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.

I dont know why Sex Matters are using this line of arguement. The GRA is subject to the EA as is the new Scottish GRA. So no sex did not end in 2004. In fact the guidance in the EA highlight that saying you change sex with a GRC is a legal fiction, because the EA says there are circumstances when actual biological sex is what matters, not what is said on a piece of paper.

There are circumstances where a lawfully-established separate or single-sex service provider can prevent, limit or modify trans people’s access to the service. This is allowed under the Act. However, limiting or modifying access to, or excluding a trans person from, the separate or single-sex service of the gender in which they present might be unlawful if you cannot show such action is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. This applies whether the person has a Gender Recognition Certificate or not. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/separate-and-single-sex-service-providers-guide-equality-act-sex-and-gender

This was acknowledged by the SNP on radio 4 shortly after the vote, and was referred to in the Lady Haldane ruling.

The issue is why aren't more organisations or providers implementing the singe sex exemption and why groups who claim they are following the EA single sex provision then act as though those with a GRC are biologically the other sex.

The campaign should be about making sure that prisons and health organisations implement the single sex provision.

I'm afraid the reality is that no too many people actual think women's rights are of any importance.

The question we have had and continue to have the right to single sex provision but too many dont care to put it into practice.

The issue is why aren't more organisations or providers implementing the singe sex exemption and why groups who claim they are following the EA single sex provision then act as though those with a GRC are biologically the other sex.

Well probably because those that try to implement the exemption are hounded. So we could add the question, why is that and how can it be prevented?

Auxiliary question - how, in an official capacity, can one obtain information about someone's biological sex and act on it, even if bloody obvious to all, if it is not disclosed, not on any documentation, and even if you know it the privacy clauses in the GRA prevent it being in any way communicated.

It's a complete legal car crash. Will be hashed out in court case after court case that could fall either way depending on the judge's own views, unless one government or other get their act together and clarify the damn thing.

I share your concerns. We needed a decent opposition to the Tories over the last few years and the Labour Party have completely abandoned women. We need to make sure everyone know what they stand for before any election.

Well you only have to vote Tory once, grit your teeth for five years that'll shake some sense into the SNP

Well probably because those that try to implement the exemption are hounded. So we could add the question, why is that and how can it be prevented?

Most vacancies in what is called the Women's Sector are advertised under the EA excemption, and apart from the one I linked to the other day, do not include trans women. Although some of these may offer separate services to trans women in the same way as some offer services to men.

There was a suggestion on a facebook thread that in fact what has been happening in Scotland is that the SNP agreed to a funding formula for women's refuges (who usually get by on bits of funding from many sources and HB) on the grounds that the groups who were sucessful in getting the money had to be trans inclusive. If this is true then in fact the SNP have been guilty of discriminating against women long before the new bill was passed. I dont know is this is true, and find it hard to believe that questions weren't raised at the time.

Oh, have i got it wrong Iwant? I was assuming from the fuss about JKR's Beira's place, and Sarah Summers' (sp?) court case, that TRAs were already making life impossible for single sex services generally. I really hope I'm wrong and these cases we hear of are the exception not the rule.

Some women's services in Scotland have lost funding in favour of services that are 'gender inclusive'. As far as I know, this includes males who are not pretending to be anything other than male.

I don't pretend to have a clear overview, but I recall three services in Lanarkshire losing out a year or so ago for this reason.

www.scotsman.com/news/politics/north-lanarkshire-council-accused-of-callous-decision-to-withdraw-funding-for-womens-aid-services-3147513

SACRO has been involved in providing services.

grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/mridrul-wadha-sacro-and-the-14-million

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/womens-abuse-charity-lost-council-contracts-for-excluding-men-h6jfgzqd3

thirdfiddle Assuming the Beira's Place can argue that single sex is appropriate to the purpose of the organisation then can invoke the single sex exemption in the EA which specifically says in this instance women means biological women, and a GRC has no status (which shows that the law actually knows that women are biological females and trans women are a legal fiction). I am sure the TRAs would like to challenge it, but given it is a support service for women who have been victims of male violence they have no grounds. And given the amount of money sloshing around in Stonewall etc., I am a bit surprised they haven't tried to out do JKR and set up a centre for trans people. But then they wouldn't be able to play the victim card, although logically and professionally this is what they should do.

ArabellaScott this has happened throughout the UK. It comes down to money and placing no value of women's services, so generic providers often get money. In Brighton a group called Rise which is trans inclusive also lost their funding.

The comment on facebook about funding has been substantiated. But even given the SNP stance on trans inclusion surely they wouldn't be so brazen as to say we will fund women's refuges but they must be trans inclusive. That's overt discrimination against a group recognised by the EA as having protected characteristics. Given all the court cases that have been mounted, surely someone would have challenged this. And if it was prior to Brexit take it to the Europea Court?!

I wondered if it was about some deal that SWA had done with the SNP which I thought was the Equally Safe in Practice concept but that looks more like training. See womensaid.scot/equally-safe-in-practice/

But interestingly in trying to find out what this allegation was based on (some document by For Women Scotland) I came across this FOI response from what looks like an angry man thinking men are bein discriminated against and they dont seem to have given out much funding at all. (Does Nicola hate women?) www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000046545/

I have to say it is all getting really confusing. The campaigning seemed to ignore the EA exemption, and (although the may have been there) one thing the public might have paid attention to (rather than thinking it is just women complaining again) is safeguarding and children.

