the system.

Listening to the news SNP are fully using we won’t let WM block us.

I loathe NS for stirring this issue for political gain.

Worrying indeed. Did they ever clarify what qualifies as "ordinarily resident in Scotland"?

She's very mistaken if she thinks this is going to 'gain' anything.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-64073323

'Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said many people in Scotland had concerns about the bill.

While visiting a homeless shelter in London, he said: "I think it is completely reasonable for the UK government to have a look at it, understand what the consequences are for women and children's safety in the rest of the UK, and then decide on what the appropriate course of action is."'

@DameMaud

Email: [email protected]

Or here: www.womensrights.network/join-us

I just got in touch this morning and will be joining too.

@serotinapickeler do contact the WRN again! Now that we have so many branches, all over the UK, you will be able to meet up in person with your local group.
Actually meeting up with other like-minded women is brilliant
Even if you are not able to actually raise your head above the parapet, you will be very welcome 💐

I can’t believe I’m going to have to consider voting Tory…. Fml

@ArabellaScott Nicola vs Rishi will be interesting. He has a very different approach to Boris and she might be advised to reconsider her tactics.

I suspect this fight suits him. He is in line with the thinking of the majority of voters in both Scotland and England. He is right to protect England from the consequences of legislation passed elsewhere, and this is what he will focus on. Nicola might rage, but she will need to justify some poorly drafted, poorly consulted
legislation that she rushed through, ignoring senior members or her own party, a UN Special Rapporteur and a load of informed people including lawyers, leading feminists, JKR and more It will be hard to paint Westminster as the bad guys. They are just calmly and legitimately reacting.

Rishi’s bonus is then Labour sitting on their hands, after whipping their MSPs. An election in 2024 and when the Tories raise the threat of a Labour/SNP alliance/coalition voters are more likely to take note.

Hopefully somewhere in the mess the legislation gets caught up in legal stuff. I hope so.

Here is the Rachel Hamilton MSP article that disappeared then reappeared

www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-11568073/RACHAEL-HAMILTON-Gender-bill-dreadful-consequence-SNPs-contempt-scrutiny.html

It gets easier....I started with the 'No to IndyRef2' but now also care massively about free speech, women and men's sex-based rights and child safeguarding. Terrible as their record has been in UK Government with the constant changes of PM, they are the only UK party which still allows their MPs to believe in the status quo of biological sex if they want to. 15 years ago 99.9% supported the status quo. Some dark forces have brought this 'gender woo' to prominence in a relatively short period of time.
I don't care what gender someone wants to present as, but confused vulnerable kids/teenagers need protection and existing sex-based rights need to be upheld not deliberately ignored.
Scottish women and children deserve the same rights as other UK citizens or what is the point of being in the UK if a devolved administration can do what it likes even when technically 'ultra vires'?
Thank goodness Blair/Labour who I voted for at the time thought to put Section 35 orders in the devolution legislation.

It gets easier....

Does it? Because it makes me feel like shit. But there is NO other viable option and this is the hill… this has to be the hill.

It’s not just about voting. Sensible women need to be in the room when party policy decisions are made. Politics are easier for people without caring decisions, and some parties have tortuous “democratic” processes that almost guarantee to turn off sensible people who value their time.

Join, turn up with a friend, wear green and purple, and politely insist that women’s rights matter and need to be heard.

If this happened across the country in every party’s constituency party, people would sit up. MPs get selected by constituency parties. Many of these have shockingly few members, so there is incentive to for the MP to listen. Many will almost bite the hand off anyone who agrees to stand as a Councillor, even if an unwinnable ward.

(A bonus for me was that my first political outing, the Christmas lunch, was fun, which I had not expected, and other people surprisingly nice. Plus I got to ask questions of the MP, who had to listen not least because others made supportive noises when I pointed out that the idea of placing men in women’s prisons was inhumane and unacceptable.)

Agreed.

The reason this has happened is power politics at every level of government. Only politics can end it. How many active TRAs are their politically? Not that many. Fact is most party members, most elected politicians DON'T care. They are just being pushed along.

There are 1000s of GCs if we all started turning up to party meetings we could start taking over pushing back. Not just the Tories all of the parties.

In Labour GCs are not under threat the party hierarchy is trying to play both sides - they are being IGNORED. Get enough people though and we can change the agenda.

In SNP, Greens, Lib Dems GCs are constantly under attack. Which is why they have used legal means to defend themselves

In the Tories GCs are expanding and gaining more power. However we can't stop this with the Tories alone. Because ultimately corporate power is pushing gender ideas and there is ALWAYS a danger the Tories may be bought off, plus it allows left TRas to pretend resistance to this nonsense is just from the right.

We need a cross party alliance.

Thank you @MarieIVanArkleStinks !

The UK Government should not pass comment on this law but it should take action if their legal advice tells them that the Scottish Government have over stepped their powers and it will have a detrimental effect on the rest of the UK.

From the PM himself:

"On Friday, Mr Sunak told Sky News: “Lots of people have got concerns about this new Bill in Scotland, about the impact it will have on women’s and children’s safety.
“So I think it is completely reasonable for the UK Government to have a look at it, understand what the consequences are for women and children’s safety in the rest of the UK, and then decide on what the appropriate course of action is.”

Mr Sunak took a stand against “self-ID” policies during his Tory leadership campaignn_ in the summer as he vowed to ensure the Equality Act was clear that sex meant biological sex.
On the campaign trail, he told Tory activists: “It is because we are not captured by identity politics that we can take on and stand up to this woke nonsense that wants to cancel our history, our values, and can’t even say what a woman is.”"

www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/12/23/rishi-sunak-says-government-could-block-sturgeons-gender-bill/

Can anyone help please? Do you know if the Kemi Badenoch statement is anywhere on line as a proper document. Photos of docs are not a very accessibile format, and would like to be able to share.

It's not on her official page, so does this mean that at this stage she is making a personal statement or in her position as Minister for Women and Equalities?

Very odd to only have it on twitter.

I am a regular contributor to Sex Matters and I have just applied to join the WRN as well.

Anyone who wants to become a regular supporter to Sex Matters, it's here:

sex-matters.org/take-action/donate/

Clip of Rishi:

twitter.com/skynews/status/1606238784894418945?s=46&t=Mgmu207mx4blCs9qR34Scg

Sex Matters blog in which they ask:

Was the concept of biological sex really ended in 2004?
To which my immediate response was no, as how else has the Sexual Offences Act 2003 been working otherwise?

Anyway, their analysis with excerpt is below:

sex-matters.org/posts/updates/was-sex-ended-in-2004/

"We think this judgment is wrong and unworkable in its reasoning, and hope that another court takes a different view. But we don’t think it should be left to the courts to try to puzzle this out, or for women to have to crowdfund endless legal cases to clarify bad laws.
Lady Haldane is right that the GRA does say “for all purposes”. In practice, however, that gives rise to absurdity and unworkability, as this analysis will show.
The GRA includes within it a provision to fix such situations. Section 23 gives the secretary of state the power to make an order modifying the operation of any enactment or subordinate legislation, where it turns out that “for all purposes” leads to problems in real life or in law.
We are calling on the minister for women and equalities to use this power to amend the Equality Act by adding this clarification:
In this Act, references to female persons and women:

(a) also refer to a person who was born female and has acquired the male sex under the GRA
(b) do not refer to a person who was born male and has acquired the female sex under that Act.

In this Act, references to male persons and men:
(a) also refer to a person who was born male and has acquired the female sex under the GRA
(b) do not refer to a person who was born female and has acquired the male sex under that Act."

What concerns me is that Labour will win by a landslide at the next GE and push this through