Tickle vs Giggle

[KCOZ]

For those of who are aware of the Tickle vs Giggle court case in Australia, Sall Grover is looking for some gardening to be done to support her defence. The deplorable response of politicians and the press in Australia to the Let Women Speak rallies, only emphasises how important this case will be.

Just search Giggle crowd fund - she has set up her own site to avoid any potential censorship by the established sites

The reality of Australian legislation, in combination with legal precedent resulting from previous cases, means that the reality of sex does not always align with laws regarding sex in Australia (and sadly also in many other countries). I understand completely why you feel angry @mamaofbears. It’s extremely dispiriting to see women’s fundamental rights being given away by politicians and to see judges making decisions that are both nonsensical and creating future dangers for women.

Update!!

x.com/salltweets/status/1879449789991133680?t=QL5Tq705YY3f6qQoJ6kQgw&s=19

Screenshots

Thank you @impossibletoday .

Thanks for the update. I really admire Sall’s determination and stamina to see this through.

Sall is a warrior

that update though- none of her reasons for confidence are reasons for winning a court case. I would absolutely love her to win, but I don’t know that is going to happen.

Case law and statute is against he, so I think she will lose at this stage as well but this action will not be settled until the High Court appeal (after this one). It would be open to that court to declare the SDA unconstitutional, or in contravention of Australian's international treaty obligations under CEDAW. So she could win at that stage. But even if she loses there, the cause still wins because it will be a big wake-up call to Australians.

Hopefully by then the Australian judges might be a tad more with it in regards to the demolition of this ideology across the globe.

I agree. Just because she has moral right and public opinion on her side doesn't mean she's going to win in a court of law. However, I think the really important thing here is that the case will shine a light on the insanity of gender ideology, and the Australian government might realise that when you have a set of laws that make your country a global laughing stock, it might be time to consider a change.

Can anyone who understands the legality, explain what the previous result (indirect discrimination) and Tickle’s desired result (direct discrimination) amount to please, with regard to this case?

And with regard to it not going to the High Court, does anyone know what errors have been identified?

I know I’m responding to myself, but I found this:

https://www.hrlc.org.au/human-rights-case-summaries/2024/09/25/tickle-v-giggle-for-girls-pty-ltd

It seems to say it was indirect as Sall thought she was excluding a man, which would have the indirect effect of excluding any men who happened to also claim they had a female gender identify.

He wants it upgraded to saying that Sall must have been able to divine his gender identity and excluded him because of it.

Have I understood correctly?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/australia-politics/article-14294751/Sall-Grover-JK-Rowling-Roxanne-Tickle.html

Wow. An August hearing? We're likely to have our federal election in October or thereabouts.
It's not outside the realms of possibility that the Libs could make changing the SDA an election issue.
Maybe I'm getting carries away but, yesh, imagine!

the election has to be by the 17th May.

The Libs will not make changing the SDA an election issue. Michaelia Cash as Shadow AG told me that Sall’s court process must play to the end. The election cycle precludes that. But she was all over it. She is watching.

Peter Dutton said to me that as Labor and the Greens own the Senate, any change will be difficult. However, he has apparently promised elsewhere that ideology will be removed from schools. (I have checked notes).

A lot of Libs have had presentations and are on board that anything TQ2S etc needs sorting out. All the WA contingent are on the Women’s side, I am told.

oh bum yes you're right I knew I was getting overexcited!!
I now have no idea where I got October from but it felt so right.
@TheSandgroper what does Sal's court case playing to the end mean? Does Cash think the high court will find the SDA unconstitutional? Or failing to meet our UN obligations re CEDAW I guess but I can't imagine Liberal party wanting to hang the solution on that.

Cash is a lawyer so, while the case works it’s way through the Federal court and then the High court system, she doesn’t think anything. She didn’t say what outcome she hopes for.

Based on Duttons comment re the Senate and it’s domination by the Labor and the Greens (the Greens will support the idea to the bitter end and Labor can’t offend Greens voters or they will lose seats to the little bastards), if the High Court rules sex is real and immutable, then a lot of the work has been done for us.

I am not a lawyer but my very limited understanding is that the High Court can’t create laws but can clarify points in law that other courts will then not refute. A lawyer might come along here and explain it better but if the argument is between “sex wasn’t specified because everyone knows what it is” or “sex wasn’t specified so it can be whatever we want to say it is”, once the High Court decides on one argument or the other, then because subsequently no other judges will decide in opposition to that decision, that point of law can be considered settled.

And if the High Court judges do that, then Liberal politicians don’t need to do anything. I don’t know how it will percolate down to the states, though, and fix the messes we are in there.

Does that all make sense? I am happy to be corrected on any point.

I would like to point out that Sall has been fundraising for a trip to the High Court. I can only assume that a presentation to a Federal Court panel and then her planned presentation to the High Court will mean further fundraising is necessary.

Half a million for the last court case, $800k-$1m for the High Court and now this one. I haven’t enough fingers or toes for this.

”Taking one for the team” is a very cold expression but she is doing it for every one us and she’s having to do it the hard way. https://x.com/salltweets/status/1880554198481457661

Yes, that makes sense.
I do wonder what comes up in the different parties' focus groups in Australia at the moment.
I don't know if our best hope is the high court, or a political solution. Sometimes it feels like there's no hope on either front.

@TheCourseOfTheRiverChanged Our best hope is to become a single issue voter and vote below the line putting Labor and the Greens last.

@TheCourseOfTheRiverChanged Maybe you’re thinking of the Qld election. That was in October last year.

I wonder if the Federal Court will livestream the court hearings?

Or it would be a (very overdue and exceedingly welcome) wake-up call to Australians IF the msm bothered to report it/reported it accurately and factually…

Gardening evidently needed. I've planted a few seeds and will plant more another month.

Yes, indeed. Everywhere, arguably the media silence or collusion is more problematic than the gender ideology itself.