Sorry this is the document forwomen.scot/29/12/2019/funding-conditions/

But as shown indicates that the Scottish Government was trying to over ride the EA provisions.

I wonder why no legal challenge was made.

Or worse, that no many refuges thought it was an issue. :(

In The Times:

No 10 threat to Scottish gender bill unites MSPs

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/301755d4-8317-11ed-ab78-11b70ed96428?shareToken=07c6a0e1fbec0addc607e3db12ba2151

It’s so hard to watch for women but I’d just let them be.

Scottish voters will need to show support or not at elections

‘Monica Lennon, a Labour MSP, said: “This toxic Tory UK government will use any excuse to attack devolution. Attacking the rights of trans people is just another tactic.” Alex Cole-Hamilton, the Scottish Lib Dem leader, said he would be “dismayed” if the UK government chose to block the bill.’

The Scottish Parliament is not fit for purpose with these dangerous idiots refusing to acknowledge the negative impact their actions have on women and children.

Isn’t it the reverse…Nicola using this issue to goad the Government into intervening.

Isnt Labour against devolution. Didn’t Labour insert the Clause 30 into the relevant legislation. Shouldn’t a national party be concerned about legislative overreach by a devolved Parliament.

Opposition, either in Scotland or in Westminster, needs to be thinking and coherent if it is to be effective.

Monica Lennon Is a TRA full on nutty could be a green TRA

Oh I agree that Nicola and the rest of the SNP are using women and trans people as a political football in her games with Westminster. If she truly cared about trans people we would have been able to have had open and honest conversations over the past few years rather than building up tensions, name calling and refusal to address concerns. Nasty, divisive politics. Labour and the Lib Dems are weak opposition both in Holyrood and Westminster following their own personal agendas rather than seeking evidence based solutions to improve things for everyone in the country.

Hard to tell if this is a new development or more speculation based on what's been said already. The "very serious concerns" quote looks new? I can only see one source with today's date but adding here just in case:

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/legal-showdown-looms-over-snps-28849557?intsource=amppcontinuereading&inttmedium=amp&intcampaign=continueereadingbutton

"The UK Governmentt is set to mount an unprecedented legal challenge to block Nicola Sturgeon’ss controversial gender reforms. The Sunday Maill_ has learned that ministers will more likely than not lodge a Section 35 Order in an attempt to veto the legislation within weeks.
...
A senior UK Government source said: “Ministers across the UK Government have very serious concerns about the SNP’s gender recognition bill. Lawyers and officials are still assessing the potential impact of the bill on the Equalities Act and other UK-wide legislation and considering the implications for prisons and schools.
"Obviously any action by the UK Government would have to be consistent with the devolution settlement but using a Section 35 Order, as set out in the Scotland Act, to prevent the Bill going for royal assent is absolutely on the table.”"

🙏🏻🤞this is such an important issue, and if the SG can’t be trusted to look after women and girls here and the UK Govt has to step in to protect us then so be it.

Oh please 🤞
the reporting can be so frustratingly hard to interpret!

SNP MP:

"Now Western Isles MP Angus MacNeill_ has deepened the SNP civil war on the deeply contentious issue by calling for law to be scrapped.

"This is not about trans people, it is about people who could possibly masquerade as trans people and invade women's safe spaces, who are known as bad faith actors," he said. "I cannot support that.
"Trans people deserve respect and dignity, but this legislation is not about that.

"It poses a threat to women, especially those who are vulnerable, in safe spaces and that is clearly wrong. But I stress this is not about the rights and dignity of trans people, but about those who pretend to be trans to gain access to women's safe spaces. Any legislation that creates that loophole is a concern.
"This is a problem made in Scotland and should be sorted in Scotland. It should be withdrawn and scrapped."
Mr MacNeil, who is Chair of the International Trade Select Committee, said he had made his feelings clear to some of his fellow SNP colleagues about the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill.
"I hope common sense prevails over this," he said."

www.scottishdailyexpress.co.uk/news/politics/angus-macneil-joins-snp-civil-28855613

Good to hear someone else in the SNP speaking up.

He's right. It's the loophole this has created that's the issue. If anyone, anyone at all, can get a GRC now simply by paying a fiver and dib dib dibbing a stupid promise, there is absolutely no safeguarding whatsoever.

Women and children will be hurt by this legislation.
Trans people will be hurt when the legislation is proved, by injury or death to those women and children, to cause harm by abuse, and they (trans people) will bear the blame.

Seriously, it's all about men, isn't it? MSPs who voted for this ( I have a list) should be held legally responsible for the potential hell they've allowed to be unleashed.

Good for Angus MacNeill. He’s right, of course, and this should be sorted out in Scotland - but the SNP don’t seem inclined to thus far

I wonder if he's just far enough outside the bubble to see that Westminster "interference" will be broadly welcomed on this issue & therefore damage the Indie case.
Or maybe he's just one of the (very) few with integrity?

I think Westminster interference is exactly what Sturgeon wants. She can then use it as an example of how England controls Scotland etc etc.