Judge who said men could become fully legal women will rule on Scotland gender self-ID law

[IwantToRetire]

Guess who?

A judge who ruled that biological men can legally become women is to preside over a court showdown between the UK and Scottish governments over Nicola Sturgeon’s self-ID gender laws.

The Telegraph can disclose that the Court of Session has scheduled a hearing in September 2023 that is expected to last three days, as Humza Yousaf, Scotland’s First Minister, tries to overturn the UK Government’s veto of the reforms.

Telegraph article available to read at Judge who said men could become fully legal women will rule on Scotland gender self-ID law (yahoo.com)

I read this and wondered if this might help us because if she truly believes that her interpretation of the equality act is correct then it backs up the UK government stance. Though on the other hand she could have drank so much woke-ade that she won't be able to see the harms, only time will tell I guess

I read this and wondered if this might help us because if she truly believes that her interpretation of the equality act is correct then it backs up the UK government stance.

Sorry cant quite work that out. Can you explain?

Scotland has voted for self id and lowering the age to 16.

She says for "all purposes" anyone with a GRC or intending to transition "legally" becomes the other sex, apart from the exemptions that say a service can be based on same (biological) sex only.

UK Government says new Scottish GRR cant be accepted because it impacts on UK wide EA (I think) and that cant have different ages and processes by which someone gets a GRC in the separate countries in the UK.

Tired brain has just come to a halt. But would love to hear that this could be a good thing!

By that reasoning under Scotland’s new law and this judge’s reasoning, a 17 year old female sentenced to do time in Scotland would be sent to a male young offenders’ institute. I bet they wouldn’t do it, which begs the question why. If “all purposes” has boundaries, why is that?

'A Scottish Government spokesman said: “It would not be appropriate to comment on live legal proceedings.”'

The whole cabinet should just get T shirts with this printed on them, it'd save time.

And by the by, the Yahoo article has a live poll.

'Do you support the inclusion of transgender women in single-sex spaces?'

3,800 votes currently. 89% say 'no'.

ForWomen Scotland's appeal: 'The date for the appeal hearing in the Court of Session, Edinburgh has been set for 4th October 2023.'

'We are appealing the judicial review decision by Lady Haldane in the Outer House Court of Session which ruled that the protected characteristic of “sex” in the Equality Act 2010 refers to a person’s sex as recognised in law, and not biological sex.'

They are not going to listen and we have to get them to losten. I can’t understand why all these people have managed to delude themselves that sex doesn’t matter

They don't believe it, it's just a game of political power playing to them.

I think the problem is, not because it is Lady Haldane, but because she only interpreted the law based on the words written. And this is what they are trained to do. Its a word game.

So it wont be anything to do with can a man become a woman, but does the decision by the Scottish Parliament to change a law that is devolved to Scotland, in any way impinge on UK wide law.

I know nothing about these devolved powers.

So even if lots of QCs make long and witty (in legal terms) speeches, what she will do is look at the existing UK legislation and see how if at all, the new Scottish GRR is compatible or not.

It might have made a decision if after the Westminister Hall debate the UK Government had indicated it would change the wording of the EA re the meaning of the word sex. But they have just said it needs more time to think about it.

So we are dependent on the very badly drafted EA and we know how she has analysed that.

Have found this:

Section 35 can be used in two different situations, where the Scottish Secretary has “reasonable grounds to believe” that a Holyrood bill:

• would be incompatible with the UK’s international obligations or not in the interests of national defence

or

• would modify the law on reserved matters in such a way as to have an “adverse effect” on the operation of the law as it applies to reserved matters.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/section-35-of-the-scotland-act-and-vetoing-devolved-legislation/

If the governmetn lose under Lady Haldane they can take it to the UK Supreme Court in London can't they? So this is important but not a last chance as I understand it.

I remember looking this up in relation to what might happen if the For Women Scotland Appeal failed, ie could they try and get it referred to the UK Supreme Court.

But dont know what there status is in relation of Acts of Parliaments. Didn't the Tories change it so that the Supreme court can no longer over turn a Parliament decisions eg it found Boris Johnson had illegally prorogued Parliament.

Can only find this document, but find the language very difficult, and not sure which section this instance would be covered by. Although there is a handy little chart at the end!

https://www.supremecourt.uk/docs/jurisdiction-of-the-supreme-court-in-scottish-appeals.pdf

Do you Lady Haldane volunteered for this, or that all the other judges who saw the reaction after her earlier decision just thought, this isn't what I want to written down in history for?!!

