Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

MSP Paul McLennon doesn't understand the equality act?

14 replies

WandaWomblesaurus · 17/01/2023 09:41

twitter.com/BBCNewsnight/status/1615123154518839296

What a shitshow this is - did none of them think for a second how this would impact the equality act for themselves or were they all just drinking magic rainbow potion. This is embarrassing and shameful.

Why are they working for us when they aren't capable of thinking for themselves?

OP posts:
NancyDrawed · 17/01/2023 09:55

I wonder who the Scots took their 'no conflict with the EA' advice from, do you think they will share that info?

Are the Scottish parliament subject to FOI requests?

Boiledbeetle · 17/01/2023 10:06

They didn't want to know. They choose to ignore any and every thing that would cause them t o have to question their new belief system.

SueVineer · 17/01/2023 10:12

The supporters of this bill were told repeatedly by many reliable sources that there was an issue. They chose to ignore it.

SueVineer · 17/01/2023 10:13

NancyDrawed · 17/01/2023 09:55

I wonder who the Scots took their 'no conflict with the EA' advice from, do you think they will share that info?

Are the Scottish parliament subject to FOI requests?

Also it’s not “the Scot’s” thanks. If you mean the Scottish parliament, say that.

Beamur · 17/01/2023 10:15

I'm sure that the Scottish Government will happily publish their advice if they're convinced it's correct.

Shelefttheweb · 17/01/2023 10:17

The Scottish Government lawyer won a case arguing that it impact on the Equality Act and won, whilst the bill was going through the Scottish Parliament. But they refused to discuss it or put out a report on it - their excuse was the judgement was open to appeal. But they were arguing it did impact in court whilst saying it didn’t in Parliament.

NancyDrawed · 17/01/2023 10:20

SueVineer · 17/01/2023 10:13

Also it’s not “the Scot’s” thanks. If you mean the Scottish parliament, say that.

Show quote history

Sorry @SueVineer, no offence meant to the wider Scottish population.

I was dithering between Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government wrt this Bill and went for what I thought covered both.

Imicola · 17/01/2023 10:30

I think they are purposely being obtuse when they say there is no conflict - it doesn't change the EA. Well no, it doesn't change the act itself, but it does change how it works by modifying the people that it is being applied to (as was demonstrated in the recent judicial review).

Abccde · 17/01/2023 10:38

How could the UK govt get involved before the law was passed?

I am sure there were informal discussions which said this was dodgy, but I don't think they could actually intervene in advance?

And can you imagine the reaction of the Scottish Parliament if they had.

nauticant · 17/01/2023 11:00

Legal commentators are expressing the relevant issue as "does it have a material impact on the operation of the Equality Act?" Imicola.

The Scottish government are saying ignore that and focus solely on the wording in the Bill:

15A Impact of Act on Equality Act 2010

For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act modifies the Equality Act 2010.

The Scottish government are arguing about something different to what legal commentators are saying is the significant issue.

Imicola · 17/01/2023 11:23

nauticant · 17/01/2023 11:00

Legal commentators are expressing the relevant issue as "does it have a material impact on the operation of the Equality Act?" Imicola.

The Scottish government are saying ignore that and focus solely on the wording in the Bill:

15A Impact of Act on Equality Act 2010

For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act modifies the Equality Act 2010.

The Scottish government are arguing about something different to what legal commentators are saying is the significant issue.

Yes exactly - you probably put that more clearly than I tried to! The wording of the act is the same, but the operation is not. They know that...it is all smoke and mirrors from SG.

Beamur · 17/01/2023 11:38

Having been very peripherally involved in drafting a bit of legislation, one thing that the people who actually write the new laws are at pains to do is not duplicate (or contradict) existing law.
The thing I had sight of (not this one I hasten to add) was pruned before it got anywhere near this far in the process as parts were considered extraneous as other legislation already covered aspects of the proposed new parts.
I think that the Scottish Government are playing a dangerous game with this on purpose. It clearly conflicts with the EA. It's weaselly to suggest otherwise.

Datun · 17/01/2023 13:19

Beamur · 17/01/2023 11:38

Having been very peripherally involved in drafting a bit of legislation, one thing that the people who actually write the new laws are at pains to do is not duplicate (or contradict) existing law.
The thing I had sight of (not this one I hasten to add) was pruned before it got anywhere near this far in the process as parts were considered extraneous as other legislation already covered aspects of the proposed new parts.
I think that the Scottish Government are playing a dangerous game with this on purpose. It clearly conflicts with the EA. It's weaselly to suggest otherwise.

Yes, confirming that your legal sex is what is included in the equality act may not have changed any law, but the GRR has made sure that now the number of people it applies to is infinite.

There is absolutely zero point in having a law to protect you because of your sex, when sex is legally meaningless.

What pisses me off is the amount of time, effort and headspace all this is taking. If you make a law to protect people due to their sex, and then brought in another one that made it legally meaningless, then reverse that decision.

and yes, I know it's not that easy, but for the love of God it certainly destroys your faith...

Abccde · 17/01/2023 13:25

If someone can identify into a Protected Characteristic, then how is it a Protected Characteristic?

I get that with a total of 5000 odd GRC that the impact was negligible.

But with Self ID it's not and it's a whole new demographic of Trans people who can get that certificate because of the removal of medical diagnosis.

Also it's clear the lowering to 16 is going to be a key area of argument.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page