I am not sure how much of a link exists between Lady Haldane’s earlier judgment and this matter. The issue is does the proposed Scottish legislation have an impact on reserved matters. If a valid U.K. GRC can be obtained by self id by a 16 year old in Scotland then it does have an impact on the operation of the Equality Act for example in relation to education and associations. Doing something that could affect the operation of U.K. wide legislation exceeds devolved powers and impinges on reserved matters.

I am not sure how much of a link exists between Lady Haldane’s earlier judgment and this matter

I agree. It is about the interaction between the Scottish devolved laws and the UK wide ones.

I was making a joke about Lady Haldane asking to try this case as well, although I do think the earlier case she heard did show that she didn't appear to be inputing any personal opinions but only referencing the laws as (badly) written.

I am not sure if Judges can have opinions about unintenced consequences, because it would presume they knew the intentions of those who put the law into words, rather than what the words taken on their own can be construed to mean.

@IwantToRetire the thing is it just has to interfere with the operation of an UK wide laws.
The fact is the grr bill will interfere with a couple of UK wide laws in particular because they will not be recognised in the rest of the UK, Westminster have made sure of this by revising the list of countries whose GRCs they recognise and removed all that are obtained through self id which means that they can't be accused of singling out Scotland. Now, as a result of this, all national insurance information will be held under their birth sex, same for pension and certain tax and benefits. This will cause massive problems and legal headaches for anyone who employs them as which law do they break the Uk tax and national insurance laws or the privacy of the grc holder.
Then there are the issues about schools, and under 18s groups mentioned above by pp.
The biggest hurdle that the scot Gov needs to jump is explaining how the 3 tear system that they are putting in will work. The grr bill replaces the current uk recognised gra bill so there will be no way in Scotland to get a uk wide grc, then you have the fact that noone born outside of Scotland who has lived here for any length of time even their entire life can get a Scottish grc (yes I know the grr says otherwise but its a bit like the this bill in no way modifies the equality act bit ie not worth the paper its written on) because the Scottish panel cannot make any non Scottish registrar issues what would be a false birth certificate as the Scottish grc is not recognised outside of scotland. Then you have the people who already have a grc issued under the old Scottish system, which is recognised in the rest of the UK.
Now the last part is a real doozey and could cause mayhem if anyone was to actually enforce it. You may not be aware but holding and/or knowingly issuing a passport that doesn't accurately reflect your sex and/or name on your birth certificate, grc, depole documents or marriage certificate is a crime (why the civil service at the passport office do this and why no one has been prosecuted for it I can only guess (look at the declaration that you sign when filling the form in about accurate and true information)), so if someone has a Scottish grc and they won't be allowed to have a passport with anything other than their birth sex on it as a Scottish grc is not recognised by the UK government. Now this last 1 only becomes an issue if the uk government starts to enforce laws around false documentation and obtaining a false passport and drivers licence, which personally I would love them to do but would cause uproar amongst the TRAs and would be a nightmare to fix (all those false documents to be identified and reissued) so I doubt that they have the balls for it however someone will have to at some point

I'm trying to think of any area of life where there is a single sex situation where they can lawfully exclude males who wouldn't be impacted negatively by including a TW.

Surely if you have a good reason for excluding males that reason won't disappear just because the male happens to have a GRC?

Westminster have made sure of this by revising the list of countries whose GRCs they recognise and removed all that are obtained through self id which means that they can't be accused of singling out Scotland.

I didn't know that!

You may not be aware but holding and/or knowingly issuing a passport that doesn't accurately reflect your sex and/or name on your birth certificate, grc, depole documents or marriage certificate is a crime (why the civil service at the passport office do this and why no one has been prosecuted for it I can only guess

I wasn't aware of that, because the passport office are perfectly happy to change sex marker on a passport without a GRC.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gender-recognition/gender-recognition-accessible#about-gender-recognition

"Unlike the gender recognition certificate (GRC) the issue of a passport in an acquired gender does not give legal recognition of the change of gender. For passport purposes, the question is only whether the person has permanently adopted a new identity.

We show the customer’s gender on the personal details page of the passport. It will not always match the gender recorded on their birth certificate, as there is no indication in the passport of the customer’s personal circumstances."

https://www.gov.uk/changing-passport-information/gender

says you only need a doctor's letter, evidence of name change (deed poll) abd evidence of use of new name (e.g. bill) to change the gender marker (as they call it) Though a GRC will also do the job.